Why did Bush go to Australia in summer 91 and remind them of obligation

[AP]

to assist the US in the event they US were attacked?

I finally figured this one out.

Because Australia isn't a signatory nation to the Geneva Convention. Australia has some incredibly deadly weapons in Iraq and they can do things with them that the US isn't allowed to do.

For example, the Geneva Convention, I understand, forbids signatory nations from shooting weapons with bores greater than 50 mm at anything but equipment. Australians, on the other hand, can shoot 50 mm weapons at people.

Sick, huh? We should have a law that prevents that.

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. I hate to break it to you...

...but Australia became a signatory of the Geneva Convention on the 9th of June, 1950.

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/leb/Genev.htm

This following article is about David Hicks, one of a couple of Aussies being held at Gitmo, but I thought you would be interested in this paragraph:

The Howard government’s contempt for basic democratic rights is underscored by the fact that its actions are in open breach of Australian law. As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, Australia has incorporated their requirements in the Criminal Code. Under the Code, it is illegal to deny anyone a “fair and regular trial” under the precise terms set out in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. It is an offence “if the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless” with regard to these violations. These offences are defined in the Code as “war crimes,” punishable by prison terms of 10 to 17 years.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/hick-j15.shtml

[AP]

2. Then they're breaking the law in Iraq. I heard ...

a US soldier from the Gulf War who's home on leave talk about the new weapons they have. He said the Australians have even better weapons because they aren't a signatory nation to the Geneva Convention.

Maybe he's confused and there's some other treaty the US has signed which Australia hasn't which allows Australia to shoot weapons greater than 50mm at people.

[foreigncorrespondent]

4. Australia isn't the only one breaking laws.

From what I remember, the U.S. led invasion is against the law as well. Am I wrong?

[AP]

5. Do you know from what authority comes the prohibiition against shooting

+50 mm guns at human beings?

If it comes from the Geneva Convention, I wonder why US soldiers are misinformed about this.

[AP]

6. By the way -- doing a little research -- it looks like there are at ...

...least four modern protocols enacted around 1949 supplementing the orginal G.C. of 1864, and an additional protocol in '77. It's not clear that Australia has ratified them all.

I suspect the soldier was right -- Australia hasn't ratified the provision regarding the kinds of weapons they can use against humans. That was probably the '77 protocol, which only half the nations in the world have ratified.

From the Red Cross web site:

From a modest beginning there  has been a series of international conferences to extend and develop international humanitarian law. The most important was the Geneva conference of 1949 which resulted in the revision of the first three Geneva Conventions (wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked armed forces at sea; prisoners of war) and the adoption of a fourth convention to protect civilians.



These have been ratified, or agreed to, by 190 nations and are legally binding upon their defence force personnel.



In 1977, at another Geneva conference, two additional Protocols were finalised and have since been adopted by over half the countries in the world. They extended the provisions of the four Conventions and introduced new principles of protection in the case of international and non-international (i.e. internal) armed conflicts.



The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols may be seen as almost 750 separate articles, often reflecting the need to reach a compromise between the differing views of the nations which drafted them. But the underlying principles can be simply stated:


dignity of all individuals must be respected at all times
everything possible must be done, without any form of discrimination, to reduce the suffering of those who take no direct part in the conflict or are no longer engaged in the conflict because of sickness, injury or captivity
the Conventions and Protocols are the rules applicable to specific circumstances in situations of armed conflict - they are essentially a list of 'dos' and 'don'ts'.

http://www.redcross.org.au/aboutus_history_international_default.htm

[AP]

7. Here's the relevant protocol:

Protocols of 8 June 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument">Protocol I), of 8 June 1977;

See art 35, and subsequent articles.

Now, let's see if Australia is a signatory to this one.

[AP]

8. Here's what Australia said about Protocol I:

Declaration made upon signature:

"The Australian Embassy wishes to advise the Federal Political Department that the Australian Government is undertaking careful study of the interpretation of the provisions of Protocol I and their implications for the legitimate conduct of national defence and reserves the right to make declarations and reservations upon ratification."

SOURCE: UNTS, vol.1125, 1979, p.429.

Declarations made at the time of ratification.

In depositing its instrument of ratification for Protocol I, Australia hereby makes declarations of understanding in relation to Articles 5, 44 and 51 to 58 inclusive of the said Protocol.

It is Australia's understanding that in relation to Article 5, with regard to the issue whether, and in what measure, Protecting Powers may have to exercise any functions within the combat zone (such as may be implied by provisions in Parts II and IV of the Protocol), the role of the Protecting Power will be of a like character to that specified in the First and Second Conventions and Part II of the Fourth Convention, which apply mainly to the battlefield and its immediate surroundings.

It is the understanding of Australia that in relation to Article 44, the situation described in the second sentence of paragraph 3 can exist only in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by paragraph 4 of Article 1. Australia will interpret the word "deployment" in paragraph 3(b) of the Article as meaning any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched. It will interpret the words "visible to the adversary" in the same paragraph as including visible with the aid of binoculars, or by infra-red or image intensification devices.

