Inter Arma Silent Leges? Applying Humanitarian and Human Rights Law to the Swedish Citizen at Guantanamo Bay.
Since January 2002, a Swedish citizen has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He was captured in Pakistan during the post-September 11 war between Afghanistan and the United States and subsequently brought to Guantanamo, where he has now passed his two years imprisonment. The U.S. has pronounced that it cannot determine how dangerous he is because he is not answering questions and as a consequent of that he cannot be repatriated. The war in Afghanistan is over but the ''war against terrorism'', which the U.S. started, is still going on. The U.S. has determined that the laws of war or international humanitarian law is applicable to the ''war on terrorism''. But even during armed conflicts, to which the humanitarian law is applicable, the fundamental provisions of international human rights law remain in force. Despite the numerous criticisms from different human rights organisations, the U.S. has still not reviewed its position that the individuals at Guantanamo are not entitled to prisoner of war status and that they should continue to be detained. The U.S. opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Taliban detainees but that they do not fulfil the requirements of being prisoners of war. Regarding the al-Qaeda detainees the opinion is that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable because al-Qaeda is not a state party to the Conventions and as an international terrorist organisation they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. When going through the provisions enabling entitlement to POW status, it seems that it cannot be clearly said that the Taliban detainees do not fulfil the requirements. Neither can it be beyond doubt that al-Qaeda detainees fall outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. is nevertheless refusing to let a competent tribunal, as referred to in article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, determine the status of the detainees. The U.S. claims that it has determined the status on an individual basis but ends the discussion by saying that most of the detainees are likely to lie. This thesis looks at the U.S. detention and treatment of the Swedish citizen at Guantanamo in an international humanitarian and human rights law perspective. I would argue that the detention itself could be justified under either humanitarian law or human rights law, but the U.S. fails to treat the detainee according to those laws.
Doubtful prisoner-of-war status
Résumé Le statut de prisonnier de guerre est capital tant sur le plan du statut juridique accordé à une personne capturée « tombée au pouvoir » d'une puissance hostile que du traitement dont cette personne bénéficie. Cet article examine comment le statut de prisonnier de guerre peut être «sujet à contestation» et comment la détermination de ce statut devrait être réglée conformément à l'alinéa 2 de l'article 5 de la IIIe Convention de Genève. L'analyse de la règle de droit qui figure dans cet article et l'examen de la pratique de l'État concerné permettent d'affirmer qu'une contestation peut apparaître s'il y a de fortes raisons de croire qu'un détenu n'entre pas dans la catégorie des définitions classiques d'un combattant ou si les personnes qui ne semblent pas entrer dans lesdites catégories demandent à être traitées en prisonniers de guerre. Un «tribunal compétent» ne doit pas nécessairement être un tribunal judiciaire et être tenu de garantir l'ensemble des droits accordés à une personne déférée devant un tribunal pénal, puisque les droits fondamentaux à une procédure régulière, dont le caractère coutumier est reconnu par le droit international humanitaire, sont indérogeables. Toute tentative des États à contourner ces garanties judiciaires minimales est contraire à l'esprit et à la lettre du droit international humanitaire et contrevient également à la législation des droits de l'homme régissant le droit des personnes qui détiennent un pouvoir.
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.