Incendiary Weapons

« Napalm, phosphore blanc et uranium appauvri : des armes « tabous » ? » (« Comment sont stigmatisées certaines catégories d'armes ? » _
'Cas d'études sur le napalm, le phosphore blanc et l'uranium appauvri au cours des années 2000')

First version/
excès de "citations discursives" et nombreuses fautes de frappes!

This article theorises salience – defined as the amount of attention granted to an issue – as an explanatory factor for the emergence and non-emergence of norms, and shows how salience affects existing explanations such as issue adoption by norm entrepreneurs, mobilisation, social pressure, and framing. The relevance of salience is demonstrated by exploring the question of why the norm against incendiary weapons was adopted in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980, and why the norm against cluster munitions was not, even though both weapons were deemed particularly inhumane and thus, put on the agenda when the CCW negotiations started in 1978. Drawing on secondary sources and on original data from public and institutional discourses, I study the influence of salience on the emergence of the anti-napalm norm and the non-emergence of the anti-cluster munitions norm in the period of 1945–80. The results demonstrate that and how the discrepancy in salience of the napalm and the cluster munitions issues mattered for the outcomes of the two norm-setting processes.

Airborne poison, as a type of chemical warfare, has been used in many historical contexts. Although airborne poison such as toxic smoke and gas are similar phenomena, researchers have not been able to agree if older forms of warfare are comparable to modern. One reason for this is that their respective analysis lacks theoretical perspectives that account for contextual chemical conditions.

The purpose of this study is to compare a modern example of the use of airborne poison, the Germans' first chlorine emissions at Ypres in 1915 with an ancient one, the Mohists use of smoke as a poison in ancient China. A theoretical perspective is applied to circumvent the problems of earlier research. This theory focuses on the dynamics between decision-making in chemical warfare and a particular culture's perception of and relationship to the environment.

The study shows that it is relevant to compare the modern use of airborne poison with its use in other historical contexts because the weapon occurs in a similar tactical context. Also this type of warfare requires a lot of knowledge of the natural world. At the same time the analysis illustrates that a specific context gives the warfare a certain character. The Mohists tried to achieve success by coordinating and improving the process by which the airborne poison was made effective. Furthermore they relied on generalist knowledge. The Germans, however, relied on having an efficient chemical substance (agent). For this type of warfare they utilized specialists. The human-poison relationship also differed. The Mohist exposed himself to smoke while the German soldier shut himself off completely from the chlorine gas. These differences can be understood by studying how people exploited similar chemistry in a non-military way  in their respective context.

The problems that previous research has had in discussing chemical warfare is also made evident. These problems occur because chemistry as a scientific discipline creates institutions and concepts that limit the view of airborne poison as a weapon. This realization, along with results of the survey in general, illustrates something which has relevance in today’s world. Airborne poison can, in the right place and with the right priorities be effective without modern industrial and scientific resources. This should be considered when analyzing political actors lacking a modern military industry.

This edited volume explores the larger maritime and security environment during and beyond the time of Chinese military general Qi Jiguang’s enterprise. While serving as a historiography and biography of Qi Jiguang, the book also elaborates on the doctrinal applications of his ideas. Essays in this volume contribute to the field of China studies in light of the increased frequency of news relating to the maritime and military affairs in the region in the post-2000 period. It provides a specialist perspective to the uneven study of Qi Jiguang and maritime/military studies, while also satisfying the desire of the layman to understand the current political security situation in East Asia in the context of the longer term historical developments.

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to analyse the use of weaponised incendiary kites and helium balloons in the Israeli-Palestinian hostilities between March and December 2018. The paper argues that arson started with incendiary kites and balloons can easily be exploited for terrorist purposes and poses a serious challenge for regular armed forces and for civilian emergency services.

Methods: The paper examines the Palestinian 'Great March of Return' as a background for the development of a new Hamas' tactic and briefly describes the chronology of arson terrorism in the context of other hostilities at the Gaza-Israeli border. The study focuses on the two following questions: why are the kites and balloons useful for the current goals of Hamas and how do the Israelis respond to this new threat? The study uses comparative scientific literature and document analysis, the analysis of statements released by the Israeli authorities and the Israeli media reports related to the arson attacks.

Results: The main findings include the role of simple, non-lethal weapons in spreading fear for terrorist purposes and the advantages of turning everyday-use materials into weapons in a situation where there is limited access to regular arms. The second part of the study deals with the effects of arson attacks on the Israeli side of the conflict and the countermeasures undertaken in the Gaza Periphery. The author concludes that airborne arson attacks pose a serious threat to advanced Israeli defence systems, solely because of their primitive and unpredictable character.

Conclusions: The overall findings of this paper present the threat of arson terrorism in the context of an asymmetric conflict. Keywords: Israel, Gaza Strip, arson terrorism, incendiary devices, asymmetric warfare

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to analyse the use of weaponised incendiary kites and helium balloons in the Israeli-Palestinian hostilities between March and December 2018. The paper argues that arson started with incendiary kites and balloons can easily be exploited for terrorist purposes and poses a serious challenge for regular armed forces and for civilian emergency services. Methods: The paper examines the Palestinian ‘Great March of Return’ as a background for the development of a new Hamas’ tactic and briefly describes the chronology of arson terrorism in the context of other hostilities at the Gaza-Israeli border. The study focuses on the two following questions: why are the kites and balloons useful for the current goals of Hamas and how do the Israelis respond to this new threat? The study uses comparative scientific literature and document analysis, the analysis of statements released by the Israeli authorities and the Israeli media reports related to the arson atta...

RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS IN ARMED CONFLICTS

Incendiary weapons are means of warfare where flame and heat produced by a chemical reaction of some substances are used for causing material damage and burn injuries to the enemy. Modern incendiary weapons are based on one of the three chemicals: napalm, thermite or white phosphorus. Although state parties to the Protocol III have reached a consensus on the definition of incendiary weapons, there is still disagreement on its scope. The legal status of incendiary weapons is different in customary and treaty law. Customary rules are obligatory for all countries while treaty provisions are binding only for those states which ratified these treaties. There are two customary principles of international humanitarian law which are most relevant for the use of incendiary weapons: the distinction between combatants (and military objectives) and civilians (and civilian objects), and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. The first principle prohibits only some ways of using these weapons but not incendiary weapon per se. The second principle does not allow use of incendiary weapons against military personnel, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a combatant hors de combat. There are two international treaties which contain special provisions on incendiary weapons: the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 and Protocol III annexed to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, adopted in 1980. The St. Petersburg Declaration bans projectiles weighing below 400 grammes which are charged with fulminating or inflammable substances, but nowadays this prohibition does not have a significant practical impact. Protocol III mainly protects civilians from the effects of incendiary weapons. Article 2(1) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians and civilian objects. Article 2(2) bans attacks by air-delivered incendiary weapons against military objectives located within a concentration of civilians, without allowing for any exceptions. Article 2(3) restricts the use of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons during attacks on military objectives located in populated areas. Yet, as opposed to the absolute prohibitions contained in Article 2(2), incendiary weapons may be used during land or sea attacks if military objectives are clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and if all feasible precautions have been taken to protect the civilians. Article 2 (4) contains a provision of an environmental rather than humanitarian nature. It envisages that forests and other kinds of plant cover may not be an object of attack by incendiary weapons but it also includes a number of exceptions.

Key words: incendiary weapons, Protocol III, principle of distinction, prohibition of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, civilian population, combatants