5cjxburmr

the standards adhered to equal or exceed those required. This practice has been reflected in DoDpolicies to comply with the law of war, or to comply with the spirit and principles of the law ofwar, during military operations outside the context of armed conflict. 9Certain prohibitions and certain other rules in the law of war that reflect customaryinternational law have been described as reflecting “elementary considerations of humanity.” 10These “elementary considerations of humanity” have been understood to be “even more exactingin peace than in war.” 11 Thus, these legal standards, at a minimum, must be adhered to in allcircumstances.In particular, Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions reflects a minimumyardstick of humane treatment protections for all persons taking no active part in hostilities,including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors decombat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause. 12 The standards in Common Article3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions may be understood to reflect minimum humane treatmentstandards for detainees in any military operation, including those during international or noninternationalarmed conflict or occupation, and those military operations that are not addressedby the law of war. Additional rules will apply depending on the particular context. For example,the United States has supported adherence to the guarantees in Article 75 of AP I duringinternational armed conflict. 139 See DOD DIRECTIVE 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program, 4.1 (May 9, 2006, Certified Current as of Feb. 22,2011) (“Members of the DoD Components comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however suchconflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations.”); DOD DIRECTIVE 5100.77, DoD Law of WarProgram, 5.3 (Dec. 9, 1998) (“The Heads of the DoD Components shall: 5.3.1. Ensure that the members of theirDoD Components comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized,and with the principles and spirit of the law of war during all other operations.”). Refer to § 18.1.1 (DoD Policy onImplementing and Enforcing the Law of War).10 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 257 (79) (“It isundoubtedly because a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to therespect of the human person and ‘elementary considerations of humanity’ as the Court put it in its Judgment of 9April 1949 in the Corfu Channel case (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22), that the Hague and Geneva Conventions haveenjoyed a broad accession. Further these fundamental rules are to be observed by all States whether or not they haveratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of internationalcustomary law.”).11 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (“The obligationsincumbent upon the Albanian authorities consisted in notifying, for the benefit of shipping in general, the existenceof a minefield in Albanian territorial waters and in warning the approaching British warships of the imminent dangerto which the minefield exposed them. Such obligations are based, not on the Hague Convention of 1907, No. VIII,which is applicable in time of war, but on certain general and well-recognized principles, namely: elementaryconsiderations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war; the principle of the freedom of maritimecommunication; and every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to therights of other States.”).12 Refer to § 8.1.4.1 (Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions).13 Refer to § 8.1.4.2 (Article 75 of AP I and Relevant AP II Provisions).72