Skip to main content <#maincontent>
We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!
Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive
headquarters building façade.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Upload icon An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing
arrow. Upload
User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up
| Log in
Web icon An illustration of a computer application window
Wayback Machine
Texts icon An illustration of an open book.
Books
Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip.
Video
Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker.
Audio
Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk.
Software
Images icon An illustration of two photographs.
Images
Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
Donate
Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses.
More
Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by
interacting with this icon.
Internet Archive Audio
Live Music Archive Librivox Free
Audio
Featured
* All Audio
* This Just In
* Grateful Dead
* Netlabels
* Old Time Radio
* 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Top
* Audio Books & Poetry
* Computers, Technology and Science
* Music, Arts & Culture
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Podcasts
* Radio News Archive
Images
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Featured
* All Images
* This Just In
* Flickr Commons
* Occupy Wall Street Flickr
* Cover Art
* USGS Maps
Top
* NASA Images
* Solar System Collection
* Ames Research Center
Software
Internet Arcade Console
Living Room
Featured
* All Software
* This Just In
* Old School Emulation
* MS-DOS Games
* Historical Software
* Classic PC Games
* Software Library
Top
* Kodi Archive and Support File
* Vintage Software
* APK
* MS-DOS
* CD-ROM Software
* CD-ROM Software Library
* Software Sites
* Tucows Software Library
* Shareware CD-ROMs
* Software Capsules Compilation
* CD-ROM Images
* ZX Spectrum
* DOOM Level CD
Books
Books to Borrow Open Library
Featured
* All Books
* All Texts
* This Just In
* Smithsonian Libraries
* FEDLINK (US)
* Genealogy
* Lincoln Collection
Top
* American Libraries
* Canadian Libraries
* Universal Library
* Project Gutenberg
* Children's Library
* Biodiversity Heritage Library
* Books by Language
* Additional Collections
Video
TV News Understanding 9/11
Featured
* All Video
* This Just In
* Prelinger Archives
* Democracy Now!
* Occupy Wall Street
* TV NSA Clip Library
Top
* Animation & Cartoons
* Arts & Music
* Computers & Technology
* Cultural & Academic Films
* Ephemeral Films
* Movies
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Sports Videos
* Television
* Videogame Videos
* Vlogs
* Youth Media
Search the history of over 835 billion web pages
on the Internet.
Search the Wayback Machine
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Mobile Apps
* Wayback Machine (iOS)
* Wayback Machine (Android)
Browser Extensions
* Chrome
* Firefox
* Safari
* Edge
Archive-It Subscription
* Explore the Collections
* Learn More
* Build Collections
Save Page Now
Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in
the future.
Please enter a valid web address
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
* Sign up for free
* Log in
Search metadata
Search text contents
Search TV news captions
Search radio transcripts
Search archived web sites
Advanced Search
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
Full text of "Protecting Powers: International Law
"
See other formats
ARTICLE I0
SUBSTITUTES FOR PROTECTING POWERS
“> Text of the provision*
(1) The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an
organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the
duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present
Convention.
(2) When wounded, sick and shipwrecked, or medical personnel and chap-
lains 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 toa
conflict.
(3) 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 per-
formed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.
(4) 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 pro-
tected 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.
(5) No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special
agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily,
in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason
of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial
part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.
(6) Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting
Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of
the present Article.
* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.
438
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 439
“+ Reservations or declarations
(a) High Contracting Parties for which a reservation is in force at the time
of publication: Albania; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Guinea-
Bissau; People’s Republic of China; Portugal; The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia; Russian Federation; and Viet Nam. For the text
and an analysis of these reservations, see section E.
(b) High Contracting Parties which previously had a reservation in force:
Belarus (withdrawn 7 August 2001); Bulgaria (withdrawn 9 May 1994);
Czechoslovakia (withdrawn 27 September 2001 by the Czech Republic
and 5 June 2000 by Slovakia); German Democratic Republic (until uni-
fication with the Federal Republic of Germany), Hungary (withdrawn
31 May 2000); Poland (withdrawn 22, September 2004); Romania (with-
drawn 24 June 2002); Ukraine (withdrawn 30 June 2006); and Yugoslavia
(declaration of succession to the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia deposited by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ‘without any
reservation’ on 16 October 2001).**
Contents
A. Introduction 440
B. Historical background 441
1. Historical precedents 441
a. Practice after the First World War 441
b. Practice during the Second World War 449,
2. Preparatory work for the 1949 Geneva Conventions 444
C. The structure of Article 10 446
D. Paragraph 1: Appointment of substitutes by agreement between the
High Contracting Parties 447
E. Paragraph 2: Unilateral appointment of a substitute by the
Detaining Power 449
F. Paragraph 3: Replacement of the Protecting Power by a
humanitarian organization such as the ICRC 451
1. Discussion of the law 451
2. Scope of the mandate of a substitute: ‘Humanitarian functions’ 453
3. Subsequent practice 454
G. Paragraph 4: Assurances required from neutral Powers or
humanitarian organizations acting as substitutes 455
H. Paragraph 5: The prohibition of derogations 455
I. Paragraph 6: Equivalence of rights and responsibilities of Protecting
Powers and their substitutes 456
** Country names at the time the reservation was made.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
440 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
J. Developments since 1949 457
Select bibliography 459
A. Introduction
1219 Article 10 regulates the conditions under which a substitute for a Protecting
Power may be appointed, which organizations may qualify as such, and how
and for what purpose they should function. This provision is common to the
four Conventions.!
1220 The Diplomatic Conference of 1949 made the Protecting Powers the lynch-
pin of the system for monitoring compliance with the Geneva Conventions”
and set out a procedure for appointing a substitute in the absence of a Protecting
Power.
1221 The Second World War had provided stark proof of the importance of the
task — entrusted to the Protecting Powers — of scrutinizing the implementa-
tion of humanitarian rules. However, it had also shown that, even in situa-
tions where the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War was applicable,
captives could be denied the help of a Protecting Power.
1222 The 1949 Diplomatic Conference therefore envisaged a procedure in the
event that protected persons were not, or no longer, able to benefit from that
regime. In order to understand the logic underpinning the Geneva Conventions
in this regard, it is important to emphasize that the drafters of the Geneva Con-
ventions were familiar with the scenario in which, when a Protecting Power
can no longer fulfil its mandate, for example when it is itself drawn into the
conflict, that Power would seek to appoint a new Protecting Power. The Power
of Origin asks another neutral State to act as Protecting Power; that State, if
it consents, asks for the approval of the State (known as the host or receiv-
ing State) where it is to carry out the Protecting Power mandate. Once that
approval is given, the new Protecting Power takes up office. It then has all the
rights and duties of a Protecting Power and cannot be called a substitute. These
were the circumstances in which Switzerland took over from the United States
as a Protecting Power in 1917 and 1941.°
1223 The debates leading to the adoption of common Article 10 (Article 11 in
the Fourth Convention) addressed the completely different situation arising
when, for whatever reason, the usual procedure cannot be followed, for example
because the Power of Origin ceases to exist or because the international status
See First Convention, Article 10; Third Convention, Article 10; and Fourth Convention,
Article 11.
For more information about the appointment and mandate of Protecting Powers, see common
Article 8 (Article 9 in the Fourth Convention).
