Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
The emblem of the red cross was one of the most remarkable innovations of the Convention of 1864. Ever since then there have been discussions, questions and controversy as to its nature and purpose, the persons it is meant to protect, and the rules that should govern its use.
1 The results of any such weighing of interests may of course vary, but the consultations about the draft Regulations on the Use of the Emblem (and even more the text adopted by the Council of Delegates in 1987) appear to show that the prevailing tendency in the Movement is a restrictive one designed to prevent misuse.
2 These Regulations replaced similarly entitled Regulations adopted in 1965 by the Twentieth International Conference of the Red Cross and were provisionally adopted by the Council of Delegates at Rio de Janeiro in November 1987.
3 For a recent example, see the Guide for National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to Activities in the Event of Conflict, a document prepared by the ICRC and presented at the Twenty-fifth International Conference, Geneva, 1986.Google Scholar
4 Setting aside the special case of the international bodies of the Red Cross, which enjoy a special status and may use the emblem either as a protective or indicative device for all their activities, provided these are in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross.
5 See the Regulations on the Use of the Emblem (Rio de Janeiro, 1987)Google Scholar, commentary on Article 4.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., Article 13.
8 This refers to international and non-international armed conflicts, excluding internal disturbances and tension.
9 To mention only a few examples authorized by the Regulations on the Use of the Emblem.
10 See, e.g., International Review of the Red Cross, No. 262, 01–02 1988 Google Scholar, “ICRC protection and assistance activities in situations not covered by international humanitarian law”, p. 11 et seq.
11 The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949—Commentary. ICRC, Geneva, 1952—Article 44 of the First Convention, p. 330.Google Scholar
12 See Article 44 of the First Convention.
13 See Regulations on the Use of the Emblem, Article 16.
14 Ibid., Article 4, commentary.
15 To this effect the Regulations differ from the Conventions and appear to have relaxed the conditions of Article 44 by no longer forbidding the indicative use of armlets.
16 See Regulations on the Use of the Emblem, Article 4, commentary.
17 See Conference of Government Experts, Documentation presented by the ICRC, 1971, CE/5b, p. 53 et seq.Google Scholar
18 See, e.g., First Convention, Chapter IV; Fourth Convention, Article 20; and Protocol I, Article 8.
19 For further details regarding the basis of this interpretation see Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ed. Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., and Zimmermann, B., ICRC, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva, 1986 Google Scholar—Commentary on Articles 9 and 12 of Protocol II, especially para. 4660, p. 1418, paras. 4664–66, 4667, pp. 1419–1420, and paras. 4739 and 4740, p. 1440.
20 See Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Geneva, 1974–1977), Vol. XII, p. 270 Google Scholar, CDDH/II/SR. 80., para. 16, quoted in the Commentary on the Protocols, para. 4667, p. 1420.
21 Only the ICRC and the League are authorized to use the emblem as a protective device for their relief activities.
22 See the Commentary on the Protocols, Article 12 of Protocol II, para. 4746, p. 1441.Google Scholar
