[Diem] Question on shared IHL baseline for digital emblem use cases

[Walter Nuñez <[e-mail]>]

Dear DIEM WG,

After following the recent discussions and PRs on IHL-related use cases,
response requirements, proof of presence, and terminology, I would like to
raise a general process question.

Several of the open discussions seem to depend not only on technical
architecture, but also on a shared understanding of how protective emblems
and distinctive signs work in the physical world under international
humanitarian law.

For example, concepts such as “applying an emblem”, visibility, lawful use,
misuse, protected status, recognition by parties to a conflict, and the
distinction between medical/humanitarian emblems, civil defence signs,
cultural property signs, dangerous-forces signs, and other protected
civilian infrastructure can have different meanings if viewed only from a
technical perspective.

I do not doubt the technical expertise of the contributors or expertise of
ICRC related personnel. My concern is narrower: do we have a shared IHL
baseline document, reference section, or agreed terminology source that the
WG is using when discussing IHL-related use cases?

If not, perhaps it could be useful to have a short non-normative background
section or appendix that explains, at a high level:

- that an emblem or distinctive sign does not create legal protection by
itself;
- that legal protection comes from the applicable treaty, convention, or
legal rule;
- that the emblem or sign makes that protection visible and recognizable;
- that different IHL-related signs have different legal bases and should
not be treated as interchangeable;
- that some protected civilian infrastructure may not have an existing
physical emblem;
- and that the technical architecture should preserve the distinction
between legal status, physical/digital marking, authorization, discovery,
validation, and proof/audit mechanisms.

This could help avoid ambiguity in the technical requirements and prevent
the draft from unintentionally creating terminology that may be confusing
from an IHL perspective.

I am asking this because, as a Red Cross volunteer and software
analyst/programmer, I see value in ensuring that the technical work remains
aligned with the doctrine and practical function of physical emblems and
distinctive signs, while still allowing DIEM to remain a general and
extensible technical architecture.

Best regards,

Walter Francisco Núñez Cruz