See William McHenry Franklin, Protection of Foreign Interests, A Study in Diplomatic and Con-
sular Practice, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946, pp. 254-256 and 266-
268, and Janner, p. 24.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 441
of one of the Parties to the conflict is disputed or because there are no neutral
States left. These were, in the minds of the drafters of the Geneva Conventions,
the circumstances for which a substitution procedure was introduced.
1224 Establishing procedures for substituting for Protecting Powers was high on
the agenda of the Diplomatic Conference of 1974-1977. This resulted in para-
graphs 4 and 7 of Article 5 of Additional Protocol I, which complement com-
mon Article 10 of the 1949 Conventions.*
1225 Although it is not specified in Article 10, it is clear that the substitution
possibilities it sets out, like the Protecting Power mechanism it is intended
to replace, are foreseen only to apply in international armed conflict. Neither
common Article 3 nor Additional Protocol II make any mention of a role for
a substitute for Protecting Powers in non-international armed conflict. How-
ever, nothing precludes the Parties to such a conflict from concluding a special
agreement to put in place a similar system, akin to that of the substitutes of
Protecting Powers.°
B. Historical background
1. Historical precedents
1226 Two particularly significant precedents should be mentioned: the mission to
protect Russian prisoners of war in Germany after the First World War; and the
ICRC’s activities during the Second World War to protect members of the Free
French Forces in captivity in Germany and German prisoners held by the Free
French Forces.°
a. Practice after the First World War
1227 Shortly after the signing of the Armistice agreement of 11 November 1918,
which put an end to the First World War, the victorious powers imposed an
Inter-Allied Commission on Germany to control the situation of Russian pris-
oners of war. As it was suspected that most of these prisoners supported the
Bolsheviks and were likely, if repatriated, to swell the ranks of the Red Army,
the Inter-Allied Commission forbade repatriations to Soviet Russia. The Com-
mission was dissolved in February 1920, shortly after the signing of the Treaty
of Versailles; Germany regained its freedom of action but was left with an
extremely volatile situation on its hands. Disheartened by captivity and see-
ing no prospect of it ending, disgusted by broken promises and convinced that
the Allies would prevent their return home, the Russian prisoners were on the
4 Article 2(d) of Additional Protocol I defines ‘substitute’ as ‘an organization acting in place of a
Protecting Power in accordance with Article 5’.
5 On special agreements in non-international armed conflict, see the commentary on common
Article 3, section K.
© For historical references to these two cases, see Bugnion, 2003, p. 903, fn. 3.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
442 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
brink of revolt. Meanwhile tens of thousands of German, Austrian and Hun-
garian prisoners of war were trapped in Russia, the Soviet Government refus-
ing to repatriate them until Germany allowed the Russian prisoners to return.
The German Government therefore sought to appoint a neutral body to assist
in supervising the prisoner-of-war camps and negotiating exchanges of Ger-
man and Russian prisoners of war, a body that could guarantee that Russian
prisoners would all be repatriated in accordance with their own free will, and
with whose help any disputes between Russian prisoners of war and the camp
authorities could be settled. In short, it envisaged an intermediary role between
the Detaining Power, the Power of Origin and the States of transit, to be com-
bined with a mandate to inspect prisoner-of-war camps and mediate between
the captives and the detaining authority.
1228 These tasks obviously fell within the remit of a Protecting Power, but no
State at that time had diplomatic relations with the Soviet regime. The Ger-
man Government therefore requested the services of the ICRC, which sent to
Germany a delegation that soon numbered about 20 delegates and interpreters.
This extensive deployment made it possible to carry out regular inspections of
the main prisoner-of-war camps. Repatriation began in May 1920 and went on
until July 1921, after which the ICRC mission was phased out.’
1229 Although the term ‘substitute for a Protecting Power’ does not appear in the
documents of the time, there can be little doubt that, circumstances having
prevented the appointment of such a Power, the ICRC acted as the de facto
Protecting Power of Russian prisoners of war in Germany.
b. Practice during the Second World War
1230 In the Second World War, too, many prisoners of war were deprived of the help
of a Protecting Power even where the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners
of War was applicable.® Those needing legal assistance were the worst affected,
for under Articles 60-67 of the 1929 Convention it was the responsibility of the
Protecting Power to see to it that prisoners of war prosecuted by the Detaining
Power enjoyed the legal safeguards to which they were entitled. The 1929 Con-
vention did not recognize the ICRC as competent to act in such matters, but
whenever prisoners of war received no help from a Protecting Power the ICRC
did its utmost to make up for this deficiency.
7 See ibid. pp. 869-870.
8 For example, in December 1941 the Reich opposed Switzerland taking over several protection
mandates previously exercised by the United States on the pretext that Germany no longer rec-
ognized as a belligerent State any country whose government had left the national territory (the
case of Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway, among others); see Rousseau, p. 87, and Janner, p.
23. Further, following the capitulation of Germany and Japan, Switzerland decided to renounce
protecting German interests because the Reich Government had disappeared and to give up pro-
tecting Japanese interests because Japan had been forced to sever all diplomatic relations. See
Janner, pp. 12 and 29-30.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 443
1231 The question of whether the ICRC should exercise the functions nor-
mally assigned to Protecting Powers arose most acutely in respect of relations
between Germany and the Free French Forces. In the eyes of the Reich Govern-
ment, neither the French Committee of National Liberation in Algiers, nor the
Provisional Government of the French Republic that succeeded it once Paris
was liberated, had any legal existence, and only the Vichy regime was qualified
to represent French interests.” Subsequently, the agreement of 16 November
1940 between the Third Reich and the Vichy authorities established an illusory
national monitoring system for the welfare of French prisoners in Germany —
the Scapini mission — in the place of a Protecting Power. This proved utterly
ineffective.!°
1232 It was not long before this position recoiled upon those who had formulated
it. When the Axis forces in North Africa surrendered in May 1943, the Free
French Forces took thousands of prisoners who did not benefit from the activ-
ity of a Protecting Power.!! The authorities in Algiers suggested that Spain —
which until the armistice of June 1940 had been charged with representing
German and Italian interests in France — should act as Protecting Power for
these prisoners, provided that Germany and Italy agreed to the appointment
of a Protecting Power to look after French prisoners. The German Govern-
ment rejected the proposal and the Italian Government failed to reply. How-
ever, in November 1943 the German Government asked the ICRC to provide
legal assistance to German prisoners of war held by the French forces in North
Africa. On humanitarian grounds, ‘and in view of the fact that these PW [pris-
oners of war] had no Protecting Power’, the ICRC gave its consent, while stress-
ing ‘that it could not assume any official mandate and remained sole judge of
its own actions’. Having made arrangements with the authorities in Algiers to
enable it to carry out this mission, the ICRC requested Berlin to make simi-
lar arrangements for offering equivalent legal assistance to French prisoners on
trial in German courts. Negotiations continued until April 1945, but no agree-
ment was reached enabling the ICRC to give legal protection to the prisoners
of war on both sides.”
