Civilian rights during war. International legal protection of civilians and victims of war

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) was signed on August 12, 1949 and came into force in 1950. It consists of 4 sections, 159 articles and applications.

According to the convention, in the event of a declared war or other armed conflict between the parties to the agreement, the parties guarantee that persons who do not directly take part in hostilities (including military personnel who have laid down their arms or stopped fighting due to illness, injury, etc.) , will in all circumstances be treated humanely without any discrimination. In addition, the convention prohibits attacks on life and human dignity, torture, hostage-taking, and extrajudicial killings. Nationals of any State not bound by this Convention shall not be protected by it. Citizens of any neutral state located on the territory of one of the belligerent states, and citizens of any co-belligerent state will not be considered as protected persons so long as the state of which they are citizens has normal diplomatic representation in the state in power which they are located. Persons who are protected by the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, or the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked in Armed Forces at Sea, or the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 on the treatment of prisoners of war, will not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of this Convention. If, in occupied territory, an individual protected by the Convention is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a lawful suspect of activities threatening the security of the Occupying Power, that person may be deprived of the communications rights granted by this Convention. The provisions of this document concern the entire population of countries in conflict, without any discrimination, in particular on grounds of race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and should help to alleviate the suffering caused by war. Even in peacetime, the Contracting Parties, and after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties to the conflict, may create on their own territory, and, if necessary, on occupied territories, sanitary and safe zones and areas, organized in such a way as to protect them from the effects of war the wounded and sick, the disabled, the elderly, children under 15 years of age, pregnant women and mothers with children under 7 years of age. Each Party to the conflict will contribute to efforts to search for the dead and wounded, to provide assistance to shipwrecked persons and other persons in grave danger, and to protect them from robbery and ill-treatment. Civilian hospitals established for the care of the wounded, sick, disabled and women in labor may under no circumstances be the object of attack, but will at all times enjoy the respect and protection of the Parties to the conflict. The patronage to which civil hospitals are entitled can only cease if they are used not only for their humanitarian purposes, but also for the commission of acts directed against the enemy.

The same respect should be given to transport vehicles intended for transporting the wounded, disabled and women in labor, and aircraft for the same purposes.

Every person located on the territory of a Party to the conflict or on territory occupied by it will be able to inform members of his family, wherever they are, as well as receive from them information of a purely family nature. This correspondence will have to be sent quickly and without undue delay. Protected persons have the right, in all circumstances, to respect for their person, honor, family rights, religious beliefs and practices, habits and customs. They will be treated humanely at all times and, in particular, will be protected from any acts of violence or intimidation, from insults and the curiosity of the crowd. Women will be specially protected from any attack on their honor and, in particular, from rape, forced prostitution or any other form of attack on their morality. No coercive measures, either physical or moral, should be applied to protected persons, in particular, for the purpose of obtaining information from them or from third parties. Any protected person who wishes to leave the territory at the beginning or during the conflict will have the right to do so if his departure is not contrary to the public interests of the country. In all cases, protected persons can receive benefits from their homeland, from the patronizing power. An order for the internment or compulsory settlement of protected persons in a particular place can be given only if this is absolutely necessary for the security of the Power in whose power they are located. Protected persons who are in occupied territory will in no case or in any way be deprived of the benefits of this Convention. Hijacking for any reason whatsoever is prohibited, as is the deportation of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to the territory of any other state. Any destruction by the occupying power of movable or immovable property that is the individual or collective property of private individuals or the State is prohibited.

Civilian population- these are persons who do not belong to any category of participants in an armed conflict and do not directly participate in hostilities. Legal protection of civilians carried out in conflicts of both an international and non-international nature. The parties to the conflict are obliged take all measures to ensure that children under 15 years of age, those orphaned or divorced from their families due to war, are not abandoned (Article 24 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War ). Cannot be applied to civilians no measures of physical or moral pressure in order to obtain any information.

Do not apply physical suffering or take any measures that will lead to the death of the civilian population (murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation, medical, scientific experiments, starvation among civilians as a method of warfare, terror, robbery, hostage-taking, other violence by civilian or military representatives parties to the conflict). The civilian population and individual civilians must not be the target of attack. It is prohibited to use civilians to defend specific objects, points or areas of attack.

Civil objects should not be the object of attacks and reprisals, violent actions and prohibited means and methods of conduct should not be used against them war. In particular, they must not be attacked or destroyed structures containing dangerous forces (dams, dams, nuclear power plants), objects necessary for the survival of the civilian population (livestock, crops, food, water supplies and means of obtaining and purifying it), other unprotected and non-military objects.

Military occupation regime. Military occupation- is the temporary seizure of the territory (Part of territory) of one state by the armed forces of another state and the establishment of military administration in the captured territory. The military occupation of any territory does not mean its transition under the sovereignty of the state; it has been captured.

According to the provisions of the IV Hague Convention of 1907 p., IV Geneva Convention of 1949, Additional Protocol I, the occupying power is obliged to take all measures to ensure order in the occupied territory. The population of the occupied territory must obey the orders of the authorities, but they cannot be forced to take an oath of allegiance to the occupying power, to participate in hostilities directed against their state, or to bear witness to the army of the latter. The honor, dignity, life of civilians, their property, religious beliefs, and families must be respected. The occupying state must provide the civilian population with necessary clothing, food and sanitary materials.

In the 20th century The world has experienced two world wars, which were unprecedented in terms of loss of life and damage. The development of technology, the invention and improvement of new types of weapons have led to the accumulation on earth of an arsenal that would be enough to completely destroy several planets like ours.

Already from the second half of the 19th century. The process of consolidating international law aimed at protecting people suffering from disasters caused by armed conflict has begun. These norms are proclaimed by international documents, which together form the basis of modern international humanitarian law.

The process of developing conventions took a long historical period. In 1864 - 1906 - 1929, the Geneva Conventions were adopted “to improve the lot of the wounded and sick in armies in the field.” The Hague Conventions were adopted in 1899 and 1907.

After the Second World War, four main instruments of international humanitarian law were adopted, which significantly strengthened the protection of victims of armed conflicts:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949;

II Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of ​​August 12, 1949;

In 1977 the provisions of these conventions were expanded by two additional protocols:

Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) of 8 June 1977;

Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II) of 8 June 1977.

In addition to the Geneva ones, there are also the Hague International Conventions, adopted at the 1st (3 conventions) and 2nd (13 conventions) peace conferences in The Hague in 1899 and 1907. The Hague Conventions contain provisions on the peaceful resolution of international disputes, on the opening of hostilities, neutrality, the protection of civilians, and the regime of prisoners of war. But I think that the name “peaceful” is not entirely appropriate, because... The focus of both conferences was not on how to eliminate wars, but on what rules to conduct them.

Art. Section 27 of Section 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, referred to as “STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PROTECTED PERSONS” establishes that protected persons have the right in all circumstances to respect for their person, honor, family rights, religious beliefs and rituals, habits and customs. They will be treated humanely at all times and, in particular, will be protected from any acts of violence or intimidation, from insults and the curiosity of the crowd.

Women will be specially protected from any attack on their honor, and in particular from rape, forced prostitution or any other form of attack on their morality.

Subject to provisions relating to health, age and sex, the party to the conflict in whose power the protected persons are concerned will treat them all equally, without any discrimination, in particular on grounds of race, religion or political opinion.

However, with respect to these persons the parties to the conflict may take such control or security measures as may be necessary as a consequence of the war.

Subsequently, the Hague and Geneva Conventions were violated more than once during wars, so I believe it is necessary to create a mechanism for enforcement policy that minimizes violations of international humanitarian law.

General protection of the civilian population from the dangers arising from military operations is only possible if belligerents can distinguish civilians from those directly involved in hostilities (combatants).

International humanitarian law requires parties to conflict to always distinguish between civilians and combatants and to take all possible precautions to spare civilians. At the same time, if the civilian population is provided with conditions of protection from violence and attacks from the enemy, this presupposes that they are not participating in the conflict.

Modern international humanitarian law prohibits acts of violence or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to terrorize civilians.

