For related topics, see chapter 8, Perfidy and Ruses and chapter 9, Independent Missions: Espionage and Sabotage.

2 US Army, FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare 31 (1956). See also Greenspan, Modern Law of Land Warfare 591 (1959).

Based on customs and practice of war, issue items of flying clothing distinctive to and bearing identifying marks or insignia of the USAF satisfy existing requirements of national identity and state authorization of combatants for aircrew members" Op JAGAF 1951/132, 1 Dg. Ops, War and National Defense, Sec 10.3; Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict 611 (1959). Article 15, Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923) specifies: "Members of the crew of a military aircraft shall wear a fixed distinctive emblem of such character as to be recognizable at a distance in case they become separated from their aircraft." The necessities of war authorize the trial and punishment of spies and saboteurs caught out of uniform prior to rejoining their units in order to encourage the demarcation between combatants and civilians. See chapter 9, this publication, and Risley, The Law of War 108,

121 (1897); 7 Moore, Digest of International Law 231 (1908); Bordwell, Law of War 231, 291 (1908); Holland, Laws of War on Land 47 (1908); 6 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 307 (1943); 10 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 150 (1969). GPW, Articles 83, 89 and 93, in particular, recognize that the wearing of civilian clothing by a PW to escape is permissible and not an offense. It may result in disciplinary punishment only under the GPW.

4

Greenspan, supra note 2, at 318; Spaight, Air Power and War Rights 155, 163 (1947); Stone, supra note 3, at 612; FM 27-10, supra note 2, at 17.

5 For discussion, see Spaight, supra note 4, at 76103; Stone, supra note 3, at 612; 10 Whiteman, supra note 3, at 406, 610, 617 (1968). The 1923 Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare absolutely prohibited false external marks and required military marks (Articles 3 and 19). US Navy, NWIP 10-2, Law of Naval Warfare Section 500(d) (1959) specifies an absolute requirement of military markings for belligerent aircraft. The misuse of enemy flags, insignia and uniforms is discussed generally in chapter 8.

a cease-fire, a humanitarian negotiation or surrender; and (iii) the feigning by combatants of civilian, noncombatant status. Like ruses, perfidy involves simulation, but it aims at falsely creating a situation in which the adversary, under international law, feels obliged to take action or abstain from taking action, or because of protection under international law neglects to take precautions which are otherwise necessary. Perfidy or treachery to kill, injure or capture has been prohibited in armed conflict under international law in order to strengthen the trust which combatants should have in the international law of armed conflict. In addition,

perfidy tends to destroy the basis for restoration of peace and causes the conflict to degenerate into savagery.

b. Ruses. Ruses of war which have customarily been accepted as lawful, such as the use of camouflage, traps, mock operations and misinformation, are not perfidy. Ruses of war involve misinformation, deceit or other steps to mislead the enemy under circumstances where there is no obligation to speak the truth. As Oppenheim, a recognized international legal scholar, indicated,

Very important objects can be attained through ruses of war, such as, for instance, the surrender of a force, or a fortress, the evacuation of territory held by the enemy, the withdrawal of a seige, the abandonment of an intended attack, and the like. But ruses of war are also employed, and are very often the decisive factor, during battles.3

c. Misuse of Recognized Signs. It is forbidden to make use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross (red crescent, red lion and sun) and the protective signs for safety zones other than as provided for in international agreements establishing these emblems. It is also forbidden to make improper use of the flag of truce, or the distinctive sign of the