1233 TheICRC nevertheless performed many of the tasks usually assigned to Pro-
tecting Powers. In November 1944, for example, the Provisional Government
of the French Republic asked the ICRC to notify the Reich Government and
the authorities of the ‘Italian Social Republic’ of the commissioning of the hos-
pital ship Canada. With the backing of the French authorities, the ICRC was
able to give substantial legal assistance to German prisoners of war being tried
in French courts. In February 1944 the Spanish Consul in Algiers informed
the ICRC delegation there that he would in future hand over to it all original
9 Bugnion, 2003, p. 871. 10 Ibid. p. 868. 1 [bid. p. 871.
12 ICRC, Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the
Second World War (September 1, 1939-June 30, 1947), Volume I: General Activities, ICRC,
Geneva, May 1948, pp. 352-353, 357 and 359.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
444 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
documents received from the French authorities, since the German Govern-
ment had notified the Spanish Government that it had ‘commissioned the
ICRC to take the place of the Protecting Power’.!?
1234 The German capitulation greatly increased the ICRC’s work as a substitute
for a Protecting Power, particularly as large numbers of German prisoners of
war were put on trial by Allied courts for war crimes or other offences and
Switzerland had ceased to act as Protecting Power, since there was no longer
a German Government. The ICRC therefore set up a legal assistance service,
which continued to work for several years after the end of hostilities. !*
1235 So, without any formal agreement, the ICRC in fact exercised many of the
humanitarian functions of Protecting Powers in relations between the Free
French authorities and the Third Reich.
1236 ‘It was therefore not surprising that, when it came to the process of revising
the humanitarian conventions after the end of the Second World War, provision
was made for the ICRC, or other impartial humanitarian organization, to act as
a substitute in case no Protecting Power had been appointed, in order to assume
the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the Geneva
Conventions.
2. Preparatory work for the 1949 Geneva Conventions
1237 Almost 70 per cent of the prisoners of war captured during the Second World
War were denied the assistance of a Protecting Power for some or all of their
time in captivity.!5 Small wonder, therefore, that part of the work leading up
to the revision of the humanitarian conventions involved striving to establish
substitution procedures should the appointment of a Protecting Power meet
insurmountable obstacles. The Conference of Government Experts which met
in Geneva in April 1947 took a first step in that direction by stipulating that, in
the absence of a Protecting Power, the ICRC (or ‘some other impartial humani-
tarian organization’) could agree to transmit the notifications and information
between the belligerents as provided for in the prisoners of war convention.!°
1238 Encouraged by this, the ICRC inserted a common article in the four draft
conventions submitted to the International Conference of the Red Cross in
Stockholm in 1948, in which it set out a real substitution procedure.!’ The idea
was to replace a Protecting Power that could not, or no longer, operate either
by a body offering every guarantee of impartiality and efficacy and approved by
the Parties to the conflict or by a neutral State or a humanitarian organization
13 Bugnion, 2003, pp. 871-872.
14 Ibid. p. 872. See also Catherine Rey-Schyrr, De Yalta 4 Dien Bien Phu: Histoire du Comité
international de la Croix-Rouge 1945-1955, ICRC/Georg, Geneva, 2007, pp. 160-163.
15 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, p. 21 (ICRC statement).
16 Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, pp. 262-267 and 270-271.
17 For further historical information, see also de La Pradelle, 1951, pp. 225-234.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 445
such as the ICRC, appointed unilaterally by the Detaining Power if the Parties
were unable to reach an agreement.
1239 Draft article 8 stated that:
The Contracting Parties may, at all times, agree to entrust to a body which offers
all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting
Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
Moreover, if [protected persons] do not benefit, or cease to benefit by the activities
of a Protecting Power or of the said body, the Party to the conflict in whose hands
they may be, shall be under the obligation to make up for this lack of protection
by inviting either a neutral State or an impartial humanitarian agency, such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume in their behalf the duties
devolving by virtue of the present Convention on the Protecting Powers.
Whenever the Protecting Power is named in the present Convention, such refer-
ence also designates the bodies replacing it under the terms of the present Article.!®
This draft was adopted with no substantive changes by the Stockholm
Conference!’ and was then submitted to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference.”°
1240 Like all the draft common articles, draft article 8 was submitted to the Joint
Committee of the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, which entrusted the task of
studying it to the Special Committee. The Special Committee devoted seven
meetings to it.?! The draft then came back before the Joint Committee before
being adopted in the Conference’s Plenary Assembly.”
1241 The discussions at the Diplomatic Conference were long and rather mud-
dled. Although no-one was disputing the need for a substitution procedure in
the absence of a Protecting Power, the delegates had divergent views about
the bodies that could be called upon as substitutes, about how they should be
appointed and about the scope of their mandate. Moreover, the very expres-
sion ‘substitute for Protecting Powers’ was used to refer to organizations that
differed radically in nature and in terms of the scope of the tasks that they
were to perform. Thus, while some delegations basically envisaged entrusting
to the ICRC the humanitarian tasks usually assigned to Protecting Powers,”
others ruled out the possibility of entrusting such a mandate to the ICRC.*4
18 See Draft Conventions submitted to the 1948 Stockholm Conference, pp. 8-9, 36-37, 57 and
157. The designation of the protected persons is adapted to each Convention.
19 Minutes of the Legal Commission at the 1948 Diplomatic Conference, pp. 73-79.
20 Draft Conventions adopted by the 1948 Stockholm Conference, draft article 8/9/9/9, pp. 11-12,
34, 55 and 116.
21 The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th meetings of the Special Committee.
22 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. I, pp. 48, 62, 75, 114, 206,
226-227, 245-246, 299, 343-357 and 361, Vol. II-A, pp. 208-209, 222-223, 578 and 849, Vol. II-B,
pp. 21-23, 60-69, 74-75, 80, 89, 110-112, 27, 92-93, 96-97, 118-119, 106, 29-30, 34, 130-131,
38-39, 158, 166, 172, 190, 346-352, 487-489 and 521-524; Vol. III, pp. 30-34, 102-103 and 182.
'M. de Alba was of the opinion that the functions of humanitarian organizations and particularly
the ICRC should be extended in order to enable them to take the place of Protecting Powers as
far as possible’, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. IB, p. 22
(Mexico).
24 'The role of the ICRC is totally different from that of a Protecting Power’, Final Record of the
Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, p. 22 (France), ‘the Australian Government
23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
446 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
The French delegation, for its part, suggested setting up an ad hoc international
body to shoulder all the tasks of the Protecting Power, including those arising
essentially from diplomatic law. France suggested that this ‘High International
Committee for the Protection of Humanity’ would have 30 members recruited
from among political, religious and scientific figures, senior judges and Nobel
Peace Prize winners. The members would be elected by an assembly made up
of representatives of all the States party to the Geneva Conventions. In situ-
ations where no Protecting Power had been appointed, this body would take
over all the tasks normally entrusted to Protecting Powers under the Geneva
Conventions.”°
1242 In an attempt to clarify the issue, the delegation of the United Kingdom to
the Stockholm Conference suggested splitting paragraph 2 of draft article 8 into
three separate paragraphs.”° This new draft was the basis for the deliberations
of the Diplomatic Conference.”’ For its part, concerned that a Detaining Power
would appoint as a substitute for the Protecting Power a State or international
organization biased in its favour, the Soviet delegation was firmly opposed to
the unilateral designation of a substitute by the Detaining Power as set forth in
both the Stockholm draft and the UK amendment.”® In the end, the Conference
adopted common Article 10 (Article 11 in the Fourth Convention) by 30 votes
to 8.2° At the signing ceremony for the new Geneva Conventions, the Soviet
Union and its allies at the time made a reservation to the article.*°
1243 Article 10 bears the marks of the uncertainty and imprecision that charac-
terized the discussions that gave rise to it.
