Home Military Selected problems 1979

Selected problems 1979

Selected problems 1979

_________TC 27-10-1
__

SELECTED PROBLEMS
IN THE
cover page
logo
JUNE 1979
TRAINING CIRCULAR  TC 27-10-1
NO. 27-10-1
HEADQUARTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Washington. DC. 26 June 1979

SELECTED PROBLEMS

IN THE

LAW OF WAR
PREFACE
Every soldier must understand the law of war and its I significance. Both com­manders and members of their command must secure this knowledge through forrpal instruction and field training exercises.
This text provides supplemental and follow-up instructional material on the Hague Convention No. IV and the Geneva Convention of1949 (see AR 350-216 and ASUBJSCH 27-1).
These materials serve three purposes. First, they help the training manager to present a clearer explanation of the law of war. Second, they help to insure that an area of essential knowledge for the individual soldier has been thoroughly addressed. And, finally, they help the commander insure that members of his command have a basic knowledge of the law of war and its significance.
The guide is divided into three sections. Section I discusses the training requirements ofAR 350-216 and gives general guidance on the use ofthe case studies in section II. It also discusses educational techniques, givingexamples ofhow to train soldiers in thelaw of war (the most critical aspect of the training manager’s task). Section II presents typical combat situations in which many of the laws of warfare are applied. The discussion of these situations supports understanding of the basic law of war. More important, though, discussion demonstrates the realistic applications and implementation of the rules in combat. Finally, section III contains an index to the case studies to help the training manager select material appropriate to his training objectives.
Users of this publication are encouraged to submit recommended changes and comments. Comments should be keyed to the specific page, paragraph, and line of the text in which the change is recommended. Reasons are required for each comment to insure understanding and completeevaluation. Comments should be prepared using DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Public~tionsand Blank Forms) and forwarded direct to the Commandant, The Judge Advocate General’s School, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
Table of Contents
Page

SECTION I         TRAINING REQUIREMENTS, GENERAL GUIDANCE, AND TECHNIQUES OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION .
SCOPE         ···· .
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS         .
GENERAL GUIDANCE         2
TECHNIQUESOFFORMALINSTRUCTION…………………..
2
TESTING…………………………………………….
6
KEYTO CITATIONS. … . .. …. ……. . …. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. 6
SECTION II     CASE STUDIES….. .. .. …. … .. .. .. .. .. … … .. .. .. … .. … 7
1.
PROTECTION OF WOUNDED AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL:

PROTECTIVE INSIGNIA, RECOVERYOFWOUNDED 7
2.
FEIGNING SURRENDER; TREATMENT OF WOUNDED:
PUNISHING AND REPORTING LAW OF WAR VIOLA­

TIONS………………………………………..
9
3.
TREATMENT OF WOUNDED AND MEDICAL PERSON­
NEL; STATUS OF MEDICALVEHICLES AND MATERIAL:

MISUSE OF PROTECTED STATUS AND PROTECTIVE

INSIGNIA,PUNISHMENT………………………… 10
4.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF MEDICAL FACILITIES

AND ARMED MEDICAL PERSONNEL: CONFISCATION

OFWEAPONS 12
5.
STATUS AND USE OF CAPTURED MEDICAL VEHICLES

AND OTHER MATERIAL: REMOVAL OF PROTECTIVE

AND NATIONAL INSIGNIA.. .. . … .. . . .. .. .. … .. .. . . .. 13
6.
CAMOUFLAGING PROTECTIVE EMBLEMS… .. .. .. .. .. . 14
7.
CONCEPT, STATUS, AND TREATMENT OF SHIP­
WRECKED PERSONNEL: THE PERMISSIBILITY OF

FIRING ON ENEMY PERSONNEL OF SUNKEN LANDING
CRAFT……………………………………….
15
8.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF OCCUPANTS OF

DISABLEDCOMBATVEHICLES
16

9.
SURRENDER OF ENEMY PERSONNEL: PRECAUTIONARY
MEASURES IN THE SURRENDER OF ,PPROACHING
ARMED ENEMY PERSONNEL
17
I. ••••••••••••••••
10.
KILLING OR WOUNDING OF ,sURRENDERING ENEMY

PERSONNEL; THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE:

PUNISHMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR FOR PRIOR

CRIMINAL ACTS ………………………………. 18
Page

11.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFISCATION OF PAPERS, PERSONAL EFFECTS AND IDENTIFICATION, KILLING OR WOUNDING PRISONERS OFWAR, PREVENTING ATIEMPTED ESCAPES. . . .. .. . . . 19

12.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFISCATION OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, INTERROGATION BY THREAT, FORCED LABOR, EVACUATIONOFPRISONERS…. …… .. ….. …. .. .. 20

13.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: QUARTERS, SEGREGATION, EVACUATION, INTERROGATION, BONDAGE……………………………………. 22

14.
MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFISCA­TION OF PERSONAL ARTICLES AND EQUIPMENT, INTERROGATION BY FORCE, REPRISALS, SUMMARY PUNISHMENT ‘” .. ……… … …. …… ….. 23

15.
CONDUCT IN CAPTIVITY: DISPOSAL OF ITEMS POTENTIALLY USEFUL TO THE ENEMY WAR EFFORT, CONFISCATION OF EQUIPMENT, PAPERS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS, INTERROGATION BY FORCE, PROTESTING MISTREATMENT…….. …… ….. ………… …… 24

16.
CONDUCT IN CAPTIVITY: RESISTING ENEMY INTERROGATION ATIEMPTS, PROVIDING INFORMATION TOTHEENEMY………………………………… 25

17.
PROTECTED STATUS OF CIVILIANS: CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN RELIEF AND RESCUE EFFORTS, THE PERMISSIBILITY OF FORCEFUL MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE OCCUPANT ORDERS; COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, CURFEWS, FORCEFUL EVACUATION…… …. ……. …… …………. …. 26

18.
CIVILIAN EVACUATION FROM COMBAT AREAS: IMPLEMENTING ORDERS AND PROCEDURES, PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE 29

19.
TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION IN OCCUPIED AREAS: CIVILIAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF RESISTANCE FIGHTERS, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, REPRISALS ” .. …. …. . 31

20.
STATUS AND TREATMENTOF CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN COMBAT ACTIVITIES: RESISTING INVADING FORCES, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, REPRISALS, HOSTAGES…… …………… . .. .. 32

21.
TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS IN OCCUPIED AREAS: CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN COMBAT ACTIVITIES, TEMPORARY FORCEFUL EVACUATION FOR SEARCH PURPOSES, HIDING ENEMY WEAPONS AND PERSONNEL, PUNISHMENT, REPRISALS, DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. 33

Page

22.
RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS: STATUS OF MEMBERS,

TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN SUPPORTERS, PUNISHMENT 34
23.
LAWFUL COMBATANTS; THE STATUS AND TREATMENT OF

THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND CITIZENS WHO

PARTICIPATE IN MILITARY ACTiViTIES…………… 36
24.
THE DETERMINATION AND TREATMENT OF LAWFUL

COMBATANTS 38
25.
COMPARISON OF ESPIONAGE AND LAWFUL

INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING PROCEDURES: RUSES

OF WAR, CAMOUFLAGING, USE OF CIVILIAN CLOTHING,

WEARING THE ENEMY’S UNIFORM DURING RECONNAIS­

SANCE MiSSiONS……………………………..
40
26.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PARLEMENTAIRES:

MISUSE OF STATUS 41
27.
FIRING ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

WHITE FLAG DiSPLAyS………………………… 43
28.
FIRING ON TOWNS AND CITIES: MILITARY NECESSITY.. . 44
29.
DISPOSITION OF LAW OF WAR VIOLATORS: BAN ON

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE GUILT OR

PUNISHMENT, BAN ON REPRISALS, RUSES OF WAR,

DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS, USE OF ENEMY’S LANGUAGE,

PASSWORDS, WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORM. . 45
30.
THE STATUS, USE, AND MARKING OF CAPTURED

MILITARYAIRCRAFT ..”.. ….. … .. …. . . . .. .. .. . .. . 47
31.
THE DISSEMINATION OF PROPAGANDA AS A MEANS

OF WARFARE: BAN ON SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR

ALLEGEDLAWOFWARVIOLATORS 48
32.
THE STATUS, TREATMENT AND RULES OF ENGAGE­

MENT RELATING TO PARACHUTING CREWS OF
DISABLED AIRCRAFT…………………………
49
33.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PARATROOPS:

SABOTAGE TEAMS……………………………. 50
34.
RULES OF BOMBARDMENT: MILITARY TARGETS AND

OBJECTIVES, PROTECTED PERSONS, AREAS, FACILITIES,

INSTITUTIONS, AND OBJECTS…………………… 52
35.
RULES OF BOMBARDMENT: MILITARY TARGETS AND

OBJECTIVES, PROTECTION OF CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTIONS AND OBJECTS, PROTECTED PROPERTY

USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES………………… 54
36.
WAR CRIMES: COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY, DUTY TO
DISOBEY CRIMINAL ORDERS, DUTY TO REPORT WAR

CRIMES……………………………………… 55
37.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS: LEGALITY AND RESTRICTIONS

ON USE……………………………………… 57
SECTION III INDEXTO CASE STUDIES         ” 59
iv

blank space
Section I
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS, GENERAL GUIDANCE, AND TECHNIQUES OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION
SCOPE. This section outlines formal training requirements in the law of war and provides general guidance on integrating the case studies in section II into training progl-ams. It also explains many educational techniques that may be used to develop in the soldier the desired knowledge of the law of war and its impact on him.
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
Army Regulation 350-216 requires that formal training in the law of war be provided each soldier periodically and that a permanent record be kept of such training. This training is requir~d at the training base and within the school system. Formal unit training is also required for soldiers not trained earlier. The training manager must become thoroughly familiar with these requirements.
The regulation further requires the commander to insure that each member of his command has a practical working knowledge of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and their significance. Practical training (which follows formal training and should be continuous) will be integrated in all tactical training and related subjects. Such practical training should be realistic within the bounds of safety.
Army Regulation 350-216 also requires that formal law of war instruction be presented by officers of The Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC) or other legally qualified personnel together with officers with com ma nd experience, preferably in combat. A legally qualified person is one graduated from an accredited law school and admitted to practice before a Federal court or the highest court of a state. Where legally qualified personnel are not available, AR 350-216 provides alternative methods of instruction.

GENERAL GUIDANCE.
This text is designed as a casebook and guide for the training manager in developing programs for practical application of the law of war. The case studies in section II can be integrated into those training programs. Because of the different levels of training for which the studies will be used, they are not intended as a verbatim text or lesson plan for any specific training program. The training manager will tailor his programs to the needs of his audience and to the training problems or requirements peculiar to a given unit, mission, or group. The case studies should be integrated into these programs wherever possible.
The manner of developing training programs using the case studies in section II is left to the judgment and resourcefulness of the training manager. Such development depends largely upon his requirements, preparation, and evaluation. Remember, though, that the material contained in section II is not to be used in place of basic or refresher instruction in the law of war. Such instruction is provided in Army Subject Schedule 27-1 (The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and The Hague Convention No. IV of 1907). This text should be used to supplement or follow up basic or refresher instruction.
The training manager should be familiar with the principles and techniques defined and discussed in FM 21-6, How to Prepare and Conduct Military Training, the training requirements of AR 350-216, and the material contained in Army Subject Schedule 27-1, to include the training course at appendix C.
If formal law of war training is given at the beginning of the training cycle, the training manager tan integrate it with other training. He can use the teaching techniques of practice exercises and infomal discussion to stimulate interest in and retention of the subject matter.
Too often, though, law of war training is given at the end of a training cycle. One cannot integrate what does not exist; one cannot practice what has not been taught; and one cannot discuss what one does not know. Early presentation of this training in the training cycle provides a basis for effective integration and retention of the subject.

TECHNIQUES OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION.
The education techniques, as they apply to this discussion, are:
LECTURE
CONFERENCE

LECTURE WITH CONFERENCE
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Formal instruction involves, at a minimum, lecture, conference, or lecture with conference, and should be supplemented with practical exercises and informal discussions.
Lecture. The lecture technique is appropriate for teaching new material to large groups. An effective lecture has a logical organization, illustrations and examples, specific and vivid expressions, relevant personal experiences, rhetorical questions, and appropriate training aids.
image
The lecture is effective for exposing a large number of soldiers to the law of war. Since the initial exposure most likely will occur during basic training, the speaker should make every effort to insure that trainees receive a positive first impression of the law of war. This can be accomplished by an interesting, effective presentation. If time and facilities permit, one of several short films dealing with the law of war
can be used. Other training aids include skits or demonstrations, such as MPs searching and securing a group of PWs, and transparencies that highlight the major points of the lecture. Remember, an imaginative speaker can develop other means of making the presentation interesting without detracting from the subject matter.
Conference. The conference technique involves a leader and generally a small group (if the technique is to be effective). The leader directs and controls the group toward a predetermined goal, with most of the ideas developed by the group. The conference allows the soldier to participate directly by asking questions and answering those asked by the leader. The chief difference between conference and lecture is the emphasis on student participation in the former.
The conference can be particularly effective in teaching the law of war when soldiers have a basic knowledge of the subject. The conference should stimulate student thinking, make learning permanent, pool the knowledge of the students, and increase student interest by having the soldier answer the following questions with respect to the law of war:
What to do?
Why do it?
When to do it?

Where to do it?
How to do it?

Lecture with Conference. The lecture with conference encourages the soldier to participate in the presentation by asking questions when he doesn’t understand the material presented. This technique combines the positive points of both the lecture and the conference.
One of the potential problems in presenting
the law of war is maintaining student interest. The lecture and the conference may be inappropriate under some circumstances. If time allows, the lecture with conference can be the most efficient technique to present formal law of war instruction. New material can be presented to large groups with an opportunity for student participation.
Practical Exercises. The practical exercise technique presents a real-life situation in which the soldier can apply knowledge gained through format training.
The effectiveness and nature of practical exercises which demonstrate the law of war are limited only by the imagination and creativity of the training manager. Examples include:
DO NOT FIRE ON A WHITE FLAG.
A whIte flag can be anached to several pop-up targets on a !raml’ra range A mtSS, or even a double mISS, can be scored tf atratnee f,res at It pop·up target that has a whtle flag
“~

—&3
“~J
-,

DO NOT FIRE ON NONCOMBATANTS.
.
,

During an ex.erCtse. a sllhoueue target or aggressor soldiers can be clearly marked as medtcal personnel
TREAT CAPTURED ENEMY PERSONNELFIRMLY, BUT HUMANELY.
Introduce PWs into a f,eld ex.erc’se and reqUire members of the unit to applV proper procedures for processing PWs to tha rear.
EXERCISE COMMAND DISCRETION ON USING THE
RED CROSS EMBLEM.
,
,j

When on a night exercise, mstruct medical aid
‘. …

personnel 10 remove Red Cross armbands and
camouflage Ihe emblem on ambulances. This is nol lI9ainsllhe lew of war. However, lhere is a danger thaI bolh Ihe medical aid personnel and Ihe ambulances will be anacked. Withoul diSlinctive proleclive markings, it is difficult 10 dlSlingulsh between legitimale mililary largels and prOlecled objecls and personnel.
DO NOT UNNECESSARILY DESTROY CIVILIAN PROPERTY.
ReconSlrUct a house lhal conlains $Imulaled booby Iraps. Then have ,ralnees conduct a search of Ihe house 10 learn and apply the COncepl of respect for property.
The case studies in section II cover the laws ofwarlarethat are most peninent to the combat soldier. The above examples of practical exercises were derived from the studies. A training manager must. of course, adapt an.J1 change the studies to fit the situation, the level of training,
and the mission of the personnel involved.
Informal Discussion. Informal discussion between the commander and his soldiers is an important and effective technique of education. It is the best method of testing the effectiveness of prior training and determining future needs. Informal discussion includes “rap” sessions, discussion groups, commander’s time, and simple random questions.
A commander can ask a few soldiers, on a random basis, their understanding of a particular rule of war. It could be a general question to determine what they remember from the formal instruction. For example. he could ask their opinion of a film that was shown. or what they recall best about the JA’s talk on the law of war. Such questions will readily reveat the points remembered. The questions could also be more specific. For example, an airborne soldier can be asked if he would shoot at a descending paratrooper; or a medic can be asked for what purposes he may use his weapon; or a demolition specialist can be asked if he is a saboteur when he goes out to blow up a bridge.
However, informal discussion does not have to be initiated by the commander. The opportunity can be created by the soldier himself. For example. a soldier may ask how he should determine jf a female detainee is armed. This would prompt a demonstration of the law of war pertaining to female detainees.
TESTING.
Purpose. Testing is necessary to insure accomplishment of the training mission. aswell as to provide information for developing a more effective program for the future.
Methods. The written examination is a method of formal testing. It can be developed with the assistance of a judge advocate, or the training manager can model questions on all or
partofDAPam 27·200. ThelawofW8r.ASelf~
Instructional Text. Additionally. the questions in appendix HI of Army Subject Schedule 27-1 arB ready-made for a formal quiz.
Formal testing should always be followed by a thorough critique and discussion of correct responses. Practical exercises and random questioning are informal testing methods. Informal testing does not require as much administrative preparation and follow-up as formal testing.
KEY TO CITATIONS. The following terms and abbreviations are used in this guide:
DA Pam 27-1 Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 27-1. TREATIES GOVERNING LAND WARFARE. 7 December 1956.
DA Pam 27-161-2 Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 27·161·2. INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume
II. 23 October 1962.
FM 27-10 Department of the Army Field Manual No. 27·10. THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE. 18 July 1956.
GWS Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. 12August 1949.
GWS Sea Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded. Sick. and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949.
GPW Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. 12 August
1949.

GC Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 12 August 1949.
H.1I1

Hague Convention No. III Relative to the Opening of Hostilities, 18 October 1907.
H.IV Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 18 October 1907.
H.R. Annex to Hague Convention No. IV. 18 October 1907. embodying the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
H.V Hague Convention No. V Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 18 October
1907.

UCMJ UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
Sectio
CASE STUDIES
O
PROTECTION OF WOUNDED PERSONNEL: PROTECTIVE COVERY OF WOUNDED
PROBLEM:
A machinelfUDoer in a forward poIIition

report8: to hia company commander: ·’1 see

about 10 enemy soldie” at the edge of the

(orest. They are wearina armband. and are

carryina off their wounded. Should I open

fire?” The company commander then

determines: The obeerved soldiers are

….earinl’ armbands with. red crescent on a

white backgroun~they aredisplaying.n••

with the same symbol and evacuating dead

and wounded.
AND MEDICAL

INSIGNIA, RE-

What actions should the company commander take and why?
DISCUSSION:
The company commander should order the machinegunner not to fire on the enemy soldiers. If the situation permits. he should order a general cease-fire so long as the enemy is recovering dead and wounded and not trying to gain a tactical advantage or otherwise improve his position.
The enemy soldiers wearing armbands are medical personnel. The red crescent on a white background is recognized by the terms of the 1949 Geneva Convention on Wounded and Sick (GWSj as the protective emblem and distinctive sign of the medical service of an armed force. The Convention also recognizes both the red cross and the red lion and sun on a white background as equivalent protective emblems. While the Red Shield of David is not recognized by the Convention,lsrael uses this symbol as the emblem of its medical service. The protective symbol may be displayed on all medical service flags and equipment and may be worn by medical personnel as an armband.
Generally, medical personnel and the wounded they are assisting may not be attacked if they are recognized as such, even if the protective emblem is not displayed. However, a rescue effort does not normally require a general cease·fire. Military targets, (i.e., other enemy soldiers engaged in combat) may be fired upon, even if recovery efforts are jeopardized. However, whenever circumstances permit, a cease-fire or truce should be agreed upon to allow the recovery, exchange, and evacuation of wounded from the battlefield. A commander may also declare a cease-fire on a unilateral basis.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1. pp. 31, 33 (GWS arts. 19,24·25).

DA Pam 27-161-2, pp. 110-112.

FM 27-10, paras 220-225.
M. GREENSPAN, THE MODERN LAWOF LAND WARFARE 72-7S, 88-9D(1959}(he,ein­after cited as GREENSPAN).
TC 27-1, Your Conduct in Combat, pp. 8-9.
o
FEIGNING SURRENDER; TREATMENT OF WOUNDED: PUNISHING AND REPORTING LAW OF WAR VIOLATIONS
PROBLEM:
[n close combat, infantryman C wounds an enemy soldier who falls to theground and, by raising his hands slightly, indicates that he is incapable of fighting. C turns from the wounded soldier to find cover from hostile fire close to the wounded soldier. The latter suddenly fires on C, misses, and then raises his hands and surrenders. C determines that the captured soldier had only a minor grazing wound, had been capableoffigbting. and had only feigned incapacity in order to continue fighting when a more favorable opportunity presented itself.
Did the enemy soldier violate the law of war? Explain. How shouldthis soldierbetreatedifheviolatedthelawofwar?What action should infantryman C take in regard to the violation?
DISCUSSION:
The enemy soldier committed a violation of infantryman C. In claiming this protection, the law of war by pretending to be disabled and however, he must refrain from further combat. If then continuing to fight when the opportunity he continues the fight, he acts treacherously, arose. The Hague Convention on the laws and provided the deception was intended from the usages of land warfare does permit ruses. outset. However, they may not take the form of trickery such as pretending to be defenseless white planning to make a surprise attack on someone, Although the wounded soldier apparently
who, complying with the law of war, has violated the law of war, he must be treated as a stopped fighting. In the case above, the prisoner of war. He may be tried, however, wounded soldier indicated, by raising his hands, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that he had Quit fighting and claimed protection (UCMJ) for violating the lawof war. Infantryman from further injury under the law of war. C should follow routine PW procedures and Accordingly, he could no longer be fired upon by report the incident as required.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, pp. 12, 97 (HR art. 23, GPW art. 82).
DA Pam 27·161·2, pp. 56·57, 88-89.
FM 27-10, para 50.
GREENSPAN, pp. 320-322.
TREATMENT OF WOUNDED AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL; STATUS OF MEDICAL VEHICLES AND MATERIAL: MISUSE OF PROTECTED STATUS AND PROTECTIVE INSIGNIA, PUNISHMENT
“,

PROBLEM:
A platoon leader reports to his commander: HAs my platoon was moving down the road, we overtook an enemy medical convoy displaying the Red Cross emblem. The convoy suddenly fired on my platoon. We immediately overcame the resistance and then determined that in addition to the seriously wounded. thetrucks in the convoy carried artil1ery ammunition. According to the captured medical personnel. they had attacked the platoon fearing that they would be punished if the ammunition was discovered.”
How s/wuld the following be treated and why: (1) The enemy medical personnel; (2) The wounded; (3) The captured material from the medical convoy; (4) The medical vehicles?
DISCUSSION:
Medical personnel who participate in combat transporting, or treating the sick and wounded. activities lose their protected status. In this Participating in combat activities inconsistent case, they become prisoners of war with no with their medical duties nullifies this claim to the special protection provided under protection. the Geneva Convention on Wounded and Sick (GWS). This protection is given only to soldiers Medical personnel can also be punished for who are exclusively searching for, collecting, misusing the Red Cross symbol which, under the GWS, signifies protected status. In the case above, there has been misuse of the Red Cross emblem both in the transporting of artillery ammunition by marked medical vehicles and in firing at the overtaking platoon. Thus, the captured medical personnel can be tried before a military court for both violations of the law of war.
The enemy wounded apparently have not participated either in the combat activities or in the transportation of ammunition. Consequently, they are not guilty of punishable conduct. As wounded, they must continue to be cared for and protected. They become prisoners of war, and their needs must be provided for by the capturing forces. Punishment based on the behavior of the medical personnel in violation of the law of war may not be directed against the wounded. The wounded should be taken under guard to the nearest aid station, given medical attention, and then evacuated from the battlefield.
Medical vehicles and other medical material in the convoy are protected from attack or misuse under the GWS. This protection is forfeited only if such property’s use is inconsistent with its humanitarian purpose. Small quantities of small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded, but not yet removed from the medical convoy, would not cause a loss of protected status. In the case above, however, large quantities of artillery ammunition were deliberately being transported. This was not merely incidental to the evacuation of the enemy wounded.
When medical transport or facilities are being misused, it is usually necessary to issue a warning to stop such misuse and to set a reasonable deadline for compliance prior to attacking the protected property. This requirement would ordinarily apply in the case of the transport of ammunition by medical vehicles before protection is forfeited. This protection, however, is lost immediately if, as in the present case, enemy fire is received from a protected facility, vehicle, or convoy. In such cases, a prior warning is impractical. Therefore, to promptly return the fire is permissible even though the nonparticipating wounded are thereby endangered. Responsibility for this risk lies with the party which has misused the protected property and protective emblem.
The material of mobile medical units will continue to be used to assist the sick and wounded. This applies even though a medical unit has forfeited its protection against attack. The ban on destroying or using such material for purposes other than originally intended has been declared in the interest of all sick and wounded and is not affected by the unit’s forfeiture of its protection. Accordingly, the medical material which was found in the case above must continue to be used for the care of the enemy wounded until such time as their medical needs are adequately provided for from other sources.
On the other hand, the captured medical transport vehicles become property of the capturing forces and may be used by them for any purpose. But before they are employed for other purposes, the wounded found in the vehicles must either be taken to a military hospital or aid station, or be transferred to other vehicles. In the present case, since seriously wounded personnel are involved, their transfer to other vehicles is inadvisable. They should be transported directly to an aid station or hospital in the captured vehicles. These vehicles may then be used by the captor for his own purpose.
REFERENCES:

DA Pam 27-1. PP. 12, 31-35 (HR art. 23(f), GWS arts. 19-22,24-25,28-29).

DA Pam 27-161-2, pp,. 53, 106-107.

FM 27·10, paras 55,215,217,222-223,226,230,236.

GREENSPAN, pp. 72-75, 82-90.
O
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF MEDICAL FACILITIES AND ARMED MEDICAL PERSON­NEL: CONFISCATION OF WEAPONS
.

PROBLEM:
A company commander reports to his battalion commander: •• One of my platoons overran an enemy medical clearing station. Terrain conditions caused them to 88sume positions near the clearingstation. A number of armed enemy medical personnel asked my platoon leader to leave the vicinity of the clearing station. The platoon leader had the clearing station searched. Several small arms were found. Some belonged to the medical personnel and some apparently bad been taken (rom tbe wounded. All weapons were confiscated. Can my platoon remain in position near the clearing station? What is tbe status of the armed enemy medical personnel?”
‘l •
How should the battalion commander respond?
OISCUSSION:
A medical clearing station must be spared and protected by all parties involved in conflict. The placement of combat positions near the clearing station exposes it to the risk of being hit during combat operations. For this reason, a certain distance should be maintained between combat positions and the protected facility. Only for reasons of military necessity, (J:e., closing a gap in the front lines or the tactical need to occupy a section of terrain), may the vicinity of the medical clearing station be occupied for combat purposes. It is a violation of the law of war to take positions near a medical clearing station for protection from the enemy because of the station’s protected status.
A medical clearing station does not lose its protected status because its personnel are armed or because weapons taken from the wounded have not yet been removed from the facility. Medical personnel do not forfeit their protected status because they carry weapons.
+

Such weapons may be used by the medical personnel to defend themselves, the wounded, and the medical facility against attack by anyone violating the law of war. They may not be used to resist capture by lawful combatants. However, any weapons found in a medical facility can be confiscated.
In the case above, it is apparent that there is a tactical need to occupy terrain near the clearing station. Therefore, unless the situation permits its relocation, it will be necessary to accept a risk that the clearing station may be hit during combat activities. The battalion commander should direct his platoon to remain in position near the clearing station so long as it is tactically necessary. He should direct that all confiscated weapons be retained by the capturing unit and that medical personnel be permitted to continue their duties. Finally, he should tell the company commander that a number of soldiers will be
assigned  from  the  battalion  to  guard  the  battalion  to  remove  the  wounded  through
clearing station and its occupants, Also. as soon  normal  medical  channels  and  the  medical
as possible. arrangements will be made by the  personnel through PW channels.

REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp. 12. 31-33 (HR art. 23(f). GWS arts. 19. 22. 24).

FM 27-10. paras. 220. 223. 225.
GREENSPAN, pp. 83-84.
STATUS AND USE OF CAPTURED MEDICAL•
VEHICLES AND OTHER MATERIAL: REMOVAL OF PROTECTIVE AND NATIONAL INSIGNIA
PROBLEM:
A company occupies a village which contains an enemy military hospital. The company commander orders one platoon leader to reconnoiter beyond the village. The platoon leader takes an ambulance from tbe hospital, superficially covers its protective Red Cross emblems with mud. and uses the vehicle to carry out his mission.
Howslwuldtheplatoonleader’s actions bejudgedunderthelaw ofwar?
DISCUSSION:
Captured medical transport vehicles become transport whose protective emblem has only the property of the captor and can be used at his been soiled during normal use. This impression discretion. provided he supplies the needs of would be supported by the usually distinctive any captured enemy sick and wounded. The use design of such vehicles. of such vehicles for combat purposes is only permissible if the protective emblem has first In the above case, it is apparent that the Red been removed. To do otherwise would be Cross emblems on the captured medical vehicle considered misuse of the protective emblem. were not properly covered or eliminated before The removal must be done so that no part of the its use for a combat-related purpose. Therefore, protective emblem remains visible orcan still be the platoon leader could be found in violation of recognized under any camouflage.If not, the the law of war for misusing a protective vehicle could be thought to be a medical emblem.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1. pp. 12. 41 (HR art. 23, GWS art. 53). DA Pam 27·161-2. pp. 173. 176-177. FM 27-10, paras 234.236. GREENSPAN, pp. 85, 318-321.
o
CAMOUFLAGING PROTECTIVE EMBLEMS
PROBLEM:
A division is to be moved at night (rom the rear to a stagingarea. The chiefofstaffhas reservation. about moving medical facilities, transport vehicles. and mobile units withthedivision, since tbeconspicuoU8 protective emblem (red er08S on a white background) makes it easier (or enemy air reconnaissance to detect movement. Nevertheless. the division commander insists upon taking medical support and orders tbe protective emblem to be camouflaged on all such facilities, transport vehicles, and mobile units.
Is the commander’s action permissible under the law ofwar? If so, whnt, ifany, risks are involved? Expfuin your answers.
DISCUSSION:
The division commander may camouflage the Be aware, though, that the risk of attack on medical facilities, vehicles. and mobile units the medical facilities, equipment, and material which will accompany the division. Normally. may be increased. Medical facilities, equipment, these objects are marked to indicate their material. and personnel recognized as such, protected status. However, if it is likely that the may not be attacked even if not marked with a enemy wilt gain intelligence from the visible conspicuous protective emblem. However. this presence of medical facilities, equipment, and protection, as a rule, can only be achieved by the material. then camouflaging the protective display of these distinctive markings. Without emblem is permissible. In the case above, there them, it is difficult to distinguish between is a reasonable chance that the division’s legitimate military targets and protected movement to the staging area will be more objects. In the present case, there is a danger easily detected if the protective emblems are not that the camouflaged medical convoy will be camouflaged. considered 8 combat unit subject to attack.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, pp. 37-39 (GWS arts. 39, 42).
DA Pam 27·161·2, p. 109.
FM 27·10, para 242.
GREENSPAN, 00. 347-348n. 137.
CONCEPT, STATUS, AND TREATMENT OF
o SHIPWRECKED PERSONNEL: THE PERMIS­SIBILITY OF FIRING ON ENEMY PERSONNEL OF SUNKEN LANDING CRAFT
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
The order to fire on the enemy swimming toward the beachhead from the sunken landing craft is lawful.
A shipwreck can result from any cause (e.g.• ocean conditions. enemy action). It includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft. The term “shipwrecked personnel” assumes that such personnel are helplessly exposed to the natural forces of the seas and that they require aid from others in order to overcome their defenseless state. Accordingly, shipwrecked personnel have a protected status and may not be attacked.
However. as in the case of wounded combatants. the protection given to shipwrecked soldiers depends on their stopping combat activities. The protected status is given only to soldiers who surrender or cease to fight because of wounds, illness. or shipwreck. If the soldier continues to fight, he loses his protected status and may be attacked.
In the present case, a decision must be made. Are the soldiers of the sunken landing crah swimming solely to rescue themselves? Or, like the enemy in the landing craft not sunk, are they attempting to continue their combat mission by reaching their beachhead? Enemy paratroops may be fired upon while descending during a combat operation, despite their relatively defenseless position; enemy soldiers may be engaged if they are trying to carry out their mission of reaching a beachhead by swimming ashore after their landing crah has been sunk.
The fact that the enemy soldiers were swimming towards the beachhead. instead of waiting to be rescued or swimming to vessels in the area, strongly indicates that they were trying to join their comrades already ashore and continue the fight. Moreover. the soldiers’ proximity to, and advance toward, their beach­head demonstrates they were not defenseless and in need of help. On the contrary. it is very closeness to the beachhead and their comrades. likely that they would resist any attempt by the Under the law of war. therefore. these soldiers enemy to rescue them considering their do not represent shipwrecked personnel.
REFERENCES:

DA Pam 27-1, pp 12,48-49.52 (HR art 23(c). GWS SEA arts 3.12).
FM 27-10, paras 29. 31.
GREENSPAN. pp 72n. 24. 73.

STATUS AND TREATMENT OF OCCUPANTS OF
o DISABLED COMBAT VEHICLES
PROBLEM:
Sergeant K di••bled an enemy ta.nlL The tan..k. crew climbed out and bel’aD runniDI’ toward their own liDee, t•..Id.D1′ with them. wounded eoldier. Sergeant K rll’ed on the fleeinl’ enemy -.nd innicted eNualtin. A. Sergeant K advanced on the enemy, tbe survivors raised their banm,. Only tben.did Sergeant K cease firinl’. _.~…­
J'””‘~1f:;’-‘”‘.

~…….

A
1′,,…. ~.’ <I,Y~..’tIW. I ‘.. I··
HasSergeantKactedinviolationofthelawofwar? Why,orwhynot?
DISCUSSION:
Sergeant K has not violated the law of war. It is not apparent that Sergeant K directed his fire at the wounded soldier. The presence of the wounded soldier does not prevent one from firing on the unwounded enemy soldiers. A wounded soldier in a combat area continues to be exposed to the risks and effects of the fire directed at other enemy.
Unwounded soldiers are not protected from further attack merely because their vehicle became disabled. It is true that the enemy who becomes shipwrecked by the sinking of his vessel during combat or one who parachutes from a disabled aircraft in an emergency may not be fired upon. However, until the contrary is indicated. a soldier may assume that the crew of a combat vehicle will continue to fight when outside their vehicle. The disabling of a military vehicle does not generally indicate that the crew is defenseless. Only the enemy who clearly indicates his desire to surrender is protected from further attack. In the present case, the tank crew continued 10 resist capture by trying to flee to their own lines. Therefore, they could be fired on until they raised their hands to surrender.
REFERENCES:

DA Pam 27-1. p 12 (HR an 23{c)).

FM 27-10, para 225b.

GREENSPAN. pp 72·73.
SURRENDER OF ENEMY PERSONNEL: PRE·
o CAUTIONARY MEASURES IN THE SURRENDER OF APPROACHING ARMED ENEMY PERSONNEL
PROBLEM:
While on guard duty. Private L is ap­proached by two armed enemy soldiers who wave pieces of white cloth and signal not to [!Te. He commands the enemy soldiers to throwaway their weapons and raise their hands. They do not obey the command, although they evidently understand iL Private L then (“Ires a warning shot and again gives the command. When the enemy soldiers do not obey but continue to advance, hefires andwoundsoneofthesoldiers.Then the other obeys his command.
Has Private L acted lawfully? Explain.
In the present case, despite the display of a
DISCUSSION:
Private l has acted lawfully under the circumstances. The killing or wounding of an enemy who is trying to surrender is a serious violation of the law of war. Normally, the enemy may be fired on without warning.  Showing a white flag in conjun acts (e.g.. throwing indicates surrender.  down  weapons) ction with  other also

However, once a soldier has stopped fighting white flag, the intentions of the approachingbecause of wounds. illness, or shipwreck, or has enemy soldiers were not clear, as they did not surrendered, he is protected. The soldier discard their weapons. Private L acted correctly becomes a prisoner of war as soon as he in commanding them to throw down theirsurrenders or otherwise comes under the weapons and raise their hands. Since thecontrol of the enemy. As SUCh. he acquires a enemy soldiers continued to advance withspecial status which must be respected in all weapons in hand and then disregarded a
circumstances.
warning shot and a second command. it may
Surrender is not required to take any specific be reasonably assumed that they did not wish to form. Usually. a surrendering soldier will surrender. Private L could. and did. use that discard his weapon and raise his hands. amount of force necessary to stop their advance.
REFERENCES:
OA Pam 27·1, p 12 (HR art 23 lc. fl).
FM 27-10. paras SO, 52-53, 84, 467. 478.
KILLING OR WOUNDING OF SURRENDERING ENEMY PERSONNEL; THE DEFENSE OF SELF­DEFENSE: PUNISHMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR FOR PRYOR CRIMINAL ACTS
PROBLEM:
A prisoner i. accused by the detaining power of violating the law of war. An investigation revealed the following: The prisoner, a seaman, was stationed aboard a torpedo boat which had engal’ed an enemy minesweeper and disabled it. The captain of the minesweeper ordered hi. men to surrender and raised a white flag 8S 8signof the surrender. The enemy vessel was boarded by a party from the torpedo boat. The accused seaman, who wu a member of the boardingparty, was ordered tocbeck the captured vessel’s engine room. He
discovered an enemy seaman who was
attempting to scuttle the captured vessel. The accused twice ordered the enemy seaman to stop and surrender. Although he understood the orders, the enemy seaman continued his attempt to scuttle the vessel. The accused then shot and killed the enemy seaman. A month later the accused was captured during a landing operation.
Can the detaining power lawfully try the prisoner for a killing committed prior to his capture? If so, does the accused lose his prisonerofwar status?Has theprisonerviolatedthe lawofwar? Explain.
DISCUSSION:
If there is sufficient evidence, a prisoner can surrender and displayed the white flag, his crew be tried by the detaining power for a criminal act was no longer authorized to engage in combat committed before his capture. However, the activities. The torpedo boat was under a prisoner does not lose his protected status. He corresponding obligation to cease combat must be treated as a prisoner of war, even if activities against the enemy minesweeper. found guilty of a crime and punished. Nevertheless. the crew of the torpedo boat
In the present case the accused seaman has might defend against further combat activities not violated the law of war. From the moment carried out by the members of the crew of the the captain of the minesweeper ordered minesweeper in spite of the surrender. The enemy seaman’s attempt to scunle the minesweeper was such an activity. The attempt, whether authorized or not, may be suppressed by all lawful means, including the use of deadly force, if necessary. Thus, the accused could fire on the enemy seaman, especially since the latter continued despite being twice warned to cease.
REFERENCES: OA Pam 27-1. pp 12, 98 (HR art 23(f), GPW art 851.
FM 27-10, para 50, 161 c.
GREENSPAN. pp 320-321.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFISCATION OF PAPERS, PERSONAL EFFECTS, AND IDENTIFICATION, KILLING OR WOUNDING PRISONERS OF WAR, PREVENTING ATTEMPTED ESCAPES
PROBLEM:
An NCO reports: “I have captured five enemy soldien and have taken from them all papen and identification. Two or the pri80nen attempted escape. One wu killed, and the other wu wounded and recaptured. According to another prisoner, the wounded prisoner shot six PWs two days ago.”
“­” ••

What melUlures should the commander take? Explain.
DISCUSSION:
The commander should have the prisoners’ identification and personal papers returned to them after inspection. Purely personal eHects may not be confiscated from prisoners of war. However, the seizure of documents and other papers having an intelligence value is permissible. In order to separate such material from purely personal eHects. all items may be seized temporarity for inspection. A prisoner’s idontification may not be confiscated. Normally, he need only show it and should be in possession of it at all times. However, if an identity document is not simply an 10 and contains additional information of an intelligence value, it may be seized. In such a case, a replacement identity document must be prepared and issued to the prisoner as soon as possible.
The commander should also initiate an investigation into the attempted escape. Such an investigation must be conducted whenever a prisoner of war is killed or seriously wounded. The killing or wounding of prisoners of war, normally aserious violation of the laws of war, is justified when absolutely necessary to prevent escape, provided the force used is not excessive given the circumstances.
The commander should investigate the alleged killing of PWs by the recaptured wounded prisoner. Although this prisoner must be treated as a prisoner of war. he may be tried by a court-martial for a war crime committed before his capture. A report of this investigation should then be forwarded through channels for action.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 9. 73-75. 98. 100. 110-111 (HR art8. GPW arts 17-18. 85. 92-93. , 20·121).
FM 27-10, paras 85.94.
GREENSPAN, pp 105-106, 131-142.
~    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFIS­W     CATION OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, INTERROGATION BY
THREAT, FORCED PRISONERS

,~~.~~
.,,—~ ~-=:::..
.. -~–. ,
:~–. :.~
–,­

.I
LABOR, EVACUATION OF
PROBLEM:
A company commander reports to bat­talion: liMy company has captured 78 enemy soldiers. I intend to confiscate personal field rations, winter coat.s, shelter halves, and first-aid kits. These items are urgently needed by my troops. Our own medical and food suppliesareexhausted, and we have no winter coats or shelter halves to protect us from the cold. The prisoners have ample food supplies and will soon be moved to the rear where they will have their housing and other needs provided by our forces, It seems that my company’ssituation could be eased without making the prisoners’ condition appreciably more difficult.
“I also need information regarding troop strength in my sector. The prisoners are not willing to give any information beyond their name, rank, date of birth. and service number. The desired information might be obtained by threatening to send the prisoners back to theirown forces, since the enemy threatens capital punishment for soldiers who allow themselves to be captured.
“I intend to use prisoners in constructing reserve fortifications in the rear of my defensive position.
“Request instructionson how to proceed in the above·mentioned matters.”
How s/wuld the battalion commander respond?
DISCUSSION:
The battalion commander should prohibit the confiscation of winter coats from the prisoners at this time. He should prohibit the taking of shelter halves until the prisoners are actually moved to the rear and placed in housing. As a rule. prisoners of war must remain in possession of all effects and articles of personal use (e.g.. clothing, food. and personal protection). This is true even though such articles are regularly issued mititaryequipment. Although the captor may have a need for such items. confiscation is prohibited unless the prisoners have no need for the articles or satisfactory substitutes are provided.
The battalion commander may permit the taking of some of the first-aid kits. Normally. items of this nature cannot be confiscated because they are considered to be articles used for the personal protection of prisoners of war. However, if medical aid can be provided by other means, or if some lesser quantity of the first-aid kits would provide adequate protection under the circumstances, then it is permissible to use a number of the kits to attend to friendly wounded. In the present case, once evacuation of the prisoners to a camp outside the combat zone begins, only a supply of the kits which would be adequate to cover emergencies during the evacuation need be left with the prisoners. The excess may be used in the treatment of the captor’s wounded.
The battalion commander should also only permit the confiscation of excess food supplies. An adequate supply of field rations must be left with the prisoners until such time as these provisions are supplied from other sources.
The battalion commander should not allow any threats to be made against the prisoners to determine the size of the enemy force in the company’s sector. Prisoners of war may not be forced by any means to give information to the enemy. They are required to give only their name, rank, service number. and date of birth. In the case above. a threat to send them back to their own forces if the desired information is not given would represent interrogation by Threat, which is unlawful.
Finally, the battalion commander should prohibit the use of a prisoner of war work force to construct the company’s reserve fortification. Such employment would violate the law of war as prisoners of war must not be needlessly exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone. They must be evacuated as soon as possible to camps situated in an area far enough from a combat zone forthem to beout of danger. Moreover. digging fortifications (except shelters for their own protection) is not one of the classes of work which, under the provisions of GPW Article 50, prisoners of war may be compelled to perform. In no event may they be compelled to perform work of a military character or purpose against their own armed forces. Finally, a prisoner of war may not be
employed in unhealthy or dangerous labor unless he volunteers for such work. In the present case, the construction of field fortifications in a combat zone would constitute dangerous work.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1, pp 72·76(GPW arts 13,15,17-20.23.49.50, and 53). FM 27-10, paras 93-96, 125·138. GREENSPAN, pp ’02·’07, ‘1’-1 ‘3.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: QUARTERS, SEGREGATION, EVACUATION, INTERROGATION, BONDAGE
PROBLEM:
A platoon leader report. the foUowinlJ to his company commander: “My platoon captured (our enemy soldiers. I bad them placed in • baeement under pard. A fight erupted amona the pri80DeJ’~ and ] had to order the pardi to break it up. One prisoner had accuaed another of beiD” a ‘major on a special miNion’ and insisted that the individual had recently been a prisoner of war. The accused prisoner carried no insignia of rank and refused to state his rank. In an attempt to get him to talk, I ordered that he be separated (rom the other prisoners, bound, and isolated in anotber part ofthe basement. I will shortly begin my interrogation of him. [ also intend to evacuate the prisoners tothe rear afterdark. The route i. under enemy observation by day, and any movement cornea under immediate enemy fire.”
-. .»)
.;:; )
C_I )
~·C
Is theplatoon leader’s conductproperaccordingto thelaw ofwar?
DISCUSSION:
The temporary confinement of the prisoners is permissible. The laws of warfare concerning the housing of prisoners of war only apply to quartering in a prisoner of war camp. In the combat zone, immediately after capture, the primary consideration is to house the prisoners so they are protected from the effects of combat operations and cannot escape. As long as the type of temporary quarters does not endanger either the lives or the health of the prisoners, or represent a form of punishment, it is not objectionable under the law of war. In the above case, the quartering in a basement was both practical and lawful.
It was also permissible to detain the prisoners until dark, since moving them to the rear by day would expose them to great danger.
Fights among prisoners of war are to be prevented in order to maintain discipline and to preserve their health and safety. Prisoners of war can be isolated to prevent fights. In the present case, it is likely that such fights would occur.
No threat or force of any kind can be applied to prisoners to obtain information from them. This includes information which a prisoner is required to give under the law of war (I:e., name, rank., service number. and date o( birth).
In the case above, the prisoner who refused to give his rank is only subject to the loss of advantages to which he would otherwise be entitled because of rank and position. Binding and interrogating him in order to obtain his rank is an impermissible act of force. Since he had it was necessary to prevent another escape. been identified as being a prior escapee. binding However. this was not the reason given for the him temporarily would have been permissible if restraint.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1, pp 72·75 (GPW arts 13. 17. 19.20).
FM 27-10. paras 89. 93.
MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL ARTICLES AND EQUIPMENT, INTERROGATION BY FORCE, REPRISALS, SUMMARY PUNISHMENT
PROBLEM:
Soldier Jones was captured by the enemy. However. before being transported to a prisoner o( war collecting point, he escaped and made his way back to his unit. He reported that he was mistreated by the enemy. ]n particular, all his personal possessions were confiscated, and he was beaten in an attempt to force him to yield information on troop strength and equip­menL Later, when enemy soldiers are taken prisoner, members of Jones’ unit take the (ollowing actions:

