Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:07:07.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modern Small-Arms Ammunition in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Mark G. Granat
Get access

Extract

In spite of the startling technological strides in the field of weapons, and the resultant capability for nations to wage a ‘push-button‘ war, small arms still feature prominently in international conflict. Whilst it could not be reasonably claimed that most casualties in modern, mechanised war result from the use of small arms, these weapons still make a significant contribution to the carnage, especially in today's low intensity warfare. ‘In Vietnam, half of the US casualties were to bullets, mostly fired by small arms’. Small arms have found some employment in every international conflict, major and minor.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 149 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dunnigan, J.F. et al. , ‘Hardware: Small Arms‘, 73 Strategy & Tactics (1971) p. 22.Google Scholar

2. See Appendix, for the terminology relating to ammunition. For an analysis of small arms development in the nineteenth century, see generally Roads, C., The Gun (1978).Google Scholar For design considerations in the development of small arms up to and including World War Two see generally Weeks, J., Infantry Weapons (1971).Google Scholar

3. Roads, ibid. p. 59.

4. For the post-war development of the assault rifle see Long, D., Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns (1986).Google Scholar

5. 1868 Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, in Schindler, D. and Toman, J., eds., The Laws of Armed Conflicts (1988) p. 102.Google Scholar

6. In Europe, the first attempt to limit weapons by legislative means came long before, and related to the crossbow. ‘The crossbow directly challenged the mounted elite's dominance of the means of armed violence — a point that the lay and ecclesiastical authorities did not miss. In 1139 the second Lateran Council banned the crossbow under penalty of anathema as a weapon “hateful to God and unfit for Christians”, and Emperor Conrad III of Germany forbade its use in his realms. But the crossbow proved useful in the Crusades against the infidel and, once introduced, could not be eradicated in any event.' See Guilmartin, J., ‘Military Technology before the Modern Era’, 29 Encyclopedia Brittanica (1990) p. 539. Thus the ‘moral’ ban on a weapon that had proved its military value declined, and the objections fell by the wayside.Google Scholar

7. Blix, H., ‘Means and Methods of Combat’, in UNESCO, eds., Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (1988) pp. 135, 139.Google Scholar

8. Kalshoven, F., ‘The Soldier and His Golf Clubs’, in Swinarski, C., ed., Etudes et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principles de la Croix Rouge en l'honneur de Jean Pictet (1984) pp. 369, 370.Google Scholar

9. Kalshoven, F., ‘Arms, Armaments and International Law’, 191 Hague Recueil (1985-II) pp. 183, 213.Google Scholar

10. 1899 Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land. In Schindler, and Toman, , op. cit. n. 5, pp. 69, 70.Google Scholar

11. Hague Conventions on Land Warfare 1899/1907. In Schindler, and Toman, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 82.Google Scholar

12. ibid, at p. 83.

13. 1899 Declaration (IV, 3) Concerning Expanding Bullets. In Schindler, and Toman, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 109.Google Scholar

14. Kalshoven, , loc. cit. n. 9, p. 216.Google Scholar

15. Kalshoven, , loc. cit. n. 8, p. 375.Google Scholar

16. Hague Conventions on Land Warfare 1899/1907. In Schindler, and Toman, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 83.Google Scholar

17. Blix, , loc. cit. n. 7, p. 138.Google Scholar

18. Kalshoven, , loc. cit. n. 9, p. 225.Google Scholar

19. See generally International Committee of the Red Cross, Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons: Lucerne, 24.9 - 18.10.1974: Report (1975).Google Scholar

20. Kalshoven, F., ‘The Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Second Session,Lugano,28 January–26 February 1976‘, 7 NYIL (1976) p. 201.Google Scholar

21. Idem at p. 202.

22. United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurous or Have Indiscriminate Effects,Geneva,10–28 September 1979, 15 September-10 October 1980.Google Scholar In Schindler, and Toman, , op. cit. n. 5, pp. 177–198.Google Scholar

23. Labbett, P., ‘Wound Ballistics‘, Jane's Infantry Weapons, 1976–1977 (1917) p. 375.Google Scholar

24. SIPRI, ‘The Prohibition of Inhumane Weapons: New Small Arms Ammunition’, SIPRI Yearbook (1982) pp. 447, 451.Google Scholar

25. ICRC, op. cit. n. 19, pp. 126–145.Google Scholar

26. ‘Wound Ballistics: A Target for Error’, 21 International Defense Review (1988) p. 895.Google Scholar

27. Idem.

28. Sellier, K., ‘Effectiveness of Small Calibre Ammunition’, Acta Chirurgica Scandinavia, Suppl. 489 (1979) p. 23.Google Scholar

29. ‘Wound Ballistics‘, loc. cit. n. 26, p. 895.

