10.07.2015 Views

5cjxburmr

5cjxburmr

5cjxburmr

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The 1899 Hague II was followed by Hague IV, which replaces the 1899 Hague II asbetween Parties to Hague IV. 95 Not all the States that ratified the 1899 Hague II have alsoratified Hague IV. 9619.8.2 Hague IV. States sought to expand upon and clarify provisions of 1899 Hague IIand the 1899 Hague II Regulations through the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws andCustoms of War on Land of October 18, 1907 (Hague IV), and annexed Regulations (Hague IVRegulations). 97The United States deposited its instrument of ratification to Hague IV on November 27,1909. 98 19.8.2.1 Hague IV and Customary International Law. Provisions of Hague IVand Hague IV Regulations have been found to reflect customary international law. 99For example, Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations, which provides a standard forwhen the law of belligerent occupation applies, is regarded as customary international law. 100Convention the ratifications of the said Convention were deposited at the Hague … on the 5th Day of April, 1902,by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the United States of America:”).95 Refer to § 19.8.2.2 (Relationship Between the 1907 Hague IV and the 1899 Hague II).96 ADAM ROBERTS & RICHARD GUELFF, DOCUMENTS ON THE LAWS OF WAR 68-70 (3rd ed., 2000) (“[The 1907Hague Convention] was intended to replace 1899 Hague Convention II as between states parties to both agreements.However, of the forty-six states which had become parties to the 1899 Convention, eighteen did not become partiesto the 1907 Convention … . They or their successor states … remained formally bound by the 1899 Convention.”).97 Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 STAT. 2277, 2279 (TheContracting Parties “[h]ave deemed it necessary to complete and explain in certain particulars the work of the FirstPeace Conference, which, following on the Brussels Conference of 1874, and inspired by the ideas dictated by awise and generous forethought, adopted provisions intended to define and govern the usages of war on land.”).98 William H. Taft, Proclamation Regarding the Hague IV, Feb. 28, 1907, 36 STAT. 2277, 2309 (“And whereas thesaid Convention has been duly ratified by the Government of the United States of America, by and with the adviceand consent of the Senate thereof, and by the Governments of Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Denmark, Germany, GreatBritain, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Salvador, and Sweden, and the ratifications of the said Governments were,under the provisions of Article 5 of the said Convention, deposited by their respective plenipotentiaries with theNetherlands Government on November 27, 1909;”).99 See, e.g., United States, et al. v. Göring, et al., Judgment, I TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THEIMT 253-54 (concluding that “by 1939 these rules laid down in [Hague IV] were recognized by all civilized nations,and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war”); United States v. Krupp et al., IX TRIALSOF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 1340 (concurring in judgment “that the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 towhich Germany was a party had, by 1939, become customary law and was, therefore, binding on Germany not onlyas treaty law but also as customary law.”); United States v. von Leeb, et al. (The High Command Case), XI TRIALSOF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 535-38 (concluding that provisions of Hague IV Reg and 1929 GPWreflected customary international law relating to the treatment of prisoners of war); United States, et al. v. Araki, etal., Majority Judgment, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 48,491, reprinted in NEIL BOISTER &ROBERT CRYER, DOCUMENTS ON THE TOKYO INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL: CHARTER, INDICTMENT ANDJUDGMENTS 102 (2008) (explaining that although certain treaties, such as Hague IV and Hague V, might not beapplicable by their terms, “the Convention remains as good evidence of the customary law of nations, to beconsidered by the Tribunal along with all other available evidence in determining the customary law to be applied inany given situation.”).1144

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!