From Relief Proposals to a Diplomatic Conference
On August 22, 1864, representatives of twelve countries signed the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field in Geneva. Dunant’s book and Geneva’s Committee of Five had previously promoted voluntary relief, and an international conference in 1863 adopted organizational resolutions and recommended that states protect medical personnel and the wounded. Turning those proposals into state commitments required a separate diplomatic conference attended by government-authorized representatives.
The Swiss Federal Council issued invitations, and the conference met in Geneva from August 8 to 22, 1864, with sixteen countries represented. Dufour presided and formed part of the Swiss delegation with Moynier and others. A draft prepared by the Geneva committee provided the basis for discussion. Switzerland, France, Italy, Prussia, Belgium, and other states signed; the number attending was not the number signing. Ratification was subsequently required, and the convention formally entered into force only on June 22, 1865.
Nationality Did Not Determine Care for Sick and Wounded Soldiers
The convention had only ten articles. Its central requirement, in Article 6, was that wounded and sick soldiers be received and cared for regardless of nationality. This extended the duty of relief beyond one’s own army to wounded enemies. The article also arranged transfer and repatriation: where circumstances permitted and both sides agreed, wounded soldiers could immediately be returned to the enemy. Those who recovered but could no longer serve were to be sent home, while others could also be repatriated on condition that they did not resume fighting.
Article 5 included local inhabitants who assisted the wounded. They were to be respected and remain free, and commanders were to inform them of the protection available for helping injured soldiers. Households sheltering wounded people could also be exempted from billeting troops and some wartime levies. The treaty sought to reduce civilians’ fear of punishment for helping enemy personnel, making civilian care an activity expressly recognized by the military.
References: [1]
Enabling Medical Personnel to Remain with the Wounded
Article 1 required belligerents to recognize the neutrality of field medical units and military hospitals and protect and respect them while they contained wounded or sick people. Article 2 extended protection to medical, administrative, and transport personnel and chaplains performing their duties. Neutrality here principally meant respect for the medical function, allowing personnel to continue working rather than leave simply because enemy forces arrived, and enabling evacuation of the wounded to continue.
Article 3 allowed personnel to continue their duties in the same hospital or field medical unit after enemy occupation, or return to their own forces. Article 4 distinguished equipment belonging to fixed military hospitals from that of mobile medical units: the former remained subject to the laws of war, while the latter could retain its equipment. The status of voluntary relief personnel prompted debate at the conference. Treating volunteers subject to military discipline as equivalent to military medical personnel provided a way to connect them to protection.
A Common Emblem and a Chain of Command
On a battlefield, people and facilities engaged in medical relief had to be identified quickly. Article 7 prescribed a common flag for hospitals, field medical units, and evacuation parties, displayed alongside the national flag. Protected personnel could wear an armband issued by military authorities. Both flag and armband bore a red cross on a white background. The emblem translated treaty provisions into a potentially recognizable distant signal, while authorized issue linked actual status with eligibility for protection.
The treaty did not create an international police force with coercive enforcement powers. Article 8 left implementation details to commanders of the belligerent armies, acting under instructions from their governments and the convention’s principles. Article 9 invited governments absent from the conference to accede. Effective protection therefore depended on ratification, military orders, education, and battlefield practice, not signatures on a diplomatic document alone. Training and material preparations by national relief societies remained important complements to the legal commitments.
A Limited Beginning and Later Revisions
The 1864 text principally addressed wounded and sick soldiers and military medical services in land warfare. It did not establish the later comprehensive regimes for prisoners of war, people shipwrecked at sea, or civilians. It also left difficulties unresolved: Article 1 treated hospitals held by military forces very strictly, and exemptions for inhabitants sheltering wounded people proved hard to implement fully. Reviewing the old convention, the US delegation’s report of 1906 specifically discussed these practical problems and the need for amendment.
The 1906 revision expanded and refined the rules, clarifying conditions for voluntary relief personnel and addressing such matters as medical units carrying weapons for self-defense and having guards. Conventions in 1929 and 1949 further developed the protections. The historical significance of 1864 lies in states beginning to make a shared commitment to wounded soldiers through a multilateral treaty open to accession. Later expansion shows that applying the same principle under different conditions of war required repeated changes to law and organization.