Part II discusses the contours of when medical personnel lose their protection. When are they considered ‘assigned’? And lastly, medical personnel have the right not to perform acts contrary to medical ethics, but an exception to the rules on medical confidentiality raises concerns. Third, in order for civilian medical personnel to enjoy special protection under IHL, they must be ‘assigned’ by a party to the conflict. Part I first looks at whether armed forces must have distinct medical services, or, is it sufficient for military personnel to be medically trained so that they can-when necessary-care for the wounded and sick? Second, given the number of civilians present in areas of conflict, the question has arisen of whether military medical services must be prepared to collect and care for wounded and sick civilians (as well as their own and enemy wounded and sick). In this two-part post, I discuss a series of questions about IHL rules governing medical care today. In contemporary conflicts adherence to these, subsequently refined, rules remains crucial. Rules regarding medical care in armed conflict have been a cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL) since it was first codified in 1864.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |