professor Ljubica Vasić, PhD
Abstract: The institution of the Protecting Power represents a cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law, serving to ensure the effective protection of individuals affected by armed conflicts. Its legal foundation is enshrined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Protection of Victims of War, as well as in Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Conventions. Widely recognized by the international community, the Protecting Power has become a central mechanism for monitoring the execution of human rights during times of war and armed conflict. It plays an important role in safeguarding the victims of war, facilitating independent and impartial oversight of the implementation of both treaty-based and customary rules of warfare. A notable innovation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was the expansion of entities authorized to perform the function of a Protecting Power. Beyond neutral states, this role may also be entrusted to impartial humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross. This extension has strengthened the protection of all categories of persons covered by the Conventions, enhancing supervisory capacity and reducing the discretionary powers of belligerent parties. The practical function of the Protecting Power contributes significantly to the humanization of armed conflict. By ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of the victims of war, it mitigates the suffering of those directly affected by hostilities and reinforces accountability among combatants. Furthermore, it exemplifies the international community’s enduring commitment to uphold human dignity even in situations of extreme adversity. In sum, the institution of the Protecting Power remains an indispensable component of the contemporary humanitarian and legal framework. Its role in monitoring compliance, limiting abuses, and protecting vulnerable populations underscores its continued relevance and effectiveness as a mechanism for safeguarding human rights during war.
Keywords: Protecting Power, human rights, international law, 1949 Geneva Conventions, victims of war.
1.INTRODUCTION
Armed conflicts inevitably lead to the disruption or complete severance of diplomatic relations between belligerent states, creating significant legal and practical challenges in ensuring the protection of persons affected by hostilities. In such circumstances, international humanitarian law has developed specific mechanisms aimed at safeguarding the interests of parties to the conflict and ensuring a minimum standard of protection for individuals, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians. One of the most important among these mechanisms is the institution of the Protecting Power.
The Protecting Power is traditionally understood as a neutral state entrusted with the task of representing the interests of one party to the conflict in relation to another, while at the same time supervising the implementation of applicable legal rules. Although this institution has a long historical development rooted in customary international law, it was formally codified and systematized in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and further elaborated in subsequent international instruments. Despite its clear normative framework, the practical application of the Protecting Power system has been limited, particularly in contemporary armed conflicts, where the appointment of neutral states is often difficult or politically unfeasible.
The subject of this paper is the analysis of the development, legal regulation, and practical significance of the Protecting Power within the framework of international humanitarian law. Particular attention is devoted to examining the extent to which this institution contributes to the protection of individuals affected by armed conflict, as well as the limitations that arise in its practical implementation.
In this context, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. While both legal regimes aim to protect the individual, they operate under different conditions and according to different principles.
While the title refers to the protection of human rights, it is necessary to clarify that the primary legal framework governing armed conflicts is international humanitarian law (IHL), which operates as lex specialis in relation to general human rights law. Nevertheless, the two regimes are complementary: while IHL directly regulates the conduct of hostilities and the protection of persons in wartime, international human rights law continues to apply, subject to permissible limitations and derogations in all circumstances. Accordingly, references to “human rights” in this paper are understood within the broader context of the protection afforded by IHL, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The main research question addressed in this paper is whether the institution of the Protecting Power represents an effective mechanism for supervising the implementation of international humanitarian law and ensuring the protection of persons affected by armed conflicts. The working hypothesis is that, although the Protecting Power is normatively well-established and represents an important legal mechanism, its effectiveness is significantly limited in practice due to political constraints, the lack of neutral states, and the dependence on the consent of the parties to the conflict.
In order to answer this question, the paper first examines the historical development of the Protecting Power, followed by an analysis of its role during the two World Wars. It then considers its codification and development in the period between and after the wars, with particular emphasis on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977. Finally, the paper evaluates the contemporary relevance of this institution and its capacity to function as an effective mechanism of protection in modern armed conflicts.
- HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTION
OF THE PROTECTING POWER
As a direct consequence of war or armed conflict, diplomatic and consular relations between belligerent parties are typically severed. In such circumstances, in order to safeguard their state interests as well as the rights and interests of their nationals located in the territory of the enemy state, the parties to the conflict may entrust this function to third states that do not participate in the conflict. In international legal theory and practice, such states are referred to as Protecting Powers. As a rule, these are neutral states, i.e. states that are not parties to the armed conflict, although international organizations may also perform certain related functions. International law does not impose a limitation regarding the number of states whose interests may be represented by a single Protecting Power (Lopičić & Lopičić Jančić, 2021, pp.15-21).
Until the 19th century, this institution existed primarily within the framework of customary international law, without formal codification or universal treaty-based regulation. The absence of clear legal rules governing its status, powers, and procedures resulted in legal uncertainty and divergent interpretations in practice, particularly with regard to the scope of supervisory functions over compliance with the law of war (Dimitrijević, V. 2006, pp. 344-361).
The modern development of the Protecting Power institution is commonly associated with the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). (Castleden, 1994, p.466). During that conflict, the severance of diplomatic relations and the expulsion of consular personnel created a need for alternative mechanisms of representation. Neutral states assumed this role: the United Kingdom protected French interests in Germany, while the United States, Switzerland, and Russia acted on behalf of various German states in France (Levie, 1961, pp. 30-31). This practice contributed to the consolidation of the Protecting Power as a functional mechanism of indirect representation and protection of interests in wartime conditions. During the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), both belligerent parties appointed the United States as the Protecting Power, resulting in a form of reciprocal representation whereby the same neutral state acted on behalf of each party within the territory of the other (Levie, 1961,p.30). Similarly, during the Greco-Turkish War, Germany acted as Protecting Power for Turkey in the territory of Greece, while the United Kingdom, France, and Russia jointly represented Greek interests in the territory of Turkey, illustrating the possibility of collective Protecting Powers. (Levie, 1961,p.30). These examples demonstrate the increasing flexibility of the institution in practice.
These early cases indicate that the institution of the Protecting Power developed gradually through state practice prior to its codification in treaty law. By the end of the 19th century, it had evolved into a recognizable mechanism of neutral mediation and representation, although its effectiveness remained dependent on the political will of the parties to the conflict (Best, 1980, p. 52).
A turning point in the development and affirmation of the institution of the Protecting Power occurred during the First World War. The massive scale of suffering and violations of the human rights of war victims led to increased interest not only by the governments of the belligerent states but also by public opinion. The public demanded regular and reliable information about the situation of their nationals interned in enemy camps, particularly regarding their legal status, conditions of detention etc. (Obradović, 1974, p. 66).
In this context, the role of Protecting Powers expanded, particularly in relation to monitoring detention conditions and facilitating communication. However, their effectiveness was often limited by restricted access, political pressures, and the lack of clearly defined legal authority (Forsythe, 2005, pp. 36–40). Consequently, their role, although significant, remained dependent on the consent and cooperation of the belligerent parties.
The functioning of the Protecting Power was also influenced by broader social and political perceptions. In some cases, public opinion in belligerent states viewed Protecting Powers with suspicion, perceiving them as indirectly favoring the opposing side, which could undermine their effectiveness (Forsythe, 2005, p. 39). At the same time, dominant social structures influenced perceptions of legitimacy and neutrality (Vasić, 2018, p. 14).
- THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTING POWER DURING
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
During the First World War, Protecting Powers sought to obtain direct and reliable information from the belligerent parties regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Convention IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (Arts. 4 and 14) as well as compliance with the rules of customary and treaty-based international law of war. Their role included monitoring detention conditions and facilitating communication between prisoners of war and their home states. (Međunarodne konvencije o ratnom pravu i o sigurnosti, 1979, pp. 16-26).
Their activities were frequently constrained by practical and political obstacles, including restricted access to camps and differing interpretations of legal obligations. Therefore, while Protecting Powers contributed to improving certain aspects of humanitarian protection, their impact should not be overstated (Forsythe, 2005, pp. 40–45; Dinstein, 2019, pp. 138–140).
