Search

Зажигательное оружие является средством ведения войны, причиняющим излишние страдания. Как таковое зажигательное оружие подпадает под регулирование международного права вооруженных конфликтов, но воспрещено оно пока в полной мере нормами обычного права, действующими в ходе войны. Но почему оно до сих пор не запрещено международным договорным правом? По какой причине государства всего лишь определили те случаи, когда возможно его применение, тем самым, наоборот, узаконив применение зажигательного оружия? В данной статье автор предпринял попытку найти пути нивелирования указанных противоречий. По мнению автора, в известной степени это можно осуществить путем формулирования принципов ограничения применения или запрещения зажигательного оружия., Incendiary weapons are a means of warfare, causing unnecessary suffering. As such, incendiary weapons are subject to the regulation of international law of armed conflict, but are not yet fully prohibited by customary law in force during war. But why is it still not prohibited by international treaty law? For what reason have states merely identified cases where it is possible to use it, thereby legitimizing the use of incendiary weapons on the contrary? To find ways to resolve the contradictions in this article, we tried to reflect on the solution of these issues, and the settlement of related contradictions. It appears that to a certain extent it is possible to implement the method of formulation of principles of restriction of use or prohibition of incendiary weapons.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication Broń zapalająca to jeden z najbardziej efektywnych środków prowadzenia działań zbrojnych, o historii sięgającej czasów starożytnych. Skuteczność tej broni i konsekwencje zdrowotne jej stosowania rodzą obawy z punktu widzenia humanitarnego. Dewastujące efekty tzw. burz ogniowych w czasie II wojny światowej, doświadczenia wojny powietrznej nad Wietnamem w latach 60. i 70. XX w. tworzą pytania o rolę międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego w tej mierze. Normy prawa konfliktów zbrojnych muszą uwzględniać dwie przeciwstawne perspektywy: humanitarną oraz wojskową. Od dekad brak woli państw uniemożliwia kompleksowe uregulowanie materii związanej z użyciem broni zapalającej i znalezienie wyraźnych odpowiedzi na najbardziej kontrowersyjne zagadnienia – chociażby dotyczące ostatnich wydarzeń w Aleppo. Współczesna technika wojskowa, tworząca nowe systemy uzbrojenia, utrudnia objęcie tego typu broni jednoznaczną definicją. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie i przeanalizowanie relewantnych regulacji międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego odnoszącego się do broni zapalającej. The incendiary weapons are one of the most effective tools of the modern combat. Their extensive use is dated at least two thousand years ago when the ‚Greek fire’ was concerning a decisive weapon of antiquity. From the humanitarian viewpoint, the deployment of the flammable armament created a grave medical and legal concern. The devastating power of the incendiary aerial bombs during the World War Two appealed for the urged response. However, during the decades, the states were highly reluctant to welcome new restriction, limiting their choice of combat. In this difficult political and technical landscape, the international humanitarian law (IHL) is required to constantly adopt both the military and humanitarian perspective. Contemporary challenges arise both from unsettled state practice on the battlefield and the constant progress in weapons development that simply outruns the existing framework of the international humanitarian law. The aim of this article is to examine relevant laws and customs of war addressing the issue of incendiary weapons.

У статті розглянуто історію розвитку та досвіду застосування запалювальної зброї, а саме термобаричних боєприпасів. Розкрито початкові напрями їх застосування, механізм та специфіку їхньої дії, фактори, що безпосередньо впливають на ефективність використання, а також переваги та недоліки застосування. Наведено перелік боєприпасів об’ємно-детонуючої дії ІІІ покоління, що на даний час є в арсеналі російської армії., В статье рассмотрено историю развития и опыта применения зажигательного оружия, а именно термобарических боеприпасов. Раскрыты первоначальные идеи их применения, механизм и специфику действия, факторы, которые непосредственно влияют на эффективность их применения, а также преимущества и недостатки. Приведен перечень боеприпасов объемно-детонирующего действия, которые на сегодняшний день есть в арсенале российской армии., The article discusses the history of development and the experience of the use of incendiary weapons, namely the thermobaric ammunition. Reveals the initial ideas of their application, and the specificity of their mechanism of action, the factors that directly affect the effectiveness of their application, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the use. The list of volume-detonating action, which today is in the arsenal of the Russian army.It is noted that the leading military experts attach great importance to the continuous development and improvement of this type of munitions because of their effectiveness. Research military institutions today are constantly doing research on improving data and testing means of armed struggle. According to the armed forces face urgent issues of comprehensive protection from all types of weapons, including such powerful as lit-on weapons.

Incendiary weapons are means of warfare where flame and heat produced by a chemical reaction of some substances are used for causing material damage and burn injuries to the enemy. Modern incendiary weapons are based on one of the three chemicals: napalm, termite or white phosphorus. Although state parties to the Protocol III have reached a consensus on the definition of incendiary weapons, there is still disagreement on its scope. The legal status of incendiary weapons is different in customary and treaty law. Customary rules are obligatory for all countries while treaty provisions are binding only for those states which ratified these treaties. There are two customary principles of international humanitarian law which are most relevant for the use of incendiary weapons: the distinction between combatants (and military objectives) and civilians (and civilian objects), and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. The first principle prohibits only some ways of using these weapons but not incendiary weapon per se. The second principle does not allow use of incendiary weapons against military personnel, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a combatant hors de combat. There are two international treaties which contain special provisions on incendiary weapons: the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 and Protocol III annexed to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, adopted in 1980. The St. Petersburg Declaration bans projectiles weighing below 400 grammes which are charged with fulminating or inflammable substances, but nowadays this prohibition does not have a significant practical impact. Protocol III mainly protects civilians from the effects of incendiary weapons. Article 2(1) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians and civilian objects. Article 2(2) bans attacks by air-delivered incendiary weapons against military objectives located within a concentration of civilians, without allowing for any exceptions. Article 2(3) restricts the use of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons during attacks on military objectives located in populated areas. Yet, as opposed to the absolute prohibitions contained in Article 2(2), incendiary weapons may be used during land or sea attacks if military objectives are clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and if all feasible precautions have been taken to protect the civilians. Article 2 (4) contains a provision of an environmental rather than humanitarian nature. It envisages that forests and other kinds of plant cover may not be an object of attack by incendiary weapons but it also includes a number of exceptions.