CAB129-33 — Page 251

and said

Page 251

Relier to prisoners of war and civilian internees of all Nations Red Cross mail and messages

Hospital supplies for the wounded and sick of Armies; and, eventually for civilian war victims, and relief for the civilian population of occupied countries

"The Committee are very desirous that the basic principles... mentioned should be embodied in a regulation which could be placed at the end of Article 37" (of the Prisoners of War Convention

The eleven points are set out in detail in C. R. G. C./P(47)35, and my Committee's detailed conclusions on them will be found in

•

C. R. G. C./M(48)1, Item 9: the general question of sea transport for relief supplies is examined in C.R.G.C./P(47)34. I have, therefore, thought it unnecessary to re-examine the whole question in detail in this Report; but the United Kingdom delegation to a future Inter- national Conference (should be given clear directions on the main principles and these I consider in paragraphs 130 to 136 bèlow.

130. At the 1947. Geneva Conference of Government Experts, the United States delegation proposed a new Article in the following terms:·

131.

-

"To facilitate conveyance of mail and other authorised articles sent to prisoners of war, according to Articles 36 to 39 the International Committee of the Red Cross, or any other humanitarian organisation approved by the belligerents concerned, shall be requested by the adverse parties signatory to the Convention, to procure the required means of transport (ships or planes), which shall be registered in a neutral country, and sail under the flag and the emblem of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or of any other approved organisation. These means of transport shall be used for the said purpose by the above organisation, by virtue of safe-conducts which belligerents signatory to the Convention undertake to deliver. These means of transport shall also be available for despatch to consignee countries of mail and reports from the Central Prisoner of War Agency, according to Article 79; for the despatch to the said Agency by the information office of each belligerent of details and reports concerning the prisoners of war detained; and, finally, for the despatch to the belligerent concerned of reports and mail' from the Protecting Power, the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other approved organisation. The costs incurred by the use of these means of transport shall be borne proportionately by the belligerents whose nationals benefit by such facilities"

Informal contacts with the Embassy in London have confirmed that the United States Government attach great importance to the inclusion, in any future Prisoners of War Convention of specific provisions for the conveyance by sea of relief supplies for prisoners of war, and for

The difficulties Detaining Powers to accept supplies sent by sea.

during the Second World War which prevented the shipment of supplies (except on a comparatively small scale at long intervals) for Allied prisoners of war in Japanese hands must, in the United States view, be guarded against, so far as is practicable, for the future; and, in their view, provisions on the lines of the proposed new Artiole quoted in paragraph 130 above are the most hopeful way of doing this.

132. My Committee are not convincǝd that the means suggested would prevent such difficulties as were experienced in the Second World War. They recognise, however, that an Article, such as that quoted in paragraphagf02abbre, 4might have strengthened the amends pf the protecting Power and the International Red Cross Committee in negotiations on the

though it is doubtful whether subject with the Japanese Government;

26

-

any thing would have persuaded the Japanese military authorities to allow neutral shipping to approach territories controlled by them whilst hostilities continued between the Allies and Japan.

122

133. Rageait te 4São recalled the vital intereft 2522 the 4rted Kingdom during two World Wars in the most effective use of all available shipping, and they were advised that this country would not be prepared to agree in advance to any plans to set aside shipping for the restricted uses proposed (see paragraphs 129 and 130 above). In their view such action should be developed only when it became necessary to meet a factual situation.

134. In a desire to go as far as they considered possible to meet the views of those who support proposals for recognition of a fleet of Red Cross ships under the direction of the International Red Cross Committee, or some other neutral body, my Committee recommend: -

(a) that no objection should be raised in principle to the provision of a fleet of Red Cross Transports under the control of a neutral intermediary such as the Inter- national Committee, provided that the United Kingdom Government was not committed, in advancë, to any contribution to or support for such a fleet, and the transport of relief supplies for prisoners of war was not limited to such ships;

(b) that any provisions for the recognition of a neutral fleet

of transports, under the control of the International Red Cross Committee or other similar organisation for the carriage by sea of relief supplies for prisoners of war, in any future Prisoners of War Convention, should be permissive and not mandatory; and should leave any belligerent complete freedom to adopt any other method of transport, including, in particular, the chartering by a National Red Cross Society of neutral ships to sail under safe conducts;

(c) that any proposal to embody in a future Prisoners of War

Convention provisions regarding the financial responsibility of belligerents and/or neutral Powers for transport by sea of relief supplies for prisoners of war should be resisted.

(C. R. G. C./M (48)1, Item 9).

135. The 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts recommended that the question of transport by sea of relief supplies for prisoners of war should be referred to a Conference of Government Maritime Experts; but no action to implement this recommendation seems to have been taken, and there is little reason now to expect such a Conference to be held.

136. The question of using the Red Cross emblem and flag to mark ships set aside for the transport of relief supplies, etc. is considered in paragraphs 183 to 185 below.

137. Transport by Air of Relief Supplies for Prisoners of War. It will be observed from paragraphs 129 and 130 above, that both the International Red Cross Committee and the United States delegation contemplated the setting aside of aircraft, as well as ships, to be used, under the direction of the International Red Cross Committee, for the carriage of relief supplies etc. for prisoners of war. This proposal is open to many objections. Belligerents would almost certainly have difficulty in providing airoraft for this purpose because of the heavy demand for air transport for direct war purposes: presumably any neutral aircraft on regular commercial routes, still in operation, could be used without the need for special arrangements. Moreover, it is unlikely that such aircraft would be permitted by belligerents to fly, or guaranteed safe conduct, over any territory or sea where operations were, or might be, in progress. (See also paragraphs 139 to 143 below).

6

138. Mp Committee therefore recommend that the United Kingdom

United Kingdon delegation

2

to a future International Conference:

252 488

(a) should resist any proposal to provide specifically

27 -

V.Ü.D.

139.

Page 2

in the Prisoners of War Convention for the use of air transport for relief supplies, etc. for prisoners of war;

shouddggif there is strong prespurge.ggdelegations to make such provision, endeavour to limit it to a broad general statement in very vague permissive terms.

(C.R.G.C./(48)1, Items 8 and 9)

(For use of Red Cross see paragraphs 186 to 189 below) Medical. Aircraft. Article 18 of the 1929 Red Cross Convention laid down conditions under which aircraft, exclusively used for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material, and bearing the Red Cross emblem, should be immune from attack; but these provisions proved largely unworkable in the conditions of modern aerial war. The use of a Red Cross as a protective sign on medical aircraft can hardly be effective when attack, whether by other aircraft or from ground troops, is rarely made under conditions of close visual observation.

140. The 1947 Conference was almost evenly divided on the question of whether there was any place for this type of aircraft, in the conditions of modern war; but under very strong pressure not to abandon an already recognised humanitarian principle the Conference eventually agreed to recommend the recognition, in principle, of the use of medical aircraft marked with the Red Cross, subject to rigid limitations regarding the conditions of use which would guarantee immunity from attack.

141. In the Second World War the United Kingdom used aircraft to evacuate wounded and sick; but had no regard to securing immunity from attack for them, preferring to rely upon their own forces to defend them. The aircraft concerned were therefore frequently used as military transport aircraft on the forward journey. There were also instances during the war where German aircraft carrying the Red Cross were proved to be engaged on reconnaissance, including the taking of photographs. There is a further objection to any general use by the United Kingdom of aircraft painted white with the Red Cross; such aircraft when at rest on an airfield, would be readily visible to enemy aircraft and, therefore, would weaken very considerably camouflage precautions on such airfields.

142. Though the United Kingdom is unlikely to want immunity from attack for exclusively medical aircraft, it would be difficult to secure agree- ment on the withdrawal of the recognition of such aircraft in the Red Cross Convention. My Committee therefore considered what conditions of use would, in the employment of such aircraft, prevent abuses by enemy forces.

1143.

My Committee therefore recommend that, subject to the approval of the Chiefs of Staff, the United Kingdom delegation to a future Inter- national Conference:-

144。

(a) should accept the continued recognition, in principle,

of "medical aircraft";

(b) should insist that "medical aircraft" can be given

immunity from attack only when flying on routes, at heights and at times, specifically agreed between, all the belligerents concerned.

