5cjxburmr

18.15.4 Lending of Good Offices to Assist in Dispute Resolution. The 1949 GenevaConventions contemplate that Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view tosettling disagreements between the parties to the conflict regarding protected persons,particularly in cases regarding the application or interpretation of the 1949 GenevaConventions. 170 Protecting Powers may propose to the parties to the conflict a representative ofa neutral Power or the ICRC to participate in the meeting. 171 This mechanism developed fromState practice during World War I. 172The 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention also contemplates that Protecting Powersshall lend their good offices in all cases where they may deem it useful in the interests of culturalproperty, particularly if there is disagreement between the parties to the conflict as to theapplication or interpretation of the provisions of the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Conventionor the Regulations for its execution. 173 The Director-General of the United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization can also have a role in this process. 17418.16 COMPENSATION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WARA State that is responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation tomake full reparation for the injury caused by that act. 175 This principle also applies to the law of170 See GWS art. 11 (“In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in casesof disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of thepresent Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement.”);GWS-SEA art. 11 (same); GPW art. 11 (same); GC art. 12 (same).171 See GWS art. 11 (“The Protecting Powers may, if necessary, propose for approval by the Parties to the conflict aperson belonging to a neutral Power, or delegated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who shall beinvited to take part in such a meeting.”); GWS-SEA art. 11 (same); GPW art. 11 (same); GC art. 12 (same).172 See GPW COMMENTARY 125 (“This idea of arranging a meeting of the representatives of the Parties to theconflict on neutral territory suitably chosen is very largely the result of experience gained during the First WorldWar, when such meetings, which were fairly frequent, led to the conclusion of special agreements on the treatmentof prisoners of war and on other problems of a humanitarian nature.”).173 REGULATIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CULTURAL PROPERTY CONVENTION art. 22(1) (“TheProtecting Powers shall lend their good offices in all cases where they may deem it useful in the interests of culturalproperty, particularly if there is disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application orinterpretation of the provisions of the present Convention or the Regulations for its execution.”).174 REGULATIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CULTURAL PROPERTY CONVENTION art. 22(2) (“For thispurpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invitation of one Party, of the Director-General of theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties tothe conflict a meeting of their representatives, and in particular of the authorities responsible for the protection ofcultural property, if considered appropriate on suitably chosen neutral territory. The Parties to the conflict shall bebound to give effect to the proposals for meeting made to them. The Protecting Powers shall propose for approvalby the Parties to the conflict a person belonging to a neutral Power or a person presented by the Director-General ofthe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which person shall be invited to take part insuch a meeting in the capacity of Chairman.”).175 U.N. International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,with commentaries, art. 1 (2001) (“Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the internationalresponsibility of that State.”); id. at art. 31(1) (“The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparationfor the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.”).1089