C. The structure of Article 10
1244 Article 10 sets out the framework for the appointment and the work of the
substitute for the Protecting Powers.
1245 The article provides for three substitution scenarios:
(a) the Protecting Powers are replaced by an organization offering every guaran-
tee of impartiality and efficacy, appointed by agreement between the High
Contracting Parties (paragraph 1);
(b) if no such agreement can be reached, the Protecting Powers are replaced by
a neutral State or by an organization offering every guarantee of impartiality
and efficacy, appointed unilaterally by the Detaining Power (paragraph 2);
considers that the ICRC cannot serve as a substitute for the Protecting Power’, ibid. pp. 22-23
(Australia).
The French proposal is published in ibid. Vol. II, pp. 30-31; for the minutes of the deliberations,
see ibid. Vol. IB, pp. 22, 60-63, 110-112, 27, 92-93, 96-97, 118-119, 106, 34, 130-131 and 487—
489, for Resolution 2 of the Diplomatic Conference, see ibid. Vol. I, p. 361.
26 The UK amendment is published in ibid. Vol. Ill, pp. 31-32. 27 Tbid. Vol. I-B, pp. 60-69.
28 Ibid. pp. 22, 29-30, 130, 347-348, 350-351 and 352. ‘Ibid. p. 352.
30 Thid. Vol. I, p. 355, and Vol. II-B, pp. 537-538. For a discussion of this reservation, see section E.
25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 447
(c) if protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Protecting Powers are
replaced by a humanitarian organization such as the ICRC, appointed by
the Detaining Power, or the Detaining Power accepts an offer of services
from such an organization (paragraph 3).
1246 It is clear from the letter and the structure of Article 10 that these possibil-
ities have to be explored in the order given above: when the first is exhausted
by default, the second automatically applies, and when the second is exhausted
the third applies.*!
1247 While Article 10 does not detail the conditions of application of the sub-
stitution mechanisms, the deliberations of the Diplomatic Conference made
those conditions quite clear. When introducing draft article 8, the ICRC expert
explicitly stated that its purpose was ‘to make up for the too frequent absence
of a Protecting Power’,** and most of the delegates who took the floor during
the opening debate at the fifth meeting of the Joint Committee stressed this
point.*
1248 The situations in which the substitution procedure was foreseen by the
drafters to be applicable were: a large-scale conflict in which there were no
longer any neutral Powers able to carry out the role of Protecting Power effec-
tively; the disappearance of the detainees’ Power of Origin, or at least of the
government representing that Power (the case of Germany following its capit-
ulation on 8 May 1945); or the ability of one of the belligerents to force the
adverse Party to put an end to the work of the Protecting Power (the case of
Vichy France).*4
1249 = Article 5 of Additional Protocol I has introduced further clarity with regard
to the procedure for appointing Protecting Powers or their substitute.
D. Paragraph 1: Appointment of substitutes by agreement between the
High Contracting Parties
1250 Article 10(1) outlines the framework for appointing, at any time, a general sub-
stitute for Protecting Powers. It does not impose any obligation on the High
Contracting Parties, in the absence of a Protecting Power, to entrust an organi-
zation with performing the duties incumbent on such a Power, but it does give
them the possibility to do so (see the use of ‘may’).
1251 This paragraph provides for a substitution based on the agreement of the High
Contracting Parties.*° The intention here was primarily — but not exclusively —
31 The same interpretation is given in the Joint Committee’s report to the Plenary Assembly of
the Diplomatic Conference of 1949, ibid. Vol. II-B, p. 130.
82 Thid. p. 21 (ICRC statement).
33 Tbid. pp. 21-23 (Australia, France, United Kingdom and USSR).
34 Ibid. pp. 21-23 (Canada, France).
35 Although the wording of paragraph 1 leaves room for interpretation, the use of the article in
the opening phrase, ‘The High Contracting Parties’ (emphasis added), seems to indicate that the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
448 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
to incorporate France’s proposal that a ‘High International Committee for the
Protection of Humanity’ be set up.
1252 In fact, however, this proposal was greeted with scepticism because of the dif-
ficulty of setting up a body fulfilling all the requirements and capable of work-
ing effectively, while made up of members from different States. The Soviet
delegation also underlined the artificial nature of this High International Com-
mittee, whose members would have to be acknowledged and accepted by all
States and ‘would... be in some way outside and superior to the existing world’.
When -— in response to the question of where such a learned body could meet
if there were no neutral States left — the French representative stated that ‘[ilt
could meet on a piece of internationalized territory, or on several such territo-
ries in different parts of the world’, it became clear that the proposal relied on
mere word-play and that it was out of touch with reality.*°
1253 Atthe 1949 Diplomatic Conference, the International Refugee Organization,
a predecessor of UNHCR, asked to be expressly mentioned in Article 10 as an
organization that could be called upon in the absence of a Protecting Power, in
particular when it came to protecting refugees and stateless persons.?’ While
refusing to specifically mention the International Refugee Organization, the
1949 Diplomatic Conference acknowledged that the organization perfectly
matched the definition of an organization offering every guarantee of impar-
tiality and efficacy.**
1254 The Conference eventually concluded that it was not mandated to create a
new international organization and merely adopted a resolution that recom-
mended looking into the possibility of setting up an international body tasked
with carrying out the duties of Protecting Powers in their absence. Resolution 2
of the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, entitled ‘Creation of an international body
in the absence of a Protecting Power’, stated:
Whereas circumstances may arise in the event of the outbreak of a future interna-
tional conflict in which there will be no Protecting Power with whose cooperation
and under whose scrutiny the Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War can
be applied; and
whereas [common Article 10 (Article 11 in the Fourth Convention) provides] that
the High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to a body which offers
all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting
Powers by virtue of the aforesaid Conventions,
1949 Diplomatic Conference foresaw a meeting or consultation of all the Contracting Parties
to set up a new organization or to entrust to an existing organization the duties incumbent on
the Protecting Powers under the Conventions. If the Conference had envisaged that a limited
number of High Contracting Parties were entitled to set up such a body or to entrust the duties
incumbent on the Protecting Powers to an existing organization, it would not have used the
initial article.
36 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, pp. 92-93 (Denmark,
USSR, France).
37 Thid. Vol. II-B, p. 80; Vol. II, pp. 32-33. 38 Ibid. Vol. II-B, p. 80.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 449
the Conference recommends that consideration be given as soon as possible to
the advisability of setting up an international body, the functions of which shall be,
in the absence of a Protecting Power, to fulfil the duties performed by Protecting
Powers in regard to the application of the Conventions for the Protection of War
Victims.”
Drawing upon this last paragraph, it was logically up to France to undertake
consultations to bring its idea to fruition. However, after a few half-hearted
attempts, France abandoned the project.*? Thus, the first possibility of substi-
tution set forth in Article 10 refers to a body that — at least so far and in terms
of what the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind — has not seen the
light of day.
1255 Although Article 10(1) undoubtedly refers chiefly to the international body
that was to be set up to replace Protecting Powers, in accordance with Res-
olution 2, the wording of the paragraph is not restricted solely to that body,
since it refers to ‘an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and
efficacy’.*! Given that the text of paragraph 1 does not refer to an idea which
never materialized, nothing precludes the High Contracting Parties from using
this paragraph in the future to create a new body which, as the wording ‘orga-
nization’ indicates, cannot be a neutral State. This also flows from the phrase
‘at any time’ used in this paragraph.
