March 2, 2020

The Geneva Convention. We will proceed to The Hague Law relations. Remember this instrument
supplements and complements Geneva Convention itself. The same principles that can be found here are of course,
unang-una, we deal with the combatants. Who are combatants? The combatants are defined under Article 1 of
Hague Relations of 1907. There are four requisites.

A person is regarded as a combatant provided that the following conditions concur:

1. The command of a person responsible for his subordinates.

So we are referring to a military commander. Remember that this person must belong to an organized group under
the command of a responsible officer.

2. To have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.

This refers to uniform, the military uniform.

3. To carry arms openly.

4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now, regarding levée en masse. Ano ba itong levee en masse? This pertains to situation where a particular
territory is about to be invaded by a foreign army. Now, if the inhabitants of this territory prepares for war without
having the time to organize under Article 1, they may also be regarded as combatant provided they respect the two
last conditions: to carry arms openly and to conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So pag levee en masse hindi kailangan na under sila sa command ng isang responsible superior at saka
hindi kailangan na they have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. Provided that they carry arms
openly and they conduct operations according to the customs of war then they can be regarded as combatant.

What is the importance? Why is it that pagka if you happen to be in war, it’s very important for you to be
considered as a combatant? Because once you are captured you have the right to be treated as a prisoner of war.
Diba we’ve already discussed that there are so many rights pertaining to a prisoner of war. Now as I say, The Hague
Law mainly focuses on the description of the means and methods of warfare. If you read Article 22 of this
Instrument the principle is this, the right of the belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not
unlimited. Buot pasabot limited. So limited, you have right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy.

Now there are general restrictions found under The Hague Law:

1. Article 23 (a), The prohibition on the use of poison or poison weapons;

Since 1907 the use of poison ammunition is already outlawed. In fact, there was a 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol.
It provides that the use in war of asphyxiating poisonous weapons or other gases and of all analogous liquids,
materials or devices has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world. So bawal in war ang
pag gamit ng mga poison weapons.

2. see Article 23 (b), the prohibition to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or party;

Hindi lang sa Revised Penal Code in times of peace applicable ang treachery. It is also applicable in war. It is
likewise prohibited to employ alevosia. That’s treachery. It’s a war crime to kill your enemy na treacherous man.

3. Article 23 (c), To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of
defence, has surrendered at discretion;
 Unsa mana? Maybe he is now surrendering or having no longer means of defense, meaning the guy here is
already an hors de combat and who has surrender at his discretion. There is a war crime pagka tinarget mo ang
taong ‘to. A surrenderee or an hors de combat. In fact, again doon sa first Geneva Convention, an hors de combat
must be collected, brought to a safe place and must be given the necessary medical attention.

4. Article 23 (d), to declare that no quarter is given.

I have already explained this one to you. Ano ‘yong meaning ng no quarter? No mercy. Hindi pwede ‘yan.

5. Article 23 (e), to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

Ang bnigay ko na example of this before are those dumdum bullets. These kind of bullets expand easily in the
human body. It’s bullets with hard envelopes and most of this kind of amunition makes a second explotion once it
penetrates the human body. It really cause unnecessary suffering. Remember if, the only object in war is, if we are to
humanize war, to weaken the defense of the enemy.

6. Article 23 (f), to make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and
uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

What’s a flag of truce? That’s a white flag na gagamitin mo signifying that you don’t want to fight, that you
come in peace. This is normally used by the parliament tier. Dati kasi noong una pang panahon na nangangabayo
pa ang ating mga fighter, pagka mayroong mensahe from one camp to the other, they will send the parliament tier
and the parliament tier will act as the messenger to carry the white flag, proceed to the camp of the enemy and shall
not be targeted. The use of this flag of truce in killing your enemy treacherously, that will amount to a war crime, we
call it perfidy, we will discuss that later.

7. Article 23 (g), to destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively
demanded by the necessities of war;

Remember, only military objects are valid military cars, gun placements, armored cars. How about buildings?
Military buildings? Depende, kung mga books lang naman kung library lang yan nila you don’t have to destroy it.
Next,

8. Article 23 (h), to declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of
the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to
take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service
before the commencement of the war.
So civilian populations, as much as they are protected by the fourth convention of Geneva Law, they are also
protected under The Hague Law. The civilian of the hostile territory may not be compelled to do military service.

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
which are undefended is prohibited.

That’s self-explanatory.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible,
buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places
where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible
signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

Remember that this is he same principle covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. And lastly,

Art. 28. The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
 Pillage, kukunin mo ‘yong mga pagmamay-ari ng civilian population in a particular community.

So in war, there could only be three general types of objects that could be made military arms. First, of
course the units of the enemy armed forces, sila yung mga pinaka primary targets in a war, or their armoured cars
and mobile artillery and the military instaallations, such as yung mga dock placements, 60 calendar machine guns
and the like.

It is also prohibited under The Hague Law to launch attacks against the civilian population. That is why,
old times, each warring party is required to make a distinction between persons taking party to hostilities, meaning,
the combatants and the members of the civilian population to the effect that the latter should be spared from attacks
as much as possible.

Apart from persons, cultural properties are likewise protected under The Hague Law. Cultural objects must
be spared as much as possible presumably kasi in times of war they are not being used for military purposes,
halimbawa churches. Ang simbahan hindi ginagamit sa gyera unless of course the hostile party may make use of the
church as a point of attack, and by then the church will already be made a valid military camp.

The 1954 Protocol of The Hague Law now explicitly provides movable or immovable property of
great importance to the cultural heritage of the people must be protected. ’yon na nga referring to the works of
art, monuments, books, scientific collections, etc., tapos under Article 4 of this Protocol, the warring parties must
refrain from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or on of the appliances in use for its
protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict.

Tapos The Hague Law likewise have the 1977 Protocol. Pagsinasabi nating Protocol, addition ‘yan ha.
Okay, sa 1907, pagka 1954 there was a Protocol and 1977 meron na naman. This Protocol included the wars of
national liberation. What is national libeation? Example d’yan yung sa Palestine, ‘yong kaso sa Palestine, they
wanted to be liberated from the movements of Israel. East Timor is another, ano ‘yan Indonesia dati or Malaysia. So
when it comes to wars of national liberation The Hague Law shall be applicable.

So the GENERAL RULE for a combatant, a combatant must always be obliged to abide by the rules of
war, specifically they must be able to distinguished themselves from the civilian population when they are engaged
in an attack or in preparatory to an attack. It would be a war crime when these combatants would make the civilian
population as shield. Under Article 44 (3), the law recognizes that there are situations in our conflicts, only to
the nature of the hostilities, an armed combatant cannot also be able to distinguish itself. The general rule
kanina sabi ko, kung hindi niya didistinguish ‘yong sarili niya at saka ’yong mga kasamahan niya dun sa civilian
population, he will commit a war crime.

However, by way of an EXCEPTION, he may not commit war crime and may retain his status as a
combatant, PROVIDED that, he must carry his arms openly suring his military engagementduring such time that he
is feasible to the adversary. Now, if on the contrary, the combatant falls into the power of the enemy while failing to
meet those requirements, meaning he did not distinguish himself, no other things ha, from the civilian population
and those protected persons, he shall forfeit his right to be a POW. Well, alam n’yo na kung ano ‘yong effect kung
hindi siya ma treat as POW. He would have no right, whatsoever, pertaining to a POW.

How about espionage? Spying. The first Protocol of the Geneva Convention covers espionage. When a
member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict falls into the power of the adverse party while engaging in
espionage can he invoke his right to be a POW? By the way, before we answer that, who are considered spies under
The Hague Law?

Under Article 29, a person can only be considered as a spy when acting clandestinely or on false
pretenses, he obtains or enables to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the
intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

That is the definition of a spy. Kung mahuli ang isang combatant in the act of espionage, he will not have a
right to be treated as a POW, so again the consequence? Wala siya nung mga right na diniscuss natin last meeting.
So remember espionage to be covered under this rules must of course satisfy that definition under Article 29.
Therefore, soldiers who are not wearing in disguise, meaning naka uniporme pa, carrying their arms openly
nakapasok doon sa kampo kasi tatanga tanga ‘yong mga andun, tapos nakakuha ng mga vital military information
with the intent of communicating it to their camp but of course did not succeed in escaping because they were
arrested. Are they spy? No, because they did not do it in a clandestine manner. Naka uniform nga sila eh. So in other
words, in that critical situation, those combatants arrested or captures must be treated as POW. Ano pa ba ang ibang
mga clandestine manner of doing espionage? Siguro nagpapari pari ka nisulod ka didto sa camp nila or
nagpakahoy kahoy ba kaha ka didto. Basta and ano is clandestine manner.

