Execution of civils in the East

World War II Russian Military
#141

I already told Egorka per PM that it is basically hard to get information about these high-numbered divisions like the 704th (a pure occupational unit) or the 714th (all reserve personell) Infanterie-Division since there were no divisional histories published in book-form. First I like to re-advert to my last post regarding the “Josef Schulz” issue:
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140519&postcount=131

However I found another source (Karl Bethke, Das Bild vom deutschen Widerstand gegen Hitler im ehemaligen Jugoslawien) saying the following:
“…For years the case of the Gefreiter (PFC) Josef Schulz from Wuppertal circulated throughout the debates. As a member of the 714th Infantry-Division he was supposed to have refused to take part in an execution of 16 partisans in Smerderevska Palanka/Yugoslavia on July 20th, 1941 and was hereupon shot himself. However it was doubtlessly determined that PFC Schulz was killed the day before during a descent of partisans. This means, there is no case noted that a german soldier was shot because he refused to be involved in executions like the one in question…”

I had some thoughts about this remarkable case myself and I think it would be an unlikely act that Schulz would have been executed with the alleged partisans immediately. It’s doubtful that in a well-organized army like the Wehrmacht (which it still was in May 1941) a leader of a firing-squad would take the responsibility and execute a german soldier without being court-martialed and convicted before. But that’s only my pure subjective mindset of course.

#142

I actually read Russian translation of the Karl Bethke’s article you quoted.
Flametrhrowerguy, I would not mind if you translate the whole thing into English… :rolleyes:

EDIT: see the next post.

#143

Carl Bethke
Das Bild des deutschen Widerstandes gegen Hitler In (ex-) Jugoslawien
http://www.drustvosns.org/kultura/pdf/Carl%20Bethke,%20Deutscher%20Widerstand%20gegen%20Hitler%20aus%20YU-Sicht.pdf

