Timeline for What's counts as "taking active part in the hostilities" under the Geneva Convention?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2023 at 0:39 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 12, 2023 at 0:16 | comment | added | phoog | @WeatherVane article three is common to all of the Geneva conventions. It's not about whether a soldier has ceased to be a soldier but about establishing a baseline of humane treatment that parties to the convention must apply to combatants who aren't otherwise afforded the protections of the convention because the combat isn't "international in character." | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 21:21 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 21:15 | comment | added | Weather Vane | The question is trivial. It doesn't require a definition of soldier, but defines what a civilian is. | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 21:09 | comment | added | R.M. | @WeatherVane You seem confident in that assessment, so I encourage you to write it up as a full answer. | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 19:37 | comment | added | Weather Vane | No: they are still soldiers, not (effectively) civilians for the purposes of this document. It is about soldiers who should no longer be considered as such, not those alternating between ssoldier and not-soldier. | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 19:35 | comment | added | R.M. | @WeatherVane That's the question, though. At what point have soldiers effectively ceased to be soldiers? The main phrasing "taking no active part in the hostilities" could potentially be read to include sleeping soldiers (similarly to a sick person, a sleeping person isn't doing any active soldiering while sleeping). Is that an accurate reading? How does the international community actually interpret this directive? (Note I'd personally assume that sleeping soldiers are indeed not included, but as I don't know for certain, I feel it's a valid question to ask.) | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 18:22 | comment | added | Weather Vane | The document title shows it refers to the treatment of Civilian Persons, and this clause shows that some members of the armed forces should be treated as if they are civilians. "Or other causes" doesn't include soldiers on a rest break. It is not about how soldiers in general should be treated, but about soldiers who have effectively ceased to be soldiers. | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 16:39 | history | asked | R.M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |