Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report Thursday calling on the international community to reduce the harmful impacts of incendiary weapons in armed conflicts.
The report details the devastating impact of incendiary weapons employed in four armed conflicts over the past year. In particular, the organization highlights the severe humanitarian consequences associated with these weapons, urging greater international action.
Incendiary weapons are designed to ignite objects and inflict burn or respiratory injuries on individuals through chemical compounds that produce intense flames and heat. These weapons notably include agents like napalm and white phosphorus. HRW states that “[t]hose who survive the immediate harm [of incendiary weapons] face a lifetime of physical and psychological scars.” Echoing the organization’s concerns, the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs has also raised questions about the legality of these weapons under international humanitarian law, especially concerning civilian protection.
The use of incendiary weapons has recently been documented in Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria, causing significant harm to civilian health, the environment, and local economies. In Lebanon, these weapons have damaged crops and displaced farmers, leading to widespread socioeconomic challenges and displacement. In Ukraine, a surge in incendiary attacks has raised concerns about environmental damage, especially as forests have been targeted. In Syria, the government used incendiary weapons against opposition-held areas in the northwest, exacerbating the civil war’s humanitarian toll.
The UN first addressed incendiary weapons through General Assembly Resolution 2923, specifically targeting napalm. Currently, UN regulations are encapsulated within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), particularly through Protocol III, which governs the use of incendiary weapons and provides a platform for parties to discuss related issues. However, Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian organizations argue that two significant gaps within the protocol’s legal framework undermine its effectiveness in protecting civilians.
First, Protocol III does not cover multi-purpose munitions, such as white phosphorus, due to its classification under Article 1 as a munition for uses like smoke screening or signaling. White phosphorus can inflict considerable harm on individuals, property, and the environment when employed in populated areas. Second, while Article 2 of Protocol III explicitly prohibits air-dropped incendiary weapons in populated areas, it imposes only minimal restrictions on the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in similar contexts. HRW argues that this distinction is “arbitrary” and disregards the fact that incendiary weapons cause equivalent harm, irrespective of their delivery method.
The harmful impact of these weapons has been increasingly recognized, prompting the international community to take action. During the 2023 CCW Meeting of High Contracting Parties, discussions on Protocol III took place, and specific proposals were presented to enhance humanitarian considerations. Nonetheless, international efforts are significantly hindered by the consensus-based nature of the international legal system, which enables state parties like Russia to block proposals aimed at tightening the regulation of the Protocol. Correspondingly, calls to universalize it and address the use of these weapons outside the CCW framework have intensified.
