![]() ![]() 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 CrossRef Google Scholar (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rules 25–26, available at. Ĥ Medical personnel: Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC I), Arts 24–25 Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC II), Arts 36–37 Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Arts 15–16 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. ![]() The internal MSF investigation was made publicly available see MSF, Initial MSF Internal Review: Attack on Kunduz Trauma Centre, Afghanistan, Geneva, 5 November 2015 (MSF Internal Review), available at. 1348, 9 October 2015, was never made public (see Lynne O'Donnell, “Afghan President Orders Investigation into Fall of Kunduz” AP News, 10 October 2015, available at: ) nor was the NATO investigation (see NATO, “Statement on the Kunduz MSF Hospital Investigation”, 26 November 2015, available at: ). ![]() The Afghan investigation, ordered by Presidential Decree No. The results of the US investigation were temporarily made public: US Department of Defense, Army Regulation (AR) 15–6 Investigation, Concerning a Potential Civilian Casualty Incident in Kunduz, ordered on 17 October 2015, completed on 11 November 2015 and approved by the appointing authority on 21 November 2015 (AR 15–6 Investigation Report). The article will delve into the “many mistakes” scenario that has been presented by the US investigation in order to critically analyze whether these mistakes may originate from either incorrect or biased interpretations or implementation of international humanitarian law.įollowing the Kunduz attack, four specific investigations were conducted: two domestic investigations (US and Afghan), a NATO (Resolute Support Combined Assessment Team) investigation and an internal MSF investigation. Nonetheless, the scale and specific context of the attack on the Kunduz Trauma Centre have given rise to various specific investigations 2 and provoked many more questions that this article will explore. Such attacks have led both MSF and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to launch campaigns 1 addressing the need for greater protection of the medical mission in situations of armed conflict. Even before that night, attacks on health-care facilities in war zones were already a worrying trend and a major concern for humanitarian organizations. On 3 October 2015, the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Trauma Centre in Kunduz, Afghanistan was bombed during a US–Afghan joint military operation to retake the city. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |