Kristina Đurić, Norwegian People’s Aid
“If international law is to mean anything, equal matters must be treated equally,” stressed the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Kravik not so long ago. This means that all weapons that cause excessive and indiscriminate harm should be treated equally, and that one cannot pick and choose which ones are convenient to eliminate and which ones are convenient to keep. When it comes to international humanitarian law and humanitarian disarmament the only relevant criteria must be unacceptable harm.
A recent roundtable discussion on incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, demonstrated that the weapons have limited military utility, cause grave humanitarian impacts, with extreme medical consequences, generate harm to the environment and wildlife, and remain without adequate legal regulation. Therefore, incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, meet the criteria to be fully banned without hesitation.
Motivated to examine the military utility and humanitarian consequences of incendiary weapons, a select group of legal, humanitarian, medical, environmental, foreign policy, and military experts opted out of enjoying the rare sunny weather in Oslo, to spend a day in a closed conference room discussing this burning issue. The roundtable organized by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) on May 28, 2024, in Oslo, marked a critical step forward in addressing the persistent and devastating issue of incendiary weapons. A day of intense exchanges on this matter highlighted the significant gaps in the current legal framework, the severe humanitarian impacts of these weapons, the environmental harm, and the urgent need for action. At the end of the meeting, it was clear that such multidisciplinary roundtables are essential for increasing understanding, coordinating advocacy efforts, and ultimately achieving a comprehensive ban on all incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions.
Legal Loopholes
The discussion on the adequacy of existing legal regulations of incendiary weapons under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) reemphasized what is by now common wisdom: that the protocol does not appropriately provide protection from the humanitarian consequences of incendiary weapons, and that its loopholes make no sense. The existing law focuses on the “primary design” rather than effect of incendiary weapons, thus excluding multi-purpose munitions, such as white phosphorus which is “primarily designed” for smoke screening and marking and tracing. Such a definition completely ignores the grave humanitarian consequences of white phosphorus burns to people, structures, and the environment. The second major loophole is the distinction the protocol makes between air-launched munitions, which are prohibited, and ground-launched munitions, which are more weakly regulated. This is absurd as, regardless of the method of delivery, incendiary weapons burn whatever is in their way, causing indiscriminate harm to civilians and the environment.
The roundtable also provided a vital platform for bridging perspectives and exchanging factual knowledge among different stakeholders. For example, we discussed and sought to clarify the purpose of the use of white phosphorus. In some cases, the substance is used for marking and tracing. Small qualities lace ammunition, giving off a glow, so that the troops can follow the path of a projectile and its target and make adjustments. This incidental use is of less concern from a humanitarian perspective.
Other potential uses raised more questions. While many of us within the humanitarian disarmament sector have heard that white phosphorus could be used to light up an area, this labeling could very well be due to the linguistic discrepancies of different militaries. White phosphorus does not appear to have any tactical military utility as an illuminant due to its short burning time and the existence of better illumination rounds. White phosphorus has most utility when used as a smokescreen to provide a visual shield and hide military maneuvers from enemy forces. However, many modern militaries have equipment that can see through the white phosphorus smoke (thermal goggles, for instance) so its smoke utility is significantly reduced. Of course, not all militaries or armed groups have equipment such as thermal goggles, but with continuous advancement of military technology the availability of once exclusive equipment will arguably also expand to the point of being ubiquitous. The questions surrounding illumination and smoke screening suggest that in many cases the purpose of using white phosphorus could be incendiary. Regardless, of the purpose, when white phosphorus has incendiary effects, it should be prohibited.
The roundtable reflections were clear: the solution did not lie within the CCW, due to its consensus-related challenges, but rather in a brand-new humanitarian disarmament treaty outside the CCW with clear legal obligations comprehensively banning all incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions. White phosphorus has grave incendiary effects that should be covered in a new treaty. Even napalm is not fully banned to this day. These shortcomings should be remedied in a new treaty. Alternatively, should we rely on good actors and have faith that states will not use such weapons again? Isn’t that madness? Don’t we remember what it means to use weapons like napalm? The world should be racing to install an appropriate legal framework and fully ban all incendiary weapons. Examples from Japan, Southeast Asia, Gaza, Ukraine, Syria, and Lebanon underscore the devastating impacts of these weapons and highlight the urgent need for legal reform, not only as a response, but more so as a pressing preventive measure. A full ban would be the best way to protect both combatants and civilians alike from the indiscriminate and cruel effects of incendiary weapons.
Humanitarian and Environmental Impacts
The humanitarian and environmental consequences of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, are not only egregious at the time of the attack, but cause compounded protracted harm. The details of what incendiary weapons use means for affected individuals and their medical treatment underscores the inhumanity of these weapons. Historical and contemporary cases have illustrated the severe humanitarian impacts of these weapons, including horrific burn injuries and long-term psychosocial and economic consequences for the survivors, their families, and communities.
A comparative medical review of napalm and white phosphorus burns showed that the medical effect of these weapons is without exception excruciating. Victims experience pain, permanent loss of function, and disfigurement. Treatment includes measures like cutting skin into a checkered pattern; scraping skin, flesh, and tissue away until it is free of white phosphorus contamination; and grafting, excising, and daily meddling with the wound. Over time, survivors endure years of or lifelong surgeries, physical therapy, and mental health treatment. Medical personnel face increased risk particularly with white phosphorus due to its ability to spread under treatment, the difficulty of extinguishing it, and the threat of reignition when it is exposed to oxygen. The resources needed for emergency medical treatment of burn victims are massive: consistent electricity flow, sterile environments, intensive care, and state-of-the-art facilities.
Norway, for instance, has eight beds nationally, out of which only four fall in the intensive care category, that meet the requirement to medically treat burn injuries of the level caused by incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus. Norway is one of the world’s richest countries, has a strong healthcare system, and is not at war. Could you imagine the horrific reality of receiving incendiary weapons burn patients in the chaos of war, with spotty or no electricity or capacity for emergency response let alone lifelong care?
The environmental impact of incendiary weapons extends beyond immediate destruction, to long-term soil and water contamination and toxicity to all organisms. The discussion on environmental and wildlife harm from incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, centered around examples of firestorms, destruction of large areas of habitat, and death of wildlife after they ingest white phosphorus. Some militaries have limited the training area for white phosphorus munitions, taking into account its demonstrated and yet unknown effects to the environment and wildlife. Protection measures include selecting an area where the ground is hard (to avoid penetration of white phosphorus munitions further into soil with soft ground), where there are limited waterways (to avoid contamination spread through water), and where this is a low risk of wildlife death (taking into account previous experience with wildlife deaths after white phosphorus ingestion). While the meeting provided information on clear detrimental environment, climate, and wildlife effects of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, more targeted research is needed to systematically document the effects of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus.
A Call to Action
An examination of other processes, such as banning antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions, highlighted the need for tighter coordination among civil society organizations and the inclusion of military expertise into advocacy efforts and a political process. The importance of collaborative efforts among like-minded states, relevant international organizations, and civil society organizations has a proven track record. Civil society plays a key role in gathering evidence, moving states, and coordinating advocacy efforts on critical humanitarian matters. To advance efforts to ban incendiary weapons, operational organizations should provide on-the-ground evidence and experience to inform the political processes. There is also a clear need to form a civil society network or a campaign to ensure consistent and joint contribution to the cause, as we have seen with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Cluster Munition Coalition, and others.
Moreover, the nature of incendiary weapons necessitates a better understanding of their real military utility and the practicalities of their use. Military experts can provide invaluable insights into the tactical applications of these weapons and perhaps see viable alternatives that are less harmful. The proposal for a state to host an informal meeting where like-minded states can discuss the issue further is timely and necessary.
The roundtable discussions highlighted the urgent need to address the gaps in the current legal framework governing incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions. The severe humanitarian, medical, and environmental impacts of these weapons trigger the ethical imperatives to ban their use. The outcome of the meeting was a clear call to action, advocating for a comprehensive approach involving public awareness campaigns, and international cooperation on a political process to establish a new legal instrument. By working together, a cross-regional community can work to eliminate the use of incendiary weapons and protect both civilians and combatants from their devastating effects. Multidisciplinary roundtables such as this one provide an invaluable space for driving forward the agenda to ban incendiary weapons, fostering collaboration, and ensuring a unified and effective response to this pressing issue and a first step in a series of discussions to this end.
Banning incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, is realistic and urgent. We all have a role to play—the public to put pressure on the politicians, civil society to provide evidence-based policy guidance, and states to negotiate and ensure a legally binding ban without further delay. We managed to ban chemical weapons, antipersonnel mines, and cluster munitions, to name a few weapons that cause unacceptable harm. What would be the argument not to ban incendiary weapons?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Kristina Đurić, Norwegian People’s Aid
“If international law is to mean anything, equal matters must be treated equally,” stressed the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Kravik not so long ago. This means that all weapons that cause excessive and indiscriminate harm should be treated equally, and that one cannot pick and choose which ones are convenient to eliminate and which ones are convenient to keep. When it comes to international humanitarian law and humanitarian disarmament the only relevant criteria must be unacceptable harm.
A recent roundtable discussion on incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, demonstrated that the weapons have limited military utility, cause grave humanitarian impacts, with extreme medical consequences, generate harm to the environment and wildlife, and remain without adequate legal regulation. Therefore, incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, meet the criteria to be fully banned without hesitation.
Motivated to examine the military utility and humanitarian consequences of incendiary weapons, a select group of legal, humanitarian, medical, environmental, foreign policy, and military experts opted out of enjoying the rare sunny weather in Oslo, to spend a day in a closed conference room discussing this burning issue. The roundtable organized by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) on May 28, 2024, in Oslo, marked a critical step forward in addressing the persistent and devastating issue of incendiary weapons. A day of intense exchanges on this matter highlighted the significant gaps in the current legal framework, the severe humanitarian impacts of these weapons, the environmental harm, and the urgent need for action. At the end of the meeting, it was clear that such multidisciplinary roundtables are essential for increasing understanding, coordinating advocacy efforts, and ultimately achieving a comprehensive ban on all incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions.
Legal Loopholes
The discussion on the adequacy of existing legal regulations of incendiary weapons under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) reemphasized what is by now common wisdom: that the protocol does not appropriately provide protection from the humanitarian consequences of incendiary weapons, and that its loopholes make no sense. The existing law focuses on the “primary design” rather than effect of incendiary weapons, thus excluding multi-purpose munitions, such as white phosphorus which is “primarily designed” for smoke screening and marking and tracing. Such a definition completely ignores the grave humanitarian consequences of white phosphorus burns to people, structures, and the environment. The second major loophole is the distinction the protocol makes between air-launched munitions, which are prohibited, and ground-launched munitions, which are more weakly regulated. This is absurd as, regardless of the method of delivery, incendiary weapons burn whatever is in their way, causing indiscriminate harm to civilians and the environment.
The roundtable also provided a vital platform for bridging perspectives and exchanging factual knowledge among different stakeholders. For example, we discussed and sought to clarify the purpose of the use of white phosphorus. In some cases, the substance is used for marking and tracing. Small qualities lace ammunition, giving off a glow, so that the troops can follow the path of a projectile and its target and make adjustments. This incidental use is of less concern from a humanitarian perspective.
Other potential uses raised more questions. While many of us within the humanitarian disarmament sector have heard that white phosphorus could be used to light up an area, this labeling could very well be due to the linguistic discrepancies of different militaries. White phosphorus does not appear to have any tactical military utility as an illuminant due to its short burning time and the existence of better illumination rounds. White phosphorus has most utility when used as a smokescreen to provide a visual shield and hide military maneuvers from enemy forces. However, many modern militaries have equipment that can see through the white phosphorus smoke (thermal goggles, for instance) so its smoke utility is significantly reduced. Of course, not all militaries or armed groups have equipment such as thermal goggles, but with continuous advancement of military technology the availability of once exclusive equipment will arguably also expand to the point of being ubiquitous. The questions surrounding illumination and smoke screening suggest that in many cases the purpose of using white phosphorus could be incendiary. Regardless, of the purpose, when white phosphorus has incendiary effects, it should be prohibited.
The roundtable reflections were clear: the solution did not lie within the CCW, due to its consensus-related challenges, but rather in a brand-new humanitarian disarmament treaty outside the CCW with clear legal obligations comprehensively banning all incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions. White phosphorus has grave incendiary effects that should be covered in a new treaty. Even napalm is not fully banned to this day. These shortcomings should be remedied in a new treaty. Alternatively, should we rely on good actors and have faith that states will not use such weapons again? Isn’t that madness? Don’t we remember what it means to use weapons like napalm? The world should be racing to install an appropriate legal framework and fully ban all incendiary weapons. Examples from Japan, Southeast Asia, Gaza, Ukraine, Syria, and Lebanon underscore the devastating impacts of these weapons and highlight the urgent need for legal reform, not only as a response, but more so as a pressing preventive measure. A full ban would be the best way to protect both combatants and civilians alike from the indiscriminate and cruel effects of incendiary weapons.
Humanitarian and Environmental Impacts
The humanitarian and environmental consequences of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, are not only egregious at the time of the attack, but cause compounded protracted harm. The details of what incendiary weapons use means for affected individuals and their medical treatment underscores the inhumanity of these weapons. Historical and contemporary cases have illustrated the severe humanitarian impacts of these weapons, including horrific burn injuries and long-term psychosocial and economic consequences for the survivors, their families, and communities.
A comparative medical review of napalm and white phosphorus burns showed that the medical effect of these weapons is without exception excruciating. Victims experience pain, permanent loss of function, and disfigurement. Treatment includes measures like cutting skin into a checkered pattern; scraping skin, flesh, and tissue away until it is free of white phosphorus contamination; and grafting, excising, and daily meddling with the wound. Over time, survivors endure years of or lifelong surgeries, physical therapy, and mental health treatment. Medical personnel face increased risk particularly with white phosphorus due to its ability to spread under treatment, the difficulty of extinguishing it, and the threat of reignition when it is exposed to oxygen. The resources needed for emergency medical treatment of burn victims are massive: consistent electricity flow, sterile environments, intensive care, and state-of-the-art facilities.
Norway, for instance, has eight beds nationally, out of which only four fall in the intensive care category, that meet the requirement to medically treat burn injuries of the level caused by incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus. Norway is one of the world’s richest countries, has a strong healthcare system, and is not at war. Could you imagine the horrific reality of receiving incendiary weapons burn patients in the chaos of war, with spotty or no electricity or capacity for emergency response let alone lifelong care?
The environmental impact of incendiary weapons extends beyond immediate destruction, to long-term soil and water contamination and toxicity to all organisms. The discussion on environmental and wildlife harm from incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, centered around examples of firestorms, destruction of large areas of habitat, and death of wildlife after they ingest white phosphorus. Some militaries have limited the training area for white phosphorus munitions, taking into account its demonstrated and yet unknown effects to the environment and wildlife. Protection measures include selecting an area where the ground is hard (to avoid penetration of white phosphorus munitions further into soil with soft ground), where there are limited waterways (to avoid contamination spread through water), and where this is a low risk of wildlife death (taking into account previous experience with wildlife deaths after white phosphorus ingestion). While the meeting provided information on clear detrimental environment, climate, and wildlife effects of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, more targeted research is needed to systematically document the effects of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus.
A Call to Action
An examination of other processes, such as banning antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions, highlighted the need for tighter coordination among civil society organizations and the inclusion of military expertise into advocacy efforts and a political process. The importance of collaborative efforts among like-minded states, relevant international organizations, and civil society organizations has a proven track record. Civil society plays a key role in gathering evidence, moving states, and coordinating advocacy efforts on critical humanitarian matters. To advance efforts to ban incendiary weapons, operational organizations should provide on-the-ground evidence and experience to inform the political processes. There is also a clear need to form a civil society network or a campaign to ensure consistent and joint contribution to the cause, as we have seen with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Cluster Munition Coalition, and others.
Moreover, the nature of incendiary weapons necessitates a better understanding of their real military utility and the practicalities of their use. Military experts can provide invaluable insights into the tactical applications of these weapons and perhaps see viable alternatives that are less harmful. The proposal for a state to host an informal meeting where like-minded states can discuss the issue further is timely and necessary.
The roundtable discussions highlighted the urgent need to address the gaps in the current legal framework governing incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus munitions. The severe humanitarian, medical, and environmental impacts of these weapons trigger the ethical imperatives to ban their use. The outcome of the meeting was a clear call to action, advocating for a comprehensive approach involving public awareness campaigns, and international cooperation on a political process to establish a new legal instrument. By working together, a cross-regional community can work to eliminate the use of incendiary weapons and protect both civilians and combatants from their devastating effects. Multidisciplinary roundtables such as this one provide an invaluable space for driving forward the agenda to ban incendiary weapons, fostering collaboration, and ensuring a unified and effective response to this pressing issue and a first step in a series of discussions to this end.
Banning incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, is realistic and urgent. We all have a role to play—the public to put pressure on the politicians, civil society to provide evidence-based policy guidance, and states to negotiate and ensure a legally binding ban without further delay. We managed to ban chemical weapons, antipersonnel mines, and cluster munitions, to name a few weapons that cause unacceptable harm. What would be the argument not to ban incendiary weapons?
Share this:
Like this: