• BACKGROUND
• THE LONG ROAD
• THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE
• RELATED DOCUMENTS

The Emblem question has been the object for much debate on all Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement fora for the last 10 years. The aim over the years remained unchanged: to find “a comprehensive and lasting solution to the question of the emblem”.  The solution was to establish an additional emblem through the adoption of a third additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. This aim was finally achieved on December 8, 2005 in Geneva when the diplomatic conference of States Parties to the Geneva Conventions adopted Additional Protocol III. The adoption also marked the end of the long debate on the emblem issue.


BACKGROUND

Behind the concept were two basic obligations of the Movement: to ensure effective protection in zones of conflict and to permit admission of established Societies who had difficulties with the existing emblems.

For the first obligation, added protection, it was never envisaged to accept a proliferation of national signs, leading to confusion and lack of visibility. For the second obligation, universality, the idea emerged of resorting, besides the cross and crescent, to a new geometrical figure with no reference to existing signs of religious, ethnic or national significance. This new emblem was not to replace the cross and crescent but to be placed on the same footing as the existing ones.

Designers and legal experts went to work in the year 2000 and suggested an additional new emblem - a "red frame in the shape of a square on edge". Later, there was a proposal that the new emblem be named the "red crystal".

In 1995 the Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent just elected by the 26th International Conference, set up its first working group, which reported to the Council of Delegates in Seville in 1997. Reports on further work were submitted to the Council and International Conference in 1999, which adopted a resolution requesting the Standing Commission to set up a Joint Working Group with representatives from the Movement and from governments with a mandate to find as rapidly as possible “a comprehensive solution acceptable to all parties” in terms of substance and procedure.

This working group, co-chaired by Mrs Christina Magnuson from the Standing Commission and Ambassador Diallo from Senegal, comprised members from 15 States - among them the permanent members of the Security Council - 4 members of the Standing Commission, two representatives of National Societies, the ICRC and the International Federation. During the year 2000, the group drafted its proposal for an additional third Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 - since then known as the draft Protocol.  Extensive consultations took place and wide agreement was achieved on the draft. Wide enough to convene a diplomatic conference for the 25th of October that same year 2000 to adopt the additional Protocol to be almost immediately followed by an International Conference in mid November to make the needed changes to the Statutes of the Movement.

However, the diplomatic conference as well as the International Conference had to be postponed due to political developments in late September 2000. Although hopes at the time were high for a rapid resumption of the process, it was only in late 2005 that the date set for the needed diplomatic conference.

An additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions can only be adopted by States. It is an international treaty procedure involving all 192 States Parties. The Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement therefore had no operative role in this process, in spite of having initiated and driven the process and having drafted the Protocol text in cooperation with the States in the mentioned Joint Working Group.

The text of the draft Protocol did not change during the years of tireless work in particular by the Movement to keep the issue on the international agenda in order to attain its aim: improved protection and the principle of universality. It never stopped its efforts to overcome obstacles in the way towards achieving these goals.

In 2001, a new aspect was introduced by the Council into the process. This was operational cooperation with the National Societies that were not yet recognised due to their inability to use the existing emblems.

In December 2003, the Council again adopted a resolution recalling the fundamental principle of universality, underlining the urgency of reinforcing protective measures and requesting the Standing Commission "to continue to give high priority to securing, as soon as circumstances permit, a comprehensive and lasting solution to the question of the emblem". That same resolution was endorsed by consensus by the 28th International Conference, meaning that also all States agreed to it.

The 28^th International Conference in 2003 again elected a new Standing Commission, which in turn appointed a new Working Group in January 2004. With a great deal of voluntary optimism, it set to work immediately, looking for a window of opportunity. Its Chairman and Special Representative, Ambassador Philippe Cuvillier, undertook already in the first part of 2004 consultations with governments involved, in Geneva and in the Middle East. The approach of the ICRC leadership to various governments and to the Swiss authorities was decisively important as was the work of the Federation with and through the National Societies and using other fora available to it.

All these approaches together with activities of some governments resulted in March 2005 in the appointment of an Ambassador at Large for the Emblem by the Swiss Government, in its capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions. Extensive consultations and negotiations with States Parties were conducted leading to an informal consultation meeting in mid September in Geneva.  Those consultations concluded with the commitment by the Swiss Government to convene the diplomatic conference before the end of the year 2005.