5cjxburmr

6.6.4 Weapons Modified for the Purpose of Aggravating the Harm Inflicted onIncapacitated Persons. Weapons that have been modified for the purpose of aggravating theharm inflicted upon incapacitated persons are weapons that are prohibited by the superfluousinjury rule. 147For example, adding poison to bullets or other substances to weapons for the purpose ofincreasing the pain caused by the wound, to make wounds more difficult to treat, or to makedeath inevitable, would be prohibited. Such a substance would not increase the military utility ofthe weapon to incapacitate the enemy (i.e., it would have no corresponding military advantage);thus, the additional injury would be superfluous when compared to the injury caused by theweapon without such a substance.Weapons that have been modified are readily assessed under the superfluous injury rulebecause the unmodified version of the weapon provides a clear point of comparison. It isdifficult to compare, in the abstract, the military utility of a weapon against the suffering itcauses. But, by comparing an existing weapon to a proposed modification, one can evaluatemore easily whether the proposed changes are warranted by legitimate military reasons (e.g., toincrease the ability of the weapon to incapacitate the enemy) or illegitimate reasons (e.g.,cruelty) because, in considering a modification to the weapon, one would expect that a numberof relevant factors would be the same as between the existing weapon and the proposedmodification.6.7 INHERENTLY INDISCRIMINATE WEAPONSInherently indiscriminate weapons, i.e., weapons that are incapable of being used inaccordance with the principles of distinction and proportionality, are prohibited. Such weaponsinclude weapons that are specifically designed to conduct attacks against the civilian populationas well as weapons that, when used, would necessarily cause incidental harm that is excessivecompared the military advantage expected to be gained from their use.6.7.1 Inherently Indiscriminate Weapons – Principles of Distinction and Proportionality.The prohibition against inherently indiscriminate weapons results from the principles ofdistinction and proportionality. 148 Attacks must be conducted in accordance with the principlesof distinction and proportionality. 149 Consequently, a weapon that, when used, wouldnecessarily violate these rules, would be prohibited. 150normal applications of the weapon that are to be considered, not some unusual application, or misapplication, of itwhich lies outside the scope of purposes for which it was procured or adapted.”).147 Consider The Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868, reprinted in 1 AJIL SUPPLEMENT: OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 95(1907) (considering that it would “be contrary to the laws of humanity” to use “arms which uselessly aggravate thesufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;”).148 Refer to § 2.5 (Distinction); § 2.4 (Proportionality).149 Refer to § 5.6 (Discrimination in Conducting Attacks); § 5.12 (Proportionality in Conducting Attacks).150 See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 257 (78) (“Thecardinal principles contained in the texts constituting the fabric of humanitarian law are the following. The first isaimed at the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects and establishes the distinction between340