deal with that pressing problem and not waste time on irrelevancies. Questions involving the rules of war would be dealt with by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law to be held at Geneva from February 20 to March 29, 1974. Her Government had supported the detailed preparations made for that Conference and hoped that it would lead to significant results, such as the adoption of measures to protect noncombatants including, of course, women and children. The draft in document E/CN.6/L.672/Rev.1 covered issues already being dealt with elsewhere, distracted the Commission's attention from its own particular and urgent tasks, and concentrated on only certain types of armed conflict. It had not been the subject of careful analysis and study and contained various inaccurate statements concerning existing conventions. The subject matter purported to be covered by the text was too serious and too delicate for hasty and summary treatment. It was not possible to develop international criminal law by merely listing a series of acts and blithely stating that they "shall be considered criminal." By purporting to develop legal norms in that fashion, the Commission not only wasted time. but ran the risk of weakening the fabric of international law and rendering a disservice to the very interests it desired to protect. Her delegation could not, therefore, support the text.

U.N. Doc. E/CN.6/SR.622, May 13, 1974, pp. 87-88. The draft was approved by the Economic and Social Council in its Res. 1861 (LVI) of May 16, 1974, and by the General Assembly in Res. 3318 (XXIX), adopted on Dec. 14, 1974. The operative portion of the resolution, as finally approved by the General Assembly, is as follows:

1. Attacks and bombings on the civilian population, inflicting incalculable suffering, especially on women and children, who are the most vulnerable members of the population, shall be prohibited, and such acts shall be condemned.

2. The use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in the course of military operations constitute one of the most flagrant violations of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the principles of international humanitarian law and inflict heavy losses on civilian populations, including defenceless women and children, and shall be severely condemned.

3. All states shall abide fully by their obligations under the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as other instruments of international law relative to respect for human rights in armed conflicts, which offer important guarantees for the protection of women and children.

4. All efforts shall be made by states involved in armed conflicts, military operations in foreign territories and in territories still under colonial domination to spare women and children from the ravages of war. All the necessary steps shall be taken to ensure the prohibition of measures such as persecution, torture, punitive measures, degrading treatment and violence, particularly against that part of the civilian population that consists of women and children.

5. All forms of repression and cruel and inhuman treatment of women and children, including imprisonment, torture, shooting, mass arrests, collective punishment, destruction of dwellings and forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories shall be considered criminal.

6. Women and children belonging to the civilian population and finding themselves in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict in the struggle for peace, self-determination, national liberation and independence, or who live in occupied territories, shall not be deprived of shelter, food, medical aid or

other inalienable rights, in accordance with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child or other instruments of international law.

On December 6, 1974, Robert L. Rosenstock, U.S. Representative in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, made a statement on the draft. The following is the U.N. summary:

Mr. Rosenstock . . . said that his delegation, too, sympathized with the apparent motives of those who had sponsored the draft resolution reproduced in document A/C.6/L.1009. He regretted that it had not been possible for the Coinmittee to consider the draft resolution from a legal standpoint. Paragraph 2 inaccurately attributed to certain conventions areas of concern which did not fall within their purview and suggested that there had been violations of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Paragraph 3 contained the assertion that states were bound by conventions to which they were not parties. Paragraph 4 advocated the protection of only a part of the civilian population, namely women and children, and implied that violence committed against persons other than women and children was acceptable.

In paragraph 5 there was a list of actions which were to be considered criminal, with no hint as to what was meant thereby. Paragraph 6 provided for the protection from inhuman treatment of women and children who found themselves in certain specific circumstances, thus implying that women and children in other situations were not to be afforded the same protection.

The draft resolution bore no relation to the law as it stood, being both too broad and too narrow to be acceptable in law. Moreover, it was couched in terms which could ensure that it would not be widely regarded as establishing legal principles. For those reasons, his delegation has been unable to support the draft resolution.

U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR. 1519, Dec. 10, 1974, pp. 8-9.

On September 25, 1974, Ronald J. Bettauer, a Deputy Assistant Legal Adviser in the Department of State and Acting Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the Lucerne Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, made a statement to the Conference which include the following on indiscriminate effects:

the law of war also prohibits attacks on civilians and civilian objects as such. This unchallenged principle is that civilians (and persons hors de combat) whether in occupied territory or elsewhere must not be made the object of attack. The law of war also prohibits attacks which, though directed at lawful military targets, entail a high risk of incidental civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects which is disproportionate to the military advantage sought to be secured by the attack.

Regarding the second criterion, it is sometimes maintained that weapons are inherently indiscriminate in that they are likely to affect civilians or civilian objects even when they are aimed at legitimate military objectives. For example, it is argued that delayed weapons are indiscriminate because the chances are very high that civilians will be injured. Such weapons are also occasionally alleged to be "treacherous," but normally, the prohibition against treachery refers mainly to treacherous or perfidious conduct and is not generally germane to the question of the legality of particular weapons under international law.