Der „Fall Schulz“
Die bizarrste Seite deutsch-jugoslawischer Erinnerungskultur ist der Fall des Gefreiten Josef
Schulz aus Wuppertal, der sich am 20. Juli 1941 in Smederevska Palanka geweigert haben
soll, an einer Erschießung von 16 Partisanen teilzunehmen, wofür er selber hingerichtet
worden sei. Der Vorgang ist angezweifelt worden (Heiner Lichtensteinlxxvi, Albert Rückerl,
Friedrich Stahl) da Expertisen der Zentralen Untersuchungsstelle Ludwigsburg und des
Freiburger Militärarchivs belegen, daß Schulz schon einen Tag vorher gefallen ist - bereits um
2.00 morgens des 20.7.1941 war der Tod beim Armeeoberkommando gemeldet worden, den
Angehörigen wurde ein Photo zugesandt. Eingewandt wird seitdem, daß mit dem Fall Schulz
ein Exempel für „Befehlsnotstand“ statuiert würde. Tatsächlich aber fand der Schulz-Mythos
vor allem in Jugoslawien selbst viele Anhänger -und nur deswegen konnte er sich entfalten-,
sowie insbesondere bei jenen Deutschen, denen eine Verständigung mit Jugoslawien und den
Serben am Herzen lag. Der Dichter Antonije Iskaović hat die Erschießung in Palanka als
Augenzeuge miterlebt und in einer Erzählung „Satovi“ beschrieben, nennt jedoch nur 16
erschossene und erwähnt einen deutschen Soldaten nicht, berichtet aber Bilder von der
Erschießung schon 1945 in einer Ausstellung der Kommission für Kriegsverbrechen in
Belgrad gesehen zu haben.lxxvii Laut der Erzählung des Direktors jener Mineralwasserfabrik,
auf dessen Grundstück die Erschiessung stattfand (damals eine Kaserne), Časlav Vlajić, habe
man bei Exhumierungen nach dem Krieg, bei denen er als Schüler dabi gewesen sei,
Stiefelnägel und Teile eines Koppelschlosses gefunden- offenbar ein deutscher Soldat, die
Erkennungsmarke sei damals verloren gegangen. Die Geschichte eines Soldaten, der sich aus
ethischen Gründen gegen seine Mitstreiter wandte -ein klassischer Stoff der Heldenliteraturhabe
man auf dem 1947 errichten Denkmal dokumentieren wollen, dazu habe man den
Namen eines damals erschossenen Arbeiters aus Kroatien, Marsel Mezic in Marcel Masel
-11-
“germanisiert”- wegen des fremd klingenden Vornamens nahm man an, er sei deutscher
Abstammung. Jedenfalls taucht die Geschichte über den erschossenen Deutschen 1961 in der
jugoslawischen Presse auflxxviii, im Dezember deselben Jahres wurden Photos aus den
Beständen des Militärarchivs, datiert auf den 20.7.1941, in der deutschen Presse abgedruckt
(Neuen Illustrierte, 1966 auch in Quick)lxxix: Sie zeigen im Rahmen einer Geiselerschießung
im ländlichen Raum unscharf einen „deutschen Soldaten dessen Abzeichen nicht erkennbar
sind“. Ohne Helm und ohne Kopel, möglichwerweise auf dem Rücken gefesselt, wird er
anscheinend in die Reihe der Opfer geschickt. Die Illustrierten wandten sich mit der Frage an
die deutschen Leser, wer sich an diese Begebenheit erinnern könne. Der Film soll, so der
Angestellte des Archivs in Palanka, bei einem lokalen Fotografen entwickelt worden und bei
der Verlegung der Einheit an die Ostfront zurückgelassen worden sein. Eigenartig ist, daß die
Heimatchroniken von Palanka zwar die Bilder abdrucken, den Fall Schulz aber nicht
schildern.lxxx Der SPD- Bundestagsabgeordnete Wilderich Freiher Ostmann von der Leye
„identifizierte“ anhand des Kriegstagebuchs des Kommandeurs der 714. Infanteriedivision,
Generalmajor Stahl, das Photo mit der Erschießung in Palanka und den Erschossenen mit dem
an diesem Tag gefallenen Schulz- das Tagebuch Stahls hatte Ostmann, von dessen Sohn,
inzwischen Leiter des Freiburger Militärarchivs, erhalten.lxxxi Ostmann, seit 1969 SPDBundestagsabgeordneter,
spürte Schulzens Bruder Walter auf und regte 1972 dessen
Jugoslawien-Reise an. Mit den Photos und der Geschichte konfrontiert, wollte Schulz seinen
Bruder identifiziert haben. Doch Kameraden von Schulz´ versicherten in der Wuppertaler
Tageszeitung sie hätten gesehen wie dieser durch Partisanen gefallen seilxxxii, ein Gutachten
der Zentralen Ermittlungsstelle von 1972 bestritt den Fall explizit. Direktor Vlajić,
deutschsprachig und Interviewpartner vieler Medien, stand damals in geschäftlichem Kontakt
mit deutschen Firmen; gegenüber dem Autor gab er zu, daß er mit dem „Fall Schulz“ auch
touristische Ziele verfolgt habe. In serbischen Zeitungen erzählt er heute, er halte die Sache
„noch immer für ein großes Rätsel“.lxxxiii Als Augenzeuge wurde nach diesen Zweifeln
Zvonimr Janković ins Feld geführt; er habe gesehen wie ein Offizier mit einem
protestierenden Deutschen ohne Abzeichen zornig und „mit verstärkter Lautstärke“
gesprochen habe. Passend zur Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen wurde Schulz von
beiden Seiten zum Symbol des „anderen Deutschland“ aufgebaut; in Jugoslawien, wo die
Geschichte in viele Publikationenlxxxiv und sogar die Schulbücherlxxxv eingegangen ist, wohl
auch als Ausweg aus den anti-deutschen Affekten der Nachkriegszeit, die den Erfahrungen
