Talk:Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868

message: "The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."
It would seem that incendiaries and such are permited if over 400g.
comments?
--Piaggio108 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Permited if over 400g

message: The sentence in the current article: "The United States took no part in the convention and has never acceded to it." may be correct but the casual reader might make the assumption that the USA is not bound by this declaration. But because the deceleration has been around for so long and accepted by so many countries AFAICT it is now part of customary law. This principle of international law was elicidated in the Nuremberg Trials Judgement: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity "the Convention Hague 1907 expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter." The implication under international law is that if enough countries have signed up to a treaty, and that treaty has been in effect for a reasonable period of time, then it can be interpreted as binding on all nations not just those who signed the original treaty. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be rather difficult to argue in the case of a treaty which specifically says it only applies to wars between the nations that have actually signed it. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Customary law of war

message: I have amended the list of participants because it does not seem to agree with the sources (even in number which all sources agree is 16).  The changes in detail are;
*United Kingdom changed to Great Britain.  The sources refer to Great Britain and this was the common name of the country in 19th century (though possibly not its official name).  General useage of United Kingdom is only recent. However, I have left the link pointing to United Kingdom with a pipe as Great Britain is a geographic article.  I also note that the original editor who put in the list used Great Britain also implying that his/her source used that term.
*Sweden and Norway changed to one entry.  Norway was in personal union with the king of Sweden at the time and they are jointly represented.  The link points to Sweden with a pipe, however, I have just noticed that Sweden and Norway without a pipe redirects to Union between Sweden and Norway so I might change to that after I have finished typing here.
*Persia - deleted.  Could not find a source that said that they were there, let alone signed.  Certainly the ref I have now put in does not cite Persia.  I find it hard to believe, and besides, deleting Persia now gets the required 16 signatories.
SpinningSpark 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Signatories 

message: I placed that line to clarify a remark. An early contributor noticed the US's absence among the cosignatories and made it seem as if the US had been invited to be party to the negotiations and had refused.
Hotspur23 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US accession to the Declaration 

message: Why are tracer rounds not prohibited by this? A tracer round is probably not 400 grams, and it is certainly designed to burn. If inflammable bullets are prohibited by this, shouldn't tracers be made illegal? --71.229.74.0 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracers 

message: Tracer Rounds are pyrotechnic, and can potentially set a fire. They have a small cavity in their tail containing a flammable powder that creates a flare of light behind them to indicate the direction of a stream of bullets. They aren't incendiary bullets, which are pyrophoric have a large cavity in their nose containing a flammable compound and are designed to set fires. 
To be effective, incendiary shells have to be of a large enough size to contain enough material to ensure a fire and a big enough bore to ensure the fuse will go off. Technology hasn't yet found a way to concentrate incendiary chemicals or miniaturize fuses so a small-arm could use them effectively.
Personnel hit by a tracer bullet would get a painful tissue burn, like a hit from a bottle rocket or sparkler. Personnel hit by an incendiary bullet would catch fire as long as oxygen was available and it could potentially burn down to the bone. They would have to have the fragments removed by surgery. Hotspur23 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracer Rounds 

message: Many former service members have a impression that "use of 50 caliber  machine gun on personnel in open" is illegal under the Geneva Convention. In this Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 the basis for this impression? That only implies if truly in the open. IF targeted personnel are in a vehicle allowed, you primary aim is at the vehicle and not necessarily the personnel. No idea if body armor or a flack jacket give exception. Wfoj2 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's just an urban myth. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: see: M40_recoilless_rifle#Spotting_Rifle
89.15.122.240 (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Use of 50 caliber Machine Gun on Personnel in Open"