The Geneva Convention: Implementation versus universal ideals

¶ … Geneva Convention: History and Contemporary Overview

When contemporary human rights advocates speak of the Geneva Convention they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, during the aftermath of World War II. (Farrell, 2002) the Geneva Conventions are all international agreements that define human rights in universally encompassing language, such as outlawing the taking of hostages, the mutilation and degradation of POWs, torture, executions, and discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality or political affiliations. However, no matter how sweeping the language of the documents, what is seen to constitute a universal human right will inevitably vary in different national contexts, in specific leader's opinions, and by the interpretative language of a nation's system of laws.

For example, the subjectivity of the Geneva Convention was highlighted when, in 1994, the U.S. Senate ratified the modification to the Convention known as the Torture Convention. The Senate stated "[t] hat the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under Article 16 to prevent 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,'" but that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment "means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." ("OLC's Aug. 1, 2002 Torture Memo ('the Bybee Memo')," Discourse.net, 2006) Also, the United States considers capital punishment acceptable and not cruel and degrading, while many fellow signature nations do not view capital punishment as acceptable as a form of legitimate legal punishment. Also, not all nations agree when the conventions apply. President Bush said that the Geneva Convention should not protect the Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners of war held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO). Bush said the terrorists were "unlawful combatants" who did not obey the rules of war. (Farrell, 2002)