5cjxburmr

6.6 WEAPONS CALCULATED TO CAUSE SUPERFLUOUS INJURYIt is especially forbidden to use weapons that are calculated to cause superfluousinjury. 1226.6.1 Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering – Notes on Terminology. Theprohibition against weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury or of a nature to causeunnecessary suffering has been formulated in a variety of ways both in treaties to which theUnited States is a Party and in other treaties. The United States is not a Party to a treaty thatprovides a definition of “superfluous injury.”Article 23(e) of the 1899 Hague II Regulations prohibits weapons “of a nature to causesuperfluous injury.” Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague IV Regulations prohibits weapons“calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” The official texts of both the 1899 and 1907 treatiesare French, and the French text of that paragraph is exactly the same in both treaties, even thoughEnglish translations of the treaties are different. The title of the CCW refers to “Weapons WhichMay be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious,” and the CCW Preamble also recognizes “theprinciple that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and materialand methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”Treaties that the United States has not ratified have also included this prohibition. ThePreamble to the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg noted that “the employment of arms whichuselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable” would be “becontrary to the laws of humanity.” 123 AP I Article 35(2) prohibits the use of “weapons,projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury orunnecessary suffering.”Although the various formulations may be regarded as describing the same underlyingprohibition, the phrase “calculated to cause superfluous injury” may be regarded as the moreaccurate translation of the French rule stated in the 1907 Hague IV Regulations and as moreprecisely conveying the intent of the rule. 124self-defense in response to a hostile act of [sic] demonstrated hostile intent, or to use lethal force when authorized bycompetent authority pursuant to the standing rules of engagement or standing rules for the use of force.”); DODDIRECTIVE 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons, 4.4 (Jul. 9, 1996) (“The availability of non-lethal weaponsshall not limit a commander’s inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take allappropriate action in self-defense.”).122 CCW preamble (recognizing “the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons,projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”);HAGUE IV REG. art. 23 (“[I]t is especially forbidden … (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated tocause unnecessary suffering … .”); 1899 HAGUE II REG. art. 23 (prohibits employing “arms, projectiles, or materialof a nature to cause superfluous injury”). Consider AP I art. 35(2) (“It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectilesand material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”).123 The Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868, reprinted in 1 AJIL SUPPLEMENT: OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 95 (1907).124 R.R. Baxter, Conventional Weapons Under Legal Prohibitions, 1 INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 42, 43 (1977)(“This last expression [calculated to cause unnecessary suffering] has been the source of a vast amount of confusionbecause the English translation from the authentic French text is inaccurate. The expression used in French waspropres a causer des maux superflus, which might be more accurately translated as ‘calculated to cause superfluous334