IN PURSUIT OF A TREATY'S SOUL: A STUDY OF THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION

Abstract The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War provides a practical and effective framework for the protection of civilians in international armed conflicts that has retained its relevance for 75 years since its adoption. As with all treaties, its ‘object and purpose’ has a concrete impact on how its terms are interpreted, giving insights into the ordinary meaning of the text and allowing the aim of the Convention to be fully realized. This article asks and answers a series of questions to elucidate the role of the object and purpose in treaty interpretation and how to identify the object and purpose of a given treaty before focusing on the specificities of international humanitarian law treaties. On that basis, it determines that the overall ‘object and purpose’ of the Convention is to protect civilians during armed conflict, including in circumstances where they are subject to permissible measures of control and security. The article then demonstrates how that ‘object and purpose’ assists with the resolution of specific, well-known interpretive dilemmas including the determination of protected status under the Convention and the application of provisions premised on the existence of a Protecting Power.


I. INTRODUCTION
International treaties, like all texts, are interpreted by the humans that read them.It is only through that interpretation that treaties acquire their meaning and take effect.The French interwar jurist Georges Scelle pointed out the impossibility of an uninterpreted treaty in saying '[t]here is no application without interpretation'. 1Treaties are in fact living instruments, and interpretation is 1 G Scelle, Précis de droit des gens: Principes et systématique (Recueil Sirey 1934) vol II, 488, 'Il n'y a pas d'application sans interpretation', in its original French (authors' translation).not only the force that gives them life, but it also keeps them relevant in an everchanging world. 2 As treaties, the Geneva Conventions 3 and their Additional Protocols 4 are of course interpreted by States, but also by any individual or entity that engages with them, whether as a practical necessity or a scholarly pursuit.When lawmakers enact legislation criminalizing war crimes they are interpreting these treaties.When judges issue rulings they are interpreting these treaties.When a ministry of defence adopts rules of engagement they are interpreting these treaties.When a military commander issues orders they and their subordinates are interpreting these treaties.When United Nations (UN) mechanisms issue reports they are interpreting these treaties.When the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as the guardian of international humanitarian law (IHL), 'work [s] for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of' these treaties, 'undertake [s] the tasks incumbent upon it under the Geneva Conventions', and 'work [s] for the faithful application of [IHL] in armed conflicts and [takes] cognizance of any complaints based on alleged breaches of that law',5 all of these activities necessarily involve interpreting these treaties. 6hen a journalist reports on the conduct of hostilities they are relying on an interpretation of these treaties categorizing activities as lawful or unlawful.When academic literature is written about a particular conflict the authors are interpreting these treaties.In short, there is no end to the list of those who interpret international treaties such as the core IHL treaties, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), which is the specific focus of this article. 2See generally, D Moeckli and ND White, 'Treaties as "Living Instruments"' in MJ Bowman and D Kritsiotis (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (CUP 2018).
3 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31 (GC I); Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12  The authors of this article are both participating in the ICRC project to update the Commentaries on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and are therefore involved in the interpretation of these treaties on a daily basis.The ICRC's updated Commentaries reflect how the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols have been interpreted in the nearly 75 years since their adoption. 7he methodology behind them is based on Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as discussed in detail below. 8he 'object and purpose' of a treaty, and perhaps particularly that of a multilateral, norm-setting treaty like the Fourth Geneva Convention, plays a significant role in ensuring the coherence of the treaty in light of its nature as a living instrument.The 'object and purpose' operates to ensure that the meaning of a treaty's terms continues to make sense over time.The drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention were already aware during its negotiation that they could not predict future conflict trends that would have an impact on the application of the treaty, and that its provisions had to be drafted to withstand the test of time. 9This article will examine this specific element of treaty interpretation with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention.Although it looks at this particular treaty, the analysis is generalizable and much of it can be applied to any treaty.
The article will seek to elucidate the role of the object and purpose in treaty interpretation and how to identify the object and purpose of a given treaty before focusing on the specificities of IHL treaties.On that basis, the article determines that the overall 'object and purpose' of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to protect civilians during armed conflict, including in circumstances where they are subject to permissible measures of control and security.The article then concludes by demonstrating how that 'object and purpose' assists with the resolution of specific well-known interpretive dilemmas including the determination of protected status under the Convention and the application of provisions premised on the existence of a Protecting Power.

