We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
A certain State-recognized civilian hospital employed two kinds of doctors who appeared on its staff lists: full-time doctors, and part-time doctors used to reinforce its medical team during an armed conflict with a neighbouring country. Some weeks later the country was occupied by the enemy. Two part-time doctors on their way home in a private car marked with a red cross for protective purposes were stopped by a police patrol, which seized the car and confiscated the doctors' identifying armlets. This was done on the grounds that improper use was being made of the Red Cross emblem as a protective device, contrary to Articles 24, 25, 26 and 44 of the First Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.
1 By virtue of Articles 24 and 26 of the First Convention and Article 20 of the Fourth Convention, non-permanent personnel is considered to be protected only when on duty, and not when travelling between home and workplace. Consequently the two doctors were not entitled to wear the armlets. Under Article 21 of the Fourth Convention they were not entitled to use the emblem to identify their private car.
2 In 1989, of the 148 National Societies which are recognized by the ICRC and are members of the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 125 have adopted the red cross emblem, 22 the red crescent emblem and one Society only (that of the USSR) uses both emblems.
3 See the article in the American weekly magazine Newsweek entitled “The New Contras?” illustrated with a photograph showing soldiers disembarking from a helicopter bearing the Red Cross emblem. The caption states that the aircraft was transporting military supplies ( Newsweek, 1 06 1987).Google Scholar
4 See Le Monde, 19 06 1987.Google Scholar
5 The ICRC vigorously affirms that the emblem cannot fulfil its noble purpose unless it is considered as sacrosanct: see Y. Sandoz, “The Stakes are High”, ICRC Bulletin, No. 141, 10 1987, p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 For all these provisions of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, see The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 3rd edition, ICRC, Geneva, 1951 Google Scholar. See also Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Federal Political Department, Berne, 1949, 4 volumes.Google Scholar
7 See Regulations on the use of the emblem of the red cross, of the red crescent and of the red lion and sun by the National Societies, Geneva, 1965 Google Scholar. See Revision of the Regulations on the use of the emblem of the red cross, of the red crescent and of the red lion and sun by the National Societies, Geneva, 07 1986 Google Scholar, Doc. C.II/3/1. These regulations were provisionally adopted by Resolution 6 of the Council of Delegates at its session in Rio de Janeiro on 27 November 1987. See also below, p. 436.
8 See Bugnion, François, The emblem of the red cross: a brief history, ICRC, Geneva, 1977, p. 95.Google Scholar
9 See Pictet, J. S., The sign of the red cross and the repression of abuses of the red cross emblem, ICRC, Geneva, 1951, p. 29.Google Scholar
10 See Gaillard, Pierre, statement at the Beirut Congress, 15–20 02 1971 Google Scholar, ICRC, Report, p. 12.Google Scholar
11 This emblem now enjoys only theoretical protection under the 1949 Conventions and the 1977 Protocols additional thereto, Iran and its National Society having ceased to use it in 1980, when they adopted the red crescent.
12 See Note 7 above.
13 See Protocol I, Article 18, para. 5 and Annex I, Chapter III.
14 Grave breaches are listed in Articles 50 of the First Convention, 51 of the Second Convention, 130 of the Third Convention and 147 of the Fourth Convention.
15 Article 12, therefore, merely codified a customary usage and introduced nothing new.
16 A Greek cross having four equal branches formed of one vertical and one horizontal arm intersecting in the middle and not touching the edges of the flag or shield. The length and breadth of these branches are not regulated. See ICRC, Regulations…, op. cit, Art. 5.
17 See Pictet, J. S., op. cit., pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
18 In particular those held in Geneva and Brussels.
19 See the commentary on Articles 53 and 54 of the First Convention in “La répression des abus du signe de la croix rouge” in Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge, No. 390, 04 1951, p. 280.Google Scholar
20 See “Loi-type pour la protection du signe et du nom de la Croix Rouge” Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge, No. 391, 07 1951, pp. 535–541.Google Scholar
21 Circular No. 507 of 15 September 1977.
22 See ICRC, Twenty-fourth International Conference of the Red Cross, Use and protection of the emblem, an explanatory guide. Doc. CP A/5.1/1, Geneva, 07 1981 Google Scholar, Annex I.
23 After sending them a reminder in a letter of 26 January 1981, the ICRC invited National Societies to a briefing session on 29 April 1981.
24 See Gaillard, P., op. cit., p. 20.Google Scholar
25 By 30 June 1989 the States party to Protocol I numbered 84 and the States party to Protocol II only 74.
26 See Note 7 above.
27 See “Resolutions of the Council of Delegates (adopted at its session of 27 November 1987)” in International Review of the Red Cross, 11–12 1987, No. 261, pp. 599–600.Google Scholar
28 A draft decree restricting the use of the emblem was prepared by the Ministry of Health, but was dropped in the end because it made no provision for penalizing offenders.