Treat the prisoners with equal

harshneu,

Confiscate the prisoners’ personal

pos8e88ions, food, and luxury items,

Force the prisoners to yield

information on enemy troop strength

and equipment, using physical

mistreatment when necessary.
What measures slwuld the commander ofJones’ unit take? Why? Whatfurther action,ifany, slwuldhetakeiftheprisonersinclude tlwse wlw had mistreated Jones?
DISCUSSION:
The commander should prohibit the members higher headquarters. It is apparent that the of his unit from carrying out the acts listed above enemy treated Jones in violation of the law of against the prisoners and order the immediate war. As a prisoner of war. Jones should have evacuation of the prisoners to a collecting point been allowed to retain those personal articles in the rear. He should also initiate appropriate and effects which served to clothe. feed. and disciplinary action and report the incident to protect him. Moreover. no forcible measures
should have been taken aRainst Jones to obtain channels a detailed report of the violations. information from him. Nevertheless, this Prisoners who violate the law of war before conduct in violation of the law of war may not capture may be tried for such violations by the be retaliated against with one’s own unlawful detaining power before a court-martial. treatment of prisoners of war. Reprisals against However, these prisoners continue to retain prisoners of war are specifically prohibited. their protected status as prisoners of war. even if convicted and sentenced. Independent or If the prisoners include those who have summary actions directed against them by the mistreated Jones, then the commander should captors are expressly prohibited by the law of
also prepare and forward through military war.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1. pp 72-75, 98 (GPW arts 13, 17·18, 85).
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 85-90.
FM 27-10. paras 93,161, 497c.
CONDUCT IN CAPrIVITY: DISPOSAL OF ITEMS POTENTIALLY USEFUL TO THE ENEMY WAR EFFORT, CONFISCATION OF EQUIPMENT, PAPERS, AND PERSONAL EFFECTS, INTERROGATION BY FORCE, PROTESTING MISTREATMENT
PROBLEM:
Lieutenant X is captured by the enemy. The following items are taken from him: weapons; binoculars; a message-form pouch containing mission orders. a number of messages and situation diagrams; personal correspondence; family photos, a private war diary; wristwatch; engagement ring; identification tags; and money. The prisoner is questioned about the designation. breakdown. strength, armament, and position of his unit. He is ordered to give information concerning his own mission and to state the namesofhis brigade anddivision
,-••
commanders. The prisoner states that he is a member of the 24th Infantry Battalion and gives information on the breakdown and strength ofhis platoon. A threat isthen made to chop offhis fingers if he does not give the names of his brigade and division commanders. The threat is followed by several knife pricks to one of his arms,
~ ( ••• ‘” j,         causin-g it to bleed. Lieutenant X then gives two wrong names and complains of his mistreatment.
24

Has Lieutenant X conducted himself properly under the circumstances? Explain. What protests, if any, should be made concerning the treatment he has received?
DISCUSSION:
Before being captured, Lieutenant X should including that which he is required to give under have tried to destroy, or otherwise dispose of. the laws of war (i,e” name, rank, service his weapons and any equipment. documents, number, and date of birth), He should further and papers (e.g., his mission orders, messages, protest that personal items and effects, such as situation diagrams. private war diary), or other his ,.-..ristwatch, family photos, personal items which would be useful to the enemy’swar correspondence, and engagement ring, as well effort. When interrogated, he should have given as his identification tags, may not be only his name, rank, service number. and date of confiscated. Such items should have been birth. Though the enemy acted unlawfully in returned to him after being inspected for any forcing him to give additional information, military intelligence which they might have Lieutenant X may have. by giving some of the contained. additional information. violated the criminal
On the other hand, to confiscate his weapons, laws of his own country. As such, he may be binoculars, message-form pouch and itssubject to punishment upon repatriation.
contents, the war diary, and his money was
Lieutenant X should protest. As a prisoner of permissible. The money, however, should have war, he may not be physically mistreated or been taken only when ordered by an oHicer and forced in any way to yield any information, after receipt had been given for it.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1, pp 72-75 (GPW arts 13, 17-18). FM 27-10, paras 93-94a.
CONDUCT IN CAPTIVITY: RESISTING ENEMY INTERROGATION ATTEMPTS, PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE ENEMY, BOMBARDMENT OFVIUAGES
PROBLEM:
Sergeant M is captured. The interrogating

,

enemy officer. to whom Sergeant M gave his
name, rank, date of birth, and service

number, wants more information and

threatens to send him before a military court …

for violating tbe law of war if he does not ~,~,,~.~o..l~

comply, He accuses Sergeant M offiring into .”

a defended village with his tank. destroying ~}J.

houses and killing civilians in the process, ~I

The enemy officer considers Sergeant M’s II

behavior to be in violation oithe law ofwar.
Has the interrogating officer acted in w:cordance with the law of war? Has Sergeant M violated the law of war? How should Sergeant M conduct himself under the circumstances? Explain all an.swers.
DISCUSSION:
The interrogating officer has not acted in destruction does not make the bombardment accordance with the laws of war. A prisoner of unlawful, provided the fire is directed at, and is war only must give his name, rank, service intended for, military targets. number, and date of birth. Neither physical nor
Sergeant M should not give any additional mental coercion may be used against him to information to the enemy, regardless of theobtain any information. In the present case, the threats made against him. This obligation is not threat of a criminal trial represents an attempt to affected by any Question concerning theforce information and is prohibited. This is so lawfulness of the Sergeant’s action against theeven assuming the accused actually committed village. For a US serviceman, any statements an act in violation of the law of war.
which provide the enemy with military
It does not appear that Sergeant M has acted information, or otherwise aid in their war effort, in violation of the law of war. The village was are offenses punishable under the Uniform defended and could therefore be fired upon. The Code of Military Justice. Sergeant M should killing of civilians and the destruction of their only point out that he has acted in compliance homes are generally unavoidable when military with the law of war and is therefore not subject targets in towns are fired upon. Such killing or to prosecution.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1, pp 73-74,153 (GPW art 17, GC art 53).
FM 27-10, paras 42. 93.
UCMJ art 104{2).

PROTECTED STATUS OF CIVILIANS: CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN RELIEF AND RESCUE EFFORTS, THE PERMISSIBILITY OF FORCEFUL MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE OCCUPANT ORDERS, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, CURFEWS, FORCEFUL EVACUATION
PROBLEM:
A battalion penetrates a city durin, a heavy engagement. The enemy i. .till offeringtough rni.tancein isolatedpocket8. The battalion has many wounded and not enough medical peraonnel ormaterial tocare for them. Therefore, the battalion com­mander orden the civilian population to collect the wounded and give them shelter, care, and medical attention. The residents, ineluding a physician, refuse to comply with theorder.Theysayongoingcombataetivities would make collection of the wounded dangeroWi and cause further losses among the civilian population. Moreover, there are many wounded among the civilian popula· tion to becared for. Thebattalioncommander intends to implement strong me88ures against members of the civilian population who do notcomply. Healsointendsto impose a curfewandforciblyevacuateportionsofthe city in response to what he considers insubordinate behavior.
,

Arethe battalioncommander’sactions legalunderthelawofwar?
27
DISCUSSION:
In occupied territories, force may be used against civilian populations only to implement lawful orders of the military. Although the city in the present case is still contested and may not be considered an occupied territory, the principle applies to combat areas. Forceful measures that may be taken against insubordinate inhabitants include their internment or detention. However, like reprisals. collective punishment against the civilian population is not permitted.
The forceful evacuation of sections of the city must be excluded from the planned measures from the outset. Though forceful evacuation of portions of a city would be permissible in the interest of the population’s safety or because of pressing military needs. neither of these reasons appears to exist in the case above. Instead, the measure is meant to be a form of collective punishment and is therefore not permissible.
A curfew likewise would be permissible as a temporary security measure. In the present case, however, it is also intended to be a form of collective punishment and is therefore not permissible.
Punishing insubordinate civilians or applying some other form of force presupposes that the order of the battalion commander was lawful. According to Article 18 of the Geneva Convention on Wounded and Sick in the Field, a military authority can call upon local inhabitants to voluntarily participate in the rescue and care of the wounded. Local inhabitants can be used against their will, though, for certain types of work covered by provisions of the Geneva Civilians Convention. Under these provisions, it is permissible to employ civilians over 18 years of age in work which fulfills the medical needs of the military, provided it is not potentially dangerous totheir health or safety. Forexample, the military can require civilians to serve in military hospitals and to participate in the rescue and care of wounded personnel. Such employment does not violate the rule which forbids civilians to take part in all combat or combat-related activities.
In the present case, however, the reasons presented by the local civilian population preclude their employment in rescuing the wounded soldiers. Employing the civilians to rescue the wounded during combat would expose them to great danger. Furthermore, if civilian physicians and other medical personnel are needed to care for the civilian wounded. the military may not prevent them from fulfilling their normal duties. Article 56 of the Civilians Convention specifically requires the military to allow such medical personnel to carry out their tasks in providing medical care for the civilian population. Article 57 of the Civilians Convention gives the civilian population priority in the use of civilian medical facilities.
Therefore, the forcible measures threatened by the battalion commander may not be carried out against members of the civilian population. His acts are not in accordance with the law of war, and he may only call upon the local inhabitants to voluntarily collect, shelter, and care for his wounded.
REFERENCES:

DAPam27-1,pp31, 144-146, 150-153(GWSart18.GCarts27, 31,33,49, 51,55·57).

FM 27-10, paras 266. 270,272.

GREENSPAN, PP 170-171, 267-268.
CIVILIAN EVACUATION FROM COMBAT
AREAS: IMPLEMENTING ORDERS AND PROCEDURES, PUNISHMENT FOR NON· COMPLIANCE
PROBLEM:
In preparingto defend a heavily populated village. a brigade commander desires to clear the battle area ofremaining civilians. The evacuation is necessary for urgent military reasons and for the safety of the local populace. The commander directs his 81 to drofl a suitable order. The latter submits the following draft:
UA Company, 1st Bn, shall immediately dispatch five 2-man teams to announce the evacuation by means of poslers. The A -,”””,./ Company CO shall personally notify the mayor. Notificationofthemayoranddisplay of the announcement shall be completed by 2400 hours today. Evacuation shall begin at 0600 and be completed by 1800 hours tomorrow. The road to city 0 shall be kept clear (or this purpose. Forcible transport shall be implemented if the civilian population refuses to be evacuated. In addition, the houses of individuals who refuse to be evacuated shall be destroyed. Special orders shall be issued at the proper time. Special detachments will be available
..

after 0600 hours tomorrow to carry out punitive measures if necessary.”
What reservations should the company commander have concerning the order as drafted? How should the order be modified?
DISCUSSION:
Generally, all individual or mass evacuations abide by these orders. However, any of civilians by force and the displacement of punishment must be left to the judgment of a protected individuals in a combat area are military court of the occupying forces.
prohibited. However. the military can
Punishment for not obeying lawful
implement complete or partial evacuation of a implementing orders cannot be imposedspecific region for urgent military reasons or for summarily. Measures designed to intimidate or the safety of local inhabitants. The evacuation terrorize the civilian populace are prohibited. In must be coordinated by major command the case above, it is therefore unlawful toauthorities. In the case above. evacuation is threaten the destruction of houses for necessary both for urgent military reasons (ie.,
noncompliance. Moreover, the deliberate
combat preparations, maintenance ofsecrecy).
destruction of civilian homes itself is a violation and for the safety of the local populace (ie.•
of the law of war in the absence of a clear
protection from anticipated combat operations).
showing of a legitimate military necessity.
Civilians and other protected persons may not be detained in an area which is particularly The draft order should be modified to exposed to the dangers of war. In carrying out eliminate all references to the threatened the evacuation, the military must also see that destruction of civilian homes. However, the the needs of the evacuated are supplied and that local inhabitants should still be warned that they have suitable shelter. individuals refusing to obey the evacuation
order will be subject to judicial punishment. The
A lawful evacuation can be implemented by question of evacuation should be coordinated force if the civilian populace does not obey with higher military authorities, and implementing orders. Noncomplying arrangements should be made for the care and inhabitants may also bepunishedforrefusing to relocation of all displaced persons.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 15().-151 (GC arts 49, 53).
DA Pam 27·161·2, p 168.
FM 27-10, paras 382, 393.
TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION IN OCCUPIED AREAS: CIVIUAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF RESISTANCE FIGHTERS, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, REPRISALS
PROBLEM:
A platoon occupied an enemy village. It found that the village contained no enemy soldiers. The populace was ordered to turn over all weapons. No weapons were turned over and none were found.. Later, a equad leader wu sbot in the back, praumably by • resident of the village. Mem.bere of the platoon immediately conducted a house search and rounded up a number ofcivilians.
3D
It was certain that no one bad been able to escape before or during tbe searcb.
Certain soldiers now urge their platoon leader to order the civilians to point out the perpetrator and threaten them with execution if they refuse. Some demand that three civilians be sbot in retaliation for the murder of tbeir comrade and that the bouse from which the shot came be burned.
Are the denuuuls of the soldiers lawful? What action should the
plutoon leader take?
DISCUSSION:
Even assuming the individual who killed the squad leader is among the civilians collected. punishing all for the act of the one is prohibited. Collective punishment violates the law of war. No one may be punished for an act for which he is not personally responsible. Only if it can be determined that all of the collected civilians were not only concealing the perpetrator but also involved in the killing could they all be held accountable.ln any case, determining the guilty party and his punishment is the responsibility of a properly constituted military court. Executions without trial by a regularly constituted court are in violation of the law of war.
It is unlawful to apply physical or mental coercion to protected civilians to obtain information from them. Just the threat of shooting the civilians who do not comply would be in violation of the law of war.
The execution of the three civilians in retaliation for the ~hooting of the soldier and the burning of the house from which the shot came would also be unlawful. Reprisals in occupied territory against civilians and their property are forbidden under the law of war.
The platoon leader should prohibit all demands and should deliver any persons suspected of commitling or participating in the killing to a collecting point. along with a detailed report of the incident.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, PP 137, 145-1461GC arts 5, 31-33}

DA Pam 27-161·2. p 166. FM 27·10, para 248. GREENSPAN, PP 168-171.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS PARTICIPATING IN COMBAT ACTIVITIES: RESISTING INVADING FORCES. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENTS. REPRISALS. HOSTAGES
PROBLEM:
A company commander reports to hi. battalion commander: “My company secured a village in enemy territory immediately after the outbreak orhoatilitie8. Though my unit did not encounter any regular enemy 80Idien in the village, its civilian population offered armed resistance. As we entered the vill••e. a group of uniformed police officer.
–and a large number of fanatical youth. suddenly opened fire on us. After the fire fight,theviUa.ew..aearchedand a number of prisooera were ta.ken. In addition, some re~lIident8 who had not participated in combat activities were taken into custody. The latter were threatened with countermeasures if any surprise attacks were repeated. A number ofbomes were eet

on rue in retaliation for the previous surprise attack. My company has since evacuated the village, takin. along the prisoners and some other residents as , ,–… ~ ,-hosta’e8, and returned to friendly territory. ~ (J,., J-..~ Instructions are requested as to what .l \ ~ ::Ji>1″‘:;~~ disposition should be made of the prisoners”I and the hostages. In my opinion, the
(\ \.. “,’.1 _” • ~Pri80ners should be tried….

l..'” \~ ~I;
.\t

.”, I~’ ,-;\-:’~~~”~
, l”t …….t;~1t~~, ~ .~
”>’~’ L ,,, • ~ . ,,’,…..
“‘-….. L\. “‘j’ . ….. :-…..1: .,
I -_ .’-‘~>:6V-d'””-“,·,! 1111’1″‘ .,~.~. ,-‘ ,”‘. -::~–~~~. <; II~I J “IlI! -.
-‘_ ‘………/ LJl~ J .~C”i;;
Have the company commander and his men lUtedlawfully under circumstances? Explain. What lUtion should the battalion commander take?
DISCUSSION:
The civilian populace of a nonoccupied war. Members of a civilian police force can territory may take up arms against an invading participate in combat activities. as lawful enemy if they have not had time to form regular combatants under the conditions described armed forces. and if they carry their weapons above. Since these conditions were satisfied openly and observe the laws and customs of both for the police officers and for the youths.
their participation in combat activities was The batlalion commander should order the justified. They are not to be treated aspartisans, hostages returned to their village and the police who are underprivileged belligerents, but rather and the youths who participated in combat as prisoners of war. activities delivered to a prisoner of war
Countermeasures. reprisals. collective collecting point. He should report the actions of punishment against civilians and their property, the company commander and other members of and the taking of hostages are prohibited. In the the company who were responsible for taking present case. the company has violated the law hostages. burning homes. and threatening of war by burning down homes, taking hostages. reprisals to the proper military authorities for and threatening civilians with reprisals. appropriate disciplinary action.
REFERENCES:
OA Pam 27·1, pp 68·70, 146(GPW art 4, GC arts 33·341.
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 166-167.
FM 27-10, paras 64-65, 272·273.
GREENSPAN, pp 407·417.
TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS IN OCCUPIED AREAS: CnnuAN PARTIC~ATION lli COMBAT ACTMTIES. TEMPORARY FORCEFUL EVACUA· TION FOR SEARCH PURPOSES, HIDlliG ENEMY WEAPONS AND PERSONNEL, PUNISHMENT, REPRISALS, DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
PROBLEM:
The following i. a report from a company conuriander to his battalion commander: “‘Today we captured the town of C-ville. Suspecting that the residents had planted mines inthetown, [ hadtheareatemporarily evacuated and searched. The search yielded the following: 20 antipersonnel mines in one home, an enemy officer in another home. It was determined that the mines had been delivered to family A by guerrillas and were to be Bet by the family. An enemy officer was concealed by family B in their bome. What is to be done with families A and B, whom [ have taken into custody? I recommended burning their houses as a deterrenL”
Did the company commander exerciseproper conduct according to the law ofwar?
DISCUSSION:
Generally, any displacement of civilians is refrain from active partIcipation in combat prohibited. However, the evacuation of a town activities to retain their protected status. The for pressing military reasons is permissible. In two families should therefore be delivered, the present case, the evacuation of C-ville was along with a detailed report of their conduct, to necessary in order to locate mines which may the proper military authorities for prosecution. have been planted and to prevent similar acts
Burning the homes of famities A and B as afrom occurring in the future. Therefore. the deterrent is prohibited. Civilian property in an temporary evacuation of C-ville was not in occupied enemy area may be destroyed duringviolation of the laws of war.
military operations only if the destruction is for
The arrest of families A and B was justified. pressing military reasons (e.g.• to acquire a field Family A supported the guerrillas ar.d of fire or to eliminate a concealed enemy route participated in hostilities by sloring the mines. of approach). No such reason is apparent in the The family has thus subjected itself to present case. The burning of civilians’ property, punishment and may be tried by a military court. either as a reprisal or for purposes of Family B is subject to punishment forconcealing intimidation or as punishment, is not the enemy officer. Such behavior is a form of permissible. Punishment may only be imposed active support of the enemy. Civilians must by a regularly constituted court.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 12, 137, 146. 150. 152 (HR art 23(g), GC arts 5. 33. 49, 53).
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 75-76.
FM 27-10, paras 248, 272. 382. 393.
RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS: STATUS OF MEMBERS. TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN SUP· PORTERS. PUNISHMENT
PROBLEM:
A battalion ia ordered to search city Ct located in occupied territory, in whiela aD organized resiataDce movement baa been detected. After the search, the oo_paay commander report. the followin. &0 the battalion commander: “The company took into custody 16 penons, pre.u.ably residenta, wearin. civilian clothinl’ aad enemy uniform jacke&8 with broad, aewed­on armband. displaying the enemy’. national emblem. All were equipped. with small arms, but no resistaoce was offered.
They identified themselves as members of a resistance movement which wassupposedto be directed by General Z from enemy territory. I placed the residente of the city under guard since they supported the resistance fighters. What is to be done with these individuals?”
.I ~
I •

I ‘.. ‘.4\r~,” ..~,
What action should the battalion commander take?
DISCUSSION:
The battalion commander should order the resistance fighters to a collecting point for prisoners of war. The residents of the city supporting the resistance fighters should be sent, with a detailed report, to the responsible military authorities for prosecution.
Members of any organized resistance movement are lawful combatants provided they
(1) are led by an individual responsible for his subordinates’ actions and conduct, (2) wear a fixed, distinctive insignia which is recognizable at a distance, (3) carry their weapons openly, and (4) conduct their operations in accordance with the rules and customs of war. Resistance movements can lawfully operate in occupied territory even though they are being directed from elsewhere. In the present case, these conditions have apparently been met. Thus, the 16 who claimed to be resistance fighters must be treated as lawful combatants and prisoners of war.
Members of the civilian population of an occupied territory who give aid to resistance fighters violate criminal regulations of the occupying power, regardless of whether the resisters are lawful combatants or mere terrorists. Only if the residents themselves belong to an organized resistance movement are they then treated as lawful combatants and not held criminally responsible for participation in combat activities. The facts in the case above do not indicate that the residents of the city were members of an organized resistance movement. Therefore, they may be punished if they have participated in aiding the resistance movement. However, punishment may not be summarily imposed. Only a competent court of the occupying power, after a fair and impartial hearing, may impose punishment.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1. pp 68-69. 155-156 (GPW art 4A(21. GC arts 66-681. FM 27·10, paras 64, 436, 428. GREENSPAN. pp 58-62.
LAWFUL COMBATANTS: THE STATUS AND TREATMENT OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND CITIZENS WHO PARTICIPATE IN MILITARY ACTIVITIES
PROBLEM:
During an advance by troops ofcountry X into enemy territory (country V), 60 unusual prisoners are captured. Some are citizens of country Z (8 nation which has already surrendered to country X and committed itself to ending a11 military activities). Some are citizens of country X itself. Some are ciliuna of country N. a neutral state. The prisoners state that they belong to the Ulntemational Corps,” a combat unit which was incorporated into the armed forces of country Y, but consists only of citizens of (orei,n nations. A. members of the UInternational Corps,” the prisoners wear popular military headgear and jackets which deviate eomewhat from tbe uniform of the armed forces of country Y. They are otherwise largely equipped with civilian items. All ofthe prisoners wear the national emblem ofcountry Y. underwhich the letters “Ie” for “International Corps” have been added.
.t ~~
•• ‘I

How are the prisoners to be treated?
DISCUSSION:
The prerequisite for treatment as a lawful combatant is membership in a group whose participation in combat activities is authorized by the laws of war (e.g.. membership in the armed forces of a party to the conflict).
Citizenship is not, however, a necessary condition for such status. Individuals who are not citizens of the country on whose side they are fighting are authorized to participate in combat activities, provided they belong to a group which is authorized to participate in the hostilities. The “International Corps” represents a body of foreign volunteers which has been incorporated into the armed forces of country Y. the latter being authorized to participate in combat activities. As such, members of the “International Corps” are considered to be lawful combatants and, therefore, entitled initially to be treated as prisoners of war.
The ultimate disposition of some of these persons will be affected by the following considerations.
The citizenShip of a neutral nation, possessed by several members of the “International Corps”, does not negate their authorization to participate in military activities. However, membership in the armed forces of a party to the conflict does result in the loss of the privileged position which the citizens of neutral countries otherwise enjoy.
Doubts might arise as to whether the citizens of country Z are still authorized to participate in combat activities after their country has surrendered. Its surrender does deprive them of the possibility of participating in combat activities as soldiers of their own country. However, it is not a violation of the taw of war to continue fighting in the armed forces of an ally or an organization which is equivalent to an ally in this respect. If they belong to such an organization of a country which has not yet lost the right to wage war as the result of surrender or a cease-fire, they are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, but may be subject to trial for their violation. The right of their homeland to punish them for continued participation in military activities is not affected by the above, but the detaining power may not convict those prisoners for violating the laws of their homeland.
Citizens of the detaining power (country X) need not be treated as prisoners of war after their status has been determined. They are subject to trial and punishment under the criminal law of their country (e.g.• treason, aiding the enemy) if they voluntarily participated in combat in the armed forces of the enemy.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1. pp 20-21. 68-70 (H.V. art 17, GPW arts 4, 5). FM 27-10, paras 61, 550a. UCMJ art 104. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 US 763, 787 (1948)
P.P. v. Oie Hee Koi, 2 WRL 715 (P.C.) (1968)
THE DETERMINATION AND TREATMENT OF LAWFUL COMBATANTS
PROBLEM:
‘.” .:.
, ..~
1.
Fourteen enemy soldiers in uniform.

2.
Five citizens of a neutral state who are members of a volunteer battalion which had been incorporated into the enemy armed forces.

3.
Ten police officers from a police unit wbich had been incorporated into the enemy armed (orces.

4.
Fourteen members of a resistance group which had committed sabotage activities in the area already occupied by friendly forces.

5.
Three crew members of an enemy civilian aircraftwhich had been forced to land.

6.
One enemy civilian carrying no in.ipja who had. tired. at and wounded a soldier in occupied territory.

7.
Four railroad personnel in uniform who bad been c8l’ryingouttheir business at a railroad station and had not participated in military activities.

DISCUSSION:
The commander must determine who, among the captives, are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war and who are to be treated as civilians. He should also determine against whom criminal proceedings should be initiated.
The following are to be treated as prisoners of war:
1.
The 14 enemy soldiers. as members of the regular armed forces of a party to the conflict.

2.
The 5 members of the volunteer battalion. which represents a corps of volunteers incorporated into the enemy armed forces. Citizens of neutral countries are lawful combatants if they participate in combat operations in a mannerprovided for by the laws of war. Although neutrals lose their claim to neutrality jf they participate in combat activities, they cannot be punished for this.

3.
The 10 police officers. The national laws of the country of origin determine who, from among its nationals, belong to the armed forces and are authorized to participate in military activities. This right is not necessarily limited to soldiers of the regular armed forces. If no such national authorization has been issued, police can omy participate in combat under the same conditions as other civilians.

4.
The members of the resistance movement may be considered prisoners of war, provided they:

a.
are ledby an individual responsible for his subordinates’ conduct and actions,

b.
wear permanent distinctive insignia which can be recognized from a distance,

c.
carry their weapons openly, and

d. observe the laws andusages of war in their combat activities.
Sabotage operations behind enemy lines are lawful combat activities, provided they are carried out by lawful combatanls. If the resistance movement has satisfied the specified conditions, the punishment of the members for sabotage activities is not permitted. However. if at least one of the prerequisites is not fulfilled, members of the resistance group are nol entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. They can be punished for the sabotage activities which they committed in accordance with the criminal and procedural laws which apply to the civilian population in the occupied territory.
5. The crew members of the enemy civilian aircrah, who are treated like members of the Merchant Marine Service and are entitled to prisoner of war status.
The following are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war:
a.
The civilian who. without being a member of some group authorized to participate in combat activities, hadfiredat and wounded a soldier. He can be punished for his acts by a military court and turned over to the proper military authorities for trial.

b.
The railroadpersonnel. They wouldbe treated as prisoners of war provided they: fal carried out activities as accredited nonmilitary personnel of the armed forces, fbI were authorized to conduct these activities by the armed forces, and reI had appropriate identification documents. Otherwise, they are to be treated as civilians andreleased. unless internment in an internment area for civilians appears to be required for security reasons.

REFERENCES:
OA Pam 27-1, pp 20-21, 68-70 (H.V. art 17. GPW art 4A, GC art 5).

DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 72-76.

FM 27-10. paras 61, 248, 550.

GREENSPAN. pp 97·101.157·160.
COMPARISON OF ESPIONAGE AND LAWFUL INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING PROCEDURES: RUSES OFWAR,CAMOUFLAGING,USEOFCIVILIAN
f’ CLOTHING, WEARING THE ENEMY’S UNIFORM i/ DURING RECONNAISSANCE MISSIONS
/
PROBLEM:
A very ragged soJdier, wearing a camou­flaged uniform ofhis country’. armed forces and carrying a radio, iscaptured in a wooded section near an important railroad bridge in a rear area. When interro••tect. he .tatee that he hid (or 10 day. in the woods after making a parachute jump to scout troop movements over the railroad bridge. He is glad to have become a prisoner o(war since he is hungry and wants to have a roof over hi. bead again. The interrogating officer states thatbewill Dot betreatedasaprisoner ofwar, but will be tried ae aspy. The eoldier replies that he was only carrying out hi.
~ I Ir mis8ion and was not aware of violating the .. I~I, law of war.
‘.’
t .,{ I t “(I’l;{‘”
‘.’ “‘(‘” ,1/.
f,’ ,’,I;~,Iri’ {~, .,.’;?¥4′
What treatment does the law of war prescribe for the capturedsoldier?
DISCUSSION: A spy is one who gathers or attempts to gather reconnaissance is a lawful combat activity. This intelligence within the zone of operations of a applies even though they use a permissible ruse belligerent, secretly or under false pretenses, in their mission. Camouflage is a permitted ruse with the intention of reporting the intelligence provided civilian clothing or the enemy uniform to his superiors. is not used during the intelligence-gathering operation. In the above case, the captured Members of the armed forces in uniform who soldier is not to be treated as a spy. but as a obtain intelligence in the enemy zone of prisoner of war, and is to be sent to a prisoner of operation do not commit espionage; rather, their war camp.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1. pp 13-14 (HR arts 24, 29)
DA Pam 27-161-2. pp 57-58.
FM 27·10, paras 48,75,
GREENSPAN. pp 318-320. 326-328.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PARLE­

MENTAIRES: MISUSE OF STATUS
PROBLEM:
A company commander reportll the foJ· lowing to his battalion commander: uFour parlementairee have approached our lines displaying a white flag. Each wore a broad white armband. Major A, the leader of the parlementaires. carried an identification document. Unknown to Major A, one of the parlementaires also brought along subver­sive pamphlets and materials. When the opportunity arose. be gavethem tooneofour guards. He then urged theguard to distribute the propaganda and to defect. Major A apologized for the incident and attempted to send the soldier back to his own lines. I prohibited this, however. Another member of the party expressed the de8ire to become our prisoner and not return to hisunit. Major A tried to send this soldier back, but I pre­vented him from doing this. I ordered the parlementaires to stay in a large shell crater until called. I directed this to prevent their viewing OW’ defensive positions. Major A DOW proteet. that I prevented him from .ending his men back to their own lines and be wiBhee to speak to you. He claims that he retainsabsolute and complete authorityover tbe parlementaires. He also complains that my order to remain in the shell crater is disrespectful.”

-. ­

How should the battalion commander respond to this situation?
Why?
DISCUSSION:
The battalion commander should reject the protests and complaints of Major A. He should order that the parlementaire who engaged in propaganda activities and the other who desired to become a prisoner both be sent to the fear as prisoners of war. Finally, he should decide wheth~r or not he wants to receive the remaining partemenlaires. If not. he should order that they be returned to their unit unharmed.
The members of the party are authorized parlementaires and are properly identified as such. They have a protected status and are entitled to immunity from capture, injury, or other harm.
One member of the party. however. has exploited his privileged position by urging the enemy to defect and by distributing propaganda material for the purpose of inciting the enemy to commit treason. He has therefore lost his claim to immunity. He may be delained, but must be treated as a prisoner of war since he is a member of the enemy armed forces. He may be punished for violating his privileged position.
By declaring that he no longer wishes to return to his unit. another member of the party has relinquished his status as a parlementaire. He has voluntarily left the area controlled by his armed forces and has put himself under the protection of the enemy who may grant him asylum. 1f detained. he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.
Under the circumstances, the temporary placement of the parlementaires in the shell crater was lawful. The measure was taken in order to prevent the parlementaires from using their special position 10 gather intelligence.
The battalion commander is not required to receive the parlementaires. Only when the latter indicate a desire to negotiate a cease-fire for the recovery of Ihe dead and wounded must they be received, and then only if the circumstances permit such a cease-fire. In this case they have not indicated such a desire. The battalion commander is therefore free to decide if he wishes to receive them.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, p 14 (HR arts 32-34).

DA Pam 27-161-2. p 53.

FM 27·10, paras 53. 45B·467.

GREENSPAN. pp 380-385.
~ FIRING ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS: THE W SIGNIFICANCE OF DISPLAYING WHITE FLAGS
PROBLEM: c
A company commander has been ordered

to reconnoiter an enemy village and !:::=~~iIOI

determine if it is occupied by the enemy. A

white flag i8 flyin. from one house, and

enemy occupation cannot be clearly

established. The rlr8t sergeant 8uggests

ruing into the village to aBcertain the

presence of enemy troops.
.’ ~~t.~,.~::;;;_ ;;=_~~
. ~
. ‘. [t;;;;;~””” .,..: . -~t,;..
,

Huw should the commander act in this situation? Explain.
DISCUSSION:
The Cl’mpany commander should not fire on the villal’8. Firing on undefended towns or buildings is not permitted, since this would cause unnecessary destruction. Doubt as to whether a town or building is defended shall not be settled by firing on these subjects. Other means, such as reconnaissance, must be used.
Displaying a white flag does not necessarily mean that a town or building is undefended. All available facts and circumstances must be considered. A white flag may indicate that the enemy wishes to negotiate or surrender.
However, if the white flag is not displayed by individuals but from buildings, it is more reasonable to assume that no resistance is being offered from these buildings. Whether the display applies only to a particular building, a group of buildings, or to an entire town will, likewise, only be determined from all circumstances in the particular case. Therefore, when a white flag is displayed in the manner stated, it is possible that the town or the building displaying the flag is undefended. Thus, the village should not be fired upon so long as no resistance is offered by the village.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, p 13 (HA art 25).
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 47-48
FM 27-10. paras 39. 5048.

FIRING ON TOWNS AND CITIES: MILITARY NECESSITY
PROBLEM: The entire supply line to enemy unit. opposing the division pasBeS through a city. Extensive supplies for these unit8 are stored in thecity’. warehouses. The staffconcludes the enemy mUlt be prevented from using the city … transportation and 8upply center. The chief of staff url’etI that the city be destroyed by combined air and artillery bombardment. He further arpee that since Umilitary neceuity” urgently requiree tm.. destruction, protection of the civilian population may be subordinated.
What decision should be made and why?
DISCUSSION:
Bombardment must be limited to those is called for on military grounds. The means military targets whose elimination is required by chosen for achieving military objectives must the present combat situation. Thus, troop involve the minimum possible destruction of the quarters, supply and transport facilities, and civilian population and property. In the case troop positions can be fired on as military above, the enemy supply line which passes targets. Bombardment of the entire town, through the city and the enemy’s use of a however, is not permissible, unless all of it is number of warehouses in the city do not, by being used for military purposes. themselves, justify the destruction of the entire
city. Only destruction of facilities and routes
Before deciding on the chief of staffs being used by the enemy is justified. Therefore, proposal, it is necessary to determine the extent the division commander should order the attack to which the bombardment of individual targets only against recognized military targets.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1, pp 12-13, 141, 152 (HR an. 23(91,26-27, GC .n.18-19, 531.
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 47-50.
FM 27·10, paras 40-41, 43.
GREENSPAN, pp 332-349.
t’P.\     DISPOSITION OF LAW OF WAR VIOLATORS:
W         BAN ON SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE GUILT OR PUNISHMENT, BAN ON REPRISALS, RUSES OF WAR, DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS, USE OF ENEMY’S LANGUAGE, PASSWORDS, WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORM
PROBLEM:
A bri.ade commander reporta the fol­lowin. to hill diviaion commander: “Lut m.bt, 75 ofthe eDeDlT ….tered my def…..l.. ..-with 10 _ably captured APCa of the…..e cleeip..OURwithoutanynational inaipia. They wore the combat uniform of their country’. army, but could Dot be distinauillhed in the darkne88. They uBedour p888wOrd and claimed that they were returninc from 8 reconnaissance OO88ioo. Later we learned that the enemy team was B88IJDed to take aDd bold aD Important railroad bridge. One ofoar Hotries at tbi. brid&e was shot ill the beek by the enemy team. My troope eventually succeeded in overpowering andcapturin.tbeenemy team. but suffered several casualti.. In their anger over the deaths oftheir C01Dl’ades, my men demanded the immediate execution of thoee responsible. I inteDd to hold an admini_trative beal’in.to try and punUh the reeponaible prUoDen.”
What actwn should the division commander take?Explain. What measures should be taken ifthe prisoners had worn the uniform oftheir enemy oriftheAPCshadtheenemy’smilitaryinsigniaor national {lag affixed to them?
DISCUSSION:
The division commander should prohibit the A summary or administrative hearing to brigade commander from conducting his determine guilt and punishment is not administrative hearing. He should also direct permissible. regardless of whether the that the prisoners be taken immediately to a prisoners have violated the law of war. prisoner of war collecting point. Punishment may be prescribed for a war crime only after conviction in a trial offering all the procedural safeguards provided for by law. This applies regardless of whether the accused persons are prisoners of war or protected
civilians.
The disposition of prisoners depends, first. on their status and. second. on whether they have committed a violation of the law of war. The prisoners in the present case obviously belong to the enemy armed forces. Upon capture, therefore, they must be treated as prisoners of
war.
The use of captured weapons. equipment. and other material is permissible under the law of war. However, the enemy’s uniform, national flag, and national emblem may not be used during combat. The use of captured vehicles to deceive the enemy is a permitted ruse so long as the enemy’s national emblem is removed from the vehicle prior to use. Unlike a situation involving the use of enemy uniforms and insignia, the soldier who is confronted with such a vehicle cannot assume that he is facing friendly troops. Thus, the use of enemy APCs in the present case does not constitute a
treacherous ruse in violation of the law of war. There is no provision in the law of land warfare which requires the national emblem to be displayed on land vehicles during combat operations. Thus the absence of such insignia does not violate the law of war.
As a standard issue uniform of the enemy forces, the combat clothing worn by the prisoners was sufficient to identify them as enemy soldiers. Although a uniform should be designed so that it can be distinguished from that of the enemy. it is not necessary that the differences be easily recognizable at night. The use of the combat clothing in the present case was not in violation of the law of war.
The use of the enemy’s language and password and the deceptive statement that the team was returning from a reconnaissance mission are ruses which are permitted.
The prisoners, therefore. have not committed any violations of the law of war. They cannot be punished, nor can reprisals be taken against them.
With regard to the use of the military insignia, national flag, and the uniform of the enemy, the law is clear that such use is prohibited during actual fighting The principle is considered inviolable that during actual fighting opposing forces ought to be certain of who is friend and who is foe. However, there are two views about such use before combat. One view is that combatants may use such items as a legitimate ruse until actual fighting starts. The other view holds that such use is illegal even before actual fighting commences. The Protocol to the Geneva Convention (which is not yet in force) updating the law of war, provides that the useof of such items is illegal even before actual
fighting begins if used to shield, favor. or impede military operations. In the present case, the prisoners would at least be subject to prosecution if they used their ensmy’s uniform, national flag, or military insignia during actual fighting at the railroad bridge.
The division commander would in such case have the prisoners of war delivered up for prosecution before a military court, accom­panied by a detailed report of the matter. He should, in addition, report the violation to his government for possible countermeasures such as protest and lawful reprisals.
REFERENCES: DA Pam 27-1, pp 12, 17, 68-69, 98, 102-1 OS, 137 (HR arts 23(1), 53, GPW arts 4. 84-85,
99. 102, 105, GC art 51.

DA Pam 27-161·2. pp 53-57.

FM 27-10, paras 51. 54, 160-161. 175. 173a. b. 181,

GREENSPAN, pp 319-321.
J. M. SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS ON LAND 105(1911).
THE STATUS, USE, AND MARKING OF CAPTURED MILITARY AIRCRAFr
-+
PROBLEM:
A battalion has captured an enemyaircraft and seized three undamaged helicopters. An enemy counterattack is underway and the helicopters are to be flown out immediately. The helicopters bear the same markings as when they were captured.
What legal consideration must be kept in mind regarding the use
of the captured aircraft?
DISCUSSION:
The captured enemy aircraft are spoils of war. That is. they are immediately the property of the captor and may be used by him for military purposes. In combat. captured aircraft must always show their nationality and military character by means of suitable insignia. Transfer of the helicopters from the enemy airfield to another airfield does not constitute combat activity, which would require the display of new national insignia. Nevertheless, the retention of the old insignia may deceive the enemy and make him refrain from attacking the helicopters. Though this alone would not constitute a treacherous ruse, the enemy insignia should be covered, if possible, in order to avoid misunderstandings and accusations of violations of the law of war. However, if time does not allow such concealment, the helicopters may be transferred in the condition in which they were captured. In such a case, no combat activities are permitted during the transfer flight. If the captured aircraft are used in combat, the national emblem and military insignia of the captor must be affixed.
NOTE: The position taken in the last sentence of the discussion may appear to contradict the conclusion stated in the fourth paragraph of Problem 29 regarding the marking of land vehicles during combat. The view taken on the marking of aircraft is based on the practical demands of aerial warfare. Identifying allied aircraft and protecting them from friendly fire is difficult and has led, in practice, to the adoption of the system of national markings. This practice has developed over the years into a customary rule of international law (see J. Spaight. Air Power and War Rights 76-91 (1947».
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 12, 17 (HR arts 23(t), 53).

DA Pam 27-161·2, pp 175-176.

FM 27-10, paras 59, 403-404.
J. M. SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WAR RIGHTS 76-91 (1947) (hereinafter cited as SPAIGHT).
THE DISSEMINATION OF PROPAGANDA AS A MEANS OF WARFARE: BAN ON SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR ALLEGED LAW OF WAR VIOLATORS
PROBLEM:
An enemy aircraft flies over our airfield and drops leaflets urging our soldiers to surrender. Shortly thereafter the enemy aircraft is shot down and the pilot captured. The commander of our airfield wanta to punish the pilot immediately for disseminating the leaflets.
Is such action permissible? Explain. What measures sMuld be taken in the case?
DISCUSSION:
The dissemination of propaganda is a lawful the pilot in the present case may not be means of warfare and must be considered a punished for urging surrender. As a member of permissible fuse, even if the disseminated the enemy armed forces. the captured pilot must statements are untrue. The urging of enemy be treated 8S aprisoner of war. He must be sent troops to rise against their government is to a collecting point and may not bepunishedfor likewise 8 permissible military measure. Thus. his actions.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1. pp 12·13. 98·99. 105·106. (HR art 23. GPW arts 84·85. 99. 105·106).
FM 27-10. paras 51.160-161.
GREENSPAN. pp 323·325.
l!I!\ THE STATUS, TREATMENT AND RULES OF W ENGAGEMENT RELATING TO PARACHUTING CREWS OF DISABLED-AIRCRAFT
PROBLEM:
A company commander reports the fol­lowing to his battalion commander: U An enemy aircraft W8.8 shot down in my company’. area. Two crew members of the downed aircraft parachuted. They were not fired upon by my men during their de8Cent. Upon landing, however, the crew members opened fire on my company and had to be overcome with force. My company sustained two casualties in the encounter. The … captured fliers carried orders stating that ..~ they were required, if 8bot down, to reach ‘.~ their own lines and to use force to avoid ~,.. capture. 1 consider these orders and the If'” “l
fliers’ actions sufficient grounds to engage ~ …-‘

and fire at parachuting crews of disabled ~

/0

enemy aircraft in the future.” ~.~ ~
, .rc~~-‘-I;;, • •_ ~~&-11 ‘.~ ..~ <!<J.t:! ‘:, .-‘ ‘”
-!. O~ .
” ‘;(
..’ 0

t., ~
r

What are the legal considerations involved in this case?
DISCUSSION:
Generally, parachuting crews of disabled aircraft may not be attacked during their descent because of their defenseless state. This prohibition assumes. however. that the crew will not fight after abandoning their aircraft. If they continue to fight while descending, or intend to do so after landing, they may be fired upon during descent. However. it is often difficult to determine the intentions of parachuting crews of disabled aircraft. In the present case. the company acted correctly in not attacking the two crew members during descent because their intentions, at that time. could not be clearly determined.
It is also permissible to engage descending crews jf the enemy’s previous behavior clearly demonstrates that these crews will continue to fight during descent or after landing. For example, if the enemy has issued a general order that aircraft crews will continue combat activities after being shot down. such crews may be attacked while still airborne, provided they do not indicate during their descent their desire to surrender. Nevertheless, in alldoubtful cases, these crews should not be attacked.
Furthermore, they may not be engaged solely because they are descending over friendly territory or because their escape after landing is likely.
It should also be kept in mind that parachuting crews in an emergency are not obligated to stop fighting once they have jumped. The jump is not a sign of surrender. Thus. the two fliers in the case above can use force to resist capture or otherwise continue the fight.
A different situation arises, however. if the crew making the emergency jump indicates in some manner that they desire to surrender and then renews the fight. Once surrender is indicated, the enemy may assume that they are no longer threatened by the crew. If the latter continue the fight. they then violate the law of war. Such conduct is not a permissible ruse. It is a treacherous ruse. which is prohibited and punishable. In the present case, however, it is not apparent that the parachuting crew members violated the law of war. Like other fliers who are taken captive. they must be treated as prisoners of war.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27·1. p 12 (HR art 23(cl).
FM 27·10, paras 29-30, 50.
GREENSPAN. pp 317·318.
STATUS AND TREATMENT OF PARATROOPS: SABOTAGE TEAMS
PROBLEM:
A brigade commander report, to hill division commander: uTen enemy parachutists descended over my sector. Since an aerial enga&,ementwastakingplace in the same area, we assumed that they were pilots from the disabled. aircraft. We did not attack them during their descent. On the ground, however, they offered resi8tance
and could be overcome only after a prolonged fire fight. We captured seven of the parachutists. Each had sabotage material, and we learned that they intended to destroy a bridge along my supply route. How should J treat these prisoners? J consider sabotage a violation of the law of war.”
.J •'” ‘,: .•1/’, ,/~’. :.,”t(~~7,~’k”,”’. “‘”
How should the division comma.nder respond?
DISCUSSION:
Sabotage activities that are carried out by lawful combatants are not a violation of the law of war. On the other hand. such activities are unlawful if they are engaged in by persons who are not authorized to participate in military activities. Those who attempt to engage in such unlawful activity may be tried and punished for theiractions. In thecaseabove. itisapparentthat the paratroops are members of the enemy’s reg· ular armed forces. Therefore. they are lawful combatants and can engage in sabotage activ­ities. They are to be treated as prisoners of war.
In contrast to parachuting crews of disabled aircraft. paratroops may be fired upon during their descent. Their jump is considered part of an attack and combat mission. This rule applies even if the aircraft transporting them is shot down in the combat 20ne. It may always be assumed that paratroops are attempting to carry out their combat mission unless they indicate during a jump the desire to surrender. Then it is no longer permissible to attack them. In the present case. the facts do not indicate that surrender was intended. The fact that the paratroops were not attacked during their descent does not mean that they. themselves. must refrain from futher combat activities upon landing. They may continue to fight and resist capture.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 12. 68-69 (HR art 23(c). GPW arts 4, 5).
FM 27-10, paras 29-30, 61A, 63.
GREENSPAN. p 318.
SPAJGHT. pp 313·316.

RULES OF BOMBARDMENT: MILITARY TARGETS AND OBJECTIVES, PROTECTED PERSONS, AREAS, FACILITIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND OBJECTS
rAe Ffl’1·~ S’l1
# ••••• _ ..
….’…… v”
… …~, II ,.M~-:1

rlI~ It ,-+——j ;,-….. ‘\ -:X’ I
I: . V~-I–‘ >­
-\\ ,” ~.) ‘\~ . ~ “i’I-, .:.;:
. .4’ ,.l “‘”vl (“::) ~’.t, “,’
“-i11ll”} 1

PROBLEM:
A win, command is given the foUowin. mission:
1. D..troy military tarlets In city X outaide the zone ofoperations of frOUDd
fo~.
2. Interrupt railroad tranait between city X, city Y. and city Z at pointe in or around city X.
Aerial photoarapbs and other inteUi,ence disclosed the (olJawing:
A large optical plant located at the northeast edce of city X has been converted to produce tele8copes and li,htin. inatrumenu.
Troop billets are located in the southern part or the city.
Another barracb area attheweetern edce of tbe city io marked with the Red er-. emblem OD aU ita baildiDp. It wu Dot determined wbether taa-e barracJu had actuaUy been CODVerted into a hOlipitaJ complex.
There are utiaireraft betteriee, • radio tower. and tr-n..ittiD.. faeiJitiee in the billa 8urrou.odin, the city.
ThreehOlpitala, anoldmonutery. and tlve churches are located within the city, alone with a museum. which contain. valuable art treasures. The museum is marked with the emblem of the Convention OD Cultural Objects.
The railroad station. located in the center of the cityI is surrounded by a large residential area. Altbough the station is not equipped for handling cargo. it is laid out in such a manner that the railroad line could be effectively interrupted at this poinL The railroad line Cro8Ses several bridges outside the city. Destroying the railroad line at one of the bridges would require about the same amount of force and have the same effect 88 de8troying the tracks at the railroad station.
What legalconsiderationsmust betakenintoaccount inattacking and bombarding in and around city X? Which of the above­mentionedobjects can be lawfully attacked? Which shouldnot be attacked?
DISCUSSION:
Air attacks and the bombardment of cities and the troop billets,
towns outside the zone of operations of ground forces may only be directed against military the converted optical factory, targets. These operations must cause the
the railroad bridges, and
civilian population and protected objects as little suffering and damage as possible. Attacks the railroad station. which cause unnecessary suffering and destruction are prohibited. Moreover, the rules of war prohibit attacks directed against the An attack should not be made on the railroad civilian population or against cultural, historical. station if unnecessary damage and suffering religious, and other protected objects. Finally, if would result. The military objective can be a military Objective can be achieved in more accomplished in an alternative manner, since than one manner, the course of action chosen the rail line can be effectively cut by destroying must be that which causes the least amount of the railroad bridges outside the city. suffering and destruction to the civilian population and protected objects.
The barracks area which displays the Red The following may be attacked as military Cross emblem on its buildings should not be targets: attacked until it is established that the area is being used for military purposes, rather than as
the antiaircraft batteries,
a hospital complex. The other hospitals, the the radio tower and other transmitting monastery, the churches. and the museum are facilities, protected objects and may not be bombarded.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 12-13 (HR arts 23(g). 25. 271.
DA Pam 27-161-2, pp 46-52,173-175.
FM 27·10, paras 40·43, 45-46.
GREENSPAN. pp 332-349.
RULES OF BOMBARDMENT: MILITARY TARGETS AND OBJECTIVES, PROTECTION OF CULTURAL AND IlEUGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND OBJECTS, PROTECTED PROPERTY USED FOR MIUTARY PURPOSES
PROBLEM:
Can the monastery be attacked? Explain.

DISCUSSION:
As a rule. religious. historical, and cultural objects may not be attacked. In the case above. the emblems on the monastery are the symbol of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Objects During Armed Conflicts. This symbol and the entry on the Convention’s official register indicate that the monastery is an immovable cultural object which has been given a protected status and may not be attacked. This is true even though the United States is not a party to the Convention on Cultural Objects.
However. jf such objects are used for military purposes, the protection is forfeited, and the object may be attacked. Nevertheless, whenever possible, a demand must first be made to terminate the misuse of the protected object within a reasonable time. In the present case, the immediate destruction of the observation post is justified. A demand to terminate the misuse would not be feasible under the circumstances, since the setting of any deadline would permit the enemy to continue its bombardment and cause considerable additional destruction and loss. Therefore, the monastery may be attacked immediately. The attack should, however. be limited as much as possible to the area where the observation post is located and be carried out in such a manner that damage to the monastery is kept to a minimum.
REFERENCES:
DA Pam 27-1. pp 12-13. 16-17 (HR ans 23(9). 25. 27. 46. 56).
FM 27-10, paras 393. 405.

GREENSPAN. pp 284-285. 340-345. 655-656.
WAR CRIMES: COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY, DUTY TO DISOBEY CRIMINAL ORDERS, DUTY TO REPORT WAR CRIMES
PROBLEM:
Charlie Company is moving through an area reported to be heavily infested with enemy guerrillas. The company commander orders his first platoon to move into and secure a particular village. No instructions are given in regard to the taking of prilIOners. On entering the village, the platoon encounters hostile fire. The exchange is short, but two members of the platoon are wounded. The persons who fired on the platoon apparently disappear among the villagers. The platoon leader orders his men to bring all the villagers to the central market place. Af’ler the villagers are 8.88embl~he orders his men to shoot all the adult males. He explains that be suspects they are guerrilla fighters. Several members of the platoon carry out his orders. Those who do not participate in the shooting do nothing to try to stop it. Ten male villagers are killed. After the shootings, the platoon leader orders all his soldiers not to say anything about what happened and reports that the ten persons shot were killed during the fighting.
(C~’
~~))
,~
How should the soldiers in the first platoon have reacted to the order to shoot the villagers? How could the incident have been prevented? Is there a duty to report the shootings? Ifso, explain both the duty and the procedures for reporting killings.
DISCUSSION:
The soldiers in the first platoon should have refused to carry out the order to shoot the villagers. The persons whom they rounded up in the market place are either civilian detainees or prisoners of war. In either case, they are protected persons, and it would be a crimelo kill them. An order to commit a crime is not only illegal. but it is a crime itself. The platoon leader is guilty altha murders he ordered. Also. the fact that the murders were commined pursuant to superior orders does not make them any less criminal. The soldiers who carried out the orders are also guilty of the crime of murder and can be prosecuted.
The incident could have been prevented first of all by the company commander who planned the mission. He knew that there had been guerrilla activity in the area and should have planned for the taking of prisoners. He should have given detailed instructions on what todo in regard to the taking of prisoners. He has a responsibility as a commander to prevent war crimes. In this case. he faited to do so. and he can be punished for the omission. Despite this. the soldiers themselves also had the duty to try to prevent the crimes. On being ordered to shoot the male villagers. they should have raised the Question of the legality of the action. In many cases. orders may be thought to be criminal because they are unclear. Where the order is meant to be criminal. the person giving it may change his mind if this is pointed out and the persons who would have to carry it out show reluctance to do so.
Anyone who witnesses the commission of a war crime has a duty to report it at the earliest opportunity. In the present case. therefore. the soldiers who observed the shootings have the obligation to report them the first chance they get. The preferred reporting procedure is through the chain of command. However. if this is not possible or would cause problems. reports may also be made to the military police. to a judge advocate. or even to a chaplain. In the above case. the soldiers who observed the crimes would probably not want to report them to their immediate commander. the platoon leader. since he was involved in their commission. They could. though. report them to the company commander aher returning to the company area or to another appropriate oHicial as suggested above.
REFERENCES:
OA Pam 27-1. pp 40. 72-73. 98. 1461GWS art 50. GPW arts 13. 87. GC art 33}

OA Pam 27-161-2. pp 240-245. 25D-251.

FM 27·10. paras 38. 497d·501. 503. 509.

GREENSPAN. pp 420-421. 440-442. 459-460.
P. TR0080FF. LAWANO RESPONSI81L1TY IN WARFARE 188. 199-210 (1975).
CHEMICAL WEAPONS,  LEGALITY  AND
RESTRICTIONS ON USE
PROBLEM:
Hostilities have commenced. Several
hundred, if not thousands, oC local civilian
nationals are at the front gate of the
installation seeking safety. Many have
worked closely with US authorities, and
most (ear the treatment that they are likely
to receive if they fall into the hands of the
enemy. Demands are made upon the US
authorities. In particular they demand that
they be airlifted away from the battle area.
The crowd i8 rowdy and boisterous. Rioting
is likelyto occur. TheChiefofSecurity Police
requests that he be authorized, ifnecessary.  -­
to use riot control agents in order to control
the crowd. (Note: All US installations have
riot control .genu in their inventories_
These agents include Mace and tear gas
grenade•. This fact is unclassified.) ,.. ,t
III
rrrorr,
rr,
rrorr
cr.

What is the commander’s decision?
DISCUSSION:
On 22 January 1975. the United States that the Protocol prohibited only the first use of ratified the Geneva Gas Protocol. As part of the lethal gases. Nonlethal gases, such as riot ratification process the US made its view crear control agents, were not prohibited by this
57
Protocol. Therefore, the law of armed conflict does not prohibit the use of riot control agents per se in armed conflict.
However, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order unilaterally renouncing certain uses of riot control agents in armed conflict (Executive Order 11850 dated 8 April 1975.) This Executive Order is binding upon the military of the United States as a matter of US law. In this Executive Order the use of riot control agents in armed conflict was restricted to defensive military modes to save lives and included “Use of riot control agents in riot control situations in areas under direct and distinct US military control to include rioting prisoners of war.”
The law of armed conflict does not forbid the use of riot control agents. US law (EO 11850) does not forbid it if used in defensive military modes to save lives and if what is involved is a riot control situation in an area under direct and distinct US military control. However. Executive Order 11850 requires prior Presidential approval of any use of riot control agent or herbicides in war.
REFERENCES:

FM 27-10. para 38 (e1, 15 July 1976).
Sectio INDEX
TO CASE STUDIES
AERIAL BOMBARDMENT
AIDING THE ENEMY
AIRBORNE TROOPS:
Firing on soldiers descending by parachute Prisoner of war status and treatment
AffiCRAFI’: (see also Aerial Bombardment) Status, use and marking of captured aircraft
AMMUNITION:
Transport aCby medical vehicles, storage in medical facilities, effect on protected status
ARMS (see Wespons)
ART TREASURES. buildings devoted to, prole<lion
BOMBARDMENT: (see slso AerisJ Bombardment)
Military targets and objectives
Protected buildings, areas, objects and persons: civilian population cultural, historical, and religious objects identification thereof medical facilities military necessity misuse of protected status residential areas undefended places unnecessary Buffering and damage villages, towns, and cities warning requirements white flag displays, significance of
BUILDINGS. as lawful tsrgel8 or protected objects
(see under Bombardment)
Cas. Study 28,34,35
15, 16
32,33 32,33
30
3, 4
35

16,27,28,34,35
16,28,34 34,35 27,34,35 34 27 35 27,34 16,27 28,34 16,27.28,34 35 27

CAMOUFLAGE: (see also Emblems, Insignia, Ruses of War)
Concealment of protective and national emblems: medical vehicles, equipment and facilities when required:
captured aircraft captured medical vehicles other captured vehicles
Ruses of war

CAPrURED MATERIEL, status, disposition, use and
marking of:
Aircraft Articles and effects ofprisonersofwar Combat vehicles and equipment Medical vehicles, facilities, and equipment Weapons and ammunition
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE (see Weapons)
CITIES (see Aerial Bombardment, Bombardment, Civilian
Property, Prolected Property)
CIVILIANS: (see also Noncombatants, Occupied Territory, Protected Persons) Aiding the enemy, status and treatment
Bombardment and other attacks on the civilian population (see also Aerial Bombardment and Bombardment)
Clothing, civilian, use of as ruse Coercion prohibited
Collective punishment prohibited
Curfews Dispersed families Employment Enemy Forced evacuations Hostages prohibited Hostile acts, consequences Insubonlination,treannentof Internment for security reasons Levee en masse Occupying power, relations Participation in collection, care, and relief of enemy
wounded and sick Case Study

6

30
5
29
6,25,29

30

11,12,14,15
29

3,4,5
4,2,9
17, 19, 20, 21,
22,24
16, 19, 20, 21,

27,28,34
25
17, 18, 19, 20,
21,24
17, 18, 19, 20,
21,22
17
17,21
17

17, 18
20

18,20,21,22,24
17, 18, 19, 22
24
20
17,18,21,22,24

17

Participation in combat activities Prisonerofwar status Property, acts attiainst, use of confiscation (see
Civilian Property)

Protected persons, status Punishment Reprisals prohibited Residential areas Resistance movements, support of
Sabotage by prohibited

Searches (see also Civilian Property) Security measured. by occupying power Taking up arms to repel initial invasion Treatment, responsibility Unnecessary suffering and damage Wounded and sick, recovery of and care for,
participation in

CIVILIAN PROPERTY: (see also Aerial Bombardmen~
Bombardment, Protected. Property) Confiscation of Destruction Medical facilities, use of Search of Unnecessary damage
CLOTHING: (see also Medical Personnel, Prisoners ofWar, Protected Emblems, Ruses ofWar) Civilian, use of as ruse Confiscation from prisoners ofwar Medical personnel, protective insignia, armbands Resistance fighters Uniforms, distinctive character of Wearing the enemy’s uniform prohibited
COERCION PROHIBITED (see Civilians, Prisoners o{War,
Wounded and Sick)
COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED
(see Civilians, Prisoners of War)
COMBATANTS:
Civilians, resisting invasion Determination and status of Nationals ofthird countries and own citizens serving with the enemy Persons engaged in intelligence-gathering activities Resistance movements Case Study
17,20,21,24 17,20,21,22,24
17 18,19,21,22 19,20,21 27,34 19,21,22,24 33 19,21 17,18,19,21 20 17,19,20,21 27,34
17
23
21 16,19,26,34,35 17 19,21,27 26,34,35
25
12,14
1
22
25,29
25,29
20
24
23
25
22

CONFISCATION OF ENEMY PROPERTY (Bee Civilian
Property, Medical Facilities, Equipment and Materiel, Medical Vehicles, Prisoners of War)
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY (Bee War Crimes) CRIMES AGAINST TIlE LAW OF WAR (Bee War Crimes) CRIMINAL ORDERS, duty to disobey (Bee War Crimes) CULTURAL OBJECTS:
Misuseo!

Protective emblem of

Protection of
CURFEWS, against civilian population
DEAD AND WOUNDED, recovery of (see also Wounded and
Sick)

DECEPTION (Bee RUBes ofWar)

DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS: (Bee also RUBeBofWar)
As ruse of war
Use ofenemy’s:

language

password
DEFENDED PLACE

DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE (Bee Surrender)

DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY (Bee Aerial Bombardment,
Bombardment, Civilian Property, Cultural Objects, Medical Equipment, Facilities and Materiel, Medical Vehicles, Protected Property)
DETAINING POWER (Bee PriBonerB ofWar)
DISABLED AIRCRAFr. status and treatment of crewB
DISABLED COMBAT VEHICLES, Btatus and treatment of
occupants
DISPERSED FAMILIES (see Civilians)
DISPOSITION OF LAW OF WAR VIOLATORS (see War Crimes)
EMBLEMS (see National Insignia, Protective Emblems)

EMPLOYMENT (see Civilians, Medical Personnel, Prisoners
ofWar)
Case Study
35 35 34,35
17
26
29
29 29
16,27
7, 8, 24, 32, 33
8

ENEMY: Flags, misuse of, forbidden Forced participation in hostilities, forbidden Insignia, misuse forbidden Neutrals, status as prisoners of war Population, status
Property (see Captured Materiel, Civilian Property, Cultural Objects, Medical Equipment, Facilities and Materiel, Medical Vehicles, Protected Property)
Territory (See Occupied Territory) Uniform, misuse forbidden
ESCAPE, killing or wounding prisoners ofwar
ESPIONAGE, sabotage, (spies) Definition Lawful intelligence-gathering activities compared Pri80nerofwar, status Punishment Sabotage teams
EVACUATION:
Civilian: for search purpose from combat areas to implement and enforce occupation orders
Prisoner ofwar

EXECUTIONS, summary, prohibited
FLAGS: Misuse forbidden Significance.of:
protective medical emblems white flag displays useofwhiteflag byapproachingenemypersonnel
FORBIDDEN CONDUcr(see Prohibited Acts)
FORCED LABOR: Civilians Prisoners ofwar
GUERRILLAS, prisoner ofwar status
Case Study
25,29 12,17 29,30 23 17, 19, 20, 21, 22,23,24
25
11
25,33
21 18 17 12,13
14,16,29
9, 10, 27
I
10,27 9
17

12
22,24

HOSPITALS: (see also Medical Equipment, Facilities and Materiel, Medical Personnel, Occupied. Territory, Protected
Objects)
Civilian:
protection of

use oCby occupying forces
HOSTAGES, prohibited
IDENTIFICATION CARDS AND TAGS, confiscation from prisoners ofwar
INDUCING ENEMY SOLDIERS TO DESERT
INFORMATION, obtaining by coercion prohibited
INHABITANTS OF OCCUPIED TERRITORY (s.. under
Occupied Territory)
INSIGNIA (see National Insignia, Protective Emblems)
INTERROGATION BY FORCE PROHIBITED:
Civilians

Prisoners ofwar
INVASION. civilian resistance permitted
KILLING OR WOUNDING:
After surrender Civilians Crews ofdisabled aircraft Escaping prisoners of war Medical personnel Occupants of disabled combat vehicles Occupants of disabled landing aircraft Parachutists Paratroops Parlementaires Prisoners ofwar Resistance fighters Shipwrecked personnel Surrendering personnel, Wounded and sick
LABOR (see Forced Labor)
LA WFUL COMBATANTS, determination and treatment of Case Study
17 34
20
11,15
31
12, 13, 14, 15, 16,19
19 12,13,14,15,16
20

2,9,10
19,20,28 7,8,24,32,33, 11 1,3 8 7 7,8,32,33 32,33
26
11 22 7 2,9,10
1,3,8
23,24
Case Study

LEVEE EN MASSE
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES AND MATERIEL: (see also Medical Vehicles, Protective Emblem, Wounded and Sick)
Ammunition, storage of prohibited Bombardment and other attacks prohibited Camouflaging protective emblem Captured property, status and use of Civilian facilities, use of Clearing stations Convoys Flags First-aid kits, confiscation from prisoners of war Mobile medical units Placement ofcombat positions near Protection of
loss of, misuse warning requirements
Protective emblem:

camouflaging

displays

marking

misuse

removal

significance
Status and treatment ofoccupants Weapons, transport or storage prohibited
MEDICAL PERSONNEL: Misuse ofprotected status Prisoner ofwar status Protection of Protective emblem of Retained personnel, status as Weapons, right to carry
MEDICAL VEHICLES: Camouflaging of Convoys, protection of Disposition of sick and wounded from captured
vehicles Misuse of protective status and emblem Occupants, status of during misuse
4
3,34
6 3,4,5, 17 17 4 3 1 12 3,5,6 4 1,3,4,6 3,4,5,6 3
1 1,3,4,5,34 1,3,4,5,6,34 3,5,6 5,6 1,3,4,34 1,3,4,5 3,4
3 3,25 1,3,4 1,3 3,25 4
6 3
3,5 3 3

Protection of Punishment for misuse Use of captured vehicles Weapons and ammunition, transport of in medical
vehicles

MILITARY NECESSITY:
Bombardment Firing on surrendered enemy personnel Forced prisoner of war labor
MILITARY TARGETS, BOMBARDMENT OF: (see also
Aerial Bombardment; Bombardment)
I\ULITIA, prisoner ofwar status
MISUSE OF PROTECTIVE STATUS AND INSIGNIA
MONEY, confiscation from prisoners ofwar
MONUMENTS, protection of
MUSEUMS, protection of
NATIONAL RED CROSS (see Red Cross)
NONCOMBATANTS: (see also Civilians)
Besieged places

OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE PARLEMENTAIRES
OCCUPIED TERRITORY: (see also Civilians)
Civilians (generally) Curfews Employment of civilians Responsibility to needs of evacuated civilians Treatment ofcivilians in occupied areas
Treatmentof supporters ofresistance fights
PARACHUTISTS AND PARATROOPS:
Aircraft crew in emergency Defense against capture, right of Disabled aircraft, descent from
PARLEMENTAIRES:
Immunityof

Misuse of status
Case Study
3
3
3,5

3

28,34,35
10
12

28,34
24
3
15
35
35

28,34,35
26

17
17
17,18,20
18
17, 18, 19, 20,
21,22
22

7,8,32
32,33
32

26
26

Obligation to receive parlementaires Status and treatment of White flag, significance of
PARTISANS:
Executions ofwithout trial prohibited
Lack ofdistinctive emblem
PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS (see Civilians, Punishment, Prisoners ofWar)
PERMITIED ACTS, specially mentioned. Bombardment Ruses ofwar Spies
PRISONERS OF WAR:
Acts committed prior to capture
Aiding the enemy
Airborne civilian crews
Civilians (see Civilians)
Coercion of
Commencement of
Conduct in captivity

Confiscation of equipment for military purposes
Confiscation ofmilitary documents
Confiscation ofpersonal effects
Definition:
persons included
persons excluded.

Development of prisoners
Detention in combat zone
Discipline and disciplinary punishment (see
punishment)
Evacuation
Exposure to combat fire
Forced labor

Force used. against (see this title (Coercion 00
Interrogation of
Jurisdiction over

Killing prohibited in certain instances
Levee en masse

Militia and volunteer corps
Persons treated. as prisoners ofwar:
armed. forces
armed. militia
Case Study
26
26
26

21

22

28,34,35
2,25,29
25

10

15

24

12,13,16
8

IS, 16

12

11
11, 12, 14, 15

20,22,23
20,24,25
12

12

12,13
12

12

12
12,13,16
31
11
20
24

24,31
24
civilians resisting invasion crew members of civilian aircraft levee en masse civilians parachutists parlementaires resistance fighters surrendering personnel third country nationals
Persons not treated as prisoners ofwar: civilians in combat partisans spies
Protection:

commencement of

hazards of war
Punishment: (see also Punishment) acta committed. prior to captu:r:.e coercion
Quartering and temporary confinement of Reprisals prohibited Right to protest mistreatment Sick and wounded (see Wounded and Sick) Spies (see Espionage, Sabotage) Uniform, necessity for recognition as belligerent Violence and intimidation prohibited Weapons to be used againstPWs
PROHIBITED Acr8: Abuse on parlementaire’s status Aiding of resistance groups by civilians Bombardment of undefended places Civilians, certain acts towards Civilianclothing, use ofbymembersofenemyarmed
forces Coercion ofcivilians Coercion ofprisoners of war Collective punishment of civilians Combat activities, prohibited civilian participation Confiscation of prisoners’ personal effects Cultural objects, bombardment of Destruction of:
civilian property cultural objects Employmentofcivilians by occupying power, impennissible uses of
Case Study
20 24 20 7,8,32,33 26 22,24 8 23
24 20
8 12
10 12,13,16 13 14 15
22 12,13,16 11
26 22 16,27,34 17,18,19
25 18 12,13,16 17,19 20 11,12,14 34,35
18,21 34,35
17
Evacuation, forced Executions without trial Exposing civilians to dangers ofwar Exposingprisoners ofwarto combatzone Feigning surrender
Firing at:

defenseless parachutists escaping prisoners of war parachuting aircraft crews in emergency residential areas shipwrecked personnel surrendering enemy undefended towns and villages
Forced participation of prisoners of war in combat activities Hostages, taking of
Injury ofenemy after surrender Killing or wounding of surrendering enemy personnel:
generally

ofprisoners ofwar to prevent escape Mistreatment of prisoners of war (generally) Misuse of insignia on captured vehicles Paratroopers, firing on Protected. property, use of for military purposes Providing information to the enemy Punishment ofcivilians by troops Punishment of prisoners of war by troops Red Cross emblem, improper use Reporting the commission of prohibited acts Reprisals Sabotage, unlawful Summary proceedings to determine guilt Summary punishment for alleged laws ofwar
violators prohibited

Surrender, subsequent engagement in hostilities prohibited. Unnecessary destruction and suffering to civilians
and property Wearing the enemy’s uniform
PROPERTY:
Bombardmentof(see Bombardment)
Booty ofwar
Cultural Case Study
17
21
18
12
2,32

32

II

7,8,32
27
17
9
27

12
19
9
9,10,11
10
14
3,30
32
35
15, 16
18,21,22
14
3
2
14,17, 19,29
35
29

31

2,10
34
26

30
34,35
69

Destruction or devastation Prisoner ofwar property Protected property,

civilian medical facilities destruction of as reprisal use of for military purposes
Undefended buildings, bombardment of
PREVENTING PRISONER OF WAR ESCAPES
PROPOGANDA:
Dissemination of as means of warfare Dissemination by parlementaires
PROTECTED PERSONS (see also Civilians, Prisoners of War, Wounded and Sick)
PROTEGrED PROPERTY: (see also Property)
Civilian medical facilities Destruction of as reprisal Use of for military purposes

PROTEGrIVE EMBLEMS:
Camouflaging of
Cultural objects
Natural emblems

removal offrom captured vehicles Misuse of protective emblems Red Cross emblem:
camouflaging marking misuse significance of

Resistance movements, distinctive emblems of
PUNISHMENT:
Ofcivilian combatants Collective punishment prohibited Confiscation of property Destruction ofproperty Execution without trial prohibited Feigning surrender lnsubordinate civilians Ofprisonersofwar for priorcriminal acts Punishment by troops Reprisals against sick and wounded Resistance fighters
Case Study
18,21 11,12,14
17
21
35
27,34,35
11

31
26
7,17,28,34
17
21
35

1,6
35
5,29
5
3,35

1

1,3,4
3
1,3,4
20

21
19,20,25
18,21
18,21
21
2
18
10
13
3
22

Summary punishment of alleged law of war violators prohibited
QUARTERING AND TEMPORARY CONFINEMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
RECONNAISSANCE ACTIVITIES:
Lawful reconnaissance

Of undefended towns
RECOVERY OF WOUNDED
RED CROSS EMBLEM:
Camouflaging

Marking

Misuse

Significance of
RELIEF AND RESCUE EFFORTS, civilian participation in
REPRISALS, ban on:
Against civilians

Against prisoners ofwar

Against sick and wounded
RESISTING ENEMY INTERROGATION ATTEMPTS
RESISTING INYADING FORCES
RUSES OF WAR:
Camouflaging Captured vehicles, use of Civilian clothing, use of Enemy’s language, password, weapons, equipment,
and uniform, use of Enemy’s uniform, wearing of Feigning surrender
legal consequences Perfidious conduct and treachery
Permissibility of

SABOTAGE
SHIPWRECKED PERSONNEL:
Concept, status, and treatment of Firing on enemy of sunken landing craft
SIGNS TO DISTINGUISH PROTECTED BUILDINGS
CaseStudy
31

13

25

27

1

1

1,3,4
3
1,3,4

1,3,4
17,19,20,21
14
3
14,15
20

25
29
25

29
25,29
2,10
2
16,29,32
2,25,29

33

7
7

34,35

71

SPIES (see Espionage)
SPOILS OFWAR
SUMMARY EXECUTIONS, prohibition of
SURRENDER:
Elements of

Feigning surrender
legal consequences Killing or wounding of surrendering enemy personnel Precautionary measures during surrender of
approaching enemy personnel
Use ofwhite flag
By wounded personnel

THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS, as combatants
TORTURE, forbidden (see Coercion, Interrogation)
TREACHERY (see Ruses of War)
TREASON (see Espionage and Sabotage)
UNDEFENDED PLACES. attacks or bombardment of
UNIFORM, necessity for status as prisoner of war
UNIFORM OF ENEMY. wearing of as ruse of war
VEHICLES: (see also Medical Vehicles)
Disabled combat vehicles Status and treatment of occupants
WAR CRIMES:
Acts which constitute (see Prohibited Acts) ‘Collective punishment (see this title, Punishment) Command responsibility Duty to disobey criminal orders Duty to report war crimes Execution, without trial prohibited Hostages, taking of prohibited Prisoners of war, prior war crimes of Punishment:
collective punishment prohibited execution without trial prohibited
Case Study
30
21

2,9 2,10
2

10,11
9
9
2

23

2,29,32
23

16,27
22, 24
25,29

7
8

36
36
36
21
20
10

19,20, 25

21

summary punishment of alleged law of war violators prohibited
WEAPONS:
Chemical and biological, lawfulness and permitted use Prisoners ofwar, use against Transport of by medical vehicles, storage in medical facilities, effect on protected status
WHITE FLAG: Firing upon enemy displaying white flag Parlementaires Significanceofdisplay in residential areas As sign ofsurrender
WOUNDED AND SICK: Abuse of protected status Ceasefire to allow evacuation of dead and exchange
ofwounded Dispositionofpersonnelofcapturedmedical vehicles Exposure to combat Firing at Medical materiel, use of Participation in combat activities Prisoner ofwar status Protection of Providing medical attention to captured personnel Recovery of Reprisals against prohibited Case Study
31
37 10
3,4
9
26
27 9,10
2
1,26 3,5 8
1,2,8
5
3, 7
1,2,3
1,2
3,5
1,26
3

TC 27-10-1
26 JUNE 1979
By Order of the Secretary of the Army:
E. C. MEYER
General. United Stares Army
Chief of Staff
Official:
J. C. PENNINGTON

Major General. United States Army
The Adjut8nt General

DISTRIBUTION:
Active Army, USAR and ARNG: To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-118, Requirements for The Law of Land Warfare (Oly rqr block no. 247).
Additional copies can be requisitioned from the US Army Adjutant General Publications Center, 2800 Eastern Boulevard. Baltimore. MD 21220.
*u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICf:: 1996 406…21/S2181
Masculine pronouns appearing in this TC refer to both genders unless the context indicates another use.
TC 27-10-1
SElECTED PROBLEMS IN THE LAW OF WAR
PIN : 043760 -000

 

Comments

comments