Practice Relating to Rule 70. Weapons of a Nature to Cause Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering
Quick navigation
St. Petersburg Declaration
The 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration provides:
Considering:
That the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war;
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles which they have established, and to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity. 
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, St. Petersburg, 29 November–11 December 1868.

Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases
The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases specifies that the contracting States are “inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the [1868] Declaration of St. Petersburg”. 
Declaration (IV, 2) concerning Asphyxiating Gases, The Hague, 29 July 1899.

Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets
The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets specifies that the contracting States are “inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the [1868] Declaration of St. Petersburg”. 
Declaration (IV, 3) concerning Expanding Bullets, The Hague, 29 July 1899.

Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 23(e) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “[I]t is especially prohibited … [t]o employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.” 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(e).

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “[I]t is especially forbidden … [t]o employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23(e).

Additional Protocol I
Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 35(2). CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 101, Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I was adopted by consensus.

Additional Protocol II (draft)
Article 20(2) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided: “It is forbidden to employ weapons, projectiles, and material and methods of combat of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 39.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
The preamble to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides that the States parties have based themselves “on the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 10 October 1980, preamble.

Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 6(2) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any booby-trap which is designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 10 October 1980, Article 6(2).

Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines
According to the preamble to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, States parties based their agreement on various principles of IHL, including “the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Ottawa, 18 September 1997, preamble.

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xx) of the 1998 ICC Statute, the following constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts:
Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xx).

Amended Article 1 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
In 2001, States parties decided to amend Article 1 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons governing its scope as follows:
1. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, including any situation described in paragraph 4 of Article I of Additional Protocol I to these Conventions [international armed conflicts].
2. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall also apply, in addition to situations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to situations referred to in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [non-international armed conflicts]. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts. 
Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), Geneva, 21 December 2001.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 16 of the 1863 Lieber Code states: “Military necessity does not admit of cruelty – that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering.” 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 16.

Oxford Manual of Naval War
Article 16(2) of the 1913 Oxford Manual of Naval War provides: “[I]t is forbidden … [t]o employ arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” 
The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 16(2).

Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including the “use of … inhuman appliances”. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
Paragraph 2 of the 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides:
Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind. 
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eight United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990, UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1, 1990, p. 112, § 2.

Paragraph 11(c) of the 1990 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides: “Rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials should include guidelines that … prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk.” 
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eight United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990, UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1, 1990, p. 112, § 11(c).

Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.

Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.

ICTY Statute
Article 3 of the 1993 ICTY Statute provides:
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 3.

San Remo Manual
Paragraph 42(a) of the 1994 San Remo Manual states: “It is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 42(a).

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(e)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[e]mployment of … weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(e)(i).

UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 6.4 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “The United Nations force is prohibited from using weapons or methods of combat of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.4.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xx), “[e]mploying weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xx)

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) states that “the use of weapons, projectiles or material which can cause unnecessary suffering” is especially prohibited. It adds: “The projectiles and weapons covered by this prohibition shall be determined solely by the common practice of States to refrain from using certain means of warfare in recognition that they cause such suffering.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.008(1).

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “The use of weapons, projectiles, materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 1.04(2).

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Some weapons and weapons systems are totally prohibited. These blanket prohibitions, which may be traced to treaty or customary international law, are justified on the grounds that the subject weapons are either indiscriminate in their effect or cause unnecessary suffering. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 304.

930. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles, materiel and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

932. Use of the following types of weapons is prohibited:
a. weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, §§ 930 and 932(a).

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides:
The principle of unnecessary suffering forbids the use of means and methods of warfare which are calculated to cause suffering which is excessive in the circumstances. It has also been expressed as the infliction of suffering, injury or destruction not actually necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate military objectives. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 207.

Weapons, projectiles, materials and means of warfare which cause unnecessary suffering are not permissible, that is, when the practical effect is to cause injury or suffering which is out of proportion to the military effectiveness of the weapon, projectile, material or means. Limitations on the use of weapons fall into two broad categories, namely:
a. prohibited weapons, and
b. the illegal use of lawful weapons.

Weapon use will be unlawful under LOAC when it breaches the principle of proportionality by causing unnecessary injury or suffering. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 401 and 402.

Some weapons and weapons systems are totally prohibited. These blanket prohibitions, which may be traced to treaty or customary international law are justified on the grounds that the subject weapons are either indiscriminate in their effect or cause unnecessary suffering. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 404.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
The principle of avoiding unnecessary suffering forbids the use of means or methods of warfare which are calculated to cause suffering which is excessive in the circumstances. It has also been expressed as averting the infliction of suffering, injury or destruction not actually necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate military objectives. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 2.7

4.1 Weapons, projectiles, materials and means of warfare which cause unnecessary injury or suffering are not permissible, that is, when the practical effect is to cause injury or suffering which is out of proportion to the military effectiveness of the weapon, projectile, material or means. …
4.2 … Weapon use will be unlawful under the LOAC when it breaches the principle of proportionality by causing unnecessary injury or suffering.

4.4 Some weapons and weapons systems are totally prohibited. These blanket prohibitions, which may be traced to treaty or customary international law, are justified on the grounds that the weapons in question are either indiscriminate in their effect or cause unnecessary suffering.

4.30 … All legal weapons are limited in the way in which they may be used. Specifically, no weapons may be used indiscriminately or in such a way as to cause unnecessary injury or suffering. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.30.

4.20 … Both chemical and biological weapons are prohibited because they cause unnecessary suffering and may affect the civilian population in an indiscriminate fashion. …

4.43 Where booby traps are not prohibited, those that are used must not be designed to cause unnecessary injury or suffering. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 4.20 and 4.43.

The LOAC restrictions of proportionality and unnecessary suffering apply to all facets of aerial warfare. With the advent of modern technology many defence forces are now able to deliver weapons with much greater precision. However, nations are not obliged to use only precision munitions; attack by conventional, free-fall weapons or “dumb.” weapons is lawful provided that the overriding the LOAC principles of proportionality and unnecessary suffering and other applicable rules are not violated. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.48; see also § 6.26.

Related to the principle of military necessity, and implicitly contained within it, is the principle of unnecessary suffering. This concept forbids any attack on an enemy, which inflicts unnecessary suffering, injury or destruction. The principles applicable are that:
• the force used must not exceed the minimum required to achieve the military objective;
• there must be a valid military objective;
• destruction as an end in itself is prohibited;
• any destruction of property must contribute to the defeat of the enemy; and
• wanton killing and wilful infliction of suffering, as revenge, are prohibited. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 5.8.

Provisions of the Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognised as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:

• to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.29.

Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) provides that the use of weapons or means and methods of warfare which render death inevitable or cause unnecessary suffering is illegal. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 37.

Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Officers (1994) defines the concept of unnecessary suffering as “suffering … that needlessly adds to that already inflicted on the enemy to render him hors de combat”. It provides: “It is prohibited to use weapons for the purpose of causing superfluous injury rather than for their military effectiveness.” 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Manuel d’Instruction pour Officiers, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 1994, p. 36, § 17(1).

Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers states: “Combatants must refrain from causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to persons and unnecessary damage to property.” 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, p. 11.

Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “It is prohibited to resort to weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or superfluous injury.” 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 5.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons which cause excessive suffering.” 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Instructions on the Implementation of the International Law of War in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of ABiH, No. 2/92, 5 December 1992, Item 11, § 1.

Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).

Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons which are of a nature to cause superfluous injuries or unnecessary suffering.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 17; see also Part I, pp. 32, 40, 80 and 93.

The legitimate goal which States may establish during war is the weakening of the enemy military forces. This goal would be exceeded by the use of weapons that would unnecessarily aggravate the suffering of men or render their death inevitable. Therefore, regarding the means [of warfare], a belligerent may not use weapons, projectiles, toxic gases or [other] means of combat of a nature to cause unnecessary injuries. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 81.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “It is prohibited to employ weapons of a nature to cause … superfluous injury.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 95, § I.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
Precautions required by the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law
The aim of these precautions is to minimize civilian and military losses:
- Superfluous suffering that is not justifiable for the domination of the adversary is prohibited. Generally, it is prohibited to use means or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses … or excessive suffering. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 223, § 224.

Three fundamental principles characterize an armed engagement. [These include:]

- a … use of force … that avoids superfluous loss of life and damage. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 95, § 352.31; see also p. 137, § 412.29 .

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 32: Prohibitions
It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:

- to engage in any wanton destruction or any pillage, in particular of private property, and to use any means that cause unnecessary suffering and damage. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 32.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Weapons, projectiles, materials and means of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-1, § 2; see also p. 5-2, § 10.
It adds: “Weapons, projectiles, material or means of warfare must not cause injury or suffering which is out of proportion to its military effectiveness.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-1, § 3.

Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) instructs CF personnel: “Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase suffering.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 3.

1. The use of weapons or ammunition that cause unnecessary suffering is unlawful. …

5. When force is used, suffering is likely to result. However, the infliction of unnecessary suffering is prohibited. “Unnecessary suffering” refers to infliction of injuries or suffering beyond what is required to achieve the military aim. …
6. Remember that even lawful weapons cannot be used in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 3, §§ 1, 5 and 6.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that one of the purposes of the law of armed conflict is “to protect combatants from unnecessary suffering”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 103.2.

502. General
1. The LOAC limits the types of weapons that may be used and the manner in which those weapons are used. Weapons, projectiles, materials and means of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.
2. A weapon, projectile, material or means of warfare must not cause injury or suffering which is out of proportion to its military effectiveness.
503. Superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering
1. “Superfluous injury” and “unnecessary suffering” are closely related concepts. “Superfluous” means “more than enough, redundant, needless.” The term “unnecessary” is easily understood. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 502 and 503.1.

Rule 3 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs Canadian Forces (CF) personnel: “Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase suffering and use unauthorized weapons or ammunition.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 3.

1. Rule # 3 is based on both military and humanitarian principles. The use of weapons or ammunition that cause unnecessary suffering is unlawful and is also contrary to the principle of war, selection and maintenance of the aim.
Authorized weapons and ammunition
2. There are few legal restrictions on the types of weapons that can be lawfully used. The use of CF issued shotguns, for example, is legal. CF issued military pattern weapons are lawful. The use of only CF issued weapons and ammunition helps to ensure that there is no deviation from international standards. CF personnel are not authorized to bring or use privately owned weapons or ammunition.
Captured weapons and ammunition
3. Circumstances may arise where captured weapons and ammunition may have to be used. However, they may only be used if they are lawful weapons.
Alteration of weapons/ammunition to cause unnecessary suffering
4. The alternation of weapons or ammunition to increase suffering is unlawful and may interfere with the overall military mission. The alteration of ammunition so that it expands or flattens easily when striking the human body is expressly prohibited.
5. The aim of the use of force is to allow you to accomplish your mission. When force is used, suffering is likely to result. However, the infliction of unnecessary suffering is prohibited. “Unnecessary suffering” refers to the infliction of injuries or suffering beyond what is required to achieve the military aim. Thus, the alteration of weapons or ammunition to increase suffering is forbidden. Not only is this rule morally right, it is to your operational advantage based on reciprocity (i.e., the use of altered weapons may encourage opposing forces to do the same or worse).
Restrictions on the use of lawful weapons
6. Remember that even lawful weapons cannot be used in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering.

Inspection
12. To ensure that only authorized weapons are used, regular inspections should be carried out. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 3, §§ 1–6 and 12.

Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Fundamental Rules, § 6.

The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … use any means that cause unnecessary suffering or damage”. 
Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(11).

Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons, projectiles and substances and methods of war that are likely to cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 78; see also p. 79.

Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides: “Using weapons or methods of warfare which can cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited.” 
Colombia, Transcripción Normas Fundamentales del Derecho Humanitario Aplicables en los Conflictos Armados, Circular No. 033/DIPL-SERPO-526, Policía Nacional, Dirección General, Santafé de Bogotá, 14 May 1992, § 6.

Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that employing weapons which “cause unnecessary and indiscriminate, extensive, lasting and serious damage to people” is prohibited. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 49–50.

Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
Lesson 1 Basic notions of IHL

The Law of War is based on three fundamental principles:
- The principle of distinction;
- The principle of limitation;
- The principle of proportionality.

The principle of limitation determines permitted means and prohibited means.
- What are the means and methods of warfare that can be used?
- The conventional weapons issued,

- What are the prohibited means and methods of warfare?
- All weapons which cause unnecessary suffering to individuals and excessive damage to populations and their goods,
For example: Anti-personnel mines, asphyxiating gases, chemical weapons, etc. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 15–16.

II. The fundamental principles of IHL
Just as military operations are based on principles concerning attack, defence, withdrawal, etc., the law of armed conflicts contains a set of well-defined principles. These concrete principles reflect the realities of conflicts. They represent a balance between the principle of humanity and military necessity, and they are valid at all times, in all places, and in all circumstances. It is essential that these rules are known by all combatants. They must permanently be taken into consideration in every activity of assessment, planning, and military training or operation. The following principles can be found throughout the texts of the law of armed conflicts.

II.4. Limitation
In any armed conflict, the right of the parties to choose methods and means of warfare are not unlimited; in other words, IHL limits the way in which arms and military tactics can be employed.
Arms and tactics of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.
The aim of this principle is to prohibit weapons which cause more suffering or damage than is necessary to render enemy combatants hors de combat. It relates, for example, to weapons designed to cause wounds impossible to treat, or which lead to a slow and cruel death. It does not prohibit weapons such as cluster weapons or ammunition designed to penetrate armour, which, even when they are correctly used, can have this type of unintentional consequence by reason of their design rather than their use. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 12–14; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 13–14; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 13.

I.3. War crimes

War crimes are equally violations of the laws and customs of war such as:
- employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 44–45.

II.2.5. Rockets, missiles and bombardments
With the arrival of modern technology, numerous armed forces now can shoot at objectives with weapons with much more precision. However, States are not limited in the use of precision weapons and munitions. An attack by release of conventional bombs is legal to the extent that the predominant principles of proportionality and superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, as well as other pertinent rules, are not violated. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 57.

Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) considers as a prohibited method of warfare the “use of means and methods of combat resulting in unnecessary suffering”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 40.

Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states: “Weapons causing unnecessary suffering may not be used.” 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 45.

Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states that IHL “has several principles [one of which is] … limitation: The rights of the parties [to an armed conflict] to choose the means and methods of combat are not unlimited (this means that tactics and weapons of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering are prohibited)”. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 11.

Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) instructs troops: “Remember that any method of warfare which causes unnecessary injury or suffering is prohibited.” It adds: “The law of war does not allow you to alter your weapons in order to cause unnecessary injury or suffering to the enemy.” 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 5.

Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides:
It is a fundamental tenet of the law of armed conflict that the right of nations engaged in armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. This rule of law is expressed in the prohibition of the employment of weapons, material, and methods of warfare that are designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons which cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain, the severity of the injuries and the certainty of death they entail are clearly out of all proportion to the military advantage sought. Poisoned projectiles and dum-dum bullets belong in this category since the small military advantage that may be derived from their use guarantees death due to poisoning or to the expanding effect of soft-nosed or unjacketed lead bullets.
Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field X-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, §§ 9.1 and 9.1.1.

France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, provides that it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis (2).

France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use … weapons … of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.”  
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.

France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states that, “owing to their inhumane nature or to their excessive traumatic effect”, the use of poison, chemical weapons, biological and bacteriological weapons, dum-dum bullets or other projectiles with expanding heads, anti-personnel mines, weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments, blinding laser weapons, and torpedoes without self-destruction mechanisms “is totally prohibited by the law of armed conflicts”. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 6.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that, “owing to their inhuman nature or to their excessive traumatic effect”, the use of poison, chemical weapons, biological and bacteriological weapons, dum-dum bullets or other projectiles with expanding heads, anti-personnel mines, weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments, blinding laser weapons, and torpedoes without self-destruction mechanisms “is totally prohibited by the law of armed conflicts”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 54; see also p. 97.

Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides: “It is prohibited to use means or methods of warfare which are intended or of a nature to cause superfluous injuries or unnecessary suffering (e.g. dum-dum bullets).” 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 5.

Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states:
It is particularly prohibited to employ means or methods which are intended or of a nature:
– to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering …

“Superfluous injury” or “unnecessary suffering” is caused by the use of means … of combat whose presumable harm would definitely be excessive in relation to the lawful military advantage intended.

In the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration the use of explosive and incendiary projectiles under 400 grammes was prohibited, since these projectiles were deemed to cause disproportionately severe injuries to soldiers, which is not necessary for putting them out of action …

It is prohibited to use bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body (e.g. dum-dum bullets) … This applies also to the use of shotguns, since shot causes similar suffering unjustified from the military point of view. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 401, 402 and 406-407; see also § 415.

Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited, in particular, to employ means or methods of warfare, which are intended to or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 302.

International humanitarian law prohibits the use of a number of means of warfare which are of a nature to violate the principle of humanity and to cause unnecessary suffering, e.g.
– bullets which easily expand or flatten in the human body, so-called dum-dum bullets,
– weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays, e.g. plastic or glass ammunition,
– explosive traps, when used in the form of an apparently harmless portable object, e.g. disguised as children’s toys,
– bacteriological means of warfare, e.g. substances which cause disease,
– chemical means of warfare, e.g. poisonous gases. 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 305.

Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
It is prohibited to use means or methods which are intended or of a nature,
- to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (e.g. dum-dum bullets). 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.

Greece
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides:
[C]ertain restrictions have been crystallized in both conventional and customary law of armed conflict regarding the employment by the belligerents of means and methods which shall cause to the adversary “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”, since a basic precondition of every armed conflict is to render hors de combat the military forces of the enemy without employing means and measures which are unnecessary and incompatible with the notion of reasonableness, even under the harsh conditions of hostilities. 
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 2.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) includes, as a “basic rule”, the obligation to “avoid unnecessary suffering, excessive damage and the use of more force than required to overpower the enemy”. It also considers as a prohibited method of warfare the “use of means and methods of combat resulting in unnecessary suffering”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, pp. 59 and 64.

Indonesia
According to Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990), it is prohibited to employ weapons which cause unnecessary suffering. 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 15(b)(5).

Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) provides a list of “Soldiers Rules”, one of which is: “Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase suffering.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 13.

Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that “Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] accept and comply with the provisions of customary international law in relation to the prohibitions and restrictions on the use of weapons” which cause superfluous and unnecessary suffering. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 3.1, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 11.

Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “Since St. Petersburg, there have been several universally accepted rules regarding weapons: … Weapons causing needless suffering are prohibited.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 11.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is forbidden to use means of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 13.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides: “The use of means and methods of warfare of a nature to cause … superfluous injuries and unnecessary suffering is prohibited.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 7.

Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states: “Weapons causing unnecessary suffering may not be used.” 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 45.

Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and methods and materials of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 2.

Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “Weapons causing unnecessary suffering shall not be used.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-O, § 13.

Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states:
The underlying idea of this body of law [i.e. IHL] is to humanize war. The three main principles established to this end … [include]:

B. all means of warfare that may cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, that is, means of warfare not essential to defeating the enemy, are prohibited. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 372(B); see also §§ 258, 265 and 388.

Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare that can cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos , Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 411.

Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that parties to an armed conflict “may not use means (weapons, projectiles and substances) and methods which cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. The manual gives dum-dum bullets, serrated-edged bayonets or weapons injuring by non-detectable fragments as examples of such means of warfare. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. IV-1 and IV-7.

The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “Means which cause unnecessary suffering with respect to the objective (elimination of the enemy) may not be used.” It gives as examples of such means of warfare: “poison and poisoned weapons, dum-dum bullets, serrated-edged bayonets, weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which cannot be detectable by X-ray, booby-traps attached to the Red Cross Emblem, wounded or dead person, [and] medical objects or toys”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, pp. 7-36 and 7-39.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “it is inadmissible for weapons and methods of combat to … cause excessive suffering or excessive damage to non-military targets (collateral damage)”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0228.

A bayonet or combat knife is not prohibited. It is prohibited to modify bayonets and knives, for example with a saw blade or barb. This prohibition stems from the ban on using weapons, projectiles or substances which may cause unnecessary suffering. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0426.

It is prohibited to use weapons causing unnecessary suffering or excessive injury, or that are indiscriminate. This means that biological, chemical, toxic or intoxicating weapons, dumdum bullets, saw-blade bayonets, weapons which cause injury by non-detectable fragments, anti-personnel mines and booby traps, blinding laser weapons and firearms whose primary purpose is to cause burn injuries to persons are forbidden. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1038.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. A weapon causes unnecessary suffering when in practice it inevitably causes injury or suffering disproportionate to its military effectiveness. In determining the military effectiveness of a weapon one looks at the primary purpose for which it was designed. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 509(2) (land warfare) and § 616(2) (air warfare); see also §§ 510(1)(a) and 707(2) (naval warfare).

Examples of such weapons include such weapons as lances with a barbed head, irregularly-shaped bullets, projectiles filled with broken glass, and the like. The scoring of the surface of bullets, the filing off of the end of their hard case, and the smearing on them of any substance likely to inflame a wound, are also prohibited. Generally speaking, weapons which are agreed to cause unnecessary suffering are home-made weapons or unofficial modifications of weapons issued through normal channels. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 510(1)(a), footnote 44; see also § 1704(2)(e), footnote 37.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) states that it is prohibited “to employ arms, projectiles or material aimed at causing unnecessary suffering”. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 39-40, § 5(l)(iv).

The basic principles are that every commander has the right to choose the means and methods of the type of warfare to be executed, to avoid unnecessary suffering and damage to men and material. … The principle of avoiding unnecessary suffering and damage prohibits all forms of violence that are not required for the over-powering of the enemy. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 42, § 11.

Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of Wars states: “It is expressly forbidden to use arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 11.

Nigeria’s Soldier’s Code of Conduct provides that it is prohibited “to employ arms, projectiles or material aimed at causing unnecessary suffering”. 
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 12(e).

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons that can … cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 26.e.(1); see also §§ 27.c.(2).(a) and 31.(b).(1).(a).

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons that can … cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 27(e)(1), p. 236; see § 27(2), p. 236; § 28(d), p. 43 and § 154(b)(1), p. 338 and § 2(a), p. 360.

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) states that weapons which cause unnecessary suffering are prohibited. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 129.

Romania
Romania’s Soldier’s Manual (1991) states: “The rules of humanitarian law prohibit causing unnecessary losses and excessive suffering to the adversary.” 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 34.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides:
Prohibited means of warfare are the various weapons of an indiscriminate character and/or those that cause unnecessary suffering:
a) bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body;
b) projectiles used with the only purpose to spread asphyxiating or poisonous gases;
c) projectiles weighing less than 400 grammes, which are either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances;
d) poisons or poisoned weapons;
e) asphyxiating, poisonous or other similar gases and bacteriological means;
f) bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons;
g) environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-term or serious effects as means of destruction, damage or injury;
h) all types of weapons of an indiscriminate character or that cause excessive injury or suffering. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 6.

Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use any means [of warfare] that causes unnecessary suffering and damage”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(2).

Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states: “Weapons that cause injuries that are impossible to treat or cause a cruel lingering death are not allowed.” 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 19.

South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
A basic principle of the LOAC is the prevention of unnecessary suffering. The test in relation to a particular weapon is whether the suffering occasioned by its use is needless, superfluous, or grossly disproportionate to the advantage gained.
i. Weapons which are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering are illegal per se. Such weapons include barbed spears, dum-dum bullets, weapons filled with glass and weapons that inflame wounds.
ii. Legal weapons may not be used in a manner which cause unnecessary suffering. 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 34(f).

South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states:
35. The following three principles govern the LOAC:

b. Prevention of Unnecessary Suffering: … It is especially forbidden to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. The two-part test is to determine whether military action:
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “The right to choose means and methods of warfare is limited by the principle according to which unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury shall be avoided.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 2.3.b.(3).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The choice of the means (weapons) and methods (procedures) of warfare are limited by the law of armed conflict. The use of force must be proportional to the aim and must not cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering even to the combatants of the adverse party. Humanitarian law accepts that one of the legitimate objectives of war is to put the enemy out of action, but prohibits the use of weapons that cau se additional and unnecessary suffering. Any form of violence that is not essential to gaining an advantage over the enemy is forbidden.  
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(3).

Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers the “prohibition of methods or means of warfare which cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”, as contained in Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, as a customary rule of international law. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 2.2.3, p. 18.

Weapons shall be considered particularly inhuman if they:
– cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous damage, or
– have indiscriminate effects, meaning that the weapon effects strike military objectives and civilian persons without any distinction.
These criteria have been used in all arms limitation negotiations in recent years. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.3.1, pp. 78–79.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that belligerents “must not use weapons, projectiles, toxic gases or means of combat that cause unnecessary suffering”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 17.

Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited to resort to weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or superfluous injury.” 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 5.

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Prohibitions and limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare for the belligerents are set forth in order to avoid unnecessary suffering and unjustifiable casualties among the civilian population, [and] infliction of severe and long-term damage to the natural environment related to warfare. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.3.1.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) stresses:
It is expressly forbidden to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. Under this heading may be included such weapons as lances with a barbed head, irregularly-shaped bullets, projectiles filled with broken glass, and the like. The scoring of the surface of bullets, the filing off of the end of their hard case, and the smearing on them of any substance likely to inflame a wound, are also prohibited.

The prohibition is not, however, intended to apply to the use of explosives contained in mines, aerial torpedoes and hand-grenades. The use of flame throwers and napalm bombs when directed against military targets is lawful. However, their use against personnel is contrary to the law of war in so far as it is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 110 and footnote 1.

The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states: “The following are prohibited in international armed conflict: … d. arms, projectiles or material intended to cause excessive injury or suffering.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 5, p. 20, § 1(d).
[emphasis in original]
In its chapter on weapons, the UK LOAC Manual (2004) states the following as a guiding principle: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 6.1; see also § 13.28 (maritime warfare).

6.2. The correct criterion is whether the use of a weapon is of a nature to cause injury or suffering greater than that required for its military purpose.
6.2.1. In deciding the legality of use of a specific weapon, therefore, it is necessary to assess:
a. its effects in battle,
b. the military task it is required to perform, and
c. the proportionality between factors (a) and (b).
6.2.2. However, even if the use of a weapon is considered under this test to be generally lawful, its use in certain ways, or in certain circumstances, may still be unlawful. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.2–6.2.2

Weapons use is restricted by international conventions, protocols and declarations and by the customary law of armed conflict. Moreover, there are the compelling dictates of humanity, morality and civilization to be taken into account. The idea of humanity is expressed in the preamble to the St Petersburg Declaration thus: “this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable.” It has been said that “commanders are quite ready to admit the claims of humanity to the extent of forgoing the use of any engine of war whose military effect is disproportionate to the suffering it entails”. Any weapon that goes beyond what is needed to achieve the military object of disabling the enemy combatant would be difficult to justify on the grounds of military necessity. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 6.1.1.

Stabbing or cutting weapons such as lances, swords, bayonets or knives are lawful provided they are not of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, for example, because they have barbed heads or serrated edges or are spread with substances designed to inflame wounds. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 6.6.

6.11. The general rule prohibiting the infliction of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury does not preclude the use of hand-grenades and other fragmentation weapons.
6.11.1. The general rule must be taken as banning the use of weapons or projectiles that discharge broken glass, nails and the like. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.11–6.11.1.

6.18.1. Non-lethal weapons are weapons that are explicitly designed and developed to incapacitate or repel personnel, with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury, or to disable equipment, with minimal undesired damage or impact on the environment.
6.18.2. Devices such as water cannon, plastic bullets, CS gas, stun grenades, electronic jammers and laser weapons would fall within this category. So would acoustic devices or those causing metal embrittlement, or entanglement …
6.18.3. Generally speaking, devices that temporarily incapacitate combatants or that have only anti-materiel applications are, from the legal point of view, to be preferred to lethal weapons or those that cause permanent harm to individuals. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.18.1–6.18.3.

The Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognized as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:

e. to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.27.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states:
It is especially forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
What weapons cause “unnecessary injury” can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect … Usage, has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 34.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) provides:
It is forbidden to employ weapons, projectiles, and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. This rule is a matter of customary international law …
The rule prohibiting the use of weapons causing unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury is firmly established in international law … This prohibition against unnecessary suffering is a concrete expression of the general principles of proportionality and humanity. The rule reflects interests of combatants in avoiding needless suffering. Weapons are lawful, within the meaning of the prohibition against unnecessary suffering, so long as the foreseeable injury and suffering associated with wounds caused by such weapons are not disproportionate to the necessary military use of the weapon in terms of factors such as effectiveness against particular targets and available alternative weapons. What weapons or methods of warfare cause unnecessary suffering, and hence are unlawful per se, is best determined in the light of the practice of states. All weapons cause suffering. The critical factor in the prohibition against unnecessary suffering is whether the suffering is needless or disproportionate to the military advantages secured by the weapon, not the degree of suffering itself. International agreements may give specific content to the principle in the form of specific agreements to refrain from the use of particular weapons or methods of warfare. Thus, international law has condemned dum dum or exploding bullets because of types of injuries and inevitability of death. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 6-3(b)(1) and (2).
[emphasis in original]
A new weapon or method of warfare may be illegal, per se, if it is restricted by international law including treaty or international custom … [T]he legality of new weapons … is determined by whether the weapon’s effects violate the rule against unnecessary suffering. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, 6-7(a).

The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states:
Weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are prohibited. Note that the degree of suffering is not the principal issue; the true test is whether the suffering is needless or disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the use of the weapon.
(1) Thus, poisoned bullets are felt to cause unnecessary suffering since a person injured by modern military ammunition will ordinarily be placed out of the fighting by that alone; there is very little military advantage to be gained [by] making sure of the death of wounded persons through poison since they will be out of the battle when the poison takes effect.
(2) Similarly, using clear glass as the injuring mechanism in an explosive projectile or bomb is prohibited, since glass is difficult for surgeons to detect in a wound and impedes treatment. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 6-2a.

The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states: “The law of war does not allow you to alter your weapons in order to cause unnecessary injury or suffering to the enemy.” 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 11; see also p. 10.

The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states:
The customary law of war and the [1907] Hague Regulations … limit the weapons the armed force can use. Under the Hague Regulations, the employment of arms, material, or projectiles designed to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited. These principles have outlawed irregular-shaped bullets such as dum-dum bullets, projectiles filled with glass, and any substances or projectiles that would tend to inflame a wound. [The US] Field Manual 27-10 states, in paragraph 34, that whether weapons cause unnecessary injury “… can only be determined in the light of the practice of the States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect” …
It is possible … for a soldier to violate the law of war by misusing an issued weapon or using it at the wrong time or in the wrong place. An example of misusing a legitimate weapon would be cutting off the tip of a bullet. When the bullet hits someone, it expands and leaves a gaping wound. Such bullets cause unnecessary suffering and are forbidden. This misuse of a legitimate weapon is a crime for which you can be prosecuted. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 7.

The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) states that “using weapons which cause unnecessary suffering” is “expressly prohibited by the law of war and [is] not excusable on the basis of military necessity”. 
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-182, § (i).

The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides:
It is a fundamental tenet of the law of armed conflict that the right of nations engaged in armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. This rule of law is expressed in the concept that the employment of weapons, material, and methods of warfare that are designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited.

Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain or injury, or the certainty of death they produce is needlessly or clearly disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained by their use. Poisoned projectiles and small arms ammunition intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering fall into this category. Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), §§ 9.1 and 9.1.1.

The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
The law of armed conflict prohibits the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants. … [C]ommanders should ensure that otherwise lawful weapons or munitions are not being altered or misused to cause greater or unnecessary suffering. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 5.3.4.

It is a fundamental tenet of the law of armed conflict that the right of nations engaged in armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. This rule of law is expressed in the concept that the employment of weapons, material, and methods of warfare that are designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 9.1.

Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain or injury, or the certainty of death they produce is needlessly or clearly disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained by their use. Poisoned projectiles and small arms ammunition intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering fall into this category. Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. Use of such materials as incidental components in ammunition, e.g., as wadding or packing, is not prohibited. Use of .50-caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 9.1.1.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) prohibits the use of weapons and material that cause unnecessary suffering. A commentary on this prohibition states that it concerns weapons causing “suffering disproportionate to the military objective achieved” and gives the example of dum-dum bullets. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 96.

Back to top
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the “use of methods and means of warfare which can cause serious damage” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(1).

Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the use of means or methods of warfare which can be considered as causing excessive traumatic effects” is a war crime. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(1).

Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

40. employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(40).

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

26. employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(26).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
(1) Whoever in time of war or armed conflict orders the violation of laws and practices of warfare, or whoever violates them,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment.
(2) Violations of laws and practices of warfare referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall include:
a) Use of … lethal substances or agents with the aim to cause unnecessary suffering. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 179(1) and (2)(a).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

s) employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of combat which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of combat are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(s).

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “employment of inhuman weapons” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(13).

Colombia
Colombia’s Decree on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition and Explosives (1993) states that firearms which have undergone substantial modification in manufacture or origin to make them more deadly are prohibited. 
Colombia, Decree on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition and Explosives, 1993, Article 14(b).

Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, uses means and methods of warfare … whose aim is to cause unnecessary suffering and loss or superfluous injury”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 142.

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “uses … weapons, ammunition or materiel that cause excessive injuries or unnecessary suffering” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(14).
(emphasis in original)
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “employing weapons, projectiles and material … which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” in international armed conflicts, is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).

Ireland
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 35, is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “Superfluous suffering shall not be inflicted on the enemy.” 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, 1938, Article 35.

Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “employing weapons, projectiles, materials and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … provided that such means are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(20).

Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes the “use of … inhuman appliances” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xx) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier “who employs or orders the employment of weapons or means and methods of warfare … designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 51.

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states:
The following principles are recognized by the norms of international humanitarian law as applying before, during and after the use of force:

c. Limitation. … International humanitarian law prohibits the use of means and methods of using force which may cause unnecessary suffering or harm. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 7(d).

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 10
“War crime” shall also mean any of the following acts committed in armed conflicts:
1° employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

Article: 11
Anyone who commits one of the war crimes provided for in Article 10 of this law shall be punished by the following penalties:
1° the death penalty or life imprisonment where he has committed a crime provided for in point 1°, 4°, 5°, 6°, 9° or 10° of Article 10 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 10–11.

Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:
[O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

17. employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of combat which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of combat are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and that they are prohibited by an annex to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted according to the provisions of its Articles 121 and 123. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(17).

Committing an act or activity prohibited by any of the following conventions or protocols constitutes a crime under international law:

3. the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects … and its Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(3).

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts:
employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to the [1998 ICC] Statute by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set out in Articles 121 and 123 of the Statute. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(xx).

Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes “any soldier who uses, or orders the use of, means or methods of combat which are prohibited or destined to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 70.

Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict, uses, or orders to be used, methods or means of combat which are prohibited or destined to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 610.

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict uses or orders the employment of means or methods of combat … of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering shall be punished with ten to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to the penalty for the results of such acts.  
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 610.

Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust not use means and methods of warfare prohibited by International Humanitarian Law that can cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 114.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (1998), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xx) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c)(2).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:

28. Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering … in violation of the international humanitarian law of armed conflict. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.28.

Venezuela
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, punishes “those who make use of weapons or means that unnecessarily increase the suffering of the persons attacked”. 
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474(5).

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, the use of, or the order to use, “means or methods of combat prohibited under the rules of international law, during a war or an armed conflict” is a war crime. The commentary on this provision states: “The following weapons and means of combat are considered to be prohibited: … weapons, ammunition and materials that cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 148(1) and commentary.

Back to top
Argentina
In the Military Junta case in 1985, Argentina’s National Court of Appeals, with reference to Articles 22 and 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, mentioned the prohibition on the use of weapons, projectiles or material which cause “unnecessary damage” to enemies. It also referred to the opinion of some writers, according to whom unnecessary harm to the enemy or to the civilian population is prohibited. 
Argentina, National Court of Appeals, Military Junta case, Judgment, 9 December 1985.

Colombia
In 2006, in the Constitutional Case No. T-165/06, the First Appeals Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
[The principles of distinction, limitation and proportionality] are found throughout IHL. Regarding the protection of victims in international or non-international armed conflicts, they materialize in concrete rules, such as … [the one] that: prohibits the use of weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous or unnecessary suffering. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. T-165/06, Judgment of 7 March 2006, p. 8
[footnote in original omitted]
Japan
In the Shimoda case in 1963, Japan’s District Court of Tokyo quoted the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and also referred to the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases. The Court held, however, that “the use of a certain weapon, great as its inhuman result may be, need not be prohibited by international law if it has a great military effect”. 
Japan, District Court of Tokyo, Shimoda case, Judgment, 7 December 1963.

United States of America
The Agent Orange case in 2005 involved a class action suit filed on behalf of various Vietnamese nationals and an organization, The Vietnamese Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, against Dow Chemical and other US chemical manufacturers, for harms allegedly done to them and their land through the United States’ use of Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1971 and by the South Vietnamese government’s subsequent use of such herbicides until 1975. In dismissing the claims, the Court found that, while recognizing the evolution of international law since 1975, the use of herbicides did not violate, at the time they were used, either customary or conventional international law binding on the United States. On the question of whether the use of herbicides is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, the Court stated:
Plaintiffs argue that herbicides are per se proscribed materials that are “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” See Hague Convention IV, art. 23(e), 36 Stat. at 2302. The prohibition has long been understood to apply to weapons that cause unnecessary or superfluous injury to an already incapacitated combatant. Anderson Decl [Decl. of Professor Kenneth Howard Anderson, Jr., Nov. 2, 2004] ¶ 47 (citing, as an example, bullets treated with an agent that inflames a wound). It does not apply to lethal weapons that collaterally cause injury or suffering in order to achieve an appropriate (in war) military objective of incapacitating enemy troops, let alone to herbicides that may cause harm to humans beings as the side-effect of an application intended to destroy plants. As a leading treatise explains, Article 23’s prohibition of weapons “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering” is:
too vague to produce by itself a great many practical results. Apart from cases in which states expressly agree to forbid employment of a specified weapon …, states have not been known to lightly decide unilaterally to discard a weapon, once introduced into their arsenals, because it is considered to cause unnecessary suffering.
FRITS KALSHOVEN & LIESBETH ZEGVELD, CONSTRAINTS ON THE WAGING OF WAR: AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 41–42 (3d ed. 2001) …
Clause (e) is not applicable because the herbicides were not “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” The herbicide spraying was in the course of armed activities deemed necessary by the United States to protect American armed forces and those of its allies. It was not designed to harm people or land independently as a punishment or to inflict hurt viciously and consciously. 
United States, Eastern States District Court (EDNY), Agent Orange case, Judgment, 28 March 2005, pp. 186–187.
[emphasis in original]
Back to top
Australia
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Australia stated:
41. On the question of weapons that might cause unnecessary suffering, humanitarian principles in weapons design, which Australia wished to see universally accepted, should not be selectively disadvantageous to any country. One factor that should be kept in mind was the differing capacity of countries to maintain high technology or capital-intensive defensive weapons systems, as opposed to manpower-intensive defensive weapons systems at a relatively lower level of technology. It must not be assumed that high-technology sophisticated weapons, if correctly used, were necessarily more inhumane than simpler weapons …
42. His delegation felt that there might have been a tendency in recent studies to place undue emphasis on unnecessary suffering as manifested in wounds of a complex or serious nature, and perhaps in that way to lose sight of the initial and basic St. Petersburg principle that it was better to wound than to kill an enemy combatant. The Committee should consider whether, from the point of view of the soldier involved, it was doing him a service if it fell into the error of giving preference to weapons that tended to kill cleanly, rather than to weapons that wounded, but did not kill. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, pp. 15–16, §§ 41–42.

In a memorandum in 1991, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated:
The wide ban on weapons which cause superfluous injury (Article 35(2)) has to be read in conjunction with the Convention on the Prohibition on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. This Convention specifically lists such weapons which are prohibited. Australia became a party to this Convention in 1984. In the light of the Convention a reservation on this ground is unnecessary. 
Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minute on the Geneva Protocols, File: 1710/10/3/1, 13 February 1991, § 6.

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Australia stated:
One of the most fundamental and longest-standing humanitarian principles is the prohibition on employing weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or suffering. Yet while this principle has remained constant, its practical application has not and will not. The suffering inflicted by a particular type of weapon may be accepted as “necessary” in one age, but condemned as unnecessary in another. Such changes in the dictates of public conscience may have a number of causes. Advances in technology or changes in methods of warfare may provide alternatives to the use of weapons of that type. Or it may be that in a later age the level of suffering in warfare which the international community is prepared to tolerate is lower than the level which it tolerated previously. 
Australia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 30 October 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/22, pp. 39–40.

Austria
In 1997, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Austria stated that excessively injurious weapons must be banned, since humanitarian aspects must override others. 
Austria, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 32/PV.13, 29 September 1977, p. 28.

Brazil
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Brazil stated:
In principle, all available weapons could cause unnecessary suffering … depending on how they were used. There were good humanitarian reasons for the international community to agree at least on restricting the use of incendiary weapons against targets which were not exclusively military. 
Brazil, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.2, 14 March 1974, p. 18, § 7.

In 1993, the permanent representative of Brazil to the UN and other international organizations in Geneva wrote an article in which he declared: “Since the time when chemical weapons were first used, the Brazilian Government has consistently argued against the use of these and all other inhumane means of warfare.” He added: “The word ‘inhumane’ is employed here, in accordance with common usage, to mean weapons that cause unnecessary devastation and suffering.”  
Celso L. N. Amorim, “The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Security and the Developments Needs of Brazil”, Disarmament, Vol. 16, 1993, No. 1, p. 111.

Canada
In 1973, in its comment on the UN Secretary-General’s report on napalm and other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, Canada stated:
Broadly, there should be concern with the use of all types of weapons in ways which could cause unnecessary suffering … [F]or this reason, the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which are currently being prepared under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in close co-operation with the United Nations General Assembly, should reaffirm the existing principles and rules of conventional and customary international law of armed conflicts which apply generally to the choice and use of weapons by States in armed conflict and are contained, inter alia, in the Hague Declaration [concerning Asphyxiating Gases] of 1899, the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925. 
Canada, Comments on the report of the UN Secretary-General on napalm and other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, UN Doc. A/9207/Add.1, 17 December 1973, p. 3.

Chile
In 1991, in a legal report concerning the withdrawal of its reservation to the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, Chile stated:
The prohibition of the use of arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering … is considered to be a norm of international customary law and hence to be binding on all States, whether or not they are party to the relevant Convention. 
Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memorandum Reservado No. 430/91, Santiago, 17 June 1991, §§ 3 and 6.

China
The Report on the Practice of China, referring to a declaration by the delegation of China at the Conference on Certain Convention Weapons in 1980, notes that China often calls weapons of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury “inhumane weapons”. It adds that China has always been in favour of a total ban on these weapons and of further restrictions on their use, and that it has always made efforts to achieve the prohibition or restrictions on the use of certain inhumane conventional weapons. 
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 3.1, referring to Address to the Plenary Session of the UN Meeting on the Prohibition or Restrictions on Certain Conventional Weapons, 10 October 1980, Selected Documents of the Chinese Delegation to the United Nations, World Knowledge Press, Beijing, 1980, p. 265.

At the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, China declared: “The impermissibility of using means of warfare that caused excessive injuries … had become a universally accepted principle.” 
China, Statement at the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.II/SR.2, 16 January 2002, § 41.

Colombia
In 1975, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Colombia stated:
8. … His government … supported all measures for the prohibition or limitation of the use of conventional weapons likely to cause unnecessary injury …
9. … His Government was opposed to the use of napalm and incendiary weapons. In view of the suffering inflicted on the victims, nothing could justify their use. Similarly, the use of high velocity small-calibre projectiles designed to cause excessive injury should be absolutely forbidden. Such weapons were indeed comparable to explosive bullets or dum-dum bullets. 
Colombia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.14, 5 March 1975, p. 132, §§ 8–9.

In 1977, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Colombia advocated the elimination of “weapons of mass destruction, chemical and bacteriological weapons, incendiary weapons and all those weapons that are capable of bringing about the most horrifying suffering”. 
Colombia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 32/PV.21, 5 October 1977, p. 11.

Cyprus
In 1977, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Cyprus stated that napalm caused unnecessary suffering. 
Cyprus, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 32/PV.44, 24 October 1977, p. 17.

Denmark
In 2008, in a joint cost benefit analysis of a possible introduction of a national moratorium on all cluster munitions, Denmark’s Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
[T]he only legitimate goal that States may hold during a war, should be to weaken the enemy. To achieve this goal, it is sufficient to render the maximum number of men incapacitated and thereby unable to fight. The goal is exceeded by using weapons that unnecessarily amplify the suffering of men who were made unable to fight, or by making death unavoidable. These principles have the status of customary law. 
Denmark, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A Cost Benefit Analysis of a Possible Introduction of a National Danish Moratorium on All Cluster Munitions, 1 April 2008, p. 14.

Djibouti
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education stated:
[T]he authors of the [1868] Saint Petersburg Declaration formulated, explicitly and implicitly, the principles of distinction, of military necessity and prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering as follows:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable. 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 188.

In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “[O]ffences related to violations of humanitarian law”, listed “[e]mploying weapons, projectiles, means and methods of war that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 210.

Ecuador
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Ecuador stated: “The use of nuclear weapons contradicts the humanitarian dispositions against the use of warlike artifacts that provoke cruel and unnecessary sufferings to its victims.” 
Ecuador, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 2, § D.

Egypt
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Egypt stated that it was “still in favour of complete prohibition of the use of all weapons that might cause unnecessary suffering … The main object was to humanize war as far as possible by imposing a certain discipline on belligerents.” 
Egypt, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.6, 22 March 1974, p. 49, § 12.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated:
19. The prohibition against the use of weapons which render death inevitable or cause unnecessary suffering: “The right of belligerents to the conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.” [reference is made to Article 22 of the 1907 Hague Regulations] This rule imposes on the belligerents the obligation to refrain from cruel and treacherous behaviour. As far as weapons are concerned, since the nineteenth century this humanitarian principle has been embodied in two rules: one forbids the use of poisons, while the other prohibits the use of weapons capable of causing superfluous injuries …
20. The laws of the Hague [reference is made to Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague Regulations] and Geneva [reference is made to Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] provide that it is especially forbidden to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that the enormous blast waves, air blasts, fires, residual nuclear radiation or radioactive fallout, electromagnetic impulses and thermal radiation, which are primary effects of the use of nuclear weapons, cause extensive “unnecessary suffering”. 
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, pp. 12–13, §§ 19 and 20.

Upon signature of the 1998 ICC Statute, Egypt stated that it understood Article 8 of the Statute as follows:
The provisions of the Statute with regard to the war crimes referred to in article 8 in general and article 8, paragraph 2(b) in particular shall apply irrespective of the means by which they were perpetrated or the type of weapon used, including nuclear weapons, which … cause unnecessary damage, in contravention of international humanitarian law. 
Egypt, Declarations made upon signature of the 1998 ICC Statute, 26 December 2000, § 4(a).

France
Following the adoption by consensus of Article 33 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 35), France stated that it “went beyond the strict confines of humanitarian law and in fact regulated the law of war” and had “direct implications for the defence and security of States”. Therefore, it stated that it would have abstained if the article had not been adopted by consensus. 
France, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 March 1977, p. 101, § 55.

Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, France stated:
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, … it will apply the provisions of the Convention and its three Protocols to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 
France, Reservations made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 4 March 1988.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, France stated:
The supporters of that theory [according to which the law of armed conflicts would contain legal rules from which a prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons could be deduced] base themselves … on various rules or principles enunciated in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], and specifically “the prohibition to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” (art. 35, para.2) …
The French Government formally rejects this reasoning … Besides the fact that it is not according to this procedure that the prohibitions concerning the use of arms are traditionally established, this method is random, and cannot in any case lead to the result aimed at by its authors.
The theory put forward supposes that it is established … that all the rules mentioned … correspond with customary principles recognized as such and … that the exact content of these principles is defined.
However, this content … has been the object, and still is the object, of doctrinal discussions.
With regard to this, the French government must again underline that the principles of international customary law applicable in armed conflict cannot be searched in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … If one cannot deny that certain provisions of the protocol find their inspiration in the principles of international customary law, it is obvious that others constitute a development.

The general practice in the field of the prohibition or the regulation of armament is to proceed by conventions …
Indeed, the regulation of the use of a weapon supposes precise rules which cannot be established other than by specific conventions. 
France, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, pp. 40-45, §§ 28–30; see also Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, June 1994, pp. 29–31, § 26.

The instructions given to the French armed forces for the conduct of Opération Mistral, simulating a military operation under the right of self-defence or a mandate of the UN Security Council, state: “It is prohibited to employ methods or weapons which are of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.” 
France, Etat-major de la Force d’Action Rapide, Ordres pour l’Opération Mistral, 1995, Section 6, § 65.

According to the Report on the Practice of France, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in an interview in 1999 that France considered Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to have become customary. 
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 3.1.

Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, in an explanation of vote concerning Article 33 of the draft Additional Protocol I, the Federal Republic of Germany stated that it had joined in the consensus on Article 33 (now Article 35) “with the understanding that paragraphs 1 and 2 reaffirm customary international law”. 
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 115.

India
In 1970, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on Resolution 2677 (XXIV), which emphasized the need to “secure the full observance of human rights applicable in all armed conflicts” and called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 … and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”, India sought to change “all armed conflicts” in the second preambular paragraph to “armed conflicts”. Being unsuccessful, it then stated that it construed the expression “all armed conflicts” to denote all international armed conflicts. 
India, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1801, 27 November 1970, p. 379.

In 1976, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, India stated that it was
happy to note that all the delegations agreed in recognizing the need to avoid unnecessary suffering and that the differences of opinion concerned solely the extent to which countries were prepared to restrict their choice of that type of weapon for their defense, in order to avoid unnecessary suffering to civilians and combatants. 
India, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.28, 20 May 1976, p. 284, § 5.

At the CDDH, India stated that it had agreed to join in the consensus on Article 33 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 35),
with the understanding that the basic rules contained in this article will apply to all categories of weapons, namely nuclear, bacteriological, chemical, or conventional weapons or any other category of weapons. Secondly, the term “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” means those physical injuries which are more severe than would be necessary to render an adversary hors de combat or to make the enemy surrender and which are not justified by considerations of military necessity. 
India, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 March 1977, p. 115.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, India stated:
The use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict is unlawful, being contrary to the conventional as well as customary international law because such a use … could cause excessive injuries to the combatants making their death inevitable. 
India, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 4.

The Report on the Practice of India states that India considers that the prohibition of weapons causing unnecessary suffering also applies in non-international armed conflicts. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 3.1.

Indonesia
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Indonesia stated:
All international customary law and all treaties regulating the conduct of armed conflict among States are based on two fundamental principles, namely necessity and humanity … Actions which cause needless losses or suffering are prohibited. Furthermore, the employment of arms causing unnecessary suffering … is prohibited under the 1907 Hague Convention IV on Laws and Customs of Land Warfare. 
Indonesia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 3 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/25, p. 27.

Ireland
Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, prohibiting the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, was deleted at the last moment by the CDDH, without any plenary debate, as part of a general revision of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. During the amendment voting at this stage, Ireland voted in favour of the article because it believed that “the principles enunciated in the article are of a purely humanitarian nature”. 
Ireland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 120.

Islamic Republic of Iran
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
Some of the principles of humanitarian international law from which one can deduce the illegitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons are:

Prohibition of means and methods of war that cause unnecessary suffering to human societies and environment. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, undated, p. 1.

Israel
Upon accession to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Israel stated:
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed to become bound to all armed conflicts involving regular forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 
Israel, Declarations and understandings made upon accession to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 22 March 1995, § (a).

Italy
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Italy stated: “The exercise of armed violence should be carried out so as not to bring about unnecessary, and thus superfluous or useless, sufferings.” 
Italy, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, p. 5.

At the CDDH, the Italian delegation stated that it had joined in the consensus on Articles 33 and 34 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Articles 35 and 36) “bearing in mind above all the principles which inspired them” but that “it could not, however, conceal its perplexity about the wording of those provisions which could not be interpreted as introducing a specific prohibition operative in all circumstances attendant on the study, development, acquisition or adoption of particular weapons or methods of warfare”. 
Italy, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 March 1977, p. 102, § 59.

Japan
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Japan stated that it was of the understanding that “the free and unlimited selection of weapons is unacceptable in terms of international law concerning warfare, and that … the infliction of unnecessary suffering … is prohibited, even with regard to weapons that are not expressly banned”. 
Japan, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 7 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/27, p. 37.

Kuwait
According to the Report on the Practice of Kuwait, Kuwait does not import weapons which cause superfluous injury because it is of the opinion that such weapons are unacceptable. 
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 3.3.

Lesotho
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Lesotho stated:
Any use of nuclear weapons, even in self-defense, would violate international humanitarian law, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which prohibit as practices of war … causing unnecessary or aggravated suffering. 
Lesotho, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 2.

Madagascar
In 1975, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Madagascar stated in relation to the report of the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons that Might Cause Unnecessary Suffering or Have Indiscriminate Effects: “Those provisions … were inadequate, for they reaffirmed rules that were already to be found in other international instruments.” 
Madagascar, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.10, 19 February 1975, p. 102, §§ 52–53.

Marshall Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Marshall Islands stated: “Any use of nuclear weapons violate the laws of war including the Geneva and Hague Conventions … Such laws prohibit … the causing of unnecessary or aggravated suffering.” 
Marshall Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 22 June 1995, § 5.

Mauritania
In 1975, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Mauritania stated:
7. He strongly supported the general prohibition of all weapons that might cause unnecessary suffering.
8. For humanitarian reasons, a ban should be placed on the use of incendiary weapons, anti-personnel fragmentation weapons, fléchettes, small calibre projectiles causing serious wounds and anti-personnel land mines which … caused unnecessary suffering through serious, terrifying and painful wounds that were difficult to treat.
9. His delegation considered that the provisions of Articles 22 and 23(e) of the [1907 Hague Regulations], which were also to be found in the Preamble to the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to the Effect of Prohibiting the Use of Certain Projectiles in Wartime, as well as in the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on Napalm and other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use … showed that the use of certain categories of weapons should be generally prohibited for the well-being of all mankind. 
Mauritania, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.11, 21 February 1975, p. 106, §§ 7–9.

Mexico
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Mexico stated:
The debates in the United Nations General Assembly which culminated in the approval by an overwhelming majority of resolution 3076 (XXVIII) relating to napalm and other incendiary weapons were eloquent proof that humanity was anxious for the prohibition of the use of those weapons as well as other conventional weapons which could be considered as causing unnecessary suffering. 
Mexico, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, p. 8, § 6.

In 1976, during discussions on napalm and other incendiary weapons in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Mexico stated: “Incendiary weapons … were cruel weapons which caused unnecessary suffering, especially to those with least protection, namely, innocent victims not participating in military operations.” 
Mexico, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.28, 20 May 1976, p. 283, § 1.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Mexico affirmed:
72. The [1868] Declaration of Saint Petersburg was followed by a series of international instruments in which the idea of preventing unnecessary suffering and superfluous damage to the enemy led to a prohibition on the use of certain weapons. Such instruments included The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which prohibited the use of poisoned or poisonous weapons and or arms, projectiles or materials causing unnecessary suffering; the … [1925] Geneva Gas Protocol … and the [1972 Biological Weapons Convention] … etc.
73. … All the above-mentioned instruments have made it clear that the right of the parties in an armed conflict to choose the means of harming the enemy is not unlimited and is, in fact, subject to restrictions. In this regard, it is worth highlighting Article 35 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … which reaffirms that the right of the Parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited and that it is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

75. The international community considers that certain types of armaments should be prohibited on account of their inhumane effects on individuals. 
Mexico, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, §§ 72, 73 and 75.

Mozambique
At the CDDH, Mozambique stated: “While this Conference is meeting here, the people of Mozambique are being bombed by the illegal and racist régime of Ian Smith, which is using napalm and other materials causing superfluous injury.” 
Mozambique, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 303.

Nauru
In its response to submissions from other States to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Nauru stated: “It is also a violation of customary international law to use weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Nauru, Response to submissions of other States submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 15 June 1995, Part 1, p. 11.

Netherlands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Netherlands stated:
19. Suffering may be called “unnecessary” when its infliction is not necessary to attain a lawful military advantage or greatly exceeds what could reasonably have been considered necessary to attain that military advantage.

21. The availability of considerably less harmful means to attain the military advantage or the causing of suffering out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained therefore appears to be the essential yardstick for determining whether the use of certain weapons must be deemed to cause “unnecessary” suffering. This approach has governed the development of rules with regard to means and methods of warfare since 1868. 
Netherlands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 June 1995, §§ 19–21.

In 1969, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Netherlands stated that it was
essential to update and broaden the Hague Conventions and the 1925 Geneva [Gas] Protocol, primarily in so far as related to international security and the protection of human rights, and to extend their application to cover armed conflicts which were not international in character. 
Netherlands, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1733, 11 December 1969, p. 1.

New Zealand
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, New Zealand stated:
It was difficult to determine criteria for unnecessary suffering, except in the case of the indiscriminate use of weapons. One should not fall into the error of giving preference to weapons that killed cleanly rather than to weapons that wounded but did not kill. 
New Zealand, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.2, 14 March 1974, p. 18, § 5.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, New Zealand stated, with reference to customary international law: “It is prohibited to use weapons or tactics that cause unnecessary or aggravated devastation and suffering.” 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, § 69.

Norway
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Norway stated:
7. It was the task of the Conference to protect the civilian population and also to protect the combatants from suffering more than the strict minimum required to put them hors de combat. He suggested that the Committee should agree on the general prohibition of the use of incendiary weapons …
9. … It was also important to define inadmissible ways of using weapons, so as to avoid falling back on such criteria as “unnecessary suffering” which were far from specific. 
Norway, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.5, 20 March 1974, p. 42, §§ 8–9.

Peru
In a statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, Peru declared that it “shared the international community’s concern at the increasing use of certain conventional weapons, including anti-personnel landmines, whose devastating effects on the civilian population had been well documented”. It added that “the Review Conference was duty bound to bring an end to the humanitarian crisis caused by such weapons”. 
Peru, Statement at the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Vienna, 25 September–13 October 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR.5, 3 October 1995, §§ 67–69.

Poland
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Poland stated:
He feared that the idea of “unnecessary suffering” might tend to restrict the future work of the Committee to weapons and methods of combat which caused physical and moral suffering, but there were weapons which could inflict extremely serious wounds which were not necessarily accompanied by unbearable suffering, such as certain chemical substances which caused death or disablement. An example was laser, which could blind anyone coming in their range of action. It was his delegation’s opinion that it was not from the point of view of those who inflicted unnecessary suffering that weapons whose use should be restricted or forbidden should be defined, but from the point of view of the victims. 
Poland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, p. 13, § 27.

In 2010, in a resolution giving its consent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit an objection to the reservation by the United States of America to the 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), Poland’s Council of Ministers stated:
The Government agrees to submit an objection to the reservation made by the United States … [in which the United States of America reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects].

… [W]hen making the above reservation, the United States resorted to an interpretation which is contrary to the purpose of the CCW Convention and Protocol III. … International law … prohibits the use of weapons that cause unnecessary injury or excessive suffering. Therefore, as a result of the reservation made by the United States, the scope of protection of civilians provided for in Protocol III has been significantly reduced, and leads to the possibility of not only a breach of its provisions, but also a breach of fundamental norms of international law. 
Poland, Resolution on the Objection of the Republic of Poland to the Reservation of the United States of America to the 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 2 February 2010.

Portugal
Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, prohibiting the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, was deleted at the last moment by the CDDH, without any plenary debate, as part of a general revision of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. During the amendment voting at this stage, Portugal stated that it voted in favour of the inclusion of Article 20 in the draft Additional Protocol II “because it regards the article as a fundamental humanitarian provision the adoption of which will not imperil the authority of States”. 
Portugal, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 123.

Romania
In 1972, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Romania stated: “The prohibition of weapons that caused unnecessary suffering … was of primordial importance.” 
Romania, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1393, 12 December 1972, p. 501.

Upon signature of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Romania affirmed “once again its decision to act, together with other States, to ensure the prohibition or restriction of all conventional weapons which are excessively injurious”. 
Romania, Declaration made upon signature of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 8 April 1982, § 5.

Russian Federation
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Russian Federation stated:
As to the attempts to justify the illegitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons by references that they cause “unnecessary sufferings while injuring, uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable”, they are … hardly reasonable … The reasonable comments of the ICRC confirm two considerations … The principle of not causing “unnecessary suffering” is not in itself a general ban on the use of nuclear weapons as such …

[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] reproduces, with slight changes (Art. 35), the above-mentioned provisions of the [1907 Hague Convention IV and the 1907 Hague Regulations], but they, being treaty norms, are not applied to nuclear weapons …
The view that the said blanket formulas are not considered by the international community as a whole as a general ban on the use of specific types of weapons, including nuclear weapons as such, is supported by the fact that international law did not choose the option of a special ban of particular types of weapons and their use. That is how … the 1980 Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, together with the Protocols thereto … appeared. 
Russian Federation, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, pp. 12–14.

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Russian Federation stated:
References to the effect that nuclear weapons cause “unnecessary sufferings while injuring, uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable”, and, thus, to Article 23 (a) of the Regulation on the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention with the aim to justify the illegality of their use can hardly be considered as appropriate … These reasonable comments of the ICRC experts [contained in the report entitled “Weapons that May Cause Unnecessary Suffering or Have Indiscriminate Effects”] confirm that the principle of not causing “unnecessary suffering” is not in itself a general ban on the use of nuclear weapons per se. This is also confirmed by the fact that international law did embark on the road of a special ban of particular types of weapons and their use. That is how appeared the … 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, together with the Protocols thereto. 
Russian Federation, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 10 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/29, pp. 45-46.

Rwanda
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1993, Rwanda noted:
The use of nuclear weapons by a State during a war or an armed conflict constitutes a violation of the agreements relating to international humanitarian law in general and of the [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] in particular. 
Rwanda, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 8 December 1993, p. 1, § 3.

Samoa
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, Samoa stated:
The use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict would be a violation of international customary law and conventions, including the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions. Such law and conventions prohibit the use of weapons … which cause unnecessary suffering. 
Samoa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 September 1994, p. 3.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Samoa stated that it “believes that the prohibition of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons has been achieved under general international law. It has occurred by the cumulative effect of a series of multilateral treaties and of a series of resolutions of the General Assembly”, including the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration, the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) and the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Samoa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 June 1995, p. 3.

Saudi Arabia
Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, prohibiting the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, was deleted at the last moment by the CDDH, without any plenary debate, as part of a general revision of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. During the amendment voting at this stage, Saudi Arabia stated:
Article 20 (Basic rules) was rejected in a vote … since the legitimate party to an internal conflict is the de jure State. Obviously it will never try to exterminate its nationals or to damage its environment. 
Saudi Arabia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 123.

Solomon Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, Solomon Islands stated:
Since [their qualitative] effects may affect people outside the scope of conflict, both in time and geographically, the use of nuclear weapons violates the prohibition on the use of weapons which cause unnecessary suffering. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 10 June 1994, p. 75, § 3.94.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands observed:
According to the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg, the “legitimate objective” of war “would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the suffering of disabled men, or render their death inevitable.”

The obligation reflected in the preamble of the St. Petersburg Declaration remains in force and applicable today. It has been neither abolished nor superseded.

The prohibition on the use of weapons which render death inevitable reflects an even more fundamental principle of the law of armed conflict: the obligation to minimise harm to combatants. Accordingly in its use of force a State must not injure its enemy when it can capture him, nor cause serious injury when it can cause only slight injury, and not kill the enemy if he can be injured. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, p. 49, §§ 3.51–3.53.

International law prohibits the use of weapons which:

– render death inevitable;
– cause unnecessary suffering. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, p. 62, § 3.77.

Spain
In 2008, in response to a question concerning the prohibition of cluster munitions, Spain’s Secretary of State for Constitutional and Parliamentary Matters wrote:
The Spanish government is at all times supporting the measures advanced within the international community in which humanitarian considerations have primacy over the expected operational advantages that the use by the military of certain weapons, considered to cause excessive suffering to, or that have indiscriminate effects on, the civilian population, … could have. 
Spain, Response by the Secretary of State for Constitutional and Parliamentary Matters to Question No. 184/002509, 11 July 2008, p. 92.

Sri Lanka
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, Sri Lanka stated:
Customary law principles which have evolved in the field of armed conflict prohibit the use of weapons and the methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. 
Sri Lanka, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, undated, p. 2.

Sweden
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Sweden stated:
While it was difficult to discuss the degrees of suffering and injury caused by different weapons, it was not much easier to measure “military advantage” of weapons. Perhaps the gist of the concept was the effectiveness with which a weapon achieved its legitimate task of placing combatants hors de combat. It was not, on the other hand, legitimate military advantage that a weapon caused more or more severe injuries than were needed to disable a combatant …
With regard to weapons which might be deemed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, it was hard to see why only civilians should be spared such suffering or injury. The dum-dum bullet had been banned because it caused excessive injury to soldiers. The same ban should apply … to high-velocity small arms projectiles, fléchettes and incendiaries. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, pp. 11–12, §§ 19 and 23.

In 1977, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sweden stated that high-velocity ammunition caused unnecessary suffering and should be banned. 
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/32/PV.32, 13 October 1977, p. 26.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Sweden stated:
The use of weapons which cause unnecessary suffering must be considered to be prohibited. The codification of the prohibition of dum-dum bullets was undertaken in accordance with this view, for example. The effect of radioactive radiation as a result of the use of nuclear weapons cause unnecessary suffering, not merely for third parties who are directly affected, but also future generations, for example as a result of genetic damage. 
Sweden, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 5.

Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Sweden declared:
Sweden has since long strived for explicit prohibition of the use of blinding laser which would risk causing permanent blindness to soldiers. Such an effect, in Sweden’s view is contrary to the principle of international law prohibiting means and methods of warfare which cause unnecessary suffering. 
Sweden, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 15 January 1997.

In 2007, in an answer to a question in Parliament, Sweden’s Minister of Trade stated: “It is prohibited to use weapons that cause unnecessary injuries and needless suffering to the soldiers that are subjected to them.” 
Sweden, Answer by the Minister of Trade to a Parliamentary interpellation on the sale of cluster munitions to the United States, 13 November 2007, Parliamentary Protocol 2007/08:23, § 18, Anf. 124.

Switzerland
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Switzerland stated that the principle prohibiting unnecessary suffering “belongs to customary law” and was “already in force”. 
Switzerland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, pp. 12–13, § 24.

Syrian Arab Republic
In 1970, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on Resolution 2677 (XXIV), which emphasized the need to “secure the full observance of human rights applicable in all armed conflicts” and called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 … and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”, the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the principles laid down in the resolution applied in all armed conflicts, even though the relevant humanitarian treaties only applied in international wars. 
Syrian Arab Republic, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1794, 19 November 1970, p. 343.

Togo
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of Togo stated:
His delegation could not accept the concept of “unnecessary suffering”. It considered that suffering could not be divided into categories. The Committee’s report should state solemnly that the infliction of suffering was immoral and incompatible with human dignity. 
Togo, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, p. 16, § 46.

Turkey
In 1977, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Turkey stated that it supported prohibitions or restrictions on incendiary and other excessively injurious weapons, but held that a ban would only be effective if this view reflected a consensus in the world community. 
Turkey, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/32/PV.44, 24 October 1977, p. 23.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
At the CDDH, the USSR considered that Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II “met the demands of humanitarian law and could give rise to no objections”. 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.32, 14 March 1975, pp. 310-311, § 10.

In 1975, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the representative of the USSR stated: “The question of prohibition or restriction of the use of certain types of conventional weapons liable to cause unnecessary suffering … was one of great importance.” 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.19, 21 March 1975, pp. 186-187, § 13.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1970, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on Resolution 2677 (XXIV), which emphasized the need to “secure the full observance of human rights applicable in all armed conflicts” and called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 … and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”, the United Kingdom, as one of the sponsors of the resolution (the others were Australia, Belgium, Ceylon, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Spain) 
Australia, Belgium, Ceylon, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Spain and United Kingdom, Revised draft resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflict submitted to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/L.1809/Rev.2, 26 November 1970.
defended the broader expression “all armed conflicts”, instead of India’s proposal “armed conflicts”. The United Kingdom stated: “The fact was that in any armed conflict, whether international or not, certain minimal standards had to be respected, and for that reason the sponsors wished to retain the phrase ‘all armed conflicts’”. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1799, 26 November 1970, §§ 6 and 9.

A training video on IHL produced by the UK Ministry of Defence emphasizes that the 1907 Hague Regulations prohibit weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. It adds that weapons must not be altered with a view to causing unnecessary suffering. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Training Video: The Geneva Conventions, 1986, Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 3.1.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated:
3.63 It has also been argued that the use of nuclear weapons would violate the prohibition on weapons which cause unnecessary suffering. The most recent statement of this principle is contained in Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I, 1977, … The principle is, however, a long established one.
3.64 The principle prohibits only the use of weapons which cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. It thus requires that a balance be struck between the military advantage which may be derived from the use of a particular weapon and the degree of suffering which the use of that weapon may cause. The more effective the weapon is from the military point of view, the less likely that the suffering which its use causes will be characterized as unnecessary. In particular, it has to be asked whether the same military advantage can be gained by using alternative means of warfare which will cause a lesser degree of suffering. 
United Kingdom, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 June 1995, p. 50, §§ 3.63 and 3.64.
[emphasis in original]
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated:
The principle that a belligerent must not use methods or means of warfare which cause unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury does not prohibit the use of a weapon which causes extensive suffering unless that suffering is truly unnecessary. What is required, therefore, is a balancing of military necessity and humanity … Consideration of military necessity is an integral part of the unnecessary suffering principle. It is not a case of necessity being invoked to justify the use of an unlawful weapon; the use of that weapon is not unlawful if the injury it causes is necessary to the achievement of a legitimate military goal. 
United Kingdom, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/34, p. 39.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1974, in reply to a letter from a member of the US House of Representatives, the Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Defense stated:
The distinguishing feature in Article 23 of the [1907 Hague Regulations] is that it applies to all weapons, and qualifies the use of all weapons in armed conflict making unlawful uses which cause suffering intentionally superfluous to a valid military purpose. The term “unnecessary suffering” conveys this interpretation. The terms “calculated to cause” convey the element of intent such that members of the Armed Forces cannot justify the use of weapons inconsistent with attaining a legitimate military objective. This criterion must be distinguished from prohibitions agreed to by states for outlawing weapons regardless of how they are used or intended to be used. As noted in the Field Manual … one must refer to the practices of states in order to determine the present meaning of these principles. 
United States, Reply of 18 January 1974 of the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense to a letter of a member of the House of Representatives, reprinted in Arthur W. Rovine, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, Department of State Publication 8809, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 705–706.

At the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, held in Lucerne in 1974, the United States stated:
The prohibition against weapons that cause unnecessary suffering is a criterion to which we are currently bound under the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, but interpretations of its scope and implications today vary significantly. It is the U.S. view that the “necessity” of the suffering must be judged in relation to the military utility of the weapons. The test is whether the suffering is needless, superfluous, or disproportionate to the military advantage reasonably expected from the use of the weapon. 
United States, Statement of 25 September 1974 at the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, Lucerne, 24 September-18 October 1974, reprinted in Arthur W. Rovine, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, US Department of State Publication 8809, Washington, D.C., 1975, p. 707.

In 1979, during the Preparatory Conference to the UN Conference that led to the adoption of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United States stated, in a discussion on incendiary weapons, that “some delegations had based themselves on the premise that incendiary weapons caused unnecessary suffering and were, by definition, inhumane, but if that premise was correct, they would already have been outlawed”. 
United States, Statement at the Preparatory Conference to the UN Conference on prohibitions or restrictions of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, 12 April 1979, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF./II/SR.28, 18 April 1979, pp. 2–3.

Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United States declared:
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, … the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949. 
United States, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 March 1995.

In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed:
We support the principle that the permissible means of injuring the enemy are not unlimited and that parties to a conflict not use weapons, projectiles, and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 424.

In 1988, in a memorandum on laser weapons, the US Department of the Army affirmed:
Article 23(e) [of the 1907 Hague Regulations] prohibits the employment of “arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” There is no internationally accepted definition of “unnecessary suffering.” In fact, an anomaly exists in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy soldier, in theory any wounding should not be calculated or intended to cause unnecessary suffering. In endeavoring to reconcile the two, in considering the customary practice of nations during this century, and in acknowledging the lethality of the battlefield for more than a century, certain factors emerge that are germane to this opinion:
(a) No legal obligation exists or can exist to limit wounding mechanisms in a way that permits lawful killing while requiring that wounds merely temporarily disable, that is, that the effects of wounds do not extend beyond the period of hostilities; and
(b) In considering whether a weapon may cause unnecessary suffering, it must be viewed in light of comparable wounding mechanisms extant on the modern battlefield rather than viewing the weapon in isolation.
(c) The term “unnecessary suffering” implies that there is such a thing as “necessary suffering,” i.e., that ordinary use of any military effective weapon will result in suffering on the part of those against whom it is employed.
(d) The rule does prohibit deliberate design or alteration of a weapon solely for the purpose of increasing the suffering of those against whom it is used, including acts that will make their wounds more difficult to treat. This is the basis for rules against poisoned weapons and certain small caliber hollow point ammunition. 
United States, Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Memorandum of law concerning the legality of the use of lasers as antipersonnel weapons, 29 September 1988, § 4, reprinted in Marian Nash, Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1981–1988, Department of State Publication 10120, Washington, D.C., 1993–1995, p. 3424.

Course material from the US Army War College, in discussing the balance between military necessity and unnecessary suffering, states that the “existence of a weapon generally indicates a legitimate military requirement” and maintains that no effective weapon has ever been outlawed. The example used to prove this statement is the 1907 Hague Convention (VIII), which bans anchored automatic contact mines which do not become harmless when they break loose from their mooring and torpedoes that do not become harmless after they have missed their target. In contrast to this, the course material points to the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases, which the United Kingdom and the United States did not ratify, and to the fact that poison gas was used during the First World War. 
United States, Marine Corps, Reference Material for Marine Corps Law of Warfare Course, Army War College Selected Readings, Advanced Course Law for the Joint Warfighter, Vol. II, 2nd edition, 1989, p. 254, § b.

In 1990, in a memorandum of law on sniper use of open-tip ammunition, the US Department of the Army stated:
Although the United States has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of article 35(2) of Protocol I … is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. 
United States, Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Memorandum of Law on Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition, 12 October 1990, § 3.

In 1992, in a review of the legality of extended range anti-armour munition, the US Department of the Air Force stated: “International law prohibits the use, even against military objectives, of weapons which cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.” 
United States, Department of the Air Force, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Legal Review: Extended Range Antiarmor Munition (ERAM), 16 April 1992, § 3.

In 1993, in a legal review of the USSOCOM Special Operations Offensive Handgun, the Judge Advocate General of the US Department of the Army stated:
Although President Ronald Reagan declined to submit [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, the U.S. Government considers the language quoted from article 35(2) of Protocol I to be a codification of customary international law to the extent that it prohibits superfluous injury, as prohibited by Article 23e of the … [1907 Hague Regulations], and therefore binding upon all nations. 
United States, Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Legal Review of USSOCOM Special Operations Offensive Handgun, 16 February 1993, p. 11.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United States stated that it “has long taken the position that various principles of the international law of armed conflict would apply to the use of nuclear weapons as well as to other means and methods of warfare”. It added that the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering “was intended to preclude weapons designed to increase the injury or suffering of the persons attacked beyond that necessary to accomplish the military objective. It does not prohibit weapons that may cause great injury or suffering if the use of the weapon is necessary to accomplish the military mission.” 
United States, Written statement before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 21.

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United States stressed:
Returning to the claims that have been made regarding specific principles of the law of armed conflict, it has also been argued that nuclear weapons categorically cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury and therefore violate the law of armed conflict. This line of argument cannot be sustained. The unnecessary suffering principle prohibits the use of weapons designed specifically to increase the suffering of persons attacked beyond that necessary to accomplish a particular military objective. As a general matter, however, it does not prohibit the use of weapons that cause great injury and pain, as such. Under this principle, whether use of a particular weapon causes unnecessary suffering depends, therefore, on whether its use and resultant effects are required to accomplish a legitimate military objective, a question which again cannot be answered in the abstract. 
United States, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/34, pp. 70-72.

In 1997, in a message to the US Senate analysing Article 3(3) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the US President noted: “This rule is derived from Article 23 of [the 1907 Hague Regulations] … It thus reiterates a proscription already in place as a matter of customary international law applicable to all weapons.” 
United States, Message from the US President to the Senate transmitting Amended Protocol II, Protocol II and Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Treaty Doc. 105-1, 7 January 1997.

In a memorandum of law issued in 1997, the Judge Advocate General of the US Department of the Army stated, with reference to Article 23(e) 1907 Hague Regulations: “The law of war prohibits weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” 
United States, Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Memorandum of Law for AMSTA-AR-CCH-C, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, 25 July 1997, § 4,

In 1998, in a legal review of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) pepper spray, the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General of the US Department of the Navy stated:
The touchstone for legality of a weapon under traditional concepts in the law of war is whether that weapon’s intended use or method of employment is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering …
The Regulations to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907 codify the prohibition on the employment of arms, projectiles, or material “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”. This customary prohibition requires a balancing of the military necessity in employing a weapon and the likely suffering occasioned by that employment. Any injury, collateral damage, or general suffering wrought by a weapon’s use should be justified by a military need. Historically, this analysis has involved comparisons to other existing technologies and comparable wounding mechanisms as well as a survey of the practice of other States regarding use of a particular weapon.

Oleoresin Capsicum is not calculated (i.e., designed), nor does it in fact cause unnecessary suffering. It is designed specifically to temporarily incapacitate violent or threatening subjects while reducing human suffering and is in consonance with the DoD [Non-Lethal Weapon] program. Its physiological effects, while relatively painful, are temporary and do not rise to the level of unnecessary suffering contemplated in the prohibition … Provided a military necessity justifies its employment, the principle of unnecessary suffering would not preclude employment of OC in appropriate circumstances. 
United States, Department of the Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, International and Operational Law Division, Legal Review of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Pepper Spray, 19 May 1998, § 4.

According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that international law forbids weapons or methods of warfare calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 3.1.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In the plenary session of the CDDH, the representative of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia deplored the fact that the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH had not been able to “specify which were the weapons which caused superfluous injury”. He further stated that his delegation “was convinced that the question of prohibition and restriction of such weapons and methods or means of warfare came under humanitarian law and not under disarmament negotiations”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 March 1977, p. 100, § 52.

In 1991, in a document entitled “Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia”, the Ministry of Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated:
The nature of the injuries of some of the members of the Yugoslav People’s Army show that forbidden means have been used in the armed conflict, before all ammunition suitable to inflict disproportionate and needless injuries, that reduce the chances of the injured to survive.
In that respect, the injuries of [a] soldier … are characteristic. He was hit in the tip of his right forearm and the round had crumbled and split the forearm bone, the tissue and thus blew the fist of the injured to bits. In the riddled channel and the surrounding tissue, pieces of a fragmented round were found. All that implies for the use of the so-called soft-nosed bullet. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 4.

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In the Legality of Use of Force cases in 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia initiated proceedings before the ICJ against ten NATO member States (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and United States) on the ground, inter alia, that “by taking part in the use of cluster bombs, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to use prohibited weapons, i.e. weapons calculated to cause unnecessary sufferings”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Applications instituting proceedings submitted to the ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Yugoslavia v. Belgium; Yugoslavia v. Canada; Yugoslavia v. France; Yugoslavia v. Germany; Yugoslavia v. Italy; Yugoslavia v. Netherlands; Yugoslavia v. Portugal; Yugoslavia v. Spain; Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom; Yugoslavia v. United States of America), 29 April 1999.

Zimbabwe
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Zimbabwe stated that it fully shared the analysis by other States that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates the principles of humanitarian law prohibiting the use of weapons or methods of warfare that create unnecessary suffering”.  
Zimbabwe, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/35, p. 27.

According to the Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe “does not employ any weapons meant to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, e.g. exploding bullets, incendiary weapons, booby-traps, etc.”. 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 3.1.

Back to top
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly advocated the need to “secure the full observance of human rights applicable in all armed conflicts”. It called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 … and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2677 (XXV), 9 December 1970, preamble, voting record: 111-0-4-12.

In two resolutions adopted in 1971 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2852 (XXVI), 20 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 110-1-5-16; Res. 2853 (XXVI), 20 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 83-15-14-20.

In a resolution adopted in 1972 on general and complete disarmament, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the general rules of international law that the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering is especially forbidden and that only military targets are legitimate objects of attack,
Convinced that the widespread use of many weapons and the emergence of new methods of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering or are indiscriminate call urgently for renewed efforts by Governments to seek, through legal means, the prohibition of the use of such weapons and of indiscriminate and cruel methods of warfare and, if possible, through measures of disarmament, the elimination of specific, especially cruel or indiscriminate weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2932 A (XXVII), 29 November 1972, preamble, voting record: 99-0-15-18.

In a resolution adopted in 1973 on napalm and other incendiary weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the widespread use of many weapons and the emergence of new methods of warfare that may cause unnecessary suffering or are indiscriminate call urgently for efforts by Governments to seek, through possible legal means, the prohibition or restriction of the use of such weapons and of indiscriminate and cruel methods of warfare and, if possible, through measures of disarmament, the elimination of specific weapons that are especially cruel or indiscriminate,
Welcoming as a basis for discussion at that Conference [the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] the proposals elaborated by the International Committee of the Red Cross and aiming, inter alia, at a reaffirmation of the fundamental general principles of international law prohibiting the use of weapons which are likely to cause unnecessary suffering and means and methods of warfare which have indiscriminate effects. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3076 (XXVIII), 6 December 1973, preamble, voting record: 103-0-18-14 (Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Central African Republic, Czechoslovakia, France, GDR, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mongolia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom and US. The German Democratic Republic, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics explained their abstentions as being based on their opposition to the CDDH being considered the appropriate forum to discuss incendiary weapons).

In a resolution adopted in 1973 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling … the resolution on the prohibition or restriction of use of certain weapons adopted by the twenty-second International Conference of the Red Cross, held at Teheran in 1973, inviting the Diplomatic Conference [on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] to take up the question of rules on the prohibition or restriction of use of specific conventional weapons which may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects,

4. Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3102 (XXVIII), 12 December 1973, preamble and § 4, voting record: 107-0-6-22 (Costa Rica, Israel, Paraguay, Portugal, Spain and United States). The United States explained its abstention in the vote on this resolution because it felt that “an inappropriate form of participation in the conference of entities that are not States would raise the question as to whether the [CDDH] would continue to be a useful forum for negotiation of international conventions”. UN Doc. A/PV.2197, 12 December 1973, p. 8.

In a resolution adopted in 1974 on napalm and other incendiary weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling that, in resolution 2932 A (XXVII) of 29 November 1972, it … expressed its conviction that the widespread use of many weapons and the emergence of new methods of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering or are indiscriminate call urgently for renewed efforts by Governments to seek, through legal means, the prohibition of the use of such weapons and of indiscriminate and cruel methods of warfare and, if possible through measures of disarmament, the elimination of specific, especially cruel or indiscriminate weapons,

Mindful of the fact that much suffering of civilian populations and combatants may be avoided if general agreement can be attained on the prohibition or restriction of the use of specific conventional weapons which may be deemed to cause unnecessary suffering or to have indiscriminate effects,

3. Invites the Diplomatic Conference [on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] to continue its consideration of the question of the use of napalm and other incendiary weapons, as well as other specific conventional weapons which may be deemed to cause unnecessary suffering or to have indiscriminate effects, and its search for agreement on possible rules prohibiting or restricting the use of such weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3255 A (XXIX), 9 December 1974, preamble and § 3, voting record: 108-0-13-17 (Belarus, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Israel, Mongolia, Poland, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom and United States).

In a resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflicts adopted in 1974, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3319 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, § 3, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1975 on respect for human rights in armed conflict, the UN General Assembly:
Noting that the Diplomatic Conference [on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] will continue its consideration of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, and its search for agreement, for humanitarian reasons, on possible rules prohibiting or restricting the use of such weapons,
1. Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3500 (XXX), 15 December 1975, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1976 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Noting that the Diplomatic Conference [on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] will continue its consideration of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, and its search for agreement, for humanitarian reasons, on possible rules prohibiting or restricting the use of such weapons,
1. Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 31/19, 24 November 1976, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution on incendiary and other specific conventional weapons adopted in 1976, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the suffering of civilian populations and combatants could be significantly reduced if general agreement can be attained on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific convention weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects,

2. Invites the Diplomatic Conference [on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts] to accelerate its consideration of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, and to do its utmost to agree for humanitarian reasons on possible rules prohibiting or restricting the use of such weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 31/64, 10 December 1976, preamble and § 2, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1977 on human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced of the continuing value of established humanitarian rules relating to armed conflicts, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949,

6. Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the existing instruments of international humanitarian law and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 32/44, 8 December 1977, preamble and § 6, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1977 on incendiary and other specific conventional weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the suffering of civilian populations and combatants could be significantly reduced if general agreement can be attained on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects,

2. Decides to convene in 1979 a United Nations conference with a view to reaching agreements on prohibitions or restrictions of the use of specific conventional weapons, including those which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, taking into account humanitarian and military considerations, and on the question of a system of periodic review of this matter and for consideration of further proposals.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 32/152, 19 December 1977, preamble and § 2, voting record: 115-0-21-13 (Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom and United States). The 21 States which abstained in the vote on this resolution did not oppose humanitarian principles per se or the convening of the conference, but had reservations on procedural arrangements, details of the organization and the directions the resolution gave the conference, for example. UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/PV.106, 19 December 1977, pp. 1735–1736.

The Final Document of the Special Session on Disarmament (SSODI) was adopted without a vote in 1978 to lay the foundation for an international disarmament strategy. In it, the UN General Assembly stated:
Further international action should be taken to prohibit or restrict for humanitarian reasons the use of specific conventional weapons, including those which may be excessively injurious, cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects. 
UN General Assembly, Final Document of the Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament, 23 May–1 June 1978, UN Doc. A/S-10/2, 1978, § 23.

The United Nations Conference on Prohibition or Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects should seek agreement, in the light of humanitarian and military considerations, on the prohibition or restriction of use of certain conventional weapons including those which may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects. 
UN General Assembly, Final Document of the Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament, 23 May–1 June 1978, UN Doc. A/S-10/2, 1978, § 86.

In a resolution adopted in 1978 on the UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the suffering of civilian populations and combatants could be significantly reduced if general agreement could be attained on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 33/70, 14 December 1978, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1979 on the UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling its resolution 33/70 of 14 December 1978, in which is expressed its conviction that the suffering of civilian populations and of combatants could be significantly reduced if general agreement could be reached on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious … 
UN General Assembly, Res. 34/82, 11 December 1979, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1980 on the UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Reiterating its conviction that the suffering of civilian populations and of combatants could be significantly reduced if general agreement could be attained on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious … 
UN General Assembly, Res. 35/153, 12 December 1980, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1981 on the UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its conviction that the suffering of civilian populations and of combatants would be further significantly reduced if general agreement could be attained on the prohibition or restriction for humanitarian reasons of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious … 
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/93, 9 December 1981, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1982 on the UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its conviction that the suffering of civilian populations and of combatants would be significantly reduced if general agreement could be attained on the prohibition or restriction, for humanitarian reasons, of the use of specific conventional weapons, including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious … 
UN General Assembly, Res. 37/79, 9 December 1982, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In numerous resolutions adopted between 1980 and 1999, the UN General Assembly called for the accession of all States to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 35/153, 12 December 1980, preamble, adopted without a vote; Res. 36/93, 9 December 1981, § 1, adopted without a vote; Res. 37/79, 9 December 1982, § 1, adopted without a vote; Res. 38/66, 15 December 1983, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 39/56, 12 December 1984, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 40/84, 12 December 1985, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 41/50, 3 December 1986, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 42/30, 30 November 1987, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 43/67, 8 December 1989, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 45/64, 4 December 1990, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 46/40, 6 December 1991, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 47/56, 9 December 1992, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 48/79, 16 December 1993, § 3, voting record: 169-0-3-19; Res. 49/79, 15 December 1994, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 50/74, 12 December 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 52/42, 9 December 1997, § 2, adopted without a vote; Res. 53/81, 4 December 1998, § 5, adopted without a vote; Res. 54/58, 1 December 1999, § III (3), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling with satisfaction the decision by the Second Review Conference, on 21 December 2001, to extend the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character,

1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, as well as the amendment of article I extending the scope of the Convention, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and calls upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention;
3. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to notify the depositary at an early date of their consent to be bound by the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/69, 8 December 2003, §§ 1–3, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/107, 3 December 2004, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects1 and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/93, 8 December 2005, §§ 1–2 adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/100, 6 December 2006, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/57, 5 December 2007, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.

UN Secretary-General
In 1969, in a report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN Secretary-General stated that the reference to “all armed conflicts” in Resolution 2444 (XXIII) was made to avoid “certain traditional distinctions as between international wars, internal conflicts, or conflicts which although internal in nature are characterized by a degree of direct or indirect involvement of foreign Powers or foreign nationals”. The Secretary-General discussed the effects of weapons of mass destruction, which were deemed to be both indiscriminate and of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering. He also identified precision-weapons that caused unnecessary suffering, e.g. expanding bullets. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, UN Doc. A/7720, 20 November 1969, p. 11 and pp. 59–63, §§ 183–201.

UN Secretariat
A survey prepared by the UN Secretariat in 1973 on existing rules of international law concerning the prohibition or restriction of the use of specific weapons listed the following examples of weapons that are deemed to cause unnecessary suffering according to military manuals: shotgun pellets, explosive and incendiary projectiles under 400 grams, projectiles treated with a substance designed to cause inflammation of wounds, dum-dum bullets, certain types of tracer ammunition, bayonets or lances with barbs, poison weapons, irregular shaped bullets, projectiles filled with glass. 
UN Secretariat, Respect for human rights in armed conflicts, Existing rules of international law concerning the prohibition or restriction of use of specific weapons, Survey, UN Doc. A/9215, 7 November 1973, pp. 204–205.

Misión de Verificación de las Naciones Unidas en Guatemala (MINUGUA)
In 1995, in a report concerning the conflict in Guatemala, the Director of MINUGUA stated:
The Mission recommends that URNG [Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca] issue precise instructions to its combatants to refrain from causing unnecessary harm to individuals and property, to take due care not to create additional risks to life in attacking military targets. 
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, Annex, 29 June 1995, § 197.

Back to top
Organization of American States
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on respect for international humanitarian law, the OAS General Assembly stated that it was “deeply disturbed by the testing, production, sale, transfer, and use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious”. It urged all member States to accede to the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
OAS General Assembly, Res. 1270 (XXIV-O/94), 10 June 1994, preamble.

In a resolution adopted in 1998 on promotion of and respect for international humanitarian law, the OAS General Assembly stated: “International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons, projectiles, material, and methods of warfare that … cause excessive injury or unnecessary suffering.” 
OAS General Assembly, Res. 1565 (XXVIII-O/98), 2 June 1998, preamble.

Back to top
International Conference of the Red Cross (1973)
The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the prohibition or restriction of the use of certain weapons, in which it endorsed the view of the UN General Assembly in Resolution 2932 (XXVII) A that:
the widespread use of many weapons and the emergence of new methods of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering or are indiscriminate call urgently for renewed efforts by governments to seek, through legal means, the prohibition or restriction of the use of such weapons and of indiscriminate and cruel methods of warfare and, if possible, through measures of disarmament, the elimination of specific, especially cruel or indiscriminate, weapons.
The resolution urged the CDDH to “begin consideration at its 1974 session of the question of the prohibition or restriction of the use of conventional weapons which may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects” and invited the ICRC to convene in 1974 a conference of government experts to study the issue in depth. 
22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Tehran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. XIV.

International Conference of the Red Cross (1981)
The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution on conventional weapons in which it noted with satisfaction the adoption of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols and invited States to become parties to them “as soon as possible, to apply them and examine the possibility of strengthening or developing them further”. 
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. IX, § 2.

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995 adopted a resolution on protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it stressed: “Proper attention should be given to other existing conventional weapons or future weapons which may cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects.” 
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § H(h).

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent stated:
States which have not done so are encouraged to establish mechanisms and procedures to determine whether the use of weapons, whether held in their inventories or being procured or developed, would conform to the obligations binding on them under international humanitarian law … States and the ICRC may engage in consultations to promote these mechanisms, and in this regard analyse the extent to which the ICRC SIrUS (Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering) Project Report to the 27th Conference and other available information may assist States. 
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.5, § 21.

Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
In the Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, the High Contracting Parties solemnly declared:
their reaffirmation of the principles of international humanitarian law, as mentioned in the Convention, [including] the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. 
Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001, Final Declaration, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.II/2, 2001, p. 10.

African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict
In the Final Declaration of the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002, the participants stated that they were “worried in the face of the rapid expansion of arms trade and the uncontrolled proliferation of weapons, notably those which can … cause unnecessary suffering”. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Final Declaration, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, preamble.

Back to top
International Court of Justice
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ stated:
The cardinal principles contained in the texts constituting the fabric of humanitarian law are the following … According to the second principle, it is prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering. In application of that second principle, States do not have unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use … In conformity with the aforementioned principles, humanitarian law, at a very early stage, prohibited certain types of weapons either because of their indiscriminate effect on combatants and civilians or because of the unnecessary suffering caused to combatants, that is to say, a harm greater than that unavoidable to achieve legitimate military objectives … Further these fundamental rules are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, §§ 78–79.

In her dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Higgins stated: “It is not permitted in the choice of weapons to cause unnecessary suffering to enemy combatants, nor to render their death inevitable.” In her discussion on the balancing of necessity and humanity, she stated: “A military target may not be attacked if collateral civilian casualties would be excessive in relation to the military advantage.” 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins, 8 July 1996, §§ 12 and 21.

In his separate opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Guillaume stated: “The harm caused to combatants must not be ‘greater than that unavoidable to achieve legitimate military objectives’”. He added: “Therefore the nuclear weapon cannot be considered as unlawful due to the only fact of sufferings that it is likely to cause. It would be advisable to compare these sufferings to the ‘military advantages’ offered or to ‘the military objectives’ followed.” 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Separate Opinion of Judge Guillaume, 8 July 1996, § 5.

In his declaration in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, President Bedjaoui stated that the effect of nuclear weapons was such that they caused unnecessary suffering. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Declaration of Judge Bedjaoui, President of the ICJ, 8 July 1996, § 20.

In his separate opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Fleischhauer stated that “such immeasurable suffering” amounted to “the negation of the humanitarian considerations underlying the law of armed conflict”. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Separate Opinion of Judge Fleischhauer, 8 July 1996, § 2.

In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Weeramantry stated: “The facts … are more than sufficient to establish that the nuclear weapon causes unnecessary suffering going far beyond the purposes of war.” 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 8 July 1996, p. 48.

In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Shahabudeen stated that the balance between military advantage and suffering “has to be struck by States”. An important factor affecting this balance was public conscience which could consider that no conceivable military advantage could justify the suffering. It was “not possible to ascertain the humanitarian character of [international humanitarian] principles without taking account of the public conscience”. Even though the use of chemical weapons was arguably “a more efficient way of deactivating the enemy in certain circumstances than other means in use during the First World War, [it] did not suffice to legitimize its use”. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, 8 July 1996, pp. 180–181, Part III, § 2.

In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case before the ICJ in 1996, Judge Koroma, after describing the effects of atomic weapons in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Marshall Islands, stated that the radioactive effects were “more harmful” than those caused by poison gas and added “the above findings by the court should have led it inexorably to conclude that any use of nuclear weapons is unlawful under international law”. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, 8 July 1996, p. 346.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction in the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber supported the view that UN General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII) dealt with both international and internal conflicts. It stated: “The application of certain rules of war in both internal and international armed conflicts is corroborated by resolutions 2444 and 2675.” 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 110.

Back to top
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “it is prohibited to use weapons of a nature to cause: a) superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 394; see also § 912(a).

In a background paper submitted to the Conference of Government Experts in 1971, the ICRC stated that the term “unnecessary suffering” was defined as “a question of sparing even combatants from injuries to no purpose or from suffering which exceeds what is necessary to put the adversary hors de combat”. 
ICRC, Rules Relative to Behaviour of Combatants, Submitted to the First Session of the Conference of Government Experts, 24 May–12 June 1971, Geneva, January 1971, p. 6.

The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols states:
1419. The specific applications of the prohibition formulated in Article 23, paragraph 1(e), of the Hague Regulations, or resulting from the Declarations of St. Petersburg and The Hague, are not very numerous. They include:
1. explosive bullets and projectiles filled with glass, but not explosives contained in artillery missiles, mines, rockets and hand grenades;
2. “dum-dum” bullets, i.e., bullets which easily expand or flatten in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions or bullets of irregular shape or with a hollowed out nose;
3. poison and poisoned weapons, as well as any substance intended to aggravate a wound;
4. asphyxiating or deleterious gases;
5. bayonets with a serrated edge, and lances with barbed heads;
6. hunting shotguns are the object of some controversy, depending on the nature of the ammunition and its effects on a soft target.
1420. The weapons which are prohibited under the provisions of the Hague Law are, a fortiori, prohibited under [Article 35(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 1419–1420.

In a press release issued in 1991 in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC reminded the belligerents: “The right to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. Weapons … likely to cause disproportionate suffering … are prohibited.” 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1659, Middle East conflict: ICRC appeals to belligerents, 1 February 1991, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 27.

National Society (Mexico)
In a declaration issued in 1994 in the context of the conflict between the Mexican government and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), the Mexican Red Cross stated: “Under international law, the use of arms … which may cause undue loss of life or excessive suffering is prohibited.” 
Mexican Red Cross, Declaración en torno a los acontecimientos que se han presentado en el estado de Chiapas a partir del 1 de enero de 1994, 3 January 1994, § 2(E).

ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, munitions or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering to persons hors de combat or which render their death inevitable.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 504.

In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: “The use of arms or methods of combat which needlessly increase the suffering of persons placed hors de combat or which make their death inevitable is prohibited.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § II, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, pp. 1308–1309.

In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that the employment of “weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”, when committed in international or non-international armed conflicts, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(i) and 3(vii).

The ICRC’s SIrUS Project initiated in 1998 aimed to contribute to the evaluation of the lawfulness of weapons by indicating the health effects actually caused by commonly used weapons in the armed conflicts that have taken place over the last few decades. This material provided for some objectivity in the evaluation, in particular, of the expected health effects of a weapon that had to be weighed against the foreseen military utility. The findings of the SIrUS Project illustrated in particular the effects not normally seen on the battlefield, namely:
– disease other than that resulting from physical trauma from explosions or projectiles;
– abnormal physiological state or abnormal psychological state (other than the expected response to trauma from explosions or projectiles);
– permanent disability specific to the kind of weapon (with the exception of the effects of point-detonated anti-personnel mines – now widely prohibited);
– disfigurement specific to the kind of weapon;
– inevitable or virtually inevitable death in the field or a high hospital mortality level;
– grade 3 wounds among those who survive to hospital;
– effects for which there is no well-recognized and proven treatment which can be applied in a well-equipped field hospital.
States, when reviewing the legality of a weapon, take the above facts into account by:
– establishing whether the weapon in question would cause any of the above effects as a function of its design, and if so:
– weigh the military utility of the weapon against these effects; and
– determine whether the same purpose could reasonably be achieved by other lawful means that do not have such effects.
Back to top
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
The Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1990 by the Council of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, provide:
The prohibition of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is a general rule applicable in non-international armed conflicts. It prohibits, in particular, the use of means of warfare which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their death inevitable. 
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, Rule A3, IRRC, No. 278, 1990, pp. 389–390.

In 1995, the International Institute of Humanitarian Law stated that any declaration on minimum humanitarian standards should be based on “principles … of jus cogens, expressing basic humanitarian consideration[s] which are recognized to be universally binding”. According to the Institute, this included the principle that “in hostilities, it is prohibited to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Comments on the Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards submitted to the UN Secretary-General, §§ 1 and 14, reprinted in Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/80, 28 November 1995, pp. 8 and 10.

World Medical Association
At its 50th General Assembly in 1998, the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted a resolution in which it stated that it warmly welcomed and supported the ICRC’s SIrUS Project and called upon National Medical Associations to endorse the Project. 
World Medical Association, 50th General Assembly, Resolution on the SIrUS Project, Ottawa, October 1998.