Even under this view, one is again led into making difficult and subjective comparisons. It is not the destruction of civilian objects or the injury to civilians incidental to attacks on legitimate military objectives alone which determines the legality of the weapon or weapon system used. Rather, it is the extent to which the incidental damage is reasonably foreseeable and disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated. Again, since it is impossible to quantify these factors and in order to reach some degree of consensus on when the standard has been met, it is usually stated in terms of the risk of civilian loss being "clearly" disproportionate to the military advantages anticipated.

Dept. of State File L/OES. See also supra, pp. 707–708.

Accounting for Dead and Missing in Action

On October 21, 1974, Senator Charles H. Percy, U.S. Representative to the Third Committee on the U.N. General Assembly, introduced a draft resolution on behalf of the United States and several other countries, concerning assistance and cooperation in accounting for persons dead or missing in armed conflicts. The text of the resolution, as adopted by the General Assembly on November 6, 1974 (G.A. Res. 3220 (XXIX)) by a vote of 95-0-32, is as follows:

The General Assembly,

Recalling that one of the purposes of the United Nations is the promotion of international cooperation in solving international problems of humanitarian character,

Regretting that, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the resort to force has continued to occur, causing loss of human lives, widespread devastation and other forms of human suffering,

Reaffirming that it is one of the fundamental obligations of Member States to ensure and promote international peace and security by preventing or ending armed conflicts,

Recognizing that one of the tragic results of armed conflicts is the lack of information on persons, civilians as well as combatants, who are missing or dead in armed conflicts,

Noting with satisfaction resolution V, adopted by the twenty-second International Conference of the Red Cross held at Teheran from

October 28 to November 15, 1973, calling on parties to armed conflicts to accomplish the humanitarian task of accounting for the missing and dead in armed conflicts,

Bearing in mind the inadmissibility of a refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949,

Reaffirming the urgent need to ensure full adherence to, and effective implementation of, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the protection of war victims by all states, and in particular those signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949,

Considering that the desire to know the fate of loved ones lost in armed conflicts is a basic human need which should be satisfied to the greatest extent possible, and that provision of information on those who are missing or who have died in armed conflicts should not be delayed merely because other issues remain pending,

1. Reaffirms the applicability of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to all armed conflicts as stipulated by those Conventions;

2. Calls on parties to armed conflicts, regardless of their character or location, during and after the end of hostilities and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to take such action as may be within their power to help locate and mark the graves of the dead, to facilitate the disinterment and the return of remains, if requested by their families, and to provide information about those who are missing in action;

3. Appreciates the continuing efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross to assist in the task of accounting for the missing and dead in armed conflicts;

4. Calls on all parties to armed conflicts to cooperate in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 with protecting powers or their substitutes, and with the International Committee of the Red Cross, in providing information on the missing and dead in armed conflicts, including persons belonging to other countries not parties to the armed conflict;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of the second session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts.

See U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.2110/Rev. 2, Oct. 28, 1974. Senator Percy, in a statement to the Third Committee on Oct. 21, 1974, said in part:

It is appropriate and timely also for the United Nations to state concern on this subject, to give notice to all that accounting for the missing and dead in armed conflicts is a humanitarian subject, of universal concern, and a matter which should be kept separate from political and military aspects of armed conflicts. It is hoped that approval of this Resolution will remind parties to armed conflicts that the interests of humanity as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 require that they make serious and timely efforts to account for the dead and missing.

I repeat-it is a consideration that applies to both sides, and without regard to the character or location of a conflict. It applies to civilians as well as to military personnel-and to such special categories as journalists, whose protection has also been the subject of special consideration. The Resolution concludes by asking the Secretary-General to bring it to the attention of the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law, which resumes work in Feb569-769-75 47

ruary 1975, in Geneva. It would be our hope that this Diplomatic Conference will be able to agree on improved methods for accounting for the missing and dead in armed conflicts.

Press Release USUN-136 (74), pp. 3-4; U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.2069, Oct. 24, 1974, pp. 9-10; the full text of the resolution adopted by the International Conference of the Red Cross at Teheran on Nov. 14, 1973, is at Id., p. 3. The draft resolution introduced by Senator Percy was cosponsored by Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Germany (Federal Republic), Honduras, Italy. Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Turkey.

United Nations Peacekeeping Forces

U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF)

On April 8, 1974, the U.N. Security Council extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) for a period of six months. The vote was 13-0-0, with China and Iraq not participating in the voting. Ambassador John Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, made a statement to the Security Council after the vote. He said, in part:

the United States welcomes the extension of the United Nations Emergency Force and its mandate for another six months. This resolution assures the continued operation of UNEF under its original mandate as approved by Security Council Resolution 341. The Secretary-General supported and recommended the mandate be reaffirmed in paragraphs 68 and 69 of his most recent report on the United Nations Emergency Force. The United States shall continue to extend its full support to the efforts of the United Nations Emergency Force to implement its mandate and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

We are pleased that the performance of the United Nations and the Emergency Force has added new luster to the United Nations as an organization vital to the promotion of international peace. The Force has played an indispensable role in reestablishing peace in the Middle East. It has made possible the implementation of the cease-fire ordered by the Security Council last October, and the subsequent Egyptian/Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces. Indeed it is difficult to exaggerate the constructive part played by the United Nations Emergency Force in these important first steps