der Jüngeren und den wirtschaftlichen Erfordernissen nicht mehr entsprachen. Damit hatten
nun beide deutschen Staaten ihre „guten Deutschen“ für symbolsche Rituale gefunden, die
DDR im Gedenken an die linken Volksdeutschen und Überläufer in Mikleuš, „Bonn“
hingegen in Schulz in Smedervska Palanka. Predrag Golubović hat über Schulz 1972 einen
Kurzfilm gedreht (ursprünglich für den Armee- Filmdienst „Zastava“), der im Vorprogramm
der Kinos lief und 1973 auf dem Festival in Oberhausen (sowie in Atlanta, Birmingham u.a.)
gezeigt wurde. Der Film stellt die Szene der umstrittenen Photos nach. Bemerkenswert ist,
daß hier und in Reportagen der Einwand wegen der fehlenden Abzeichen auf der Uniform in
einer theatralischen Degradierungsszene verarbeitet wurde. Die Landeszentrale für politische
Bildung NRW verbreitete den Filmlxxxvi, auch der NDR arbeitete an einer Produktion. Mira
Alečković vefasste eine Dichtung über den Helden, nicht realisiert wurde die Absicht eine
Straße nach Schulz zu bennenen. Ende der siebziger Jahre machte sich jedoch Unmut breit:
Als die Künstlerin „Duša“ Mina Kovačević 1978 in ihrem Garten in Gornji Lokva bei
Milanovac ein Denkmal für Schulz aufstellte, entrüsteten sich der Altpartisanenverband und
lokale Politiker. Es entbrannte ein bis 1981 währender Rechtsstreit -der mit der Niederlage
der Künsterlin- endete: Ganz offiziell hieß es von der Gemeindebehörde und den „Kämpfern“,
ein Denkmal für einen ausländischen Soldaten, und besonders für einen Deutschen, könne
ohne Rücksicht auf dessen Heroismus, nicht Teil einer „organisierten gesellschaftlichen
-12-
Aktion“ sein. Unterstützung erhielt die Künstlerin von der Kultur-Erzeihungsgemeinschaft
und Schriftstellern aus Belgrad. Schließlich wandte sie sich an den deutschen Botschafter um
Hilfe; der Stern wurde auf „die Engstirnigkeit der Genossen aus dem serbischen Hinterwald“
aufmerksam.lxxxvii Horst Grabert legte im Sommer 1981 zusammen mit dem jugoslawischen
Außenminister Vrbovec Kränze nieder, welcher kurz darauf gegenüber Genscher erklärte
ganz Jugoslawien sei auf der Seite von Schulz.lxxxviii Doch Ludwigsburg informierte die
deutsche Botschaft von der Unstimmigkeit der Schulz-Legende. Grabert gab sich unbeirrt:
Mit Blick auf den Zeugen Janković und weitere Indizien erklärte er, man möge verstehen, daß
er „den hiesigen Überzeugungen nicht widersprechen möchte“. lxxxix Im Vorwort zum Buch
von Kühnrich-Hitze (1997) kam Grabert wieder auf den Fall zurück und wartete nun mit der
Wertung auf, es habe sich um einen „gläubigen Katholiken“ gehandelt.xc Auch in
jugoslawischen Zeitungen werden seit einem Besuch von Politika-Journalisten bei Walter
Schulz 1973 immer wieder Einzelheiten nachgelegt, man betont sein künsterisches Talent, er
sei sogar Mitglied einer geheimen anti-Hitler Organisation gewesen. Nur wenige Meter vom
Denkmal wurde Anfang der achtziger Jahre ein weiteres errichtet, welches den Nachnamen
des Dalmatiners wieder in der urspüngliche Schreibweise brachte, und nun mit Schulz 17
Namen nannte. Im Zusammenhang mit dem Krieg am Balkan und der Wehrmachtsaustellung
erhielt der Fall Schulz erneut Konjunktur, Kriegsdienstverweigerer, Pax Christixci und SPDPolitikerxcii
beriefen sich auf sein Beispiel; der in Amsterdam lebende serbische Bildhauer
Slavomir Miletić wollte ein Denkmal für Schulz schaffen . Zuletzt trat am 20.7.1997
Botschafter Wilfried Gruber am Denkmal (und anschließend im Fernsehen) auf. Bei der
Zeremonie lobte der Vertreter des Altpartisanenverbandes, das Buch von Kühnrich/Hitze, die
Wehrmachtsaustellung - und nutze die Gelegenheit einzuschärfen, Jugoslawien wünsche
Beziehungen auf der Grundlage territorialer Integrität und Nichteinmischung in „innere
Angelegenheiten“, welche „jedes Land nach seinen Erfordernissen, Traditionen und Kulturen
löse“. xciii Mehr als in Deutschland ist Schulz in Serbien selbst ein im kollektiven Gedächtnis
abrufbares Symbol geworden, seine Wirkungsgeschichte ist vom Wahrheitsgehalt unabhängig
geworden : Der Vorsitzende der Liga der Sozialdemokraten in der Vojvodina Nenad Čanak
rief zur Zeit der Demonstrationen im Oktober 1999 die serbischen Polizisten dazu auf, dem
Beispiel des Josef Schulz zu folgen und sich, wie dieser in „Kragujevac“, auf die Seite des
Volkes zu stellen und dem Protest anschließen. xciv - Über Schulz sind in Jugoslawien im
Laufe von fast 40 Jahren Dutzende von Zeitungsartiklen verfasst worden, von denen sich fast
alle gegenüber den Einwänden von wissenschaftlicher Seite immun oder reserviert zeigten.xcv
1981 wurde von Borislav Komad die biographische Essaysammlung „Privi Pucanj u Hitlera“
(Der erste Schuß auf Hitler) vorgestellt, die die Schulz-Debatte nachzeichnet und sich
außerdem in halb-romanhafter Form mit dem Schicksal der Belgrader Volksdeutschen
Leotina Kraus befasst, die 1942 ihre Hinrichtung anstelle des 18 jährigen Kommunisten Stojic
anbot- dessen Bild sie in der Zeitung gesehen hätte.xcvi

