Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568682
label
JGR/Law of War
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568682
contentType
document
title
JGR/Law of War
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568682
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
587c8ada34b6b664
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Law of War
Box: 31
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name Roberts, John: Files
Withdrawer
LOJ 7/31/2005
File Folder
JGR/LAW OF WAR
FOIA
2005-139
Box Number
COOKE
1012
ID Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
Pages
19475 NOTES
HANDWRITTEN BY ROBERTS RE 1/29
1 1/29/1985 B1
LAW OF WAR WORKING GROUP
MEETING
19476 MEMO
MIKE MATHESON TO MR. FEITH, ET AL,
1 2/1/1985 B1
RE 1/29 WORKING GROUP MEETING
R
6/22/2006
19477 SUMMARY
OF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-
2 2/1/1985 B1
OF-WAR WORKING GROUP
PAR 6/22/2006
19478 MEMO
MATHESON TO MR. FEITH ET AL, RE
1 2/1/1985 B1
1/29 MEETING (SAME AS 19476)
R
6/22/2006
19479 SUMMARY
OF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-
2 2/1/1985 B1
OF-WAR WORKING GROUP (SAME AS
19477)
PAR 6/22/2006
19480 MEMO
MATHESON TO MR. FEITH ET AL, RE
1 2/1/1985 B1
1/29 MEETING (SAME AS 19476)
R 6/22/2006
19481 SUMMARY
OF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-
2 2/1/1985 B1
OF-WAR WORKING GROUP (SAME AS
19477)
PAR 6/22/2006
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name Roberts, John: Files
Withdrawer
LOJ 7/31/2005
File Folder
JGR/LAW OF WAR
FOIA
2005-139
Box Number
COOKE
1012
ID Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
Pages
19482 MEMO
MATHESON TO MR. DYSON ET AL, RE
2 4/2/1985 B1
US RATIFICATION OF CWC
PAR 6/22/2006
19483 MEMO
DRAFT RE US RATIFICATION OF THE
3 3/26/1985 B1
1980 CONVENTIONA WEAPONS
CONVENTION
PAR 6/22/2006
19484 NOTES
FROM 4/22 MEETING
1 4/22/1985 B1
19485 MEMO
MATHESON TO MR. FEITH, RE LAW OF
1 4/23/1985 B1
WAR
PAR 6/22/2006
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
MEMORANDUM
January Johnts 22, 1985
TO:
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commodore Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
NSC - Mr. Kimmitt
White House - Mr. Hauser
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
SUBJECT:
Meeting of Law-of-War Working Group
You or your designee (s) are invited to a meeting of the
Law-of-War Working Group on Tuesday, January 29 at 2:00 pm, in
Room 1406 at the State Department. I *propose to ask JCS to
give us a status report on the military review of the 1977
Protocols, and to have a preliminary discussion on the question
of a separate submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons
Convention to the Senate. (There is no need for agency
positions at this stage.) The floor will also be open for
discussion of other law-of-war issues.
Please let us know (632-3345) who will attend from your
organization. Thanks very much.
RFA
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
LOJ 7/31/2005
File Folder
FOIA
JGR/LAW OF WAR
2005-139
COOKE
Box Number
12LOJ
ID
Document Type
No of
Doc Date
Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
19475 NOTES
1
1/29/1985
B1
HANDWRITTEN BY ROBERTS RE 1/29 LAW OF
WAR WORKING GROUP MEETING
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
February 1, 1985
CONF IDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
NSC - Mr. Kimmitt
WH Couns. - Mr. Hauser
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
SUBJECT:
Jan. 29 Meeting of Interagency
Law-of-War Working Group
Attached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the
Law-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be
consulting further with you or your representative in two weeks
concerning the question of submission of the Conventional
Weapons Convention to the Senate.
Attachment:
Summary
cc: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley
OSD/GC - Mr. Dyson
JCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan
Navy JAG - Capt. Dalton
Army JAG - Mr. Parks
AF JAG - Col. Hitt
ACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher
ACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes
NSC - Mr. Maizel
WH/C - Mr. Roberts
CONFIDENTIAL
DECL OADR
NLS DECLASSIFIED F05-139/1*19476
BY LOJ NARA, DATE 6/22/06
CONF IDENTIAL
SUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of
Interagency Law-of-War Working Group
The Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of
participants is attached.)
The JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of
the ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.
He indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end
of March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration
of the question of ratification of the Protocols would await
the results of that review.
The Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the
question of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC) to the Senate,
(1)
CONF IDENTIAL
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
NLS F05-139/1 # 19477
BY LOJ NARA, DATE 6/22/06
- 2 -
(1)
Depending on the results of these consultations, State may
(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on
this issue for formal agency comments and positions.
CONFIDENTIAL
List of Participants
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TEL. NO.
Mike Matheson
State/L
632-3345
Al Dyson
DOD/OGC
697-9248
Harvey Dalton
Navy JAG
697-5406
Glenn Orgeron
Navy JAG
697-9161
Sam Maizel
NSC
395-3044
John Roberts
W.H. Counsel
456-7953
Steven Hardesty
HA/HR
632-2362
Tom Bleha
H
632-1615
Bob Turner
H
632-1048
Alex Liebowitz
IO/UNP
632-0512
John Campbell
M/CTP
632-7253
Mel Christopher
ACDA/GC
632-3596
Jim Davis
EUR/RPM
632-1328
Dan Gallington
OSD/ISP
697-2247
Sheila Buckley
OSD/ISP
695-5819
B. M. Carnahan
JCS
695-6632
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
2/19/85
TO: John Roberts
FROM: Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
FYI: X
COMMENT:
ACTION:
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
February 1, 1985
CONRIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
NSC - Mr. Kimmitt
WH Couns. - Mr. Hauser
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
SUBJECT:
Jan. 29 Meeting of Interagency
Law-of-War Working Group
Attached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the
Law-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be
consulting further with you or your representative in two weeks
concerning the question of submission of the Conventional
Weapons Convention to the Senate.
Attachment:
Summary
CC: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley
OSD/GC - Mr. Dyson
JCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan
Navy JAG - Capt. Dalton
Army JAG - Mr. Parks
AF JAG - Col. Hitt
ACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher
ACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes
NSC - Mr. Maizel
WH/C - Mr. Roberts
CONF IDENTIAL
DECL OADR
DECLASSIFIED
NLS F05-139/1*19478
BY LOS NARA, DATE 6/22/06
CONFIDENTIAL
SUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of
Interagency Law-of-War Working Group
The Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of
participants is attached.)
The JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of
the ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.
He indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end
of March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration
of the question of ratification of the Protocols would-await
the results of that review.
The Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the
question of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC) to the Senate,
FOLA(b) (1)
DECLASSIFIED IN, PART
CONF IDENTIAL
NLS F05-139/1# 19479
By LOT NARA, Date 6/22/06
- 2 -
" )
Depending on the results of these consultations, State may
(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on
this issue for formal agency comments and positions.
CONFIDENTIAL
List of Participants
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TEL. NO.
Mike Matheson
State/L
632-3345
Al Dyson
DOD/OGC
697-9248
Harvey Dalton
Navy JAG
697-5406
Glenn Orgeron
Navy JAG
697-9161
Sam Maizel
NSC
395-3044
John Roberts
W.H. Counsel
456-7953
Steven Hardesty
HA/HR
632-2362
Tom Bleha
H
632-1615
Bob Turner
H
632-1048
Alex Liebowitz
IO/UNP
632-0512
John Campbell
M/CTP
632-7253
Mel Christopher
ACDA/GC
632-3596
Jim Davis
EUR/RPM
632-1328
Dan Gallington
OSD/ISP
697-2247
Sheila Buckley
OSD/ISP
695-5819
B. M. Carnahan
JCS
695-6632
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
file- Law of
war
April 17, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO:
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commodore Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
NSC - Mr. Kraemer
White House Counsel - Mr. Hauser
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
now
SUBJECT:
Law of War: U.S. Ratification of the
Conventional Weapons Convention (CWC)
I have received several suggestions that another
interagency meeting be held to discuss the question of
the submission of the CWC to the Senate. You or your
designee are therefore invited to attend such a meeting
at 2:00 pm on Monday, April 22, in Room 6226 at State.
Attached, for your convenience, are copies of: (1) the
summary of the last interagency meeting on this subject;
and (2) my note of April 2 suggesting a procedure for
further action on this question. Please let me know if
you have any questions. Thanks very much.
Attachments:
As stated.
1919
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
February 1, 1985
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
NSC - Mr. Kimmitt
WH Couns. - Mr. Hauser
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
NDM
SUBJECT:
Jan. 29 Meeting of Interagency
Law-of-War Working Group
Attached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the
Law-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be
consulting further with you or your representative in two weeks
concerning the question of submission of the Conventional
Weapons Convention to the Senate.
Attachment:
Summary
CC: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley
OSD/GC - Mr. Dyson
JCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan
Navy JAG - Capt. Dalton
Army JAG - Mr. Parks
AF JAG - Col. Hitt
ACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher
ACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes
NSC - Mr. Maizel
WH/C - Mr. Roberts
CONFIDENTIAL
DECL: OADR
DECLASSIFIED
NLS 705-139/1+19480
BY LOS NARA, DATE 6/22/06
CONFIDENTIAL
SUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of
Interagency Law-of-War Working Group
The Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of
participants is attached.)
The JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of
the ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.
He indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end
of March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration
of the question of ratification of the Protocols would await
the results of that review.
The Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the
question of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC) to the Senate,
(1)
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
CONF IDENTIAL
NLS F05-139/1+19481
By not NARA, Date 6/22/06
- 2 -
FOIA(b) ( 1)
Depending on the results of these consultations, State may
(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on
this issue for formal agency comments and positions.
CONFIDENTIAL
List of Participants
NAME
ORGANIZATION
TEL. NO.
Mike Matheson
State/L
632-3345
Al Dyson
DOD/OGC
697-9248
Harvey Dalton
Navy JAG
697-5406
Glenn Orgeron
Navy JAG
697-9161
Sam Maizel
NSC
395-3044
John Roberts
W.H. Counsel
456-7953
Steven Hardesty
HA/HR
632-2362
Tom Bleha
H
632-1615
Bob Turner
H
632-1048
Alex Liebowitz
IO/UNP
632-0512
John Campbell
M/CTP
632-7253
Mel Christopher
ACDA/GC
632-3596
Jim Davis
EUR/RPM
632-1328
Dan Gallington
OSD/ISP
697-2247
Sheila Buckley
OSD/ISP
695-5819
B. M. Carnahan
JCS
695-6632
Dave Graham
4/2/85
TO: OSD/GC - Mr. Dyson
OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley
JCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan
NSC - Mr. Maizel
FROM: State/L - Mike Matheson
SUBJECT: US Ratification of the
Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC)
On the basis of informal
consultations I have carried out
since our last meeting, I believe
we may be able to reach a
consensus on the military
acceptability of the package
described in the attached for
possible US ratification of the
CWC: namely,
CONFIDENTIAL
FOIA(b)(/)
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
NLS F05-139/1*19482
By
LOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06
-2-
The attached draft is designed
to lay out for your clearance
or comment a proposed process for
these informal consultations,
and to get your concurrence that
the proposed package is militarily
acceptable. If you concur, I
would carry out the consultations,
then fill in the blanks in the
attached draft and send it back
to your offices with a State
Department recommendation as to
whether or not to go ahead with
the Convention.