II. WHAT IS A TREATY'S 'OBJECT AND PURPOSE'?
The VCLT was the culmination of decades of work undertaken by the International Law Commission (ILC) to codify the law of treaties.10Its Articles 31-33 comprise the rules of modern treaty interpretation.Article 31(1) provides the principal means of treaty interpretation, and it is here that the phrase 'object and purpose' appears: 'A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.' 11 Article 31 goes on to provide other elements that must be taken into account-subsequent agreements and practice, relevant rules of international law applicable between the parties to the treaty and any special meaning given to terms by the parties-while Article 32 provides for supplementary means of interpretation to clarify or confirm the meaning established under Article 31.
The language of the VCLT's general rule of interpretation was designed to provide an interpretive methodology that combines several pre-existing means of interpretation. 12It thus reconciled textual and teleological approaches which had previously been seen as conflicting methods of interpretation by using the object and purpose of the treaty as one aspect of determining the ordinary meaning of its terms. 13In this way, the interpretive elements contained in the VCLT form part of a single test to determine the meaning of the text. 14This is reinforced by the fact that the VCLT itself gives Article 31 the title 'General rule of interpretation'-'rule' being in the singular. 15ndeed, a text's ordinary meaning cannot be clear without understanding why that text was promulgated.As Anzilotti stated: [o]nly when it is known what the Contracting Parties intended to do and the aim they had in view is it possible to say either that the natural meaning of the terms used in a particular article corresponds with the real intention of the Parties, or that the natural meaning of the terms used falls short of or goes further than such intention. 16nternational and Comparative Law Quarterly The treaty interpretation rules as expressed in the VCLT are generally recognized as being customary in nature, 17 meaning that customary norms corresponding to Articles 31-33 apply even to those treaties that were adopted before the VCLT was drafted.Each element of the interpretive rule reflected in the VCLT is of equal importance and could be the subject of its own study.The present article is focused on the 'object and purpose'-what it means, how it is found, and the role the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention plays in its interpretation.
Understanding the object and purpose of a treaty is essential to its interpretation.The 'fundamental importance' of the object and purpose was recognized as central to good faith treaty interpretation by the ILC during the drafting of the VCLT. 18owever, as Klabbers reflected some 30 years later, '[g]iven the prominent place occupied by the notion of object and purpose in the codified law of treaties, it is rather surprising that we know so little about it'. 19 Where Did the Concept Originate?
The term 'object and purpose' is most often traced back to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in which the Court alternately referred to the 'object', 'purpose' and 'object and purpose' (sometimes also using the plural) of the treaty in question, apparently interchangeably. 20Buffard and Zemanek have traced the concept-though expressed in a slightly different formulation-as far back as 1926 when the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) referred to a treaty's 'aim and the scope'. 21The language used by the ICJ and PCIJ evolved over time. 22Ultimately this concept was codified in the VCLT with the term 'object and purpose'. 23he phrase 'object and purpose' appears eight times in the VCLT 24 (and one more time with the conjunction 'or'). 25Despite the many uses of the phrase, 17  Object and Purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention 'object and purpose' is not explicitly defined in the VCLT.Some scholars even suggest that these references may not refer to the same object and purpose, but that the term 'object and purpose' may be interpreted differently in light of the context of each provision. 26Others refute that claim. 27he 'object and purpose' of treaties is also referred to in the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 28 and the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties. 29In these instruments, as in much of the VCLT, the 'object and purpose' is treated as a substantive element that operates in addition to the provisions of the treaty, informing the application of the treaty being interpreted. 30The rules on treaty interpretation contained in Articles 31-33 are an exception, which Klabbers characterized as 'methodological devices rather than substantive provisions'. 31he concept of the object and purpose has been described as 'infus[ing] some common sense and flexibility in the law of treaties', preventing irrational results. 32It ensures the effectiveness of the terms of the treaty where two (or more) interpretations are possible-'one which does and the other does not enable the treaty to have appropriate effects'. 33In such a case, good faith and the object and purpose of the treaty ensure that the latter interpretation is adopted. 34The concept of the object and purpose can be used as a guide to fulfil the aim of the treaty, and it therefore provides coherence to the interpretation of the treaty when viewed as a whole.

B. One Concept or Two?
The conception of the 'object and purpose' appears to have evolved over time in this respect.Looking at the constituent parts of the phrase, 'object' is frequently understood as referring to the rights and obligations contained in the treaty, 35 and its 'purpose' is described as the aim to be achieved by the provisions. 36his does not mean that they are separate concepts, however.Prior to the International and Comparative Law Quarterly conclusion of the VCLT, many scholars looked at the individual terms that make up the phrase separately, considering 'that the object of a treaty consists of the obligations and rights prescribed by the treaty, while its purpose could be said to represent the result that the parties have set out to achieve'. 37Scholars writing after 1969 who still argue that the 'object' of a treaty is distinct from its 'purpose' are in the minority. 38his has been examined by Buffard and Zemanek through the lens of differences in terminology between historic German-, French-and Englishlanguage doctrines. 39Bos splits the difference, considering it wiser to treat the 'object and purpose' as indicating two aspects of the same concept since the interpretation of the 'object' of a treaty will necessarily affect the determination of its 'purpose'. 40Following the same logic, Hosseinnejad refers to the object and purpose as 'not one, not two'. 41he majority view is that the VCLT firmly established 'object and purpose' as a single standard expression: it consistently speaks of the 'object and purpose' together and in the singular. 42There is one instance where the VCLT uses the phrase 'object or purpose' (emphasis added), in Article 60(3), which may imply that these are two separate concepts.However, there is nothing in the drafting history to suggest that this was meant to indicate a difference in meaning, and the repetition of the term 'object and purpose' in the later Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties drafted by the same body would indicate that this was in fact not intentionally done. 43here are judicial opinions issued after the adoption of the 1969 VCLT that may be read as separating the 'object' of a treaty from its 'purpose'. 44However, as there are equally judicial opinions that clearly refer to the 'object and purpose' as a singular concept, 45 this should not negate the singular concept of the 'object and purpose' as conceived of by the drafters. 46Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of scholars have interpreted the 'object and purpose' as a single concept. 47oday, the object and purpose of a treaty should be seen as one whole rather than two distinct halves.Prior to the conclusion of the VCLT there may have been an argument that these were two separate ideas.However, as demonstrated above, it is now firmly established as a term of art that refers to a singular concept.
C. Can There Be More than One Object and Purpose?
It is possible for there to be several objects and purposes that operate in a single treaty. 48On the other hand, a treaty with no object and purpose would be a logical impossibility. 49inclair observes that 'most treaties have no single, undiluted object and purpose but a variety of differing and possibly conflicting objects and purposes'. 50Support for this position is based on the reference in Article 41 (1)(b)(ii) of the VCLT to the 'object and purpose of the treaty as a whole' (emphasis added), which could be read as indicating that there may be separate objects and purposes to parts of a treaty. 51The ICJ has also found that a treaty may have several objects and purposes. 52 case in point is Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which has been called 'a treaty within a treaty' 53 and a 'Convention in miniature' 54 or 'mini-Convention'.55 Common Article 3 has its own object and purpose, separate from the object and purpose of each of the four Geneva

