Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:47:00.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting the emblems in peacetime: The experiences of the British Red Cross Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Michael A. Meyer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The special significance of the red cross and red crescent emblems as internationally agreed symbols of protection and neutrality in armed conflict will be diluted if these emblems, or signs closely resembling them, are used randomly or for diffuse purposes in time of peace. In countries like the United Kingdom which for the most part have been spared armed conflict for the past 40 years, the red cross emblem has frequently become closely identified with first aid and with general health or medical care, its primary and unique meaning during armed conflict often being forgotten or unknown. For this reason it is perhaps particularly important for National Societies in such countries to help the authorities monitor unauthorised uses or misuses of the emblems, and the role of National Societies in this respect has been recognised under the 1986 International Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Article 3 [2] thereof). In addition, dissemination activities can help to enhance understanding of the purpose of the emblems. This short article will discuss practical aspects of the monitoring role of the British Red Cross Society.

Type
The Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblems
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 29 , Issue 272 , October 1989 , pp. 459 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1989

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 Since the United Kingdom Geneva Conventions Act was enacted in 1957, on a conservative estimate, the Society has taken up approximately 900 actual cases of unauthorised use or misuse of the emblem. In recent years there have been on average 60 such cases per annum. As a preventive measure, the British Red Cross recently sent a circular to UK Publishers, distributed through their central body, explaining the restrictions on use of the emblems and their significance. It is planned to send a similar note to other target groups, such as pharmacists and advertising agencies, through their central co-ordinating bodies.

2 Special problems in relation to the red cross symbol arise from the use of the St George's Cross, which is the heraldic sign of England and consists of a red cross on a white ground, with the arms extending to the edges of the white background. “Plus signs” and crosses with different shadings of red also sometimes constitute borderline cases. Generally if a symbol resembling a protective emblem is used in a health care context, an approach is made to the person or body concerned.

3 It is the policy of the British Red Cross Society that its Branches throughout the United Kingdom report possible unauthorised uses or misuses of the red cross and red crescent emblems and designations to National Headquarters (see BRCS Operating Manual, Part 1, Section 7, paragraph 5.4).

4 British Standard Institution 5378, implementing EEC Directive 77/576/EEC relating to the provision of safety signs at work. Since 1977 the number of unauthorised uses of the emblem appears to have increased since it is no longer generally acceptable for the red cross to be used as a symbol of first aid within the United Kingdom.

5 An exception is made in practice in the case of toys, provided the emblem is less than two inches across, the toy does not misrepresent the use of the emblem and the use of the emblem is not emphasised in advertising.

6 The point was then made to the authorities that the date to determine the time period could properly have been the last showing, rather than the first, and in that instance, the time period for prosecution would not have expired. This is on the basis that the offence could be considered to be the public exhibition of the film incorporating a representation of the emblem, and this would be a continuing offence, repeated with each exhibition.

7 The French Red Cross is not so inhibited as shown by their swift action in the James Bond film case. However the French Society appears to be the controlling authority for use of the emblem in their country, whereas the British Society is not. A number of other European National Societies are the controlling authorities for use of the emblem in their respective States. The argument might be put that the British Red Cross Society, and perhaps National Societies in other countries with a common law tradition, has sufficient standing to bring a civil court action on grounds such as breach of statutory duty, defamation or libel (where the misuse damages the Society's reputation) or passing off (where the defendant is involved in a trading activity). However, there is no guarantee that a Judge would recognise locus standi on such bases.

8 Misuses of the emblem may of course occur within a National Society. To try to achieve uniformity of correct usage, the British Red Cross has issued guidelines on use of the emblem, and a National Headquarters officer is charged with giving advice on the subject. There is also an Emblem Panel, chaired by this NHQ official and containing a few representatives of Branches from different areas of the country, which considers proposed new uses within the Society and, if agreed, makes recommendations on the same to the Society's governing body for its approval. The Regulations governing the Use of the Emblem approved by the International Conference in 1965 (the “Vienna Rules”) remain fixed as the overall parameters, although the proposed Revised Regulations approved by the Council of Delegates in 1987 are also used for guidance. Close and co-operative liaison with the officials in the two Government Departments is essential for cases of misuse outside the Society and for cases of new usage within the Society which are not covered by the existing or proposed emblem regulations.