Who Actually "Enforces" The Geneva Conventions? And...

[arwalden]

can the US just arbitrarily withdraw from those treaties by executive order? Or does it take an act-of-congress?

-- Allen

[Deja Q]

1. The UN. But as the US is a Veto power, the UN can't do diddley w/the US

Congress is so bought out that they won't do jack splat either.

That's another reason why the US citizens need to take care when selecting their leaders... :cry:

[Cleita]

14. What can you do when your leaders are pretty much selected for you?

:shrug:

[Spazito]

15. Actually, if the US is involved, they lose their right to veto on the ....

resolution that is put forward.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. They're not so much enforced as they are 'not the done thing'

States that contravene them may find themselves shunned at polite dinner parties.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Yes and they'll be invited to tea

With only the "second best" silverware

[htuttle]

3. I believe that if a treaty has been ratified by Congress (like Geneva, UN)

It takes at least an act of congress to 'unratify' it.

Who enforces it? Well, it used to be a certain country once considered 'the good guys' who had a large hand in starting the UN and writing the charter itself (one guess who this was). Now that this particular country has gone rogue and earned itself pariah status, your guess is as good as mine.

[arwalden]

16. BUT... Didn't Bush* Take It Upon Himself To Withdraw From The ABM Treaty

with Russia... so that he could pursue his folly of a "defense shield"?

Was he legally permitted to withdraw by executive action in that instance (ABM)? Could that type of executive action be used again to declare that we simply refuse to play by the Geneva rules anymore.

AND would such an action pretty much GUARANTEE that our troops who might be captured would be subjected to the SAME TORTUROUS TREATMENT that we inflicted?

-- Allen

[htuttle]

18. It's not clear that it was legal for Bush to do that

However, the only member of Congress who made an issue out of it that I'm aware of is Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich stated that the President must gain the approval of Congress to pull out of a treaty they've already ratified.

Here's what background google found that seems to addresse this in particular:

http://www.populist.com/01.17.dispatches.html
PREZ 'CAN'T QUIT TREATY.' Bruce Ackerman, a professor of constitutional law at Yale and co-author of Is Nafta Constitutional?, questions whether a president can pull the US out of a treaty without congressional consent, such as George W. Bush proposes to do to the Antiballistic Missile Treaty to allow further work to proceed on a national missile defense system. In a column published in the New York Times on Aug. 29, Ackerman noted that once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, the Constitution makes it part of the "supreme law of the land" -- just like a statute -- which presidents can't terminate at will. Precedents exist when presidents sought acts of Congress to withdraw from treaties, but in 1978, when Jimmy Carter unilaterally terminated our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, Sen. Barry Goldwater sued, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the traditional system of checks and balances. The court on a 6-3 vote declined to make a decision on the merits of the case, but seven new justices have since joined the court. Ackerman wrote that there is no predicting how a new case would turn out, but he said Congress should recognize the seriousness of this matter. "If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?" He suggested that Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring that Bush cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. "And if the president proceeds unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend its role in foreign policy."

I think that it will ultimately be up in the air until the Supreme Court decides to take up the issue.

[arwalden]

20. Excellent, Skillful Googling! -- Thanks!

-- Allen

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The "enforcement arm" is the International Red Cross

Committe. It is moral authority, but that is the reason why
the Internatioal Court (which was signed by Clinton but never
ratified) came to be.

That is the trick with International Law. It is mostly moral
authority and agreements by signatories

Trick is, in the US once a treaty is signed it becomes the law of
the land... and the UCMJ was designed to meet or supercede the requirements of the Conventions.

The US cannot technically retreat from the Conventions by
Executive fiat... not that the US Constitution means anything to
them.

This is the very short answer... could go on pages and pages
on how actually they are enforced and how they act within
US Law

[arwalden]

9. Thanks Nadinbrzezinski!

That was very helpful, and much appreciated info.

-- Allen

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You welcome

now what I wonder is, if the American Red Cross is having a crisis of conscience as well... and they should...

[taxidriver]

5. the honor system

lol.

[Spazito]

6. Here are the responsibilities for the signatories to the Geneva..

Conventions on the subject of torture:

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html#Part%20II

[Peregrine]

7. The winners of the war

get to enforce the protocols. No international body has the authority to enforce any code on a sovereign state.

[banana republican]

8. The Victors enforce the convention

not the loosers of the conflict.

It is up to US to enforce the convention.

[boxster]

11. I believe that the current answer would be...

no one.

[crushbush04]

12. It is simply

an international convention adopted after WWII largely because of the babarous treatment of allied prisoners by Germany and Japan. It is based somewhat on the chivalry of knights and should, in theory, preserve the dignity of captured enemy fighters.

This is very hard to practice because it goes against the natural tendency of wanting to inflict harm on an enemy who was trying to kill you. It requires soldiers and captors to rise above that base instinct.

As far as I can tell the convention is mostly theory because very few countries will practice or enforce it during war. Ironically, despite the current prison scandal, the U.S. and Britain are two of the oh so few who even think about this convention in time of war. Taking care of enemy prisoners while waging a war is usually very far down on the general list of battlefield priorties.

I guess any country could withdraw from the Geneva Convention by means of an executive order from their, president, prime minister or king if they wish. But it would mean dire consequences for the captured soldiers of that country. Because their well-being would depend on the morality or goodwill of their enemy. Which, as demonstrated in Iraq, can be dubious at best.

[Gothmog]

13. International Red Cross is responsible for monitoring compliance

but has no real enforcement power. If the treaty is self executing executing or operative (i.e. does not require specific implementation legislation), the US Courts assuming that they have personal jurisdiction can enforce some provisions of the Geneva Convention. There is a US District Court case dealing with Noriega and whether he was being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention as a POW back that is good authority that the treaty is self executing. The two Circuit cases that were heard by the US Supreme Court each held that the Geneva Convention is not self executing. The Supreme Court will hopefully address this issue when it rules later this year.

Other than the US courts, the enforcement of the Geneva Convention is pretty much an honor system.

[arwalden]

17. If, as you say, it's "... an honor system..." --- we're screwed.

I think you're pretty much on target though. Isn't that sad?

-- Allen