Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118568682",
    "label": "JGR/Law of War",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568682"
}

{
    "id": "118568682",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568682",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Law of War",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568682",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-031-001-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-031-001-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-031-001-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568682",
    "naId": 118568682,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-031-001-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "587c8ada34b6b664",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Law of War\nBox: 31\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name Roberts, John: Files\nWithdrawer\nLOJ 7/31/2005\nFile Folder\nJGR/LAW OF WAR\nFOIA\n2005-139\nBox Number\nCOOKE\n1012\nID Doc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nPages\n19475 NOTES\nHANDWRITTEN BY ROBERTS RE 1/29\n1 1/29/1985 B1\nLAW OF WAR WORKING GROUP\nMEETING\n19476 MEMO\nMIKE MATHESON TO MR. FEITH, ET AL,\n1 2/1/1985 B1\nRE 1/29 WORKING GROUP MEETING\nR\n6/22/2006\n19477 SUMMARY\nOF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-\n2 2/1/1985 B1\nOF-WAR WORKING GROUP\nPAR 6/22/2006\n19478 MEMO\nMATHESON TO MR. FEITH ET AL, RE\n1 2/1/1985 B1\n1/29 MEETING (SAME AS 19476)\nR\n6/22/2006\n19479 SUMMARY\nOF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-\n2 2/1/1985 B1\nOF-WAR WORKING GROUP (SAME AS\n19477)\nPAR 6/22/2006\n19480 MEMO\nMATHESON TO MR. FEITH ET AL, RE\n1 2/1/1985 B1\n1/29 MEETING (SAME AS 19476)\nR 6/22/2006\n19481 SUMMARY\nOF MEETING OF INTERAGENCY LAW-\n2 2/1/1985 B1\nOF-WAR WORKING GROUP (SAME AS\n19477)\nPAR 6/22/2006\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name Roberts, John: Files\nWithdrawer\nLOJ 7/31/2005\nFile Folder\nJGR/LAW OF WAR\nFOIA\n2005-139\nBox Number\nCOOKE\n1012\nID Doc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nPages\n19482 MEMO\nMATHESON TO MR. DYSON ET AL, RE\n2 4/2/1985 B1\nUS RATIFICATION OF CWC\nPAR 6/22/2006\n19483 MEMO\nDRAFT RE US RATIFICATION OF THE\n3 3/26/1985 B1\n1980 CONVENTIONA WEAPONS\nCONVENTION\nPAR 6/22/2006\n19484 NOTES\nFROM 4/22 MEETING\n1 4/22/1985 B1\n19485 MEMO\nMATHESON TO MR. FEITH, RE LAW OF\n1 4/23/1985 B1\nWAR\nPAR 6/22/2006\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nMEMORANDUM\nJanuary Johnts 22, 1985\nTO:\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commodore Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nNSC - Mr. Kimmitt\nWhite House - Mr. Hauser\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nSUBJECT:\nMeeting of Law-of-War Working Group\nYou or your designee (s) are invited to a meeting of the\nLaw-of-War Working Group on Tuesday, January 29 at 2:00 pm, in\nRoom 1406 at the State Department. I *propose to ask JCS to\ngive us a status report on the military review of the 1977\nProtocols, and to have a preliminary discussion on the question\nof a separate submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons\nConvention to the Senate. (There is no need for agency\npositions at this stage.) The floor will also be open for\ndiscussion of other law-of-war issues.\nPlease let us know (632-3345) who will attend from your\norganization. Thanks very much.\nRFA\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nLOJ 7/31/2005\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nJGR/LAW OF WAR\n2005-139\nCOOKE\nBox Number\n12LOJ\nID\nDocument Type\nNo of\nDoc Date\nRestric-\nDocument Description\npages\ntions\n19475 NOTES\n1\n1/29/1985\nB1\nHANDWRITTEN BY ROBERTS RE 1/29 LAW OF\nWAR WORKING GROUP MEETING\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nFebruary 1, 1985\nCONF IDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nNSC - Mr. Kimmitt\nWH Couns. - Mr. Hauser\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nSUBJECT:\nJan. 29 Meeting of Interagency\nLaw-of-War Working Group\nAttached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the\nLaw-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be\nconsulting further with you or your representative in two weeks\nconcerning the question of submission of the Conventional\nWeapons Convention to the Senate.\nAttachment:\nSummary\ncc: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley\nOSD/GC - Mr. Dyson\nJCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan\nNavy JAG - Capt. Dalton\nArmy JAG - Mr. Parks\nAF JAG - Col. Hitt\nACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher\nACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes\nNSC - Mr. Maizel\nWH/C - Mr. Roberts\nCONFIDENTIAL\nDECL OADR\nNLS DECLASSIFIED F05-139/1*19476\nBY LOJ NARA, DATE 6/22/06\nCONF IDENTIAL\nSUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of\nInteragency Law-of-War Working Group\nThe Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of\nparticipants is attached.)\nThe JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of\nthe ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.\nHe indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end\nof March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration\nof the question of ratification of the Protocols would await\nthe results of that review.\nThe Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the\nquestion of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC) to the Senate,\n(1)\nCONF IDENTIAL\nDECLASSIFIED IN PART\nNLS F05-139/1 # 19477\nBY LOJ NARA, DATE 6/22/06\n- 2 -\n(1)\nDepending on the results of these consultations, State may\n(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on\nthis issue for formal agency comments and positions.\nCONFIDENTIAL\nList of Participants\nNAME\nORGANIZATION\nTEL. NO.