5cjxburmr

conflict. 52 Similarly, States negotiated and adopted AP I and AP II at the same diplomaticconference, and the omission from AP II of restrictions present in AP I may, to some extent,reflect States’ views that such restrictions were not applicable in non-international armedconflict. 5317.2.2.3 Application of IAC Rules by Analogy. If an action is not prohibited bythe law of war applicable to international armed conflict, it generally would not be prohibited bythe law of war applicable to non-international armed conflict.For example, analogous provisions of the GPW and GC may be helpful for understandingthe baseline standards in international law for detention because the baseline standards applicableto all detainees during armed conflict (e.g., Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions)are not more favorable than the treatment and protections applicable to POWs and civilian52 See, e.g., II OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE OF PLENIPOTENTIARIES ONTHE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 157-58 (A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, 33-34) (2002)(“33. Mr. van der Wind (Netherlands), acting as Coordinator of part 2 of the draft Statute, said that the definitionof war crimes was divided into four sections, of which sections A and B concerned norms applicable in internationalarmed conflict and sections C and D those applicable in internal armed conflict. … 41. Under section D,subparagraph (f), the options were very similar to those proposed in section B, subparagraph (t), the differences inwording stemming from the fact that the norms applicable to international armed conflict and the sources used weresomewhat different, as could be seen, for example, in options 2 and 3 which referred to armed forces or groups, andin the reference to allowing children to take part.”).53 See, e.g., XIV OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 67 (CDDH/III/SR.8, 67-72) (“Mr. ALDRICH (United Statesof America) said that article 46 was important for giving general guidance to military commanders in the conduct oftheir operations. … His delegation supported the amendments to article 26 of draft Protocol II in documentCDDH/III/36. It was inappropriate to include the same detailed provisions in a protocol on non-international armedconflicts as in one on international armed conflicts.”); XIV OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 179(CDDH/III/SR.20, 53) (Mrs. DARIIMAA (Mongolia) said that the Working Group should consider the differencesbetween article 28 of draft Protocol II and the corresponding article of draft Protocol I, since the practices and rulescurrent in international and internal law were not the same. Unless that was taken into account, the Protocol wouldbe inapplicable and might open the way to various forms of interference in the internal affairs of State.”); XIVOFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 73 (CDDH/III/SR.9, 14) (“Mr. BLISHCHENKO (Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics) said that he wished to reply to certain delegations which had expressed the desire to see the samerevisions in article 26 of draft Protocol II and in article 46 of draft Protocol I. He pointed out that there weredifferences between international and internal conflicts. With regard to the latter, it was essential to make rules thateveryone could accept.”); XV OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 460 (Committee III Report, CDDH/407/Rev.1,40) (“The Committee was also aided in its task by the somewhat similar word done at the third session of theConference by Committee I with respect to draft Protocol II. As a matter of drafting, the Committee adopted thetexts of those parts of Articles 6 and 10 of draft Protocol II which it decided to include in Article 65. The ruleapplied was that the same text would be used unless there was reason for changing it inherent in the differencesbetween international and non-international armed conflicts.”); XI OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 248(CDDH/II/SR.25, 16-18) (“Mr. IJAS (Indonesia) said that his delegation understood the concern of those whoobjected to draft Protocol II on the grounds that some of its provisions interfered in the internal affairs of States andwere contrary to the principle of national sovereignty. … The provisions of Part III of draft Protocol II should notreproduce automatically those of the corresponding part of draft Protocol I, since they are concerned with differenttype of armed conflict. For example, article 16, paragraph 3 could give rise to serious problems if it was left as itstood.”); XIV OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE CDDH 312 (CDDH/III/SR.32, 15) (“Mr. WOLFE (Canada), referring tohis delegation’s amendment (CDDH/III/221), said that he thought it was dangerous to try to introduce in draftProtocol II a notion of perfidy which was only valid in international conflicts and very difficult to apply in internalconflicts.”).1020