I would therefore appreciate
your concurrence or comments on
the above, if possible by COB
April 15. Please let me know if
you have any questions about all
this. Thanks very much.
FOIA(b) (1)
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
U.S. Ratification of the 1980 Conventional
Weapons Convention (CWC)
As promised, we have consulted further with agency
representatives on the question of U.S. ratification of the CWC
with the objective of determining what sort of package of
conditions or understandings would be considered acceptable
from a USG point of view. As a result, our understanding is
that the following would be considered acceptable:
FOIA(b) (1)
(We would also re-examine the technical understandings
previously suggested by the U.S. to the NATO Political
Committee to see if any changes are needed; and we would decide
whether any statement or condition is needed with respect to
Article 7(4) of the CWC.)
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
CONFIDENTIAL
NLS F05-139/1 *19483
By LOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06
- 2 -
We then consulted with the
and
Embassies
to ascertain the views of their governments on whether they
would prefer U.S. ratification on this basis, or rather prefer
that the U.S. Executive Branch continue to take no further
public action on the CWC for the time being. Their reactions
were as follows:
Finally, we consulted informally with the staff of the SFRC
5 FOIA(b)
to ascertain likely Senatorial reaction to this package.
[Describe reaction.]
In light of all this, State recommends
for the following reasons:
I would appreciate by
your agency's
concurrence in this course of action, or its views as to what
alternative action should be taken. If there are any
significant differences among the agencies, I will be back in
touch to suggest a procedure for resolving those differences.
Thanks very much for your help.
CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 -
Drafted:L:MJMatheson:edk
3/26/85, 632-3345
Wang 1240X
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
LOJ 7/31/2005
File Folder
FOIA
JGR/LAW OF WAR
2005-139
COOKE
Box Number
12LOJ
ID
Document Type
No of
Doc Date
Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
19484 NOTES
1 4/22/1985 B1
FROM 4/22 MEETING
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
NAME
AGENCY /OFFICE
TEL. NO.
Mike Matheson
State / L
632-3345
HARVEY DALTON
NAVY JAC
697-5406
IRA CLICK
DJCS (J-5)
694-6626
GLENN ORGERON
NAVY JAG
697-9161
Robert Simmons
State PM/TMP
632-4761
Jim Davis
State EUR/RPM
632-1328
Suen Kraeme-
NSC
395-5010
Douglas Faith
OSD/ISP OSD / ISP
697-9693
Shila Buckley
OSD/ISP
695-5819
JOHN ROBERTS
W.H. COUNSEL
456-7953
STEVEN HARDESTY
HA/ MA
632-2362
Robert Callard
H
432-9532
DAVID ISENBERS
OSD /OAGC (I)
6952604
Dennis Yoder
AFIJACI
695-9632
mel Chirotopher
ACDA/GC
6323596
Dennis Foremen
4 PM
632-0321
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
April 23, 1985
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
OSD/ISP Mr. Feith
FROM:
State/L - Michael John Matheson mim
SUBJECT:
Law of War -- Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC)
As agreed at yesterday's interagency meeting, I am writing
to seek the views of JCS and OSD on the military acceptability
of the following package concerning possible U.S. ratification
of the CWC:
FOIA(b) FOIA(b)(/)
(We would also re-examine the technical understandings
previously suggested by the U.S. to the NATO Political
Committee to see if any changes are needed; and we would decide
whether any statement or condition is needed with respect to
Article 7(4) of the CWC.)
If such a package is militarily acceptable, we would
consult privately with the appropriate allied governments and
Congressional staff to help us reach an informed judgment as to
whether submitting the CWC to the Senate under these conditions
would be to our net advantage or disadvantage from a political
and arms control point of view.
Thanks for your help.
CC: NSC - Mr. Kraemer
EUR - Mr. Dobbins
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
H - Mr. Fox
JCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett
D - Mr. Timbie
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
IO - - Mr. Kirk
White House Counsel - Mr. Hauser
HA - - Mr. Matthews
PM - - Mr. Hawes
CONF IDENTIAL
DECL: QADR
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
NLS F05-139/1# 19485
By LOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO: John Roberts
FROM: Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
FYI:
COMMENT:
ACTION:
law of lite war
L- - M.J. Matheson, Rm. 6419 Phone 632-3345
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.A.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
WHILE MII,
RECEMMENT
Almos DEU
1005 ADD 24 1411-13
m. Richard A. Houser
Rm. 45, Old Executive office Be
17ᵗʰ & s Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Phone: 456-6611
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
April,23, 1985
2018
MEMORANDUM
TO:
NSC - Mr. Kraemer
mom
FROM:
State/L - Mike Matheson
SUBJECT:
Law of War - Conventional Weapons Convention (CWC)
As you requested yesterday, attached is a summary of the
relationship of the CWC to other law-of-war agreements. Please
let me know if you would like further information along these
lines.
