Topic: 2024-Indiscriminate Weapons
Country: United States of America
Delegate Name: Christina Merikas
In 1977, the USA signed Additional Protocol 1 (AP1). This article of the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of indiscriminate weapons. Indiscriminate weapons are weapons that cannot be aimed at anything specific; something with uncontrollable affects. However, the Reagan Administration delayed submitting the treaty for approval. Concerns were discussed about the weaker aspects of the protocol: AP 1 would ensure that non-official groups (such as ISIS) would be protected and given the same treatment as official national groups (such as the military) in times of conflict. In 1986, the US government decided to not ratify the treaty, and has not ratified the treaty today. However, American history with indiscriminate weapons stretches farther back than the 1970s. The Allied Forces (the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China) dropped around 32,000 napalm bombs on Korea during the Korean War and around 16,000 against Japan in 1945. Napalm is a substance made up of acids and chemicals used to thicken gasoline and create fire bombs. After these times of war, American soldiers felt unease with the use of indiscriminate weapons. Pilots, members of the US Navy, and Generals alike opposed the use of indiscriminate weapons. Another example of the US’s napalm use is the Vietnam War, where South Vietnam and the US dropped 388,000 tons of napalm on Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) across ten years. To provide a more recent example, the US also used indiscriminate weapons during the Iraq War. The US used MK-77s (napalm-type weapons), white phosphorus, depleted uranium, napalm fire bombs, munitions, and cluster munitions. These weapons are very effective when used against densely populated areas. The US and the UK denied usage of these weapons but later retracted the statements. In 1991, the USA went before the UN and claimed that Iraq’s conduct in the Gulf War was unlawful, regarding their use of indiscriminate weapons. Another example of the USA against indiscriminate weapons in the UN is their joint statement with the Kingdom of Jordan. This statement highlighted concerns about indiscriminate weapons and the environment.
The USA has affirmed that the use of indiscriminate weapons is unlawful. While never ratifying AP1, the USA signed the document and is bound by its rules. However, the Department of Defenses’ War Manual does not explicitly condemn the use of indiscriminate weapons and fails to acknowledge AP1. Still, other sectors of the manual address similar issues. Recent examples of US use of indiscriminate weapons include their role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. An air strike on the Gaza Strip killed numerous civilians.
International law can be strengthened to prevent the use of indiscriminate weapons in future conflicts before cleanup efforts are needed. This can be done by forming a committee to rewrite a treaty, similar to the sector Additional Protocol 1, that nearly every nation finds just. Additionally, there should be more enforcement of the international laws in place. Creating a special group in the military, either US or another nation, that focuses on removal of landmines and unexploded ordnance in post-conflict areas could aid this problem. This is an alternative to sending regular officers who have other duties. International frameworks should adapt to address the challenges posed by new technologies in warfare by updating documents, laws, and treaties every 2-5 years, or as needed.
Sources:
The Department of Defense’s Use of Private Security …, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40835. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.
Finucane, Brian. “The Prohibition on Indiscriminate Attacks: The US Position vs. the DOD Law of War Manual.” Just Security, 14 July 2022, www.justsecurity.org/81351/the-prohibition-on-indiscriminate-attacks-the-us-position-vs-the-dod-law-of-war-manual/.
“How We Help.” Canadian Red Cross, www.redcross.ca/how-we-help/international-humanitarian-law/what-is-international-humanitarian-law/weapons-and-international-humanitarian-law#:~:text=Weapons%20must%20be%20 able%20to,be%20controlled%2C%20it%20is%20indiscriminate. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
Mid, mid.ru/en_GB/foreign_policy/international_safety/regprla/-/asset_publisher/YCxLFJnKuD1W/content/id/2116079/pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_YCxLFJnKuD1W_qrIndex=0&_101_INSTANCE_YCxLFJnKuD1W_viewMode=tv. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.
“Napalm.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., www.britannica.com/science/napalm. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
“An Overdue Review: Addressing Incendiary Weapons in the Contemporary Context.” Human Rights Watch, 7 July 2021, www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/20/overdue-review-addressing-incendiary-weapons-contemporary-context.
“Private Military Companies: Blackwater.” Silent Professionals, 19 Sept. 2024, silentprofessionals.org/blackwater/.
“Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.” United Nations, United Nations, legal.un.org/avl/ha/pagc/pagc.html. Accessed 26 Nov. 2024.
“Soldiers of Fortune: Why U.S. Mercenaries Should Not Be Legal.” War on the Rocks, 26 Aug. 2021, warontherocks.com/2021/08/soldiers-of-fortune-why-u-s-mercenaries-should-not-be-legal/.
U.S.-Made Weapons Used by Government of Israel in Violation of International Law and U.S Law | Amnesty International USA, www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-made-weapons-used-by-government-of-israel-in-violation-of-international-law-and-u-s-law/. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.
“United States Considers Deployment of Its Military Contractors to Ukraine: Insights: Mayer Brown.” Insights | Mayer Brown, 23 July 2024, www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2024/07/united-states-considers-deployment-of-its-military-contractors-to-ukraine.