In parallel, the International Committee of the Red Cross established the Central Prisoners of War Agency, relying on the Hague Regulations of 1907. This institution played a crucial role in collecting and transmitting information on prisoners of war (Commentary III. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoner of War, 1960, p.94)
The Agency developed an extensive registration system containing millions of records concerning prisoners of war and conducted visits to detention facilities in order to assess conditions of internment (Commentary III Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoner of War, 1960,pp. 104–105).
The case of Serbia during the First World War illustrates both the potential and the limitations of the Protecting Power system. Following attacks by Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, Serbia relied on neutral intermediaries to protect its interests. Denmark and the Netherlands acted as Protecting Powers vis-à-vis Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria respectively (Lopičić & Lopičić Jančić, 2013, pp. 58–61).
Through diplomatic channels, Serbian authorities sought to secure protection for their nationals detained in enemy camps and to inform the international public about violations of the law of war. However, the effectiveness of these efforts was limited due to political constraints and pressure from stronger belligerent states, which significantly reduced the scope of interventions (Lopičić & Lopičić Jančić, 2013, pp. 58–61).
This example demonstrates a broader structural limitation of the Protecting Power system: although formally grounded in neutrality and legal function, its practical effectiveness depends on political realities, which raises questions about its relevance in contemporary armed conflicts.
- THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECT OF THE PROTECTING POWER BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS
The experiences of the First World War directly influenced the adoption of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 27 July 1929. This Convention, inter alia, legally established the institution of the Protecting Power in Articles 86–88 (Međunarodne konvencije o ratnom pravu i o sigurnosti, 1979, pp. 353–354). Within the provisions concerning the organization of supervision, Article 86 regulates in detail the right of representatives or recognized delegates of the Protecting Power to visit all places of internment without exception, to have access to all premises used by prisoners of war, and to converse with them without witnesses, either directly or through an interpreter. Article 87 provides for the obligation of Protecting Powers, in the event of disagreement between belligerent parties concerning the application of the Convention, to offer their good offices for the peaceful settlement of the dispute. The normative formulation of this institution in the 1929 Convention is regarded as legally well-founded and functional, as confirmed by its incorporation into subsequent international humanitarian instruments. Article 88 provides the International Committee of the Red Cross with the legal basis for developing its humanitarian and supervisory functions (Commentary III Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, pp. 93-96). The legal formulation contained in the 1929 Convention proved to be enduring and served as the basis for later conventional solutions. By introducing this institution into positive law, its legal legitimacy was strengthened, including its importance for the criminal-law protection of prisoners of war. The incorporation of the Protecting Power into the 1929 Convention represented a significant step in the institutionalization of international legal protection of prisoners of war, with implications also for their criminal-law protection. This institution acquired particular practical significance during the Second World War.[1]
- THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROTECTING POWER DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR
During the Second World War, grave violations of human rights were committed against the victims of war, the need for effective protection mechanisms was further reinforced. (Levie, 1961 pp. 32-33). Due to the large number of participating states and the limited number of neutral countries, only a small number of states were able to assume the role of Protecting Power.[2] (Egorovič, 1995, p. 140).
On the territory of Yugoslavia during the Second World War, German authorities failed to comply with the provisions of the 1929 Geneva Convention, despite being a party to it. More than 300,000 members of the Yugoslav armed forces were taken prisoner, and numerous violations of the rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war were recorded, including inadequate conditions of accommodation, food, hygiene, and medical care, resulting in high mortality rates among detainees (Izveštaj Jugoslovenske državne komisije za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i njihovih pomagača Međunarodnom vojnom sudu u Nirnbergu 1947,p.41).
At the same time, the International Committee of the Red Cross, on the basis of Article 88 of the 1929 Geneva Convention, obtained an explicit legal foundation for developing its humanitarian and supervisory functions, with the consent of the interested parties (Međunarodne konvencije o ratnom pravu i sigurnosti, 1979, p. 354).
During the Second World War, the Committee established more than 40 million prisoner index cards, carried out approximately 11,000 camp visits, and distributed around 450,000 tons of humanitarian relief parcels. Its activities encompassed not only the provision of material assistance but also monitoring compliance with conventional standards (Commentary III Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoner of War, 1960, pp. 104–105).
The experience of the Second World War clearly demonstrated a structural weakness of the Protecting Power system: its effectiveness depended largely on the cooperation of the detaining power. In situations where such cooperation was absent, as in several cases during the war, the protective function of the institution was significantly undermined. This limitation raises broader questions about the reliability of the mechanism in conditions of total war and contributes to ongoing debates regarding its relevance in contemporary armed conflicts.
- INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGULATION OF THE PROTECTING POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR
During the Second World War, grave violations of international humanitarian law were committed, including numerous war crimes against protected persons, as well as serious violations of fundamental human rights. These developments highlighted the inadequacy of existing mechanisms of supervision and accountability.
In this context, the Allied Powers adopted the St. James’s Declaration in January 1942, expressing their determination to ensure the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes (https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-648522001/view?partId=nla.obj-648522340#page/n2/mode/1up preuzeto 23.04.2026; Friedman, 1972, pp. 778–779). This Declaration is generally regarded as an early step toward the establishment of an international system of criminal responsibility, although its legal nature was primarily declaratory and political rather than binding.
Following the end of the war, whose scale of destruction and human casualties exceeded that of the First World War, two international ad hoc tribunals were established in Nuremberg and Tokyo (Röling, 1979, pp. 199–231). These tribunals marked a turning point in the development of international criminal law by affirming the principle of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity (Holder, 1972, pp. 315–318).
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, seated in Tokyo, was established by decision of the Allied Powers to prosecute senior Japanese political and military leaders (Bassiouni, 1992, pp. 205–211; The Tokyo Judgment, 1977, pp. XI–XII). These developments, although not directly linked to the Protecting Power system, contributed to strengthening the broader framework of accountability within which international humanitarian law operates.
Particular attention should be given to the case of Mamoru Shigemitsu, who served as Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from April 1943 to April 1945. During his mandate, the Protecting Powers of the Allied states addressed several protests to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning: inhumane treatment of prisoners of war, denial of the right to inspect camps, prevention of confidential interviews with prisoners, and failure to provide information regarding their identity and place of detention. The absence of responses to these representations gave rise to justified suspicion that the true situation of prisoners was being concealed (The Tokyo Judgment Volume I, 1977, pp. 457 – 458, 466: Schwarzenberger, 1968, pp. 499–502). This example illustrates the importance of the institution of the Protecting Powers within the system of international humanitarian law, but also the limitations of their action in circumstances in which the Axis Powers grossly ignored international legal obligations, including respect for the protective function of these states (Levie, 1993, pp. 141–150).
Within the framework of international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide a comprehensive legal regulation of the Protecting Power system. It should be noted, however, that these Conventions primarily regulate the protection of persons in armed conflict within the framework of international humanitarian law, while the concept of “human rights” operates in parallel but distinct legal regimes. In situations of armed conflict, humanitarian law functions as lex specialis.
In the First and Second Geneva Conventions of 1949, the institution of the Protecting Power is regulated in Articles 8, 10, and 11 (Commentary to I Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1952, pp. 86-131). Article 8, paragraph 1, stipulates that the Conventions shall be applied with the participation and under the supervision of the Protecting Powers, whose duty is to safeguard the interests of the parties to the conflict. At the same time, paragraph 2 of the same Article obliges the parties to the conflict to facilitate, to the fullest extent possible, the work of representatives or delegates of the Protecting Power (Commentary to II Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1960, pp. 60–77). This provision regulates in detail the rights and obligations of the Protecting Power, emphasizing its role in supervising the implementation of conventional norms and mediating between the belligerent parties. Historical experience, particularly during the Second World War, demonstrated the limited practical application of this institution due to the lack of a sufficient number of neutral states capable of assuming the function of Protecting Power.
