5cjxburmr

not recognized by them. 65 The de facto existence of an armed conflict is sufficient to triggerobligations for the conduct of hostilities. 66The United States has interpreted “armed conflict” in Common Article 2 of the 1949Geneva Conventions to include “any situation in which there is hostile action between the armedforces of two parties, regardless of the duration, intensity or scope of the fighting.” 673.4.2.1 Reasons for States to Seek to Deny the Existence of Hostilities. Stateshave specified that jus in bello rules apply even if a state of hostilities is not recognized by thembecause States have frequently denied that they are at “war.” And, in some cases, this denial hasresulted in a refusal to comply with jus in bello obligations. 6865 See, e.g., GWS art. 2 (The convention applies “to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict whichmay arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by them.”)(emphasis added); GWS-SEA art. 2 (same); GPW art. 2 (same); GC art. 2 (same); 1954 HAGUE CULTURALPROPERTY CONVENTION art. 18 (“the present Convention shall apply in the event of declared war or of any otherarmed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is notrecognized by one or more of them.”) (emphasis added); CCW art. 1 (“This Convention and its annexed Protocolsshall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for theProtection of War Victims,”).66 GPW COMMENTARY 22-23 (“There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for the recognition of theexistence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de factohostilities is sufficient.”). For example, Hugh J. Clausen & W. Hays Parks, Geneva Conventions Status of EnemyPersonnel Captured During URGENT FURY, DAJA-IA 1983/7031 (Nov. 4, 1983), III CUMULATIVE DIGEST OFUNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1981-1988 3452, 3454 (concluding “that de facto hostilitiesexisted on Grenada and that the Geneva Conventions do apply” despite the fact that “[n]o party to the hostilities inGrenada has suggested that a state of war exists; officials of Cuba and the United States publicly have announcedthey are not at war.”); George Aldrich, Assistant Legal Adviser for Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State,Entitlement of American Military Personnel Held by North Viet-Nam to Treatment as Prisoners of War Under theGeneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Jul. 13, 1966, X WHITEMAN’S DIGEST231-32 (§7) (“Although there have been no declarations of war, the present conflict in Vietnam is indisputably an‘armed conflict’ between parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. In one aspect of the war, American aircraft areoperating against military targets in North Vietnam, and North Vietnamese forces have engaged these aircraft.Under these circumstances, the Convention applies in its entirety to this conflict. … In this case, the state of war(under international law) is not disputed; it is merely undeclared.”).67 Department of State, Telegram 348126 to American Embassy at Damascus, Dec. 8, 1983, III CUMULATIVEDIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1981-1988 3456, 3457 (“The Third GenevaConvention accords ‘prisoner-of-war’ status to members of the armed forces who are captured during ‘armedconflict’ between two or more parties to the Convention. ‘Armed conflict’ includes any situation in which there ishostile action between the armed forces of two parties, regardless of the duration, intensity or scope of the fightingand irrespective of whether a state of war exists between the two parties.”). Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37, 40 (1800)(Washington, J., concurring) (“every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under theauthority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war.”).68 For example, United States, et al. v. Araki, et al., Majority Judgment, International Military Tribunal for the FarEast, 49,602, reprinted in NEIL BOISTER & ROBERT CRYER, DOCUMENTS ON THE TOKYO INTERNATIONAL MILITARYTRIBUNAL: CHARTER, INDICTMENT AND JUDGMENTS 535 (2008) (“Since the Government of Japan officiallyclassified the China War as an ‘Incident’ and considered Chinese soldiers in Manchuria as ‘bandits’ the Armyrefused to accord to captives taken in the fighting the status and the rights of prisoners of war. MUTO says that itwas officially decided in 1938 to continue to call the war in China an ‘Incident’ and to continue for that reason torefuse to apply the rules of war to the conflict. TOJO told us the same.”).82