(3)Has the United States authorized the issuance of wartime awards and
pay? (This is not dispositive. Recall: Two Special Operations Forces
sergeants received the Congressional Medal of Honor in Somalia, yet
it was clearly not an Article 2 conflict!)d. Another factor to consider is whether the combatants are "parties" within
the meaning of Article 2. For example, the warlord Aideed and his band
in Somalia did not qualify as a "party" for purposes of the Geneva
Conventions.e. Additionally, terrorist networks and organizations do not qualify as a
"party" within the meaning of Common Article 2 of the Geneva
Conventions. The U.S. position is clearly stated in a 7 February 2002
White House Press Release. The official U.S. position is that the al-Qaida
network is not a state party to the Geneva Conventions; it is a foreign
terrorist group. On the other hand, whle the U.S. and all but three other
nations never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan
government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President
determined that the Taliban were covered by the Geneva Convention as a
"party" within the meaning of Common Article 2."f. Protocol I expands the definition of international armed conflict to include
conflicts against racist regimes, colonial domination, and alien
occupation. Protocol I, Art. l(4). It is important to understand that the
GC's were drafted by military powers with European heritage. Many of
the drafters of the Protocols were so-called third world countries with a
colonial history. They wanted to insure international law protections,
primarily combatant immunity, were extended to their forces.- GC Common Article 3. Minimal protections provided. Does not include
combatant immunity. Protections limited to internal armed conflicts.
Though not defined in the article, armed conflict is something more than
mere riots or banditry. There is no absolute test as to what constitutes armed
conflict but a significant factor is whether the government uses its armed
forces in response to the conflict. - Protocol I1 tends to narrow the scope of CA3. It defines armed conflict
whereas the CA3 does not. Unlike CA3, it also requires that to receive the
"SeeThe White House, The Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by the Press Secretary, dated 7 February
2002 [hereinafter 7 Feb 02 White House Statement].
84
C7luplc. 3
1'015L trn11I kvrliricv \