E. Paragraph 2: Unilateral appointment of a substitute by the
Detaining Power
1256 Article 10(2) is the result of the fusion of the provision from the Stockholm
draft and a proposal made by the United Kingdom. If in a given international
armed conflict no Protecting Power is appointed or in case the appointed Pro-
tecting Power ceases its activities and cannot be replaced by another one, this
paragraph requires the Detaining Power to ask either a neutral State or ‘an orga-
nization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy’? to undertake
the tasks entrusted to Protecting Powers under the Geneva Conventions.
89 Thid. Vol. I, p. 361.
40 For a description of the French Government's attempts to canvass support for its proposal after
the 1949 Conference and an explanation of why they failed, see de La Pradelle, 1956.
Although the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement referred to the principle of
impartiality right from its foundation in 1863, this principle was only authoritatively defined
in the Declaration of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross adopted by the 20th Inter-
national Conference of the Red Cross which met in Vienna in 1965: ‘Impartiality: [The Inter-
national Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement] makes no distinction as to nationality, race,
religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals,
being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.’
For further analysis of the notion of ‘impartiality’, see the commentary on Article 9, para. 1198.
The word ‘efficacy’ belongs to common language and has to be interpreted according to its usual
meaning.
Article 10(2), itself speaking only of ‘such an organization’, insofar refers back to the qualities
described in paragraph 1.
41
42
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
450 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
1257 It may seem surprising that the Conventions maintained the solution of
a unilateral appointment of the substitute for the Protecting Power by the
Detaining Power alone, given that the French delegation had warned the Con-
ference about the risk of the Detaining Power appointing ‘some puppet body’.*”
But this decision is explained by the hypothetical scenarios that the substitu-
tion procedures were intended to cover, in particular the disappearance of the
Power of Origin of the protected persons or the disappearance of any govern-
ment able to speak freely on behalf of that Power.
1258 To overcome the risk of abuse inherent in a unilateral appointment, the UK
delegation had envisaged entrusting the ICRC with the task of designating the
neutral State to which the Detaining Power would have recourse, but the ICRC
delegate stated that it was not up to the ICRC to do so.** That being the case,
and in the light of the situations that the substitution procedure was intended
to cover, the only remaining solution was to entrust this task to the Detaining
Power. The Diplomatic Conference considered that Article 10(4) would be a
safeguard against the risk of potential abuse arising from unilateral designation.
1259 However, these precautions were not enough to reassure the USSR and its
allies, as well as the People’s Republic of China and a number of other States,
which feared that the Detaining Power would designate a State or an organiza-
tion biased in its favour, and that the protection afforded to victims would be
illusory. Thus, when signing the Geneva Conventions, the USSR made the
following reservation:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not recognize the validity of requests
by the Detaining Power to a neutral State or to a humanitarian organization, to
undertake the functions performed by a Protecting Power, unless the consent of
the Government of the country of which the protected persons are nationals has
been obtained.*6
1260 Theessential element of this reservation, which was formulated in identical
wording by the other reserving States, is that the implementation of paragraph
3 remains subject to the consent of the Power of Origin of the protected persons.
The logic underpinning this reservation was that, since it is up to the Power of
43 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, p. 22. (France).
44 Ibid. pp. 65-66.
45 For further historical background, see Wylie, p. 11:
While most states were willing to embrace third party assistance, Moscow’s reluctance to
countenance the presence of neutral protecting powers in the Soviet Union, especially if they
were to enjoy far-reaching powers to act on behalf of POWs [prisoners of war], proved a major
stumbling block when the status of protecting powers came up for discussion at the 1949
diplomatic conference. It also became clear that Moscow was unwilling to allow states to
nominate agencies to protect the prisoners in their custody, without obtaining the prior con-
sent of the prisoner’s own government.
46 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. I, p. 355. See also Claude
Pilloud, ‘Reservations to the Geneva Conventions of 1949’, International Review of the Red
Cross, Vol. 16, No. 180, March 1976, pp. 117-120, and Vol. 16, No. 181, April 1976, pp. 163-
187, especially at 117-120.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 451
Origin of the protected persons to appoint a Protecting Power, then this Power
should also be involved in the appointment of its substitute.
1261 This reservation — the logic of which also applies to the third paragraph of
the article — was confirmed when the Conventions were ratified. In the early
1990s, most successor States to the former USSR chose to accede to the Geneva
Conventions without making any reservation to Article 10. Similarly, several
other States revoked the reservation at the end of the Cold War.*” However, at
the time of writing the reservation remains in force for eight States.**
1262 According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ‘[a] reser-
vation established with regard to another party ...(a) modifies for the reserv-
ing State in its relations with that other party the provisions of the treaty to
which the reservation relates to the extent of the reservation; and (b) modifies
those provisions to the same extent for that other party in its relations with
the reserving State’.4° Therefore, with regard to all those States for which the
reservation used to be, or still is, in force, the paragraph was largely ineffectual
for any international armed conflict to which they might become party.
1263 But even the States which did not express a reservation with regard to Arti-
cle 10 did not resort to actually using it: as with paragraph 1, there is also an
absence of practice when it comes to the substitution procedure set out in para-
graph 2. It is therefore the solution provided for in paragraph 3, namely replac-
ing the Protecting Power by a humanitarian organization such as the ICRC,
which should be considered in more detail.
F. Paragraph 3: Replacement of the Protecting Power by a humanitarian
organization such as the ICRC
1. Discussion of the law
1264 Article 10(3) applies to situations in which none of the substitution possibilities
provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 could be implemented. If there is no Protect-
ing Power, and if the other substitution possibilities have been exhausted, para-
graph 3 foresees that the Detaining Power must turn to an impartial human-
itarian organization, such as the ICRC, to assume the humanitarian tasks
normally undertaken by Protecting Powers or that it must accept an offer of
47 Information taken from the ICRC’s Treaties and Documents database, available on the ICRC
website https://www.icrc.org/.
48 For details, see above ‘Reservations or declarations’ to Article 10.
49 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 21(1)(a)-(b). See also ILC, Report of
the Sixty-Third Session, A/66/10/Add. 1, 2011, p. 454, para. 4.2.4 sub 3:
To the extent that an established reservation modifies the legal effect of certain provisions of
a treaty, the author of that reservation has rights and obligations under those provisions, as
modified by the reservation, in its relations with the other parties with regard to which the
reservation is established. Those other parties shall have rights and obligations under these
provisions, as modified by the reservation, in their relations with the author of the reservation.
For further analysis of this ‘principle of reciprocal application of reservations’, see pp. 459-464.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
452 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
services from such an organization to assume those tasks. As indicated above,
the reservations formulated by some States with regard to this article also apply
to paragraph 3.°°
1265 Themention of the ICRC here, as an example of a humanitarian organization,
is an express recognition by the Conventions of the ICRC’s qualification to
assume the humanitarian tasks normally assigned to Protecting Powers. How-
ever, nothing prevents an impartial humanitarian organization other than the
ICRC from making an offer of services in the sense of paragraph 3.°! Given that
the first three paragraphs of Article 10 do not contain any conditions or restric-
tions, the clause ‘subject to the provisions of this Article’ clearly refers to the
conditions set out in paragraphs 4 and 5.
1266 Where paragraph 3 applies, the Detaining Power is bound to accept an offer
of services from the ICRC to undertake the humanitarian tasks of a Protecting
Power. That obligation emerges from the wording of the article itself (‘shall
accept’). This was indeed the understanding of the government representatives
at the Diplomatic Conference.°” This understanding was also confirmed by the
report of the Special Committee of the Joint Committee as well as by the Joint
Committee’s report to the Plenary Assembly of the Diplomatic Conference:
It was only if such protection could not be thus ensured, that the Detaining Power
would have to apply to a humanitarian body such as the ICRC...If the Detaining
Power did not, on its own initiative, apply to a humanitarian body in the circum-
stances envisaged, any body of this kind might offer it its services, and it might
not refuse them. This latter obligation laid upon the Detaining Power was offset by
the condition that the body offering its services should be able to afford sufficient
guarantees of its ability to perform the duties in question and to fulfil them with
impartiality.°°
1267 It was, moreover, a necessary consequence of the Diplomatic Conference’s
desire to ensure that protected persons were not deprived of the protection pro-
vided by the functions of a Protecting Power or, failing that, an organization
standing in for such a Power, with the ICRC being included.*°* The ICRC is
therefore positioned, alongside other humanitarian organizations, as a kind of
‘goalkeeper’ of humanitarian protection. If all the other substitution possibili-
ties prove ineffectual, the Detaining Power is obliged to call upon the ICRC, or
another humanitarian organization, or to accept an offer of services from such
an organization to carry out the humanitarian tasks normally undertaken by
the Protecting Powers.
50 For details, see para. 1261.
51 For further details on the notion of impartial humanitarian organizations, see the commentary
on Article 9, section C.3.b.
52 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, p. 29 (USSR).
53 Tbid. pp. 111 and 130 (both reports have identical wording on this point).
54 See also Dominicé, p. 428.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 453
1268 The ICRC, however, has always believed that it would be unable to offer its
services unless it was certain of the agreement of the Parties to the conflict.°°
This position, which is a return to the basically consensual nature of the insti-
tution of Protecting Powers, makes the ICRC’s appointment subject to the con-
sent of the belligerents, whereas paragraph 3 was intended precisely to avoid
such a state of affairs. This is in the nature of things and stems from com-
mon sense — after all, it is hard to imagine how a humanitarian organization
such as the ICRC could exercise the mandate of the substitute for a Protect-
ing Power without the agreement of the belligerents. This understanding was
subsequently confirmed in Article 5(4) of Additional Protocol I.
2. Scope of the mandate of a substitute: ‘Humanitarian functions’
1269 As regards the scope of the tasks that could be entrusted to the ICRC or to any
other humanitarian organization appointed as a substitute for Protecting Pow-
ers under the terms of this article, paragraph 3 clearly states that it is restricted
to ‘the humanitarian functions’ performed by Protecting Powers. While the
substitution scenarios set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 envisage assuming ‘the
duties’ or ‘the functions’ performed under the Geneva Conventions by a Pro-
tecting Power, paragraph 3 refers to ‘humanitarian functions’.
1270 No indication, definition, or list of treaty provisions is given in the Con-
ventions, or can be found in the preparatory work, that clarifies which of the
various functions entrusted to the Protecting Powers under the Geneva Con-
ventions are ‘humanitarian’ and which are not.
1271 At the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, the ICRC representative repeatedly
stressed that the ICRC could not be a ‘genuine substitute’ and could only carry
out some of the tasks incumbent upon a Protecting Power.°° The Conference
acknowledged that the ICRC could not be expected to assume all the tasks of
the Protecting Powers, but only those of a humanitarian nature.*’
1272 As to what exactly the ICRC understands by the notion of ‘humanitarian
functions’, its position on this point has changed profoundly over time. In a
memorandum in 1951 the ICRC set out which tasks it was prepared to perform
while acting as a substitute for a Protecting Power, and the conditions under
which it would do so.°® It ruled out most of the work of scrutinizing the imple-
mentation of the Geneva Conventions, in the belief that such an activity was
incompatible with the purpose, the nature and the limits of the ICRC’s work
55
For references on this point, see Bugnion, 2003, pp. 905-906, fn. 44.
56
Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, pp. 61 and 63 (ICRC
statement).
57 Tbid. p. 130.
58 ‘Memorandum sur I’activité du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en l’absence d’une Puis-
sance protectrice’, Document D 141, 1 May 1951.
fo)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
454 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
as a ‘quasi-substitute’.°° It accordingly refused to supervise the implementa-
tion of the provisions governing: the attitude to be observed by belligerents in
areas of military operations; the measures belligerents should adopt regarding
their own nationals and property (e.g. issuing identity documents to the armed
forces or use of the emblem); and many of the provisions relating to occupied
territory.©
1273 TheICRC also pointed out other activities that could give rise to difficulty.®!
Admittedly, after all these reservations, there was little left of the duties of a
substitute for Protecting Powers for the ICRC to perform.
1274 As ICRC practice since 1951 in large measure nullified the relevance of
the reservations formulated in the aforementioned memorandum, the ICRC
reviewed its position and stated categorically at the 1971 Conference of Gov-
ernment Experts that it was prepared to undertake all the tasks incumbent on
Protecting Powers under the Geneva Conventions:
[T]he representative of the ICRC explained that the Committee had recently given
careful attention to this question and that it had arrived at the conclusion that all
the tasks falling to a Protecting Power under the Conventions could be considered
humanitarian functions. In other words, the ICRC was ready to take upon itself all
the functions envisaged for Protecting Powers in the Conventions.”
This position was confirmed several times both before and during the 1977-
1974 Diplomatic Conference.® This understanding is further confirmed by
Article 10(6).
3. Subsequent practice
1275 Although most armed conflicts since 1949 have been non-international, there
have also been a substantial number of international armed conflicts. And yet,
Protecting Powers were only appointed in five of those conflicts.“* Thus, there
has been no shortage of opportunities to implement the substitution procedures
envisaged by the Geneva Conventions.
1276 ~=Yet, in none of those conflicts was an organization formally appointed as a
substitute for Protecting Powers. The possibility of appointing the ICRC in this
capacity has been raised in a few cases only, including the Suez crisis (1956),
59 Ibid. p. 18. The ICRC used the term ‘quasi-substitute’ to designate the mandate that might be
entrusted to it under Article 10(3) and to emphasize the difference between that limited man-
date, covering only some of the tasks incumbent on Protecting Powers, and the mandate of a
genuine substitute, which would be required to perform all the tasks incumbent on Protect-
ing Powers under the Geneva Conventions. But the term ‘quasi-substitute’ is not used in the
Conventions, and merely confuses the issue.
60 Tbid. pp. 18-20. 61 Tbid. pp. 20-24.
62 Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1971, p. 109, para. 553.
63 See ibid.,; Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1972, p. 180, para. 4.71, and
pp. 207-208, para. 5.46; ICRC Commentary on the Draft Additional Protocols, p. 13; and Offi-
cial Records of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1974-1977, Vol. 8, p. 146. See also
Bugnion, 2003, pp. 884-885.
64 For details of these five conflicts, see the commentary on Article 8, para. 1153.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 455
the Irian Jaya affair (1961-62), the Vietnam War, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and
the conflict between India and Pakistan.©
1277 However, since no Protecting Powers have been appointed in most conflicts
since 1949, the ICRC has progressively extended the scope of its activities and
assumed more and more of the duties normally assigned to them. As discussed
below, this has been done on the basis of its right of humanitarian initiative
(see para. 1294).
G. Paragraph 4: Assurances required from neutral Powers or humanitarian
organizations acting as substitutes
1278 Article 10(4) is intended to prevent any abuses that could arise from the uni-
lateral appointment of a substitute for the Protecting Power by the Detain-
ing Power (as foreseen in paragraphs 2 and 3). This provision has its origins
in the draft put forward by the United Kingdom during the 1949 Diplomatic
Conference.® It imposes a twofold obligation on the neutral State or the orga-
nization mandated by the Detaining Power.
1279 First, the substitute unilaterally designated by the Detaining Power must be
mindful of its responsibility to the Power of Origin of the captives. Second, the
substitute must provide sufficient assurances that it is able to assume the tasks
being entrusted to it and to discharge them impartially.
1280 It is, however, by no means certain that these safeguards will prevent the
risk — mentioned by the French representative during the opening debate — of
the Detaining Power appointing ‘some puppet body’. Ultimately, it is the State
or organization in question that is subject to the twofold obligation set out in
paragraph 4, and not the Detaining Power appointing it.
1281 However, if the neutral State or the organization appointed wishes to carry
out its mission in good faith, paragraph 4 is extremely useful because it can be
invoked to defend the substitute’s independence against any attempts by the
Detaining Power to interfere with its work.
1282 As to the question of who is to decide whether the conditions of paragraph
4 are fulfilled, one delegation during the 1949 Diplomatic Conference stated
that ‘this decision should be taken by the Powers concerned, i.e. the Detaining
Power and the Power to which the person to be protected belonged, if such
existed’.°”
H. Paragraph 5: The prohibition of derogations
1283 Article 10(5) provides another safeguard against abuse with regard to the uni-
lateral appointment of a substitute. It provides that no derogation may be
65 For further analysis, see Bugnion, 2003, pp. 889-894.
66 Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. Ill, pp. 31-32.
67 Tbid. Vol. II-B, p. 69.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
456 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
made by special agreements from the requirements of Article 10 to qualify as
a substitute.
1284 This paragraph originates in a proposal put forward by France during the 1949
Diplomatic Conference. It is intended to prevent the recurrence of a situation
that arose during the Second World War.°* Through an agreement signed on 16
November 1940, the Reich Government forced Vichy France to put an end to
the protection of French prisoners of war by the Protecting Power appointed at
the outbreak of the war — the United States — and to accept instead a pseudo
national monitoring mechanism in the form of a French committee headed by
Ambassador Scapini.© Given the dependence of the Vichy regime on the Reich
Government, this committee was powerless to prevent violations of the 1929
Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, in particular the changing of prisoners
of war into civilian workers so that they could be put to work in the Reich’s
war industries.
1285 This historical background explains why the wording refers to a special agree-
ment ‘between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its free-
dom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events,
more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the
said Power is occupied’. The restriction in the freedom to negotiate may be par-
ticularly evident in the case of occupation. However, on the basis of the princi-
ple of non-derogation by way of the special agreements enshrined in common
Article 6 (Article 7 in the Fourth Convention}, the prohibition would apply
regardless of whether such a specific situation would arise.
I. Paragraph 6: Equivalence of rights and responsibilities of Protecting Powers
and their substitutes
1286 Article 10(6) deals with both the rights and the duties of the substitute for the
Protecting Power. This provision has its origins in the Stockholm draft. There
should be no problems of interpretation regarding the prerogatives and tasks
of a substitute designated on the basis of Article 10(1) and (2), since they are
exactly the same as those of the Protecting Power itself. The wording of para-
graph 6 therefore means that the rights and responsibilities of the Protecting
Power and its substitute appointed in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the article are identical.”°
1287 The issue becomes more complex in relation to the prerogatives and tasks of
the ICRC or another organization appointed on the basis of paragraph 3. When
such an organization is designated as substitute accordingly, it is tasked with
68 [bid. Vol. Ill, p. 31.
6 Protocol of 16 November 1940 between Germany and Vichy France, Berlin, 16 November 1940,
quoted by Georges Scapini, Mission sans gloire, Morgan, Paris, 1960, pp. 36-37.
° For asummary of the tasks entrusted to Protecting Powers under the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
see the commentary on Article 8, section E.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 457
assuming ‘the humanitarian functions’ performed by Protecting Powers. For a
substantive discussion, including on the evolution of the ICRC’s position in
this regard, which has rendered this distinction irrelevant, see section J.
J. Developments since 1949
1288 Since 1949, Article 10 has evolved in much the same way as Article 8. Going
by the use of the word ‘shall’ in paragraphs 2 and 3, it could be concluded that
the appointment of a substitute for Protecting Powers is not an option for the
Parties to a conflict but an obligation. In other words, whenever an interna-
tional armed conflict breaks out, and no Protecting Power or substitute in the
sense of paragraph 1 has been appointed, the Parties to the conflict are obliged
to appoint a substitute of the Protecting Powers on the basis of either paragraph
2. or paragraph 3. It is clear that, in 1949, this was indeed the intention of the
drafters.
1289 However, since 1949 it appears that the interpretation of Article 10 as being
compulsory is no longer in line with States’ current understanding of this pro-
vision, nor with the ICRC’s operational practice. Substitutes for the Protect-
ing Powers have not been formally appointed when they should have been
in accordance with the letter of the Conventions. Thus, given the absence of
any protest, it seems that in the view of most States the failure to appoint
a Protecting Power in each international armed conflict is not a violation of
the High Contracting Parties’ treaty obligations: as with Article 8, the appli-
cation of Article 10 appears to have been interpreted as being optional. The
absence of practice has not been matched, however, by any indication that
the High Contracting Parties would consider that Article 10 has fallen into
desuetude.”!
1290 ‘It is possible to identify three — very different — reasons for this develop-
ment. First, the article is overly complicated and sets out multiple substitution
options. Yet, the starting point was a very simple idea drawn from past practice:
if no Protecting Power was appointed, allow a humanitarian organization such
as the ICRC to carry out some of the tasks normally entrusted to Protecting
Powers. Unfortunately, a misconception overshadowed all the deliberations on
this matter: that the greater the number of organizations empowered to assume
this role, the more the Parties to a conflict would be prepared to accept the
work of a substitute. As a result, other proposals came to be tagged on to the
original idea. This was particularly the case for France’s proposal to set up a
High International Committee for the Protection of Humanity, which actually
aimed to replace the Protecting Powers with an international body responsi-
ble for overseeing the implementation of the Geneva Conventions. Multiply-
ing the possibilities of substitution meant more uncertainties, sidetracks and
71 See also Kolb, pp. 558-559.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
458 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
interpretation difficulties. Weighed down by all this baggage, the proposed body
never materialized.
1291 Second, the same political difficulties that all too often prevented the
appointment of a Protecting Power also hindered the appointment of a sub-
stitute body.” Ultimately, this is what led to the failure of the substitution
procedures set out in Article 10: when it would have been possible to appoint a
substitute it was not necessary, because then there was no obstacle to appoint-
ing Protecting Powers; and when it was necessary, it was not possible, because
the obstacles to the appointment of Protecting Powers also stood in the way of
the appointment of a substitute.