392
International and Comparative Law Quarterly Conventions. 56This is clear from the fact that it addresses a different context from the rest of the Conventions (non-international armed conflict as opposed to international armed conflict) and thus has a different scope of application. 57he fact that this article is common across all four Conventions further supports this, as each Convention addresses a different group of protected persons: wounded and sick soldiers on land; wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers at sea; prisoners of war; and civilians.Accordingly, the ICRC's updated Commentary on the Geneva Conventions concludes that 'common Article 3 provides the [1949 Geneva Conventions] with an additional object and purpose, as it serves to protect persons not or no longer participating in hostilities, including persons deprived of liberty, in situations of noninternational armed conflict'. 58

D. Can the Object and Purpose Evolve Over Time?
Particularly prior to the conclusion of the VCLT, some scholars argued that the object and purpose of a treaty should be determined solely from the intent of the drafters at the time the treaty was concluded. 59This may be thought of as the 'subjective approach'.It is reflected in the 1927 Chorzów Factory case, where the PCIJ held that in interpreting a provision of the relevant arbitration treaty: account must be taken not only of the historical development of arbitration treaties, and of the grammatical and logical meaning of the words used, but also and more especially of the function which, in the intention of the contracting Parties, is to be attributed to this provision. 60wever, since the VCLT was drafted, the trend has been toward a more evolutionary approach to the determination of the object and purpose. 61acobs describes the doctrine of 'emergent purpose', a teleological approach to treaty interpretation under which 'the objects and purposes which determine the true interpretation of a treaty may be those which can be found to exist at the time of interpretation, not at the time of conclusion'. 62The 'object and purpose' is thus able to evolve from the original intent of the parties.

Object and Purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention
The evolutionary approach to determining the object and purpose of treaties should be distinguished from the evolutionary interpretation of individual treaty terms.Although the two are related, one does not necessitate the other.A determination that the 'object and purpose' of a treaty has evolved over time does not necessarily imply that the meaning of all of the terms of that treaty has changed, too.Similarly, it is well established that generic terms in a treaty entered into for long or indefinite duration should be presumed to have an evolving meaning. 64However, this would be the case even if the object and purpose of such a treaty had remained the same.In fact, the object and purpose of a given treaty may be precisely to establish an adaptable framework, in which case that object and purpose would remain the same over time, but it would nonetheless support an evolutionary approach to the interpretation of the treaty's terms. 65he 'objective' or 'emergent purpose' approach to the determination of the object and purpose is particularly suitable for certain types of treaties. 66This is the case for normative, multilateral treaties like many instruments setting up international organizations.For example, it is generally recognized that the object and purpose of the UN Charter must be construed in light of subsequent developments in the organization. 67Similar considerations apply to treaties that are intended to establish general standards of behaviour, like IHL treaties: the parties do not enter into them-at least not solely or primarily-in order to trade concessions in a transactional manner.Instead, the development of IHL treaties is 'largely guided by shared interests, the achievement of a "common good"'. 68As Crnic ´-Grotic ´notes, in particular where such treaties are meant to establish universal standards or new norms, 'it is conceivable that the original purpose is lost or has changed over the years'. 69t can be particularly difficult to establish a common original intent for multilateral treaties.It is no coincidence that the ICJ's Genocide Advisory Opinion, with its seminal reference to the 'object and purpose' as it is understood today, was issued as the multilateral system began to aspire to universal treaties.Normative bilateral agreements can also have an 'object and purpose' that takes on a life of its own. 70However, the transactional nature of many bilateral treaties renders the object and purpose a simple summary of the concessions of the parties.

394
International and Comparative Law Quarterly As Sinclair observed, 'in the case of general multilateral conventions, a search for the common intentions of the parties can be likened to a search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow'. 72Indeed, where a treaty has many parties, it is less likely for the parties to have had one uniform understanding of the object and purpose of the treaty in the first place, given that States may make deals in order to reach a compromise, muddying the waters about any consensus on the object and purpose of the final product, and, even in the absence of such compromise, States may have various motivations for drafting and concluding such treaties as well as for ratifying or acceding to them, sometimes long after they were originally concluded.The ambiguity created by treaty negotiation as a process confirms that the object and purpose of a given treaty not only can, but in fact should be kept separate from the intent of the parties at the time the treaty was concluded.
The 'emergent purpose' approach ensures the effectiveness of a treaty's provisions. 73Changes that have taken place since the adoption of the treaty are thus taken into account, similar to the use of subsequent practice in treaty interpretation under Articles 31(3) and 32 of the VCLT. 74The 'object and purpose' therefore necessarily evolves over time to take into account the practice of the parties. 75

III. WHAT IS THE 'OBJECT AND PURPOSE' OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION?
There is no universally agreed method of determining the object and purpose of international treaties.As discussed in more detail above, the VCLT includes the phrase 'object and purpose' in several provisions, including Articles 31 and 33 that concern the interpretation of treaties.However, the VCLT does not define these terms, nor does it give any guidance on how the object and purpose of a particular treaty should be determined.
There are certain specificities when it comes to determining the object and purpose of IHL treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention.This part of the article begins by expanding on these specificities.It then outlines the key elements to determining the object and purpose of humanitarian treaties under international law.Finally, these elements are applied to establish the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

A. What Are the Specificities of Humanitarian Law Treaties?
Before looking specifically at the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is important to consider whether IHL as a body of law is interpreted in the same way as other 72 Sinclair (n 50) 130.
Object and Purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention bodies of international law.The answer, in short, is that although IHL is designed to apply in the most extreme circumstances, it is subject to the same principles of public international law as other bodies of international law-its sources are the same sources as provided for in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, it is adjudicated by international and domestic tribunals, and it is subject to the same rules of interpretation.This has been confirmed time and again by the practice of States 76 and international bodies, 77 international tribunals 78 and legal scholarship. 79or the purposes of treaty interpretation, IHL treaties are subject to the same basic rules of interpretation as other treaties, 80 including as they pertain to the object and purpose of such treaties.There are, however, three specificities of IHL treaties that are relevant for their interpretation in general, as well as for the determination of their object and purpose in particular.