#144

Ouch, give me some time for this, please! :shock:

#145

However it was doubtlessly determined that PFC Schulz was killed the day before during a descent of partisans. This means, there is no case noted that a german soldier was shot because he refused to be involved in executions like the one in question…

Dobtlessly determined? Well, In that case I have two questions, honorable gentlemen:

  1. Where is the grave of PFC Schultz? (Clear snapshot of it will be highly appreciated!)

2)Where is the official death certificate, signed by officially appointed German officer, and confirmed by a divisional privy seal ? (Facsimile, or photo of it would be just fine!)

And please, gentlemen - take your time. We are not in a hurry.

#146

I can answer your question No. 1 immediately, Mr. Librarian: There is no known grave of Gefreiter Josef Schulz, born February 16, 1909 in Dortmund, killed on July 19, 1941 near Adzibegovac/Serbia.

Hooray for the modern internet options!
http://www.volksbund.de/graebersuche/content_ergebnis_detail.asp?id=3533498&sec_id=A68656FC1B45F071CD6F67ED93E42CC3980780CC

#147

Therefore it is completely possible that the very first place of his burial is on the very spot of the execution, isn’t it my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy?

#148

Certainly possible! But what about the date of July 19?
To solve this and coevally answer your second question I’d have to file an application to the Wehrmachtsauskunftsstelle (WASt) respectively Deutsche Dienststelle in Berlin. But this would take about 6 months before answered upon and costs about 25 euro, but it would be definitely worth that!

#149

Well, falsified dates are only a tiny part of the history of a governmental forgery, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy. Do you remember that highly known case with those “killed German officials” at Gleiwitz? You know… those nicely prepared activities of that good and utterly honest fellow Naujocks? If I remembered that case well, certain officially issued certificates were higly persuasive in those times…

And please, don’t worry – history is always a very slow and painstaking work! :wink:

#150

Agreed. But the Gleiwitz incident and Naujocks’ (aka Müller, Bonsen, Möbert) involvement was an excuse to start a war. I mean, all that effort for a little Private “gone astray”?

#151

Flamethrowerguy, if you can fill in the application to archive I am willing to pay for it provided it costs €30 or so.:slight_smile:

#152

Oh, you are asking me now about factual motives, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy? Well, although we are here walking upon the slippery slope of a hypothetic guessing, we surely do have certain suggestions. So why not, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy if the stake in our case is a highly usable discreditation of the modern history of the Balkans in genera, as well as the credibility of those generally exceptionally wild and extremely murderous commie bastards – in partibus infidelium?

Why to Hell we have to care about the preservation of a potentially dangerous example of the supra-national brotherhood? Alternatively, about the ethical capacity of a single soldier to disobey his direct orders in non-standardized circumstances? Or about that infectuous and malignant, deeply humanistic example capable to undermine otherwise not so towering quality of the German occupational troops? To hell with all that – our brand new vacuous revisionism will be able to cure all those potentially dangerous and terrifying authenticities! We will ruine all those childlike archetypes of completely unusable humanity! Our new age, our freshly wrought functional utilitarism requires that in this sadly complicated world of ours.

After all, my dear Mr. Flamethroverguy – what if someone (like that unknown German NCO who actually shot his stubborn and indocile soldier, or a or a regimental commander, or someone else) was anxious in relation to certain… legal and especially ethical consequences? In the end - that is completely possible as well.

But all those issues are completely insignificant in our case, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy. Fortunately, applied science and human intelligence will be capable to resolve this little quandary we have here. You see, those stubborn, ill-fated Serbian idiots do have certain material artifacts - bones, sealed carcasses, real-world material and human remnants - totally suitable for a truly scientific examination. As a consequence, the path for a full-scale, unabridged hard-science exploration will be completely available.

