No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
War, more than peace, is likely to give rise to circumstances in which soldiers and civilians find themselves against their will in a setting where a foreign language is employed. In addition, they may be forced to have contact on their own territory with people using another tongue. Therefore in the context of war, the protection of basic language rights is perhaps even more crucial than in peacetime in easing the fate of those involved. One of the ways humanitarian law seeks to protect the victims of war is by guaranteeing their right to communicate in a language which they easily understand. The purpose of this study is to analyze linguistic rights in time of war.
1 Pictet, Jean, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims (Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff — Geneva, Henry Dunant Institute, 1975 Google Scholar; transl. from French, 1973), pp. 27–48, on p. 38.
2 1949 First Geneva Convention (hereinafter GC I), Art. 40, para 2; GC II, Art. 42, para 2.
3 See Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, Geneva, 1949, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949 (hereinafter: 1949 Dipl. Conf. Final Record), vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A (Berne, Federal Political Department), Comm. I, 19th meeting, 18 May 1949, Art. 33, pp. 93–94 (Venezuela).
4 Pictet, Jean S., gen. ed. Commentary, Geneva Convention (Geneva, ICRC Google Scholar, I: by Jean S. Pictet, 1952; II: by Pictet, Jean S. et al. , 1960 Google Scholar; III: by de Preux, Jean et al. , 1960 Google Scholar; IV: by Uhler, O. M. and Coursier, H., 1958 Google Scholar. (Hereinafter: Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, II, III, IV)Google Scholar. Commentary I, p. 314 Google Scholar, ibid. II, pp. 237–38.
5 GC II, Art. 31, para 3.
6 See Pictet, J. S., Commentary II, p. 185.Google Scholar
7 See Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 184.Google Scholar
8 GC III, Art. 16.
9 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 154.Google Scholar
10 GC III, Art. 22, para 3. (This Article further provides that “such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent.”) See 1949 Dipl. Conf. Final Record, vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A, Comm. II, 5th mtg., 29 April 1949, Art. 20 at pp. 253–54 (U.K.); also ibid., 25th mtg., 6 July 1949, p. 353; Art. 20 as adopted by Drafting Committee No. 1.
11 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 184.Google Scholar
12 GC III, Art. 44, para 2; see Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 27 July 1929 (hereinafter GC 1929), Art. 22, para 1.
13 GC III, Art. 79, para 5.
14 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 394.Google Scholar
15 GC III, Art. 17, para 6; see GC 1929, Art. 20.
16 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 164.Google Scholar
17 GC III, Art. 41, para 1.
18 1949 Dipl. Conf. Final Record, vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A, Comm. II, 8th mtg., 4 May 1949 at p. 265; see ibid., 26th mtg., 6 July 1949, p. 358.
19 GC 1929, Art. 84, para I.
20 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 244.Google Scholar
21 Ibid. See discussion on G C III, Art. 128, infra at note 82.
22 GCIII, Art. 41, para 2.
23 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 243.Google Scholar
24 GC III, Art. 41, para 2.
25 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 245.Google Scholar
26 GC III, Art. 126, para 1; see GC 1929, Art. 86, para 2.
27 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 607–608.Google Scholar
28 GC III, Art. 96, para 4; GC IV, Art. 123, para 2. The 1929 GC did not include procedural guarantees for the defence of prisoners of war in disciplinary proceedings.
29 GC III, Art. 105, para 1.
30 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 487 Google Scholar. See GC 1929, Art. 62, para 1, giving the prisoner of war the right “if necessary, to have recourse to the offices of a competent interpreter”, leaving it unclear who decides if an interpreter is necessary.
31 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 487.Google Scholar
32 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, pp. 460–61.Google Scholar
33 GC III, Art. 90.
34 GC III, Art. 100.
35 G C IV, Art. 123, para 2.
36 G C III, Art. 105, para 4. There was no such provision in the 1929 GC; for its introduction, see Report on the Work of the Conference of Government Experts for the Study of the Conventions for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, 14–26 April 1947) ICRC, Geneva, 1947 Google Scholar, (hereinafter Report on… Gov. Experts), p. 225, (2) (b).Google Scholar
37 GC III, Art. 107, para 1.
38 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 497.Google Scholar
39 GC III, Art. 4, sub-para A(4) and Annex IV-A.
39 bis Now Central Tracing Agency.
40 GC III, Art. 70; see Art. 123, para 2 and Annex IV-B.
41 GC III, Annex IV-C (1 and 2).
42 G C III, Art. 71, para 3. This provision is identical with Art. 36, para 3 of the 1929 GC.
43 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, pp. 349–50.Google Scholar
44 GC III, Art. 71, para 3.
45 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 350 Google Scholar; see GC III, Arts. 79–81.
