The International Committee of the Red Cross and the problem of excessively injurious or indiscriminate weapons

Abstract

It is a truism to say that technical progress is not always beneficial to mankind because it also leads to the development of more sophisticated - i.e. more deadly - weapons. Any attempts to prohibit or restrict their use on the basis of international agreements come up against major obstacles. Even if only to ensure their own national security, States try to equip their armies with the most up-to-date weapons and, if possible, ones more sophisticated than those in a potential enemy's arsenal. But using a certain type of weapon cannot be justified if it runs counter to the general principles of law and humanity.Our remarks do not refer to particularly devastating and indiscriminate weapons such as atomic, bacteriological and chemical weapons; rather it limits itself to conventional weapons. To date, a ban on such weapons has been accepted only for those which, in view of the disparity between their military effectiveness and the degree of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering they cause, are without any real interest as means of combat (i.e. dum-dum bullets, non-detectable fragments, exploding booby-traps in the form of harmless-looking objects). As regards militarily effective weapons (incendiary devices and mines), we cannot but hope that their use will be confined as far as possible to the actual combatants so as to avoid indiscriminate harm to civilians, civilian objects and the environment.