Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:16:54.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The emblem that cried wolf: ICRC study on the use of the emblems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

Baptiste Rolle  and
Edith Lafontaine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ICRC Study on Operational and Commercial and Other Non-operational Issues Involving the Use of the Emblems (‘the Emblem Study’) is an efficient and user-friendly tool to tackle issues regarding the use of the emblems of the red cross, red crescent, and red crystal. This article presents the Emblem Study's origin and objectives, and explains the structure and the methodology followed in its preparation. Recurrent questions regarding joint use of emblems and other signs are also examined, in order to demonstrate the Emblem Study's potential as an analytical and practical tool. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to avoid diluting the protective value of the emblems by maintaining a distinction between those entitled to use the emblems, their partners, and other players in the humanitarian field.

Type
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 91 , Issue 876: International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent , December 2009 , pp. 759 - 778
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 As of August 2009, there were 186 National Societies recognized by the ICRC and thereby members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

2 Cited in François Bugnion, Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, ICRC, Geneva, 2007, p. 111.

3 The term ‘emblem’ in this article refers to either the red cross, the red crescent, the red crystal, or the red lion and sun (the latter has not been used, however, since the Islamic Republic of Iran's declaration on 4 September 1980 expressing the wish to use the red crescent as its distinctive emblem instead of the red lion and sun).

4 Regulations on the Use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent by the National Societies (‘1991 Emblem Regulations’), 20th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Vienna, 1965, as revised by the Council of Delegates, Budapest, 1991, Art. 1.

5 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. I, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952 (hereafter Commentary on GC I), p. 380, Art. 53.

6 In the fable, a little shepherd boy who was tired of watching the village sheep alone on the hill cried out ‘Wolf! Wolf! There's a wolf!’ All the villagers ran to help him but soon realized that it was just a trick. Though warned not to cry out if there was no wolf, the boy repeated his trick. Finally, when a wolf really did come to attack the sheep, the boy's cries were ignored, demonstrating that ‘nobody believes a liar, even when he is telling the truth’.

7 Statutes of the Movement, adopted by the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in Geneva in 1986, amended in 1995 and 2006, Art. 12.

8 Council of Delegates, Geneva, 2001, Resolution 3.

9 Council of Delegates, Seoul, 2005, Resolution 6.

10 It is important to bear in mind that international humanitarian law – and not the emblem itself – grants protection to the persons or objects displaying the emblem. Yet the emblem is the visible manifestation of such protection, which explains why the present article refers to its ‘protective value’.

11 E.g. the annual meeting of National Societies' legal advisers organized by the ICRC, meetings of the European Legal Support Group and of the European Public Support Group, etc.

12 E.g. through the national inter-ministerial committees for the implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL), which are competent to promote, advise on, and co-ordinate all matters relating to the implementation of IHL at national level and to compliance with and development of the law. Such bodies are usually composed of representatives of all government departments concerned with IHL, the judicial and legislative branches, and the National Societies.

13 Council of Delegates, Geneva, 2007, Resolution 7, para. 8, emphasis in original.

14 Council of Delegates, Nairobi, 2009, Resolution 2, preamble and para. 9.

15 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 5.

16 This topic is dealt with in Question 2 of the Emblem Study in particular.

17 Commentary on GC I, above note 5, p. 334, Art. 44. The same rule emphasized in this quotation applies, of course, to all recognized emblems.

18 This topic is dealt with in Question 3 of the Emblem Study in particular.

19 The possibility of a temporary change of emblem must nevertheless be approached with the utmost seriousness. The competent military authority should always bear the following in mind:

  1. 1.

    1. The gain in terms of security (for the medical services that are considering temporarily changing emblems and for the other medical services and National Society present in the given situation) must be extremely carefully assessed.

  2. 2.

    2. The protection of those who are allowed to display the emblem should be the only appropriate motive for changing it temporarily.

  3. 3.

    3. The temporary change of emblem by foreign armed forces (or a coalition of such forces) and their use of the emblem customary in the state where they are operating might create confusion, in the minds of opposing combatants and the population, between the foreign/coalition forces, the ‘host’ state's military medical services, and the host National Society.

  4. 4.

    4. Directly invoking the provisions of Protocol III may be legally difficult for states that have not ratified/acceded to it.