\nMike Matheson\nState/L\n632-3345\nAl Dyson\nDOD/OGC\n697-9248\nHarvey Dalton\nNavy JAG\n697-5406\nGlenn Orgeron\nNavy JAG\n697-9161\nSam Maizel\nNSC\n395-3044\nJohn Roberts\nW.H. Counsel\n456-7953\nSteven Hardesty\nHA/HR\n632-2362\nTom Bleha\nH\n632-1615\nBob Turner\nH\n632-1048\nAlex Liebowitz\nIO/UNP\n632-0512\nJohn Campbell\nM/CTP\n632-7253\nMel Christopher\nACDA/GC\n632-3596\nJim Davis\nEUR/RPM\n632-1328\nDan Gallington\nOSD/ISP\n697-2247\nSheila Buckley\nOSD/ISP\n695-5819\nB. M. Carnahan\nJCS\n695-6632\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n2/19/85\nTO: John Roberts\nFROM: Richard A. Hauser\nDeputy Counsel to the President\nFYI: X\nCOMMENT:\nACTION:\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nFebruary 1, 1985\nCONRIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nNSC - Mr. Kimmitt\nWH Couns. - Mr. Hauser\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nSUBJECT:\nJan. 29 Meeting of Interagency\nLaw-of-War Working Group\nAttached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the\nLaw-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be\nconsulting further with you or your representative in two weeks\nconcerning the question of submission of the Conventional\nWeapons Convention to the Senate.\nAttachment:\nSummary\nCC: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley\nOSD/GC - Mr. Dyson\nJCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan\nNavy JAG - Capt. Dalton\nArmy JAG - Mr. Parks\nAF JAG - Col. Hitt\nACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher\nACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes\nNSC - Mr. Maizel\nWH/C - Mr. Roberts\nCONF IDENTIAL\nDECL OADR\nDECLASSIFIED\nNLS F05-139/1*19478\nBY LOS NARA, DATE 6/22/06\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of\nInteragency Law-of-War Working Group\nThe Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of\nparticipants is attached.)\nThe JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of\nthe ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.\nHe indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end\nof March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration\nof the question of ratification of the Protocols would-await\nthe results of that review.\nThe Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the\nquestion of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC) to the Senate,\nFOLA(b) (1)\nDECLASSIFIED IN, PART\nCONF IDENTIAL\nNLS F05-139/1# 19479\nBy LOT NARA, Date 6/22/06\n- 2 -\n\" )\nDepending on the results of these consultations, State may\n(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on\nthis issue for formal agency comments and positions.\nCONFIDENTIAL\nList of Participants\nNAME\nORGANIZATION\nTEL. NO.\nMike Matheson\nState/L\n632-3345\nAl Dyson\nDOD/OGC\n697-9248\nHarvey Dalton\nNavy JAG\n697-5406\nGlenn Orgeron\nNavy JAG\n697-9161\nSam Maizel\nNSC\n395-3044\nJohn Roberts\nW.H. Counsel\n456-7953\nSteven Hardesty\nHA/HR\n632-2362\nTom Bleha\nH\n632-1615\nBob Turner\nH\n632-1048\nAlex Liebowitz\nIO/UNP\n632-0512\nJohn Campbell\nM/CTP\n632-7253\nMel Christopher\nACDA/GC\n632-3596\nJim Davis\nEUR/RPM\n632-1328\nDan Gallington\nOSD/ISP\n697-2247\nSheila Buckley\nOSD/ISP\n695-5819\nB. M. Carnahan\nJCS\n695-6632\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nfile- Law of\nwar\nApril 17, 1985\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commodore Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nNSC - Mr. Kraemer\nWhite House Counsel - Mr. Hauser\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nnow\nSUBJECT:\nLaw of War: U.S. Ratification of the\nConventional Weapons Convention (CWC)\nI have received several suggestions that another\ninteragency meeting be held to discuss the question of\nthe submission of the CWC to the Senate. You or your\ndesignee are therefore invited to attend such a meeting\nat 2:00 pm on Monday, April 22, in Room 6226 at State.\nAttached, for your convenience, are copies of: (1) the\nsummary of the last interagency meeting on this subject;\nand (2) my note of April 2 suggesting a procedure for\nfurther action on this question. Please let me know if\nyou have any questions. Thanks very much.\nAttachments:\nAs stated.\n1919\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nFebruary 1, 1985\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nNSC - Mr. Kimmitt\nWH Couns. - Mr. Hauser\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nNDM\nSUBJECT:\nJan. 29 Meeting of Interagency\nLaw-of-War Working Group\nAttached is a summary of the Jan. 29 meeting of the\nLaw-of-War Working Group. As agreed at the meeting, I will be\nconsulting further with you or your representative in two weeks\nconcerning the question of submission of the Conventional\nWeapons Convention to the Senate.\nAttachment:\nSummary\nCC: OSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley\nOSD/GC - Mr. Dyson\nJCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan\nNavy JAG - Capt. Dalton\nArmy JAG - Mr. Parks\nAF JAG - Col. Hitt\nACDA/GC - Mr. Christopher\nACDA/MA - Ms. Hoinkes\nNSC - Mr. Maizel\nWH/C - Mr. Roberts\nCONFIDENTIAL\nDECL: OADR\nDECLASSIFIED\nNLS 705-139/1+19480\nBY LOS NARA, DATE 6/22/06\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSUMMARY: January 29 Meeting of\nInteragency Law-of-War Working Group\nThe Working Group met on Jan. 29 at 2:00 pm. (A list of\nparticipants is attached.)\nThe JCS representative gave a brief report on the status of\nthe ongoing military review of the 1977 Additional Protocols.\nHe indicated that the JCS review would be completed by the end\nof March. It was agreed that further interagency consideration\nof the question of ratification of the Protocols would await\nthe results of that review.\nThe Working Group had a preliminary discussion of the\nquestion of submission of the 1980 Conventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC) to the Senate,\n(1)\nDECLASSIFIED IN PART\nCONF IDENTIAL\nNLS F05-139/1+19481\nBy not NARA, Date 6/22/06\n- 2 -\nFOIA(b) ( 1)\nDepending on the results of these consultations, State may\n(in consultation with NSC) propose a draft decision paper on\nthis issue for formal agency comments and positions.\nCONFIDENTIAL\nList of Participants\nNAME\nORGANIZATION\nTEL. NO.