^{page 4 note 1} First and Second Conv., Art. 12; Third Conv., Part II; Fourth Conv., Art. 16.

^{page 4 note 2} Remark made by Mr. Wilhelm (ICRC) to Committee II (7th meeting, 3 May 1949). See Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 260.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Commentary I, Geneva, 1952, p. 179.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} Pictet, J. S., Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Commentary III, Geneva, 1950, pp. 228, 229.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 3} They were the World Young Women's Christian Association, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations, Caritas Internationalis, World Jewish Congress, World Council of Churches, World's Student Christian Federation, Pax Romana, Catholic Relief, and War Relief of National Catholic Welfare Conference.

^{page 7 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 228.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 227.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} Hiebel, Jean-Luc, Les droits humana de l'assistance spirituelle dans les conflits armés, Strasbourg, 1976, pp. 137, 138.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 228.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Ibid., p. 108.

^{page 9 note 1} Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.

^{page 9 note 2} de la Pradelle, Paul, La Conférence diplomatique et les nouvelles Conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949, Paris, 1951, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 357.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 595.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} See Third Convention, Art. 125 (para. 2), Fourth Convention, Art. 142 (para. 2).

^{page 10 note 3} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 600.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 4} During the 1949 Diplomatic Conference in Geneva, Mgr Comte (Holy See) stated that “in the 1914–1918 war religious organizations visited prisoners' camps in France and Germany. Such visits had not been possible during the second world war because a belligerent Power had objected that they were not provided for in the Convention”. ( Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. 1I-A, Second Committee, 16th meeting, 19 05 1949, p. 301).Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} Hiebel, Jean-Luc, op. cit., pp. 156–162.Google Scholar This includes the definition proposed by Koerber, H. E. (“Probleme der Bestimmungen über die Militärgeistlichen in den Genfer Abkommen von 12 August 1949”Google Scholar, published in Revue internationale de Droit pénal militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, 1966, pp. 417–419)Google Scholar, as well as the interpretation of the German Defence Minister (in ZDv 15/15, Kriegsvölkerrecht, Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Militärgeistlichen, März 1965).Google Scholar My own interpretation would give more respect to the latitude offered by the complexity of the Conventions.

^{page 13 note 1} A certain reticence is however observable in the use of the terms “chaplain” and even “ministers of religion”. During the Conference, Mr. Abut (Turkey), for example, would have preferred “a more general term to designate the ministers of religion. The latter, he thought, was peculiar to certain religions”. ( Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, Third Committee, 20th meeting, 20 05 1949, p. 679).Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. III, Annexes, pp. 260, 265, 269, 272, 276, 283 and 285.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} See Hiebel, Jean-Luc, op. cit., pp. 201–208.Google Scholar The second Committee referred the question of chaplains to a special sub-committee.

^{page 15 note 1} The report of the Meeting of 3 and 4 March 1947 states the situation during the Second World War: “The ICRC found that the principle of repatriating members of the protected personnel, for which Article 12 (1929 Convention) definitely provides, was comparatively seldom applied during the late war”. (See ICRC, Proceedings of the Meeting for the Study of Treaty Stipulations relative to the Spiritual and Intellectual Needs of Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees, Geneva, 05 1947, p. 6).Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} The attitude of priests forming part of a “Kommando” unit was in fact the subject of controversy during the latter months of 1941 (see Klein, Charles, Le diocèse des barbelés, 1940–1944, Paris, 1973, pp. 73 et seq.).Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 231.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 135 Google Scholar, and Commentary II, Geneva, 1959, p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} First Conv., Arts. 28 (para. 2), 30 (para. 2); Second Conv., Art. 37 (para. 3); Third Conv., Art. 33 (para. 1).

^{page 17 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, pp. 230–234 Google Scholar, and Commentary I, p. 263.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 2} First Conv., Art. 40; Second Conv., Art. 42.

^{page 17 note 3} Genet, Raoul, La Révision de la X^e Convention de la Haye, Paris, 1952, p. 66 Google Scholar, quoted in Pictet, J. S., Commentary II, p. 157.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 4} Koerber, H. E., op. cit., p. 422.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Fourth Conv., Art. 21, and de la Predelle, Paul, op. cit., p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 232.Google Scholar Comparison of the final text of the Convention as adopted with that of the ICRC draft reveals the hesitations of the government representatives at the 1949 Conference.

^{page 19 note 1} Fielet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} Mgr Comte suggested it to the Second Committee during discussion of Article 30 of the Third Convention (Article 33 in the final text). Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, Second Committee, 7th meeting, p. 261).Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 3} Rctet, J. S., Commentary III, p. 232.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 4} Mr. Speake (United Kingdom) said at the Conference that “when ministers of religion had been interned, it was for reasons affecting the security of the State. There might be objections to their being allowed freedom of movement, which would not apply to the chaplains looking after prisoners of war”. ( Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, Committee III, 20th meeting, p. 679).Google Scholar His viewpoint was not contradicted.

^{page 20 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 250 Google Scholar, and Commentary III, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} Pictet, J. S., Commentary III, pp. 221, 222.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 270.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 2} Second Convention, Art. 37 (para. 1).

^{page 21 note 3} Pictet, J. S., Commentary II, p. 210.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 4} The law of Geneva nevertheless attempts, in several places, to preserve a general right of property.

^{page 22 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 2} Pictet, J. S., Commentary II, p. 52.Google Scholar The author refers to Wilhelm, R. J., Le caractère des droits accordés à l'individu dans les Conventions de Genève, Genèva, 1950, pp. 13 et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Ibid., p. 248.

^{page 23 note 3} ICRC, Proceedings of the Meeting for the Study of Treaty Stipulations relative to the Spiritual and Intellectual Needs of Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees, Geneva, 05 1947, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} ZDv 15/15, p. 11 Google Scholar, Nos 14 and 15, Aufgaben der Militärgeistlichen: “Militärgeistliche haben seelischen Beistand zu gewähren. Sie üben ihre Aufgaben im Rahmen der Gesetze und Verordnungen des Gewahrsamsstaats und in Übereinstimmung mit ihren religiösen Verantwortungsbewusstsein aus (III, 33 Abs. 2, 35, Satz 1). Sie sind jedoch nicht auf die seelsorgerische Tätigkeit beschränkt und können insbesondere:

— persönlicher Berater sein,

— den letzten Wunsch sterbender Soldaten entgegennehmen und weiterleiten,

— sowie häufig auch materielle Hilfe leisten.

Die Militärgeistlichen haben ferner, soweit möglich, die Gefallenen ihrer Religionszugehörigkeit nach der Riten der Religion zu bestatten. Die Staaten sind verpflichtet, die Militärgeistlichen bei dieser Aufgabe im Rahmen des Möglichen zu unterstützen G, 17, Abs. 3, Satz 1)”.

^{page 24 note 1} Pictet, J. S., Commentary I, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Ibid., pp. 228, 220 and 222.

^{page 24 note 3} Koerber, H. E., op. cit., pp. 420–421.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 4} ZOv, 15/15, No. 11, p. 10. This circular refers on this subject to the circular ZDv 66/1, No. 16.

^{page 26 note 1} ICRC, op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 26 note 3} Koerber, H. E., op. cit., p. 425.Google Scholar Koerber refers to other authors on the subject: Berber, , Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, II Bd. Kriegsrecht, p. 140 Google Scholar and Von Der Heydte, , Völkerrecht, Bd. II, p. 352.Google Scholar But according to the interpretation of the Federal German Government, such arms may not be used to defend themselves against capture (cf. ZDv 15/15, p. 14, No. 24).Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} We draw our readers' attention to Hiebel, J.-L.'s forthcoming book: Assistance spirituelle et conflits armés — Droit humain, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1980, 426 pp.Google Scholar — The foregoing article has drawn from it liberally.