International humanitarian law provides for restrictions on the means and methods of conducting military operations. The main principle of warfare is that the right of the parties to a conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

Progress in the creation of new means of warfare requires constant improvement of the legal framework for their use. International humanitarian law, the main documents of which have been ratified by almost all states of the world, limits the right of parties to use certain methods and means of warfare and obliges everyone who takes part in hostilities to follow the rules governing relations between parties to an armed conflict and to ensure protection to those who do not take part in it.

All persons not taking a direct part or no longer taking part in hostilities, whether their freedom is restricted or not, have the right to respect for their person, their honor, their convictions and their religious observances. In all circumstances they shall be treated humanely and without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to give an order not to leave anyone alive.

2. Without prejudice to the general provisions stated above, the following actions towards the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are and will remain prohibited at any time and in any place:

a) attacks on the life, health, physical and mental state of persons, in particular murder, as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;

b) collective punishments;

c) taking hostages;

d) acts of terrorism;

e) outrages upon human dignity, in particular degrading and insulting treatment, rape, forced prostitution or indecent assault in any form;

f) slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;

g) robbery;

h) threats to commit any of the above actions.

3. Children are provided with the necessary care and assistance, and in particular:

a) they receive education, including religious and moral education, in accordance with the wishes of their parents or, in the absence of parents, of those persons responsible for their care;

b) all necessary measures are taken to facilitate the reunification of separated families;

c) children under fifteen years of age shall not be recruited into armed forces or groups and shall not be permitted to take part in hostilities;

d) the special protection provided for by this article in respect of children under fifteen years of age shall continue to apply to them if they take a direct part in hostilities, contrary to the provisions of subparagraph (c), and are captured.

(e) if necessary and if possible with the consent of their parents or persons who, by law or custom, have primary responsibility for their care, arrangements shall be made for the temporary evacuation of children from the area of ​​hostilities to a safer area within the country, and their release shall be ensured their persons responsible for their safety and well-being.

Progress in the creation of new means of warfare requires constant improvement of the legal framework for their use. For example, the use of asphyxiating gases during the First World War led to awareness of the special danger of this type of weapon and its prohibition in 1925.

Adopted at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. documents relating to the limitation of means and methods of warfare, as new types of weapons emerged, were supplemented by the provisions of conventions, mainly aimed at prohibiting bacteriological and chemical weapons or means of influencing the environment.

Restrictions on methods and means of warfare include:

Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks

The purpose of this limitation is to exclude the use of those methods and types of weapons that do not have sufficient precision to make the necessary distinction between military objectives and civilian populations and objects, as well as those whose impact cannot be limited in time and space.

Prohibition of attacks that are likely to cause civilian damage or settlements

Geneva Protocol on the prohibition of the use in time of war of asphyxiating, toxic or similar gases and bacteriological weapons of June 17, 1925 there, which would be excessive in relation to the specific and direct military advantage that the attackers intend to obtain.

This provision also applies to landmines. Mines are the deadliest weapon today. They strike blindly and inflict severe suffering and injury on their victims. Within a radius of 30 m they kill, within a radius of 100 m they maim. Most mine victims are civilians. Many mines are designed in such a way that they are almost impossible to neutralize; most do not have a self-destruct mechanism. They are extremely difficult to detect. They are often installed in quantities that do not correspond to military necessity. It is when conflicts end that mines truly begin their deadly work. Experts have calculated that on average there is one landmine for every 20 children in the world.

Anti-personnel mines laid during World War II continue to kill and maim people today, 55 years after its end. One of the main obstacles in organizing mine clearance is its cost. Disabling a mine that cost $3 to produce can cost $1,000.

Show concern for the protection of the natural environment during military operations.

Modern security concept environment suggests that in the conduct of hostilities, care must be taken to protect the natural environment from widespread, long-term and serious Damage in order to preserve the health or survival of the population. Thus, in 1976, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Coercion was adopted. natural environment. It banned the use of incendiary weapons against forests and other green spaces.

Prohibition of using civilian starvation as a method of warfare. Objects essential to the survival of the civilian population (e.g. food supplies, crops, livestock, drinking water supplies and supplies, irrigation structures, etc.) must not be attacked, destroyed, removed or rendered unusable.

