But that doesn't mean it's going to be enforced or
the enforcement mechanisms are going to be in place, at least during the conflict.
>> I'm going to request you to elaborate on that portion right there.
And I think I have a two-part question.
Since you talked about not being a signatory, can you allude a little bit
to what customary law means then- >> Yes.
>> In this context?
>> Yes.
Customary law essentially is, is tied to Article 3, which is the common article
under the Geneva Conventions, which means that, really, every country is obliged to,
in certain, in very broad but very specific areas to, that, that are,
that entitle everybody to those rights, even though you're not a signatory.
So. >> So even if you're a new
country- >> Yes.
>> South Sudan is just born.
Is it still obliged to these?
>> Absolutely.
They are immediately covered under Article 3, the common Article 3.
>> And, and what about ISIS?
This Islamic Republic of Iraq and, and
Syria that claims that it is now a separate entity.
>> Of course-.
>> Are they bound?
>> Of course that's a question on the tip of our tongue right now.
And, and it is interesting because Al Qaeda has voiced
some displeasure with the activities of, of ISIS in the Levant, okay?
So does it mean then that Al Qaeda and its affiliates have some sense of what's
morally right and what's morally wrong in, in, in war or treating civilians?
We don't know.
We don't know enough about them.
But what's interesting, and, and, and you said it
right from the beginning Saj, and that was you gave how the Geneva Conventions one
through four has changed as we knew more about conflict and how conflicts changed.
So right now, we are looking at how does the ICRC and
the Geneva Conventions adapt to these new conflicts, the unconventional conflicts.
And they are working on it, including
what would be the responsibilities of these non-state actors?
Because the Geneva Conventions have to do with state actors, not the countries.
>> Right.
>> And so, we have non-state actors,
we have separate militaries that are not part of the state.
>> Right. >> Okay?
So, the ICRC is indeed working on those.
What would be the common rules there?
And I'm sure the Article 3 would, would come under that too.
But what obligations they would have in order to have a dialogue with them to
ensure that they start performing better in terms of, of protection for
the people around them when they have their, their war or their conflict.
But it's a big issue, but it is, it is, it is being dialogued as we talk.
>> And even if we can convince them that, that they need to
follow the Geneva Conventions, do the Conventions have any teeth?
How do we enforce that?
What do we do about violations of the, of the Geneva Convention?
Many people, many humanitarian actors have said that
Geneva Conventions were violated during the Iraq War.
What is a recourse there?
What can people do?
>> It's a step-by-step fashion.
Part of it is done by the ICRC itself, which as soon as this happens,
they separately go to the, to the governments.
One, one the, the, the hostile element
and, and tells them what the violations are, and
they give them specific times and measures to correct that.
They also communicate to the countries
that are being affected by those violations.
So they, they're sort of an intermediary between and, and, and
keeping the dialogue going.
So if they don't get any enforcement with that it's hard, okay?
The only recourse then is to put it into the international body.
So that's where these things get to, both with the Hague Law and
the Geneva Conventions, into the, into the Security Council of the United Nations.
And the two mechanisms under the original charter then
are what's called Chapter VI, which is sending peacekeepers in.
And that's not usually during hostility, but it's very important afterwards,
to, to keep, prevent the hostilities to happen again.
And, and number, and
the second one is, article, Chapter VII, which is the peace enforcement.
And that would allow then the Secretary General of the United Nations to
pull in essentially militaries from countries, not those countries
that are party to the conflict obviously, to try to come in and abate the situation.
That sometimes works, sometimes not.
Obviously it's, is very political, and if the security council says no to it,
which they often have done then it just doesn't work.
And remember, before the end of the Cold War, so we're talking about 1989,
1992, 400 and, 274 [COUGH] attempts were made in the Security Council
to bring in troops peace peace enforcement troops.
But because the Soviet Union on one side, or
the West on the other side could veto it, it didn't happen.
So the first time that,
that it was never stopped in the Security Council was in the Kurdish crisis.
>> Right.
>> And, interesting then that, either they abstained, did not veto.
And tjat all of a sudden the lap was in the, the, the, the, the capacity or
the demand to do this was put in the lap of the United Nations.
And the United Nations does not have, did not have a force at that time to stop it.
So, quite honestly, they contracted with the United Nations, and the UK and others.
It ended up four countries and, and expanded to thirteen, who then were
working under the flag of the United Nations to stop that hostility, to protect
the Kurds that were in the mountains of Northern Iraq and, and Southern Turkey.
So there's lots of different possibilities, but that's the kind of
thing that would be then negotiated within the Security Council itself.
>> Thank you Professor Burkle.
The point of that discussion was to give us a glimpse of how complex these
issues can be.
