Talk:Martens Clause

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2012

I am reverting this series of edits. The reasons I am doing this is beacause:

1. The changes to the lead imply that it was brought in because of unlawful combatants, yet it was brought in because the minor powers did not agree that francs-tireurs were unlawful combatants. The change in the lead presents the great powers POV as a statement of fact.
2. I disagree with the moving of the cometary down to the end of the article, as what results is a first few sections that relies totally on primary and not secondary sources. The point about the comments by Rupert Ticehurs is his statements succinctly state the generally held opinions which it is easier to quote than risk copyright violations. Placing the statements at the end of the piece misses the point of why the statement are in the article in the first place.
3. The new section section "Geneva Conventions" says "the Clause was repeated..." well no it was not the clause that was used in the Geneva Conventions the last sentence of the clause but dropped the phrase "among civilized peoples" (presumably as all nations are now considered civilized). I do not this that a section is needed for one sentence and there is no reason to mention the ICRC Commentary, as all it is saying is that under the Nuremberg principles the clause is now considered to be part of customary humanitarian law, this is better said in the mention of the U.S. Military Tribunal, United States v. Krupp.
4. If the Ticehurs cometary is moved back up the page then it already covers the this point made in the new paragraph on the ICJ (as the citation makes clear without an in text attribution which is made by the quote.

Having made the revert I will include couple of points mentioned above which I think would improve the article. If anyone wishes to re-add anything I have deleted an not reinstalled pleases discuss it and reach a consensus here on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martens Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525082008/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514075648/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/klinge.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/klinge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)