Prohibition of military actions based on treachery. Acts of perfidy are considered to be actions aimed at deceiving the enemy and making him believe that he has the right to protection or is obliged to provide such protection, according to the norms of international humanitarian law.

Therefore, the deliberate misuse of generally recognized emblems (red cross and red crescent, white flag, protective emblem of cultural property and other generally accepted protective signs) is prohibited. It is also prohibited, during attack or defense or to cover military operations, the use of national symbols (flags, military emblems, uniforms, etc.) of the enemy, as well as national symbols and emblems of states that are not parties to the conflict.

International humanitarian law, the main documents of which have been ratified by almost all states of the world, limits the right of parties to use certain methods and means of warfare and obliges everyone who takes part in hostilities to follow the rules governing relations between parties to an armed conflict and to ensure protection to those who do not take part in it.

· The convention “on the prohibition of air warfare” has not been adopted, because many military objects are disguised as civilian ones and are often concentrated near civilian objects. During an aerial bombardment or aerial strafing, it is almost impossible to hit only a military target without hitting a civilian one.

LEGAL SCIENCES

P.G. Zverev

Ph.D. legal Sciences, Department of General Legal Disciplines, Kaliningrad Branch of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Russian Federation»

GENEVA CONVENTION RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATION IN TIME OF WAR, 1949: ON THE LAWS OF OCCUPATION IN THE LIGHT OF UN INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Annotation. The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of the IV Geneva Convention on the Laws of Occupation. A conclusion is drawn about their importance for peacekeeping operations.

Keywords: United Nations, peacekeeping operations, laws of occupation.

P.G. Zverev, Kaliningrad Branch of the Saint-Petersburg University of the MIA of Russia

THE GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR

1949 ON THE ISSUE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN THE LIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL UN PEACEKEEPING

Abstract. The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of the IV Geneva Convention on the law of occupation.

Keywords: United Nations, peace operations, law of occupation.

The Geneva (IV) Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (GC IV) mainly focuses on the relationship of the occupying power with the population of the occupied territory and, in particular, on the legal status of the latter. For this reason, it contains a large number of rules dedicated to the protection of “protected persons”. Art. 4 of the Convention defines as such “persons who, at a certain time and in a certain manner, are in a situation of conflict or occupation in the power of one of the parties to the conflict or of an occupying power of which they are not nationals.”

Part I section III(“Status and Treatment of Protected Persons”) contains rules governing the status and treatment of protected persons living on the territory of the parties to the conflict and the occupied territory. Art. 27 of this section lists some guarantees of the status of these persons. A detailed commentary on this article is given by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which defines it as “the basis of the entire Convention, proclaiming the principles of the entire “law of Geneva””.

Other rules establishing the basis for treatment of this category of persons are contained in Art. 31 and 33 of the Convention. Modern peacekeeping operations constantly interact with individuals on the territory of the host state, so rules for dealing with them are extremely important. The standards provided for by GC IV are legally useful, but are formulated in the most general terms and thus represent a very limited practical guide. In addition, the Convention itself, in particular its Art. 5 and 27 provide exceptions to the general rule. For example, Art. 27 states that “parties to a conflict may take such security and control measures in relation to protected persons as may be necessary in conditions of war.”

One important aspect of the treatment of individuals during peacekeeping operations is detention. This is perfectly illustrated by the so-called program initiated in 2007 by the Danish government. The “Copenhagen Process”, the purpose of which was to find a multilateral solution to the problems arising when detaining persons during international

people's military operations. There is a clear need for guidelines on this issue. It seems that a number of provisions of GC IV could become just such guiding principles. Of particular interest in this regard is the experience of Australia's peacekeeping activities in East Timor.

The Australian Forces applied a number of occupation laws by analogy in developing detention procedures for the International Force in East Timor. Application has been found, in particular, of Art. 70 and 76 ZhK IV. Among other articles of the Convention that can be used as the basis for guidelines, one should mention Art. 45, 68 and 78. In particular, Art. 68 and 78, according to the laws of occupation, provide the legal basis for detention. Obviously, these articles can be used as a legal basis for internment in cases where the laws of occupation are applied de jure (Latin de iure “legally”, “according to law”). In other cases, they may simply be useful for specifying the provisions of the peacekeeping operation's mandate relating to detention.

