Alleged usage of chemical weapons in Russia by the British

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Locked
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#61

Post by David Thompson » 26 Sep 2007, 02:11

Sergey -- You asked: (1)
Mr.Thompson, how do you define a term 'civil war'?
If I thought your question had something to do with this thread, I would answer it. However, I don’t, and consequently won’t.

(a) The operative question in the discussion is whether or not the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907, prohibiting the use of poisonous gas in certain conflicts, applied to the military conflict in Russia following the collapse of the Czarist regime. The terms of these conventions, as I have already pointed out on several occasions, apply only to conflicts between the contracting powers. The bolshevik government of Russia in 1919 was not one of those contracting powers. Furthermore, in 1919, few if any of the signatories to the Hague conventions recognized the bolshevik government as the legal successor to the Russian Empire. The Hague conventions do not deal with, recognize, or even mention de facto governments. They deal with wars between national governments recognized by the contracting powers, which in 1919, the Bolshevik regime was not.

(b) In any event, the Polish and Czechoslovak governments were both in existence in 1918 -- if not de jure, then certainly de facto -- a year earlier than the alleged gassing incident. Both of those countries were participants in the 1919 fighting in Russia, as was Greece. As I have previously shown, neither Poland not Czechoslovakia had ratifiied either the 1899 or the 1907 conventions, since those countries didn't exist at the time the treaty was signed.

Consequently, even assuming that some of our readers buy into your contention about the bolshevik regime being the de facto successor to the Russian empire in a national war, your argument still fails. There were other governments (Poland and Czechoslovakia), just as much (if not more) de facto rulers of their respective countries than the bolshevik government of Russia, which were involved in the Russian civil war. These governments had not ratified the Hague conventions by 1919, and were participants in the Russian civil war when the alleged use of poison gas by the UK took place. If the war was in fact a war between nations, as you contend, the Hague conventions still wouldn't apply because several of the participants were not contracting powers to those conventions.

(c) Furthermore, the evacuation of troops does not end a war -- a peace treaty does. In the case of the Greek expeditionary force, their withdrawal does not conclude the state of belligerency. That "war" -- as you put it -- would go on until it was concluded by armistice or treaty.

(2) You also asked:
Mr. Thompson, maybe you suggest that it is sufficient for invading power to have absolutely insignificant ally (that has not signed or ratified the Hague conventions) and the invading power would be free from any obligations of the conventions?
Yes. That's the way the framers wrote the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is obvious to even a casual reader that the terms were drafted to allow the contracting powers to avoid their obligations except in the narrowly-drafted, agreed-upon circumstances specified in those conventions. I have already explained this defective feature of the Hague conventions to you and our readers at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 57#1058657

(3) You also, after quoting me, remarked:
David Thompson wrote:
and
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1115650 (no evidence of an independent collateral agreement between the combatant forces to respect the prohibitions).

The Hague conventions do not require any such previous agreement.
That's correct. However, since the Hague conventions did not apply to the circumstances of a free-for-all civil war in the former (and in 1919, collapsed) Russian empire, the only way there would be a war crime here is if there were independent written assurances between the belligerents that each would respect the Hague conventions on the use of chemical weapons. Apparently, that didn't happen.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#62

Post by Sergey » 26 Sep 2007, 07:34

Dear mr.Thompson, many thanks for your replay. I propose to discuss all relevant aspects of the problem step by step. So I would like to comment other you objections later and concentrate on one but the most important issue: what a term 'high contracting power' means.
David Thompson wrote:(a) The operative question in the discussion is whether or not the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907, prohibiting the use of poisonous gas in certain conflicts, applied to the military conflict in Russia following the collapse of the Czarist regime. The terms of these conventions, as I have already pointed out on several occasions, apply only to conflicts between the contracting powers.
In this context I kindly ask you mr.Thompson: is a contracting power a specific government or a contry that it represents?

My point of view: namely states, countries are contracting powers of international treaties, agreements and conventions. Current national government signs treaties, agreements and conventions on behalf of the state where the government rules.
David Thompson wrote:The bolshevik government of Russia in 1919 was not one of those contracting powers.
So you, mr.Thompson believe that namely specific governments are participants of international treaties, agreements and conventions. And if (for example) British republic would be established then all international treaties, agreements and conventions would be automatically invalid. Do you mean it?
David Thompson wrote:Furthermore, in 1919, few if any of the signatories to the Hague conventions recognized the bolshevik government as the legal successor to the Russian Empire.
There is no mention in the Hague convention about international recognition of specific national government. Btw, in March 1917 Western governments (including British one) recognised new Rebublican Russian government. So Russian republic was recognised as the legal successor of the Russian empire. In November 1917 new Russian republican government emerged. It was not recognised by the UK. But Russian republic as a state was recognised.
David Thompson wrote:The Hague conventions do not deal with, recognize, or even mention de facto governments.
It is right. The expression de facto government is not used in the text of the convention.
David Thompson wrote:They deal with wars between national governments recognized by the contracting powers, which in 1919, the Bolshevik regime was not.
I don't see a requirement of international recognition of any government in the text of the Hague conventions.


Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#63

Post by Sergey » 26 Sep 2007, 16:42

Dear Phylo_roadking. I propose to collect some information (about British intervention in Russian North, about principles of international legislation)before continuation of our discussion.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... uchado.htm
As Pipes notes, "[T]he first Western involvement on Russian soil occured at the request of the Murmansk Soviet and with the approval of the Soviet government. In a speech which he delivered on May 14, 1918, Lenin explained that the British and French had landed 'to defend the Murmansk coast.'" (The Russian Revolution)
...
Allied forces first landed at Trotsky's invitation.
So arrival of British forces on Russian North happened long before Kolchak government emerged after invitation of Bolshevik government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kolchak
Directory leader and members were arrested on November 18 by a troop of Cossacks under ataman Krasilnikov. The remaining cabinet members met and voted for Kolchak to become the head of government with dictatorial powers. He was named Supreme Ruler (Verkhovnyi Pravitel), and he promoted himself to Admiral.
As we see Kolchak was not democratically elected. He controlled only a part of Russia (quite remote).

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#64

Post by phylo_roadking » 26 Sep 2007, 17:15

As we see Kolchak was not democratically elected. He controlled only a part of Russia (quite remote).


That has nothing at all to do with whether his was recognised or not as the legitimate government.
The first Western involvement on Russian soil occured at the request of the Murmansk Soviet and with the approval of the Soviet government
Likewise has not bearing AT ALL on whether those forces were operating under the Hague Convention or not.

Widening an argument is an old and not very respected way of trying not to loose an argument.

________________________________________________________________________________

Regarding the questions you've asked David I'm sure he'll reply later, but this morning I've been doing some reading of my own.

1/ In the terms of the Hague Convention, and it's VERY clear from the introduction to it that the High Contracting Powers were the Heads Of State of the signatories, as prepresented by their plenipotentiaries - hence the Tsar of Russia, the King Of England, The Kaiser, The President of the French Second Republic etc. In the list of signatories on the ratification of the Conventions, "Russia" is listed as the Russian Federation.....which was a differnet state from 1919.

The VTslK had accepted this in 1918 when they came back to the negotiating table at Brest-Litovsk; the Germans had earlier NOT let the Bolsheviks negotiate on behalf of the Russian Federation or the whole territory of the Russian Empire - but only the part they controlled. By signing Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the VTslK accepted that they were NOT the successor government to the Russian Federation.

2/ In November 1917, the Moscow Soviet had publically proclaimed the Russian Empire "dead" so the couldn't be representing it, could they? ;-)

3/
In November 1917 new Russian republican government emerged. It was not recognised by the UK. But Russian republic as a state was recognised
Really??? Exactly WHO in the international community recognised it? ;-) Germany from November 1917 was only negotiating with the VTslK, not any national government. As above.

4/
Current national government signs treaties, agreements and conventions on behalf of the state where the government rules.
Er - no. I could name off the top of my head quite a few treaties, agreements and conventions signed by governments-in-exile in WWII...or all through history. This is a non-starter.

