Martens Clause

Last updated • 8 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Diplomat Friedrich Martens from which the clause takes its name. Friedrich Fromhold Martens TUL derbe gross.jpg
Diplomat Friedrich Martens from which the clause takes its name.

The Martens Clause (pronounced /mar'tɛnz/) is an early international law concept first introduced into the preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention II Laws and Customs of War on Land. [1] There are differing interpretations of its significance on modern international law, with some scholars simply treating the clause as a reminder international customary law still applies after a treaty is ratified while others take a more expansive approach where the clause provides that because international treaties cannot be all encompassing, states cannot use that as a justification for an action.

Contents

Clause

The clause took its name from a declaration read by Friedrich Martens, [2] the delegate of Russia at the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899. [3] The Clause was introduced as compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and the smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants. [4] [5] It reads as follows:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

Convention with respect to the laws of war on land (Hague II), 29 July 1899. [6] [7] [1] [8]

The Clause appears in a slightly modified form in the 1907 Hague conventions:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), 18 October 1907 [6] [7] [9]

The clause did not appear in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, [10] but was it included in the additional protocols of 1977. [11] It is in article 1 paragraph 2 of Protocol I (which covers international conflicts), [12] and the fourth paragraph of the preamble to Protocol II (which covers non-international conflicts). [13] The wording in both is identical but slightly modified from the version used in the Hague Convention of 1907: [14]

Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience

Analysis

In its commentary (Geneva 1987), the ICRC states that although the Martens Clause is considered to be part of customary international law, [15] the plenipotentiaries considered its inclusion appropriate because:

First, despite the considerable increase in the number of subjects covered by the law of armed conflicts, and despite the detail of its codification, it is not possible for any codification to be complete at any given moment; thus the Martens clause prevents the assumption that anything which is not explicitly prohibited by the relevant treaties is therefore permitted. Secondly, it should be seen as a dynamic factor proclaiming the applicability of the principles mentioned regardless of subsequent developments of types of situation or technology. [16]

Rupert Ticehurst, a Lecturer in Law, at King's College School of Law in London, wrote that:

The problem faced by humanitarian lawyers is that there is no accepted interpretation of the Martens Clause. It is therefore subject to a variety of interpretations, both narrow and expansive. At its most restricted, the Clause serves as a reminder that customary international law continues to apply after the adoption of a treaty norm. [17] A wider interpretation is that, as few international treaties relating to the laws of armed conflict are ever complete, the Clause provides that something which is not explicitly prohibited by a treaty is not ipso facto permitted. [18] The widest interpretation is that conduct in armed conflicts is not only judged according to treaties and custom but also to the principles of international law referred to by the Clause.

The evidence that Ticehurst presents is that just as in 1899 there was a disagreement between the great powers and the minor powers that lead to the formulation of the Clause, so in 1996 a similar divergence of views exists between the declared nuclear powers and the non nuclear powers with the nuclear powers taking a narrow view of the Clause and the non nuclear powers taking a more expansive view. [8]

Ticehurst concludes that:

... By refusing to ratify treaties or to consent to the development of corresponding customary norms, the powerful military States can control the content of the laws of armed conflict. Other States are helpless to prohibit certain technology possessed by the powerful military States. ... the Martens Clause establishes an objective means of determining natural law: the dictates of the public conscience. This makes the laws of armed conflict much richer, and permits the participation of all States in its development. The powerful military States have constantly opposed the influence of natural law on the laws of armed conflict even though these same States relied on natural law for the prosecutions at Nuremberg. The ICJ in its Advisory Opinion did not clarify the extent to which the Martens Clause permits notions of natural law to influence the development of the laws of armed conflict. Consequently, its correct interpretation remains unclear. The Opinion has, however, facilitated an important debate on this significant and frequently overlooked clause of the laws of armed conflict. [8]

ICJ advisory opinion on Nuclear Weapons

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in their advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons issued on 8 July 1996, had to consider the general laws of armed conflict before they could consider the specific laws relating to nuclear weapons. Several different interpretations of Marten's clause were presented in oral and written submissions to the ICJ. Although the ICJ advisory opinion did not provide a clear understanding of the Clause, several of submissions to the court provided an insight into its meaning. [8]

Judicial review

Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements. In none of these cases however have the laws of humanity or the dictates of the public conscience been recognised as new and independent right. The clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law.

The Martens Clause was quoted in the following judicial rulings:

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crime</span> Individual act constituting a violation of the laws of war

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Geneva Convention</span> One of the treaties of the Geneva Convention

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, more commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949, and came into force in October 1950. While the first three conventions dealt with combatants, the Fourth Geneva Convention was the first to deal with humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone. There are currently 196 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this and the other three treaties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful combatant</span> Person who engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements. While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to prisoner of war status. There are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is the component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-combatant</span> Person who does not take a direct part in hostilities during war

Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities; persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties ; combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Geneva Convention</span> 1949 treaty

The Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea was first adopted in 1949, replacing the Hague Convention (X) of 1907. It adapts the main protective regime of the First Geneva Convention to combat at sea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Geneva Convention</span> First of four treaties of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1864

The First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, held on 22 August 1864, is the first of four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It defines "the basis on which rest the rules of international law for the protection of the victims of armed conflicts."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907</span> Treaties on the laws of war

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are a series of international treaties and declarations negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. A third conference was planned for 1914 and later rescheduled for 1915, but it did not take place because of the start of World War I.

