Date

Sep 29, 1978

Description

U.S. military lawyers criticized the West German paper, disagreeing with its understanding of the Vienna Convention and the implications about the U.S. declaration. For example, while the Germans had implied that the U.S. declaration on Protocol I would be inapplicable in the event of a nuclear conflict and that provisions on the treatment of the wounded and the sick, civilians, and prisoners of war would not apply, the Army lawyers argued that the declaration concerned the use of the weapons, not their consequences. According to the Air Force paper, “many of the fears and interpretations expressed in the FRG paper seem to be rather fanciful.” For example, “even if nuclear weapons are assumed to be indiscriminate, there is no explicit prohibition on stockpiling such weapons on the soil of a state party to the Protocol.” Evidence of whether or not the U.S. shared any of that critique with West German officials has not surfaced in the archives.

Source

RG 59, Department of State Records, George H. Aldrich Records, box 6, Human Rights in Armed Conflict 1978

Document published in following posting(s):

Humanitarian Law of War: The U.S.-NATO Review of Additional Protocol I, 1978-1986

Sep 21, 2023

Waldemar A. Solf, Chief International Law Branch, International Affairs Division, U.S. Army Office of the Judge Advocate General, to Law of War Working Group, “FRG Talking Paper for October Meeting,” with Army and Air Force papers attached, 29 September 1978, Official Use Only