\nMike Matheson\nState/L\n632-3345\nAl Dyson\nDOD/OGC\n697-9248\nHarvey Dalton\nNavy JAG\n697-5406\nGlenn Orgeron\nNavy JAG\n697-9161\nSam Maizel\nNSC\n395-3044\nJohn Roberts\nW.H. Counsel\n456-7953\nSteven Hardesty\nHA/HR\n632-2362\nTom Bleha\nH\n632-1615\nBob Turner\nH\n632-1048\nAlex Liebowitz\nIO/UNP\n632-0512\nJohn Campbell\nM/CTP\n632-7253\nMel Christopher\nACDA/GC\n632-3596\nJim Davis\nEUR/RPM\n632-1328\nDan Gallington\nOSD/ISP\n697-2247\nSheila Buckley\nOSD/ISP\n695-5819\nB. M. Carnahan\nJCS\n695-6632\nDave Graham\n4/2/85\nTO: OSD/GC - Mr. Dyson\nOSD/ISP - Ms. Buckley\nJCS/J-5 - Col. Carnahan\nNSC - Mr. Maizel\nFROM: State/L - Mike Matheson\nSUBJECT: US Ratification of the\nConventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC)\nOn the basis of informal\nconsultations I have carried out\nsince our last meeting, I believe\nwe may be able to reach a\nconsensus on the military\nacceptability of the package\ndescribed in the attached for\npossible US ratification of the\nCWC: namely,\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFOIA(b)(/)\nDECLASSIFIED IN PART\nNLS F05-139/1*19482\nBy\nLOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06\n-2-\nThe attached draft is designed\nto lay out for your clearance\nor comment a proposed process for\nthese informal consultations,\nand to get your concurrence that\nthe proposed package is militarily\nacceptable. If you concur, I\nwould carry out the consultations,\nthen fill in the blanks in the\nattached draft and send it back\nto your offices with a State\nDepartment recommendation as to\nwhether or not to go ahead with\nthe Convention.\nI would therefore appreciate\nyour concurrence or comments on\nthe above, if possible by COB\nApril 15. Please let me know if\nyou have any questions about all\nthis. Thanks very much.\nFOIA(b) (1)\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nU.S. Ratification of the 1980 Conventional\nWeapons Convention (CWC)\nAs promised, we have consulted further with agency\nrepresentatives on the question of U.S. ratification of the CWC\nwith the objective of determining what sort of package of\nconditions or understandings would be considered acceptable\nfrom a USG point of view. As a result, our understanding is\nthat the following would be considered acceptable:\nFOIA(b) (1)\n(We would also re-examine the technical understandings\npreviously suggested by the U.S. to the NATO Political\nCommittee to see if any changes are needed; and we would decide\nwhether any statement or condition is needed with respect to\nArticle 7(4) of the CWC.)\nDECLASSIFIED IN PART\nCONFIDENTIAL\nNLS F05-139/1 *19483\nBy LOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06\n- 2 -\nWe then consulted with the\nand\nEmbassies\nto ascertain the views of their governments on whether they\nwould prefer U.S. ratification on this basis, or rather prefer\nthat the U.S. Executive Branch continue to take no further\npublic action on the CWC for the time being. Their reactions\nwere as follows:\nFinally, we consulted informally with the staff of the SFRC\n5 FOIA(b)\nto ascertain likely Senatorial reaction to this package.\n[Describe reaction.]\nIn light of all this, State recommends\nfor the following reasons:\nI would appreciate by\nyour agency's\nconcurrence in this course of action, or its views as to what\nalternative action should be taken. If there are any\nsignificant differences among the agencies, I will be back in\ntouch to suggest a procedure for resolving those differences.\nThanks very much for your help.\nCONFIDENTIAL\n- 3 -\nDrafted:L:MJMatheson:edk\n3/26/85, 632-3345\nWang 1240X\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nLOJ 7/31/2005\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nJGR/LAW OF WAR\n2005-139\nCOOKE\nBox Number\n12LOJ\nID\nDocument Type\nNo of\nDoc Date\nRestric-\nDocument Description\npages\ntions\n19484 NOTES\n1 4/22/1985 B1\nFROM 4/22 MEETING\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nNAME\nAGENCY /OFFICE\nTEL. NO.\nMike Matheson\nState / L\n632-3345\nHARVEY DALTON\nNAVY JAC\n697-5406\nIRA CLICK\nDJCS (J-5)\n694-6626\nGLENN ORGERON\nNAVY JAG\n697-9161\nRobert Simmons\nState PM/TMP\n632-4761\nJim Davis\nState EUR/RPM\n632-1328\nSuen Kraeme-\nNSC\n395-5010\nDouglas Faith\nOSD/ISP OSD / ISP\n697-9693\nShila Buckley\nOSD/ISP\n695-5819\nJOHN ROBERTS\nW.H. COUNSEL\n456-7953\nSTEVEN HARDESTY\nHA/ MA\n632-2362\nRobert Callard\nH\n432-9532\nDAVID ISENBERS\nOSD /OAGC (I)\n6952604\nDennis Yoder\nAFIJACI\n695-9632\nmel Chirotopher\nACDA/GC\n6323596\nDennis Foremen\n4 PM\n632-0321\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nApril 23, 1985\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nOSD/ISP Mr. Feith\nFROM:\nState/L - Michael John Matheson mim\nSUBJECT:\nLaw of War -- Conventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC)\nAs agreed at yesterday's interagency meeting, I am writing\nto seek the views of JCS and OSD on the military acceptability\nof the following package concerning possible U.S. ratification\nof the CWC:\nFOIA(b) FOIA(b)(/)\n(We would also re-examine the technical understandings\npreviously suggested by the U.S. to the NATO Political\nCommittee to see if any changes are needed; and we would decide\nwhether any statement or condition is needed with respect to\nArticle 7(4) of the CWC.)\nIf such a package is militarily acceptable, we would\nconsult privately with the appropriate allied governments and\nCongressional staff to help us reach an informed judgment as to\nwhether submitting the CWC to the Senate under these conditions\nwould be to our net advantage or disadvantage from a political\nand arms control point of view.\nThanks for your help.\nCC: NSC - Mr. Kraemer\nEUR - Mr. Dobbins\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nH - Mr. Fox\nJCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett\nD - Mr. Timbie\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nIO - - Mr. Kirk\nWhite House Counsel - Mr. Hauser\nHA - - Mr. Matthews\nPM - - Mr. Hawes\nCONF IDENTIAL\nDECL: QADR\nDECLASSIFIED IN PART\nNLS F05-139/1# 19485\nBy LOJ , NARA, Date 6/22/06\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO: John Roberts\nFROM: Richard A. Hauser\nDeputy Counsel to the President\nFYI:\nCOMMENT:\nACTION:\nlaw of lite war\nL- - M.J. Matheson, Rm. 6419 Phone 632-3345\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.A.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20520\nOFFICIAL BUSINESS\nAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER\nPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300\nWHILE MII,\nRECEMMENT\nAlmos DEU\n1005 ADD 24 1411-13\nm. Richard A. Houser\nRm. 45, Old Executive office Be\n17ᵗʰ & s Streets, N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\nPhone: 456-6611\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\nApril,23, 1985\n2018\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nNSC - Mr. Kraemer\nmom\nFROM:\nState/L - Mike Matheson\nSUBJECT:\nLaw of War - Conventional Weapons Convention (CWC)\nAs you requested yesterday, attached is a summary of the\nrelationship of the CWC to other law-of-war agreements. Please\nlet me know if you would like further information along these\nlines.\nAttachment:\nSummary\nCC: NSC - Mr. Kimmett\nOSD/ISP - Mr. Feith\nOSD/GC - Mr. McNeill\nJCS/J-5 - Commo. Sackett\nACDA/GC - Mr. Graham\nWhite House Counsel - Mr. Hauser\nPM - Mr. Hawes\nEUR - Mr. Dobbins\nH - Mr. Fox\nD - Mr. Timbie\nM/CT - Mr. Oakley\nIO - Mr. Kirk\nHA - Mr. Matthews\nRelationship of the Conventional Weapons\nConvention (CWC) to Other\nLaw-of-War Agreements\nA Diplomatic Conference met in Geneva during 1974-77, under\nthe auspices of the Swiss Government and the International\nCommittee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to revise and update the\nrules of warfare contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on\nthe protection of victims of armed conflict, the 1907 Hague\nConvention on means and methods of combat, and various\nprinciples of customary international law. In June 1977 the\nConference concluded its work with the adoption by consensus of\ntwo Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, one\nfor international conflicts and one for non-international\nconflicts.\nThe Protocols are lengthy and detailed, and deal with many\naspects of military operations and conduct during armed\nconflict. Among other things, they: (1) improve and expand\nprotection of medical units, personnel and transport; (2)\nupgrade the responsibilities of Parties with respect to search,\nreporting and care for the missing and remains of the dead; (3)\nbroaden and upgrade provisions for protecting the civilian\npopulation from the effects of combat operations, and for\nrelief operations for their benefit; (4) extend law-of-war\nprotections to certain types of irregulars not previously\ncovered; (5) prohibit acts of terrorism and require the\nprosecution or extradition of their perpetrators as war\ncriminals; and (6) improve the compliance mechanisms of the\n1949 Conventions.\na\nThe 1974-77 Diplomatic Converence was unable to reach\nagreement on one item on its agenda -- the question of\nprohibitions or restrictions on the use of specific types of\nconventional weapons alleged to cause unnecessary suffering or\nto have indiscriminate effects, and a separate conference was\nconvened in Geneva in 1979-80 under UN auspices to deal with\nthis subject. Proposals were made by European neutrals and\nthird-world delegations to prohibit a variety of weapons,\nincluding incendiaries, modern fragmentation weapons (such as\nCBUs and flechettes), and high-velocity small arms (such as the\nM-16). In the end, the Conference adopted by consensus a\nconvention to which were attached three protocols: Protocol I\non Non-Detectable Fragments; Protocol II on the Use of Mines,\nBooby-Traps and Other Devices; and Protocol III on the Use of\nIncendiary Weapons.\n- 2 -\nAmong other things, the Convention and its three protocols:\n(1) prohibit the use of any weapon relying for its wounding\neffects on fragments not detectable by x-ray; (2) regulate\nvarious aspects of the use of land mines and booby-traps for\nthe purpose of reducing civilian casualties; and (3) limit the\nuse of incendiary weapons against targets located in\nconcentrations of civilians.\nCopies of the State Department's current records of\nsignatures, ratifications and accessions to the 1977 Protocols\nand the CWC are attached.\nAttachments:\nAs stated.\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nRED CROSS (Protocol I)\nTREATY RECORD\nProtocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the\nprotection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), with annexes. Adopted\nat Geneva June 8, 1977. Open for signature at Berne December 12, 1977 to December 12, 1978\nSIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,\nTEXT:\nUST\nACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).\nTIAS\nUNTS\nDEPOSITARY Government of Switzerland\nInternational Legal Materials, Vol. XVI\nNo. 6, November 1977, P. 1391.\nENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 7, 1978\nMethod: Six months after two instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited.\nFor each party to the Conventions thereafter ratifying or acceding to this Protocol, it shall\nenter into force 6 months after deposit by such Party of its instrument.\nDURATION: Not stated, but may be denounced.\nPROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION: Denunciation in writing, effective in respect of the denouncing\npower, one year notification to Swiss Fed. Council (Art. 99).\nAMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, ETC.:\nTERMINATION - DATE:\nAction taken:\nunless otherwise stated)\nRATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED\nACCESSIONS DEPOSITED\nUnited States³, 1\n1,4\nLibya - June 7, 1978\nAustria\nAugust 13, 1982\nBotswana - May 23, 1979\nBelgium\nMauritania - March 14, 1980\nByelorussian Soviet Socialist\nGabon - April 8, 1980\nRepublic\nBahamas - April 10, 1980\nCanada\nBangladesh - Sept. 8, 1980\nChile\nMauritius - March 22, 1982\nDenmark\nJune 17, 19821,4\nTanzania - February 15, 1983\nEcuador\nApril 10, 1979\n>\nUnited Arab 1 Emirates - March 9,\nEgypt\n1983\nE1 Salvador\nNovember 23, 1978.\nPeople's Rep. of China -\nFinland\nAugust 7, 1980\nSeptember 14, 1983\nGerman Democratic Rep.