SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Obviously you have not read the treaty.
It is noted in the treaty that smoke munition has incendiary effects, but is still not incendiary weapons.
View attachment 844728
So the use of smoke munition can never be considered a war crime based on this treaty, regardless if the smoke munition contains White Phosphorus or not.
As explained, the rationale upon which the Protocol establishes a distinction between incendiary weapons on the one hand, and weapons which have incendiary effects but aren't considered actual incendiary weapons on the other, is the question whether said effect is of an incidental nature or not. Examples cited by the treaty (illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems) aren't employed to damage objects nor to kill or injure people. Also, the treaty defines incendiary weapons as arms whose primary purpose is to destroy material or kill personnel.
If white phosphorous is used with the exclusive and precise purpose to destroy objects or to wound and kill humans, rather than to produce smoke, it then fits the criteria constitutive of the treaty's definition of an incendiary weapon, and its incendiary effect is no longer incidental but central. If employed in such a manner, white phosphorous therefore turns into an incendiary weapon.
This is also the common reading of the treaty by legal experts.
Last edited: