I flesh this out a bit more here, p 237 onwards: academic.oup.com/jcsl/article...
Art 35(3) and Art 56 are usually mentioned. I think Art 57(2)(a)(ii) is on that list, because it requires weapons to be chosen that have a less harmful effect if doing so is feasible. Failure to do so amounts to an attack employing means that have effects which are not limited as required by
great post
harm) and therefore, in my view, the customary equivalent of Art 51(4)(c) API (use of means the effects of which cannot be limited as required by API/custom). Still an indiscriminate attack, but for a different reason.
is the cluster warhead. Cluster munitions are area weapons, designed to achieve lethal effects over a wider area. While the delivery may be precise, the lethal radius is too big. The rule implicated is the customary equivalent of Art 57(2)(a)(ii) API (choice of means to minimize incidental harm
I should have formulated my words more carefully: I don’t have any special insight into the facts, so I’m just relying on what is in the public domain. It may well be wrong and incomplete. On the law, Art 51(4)(c) doesn’t list what the limits “required by this Protocol” are. Proportionality,
type, somewhere between tens to low hundreds of meters. Not high precision, but accurate enough, depending on type, for hitting large objects with a reasonable likelihood of success. This makes them capable of being directed against military objectives, at least sufficiently large ones. The issue
API and which are of an insufficiently discriminate nature, striking civilians and military objectives without distinction.
Where? I’m reading the wrong blogs it seems (or perhaps the right ones?).
Thanks Kevin, have seen Ken’s post, but not had a chance to read yet.
