09.01.2015 Views

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

39<br />

applicable to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed<br />

conflict which may arise between two or more of the High<br />

Contracting Parties” or of armed conflict between a High<br />

Contracting Party and a “Power[] in conflict” that is not a<br />

High Contracting Party insofar as it “accepts and applies the<br />

provisions” of the Convention. 6 U.S.T. at 3318, 75 U.N.T.S.<br />

at 136. Al Qaeda indisputably is not a “High Contracting<br />

Party” that has ratified the Geneva Convention. Nor can al<br />

Qaeda qualify as a “Power[] in conflict” that could benefit<br />

from the Convention. The term “Power” refers to States that<br />

would be capable of ratifying treaties such as the Convention—something<br />

that a terrorist organization like al Qaeda<br />

cannot do. 14 And even if al Qaeda could be thought of as a<br />

“Power” within the meaning of the Convention, it has not<br />

“accept[ed] and applie[d] the provisions” of the Convention,<br />

but has instead openly flouted them by acting in flagrant defiance<br />

of the law of armed conflict. As a result, al Qaeda and its<br />

members are not entitled to the Convention’s protections. A<br />

contrary interpretation would discourage States from joining<br />

and honoring the Convention. 15<br />

14 See, e.g., G.I.A.D. Draper, The Red Cross Conventions 16 (1958) (arguing<br />

that “in the context of Article 2, para. 3, ‘Powers’ means States capable then<br />

and there of becoming Contracting Parties to these Conventions either by<br />

ratification or by accession”); 2B Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of<br />

Geneva of 1949, at 108 (explaining that Article 2, para. 3, would impose an<br />

“obligation to recognize that the Convention be applied to the non-Contracting<br />

adverse State, in so far as the latter accepted and applied the provisions<br />

thereof”).<br />

15 The conclusion that the Convention does not apply to conflicts with a<br />

terrorist network like al Qaeda is underscored by the fact that the United<br />

States has refused to ratify protocols that would extend the Geneva Convention<br />

to other types of conflicts and combatants. See Protocol Additional to the<br />

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of<br />

Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977, 1125<br />

U.N.T.S. 3; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,<br />

and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!