Read other letters about this article
First omooex said:
Now, what the hell does that mean?
But then omooex said:
Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.
So it becomes difficult to tell whether omooex is practicing what he condemns or condemning what he practices. But assuming that "Now, what the hell does that mean?" was not meant to ridicule nor even to reduce an argument to a caricature, but is in fact a plea for enlightenment, the answer can be found at <http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNHY>. The article begins:
The Martens Clause has formed a part of the laws of armed conflict since its first appearance in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention (II) with respect to the laws and customs of war on land:
"Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience."
I suggest reading the entire piece. Even though you probably won't know much more about it afterwards because there are differing interpretations, you will at least know what the most generally taken possibilities of its meaning are.
Keep in mind that this is connected fairly firmly to the rules of land warfare. If one were to look in other areas I would think that our own founding documents came close to their own expression of this, viz. "the laws of humanity" corresponds to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and "the requirements/dictates of the public conscience" corresponds to "a decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind". Many probably wouldn't see it that way.