  5. 5.

    5. The decision to change the emblem may contravene the domestic legislation of the states taking that decision, and may have an effect on public opinion in those states.

This topic is dealt with in Question 1 of the Emblem Study in particular.

20 See Jean-François Quéguiner, ‘Commentary on the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 865, March 2007, p. 190. The commentary on Article 2(4) of Protocol III states: ‘It remains to be said that this paragraph authorizes the replacement of the usual emblem by only one other; it does not permit the substitution of the usual emblem by a combination of several other emblems side by side’.

21 This topic is dealt with in Question 27 of the Emblem Study in particular.

22 The term ‘international organization’ also encompasses regional organizations (NATO, African Union, etc.).

23 For instance, with regard to UN forces see UN Secretary-General (UNSG), Secretary-General's Bulletin: Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, 6 August 1999, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/451bb5724.html (last visited 16 March 2010). Article 9.7 of the Secretary-General's Bulletin states that: ‘The United Nations force shall in all circumstances respect the Red Cross and the Red Crescent emblems. These emblems may not be employed except to indicate or to protect medical units and medical establishments, personnel and material. Any misuse of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblems is prohibited’.

24 This topic is dealt with in Questions 12 and 13 of the Emblem Study in particular. The general question of the conditions under which a National Society may use the emblem as a protective device is dealt with in full detail in Question 4.

25 For an in-depth analysis, see the Emblem Study, Question 14.

26 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 1.

27 Such use is in accordance with Articles 26 and 44 of the First Geneva Convention of 1949. It is subject to the following conditions: the National Society must have been recognized by its own government authorities and authorized by them to assist the medical services of the armed forces of its own state; the emblem is to be used only by those National Society personnel, units, and equipment that are assisting the medical services of the armed forces, and are employed exclusively for the same purposes as the latter; and such National Society personnel, units, and equipment must have been placed under the authority of their own armed forces and be subject to their military laws and regulations. For an in-depth analysis, see the Emblem Study, Question 14.

28 Such use is in accordance with Articles 27, 40, and 42–44 of the First Geneva Convention of 1949. It is subject to the following conditions: the National Society must have obtained authorization to do so from that particular party to the conflict; the adversary of the state accepting the assistance of the National Society must have been notified of the consent of the state of origin (the state not party to the conflict); and the party to the conflict that is accepting such assistance must have notified its adverse party that it is doing so. For an in-depth analysis, see the Emblem Study, Question 14.

29 Such use is in accordance with Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. It is subject to the following conditions: the hospital must have been recognized as a civilian hospital within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention by the state party to the armed conflict in which the hospital is situated; and the hospital must have been authorized to use the emblem as a protective device by that state. For an in-depth analysis, see the Emblem Study, Question 14.

30 Such use is in accordance with Articles 8(c), (e), and (g), and 18 of Protocol I, and Articles 9, 11, and 12 of Protocol II. It is subject to the following conditions: the said personnel must be protected under international humanitarian law, i.e. they must correspond to the definition of ‘medical personnel’, ‘medical units’, or ‘medical transports’ contained in Article 8(c), (e), and (g) of Protocol I; they must be authorized to use the emblem as a protective device by the competent authority of a party to the conflict – in a non-international armed conflict, this may be the governmental authority (civilian or military) or the authority of the armed groups (civilian or military); and they must make use of the protective emblem under the control of the competent authority of a party to the conflict. For an in-depth analysis, see the Emblem Study, Question 14.

31 See the section ‘Use of double emblem by a state’ above.

32 See also the section ‘Joint use of emblems by international organizations’ above.

33 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 1. The legal basis for the distinction between protective and indicative uses of the emblem is to be found in Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention. This distinction is further defined in the 1991 Emblem Regulations, Art. 1.

34 This topic is dealt with in Questions 12 and 13 of the Emblem Study in particular.

35 Article 3(1) of Protocol III provides that: ‘National Societies of those High Contracting Parties which decide to use the third Protocol emblem may, in using the emblem in conformity with relevant national legislation, choose to incorporate within it, for indicative purposes: a) a distinctive emblem recognized by the Geneva Conventions or a combination of these emblems’.

36 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Arts. 4 and 5.

37 Ibid., Art. 4.

38 This topic is dealt with in Question 20 of the Emblem Study in particular. As already pointed out above (see the section ‘Joint use of emblems by National Societies for protective purposes’), the use of the protective emblem together with the logo or acronym of an international organization is prohibited.

39 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Article 25 stipulates that: ‘In addition to the cases mentioned in Articles 23 and 24, the National Society may in exceptional circumstances use the emblem jointly with that of another humanitarian organization, in the event of a specific undertaking and provided that such use is discreet and does not give rise to confusion in the public mind between the National Society and the other organization.’

40 Emblem Study, Recommendations of Question 20.

41 Council of Delegates, Seoul, 2005, Annex to Resolution 10, ‘Substantive provisions of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement policy for corporate sector partnerships’, available at http://www.icrc.ch/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/council-of-delegates-resolutions-181105/$File/CoD-Resolutions_2005_EN.pdf (last visited 16 March 2010).

42 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 5.

43 This topic is dealt with in Question 33 of the Emblem Study in particular.

44 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 23, para. 2.

45 Ibid., commentary on Art. 23, para. 2.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid. The commentary indicates that ‘With regard to clothing, flags or banners – given the risk of confusion which such objects could create, in the event of armed conflict, with the emblem used as a protective device – it is essential to ensure that the emblem is accompanied by the name of the National Society, or a text or a publicity drawing’.

48 This topic is dealt with in Question 34 of the Emblem Study in particular. As indicated above (see the section ‘Use of the emblem in commercial activities’), whenever entering into partnership with the corporate sector, National Societies must respect the provisions of the ‘Movement policy for corporate sector partnerships’, which defines partnership selection criteria and contract requirements.

49 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 23, para. 4, and commentary thereon.

50 The conditions defined under Ibid., Art. 23, para. 3 are as follows:

  1. (a)

    (a) no confusion must be created in the mind of the public between the company's activities or the quality of its products and the emblem or the National Society itself;

  2. (b)

    (b) …

  3. (c)

    (c) the campaign must be linked to one particular activity and, as a general rule, be limited in time and geographical area;

  4. (d)

    (d) the company concerned must in no way be engaged in activities running counter to the Movement's objectives and Principles or which might be regarded by the public as controversial;

  5. (e)

    (e) the National Society must reserve the right to cancel its contract with the company concerned at any time and to do so at very short notice, should the company's activities undermine the respect for or the prestige of the emblem;

  6. (f)

    (f) the material or financial advantage which the National Society gains from the campaign must be substantial without, however, jeopardizing the Society's independence;

  7. (g)

    (g) the contract between the National Society and its partner must be in writing;

  8. (h)

    (h) the contract must be approved by the National Society's central leadership.

For a more detailed explanation of these conditions, see Ibid., commentary on Art. 23, para. 3.

51 Ibid., commentary on Art. 23, para. 4.

52 Ibid., Art. 23, para. 4.

53 See note 54 below.

54 This topic is dealt with in Question 35 of the Emblem Study in particular. As indicated above (see the section ‘Use of the emblem in commercial activities’), whenever entering into partnership with the corporate sector, even through the Internet, National Societies must respect the provisions of the ‘Movement policy for corporate sector partnerships’, which defines partnership selection criteria and contract requirements.

55 See 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, Art. 23, para. 3, and commentary.

56 Ibid., Art. 23, para. 3. See also above note 53.

57 Ibid.

58 See in particular the examples given in Ibid., commentary on Art. 23, para. 3, such as serious pollution by the company concerned, and the criteria defined under section 3.3 of the ‘Movement's policy for corporate sector partnerships’, above note 46, p. 75.

59 1991 Emblem Regulations, above note 4, commentary on Art. 23, para. 3(e) gives the example of an activity of the corporate supporter that could prove embarrassing for reasons not known to the National Society when signing the agreement, such as serious pollution caused by the company concerned.

60 As stated in Ibid., commentary on Art. 23, para. 4.

61 If most of what is included on a website is of an advertising nature, there could conceivably be web pages dedicated to the online sale of products that would come close, for our purposes, to being regarded as ‘items for sale’.

62 This condition derives from the ‘Mandatory elements for Movement components’ partnership contracts', Council of Delegates, Seoul, 2005, Annex to Resolution 10, para. 5.3.6.