Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaipale | Hacker News Reader

GCIV, Article 3 i.e. the "Next" after your link is about conflicts within a country, in cases where the parties are not High Contracting Parties.

This is treated as customary international law, based on a UN Security Council conclusion in 1993 making it binding also for non-signatories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

For instance, break it anywhere in the world by killing civilians, and enter my country (say, as a refugee), and you'll be prosecuted if caught. There's even a recent example (a man got life sentence for what he did in Rwandan conflict; the life sentence here is practically something like 12 years).

View on HN

Interesting. I didn't realize the UN Security Council had passed such a resolution. Thanks.

I'm still not clear that this applies since our enemies do not meet the requirements outlined beyond being signatories (what with insignia and organized ranks etc). Article 3 also refers to conflicts not of an international nature. I'm not sure how that's interpreted. Is that civil wars? Or just wars involving non-state actors? The "war on terror" certainly has an international character.

You knew that 3 hours earlier, when I wrote this in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738620

[...]

Unlawful combatants don't have access to the rights under war laws, except Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (see quote below).

Hence, the question is not if you treat them as POWs or as civilians -- but if they have the protection of a POW at all.

-----

[This was my reference for the previous claims. The Wikipedia link go to the Convention. I earlier referenced the relevant US law and their Supreme Court, which also discuss this.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]

> You knew that 3 hours earlier, when I wrote this

First, no. You asserted it repeatedly without a compelling reference. Ptaipale provided a verifiable claim about the UN Security Council affirming that this had become international law. You linked to an article that happened to make a similar claim but had no reference to the UN Security Council decision (nor does the citation it references so far as I can see).

Second, I admitted a gap in my knowledge and your response was to come in and assert that you told me the same earlier (which you actually didn't). If the point of your arguing was to educate, this is a really poor technique. Don't respond to someone acknowledging a mistake/misunderstanding/knowlege gap by trying to make it about how "right" you are. It comes off as petty.

If a Wikipedia link with multiple good sources already in the introduction isn't enough for someone without a clue on a subject, I should have left the discussion.

My personal heuristic to avoid grief in the future: Don't discuss with anyone that dismiss Wikipedia without references... no, without having primary sources for references.

Thank you for that. The net and HN will be better for me.

(Edit: The UN and the UN Security council make resolutions all the time. I doubt a majority are followed. :-) E.g. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/17/world/fg-resolution1... )

Your wikipedia link doesn't cover the UN resolution, nor does the citation, which appears to be ICRC's commentary of the treaty. The article you linked does assert it, but without any significant support aside from the ICRC's commentary.

I'm glad I could help.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com