\nSaint Vincent and the Grena-\nGhana\nFebruary 28, 1978\ndines - April $47 8, 1983\nGuatemala\nNamibia, WW Correct October 18, 1983\nHoly See\nPeople's Rep. of the Congo -\nHonduras\nNov. 10, 1983\n2\nHungary\nFrance - February 24, 1984\nIceland\nBolivia - Dec. 8, 1983\nIran\nCosta Rica - Dec. 15, 1983\nIreland\n1\nCameroon - March 16, 1984\nItaly\nOman - March 29, 1984\nIvory Coast\nSaint Lucia - October 7, 1982\nJordan\nMay 1, 1979\nCentral African Rep. - July 17,\nLiechtenstein\n1984\nLuxembourg\nWestern Samoa - Aug. 23, 1984\nMongolia\nBelize - June 29, 1984\nMorocco\nNetherlands\nGuinea - July 11, 1984\nNicaragua\nSeychelles - Nov. 8, 1984\nDecember 14, 1981\nRwanda - Nov. 19, 1984\nNorway\nKuwait - Jan. 17, 1985\nPakistan\nPanama\nPeru\nPoland\n1\nPortugal\nSenegal\nSweden\nAugust 31, 1979\nSwitzerland 1\nFebruary 17, 1982\nTunisia\nAugust 9, 1979\nUkrainian Soviet Socialist\nRepublic\nUnion of Soviet Socialist\nRepublics\nUnited Kingdom 1\nYugoslavia\nJune 11, 1979\nGermany, Federal Republic 1 - Dec\n23, 1977\nUpper Volta - Jan. 11, 1978\nLaos - April 18, 1978\nNovember 18, 1980\nRomania - March 28, 1978\nYemen (Sana) - Feb. 14, 1978\nSan Marino - June 22, 1978\nNiger - June 16, 1978\nJune 8, 1979\nMadagascar - October 13,1 1978\nSpain - November 7. 1978\nNew Zealand - November 27, 1978\nCzechoslovakia - Dec. 6, 1978\nAustralia - December 7, 1978\nKorea (Rep. of) - Dec. 7, 1978\nJanuary 15, 1982\nBulgaria - Dec. 11, 1978\nTogo - December 12, 1977\nJune 21, 1984\n61\n5\nTotal\n2.26\nREFERENCES IN TEXT: Geneva conventions for the protection of war victims, done at Geneva\nAugust 12, 1949 (TIAS 3362, 3363, 3364, and 3365).\nREMARKS\n1 With declaration(s)\n2 With statement(s)\n3 With understanding(s)\n4 With reservation(s)\nIMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION:\nPrepared by: LA 9/21/77\nReviewed by:\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nRED CROSS (Protocol II)\nTREATYRECORD\nProtocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the\nprotection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Adopted at\nGeneva June 8, 1977. Open for signature at Berne December 12, 1977 to December 12, 1978.\nSIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,\nTEXT:\nUST\nACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).\nTIAS\nUNTS\nDEPOSITARY Government of Switzerland\nInternational Legal Materials, Vol. XVI, No. 6,\np. 1442.\nENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 7, 1978\nMethod: Six months after two instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited.\nDURATION: Not stated but may be denounced (see Part v, Art. 25).\nAMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, ETC.:\nPROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION: Denunciation in writing, effective in respect of the denouncing\nnower one year notification to Swiss Fed. Council (Art. 25).\nTERMINATION DATE:\nAction taken:\nSIGNATURES\nRATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED\nACCESSIONS DEPOSITED\nUnited States - Dec. 12, 1977 31\n1.4\nLibya - June 7, 1978\nAustria - December 12, 1977\nAugust 13, 1982\nBotswana - May 23, 1979\nBelgium - December 12, 1977\nBahamas - April 10, 1980\nByelorussian Soviet Socialist\nGabon - April 8, 1980\nRep. - Dec. 12, 1977\nMauritania - March 14, 1980\nCanada - Dec 12, 1977¹\nBangladesh - Sept. 8, 1980\nChile - Dec. 12, 1977\n1,4\nMauritius - March 22, 1982\nDenmark - Dec. 12, 1977\nJune 17, 1982\nZaire (Rep. of) - June 3, 1982\nEcuador - Dec. 12, 1977\nApril 10, 1979\nTanzania - February 15, 1983\nEgypt - Dec. 12, 1977\nUnited Arab Emirates - March 9,\n1983\n1\nEl Salvador - Dec. 12, 1977\nNovember 23, 1978\nFinland - Dec. 12, 1977\nAugust 7, 1980\nMexico - March 10, 1983\nGerman Dem. Rep. - Dec. 12, 1977\nMozambique - March 14, 1983\nGhana - Dec. 12, 1977\nFebruary 28, 1978\nSaint Vincent and the Grena-\nGuatemala - Dec. 12, 1977\ndines - April 8, 1983\nHoly See - Dec. 12, 1977\nPeople's Republic of4 China -\nHonduras - Dec. 12, 1977\nSeptember 14, for 1983\nHungary - Dec. 12, 1977\nNamibia October 18, 1983\nIceland - Dec. 12, 1977\nPeople's Rep. of the Congo -\nIran - Dec. 12, 1977\nNov. 10, 1983\nIreland - Dec 12, 1977\nItaly - Dec. 12, 19771\nSyrian, Arab Rep. - Nov. 14,\nIvory Coast - Dec. 12, 1977\n1983\nJordan - Dec. 12, 1977\nMay 1, 1979\nBolivia - Dec. 8, 1983\nLiechtenstein - Dec. 12, 1977\nCosta Rica - Dec. 15, 1983\nLuxembourg - Dec. 12, 1977\nCameroon 5 March 16, 1984\nMongolia - Dec, 12, 1977\nOman - March 29, 1984\nMorocco - Dec. 12, 1977\nSaint Lucia - October 7, 1982\nNetherlands - Dec. 12, 1977\nCuba - November 25, 1982\nNicaragua - Dec. 12, 1977\n1\nBelize - June 29, 1984\nNorway - Dec. 12, 1977\nDecember 14, 1981\nGuinea, Rep. of - July 11, 1984\nPakistan - Dec. 12, 1977\nCentral African Rep. - July 17,\nPanama - Dec. 12, 1977\n1984\nPeru - Dec. 12, 1977\nWestern Samoa - Aug. 23, 1984\nPhilippines - Dec. 12, 1977\nAngola - Sept. 20, 1984\nPoland - Dec. 12, 1977\n1\nSeychelles - Nov. 8, 1984\nPortugal - Dec. 12, 1977\nRwanda - Nov. 19, 1984\nSenegal - Dec. 12, 1977\n1,4\nKuwait, - Jan. 17, 1985\nSweden - Dec. 12, 1977\nAugust 31,\nSwitzerland - Dec. 12, 1977\nFebruary 17,79,19821, 4\nTunisia - Dec. 12, 1977\nAugust 9, 1979\nUkrainian Soviet Socialist\nRepublic - Dec. 12, 1977\nUnion. of Soviet Socialist\nRepublics - Dec. 12, 1977\n1\nUnited Kingdom - Dec. 12, 1977\nVietnam - Dec. 12, 1977\nOctober 19, 1981 1\nYugoslavia - Dec. 12, 1977\nJune 11, 1979\nGermany, Federal Republic -\nDecember 23, 1977\nUpper Volta - January 11, 1978\nLaos - April 18, 1978\nNovember 18, 1980\nRomania - March 28, 1978\nGreece - March 22, 1978\nYemen (Sana) - February 14\n1978\nNiger - June 16, 1978\nJune 8, 1979\nSan Marino - June 22, 1978\nMadagascar - October 13, 1978\nCyprus - July 12, 1978\nJune 1, 1979\nSpain - November 7, 1978 1\nT5\n39\nNew Zealand - November 27, 1978\n2.26-85\nCzechoslovakia - Dec. 6, 1978\nAustralia - December 7, 1978\nKorea (Rep. of) - Dec. 7, 1978\nJanuary 15, 1982 1\nBulgaria - December 11, 1978\nTogo - December 12, 1977\nJune 21, 1984\n62\nREFERENCES IN TEXT: Geneva conventions for the protection of war victims (TIAS 3362, 3363,\n3364, and 3365), done at Geneva August 12, 1949.\nREMARKS\n1 With declaration(s)\n2 With statement(s)\n3 With understanding(s)\n4 With reservation(s)\nIMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION:\nPropered by:, LA 9-21-77\nReviewed by:\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nMULTILATERAL\nTREATY RECORD\nWEAPONS, CONVENTIONAL\nConvention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which\nmay be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. Adopted at\nGeneva October 10, 1980. Open for signature in New York for a period of 12 months from\nApril 10, 1981.\nSIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS DEPOSITED, ADHERENCES,\nTEXT:\nUST\nACCEPTANCES, AND RESERVATIONS (See reverse side).\nTIAS\nUNTS\nDEPOSITARY Secretary-General of the United Nations\nFinal Act appears in Int'l Legal\nMaterials, Vol. XIX, #6, Nov. 1980,\nENTRY INTO FORCE - Date: December 2, 1983\nP. 1523.\nMethod: Six (6) months after the date of deposit of the 20th instrument of ratification,\nacceptance, approval or accession (Art. 5); thereafter six months after a State deposits its\nacceptance, approval, accession or ratification.\nDURATION: Not stated. However, any High Contracting Party to this Convention may propose\namendments to the Convention or Protocols, or propose additional Protocols. If, after 10 yrs.\nneither has been proposed, any High Contracting Party may request the Depositary to convene a\nconference to review the Convention and the Protocols annexed\nthereto (Art. 8).\nTERMINATION - DATE:\nAction taken:\nunless otherwise noted)\n2\nUnited States - April 8, 1982\nLao People's Dem. Rep. -\nAfghanistan\nJanuary 3, 1983\nAustria\nMarch 14, 1983 (R)\nGuatemala - July 21, 1983\nBelgium\nBulgaria\nOctober 15, 1982 (R)\nByelorussian Soviet Socialist\nRepublic\nJune 23, 1982 (R)\nCanada\nCuba\nCzechoslovakia\nAugust 31, 1982 (R)\nDenmark\nJuly 7, 1982 (R)\nEgypt\nFinland\nApril 8, 1982 (R)\nFrance 1,2,3\nGerman Dem. Rep\nJuly 20, 1982 (R)\nFed. Rep. of Germany\nGreece\nHungary\nJune 14, 1982 (R)\nIceland\nIreland\nItaly\n1\nLuxembourg\nMexico\nFebruary 11, 1982 (R)\nMongolia\nJune 8, 1982 (R)\nMorocco\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNorway\nJune 7, 1983 (R)\nPoland\nJune 2, 1983 (R)\nPortugal\nSpain\nSudan\nSweden\nJuly 7, 1982 (R)\nUkrainian S.S.R.\nJune 23, 1982 (R)\nUSSR\nJune 10, 1982 (R)\n2\nUnited Kingdom\nVietnam\nSierra Leone - May 1, 1981\nYugoslavia - May 5, 1981\nMay 24, 1983 (R)\nIndia - May 15, 1981\nMarch 1, 1984 (R)\nPhilippines - May 15, 1981\nNicaragua - May 20, 1981\nSwitzerland - June 18, 1981\nAugust 20, 1982 (R)\nEcuador - September 9, 1981\nMay 4, 1982 (R)\nTogo - September 15, 1981 2\nChina - September 14, 1981\nApril 7, 1982 (R)\nJapan - September 22, 1981\nJune 9, 1982 (AC)\nArgentina - December 2, 1981\nNigeria - January 26, 1982\nPakistan - January 26, 1982\nApril 1, 1985 (R)\nLiechtenstein - February 11, 1982\nAustralia - April 8, 1982\nSeptember 29, 1983 (R)\nRomania - April 8, 19824\nTurkey - March 26, 1982\n23/22/85\n[ALL RATIFYING\nOR ACCEDING\nSTATES ACCEPTED\nALL THREE\nATTACHED\nPROTOCOLS]\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 8, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS off\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Response to U.S. NATO's Request\nfor Guidance for a May 14 POLADs Exchange\non Ratification of the 1977 Protocols\nState Deputy Legal Adviser Mike Matheson has asked for our\nviews on a proposed guidance cable to be sent to the U.S.\nNATO Mission. At the last Law of War Working Group meeting,\non April 22, the participants were advised that a meeting of\nthe NATO Political Committee would be held on May 14, and\nthat one of the items on the agenda would be the status of\nratification of the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 Geneva\nConvention. The 1977 Protocols update and revise the famous\n1949 Geneva Convention on the acceptable conduct of war and\ntreatment of prisoners of war. The 1977 conference was\nunable to reach agreement on limitations on the use of\nspecific types of weapons, so another conference was held in\n1979-1980 that gave rise to the Conventional Weapons Con-\nvention, with three additional Protocols.\nIt is important to keep distinct the 1977 Protocols and the\nProtocols to the Conventional Weapons Convention. The\nupcoming NATO meeting concerns only the 1977 Protocols. The\nUnited States has not yet decided whether to seek ratification\nof the 1977 Protocols, pending review by the Joint Chiefs of\nStaff. That review is not yet complete, but all indications\nare that the Chiefs will recommend against ratification.\nThe proposed guidance cable accordingly points out the major\nareas of concern, so the NATO Allies are aware that we may\nwell decide not to ratify. The main objection is found in\nparagraph four: the Protocols would treat many terrorist\norganizations as if they were countries engaged in war,\nlegitimizing their activities and offering them protections\nand courtesies that should not be extended to common criminals.\nI have no objections. The cable embodies the reality that\nthe military concerns of the Department of Defense are\nprevailing in these discussions over the diplomatic objec-\ntives of the Department of State.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 8, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR MIKE MATHESON\nDEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE\nFROM:\nRICHARD A. HAUSER\nDEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Response to U.S. NATO's Request\nfor Guidance for a May 14 POLADs Exchange\non Ratification of the 1977 Protocols\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\nguidance cable, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nRAH: JGR:aea 5/8/85\ncc: FFFielding\nRAHauser\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 22, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nLaw of War\nI participate on a regular basis, in Mr. Hauser's stead, in\nthe law of war working group that has been meeting at the\nState Department for several years to monitor and coordinate\nconsideration of the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 Geneva\nConvention and the separate Conventional Weapons Convention.\nRecent publicity surrounding the apparent decision of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff to object formally to the 1977 Protocols\n(attached) prompts this background memorandum.\nYou are of course familiar with the 1949 Geneva Convention.