5cjxburmr

inadvertent actions might also put those vessels at increased of harm (e.g., if enemy forcesmistakenly believe that the vessel is acting deliberately to impede their movements). 303For example, hospital ships and coastal rescue craft belonging to one State must notinterfere with opposing forces’ efforts to capture shipwrecked personnel, nor otherwise interferewith enemy military operations. 304 Therefore, hospital ships and coastal rescue craft should notengage in such activities lest they forfeit the special protection afforded by the GWS-Sea.Special agreements between the opposing forces, however, may provide protection to shipsengaged in search, rescue, or other recovery missions.7.12.2.4 Merchant Vessels Transformed Into Hospital Ships. Merchant vesselsthat have been transformed into hospital ships cannot be put to any other use throughout theduration of hostilities. 3057.12.2.5 Acceptance of the Risk From Proximity to Combat Operations. Duringand after an engagement, such vessels will act at their own risk. 306 A hospital ship or coastalrescue craft operating in proximity to combat operations assumes a certain risk of damage as aresult of lawful enemy operations, including misidentification by enemy or friendly forces.7.12.2.6 Control and Search of Hospital Ships and Coastal Rescue Craft. Theparties to the conflict shall have the right to control and search military hospital ships,commissioned civilian hospital ships, authorized neutral civilian hospital ships, and costal rescuecraft mentioned in Articles 22, 24, 25, and 27 of the GWS-Sea, respectively. 307 They may refuse303 GWS-SEA COMMENTARY 179-80 (“During an engagement, hospital ships must not hamper the movements ofother vessels, and the authors might have added that they must not get in the line of fire. Any deliberate breach ofthe present provision would constitute an act harmful to the enemy, in the sense of Article 34, and the hospital shipcommitting it would then lose its right to protection under the Convention, according to the procedure laid down inthat clause. If, on the other hand, it had not acted with intent, the case would then be very close to that dealt with inthe following paragraph, which should be referred to. The hospital ship would not lose its right to protection, but itwould in fact be deprived of security.”). Refer to § 7.12.2.5 (Acceptance of the Risk From Proximity to CombatOperations).304 SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WAR RIGHTS 361-62 (“German Red Cross rescue vessels.—In August a furtherattempt was made by the German Government to apply to the Red Cross to a purpose never contemplated in theConvention of 1929. It notified His Majesty’s Government, through the Swiss Government, that it proposed tomake use of a number of vessels—sixty-four in all—marked with the Red Cross to rescue airmen who came down inthe sea. His Majesty’s Government replied that the use of such vessels would interfere with the conduct of naval andmilitary operations and could not be accepted. It then went on to refer to Germany’s attacks on British hospitalships and to the sinking of the Maid of Kent, Brighton and Paris. ‘His Majesty’s Government do not place their ownboats employed in rescuing airmen under the Red Cross, even though they have on several occasions beendeliberately attacked by the Germans while actually engaged in saving both British and German airmen, and theyregard the claim of the German Government to invest rescue boats with the privileges of the Red Cross as whollyinadmissible.’ It may be added that such privileges were never claimed for the Walrus amphibians or the otherR.A.F. machines employed in the Air/Sea Rescue Service.”).305 GWS-SEA art. 33 (“Merchant vessels which have been transformed into hospital ships cannot be put to any otheruse throughout the duration of hostilities.”).306 GWS-SEA art. 30 (“During and after an engagement, they will act at their own risk.”).307 GWS-SEA art. 31 (“The Parties to the conflict shall have the right to control and search the vessels mentioned inArticles 22, 24, 25 and 27.”).457