5cjxburmr

impartiality distinguishes these humanitarian organizations from those with an allegiance to aparty to the conflict, such as national red cross societies. 4934.26.2 Consent of the Parties to the Conflict Concerned. The activities of the ICRC orother impartial humanitarian organizations in a State’s sovereign territory, or in the area of aState’s military operations, are subject to the consent of that State. 494 The requirement of Stateconsent is based on the State’s sovereign right to control access to its territory and a belligerent’sright to control access to its military operations or territory it occupies. 495 For example,members of impartial humanitarian organizations, like other civilians, may be removed from thevicinity of military objectives for their protection. 496States may grant access on a case-by-case basis; access granted to one impartialhumanitarian organization does not constitute entitlement of access for other humanitarianorganizations. Impartial humanitarian organizations that have been granted access must also actwithin the terms of this consent. 497 For comparison, the activities of the Protecting Power arealso subject to the consent of the affected States. 4984.26.2.1 Impartial Humanitarian Organizations – Conditions on Access. Statesmay attach conditions to their consent, including necessary security measures. For example, inthe past, armed groups have sometimes attempted to use humanitarian organizations as cover forparticipation in hostilities. 499 In addition to legitimate military considerations, other493 Refer to § 4.11 (Authorized Staff of Voluntary Aid Societies).494 U.S. Comments on the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Memorandum on the Applicability ofInternational Humanitarian Law in the Gulf Region, Jan. 11, 1991, DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE ININTERNATIONAL LAW 1991-1999 2057, 2066 (“The obligations set forth in this paragraph generally are subject tothe consent of the parties to the conflict, as noted in Article 9 of the GPW and 10 of the GC. Although the U.S.historically has called upon the ICRC to assist it in implementation of the provisions of the 1949 GenevaConventions, ultimately any decision to seek assistance of the ICRC or any other humanitarian organization issubject to the consent of the parties to the conflict in general and the host nation in particular.”).495 Refer to § 5.19.1.1 (Belligerent Authority to Exercise Control in the Immediate Vicinity of Military Operations);§ 11.4.1 (Right of the Occupying Power to Govern the Enemy Territory Temporarily).496 Refer to § 5.14.2 (Removing Civilians and Civilian Objects From the Vicinity of Military Objectives).497 See U.S. RESPONSE TO ICRC CIHL STUDY 520 (“We do not believe that rule 31, as drafted, reflects customaryinternational law applicable to international or non-international armed conflicts. The rule does not reflect theimportant element of State consent or the fact that States’ obligations in this area extend only to HRP [HumanitarianRelief Personnel] who are acting within the terms of their mission - that is, providing humanitarian relief. To theextent that the authors intended to imply a ‘terms of mission’ requirement in the rule, the authors illustrated thedifficulty of proposing rules of customary international law that have been simplified as compared to thecorresponding treaty rules.”).498 Refer to § 18.15.3 (Activities of the Protecting Power).499 U.S. RESPONSE TO ICRC CIHL STUDY 519-20 (“For example, during the 1982 Israeli incursion into Lebanon,Israel discovered ambulances marked with the Red Crescent, purportedly representing the Palestinian Red CrescentSociety, carrying able-bodied enemy fighters and weapons. This misconduct reportedly was repeated during the2002 seizure of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity by members of the terrorist al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. …Military commanders also have had to worry about individuals falsely claiming HRP [humanitarian relief personnel]status, as happened in Afghanistan when some members of Al Qaeda captured while fighting claimed to be workingfor a humanitarian relief organization. These examples demonstrate why States, in crafting treaty provisions on thistopic, have created a ‘terms of mission’ condition for HRP in a way that rule 31 fails to do.”).177