Canadian Red Cross responds to Ottawa Sun Story
Statement by David Pratt, Advisor and Special Ambassador, Canadian Red Cross
British thinker Sir Bernard Crick once wrote "boredom with established truths is the great enemy of free men." Recently, articles in several national newspapers have questioned the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to the "war on terror."
On November 15, the Sun’s Peter Worthington went so far as to suggest the U.S., Canada and other allies withdraw from what has been long regarded as the principal cornerstone of international humanitarian law.
No one disputes that journalists should challenge "conventional wisdom." Are the Geneva Conventions an absolute and unassailable "established truth?" Probably not. Like any law, they can be improved.
But in the world of statecraft and diplomacy, they are probably as close as one gets to an established truth.
As of last summer, every country in the world is a state party to the Geneva Conventions. They are the only treaties in history to attain universal application.
As with other aspects of the "law of armed conflict," the Geneva Conventions start with an idea that is simple but compelling: That some things are not permitted even in war and that there have to be limits to the violence people inflict on one another so as to establish a firewall between civilization and absolute barbarism.
International humanitarian law sets forth a number of rules aimed at protecting certain categories of people. Put simply, it protects those who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities and it restricts the means and methods of warfare.
An argument frequently used by critics of the Geneva Conventions is "no country that the U.S. or Canada would go to war with would subscribe to the conventions so why should we?" Since all states are bound by the four conventions of 1949, any head of state who commits a flagrant breach of the conventions exposes himself to possible prosecution. This is not an idle threat.
The indictment brought against Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, by the Special Court in Sierra Leone specifically charges him with "crimes against humanity, violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II and other serious violations of International Humanitarian Law."
But the widespread acceptance of the Geneva Conventions is also such that they have now assumed the status of "customary international law." Even if a state is not a signatory, that state is still bound by the convention's provisions.
This is not some obscure legal point since the application of customary law was referenced in last summer's U.S. Supreme Court judgement in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.
Critics also say the Geneva Conventions are no longer relevant since the "war on terror" involves non-state actors.
While it is true that the Geneva Conventions apply only to international armed conflicts and that treaty law specifically aimed at non-international armed conflicts contains only skeletal protections, the role of customary, human rights and domestic criminal law cannot be ignored. In today's conflicts, there is no legal vacuum.
So if the critics want to improve the Geneva Conventions, I say: "Let's have your ideas and proposals."
Suggesting that we abandon the Geneva Conventions and leave nothing in their place is not only irresponsible, but futile. Humanity has come too far to allow states and their leaders, however salutary their intentions, to supplant the rule of law.
