Prisoners of War: A Comparative Study of the Principles of International Humanitarian Law and the Islamic Law of War

Abstract

Th e treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) has been an issue of concern to all those engaged in armed confl ict for centuries. Th e problem of how to deal with POWs is not a new one and their treatment is a question with which the laws of war have been particularly concerned. Not all persons captured in the course of armed confl ict are entitled to POW status. Generally, only persons recognized as "combatants" in accordance with international humanitarian law are entitled to POW status upon capture by an adverse party in armed confl ict. Under the Th ird Geneva Convention of 1949, POWs are the responsibility of the capturing power from the moment of capture, and not of the individual or military units, which actually capture them. POWs must at all times be humanely treated and the Th ird Convention provides clear rules in relation to their camps, quarters, food and clothing. Th e principles embodied in the Islamic Law of War also provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of POWs. Nevertheless, there are some important diff erences between Islamic Law of War and the principles contained in the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, especially in relation to triggering the application of the laws of war and the concept of armed confl ict. What is most striking is the similarity in the protection provided by both legal frameworks. However, the single biggest challenge to both regimes remains the implementation of the relevant principles.

Prisoners of War: Classification and Legal Protection Under International Humanitarian Law

“…The convention is perceived as sufficient in protecting the people involved and in the absence of violence. However, it is difficult to define the POW status as there are several categories of the "victims of war" (Murphy & El Zeidy, 2009). The late Waldemar Solf (1987), an eminent scholar of the laws of war, noted that "…the history of rules concerning the qualifications of combatant status and entitlement to be a prisoner of war has been a controversial subject at all law-making conferences, and has always resulted in compromise" (p. 269).…”