MwRYum
Major
And the militia would say they neither signed nor rectified the convention, so not bind by the terms.
More so, DPR isn't a recognized "nation state"...
So the question is does the the Donetsk Peoples Republic match the list? Yes they do. Where AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan do not abide the conventions, the DPR actually matches all the requirements for there soldiers to be considered POWs if captured. If they match as so does the Ukrainian government Forces then by all rights the conventions are valid. Particularly if the DPK and Nevurussia wish any recognition. By violating the conventions they first place reduce the chances of any greater recognition, second risk there POWs being placed in the same if not worse and third risk wider war crime indictments. The conventions were written after incidents of captured troops being paraded finding them selves attacked by lynch mobsArticle 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Recognition as a "nation state" is in fact what they wish but the critical factors are in the next article of the treaty
So the question is does the the Donetsk Peoples Republic match the list? Yes they do. Where AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan do not abide the conventions, the DPR actually matches all the requirements for there soldiers to be considered POWs if captured. If they match as so does the Ukrainian government Forces then by all rights the conventions are valid. Particularly if the DPK and Nevurussia wish any recognition. By violating the conventions they first place reduce the chances of any greater recognition, second risk there POWs being placed in the same if not worse and third risk wider war crime indictments. The conventions were written after incidents of captured troops being paraded finding them selves attacked by lynch mobs
Russia says that a group Russian military personnel who were captured in eastern Ukraine had crossed the border by mistake.
They are stated as echoing Russian military parades of the post second world war where in captured Germans soldiers were forced to march in such a form. The event was specifically designed to humiliate, and show a rebellion set hard against any reunification.
Actually it was more of a "re-enactment" of sort of that famous German POWs march through Moscow following the Operation Bagration, dubbed "Operation: The Great Waltz", right down to the part of street cleaning vehicles following the parade...of course, the scope and scale this time is far smaller. Probably partly due to the militia's part in keenly reminding everyone the Kiev regime is a fascist one (which actually tearing itself apart since it took power, and now the president dissolved the parliament and push the election schedule forward to the upcoming October), a nod to the past is in play I reckon?
Recognition as a "nation state" is in fact what they wish but the critical factors are in the next article of the treaty
So the question is does the the Donetsk Peoples Republic match the list? Yes they do. Where AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan do not abide the conventions, the DPR actually matches all the requirements for there soldiers to be considered POWs if captured. If they match as so does the Ukrainian government Forces then by all rights the conventions are valid. Particularly if the DPK and Nevurussia wish any recognition. By violating the conventions they first place reduce the chances of any greater recognition, second risk there POWs being placed in the same if not worse and third risk wider war crime indictments. The conventions were written after incidents of captured troops being paraded finding them selves attacked by lynch mobs
anyways i used to follow bbc's map just last week, thinking the war is going well for Ukraine. til information starts to come out that made me question the legitimacy of that map. after lookin around i find col cossad's map to be one of those that i can trust. though i think it is a lil too optimistic for the rebels, still way better than bbc's map though.