Like in this tiny factographic example, that was discovered in 1943 in a rucksack of the German soldier, with a truly gorgeous and poetic inscription:

Baumblüte in Serbien, Frühling 1941 - Tree blossom in Serbia, spring of 1941

Of course, authenticity of the original photo will be completely verifiable by hard-science means, more precisely by neutron –activation analyses at the FBI Crime Lab.

BTW: if you are interested, and if you do have a really strong stomach, I shall present some pretty unknown photos for you. All of them are connected with our main theme in this thread, and all of them are connected with the German activities. Not to mention that all of them were taken in the former Yugoslavia.

I am assuring you that up until now you have not seen a real-war atrocities.

Therefore – just relax, give me a whistle and don’t worry – my photo repository is bottomless. :slight_smile:

As always – all the best.

#153

Well, Mr. Librarian, I guess I’ve never experienced you that wound-up here! Anyway, I don’t want you to get the impression that I foreclose that the Schulz-case did happen they way yugoslavian sources report…or that I am denying german war crimes and atrocities on the Balkans generally here. Like you and Egorka I am anxious to know the whole truth about Josef Schulz and I was just bringing in german sources here (and not even revisionist ones), just collecting all available sources.
If I didn’t get the bigger political picture of it all…well, most likely for I try to keep away from politics as much as I can and do not know too much about it.

BTW: if you are interested, and if you do have a really strong stomach, I shall present some pretty unknown photos for you. All of them are connected with our main theme in this thread, and all of them are connected with the German activities. Not to mention that all of them were taken in the former Yugoslavia. I am assuring you that up until now you have not seen a real-war atrocities. Therefore – just relax, give me a whistle and don’t worry – my photo repository is bottomless.

Uhm, thanx but no, thanx. The “serbian spring impressions” and the beheadings you uploaded a couple of months ago are totally sufficient for my taste.

in partibus infidelium

Why is that? Orthodox yes, unbeliever no.

#154

The American History Channel said that the regular German Army could refuse to help the SS in their murdering acts and did from time to time.

It was never part of the Regular Army Corp rule book. Therefore on a few occasions the commanding officer of a Regular Unit did not take part in the murders.

It probably meant moving to the Eastern Front,:slight_smile: but the units’ commanding officer could refuse. I doubt a enlisted man could but he might have appealed to a good regular army commander.

#155

Thank you, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy for your sincere clarification – as always, reasonable people always will be able to remain in sagacity within the boundaries of reason. :slight_smile:

I’m also sure that you will be able to understand my personal stance in this whole issue.

I was infinitely saddened to discover myself unexpectedly surrounded by a sense of some… terrible loss of nerve, some kind of a retreat from positive scientific knowledge into interpretability of uncorroborated claims. We are both members of a scientific civilization. That means, a civilization in which factual knowledge and its integrity are crucial. And knowledge is not only a loose-leaf notebook of simple facts. Above all, it is a responsibility for the integrity of what we are, primarily of what we are as ethical creatures. The personal commitment of a man to his analytic skill, the intellectual commitment and the rational scientific equipment working together as one has made the history of humankind.

And history is not events, but people. And it is not just people remembering, it is people acting and living their past in the present. History is our everyday act of decision, which crystallizes all the knowledge, all the science, all the humanity, all that has been learned since man began.

That’s why I like it so much. And that’s why I am delighted being accompanied in that devotion by courteous and eloquent personalities like you.

As always – all the best! :wink:

#156

Otto Schimek (May 5, 1925 – November 14, 1944) was an Austrian soldier in the German Wehrmacht during World War II who served as a member of a firing squad. He was himself executed for refusing to carry out a death sentence on Poles. His actions have served as a source of inspiration to many Poles and pacifists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Schimek

#157

Raisin Sun* :slight_smile:

In the light of our previous discussion, how would you comment the following text?