Attachment:
Summary
CC: NSC - Mr. Kimmett
OSD/ISP - Mr. Feith
OSD/GC - Mr. McNeill
JCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett
ACDA/GC - Mr. Graham
White House Counsel - Mr. Hauser
PM - Mr. Hawes
EUR - Mr. Dobbins
H - Mr. Fox
D - Mr. Timbie
M/CT - Mr. Oakley
IO - Mr. Kirk
HA - Mr. Matthews
Relationship of the Conventional Weapons
Convention (CWC) to Other
Law-of-War Agreements
A Diplomatic Conference met in Geneva during 1974-77, under
the auspices of the Swiss Government and the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to revise and update the
rules of warfare contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on
the protection of victims of armed conflict, the 1907 Hague
Convention on means and methods of combat, and various
principles of customary international law. In June 1977 the
Conference concluded its work with the adoption by consensus of
two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, one
for international conflicts and one for non-international
conflicts.
The Protocols are lengthy and detailed, and deal with many
aspects of military operations and conduct during armed
conflict. Among other things, they: (1) improve and expand
protection of medical units, personnel and transport; (2)
upgrade the responsibilities of Parties with respect to search,
reporting and care for the missing and remains of the dead; (3)
broaden and upgrade provisions for protecting the civilian
population from the effects of combat operations, and for
relief operations for their benefit; (4) extend law-of-war
protections to certain types of irregulars not previously
covered; (5) prohibit acts of terrorism and require the
prosecution or extradition of their perpetrators as war
criminals; and (6) improve the compliance mechanisms of the
1949 Conventions.
a
The 1974-77 Diplomatic Converence was unable to reach
agreement on one item on its agenda -- the question of
prohibitions or restrictions on the use of specific types of
conventional weapons alleged to cause unnecessary suffering or
to have indiscriminate effects, and a separate conference was
convened in Geneva in 1979-80 under UN auspices to deal with
this subject. Proposals were made by European neutrals and
third-world delegations to prohibit a variety of weapons,
including incendiaries, modern fragmentation weapons (such as
CBUs and flechettes), and high-velocity small arms (such as the
M-16). In the end, the Conference adopted by consensus a
convention to which were attached three protocols: Protocol I
on Non-Detectable Fragments; Protocol II on the Use of Mines,
Booby-Traps and Other Devices; and Protocol III on the Use of
Incendiary Weapons.
- 2 -
Among other things, the Convention and its three protocols:
(1) prohibit the use of any weapon relying for its wounding
effects on fragments not detectable by x-ray; (2) regulate
various aspects of the use of land mines and booby-traps for
the purpose of reducing civilian casualties; and (3) limit the
use of incendiary weapons against targets located in
concentrations of civilians.
Copies of the State Department's current records of
signatures, ratifications and accessions to the 1977 Protocols
and the CWC are attached.
Attachments:
As stated.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
RED CROSS (Protocol I)
TREATY RECORD
Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), with annexes. Adopted
at Geneva June 8, 1977. Open for signature at Berne December 12, 1977 to December 12, 1978
SIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,
TEXT:
UST
ACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).
TIAS
UNTS
DEPOSITARY Government of Switzerland
International Legal Materials, Vol. XVI
No. 6, November 1977, P. 1391.
ENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 7, 1978
Method: Six months after two instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited.
For each party to the Conventions thereafter ratifying or acceding to this Protocol, it shall
enter into force 6 months after deposit by such Party of its instrument.
DURATION: Not stated, but may be denounced.
PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION: Denunciation in writing, effective in respect of the denouncing
power, one year notification to Swiss Fed. Council (Art. 99).
AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, ETC.:
TERMINATION - DATE:
Action taken:
unless otherwise stated)
RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED
ACCESSIONS DEPOSITED
United States³, 1
1,4
Libya - June 7, 1978
Austria
August 13, 1982
Botswana - May 23, 1979
Belgium
Mauritania - March 14, 1980
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Gabon - April 8, 1980
Republic
Bahamas - April 10, 1980
Canada
Bangladesh - Sept. 8, 1980
Chile
Mauritius - March 22, 1982
Denmark
June 17, 19821,4
Tanzania - February 15, 1983
Ecuador
April 10, 1979
>
United Arab 1 Emirates - March 9,
Egypt
1983
E1 Salvador
November 23, 1978.
People's Rep. of China -
Finland
August 7, 1980
September 14, 1983
German Democratic Rep.
Saint Vincent and the Grena-
Ghana
February 28, 1978
dines - April $47 8, 1983
Guatemala
Namibia, WW Correct October 18, 1983
Holy See
People's Rep. of the Congo -
Honduras
Nov. 10, 1983
2
Hungary
France - February 24, 1984
Iceland
Bolivia - Dec. 8, 1983
Iran
Costa Rica - Dec. 15, 1983
Ireland
1
Cameroon - March 16, 1984
Italy
Oman - March 29, 1984
Ivory Coast
Saint Lucia - October 7, 1982
Jordan
May 1, 1979
Central African Rep. - July 17,
Liechtenstein
1984
Luxembourg
Western Samoa - Aug. 23, 1984
Mongolia
Belize - June 29, 1984
Morocco
Netherlands
Guinea - July 11, 1984
Nicaragua
Seychelles - Nov. 8, 1984
December 14, 1981
Rwanda - Nov. 19, 1984
Norway
Kuwait - Jan. 17, 1985
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Poland
1
Portugal
Senegal
Sweden
August 31, 1979
Switzerland 1
February 17, 1982
Tunisia
August 9, 1979
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic
Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics
United Kingdom 1
Yugoslavia
June 11, 1979
Germany, Federal Republic 1 - Dec
23, 1977
Upper Volta - Jan. 11, 1978
Laos - April 18, 1978
November 18, 1980
Romania - March 28, 1978
Yemen (Sana) - Feb. 14, 1978
San Marino - June 22, 1978
Niger - June 16, 1978
June 8, 1979
Madagascar - October 13,1 1978
Spain - November 7. 1978
New Zealand - November 27, 1978
Czechoslovakia - Dec. 6, 1978
Australia - December 7, 1978
Korea (Rep. of) - Dec. 7, 1978
January 15, 1982
Bulgaria - Dec. 11, 1978
Togo - December 12, 1977
June 21, 1984
61
5
Total
2.26
REFERENCES IN TEXT: Geneva conventions for the protection of war victims, done at Geneva
August 12, 1949 (TIAS 3362, 3363, 3364, and 3365).
REMARKS
1 With declaration(s)
2 With statement(s)
3 With understanding(s)
4 With reservation(s)
IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION:
Prepared by: LA 9/21/77
Reviewed by:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
RED CROSS (Protocol II)
TREATYRECORD
Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Adopted at
Geneva June 8, 1977. Open for signature at Berne December 12, 1977 to December 12, 1978.
SIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,
TEXT:
UST
ACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).
TIAS
UNTS
DEPOSITARY Government of Switzerland
International Legal Materials, Vol. XVI, No. 6,
p. 1442.
ENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 7, 1978
Method: Six months after two instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited.
DURATION: Not stated but may be denounced (see Part v, Art. 25).
AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, ETC.:
PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION: Denunciation in writing, effective in respect of the denouncing
nower one year notification to Swiss Fed. Council (Art. 25).
TERMINATION DATE:
Action taken:
SIGNATURES
RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED
ACCESSIONS DEPOSITED
United States - Dec. 12, 1977 31
1.4
Libya - June 7, 1978
Austria - December 12, 1977
August 13, 1982
Botswana - May 23, 1979
Belgium - December 12, 1977
Bahamas - April 10, 1980
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Gabon - April 8, 1980
Rep. - Dec. 12, 1977
Mauritania - March 14, 1980
Canada - Dec 12, 1977¹
Bangladesh - Sept. 8, 1980
Chile - Dec. 12, 1977
1,4
Mauritius - March 22, 1982
Denmark - Dec. 12, 1977
June 17, 1982
Zaire (Rep. of) - June 3, 1982
Ecuador - Dec. 12, 1977
April 10, 1979
Tanzania - February 15, 1983
Egypt - Dec. 12, 1977
United Arab Emirates - March 9,
1983
1
El Salvador - Dec. 12, 1977
November 23, 1978
Finland - Dec. 12, 1977
August 7, 1980
Mexico - March 10, 1983
German Dem. Rep. - Dec. 12, 1977
Mozambique - March 14, 1983
Ghana - Dec. 12, 1977
February 28, 1978
Saint Vincent and the Grena-
Guatemala - Dec. 12, 1977
dines - April 8, 1983
Holy See - Dec. 12, 1977
People's Republic of4 China -
Honduras - Dec. 12, 1977
September 14, for 1983
Hungary - Dec. 12, 1977
Namibia October 18, 1983
Iceland - Dec. 12, 1977
People's Rep. of the Congo -
Iran - Dec. 12, 1977
Nov. 10, 1983
Ireland - Dec 12, 1977
Italy - Dec. 12, 19771
Syrian, Arab Rep. - Nov. 14,
Ivory Coast - Dec. 12, 1977
1983
Jordan - Dec. 12, 1977
May 1, 1979
Bolivia - Dec. 8, 1983
Liechtenstein - Dec. 12, 1977
Costa Rica - Dec. 15, 1983
Luxembourg - Dec. 12, 1977
Cameroon 5 March 16, 1984
Mongolia - Dec, 12, 1977
Oman - March 29, 1984
Morocco - Dec. 12, 1977
Saint Lucia - October 7, 1982
Netherlands - Dec. 12, 1977
Cuba - November 25, 1982
Nicaragua - Dec. 12, 1977
1
Belize - June 29, 1984
Norway - Dec. 12, 1977
December 14, 1981
Guinea, Rep. of - July 11, 1984
Pakistan - Dec. 12, 1977
Central African Rep. - July 17,
Panama - Dec. 12, 1977
1984
Peru - Dec. 12, 1977
Western Samoa - Aug. 23, 1984
Philippines - Dec. 12, 1977
Angola - Sept. 20, 1984
Poland - Dec. 12, 1977
1
Seychelles - Nov. 8, 1984
Portugal - Dec. 12, 1977
Rwanda - Nov. 19, 1984
Senegal - Dec. 12, 1977
1,4
Kuwait, - Jan. 17, 1985
Sweden - Dec. 12, 1977
August 31,
Switzerland - Dec. 12, 1977
February 17,79,19821, 4
Tunisia - Dec. 12, 1977
August 9, 1979
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic - Dec. 12, 1977
Union. of Soviet Socialist
Republics - Dec. 12, 1977
1
United Kingdom - Dec. 12, 1977
Vietnam - Dec. 12, 1977
October 19, 1981 1
Yugoslavia - Dec. 12, 1977
June 11, 1979
Germany, Federal Republic -
December 23, 1977
Upper Volta - January 11, 1978
Laos - April 18, 1978
November 18, 1980
Romania - March 28, 1978
Greece - March 22, 1978
Yemen (Sana) - February 14
1978
Niger - June 16, 1978
June 8, 1979
San Marino - June 22, 1978
Madagascar - October 13, 1978
Cyprus - July 12, 1978
June 1, 1979
Spain - November 7, 1978 1
T5
39
New Zealand - November 27, 1978
2.26-85
Czechoslovakia - Dec. 6, 1978
Australia - December 7, 1978
Korea (Rep. of) - Dec. 7, 1978
January 15, 1982 1
Bulgaria - December 11, 1978
Togo - December 12, 1977
June 21, 1984
62
REFERENCES IN TEXT: Geneva conventions for the protection of war victims (TIAS 3362, 3363,
3364, and 3365), done at Geneva August 12, 1949.
REMARKS
1 With declaration(s)
2 With statement(s)
3 With understanding(s)
4 With reservation(s)
IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION:
Propered by:, LA 9-21-77
Reviewed by:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MULTILATERAL
TREATY RECORD
WEAPONS, CONVENTIONAL
Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which
may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. Adopted at
Geneva October 10, 1980. Open for signature in New York for a period of 12 months from
April 10, 1981.
SIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,
TEXT:
UST
ACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).
TIAS
UNTS
DEPOSITARY Secretary-General of the United Nations
Final Act appears in Int'l Legal
Materials, Vol. XIX, #6, Nov. 1980,
ENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 2, 1983
P. 1523.
Method: Six (6) months after the date of deposit of the 20th instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession (Art. 5); thereafter six months after a State deposits its
acceptance, approval, accession or ratification.
DURATION: Not stated. However, any High Contracting Party to this Convention may propose
amendments to the Convention or Protocols, or propose additional Protocols. If, after 10 yrs.
neither has been proposed, any High Contracting Party may request the Depositary to convene a
conference to review the Convention and the Protocols annexed
thereto (Art. 8).
TERMINATION - DATE:
Action taken:
unless otherwise noted)
2
United States - April 8, 1982
Lao People's Dem. Rep. -
Afghanistan
January 3, 1983
Austria
March 14, 1983 (R)
Guatemala - July 21, 1983
Belgium
Bulgaria
October 15, 1982 (R)
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic
June 23, 1982 (R)
Canada
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
August 31, 1982 (R)
Denmark
July 7, 1982 (R)
Egypt
Finland
April 8, 1982 (R)
France 1,2,3
German Dem. Rep
July 20, 1982 (R)
Fed. Rep. of Germany
Greece
Hungary
June 14, 1982 (R)
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
1
Luxembourg
Mexico
February 11, 1982 (R)
Mongolia
June 8, 1982 (R)
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
June 7, 1983 (R)
Poland
June 2, 1983 (R)
Portugal
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
July 7, 1982 (R)
Ukrainian S.S.R.
June 23, 1982 (R)
USSR
June 10, 1982 (R)
2
United Kingdom
Vietnam
Sierra Leone - May 1, 1981
Yugoslavia - May 5, 1981
May 24, 1983 (R)
India - May 15, 1981
March 1, 1984 (R)
Philippines - May 15, 1981
Nicaragua - May 20, 1981
Switzerland - June 18, 1981
August 20, 1982 (R)
Ecuador - September 9, 1981
May 4, 1982 (R)
Togo - September 15, 1981 2
China - September 14, 1981
April 7, 1982 (R)
Japan - September 22, 1981
June 9, 1982 (AC)
Argentina - December 2, 1981
Nigeria - January 26, 1982
Pakistan - January 26, 1982
April 1, 1985 (R)
Liechtenstein - February 11, 1982
Australia - April 8, 1982
September 29, 1983 (R)
Romania - April 8, 19824
Turkey - March 26, 1982
23/22/85
[ALL RATIFYING
OR ACCEDING
STATES ACCEPTED
ALL THREE
ATTACHED
PROTOCOLS]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS off
SUBJECT:
Draft Response to U.S. NATO's Request
for Guidance for a May 14 POLADs Exchange
on Ratification of the 1977 Protocols
State Deputy Legal Adviser Mike Matheson has asked for our
views on a proposed guidance cable to be sent to the U.S.
NATO Mission. At the last Law of War Working Group meeting,
on April 22, the participants were advised that a meeting of
the NATO Political Committee would be held on May 14, and
that one of the items on the agenda would be the status of
ratification of the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 Geneva
Convention. The 1977 Protocols update and revise the famous
1949 Geneva Convention on the acceptable conduct of war and
treatment of prisoners of war. The 1977 conference was
unable to reach agreement on limitations on the use of
specific types of weapons, so another conference was held in
1979-1980 that gave rise to the Conventional Weapons Con-
vention, with three additional Protocols.
It is important to keep distinct the 1977 Protocols and the
Protocols to the Conventional Weapons Convention. The
upcoming NATO meeting concerns only the 1977 Protocols. The
United States has not yet decided whether to seek ratification
of the 1977 Protocols, pending review by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. That review is not yet complete, but all indications
are that the Chiefs will recommend against ratification.
The proposed guidance cable accordingly points out the major
areas of concern, so the NATO Allies are aware that we may
well decide not to ratify. The main objection is found in
paragraph four: the Protocols would treat many terrorist
organizations as if they were countries engaged in war,
legitimizing their activities and offering them protections
and courtesies that should not be extended to common criminals.
I have no objections. The cable embodies the reality that
the military concerns of the Department of Defense are
prevailing in these discussions over the diplomatic objec-
tives of the Department of State.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR MIKE MATHESON
DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FROM:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Response to U.S. NATO's Request
for Guidance for a May 14 POLADs Exchange
on Ratification of the 1977 Protocols
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
guidance cable, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
RAH: JGR:aea 5/8/85
cc: FFFielding
RAHauser
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Law of War
I participate on a regular basis, in Mr. Hauser's stead, in
the law of war working group that has been meeting at the
State Department for several years to monitor and coordinate
consideration of the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 Geneva
Convention and the separate Conventional Weapons Convention.