(C. R. G. C./M(48)4, Item

3333333

(For use of Red Cross see paragraphs 186 to 189 below) Substitute for Protecting Power. Experience has shown that effective application of the Prisoners of War Convention may depend on the activities of a Protecting Power which, acting as a neutral "agent" for the Power in whose forces prisoners of war were serving at the time of capture, visits those prisoners in their camps, receives from them complaints regarding their treatment, reports regularly to that Power, and makes representations as and when occasion arises, to the Detaining Power regarding any matters in which it would appear that there is reasonable ground for altering the treatment of prisoners of war. Article 86 of the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention provides for certain.

and there are facilities to be given to the Protecting Power;

2ther

provisions in the Articles (e.g. 42,60,62 and 66) which depend on the existence of a Protecting Power if they are

pe3t1A8&1.

145. During and after the Second World War, Protecting Powers ceased

28

123

to function in a number of cases, e.g. for France, after the establishment of direct relations between the French (Viohy) and German Governments, for Italy, Germany and Japan after their surrenders to the Allies. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, an erfectRage24ing &ower for enemy prisonerPage25,4 at 4rden removed difficulties or grievances, which might otherwise have caused trouble. That is not to suggest that the Protecting Power acted in the interests of the Detaining Power; but the knowledge amongst prisoners of war that there is a recognised authority in the country where they are detained, who is not an enemy, but to whom complaints and grievances can be referred, may often prevent that brooding on grievances which can undermine morale and discipline in a camp.

146. It was not surprising, therefore, that there was a general desire at the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts to provide for a substitute for the Protecting Power, when the latter ceases to function because the Government whose interests were being protected, is no longer in a position to ask for such protection. The Conference failed, however, to suggest what the substitute should be.

147. At first sight it might seem that the International Red Cross Committee might have filled the gap; but there are two major difficulties, viz:-

(a)

the functions of a Protecting Power necessarily include "political" as well as humanitarian actions, and the United Kingdom Government has consistently refused to recognise any claim by the International Red Cross Committee to exercise any political function;

(b) the International Red Cross Committee claims a position

of absolute independence of any other authority; and they would not, in any circumstances, accept "instructions" from the prisoners' "own Government" and might even choose to pursue a line not acceptable to that Government.

Even if these difficulties could be overcome, it is most unlikely that the International Red Cross Committee would be willing to function in lieu of a Protecting Power. (See also paragraphs 23 and 25 above)

148. My Committee recommend that the United Kingdom delegation to a future International Conference should be instructed to accept a solution on the following lines:·

(a)

there should be an obligation, albeit ill defined in practice, on a Detaining Power to accept a neutral or Independent organism which was willing to undertake, without charge to that Detaining Power, the functions laid on a Protecting Power by the Prisoners of War Convention provided that the organism concerned satisfied the Detaining Power:-

(i) that it was in a position to undertake these

functions;

(ii) that the organism concerned would discharge

them impartially;

(iii) that the agents or delegates of the organism concerned would be persons not objectionable to the Detaining Power;

(iv) that there was no Government representing the

prisoners of war concerned in a position to arrange For their "protection" by a neutral Power;

(b) the description of the "neutral or independent organism"

should be sufficiently wide to enable any other Government, any recognised international organisation

Page 254 of geaception circumstances, Pageta54at 4ding Power,

of the

to be accepted for the limited purposes of the Prisoners of war convention in lieu of a Frotecting Power;

29

J. O.St

(c)

the "neutral or independent organism" would be expected, at all times to act with a sense of responsibility

and in such manner as representatives of a Protecting Power might be expected to act, and as if acting as Page 255ef488or the prisoners' "own Pageantof 488

(C. R. G. C./M(48)11, Item 85)

The last recommendation is designed to rule out, for example, any attempt to bring pressure on the Detaining Power through the Press, by questions in Parliament or other similar methods.

149. Obligation to publish and teach the Conventions. Article 84 of the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention require the Detaining Power to make the text of the Convention available to prisoners of war: Article 27 of the 1929 Red Cross Convention and Article 20 of the 10th Hague Convention (Maritime) each requires signatories to instruct their troops in the provisions of the Convention and to bring them to the notice of the civil population.

150.

The 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts recommended strengthening the existing provisions on these subjects as follows:

(a) Prisoners of War Convention.

