¹ Sen. Exec. Docs. Nos. D, E, F, and G, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) ; Dept. of State Pub. 3938, General Foreign Policy Series 34 (1950).

The literature on the conventions is already extensive. Among the general studies of the subject may be mentioned Gutteridge, “The Geneva Conventions of 1949,” 26 British Year Book of International Law 294 (1949)Google Scholar, and “The Protection of Civilians in Occupied Territory,” Year Book of World Affairs, 1951, p. 290; Hudson, “Progress of the Geneva Conventions of 1949,” 45 A.J.I.L. 776 (1951)Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, “The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War,” 29 British Year Book of International Law 360 (1952)Google Scholar; Pictet, “The New Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims,” 45 A.J.I.L. 462 (1951)Google Scholar; de la Pradelle, La Conférence diplomatique et les nouvelles conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 (1951)Google Scholar; Yingling and Ginnane, “The Geneva Conventions of 1949,” 46 A.J.I.L. 393 (1952)Google Scholar. The Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge, published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, contains a number of excellent specialized studies of the conventions. The International Red Cross is also preparing commentaries on each of the conventions, of which one, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. I, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Pictet ed., 1952), has been published in English and French; the commentary on the Civilians Convention is expected to be the next to appear. For extensive bibliographical references on the new conventions, see Preux, de, “Diffusion des conventions de Genève de 1949,” 37 Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge 259 ff., 317 ff., and 375 ff. (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations on Execs. D, E, F, and G, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims), S. Exec. Rep. No. 9, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) (hereinafter referred to as “Report”), p. 3.

³ The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were not in force with regard to the parties in the Korean conflict, but both sides stated that they would apply their principles. See telegram from Secretary of State Acheson to the International Committee of the Red Cross, July 5, 1950, reproduced in Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et le conflit de Corée (1952), Vol. I, p. 13; Letter from the Representative of the United States of America to the Secretary General of the United Nations, July 5, 1951, 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 189 (1951), U.N. Doc. S/2232, July 6, 1951; Department of State Press Release 582, July 24, 1952, 27 Dept. of State Bulletin 171 (1952); Report, p. 64. See also 33 Dept. of State Bulletin 69–79 (1955).

⁴ Hearing before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., on Execs. D, E, F, and G, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (The Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims), June 3, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Hearing”).

⁵ Report, and 101 Cong. Rec. 7862 (daily ed., June 27, 1955).

⁶ Ibid. 8537–8551 (daily ed., July 6, 1955).

⁷ Ibid. 8550–8551.

⁸ See Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949 (Federal Political Department, Berne, 1949), Vol. IIA, pp. 673–674, 765–768, 788–790; Vol. IIB, pp. 424–431; Vol. III, pp. 140–141.

⁹ The United Kingdom, Canada, The Netherlands, and New Zealand.

¹⁰ 18 U.S.C. § 706. Regarding the failure of the Congress to enact legislation giving effect to Art. 28 of the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick of Armies in the Field, 47 Stat. 2074, at 2092, see Federal Trade Commission v. A.P.W. Paper Co., Inc., 328 U.S. 193 (1946).

¹¹ Hearing, pp. 12–15, 29–30, 33, 37–56. The use of the Red Cross emblem, which adopted the reversed Federal colors of Switzerland, was brought about by the Geneva Red Cross Convention of August 22, 1864, 18 de Martens, Nouveau Recueil général de traités 607 at 611 (1873). Prior to that time, ambulances and hospitals had been marked in various ways; see “L’Origine du signe de la Croix Rouge,” 36 Revue international de la Croix-Rouge 456 (1954)Google Scholar. The first prohibition on the future commercial use of the Red Cross emblem was not enacted by the United States until 1905. Act of Jan. 5, 1905, 33 Stat. 599, incorporating the American National Red Cross.

¹² 101 Cong. Rec. 8550 (daily ed., July 6, 1955), and Report, pp. 24–26.

¹³ Report, pp. 30–31. The implementing legislation would give domestic effect to Art. 44, Wounded and Sick Convention (use of emblem by International Committee of the Red Cross and its personnel); Arts. 18–22, Civilians Convention (use of emblem by civilian hospitals and medical facilities); Art. 23, Prisoners of War Convention; and Art. 83, Civilians Convention (marking of prisoner of war and civilian internee camps).

¹⁴ Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Yugoslavia.

¹⁵ Letter of March 29, 1955, from Secretary of State to Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Enclosure, Hearing, p. 60; Report, pp. 28–29.

¹⁶ Art. 10, Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked at Sea Convention; Art. 10, Prisoners of War Convention; Art. 11, Civilians Convention.

¹⁷ It may be noted that Art. 85, when read in conjunction with Art. 102 of the same convention, which stipulates that a prisoner of war can be validly sentenced “only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power,” renders it improbable that prisoners of war detained by the United States will be subject to trial by international tribunals like those of Nuremberg and Tokyo. Unless U. S. law were to be amended to provide that American military personnel may be tried by international tribunals, these provisions would in all probability require trial of prisoners of war accused of war crimes by the same courts that try American military personnel—the civil courts or courts-martial. But cf. Case of Kappler (Italy, Supreme Military Tribunal, 1952), 36 Rivista di diritto internazionale 193 (1953), digested in 49 A.J.I.L. 96 (1955), stating, obiter, that Art. 85 has no relevance to war crimes under international law.

¹⁸ Report, p. 28; see Berman, Soviet Military Law and Administration 122–124 (1955). The view hitherto taken by the jurisprudence of the United States has been that enemy military personnel tried for war crimes are not entitled to the judicial safeguards provided by the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929. In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946). Art. 85, even as affected by the Soviet reservation, thus represents in legal terms an advance over the existing law.

¹⁹ See Ministry of Defence, Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Korea (H.M.S.O., 1955), pp. 31–32 (reviewed in 49 A.J.I.L. 431 (1955)), regarding the treatment of all personnel of the U. N. Command taken as prisoners of war by the Chinese Communists and North Korean forces as “war criminals.”

²⁰ 101 Cong. Rec. 8550–8551 (daily ed., July 6, 1955). The “statement” will, of course, apply to all reservations made to the conventions, except as to Art. 68 of the Civilians Convention, whether made by members of the Soviet bloc or other states.

²¹ Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, [1951] I.C.J. Reports 15 at 27.

²² Ibid.

²³ Report, pp. 23–24.

²⁴ See Secretary of State Acheson’s statement in Committee I of the General Assembly, U.N. General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, First Committee, U.N. Doc. A/C.l/SR. 512, pp. 26–27, published as The Problem of Peace in Korea, Dept. of State Pub. 4771 (1952), and General Assembly Resolution 610 (VII) of Dec. 3, 1952, U.N. General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20, U.N. Doc. A/2361, p. 3.

²⁵ Report, pp. 22–23.