5cjxburmr

In 2013, a review conducted by DoD in coordination with the Department of Statereconfirmed that the prohibition in the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets did not reflectcustomary international law. 77 The findings of this review were consistent with the longstandingposition of the United States not to become a Party to the 1899 Declaration and not to apply adistinct prohibition against expanding bullets, but instead to regard expanding bullets asprohibited only to the extent that such bullets are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 78In the past, expanding bullets have been viewed as ineffective for military and technicalreasons. 79 Non-expanding bullets that were widely used in armed conflict produced woundsby designed implication, without even the introduction of any evidence against it, the use of a bullet actuallyemployed by the army of a civilized nation”).77 Portions of the analysis in this review are presented in the following paragraphs.78 William Crozier, Captain of Ordnance, U.S. Army, Report of Captain Crozier to the American Delegation to theFirst Hague Conference, Regarding the Work of the First Committee of the Conference and its Subcommittee,reprinted in INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AMERICAN DELEGATES TO THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES AND THEIROFFICIAL REPORTS 33-34 (1916); JAMES BROWN SCOTT, THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES:III THE CONFERENCE OF 1907 15 (1921) (Brigadier General George B. Davis recalling the U.S. delegation’sproposal in 1907 to amend the 1899 Declaration to prohibit ‘bullets that inflict unnecessarily cruel wounds’); 1914RULES OF LAND WARFARE 3 note 2 (explaining that the 1899 Declaration “has never been ratified by the UnitedStates but see paragraph ‘e,’ Article XXIII, convention IV, Hague Rules, 1907, infra, par., 184”); U.S. ARMYORDNANCE, HISTORY OF SMALL-ARMS AMMUNITION, NO. 1940, 15 (1920) (“The Judge Advocate General’s Officehas given the opinion that the armor-piercing ammunition [with a soft lead nose that mushrooms] is a lawfulweapon”); 1934 RULES OF LAND WARFARE 34 (1934) (giving no separate rule against expanding bullets, butproviding that certain types of bullets may be prohibited under the rule against weapons calculated to causeunnecessary suffering); 1940 RULES OF LAND WARFARE 34 (1940) (same); 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976)34(b) (same); Use of Expanding Ammunition by U.S. Military Forces in Counterterrorist Incidents, 45 (reiteratingthat the United States is not a party to the 1899 Hague Declaration on expanding bullets but is a party to the HagueConvention IV, which includes the prohibition against weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering); W. HaysParks for The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, Memorandum of Law—Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition,Oct. 12, 1990, reprinted in THE ARMY LAWYER 86, 87 (Feb. 1991) (“The United States is not a party to [the 1899Hague Declaration], but United States officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of theUnited States will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose ofarticle 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV”); W. Hays Parks, Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program, THEARMY LAWYER 16, 22 (Oct. 1997) (same).79 See, e.g., Alfons Vanheusden, W. Hays Parks, and William H. Boothby, The Use of Expanding Bullets in MilitaryOperations: Examining the Kampala Consensus, 50 MILITARY LAW AND LAW OF WAR REVIEW 535, 537 (2011)(“[L]ack of use of expanding ammunition by armed forces could be attributed equally to the increased risk ofweapon malfunction (specifically, failure to feed) through its use, particularly in machineguns”); P. R. COURTNEY-GREEN, AMMUNITION FOR THE LAND BATTLE 33 (1991) (noting that expanding bullets “may not cause a sufficientlyincapacitating wound, particularly in a military context,”); WILLY LEY, SHELLS AND SHOOTING 39-41 (1942)(“[D]umdum bullets find too much air resistance. Roughly speaking, their power of penetration is only one-quarterthat of other bullets, and the ‘dumdum effect’ does not take place if the velocity is low. Ranges of more than 600yards ruin the ‘dumdum effect,’ and over 1200 yards the bullet may be so slow that it cannot penetrate a heavyuniform with overcoat.”); Charles Frederick Carter, “Atrocities” in War, Nov. 1914, 29 THE WORLD’S WORK 65, 66(1915) (“But since the first Hague Conference no nation has used dum-dum bullets for a compelling reason that hasnothing to do with the Hague nor with considerations of humanity. Experience has taught that when a modern highpowered rifle, such as is used in all armies to-day, is hot and dirty, conditions common to battle, the dum-dum bulletis liable to ‘strip’; that is, the leaden core is apt to squirt out, leaving the jacket in the barrel, so that when the nextshot is fired the gun blows back, or bursts.”).324