It would take some time, but that's because it seems that you have a completely unprecedented interpretation of international law.
Protecting Powers is not defined in the Geneva Conventions, but here you proclaim that every signing country is a protecting power in regards to every conflict on the planet. However, that is nowhere to be found in the GC. I suppose it must be defined in customary international law, but nowhere can I find such a view that supports your very expansive reading of the GC in regards to journalists.
In fact, upon further reading of the GC and if you had knowledge of the Protecting Power System as it has been practiced, you'll find that your definition of Protecting Powers makes absolutely no sense.
I don't think that you'll be able to find anything, mainly because it seems that you're just coming up with your own interpretations, not anything that is seemingly backed up in international law. I said that I wasn't too aware of international law in regards to this subject, but apparently I'm more knowledgeable than you are in regards to this.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
You seem to be getting a little emotional after I have questioned your poor interpretation and use of international law. It's not 'hot air blowing', but genuine questioning your interpretation after I have further read on this very subject.
You're simply incorrect. You do not know much about this subject at all.
For example, the 'Protecting Power' mentioned in the GC is NOT "[t]he nations which have agreed to uphold the Geneva Conventions." Such an interpretation is absurd given the full text of the Geneva Conventions and after a very cursory review of the Protecting Power System in international law.
Your interpretation sounded incredible at first because it led to an interpretation that any journalist from any signatory of the Geneva Conventions could go to any conflict zone in any country. After a very simple review of this subject, it's quite clear that your position has absolutely no basis in international law.
This subject does not need hours of extensive research in a library to provide any backing of your interpretation. A simple Google search results in many articles and even books that flesh out this very subject. Stop with the cop-out.
Simply put, you have put up an incredible application of international law that I cannot find a single reference for...it's time to either admit that you were wrong or back up your assertions.
You don't have to go to a library. There's this thing called Google and it is quite easy to use.
In regards to Protecting Powers: You erroneously claim that 'Protecting Powers', which is not explicitly defined in the Geneva Conventions, constitutes any country that has signed onto the Geneva Conventions. This is simply an absurd conclusion that has no basis within the full context of the Geneva Conventions itself as well as in customary international law.
Your definition of 'Protecting Powers' is incompatible with Article 11 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Article 11 states:
Art. 11. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an international organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
When persons protected by the present Convention do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.
Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.
The Geneva Conventions calls for a Protecting Power, but does not specify that all countries are a Protecting Power. The Protecting Power is agreed upon by the two states at conflict, but where agreement is impossible, then the Occupying Power can accept a neutral organization such as the Red Cross to be the Protecting Power. This is obvious from the very text of the Geneva Convention as I just quoted.
You can read further at the following excerpts from books via google books. I recommend that you start with the first link as it specifically outlines the definition of Protecting Power:
The International Law of Armed Conflict - p. 162:
http://books.google.com/books?...10&ct=result#PPA162,M1
Non-governmental Organisations in International Law - p. 209:
http://books.google.com/books?...r+article+11#PPA209,M1
Israel, the West Bank and International Law - p. 157:
http://books.google.com/books?...r+article+11#PPA157,M1
Man's Inhumanity to Man - p. 7:
http://books.google.com/books?...cting+power+article+11
The International Law of Occupation - p. 205:
http://books.google.com/books?...r+article+11#PPA205,M1
I cannot find a single reference to your interpretation of international law, which ultimately leads to absurd conclusions. Please reconcile your definition of Protecting Power within the full context of the Geneva Conventions and refute these sources or finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to international law.
I agree, but we should know what the international law is and not make up our own interpretation that has no basis in international law.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Probally because I could not find all the threads at the time I was doing the merge.
As stated there were a multiitude, one or two may have slipped through the cracks.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
There is a lot more inormation in this world than one can Google.
The Conventions acknowledge the existence of the Protecting Powers and their incumbent duties, which can be entrusted to an mutually agreed international organization, or else they have to accept suitable offers.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Here's a LINK to an academic paper on the rights and protection of journalists covering armed conflict.
There's nothing remotely similar to your claims in their. The brief part about the GC seems to say that journalists are considered the same as just ordinary civilians.
Another LINK, article 79 of the GC:
That's the only reference to journalists I've been able to find in the GC.
If you (snowman) have others please link us up.
Fern
Sure. But you should be able to find at least one resource across the entire Internet that can back up your absurd claims.
You're just repeating what I said. Your assertion that all countries that are signed to the Geneva Conventions are Protecting Powers is wrong. Your assertion that follows that journalists from any signatory country to the Geneva Conventions must be allowed into conflict zones is incorrect and wrong.
You try to come off as you well versed in international law, but it's quite clear that you have absolutely no understanding of this topic.
That's because TheSnowman has no idea what he is talking about. He cannot provide us with a single link that backs up his assertions because he is simply making things up. He has no education or learning in any aspect of international law.
Israel is actually bound to at least accept an organization such as the Red Cross to fulfill a role as a Protecting Power.
However, your assertion that all nations that are signed onto the Geneva Conventions are Protecting Powers and could thus all send journalists into the conflict zone is pure nonsense and only said if you have absolutely no understanding of international law.
Journalists do not have some sort of special power under international law to the extent that you have been lying or incorrect about here as well in this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=court
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
They are bound to accept whatever organizations it takes to fulfill the role of the Protecting Powers, including the Red Cross. Part of that role is reporting on the conditions within the war zone, which is a role commonly filled by journalists.
I meant they potentially all are, and enough must be allowed to fulfill that role. I am fairly certain that is the basis for Israeli Supreme Court ruling.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter