5cjxburmr

This manual generally uses the formulation “weapons calculated to cause superfluousinjury” or refers to the “superfluous injury rule.”6.6.2 Superfluous Injury Rule – the Principle of Humanity. The superfluous injury rule isan application of the principle of humanity in the context of weapons. 125 The superfluous injuryrule prohibits weapons that are designed to increase the injury or suffering of the personsattacked beyond that justified by military necessity. 126Thus, the principle of humanity may assist in understanding and applying the rule. 127 Forexample, weapons that are regarded as lawful in peacetime or that apply only the minimum forcenecessary in order to avoid death or injury to civilians would not be prohibited under thesuperfluous injury rule. 1286.6.3 Applying the Superfluous Injury Rule. The test for whether a weapon is prohibitedby the superfluous injury rule is whether the suffering caused by the weapon provides no militaryadvantage or is otherwise clearly disproportionate to the military advantage reasonably expectedfrom the use of the weapon. 129 Thus, the suffering must be assessed in relation to the military(or excessive) injury.’ In the metaphysical atmosphere in which the legality of certain weapons is often discussed,such niceties count.”); W. Hays Parks, Conventional Weapons and Weapons Reviews, 8 YEARBOOK OFINTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 55, 86-87 footnote 123 (2005) (“This argument [about superfluous injury orunnecessary suffering] was based upon a novel ICRC interpretation of the original 1899 Hague language in Art.23(g) of the Annex prohibiting ‘arms, projectiles or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury’, as compared tothe language in the subsequent 1907 Hague Convention, ‘calculated to cause unnecessary suffering’. The latterphrase is a clearer expression of the intent of governments to focus on design and intended purpose rather than everyremote possibility of weapon injury.”).125 Prosecutor v. Tadić, ICTY Appeals Chamber, IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for InterlocutoryAppeal on Jurisdiction, 119 (Oct. 2, 1995) (explaining that the prohibitions on weapons in the customary law ofwar applicable to international and non-international armed conflicts are based on “elementary considerations ofhumanity and common sense”).126 Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America, 28-29, Jun. 20, 1995, I.C.J., Request by theUnited Nations General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons (“This prohibition was intended to preclude weapons designed to increase the injury or suffering of thepersons attacked beyond that necessary to accomplish the military objective. It does not prohibit weapons that maycause great injury or suffering if the use of the weapon is necessary to accomplish the military mission. Forexample, it does not prohibit the use of anti-tank munitions which must penetrate armor by kinetic-energy orincendiary effects, even though such weapons can produce severe and painful injuries.”).127 Refer to § 2.3 (Humanity).128 Cf. Statement by Secretary Rusk, Mar. 24, 1965, 52 DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN 529 (Apr. 12, 1965)(defending the legality of riot control agents by explaining that “[w]hat has been involved has been well-known,traditional agents, in the hands of police forces in many parts of the world. And under the circumstances in whichthis gas was used in Viet-Nam, the desire was to use the minimum force required to deal with the situation to avoiddeath or injury to innocent people.”). Refer to § 6.16 (Riot Control Agents).129 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 784 (“An illegitimate weapon of war would be one which, indisabling or causing death, inflicted a needless, unusual and unreasonable amount of torture or injury and thedeliberate use of such a weapon would properly be treated as a violation of the laws of war.”); SPAIGHT, WARRIGHTS ON LAND 75 (“Hence commanders are quite ready to admit the claims of humanity to the extent of forgoingthe use of any engine of war whose military effect is disproportioned to the suffering it entails.”).335