46 GCIII, Art. 71, para 1.
47 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 375 Google Scholar and n. 1; p. 350 and n. 1. The provision on censorship appears in GC III, Art. 76. For a proposal to provide facilities for the censorship of correspondence written in little known languages and to make it possible for the belligerent powers to obtain additional qualified censors either from the ICRC of from neutral countries, see 1949 Dipl. Conf. Final Records, vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A, Comm. II, 13th mtg., 16 May 1949, Art. 66, p. 288 (India). On difficulties of the ICRC in translating letters sent by prisoners of war during World War II, and reports on camp visits by ICRC delegates translated for communication to the Detaining Power, see XVIIth International Red Cross Conference, Stockholm, Aug. 1948, Report of the ICRC on its Activities during the Second World War, (Sept. 1, 1939-June 30, 1947), vol. I: General Activities, (Geneva, May 1948), p. 135.Google Scholar
48 Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 346.Google Scholar
49 GC III, Annex IV-D; Art. 120, para 2.
50 Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, pp. 379–80.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., p. 380. Some delegations to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference even proposed that the grouping together of all internees from a given country be obligatory.
52 GC IV, Art. 24, para 1.
53 GC IV, Art. 50, para 3. At the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, when the representative of Belgium suggested the insertion of the word “language” in this provision so as to ensure that children were taught in their mother tongue, he pointed out that this was particularly important for countries like Belgium which had more than one national language. ( Final Record, vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A, Comm. III (Civilians), 16th mtg., 16 May 1949, Art. 46, p. 664; see Report of Comm. III to the Plenary Assembly, ibid., p. 828).
54 GC IV, Art. 65.
55 Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, p. 338 Google Scholar. Publication might be in the local press, in an “Official Gazette”, in notices posted in public places, or by all these methods.
56 Ibid, and n. 3.
57 GC IV, Art. 71, para 2.
58 GC IV, Art. 72, para 3 and Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, pp. 357–58.Google Scholar
59 GC IV, Art. 99, para 1.
60 Ibid., para 2.
61 Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, pp. 430–31.Google Scholar
62 Ibid., p. 431.
63 GC IV, Art. 99, para 3, 4. See 1949 Diplomatic Conference, Final Record, vol. II Google Scholar, Sec. A, Comm. III, 21st mtg., 23 May 1949, Art. 88, p. 681; ibid., 32nd mtg., 17 June 1949, Art. 88, p. 726.
64 GC IV, Art. 107, para 3; see Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, p. 452.Google Scholar
65 GC IV, Art. 143, para 2. See Art. 4.
66 Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, p. 576.Google Scholar
67 Protocol I, Art. 1, para 4.
68 Protocol I, Art. 9, para 1; Protocol II, Art. 2, para 1.
69 Protocol I, Art. 75, para 1 and 3.
70 Art. 5, para 2 and Art. 6, para 3(a).
71 Art. 14, para 3(a). This instrument, upon which the provision in Protocol I seems to be based, entered into force on 23 March 1976, just prior to the adoption of the Protocols.
72 Art. 78, para 3(i).
73 Protocol I, Annex I, Art. 1, para 2 and Fig. 1.
74 Ibid., Art. 14, para 1.
75 Protocol I, Art. 79, para 3 and Annex II.
76 GC I, Art. 55; GC II, Art. 54; GC III, Art. 133; GC IV, Art. 150.
77 No equivalent final provisions in GC 1929; Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, pp. 400–402 Google Scholar. See Tabory, Mala, Multilingualism in International Law and Institutions (Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980), Ch. I.Google Scholar
78 For example, the meaning conveyed by the French and English texts of GC IV, Art. 5, is not the same; see Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, pp. 54–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also in Whiteman, , Digest, vol. X, pp. 165–67.Google Scholar
79 Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 401 and n. 1.Google Scholar
80 Y.B.I.L.C. (1966–11), p. 224, para 1.
81 Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, pp. 401–402 and n. 2.Google Scholar
82 GC I, Art. 48; GC II, Art. 49; GC III, Art. 128; GC IV, Art. 145.
83 Pictet, J. S., Commentary IV, p. 582.Google Scholar
84 Protocol I, Art. 102; Protocol II, Art. 28.
N.B. This paper was written under a grant from the Dana Fund for International and Comparative Legal Studies. The author wishes to thank the Dana Corporation Foundation for its generous support, and the American Society of International Law for administering the grant.