Download internation law on kslu and more Summaries International Law in PDF only on Docsity!
White Is The New Red: Phosphorus in War
Keywords: White Phosphorus, International Conventions on weapons, Incendiary weapons, Liability, Armed Conflicts
INTRODUCTION
In ancient Greek, phosphorus (phosphoros) means light bringer or an element that brings light. Perhaps, the irony lies in the usage of phosphorus to bring dark times in war zone countries. The use of white phosphorous which started as a household element to be used in matchsticks has been embraced in the military for its munitions by the countries who are politically and economically dominant in history. The foggy white layer formed reacts with moisture in the air or in people’s lungs to create phosphoric acid resulting in burns or electrolyte imbalances, primarily kidney damage, hypocalcemia and even death in extreme cases.
The question at hand is whether the use of white phosphorus is protected under the glamours of international law or if it has been wrongfully utilized by countries on a mere technicality glitch under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons due to its non-inclusion of white phosphorus under the use of incendiary weapons on civilian or residential areas or the Convention of Chemical Weapons through its toxicity standards.
HISTORY
After the US restricted the use of white phosphorus following the Vietnam War in 1983, it made a comeback in the 2004 attack on Fallujah, Iraq led by the US military. Later, in the year 2009, Israel initially denied using white phosphorus while attacking Gaza, however the same was untrue when there was visual proof of the substance being used. Israel, in 2013 claimed that it would not use white phosphorus in densely populated places during a court ruling which again turned out to be dubious in the recent attacks on Gaza which has an estimated population of over 2.3 million people. This airburst of white phosphorus munitions is said to have caused “excruciating burns and lifelong suffering” both physically and mentally.
Surprisingly, the US continues to use white phosphorus in an Alaska estuary, resulting in the deaths of various birds and animals due to the exposure even after it being a signatory to the conventions. It was
also discovered that the effect of the chemical after 50 years is still rampant in the area. There have even been claims about the Russians using white phosphorus on civilians during the Ukraine war.
EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
White phosphorus when it is in contact with oxygen can burn producing intense heat of 815C/1500F. It can burn human beings through their flesh and bones and can enter into the human bloodstream. It is also known to have caused severe bodily injuries along with respiratory and eyesight damage along with photophobia. The use of white phosphorus in war had an increased effect on the human body than in regular use of white phosphorous such as fireworks. Furthermore, the injuries sustained during war or combat contained more TBSA (total body surface area) of burn.
An effective way of removing white phosphorus from a human body is the usage of copper sulphate on burnt areas. However, while testing on animals, copper sulphate has proved to be lethal and on human beings it has shown adverse effects and in some cases even death. The treatment for the brunt victims has proved to be even trickier due to the lack of resources in the war-inflicted areas. This is also because there is more importance given to the evacuation of the injured rather than burnt victims during a war. It is also to be noted that the injuries are not just caused to the civilians but also to the medical personnel when dealing with white phosphorus. In a treatment of removing particles of white phosphorus, the nurse sustained burn injuries on her neck while assisting the doctor.
INADEQUACY IN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
While discussing the regulation for white phosphorus used as weaponry, the fog remains on whether it should be banned from complete usage. White phosphorus munitions include artilleries, smoke-creating agents, and bombs and are also used for illuminating purposes. The question of liability depends on the purpose of usage and the intent of manufacturing. According to the ISS ESG Controversial Weapons Research a report to asses companies who are involved in the manufacturing process of incendiary weapons under the Protocol III of the convention, within which it also shows the companies which invest in or manufacture weapons with the use of phosphorus are at least 7.3% companies among those taken into account. This expansion of liability however is usually criticised because, in the end, the intent and the use might be on the two opposite sides.
The Convention on Chemical Weapons does not consider white phosphorus as a chemical weapon as it does not fulfil the ‘toxic’ standard that has been set and white phosphorus is not a weapon on its
achieve military advantage. However, the interpretation of this principle is extensive, as different countries ascribe diverse meanings to the concept of military advantage, rendering it inherently subjective. Moreover, the Convention on Environmental Modification proscribes attacks on crucial institutions, including schools, religious sites, and hospitals. Furthermore, the additional protocol of the Geneva Convention, Article 55 states that the countries should take care to protect the natural environment against long-term, severe and widespread damage and such acts are prohibited.
The laws are for the people that follow them, most countries in war zone are not member states for the conventions mentioned. Israel has not ratified Protocol III of the convention on certain conventional weapons prohibiting incendiary weapons. The poetic justice of the controversy is that Palestine however has ratified the Protocol III of the convention. Irrespective of whether ratified or not, most states escape liability using the loopholes causing unjustified civilian casualties. Committing war crimes and escaping scot-free is against all of humanity.
CONCLUSION
The metaphysics of war has never given much importance to the lesser experiences of wartime and the causality of white phosphorus is one such example, this international human rights law was not of much help. International laws should not be in a position where it is a bystander when injustices continue to grow. The hellfire caused by white phosphorus should be considered a powerful weapon of destruction, and its usage, manufacturing and stockpiling should be completely prohibited rather than just naming it controversial. It is well known that the non-existence of a law to govern does not mean it is barred by law, and with the context of white phosphorus, it was in use before, it is in use today and it will be in use tomorrow too if the laws do not strictly stop it.
This continued lack of recognition and ignorance of the abhorring effects of white phosphorus is simply a never-ending cycle of countries singing “We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world’s been turning”.