In relation to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive it is the understanding of Australia that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks, necessarily have to reach their decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources, which is available to them at the relevant time.

In relation to paragraph 5(b) of Article 51 and to paragraph 2(a)(iii) of Article 57, it is the understanding of Australia that references to the "military advantage" are intended to mean the advantage anticipated from the military attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of that attack and that the term "military advantage" involves a variety of considerations including the security of attacking forces. It is further the understanding of Australia that the term "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated", used in Articles 51 and 57, means a bona fide expectation that the attack will make a relevant and proportional contribution to the objective of the military attack involved.

It is the understanding of Australia that the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 52 is not intended to, nor does it, deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective.

SOURCE: Notification by the depositary addressed to the ICRC on 24 June 1991.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/db8c9c8d3ba9d16f41256739003e6371/10312b4e9047086ec1256402003fb253?OpenDocument

[AP]

10. ...

Here are the only ones they've signed:

Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Procès-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930. London, 6 November 1936.

Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954.

Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1974-1977.

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 25 May 2000

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebPAYS?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=10.2#10.2

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. No, they've ratified both protocols

The US, on the other hand, hasn't; so I guess your soldier was thinking of something else.

[iverglas]

13. you're confusing ratification and signature

(See my other post.)

Signature is the preliminary step -- a sort of agreemeng in principle.

Ratification is the step by which a state agrees to be bound by the provisions of an international treaty.

It is the US, not Australia, that is not a full-fledged party to the Protocols. You are seeing the US under "States signatories", and not Australia, because Australia is listed under "States parties", e.g. here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=52.1#52.1

.

[iverglas]

15. now look at the ones Australia has *ratified* :) (edited)

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebPAYS?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=10.1#10.1

Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare. Washington, 6 February 1922.

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, (Part IV, Art. 22, relating to submarine warfare). London, 22 April 1930.

Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal. London, 8 August 1945.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

Convention on the prohibition of military or any hostile use of environmental modification techniques, 10 December 1976.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989.

Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993

Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention as amended on 3 May 1996)

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980. Amendment article 1, 21 December 2001.

and maybe compare to the US:
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebPAYS?OpenView&Start=124&Count=150&Expand=231.1#231.1

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864

Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868.

Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

Convention (III) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

Convention for the Exemption of Hospital Ships, in Time of War, from The Payment of all Dues and Taxes Imposed for the Benefit of the State. The Hague, 21 December 1904.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906.

Convention (III) relative to the Opening of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (XI) relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare. Washington, 6 February 1922.

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925.

Convention on Maritime Neutrality. Havana, 20 February 1928.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929.

Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, (Part IV, Art. 22, relating to submarine warfare). London, 22 April 1930.

Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). Washington, 15 april 1935.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

Convention on the prohibition of military or any hostile use of environmental modification techniques, 10 December 1976.

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention as amended on 3 May 1996)

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 25 May 2000

The noteworthy (to some) differences between the list are the presence on the Australian list of Protocols I and II, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and their absence on the US list.
on edit -- and the 1997 land mines convention, of course.

.

[iverglas]

11. Australia is indeed a *party* to it

The US is not:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView&Start=52.1.97&Count=150&Expand=52.1#52.1

The US is a *signatory* to it:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView&Start=52.1.97&Count=150&Expand=52.2#52.2

Declaration by the US:

Declaration made upon signature:

"1. It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by this Protocol were not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.

"2. It is the understanding of the United States of America that the phrase "military deployment preceding the launching of an attack" in Article 44, paragraph 3, means any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched."

Signing a convention is the initial step; ratifying (acceding to) it is the binding step.

The US (along with Iran, Morocco, Pakistan and Philippines, the others listed as signatories) has apparently not ratified this one. Ditto for Protocol II (except that Philippines has ratified).

The US has therefore apparently not agreed to be bound by Protocols I and II, while Australia has.

.

[AP]

14. I wonder if one of these dozens of treaties

has a specific reference to the kinds of weapons this soldier was talking about.

He definitely said the Australians have some of the deadliest weapons because they aren't bound by "the Geneva Convention."

[iverglas]

9. the ICRC Geneva Conventions website

ICRC = International Committee of the Red Cross; good bookmarks:

Treaties and Customary International Humanitarian Law, for example.

Treaties database: http://www.icrc.org/ihl

Listing by treaties: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView

For instance: States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebNORM?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=55.1#55.1
- include US and Australia

(Without searching through the treaties, one wouldn't know where the provision you're referring to would be found - and I just don't have the time!)

The 1977 Protocols are:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

-- with information also accessible at the "Listing by Treaties" page -- there is also a "Listing by States" option at the database page, or in the menu on the left of the "Listing by Treaties" page.

.

[htuttle]

3. Well, I saw a film of an US Apache helicopter cutting a man in half

...With a very large armor-piercing gun. It was on one of the networks, and was a bit controversial when it came out, since it also showed the helicopter shredding a unarmed wounded man laying on the ground.

Having a 'rule' against something never stopped the US before.