Jus cogens nature of norms contained in humanitarian treaties
First, many IHL norms have the character of jus cogens, or peremptory norms.The VCLT defines a peremptory norm of general international law as 'a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character'. 81

396
International and Comparative Law Quarterly The ICJ has held that 'a great many rules of humanitarian law' constitute 'intransgressible principles of international customary law'. 82For its part, the ILC has observed that it is 'generally accepted' that these rules are peremptory in nature. 83he Geneva Conventions are a case in point.They contain provisions that expressly prohibit any agreement that would diminish the protections that individuals are entitled to under the Conventions. 84This bolsters the argument that numerous norms in the Conventions are non-derogable and, therefore, of a peremptory nature.Certain scholars even contend that all rules in the Geneva Conventions should be considered jus cogens 85 -a contention that probably goes too far. 86iven the peremptory character of many of the rules contained in IHL treaties, Abi-Saab has advocated for their interpretation 'towards perfecting the content and expanding the ambit of humanitarian protection'. 87Echoing this, Kolb and Del Mar have suggested that 'if it is held that IHL contains a great number of public order, public policy or jus cogens norms, it seems quite understandable that the interpretation of such texts has to be expansive rather than narrow'. 88hese statements should not be misunderstood as endorsing unbridled expansive approaches to the interpretation of treaties containing peremptory norms.Rather, the fact that no derogation is permitted from certain rules means that their interpretation must closely align with the community interest reflected in them.
6 See I Scobbie, 'The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of "Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law"' (2002) 13 EJIL 1201, 1211, arguing that certain provisions in the Geneva Conventions 'clearly do not' have jus cogens status, using the example of art 38 of GC III (n 3), which mandates that Detaining Powers must provide prisoners of war with 'opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being out of doors'.As explained by Hameed, the peremptory status of that rule is dubious 'because its subject matter appears trivial, even though [it] is part of an undifferentiated regime which is considered imperative by all, or virtually all, states'.Asif Hameed, 'Unravelling the Mystery of Jus Cogens in International Law' (2014) 84(1) BYIL 52, 70. 87Abi-Saab (n 84) 273. 88Kolb and Del Mar (n 80) 80 (internal footnote omitted). 89See also Section III.A.3, discussing the balance between humanity and military necessity built into the rules of IHL and how this influences their interpretation.
Object and Purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention in this connection of a 'human-centred' approach to IHL. 90 This is also how, it is submitted, Abi-Saab's goal of 'perfecting the content and expanding the ambit' should be understood. 91Accordingly, the jus cogens nature of many IHL rules supports adopting a protective approach to interpreting the object and purpose of the treaties in which they are contained.

Erga omnes character of humanitarian treaties
The second specificity is the erga omnes partes character of IHL treaties.IHL treaties differ from many other international treaties in that they are not transactional.Nonetheless, this characteristic is not unique to IHL treaties.For instance, the 1948 Genocide Convention is also not designed to serve the interests of individual States but, rather, 'a common interest, namely the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d'être of the convention'. 92o give another example, the 'object and purpose' of the 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT)-according to its preamble-is 'to make more effective the struggle against torture … … throughout the world'.93 On that basis, the ICJ held in Belgium v Senegal that '[t]he States parties to the Convention have a common interest to ensure, in view of their shared values, that acts of torture are prevented and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity'.94 The ICJ went on to describe States' obligations under the CAT as erga omnes in nature and made a link to the Genocide Convention.95 In 2023, Canada and the Netherlands instituted proceedings before the ICJ against Syria, citing the Belgium v Senegal case in seeking compliance by Syria with its obligations under the CAT, describing them as 'of an erga omnes partes nature, and … thus owed to the Applicants'.96 The Geneva Conventions likewise create erga omnes partes obligations for the High Contracting Parties, which-given the universal ratification of the Conventions-means all States.97 For example, under Common Article 1 of the Conventions, States must not only apply their provisions, but must also do everything reasonably in their power to ensure respect for the provisions by others.In doing so, the Conventions reaffirm the legal interest of the entire 90 Kolb and Del Mar (n 80).91 Abi-Saab (n 84) 273. 92Reservations to the Genocide Convention (n 20) 23.93

398
International and Comparative Law Quarterly international community in their observance, demonstrating the erga omnes nature of the obligations created by these core IHL treaties. 98o sum up, if the effect of a treaty is erga omnes, this logically means that its object and purpose cannot merely be to establish a reciprocal exchange of rights and duties between the State parties for their mutual benefit. 99There must, instead, be some-in the words of the ICJ-'high ideal' 100 that the parties aspire to.For IHL treaties, such a high ideal by definition points towards greater protection of persons affected by and amelioration of suffering in armed conflict. 101These treaties, including their object and purpose, should be interpreted in light of that overarching approach.

