White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez has noted his belief that in the context of the "War on Terror," the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have been made obsolete. Victoria Clarke, a senior Pentagon spokeswoman, has taken a less political position, stating recently that in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath, the Geneva Conventions "should be looked at with new eyes." Though similar in that they suggest the United States should have greater flexibility in the administration of its military aims with respect to terrorism, these two comments implicate drastically different approaches to the relationship between international humanitarian law and military necessity. Did the Geneva Conventions become instantaneously obsolete with the impact of planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? This Recent Development argues against that very proposition. International humanitarian law, specifically the provisions of the Geneva Convention [No. III] Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (the "Third Geneva Convention") that deal with the questioning of prisoners4 and their repatriation at the end of hostilities, is sufficiently flexible to accommodate tactics in the War on Terror, while still adequately protecting detainees at war. Both the text of the Third Geneva Convention and examples of state practice demonstrate that particular provisions of the Third Geneva Convention may be interpreted to address military considerations while still respecting the general principles of the Geneva Conventions.
展开▼