[INDENT]source: www.ICRC.org - Commentary for Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

[i]There was no discussion, at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, on the Committee’s proposal (which did not include the second sentence of paragraph 3); the experience of the Second World War had [p.21] convinced all concerned that it was necessary. But the draft text said nothing about the relations between a belligerent, or belligerents, bound by the Conventions on the one hand, and a belligerent, or belligerents, not bound by it on the other hand. The ’ clausula si omnes ’ (4) which was included in the 1906 Geneva Convention – but which was never invoked during the First World War, although it might appropriately have been in the case of Montenegro – was omitted in 1929. But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument. The ideal solution would obviously have been that all the Parties to a conflict should be obliged to apply the Convention in all circumstances, i.e. even if the adversary was not a party to it, and despite the fact that the Convention would be a ’ res inter alios acta ’ for the latter.
There could be no question of reverting to the ’ clausula si omnes ', which had fortunately been abandoned in recent times, since it no longer corresponded to humanitarian needs. The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 Database ‘IHL - Treaties & Comments’, View ‘1.Traités \1.2. Par Article’ that “in time of war, if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto”. Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force of which they had been deprived by the solutions adopted at the Peace Conferences. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.
Although from the legal point of view there was no way to extend the scope of the Convention, it was necessary to find one on the humanitarian plane. The Committee accordingly suggested to the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 that the following two sentences be added to Article 2 Database ‘IHL - Treaties & Comments’, View ‘1.Traités \1.2. Par Article’:

“In the event of an international conflict between one of the High Contracting Parties and a Power which is not bound by the present Convention, the Contracting Party shall apply the provisions thereof. This obligation shall stand unless, after a reasonable lapse of time, the Power not bound by the present Convention states its refusal to apply it, or in fact fails to apply it.” (5)[/i][/INDENT]

I am lost. At one point it supports your position but an other - mine…

#158

Do not trifle with me, little one, for I am about to be elevated from a raisin to a sultana. :smiley: (Which could be a bit awkward, as in another context a sultana is a sultan’s missus. :shock: )

Clearly, you have had little to do with lawyers.

Our stock in trade is “On one hand… , but on the other hand…”. This ensures that we advise the client of all possibilities and are correct whatever happens and, most importantly, cannot be sued for negligent advice. :wink:

More seriously, my reading of your ICRC quote is that it recognises the problem of conflict between a contracting and non-contracting party and ultimately attempts to resolve it by requiring a contracting party to observe the Convention until it becomes clear from an explicit refusal or failure to observe the Convention by the non-contracting party that the latter will not observe it.

This then creates the curious situation that a contracting party may act contrary to the Convention because the other side is doing so, which rather cuts the high moral ground out from under the contracting party.

This illustrates one of the central problems in international law, which is that it is based on the notion of sovereign states not being able to be subjected to another or higher jurisdiction unless they voluntarily submit to it. If we applied the same rules to people within those states then those states would be ungovernable. The difference is that within a state there is a legal system which is enforced by various mechanisms of the state, such as police, courts and prisons, but there are no corresponding international mechanisms. The nearest is the UN and the International Court of Justice, but they still come back to issues of sovereignty and submission to jurisdiction by sovereign states, further corrupted by the Security Council being hamstrung in many instances by political rather than humanitarian or other high motives determining votes.

#159

OK. Thanks!
Well the quote I presented is coments on the Convention of 1949. So the rule that a contracting party should follow the convention during war with a non contracting party until the later one makes a declaration, is only applicable to the document of 1949.

About the document of 1929 it sais: “But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument.”
Which is explicit enough… Right?

#160

I’m not sure.

Surprising though it may seem for a ferocious intellect like mine ;), I don’t keep a stock of international conventions on my bedside table to lull me off to sleep each night, although reading a few paragraphs of such turgid documents ought to put a chronic insomniac to sleep in no time. :smiley:

My comment was responding to your ICRC quote, which in the sentence preceding the final paragraph says only that the final paragraph was suggested. I don’t know if that suggestion was adopted.

Right.

Even if the suggestion for the 1949 Convention was implemented, it still leaves open the question of enforcement.

As a general legal principle which I’ve mentioned earlier, only parties to a contract may enforce it.

So, if Upper Duodenum is not a party to one of these conventions and Lower Bowel is, and Lower Bowel goes through Upper Duodenum like a dose of salts and breaches every provision of a convention, Upper Duodenum has no standing to complain.

Unless one of the contracting parties wants to make an issue of Lower Bowel’s breach of the convention, then Lower Bowel will get away with it.

Even if one of the contracting parties makes an issue of it, which is the proper forum (court etc) to determine the matter? After the UN was established, it’s presumably the International Court of Justice.

Yeah, right!

The previous international law position is preserved, that sovereign states can be judged only if they submit to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, which usually won’t happen when a state knows it’s in the wrong.

This all comes back to the notion of states being sovereign and, in effect, deciding to which laws and tribunals they will submit.

I wish I had the same luxury on, among other things, traffic laws. :frowning: