Podcasts about additional protocols

References to Islamic law made by the delegations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria during the 1974–1977 Diplomatic Conference – which led to the adoption of the two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions – offer a partial glimpse into the contributions of Islamic law to the development of some modern international humanitarian law (IHL) principles. In this post, ICRC's legal adviser for Islamic law and jurisprudence, Ahmed Al-Dawoody and ICRC Associate Medha Damojipurapu examine some of the contributions of Islamic law to the development of the Additional Protocols, as well as the motivations for ratification by Muslim-majority states. They maintain that studying these perspectives can support humanitarian organizations to effectively communicate and anchor the protection owed to people affected by armed conflict during their dialogue in relevant contexts.

The international rules of war, also known as the laws of armed conflict or international humanitarian law, are a set of regulations and principles designed to mitigate the impact of armed conflict on civilians and combatants and promote humanitarian treatment during times of war. These rules are primarily outlined in four key sources:The Geneva Conventions (1949): The four Geneva Conventions are at the core of international humanitarian law. They provide protections for wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians in times of armed conflict. They establish rules for the humane treatment of individuals who are no longer taking part in hostilities.Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977): These two protocols, known as Protocol I and Protocol II, expand upon and update the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Protocol I relates to international armed conflicts, while Protocol II relates to non-international armed conflicts.Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907): These conventions focus on the means and methods of warfare, including restrictions on the use of certain weapons and tactics. They also address the treatment of civilians and combatants who fall into the hands of an enemy.Customary International Humanitarian Law: This body of law consists of long-standing practices and customary rules that have evolved over time and are considered binding on all parties in armed conflicts.The fundamental principles of the international rules of war include:Distinction: Parties to the conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and only target combatants and military objectives. Indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause excessive harm to civilians are prohibited.Proportionality: The use of force must be proportionate to the military objective. Excessive or disproportionate force that harms civilians or their property is illegal.Precaution: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes giving advance warnings of attacks when possible and taking care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.Prohibition of Certain Weapons: The use of certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, and cluster munitions, is restricted or banned under international law.Treatment of Captured Combatants: Captured combatants must be treated humanely, without torture or cruel treatment. Prisoners of war must have their rights protected, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.Protection of the Wounded and Sick: The wounded and sick must receive medical care and protection, regardless of their affiliation. Medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected.Protection of Civilians: Civilians must be protected from harm, and attacks on civilian populations are prohibited.Accountability: Violations of the international rules of war can lead to legal consequences for individuals and states responsible, including prosecutions by international tribunals.(commercial at 10:09)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

The international rules of war, also known as the laws of armed conflict or international humanitarian law, are a set of regulations and principles designed to mitigate the impact of armed conflict on civilians and combatants and promote humanitarian treatment during times of war. These rules are primarily outlined in four key sources:The Geneva Conventions (1949): The four Geneva Conventions are at the core of international humanitarian law. They provide protections for wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians in times of armed conflict. They establish rules for the humane treatment of individuals who are no longer taking part in hostilities.Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977): These two protocols, known as Protocol I and Protocol II, expand upon and update the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Protocol I relates to international armed conflicts, while Protocol II relates to non-international armed conflicts.Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907): These conventions focus on the means and methods of warfare, including restrictions on the use of certain weapons and tactics. They also address the treatment of civilians and combatants who fall into the hands of an enemy.Customary International Humanitarian Law: This body of law consists of long-standing practices and customary rules that have evolved over time and are considered binding on all parties in armed conflicts.The fundamental principles of the international rules of war include:Distinction: Parties to the conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and only target combatants and military objectives. Indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause excessive harm to civilians are prohibited.Proportionality: The use of force must be proportionate to the military objective. Excessive or disproportionate force that harms civilians or their property is illegal.Precaution: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes giving advance warnings of attacks when possible and taking care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.Prohibition of Certain Weapons: The use of certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, and cluster munitions, is restricted or banned under international law.Treatment of Captured Combatants: Captured combatants must be treated humanely, without torture or cruel treatment. Prisoners of war must have their rights protected, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.Protection of the Wounded and Sick: The wounded and sick must receive medical care and protection, regardless of their affiliation. Medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected.Protection of Civilians: Civilians must be protected from harm, and attacks on civilian populations are prohibited.Accountability: Violations of the international rules of war can lead to legal consequences for individuals and states responsible, including prosecutions by international tribunals.(commercial at 10:09)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

Too often the term “prisoner of war” (PoW) conjures up black-and-white images of soldiers detained in the Second World War. Recent events have brought PoWs back into the fore of the public consciousness, in particular how they must be treated and what rights they are entitled to in contemporary conflicts. For example, what is the role of social media in respecting their dignity? What is the role of the ICRC's Central Tracing Agency and States' National Information Bureaux today? Given developments in international human rights law and international and domestic criminal law, may PoWs be tried for their conduct during hostilities and, if so, what guarantees are they entitled to? In this post published to mark the anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions Ellen Policinski, a legal adviser working on the ICRC's project to update the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, highlights some aspects of the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) that may be particularly relevant today, including some of the findings of the updated ICRC Commentary, and points readers towards some resources that digest the findings of this once-in-a-generation study. Read the full blog post here: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/08/11/prisoners-of-war…-its-negotiation/

Lecture summary: The Geneva Conventions were adopted more than 70 years ago. How has their interpretation evolved over time? This lecture will look at the application of the rules on treaty interpretation to ‘older’ treaties, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It draws upon the experience the speaker has gained in updating the commentaries on the Geneva Conventions. Jean-Marie Henckaerts is head of the ICRC project to update the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. So far, three commentaries have been published: 2016 - updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention 2017 - updated Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention 2020 - updated Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention He and his team are currently updating the ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention. Prior to this, he was the head of the ICRC’s project on customary international humanitarian law. He holds the degrees of Doctor of Juridical Science from The George Washington University Law School, Master of Laws from the University of Georgia School of Law and Bachelor of Laws from the University of Brussels.

✅I think it's time to discuss The Geneva Conventions or the basis of International Humanitarian Law to help my audience understand how #Israel is violating International Human Rights Law and more specifically, International Humanitarian Law! Stay tuned and listen the full episode

The trailer highlights the core features of #TheGenevaConventions and their #AdditionalProtocols which are international #treaties and contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of #war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). Listen the full episode tomorrow!✅Source: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions-1949-additional-protocols

A conversation with Srinivas Burra, professor of law at South Asian University, Faculty of Legal Studies, in New Delhi, India. Srinivas has written extensively on both jus ad bellum and international humanitarian law, often with a focus on India's practice and position in relation to these legal regimes. We discuss first how India's position regarding the doctrine of self-defense, as indicated in statements in the recent Arria-formula meeting of the U.N. Security Council, appears to have shifted quite significantly as compared to the posture it adopted in the context of strikes against non-state actors within Pakistan in 2016 and 2019. Srinivas interprets the recent statements to suggest that India accepts both anticipatory self-defense and self-defense against non-state actors, but surprisingly, views its rejection of the "unwilling or unable" doctrine as taking a more expansive and aggressive posture than that doctrine allows when it comes to defending against non-state actors in non-consenting states. Turning to international humanitarian law, we discuss why India has continued to hold out against ratifying the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Another fascinating discussion! For materials discussed, visit our website: https://jibjabpodcast.com

In the third episode of the Iran Watch Listen podcast, we speak with Laura Rockwood, a former senior official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about the authorities that the IAEA uses to conduct nuclear inspections in Iran, as well as Iran's recent decision to reduce the Agency's level of access. Background The IAEA plays a leading role in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, including through inspections of nuclear material and related facilities. The international community relies on the IAEA and its public reporting as an objective source of information about the status of Iran's nuclear program and Iran’s compliance with restrictions set forth in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 agreement placing limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. However, nuclear monitoring in Iran did not begin with the JCPOA. As a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has had a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) in force for decades. These Agreements are intended to cover all nuclear material and nuclear facilities in a country and are used to verify that a nuclear program is peaceful. Following the discovery in the 1990s of Iraq's undeclared nuclear program, the IAEA developed an Additional Protocol to CSAs. This Protocol provides the IAEA with more information about and access to the entirety of a country's nuclear fuel cycle. Iran signed an Additional Protocol in 2003 and implemented it provisionally until 2006. In 2015, Iran agreed to resume its provisional implementation of its Additional Protocol—pending its entry into force—under the JCPOA. The IAEA was granted further access pursuant to the JCPOA, including to inventories of key gas centrifuge components and manufacturing equipment, and was provided with a mechanism to request access to locations not declared by Iran but suspected of involvement in Iran’s nuclear-related work. Our Discussion Laura explains the relationship between the IAEA's authorities in Iran and the differing levels of access that they provide. She uses the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, with the Agency bringing together pieces of information obtained through inspection to verify the peaceful nature of a country’s nuclear program. Iran's CSA gives the Agency a number of puzzle pieces; provisional application of the Additional Protocol provides more pieces of the puzzle and therefore a higher degree of confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program; the JCPOA adds still more pieces and therefore provides even greater confidence. Late last year, Iran’s parliament ordered the government to suspend all voluntary measures under the JCPOA, including provisional application of the Additional Protocol, by February 23 if the United States failed to lift sanctions. The order has limited the Agency's access in Iran, although Iran and the IAEA did strike a short-term agreement, or “temporary bilateral technical understanding,” just before the deadline. While Agency access will be limited to that provided under Iran’s CSA, Iran has agreed to maintain surveillance in other locations that don’t fall under the CSA for up to three months—though it will not share the images unless sanctions are lifted and the JCPOA is again being implemented. Our discussion also covers the world of open source research—both data, and the tools used to ingest that data and turn it into knowledge. The IAEA has embraced this resource: it has a section dedicated to open source data analysis and is increasingly interested in such research from civil society. Laura describes how analysis based on open source data provides a useful check on government conclusions; it offers a means of verifying governments' claims and a way for governments to share information without compromising sources and methods. Laura further emphasizes the value of publicly releasing IAEA reports, and for those reports to include a high level of detail. This provides transparency and confidence in the nuclear intent of the country being inspected. Expert Bio Laura Rockwood is Director of One Earth Future's Open Nuclear Network, which works on the reduction of nuclear risk using innovation, inclusion, and dialogue supported by open-source data. She spent 28 years at the IAEA, including as the Section Head for Non-Proliferation and Policy in the Office of Legal Affairs. Laura was also the senior legal advisor on all aspects of IAEA safeguards, the principal author of what became the IAEA's Model Additional Protocol, and a participant in negotiations on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Useful Links “IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols,” International Atomic Energy Agency “IAEA and Iran,” International Atomic Energy Agency “Monitoring Iran’s Nuclear Activities: NPT and JCPOA Requirements,” Arms Control Association, February 2021 “Joint Statement by the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Head of the AEOI and the Director General of the IAEA,” Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency, February 21, 2021 “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in Light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015),” International Atomic Energy Agency, February 16, 2021 “How Will Inspections Work in Iran under the Nuclear Deal?” Iran Watch, July 14, 2015

Contemporary crises and armed conflicts are increasingly complex, with humanitarian needs made even more acute by the protracted and urban nature of conflicts, the challenges of influencing the behavior of warring parties, and the crippling effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. With 20,000 staff present in 104 countries, the ICRC is mandated by the international community, through the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols, to assist and protect people affected by armed conflict and violence, including through the promotion of respect for humanitarian law. In this special edition of the podcast, two ICRC Directors – Helen Durham, Director of International Law and Policy, and Dominik Stillhart, Director of Operations – discuss today’s operational and legal challenges and how to overcome them to reach the people affected.

Lecture summary: In 2017, the British Government ratified the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in Times of Armed Conflict (henceforth, the Hague Convention). This Convention, along with its two Additional Protocols, sets out the obligations of states with respect to cultural heritage in war. War throws up a range of conflicts between protecting people and protecting heritage, in terms of both the use of resources, and the imposition and incurring of risk. And yet, from UNESCO to the Blue Shield, those working in heritage insist that such conflicts between people and heritage are impossible. For example, Irina Bokova, the former director-general of UNESCO, claims that, “there is no need to choose between saving lives and preserving cultural heritage: the two are inseparable.” In this talk, I argue that the failure to recognise these conflicts comprehensively undermines the heritage community’s response to the legal demands made by the Hague Convention. If we refuse to acknowledge that these conflicts can even in principle arise, we are ill-equipped to deal with them. Given that the Hague Convention requires combatants to deal with them, this is a pressing problem.

