5cjxburmr

utility of the weapon. 130 Weapons that may cause great injury or suffering or inevitable deathare not prohibited, if the weapon’s effects that cause such injury are necessary to enable users toaccomplish their military missions. 1316.6.3.1 Military Necessity. The legitimate military necessity that may beconsidered in assessing the legality of a weapon includes its capability to disable or incapacitateenemy combatants, including, for example:• the probability of striking a person against whom the weapon is aimed or directed;• the probability that a person who is struck by the weapon will be incapacitated;• the speed at which a person who is struck by the weapon will be incapacitated; and• the number of persons the weapon could strike. 132However, the military utility of the weapon is often broader than its capacity to disableenemy combatants. 133 It may include other factors, such as: 134130 Ronald J. Bettauer, Deputy Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State, Statement at the Conference ofGovernment Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, held inLucerne from Sept. 24 to Oct. 18, 1974, Sept. 25, 1974, 1974 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE ININTERNATIONAL LAW 707 (“It is the U.S. view that the ‘necessity’ of the suffering must be judged in relation to themilitary utility of the weapons. The test is whether the suffering is needless, superfluous, or disproportionate to themilitary advantage reasonably expected from the use of the weapon.”).131 Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America, 32-33, 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 argument is based on a misconception of the St. Petersburg principle, which was directed at antipersonnelweapons that were deliberately designed to kill when that design feature was not needed to disable enemycombatants. This does not mean that it is unlawful to use a weapon that has a high probability of killing persons inits immediate vicinity if that design feature is required to fulfill a legitimate military mission. For example, anylarge high-explosive or fragmentation weapon has a high probability of killing exposed persons within a certaindistance of the detonation. An effective anti-submarine, anti-aircraft or anti-tank weapon has a high probability ofkilling the crews of these vehicles. This fact does not make these weapons unlawful, since these lethal effects arenecessary for the effective accomplishment of their legitimate mission.”).132 SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WAR RIGHTS 203 (“[A]lthough a shell [fired by a cannon] may kill or mutilate—andmutilate horribly—only one man, it may also be compensated by the possible ‘bag’ of a projectile of widelyradiating effect.”).133 BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 196 (AP I art. 35, 2.3.3) (“The problem cannot be simplified by restatingthe preamble of the 1968 [sic] St. Petersburg Declaration that to weaken the enemy’s military forces it is sufficientto disable the greatest possible number of men (i.e., to render enemy combatants hors de combat). This test is validonly for weapons designed for antipersonnel purposes. However, weapons are designed and produced to be used tofulfill a variety of military requirements other than merely disabling enemy combatants.”).134 BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 196-97 (AP I art. 35, 2.3.3) (“Some examples of such requirementsinclude the destruction or neutralization of military material, restriction of military movement, the interdiction ofmilitary lines of communications, the weakening of the enemy’s war making resources and capabilities, and theenhancement of the security of friendly forces. … Factors which must also be taken into account are theavailability of alternate weapon systems (and their effects), the logistics of providing the weapon and its ammunitionat the place where it is to be used when needed, and the security of the troops involved.”).336