Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/spa/docs/v2_rul_rule86
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 03:09:45
Document Index: 410693303

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 0471', '§ 31', '§ 32', '§ 228', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 49', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 9', '§ 1', '§ 240', '§ 261', '§ 54', '§ 5', '§ 16', '§ 5', '§ 14', '§ 56', '§ 82', '§ 50', '§ 14']

DIH consuetudinario - Practice Relating to Rule 86. Blinding Laser Weapons
Article 1 of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, 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, Vienna, 13 October 1995, Article 1.
Article 4 of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states:
Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, 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, Vienna, 13 October 1995, Article 4.
The 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was adopted by consensus, although a number of States would have preferred a stronger text that included a prohibition of blinding as a method of warfare and indicated this orally during negotiations and at the final plenary session.
Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden.
Discussions on the prohibited weapon in Article 1, which refers to “laser weapons specifically designed as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision”, turned on whether it was enough to indicate “specifically designed”, and one State, the United Kingdom, would have preferred “primarily designed”. The issue was that the laser systems concerned could easily be designed to aim at both electro-optical systems and human eyes, and therefore alternative formulations were abandoned in favour of the explicit description finally adopted in Article 1 that would cover dual use systems.
See Louise Doswald-Beck, “New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 312, 1996, p. 272, at 288-289; W. Hays Parks, “Travaux Preparatoires and Legal Analysis of Blinding Laser Weapons Protocol”, The Army Lawyer, June 1997, p. 33, at 37.
Amended Article 1 to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use … ‘blinding’ weapons.”
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits the use of “laser weapons”.
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. 79.
II.1.10. Laser weapons
Laser weapons which are designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness or to diminish vision (i.e. to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices) are prohibited.
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to use laser weapons specially designed to cause permanent blindness. This means that lasers intended to blind personnel temporarily, known as dazzle lasers, are permitted.”
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0471.
The manual further states that “[t]he question whether a non-lethal weapon can be used as a form of warfare will primarily depend on whether such a weapon”, inter alia, “is not prohibited under other regulations such as the permanently blinding weapons mentioned above”.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states: “It is prohibited to use weapons causing unnecessary suffering or excessive injury, or that are indiscriminate. This means that … blinding laser weapons … are forbidden.”
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “blinding laser weapons” 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).(i).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “blinding laser weapons” 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)(i), p. 248.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that there is an absolute prohibition on the use of certain weapons, including “[b]linding laser weapons”.
4 blinding lasers;*
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(4) and 229.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the following means of warfare is prohibited: “laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the organs of vision of a person who does not use optical devices”.
Austria’s Law on the Prohibition of Blinding Laser Weapons (1998) states: “The acquisition, possession, development, transportation, production, trade and arrangement of acquisition and sale of blinding laser weapons and specific parts of them are prohibited.” It punishes “whoever, and even if only by negligence, contravenes the prohibition of § 2 of this Federal Law”.
Austria, Law on the Prohibition of Blinding Laser Weapons, 1998, §§ 2(1) and 3.
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, employing “blinding laser weapons” as defined in the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160/A(3)(b)(4).
Luxembourg’s Blinding Laser Weapons Act (1999) prohibits the use and the transfer of blinding laser weapons to another State or an entity other than a State.
Luxembourg, Blinding Laser Weapons Act, 1999, Article 3.
e. employs laser weapons whose primary effect is to cause permanent blindness.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112d (1)(e).
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264h (1)(e).
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Austria stated: “The provisions of … Protocol [IV] which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.”
Austria, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 27 July 1998.
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Burkina Faso called for “the halting of the use of laser weapons, particularly those which lead to irreversible blindness”.
Burkina Faso, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.8, 20 October 1995, p. 10.
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Chile called the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons imperfect.
Chile, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/ PV.10, 26 October 1995, p. 22.
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session) in 1996, China made the following statement:
The Chinese delegation positively appraises the important results achieved by this conference. We adopted a new Protocol banning the use and transfer of blinding laser weapons which are specially designed to cause permanent blindness to naked eyes. This is the first time in human history that a kind of inhumane weapon is declared illegal and prohibited before it is actually used. This is significant.
China, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), Geneva, 3 May 1996, p. 1.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Greece stated: “The provisions of … Protocol [IV] which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.”
Greece, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 5 August 1997.
The Report on the Practice of Indonesia states that Indonesia has prohibited the use of blinding laser weapons.
In 1991, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ireland stated that it might support the proposal to ban blinding laser weapons.
Ireland, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/46/PV.31, 7 November 1991, p. 37.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Ireland stated: “The provisions of … Protocol [IV] which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.”
Ireland, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 27 March 1997.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Italy stated: “The provisions of … Protocol [IV] which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.”
Italy, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 13 January 1999.
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, Jordan does not use, manufacture or stockpile anti-personnel lasers and it does not plan to do so in the future.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Liechtenstein stated: “The provisions of … Protocol [IV] which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.”
Liechtenstein, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 19 November 1997.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the Netherlands declared: “The provisions of Protocol IV which, given their content or nature, can also be applied in peacetime must be observed in all circumstances.”
Netherlands, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 25 March 1999.
A working paper submitted by the Netherlands to the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session) in 1995 evaluated existing customary law relating to the use of blinding lasers prior to the negotiation and adoption of Protocol IV. It stated that the “use of antipersonnel lasers whose sole purpose is to cause permanent blindness in military personnel is … illegal under the current laws of armed conflicts”. It noted, however, one possible exception to this under the then existing law, namely:
One exception might be cases in which blinding an opponent with a highly discriminate weapon such as a laser would be more humane than using a different method or means. This instance could occur if, for example, a sniper were to hide himself in a civilian environment. In this case other, more conventional methods of disabling the sniper can be expected to cause a large number of civilian casualties that could be prevented through the use of a laser.
Netherlands, Working paper submitted to the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/MCIII/WP.1, 26 September 1995, p. 9.
In the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons of the CDDH, Sweden stated:
It might be thought that the mere suspicion that a new or improved type of weapon might cause greater suffering or have more indiscriminate effects than its predecessor would constitute a basis for serious negotiations on the prohibition of such weapons on humanitarian grounds. It might be argued, for instance, that because laser weapons, if used against personnel, were likely to cause permanent damage to, or a complete loss of eyesight, they should be considered unnecessarily cruel. His delegation was inclined to that opinion and accordingly urged the great Powers to desist from further work in that direction and to agree on rules prohibiting the use of such weapons. If that were not possible, because some countries might consider that laser weapons would prove to be of considerable military value, for instance, in combating attacking missiles, it might still prove possible to negotiate an agreement prohibiting their use against any target other than a military target. It was possible that laser weapons would never be used against personnel because of their relative complexity and high cost, but there could be no certainty of that. It would therefore be worth while prohibiting such use.
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.33, 2 June 1976, p. 339, § 6.
At the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986, Sweden and Switzerland submitted a draft resolution which stated:
The development of laser technology for military use includes a risk that laser equipment of armed forces can be specifically used for antipersonnel purposes on the battlefield, such as causing permanent blindness of human beings, and that such use may be considered already prohibited under existing international law.
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Commission I, CI/2.6/PR3, Item 2.6, quoted in Louise Doswald-Beck, “New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”, IRRC, No. 312, 1996, p. 273.
This wording was not retained, and the resolution adopted instead stated that the Conference noted “that some governments have voiced their concern about the development of new weapons technologies the use of which, in certain circumstances, could be prohibited under existing international law”.
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. VII, § B(6).
In 1987, during debates in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sweden stated: “The use of blinding laser weapons designed to cause permanent blindness would be in clear contravention of fundamental principles of the law of warfare.” It also stated: “The International Community should consider a ban on the use of laser weapons for such purposes.”
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/42/PV.3, 12 October 1987, p. 55; Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/42/PV.34, 12 October 1987, p. 6.
In 1991, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sweden stated that it would seek consensus on a resolution on the prohibition of blinding laser weapons at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent to be held in 1991 in Budapest (but eventually cancelled).
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/46/PV.8, 18 October 1991, p. 28.
In 1992, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sweden advocated prohibitions or restrictions on blinding laser weapons.
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/47/PV.26, 4 December 1992, p. 19.
In 1994, in a working paper submitted to the Group of Governmental Experts to prepare the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Sweden proposed the following provision: “It is prohibited to use laser beams as an anti-personnel method of warfare, with the intention or expected result of seriously damaging the eyesight of persons.”
Sweden, Working paper submitted to the Group of Government Experts to prepare the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/GE/CRP.3, 16 May 1994.
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sweden stated that for ten years it had been calling for a ban on blinding laser weapons.
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.17, 9 October 1995, p. 2.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Sweden stated:
Sweden intends to apply the Protocol to all types of armed conflict …
Sweden has since long strived for explicit prohibition of the use of blinding lasers 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.
Upon acceptance of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Switzerland stated: “The provisions of Protocol IV shall apply in all circumstances.”
Switzerland, Declaration made upon acceptance of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 March 1998.
International humanitarian law imposes limitations, in some cases a total ban, on the use of weapons whose impact goes beyond the permissible purpose of weakening the enemy. Weapons are prohibited on the basis of three fundamental criteria: if their use inevitably leads to death; if they cause disproportionate injury or Unnecessary suffering; if they strike indiscriminately. On the basis of these three criteria a number of specific weapons have been explicitly prohibited by international conventions, including … blinding laser weapons … Some of these bans are part of Customary international law.
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 9, 40 and 41.
In 1987, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the USSR stated that it had no objection to a ban on anti-personnel laser weapons.
USSR, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/42/PV.5, 14 October 1987, p. 34–35.
According to the Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe is opposed to the use of laser weapons.
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 3.1.
Particularly welcoming the adoption on 13 October 1995 of the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) annexed to the Convention [on Certain Conventional Weapons],
3. Urgently 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 Certain Conventional Weapons] and its Protocols and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately access to these instruments will be universal;
6. Commends the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to all States, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date.
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/74, 12 December 1995, preamble and §§ 3 and 6, adopted without a vote.
3. Urgently 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 Certain Conventional Weapons] and its Protocols, and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal;
7. Again commends the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to all States, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date, and calls, in particular, on the States parties to express their consent to be bound by the Protocol with a view to its entry into force as soon as possible.
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, §§ 3 and 7, adopted without a vote.
In a resolutions adopted in 1997 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
2. Urgently 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 Certain Conventional Weapons] and the Protocols thereto, and in particular to amended Protocol II, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date, and calls upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal;
4. Commends the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to all States, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date and calls, in particular, upon the States parties to express their consent to be bound by the Protocol with a view to its entry into force as soon as possible.
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/42, 9 December 1997, §§ 2 and 4, adopted without a vote.
1. Expresses satisfaction that the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) entered into force on 30 July 1998, commends it to all States, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date, and calls, in particular, on all States parties to the Convention [on Certain Conventional Weapons] that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocol;
UN General Assembly, Res. 53/81, 4 December 1998, §§ 1 and 5, adopted without a vote.
I 1. Expresses its satisfaction that the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) entered into force on 30 July 1998, commends it to all States with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date and calls, in particular, upon all States parties 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 that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocol;
II 1. Calls upon all States parties that have not yet done so to notify the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary 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 and the Protocols thereto, of their consent to be bound by the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV), and by the amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II);
III 3. Urgently 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 Certain Conventional Weapons] and the Protocols thereto, and in particular to the amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II), with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date, and calls upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal.
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/58, 1 December 1999, §§ I(1), II(1) and III(3), adopted without a vote.
During the negotiation of Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Vienna in 1995, the UNDP representative stated that he was speaking “on behalf of the International Initiative Against Avoidable Disability promoted by UNDP, WHO and UNICEF”. He held that “the laser weapons had now been designed specially to blind personnel” and believed that “the use of such a weapon is abhorrent to the conscience of humanity”.
UNDP, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR5, 27 September 1995, pp. 10–11, §§ 49 and 50.
In a resolution on anti-personnel mines adopted in 1996, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly called upon the European Council to adopt a new joint action before the final session of the Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, stipulating that all EU members should ratify the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, ban the development and production of blinding laser weapons and proceed to the destruction of the existing stocks of blinding laser weapons.
ACP-EU, Joint Assembly, Resolution on anti-personnel mines, 22 March 1996, Official Journal of the European Community, No. C 254, 1996, Item 4, § 2(c), (e) and (f).
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly emphasized that it appreciated the ICRC’s “diplomatic efforts to secure the banning of certain particularly cruel weapons, such as … laser weapons that blind victims. In this connection, it welcomes the recent adoption of the [1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons].”
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1085, 24 April 1996, § 6.
The Parliamentary Assembly also invited,
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the failure of the international conference on anti-personnel mines and laser weapons, the European Parliament:
G. welcoming the announcement of the US Government that they are abandoning the development of some blinding laser weapons, but regretting that they did not abandon the development of all types of these weapons,
H. welcoming the agreement on a Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to restrict the use and transfer of blinding laser weapons, but regretting that the Protocol fails to ban the production of blinding laser weapons and provides loopholes for the production, use and transfer of some blinding laser weapons, including those that target optical systems,
I. believing that deliberate blinding as a method of warfare is abhorrent and in contravention of established custom, the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience,
2. Urges Member States to ratify the laser weapon Protocol without delays or reservations;
3. Welcomes the decision to convene a follow-up conference in the beginning of next year and calls on all Member States to use this opportunity to promote a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel mines and on all blinding laser weapons.
European Parliament, Resolution on the failure of the international conference on anti-personnel mines and laser weapons, 29 June 1995.
In 1995, the EU Council of Ministers adopted a common position stating that the Member States shall “actively promote” the adoption of a protocol on blinding laser weapons.
EU, Council of Ministers, Common Position concerning blinding laser weapons defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning blinding laser weapons, 18 September 1995, Doc. 95/379/CFSP, Official Journal of the European Community, No. L 227, 1995, p. 3.
In 1995, in answer to a question from the European Parliament, the European Commission stated that it was “fully associated with the common position of the Member States”.
European Commission, Answer to Written Question E-2490/95 from the European Parliament, Official Journal of the European Community, No. C 340, 1995, Item 82, 9 October 1995.
In 1995, in answer to a question from the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers explained the EU common position and stated: “Certain of the Union’s partners have adopted similar positions to that of the Union”.
EU, Council of Ministers, Answer to Written Question E2489/95 from the European Parliament, Official Journal of the European Community, No. C 56, 1996, Item 38, 21 December 1995.
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the OAU Council of Ministers urged all Member States to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and expressed its support for the adoption of “a Protocol banning laser blinding weapons”.
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res. 1593 (LXII), 21–23 June 1995, §§ 3 and 7.
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the OAU Council of Ministers expressed “satisfaction with the adoption of a Protocol banning blinding laser weapons by the Review Conference” and called upon “all Member States to consider adhering to it”.
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res. 1628 (LXIII), 26–28 February 1996, § 9.
In a resolution adopted in 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. 1408 (XXVI-O/96), 7 June 1996, § 1.
Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects
The expert report prepared for the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects held in Lucerne in 1974 stated: “Use of lasers as anti-personnel devices is unlikely due to low cost-effectiveness for this purpose. Laser could, of course, have antipersonnel effects in addition to primary antimatériel purposes.”
Weapons that may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, Report on the Work of Experts, ICRC, Geneva, 1973, p. 69, § 240.
A report on the discussion concerning laser weapons which took place at the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects held in Lucerne in 1974 states:
261. Experts noted that lasers had already found military application in certain range-finding, guidance and communication systems. The opinion was expressed by one expert that certain laser weapons were feasible and might appear rather soon. Other experts, however, stated their doubts about the military practicability of such weapons, citing the high level of complexity and running costs likely to be involved if anything but the most specialized applications were envisaged. With regard to such specialized applications, there was some discussion of the potential of laser radiation weapons in an anti-aircraft or anti-missile role; the view was expressed that, having regard to energy requirements and to the transmissivity of the atmosphere at different altitudes to possible wavelengths of laser radiation, laser weapons of this type, if they were feasible at all, would probably only be usable from large aircraft.
262. With regard to the effects on the human body of laser radiation, two types of likely injury were cited. The first was burn injury. The second was ocular injury, already a well recognized hazard to users of existing laser devices, and one which stems from the natural capacity of the ocular lens to focus incident light, thereby concentrating its power, and hence its effect, on the retina. The resultant damage may lead to partial or total blindness. One expert observed that the degree of laser damage to human tissue depended on the wavelength of the incident radiation, and he stated that the most powerful forms of laser currently available did not in fact operate at the most damaging wavelengths.
Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Lucerne, 24 September–18 October 1974, Report, ICRC, Geneva, 1975, §§ 261–262 and 277.
At the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons held in Lugano in 1976, one expert stated:
Laser weapons would appear at the beginning of the eighties, and this expectation would necessitate a watch to be kept on the military use of the laser beam, especially in an anti-personnel capacity, so as to prevent its causing a greater incidence of casualties among combatants.
Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Second Session, Lugano, 28 January–26 February 1976, Report, ICRC, Geneva, 1976, p. 19, § 54.
At the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons held in Lugano in 1976, one expert read out paragraph 277 of the report of the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects held in Lucerne in 1974 (see supra) and pointed out that it was a text with which most experts could agree. He further stated:
In view of the fact that the laser beam could cause blindness, its use as an anti-personnel weapon would have very grave consequences even if the combatants aimed at had protective equipment. To completely forbid its use against people was therefore desirable and also possible, but its unqualified prohibition was impossible, as it might be extremely useful against strategically important targets.
Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Second Session, Lugano, 28 January–26 February 1976, Report, ICRC, Geneva, 1976, pp. 80–81, § 5.
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the challenges posed by calamities arising from armed conflict, the 93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference called on States “to ban blinding laser weapons in an additional Protocol”.
93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Madrid, 27 March–1 April 1995, Resolution on the international community in the face of the challenges posed by calamities arising from armed conflicts and by natural or man-made disasters: the need for a coherent and effective response through political and humanitarian assistance means and mechanisms adapted to the situation, § 16(e).
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, a consensus emerged during the negotiations that blinding laser weapons must not be used in any armed conflict. A number of States supported the Austrian proposal that would have applied the Protocol “in all circumstances including armed conflict and times of peace”.
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/ MCIII/WP.2, 26 September 1995, Article 1(2).
The proposal retained was that the scope of the Protocol should be the same as that agreed on for the new 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons also in the process of being negotiated in another Committee.
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/4, 12 October 1995, § 5. (The report of the Main Committee (III) stated that “during the course of negotiations on the draft text, the Committee decided to leave the question of scope, as referred to in Article 1, to the decision of the Drafting Committee of the Review Conference, pending the agreed text on scope negotiated in Main Committee II”.)
The lack of agreement on the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (for reasons other than its scope) meant that that Protocol could not be adopted at the Vienna session of the Conference. States decided to go ahead and adopt Protocol IV nonetheless, even though the extension of the scope of application to non-international armed conflict could not be included. At the final session of the First Review Conference, in May 1996, the suggestion was made to return to Protocol IV and add the same scope of application clause that was finally agreed on for the amended Protocol II. All States were in favour, with the sole exception of one State, which declared that it opposed this alteration purely because of its principled opposition to extending IHL instruments to non-international armed conflict. At the same time, however, that State declared that it was opposed to the production and use of blinding laser weapons and that it had no intention of using these weapons in any type of armed conflict.
ICRC archive document.
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1996)
The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1996 welcomed the adoption of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons “as an important step in the development of international humanitarian law” and emphasized “the prohibition on the use or transfer of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness”. The Conference further welcomed “the general agreement achieved at the Review Conference that the scope of application of this Protocol should apply not only to international armed conflicts”.
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § H(c), (d) and (f).
The Final Declaration of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session) in 1996 contained the following statement in relation to blinding laser weapons:
Welcoming the adoption of Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons as a codification and progressive development of the rules of international law,
Noting that a number of issues could be considered in the future, for example at a review conference, taking into account scientific and technological developments, including the questions of proliferation on the production, stockpiling and transfer of blinding laser weapons and the question of compliance with regard to such weapons, as well as other pertinent issues, such as the definition of “permanent blindness”, including the concept of field of vision.
The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare:
Their satisfaction at the adoption of the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to the Convention,
Their conviction of the importance of the earliest possible entry into force of Protocol IV,
Their desire that all States, pending the entry into force, respect and ensure respect of the substantive provisions of Protocol IV to the fullest extent possible,
Their recognition of the need for achieving the total prohibition of blinding laser weapons, the use and transfer of which are prohibited in Protocol IV,
Their wish to keep the issue of the blinding effects related to the use of laser systems under consideration.
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), UN Doc. CCW/ CONF.I/16, Final Declaration, 22 April to 3 May 1996, §§ 14–20.
In the Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, States Parties expressed their determination “to encourage all States to become Parties to the Protocol [on blinding laser weapons] as soon as possible”. States Parties also reaffirmed “the recognition by the First Review Conference of the need for the total prohibition of blinding laser weapons, the use and transfer of which are prohibited in Protocol IV”.
Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.II/2, Final Declaration, 25 January 2002, p. 11.
Research, analysis and discussion on blinding laser weapons that helped lead to the adoption of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons took place largely in the context of a series of expert meetings on this subject convened by the ICRC.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), Blinding Weapons: Reports of the meetings of experts convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross on Battlefield Laser Weapons 1989–1991, ICRC, Geneva, 1993, 371 pp.
At the Group of Governmental Experts to prepare the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1994, the ICRC made a proposal to the effect that:
1. Blinding as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. Laser weapons may not be used against the eyesight of persons.
ICRC, Working paper submitted to the Group of Government Experts to prepare the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/GE/CRP.28, 12 August 1994.
In 1994, in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC addressed the issue of blinding laser weapons in the following terms:
The ICRC is very pleased that a large number of States have either formally or informally indicated their support for a Protocol on the subject of blinding weapons … This preventive step will save the world from the horrifying prospect of large numbers of persons being suddenly blinded for life by certain laser weapons that could soon be both inexpensive and easily available.
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.10, 24 October 1994, p. 11.
In 1996, at the close of the session of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons that adopted Protocol IV, the head of the ICRC delegation made the following formal statement:
The adoption of the Protocol on blinding laser weapons represents a victory for civilization over barbarity. Above and beyond the text of the Protocol, what we will remember about the decision taken today, and what the people of the world will understand, is that States do not accept the idea that men might deliberately blind other men, in any circumstances whatsoever.
Louise Doswald-Beck, “New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”, IRRC, No. 312, 1996, p. 297.
In 1995, in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC made the following statement:
The adoption, on 13 October 1995, of Protocol IV, on blinding laser weapons, is a major achievement. To our knowledge, this is the first time since 1868 that a weapon has been prohibited before it could be used on the battlefield. Thus, humanity has been spared the horror that such blinding weapons would have created. Quite apart from the actual wording of the instrument, the effect of its adoption is a strong message that States will not tolerate the deliberate blinding of people in any circumstances. Thus, it is a triumph of civilization over barbarity. It is also a major achievement that this Protocol includes a prohibition on the transfer of blinding laser weapons. The ICRC sincerely hopes that States will adhere to it as quickly as possible and will take all appropriate measures to ensure respect for its provisions.
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.11, 26 October 1995, pp. 25–26.
Jane’s Defence Weekly alleged that the United Kingdom had deployed prototypes of blinding laser weapons in the war in the South Atlantic.
Fermin Gallego and Mark Daly, “Laser Weapons in Royal Navy Service”, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 13 January 1990, pp. 48–49. See also Simon O’Dwyer-Russell, “Navy’s top secret laser was tried out in Falklands”, Sunday Telegraph, 7 January 1990.
According to the Human Rights Watch Arms Project, “two Stingray prototypes were deployed [by the United States], but not used, in the Gulf War”.
Human Rights Watch Arms Project, US Blinding Laser Weapons, Washington D.C., May 1995, p. 1.
Prior to the adoption of Protocol IV, there were a number of programmes developing blinding laser weapons. The extent of these is not known, not all of them having been confirmed. Some research on the extent of such developments was undertaken by the Human Rights Watch Arms Project, which published a report in 1995 in which it indicated that such weapons were being researched or developed in China, France, Germany, Israel, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and the United States.
Human Rights Watch Arms Project, Blinding Laser Weapons: The Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhumane Weapon, Washington, D.C., September 1995; Nick Cook, “Chinese laser ‘blinder’ weapon for export”, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 27 May 1995.
There were reports that a Chinese company NORINCO had developed a portable blinding laser weapon that was displayed in March 1995 at defence exhibitions in Manila and Abu Dhabi. According to Jane’s Intelligence Review, the Chinese ZM-87 was the first openly offensive laser to be marketed.
Sebastian Gorka and Richard Sullivan, “Assuming the offensive: The laser threat on the 21st century battlefield”, Jane’s Intelligence Review, February 1998, pp. 45–46; see also Jane’s Defence Weekly, 27 May 1995, p. 3 and International Defense Review, May 1995, pp. 19–21.
In October 1995, China ratified the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
In a public statement in April 1995, the World Medical Association stated: “The development of antipersonnel lasers as blinding weapons represent[s] one of the biggest public health issues facing the world today. The World Medical Association fully supports the ICRC in its efforts to combat this growing menace.”
World Medical Association, Public statement, 24 April 1995.
In two press releases in 1995, Human Rights Watch condemned the use of blinding laser weapons. In the first, it stated: “Blinding laser weapons are cruel and inhumane weapons that would cause unnecessary suffering to countless soldiers and possibly civilians.”
Human Rights Watch Arms Project, Press Release, 24 September 1995.
In the second, it emphasized its belief that “blinding laser weapons are an excessively cruel weapon, and that the use of blinding laser weapons is repugnant to the public conscience and should therefore be banned”.
Human Rights Watch Arms Project, Press Release, 21 May 1995.
These statements were based on a Human Rights Watch report, “Blinding Laser Weapons, the Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhuman Weapon”, in which it stated:
Given the long-term effects on a country of permanently blinding large numbers of soldiers, the intentional blinding by lasers or any other weapon cannot justify whatever minimal military utility might be gained in the short run. Tactical lasers, including weapons that are often referred to as anti-material or anti-sensor such as LCMS [Laser Countermeasure System], have the capacity for directly causing blindness and in some cases are intended to cause blindness. This characteristic renders them essentially antipersonnel and requires that they be banned.
Human Rights Watch Arms Project, Blinding Laser Weapons: the Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhumane Weapon, Vol. 7, No. 1, Washington, D.C., September 1995.
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, the World Blind Union supported a ban on blinding laser weapons.
World Blind Union, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), Vienna, 28 September 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR.6, 5 October 1995, p. 12, § 56; see also Louise Doswald-Beck, “New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”, IRRC, No. 312, 1996, p. 276.
World Veterans Association
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, the World Veterans Association supported a ban on blinding laser weapons.
World Veterans Federation, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), Vienna, 28 September 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR.6, 5 October 1995, p. 17, § 82; see also Louise Doswald-Beck, “New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”, IRRC, No. 312, 1996, p. 276.
Cristoffel-Blindenmission
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, the Cristoffel-Blindenmission of Germany stated that it considered laser weapons to be an “inhumane weapon system”. It therefore made an urgent appeal
to ban any use of laser beams against other people within international conflicts and civil wars; to forbid the development, production, storage, trading and use of such weapons; and to provide for implementation and verification of the Protocol, including sanctions if necessary.
Cristoffel-Blindenmission, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), Vienna, 28 September 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR.6, 5 October 1995, p. 11, § 50.
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the Blinded Veterans Association of the United States stated:
Laser weapons with the potential to blind are cruel and inhumane weapons, and we as a society must not accept blinding as a method of warfare … The Blinded Veterans Association actively supports efforts to seek an international prohibition on the use of lasers for the purpose of blinding as a method of warfare.
Blinded Veterans Association, National Convention, Resolution 26-95, 26 August 1995.
Articles 2 and 3 of the 1995 Protocol IV to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provide:
Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, 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, Vienna, 13 October 1995, Articles 2 and 3.
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems is not covered by this prohibition. Thus, the legitimate use of a laser targeting system in a tank is lawful, even if one of its collateral effects can be that it leads to blindness. However, this laser targeting system should not be deliberately used to blind enemy combatants.
In the employment of arms applying laser technology for purposes other than causing blindness (i.e. for ranging purposes), it is incumbent on the states to take all precautionary measures to prevent unintentional blinding.
It is prohibited to use laser weapons specially designed to cause permanent blindness. This means that lasers intended to blind personnel temporarily, known as dazzle lasers, are permitted. Guidance mechanisms such as target designation or ranging lasers are not prohibited, nor are directed-energy lasers, say, to disable.
46. Using laser weapons that may cause permanent blindness.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.46.
The Final Declaration of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1996 stated:
Welcoming the adoption of Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons as a codification and progressive development of the rules of international law …
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), Final Declaration, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/16, 22 April–3 May 1996, §§ 14 and 17–19.
In 1995, in its report on blinding laser weapons, Human Rights Watch stated:
Laser target designators and range finders are of great military utility and may reduce the number of casualties or ensure more precise attacks on military targets. Still, experts believe that because they can cause significant injury and permanent blindness, combatants remain under a legal obligation to weigh the human consequences of even these instruments. Perhaps the most important consideration is to ensure that laser range finders and target designators are not abused and used intentionally against the eyesight of individuals and outside their missions. Government officials have expressed the fear that personnel using such lasers might be charged with war crimes if an individual is blinded. However, soldiers and their commanders always are required to know the legitimate and illegitimate, unacceptable uses of weapons.
Human Rights Watch, Blinding Laser Weapons: the Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhumane Weapon , September 1995, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 37.