5cjxburmr

States have regarded the use of depleted uranium weapons as consistent with their law ofwar obligations. 96The U.S. armed forces have fielded and used depleted uranium munitions. Extensiveefforts have been made to study whether there are harmful health effects from exposure todepleted uranium from weapons that use it, but no such effects have been found. 976.5.8 Remotely Piloted Aircraft. There is no prohibition in the law of war on the use ofremotely piloted aircraft (also called “unmanned aerial vehicles”). 98 Such weapons may offercertain advantages over other weapons systems. 9996 For example, DAILY HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES, Jul. 12, 2012, Written Ministerial Statements,Column 40WS-41WS (“The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): I informed the House on 31 October2011 that I had commissioned officials to undertake a legal weapons review of our depleted uranium (DU) antiarmourtank rounds, known as Charm-3. … The review is now complete and has concluded that Charm-3 is capableof being used lawfully by UK armed forces in an international armed conflict. … The use of DU in weapon systemsis not prohibited by any treaty provision. There have been extensive scientifically based studies, undertaken by theWorld Health Organisation in relation to the long-term environmental and other health effects allegedly attributableto the use of DU munitions. In the light of the reassuring conclusions drawn by such scientific studies, and notingthe continuing military imperative underpinning retention of Charm-3 as a weapon system, it was concluded that useof Charm-3 does not offend the principle prohibiting superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering in armed conflict.… Finally, it was concluded that DU continues to be a material of choice used by states in the manufacture of antiarmourmunitions. To date no inter-state consensus has emerged that DU munitions should be banned and theavailable scientific evidence (developed in the aftermath of the Gulf war in 1991) continues to support the view heldby the UK that such munitions can be retained for the limited role envisaged for their employment. The UK policyremains that DU can be used within weapons; it is not prohibited under current or likely future internationalagreements.”).97 Ambassador Robert Wood, United States Mission to the United Nations, Remarks at the Sixty-Ninth UNGA FirstCommittee Cluster Five: Explanation of Vote Before the Vote on L.43, Agenda Item 96 (e) “Effects of the use ofarmaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium,” Oct. 31, 2014 (“I am speaking on behalf of France, theUnited Kingdom and the United States to explain our negative vote on draft resolution L.43 ‘Effects of the use ofarmaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium’. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue. Theenvironmental and long-term health effects of the use of depleted uranium munitions have been thoroughlyinvestigated by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, NATO, the Centres for Disease Control, the European Commission, and others. None ofthese inquiries has documented long-term environmental or health effects attributable to use of these munitions.”);Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate, Special Department of Defense Briefing:Update on Depleted Uranium (Mar. 14, 2003) (“We looked at some 90 Gulf War veterans who were in or on anarmored vehicle when it was struck by depleted uranium in friendly fire. And those individuals have been followedon an annual basis now we are talking 12 years post-incident. And we do not see any kidney damage in thoseindividuals … . They were also followed for other medical problems, and … they’ve had no other medicalconsequences of that depleted uranium exposure. Now, some of these individuals had amputations, were burned,had deep wounds, so that these individuals, some of them of course do have medical problems. But as far as aconsequence of the depleted uranium exposure, we are not seeing anything related to that either from a chemical orradiological effect.”).98 John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Speech at the WilsonCenter: The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy, Apr. 30, 2012, 2012 DIGEST OFUNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 584, 585 (“As a matter of international law, the United States isin an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we mayalso use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. There is nothing in international law thatbans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose… .”); Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department ofState, Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: The Obama Administration and328