Office Of The Judge Advocate General
Memorandum
3440-13 (DLaw)
1 Feb 94
Distribution List
ARMING OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND ARMOURED AMBULANCES
Ref: 3350-250/0 (Surg Gen) 30 Sep 93
1. Ref A posed two questions:
a. what weapons may medical personnel legitimately carry
without jeopardizing their standing as protected personnel
or contravening the Geneva Conventions; and
b. what weapons can be mounted on medical vehicles i.e.
ambulances without jeopardizing their protected status
or contravening the Geneva Conventions.
2. I apologize for the delay in responding. I did however wish, in addition
to analyzing the relevant law, to canvass the practice of a number of our allies since
the decision on this issue may well incorporate policy as well as legal requirements.
3. Military medical personnel in time of armed conflict are entitled to special
protection pursuant to the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded
and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (GC1) and the Geneva Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of
Armed Forces at Sea (GC2) of 1949. Amplification of this protection is provided in
Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Protocol 1).
Canada is a party to all these conventions.
4. The granting of special status to military medical personnel in the Geneva
Conventions is founded upon the concept that although military these personnel are
essentially non-combatants. This philosophy explains why dedicated military medical
personnel always have this status, while auxilary military medical personnel only have
this status when they are actually carrying out their medical duties such as hospital
orderlies or auxiliary stretcher bearers.
1/4
5. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not directly specify
what, if any weapons, medical personnel may be armed with, however this can be
determined indirectly. It is clear, since the 1906 versions of the Geneva Conventions,
that military medical personnel can be armed. Military medical units do not lose their
protected status simply because the personnel of the unit are armed and use the arms
in their own defence (GC1 art 22(1)). These units can however lose their protection,
after due warning, if they are used to commit outside their humanitarian duties, acts
harmful to the enemy. This means that military medical personnel can be issued with,
carry and use, if necessary, weapons but only for personal defence or defence of sick
and wounded under their care.
6. Protocol 1 at art 13, which deals with the protection of civilian medical
units, specify that such units do not lose their status simply because the personnel
of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence of for that
of their patients.
7. In fact the term "light individual weapons" which is certainly more precise
and possibly more stringent than the terminology "arms in their own defence" has been
interpreted to include rifles. This is done in the Red Cross sponsored Commentary
elaborating on Protocol 1 which states:
" ... it appears for the discussions in Committee II regarding this article
and, regarding the cessation of protection to which civil defence
organizations are entitled, that it refers to weapons which are generally
carried and used by a single individual. Thus not only hand weapons
such as pistols are permitted, but also rifles or even sub-machine guns.
On the other hand, machine guns and any other heavy arms which
cannot easily be transported by an individual and which have to be
operated by a number of people are prohibited."
8. This interpretation has been adopted by several of our allies including the
Netherlands, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, the United
Kingdom, the United States and Germany in 1988 apparently established, by tri-lateral
agreement, that it was their position that pistol, sub-machine guns and rifles were all
permissible weapons for arming medical personnel.
9. The answer to question 1(a) is that CF medical personnel can be
legitimately armed with pistols, sub-machine guns or rifles without endangering their
special status or violating the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The type of
weapon is only one half of the equation, since it is their method of use, in self-defence
or defence of sick and wounded under care which is also necessary for continued
protection. What is perhaps most valuable for answering the second question you
pose is the concept that, while arguably any weapon might be used in self-defence
or defence of the sick or wounded, certain weapons are clearly designed to do much
more than that and permit offensive attacks. These weapons are inconsistent with the
2/4
protected status of medical units and personnel, who are not permitted to participate
in military activities or resist the enemy but are limited to defending themselves when
their status is not properly recognized.
10. The issue of the arming of medical vehicles is much more problematic.
Medical transports (including armoured ambulances) are protected by their status.
This status may be permanent or temporary but at all times must be exclusive. That
is any medical transport claiming protected status must be exclusively devoted to
medical purposes.
11. There are no specific provisions providing for what arms can be carried
on a medical transport. Protocol 1, art 21, states medical vehicles must be respected
and protected in the same way as mobile medical units. Mobile medical units must
generally comply with the same prohibition against being used for acts which are
harmful to the enemy as fixed medical units.
12. The list of activities which are permitted and which do not endanger the
protected status of military medical units, mobile medical units and medical vehicles
are essentially the same. In terms of arms this means that if medical personnel
operating the ambulance are armed with light weapons for personal protection or
protection of the sick and wounded then this does not jeopardize the medical vehicles
protected status.
13. It does not seem that vehicle mounted weapon, either a 50 cal machine
gune or a GPMG would meet that description. informaal discussion with the Land
Doctrine people indicate that while these can be considered defensive weapons they
would not normally be categorized as light individual or self-defence weapons.
14. In addition to this legal analysis there appears to be practical reasons not
to vehicle mount weapons on medical transports. As pointed out by my US contacts,
a practical reason why they do not vehicle mount weapons on their armoured
ambulances is that in conditions of poor visibility frequently the silouhette, rather than
the markings of a vehicle are relied upon for identification. An armoured vehicle which
was a medical transport with a vehicle mounted weapon would look like any other
armoured vehicle.
15. A survey of the German, Dutch, UK and US authorities indicate that none
of them vehicle mount weapons on medical vehicles, including armoured ambulances.
Most recently the Germans have wrestled with the question of whether to install door
guns in medical transport helicopters. They decided against it on the basis that this
would not fall into the category of light personal weapons.
16. Of course if an armoured ambulance is not seeking the status of
medical vehicle, that is it is not identified as such and does not seek exemption from
attack, that is it acts and expects to be treated as any other combatant vehicle then
3/4
any weapon can be mounted on it.
17. It is the mixture of a claim/expectation of protection and weaponry
inconsistent with the non-combatant status of a medical vehicle which can cause
problems. An extreme case might be the mobile SCUD launcher ambulance. Clearly
even if not used, the type of weaponry on the vehicle is inconsistent with the status
of a protected medical vehicle. If identified with a Red Cross and if used as a missle
launcher, charges of misuse of the Red Cross emblem and perfidy could also be
appropriate. This is clearly an extreme, but even in less clear situations there is
always a danger of encouraging misperception or potential misuse by over-arming
medical vehicles; implicitly relying on arms instead of status for protection.
18. The answer to question 1(b) is that the mounting of a weapon on an
armoured ambulance when the weapon does not fall into the category of one used for
self-defence (i.e. a light individual weapon) within the Geneva Conventions
exceptions, could be construed as an act harmful to the enemy which can lead to the
loss of the protected status of a medical vehicle.
19. I hope this somewhat delayed resonse fully answers your question. I
am also enclosing copies of some memos dealing with related questions which may
be of interest.
K.S. Carter
LCol
DLaw/l
