Inhumane Weapons in International Humanitarian Law

What is it about?

International Humanitarian Law prohibits to use inhumane weapons in armed conflict. But states have to agree which weapons count as inhumane, and to adopt specific rules. Whether the adoption of such international norms succeeds or fails depends on the weapon's salience. Salience is the amount of attention that a weapon receives from the public and in negotiations. During the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the media reported frequently about the use of napalm, but they almost never reported about the use of cluster munitions. In the 1970s, governments agreed to adopt new rules on the use of weapons in armed conflicts. Some governments were against a prohibition of napalm. But they were under a particular public pressure to prohibit napalm due to previous media reports. Finally, the states agreed to an international treaty, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The CCW restricted the use napalm and some other weapons, but included no rules on cluster munitions.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Prohibitions to use certain weapons in conflict are very effective - states usually refrain from using prohibited weapons, and they stop the production of and trade in such weapons. We may say that weapons prohibitions save lives. Accordingly, if there is no prohibition, the weapons continue to pose a threat to people. If we understand under which conditions weapons prohibitions are likely to succeed, advocacy organizations can strategically create those conditions. The article demonstrates that issue salience is an essential condition as it translates into public pressure on the states, and it demonstrates that advocacy decisions themselves depend on issue salience.

Perspectives