Talk:Protocol I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] NPOV or not?

Need an opinion on this one. The article has criticism throughout rather than at the end and at least a little systematic bias - US and UK positions on areas of the protocol are stated repeatedly but Iraqi, Afgan objections are not. It's not outright conjecture and subjectivity, but it is definitely discursive rather than encyclopedic. I'm not up to the task of "balancing" it myself but would appreciate someone taking a look, so I've POV Check AND Technical tagged - the latter mostly because of the density of the prose (see irony *grin*). May also be mergable with main Geneva Convention article. Samwehli 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • To address you points. please give some examples of "systematic bias" in the article and give an example of Iraqi, Afgan objections.
  • This is an article not the source. For that you go to the Wikisource
  • It should not be merged with the main Geneva Convention article any more than GCIII should.
--Philip Baird Shearer 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no answer I am removing the POV template --Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be re-written

I think this article is horrible as written now. Would it not be better if it were written in paragraph format?say1988 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. A terrible article, even an expert of the subject would be confused. All the explanation seem to be be trying to prove something and are clearly written from one POV. I recommend either starting over from scratch or deleting the article as reading it is a waste of time.Mantion 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree has POV

I agree with Samwehli that the article is not neutral. The entry on Article 1 contains an unsourced criticism but not a defence. The special anniversary issue of the ICRC journal, linked at the foot, contains good qualified material on both sides and arguments from it could be cited, summarised or paraphrased. In articles on legal instruments, it would be generally helpful to have a potted history in the introduction. Eg. here, why were the 1949 texts thought to be inadequate? 83.44.146.24 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) James Wimberley (unregistered user) 5 Sept 2006


[edit] Catch 22 for Article 44.3?

I suspect that a Catch 22 situation may apply to Article 44.3 .

* If the combatant caries his arms (weapons) openly then he can be arrested and kept as a Prisoner of War (or illegal combatant equivalent). No trial is needed.
* If the combatant is in uniform then he can be arrested and kept as a Prisoner of War (or illegal combatant equivalent). No trial is needed.
* Once he has gained Combatant status he can be arrested and kept as a Prisoner of War (or illegal combatant equivalent), even if out of uniform at the time of the arrest. No trial is needed but a tribunal may need convincing of his status.
* If he is performing a reconnaissance out of uniform then he can be tried as a Spy.
* If he is out of uniform and hiding his arms then he can be given a civilian trial for murder and/or damaging property or attempting these crimes. Claiming Combatant Status may be a defense but should result in his arrest and being kept without bail as a Prisoner of War (or illegal combatant equivalent).
* Alternatively if he is hiding his arms and out of uniform during an attack then he can be given a military trial for the Grave Breach of the Geneva Convention know as Perfidy, see Article 37 of Protocol 1.
* Targeting civilians as an act of terror is a war crime and a Prisoner of War (or illegal combatant equivalent) can be tried for that.

I have no legal training or qualifications. Andrew Swallow 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)