I will answer this in a round about way so please forgive me.
First, here is my straight answer. From a de jure standpoint, no they are not.
The de facto obligations are much more interesting and nuanced in my opinion. An actor may chose to abide by the rules in a de facto manner because they face the threat and enforcement of punitive measures of a more powerful nation should they lose. The flip is certainly true as well. If a powerful nation does not feel threatened by the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty, they will be apt to break it. The Unites States is a prime example here. We push for other to obey the Geneva Convention, but in our own conflicts some of our actions push the boundaries. We realize we are powerful enough that enforcement will not entangle us.
Furthermore, if it did a powerful and hegemonic nation like the U.S. may just release itself from the treaty. Think of the United States and the International Criminal Court. We push for people to abide by the statues and punishments handed out by court but we are not members. We stepped out after an unfavorable decision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice)
Finally, the case of non-state aligned actors adds something to the mix as well. If a state actor is fighting a non-state actor (i.e. terrorist group), how can one define the conflict and both parties?
So with that explanation I believe participation comes down to three major factors, of which I am open to criticism
1) degree of future punitive action
2) degree of hegemony by actors
3) degree of state affiliation