Some Examples of Currently Available Crowd Control Technologies. Fig 1.Arwen Multi-shot riot gun & ammunition. & David Hoffman Fig 2. Shock batons & Stun guns on display at Taiwenese Security Fair. & R. Ballantyne. Fig 3. ISPRA Projectojet Bulk Chemical Irritant Sprayer. & David Hoffman Fig 4. Chinese Electrified Riot Shield. & R. Ballantyne. xvi
3. LEGISLATION AT INTERNATIONAL, EU AND NATIONAL LEVELS. Existing international, EU and national legislation was not specifically designed to accommodate modern crowd control weapons, some future developments of which may have the potential to undermine international treaties. If crowd control weapons are not to be used in ways which go beyond the limits of the law, it is important to identify which specific national and international laws currently apply and to treat their legality within existing legislation. 56 At present, such legislation covers the different dimensions of weapons usage. These include the manner in which the weapons are deployed, the intrinsic effects of particular weapons on both the human body and psyche and whether rules of engagement have been implemented in practice. Such considerations cover the notion of minimum force, proportionality, discriminate use and any codes of conduct in regard to specific technologies. More general EU and national legislation covering health and safety, the sale of goods in relation to quality control and the adherence to technical standards are also pertinent. There are many different levels of potential control that need to be considered in this context. For example, there are general laws governing specific rights which can be undermined by the deployment of inappropriate crowd control apparatus and public order policing tactics. Such legislation includes the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights 57 ; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(1976); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(1976) 58 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms(1950) and more recently, the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam which refers to implementing areas of Freedom, Security and Justice. In theory, this legislation should protect the right to life and the right of assembly. However, the exercise of these rights will be undermined if lethal or sub-lethal crowd control weapons are deployed against those citizens who exercise them. Therefore four legal elements need to be considered, namely: (i) the alleged harmlessness of the weapons technology; (ii) whether they are discriminate or indiscriminate (i.e. affecting anyone in a control zone whether innocent or guilty of any public order crimes or misdemeanours); (iii) codes of conduct governing minimum force and correct adherence by law enforcement personnel to approved rules of engagement and appropriate usage of the particular weapons and (iv) appropriate accountability procedures where code of conducts or guidelines are breached. Such matters are also reflected in the obligations of law enforcement personnel under the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement officers. 59 A key issue is whether case law in each state suggests that any abuse of these technologies will result in a successful prosecution. Many states pay lip service to rules of minimum force but even where very good evidence exists that these weapons have been abused, few prosecutions result and the perception of immunity of state law enforcement officers from prosecution for human rights violations persists. 60 Some 'non lethal' weapons (such as electroshock and stun technology) ostensibly designed for crowd control, have intrinsic features such as the facility to inflict excruciating pain without leaving tell tale marks, which make them useful instruments for torture. Crowd control weapons on the horizon which create paralysis, immobility, the removal of certain brain and hearing functions, the induction of vomiting or involuntary defecation have similar potential utility for implementing gross human rights violations, including mass rape or summary street executions. 3.1 Proposed EU Ban on Weapons Directly Interfering With Brain Functioning. The European Parliament has already approved a resolution in January 1999 which called for )an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable the manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems.( 61 xvii
- Page 1 and 2: CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES (An appr
- Page 3 and 4: )Crowd Control Technologies : An As
- Page 5 and 6: )Crowd Control Technologies - An As
- Page 7 and 8: It is recommended that new limits s
- Page 9 and 10: Diversity Project), is already open
- Page 11 and 12: guarantees are forthcoming both fro
- Page 13 and 14: No 1. 2. 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1
- Page 15 and 16: No 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3.
- Page 18 and 19: An Assessment Of Crowd Control Tech
- Page 20 and 21: [15] Any European wide adoption of
- Page 22 and 23: NEW BIO-WEAPONS FOR CROWD CONTROL [
- Page 24 and 25: than war in Bosnia, Somalia and Kos
- Page 26 and 27: Most of these crowd control weapons
- Page 28 and 29: CR was first synthesized by Higginb
- Page 30 and 31: and some speciality ones. These inc
- Page 34 and 35: 3.2 The International Committee Of
- Page 36 and 37: coercion to a greater number of peo
- Page 38 and 39: Fig 5. Severe blistering following
- Page 40 and 41: currently available is not sufficie
- Page 42 and 43: 4.1.4 Hazards Of Pyrotechnic & Blas
- Page 44 and 45: on particular parts of the human bo
- Page 46 and 47: Fig 6. Modern Israeli pulsed jet Wa
- Page 48 and 49: Severe skull damage caused by Kinet
- Page 50 and 51: The report also stated that )these
- Page 52 and 53: cultures. This process is perhaps m
- Page 54 and 55: Fig. 9. Police officer targets WTO
- Page 56 and 57: Electro-shock weapons have been del
- Page 58 and 59: xlii
- Page 60 and 61: xliv
- Page 62 and 63: + )Neither the existence, the prese
- Page 64 and 65: Some Examples of 2 nd Generation No
- Page 66 and 67: 6.3.1 Calmatives The human brain ha
- Page 68 and 69: By 1994 this work was well on its w
- Page 70 and 71: Therefore it does not come as a sur
- Page 72 and 73: the bottle, there is still time for
- Page 74 and 75: used CS gas to literally fumigate a
- Page 76 and 77: poor records of human rights violat
- Page 78 and 79: water cannon were identified as Mer
- Page 80 and 81: Chemical Name and Formula Munition
- Page 82 and 83:
NOTES & REFERENCES 1. See Action pl
- Page 84 and 85:
Avnon and Beit Alfa (Israel), Custo
- Page 86 and 87:
Company Brochure, April 1996. 43. L
- Page 88 and 89:
67. In the SIPRI Yearbook 1998, pag
- Page 90 and 91:
82. Chung, C.W., Giles, A.L. (1972)
- Page 92 and 93:
105. McNamara, B.P., Rennie, R.A.,
- Page 94 and 95:
130. For example one study using a
- Page 96 and 97:
The Police Authority of Northern Ir
- Page 98 and 99:
173. Statewatch Bulletin (1996). Br
- Page 100 and 101:
195. Eg the Armortek water cannon o
- Page 102 and 103:
222. http://www.zarc.com/english/ne
- Page 104 and 105:
241. OBrien, D. (1991). Op. cit. 24
- Page 106 and 107:
260. The isopropyl alcohol used in
- Page 108 and 109:
276. Numerous reports from Northern
- Page 110 and 111:
285. For example, )using tear gas,
- Page 112 and 113:
300. Human Rights Watch (1997) Turk
- Page 114 and 115:
312. Aftergood, S. (1994)The Soft-k
- Page 116 and 117:
low.( New )candidate immobilizers(
- Page 118 and 119:
360. See Business Wire (1999) Battl
- Page 120 and 121:
380. These crimes have emerged duri
- Page 122 and 123:
US Clearing Dest: Foreign Port Dest
- Page 124 and 125:
Mr. Fatchett: In accordance with th
- Page 126 and 127:
telephone the police. She remembere
Change language