ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
Photo
of
Previous photo
Next photo
CLOSE
x
ICRC
Skip navigation
Home
|
What's new
|
Contacts
Language
Select one
Francais
Search
International Committee of the Red Cross
Treaties and States parties to such Treaties
Who we are
Who we are - International Committee of the Red Cross
Mandate and mission
Structure
Finances
Working for the ICRC
The Movement
History
Funds and medals
Contacts
What we do
What we do - ICRC activities on behalf of people affected by war
Visiting detainees
Protecting civilians
Reuniting families
Ensuring economic security
Water and habitat
Health
Cooperation with National Societies
Building respect for IHL
Safeguarding health care
Other activities
Where we work
Where we work - the ICRC worldwide
Africa
Americas
Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central Asia
Middle East
War & Law
War & Law - the legal basis for our action
Treaties and customary law
Contemporary challenges for IHL
Protected persons
Conduct of hostilities
Weapons
Emblem
IHL in domestic law
International criminal jurisdiction
IHL and other legal regimes
Resource centre
Resource centre - Search
Publications and films
Photos
Maps
International review
Annual report
IHL databases
Library and research services
ICRC Archives
Events
Other sites
Gift shop
Video newsroom
Search
Treaties and Documents
1949 Conventions and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries
By date
By topic
By State
Historical Treaties and Documents
By date
By topic
By State
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Commentary -
Art. 134. Part VI : Execution of the convention #Section II : Final provisions
ARTICLE 134
. -- RELATION TO THE 1929 CONVENTION
[p.636] The new Convention has mandatory force only as between the States party to it. The 1929 Convention therefore continues to bind, in their mutual relations, States which are party to it without being party to the 1949 Convention. In the same way, it will apply to relations between States when one is a party to the 1929 Convention only, the others being party to both the 1949 and the 1929 Conventions.
Two successive Conventions are thus in existence at the same time. Article 134 does not have the effect of abrogating the 1929 Convention. Even supposing a time came when the latter no longer bound any State at all, it would still preserve a latent existence. For, in the improbable event of a State denouncing the 1949 Convention, the 1929 Convention would become operative once more and again bind the denouncing Power in its relations with other States.
What would be the position with regard to two States, one of which was party to the 1949 Convention only and the other to the 1929 Convention only? It would seem that they should consider themselves bound by the provisions common to the two Conventions. The 1949 Convention actually contains the whole substance of the 1929 Convention and is merely a revised and corrected version of the earlier instrument. It contains no contradictory provisions, but merely supplements the 1929 Convention (1).
* (1) [(1) p.636] See below, the comparative presentation of the
1929 and 1949 Conventions, p. 680 ff.;