ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
Treaties, States Parties and Commentaries
  • Print page
Commentary of 1960 

    [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.;