1292, Third, it is undeniable that, on the basis of its right of humanitarian initiative
as enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC has expanded the scope
of its activities tremendously since 1949. This development has occurred to
such an extent that the ICRC already performs many - and in some situations
most — of the tasks normally entrusted to Protecting Powers. When there is no
Protecting Power, therefore, States have little motivation to seek a substitute
organization.
1293 Both constructs are distinct: the possibility for the ICRC or other human-
itarian organization to act as a substitute for the Protecting Power remains
separate from the right of an impartial humanitarian organization such as the
ICRC to offer its services on the basis of what is frequently referred to as the
right of humanitarian initiative.’? Thus, the ICRC retains its right of human-
itarian initiative independently of whether and when, in a given international
armed conflict, Protecting Powers or their substitutes have formally been
appointed.
1294 In general, the ICRC prefers to act on the basis of the right of humani-
tarian initiative conferred on it by the Geneva Conventions and their Addi-
tional Protocols. Thus, instead of acting as a substitute of the Protecting
Power, i.e. representing the interests of a particular Party to an international
armed conflict on the basis of Article 10, the ICRC prefers to work on the
basis of its mandate to protect and assist all persons affected by an armed
conflict.”
” For an analysis of these difficulties, see the commentary on Article 8, paras 1155-1156.
73 As to the legal basis of the ICRC’s right of humanitarian initiative, see in particular common
Article 3(2), common Article 9 (Article 10 in the Fourth Convention), and Article 81 of Addi-
tional Protocol I. See also Article 5(3) of the 1986 Statutes of the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement.
See also Marco Sassoli, Antoine A. Bouvier and Anne Quintin, How Does Law Protect in War,
Vol. I, 3rd edition, ICRC, Geneva, 2011, p. 366: ‘The ICRC, for its part, has no interest in acting
as a substitute Protecting Power, as it can fulfil most of the latter’s functions in its own right,
without giving the impression that it represents only one State and not all the victims’; and
Kolb, pp. 557-558: ‘In all [cases in which no Protecting Power has been appointed] the ICRC
has acted as a sort of de facto substitute for a Protecting Power. However, it has performed the
functions in its own name, and according to its own mandate, rather than stressing that it acted
as the representative of a particular state.’
74
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
Substitutes for Protecting Powers 459
Select bibliography
Abi-Saab, Georges, ‘Le renforcement du systéme d’application des régles du droit
humanitaire’, Revue de droit pénal militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. XII,
No. 2, 1973, pp. 223-235.
— ‘Les mécanismes de mise en ceuvre du droit humanitaire’, Revue générale de
droit international public, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1978, pp. 103-129.
—‘The Implementation of Humanitarian Law’, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The New
Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Vol. I, Editoriale scientifica, Naples,
1979, pp. 310-346.
Bugnion, Francois, ‘Le droit humanitaire applicable aux conflits armés interna-
tionaux, Le probléme du contréle’, Annales d’études internationales, Vol. 8,
1977, pp. 29-61.
— The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Vic-
tims, ICRC/Macmillan, Oxford, 2003, pp. 845-910.
de La Pradelle, Paul, La Conférence diplomatique et les nouvelles Conventions de
Genéve du 12 aotit 1949, Les Editions internationales, Paris, 1951, pp. 221-
243.
— ‘Le contréle de l’application des conventions humanitaires en cas de conflit
armé’, Annuaire francais de droit international, Vol. II, 1956, pp. 343-352.
Domb, Fania, ‘Supervision of the Observance of International Humanitarian Law’,
Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 8, 1978, pp. 178-221.
Dominicé, Christian, ‘The implementation of humanitarian law’, in Karel Vasak
(ed.), The International Dimensions of Human Rights, Vol. Il, UNESCO, Paris,
1982, pp. 427-447.
Draper, Gerald LA.D., ‘The implementation of international law in armed con-
flicts’, International Affairs (London}, Vol. 48, 1972, pp. 46-59.
—‘The implementation and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
of the Two Additional Protocols of 1978’ (sic), Collected Courses of the Hague
Academy of International Law, Vol. 164, 1979, No. III, pp. 1-54.
Forsythe, David P., ‘Who Guards the Guardians, Third Parties and the Law of Armed
Conflicts’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 70, No. 1, 1976, pp. 41—
61.
Gasser, Hans-Peter, ‘Scrutiny’, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9,
1985, pp. 345-358.
Guggenheim, Paul, Traité de droit international public, Vol. Il, Georg & Cie,
Geneva, 1953, pp. 332-337.
Janner, Antonino, La Puissance protectrice en droit international d’aprés les
expériences faites par la Suisse pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, Verlag
von Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel, 1948 (reprint 1972).
Kolb, Robert, ‘Protecting Powers’, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco
Sassoli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2015, pp. 549-560.
Levie, Howard S., ‘Prisoners of War and the Protecting Power’, American Journal
of International Law, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1961, pp. 374-397.
— ‘Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict’, International Law Studies,
U.S. Naval War College, Vol. 59, 1977, pp. 255-293.
Patrnogic, Jovica, ‘Internationalisation du contréle des Conventions humanitaires
en cas de conflit armé’, Annales de droit international médical, No. 21, April
1971, pp. 33-51.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014
460 SECOND CONVENTION: ARTICLE IO
— ‘Implementation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols
of 1977’, European Seminar on Humanitarian Law (Jagellonean University,
Krakow, 1979), Polish Red Cross/ICRC, Warsaw/Geneva, 1979, pp. 87-100.
Peirce, Captain George A.B., ‘Humanitarian Protection for the Victims of War: The
System of Protecting Powers and the Role of the ICRC’, Military Law Review,
Vol. 90, 1980, pp. 89-162.
Pictet, Jean S., ‘Les Conventions de Genéve de 1949: Apercu des régles
d’application’, The Military Law and the Law of War Review, Vol. XII,
No. 2, 1973, pp. 59-99.
— Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, A.W. Sijthoff, Leiden,
1975, pp. 61-67.
Sandoz, Yves, ‘Implementing international humanitarian law’, International
Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1988,
pp. 259-282.
Sassoli, Marco, ‘Mise en ceuvre du droit international humanitaire et du droit inter-
national des droits de ‘homme: Une comparaison’, Annuaire suisse de droit
international, Vol. XLII, 1987, pp. 24-61.
Siordet, Frédéric, The Geneva Conventions of 1949: The Question of Scrutiny,
ICRC, Geneva, 1953.
Takemoto, Masayuki, ‘The scrutiny system under international humanitarian law:
An analysis of recent attempts to reinforce the role of protecting powers in
armed conflicts’, Japanese Annual of International Law, Vol. 19, 1975, pp. 1-
23.
Vourkoutiotis, Vasilis, ‘What the Angels Saw: Red Cross and Protecting Power
Visits to Anglo-American POWs, 1939-45’, Journal of Contemporary History,
Vol. 40, No. 4, 2005, pp. 689-706.
Wylie, Neville, ‘Protecting powers in a changing world’, Politorbis, No. 40, 2006,
pp. 6-14.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. YBP Library Services, on 12 Aug 2018 at 10:41:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399913.014