In my estimation, it would be an unnecessary row to have. It would also involve many other countries trying to agree a new protocol, and I cannot see that there would be any great value in that. It sits there and is not greatly used. It stemmed originally from 13th century Persian understandings, but it is not used.
The other issue to which I should refer is the question of when this comes into effect. The original protocol makes it clear that it comes into effect when two countries have ratified. I have a list of those who have signed and ratified, and a separate list of those who have signed. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) asked me which countries are on the list, but I think that it would be unnecessary to read them out. I am happy to write to her so that she can compare notes. There is no greater requirement than two countries ratifying, so it has already come into operation.
Without further ado—
Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Bryant
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
493 c845 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:55:42 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565263
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565263
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565263