5cjxburmr

3.1.1 DoD Practice of Applying Law of War Rules Even When Not TechnicallyApplicable. DoD policy and doctrine make clear the importance of compliance with,implementation of, and enforcement of the law of war. 6In addition, DoD practice has often been to act consistently with law of war rules, even incertain cases where these rules might not technically be applicable as a matter of law. Thismeans, for example, that DoD practice has often been to act consistently with a particular law ofwar treaty rule, even if that rule might not apply as a matter of treaty law. Moreover, DoDpractice has sometimes been to adhere to the standards in the law of war, even in situations thatdo not constitute “war” or “armed conflict,” because these standards in the law of war reflectlegal standards that must be adhered to in all circumstances (i.e., whether there is a state ofarmed conflict or not).3.1.1.1 Reasons for Acting Consistent With a Treaty Rule, Even Though theTreaty Does Not Apply. DoD practice has often been to act consistently with a treaty rule, evenif that rule might not apply as a matter of treaty law. First, it may be appropriate to actconsistently with the terms of a treaty (even as applied in dealings with a non-Party to a treaty)because the general principles of the treaty have been determined to be declaratory of customaryinternational law. 7 In such cases, practice that is consistent with the treaty’s terms with regard toa particular matter likewise would be in compliance with applicable customary international law.In addition, it may be important to act consistently with the terms of the treaty becausethe treaty represents “modern international public opinion” as to how military operations shouldbe conducted. 8 Other policy considerations, including efficacious training standards or closerelations with coalition partners, may lead to a policy decision that DoD practice should beconsistent with a particular law of war treaty rule, even if that rule does not apply to U.S. forcesas a matter of law.3.1.1.2 Applying Law of War Standards as Reflecting Minimum Legal Standards.DoD practice also has been to adhere to certain standards in the law of war, even in situationsthat do not constitute “war” or “armed conflict,” because these law of war rules reflect standardsthat must be adhered to in all circumstances. Applying these standards provides assurance that6 Refer to § 18.1.1 (DoD Policy on Implementing and Enforcing the Law of War).7 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) Foreword (“Moreover, even though States may not be parties to, or strictlybound by, the 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1929 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners ofWar, the general principles of these conventions have been held declaratory of the customary law of war to which allStates are subject. For this reason, the United States has adopted the policy of observing and enforcing the terms ofthese conventions in so far as they have not been superseded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions which necessarilygovern the relations between the parties to the latter (see pars. 6 and 7 of the text).”).8 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 7a (“These treaty provisions are in large part but formal and specificapplications of general principles of the unwritten law. While solemnly obligatory only as between the partiesthereto, they may be said also to represent modern international public opinion as to how belligerents and neutralsshould conduct themselves in the particulars indicated. For these reasons, the treaty provisions quoted herein will bestrictly observed and enforced by United States forces without regard to whether they are legally binding upon thiscountry. Military commanders will be instructed which, if any, of the written rules herein quoted are not legallybinding as between the United States and each of the States immediately concerned, and which, if any, for thatreason are not for the time being to be observed or enforced.”).71