Article 18 a new provision making the Camp Commandant responsible "for the camp guards being familiar with the Convention." (This overlaps the recommendation regarding Article 84 below: see also paragraphs 258 to 260 below)

Article 84 - which in the 1929 Convention, provides for the texts of the Convention and of any special · agreements to be made available to prisoners of war, should also require that:-

(i)

the Detaining Power shall instruct guards (compare Article 18 above) and personnel of Prisoner of War Camps in the stipulations of the Conventions;

(ii) Governments should, as far as possible, bring

the said stipulations to the knowledge of their forces;

(b) Red Cross Convention.

Article 27 to read (new provisions underlined):-

"The High Contracting Parties shall take, in time of peace as in time of war, the necessary steps to make known the text of the present Convention, to instruct their armed forces (1929 = "their troops"), and in particular the medical personnel and the chaplains, in its provisions, and to bring them to the notice of the civil population."

(c) Maritime Convention.

Article 23 "The High Contracting Parties shall take the necessary steps, in peace-time as in war-time, to publish the text of the present Convention, to instruct their armed forces, and in particular the medical personnel and the chaplains, in its provisions, and to bring them to the notice of the civil population."

(Appendix B, paragraph 49) 151. My Committee recommend that the United Kingdom delegation to a future International Conference should accept these recommendations subject to clarification in drafting to avoid, in particular, unnecesspagovanjapping (C. R. G. C. (48)9, Itempe

95488

In view of the proposed obligation to instruct alper55 488 in the

Red Cross and Maritime Conventions in peace as well as in war, these

roposals should perhaps be brought to the notice of the Chiefs of Staff:

- 30

124

152. Red Cross Convention - General Considerations. The Convention - for the Amelioration of the Condition of the wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (generally called, in this Report, the Red Cross Convention) is designed site title implies, to ensure the proper especgfor, and care of, wounded and sick of Field Armies; and to that end there has developed since the first Red Cross Convention (of 164) was proposed in 1863, a series of provisions to "protect" the buildings, equipment, transport, stores and personnel employed in looking after wounded and sick.

153. In 1864 such medical personnel as were attached to armies, and their assistants, had no other duty but to care for the wounded and sick.

In addition to the changes referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, the functions and duties of the medical services of armed forces have also been transformed; and to-day they are integral parts of the fighting machine primarily concerned with keeping or making men and women fit for duty, and, it is perhaps not unfair to say, only incidentall concerned with the oare of wounded and sick as such,

154. These changes in the character of war (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above) and in the primary function of the medical services of armed forces (see paragraph 153 above) are responsible for the major changes in the Red Cross Convention recommended by the 1947 Geneva Conference

70

ff Government Experts and discussed in paragraphs 155 to 168, 367, 368 and 155. "Protected Personnel". Under the 1929 Red Cross Convention, persons in the following categories, if they fall into the hands of the enemy, are immediately returnable, viz:-

156.

(a) all personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and siok (Article 9);

(b) all personnel engaged exclusively in the administration

of medical formations and establishments (Article 9); · (see also paragraphs 363 to 365 below);

(o) chaplains attached to armies (Article 9);

(a) soldiers specially trained as auxiliary nurses or

stretcher bearers for the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and sick, who are captured whilst carrying out these functions (Article 9);

(0)

رة

the personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies duly recognised as authorised by their Governments, employed on the same duties as those mentioned in (a) and (b) above (Article 10);

(1) the personnel of recognised Aid Societies from

neutral countries assisting a belligerent (Article 11).

Under Articles 12 and 13 of the 1929 Red Cross Convention, any of these personnel, who fall into the hands of the enemy: -

157.

(a) may not be retained;

(b) in the absence of contrary agreement, should be sent back as soon as a route is opened and military considerations permit;

(0)

+

pending their return, should carry out their duties, under the direction of the enemy and preferably for their own wounded and siok:(see also Prisoners of War Convention, Artiole 14, paragraph 4);

(a) on their repatriation may take with them, effects, instruments, arms and means of transport belonging to them;

(e) whilst with the enemy should get the same food,

lodging, allowances and pay as corresponding Page persones of the enemy's own armelator56 of 488

The provision for immediate return (see paragraph 156(b) above).

31 -

has proved unworkable in two World Wars; and when repatriation of protected personnel has become possible, usually after a long interval and difficult negotiations, the result produces inequity in that popstaignef-gical personnel, e.g. an RP5grayer 88 captured whilst driving an ambulance, may be repatriated, whilst his comrades captured (may be much earlier) whilst driving lorries remain prisoners of war. This inequity gave rise to some criticism after repatriation of "protected personnel" began in the Second World War.

158. Long and controversial discussions took place at the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts before they agreed to recommend:

159.

(a) that the description of medical "protected personel"

should be expanded to cover those engaged "in the prevention of disease";

(b) that all "protected" personnel should become prisoners

of war on falling into the hands of the enemy: this would give them a recognised status as prisoners of war which they have hitherto lacked, with defined rights to food, clothing, accommodation, of access to the Protecting Power, notification of capture and subsequent casualties to the Power in whose forces they were serving at the time of capture, protection in the event of disciplinary or judicial proceedings, the right to full medical treatment, correspondence, receipt of parcels, etc: only food and accommodation are legislated for under the existing Convention (see paragraph 156(e) above); (in practice, they were generally treated as prisoners of war during the Second World war, except in matters of pay, work, certain additional freedoms and repat- riation);

(a) whilst engaged in looking after wounded and sick,

they should before capture, have complete immunity from attack, and after capture, when required to carry out their function of caring for wounded and sick, they should be given all facilities and freedoms necessary;

(d) they should, if not required to look after wounded

and sick, be repatriable.

The change referred to in paragraph 158(a) above recognised, up to a point, the transformation in the functions of military medical services (see paragraph 153 above) and the addition of the phrase "in the prevention of disease" is intended to remove any doubt that the protection from attack accorded by the Red Cross Convention is intended to cover all medical personnel. My Committee desires me to call attention to this proposed development, which seems to introduce a new principle not inherent in the original basis of the "protection" of medical personnel, i.e. as a means to ensure the care of the wounded and sick (see paragraph 152 above).

160. My Committee recommend that the United Kingdom delegation to a future International Conference should not propose any limitation of the medical personnel who may claim the protection of the Red Cross; but that the delegation should be fully briefed on this issue in case it be raised by another delegation. (C. R. G. C./m. (48)5,

Item 37)

161. At the 1947 Conference the United Kingdom delegation maintained the view that the right to repatriation of "protected personnel" should in future be limited to doctors and nurses; this right was conceded in view of their humanitarian value and the shortage of professionally qualified doctors and nurses in every country Page257inf:48the Conference Report recommends that falde hitherto "protected" personnel should be repatriable, but that was not agreed by the United Kingdom delegation; nor, according to my

32-

125

notes, by the other British Commonwealth and United States delegations. 162. My Committee recommend that the United Kingdom delegation to a futurePinteragiofa48Conference:-

Page 258 01 488

163.

to

(a) should support the recommendation of the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts that "protected personnel" should, on falling into the hands of the enemy, become prisoners of war and except as provided in (b) and (c) below, be protected by the Prisoners of War Convention;

(b) should support the recommendations of the 1947 Geneva

Conference of Government Experts that medical personnel and chaplains caring for the wounded and sick should always be respected and given the maximum freedom from attack or interference; and, that when after capture, they are required to care for wounded and sick, they should be given all necessary facilities and freedoms;

(0)

should support the repatriation, at the first opportunity after capture, of doctors and nurses, not required to care for wounded and sick in the enemy's hands;

(a) should oppose the repatriation (except on the same

terms as combatant personnel) of other "protected personnel".

(C. R. G. C. /M (47)5, Item 41 and C.R.G.C.M(48)2. The Director-General, Army Medical Services, considers:-

Item 12)

(a) that the repatriable categories should be widened

to include dentists and "skilled medical technicians" such as radiographers, laboratory technicians, masseurs, eto;

and (b) that, if (a) is not acceptable the term "nurses" in

paragraph 162(c) above should be limited to "trained female members of the nursing profession corresponding to our State Registered Nurses."

1649 The argument used to justify retaining repatriation rights for any of the "protected personnel" entitled to be returned to their own forces under the 1929 Red Cross Convention is set out in paragraph 161 above; and the view of the Director-General, Army Medical Services, set out in paragraph 163(b) above is logically the consequence of that argument. Few countries, however, have clear professional standards for "nurses"; and a narrow definition, such as that suggested in paragraph 163(b) above, might, I fear, not find acceptance in an International Conference, on the grounds that it would work inequitably as between countries with clearly defined professional nursing standards and those without. This consideration guided my Committee in choosing the loose term "nurses": in a war, any particular interpretation to be placed on this term would, no doubt, be settled between two adverse belligerents, when negotiating arrangements for an exchange of repatriable personnel.

165. Similarly, I think that it would be difficult to translate into terms, giving effective reciprocity as between all the signatories to a Red Cross Convention, the formula proposed in paragraph 163(a) above; and, the practical solution lies, I suggest, either in repatriation rights being limited to the narrow classification of doctors and nurses (based on the argument in paragraph 161 above), or allowing all medical personnel (including dental surgeons) to be repatriable.

106. Moreover, it would not be easy to defend, I suggest, a proposal that a medical technician should be repatriable, whilst excluding from repatriation, not only the Sapper technician, who happened to ne a host ithage&iofa488t the time of capture,Page 23848 all members of Voluntary Aid Detachments.

167.

here it may be desirable to anticipate Part V of this Report

33

dealing with the proposed laritine Convention, to say that the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts recommended deliberately that hospital ships and the crews and staffs should be immune from capture, Pesanse5t of$488 essential function of Parishfins to move, possible through combat zones; and the ships would be incapable of functioning if deprived of their crews or staffs. position of a medical unit on land, falling into the hands of an enemy, is very different. In that case the effective functioning of the unit depends on whether the enemy chooses to use it, or to make other arrangements for the care of the captured wounded and sick.

The

168. Chaplains. The Chaplains Department of the three Services have accepted the recommendation that chaplains should no longer be repatriable. If, however, repatriation rights were to include military medical technicians (as suggested in paragraph 163(a) above), I think there might be an equally strong case for chaplains remaining repatriable. -

169. Use of the Red Cross Emblem on Land. The Red Cross emblem (i.e. the Swiss national flag with colours reversed) was invented to mark distinctively units and establishments caring for military wounded and sick, in order that they should be immune from attack, whether directly by armed forces or indirectly by bombardment, and therefore free to pursue their humanitarian task of caring for the wounded and sick. Article 19 of the 1929 Red Cross Convention provides for the "heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground" to be used as "the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical services of armed forces"; and recognises similarly "the Red Crescent or the Red Lion and Sun" where such are already in use "in place of the Red Cross".

170. Article 24 of the 1929 Red Cross Convention prohibits the use of the emblem or the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross", in peace or war,

"except to protect or indicate the medical formations and establishments and the personnel and material protected by the Convention,'

though the same Article also allows, under strict control, its use in peace by Voluntary Aid Societies, and to mark certain "aid stations" (see paragraph 171 below). This prohibition is emphasised by Article 28 which lays upon Parties to the Convention the obligation to secure legislation enforcing this prohibition and bringing within it "marks constituting an imitation" of the Red Cross or of the Swiss Federal colours. This obligation is met, so far as the United kingdom is concerned by the Geneva Convention Aots of 1911 and 1937.

171. The only uses of the Red Cross on land (for use on aircraft or at sea, see paragraphs 185 - 189 below), other than by military medical services, sanctioned by the 1929 Red Cross Convention, are:-

(a)

by Voluntary Aid Societies, recognised by their Governments, in connection with their "humanitarian" activities" in time of peace;

(b) "as an exceptional measure" and subject to strict control,

"to mark the position of Aid Stations exclusively reserved for the purpose or giving free treatment to the wounded or the sick" in time of peace. (Article 24)

It will be noted that these two exceptional uses are limited to "time of peace".

172. Nevertheless there has developed, in practice, a wider use of the Red Cross, generally called "descriptive". The organs of the International Red Cross (the International Red Cross Committee, the League of Red Cross Societies, and the International Red Cross Conference and its Permanent Commission) have used it to mark buildings poggupied by toon, on notepaper, publications, etor, on buttonhole cadges and brougnes and on motor-carspace Agrof4dsles;

and National Red Cross Societies generally have followed a similar practice. None of these uses finds any sanction in the 1929 Red

/

34.

-

Cross Convention and they probably constitute technical breaches of that Convention. This "descriptive" use of the Red Cross emblem is, however, such an obvious corollary of the use of the words "Red Cross" in the titles of these organisations, as to cause no objection