\nA diplomatic conference was held in 1974-1977, also in\nGeneva, to update that famous Convention. That conference\nresulted in two protocols to the 1949 Convention, known as\nthe 1977 Protocols, which the Carter Administration signed\n(over the objections of the Joint Chiefs). The 1974-1977\nconference was unable to resolve several issues concerning\nthe use of specific conventional weapons in wartime (parti-\ncularly booby-traps and incendiaries), resulting in the\nconvening of another conference in 1979-1980, which gave\nrise to the Conventional Weapons Convention.\nThe 1977 Protocols (1) improve and expand protection of\nmedical units, personnel and transport; (2) upgrade the\nresponsibilities of Parties with respect to search, report-\ning and care for the missing and remains of the dead; (3)\nbroaden and upgrade provisions for protecting the civilian\npopulation from the effects of combat operations, and for\nrelief operations for their benefit; (4) extend law-of-war\nprotections to certain types of irregulars not previously\ncovered; (5) prohibit acts of terrorism and require the\nprosecution or extradition of their perpetrators as war\ncriminals; and (6) improve the compliance mechanisms of the\n1949 Convention. The Conventional Weapons Convention (1)\nprohibits the use of any weapon relying for its wounding\neffects on fragments not detectable by x-ray; (2) regulates\nvarious aspects of the use of land mines and booby-traps\nfor the purpose of reducing civilian casualties; and (3)\nlimits the use of incendiary weapons against targets located\nin concentrations of civilians.\n- 2 -\nState became interested in moving toward ratification of\nboth the 1977 Protocols and the Convention on Conventional\nWeapons last year, primarily to blunt international criticism\nof the United States for not agreeing to what appeared to be\nhumane documents and, against the backdrop of failure to\nconclude a nuclear arms agreement, to demonstrate that the\nAdministration was interested in such international agree-\nments. The Joint Chiefs consistently opposed the 1977\nProtocols because they extended belligerent status to\nterrorist, so-called \"liberation movements,' and opposed the\nConvention on Conventional Weapons because they wished to\nretain flexibility to use certain booby traps (in a retreat-\ning army scenario) and certain incendiary bombs.\nState asked Defense for a formal position on these issues;\napparently the Chiefs have decided to adhere to their\nopposition, at least according to the Times article. I\nadvised Mr. Hauser by memorandum dated May 8, 1985, that\neveryone expected this result, but I had no advance warning\nthat a decision was about to be reached or that it had been\nleaked.\nCC: Richard A. Hauser\nnoninternational conflicts. The Admin-\nthe most powerful argu-\nganization\n'aces Objection\nistrations's problems are with Protocol\nment against ratification on any terms\nvote.\nConventions of 1949 confer prisoner or\nI, which would give regional political\ncomes from a commentary to be pub-\nThe conference, which lasted nearly\nwar status only on regular uniformed\ngroups such as the Organization of Af-\nlished soon by Douglas J. Feith, Deputy\nfour years, produced two protocols,\ncombatants whether or not recognized\nAssistant Secretary of Defense for Ne-\nOf Joint Chiefs\nrican Unity the authority to judge\ngotiations Policy and the key official in\nadding up to 121 pages of text.\nby an adverse party.\nArticle 1 of Protocol says that the\nArticle 44, in Mr. Feith's view, fur-\nwhether liberation movements such as\nthe Pentagon on this issue\nthe African National Congress are le-\nHe writes of Protocol I, \"It amounted\nprovisions apply to nations and \"peo-\nther blurs the distinction between regu-\nlars and irregulars or guerrillas and\ngitimate parties to an armed conflict\nto an endorsement, in the politically po-\nples\" who \"are fighting against CO-\nbetween irregulars and noncombat-\nand thus grant their fighters the same\ntent form of a legal instrument, of both\nlonial domination and alien occupation\nBy LESLIE H. GELB\nmeasure of legal protection as a na-\nand against racist regimes in the exer-\nants. It would do so by weakening the\nepecial to The New York Times\nthe rhetoric and the anticivilian prac-\ntices of terrorist organizations that fly\ncise of their right of, self-determina-\nrequirements of the Geneva Conven-\ntion's soldiers.\n/ASHINGTON, July The Joint\ntion. The protocol also provides that\ntions for combatants to have a \"fixed\nthe banner of self-determination. He\nets of Staff have recommended\nWording is Faulted\nregional political organizations, such\ndistinctive sign recognizable at a dis-\ncalls it \"a proterrorist treaty masque-\nlinst United States retification of in\nCritics contend that other provisions\nrading as humanitarian law.\"\nas the League of Arab States and the\ntance,\" namely a uniform, to carry\nnationally Agreed revisions of the\nHis commentary was not formally\nOrganization of African Unity, will\n\"arms openly\" and to conduct \"their\nin Protocol I defining what is combat\nand what is a soldier are worded SO\njudge which \"peoples\" constitute a le-\noperations in accordance with the laws\na Geneva Conventions on treatment\napproved by the Pentagon as an official\nand customs of war.'\ncombetants and \"war victims, ac-\nvaguely that the distinctions between\nstatement of its position, but officials\ngitimate party to armed struggle.\nArticle 44 recognizes that there are\nding to Administration officials.\nguerrillas and regular soldiers would\nthere said it did represent the thinking\n= situations where \"owing to the nature\nbe blurred. As a result, these critics\nof senior Pentagon policy makers.\nMr. Feith, in his commentary,\nbe Intent of the revisions is to &\nof the hostilities an armed combatant\nsay, guerrillas could claim the same\nOther Administration officials are\nargues that this would abolish the\nice humane treatment of combit-\ncannot 80 distinguish himself.' In\nprotection granted regular prisoners of\nsaid to acknowledge the problems\ntraditional definition of international\nthese circumstances he can retain\nS and civilians during war, But the\nwar and thus avoid prosecution under\nraised by Mr. Feith, but are looking\nconflicts as being between two or more\ncombatant status If he carries arms\nin concern of the Joint Chiefs is that\nthe criminal laws of a sovereign nation\ninto the possiblity of fixing them by ap-\nsovereign nations by giving regional\nrevisions, or protocols, as they are\nfor what might otherwise be consid-\nproving the protocols with reserva-\npolitical groups the right to confer on\nrwn, would have the effect of legiti-\nered terrorist acts.\ntions. The reservations would specifi-\nnational liberation movements the\n'openly. But openly is defined as\nring national liberation movements\nOfficials said the Joint Chiefs had de-\ncally reject the objectionable provi-\ntrappings of sovereignty. Delegates op-\n\"during each military engagefhent,\"\n1 terrorists, granting them combat-\nlayed coming to grips with the proto-\nsions.\nposed to this language, according to\nin other words during an actual attack,\nand prisoner-of-war status.\ncols because of the lengthy and compli-\nThese officials maintain that the bulk\nMr. Feith, seemed to console them-\nor during \"military deployment,\" a\ncated legal text, the cumbersome mill-\nVhile the matter is still under review\nof the protocols are worth salvaging be-\nselves with the argument that nations\nvague phrase.\ntary bureaucracy and the fact that\ncause of provisions that would\nwould simply refuse to apply provi-\nIrregulars, Mr. Feith argues, would\newhere in the Administration, the\nuntil the most recent encounters with\nstrengthen extradition and prosecution\nsions of the protocol to liberation move-\nobviously seek to conceal themselves\nvailing view among officials is that\nterrorists, the issue was low on the list\nof terrorists, and attach legal teeth and\nments since to do SO would be to admit\nfrom regular combatants and civilians\nesident Reagan is highly unlikely to\nof Administration priorities. The ques-\nconsequences to taking hostages and\nthey were racist or colonial or alien.\nuntil the last moment and btill retain\ncommend Senate ratification of the\ntion that Administration officials say\nusing force indiscriminately.\nprisoner of war status If captured.\nthey are now wrestling with is whether\nSome Administration officials say\ntocola dealing with warfare in the\nMissing G.I.'s a Factor\nOther officials studying how this\nof such objections by the military.\nthe concerns of the Joint Chiefs and\nthat this defect can be overcome by a\nmight be overcome reply that irregu-\nothers can be eliminated by ratifica-\nOne reason the Carter Administra-\nlars might have incentives to comply\n40 Nations Ratify Protocols\ntion with reservations or whether\ntion-agreed to sign in 1977 before these\nreservation stating that the United\nwith a strict interpretation of the provi-\nissues were fully discussed was that the\nbe Carter Administration signed\nProtocol I in particular is inherently\nStates reserves the right to apply or not\nsion if they wanted prisoner of war\nflawed.\nprotocols would also strengthen the\ntwo protocols in 1977 with the under-\napply the provisions to any group of its\nstatus. But they also acknowledge that\nTo officials involved in the Adminis-\nright to search for and be given infor-\nchoosing.\nthere may be problems here.\nading that a decision on ratification\ntration's review of the protocols, the\nmation about Americans missing in ac-\nMr. Feith counters in his commen-\ndo await a formal by the Joint\ndecision on ratification raises one of\ntion in Vietnam. Another was powerful\ntary that not applying the provisions\nThe study, officials said, recom-\nets. Over: 100 nations have signed\nthe most difficult and basic issues of\npressure from the International Com-\nwould only weaken international law\nmends against ratification of Protocol 1\nprotocols, and more than 40 have\nthe international law of war - the\nmittee of the Red Cross, which won ap-\ngenerally. He further contends that\nand approval of Protocol II with revi-\nfied them. Signing obligates a na-\nrights of innocent civilians as against\nproval in the protocols for added pro-\nwhatever the legal applicability, the\nsions\nto act in accordance with the\nthe rights of and pressures from libera-\ntections for its medical personnel.\nprotocol language constitutes a \"fatal\nty, but only formal ratification\ntion movements. Added to this are the\nThe laws of war are generally\npolitical concession\" to liberation and\nof the treaty legal force\nproblems of balancing potentially help-\ngrouped under the Hague Convention of\nterrorist groups.\nful parts of a treaty against potentially\n1907, which limited means and methods\ncate Departs at efficials said that\nArticle 43 also represents a serious\ndangerous precedents and complica-\nof warfare such as weapons and tar-\nmark\nand\n1\nproblem for critics of Protocol I in that\nway had ratified the\ntions.\ngets, and the four Geneva Conventions\nIt could be read as conferring prisoner\nThe Pentagon, State Department and\nof 1949, which mandated humane treat-\nof war status on irregulars or terror-\nother agencies have yet to take posi-\nment of the sick and wounded in the\notocols and that Britain, West Ger-\nists. It says that those covered are gov-\ntions on the protocols. But officials said\nfield and at sea, for prisoners of war\nany, Italy, Belgium and the Nether-\nand for civilians.\nerriments \"or an authority not recog-\nids were moving toward ratification.\nthat the Administration had informed\nnized by an adverse party.\"\nthe International Committee of the Red\nDelegates from almost all nations\ne officials said they did not expect\nThis could exempt terrorists, if cap-\nCross, under whose auspices the con-\ngathered in Geneva in 1974 for what\ntured, from prosecution under criminal\nance to ratify Protocol 1 and did not\nference to negotiate the protocols was\nwas called the Diplomatic Conference\nlaw by a sovereign nation. The Geneva\npect Israel to ratify either Protocol I\nheld from 1974 to 1977, that the decision\non the Reaffirmation and Development\nProtocol 11.\nwould be made \"in a matter of weeks\"\nof International Humanitarian Law\nand- that the Administration. had\nApplicable in Armed Conflict. Several\ngrave problems! with the documents.\nnational liberation movements such as\nthe African National Congress, which\nODDOSES the South African Govern-"
}