better late than never

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

LOL. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

In noticed you didn't bold the "in their mutual relations" part--the operative part. You don't understand much do you? What that says is that, if one of many powers to a conflict is not a signatory, all of the remainder of the signatories must still honor the Conventions among themselves--the signatories. Thus, if Russia, France, the U.S., and Al Quaeda are all at war, and the U.S. takes a Russian POW, it must treat the Russian prisoner as a POW under the GC. No one must treat the Al Qaeda terrorist as a POW under the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are not a theme or a poem about goodness. They are treaties, making them contractual provisions with specific obligations by which the parties to the contract, after thoughtful deliberation (in the U.S., a constitutional ratification process), agree to be bound. They are not decrees of general justness according to the fleeting desires of U.S. lefties.

The 3rd Geneva Convention clearly provides for an opt-in regime. It is the “high contracting parties” to the agreement who are required to honor the terms with respect to the other high contracting parties. Others that have not signed the treaty may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the GC's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. Al Qaeda has not done so.

Learn to read.

Finally found time to get back to this.

After researching this more, I see that you're right about the binding power of the Conventions. Since both the signatory and the non-signatory parties were named in this sentence, "in their mutual relations" appeared to refer to them both. But I see that in practice and general interpretation, that's not the case. I didn't realize this at first, but better late than never.

The Conventions are obviously contractual obligations. However, their stated purpose and intent has nothing to do with anyone's fleeting desires or whimsical intentions, whether conservative or liberal. The Conventions promote "justness" as you put it, through the mandate for impartial tribunals and the general improvement in the care and treatment of prisoners, civilians, relief agencies (like the Red Cross and Red Crescent) and others.

More specifically, the Convention covers civilians in occupied territories like Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians from any country in the way, militias, anyone who picks up arms thinking (even mistakenly) to defend their homes, POWs, and "unlawful combatants". They are all covered by the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions. Yes, even "Unlawful combatants" in Al Qaeda are covered until an impartial tribunal defines them as such, and even then they have rights (though fewer than a POW under the Convention).