Talk:List of parties to the Geneva Conventions

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-Parties?

Could we have a list of non-parties? Andrew Yong (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find the "—" marks in the chart: that indicates an entity has not signed, ratified, or acceded to the treaty, so they would be a non-party. The ones with "S" are signatories who have not yet ratified, so technically they are signatory non-parties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about this. non-parties to the Conventions of 1949 are not listed. --72.83.93.172 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was referring to the non-parties of the Protocols. Every UN member state plus the Holy See (except the newly independent South Sudan) has ratified the first four Geneva Conventions, so I'm not sure what you have in mind for non-state parties of those ones. Kosovo? Somaliland? Abkazia? Other non- or little-recognized states? That wouldn't be terribly useful, since the ratification by those states would not be recognized anyway, as Palestine's was not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some summary like you put in, good ol'factory, would be useful. as I came here to suggest that this question be answered, and yes, it's implied, but no, not intelligible to someone with a >20th grade reading level but no advanced degree in political science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.106.50 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to include every possible self-declared state as a non-party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

application to special territories

There are HK/Macau declarations, Palestine, Cook Islands, Niue are already described, but where to check the conventions application to Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Aruba, etc.? Alinor (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most French territories are considered to be an integral part of the French Republic, so a ratification from France generally applies the treaty to all of its territories. This could probably be indicated in a sourced footnote on the entry for France. (I'm not sure about Dutch territories, though I tend to think the Netherlands ratifies for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which case the same principle would apply.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the declarations related to dependent territories. The only ones that are known for sure are China's, Denmark's, New Zealand's, the Netherland's, and the UK's, but even for these states it's not always crystal clear when it comes to the first four Conventions. Australia, France, and the U.S. have not made any declarations regarding their territories, but under regular treaty practice that doesn't necessarily mean that the treaties don't apply to the territories. The map is obviously wrong--all seven treaties extend to Greenland. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for the Danish and UK's territories? They don't appear to be mentioned in the instruments of ratification on file with the depositary (though there could have been a subsequent declaration.) I agree that If we have a source for Greenland, we should colour it. TDL (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark only makes declarations when it is saying that the treaty does not extend to to Greenland and/or the Faroe Islands. If it makes no declaration, the understanding is that it extends to the entire Kingdom of Denmark, which includes those two. That said, if we look hard enough, we might be able to find a source that says how the Conventions/Protocols extend to Greenland/Faroes. (I am sure that I have read it somewhere, I just can't remember where.) As for the UK territorial declarations, they are included at the ICRC page: Protocol I, Protocol II, Protocol III. I'm not sure why the depositary doesn't post this stuff online as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found the UK's territorial declarations on the depositary's website. They weren't made at the time of ratification, and I hadn't gone through all 100 years of notifications from the depositary, but the dates from the ICRC source helped me track them down. As for Greenland, it would be nice if we at least had a source to support the general statement that by default ratification by the Kingdom of Denmark covers Greenland. TDL (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hunt around and see what I can find. Treaty application to dependent territories is quite inconsistent from state-to-state, but there is some stuff written on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: "In a communication received on 22 July 2003, the Govenrment of Denmark informed the Secretary-General that "... Denmark's ratifications normally include the entire Kingdom of Denmark including the Faroe Islands and Greenland.”" TDL (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I'll eventually try to find the specific ref about the Geneva Conventions and Greenland. It's out there somewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I've updated Greenland on the map. TDL (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

The Dutch treaty website surprisingly names Gibraltar as a territory the convention was extended to... Now the Dutch website has no legal standing as it is not the depositary; but is it possible something was overlooked in the depositary notifications? L.tak (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats for GCI. I've never been able to find any details on which territories GCI-IV have been extended. (The article doesn't say anything about this, only the protocols.) The Swiss depositary archives online only go back until 1977, so the 1957 ratification declaration isn't available from them. This doesn't mention anything about territorial applicability.

The Dutch website claims that PI and PII entered into force for Gibraltar from "02-01-2003", but while the depositary notification lists a declaration made exactly 6 months prior listing all the other territories, there is no mention of Gibraltar. So I'm pretty confident that the Dutch website is wrong about P1 and P2. TDL (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan is not included

No information is given regarding south sudan, and it is not shown on the map.XavierGreen (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not included on the list of state parties because they have not ratified any of the Geneva Conventions or its Protocols. But you are right that the map needs to be updated to reflect that they are a non-state party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polisario Front

Polisario Front becomes party of Geneva Conventions. His unilateral declaration was accepted by the Swiss Federal Council. See also "Polisario Front becomes party to Geneva Conventions, launches solemn appeal to companies operating in Western Sahara". Dan, I think that we must give it to list not only write a note. Here is very much of unilateral declarations like this, but no one of them was accepted by the Swiss Federal Council. Accepting means to become party of. Jan CZ (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. The depositary doesn't treat them as a party (ie [1]). Instead they treat them as an "Authority which has made a unilateral declaration under Article 96, paragraph 3" (ie [2]). The declaration itself cites Article 96.3.[3]. Article 96.3 speaks of unilateral declarations leading to the "same rights and obligations" for the specific conflict for which the declaration was made as states which are a party to the conventions and protocol, but nothing of actually becoming a party.[4] Article 94 deals with accession and becoming a party to the convention. These are legally distinct statuses.

Just look at the past example of Palestine. Palestine made a unilateral declaration of application in 1982, which was accepted by the depositary, but at this point it was not a party.[5] When Palestine subsequently attempted to ratify the treaty to become a party in 1989, the depositary continued to not recognize them as a party. Only in 2014, after again ratifying the treaty, did the depositary recognize them as a party. If a unilateral declaration makes them a party, then Palestine should have been a party way back in 1982, and not needed to keep trying to ratify the treaty. Palestine was not listed as a party on this list until 2014, when it ratified the treaty.

Perhaps as a compromise we could create a separate table for states which have unilaterally declared their application of the treaty, but which aren't parties? TDL (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, thanks for the detailed information. Yes, I agree with your proposal, it sounds reasonable. Jan CZ (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, inspired by States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Acceptance_of_jurisdiction I've added a table of authorities making a unilateral declaration. TDL (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties to the Geneva Conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109224229/https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam/eda/en/documents/geneva-150109_en.pdf to https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam/eda/en/documents/geneva-150109_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Afghan flag is not displayed correctly

The Afghan flag is not displayed correctly 2001:1711:FA4B:58D0:4CAD:2CCC:EB30:A895 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]