5cjxburmr

8.1.4.2 Article 75 of AP I and Relevant AP II Provisions. Article 75 of AP Ireflects fundamental guarantees for the treatment of persons detained during international armedconflict. Although not a Party to AP I, the United States has stated that the U.S. Governmentwill choose out of a sense of legal obligation to treat the principles set forth in Article 75 asapplicable to any individual it detains in an international armed conflict, and expects all othernations to adhere to these principles as well. 16 This statement was intended to contribute to thecrystallization of the principles contained in Article 75 as rules of customary international lawapplicable in international armed conflict. 17AP II also contains provisions that expand on Common Article 3’s protections forpersons held for reasons related to non-international armed conflict. Although the United Stateshas not ratified AP II, President Reagan submitted AP II to the Senate for its advice and consentto ratification, and the Executive Branch has urged the Senate to act as soon as practicable on APII, noting further that reviews have determined that relevant U.S. military practices are consistentwith AP II. 188.1.4.3 U.S. Domestic Law and National Policy. In addition to international law,the requirements in this Chapter are also based on the requirements of applicable U.S. statutes,such as the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, or national policy, such as the requirements statedin applicable Executive Orders.8.1.4.4 Analogous GPW and GC Provisions. In some cases, analogous provisionsof the GPW and the GC may also be helpful in understanding the baseline rules for detention.For example, it may be appropriate to apply the principles of the GPW and GC, even when therelevant provisions do not apply as a matter of law. 1916 See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet: New Actions on Guantánamo and DetaineePolicy, Mar. 7, 2011 (“Article 75 of Additional Protocol I, which sets forth fundamental guarantees for persons inthe hands of opposing forces in an international armed conflict, is similarly important to the international legalframework. Although the Administration continues to have significant concerns with Additional Protocol I, Article75 is a provision of the treaty that is consistent with our current policies and practice and is one that the UnitedStates has historically supported. Our adherence to these principles is also an important safeguard against themistreatment of captured U.S. military personnel. The U.S. Government will therefore choose out of a sense oflegal obligation to treat the principles set forth in Article 75 as applicable to any individual it detains in aninternational armed conflict, and expects all other nations to adhere to these principles as well.”).17 Harold Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Richard G. Lugar,Libya and War Powers: Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 112th Congress, FirstSession, 53, 57 (Jun. 28, 2011) (“As a matter of international law, the administration’s statement is likely to bereceived as a statement of the U.S. Government’s opinio juris as well as a reaffirmation of U.S. practice in this area.The statement is therefore also likely to be received as a significant contribution to the crystallization of theprinciples contained in Article 75 as rules of customary international law applicable in international armed conflict.… The U.S. statement, coupled with a sufficient density of State practice and opinio juris, would contribute tocreation of the principles reflected in Article 75 as rules of customary international law, which all States would beobligated to apply in international armed conflict.”).18 Refer to § 19.20.2.1 (The United States and AP II).19 For example, George W. Bush, Memorandum: Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees 5 (Feb. 7,2002) (“I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forcesrequiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity,in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”).490