Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:45:23.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedures for the Protection of Prisoners of War in Viet-Nam: A Four-Way Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Howard S. Levie
Howard S. Levie*
Affiliation:
St Louis University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Fourth Session
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 65 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law Washington, D.C., AprilL 29-May 1, 1971 , September 1971 , pp. 209 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 383. It would almost seem that many of the new nations consider accession to certain multilateral treaties to be a “status symbol,” similar to membership in the United Nations.

2 11 Int. Rev. of the Red Cross 32 (No. 118, Jan. 1971).

3 Levie, , “Maltreatment of Prisoners of War in Vietnam” in 48 Boston U. Law Rev. 323, 338-339 (1968)Google Scholar.

4 E.g., United States v. Griffen, 39 C.M.R. 586 (1968); United States v. Schultz, 39 C.M.R. 133 (1969).

5 Farer, , “The Nuremberg Trials and Objection to Service in the Viet-Nam War,” in 1969 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 140, 153.Google Scholar

6 Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 137-138 (1960).

7 Levie, note 3 above, at 339-340. The current regulation so providing is par. 3b, MACV Directive No. 190-3, May 12, 1970.

8 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims, S. Exec. Rep. No. 9, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., at 28-29.

9 “. . . the mere killing of one country man of ours, whether combatant or not, even with a rifle shot, the mere destruction of a hut, of a bush in our countryside, is enough to turn the American pirate into a criminal . . .” Juridical Sciences Institute, U.S. War Crimes in Viet-Nam 203 (Hanoi, 1968). It is pertinent to note that the reservations made by all the members of the Communist bloc, including North Viet-Nam, to Art. 85 of the 1949 Prisoner-of-War Convention were specifically restricted to war crimes and crimes against humanity and omitted crimes against peace.

10 U.N. Docs. A/7720, Nov. 20, 1969, and A/8052, Sept. 18, 1970.

11 Report of the Third Committee, Doc. A/8178, Dec. 4, 1970.

12 In its “Formulation of the Nürnberg Principles,” the International Law Commission dealt with Crimes against Peace in Principle VI. The commentary on this Principle contains the following statement: “. . . Some members of the Commission feared that everyone in uniform who fought in a war of aggression might be charged with the ‘waging’ of such a war. The Commission understands the expression to refer only to high-ranking military personnel and high State officials, and believes that this was ako the view of the Tribunal.” 1950 I.L.C. Yearbook (II), 376.