>>13656869
Here's the two before last, the last is just a blue page.
19.24 1999 U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL’S BULLETIN FOR U.N. FORCES
The U.N. Secretary General has promulgated a bulletin for the purpose of setting out
fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to United Nations
forces conducting operations under United Nations command.
290 The bulletin is not a legally
binding instrument, although, in many cases, the rules reflected in the bulletin reflect law of war
rules that are binding upon the United States as a matter of treaty or customary international law.
The bulletin has been the subject of criticism by States.
291
19.25 2005 ICRC STUDY ON CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
There is no list of treaty provisions (or other codification) that the United States has
agreed reflects the entirety of the customary international law of war.292
In 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross published a study on customary
international humanitarian law (ICRC CIHL Study), which has been criticized for its
methodology and formulation of certain specific rules.
293 The United States likewise has
expressed serious concerns about the methodology used in the ICRC CIHL Study and has stated
that it is not in a position to accept without further analysis the Study’s conclusions that certain
rules related to the law of war in fact reflect customary international law.294
United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, we share with the States parties a deep and abiding interest in
seeing the Court successfully complete the important prosecutions it has already begun.’”).
290 U.N. SECRETARIAT, Secretary-General’s Bulletin: Observance by United Nations Forces of International
Humanitarian Law, U.N. Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13 (Aug. 6, 1999) (“The Secretary-General, for the purpose of setting
out fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to United Nations forces
conducting operations under United Nations command and control, promulgates the following:”).
291 Report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, Comprehensive review of the whole question of
peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, U.N. Doc. A/54/839 ¶82 (Mar. 20, 2000) (“The Special Committee
notes the Secretary-General’s comments on the guidelines on compliance with international humanitarian law by
United Nations peacekeepers. The Committee expresses concern about the lack of consultation with Member States
by the Secretariat before finalizing Secretary-General’s Bulletin ST/SGB/1999/13. It requests further clarification
on the Bulletin’s legal status, and stresses that it must accurately reflect the terms of international humanitarian law.
It requests the Secretary-General to carry out consultations on the Bulletin with the Special Committee.”).
292 Refer to § 1.8 (Customary International Law).
293 See, e.g., Daniel Bethlehem, The Methodological framework of the Study, ELIZABETH WILMSHURST & SUSAN
BREAU, PERSPECTIVES ON THE ICRC STUDY ON CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 4 (2007)
(“Without detracting from this genuine appreciation, it is necessary and appropriate to draw attention to some
important misgivings about the Study, as regards both methodology and the formulation of certain specific Rules.”).
294 U.S. RESPONSE TO ICRC CIHL STUDY 514 (“Given the Study’s large scope, we have not yet been able to
complete a detailed review of its conclusions. We recognize that a significant number of the rules set forth in the
Study are applicable in international armed conflict because they have achieved universal status, either as a matter of
treaty law or – as with many provisions derived from the Hague Regulations of 1907 – customary law. Nonetheless,
it is important to make clear – both to you and to the greater international community – that, based upon our review
thus far, we are concerned about the methodology used to ascertain rules and about whether the authors have
proffered sufficient facts and evidence to support those rules. Accordingly, the United States is not in a position to
accept without further analysis the Study’s conclusions that particular rules related to the laws and customs of war in
fact reflect customary international law.”).
1193
19.26 AP III
A third additional protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions was adopted on December 8,
2005.
295 AP III recognizes a red crystal as an additional distinctive emblem for the same
purposes as the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions.296
The United States deposited its instrument of ratification to AP III on March 8, 2007,
without making any statements of reservation, declaration, or understanding.297