5cjxburmr

personnel responsible to higher authority, and not private persons acting on individualinitiative. 161The authority of the commander over his or her subordinates gives rise to acorresponding duty to ensure that the armed group’s members conduct their operations inaccordance with the law of war. 1624.6.4 Having a Fixed Distinctive Sign Recognizable at a Distance. Members of thearmed group should display a fixed distinctive sign or other device recognizable at a distance.The essence of this requirement is that members of the armed group are distinguishable from thecivilian population. 163 By helping to ensure that members of the armed group can be visuallydistinguished from civilians, this requirement helps protect the civilian population from beingerroneously made the object of attack. 1644.6.4.1 Distinctive Sign. The requirement does not specify a particular sign oremblem that persons must wear. 165 Wearing a military uniform satisfies this condition.However, a full uniform is not required. 166 The sign suffices if it enables the person to be161 1958 UK MANUAL 91 (“The first condition, ‘to be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates,’ isfulfilled if the commander of the corps is regularly or temporarily commissioned as an officer or is a person ofposition and authority, or if the members are provided with certificates or badges granted by the government of theState to show that they are officers, or soldiers, so that there may be no doubt that they are not partisans acting ontheir own responsibility. State recognition, however, is not essential, and an organisation may be formedspontaneously and elect its own officers.”).162 Refer to § 18.23.3 (Command Responsibility).163 See GREENSPAN, MODERN LAW OF LAND WARFARE 59 (“Soldiers must be dressed in such a fashion that they areclearly distinguishable from the general population as members of the armed forces.”).164 See Abraham Sofaer, Legal Adviser, Department of State, The Rationale for the United States Decision, 82 AJIL784, 786 (1988) (“Inevitably, regular forces would treat civilians more harshly and with less restraint if theybelieved that their opponents were free to pose as civilians while retaining their right to act as combatants and theirPOW status if captured.”). For example, LEVIE, POWS 50 footnote 187 (“In Vietnam individuals who wereapparently civilian noncombatants (women, children, working farmers, etc.) would approach American servicemenin seeming innocence and then suddenly toss a hand grenade at them. After a very few such incidents the soldiersunderstandably came to distrust all civilians while they were in the field and frequently took definitive action uponsuspicion and without waiting to ascertain the facts. Thus, the original illegal actions taken by the guerrillassubsequently endangered the members of the civilian population who, as noncombatants, were entitled to beprotected in their status.”) (internal citations omitted).165 See GPW COMMENTARY 52 (“The drafters of the 1949 Convention, like those of the Hague Conventions,considered it unnecessary to specify the sign which members of the armed forces should have for the purposes ofrecognition. It is the duty of each State to take steps so that members of its armed forces can be immediatelyrecognized as such and to see to it that they are easily distinguishable from … civilians.”).166 See, e.g., 1958 UK MANUAL 92 (“The second condition, relating to a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at adistance, would be satisfied by the wearing of a military uniform, but something less than a complete uniform willsuffice.”); 1914 RULES OF LAND WARFARE 33 (“The distinctive sign. – This requirement will be satisfied by thewearing of a uniform or even less than a complete uniform.”); SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS ON LAND 57 (“The ‘distinctiveemblem’ does not mean a uniform.”). Cf. ICRC AP COMMENTARY 468 (1577) (“What constitutes a uniform, andhow can emblems or nationality be distinguished from each other? The Conference in no way intended to definewhat constitutes a uniform … . ‘[A]ny customary uniform which clearly distinguished the member wearing it froma non-member should suffice.’ Thus a cap or an armlet, etc. worn in a standard way is actually equivalent to auniform.”).123