The opinion of the "English lawyer" is only legal argument made on a view of English law
We were talking about the meaning of a "competent tribunal", which is a general legal concept. You might find it difficult to successfully argue that an English lawyer would not be aware of the meaning of a "competent tribunal". Besides, the Geneva Convention is hardly an obscure point in some jurisdiction that an English lawyer or an American lawyer would know nothing about.
Anyway, would you like to get opinions from other lawyers? Be my guest.
This would not seem to rule out a panel of officers of the "Detaining Power".
I thought it was pretty clear that "panel of officers" is NOT a tribunal.
Here's another context:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed
hrweb.org
So you see, "competent tribunal" is not a "panel of officers" you scrape together from the ranks of the winning side.
In any case, Alistair, you are missing the point that NO SUCH TRIBUNAL WAS ESTABLISHED. Not even from among "a panel of officers", as you suggest, and no such decision re POW status of prisoners was taken and announced.
It seems to me that prisoners who won't identify themselves or won't cooperate in establishing their identity would not qualify for POW status.
Aren't you assuming a lot of stuff here? How do you know prisoners do not identify themselves or don't cooperate?
It seems to me that prisoners who won't identify themselves or won't cooperate in establishing their identity would not qualify for POW status.
Unfortunately, it is not up to you or to me to decide, is it? We need a "competent tribunal" to decide on their POW status, and until then, as Geneva Convention demands, they should enjoy POW privileges. |
