9

There's been some debate online about footage of POWs talking to the camera to say more than name, rank, and serial number, but has there been any serious academic writing on the limits of the "public curiosity" part in Geneva Convention III in a modern era? For instance if a POW insists on giving an interview, can they be considered to have given consent, or is that not something they can legally do while still imprisoned since it's impossible for outside observers to determine how genuine the consent is? Like when Jeremiah Denton was blinking out "TORTURE" in morse code, obviously his being tortured and forced in front of the camera was a violation, but was the simple act of him being on television at all also a Geneva violation?

Some further things I've seen people bring up:

  • Does it matter if it's state TV or independent media?
  • I've seen people saying that you can't violate the Geneva Conventions if you're not a nation since private citizens and corporations, but if that's true then why do so many non-nations have to worry about accidentally using Red Cross symbolism?
  • If taking the footage itself is a violation, what about sharing it or rebroadcasting it?

Obviously encouraging captives to say nice things about you on TV maybe aren't as important as, like, bombing hospitals, and the Geneva Conventions seem to technically get violated kind of a lot, but it still seems important to determine

2

2 Answers 2

4

There is no unambiguous prohibition in the Geneva Conventions about releasing videos of POWs. It's difficult to prove a negative, but I think we can defer to common sense here; to begin with, North Vietnam then and Ukraine today would not have released those videos if doing so was an obvious war crime. But also, at the times the conventions were drafted (the last in 1949), video interviews were unheard of or incredibly rare.

But there is a concern broadly that under the right conditions, the release of videos of POWs can sometimes violate Article 13, which prohibits subjecting POWs to "insults and public curiosity."

Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

At the time this was drafted, this would have been understood to mean literally parading POWs on public display for propaganda reasons. But in the age of mass media, some have raised concerns that POW videos serve the same purpose. Notably, in 2003, the Human Rights Watch criticized both the Iraqis and the Americans on this basis:

This provision protecting POWs from “public curiosity” appears to have been violated by both the Iraqi and the U.S. governments. The Iraqi government has filmed American POWs and interrogated them before cameras. The U.S. government has taken insufficient measures to prevent journalists embedded with U.S. forces from filming Iraqi POWs held by the United States.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has appropriately criticized the Iraqi filming of American POWs. However, he has said nothing to date about the filming of Iraqi POWs by media operating alongside U.S. forces.

There's no clear red line of when a video becomes prohibited, but the surrounding language suggests the provision is about protecting prisoners from humiliation or intimidation. If a POW is genuinely okay with giving an interview or being on camera, and if it's not being done in a way that would humiliate him, it's probably above board. The reasons some have concerns about the Ukraine videos is it's pretty much impossible to determine in real-time when these sorts of videos are coerced.

To some of your other questions:

  • Does it matter if it's state TV or independent media? I would think no, because the provision in question demands that state affirmatively protect POWs, not just from themselves, but third-parties.

  • I've seen people saying that you can't violate the Geneva Conventions if you're not a nation since private citizens and corporations, but if that's true then why do so many non-nations have to worry about accidentally using Red Cross symbolism? Because the countries themselves have an obligation to stop private parties from improperly using the Red Cross. From the 1929 conventions: "The Governments of the High Contracting Parties... shall adopt or propose to their legislatures the measures necessary to prevent at all times:(a) The use of the emblem or designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” by private individuals or associations, firms or companies..." So if I use the Red Cross improperly, I get in trouble with my nation. If my nation doesn't take steps to prevent it, they're the ones actually violating the Conventions. But I can't actually violate the Conventions.

  • If taking the footage itself is a violation, what about sharing it or rebroadcasting it? You personally are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so you're fine on that count. I suppose it's possible it could violate the letter of the laws of some countries. Even so, I'm skeptical any liberal democracy would take action, as it could discourage reporting on the conditions of POWs, which is a net good.

3
  • Thank you! The missing word was "using," although I suppose "appropriating" would've worked. Apr 7, 2022 at 15:24
  • "North Vietnam then and Ukraine today would not have released those videos if doing so was an obvious war crime." Why do you think that? An action from these countries can not be a war crime because those countries don't commit war crimes? I don't want to badmouth either of these countries, but this seems like circular reasoning.
    – Philipp
    Apr 7, 2022 at 15:27
  • 1
    Not so much circular as Occam's Razor. Generally, people and governments do not openly commit crime. Even the worst actors strive for plausible deniability and fig leaves. So if a nation does something in the open, the likeliest explanation is isn't unambiguously illegal. Apr 7, 2022 at 15:57
-1

For the first part of your question, in many countries the line between state-sponsored and state-permitted TV is hard to draw. And media usually needs a broadcast license to use public airwaves.

The second part of your question is easy, too:

Article 54
The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.

The states agreed to make the abouse of the Red Cross illegal in their domestic law. Details will vary, of course.

If the images are inappropriate, then the convention is being violated when the captors allow prisoners to be filmed. Or just gawked at by the public. Just when pictures of prisoners become inappropriate seems to be a bit of a gray area. Showing them during an emotional breakdown, or being abused, seems certainly inappropriate.

2
  • 1
    Thanks! Do you have any input on the main question, like if the prisoner is calmly talking to a camera is that ever ok? Mar 7, 2022 at 23:18
  • @electron.rotoscope, as I understand there are conditions where this is OK. But it is not just about calmness.
    – o.m.
    Mar 8, 2022 at 6:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .