Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule79
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:51:49+00:00

Document:
Protocol on Non-detectable Fragments, 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.
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.
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. 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.
3. In case of armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply the prohibitions and restrictions of this Convention and its annexed Protocols.
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 (CCW), Geneva, 21 December 2001.
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that it is prohibited “to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-ray”.
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, § 4.16.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 308.
The Guide provides that the use of “weapons which injure by fragments which, in the human body, escape detection by X-rays” is prohibited.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 932(d).
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 407.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 404.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.9.
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. 39.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “[t]he use of certain weapons is totally prohibited [such as] … weapons the primary effect of which is to wound by fragments which are not detectable by X-rays in the human body”.
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. 33; see also Part I bis, pp. 53 and 93.
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. 271, § 631; see also p. 274, § 632.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-3, § 21.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 513.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits the use of “fragmentation projectiles of which the fragments cannot be traced by X-rays”.
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. 53.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 9.1.1.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) includes weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) includes weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character.
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, pp. 53-54.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits the use of “any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
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, § 408.
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. … weapons whose primary effect is to injury by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays, e.g. plastic or glass ammunition.
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 305.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states, regarding the use of weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments, that “the resultant injury is far in excess of what is required, hence forbidden”.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 13.
Shrapnel invisible to x-rays. These are weapons of war that spray shards of glass or plastic. These shards cause injuries similar to those caused by shrapnel but cannot be identified under x-ray, something that makes them hard to treat medically. The CCW Convention [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] banned the use of weapons which mainly cause damage consisting of shards that cannot be identified in the human body. The logic of this is clear: there is no point in continuing the fight beyond the battlefield and into the operating theatre. If someone is injured and leaves the scene of battle, preventing him from receiving medical attention does not contribute to the military effort. It is damage over and above what is necessary and is therefore forbidden.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 14.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “It is specifically prohibited … to use … bullets radiologically invisible”.
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, § 8(6).
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 6.
The meaning of this prohibition, however, is limited. It is in fact what remains of attempts to get a prohibition for more categories of explosive ammunition, such as projectiles with pre-fragmented jacket, or filled with very small bullets (pellets) or with needle-like objects (fléchettes). These kinds of ammunition are not prohibited; in essence they do not differ from long existing and widely used high explosive shells.
0470. It is prohibited to use any weapon, the primary effect of which is to injure by small objects (fragments or shrapnel) which, in the human body, evade detection by X-rays. This prohibition also acts on the principle banning the use of weapons causing unnecessary suffering. Nevertheless, the significance of this prohibition is limited. In fact it is the sole remnant of efforts to secure a ban on more categories of explosive munitions, such as projectiles with pre-fragmented outer casing, or filled with very small shot (pellets) or finned needles (flêchettes). These types of ammunition are not prohibited: essentially they are no different from high-explosive shells, which have existed for a long time and been used everywhere.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0470.
It is prohibited to use weapons causing unnecessary suffering or excessive injury, or that are indiscriminate. This means that … weapons which cause injury by non-detectable fragments … are forbidden.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits the use of “weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 510(d) (land warfare) and 617(d) (air warfare).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states: “It is expressly forbidden to use … projectiles with broken glass”.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 11.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “non-detectable fragments” are prohibited weapons.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.b.(2).(e).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “non-detectable fragments” are prohibited weapons.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(b)(2)(e), p. 248.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits the use of weapons that may cause superfluous injury or suffering and refers to the 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
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.
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 9.
(1) Protocol I: Protocol on Non-detectable Fragments. It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments, which, in the human body, escape detection by X-rays.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) imposes an “absolute prohibition on the use of … weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
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, § 3.2.a.(2).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that there is an absolute prohibition on the use of certain weapons, including “[w]eapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
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, § 3.2.b.
[The 1980] Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons relates to certain fragmentation weapons. The Protocol forbids the use of weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which cannot be detected by X-raying the injured person.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.3.2, p. 79.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 23(a).
229 The production, stockpiling, import, export, transit and use of such means of combat are notably prohibited.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 228(3) and 229.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the use of “any weapon whose effect is to injure by fragments that in the human body escape detection by X-rays” as a means of warfare is prohibited.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.3.3.
The UK Military Manual (1958) prohibits the use of projectiles filled with broken glass.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 110.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981), under the heading “Future Developments”, considers the possibility, thanks to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, of “a ban on weapons whose main purpose is to produce fragments that cannot be detected by X-ray”.
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 11, p. 40, § 4(c).
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.
6.11.2. The use of “any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays” is prohibited.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.11–6.11.2.
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)(2).
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, § 6-2(a)(2).
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states that the principle of unnecessary suffering “outlawed the use of … projectiles filled with glass”.
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 7.
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), § 9.1.1.
[U]sing 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.
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.
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “use of … weapons injuring by fragments invisible by X-ray” is a war crime.
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, employing “weapons causing injury by fragments which cannot be detected by X-ray” as defined in the 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160/A(3)(b)(1).
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 I on Non-Detectable Fragments.
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(3).
d. employs weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by x-ray.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112d (1)(d).
d. employs weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264h (1)(d).
42. Using weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.42.
Australia, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Vienna, 25 September–13 October 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR 3, 2 October 1995, § 25.
With respect to [the 1980] Protocol I [to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapons parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
Canada, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 June 1994, § 2.
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 [I, II and III] to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [international and non-international armed conflicts].
France, Reservations made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 4 March 1988.
At the Third Preparatory Committee for the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, India indicated that it “fully supported the idea of expanding the scope of the [Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] to cover armed internal conflicts”.
India, Statement of 24 September 2001 at the Third Preparatory Committee for the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 24-28 September 2001.
According to the Report on the Practice of India, in India there is “a ban and restriction on the use of … weapons primarily wounding by non-detectable fragments”.
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 3.4.
Referring to an interview with the Director of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, the Report on the Practice of Indonesia affirms that Indonesia prohibits the use of weapons primarily injuring by non-detectable fragments.
Report on the Practice of Indonesia, 1997, Interview with the Director of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Division of the Armed Forces, Chapter 3.4.
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 [I, II and III] 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 [international and non-international armed conflicts].
Israel, Declarations and understandings made upon accession to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 22 March 1995, § (a).
With respect to [the 1980] Protocol I [to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapon parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
Israel, Declarations and understandings made upon accession to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 22 March 1995, § (b).
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, Jordan does not use, manufacture or stockpile weapons primarily wounding by non-detectable fragments and it has no intention of possessing nor of using such weapons in the future.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 3.4.
In 1992, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Netherlands implied that universal adherence to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons would give it effect in internal conflicts.
It is generally accepted … that … only weapons designed to injure through non detectable fragments would be prohibited. Incidental effects arising from the use of a few plastic parts in a munition would still be considered lawful.
United States, Air Force, Judge Advocate General, Legal Review of Maverick Alternate Warhead, (AGM-65E), 4 January 1979, § 3.
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that 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 [international and non-international armed conflicts].
In a resolution adopted in 1980, the UN General Assembly welcomed the successful conclusion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols and commended the Convention and the three annexed Protocols to all States “with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 35/153, 12 December 1980, § 4, adopted without a vote.
In numerous resolutions adopted between 1981 and 1999, the UN General Assembly urged all States that had not done so to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols.
UN General Assembly, 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, 7 December 1988, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 45/64, 4 December 1990, § 3, voting record: 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, § 3, 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 Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly recalled 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”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/69, 8 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/107, 3 December 2004, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/93, 8 December 2005, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/100, 6 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/57, 5 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
j.promote extension of the aforesaid United Nations Convention of 1980 to non-international armed conflicts, and inclusion in its provisions of effective procedures for verification and regular inspection.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1085, 24 April 1996, § 8(b) and (j).
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on respect for IHL and support for humanitarian action in armed conflicts, the OAU Council of Ministers invited “all States that have not yet become party to the … [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], to consider, or reconsider, without delay the possibility of doing so in the near future”.
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res. 1526 (LX), 6–11 June 1994, § 6.
In two resolutions adopted in 1994 and 1996 on respect for IHL, the OAS General Assembly urged member States to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1270 (XXIV-O/94), 10 June 1994, § 1; Res. 1408 (XXVI-O/96), 7 June 1996, § 1.
In 1976, the Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH noted that “there had been agreement on the proposal” to prohibit the use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments non-detectable by X-ray.
CDDH, Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons, Statement by the Rapporteur of the Working Group, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.40, 19 May 1976, p. 403, § 2.
Austria, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Draft article entitled “Non-detectable fragments” submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/408/Rev.1, 17 March–10 June 1977, p. 539.
The proposal received support from the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States and Venezuela.
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.40, 19 May 1976, p. 407, § 20; United States, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.32, 1 June 1976, p. 334, § 15; Venezuela, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.25, 13 May 1976, p. 257, § 23.
During the preparatory conference for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1979, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Ukraine, USSR, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Zaire unanimously sponsored a proposal on the prohibition of weapons that primarily injure by non-detectable fragments, identical to the earlier consensus proposal.
Preparatory Conference for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 19 March-12 April 1979, Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10, 12 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/ Add. 1, 13 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/Add. 2, 15 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/Add. 3, 10 April 1979.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 920.

References: § 4
 § 308
 § 932
 § 407
 § 404
 § 4
 § 631
 § 632
 § 21
 § 513
 § 9
 § 408
 § 305
 § 8
 § 0470
 § 11
 § 31
 § 32
 § 6
 § 9
 § 3
 § 3
 § 1
 § 110
 § 4
 § 6
 § 6
 § 9
 § 9
 § 25
 § 2
 § 3
 § 4
 § 1
 § 1
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 5
 § 8
 § 6
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 20
 § 15
 § 23
 § 920