the U.K. in 1974, joined by France, the Netherlands and Norway in 1975.

The present Geneva Conventions provide protection for medical aircraft only while flying under a flight plan agreed to by the adverse party even while operating deep in friendly territory. Flights over territory controlled by an adverse party are prohibited in the absence of an agreement. As such agreements have not been easy to achieve, the 1949 regime has deprived medical aircraft of legal protection and grounded them unless the side operating them has air superiority. This restrictive regime was based on the limited effectiveness of visual identification of the distinctive emblem and a concern over the security threat posed by potential abuses of the protected status. However, now, by means of distinctive flashing light signals, a system of radar signals, and radio communcation, the identification of medical aircraft can be enhanced to the point where the risk of misidentification is reduced to acceptable levels. Moreover, the development of helicopters has vastly enhanced the capability of rapid medical evacuation from the battlefield.

A major U.S. proposal since 1972 has been a new regime for the identification and protection of medical aircraft in international armed conflict. Committee II adopted by consensus a series of articles (Articles 26, 26 bis, 27-30) based on this proposal. Basically, they provided that for overflight of areas controlled by adverse forces, previous agreement is required. For movement in and areas controlled by friendly forces and sea areas not controlled by adverse forces, no agreement is required, but it remains within the discretion of the appropriate commanders whether to give the adverse parties notice of such flights. For movement in the part of the contact zone physically controlled by friendly forces, and in areas where control is not clear, agreement between the competent military commanders is recognized as the only effective means for providing protection and is thus strongly recommended. Nevertheless, it is also provided that, if medical aircraft fly over such areas without an agreement, they shall be respected when they are recognized as medical aircraft. Articles 29-30 establish necessary security restrictions and sanctions for abuse. Article 31 on landing and inspection and Article 32 on neutrals and states not parties to the conflict remain to be considered further.

Article 33 of Protocol I contains the basic rule on methods and means of combat. It reaffirms and develops Articles 22 and 23 of the Regulations Annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. As adopted by Committee III by consensus, Article 33 provides that the right of a party to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. Further, it is forbidden to employ weapons, projectiles and material "of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." The disjunctive phrase did

not intend to change existing law but was considered a more accurate rendition of the French "propre á causer des maux superflus" than was made in the Hague Regulations of 1907. The third paragraph of the article deals with the protection of the environment. . . . The provision forbids employment of methods or means of warfare "which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment." According to the report of Committee III "long term" was considered by some to be measured in decades, with reference made to twenty to thirty years as a minimum, and it appeared to be a widely shared assumption that battlefield damage incidental to conventional warfare would not normally be proscribed by the provision. The provision covers such damage as would be likely to prejudice the continued survival of the civilian population over a long term or risk long term major health problems.

Article 34 ... originated in a U.S. proposal. It obligates high contracting parties to the Protocol to determine, in all stages of the development of new weapons, whether their employment would be prohibited by the Protocol or any other rule of international law. Of course, the provision does not require a state to foresee all possible misuses of the weapons. Moreover, the determination made by a state that a particular weapon is lawful or unlawful is not internationally binding on other states. ... Article 36 deals with the obligation not to make improper use of the Red Cross emblem or to misuse deliberately other internationally recognized protective emblems, such as the flag of truce. It also forbids the use of the U.N. emblem except with authorization for use by that organization. Article 37 deals with the use of neutral and enemy emblems, insignia, or uniforms and overturns the rule of the Skorzeny case. The article forbids use "in an armed conflict" of the flags or military emblems, etc., of neutrals or other states who are not party to the conflict. With regard to flags, emblems, etc., of adverse parties, it is forbidden to use these "while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favor, protect or impede military operations.". . .

Article 46, which deals with the general protection of the civilian population, was one of the most difficult considered by Committee III, but it was ultimately adopted by consensus. The article, inter alia, codifies the rule that the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be made the object of attack. In addition, it prohibits acts or threats of violence specifically intended to spread terror. Paragraph 3 of Article 46 prohibits indiscriminate attacks, specifically "those which are not directed at a specific military objective, or those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol, and consequently are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction." The paragraph specifies that bom

bardment which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village, or other area containing a concentration of civilians or civilian objects is indiscriminate. Another paragraph in Article 46 prohibits reprisals against the civilian population or civilians.

Another extremely important article which was adopted by consensus after prolonged discussion is Article 48, dealing with objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. The article lays down the principle that the starvation of civilians is prohibited as a method of warfare and then elaborates a series of specific rules designed to give meaning to the principle. In view of Article 44, paragraph 1, it is clear that the principle does not change the law of naval blockade. Specifically, Article 48 forbids attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs and food producing areas, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the purpose of denying them as such to the civilian population or to the adverse party. The prohibition does not apply to destruction of these objects incidental to battle action if these objects are used by the adverse party solely as sustenance for the members of its armed forces or in direct support of military action. The language of the article is at points rather obscure and the nuances are explained in some detail in the report of Committee III. The issue of its application within a party's own territory will be taken up at the next session of the Conference.

A new draft article concerning the natural environment was submitted for consideration by Committee III and was adopted by consensus (Article 48 bis). The article adopts the same standard that was used in paragraph 3 of Article 33, with respect to methods and means of warfare. In the context of the section of the protocol dealing with the protection of civilians, the emphasis is on the prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended to or may be expected to cause wide-spread, long term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population. The term "health" was used in a broad sense in connection with survival to indicate actions which could be expected to cause such severe effects that, even if the population survives, it would have major health problems, such as congenital defects which produce deformed or degenerated persons.

Article 49, also adopted by consensus by Committee III, provides special protection for dams, dikes, and nuclear electric power stations, as well as for other military objectives in the vicinity of these objects. This protection is in addition to that provided by Articles 47 and 50, as well as by general international law. Article 49 provides that, even where such an object is a military objective, it may not be attacked where an attack may

cause the release of the dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population, unless it is used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if an attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support. It is clear that the standard that must be met before the protection is lost is significantly higher than the standard used in Article 47. In addition, even when an attack on one of these objects is justified under all the applicable rules, all practical precautions to avoid releasing the dangerous forces must be taken. A concomitant obligation is laid down in the article to endeavor to avoid locating military objectives in the vicinity of dams, dikes, or nuclear electric generating stations.

Another important article adopted by the Committee was Article 50, concerning precautions in attack. The article will, for the first time, codify in international law the rule of proportionality by specifying that those who plan or decide upon an attack shall "refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Additional provisions require all feasible precautions to avoid injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects, and the cancellation or suspension of an attack if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a legitimate military target or that the attack violates the rule of proportionality.

Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Dept. of State File L/T.

Major issues remaining at the conclusion of the second session of the Conference included prisoner of war status for guerilla fighters or irregular forces, the question of reprisals, the problem of repression of breaches, the issue of prohibitions or restrictions on the use of conventional weapons, the protection of parachuting airmen in distress, proposals on the protection of oil and oil production and storage facilities, the issue of aggression, articles dealing with methods and means of combat, a decision on which articles should be non-reservable, and a Swedish proposal for the creation of a commission of inquiry concerning violations.

A member of the U.S. Delegation, Brigadier General Walter D. Reed, USAF, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Air Force, made a statement in Committee III, recognizing that problems relating to atomic, bacteriological, and chemical warfare were beyond the scope of the Conference. He said, in part:

An acceptable rule of law designed to be applicable to the use of weapons of mass destruction would, almost certainly,

provide little or no protection in conventional war. Conversely, rules, such as the ones on which we are working in this Conference, are designed for conventional warfare and would not fit well in the context of the use of weapons of mass destruction. . .

For the texts of articles adopted by main committees at the first (1974) and second (1975) sessions of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, as well as articles adopted provisionally, or otherwise requiring further consideration, see Conf. Doc. CDDH/226, Dec. 15, 1975, entitled "Synoptic Table," subtitle."of the Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and the texts adopted by the main committee at the first and second sessions of the Diplomatic Conference."

Reservations

On December 31, 1974, the U. S. Embassy at Bern transmitted a note to the Swiss Federal Political Department stating that the Provisional Revolutionary Government (P.R.G.) of South Viet-Nam is not qualified to accede to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and rejecting on behalf of the United States the reservations stated by the P.R.G. in its notification of accession. The Swiss Government, as depositary of the Conventions, had notified the U.S. Government by telegram and note dated January 18, 1974, that the P.R.G. had notified its accession to the four Conventions subject to reservations. The U.S. Embassy's reply note of December 31, 1974, transmits a message from the Department of State reading in part as follows:

The Government of the United States of America recognizes the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam and does not recognize the "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam" as a government. The United States Government therefore does not recognize that the "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South VietNam" is qualified to accede to the Geneva Conventions. Bearing in mind, however, that it is the purpose of the Geneva Conventions that their provisions should protect war victims in armed conflict, the Government of the United States of America notes that the "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam" has indicated its intention to apply them subject to certain reservations. The reservations expressed with respect to the Third Geneva Convention [Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War] go far beyond previous reservations, and are directed against the object and purpose of the Convention. Other reservations are similar to reservations expressed by others previously and concerning which the Gov