Publicly available reports have raised concerns regarding the alleged use of white phosphorus by the Israeli army in densely populated civilian residential areas situated in the northern Gaza Strip.
White phosphorus is a chemical substance with characteristics often likened to wax, typically appearing yellowish or colourless, and some have described its odour as resembling garlic. It possesses the remarkable property of igniting instantly upon contact with oxygen, and it finds a place in military arsenals worldwide, including that of the United States, primarily for its role in producing rapid and intense burns.
Often used to illuminate targets as part of tracer munitions at night, white phosphorus can also be employed to create dense smokescreens during daylight due to its ability to generate copious amounts of smoke when burned. This substance has the alarming capacity to initiate fires that burn fiercely and spread quickly on the ground.
Once ignited, white phosphorus proves extremely resistant to extinguishing efforts, and it adheres tenaciously to various surfaces, including skin and clothing. These characteristics render it particularly hazardous to civilian populations, as it can cause deep burns, penetrating even through bone, and has been known to reignite after initial treatment.
International Regulations and White Phosphorus
The use of white phosphorus in armed conflicts has raised serious ethical and legal concerns on the international stage. While white phosphorus itself is not classified as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, its incendiary nature has led to attempts to regulate its use more effectively. International law is intended to protect civilians and prevent indiscriminate harm during conflicts.
The use of white phosphorus in warfare is subject to regulations outlined in Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). This protocol, signed in Geneva in 1980 and enforced since 1983, places restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons, including those containing white phosphorus. The protocol, which has 115 state parties, including countries such as France, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, is aimed at minimizing the suffering caused by such weapons.
Protections Afforded by Protocol III
CCW Protocol III includes provisions designed to protect civilians and minimize harm during armed conflicts. Specifically, the protocol prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians or civilian objects under all circumstances. It also prohibits targeting military objectives within concentrations of civilians with incendiary weapons.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has been in effect since 2002, provides a contemporary definition of war crimes. It prohibits actions such as the “destruction of property not justified by military necessity” and “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects.” Thus, violations of CCW Protocol III may constitute war crimes if proven.
Limitations and Criticisms
While CCW Protocol III represents a step towards regulating incendiary weapons, it has faced criticism for certain limitations. One criticism is that the protocol’s definition of incendiary weapons excludes so-called “general-purpose” ammunition, including ammunition containing white phosphorus. These munitions, although primarily designed for other purposes such as signalling, have the capacity to start fires and cause burns.
Based on reports in the public domain, while air-to-surface incendiary weapons are forbidden for use against concentrations of civilians, surface-to-surface incendiary weapons are allowed in populated areas if the military objective is “clearly separated from the concentration of civilians,” and if all feasible precautions are taken. Critics argue that this provision allows for loopholes that can still lead to civilian harm.
The Call for a Total Ban
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been among the organizations advocating for stronger measures to protect civilians from incendiary weapons, including those containing white phosphorus. They have highlighted the humanitarian benefits that would come from a complete ban on incendiary weapons. Such a ban would eliminate the potential for these weapons to cause indiscriminate harm and severe suffering, particularly among civilian populations.
Instances of White Phosphorus Use
Incendiary bombs, including those containing white phosphorus, have been used in various recent armed conflicts. Syria, a country that has not signed Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol III, witnessed numerous such attacks, including the use of white phosphorus bombs, by the Syrian-Russian military alliance in the first seven months of 2018, according to Human Rights Watch. Between November 2012 and November 2017, the NGO documented over ninety incendiary weapon attacks in Syria.
Israel, another country not party to the treaty, faced accusations of “war crimes” by Amnesty International following the use of white phosphorus bombs in Gaza during the winter of 2008-2009. The Israeli army had admitted to using this type of weapon during the second Lebanon war in the summer of 2006. Similar bombs were also deployed by the United States in Iraq during the battle of Fallujah in November 2004 against rebel forces that had seized control of the city.
In 2017, the US-led coalition used white phosphorus munitions against the Islamic State organization in Iraq and Syria. Additionally, in 2016, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen used white phosphorus ammunition. More recently, in late 2020, Azerbaijani forces utilized white phosphorus ammunition against Armenian military personnel on the Nagorno-Karabakh front.
The Complexity of Addressing White Phosphorus Use
Addressing the use of white phosphorus in armed conflicts presents a complex challenge. While international regulations like CCW Protocol III aim to curb its use, there are gaps and limitations that critics argue need to be addressed. The ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding white phosphorus use underscore the need for ongoing discussions and international cooperation to better protect civilian populations and minimize suffering during conflicts.
The Humanitarian Imperative
At the heart of the debate over white phosphorus and incendiary weapons is a humanitarian imperative. The goal is to ensure that the rules and regulations governing armed conflicts are robust enough to protect civilians from the devastating effects of these weapons. The call for a total ban on incendiary weapons reflects the global commitment to minimizing harm and suffering in times of war. As discussions continue, it remains essential to strike a balance between military necessity and the protection of human life and civilian infrastructure.