Since most states were directly involved in the conflict, the possibility of appointing neutral intermediaries was significantly reduced, which affected the effectiveness of the system of protection for the wounded, the sick, as well as medical and religious personnel. Article 10 regulates the possibility of replacing the Protecting Power if the appointed state is unable to perform its function, while Article 11 provides that the Protecting Power may offer its good offices for the resolution of disputes between the parties to the conflict concerning the interpretation or application of the Conventions These provisions aim to ensure continuity of supervision even in adverse conditions.Particular importance is attached to Article 9 of the First and Second Conventions, which recognizes the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other impartial humanitarian organizations. This represents an important development, as it allows for functional substitution of the Protecting Power in situations where no neutral state is available. At the same time, such substitution remains dependent on the consent of the parties, which may limit its practical effectiveness. (Ženevske konvencije i Dopunski protokoli, 2009, pp. 1–45).
The Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949, also regulates in Articles 8, 10, and 11 the basic legal status of the Protecting Power in an identical manner to the First and Second Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Commentary to III Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1960, pp. 92–127). However, its particular value is reflected in Article 126, which elaborates in detail the right of supervision. Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Power are authorized to visit all places where prisoners of war are held, including camps, prisons, and labor sites; to speak with prisoners without witnesses present; and to freely choose the places to be visited. The duration and frequency of visits may not be restricted, except exceptionally and temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity. The same privileges are accorded to delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross, subject to the approval of the detaining state. In this Convention as well, Article 9 provides for the possibility of action by impartial humanitarian organizations, thereby further strengthening the mechanism for substituting the traditional state-based Protecting Power. These provisions represent one of the most developed forms of supervisory authority within international humanitarian law (Oppenheim, 1952, pp.374-375).
The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, retains the same normative structure with regard to the Protecting Power (Articles 9, 11, and 12), but significantly extends its scope to the civilian population, including persons in occupied territories and interned persons. Article 9 establishes that the Convention shall be applied with the participation and under the supervision of the Protecting Powers, while Article 11 provides for the possibility of substitution in case of inability to perform the function. Article 12 regulates the procedure of mediation and good offices in the event of disputes. Particularly significant are the provisions concerning the right to visit interned persons, whereby the institution of the Protecting Power is affirmed as a key guarantor of humane treatment of civilians (Commentary to IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1958, pp. 80–117).This expansion reflects the recognition that civilian populations require specific legal protection in armed conflicts.
In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the institution of the Protecting Power was conceived as a universal mechanism of supervision, mediation, and protection, applicable to all categories of protected persons: the wounded, the sick, shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war, and civilians. At the same time, by introducing the International Committee of the Red Cross and other impartial humanitarian organizations as possible substitutes for states in the role of Protecting Power, this mechanism underwent institutional modernization. In this manner, the problem of the lack of neutral states in contemporary armed conflicts was overcome and greater effectiveness in the implementation of international humanitarian law was ensured.
The institution of the Protecting Power within the system of the 1949 Geneva Conventions represents one of the most significant instruments of control and guarantee of compliance with humanitarian standards in armed conflicts. Its normative uniformity across all four Conventions, together with its extension to impartial humanitarian organizations, reflects the intention of the drafters to ensure continuous, neutral, and effective supervision over the application of international humanitarian law and to further strengthen the legal and criminal-law protection of all persons covered by the protection regime.
The institution of the Protecting Power was originally systematized in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and its significance, scope, and operational modalities were further confirmed and elaborated in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977.
Additional Protocol I reaffirms the obligation of the parties to the conflict to ensure an effective mechanism of supervision over compliance with the conventional and Protocol norms, particularly in situations where regular diplomatic channels do not function or have been severed due to armed conflict (Protocol I Art. 2-5, Dinstein, 2019, pp. 138–140, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 1987,pp.57-89)
In this respect, Article 2 of the Protocol confirms the application of the Protecting Power system provided for in the Geneva Conventions, while Article 5 further elaborates the obligation of the parties to appoint and accept a Protecting Power without delay. This may be a neutral state or another state not party to the conflict, provided that it enjoys the confidence of the parties concerned. If the appointment of such a state is not possible, the Protocol provides for the possibility that the function of the Protecting Power be assumed by an impartial and effective organization, subject to the consent of the parties to the conflict. In practice, this role is most frequently undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross, thereby ensuring continuity of protection and supervision even in circumstances where political conditions do not permit the appointment of a neutral state. The normative framework of Article 5 of Additional Protocol I is of multiple significance. First, it establishes the obligation of continuous supervision over the implementation of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol, even in conditions of a complete severance of diplomatic relations. Second, it confirms the mediating and facilitating function of the Protecting Power in resolving disputed issues concerning the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law. Third, it introduces an element of functional flexibility, allowing impartial humanitarian organizations to act as substitutes for the traditional state-based Protecting Power, thereby overcoming practical difficulties in securing neutral supervision in contemporary conflicts (Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 1987, pp. 71–75).
It should also be emphasized that Article 75 para.(4) of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides for certain minimum guarantees for persons deprived of their liberty in international armed conflicts, irrespective of their formal status. (Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 1987, pp. 861–890).This provision is widely recognized in contemporary international legal doctrine and practice as a rule of customary international law, including by states that have not ratified the said Protocol such as United States (Dimitrijević, 2006, pp.353-354).
In this way, Additional Protocol I not only confirms the existing conventional system but also strengthens it normatively, transforming the institution of the Protecting Power into a central instrument guaranteeing the application of international humanitarian law in international armed conflicts. At the same time, this mechanism enables the protection of the wounded, the sick, prisoners of war, and the civilian population without encroaching upon the sovereignty or legal status of the belligerent parties, since the action of the Protecting Power is based on consent and neutrality rather than the imposition of authority (Krivokapić, 2023, pp. 288–289).
The institution of the Protecting Power represents one of the key mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of international humanitarian law in war and armed conflicts and thereby, to the greatest extent possible, preventing violations of the human rights of war victims. Its normative basis is contained in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which established a system of supervision over the execution of the obligations provided for in the Conventions and later in Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Thus, this institution acquired a universal character and became a generally accepted instrument for the protection of the human rights of war victims in contemporary international law.
- CONCLUSION
The Protecting Power is traditionally defined as a neutral state or, in certain circumstances, an impartial organization designated by the parties to an armed conflict in order to represent and safeguard the interests of one belligerent party in relation to another. Its functions include supervision over the implementation of conventional provisions, mediation between the parties, monitoring the treatment of protected persons, and submitting observations in cases of violations of international humanitarian law. Within the system established by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, this institution occupies an important place in relation to all categories of protected persons: the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and civilians.
From a normative perspective, the Protecting Power constitutes one of the central supervisory mechanisms of international humanitarian law. However, it is important to emphasize that its primary legal framework lies within international humanitarian law, which operates as lex specialis in situations of armed conflict. In that sense, the contribution of the Protecting Power to the protection of individuals should be understood primarily through the prism of humanitarian law, while its relationship to the broader concept of human rights remains indirect and contextual.
An important development compared to earlier codifications is the possibility that, in the absence of a neutral state, the functions of the Protecting Power may be assumed by impartial humanitarian organizations, most notably the International Committee of the Red Cross. This solution reflects an effort to adapt the traditional state-centered model to the realities of modern armed conflicts, where the number of neutral states is often limited. At the same time, it introduces a degree of functional flexibility into the system, allowing for the continuity of supervision even in complex political circumstances.
Nevertheless, despite its detailed normative regulation, the practical effectiveness of the Protecting Power system remains limited. Its functioning is largely dependent on the consent and cooperation of the parties to the conflict, as well as on broader political conditions. Historical experience, particularly during the World Wars, as well as developments in contemporary conflicts, demonstrate that in situations where such cooperation is lacking, the role of the Protecting Power may be significantly reduced or even rendered ineffective. In this regard, the institution reflects not only legal norms but also the influence of political and social structures that shape the conditions for their implementation (Vasić, 2018).
Accordingly, the initial hypothesis of this paper is confirmed: although the institution of the Protecting Power is normatively well-established and represents an important mechanism for supervising the implementation of international humanitarian law, its practical impact is constrained by structural and political limitations. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as a fully reliable or universally applicable mechanism of protection in all armed conflicts.
At the same time, its significance should not be underestimated. The Protecting Power remains an important legal instrument that embodies the idea of neutral supervision and humanitarian protection in armed conflict. In the broader development of international law, it represents an attempt to reconcile state sovereignty with the need to ensure a minimum standard of protection for individuals affected by war. Precisely in this balance lies its enduring value, as well as the challenge of its future application in increasingly complex forms of armed conflict.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Bassiouni, C. 1992. Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Dodrecht, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Best, G. 1980. Humanity in Warfare. London: Methuen.
Castleden, R. 1994. World history A Chronological Dictionary of Dates,London, Parragon
Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ed. Sandoz Y.& Swinarski C.& Zimmerman B. 1987. Geneva ICRC, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Commenary to I Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed foces in the Field, (Collection of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949)ed. Jean S. Pictet etc. 1952, Geneva. ICRC.
Commenary to II Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, (Collection of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949)ed. Jean S. Pictet etc. 1960, Geneva. ICRC .
Commenary to III Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoner of War, (Collection of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949)ed. Jean S. Pictet etc. 1960, Geneva. ICRC.
Commenary to IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of the Civilian Prsons in time of war, (Collection of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949) ed. Jean S. Pictet etc. 1958, Geneva. ICRC.
Dimitrijević, V. et al. (2006) Medjunarodno pravo ljudskih prava, Beograd, Beogradski centar za ljudska prava
Dinstein, Y. 2019. The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egorovič, E. M. 1995. “Sovetskie voennoplennie v Germanii v gody vtoroi mirovoi voini”, Voprosi istorii.
Forsythe, D. P. 2005. The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross.
Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, L. 1972. The law of war: A documentary history (Vols. I–II). New York, NY. Random House.
Holder, E. W., & Brennan, A. G. 1972. The international legal system: Cases and materials. (with emphasis on the Australian perspective), Sydney. Butterworths.
Krivokapić, B. 2023. Rat i pravo, teorija i praksa oružanih sukoba i međunarodno pravo. Banja Luka: Udruženje pravnika Republike Srpske, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Republike Srpske, Fakultet bezbednosti Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Izveštaj Jugoslovenske državne komisije za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i njihovih pomagača Međunarodnom vojnom sudu u Nirnbergu 1947.Belgrade.
Levie, H.S. 1961. “Prisoners of War and the Protecting Power”, The American Journal of International Law, 374.
Levie, H. S. 1993. Terrorism in War. Newport: Naval War College Press.
Lopičić, Đ. & Lopičić Jančić, J. 2013. Konzularni odnosi i konzularno pravo. Beograd: Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu.
Lopičić, Đ. & Lopičić Jančić, J. 2021. Diplomatija. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju.
Međunarodne konvencije o ratnom pravu i sigurnosti. 1979. Zagreb. Zavod za općenarodnu obranu i društvenu samozaštitu SRH.
Obradović, K. 1974. Ustanova sile zaštitnice u savremenom humanitarnom pravu. u Međunarodni problemi, No.1.
Oppenheim L. M, 1952 International Law a Treatise Volume II. Disputes War and Neutrality, London, New York, Toronto, Longmans
Röling, B. 1979. Aspects of the criminal responsibility for violations of the laws of war. In A. Cassese (Ed.), The new humanitarian law of armed conflict, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica
Schwarzenberger, G.1968. International Law. Vol. II: The Law of Armed Conflict. London: Stevens & Sons.
The Tokyo Judgment I.M.T.F.E (29. April 1946-12.novembar 1948), Volume I – II, Amsterdam, 1977
Vasić. Lj. 2018. Američki postvijetnamski muški identitet. Kragujevac: FILUM/Filološko-umetnički fakultet. (Biblioteka Crvena Linija. Kolekcija Teorija. Književnost. Kultura).
Ženevske konvencije i Dopunski protokoli 2009. Belograd, Crveni krst Srbije, MKCK, Ambasada Švajcarske.
[1] It should be emphasized that the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of 27 July 1929 did not contain provisions concerning the Protecting Power.
[2] Among the European neutral states, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and Spain stood out in particular. Switzerland performed the function of Protecting Power for 35 states, and Sweden for 19 states, thereby giving this institution significant operational dimension
This research paper was written in cooperation with professor Jelena Lopičić Jančič, PhD as the co-author and it was originally published in: Regional Law Review, Belgrade: Institute of Comparative Law, Annual Edition, pp. 143-155