Often, the mandate, determined by a UN Security Council resolution, contains the phrase that the operation can use “all necessary means.” This phrase is the shortest formula for authorizing the use of necessary and proportionate force to achieve the objectives established in the mandate. The right to use force also includes the power to detain persons. However, the mere mention given in the resolution does not clarify how detention should be carried out.

Art. 45 GC IV talks about the transfer of detainees. Among other things, it provides that protected persons may be transferred by the power in whose power they are located only after that power is satisfied that the other power to which the persons are transferred is willing and able to apply GC IV. Art. 45 also provides that a protected person may under no circumstances be transferred to a country in which he would fear persecution on account of his political or religious opinions.

In the practice of peacekeeping operations, there are often cases of transfer of detainees to third parties, which causes a lot of controversy on this issue. The Netherlands, for example, has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Afghan authorities on the transfer and treatment of detainees. The memorandum was based, in particular, on Art. 45 ZhK IV.

Section IV of the GC IV contains a long list of rules for the treatment of detained persons. This list is very relevant for peacekeeping operations, especially for situations where persons are detained for a long period of time. Both human rights law and international humanitarian law require humane treatment of detainees. In addition to the legal aspect itself, humane treatment is also a moral requirement, and for this reason the treatment of detainees is subject to public and political control in troop-contributing States. Mistreatment of detainees can undermine public support for peacekeeping operations. GC IV's rules on the treatment of detainees provide useful standards for military commanders in peacekeeping operations to ensure humane treatment, even if these standards do not constitute a legal obligation within a peacekeeping operation.

Changes affecting the government institutions of the occupied territory during the period of occupation should not negatively affect the rights and freedoms of the local population. After all, if there is no occupation, there are no restrictions on the legal status of an individual. This allows us to conclude that the application of a number of norms of GC IV is organically connected with the issue of the state of occupation in the zone of a particular peacekeeping operation.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the laws of occupation are intended to regulate the same or similar situations in which peacekeeping operations are established and conducted. Consequently, on their basis, useful recommendations (instructions) can be developed for military leaders of peacekeeping contingents, even in conditions where de jure the laws of occupation are not applied.

Bibliography:

1. Zverev P.G. The effect of the laws of occupation in the context of UN peacekeeping operations // Current problems of the humanities and natural sciences. - 2014. - No. 3 (62).

2. Zverev P.G. Complementarity of human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of UN peacekeeping operations [Electronic resource] // Law of Obligations: electronic scientific journal. - 2013. - No. 2 (3). - P. 3-8. - URL: http://www.law-of-obligations.ingnpublishing.com

3. Zverev P.G. The First Copenhagen Process on the Treatment of Detainees during International Military Operations // Young Scientist. - 2014. - No. 3 (62).

4. Zverev P.G. Implementation of the right to detention during peacekeeping operations: organizational and legal aspects // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 2. - P. 581-584.

5. Commentary: the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War / ed. by J. Pictet. - ICRC, 1958. - P. 199-200.

6. Oswald B. Detention in Military Operations; Some Military, Political and Legal Aspects // Evue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre Operational. - 2007. - Vol. 46. ​​- P. 341.

V.V. ALESHIN, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor History shows that it took hundreds and even thousands of years before mechanisms were formed that protected the civilian population from the atrocities of war. In ancient times, the enemy was viewed as a being without rights, in relation to whom any action was allowed (moreover, the very concept of “enemy” had many meanings). The civilian population was not protected from violence.

This article was copied from https://www.site

V.V. ALESHIN,

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor

History shows that it took hundreds and even thousands of years before mechanisms were developed to protect civilians from the atrocities of war. In ancient times, the enemy was viewed as a being without rights, in relation to whom any action was allowed (moreover, the very concept of “enemy” had many meanings). The civilian population was not protected from violence. If the winner spared the civilian population of the enemy state, he did so for moral and political reasons, and not according to legal requirements. Scientists of that time considered two main provisions: firstly, all subjects of warring states should be considered enemies; secondly, the vanquished submit to the arbitrariness of the winner.

The immunity of civilians was secured only in 1907 by the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (hereinafter referred to as the Hague Convention). Currently, in addition to this convention, issues of protection of civilians are defined by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the IV Convention), as well as additional protocols to the 1949 conventions.

For more than 40 years, the Hague Convention remained the only treaty source of international law related to the protection of civilians, as it contained a number of important provisions distinguishing between the army and the civilian population during war, establishing the immunity of the latter from hostilities and defining the legal regime of military occupation.

The gross violation of the rights of civilians by Nazi Germany during the Great Patriotic War necessitated the development of new, more universal norms aimed at protecting the civilian population from the consequences of armed conflicts. It is no coincidence that the IV Convention exclusively regulates the protection of civilians during war.

However, after the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions in 1949, armed conflicts in the world did not stop. Over time, the means and methods of warfare became more advanced and sophisticated. Conflicts began to arise more often, in which regular armed forces were opposed by armed opposition units, and civilians were subjected to terror, intimidation, and were also used to achieve various political goals. Such hostilities were accompanied by significant losses among the civilian population. This situation required updating existing international legal acts.

At a diplomatic conference in 1977, two additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were adopted, which, in particular, significantly improved the methods of protecting civilians.

The international obligation of belligerents to distinguish between those who take a direct part in an armed conflict and those who do not is the main content of modern international law applied in armed conflicts. However, the establishment of such an obligation in itself is not a sufficient legal condition for ensuring effective protection of the civilian population without clarifying the legal content of the object of protection, that is, without defining the concepts of “civilian population” and “civilian”.

A rather narrow definition of such concepts is contained in the IV Convention, the protection of which includes persons who, at any time and in any manner, in the event of an armed conflict or occupation, are in the power of a party to the conflict or of an occupying power of which they are not nationals. are. The document contains a number of exceptions to the provision of Convention protection. Protection is not provided: firstly, to citizens of any state not bound by the provisions of this Convention; secondly, to the citizens of any neutral state and of any other belligerent state, so long as the state of which they are citizens has diplomatic relations with the state in whose power they are; thirdly, to persons protected by the I, II and III Conventions of 1949, i.e. the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, members of the armed forces, as well as prisoners of war.

Thus, the scope of application of Convention IV is limited to the provision of protection to those civilians who, at any time and under certain circumstances, find themselves, in the event of an armed conflict or occupation, in the power of another belligerent State.

This restrictive approach existed until 1977. Additional Protocol I to the Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, established several additional and progressive innovations. According to Part 1 of Art. 50 of Protocol I “a civilian is any person who is not a member of the armed forces, militias and volunteer units spontaneously formed into armed groups to fight invading enemy forces.” In this capacity, such persons are protected by international law. S.A. Egorov rightly notes that civilians do not have the right to take part in hostilities. Those who violate this prohibition must bear in mind that they will lose protection and that force will be used against them.

Protocol I says nothing about members of illegal armed groups during internal armed conflicts. In our opinion, such persons, openly or secretly opposing the legitimate authorities, cannot be classified as civilians. In this regard, the first sentence of Part 1 of Art. 50 of Protocol I, it is advisable to add the following words: “and also not belonging to illegal armed groups during the period of internal armed conflict.”

If there is any doubt about a person's status, Protocol I recommends that the person be considered a civilian. We believe this is a rather controversial approach. Of course, the relevant authorities of each state take the necessary measures to check specific individuals for their involvement in committing illegal actions. It seems that it is important to consolidate this approach in an international document. In this regard, the second sentence of Part 1 of Art. 50 of Protocol I should be supplemented with the following words: “In necessary cases, the competent authorities of the state, in the manner prescribed by national law, carry out verification of persons suspected of their involvement in the commission of illegal actions. If it is established that such persons are involved in committing illegal actions, they are not considered as civilians.”

Protocol I does not define the civilian population, but states that it consists of those who are civilians. It is especially noted that the presence among the civilian population of individuals who do not fall under the definition of civilians does not deprive that population of its civilian character. It follows from the meaning of this provision that the civilian population can be deprived of the right to protection only if among them there are members of armed detachments or combat armed units.

