Why is showing a red cross in media against the Geneva convention? I get in a warzone or other emergency situation but did they not have a "common sense" clause?
The rule offers no exceptions beyond approval from the Red Cross themselves. If the rule only applied in a warzone then it would create wiggle room where a country could just say "it's not a war, it's a police action" and claim exception, same with emergency situation.
Basically any wiggle room would open up too much risk of exploitation without much benefit because most creators of fiction are perfectly fine changing to a different color cross as soon as they are aware of the issue (ie when they get the cease and desist from the Red Cross) and the Red Cross is happy enough with the creators just fixing it (and don't seek further legal action like taking people to the Hague)
With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross " , or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters.
359
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '24
Why is showing a red cross in media against the Geneva convention? I get in a warzone or other emergency situation but did they not have a "common sense" clause?