‘Non‐lethal’ weapons and international law: Three perspectives on the future

Abstract

Literature on ‘non‐lethal’ weapons (NLWs) frequently contains assertions that more robust NLW development and use are needed because of the changing nature of military operations. These assertions are in opposition to international legal analysis of NLWs, which show international law restricting NLW development and use. This article examines this tension by briefly analyzing the restrictive impact that international law has on NLWs and by elaborating three perspectives on what the relationship between NLWs and international law should be. The article outlines the moral foundations for existing international law on the use of force and armed conflict and then sketches international law's current impact on NLW development and use. Next, the article explores the compliance, selective and radical change perspectives that emerge from discourse about international law and NLWs. The compliance perspective insists that NLWs comply with existing rules of international law. The selective change perspective seeks limited changes in international law to allow more robust use of NLWs. The radical change perspective sees in NLWs the potential to reform radically international law on the use of force and armed conflict. Identifying the three perspectives helps clarify future choices NLWs may present in international law and suggests that the future relationship between NLWs and international law will be more complex, controversial and dangerous than people may realize.