5cjxburmr

government-in-exile or for a government that had ceased to exist. 127 Such a government wouldprovide the right authority for its regular armed forces to participate in the ongoing war and toreceive POW status upon capture by the enemy. 128 Members of those forces were sometimesdenied POW status by an enemy State, even though other States recognized the group to whichthey belonged as a co-belligerent force. 1294.5.4 Persons Belonging, or Having Belonged, to the Armed Forces of an Occupied State.Under Article 4B(1) of the GPW, persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces ofan occupied State should be treated as POWs if, while hostilities are continuing outside occupiedterritory, the Occupying Power considers it necessary, by reason of their allegiance to the armedforces, to intern them. 130Article 4B(1) of the GPW seeks to address the proper status of an army demobilized bythe Occupying Power while a portion of those same armed forces continue the struggle. Whenthe forces are demobilized, they are treated as civilians, but when recalled for internment basedon their prior service, they are treated as POWs. 131 In particular, States developed this provisionto address Germany’s practice during World War II of arresting demobilized military personnelfrom occupied States. 132 These personnel were often interned and sought to escape to join theongoing fighting. This provision was promulgated to ensure that individuals in similarPW status. The Commission approved the ICRC’s proposal that these armed forces should enjoy PW status,irrespective of the Government or authority under whose orders they might claim to be.”).127 II-A FINAL RECORD OF THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE OF GENEVA OF 1949 415 (“Mr. Lamarle (France) realizedthat cases might arise where combatants claiming allegiance to an authority which was not recognized by theDetaining Power might be deprived of the benefit of the Convention; but he thought the word ‘authority’ affordedsufficient safeguards to such combatants. After an exchange of views on the subject, the Committee agreed that theword ‘authority’ afforded sufficient safeguards to combatants claiming allegiance to Governments which had ceasedto exist.”).128 Refer to § 1.11.1.1 (Competent Authority (Right Authority) to Wage War for a Public Purpose).129 Refer to § 3.3.3.3 (Recognition of Friendly Armed Groups as Lawful Belligerents).130 GPW art. 4B(1) (“(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if theoccupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originallyliberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons havemade an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, orwhere they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.”).131 GPW COMMENTARY 69 (“In fact, as one delegate to the Conference pointed out, the question relates to the properstatus of an army demobilized by the Occupying Power, while a portion of those same armed forces continue thestruggle. It is logical to treat its members as civilians until such time as they are recalled in order to be interned; butfrom that moment, it is equally logical to treat them as prisoners of war.”).132 See GPW COMMENTARY 68 (“During the Second World War, the Occupying Power, for security reasons,frequently arrested demobilized military personnel in occupied territory, especially officers. These men weregranted prisoner-of-war status but usually only after repeated representations by the International Committee of theRed Cross and the Governments concerned. In the report which the International Committee prepared for theGovernment Experts, it therefore proposed that the entitlement of such persons to prisoner-of-war status should beexplicitly mentioned and the Conference supported this suggestion.”). For further historical background see LEVIE,POWS 66-67, II-A FINAL RECORD OF THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE OF GENEVA OF 1949 431-32, and the noteappended to In re Siebers, Special Court of Cassation, Feb. 20, 1950, The Hague, in 1950 INTERNATIONAL LAWREPORTS, 399-400.117