Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:41:03.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict without casualties … a note of caution: non-lethal weapons and international humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Eve Massingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last decade considerable expense has been invested in non-lethal weapons development programmes, including by the United States military and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and members of the European Working Group Non-Lethal Weapons. This paper acknowledges the potential suitability of non-lethal weapons for specific situations arising on the battlefield, but cautions against those who advocate for any weakening of existing international humanitarian law frameworks to provide for greater employment of non-lethal technologies.

Keywords

non-lethal weaponsdistinctionproportionalityprecaution
Type
New Technologies and the Law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 94 , Issue 886: New Technologies and Warfare , June 2012 , pp. 673 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fidler, David, ‘The meaning of Moscow: “non-lethal" weapons and international law in the early 21st century’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 859, 2005, p. 552CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 NATO Policy on Non-lethal weapons, available at: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p991013e.htm.

3 ‘Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS)’, in Globalsecurity, available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm.

4 US Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program, ‘M2 Vehicle Lightweight Arresting Device Net’, available at: http://jnlwp.defense.gov/current/VLAD.html.

5 See further, Nick, Lewer and Neil, Davison, ‘Non-lethal technologies – an overview’, in Disarmament Forum, Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 37–51Google Scholar; D. Fidler, ‘Meaning of Moscow’, above note 1, p. 528; US Department of Defence Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program website, available at: http://jnlwp.defense.gov/index.html; Davison, Neil, Non-Lethal Weapons, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Davison notes that the JNLWP is putting its hope firmly in directed energy weapons for the future. N. Davison, ibid., p. 103.

6 See, for example, N. Davison, above note 5, Chapter 1. See also, European Working Group on Non-Lethal Weapons Information Leaflet, above note 39; and D. Fidler, above note 1.

7 Ed Cumming, ‘The Active Denial System; The weapon that's a hot topic’, in The Telegraph, 20 July 2010, available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7900117/The-Active-Denial-System-the-weapon-thats-a-hot-topic.html.

8 N. Davidson, above note 5, p. 1.

9 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, ICRC and Cambridge University Press, Geneva, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter ‘ICRC Customary Law Study’), Rule 1, p. 3.

10 API, Arts 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(a)(iii).

11 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 9, Rule 14.

12 API, Art. 57; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 9, Rules 15 to 21, pp. 51–67.

13 API, Arts 50 and 52(3).

14 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 (hereinafter API), Art. 35.

15 Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter GCI), Art. 12.

16 Cpl Jahn R. Kuiper, ‘Non-lethal weapon developments translates to safe civilians, Marines’, in Marine Corps Base Quantico, available at: http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/StoryView.aspx?SID=5380.

17 E. Cumming, above note 7.

18 See, for example, API, Part IV, Section I; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 (hereafter APII), part IV.

19 Mayer, Chris, ‘Nonlethal weapons and noncombatant immunity: is it permissible to target noncombatants?’, in Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2007, pp. 221CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 GCs, Art. 3 common; API, Art. 51(3); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 9, Rule 6; Melzer, Nils, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 2009Google Scholar.

21 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, better known as the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), opened for signature on 10 April 1972.

22 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), opened for signature on 13 January 1993.

23 See Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), opened for signature on 10 October 1980.

24 Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva, 1987, pp. 422–423Google Scholar.

25 Lawand, Kathleen, ‘Reviewing the legality of new weapons, mean and methods of warfare’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No. 864, December 2006, p. 926CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 ICRC, A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare, January 2006, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0902.pdf

27 K. Lawand, above note 25, p. 927.

28 ICRC, A Guide, above note 26, p. 5.

29 Fidler, David, ‘Non-lethal weapons and international law: three perspectives on the future’, in Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 194–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

30 Ibid., p. 195.

31 Ibid., p. 199.

32 Ibid., p. 200.

33 Ibid., pp. 198–199.

34 Although arguably may be permissible, in some circumstances, under the law of occupation.

35 Coleman, Stephen, ‘Discrimination and non-lethal weapons: issues for the future military’, in Lovell, David (ed.), Protecting Civilians during Violent Conflict, Ashgate, Farnham, 2012, p. 227Google Scholar.

36 See API, Art. 57(2)(b).

37 D. Fidler, above note 1, p. 532, note 29.

38 Ibid., p. 532, note 29; N. Lewer and N. Davidson, above note 5, p. 27, note 11.

39 European Working Group Non-Lethal Weapons Information Leaflet, April 2010, available at: http://waves.lima-city.de/pdf/leaflet.pdf.

40 Massimo Annati, ‘Non-lethal weapons revisited’, in Military Technology, March 2007, p. 82.

41 D. Fidler, above note 29, p. 195.

42 C. Mayer, above note 19, p. 227.

43 Cited in D. Fidler, above note 29, p. 204.

44 Dunant, Henry, A Memory of Solferino, ICRC, Geneva, 1862Google Scholar.

45 European Working Group, above note 39.