5/
And if (for example) British republic would be established then all international treaties, agreements and conventions would be automatically invalid. Do you mean it?
THAT is the exact principle behind EVERY many international agreements and treaties AND CONVENTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, such as the Maritime Law Of The Sea - which very clearly states in its pages that if there should be a change in government and/or the form of government in any state, any agreements made by that state with any other should SPECIFICALLY and INDIVIDUALLY re-accepted OR renegotiated. We've been over this before. It's accepted in law.

______________________________________________________________________

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#65

Post by Sergey » 27 Sep 2007, 19:36

Dear Phulo_roadking, let's concentrate on one but the most important question in this context.

What are subjects of International Law?

Are they independent states or governments, head of states, presidents, kings?

I am sure that namely states, countries are subjects of International Law.

Namely countries (not concrete governments or head of states) are bounded by conventions, treaties and agreements.

Of course any convention treaty or agreement is singed (and ratified) by lawfull representatives of a state. As a result namely the state is high contracting power.

For example, even now the USA controls Guantanamo bay refering to the agreement that was signed in 1930's. About a half century present Cuban government demands withdrawal of American forces from Guantanamo but Washington reject it because it an agreement between two states, not between two governments.
David Thompson wrote:The terms of these conventions, as I have already pointed out on several occasions, apply only to conflicts between the contracting powers. The bolshevik government of Russia in 1919 was not one of those contracting powers.
As I see mr.Thompson also think that namely govenments are subjects of International Law.

So I expose this proble to our friends and repeat the question.

What are subjects of International Law? Countries or governments (head of states)?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#66

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Sep 2007, 19:53

What are subjects of International Law? Countries or governments (head of states)?

This varies from treaty to treaty - and any agreement will always specify its parameters and who's bound by it. In respect of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Amdnments - its governments as in Heads Of State. And why can I say that?
I
CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES
His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President of the United States of America; the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; the President of the Republic of Bolivia; the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; the President of the Republic of Colombia; the Provisional Governor of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Dominican Republic; the President of the Republic of Ecuador; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Haiti; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panama; the President of the Republic of Paraguay; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; the President of the Republic of Salvador; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; the President of the United States of Venezuela;

Animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of general peace;

Resolved to promote by all the efforts in their power the friendly settlement of international disputes;

Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;

Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

Having regard to the advantages attending the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;

Sharing the opinion of the august initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an International Agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;

Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure;

Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes;

The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, and have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:

(List of Plenipotentiaries.)

Who, after deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:
...etc., etc. ...
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 27 Sep 2007, 20:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#67

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Sep 2007, 19:55

Take good note...
His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias;

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#68

Post by Sergey » 27 Sep 2007, 21:18

phylo_roadking wrote:
What are subjects of International Law? Countries or governments (head of states)?

This varies from treaty to treaty - and any agreement will always specify its parameters and who's bound by it. In respect of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Amdnments - its governments as in Heads Of State. And why can I say that?
I
CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES
His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President of the United States of America; the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; the President of the Republic of Bolivia; the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; the President of the Republic of Colombia; the Provisional Governor of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Dominican Republic; the President of the Republic of Ecuador; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Haiti; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panama; the President of the Republic of Paraguay; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; the President of the Republic of Salvador; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; the President of the United States of Venezuela;

Animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of general peace;

Resolved to promote by all the efforts in their power the friendly settlement of international disputes;

Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;

Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

Having regard to the advantages attending the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;

Sharing the opinion of the august initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an International Agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;

Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure;

Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes;

The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, and have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:

(List of Plenipotentiaries.)

Who, after deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:
...etc., etc. ...
Phylo_roadking, I read it this way:

the King, the President, the Emperor, ... and other crowned and uncrowned crowd

Animated...
Resolved...
Recognizing...
Desirous of extending..
Convinced...
Having regard to...
Sharing the opinion of...
Being desirous...
Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes.

It means that these heads of states had decided that it would be in interests of their states (not in their own interests) to sign an international agreement where their states are high contracting powers.

All these kings, emperrors and presidents are not 'powers'. They are persons, that agreed to sign and ratify the convention on behalf of thei countries.
.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#69

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Sep 2007, 22:04

Unfortunately, your interpretation is completely at odds with the rest of the world at that time, and the interpretation
His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President of the United States of America; the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; the President of the Republic of Bolivia; the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; the President of the Republic of Colombia; the Provisional Governor of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Dominican Republic; the President of the Republic of Ecuador; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Haiti; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panama; the President of the Republic of Paraguay; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; the President of the Republic of Salvador; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; the President of the United States of Venezuela
...these people in particular. The use of "crowned and uncrowned crowd" prefixes etc. indicates that it applied to the HEADS of state, not the states. And
Animated...
Resolved...
Recognizing...
Desirous of extending..
Convinced...
Having regard to...
Sharing the opinion of...
Being desirous...
Have deemed it
are ALL applying to the list of individuals above.
All these kings, emperrors and presidents are not 'powers'. They are persons, that agreed to sign and ratify the convention on behalf of thei countries.
Incorrect. This introduction is specifying them as the "High Contracting Powers" mentioned in all sections below; NOWHERE in the parameter-setting preface above does it use the words "nation" or "country". Nowehere in the following document does it specify ANY alternative meaning to "High Contracting Power" to the one in this introduction.

For example
The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, and have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries
"THEIR" plenipotentiaries....NOT their nations', on behalf of their government, or on behalf of their country or ANYTHING like that, but "their" as in belonging to them..

Sergey, you've been wrong in very nearly everything you've said in this thread, and have been continually corrected by me and by David who's a professional at this stuff. And you're continuing to be wrong. Each and every argument has proved to be entirely untenable and is still proving so.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#70

Post by Penn44 » 27 Sep 2007, 23:23

phylo_roadking wrote:Sergey, you've been wrong in very nearly everything you've said in this thread, and have been continually corrected by me and by David who's a professional at this stuff. And you're continuing to be wrong. Each and every argument has proved to be entirely untenable and is still proving so.
Maybe he's working on the law of probability - sooner or later he hopes he will come up right.

I'm not betting on it.

Penn44

.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#71

Post by Sergey » 28 Sep 2007, 05:52

Penn44 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:Sergey, you've been wrong in very nearly everything you've said in this thread, and have been continually corrected by me and by David who's a professional at this stuff. And you're continuing to be wrong. Each and every argument has proved to be entirely untenable and is still proving so.
Maybe he's working on the law of probability - sooner or later he hopes he will come up right.

I'm not betting on it.

Penn44

.
Dear Penn, you are not far from the truth. I'm professional mathematician. My scecialisation is theory of functions of real variables. specifically - convergence of orthogonal series. In terms of probability theory it sounds as -convervence of series of orthogonal random values.

As a mathematician I prefer sistematic approach to anything. Any notion or term needs clear definition. So what is a subject of International Law? Remarkable that nobody here gives a direct answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law
Traditionally, states and the Holy See were the sole subjects of international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda
Pacta sunt servanda (Latin for "pacts must be respected"), is a Brocard, a basic principle of civil law and of international law.
...
With reference to international agreements, "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith".[1] Pacta sunt servanda is based on good faith. This entitles states to require that obligations be respected and to rely upon the obligations being respected.
http://www.burneylawfirm.com/internatio ... f_treaties
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

An “international agreement” is defined at the top of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is universally accepted as the codification of the law of everything to do with treaties.

The United States hasn’t signed it, because we have some problems with appendices to the Convention, but we do obey it.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is gospel. It is international law with regard to treaties.

Covers anything that is it treaty:

Parties must be states.

Parties must have agreed.

Agreement must be in writing.

The parties must have intended it to be binding.

The agreement must state that the governing law will be international law.
Also
Capacity to Enter Into Treaties.

The capacity for treaty-making is both an attribute of statehood, and a requirement for statehood. Sub-entities of a state only have treaty-making power if the constitution of the state says so.

Doctrine of Full Powers.

In most negotiations, the presumption is that the guy at the table has the authority to speak for his state.

You can request a document to that effect, but there is no need if you’re negotiating with a head of state or the foreign minister.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#72

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 Sep 2007, 12:40

Slight problems with your post, Sergey.....

I take it you're referencing the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties? Of NINETEEN SIXTY-NINE? Congratulations on finding it. The slight problem is....it didn't apply in either 1899 or 1907! :lol: That;'s one one you should really have checked up on. Are you aware of the phrase in English "to have egg on one's face?"

This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law That's a VERY interesting entry in Wiki - except it doesn't
say much about the Hague Conventions or the Laws of War, DOES IT? Well, it wouldn't because it's "inter-national" law it deals with....and as ALREADY shown, the Conventions aren't between nations!

In fact....the ONLY mention of ANYTHING of this nature in the WHOLE page is a little link at the very bottom to the Laws Of War, did you see it? Or constructively miss it?

Because if you follow the link it takes you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war. And do you know what's REMARKABLE about that entry? It's this list.....
1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering
1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight
1874 Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (Brussels Declaration). Signed in Brussels 27 August. This agreement never entered into force, but formed part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.
1880 Manual of the Laws and Customs of War at Oxford. At its session in Geneva in 1874 the Institute of International Law appointed a committee to study the Brussels Declaration of the same year and to submit to the Institute its opinion and supplementary proposals on the subject. The work of the Institute led to the adoption of the Manual in 1880 and it went on to form part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.
1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
1927-1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris)
1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"
1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.[12]
1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (London Naval Treaty 22 April)
1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March)
1945 United Nations Charter (entered into force on October 24, 1945)
1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged
1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
1980 United Nations 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 (CCW)
1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006[13]
1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.[14]
1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict[15]
1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel[16]
1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)
1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
THOSE are the "International Laws" that you think apply, but look at exactly what it says about the Hague Conventions.....

I'm afraid to say there's a Very Big Problem with your opinion that the Conventions are International Law i.e. Laws between nations...

They weren't. They're NOT on the list as bulleted entries, they were just the codification of earlier material. They have NO binding legal power about them. THAT is why they're called CONVENTIONS as opposed to TREATIES :lol: :lol: :lol: and THAT is why they were signed by Heads of State as High Contracting Powers on thier OWN behalf, because they were NOT law and did NOT bind their nations. A Convention is something you sign up to, for mutual benefit and general acceptance ("conventional", something that is "normal" or "generally accepted") - a TREATY has a binding effect. The Hague Conventions were NOT Treaties...so the International Laws on Treaties do not apply EITHER anyway

These "High Contracting" Heads of State and their plenipotentiaries are better at this than you are. THEY knew the difference between a Law, a Treaty...and a Convention.

Well done for copper-fastening the arguement against your position. You're running out of wriggle room fast....
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 28 Sep 2007, 15:39, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#73

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 Sep 2007, 13:23

P.S. you're forgetting something aren't you......

Can you please provide a reference to the VTslK stating that they would adhere to the Convention from their side? You mentioned they did this, but didn't provide a reference. Can you do so?

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#74

Post by Sergey » 28 Sep 2007, 21:51

phylo_roadking wrote:Slight problems with your post, Sergey.....

I take it you're referencing the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties? Of NINETEEN SIXTY-NINE? Congratulations on finding it. The slight problem is....it didn't apply in either 1899 or 1907! :lol: That;'s one one you should really have checked up on. Are you aware of the phrase in English "to have egg on one's face?"

This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law That's a VERY interesting entry in Wiki - except it doesn't
say much about the Hague Conventions or the Laws of War, DOES IT? Well, it wouldn't because it's "inter-national" law it deals with....and as ALREADY shown, the Conventions aren't between nations!

In fact....the ONLY mention of ANYTHING of this nature in the WHOLE page is a little link at the very bottom to the Laws Of War, did you see it? Or constructively miss it?

Because if you follow the link it takes you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war. And do you know what's REMARKABLE about that entry? It's this list.....
1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering
1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight
1874 Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (Brussels Declaration). Signed in Brussels 27 August. This agreement never entered into force, but formed part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.
1880 Manual of the Laws and Customs of War at Oxford. At its session in Geneva in 1874 the Institute of International Law appointed a committee to study the Brussels Declaration of the same year and to submit to the Institute its opinion and supplementary proposals on the subject. The work of the Institute led to the adoption of the Manual in 1880 and it went on to form part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.
1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
1927-1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris)
1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"
1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.[12]
1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (London Naval Treaty 22 April)
1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March)
1945 United Nations Charter (entered into force on October 24, 1945)
1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged
1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
1980 United Nations 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 (CCW)
1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006[13]
1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.[14]
1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict[15]
1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel[16]
1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)
1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
THOSE are the "International Laws" that you think apply, but look at exactly what it says about the Hague Conventions.....

I'm afraid to say there's a Very Big Problem with your opinion that the Conventions are International Law i.e. Laws between nations...

They weren't. They're NOT on the list as bulleted entries, they were just the codification of earlier material. They have NO binding legal power about them. THAT is why they're called CONVENTIONS as opposed to TREATIES :lol: :lol: :lol: and THAT is why they were signed by Heads of State as High Contracting Powers on thier OWN behalf, because they were NOT law and did NOT bind their nations. A Convention is something you sign up to, for mutual benefit and general acceptance ("conventional", something that is "normal" or "generally accepted") - a TREATY has a binding effect. The Hague Conventions were NOT Treaties...so the International Laws on Treaties do not apply EITHER anyway

These "High Contracting" Heads of State and their plenipotentiaries are better at this than you are. THEY knew the difference between a Law, a Treaty...and a Convention.

Well done for copper-fastening the arguement against your position. You're running out of wriggle room fast....
Dear Phylo_roadking, Congratulations! you begin to understand the basic principles of International Law. Namely that states are subjects of international Law. Newly signed conventions don't change the basic principles (they existed for centuries). Their texts are just precise wording.

As I see you agree with me that now namely states are 'high contracting powers' of all international agreements, conventions amd treaties. It was true 50, 100, 200,... years ago as well. The porinciples hasn't been changed.
phylo_roadking wrote:P.S. you're forgetting something aren't you......

Can you please provide a reference to the VTslK stating that they would adhere to the Convention from their side? You mentioned they did this, but didn't provide a reference. Can you do so?
It is irrelevant. Recently, new Russian government emerged. Instead of mr.Fradkov, mr.Zubkov is a new Russian prime minister along with new Russian government. Has the new Russian government to make any statements that it adhere to all conventions, treaties and agreements signed by Russian and Soviet governemnts? No of course.

Also, the Hague conventions don't require any statements of this sort made by of new governments. Look at our discussion with mr.Thompson
David Thompson wrote:(3) You also, after quoting me, remarked:
David Thompson wrote:
and
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 50#1115650 (no evidence of an independent collateral agreement between the combatant forces to respect the prohibitions).

The Hague conventions do not require any such previous agreement.
That's correct.
Regards!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#75

Post by David Thompson » 28 Sep 2007, 22:25

Sergey -- You wrote:
Dear Phylo_roadking, Congratulations! you begin to understand the basic principles of International Law. Namely that states are subjects of international Law. Newly signed conventions don't change the basic principles (they existed for centuries). Their texts are just precise wording.

As I see you agree with me that now namely states are 'high contracting powers' of all international agreements, conventions amd treaties. It was true 50, 100, 200,... years ago as well. The porinciples hasn't been changed.
As a principle of international law, this is incorrect. Treaties were originally between sovereigns and bound them personally, but not their successors. The successor sovereign was free to disregard agreements entered into by his predecessor, and would ratify existing treaties to bind him personally only if he and/or his favorites somehow profited from the terms of the treaty.

This practice gradually changed as sovereigns were replaced by constitutional regimes, but became a problem when the sovereign or constitutional government was overthrown during a revolution or coup d'etat. The usual result of a change of sovereigns or form of government was to void or cancel all pre-existing agreements.

The usual solution was for the outside powers who had treaties with the previous sovereign or system of government to ask the new sovereign or revolutionary regime for assurances, "clarification," or a reaffirmation of rights and obligations. Sometimes this resulted in a renewal of the treaty, sometimes it didn't.

To deal with this and other recurring problems, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties ( http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf ) made a number of changes to pre-existing international law. It would be a mistake to assume, however, that the concepts of the Vienna Convention were widely accepted 200, 100 or even 50 years earlier -- if they had been, the convention would have been unnecessary.

I haven't seen any essays that specifically discuss this aspect of international law, but if I get some time I'll try to find some.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”