Protocol III is an amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem which was enacted in 2005. Under this new protocol, the protective sign of the Red Crystal can be displayed by medical and religious personnel during times of conflict and war. This means that it can be used in the place of the traditional Red Cross, or Red Crescent symbols. Persons who choose to display this symbol are performing humanitarian duties and therefore must be protected by all parties involved in the conflict. This essay will discuss the history behind the creation of an emblem as well as the implementation of Protocol III and potential issues with this implementation.
Modern warfare had become increasingly …show more content…
The 1864 Geneva Convention established that a distinctive emblem should be worn by all medical personnel on the battlefield as an indication of their humanitarian mission and their neutral status. At this point in time, the symbol was a red cross on a white background, however, Muslim nations (ottoman)object to this saying that it resembles the Christian cross. The Red Crescent was introduced by the Ottoman Empire in 1876 as a Muslim alternative. Since then, more emblems have been proposed, for example the red lion and the sun of Persia. Two recurrent difficulties keep posing an issue when trying to adopt a single, universal emblem. First of all, they are often perceived as having religious, political or cultural connotations. This perception would work against the neutral, humanitarian status of medical personnel on the battlefield. Secondly, these emblems are tied to membership in the National Societies, who are required to use the red cross or red crescent emblem. A problem of this can be seen when Israel’s Magen …show more content…
This deceived leftist guerrillas who then handed over 15 hostages. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe admitted to this after a member of the Colombian military intelligence team was filmed and photographed wearing a Red Cross bib. According to Uribe, “This officer, upon confessing his mistake to his superiors, said when the helicopter was about to land… he saw so many guerrillas that he went into a state of angst”, “He feared for his life and put on the Red Cross bib over his jacket”. This claim does not fit the statements of the military source who took the photographs, who said they were taken before the mission had commenced. By using the Red Cross in this way is considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, endangering humanitarian workers in the future. A written statement submitted by the ICRC mission in Bogota stated that “The Red Cross emblem has to be respected in all circumstances and cannot be used in an abusive manner”, they also reminded that “The ICRC as neutral and impartial must have the confidence of all the sides in the conflict in order to carry out its humanitarian work”. It is believed that the emblem was used to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels to release hostages to the group. The group claimed that they were part of an international
Modern warfare had become increasingly …show more content…
The 1864 Geneva Convention established that a distinctive emblem should be worn by all medical personnel on the battlefield as an indication of their humanitarian mission and their neutral status. At this point in time, the symbol was a red cross on a white background, however, Muslim nations (ottoman)object to this saying that it resembles the Christian cross. The Red Crescent was introduced by the Ottoman Empire in 1876 as a Muslim alternative. Since then, more emblems have been proposed, for example the red lion and the sun of Persia. Two recurrent difficulties keep posing an issue when trying to adopt a single, universal emblem. First of all, they are often perceived as having religious, political or cultural connotations. This perception would work against the neutral, humanitarian status of medical personnel on the battlefield. Secondly, these emblems are tied to membership in the National Societies, who are required to use the red cross or red crescent emblem. A problem of this can be seen when Israel’s Magen …show more content…
This deceived leftist guerrillas who then handed over 15 hostages. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe admitted to this after a member of the Colombian military intelligence team was filmed and photographed wearing a Red Cross bib. According to Uribe, “This officer, upon confessing his mistake to his superiors, said when the helicopter was about to land… he saw so many guerrillas that he went into a state of angst”, “He feared for his life and put on the Red Cross bib over his jacket”. This claim does not fit the statements of the military source who took the photographs, who said they were taken before the mission had commenced. By using the Red Cross in this way is considered a breach of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, endangering humanitarian workers in the future. A written statement submitted by the ICRC mission in Bogota stated that “The Red Cross emblem has to be respected in all circumstances and cannot be used in an abusive manner”, they also reminded that “The ICRC as neutral and impartial must have the confidence of all the sides in the conflict in order to carry out its humanitarian work”. It is believed that the emblem was used to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels to release hostages to the group. The group claimed that they were part of an international