Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel

My Lords, the Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill will give effect to two international agreements. Both agreements aim to enhance the protection of personnel operating with a humanitarian purpose. Enactment of this Bill will enable the United Kingdom to become a party to the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions and the optional protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The first clause amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to allow ratification of the third protocol to the Geneva conventions. The protocol was signed by the United Kingdom in December 2005. It introduced a new humanitarian emblem, the red crystal, in addition to the existing emblems of the red cross and the red crescent. Like these, the red crystal is designed to be a protective device for humanitarian personnel in armed conflict. The emblem of a red cross on a white background has been used for nearly 150 years as a universal humanitarian emblem in times of armed conflict. The red crescent emblem was later given the same function. Both are symbols of the protection that the medical services of the armed forces and those in their care enjoy under the Geneva conventions. More recently this protection has been extended to include medical services. However, as conflicts become more complex, the scope for misunderstanding of these emblems has increased. In some situations, the red cross and the red crescent are wrongly seen as having a religious connotation. The red crystal was therefore introduced to be used wherever the protection given by the other emblems might be compromised. The symbol can also be used by National Societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements, such as those in Israel and Eritrea, which feel unable to identify with either the cross or the crescent or do not wish to choose between the two. The creation of the red crystal was part of a package which also paved the way for the Israeli and Palestinian national societies to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in 2005. Recent events in Gaza have reminded us of the importance of effective humanitarian protection in conflict situations. Once ratified, the protocol will enable the United Kingdom’s defence medical services to use any or a combination of the three distinctive emblems. In any conflict situation, armed forces will be able to choose the emblem likely to afford maximum protection to their medical services and their patients. The United Kingdom has played a major part in the adoption of the red crystal, which has been widely accepted. The protocol has been ratified already by 36 states. By ratifying, the United Kingdom will show its commitment to the development of international humanitarian law. The implementing legislation before the House will amend the Geneva Conventions Act, which protects the red cross and red crescent against misuse under criminal law. As the protocol requires, the Bill provides the same protection to the new emblem as is already available to the red cross and the red crescent by making it an offence to misuse any of the three humanitarian emblems. The Bill’s second clause amends the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 to give effect to the optional protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 2005. This optional protocol extends the scope of legal protection to United Nations and associated personnel engaged in UN operations. UN activity in this domain was initiated in 1994 with the adoption of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The convention was adopted in response to rising casualties among UN peacekeepers and other personnel. The convention requires member states to prevent and punish, through domestic and criminal law, attacks on UN personnel and others associated with UN operations, extradite perpetrators of such acts and take other ancillary measures. The scope of the convention is relatively narrow, applying to only two categories of UN operations: those maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or those where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation. However, in practice neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has made that required declaration, leaving many UN workers without the protection the convention was intended to provide. This narrow scope of protection has been heavily criticised, particularly by the previous United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who for some years had called for a protocol to extend the protection to those UN personnel not otherwise covered. His deputy at the time made similar calls. These were echoed at the world summit in September 2005. In response, on 8 December 2005 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted an optional protocol to the 1994 convention. The new protocol extends the scope of protection to two new categories: operations for the purpose of delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding, and operations for the purpose of delivering emergency humanitarian assistance. The need for measures of this nature is as relevant as ever, as global demands on UN peacekeeping fail to cease. In a speech to the United Nations Security Council delivered on 8 January this year, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, expressed concern that the deliberate targeting of humanitarian workers has increased, establishing a tension between the imperatives of staff safety and effective humanitarian action. If the courageous men and women involved are to continue to fulfil these vital roles they must have the full weight of international law behind them. Through its EU presidency the UK played a leading role in enabling the adoption of the protocol of the General Assembly before the end of 2005. Ratifying the protocol will reinforce the UK’s commitment to it, as well as encouraging further states to become parties to the 1994 convention. Given the need for the UK to be seen to be agreeing with the international consensus on these valuable initiatives, it should be regarded as an absolute minimum for the UK to ratify the two protocols contained in the Bill. For that reason, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.