Recent publicity surrounding the apparent decision of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to object formally to the 1977 Protocols
(attached) prompts this background memorandum.
You are of course familiar with the 1949 Geneva Convention.
A diplomatic conference was held in 1974-1977, also in
Geneva, to update that famous Convention. That conference
resulted in two protocols to the 1949 Convention, known as
the 1977 Protocols, which the Carter Administration signed
(over the objections of the Joint Chiefs). The 1974-1977
conference was unable to resolve several issues concerning
the use of specific conventional weapons in wartime (parti-
cularly booby-traps and incendiaries), resulting in the
convening of another conference in 1979-1980, which gave
rise to the Conventional Weapons Convention.
The 1977 Protocols (1) improve and expand protection of
medical units, personnel and transport; (2) upgrade the
responsibilities of Parties with respect to search, report-
ing and care for the missing and remains of the dead; (3)
broaden and upgrade provisions for protecting the civilian
population from the effects of combat operations, and for
relief operations for their benefit; (4) extend law-of-war
protections to certain types of irregulars not previously
covered; (5) prohibit acts of terrorism and require the
prosecution or extradition of their perpetrators as war
criminals; and (6) improve the compliance mechanisms of the
1949 Convention. The Conventional Weapons Convention (1)
prohibits the use of any weapon relying for its wounding
effects on fragments not detectable by x-ray; (2) regulates
various aspects of the use of land mines and booby-traps
for the purpose of reducing civilian casualties; and (3)
limits the use of incendiary weapons against targets located
in concentrations of civilians.
- 2 -
State became interested in moving toward ratification of
both the 1977 Protocols and the Convention on Conventional
Weapons last year, primarily to blunt international criticism
of the United States for not agreeing to what appeared to be
humane documents and, against the backdrop of failure to
conclude a nuclear arms agreement, to demonstrate that the
Administration was interested in such international agree-
ments. The Joint Chiefs consistently opposed the 1977
Protocols because they extended belligerent status to
terrorist, so-called "liberation movements,' and opposed the
Convention on Conventional Weapons because they wished to
retain flexibility to use certain booby traps (in a retreat-
ing army scenario) and certain incendiary bombs.
State asked Defense for a formal position on these issues;
apparently the Chiefs have decided to adhere to their
opposition, at least according to the Times article. I
advised Mr. Hauser by memorandum dated May 8, 1985, that
everyone expected this result, but I had no advance warning
that a decision was about to be reached or that it had been
leaked.
CC: Richard A. Hauser
noninternational conflicts. The Admin-
the most powerful argu-
ganization
'aces Objection
istrations's problems are with Protocol
ment against ratification on any terms
vote.
Conventions of 1949 confer prisoner or
I, which would give regional political
comes from a commentary to be pub-
The conference, which lasted nearly
war status only on regular uniformed
groups such as the Organization of Af-
lished soon by Douglas J. Feith, Deputy
four years, produced two protocols,
combatants whether or not recognized
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ne-
Of Joint Chiefs
rican Unity the authority to judge
gotiations Policy and the key official in
adding up to 121 pages of text.
by an adverse party.
Article 1 of Protocol says that the
Article 44, in Mr. Feith's view, fur-
whether liberation movements such as
the Pentagon on this issue
the African National Congress are le-
He writes of Protocol I, "It amounted
provisions apply to nations and "peo-
ther blurs the distinction between regu-
lars and irregulars or guerrillas and
gitimate parties to an armed conflict
to an endorsement, in the politically po-
ples" who "are fighting against CO-
between irregulars and noncombat-
and thus grant their fighters the same
tent form of a legal instrument, of both
lonial domination and alien occupation
By LESLIE H. GELB
measure of legal protection as a na-
and against racist regimes in the exer-
ants. It would do so by weakening the
epecial to The New York Times
the rhetoric and the anticivilian prac-
tices of terrorist organizations that fly
cise of their right of, self-determina-
requirements of the Geneva Conven-
tion's soldiers.
/ASHINGTON, July The Joint
tion. The protocol also provides that
tions for combatants to have a "fixed
the banner of self-determination. He
ets of Staff have recommended
Wording is Faulted
regional political organizations, such
distinctive sign recognizable at a dis-
calls it "a proterrorist treaty masque-
linst United States retification of in
Critics contend that other provisions
rading as humanitarian law."
as the League of Arab States and the
tance," namely a uniform, to carry
nationally Agreed revisions of the
His commentary was not formally
Organization of African Unity, will
"arms openly" and to conduct "their
in Protocol I defining what is combat
and what is a soldier are worded SO
judge which "peoples" constitute a le-
operations in accordance with the laws
a Geneva Conventions on treatment
approved by the Pentagon as an official
and customs of war.'
combetants and "war victims, ac-
vaguely that the distinctions between
statement of its position, but officials
gitimate party to armed struggle.
Article 44 recognizes that there are
ding to Administration officials.
guerrillas and regular soldiers would
there said it did represent the thinking
= situations where "owing to the nature
be blurred. As a result, these critics
of senior Pentagon policy makers.
