5cjxburmr

Few weapons have been understood to be inherently indiscriminate weapons. 151 Thismay be the case because weapons that are more accurate and precise are more militarilyeffective; the military and humanitarian interests coincide. 152 On the other hand, the fewweapons that have been understood to violate this rule have been directed at illegitimateobjectives, such as attacking and terrorizing the civilian population. 1536.7.2 Inherently Indiscriminate Weapons – Circumstances to Be Assessed and DesignIntent. The test for whether a weapon is inherently indiscriminate is whether its use necessarilyviolates the principles of distinction and proportionality, i.e., whether its use is expected to beillegal in all circumstances.Special consideration should be given to the planned or intended uses of the weapon, i.e.,those that are reasonably foreseeable. For example, a practitioner conducting a legal review ofthe proposed acquisition or procurement of a weapon should consider the uses of the weapon thatare planned and reflected in the design documents. Practitioners should advise if the planneduses of the weapon are not consistent with the principles of distinction and proportionality, witha view towards ensuring that either the weapon or the planned uses are modified accordingly.The wide range of circumstances in which weapons can lawfully be used should also beconsidered before concluding that a weapon is prohibited as inherently indiscriminate. Forexample, in some circumstances, an area of land can be a military objective. 154 Thus, even if itwould not be possible for the weapon to be directed against enemy combatants, if the weaponcould be directed at specific areas, it would be unlikely that the weapon would be consideredinherently indiscriminate. As another example, in some circumstances, feasible precautions canmitigate the incidental harm expected to be caused so that it is not excessive. 155 Whether suchprecautions could be taken to mitigate the expected incidental harm caused by the weapon undercombatants and non-combatants; States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently neveruse weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.”); GREENSPAN, MODERNLAW OF LAND WARFARE 359 (“[I]t must be borne in mind that indiscriminate bombardment of the civilianpopulation is prohibited, so that weapons which must necessarily have that effect when used are also illegal.”).151 Christopher Greenwood, Legal Aspects of current Regulations, KEYNOTE SPEECHES, THIRD INTERNATIONALWORKSHOP ON WOUND BALLISTICS (Thun, Switzerland, Mar. 28-29, 2001) (“There are virtually no cases ofweapons which are inherently indiscriminate. The United States Naval Commander’s Handbook, one of the mostmodern texts and an important piece of State practice, gives in its annotations an illustration of an inherentlyindiscriminate weapon – a proposal during the Second World War to tie tiny incendiary bombs around the necks ofbats. The bats would then be released from aircraft over enemy targets, would glide down into the trees and into therafters of buildings and set fire to those buildings when the incendiaries exploded. If that is the best example thatcan be given of an inherently indiscriminate weapon, there are not very many inherently indiscriminate weapons inexistence.”).152 ICRC AP COMMENTARY 621 (1958) (“It should be noted that most armies endeavour to use accurate weapons asattacks which do not strike the intended objective result in a loss of time and equipment without giving acorresponding advantage. … Here the military interests and humanitarian requirements coincide.”).153 Refer to § 6.7.3 (Weapons Designed to Conduct Attacks Against the Civilian Population).154 Refer to § 5.7.8.4 (Examples of Military Objectives – Places of Military Significance).155 Refer to § 5.11 (Feasible Precautions in Conducting Attacks to Reduce the Risk of Harm to Protected Persons andObjects).341