<i>Francs-tireurs</i> French volunteers who carried on a guerilla warfare against the Germans in the Franco-German War

Francs-tireurs were irregular military formations deployed by France during the early stages of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71). The term was revived and used by partisans to name two major French Resistance movements set up to fight against the Nazi Germany during World War II.

<i>Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons</i> 1996 International Court of Justice case

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons[1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.

International humanitarian law (IHL), also referred to as the laws of armed conflict, is the law that regulates the conduct of war. It is a branch of international law that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants.

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protocol I</span> 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Convention

Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian victims of international war, such as "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes". In practice, Additional Protocol I updated and reaffirmed the international laws of war stipulated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to accommodate developments of warfare since the Second World War (1937–1945).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War</span> 1929 international agreement outlining rules for the humane treatment of prisoners-of-war (POWs)

The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War was signed at Geneva, July 27, 1929. Its official name is the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929. It entered into force 19 June 1931. It is this version of the Geneva Conventions which covered the treatment of prisoners of war during World War II. It is the predecessor of the Third Geneva Convention signed in 1949.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War and environmental law</span>

War can heavily damage the environment, and warring countries often place operational requirements ahead of environmental concerns for the duration of the war. Some international law is designed to limit this environmental harm.

Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.

Air warfare must comply with laws and customs of war, including international humanitarian law by protecting the victims of the conflict and refraining from attacks on protected persons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geneva Conventions</span> International treaties of war

The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention colloquially denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel; establish protections for the wounded and sick; and provide protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.

In international humanitarian law and international criminal law, an indiscriminate attack is a military attack that fails to distinguish between legitimate military targets and protected persons. Indiscriminate attacks strike both legitimate military and protected objects alike, thus violating the principle of distinction between combatants and protected civilians. They differ from direct attacks against protected civilians and encompass cases in which the perpetrators are indifferent as to the nature of the target, cases in which the perpetrators use tactics or weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, and cases in which the attack is disproportionate, because it is likely to cause excessive protected civilian casualties and damages to protected objects.

References

  1. 1 2 Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II)]; July 29, 1899 via Avalon Project at Yale Law School
  2. Pustogarov, Vladimir (30 June 1996), "Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (18451909) a humanist of modern times", International Review of the Red Cross, no. 312, pp. 300–312
  3. Cassese, Antonio (2005). International Law (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 160–161.
  4. Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 1 cites The life and works of Martens are detailed by V. Pustogarov, "Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845–1909) — A Humanist of Modern Times", International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), No. 312, May–June 1996, pp. 300–314.
  5. Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 2 cites F. Kalshoven, Constraints on the Waging of War, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1987, p. 14.
  6. 1 2 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1919). "Conventions de La Haye de 1899 et 1907 concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre". Les conventions et déclarations de La Haye de 1899 et de 1907. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. Retrieved 25 October 2017 via Internet Archive.
  7. 1 2 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1915). "The Hague Convention of 1899 (II) and 1907 (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land". In Scott, James Brown (ed.). The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907; Accompanied by Tables of Signatures, Ratifications and Adhesions of the Various Powers, and Texts of Reservations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. Retrieved 31 October 2017 via Internet Archive.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Ticehurst, Rupert (30 April 1997), "The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict", International Review of the Red Cross, no. 317, pp. 125–134, retrieved 25 October 2017
  9. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)]; October 18, 1907 via Avalon Project at Yale Law School
  10. ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions p. 38 ¶ 53
  11. ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions p. 38 ¶ 53; p. 1341 ¶ 4433
  12. "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977".
  13. "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977".
  14. ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, p. 38 ¶ 56
  15. ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, p. 39 ¶ 56; p 436, footnote 29
  16. ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, pp. 38, 39 ¶ 55
  17. Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 4 cites C. Greenwood, "Historical Development and Legal Basis", in Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 1995, p. 28 (para. 129).
  18. Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 5 cites Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski, B. Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva, 1987, p. 39 (para. 55); N.Singh and E. McWhinney, Nuclear Weapons and Contemporary International Law, 2nd ed., Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1989, pp. 4647.
  19. Trial of Kriminalassistent Karl-Hans Hermann Klinge Archived 2010-05-14 at the Wayback Machine
  20. Cassese, A. The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky? European Journal of International Law. 2000; 11: 187216
  21. Scobbie Iain. Gaza Withdrawal paper Archived 2006-12-31 at the Wayback Machine p.9