5cjxburmr

e appropriate to apply the GWS and GWS-Sea rules for the respectful treatment and handling ofenemy military dead to all persons. 126 Other examples of law of war rules and situations inwhich it may be appropriate to apply those rules by analogy include: (1) applying jus in bellorules in certain situations involving neutral or non-belligerent States; (2) applying law of warrules with a humanitarian purpose in situations outside the context of armed conflict; (3)applying occupation law provisions for the protection of the civilian population in situations notconstituting belligerent occupation; and (4) applying certain international armed conflict rules insituations of non-international armed conflict.3.7.2.1 Jus in Bello Rules and Situations Involving Neutral or Non-BelligerentStates. Although States developed jus in bello rules to address relations between enemies, somejus in bello rules may be applied by analogy to other situations, such as relations between abelligerent and a neutral or between co-belligerents. For example, a belligerent might takefeasible precautions to protect the civilian population of a neutral or co-belligerent State from itsmilitary operations, even though such actions might not be required by the law of war. 127 Inaddition, although the GC excludes certain persons from the definition of protected person basedon their nationality, it may be appropriate to afford such persons the standards of treatment forprotected persons. 1283.7.2.2 Law of War Rules and Military Operations Outside the Context of ArmedConflict. Because law of war rules often reflect elementary considerations of humanity, it maybe appropriate to apply such standards to military operations occurring outside the context ofarmed conflict. 1293.7.2.3 Occupation Law and Situations Not Constituting Belligerent Occupation.Occupation law may also provide a useful framework for certain situations to which it may notbe strictly applicable. 130 For example, it may be appropriate for a State that liberates its ally’s126 Refer to § 7.7 (Treatment and Handling of Enemy Military Dead).127 For example, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS PACIFIC AIR FORCES, DIRECTORATE OFOPERATIONS ANALYSIS, Project CHECO [Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations] Report,Rules of engagement, November 1969-September 1972 (Mar. 1, 1973), reprinted in CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS3011, S3014 (Mar. 18, 1985) (“The Cambodian incursion plan was a closely held secret timed to coincide with thePresident’s announcement. It was not until 27 April [1970] that 7AF was told to start definitive planning. Thus,there was no time to coordinate a new set of ROE for [neutral] Cambodia. Instead 7AF instructed its pilots to followthe normal rules for South Vietnam and to exercise extreme vigilance to avoid dropping ordnance on thenoncombatant populace.”); Franklin Roosevelt, message to Winston Churchill, reprinted in WINSTON CHURCHILL,CLOSING THE RING 467-68 (1985) (“I share fully with you your distress at the loss of life among the Frenchpopulation incident to our air preparations for ‘Overlord’. I share also with you a satisfaction that every possiblecare is being and will be taken to minimise civilian casualties. No possibility of alleviating adverse French opinionshould be overlooked, always provided that there is no reduction of our effectiveness against the enemy at thiscrucial time. However regrettable the attendant loss of civilian lives is, I am not prepared to impose from thisdistance any restriction on military action by the responsible commanders that in their opinion might militate againstthe success of ‘Overlord’ or cause additional loss of life to our Allied forces of invasion.”).128 Refer to § 10.3.3 (Categories of Nationals Specifically Excluded From the Definition of Protected Person Underthe GC).129 Refer to § 3.1.1.2 (Applying Law of War Standards as Reflecting Minimum Legal Standards).130 Refer to § 11.1.3 (Application of Occupation Law to Situations Not Constituting Belligerent Occupation).93