30. Labbett, , loc. cit. n. 23, p. 376Google Scholar. See additionally Swan, R.C. and Swan, K.G., Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management (1989) pp. 7–20.Google Scholar

31. ‘Wound Ballistics’, loc. cit. n. 26, p. 895.

32. Fackler, M., ‘Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets’, 22 International Defense Review (1989) pp. 59, 62.Google Scholar

33. ibid., at pp. 62–63. The explosive effect decreases as range increases.

34. ibid., at p. 60.

35. Idem.

36. ibid., at pp. 61–62.

37. SIPRI, loc. cit. n. 24, pp. 447, 451Google Scholar, and Steadman, N., ‘The Enfield Weapon System’, 5 Armed Forces (1986) p. 71.Google Scholar

38. Fackler, , loc. cit. n. 32, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

39. Labbett, , loc. cit. n. 23, p. 375.Google Scholar

40. Fackler, , loc. cit. n. 32, p. 63.Google Scholar

41. Pistol rounds are nowhere near as devastating. Due to their low velocity and short length, they neither tumble, nor do they produce a temporary cavity. In order to give them greater wounding power the tips of the bullets are often hollowed out, to encourage a mushroom effect on impact. This hollow-point is the illegal Dum-dum bullet. See Fackler, M., ‘Handgun Bullet Performance’ 21 International Defense Review (1988) p. 555Google Scholar and Sellier, , loc. cit. n. 28, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

42. Kalshoven, F., The Law of Warfare (1973) p. 89.Google Scholar

43. Blix, , loc. cit. n. 7, p. 138.Google Scholar

44. Carlson, N.R., Physiology of Behavior, 3rd edn. (1985) p. 268.Google Scholar

45. ICRC, op. cit. n. 19, p. 21.Google Scholar

46. See Blix, , loc. cit. n. 7, p. 138. This is the 1977 Geneva Protocol's only inference to small arms ammunition, and it is merely a synthesis of the two English translations of the Hague Regulations. For this reason it merits no further analysis here.Google Scholar

47. Idem.

48. ‘Wound Ballistics’, loc. cit. n. 26, p. 897.

49. Blix, , loc. cit. n. 7, p. 139.Google Scholar

50. Supra section 3.

51. Blix, , loc. cit. n. 7, p. 139.Google Scholar

52. Ryan, C., The Longest Day (1984) p. 225.Google Scholar

53. See ‘Wound Ballistics’, loc. cit. n. 26, p. 897 and Sellier, , loc. cit. n. 28, p. 19.Google Scholar

54. Sellier, , loc. cit. n. 28, p. 19.Google Scholar

55. Coren, S. and Ward, L.M., Sensation and Perception (1989) p. 263.Google Scholar

56. Fackler, , loc. cit. n. 41, p. 555.Google Scholar

57. ibid., at p. 6.

58. Kalshoven, , loc. cit. n. 8, p. 375.Google Scholar

59. ‘Wound Ballistics’, loc. cit. n. 26, p. 896.

60. Richardson, F.M., Fighting Spirit (1978) p. 52.Google Scholar

61. Idem and Horrocks, B., A Full Life (1960) pp. 225–226.Google Scholar

62. Frost, R., ‘Bullet Holes in Theories’, 21 International Defense Review (1988) p. 875.Google Scholar

63. SIPRI, The Law of War and Dubious Weapons (1976) p. 4.Google Scholar

64. Knusden, P.J.T., ‘The Ballistician's Dilemma’, 23 International Defense Review (1990) p. 32.Google Scholar

65. Kalshoven, , loc. cit. n. 9, p. 297. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that, for anyone who has to use a firearm for self-defence, the requirement for instant and probable incapacitation is basic no matter what his environment. Thus the weapons of both soldier and policeman must fulfil this requirement. A soldier's weapon has further requirements not normally made of police weapons, for example, the ability to provide supressive fire, launch rifle grenades, engage group targets at long distance, mount a bayonet, etc.Google Scholar

66. SIPRI, op. cit. n. 63, p. 4.Google Scholar