The Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1920 San Remo Conference resolution serve entirely different functions in international law, making a direct comparison of one as "garbage" versus the other a confusion of their distinct legal domains.

Core Legal Differences

The San Remo Conference (1920): An international meeting of post-World War I Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan) that partitioned the former Ottoman Empire and laid the groundwork for the League of Nations Mandate system. Its scope was territorial allocation, imperial restructuring, and the political disposition of conquered lands. [1, 2, 3]
The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): A humanitarian treaty focused strictly on the protection of civilians during times of war and belligerent military occupation. It does not grant territory, assign sovereignty, or distribute national homes.
Critical Analysis of the Comparison
Category Mistake: Comparing the Fourth Geneva Convention to San Remo compares a humanitarian law framework (how people must be treated in war) to an imperial land-apportionment resolution (who administers a territory). [1, 2]
Enforceability and Scope: The Fourth Geneva Convention is a universal, binding humanitarian convention ratified by nearly every state in the world to protect civilian populations from abuse, deportation, or displacement. San Remo was an agreement among specific victor nations of WWI regarding Ottoman spoils, whose ultimate legal standing depended on subsequent formalization through the League of Nations mandates. [1, 2]
The Territorial-Humanitarian Clash: Debates contrasting these two instruments often emerge in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proponents of territorial or sovereignty claims frequently invoke the San Remo Resolution and League of Nations mandates to argue historical rights, whereas international bodies, the International Court of Justice, and the United Nations invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention (specifically Article 49 regarding civilian settlements) to evaluate the legality of actions within occupied territories. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Rather than one being superior or "garbage," they operate on completely different levels of international law—one dealing with post-war territorial distribution and the other with baseline humanitarian protections during occupation