Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/spa/docs/v2_rul_rule72
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 02:13:37
Document Index: 642219881

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 426', '§ 15', '§ 8', '§ 14', '§ 0455', '§ 510', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 6', '§ 12', '§ 31', '§ 32', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 37', '§ 504', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 948', '§ 6', 'Art. 260', 'Art. 261', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 12', '§ 950', '§ 11', '§ 19', '§ 5', '§ 72', '§ 6', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 190', '§ 54', '§ 918']

DIH consuetudinario - Practice Relating to Rule 72. Poison and Poisoned Weapons
Article 23(a) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially prohibited … to employ poison or poisoned arms.”
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(a).
Article 23(a) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially forbidden … to employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
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(a).
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xvii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[e]mploying poison or poisoned weapons” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
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)(xvii).
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(xiii) of the ICC Rome Statute, as amended in 2010, “[e]mploying poison and poisoned weapons” constitutes a war crime also in non-international armed conflicts.
Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), as amended by Resolution RC/Res.5, adopted by the 12th plenary meeting on 10 June 2010 by consensus, Article 8(2)(e)(xiii).
Article 70 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war.”
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 70.
Article 13(a) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration states that “[e]mployment of poison or poisoned weapons” is especially forbidden.
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 13(a).
Article 8(a) of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … to make use of poison, in any form whatever.”
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 8(a).
Article 16(1) of the 1913 Oxford Manual of Naval War provides: “It is forbidden … to employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 16(1).
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 “poisoning of wells”.
Article 3(a) of the 1993 ICTY Statute lists “employment of poisonous weapons” as a violation of the laws or customs of war to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
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(a).
Pursuant to Article 20(e)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[e]mployment of poisonous weapons” 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).
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xvii), “[e]mploying poison or poisoned weapons” is 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)(xvii).
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) states that the use of “poison or poisoned weapons” is especially prohibited.
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(2).
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) proscribes “the use of poison or poisoned arms”. The prohibition includes the poisoning of water sources, even with a warning.
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use … poisonous gas.”
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.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits the use of “poison and poisoned weapons”.
The manual further states that “poisoning food and water” is a war crime.
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) prohibits the poisoning of water.
War crimes are also violations of the laws and customs of war such as:
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.
- bullets dipped in poison.
II.1.4. Poison
Poison and poisoned weapons are unlawful due to the possibility that they strike without distinction. Thus, poisoning or contamination of any source of drinking water is prohibited. Putting up notices that water has been contaminated or poisoned does not render that practice lawful, because civilians as well as combatants can drink from that source of water and be equally affected.
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, pp. 52 and 53.
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “Poisoned projectiles are considered illegal, owing to their alteration, as are any other munitions covered with poison.”
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 9.1; see also § 9.1.1.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “It is prohibited to employ poison and poisoned weapons.”
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, § 426.
The manual adds: “The prohibition also applies to the toxic contamination of water supply installations and foodstuffs … for military purposes.”
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) states: “It is prohibited to use poison or poisonous weapons in warfare.”
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 15(b)(1).
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “It is specifically prohibited … to use poison or poisoned weapons.”
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(1).
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “The use of poison or poisoned weapons is prohibited.”
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “It is prohibited to use poison and poisoned arms”.
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states: “Do not use poison”.
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(k).
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to use poison or poisoned weapons. This includes a prohibition to poison or contaminate water supplies.”
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-6.
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to use poison and poisoned weapons.”
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is … prohibited to use poison or toxic weapons. This includes a prohibition of poisoning or contaminating the water supply.”
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0455.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits the use of “poison or poisoned weapons”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 510.
The manual further notes that “the use of poison or poisoned weapons” is “an old-established rule of customary law” which constitutes a war crime.
Under Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), it is prohibited “to employ poison or poisoned weapons”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 39, § 5(l)(i).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states: “The use of poison or poisonous weapons is prohibited.” It adds: “Smearing any substance [on bullets] likely to inflame a wound is also prohibited.”
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, §§ 12 and 11.
The manual includes “using … poisoned … arms or ammunition [and] poisoning of wells, streams and other sources of water supply” in its list of war crimes.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6(7) and (9).
Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct provides that it is prohibited “to employ poison or poisoned weapons”.
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 12(a).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “poison” is a prohibited weapon.
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).(c).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “poison” is a prohibited weapon.
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)(c), p. 248.
Under the Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991), “poisoning ponds and streams” constitutes a war crime.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits “poison and poisoned 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, Article 6(d).
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The following shall be prohibited to use in the course of combat operations: … poison or poisoned weapons.”
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “It is prohibited to … [u]se poison or poisonous weapons.”
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. 44; see also p. 19.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that the use of “poison and poisoned weapons” is strictly forbidden in any circumstances.
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, § 3.2.a.(2).
The manual adds: “There also exists an absolute prohibition to poison food and water supplies.”
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, § 3.2.c.(1).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that there is an absolute prohibition on the use of certain weapons, including “[p]oison and poisoned weapons”.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the use of “poison” as a means of warfare is prohibited.
The US Field Manual (1956) states: “It is especially forbidden … to employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
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, § 37(a).
making use of poisoned … arms or ammunition … [and] poisoning of wells or streams.
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, § 504(a) and (i).
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states: “A weapon may be illegal per se if either international custom or treaty has forbidden its use under all circumstances. An example is poison to kill or injure a person.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 6-2.
The Pamphlet further states: “Usage and practice has also determined that it is per se illegal … to use any substance on projectiles that tend unnecessarily to inflame the wound they cause.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 6-3b(2).
The Pamphlet defines poison as a “biological or chemical substance” and adds: “The long-standing customary prohibition against poison is based on their uncontrolled character and the inevitability of death or permanent disability.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 6-4f.
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) instructs soldiers: “Using poison or poisoned weapons is against the law of war. You may not use poison or poisoning agents such as dead animals, bodies, or defecation to poison any water or food supply.”
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. 10.
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides: “In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: using poisoned … arms or ammunition [and] poisoning wells or streams.”
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) states that “using … poison weapons” is “expressly prohibited by the law of war” and is “not excusable on the basis of military necessity”.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “A few weapons, such as poisoned projectiles, are unlawful, no matter how employed.”
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(8), pp. IV-6 and IV-7.
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “A few weapons, such as poisoned projectiles, are unlawful no matter how employed. Others may be rendered unlawful by alteration such as by coating ammunition with a poison.”
Albania’s Penal Code (1995) provides:
Breach of rules on poisonous substances
Breaching prescribed rules for keeping, manufacturing, using, storing, transporting or selling poisonous substances with strong effect constitutes criminal contravention and is punishable by a fine of up to two years of imprisonment.
When the criminal act has led to death, serious harm to the health of people or other serious material consequences, it is punishable by a fine or up to ten years of imprisonment.
Albania, Penal Code, 1995, Article 281.
Algeria’s Penal Code (1966) provides:
Art. 260. Poisoning is an attempt against the life of a person committed by using substances which can kill more or less promptly, regardless of how these substances have been used or administered, and regardless of what the consequences are.
Art. 261. Any person guilty of … poisoning shall be punished by death.
Algeria, Penal Code, 1966, Articles 260–261.
36. the use of poison or poisoned weapons.
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(36).
22. the use of poison or poisoned weapons.
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(22).
(1) Whoever in time of war or armed conflict orders the violation of laws and practices of warfare, or whoever violates them,
(2) Violations of laws and practices of warfare referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall include:
a) Use of poison gases …
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 179(1) and (2)(a).
Brazil’s Military Penal Code (1969) punishes “the poisoning of drinking water or foodstuffs”.
Brazil, Military Penal Code, 1969, Article 293.
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “putting poison on food or drinking water” constitutes a war crime.
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(15).
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended in 1980, punishes “in time of war … poisoning of water or foodstuffs, as well as deposits, spraying or using harmful substances intended to cause death”.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice, 1972, as amended in 1980, Article 522.
Any poisoning of water or of foodstuffs, any deposit, spraying or use of harmful substances intended to cause death, in time of war or in a region where a state of siege or of emergency has been proclaimed, or at the occasion of a police operation aimed at maintaining or re-establishing public order, shall be punished by death.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 170.
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “use of … toxic weapons” is a war crime.
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “uses poison or a poison weapon, suffocating or poisonous gases or other corresponding substances” 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).
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 poison or poisoned weapons” in international armed conflicts, is a crime.
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or a non-international armed conflict, “employs poison or poisoned weapons”.
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 12(1)(1).
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies “[u]sing poisons or poisoned weapons” as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(R).
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “It is prohibited … to use poison or poisoned weapons.”
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 35(1).
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “using poison or poisoned weapons” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(17).
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes the “poisoning of wells” in its list of war crimes.
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “employing poison or poisoned weapons” is a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict.
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(5)(g).
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crime defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xvii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
1. Uses poison or poisonous weapons.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 102(1).
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 92(1).
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of employing poison or poisonous weapons in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 14(1)(1).
Rwanda’s Penal Code (1977) states:
Poisoning is the attempt against the life of a person committed by using substances which can kill more or less promptly, regardless of how these substances have been used or administered or what the consequences are. It entails the death penalty.
Rwanda, Penal Code, 1977, Article 315.
1° employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
15. using poison or poisoned weapons … and all analogous liquids, materials or weaponry.
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(a) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes.
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2626, § 950v(b)(8).
25. Employing poison or poisoned weapons.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.25.
In its judgment in the Shimoda case in 1963, Japan’s District Court of Tokyo stated that “poison [and] poisonous gases” were part of “prohibited materials under international law”.
United States, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Agent Orange case, Judgment, 22 February 2008, pp. 23–24, 27–28 and 30.
According to the Report on the Practice of the Republika Srpska, the Instruction on Implementation of International Law of War in the Armed Forces of Republika Srpska states: “It is prohibited to use … poison.”
Report on the Practice of Republika Srpska, 1997, Chapter 3.2, referring to Instruction on Implementation of International Law of War in the Armed Forces of Republika Srpska, Official Gazette of ARBiH, 5 December 1992, § 11.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt, referring to Article 22 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, noted the “prohibition against the use of weapons which render death inevitable or cause unnecessary suffering” and, in this context, stated: “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.”
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, pp.12–13, § 19.
The Report on the Practice of India states that senior members of the Indian armed forces confirm that poison is not to be used in either international or non-international armed conflicts.
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 3.2.
In 1991, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the aftermath of the Gulf War, Iraq implied that the use of shells made of depleted uranium was against international law, since they had poisonous effects.
Iraq, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2981, 3 April 1991, pp. 29–30.
The Report on the Practice of Iraq states: “The banning is absolute in using poisonous materials in itself due to its harmful effects to the individuals and the environment.”
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 3.2.
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Jordan has never used poison or poisoned weapons.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 3.2.
In an article published in a military review, a member of the Kuwaiti armed forces stated that, during war, belligerents must:
respect restrictions and limits provided for in international conventions, such as restriction of the use of some weapons, and prohibition of using others, e.g. … the use of poisons. This is in application of well-established principles in wars, such as considerations of military honour and humanitarian considerations.
Fellah Awad Al-Anzi, “The Law of War”, Homat Al-Watan, No. 168, p. 57.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Malaysia, in a part entitled “Principle of Non-Toxicity”, referred, inter alia, to the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol and the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules.
Malaysia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 19 June 1995, pp. 23–24.
Malaysia made the same references in its oral pleadings in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995.
Malaysia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 7 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/27, p. 57.
According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, the armed forces of Malaysia do not use poison in warfare.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 3.2
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Marshall Islands stated that the “laws of war including the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the United Nations Charter … prohibit the use of poisonous substances”.
Marshall Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 22 June 1995, § 5.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Mexico referred to “a series of international instruments … [which] 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.”
Mexico, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, p. 12, § 72.
Within the category of serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, the use of certain weapons whose effects are of an indiscriminate nature or cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is included. Such weapons are: a) poison or poisoned weapons; [and] b) asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials and devices … The use of these … kinds of weapons is prohibited by conventional and customary international law.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Nauru stated:
Clearly it is a violation of customary international law to use poisons or other analogous substances. Thus even where a State is not a party to the Geneva Gas Protocol it is nonetheless bound under customary law to refrain from using poisonous weapons.
Nauru, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 15 June 1995, p. 11.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, New Zealand stated: “The use of poison and poisoned weapons has long been prohibited. The prohibition is set out in the 1925 Geneva [Gas] Protocol but also forms part of customary law.”
In 1996, at the Fourth Review Conference of States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, Pakistan stated:
The 1925 [Geneva Gas] protocol and the [1972 Biological Weapons Convention] is a manifestation of a moral and cultural ethos that is over 1400 years old. Violations of the prohibitions against the production or use of poisonous weapons should be treated with equal determination in all cases, without selectivity or discrimination.
On the basis of an interview with a high-ranking officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Report on the Practice of the Philippines notes that poison is prohibited.
Report on the Practice of the Philippines, 1997, Interview with Navy Lt. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 5 March 1997, Chapter 3.2.
On the basis of replies by army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda notes that the prohibition of the use of poison in armed conflicts is customary.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies by army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 3.2.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands stated: “International law prohibits the use of weapons which: … are poisonous.”
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands stated that the use of poisonous weapons was formally prohibited by Article 23(a) of the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907.
Solomon Islands, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 14 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/32, p. 47.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Sweden stated: “As far back as the 17th century, Hugo Grotius stressed that poisoning was not allowed under international law. In certain respects, the principle of the prohibition of toxic weapons has also been codified (chiefly as a result of the 1925 Geneva [Gas] Convention).”
Sweden, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 5.
In 1974, in a memorandum on the depleted uranium tank round, the US Department of the Army stated: “The law of war prohibits the employment of poison or poisoned weapons.”
United States, Department of the Army, Memorandum for US Army Research, Development and Engineering Center, M829A2 Cartridge, 120MM, APFSDS-T (Depleted Uranium Tank Round), Law of War Review, 27 December 1994, § 6(b).
In 1975, in a legal review of 30MM ammunition, the US Department of the Air Force stated: “Existing international law, both customary and treaty, prohibits the use of poison or poisoned weapons.”
United States, Department of the Air Force, Legal Review of 30MM Ammunition, 14 March 1975, § II(1).
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United States accepted the prohibition of poison as such. However, it considered the prohibition to be applicable only to “weapons that carry poison into the body of the victim” or “that are designed to kill or injure by the inhalation or other absorption into the body of poisonous gases or analogous substances”.
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 24.
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Zimbabwe 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 … utilize poisonous or analogous substances”.
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe states that the prohibition of the use of poison is part of customary international law.
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 3.2.
1. Calls upon all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 [including Article 23(a) which prohibits the use of poison or poisoned weapons].
Calls again upon all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 … and invites those States which have not yet done so to adhere to those instruments.
UN General Assembly, Res. 2852 (XXVI), 20 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 110-1-5.
In a resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflicts adopted in 1971, the UN General Assembly:
UN General Assembly, Res. 3032 (XXVII), 18 December 1972, § 2, voting record: 103-0-25-4.
In 1969, in a report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN Secretary-General stated: “The use of poisons and poisoned bullets has been prohibited by the international law of war for a long time.”
UN Secretary-General, Report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, UN Doc. A/7720, 20 December 1969, § 190.
In 1973, in a survey on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN Secretariat made a thorough study of different legal sources (practice, doctrine and treaties) to establish whether poison was prohibited. It concluded that most sources supported the view that there was a customary prohibition on the use of poison.
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. 115–119.
In 1985, in a report on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated: “According to several concordant accounts, water, cereals and livestock have been poisoned [and] chemical substances and incendiary bombs producing gases of various colours have been discharged.” In this respect, he added that the report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights deserved mention.
In that report, the UN Special Rapporteur had recommended that “the parties to the conflict, namely government and opposition forces, should be reminded that it is their duty to apply fully the rules of international humanitarian law without discrimination, particularly those concerning the protection of women and children”.
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ discussed whether “nuclear weapons should be treated in the same way as poisoned weapons” and stated that, in that case, they would be prohibited under:
(a) the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, which prohibits “the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases”;
(b) Article 23 (a) of the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907, whereby “it is especially forbidden: … to employ poison or poisoned weapons”; and
(c) the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 17 June 1925 which prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices”.
According to the Court, the terms “poison” and “poisoned weapons” “have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate. This practice is clear.”
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, §§ 54 and 55.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The use of poison or poisoned weapons is prohibited.”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 918.
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “In particular, the use of … poison is prohibited.”
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 customary rule prohibiting the use of poison as a means or method of warfare is applicable in non-international armed conflicts.”
International Institute of Humanitarian Law L, Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, Rule B3, IRRC, No. 278, 1990, p. 398.
Ecumenical Council for Justice and Peace (Philippines)
In 1992, the Ecumenical Council for Justice and Peace of the Philippines denounced the use of poison by the Philippine military.
Ecumenical Council for Justice and Peace (ECJP), Documented Human Rights Violations in Marag Valley for 1992, Report on the Practice of the Philippines, 1997, Chapter 3.2.