|
The emblem debate
- Introduction
- What was the emblem debate about?
- What was the role of the
Third Additional Protocol in this debate?
- Why is there more than one
emblem in use?
1. Introduction
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement welcomed the decision of the diplomatic conference of
the States Party to the Geneva Conventions held in Geneva, in
December 2005, to adopt a Third Protocol additional to the Geneva
Conventions, which created the red crystal emblem alongside the
red cross and red crescent.
It appears as a red frame in the shape
of a square on edge, on a white background. It is free from any
religious, political or other connotation.
The red crystal was formally incorporated
into the Statutes of the Movement at the International Conference
of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, held in Geneva from 20 to 22
June 2006. The completion of this process has provided the Movement
with a comprehensive and lasting solution to the decades-old question
of the emblem.
2. What was the emblem debate about?
The emblems recognized by the Geneva Conventions
of 1949 are the red cross, the red crescent and the red lion and
sun. Because of the Conventions and the rules of the International
Movement, a National Society had to use one of them to be recognized
as a Movement member. Since 1980, only the red cross and red crescent
emblems have been in use.
With the adoption of the Third Additional
Protocol in December 2005, the red crystal is now also a recognized
distinctive sign under international law, with the same status
as the red cross and red crescent.
The emblems are used in more than 190
countries in the world to protect medical personnel, buildings
and equipment in time of armed conflict and to identify national
Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Unfortunately, the red cross and red crescent
emblems have sometimes been wrongly perceived as having religious,
cultural or political connotations. This has affected respect
for the emblems and has diminished the protection the emblems
offer to victims and to humanitarian and medical personnel.
The debate that led to the adoption of
the Third Additional Protocol recognized the need to provide protection
in cases where neither the red cross nor the red crescent is respected
as neutral.
The debate also considered the needs of
those National Societies that were unable to join the Movement
because of their inability to use either the red cross or the
red crescent. The adoption of the Third Protocol and the incorporation
of the red crystal into the Statutes of the Movement makes it
possible for those Societies to use the red crystal without endangering
their own traditions. Magen David Adom in Israel is the first
National Society to use the red crystal emblem.
3. What was the role of the Third Additional
Protocol in this debate?
The incorporation of the red crystal by
the Movement was only possible once governments had established
the new emblem itself. This is because the red crystal had to
have the same status in international law as the red cross and
red crescent, and be created by governments in a treaty.
This solution was endorsed by governments
and national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies in 2000, and
the draft Third Additional Protocol was then prepared by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, in close collaboration with the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
The Draft Third Protocol was the basic
document guiding the actions of the ICRC, the International Federation
and National Societies until the final adoption of the Protocol
on 8 December 2005.
4. Why is there more than one emblem in
use?
During the Geneva conferences of 1863
and 1864, which established the rules that have now become the
Geneva Conventions, a red cross on a white background was adopted
as a neutral emblem. It was intended to be universal and easily
recognized in order to protect medical personnel and facilities
from attack during armed conflicts. This was not a religious symbol;
it was simply the reversal of the colours of the Swiss flag. As
such, it was felt it would embody the fundamental requirement
of neutrality.
Other connotations soon became evident.
In the war between Russia and Turkey in 1876-78 the Ottoman Empire,
although it had acceded to the Geneva Convention of 1864 without
any reservation, declared that it would use the red crescent to
mark its own ambulances while respecting the red cross sign protecting
enemy ambulances. This use of the red crescent became the practice
for the Ottoman Empire.
After lengthy discussions, the diplomatic
conference of 1929 agreed, for those countries that already used
them, to recognize the red crescent and the red lion and sun,
the emblem that had been used for some time by Persia, now Iran.
The conference, in order to forestall further requests and a possible
proliferation of emblems in the future, made a point of stating
that no new emblems would be recognized.
Since that time, the red crescent emblem
has become widely used by many countries. Proposals by other countries
for alternative emblems have not been agreed to. The Islamic Republic
of Iran discontinued using the red lion and sun emblem in 1980
and adopted the red crescent instead.
|