Now, suppose you acted like a priest, andoon ka sa kampo nila and you got their trust, after sometime kasi
nagtrust sila sa’yo, you already have access to some vital military information tapos you’ve succeeded in getting out
of the camp. You were able to communicate the vital information to your commander and right away you planned
an assault. Three days after, you went with the troop in conducting the assault against the very same camp, haskang
dimalasa sa tanan ikaw pa gyud ang nadakpan, can you be treated as spy under this rule? No more because you are
no longer in the act of espionage. Basta ‘wag lang kayo maconfuse dun sa facts basta ang importante you memorize
Article 29.

Now, can the adverse party mete out an outright penalty upon the spies captured by them? Kasi wala silang
right to be treated as POW eh, padkadakip nila derecho ba punishment? NO. Again, meron paring due process.

How about mercenaries? Who are mercenaries? These are armed guys; they kill but they do not belong to
any legitimate armed forces. They just go into war, kill the enemy for a fee. Meron ba silang rights of a combatant
so that when if later on captured they should be treated as POW? No, because they do not satisfy ‘yong elements
doon sa Article 1 of Hague Law. They are not members of the armed forces of any party to a conflict. They are not
under the command of a responsible superior. And under Article 47(1), ‘yong mga mercenaries shall not have the
right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

Now what is the rule when there is doubt? When a combatant is arrested and the detaining party refuses to
accord with the right of the POW because parang hindi ka naman combatant eh, so there is doubt. Pag sabihin ng
captured combatant “no, I am a combatant”, pagsabihin ng detaining power, “no, you are not. There is doubt.” So
just like basic rule when it comes to doubt no, magsettle muna tayo doon sa in case of doubt. So in this case if there
is doubt as to the treatment of a captured person as a combatant, the presumption is if he falls into the enemy power,
he must be treated as a POW if he claims the status, or that if he appeals to be entitled to that status, or if the party
on which detains claims a status on his behalf by notification to retain power or the protective power. So if there is
doubt the doubt is presumed in favor of the captured person. Article 45 (2). So, in the mean time you will be treated
as a POW unless and until evidence to the contrary surfaces.

So, there are some basic rules on the means and methods of warfare in this Protocol. Restatement doon sa
mga general provisions kanina. Already unlimited, no to weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary
suffering and the means or methods of warfare which are intended are to be maybe respected to cause widespread
long term severe damage to the environment.

Let’s tal about perfidy. Article 37, perfidy in a war. Article 37, par. 1, prohibits to kill or wound
trecherously individuals to the hostile nation or army that is to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort
to perfidy. Perfidy refers to acts that invite the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that is entitled to
protection under IHL.

Halimbawa:

(1) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.

Kunyari dala dala kayo ng white flag, kaya sabi ko kanina kapag may white flag ka you come in peace, you
are not supposed to be made military target but the truth and in fact may dala dala pala kayo na concealed na mga
weapons and because you have gain their trust you just killed them on time, that is one exmaple of perfidy. Kasi
akalain nila susurrender kayo no or may mensahe kayo but little do they know na meron pala kayong dala dalang
mga weapons.

(2) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness.

Papatay patay daw ba and then you are going to make it as a means to attack the enemy.

(3) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.

Syempre under IHL civilians are protected persons, hindi sila tinatarget, so pag yan ang ginawa mong
shield for purposes of launching an unexpected attack then you are committing perfidy. That is a war crime.

(4) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or
of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

Okay, you use the uniform of the UN orof the ICRC yet you launched attacks. That is perfidy. To mak use
of the military fags or emblems of a neutal country. Kasagaran kanang mga neutral countries na madunggan nato
kanang Netherlands, Switzerland, they are neutral, hindi sila sumasama sa gyera.

Article 40, the prohibition of the no quarter principle. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no
survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.

A person who is recognized or who is the ____ of the recognized hors de combat shall not be made the
object of attack. So when may we say that the person is already an hors de combat? If:

(1) he is in the power of the adverse party;

(2) he can no longer take part in the fighting because he is wounded or he is sick; and
(3) he clearly expresses his intention to surrender.

A captured combatant who attempts to use violence against his captors or to escape effectively discontinues
his status of being hors de combat forming once again the main object of the attack.

Okay let’s go to Article 42, Protocol I. These are the rules concerning occupants of an aircrafts in
distress. In war most of the powerful nations use the aircraft. Apart from of course the air force ‘yang mga fighter
planes, aircrafts are used to transport even the members of the infantry. Infantry ito ‘yong mga nasa ground.
Supposed there is a C130, ‘yan si C130 na ‘yan ginagamit ‘yan mostly in war to transport combatant. Combatants
from the camp to the battlefield. What would happen if in transit, during flight nadaot ang carborador sa eroplano?
Naa ba’y carborador ang eroplano? Ah basta the tendency will be that the plane is in descent and then the troops of
war would tend to eject through a parachute.

QUESTION: may the enemy troops on the gorund shoot at the descending militia men or on parachutes?

Sabi ng Article 42. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of
attack during his descent. During his descent hindi siya pwedeng gyerahin. Sayang kasi ‘yong bala. It is
immaterial here whether the person in question may be expected to land in a territory controlled by the enemy or on
its own territory, or the territory of the neutral party.

Now, in the case he is expected to land in the territory of the enemy, his helplessness during the descent is
taken to prepare and may soon be taken an active part ____, however, the law does not believe this kind of
principles. His reaching the ground in the territory controlled by the adverse enemy will not cause the loss of his
right to surrender. In other words, Article 42(2) is saying that he shall be given an opportunity to surrender before
they make the object of the attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile attack. So the general rule is,
‘yong mga occupants of aircrafts in distress while descending on the parachute should not be made military targets,
they should not be attacked. Unless, of course, while descending they themselves are shooting the enemy.
 Meron pa isang exception dito, airborne troops are not covered by this rule. Why? Because they are
trying to an attack even if they are desceding on a parachute. That’s Article 42(3). So once they reached the ground
in a territory controlled by the enemy, so these are the following rules ha, huwag n’yong kalimutan. The combatants
may make an attack to defend themselves against the attack, they may also themselves attack the enemy when he
clearly expresses his intention to surrender and has made himself under the protection of International Humanitarian
Law.

Then the last group of pesons protected by The Hague Law, it’s the protection of civilians. Civilians of
course do not take part of the party. Now, what is the rule when there is doubt? Kung civilian ba ‘yan o combatant?
That’s the same in favor of the people, in case of doubt if a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered as a
civilian unless and until the contrary is needed.

Article 51 expressly prohibits acts of terror. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is
to spread terror on the civilian population is prohibited. Of course kabalo na ta unsa nang acts of terrorism. Also
indiscriminate attacks, those attacks that are not necessarilly directed against specific military objective. Kahit na
wala naman military object doon sa area tapos binomba parin that is not allowed.

Also, according to Article 53, historic monuments, works of art or places of worship cannot be made
military targets. Objects that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population must always be protected.

Foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestocks, drinking water
installation and supplies and irrigation works. These are protected by Article 54(2).

Have you come across of this phrase scorched-earth policy? Dukot ba dukot. Scorched-earth policy – this
is an act of burning an agricultural field. An agricultural field that is the source of food, halimbawa kanang
kamaisan, or banana plantation, these are sources of food. Pag sunogin natin siya during war? Classmate: wala nay
food. So bawal? Pwedeng bawal, pwedeng hindi. Suppose there is an impending foreign invasion tapos halimbawa
tayo alam natin na may paparating na kalaban and we all know that we cannot sustain. If we fight we just lose our
lives. Ang gagawin natin tatakas tayo, we will burn the field para wala silang kainin. They will just survive and go
to someplace else. Pero kung sila ‘yong papasok, sila ang invader, sila ‘yong susunog doon sa source of food,
particularly para sa civilians, that’s the authority of war crime. So that is scorched-earth policy. The scorched-earth
policy could be valid.

Tapos meron ding protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces. Dams, dykes,
‘yong mga nuclear plants. These are not supposed to be targeted because these contained dangerous forces.

Non-defended localities are not supposed to be made military target. Pinag-usapan na natin ‘yan.

That is like the Geneva Convention, The Hague Law mainly espouses humane treatment. As humanized
war, not only on the part of the combatant but more importantly to the civilians. Of all persons who do not or have
ceased to take part into hostilities, meaning those are the hors de combat, they must be protected. The detainees.
Detainees as distinguished from POW. Detainees pagka-internal ‘yong armed conflict. So Protocol II of The Hague
Law applies to internal armed conflict. Those are the salient features of The Hague Law. The Geneva, The Hague
Law, the main branches of the International Humanitarian Law.