Lecture summary: In 2017, the British Government ratified the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in Times of Armed Conflict (henceforth, the Hague Convention). This Convention, along with its two Additional Protocols, sets out the obligations of states with respect to cultural heritage in war. War throws up a range of conflicts between protecting people and protecting heritage, in terms of both the use of resources, and the imposition and incurring of risk. And yet, from UNESCO to the Blue Shield, those working in heritage insist that such conflicts between people and heritage are impossible. For example, Irina Bokova, the former director-general of UNESCO, claims that, “there is no need to choose between saving lives and preserving cultural heritage: the two are inseparable.” In this talk, I argue that the failure to recognise these conflicts comprehensively undermines the heritage community’s response to the legal demands made by the Hague Convention. If we refuse to acknowledge that these conflicts can even in principle arise, we are ill-equipped to deal with them. Given that the Hague Convention requires combatants to deal with them, this is a pressing problem.

What is acceptable and what is prohibited in armed conflict? The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 form the foundation of international humanitarian law and provide a framework setting out the answers to that question. In the 1950s, the ICRC published a set of commentaries on these Conventions, giving practical guidance on their implementation. But to reflect the developments in law and practice since then, the ICRC commissioned a new set of commentaries that seek to reflect the current interpretations of the Conventions. The updated Commentaries on the First and Second Conventions were published in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Just this summer, the updated Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention related to the treatment of prisoners of war was launched after years of research and analysis. In this episode of the podcast, we discuss the Commentary’s main findings on key humanitarian issues related to the treatment of prisoners of war. Guests include Jean-Marie Henckaerts, ICRC’s legal advisor and head of ICRC’s project to update the Commentaries on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols of 1977 and Colonel Richard B. "Dick" Jackson, Retired Army Judge Advocate and former Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters. Hosted by Tracey Begley.

The provision of life-saving assistance to people affected by armed conflict lies at the heart of humanitarian actors’ operations... and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 lay down rules regulating humanitarian relief operations. Despite this, until recently, this area of international humanitarian law has received limited attention, possibly because challenges in implementing relief operations tend to be operational rather than legal in nature. In 2013, in response to the refusal of some belligerents to allow relief to reach people in extreme need, the United Nations Secretary-General requested the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to examine the relevant rules and consider options for guidance. In turn, OCHA commissioned the Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford to convene a series of consultation of legal experts. These led to the elaboration of the Oxford Guidelines on the Law Regulating Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict: a document that restates existing law, and clarifies areas of uncertainty. It considers key elements of this area of law, including the question of whose consent is required to conduct relief operations; the circumstances in which withholding consent would be arbitrary; the rules on the implementation of relief operations; and the consequences of unlawful impeding of relief operations. The Guidance can be assessed at the following link: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/oxford-guidance-law-relating-humanitarian-relief-operations-situations-armed-conflict

John Yoo explains how the rules of war under the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention come from a pro-Third World, pro-guerilla, pro-terrorist worldview intended to bolster such groups and hamstring the West. Watch the full interview at https://youtu.be/pOlaSkNUQhE. Learn more about John Yoo's ‘Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War' at https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/striking-power/. John Yoo is a UC-Berkeley law professor and former George W. Bush administration Justice Department official. Ben Weingarten is a conservative writer and Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media. Encounter Books is a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation dedicated to strengthening the marketplace of ideas. Learn more at www.encounterbooks.com. Follow us: https://www.facebook.com/EncounterBooks https://www.twitter.com/EncounterBooks https://www.instagram.com/EncounterBooks

In 2011, the ICRC embarked on a multi-year project aimed at updating its commentaries on the Geneva Conventions (the “Pictet Commentaries”) and their Additional Protocols I and II. The initial Commentaries are referred to by military lawyers, jurists, judges and scholars around the world as an authoritative source of interpretation of the Conventions and Protocols. However, they were based primarily on the negotiating history of the treaties and on prior practice. While they remain largely valid in these respects, they are lacking the insight of 60 years (40 years for the APs commentaries) of legal/operational developments. The updated Commentaries aim at capturing such developments by drawing on a number of sources reflecting State practice, but also case-law from international courts and tribunals which has greatly expanded since the 1990s, scholarly writings and the ICRC archives. On the occasion of the publication of the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention Jean-Marie Henckaerts will present the Commentaries update project, its interpretation methodology, as well as highlight some key developments and novelties in particular on common Articles 1–3. Bio Jean-Marie Henckaerts is head of the ICRC project to update the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. The first milestone of this project was reached on 22 March when the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention was released on line. Prior to this, he was the head of the ICRC’s project on customary international humanitarian law; he is a co-author of the ICRC study on the subject. He holds the degrees of Doctor of Juridical Science from The George Washington University Law School, Master of Laws from the University of Georgia School of Law and Bachelor of Laws from the University of Brussels. He has published eight books and numerous articles on international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law.

ICRC Legal Advisor Jean-Marie Henckaerts talks about his latest work as head of the ICRC project to update the commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977.

The last fifteen years have witnessed a surge in armed conflicts involving designated terrorists. State responses to terrorism raise complex issues concerning international humanitarian law (IHL). Experts have debated legal and policy frameworks pertaining to the use of lethal force in counterterrorism operations, as well as the legal grounds to detain alleged wartime terrorists. Yet so far one vitally important area has evaded the same level of focus: how state responses to terrorism threaten to erode the foundational ethic of IHL entailed in impartial wartime medical care for all wounded and sick fighters hors de combat, friend and foe alike.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC) presented their research on IHL and medical care concerning terrorists in armed conflict. The presenters discussed and answered questions relating to: - The intersections between IHL medical-care protections and the framework of global counterterrorism obligations imposed by the U.N. Security Council; - Prosecutions—in Peru, Colombia, and the United States—based on various forms of medical assistance to terrorists in armed conflicts; - The technical legal definitions of key concepts, such as the so-called special protections under IHL for “medical personnel,” “medical units,” and “medical transports”; - Gaps between treaty-based medical-care protections applicable in international armed conflicts versus those applicable in non-international armed conflicts; - Gaps between treaty-based medical-care obligations imposed on states party to the Additional Protocols of 1977 versus states not party to those conventions; and - Whether customary IHL may fill some or all of those gaps.Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-3Nov2015

The last fifteen years have witnessed a surge in armed conflicts involving designated terrorists. State responses to terrorism raise complex issues concerning international humanitarian law (IHL). Experts have debated legal and policy frameworks pertaining to the use of lethal force in counterterrorism operations, as well as the legal grounds to detain alleged wartime terrorists. Yet so far one vitally important area has evaded the same level of focus: how state responses to terrorism threaten to erode the foundational ethic of IHL entailed in impartial wartime medical care for all wounded and sick fighters hors de combat, friend and foe alike.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC) presented their research on IHL and medical care concerning terrorists in armed conflict. The presenters discussed and answered questions relating to: - The intersections between IHL medical-care protections and the framework of global counterterrorism obligations imposed by the U.N. Security Council; - Prosecutions—in Peru, Colombia, and the United States—based on various forms of medical assistance to terrorists in armed conflicts; - The technical legal definitions of key concepts, such as the so-called special protections under IHL for “medical personnel,” “medical units,” and “medical transports”; - Gaps between treaty-based medical-care protections applicable in international armed conflicts versus those applicable in non-international armed conflicts; - Gaps between treaty-based medical-care obligations imposed on states party to the Additional Protocols of 1977 versus states not party to those conventions; and - Whether customary IHL may fill some or all of those gaps.Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-3Nov2015

You will learn the effectiveness of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Spiritual Mind Management techniques when applied to improving martial quality and overcoming sexual addictions as explained by Dr. Jerry Redd, Owner of the Solace Emotional Health Clinic in Pleasant Grove, Utah.  Dr. Redd explains in some detail the advantages he has experienced when including hypnosis in his practice to obtain subconscious … Read more about this episode...