Mr. Feith, in his commentary,
be Intent of the revisions is to &
of the hostilities an armed combatant
say, guerrillas could claim the same
Other Administration officials are
argues that this would abolish the
ice humane treatment of combit-
cannot 80 distinguish himself.' In
protection granted regular prisoners of
said to acknowledge the problems
traditional definition of international
these circumstances he can retain
S and civilians during war, But the
war and thus avoid prosecution under
raised by Mr. Feith, but are looking
conflicts as being between two or more
combatant status If he carries arms
in concern of the Joint Chiefs is that
the criminal laws of a sovereign nation
into the possiblity of fixing them by ap-
sovereign nations by giving regional
revisions, or protocols, as they are
for what might otherwise be consid-
proving the protocols with reserva-
political groups the right to confer on
rwn, would have the effect of legiti-
ered terrorist acts.
tions. The reservations would specifi-
national liberation movements the
'openly. But openly is defined as
ring national liberation movements
Officials said the Joint Chiefs had de-
cally reject the objectionable provi-
trappings of sovereignty. Delegates op-
"during each military engagefhent,"
1 terrorists, granting them combat-
layed coming to grips with the proto-
sions.
posed to this language, according to
in other words during an actual attack,
and prisoner-of-war status.
cols because of the lengthy and compli-
These officials maintain that the bulk
Mr. Feith, seemed to console them-
or during "military deployment," a
cated legal text, the cumbersome mill-
Vhile the matter is still under review
of the protocols are worth salvaging be-
selves with the argument that nations
vague phrase.
tary bureaucracy and the fact that
cause of provisions that would
would simply refuse to apply provi-
Irregulars, Mr. Feith argues, would
ewhere in the Administration, the
until the most recent encounters with
strengthen extradition and prosecution
sions of the protocol to liberation move-
obviously seek to conceal themselves
vailing view among officials is that
terrorists, the issue was low on the list
of terrorists, and attach legal teeth and
ments since to do SO would be to admit
from regular combatants and civilians
esident Reagan is highly unlikely to
of Administration priorities. The ques-
consequences to taking hostages and
they were racist or colonial or alien.
until the last moment and btill retain
commend Senate ratification of the
tion that Administration officials say
using force indiscriminately.
prisoner of war status If captured.
they are now wrestling with is whether
Some Administration officials say
tocola dealing with warfare in the
Missing G.I.'s a Factor
Other officials studying how this
of such objections by the military.
the concerns of the Joint Chiefs and
that this defect can be overcome by a
might be overcome reply that irregu-
others can be eliminated by ratifica-
One reason the Carter Administra-
lars might have incentives to comply
40 Nations Ratify Protocols
tion with reservations or whether
tion-agreed to sign in 1977 before these
reservation stating that the United
with a strict interpretation of the provi-
issues were fully discussed was that the
be Carter Administration signed
Protocol I in particular is inherently
States reserves the right to apply or not
sion if they wanted prisoner of war
flawed.
protocols would also strengthen the
two protocols in 1977 with the under-
apply the provisions to any group of its
status. But they also acknowledge that
To officials involved in the Adminis-
right to search for and be given infor-
choosing.
there may be problems here.
ading that a decision on ratification
tration's review of the protocols, the
mation about Americans missing in ac-
Mr. Feith counters in his commen-
do await a formal by the Joint
decision on ratification raises one of
tion in Vietnam. Another was powerful
tary that not applying the provisions
The study, officials said, recom-
ets. Over: 100 nations have signed
the most difficult and basic issues of
pressure from the International Com-
would only weaken international law
mends against ratification of Protocol 1
protocols, and more than 40 have
the international law of war - the
mittee of the Red Cross, which won ap-
generally. He further contends that
and approval of Protocol II with revi-
fied them. Signing obligates a na-
rights of innocent civilians as against
proval in the protocols for added pro-
whatever the legal applicability, the
sions
to act in accordance with the
the rights of and pressures from libera-
tections for its medical personnel.
protocol language constitutes a "fatal
ty, but only formal ratification
tion movements. Added to this are the
The laws of war are generally
political concession" to liberation and
of the treaty legal force
problems of balancing potentially help-
grouped under the Hague Convention of
terrorist groups.
ful parts of a treaty against potentially
1907, which limited means and methods
cate Departs at efficials said that
Article 43 also represents a serious
dangerous precedents and complica-
of warfare such as weapons and tar-
mark
and
1
problem for critics of Protocol I in that
way had ratified the
tions.
gets, and the four Geneva Conventions
It could be read as conferring prisoner
The Pentagon, State Department and
of 1949, which mandated humane treat-
of war status on irregulars or terror-
other agencies have yet to take posi-
ment of the sick and wounded in the
otocols and that Britain, West Ger-
ists. It says that those covered are gov-
tions on the protocols. But officials said
field and at sea, for prisoners of war
any, Italy, Belgium and the Nether-
and for civilians.
erriments "or an authority not recog-
ids were moving toward ratification.
that the Administration had informed
nized by an adverse party."
the International Committee of the Red
Delegates from almost all nations
e officials said they did not expect
This could exempt terrorists, if cap-
Cross, under whose auspices the con-
gathered in Geneva in 1974 for what
tured, from prosecution under criminal
ance to ratify Protocol 1 and did not
ference to negotiate the protocols was
was called the Diplomatic Conference
law by a sovereign nation. The Geneva
pect Israel to ratify either Protocol I
held from 1974 to 1977, that the decision
on the Reaffirmation and Development
Protocol 11.
would be made "in a matter of weeks"
of International Humanitarian Law
and- that the Administration. had
Applicable in Armed Conflict. Several
grave problems! with the documents.
national liberation movements such as
the African National Congress, which
ODDOSES the South African Govern-