Balance between humanity and military necessity
Lastly, the overarching principles of humanity and military necessity that underlie IHL can also affect how the 'object and purpose' is determined.The balance between humanitarian considerations and military necessity is a hallmark of IHL. 102This balance is reflected in and informs the entire normative framework of this body of norms.As such, it shapes the context in which its rules and other principles must be interpreted.
At first glance, these two pillars of IHL may seem diametrically opposed.However, the true picture is more nuanced.IHL is not based on a balance between pacifism and militarism, or on a balance between the rights of civilians/those hors de combat and military practicality.It reflects a balance between humanity, a principle that 'impose[s] certain limits on the means and methods of warfare, and require[s] that those who have fallen into enemy hands be treated humanely at all times', 103 and military necessity, 'the necessity for measures which are essential to attain the goals of war, and which are lawful in accordance with the laws and customs of war'. 10498 Commentary on GC III (n 6) 152-3. 99This approach has been endorsed in the international jurisprudence.See, eg, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of American Convention on Human Rights (Arts 74 and 75) (Advisory Opinion) (24 September 1982) 8. 100 Reservations to the Genocide Convention (n 20) 23. 101See, eg, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 3, 68, holding that 'international humanitarian law governs the conduct of hostilities in an armed conflict and pursues the aim of protecting diverse categories of persons and objects' (emphasis added); ICRC, 'War and International Humanitarian Law' (29 October 2010) <https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/overview-war-and-law.htm> ('IHL aims to limit the effects of armed conflicts for humanitarian reasons.It aims to protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, the sick and wounded, prisoners and civilians, and to define the rights and obligations of the parties to a conflict in the conduct of hostilities.').
102 Commentary on GC III (n 6) 91.Both of these IHL tenets therefore contribute to the overall centre of gravity of IHL as a legal framework, which is the protection of those affected by armed conflict. 105In other words, military necessity is not only permissive.It also limits military action to what is necessary, thereby delivering protection in its own right. 106For example, once a combatant is captured, it is no longer necessary to kill them to gain any military advantage as they have already been taken out of the fight.Similarly, the use of a weapon that causes unnecessary suffering to neutralize a combatant, such as a blade with a serrated edge, by definition fails the test of military necessity.
Whenever new IHL treaties are made, both '[s]tates' military interest and realpolitik on the one hand, and concerns for humanity on the other' animate the negotiating and drafting process. 107The balance between these principles must therefore also underlie the interpretive process, including in the determination of a treaty's object and purpose.
Overall, this analysis of the specificities of IHL treaties confirms the importance of adopting and maintaining a protective approach to the interpretation of these treaties.It thus sets the groundwork for the following sections, which will focus on how the 'object and purpose' of a treaty is determined, and specifically that of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

B. What Elements Must Be Considered?
As noted, the VCLT does not establish a methodology for the determination of the object and purpose of international treaties.Moreover, there is no other binding international instrument that would provide for such methodologythe closest available document to such a source is the ILC's 2011 Guide to 105 Commentary on GC III (n 6) 497, fn 181, noting that 'the fundamental principles of military necessity and humanity reduce the sum total of permissible military action from that which humanitarian law does not expressly prohibit to that which is actually necessary for the accomplishment of a legitimate military purpose in the prevailing circumstances'.At the time of writing, this is not a universally shared view; for a different approach see, eg, MN Schmitt, 'Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance' (2010) 50(4) VaJIntlL 795, 798-801.For discussion of the normative effect of these principles see, eg, 'Forum: The ICRC Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law' (2010) 42(3) NYUJIntlL&Pol 637. 106

400
International and Comparative Law Quarterly Practice on Reservations to Treaties,108 which will be discussed later in this section.
Relevant scholarship is in agreement about the importance of evaluating the entire text of a treaty in order to determine its object and purpose. 109Gardiner considers that while 'the preamble may be used as the source of a convenient summary of the object and purpose of a treaty, both the Vienna Convention (Article 31(2)) and practice make it clear that an interpreter needs to read the whole treaty'. 110Similarly, Yasseen observes that 'the object and purpose emerge from the text of the treaty; typically, they are stated in the preamble, but it is possible that the treaty doesn't expressly state them; the object and purpose can then be identified by examination of the text, the entire text, in light of the context for the purpose of interpreting the treaty'. 111he entire text of a treaty encapsulates its title, preamble, and all of its provisions, as well as any annexes. 112Some of the provisions may be 'programmatic' in nature in that they fix 'an objective, in the light of which the other [t]reaty provisions are to be interpreted and applied'. 113Given that such provisions articulate the goals for the achievement of which a given treaty was concluded, they should-if they exist-be given particular weight in the determination of that treaty's object and purpose. 114Article 1 of the UN Charter, which lists the purposes of the UN, is a good example. 115s noted, the most authoritative text concerning the determination of the object and purpose of international treaties is the ILC's 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties. 116This document addresses this issue in a section dedicated to incompatibility of reservations with the object and purpose of the treaty.Because a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty is impermissible under international law, 117 the ILC discussed at some length how the object and purpose should be determined. 118he Guide notes that in order to determine the object and purpose of a treaty, 'a fairly general approach is required: it is not a question of "dissecting" the treaty in minute detail and examining its provisions one by one, but of extracting the "essence", the overall "mission" of the treaty'. 119It then proposes a specific methodology for extracting this essence in a succinctly formulated guideline 3.1.5.1: The object and purpose of the treaty is to be determined in good faith, taking account of the terms of the treaty in their context, in particular the title and the preamble of the treaty.Recourse may also be had to the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion and, where appropriate, the subsequent practice of the parties.
Once again, the centrality of the treaty text is immediately evident, including 'in particular' the title and the preamble.The ILC also ascribes a certain weight to the preparatory work and the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty.Its reference to the subsequent practice of the parties was motivated by 'the view that the object and purpose of a treaty was likely to evolve over time', 120 which is also shared by the present authors 121 -although, as will be seen, such subsequent practice has been fairly limited in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention. 122verall, the process of identifying the object and purpose of a treaty is by necessity inductive.The individual elements must be weighed and a good faith attempt made to derive the object and purpose from them.The process may even appear circular to some extent: this is because the VCLT formula for treaty interpretation already contains all of these elements and the object and purpose. 123his article will examine these elements in the same order in the following section dedicated to the determination of the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
C. How Are These Elements Applied to the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Title
The title of the Convention is 'Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949' (emphasis added).The first treaty interpretation: see text accompanying nn 26-27 above.This article proceeds on the assumption that their meaning is indeed identical or at least sufficiently similar to allow for reliance on the ILC's analysis.This is in accordance with the ILC's express position on this matter: ILC Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties (n 108) commentary to guideline 3.1.5,para 3.

402
International and Comparative Law Quarterly two of the four Geneva Conventions use a different construction: their titles use the preposition 'for' to link the words 'Geneva Convention' with the rest of the title ('for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field' and 'for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea', respectively).The difference is not unintentional.In fact, the Fourth Geneva Convention was originally drafted with the preposition 'for' just like its first two sister conventions.However, at the very end of the negotiating process, the delegation of Canada convinced the participants of the Diplomatic Conference to replace the word 'for' with the phrase 'relative to'. 124This phrase was modelled on the title of the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention, and it was also re-used in the title of the corresponding 1949 Third Geneva Convention.
The last-minute change was, however, unrelated to the overall goal or purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention.Instead, it was motivated by a desire to ensure that the text of the title accurately reflected the treaty's content.According to the delegation of Canada, the original formulation gave the inaccurate impression that the Convention dealt with 'all aspects of the treatment of civilians in time of war'. 125As underscored by the Canadian and other delegations, this new convention would not regulate the conduct of hostilities, 126 a type of wartime conduct that profoundly affects civilians, but which would continue to be regulated by the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and their accompanying regulations. 127econding the Canadian proposal, the Danish delegate noted that 'we have drafted a text concerning only certain rights of the civilian population in time of war and under occupation, but the population has many other rights and privileges which are not provided for in this Convention'. 128It was for these reasons-essentially, to avoid an impression that the Convention was comprehensive in scope-that the change was adopted at the Conference.One therefore cannot infer more from the title of the Fourth Geneva Convention: it does not determinately establish a clear object and purpose.

Preamble
The preamble to the Fourth Geneva Convention is very brief.The reasons for the brevity of the preambles to all four Conventions are well known and will not be repeated here. 129Suffice it to say that although a detailed preamble for inclusion in all four draft conventions had been proposed, the delegations 124 See Final Record (n 54) vol II-B, 456-8. 125ibid 456. 126ibid, vol II-A, 805 (United States); ibid, vol II-B, 407-9 (United States, Canada, Switzerland); ibid 498 (Australia); ibid 504 (Switzerland). 127See GC IV (n 3) art 154. 128Final Record (n 54) vol II-B, 457. 129See Commentary on GC III (n 6) 135-9.
Object and Purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention could not agree on several aspects of it-such as whether and how to refer to a divine authority-and as a result they settled for the lowest common denominator, which was to remove all the substantive content from the drafts. 130ence, the adopted preamble to the Fourth Geneva Convention consists merely of an introductory formula that links the title of the Convention with its substantive parts, but does not elaborate on the motivations behind the substantive text.It reads: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows: Discerning readers will notice that the preamble uses the 'for' formulation instead of the 'relative to' formulation that was included in the revised title.However, as noted in the original 1958 commentary, 'this was no doubt an oversight'-the drafters apparently forgot to fix the preamble after they had agreed to amend the title. 131One thus should not read more into this difference in wording.
Furthermore, each of the first three Conventions had a predecessor which did contain a specific preamble. 132To some extent, those prior treaties' preambles can help cast light on the object and purpose of their successor treaties. 133owever, in the case of the Fourth Geneva Convention, no such source is available given that the Convention did not succeed any pre-existing treaty on the same subject matter. 134hus, like the title, the preamble is of limited use when it comes to identifying the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention.International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Substantive text of the treaty
In contrast to the elements of the Convention analysed thus far, its substantive text gives a very clear indication of the treaty's underlying aims.This is the case despite the absence of programmatic articles that would establish an overarching objective in light of which the rest of the Convention's provisions were to be interpreted and applied.Instead, it is necessary to review the entirety of the text to extract its overall essence or mission. 135he text of the Convention, comprising 159 articles, is of considerable length.It is impossible to analyse each provision here, but certain overarching patterns and trends can nonetheless be identified.As discussed above, many of the Convention's provisions contain rules of a peremptory nature. 136Similarly, the vast majority of these provisions lend protection to individuals who find themselves in the power of a party to the conflict.Only a few go in the direction of authorizing certain forms of conduct that can be seen as restrictive of individual rights.And even these provisions in fact set limits on the conduct that parties to an armed conflict may engage in, effectively precluding them from taking action that goes beyond this sphere of permissible conduct.
For example, Article 5 authorizes parties to an international armed conflict to restrict the rights provided to persons protected by the Convention.It also underscores that such persons must nevertheless be treated humanely and must not be deprived of the rights of a fair and regular trial.In doing so, the provision sets clear and absolute limits on permissible derogations under the Convention. 137verall, the ratio of protective/restrictive versus permissive/enabling provisions in the Convention is overwhelmingly in favour of the former.This is clear from the structure of the Convention: aside from the general opening provisions and the closing provisions on the execution of the treaty, the core of the Convention (Articles 13-141 representing more than 80 per cent of the text) is found in two parts expressly directed to the protection of the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict (Part II, entitled 'General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War') and to the protection of a certain category of civilians designated as protected persons (Part III, entitled 'Status and Treatment of Protected Persons').The specific geographic and personal scope of application of these parts differs, 138 but common to them is the aim of enhancing the protection of individuals falling within their respective scope. 139135 See Section III.B above. 136See Section III.A.1 above. 137See further ICRC, Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (CUP, forthcoming) commentary on Article 5. 138 See, eg, N Nishat, 'The Structure of Geneva Convention IV and the Resulting Gaps in that Convention' in Clapham, Gaeta and Sassòli (n 55) 1069. 139For Part II specifically, see GC IV (n 3) art 13, which expressly states that provisions in the said Part of the Convention are 'intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war'.This is also clear from the language used across the Convention.When it speaks of individuals or their property, it uses almost exclusively adjectives indicative of protection such as 'respected',140 'protected'141 or 'entitled'. 142onversely, when it refers to the Parties to the conflict, it typically uses modal verbs characteristic of assigning obligations such as 'shall' or 'must'. 143This reflects a global post-World War II trend in IHL to grant rights directly to individuals, which correspond to obligations incumbent on States (and in some cases on non-State armed groups). 144rovisions that authorize States to take certain measures, such as the already mentioned Article 5, which allows for the derogation from certain rights of protected persons, or, to give other examples, rules authorizing the establishment of measures of control and security (including assigned residence and internment), 145 and the requisition or destruction of property by the Occupying Power, 146 are subject to strict conditions.The Convention makes it clear that they are exceptional in nature, while their role is to clarify and calibrate the necessary balance between humanity and military necessity.
To give another example, the regime of civilian internment elaborated in the Convention was meant to protect against the excesses of previous wars, during which civilians could be rounded up indiscriminately and detained without regard to their living conditions or ability to communicate with the outside world and thus be at risk, inter alia, of disappearance. 147Far from undermining the protective tenor of the Convention, the legal regime governing security measures thus contributes to the greater protection of civilians.
This understanding is also reflected in the scholarly literature. 148For example, Dinstein observes that 'the bulk of the instrument lends protectioneither exclusively or inter aliato the civilian population of occupied territories'. 149Similarly, Benvenisti highlights that 'the focus of attention' in the Convention is on 'the protection of the population in the enemy's hands'. 150The substantive core of the Convention is indeed strongly protective in nature, with certain carefully calibrated adjustments to reflect the legitimate security needs of the belligerents.

The other three Geneva Conventions
The context of a treaty includes 'any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty'. 151This means that the context for each Geneva Convention comprises the other three Conventions, adopted simultaneously at the same Diplomatic Conference. 152Examining each of their object and purpose thus informs the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The overall 'object and purpose' of the First Geneva Convention is to ensure respect for and protection of the wounded and sick, as well as the dead, in international armed conflict. 153The overall 'object and purpose' of the Second Geneva Convention is to ensure respect for and protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, as well as the dead, in international armed conflict at sea or other waters. 154The overall 'object and purpose' of the Third Geneva Convention is to ensure that prisoners of war are humanely treated at all times, while allowing belligerents to intern captured enemy combatants to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. 155he 'object and purpose' of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as outlined in this article, is consistent with the object and purpose of the other three Geneva Conventions of 1949.They all share a strong protective aim designed to improve respect for and the protection of the categories of persons they cover.Together they form a protective whole, encompassing all categories of individuals hors de combat.A recognition that the belligerents are allowed to impose certain measures of control and security is part of the object and purpose of the Third Geneva Convention, reflecting the fact that the treaty contains strong permissions for belligerents to intern captured enemy combatants in order to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. 156The Fourth Geneva Convention similarly establishes a regime of measures of control and security, for example internment if a civilian's convinced that the essential object of our Convention is effectively to prohibit the inhuman behaviour, one might say ferocity, with which the authorities of certain countries treated the civilians whom they had in their power' during World War II. 179ittle more needs to be said of the circumstances of the conclusion of the Fourth Geneva Convention.In general terms, the phrase 'circumstances of its conclusion' from Article 32 of the VCLT is understood to refer to the political, social, cultural and other factors surrounding a treaty's adoption. 180It is a trite observation, and one well confirmed by the contemporary statements referred to above, that the Convention was drafted and agreed on against the fallout of World War II and that it was designed to protect civilians against the recurrence of the horrors experienced.These were the circumstances of its conclusion, and they further confirm the protective purpose behind it.
By contrast to the richness of the preparatory work, the relevant subsequent practice of the parties to the Convention has been fairly scarce.The research for this article did not reveal any express statements by States Parties on this topic.181A possible avenue for such expressions is the submission by States of reservations to international treaties or their reactions to reservations submitted by other States, 182 as illustrated by examples from the context of other IHL treaties. 183A few reservations have been deposited in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, 184 but on none of these occasions did the acting States (whether those submitting a reservation or those reacting to one) expressly elaborate on what they considered the Convention's object and purpose to be. 185nternational and Comparative Law Quarterly Many States have incorporated the Geneva Conventions into their military manuals. 186However, such incorporations have also avoided specifying a given State's view on the object and purpose of the Conventions.For example, the 2004 UK military manual contains a sizable chapter on the 'Protection of Civilians in the Hands of a Party to the Conflict', which so closely mirrors the Fourth Geneva Convention that its introduction says that the treaty will be referred to only as the Convention. 187And yet, the manual does not attempt to delineate its object and purpose.To the best of the present authors' knowledge, no other military manual does so either. 188tates had a particular opportunity to enunciate a modern understanding of the goals underpinning the Convention at one of the three conferences of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention convened by Switzerland as the depositary of the Convention in 1999, 189 2001 190 and 2014. 191However, the outcome declarations of these conferences focused primarily on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and did not for the most part contain general pronouncements regarding the Convention. 192n exception in this regard was the 2001 declaration, which noted the agreement of the participating States that the Fourth Geneva Convention 'takes fully into account imperative military necessity'. 193Although not specifically expressing the Convention's object and purpose, the formulation confirms that the Convention, like the rest of IHL, reflects a balance between humanity and military necessity. 194The States participating in the 2001 conference thus reaffirmed that they viewed the protective aim of the Convention as realistic given that it was constructed by taking 'fully into account' the relevant military considerations. 195verall, the supplementary means of interpretation confirm the interim conclusion of the previous sections.There is no doubt that the drafters intended to endow the Convention with a strong protective core, which radiates throughout the entirety of the text.The subsequent practice of States does not cast doubt on this centre of gravity; rather, it confirms that the Convention's overwhelmingly protective approach reflects a pragmatic balance between humanitarian considerations and military necessity.

IV. CONCLUSION
Understanding the object and purpose of international treaties is crucial for their interpretation.Although it is only one element of interpreting the terms of a treaty, identifying a treaty's object and purpose is an indispensable step in the interpretation of its terms, one of the items on 'a set menu of which no course may be skipped'. 196Its weight relative to the other elements (including good faith interpretation, the ordinary meaning of the relevant terms, and their context) should not be overstated, but, equally, it should not be ignored.
For IHL treaties like the Fourth Geneva Convention, this process is as important as for any other treaties, but it does have certain specific features.Identifying the object and purpose of humanitarian treaties is in some respects easier, as these instruments are generally designed to enhance protection and reduce suffering in times of armed conflict.However, it is also complicated by the fact that every IHL instrument reflects a careful balance between humanity and military necessity.
This article has examined the contemporary meaning of the notion of a treaty's object and purpose and then applied it in the context of IHL.It outlined the methodology through which the 'object and purpose' of a particular treaty is determined, in light of the peculiarities posed by the jus cogens quality of IHL norms, the erga omnes character of the relevant treaties, and the all-permeating balance between humanity and military necessity.
On the basis of this analysis, it can be established that the overall 'object and purpose' of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to protect civilians during armed International and Comparative Law Quarterly conflict, including in circumstances where they are subject to permissible measures of control and security.This conclusion, based on a rigorous application of the methodology described above, is consistent with a long line of scholarship 197 and international case law. 198here dilemmas arise in determining the ordinary meaning of individual provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, resort to its object and purpose may prove helpful.One of the best-known examples arose in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.The question was whether allegiance can in certain cases constitute a sufficient legal basis for protected status under Article 4 of the Convention in addition to the nationality criterion. 199There is broad-though not universal-agreement that if a particular conflict takes place along ethnic, religious or similar lines, and such distinctive features become more important than nationality, counting allegiance towards identifying protected persons is consistent with the Convention's object and purpose. 200In these circumstances, individuals may exceptionally qualify for protected status even if they share the formal nationality of the State in whose hands they find themselves. 201o give another example, the fact that very few Protecting Powers have been appointed in international armed conflicts since 1949 presents a challenge to the application of Convention provisions that are premised on the existence of such a Power. 202The requirement in Article 61 that the distribution of relief in occupied territory must be carried out with the cooperation and under the supervision of the Protecting Power is a case in point.The absence of a State performing that role does not mean that the distribution cannot take place, as this would deprive the population of an occupied territory of humanitarian relief contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.To address this issue, the Occupying Power should, subject to security considerations, permit a neutral State or an impartial humanitarian body, such as the ICRC, to undertake the functions envisaged in Article 61. 203In practice, relief in occupied territory is indeed frequently distributed under the supervision of the ICRC and National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies, confirming that this interpretation-which draws on the object and purpose of the Convention-also reflects a pragmatic and realistic solution. 204s these examples show, the object and purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention has a concrete impact on how its terms are interpreted, giving insights into the ordinary meaning of the text and allowing the protective intent of the Convention to be fully realized. 205he Fourth Geneva Convention provides a practical and effective framework for the protection of civilians in international armed conflicts that retains its relevance even 75 years since its adoption.The article has demonstrated the importance of identifying its object and purpose and its practical relevance for resolving dilemmas that may arise in the interpretation of individual provisions of the Convention.It is the authors' hope that it will also contribute towards a generally shared, rigorous and workable approach to the interpretation of the Conventions, which is an essential aspect of ensuring effective protection of individuals in contemporary armed conflicts.
August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85 (GC II); Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135 (GC III); Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 (GC IV). 4 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 (Additional Protocol I); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609 (Additional Protocol II); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III) (adopted 8 December 2005, entered into force 14 January 2007) 2404 UNTS 261 (Additional Protocol III).International and Comparative Law Quarterly

76
See, eg, Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague (16 March 1998); Arrangement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America concerning US support for the transfer of UK-held detainees from UK detention to the Afghan authorities, Parwan (2 May 2013).See also the ICRC's study on customary IHL: JM Henckaerts and L Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol I: Rules (ICRC 2005). 77See, eg, UN Secretariat, 'Secretary-General's Bulletin: Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law' (6 August 1999) UN Doc ST/SGB/1999/13; European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) [2005] OJ C327/4. 78Tribunals have been established specifically to address violations of international law, including IHL.In addition, the International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute in 1998, has jurisdiction over certain serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, and the ICJ has also rendered decisions related to IHL, eg Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136 (Wall Advisory Opinion); and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226 (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion). 79See, eg, R Petit and N Jain, 'Preserving the Rule of Law in the Age of the "War on Terror": Lessons from the Experience of International Criminal Tribunals' (2008) 39 StudTransnatlLegalPol 67; ME O'Connell, 'Historical Development and Legal Basis' in D Fleck (ed), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (4th edn, OUP 2021) 10; E Policinski, 'Treaty Interpretation in the Fog of War: The Evolution of ICRC's Methodology' in P Merkouris and SI Lekkas (eds), Practice of Interpretation (OUP, forthcoming).But see L Hajjar, 'The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US "War on Terror"' (2019) 44(4) L&SocInquiry 922. 80R Kolb and K Del Mar, 'Treaties for Armed Conflict' in A Clapham and P Gaeta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (OUP 2014) 50, 79; M Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare (Edward Elgar 2019) 43. 81VCLT (n 10) art 53.
103 N Melzer, International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction (ICRC 2022) 19. 104Y Sandoz, C Swinarski and B Zimmerman (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of
50 I Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn, Manchester University Press 1984) 130. 51 But see Klabbers (n 30) para 7. 52 55 See, eg, F Kalshoven and L Zegveld, Constraints on the Waging of War: An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law (4th edn, CUP 2011) 66; K Schöberl, 'The Geographical Scope of Application of the Conventions' in A Clapham, P Gaeta and M Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (OUP 2015) 75; N Zamir, Classification of Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Impact of Foreign Intervention in Civil Wars (Edward Elgar 2017) 62.
84GC I-IV (n 3) common arts 6/6/6/7 and 7/7/7/8; and GC IV (n 3) art 47.See also G Abi-Saab, Joint Application Instituting Proceedings Concerning a Dispute under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands v The Syrian Arab Republic) (8 June 2023) para 7.