International law provides for the provision of different levels of protection and certain security regimes to the civilian population, and provides both general and special legal protection from the consequences of hostilities. General protection is provided to all civilians regardless of age, political opinions, religious beliefs, etc.

Speaking about the provision of special protection, one should agree with the reasoning of V.V. Furkalo, who writes that its provision is associated with the increased vulnerability of certain categories of protected persons (children, women) in armed conflicts or is explained by their special role in providing assistance to the civilian population and ensuring their survival during hostilities (medical personnel).

To date, only isolated studies have been conducted in the field of legal protection of children during armed conflicts, so it is advisable to consider this issue in detail.

The general protection of children is fully consistent with the general protection provided to all protected persons. In particular, children should not be the target of attacks. In all circumstances, belligerents are prohibited from: first, acts of violence or threats with the main purpose of terrorizing the civilian population; secondly, attacks on civilians as reprisals; third, the use of civilians to protect certain areas from military action.

The provisions of the IV Convention and the two additional protocols of 1977 to the 1949 conventions are aimed at observing the principle of humane treatment of persons, including respect for life, honor, physical and mental integrity, the prohibition of torture, corporal punishment, etc. Moreover, children as part of civilians are protected by the rules of international law relating to the conduct of war, such as the need to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

The special protection for children during armed conflict differs in certain ways from the guarantees provided to other persons. Although the IV Convention contains numerous provisions for the protection of children, the principle on the basis of which children enjoy special protection is not clearly established. This gap is filled by Protocol I, which states that children are given special respect and are protected from any kind of abuse. The parties to the conflict have the responsibility to provide children with the protection and assistance that is required based on age or for any other reason (medical issues, interethnic and religious relations).

The protection of children during a non-international armed conflict is determined by Additional Protocol II to the Conventions of 12 August 1949, Article 4 “Fundamental Guarantees” of which contains a clause dedicated exclusively to children. It provides that children are provided with the necessary care and assistance and lists special measures for children to protect them.

According to one UNESCO study on children and war, provisions of international humanitarian law aimed at preserving family integrity during armed conflicts are of particular importance. “When we study the nature of the psychological trauma suffered by a child who is a victim of war, we find that he is not very emotionally affected by such manifestations of war as bombings and military operations. The influence of external events on family ties and separation from the usual way of life is what affects the child, and most of all, separation from the mother.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 declares that the family is the sole and fundamental unit of society and has the right to protection by society and the state. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (Articles 23 and 24) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (Article 10) establish rules governing the special protection of the child. The provisions of these documents are detailed in the 1949 conventions and their additional protocols.

Convention IV contains rules according to which internees of the same family must be kept in the same premises, separate from other internees. They should be given the necessary conditions to maintain normal family life. Moreover, internees may request that their children without parental care be interned with them. However, this rule may be limited, for example, due to illness of parents or children, execution of a judicial decision, but these restrictions must comply with national legislation and can be appealed by interested parties in court. Protocols I and II establish the obligation of warring parties to facilitate family reunification.

A significant legal guarantee provided to mother and child is enshrined in Protocol I (Article 76): women are given special respect and are protected from various types of attacks (for example, forced prostitution). Cases of arrested, detained or interned mothers of young children and pregnant women are considered as a matter of priority. The death sentence against them is not carried out. We also note that the provisions of Protocol I concerning arrested, detained or interned mothers with dependent children require that the mother and child be kept together. Unfortunately, Protocol II does not contain similar provisions, which is a significant shortcoming.

An important place in international law is occupied by the issues of respect for the rights of the child during temporary evacuation during an armed conflict. Evacuation must meet the requirements set forth in Art. 78 of Protocol I. Temporary evacuation may only be carried out for urgent reasons related to the health or treatment of children, as well as for safety reasons. The safety of children during an armed conflict should be understood as the state of a child’s protection from internal and external threats. When the proper state of protection for children cannot be ensured, the issue of their temporary evacuation is decided. Evacuation requires mandatory written consent from parents or legal representatives. If their whereabouts are unknown, written consent to evacuation is required from persons who, by law or custom, are primarily responsible for the care of children (this may be the chief doctors of hospitals, sanatoriums, directors of boarding schools, heads of kindergartens, head coaches or administrators of sports camps, as well as capable relatives who were not the legal representatives of the children during the evacuation period). Such evacuation is carried out under the supervision of the protecting power in agreement with the parties concerned. The timing of temporary evacuation is not fixed in the document, however, within the meaning of the article under consideration, temporary evacuation should end after the end of hostilities and the restoration of constitutional order. In order to prevent various conflict situations that may arise during the period of evacuation of children, their presence on the territory of another state, or return home, these issues should be resolved by the interested parties normatively, i.e., create (identify) special bodies responsible for the evacuation and return of children , normatively (at the level of regulations or instructions) determine their rights, duties, and responsibilities in this area of ​​activity. In order to facilitate the return to the family and country, a special registration card is issued for each child. All cards are sent to the Central Information Agency of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If it is not possible to fill out such cards and submit them to the ICRC, then Art. 24 IV of the Convention, which directs states to provide children with identification medallions or use any other means to help establish the identity of children under 12 years of age.

In the event of non-international armed conflicts, Protocol II provides for the evacuation of children from the area of ​​hostilities to a safer area within the country. Such work is always associated with solving a number of administrative and organizational tasks. Children must continue their studies, receive information about the fate of their parents and other information. These tasks can be quickly resolved by government agencies in close cooperation with ICRC staff, who have considerable experience in similar work.

An important issue in any war is the participation of children in hostilities, since it is almost impossible to prevent this. In such a crisis situation, children will not only help their struggling parents in everything, but will also direct all their efforts to be like them. The age criterion for participation in hostilities is established by two additional protocols, which establish that children under 15 years of age are not subject to recruitment into the armed forces and are not allowed to take part in hostilities.

Thus, the additional protocols establish a complete and absolute ban on the participation in hostilities of children under 15 years of age. In our opinion, in general, such a ban applies to direct (immediate) participation in hostilities with weapons in hand and indirect (indirect) participation in war, i.e., conducting reconnaissance of the area, collecting and transmitting information, providing technical assistance, conducting sabotage activities.

When forming military units from among persons aged 15 to 18 years, Protocol I directs states to give priority to older persons. If, despite the prohibition contained in paragraph 2 of Art. 77 of Protocol I, children under 15 years of age were enlisted in the armed forces, they are considered as combatants and, when captured, have the status of prisoners of war. However, while in captivity they enjoy special protection under international law. The provisions of Protocol I are addressed to the parties to the conflict, and not to children, whose participation in hostilities does not constitute a violation of the law on their part.

A significant step in the development of the law in armed conflict is the provisions of Convention IV and the two protocols, which clearly establish the special age criterion of 18 years - the absolute limit, failing which the death penalty cannot be imposed, even if all other conditions making such a sentence applicable are present.

The problem of protecting children during armed conflicts is currently relevant. Events in Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and other areas of armed confrontation have convincingly shown that children are the most unprotected and powerless category of people during hostilities. Illness, mental and physical trauma, pain and grief from the loss of parents and loved ones, hunger, poverty, fear, lack of faith in justice accompany the child in such crisis situations.

Numerous provisions of international law establish and develop the principle of special protection for children during armed conflicts. These norms must be strictly observed by the warring parties.

Bibliography

1 See: Kalugin V.Yu., Pavlova L.V., Fisenko I.V. International humanitarian law. - Minsk, 1998. P. 149.

2 See: Bluncini I. Modern international law of civilized peoples, set out in the form of a code. - M., 1876. P. 39-40.

3 See: Artsibasov I.N., Egorov S.A. Armed conflict: law, politics, diplomacy. - M, 1989. P. 131.

4 See: Artsibasov I.N., Egorov S.A. Decree. op. P. 133.

5 See: Egorov S.A. Armed conflict and international law. - M., 2003. P. 220.

6 See: Furkalo V.V. International legal protection of civilians in armed conflicts. - K., 1998. P. 76.

7 Quoted. by: Planter D. Children and war // Protection of children in international humanitarian law. - M., 1995. P. 9-10.

8 See: Dutli M.T. Children and war // Child combatants captured. - M., 1995. P. 16.