The Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas; the International Humanitarian Law Perspective

THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS; THE

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW PERSPECTIVE.

MWENDA MARTIN*

Abstract

The use of explosive weapons against civilians is not a new phenomenon and the prominence of

civilian casualties in contemporary conflicts is a reflection of the changing nature of conflict.

New trends indicate an increased use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and new

technologies, the number of hostilities has gone up in urban or densely populated areas, and the

line between civilians and combatants has become blurred. This essay looks at the use of these

explosive weapons in populated areas, the International Humanitarian Law regime governing

their use and whether it is adequate to regulate their use and if not what policy considerations

should be effected to enhance protection of civilians and civilian property that might be affected

by such weapons.

Key words

Contemporary conflicts, densely populated areas, explosive weapons, International Humanitarian

Law, civilians, civilian property, protection, existing legal norms.

1.0 Introduction

Violence, including armed violence, is a „leading worldwide public health problem‟.1 Among the

means of armed violence, use of explosive weapons can be „an important cause of death and

* LLB Moi University. The author can be contacted at [email protected]

1 Prevention of Violence: A Public Health Priority, Resolution WHA49.25 adopted by the Forty-ninth

injury‟,2 every year tens of thousands of civilians are killed and injured by these explosive

weapons such as mortars, rockets, artillery shells, air-dropped and improvised explosive devices

(IEDs) used by national armed forces and non-State armed groups. Data collected in recent years

by civil society and the United Nations actors paints a stark picture of the humanitarian impact of

the use of explosive weapons in populated areas as civilians are killed, injured and displaced;

housing, schools, healthcare and other vital infrastructure are damaged or destroyed; explosive

remnants of war pose a continuing threat until their removal; and the challenges and costs of

post-conflict reconstruction and development increase enormously.3

In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the humanitarian problems caused by the

use of explosive weapons in populated areas, since 2009, the United Nations Secretary-General

has consistently highlighted the use of explosive weapons in populated areas as a major

challenge to the protection of civilians.4 Other senior officials of the United Nations like the

Emergency Relief Coordinator have acknowledged the serious humanitarian concern posed by

the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, an increasing number of Member States as well

as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)5 have also shared the same sentiments.

World Health Assembly, Geneva, 20–25 May 1996. 2 Cæcilie Buhmann, „The direct and indirect costs of explosive violence‟, (2009) British Medical Journal, Vol.

339,p. 761. 3 This destruction of infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, water pipes and electrical grids has the effect of

prolonging the impact of armed conflict. 4 Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN document

S/2009/277, 29 May 2009, para. 36; United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Report of the Secretary-

General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict,” UN Security Council, S/2012/376, 22 May 2012,<

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_4150.pdf > accessed 9 April 2015 5 See recent statements by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross: “the growing

number of military operations conducted in densely populated urban areas, often using heavy or highly explosive

weapons” have “devastating humanitarian consequences for civilian populations”; “Sixty Years of the Geneva

Conventions: Learning from the Past to Better Face the Future”, address by Jakob Kellenberger, Geneva, 12

August 2009. In the same vein, see “Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions and the Decades Ahead”, statement by

Jakob Kellenberger, Geneva, 9 November 2009.

For example during 2013, some 37,809 people were reported killed and injured by explosive

weapons, of which 82 per cent were civilians and when explosive weapons were used in

populated areas, 93 per cent of casualties were reportedly civilians.6 In 2014 alone, Human

Rights Watch (HRW) documented the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, in violation

of international humanitarian law (the laws of war), in at least 12 countries: Syria, Iraq,

Israel/Gaza, Ukraine, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Thailand and

Colombia. Such unlawful attacks were typically indiscriminate (they did not distinguish between

the military target and civilians) and/or disproportionate (the anticipated civilian loss exceeded

the expected military gain).7

However it should be noted that not all uses of explosive weapons in populated areas violate

international humanitarian law.8 What then are explosive weapons? These are bombs, cluster

munitions, grenades, IEDs, mines, missiles, mortars and rockets. Although these weapons differ

in composition, design, and the way they are used, they always share certain fundamental

characteristics; for instance they use force to affect an area around the point of detonation

through the effects of blast and fragmentation9, and though they differ in size, in how they are

delivered to a target and in many other details, all of these weapons use explosives as the primary

means of causing damage.10

6 Action on Armed Violence, An Explosive Situation: Monitoring Explosive Violence in 2013 (April 2014 )

7 Steve Goose and Ole Solvang, „Deadly Cargo: explosive weapons in populated areas‟,

<www.opendemocracy.net/open-security/steve-goose-ole-solvang/deadly-cargo-explosive-weapons-in-populated-

areas> accessed 9 April 2015 8 Ibid para 5

9 International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), INEW Call Commentary (2011),

<http://www.inew.org/about-inew/inew-call-commentary> accessed 9 April 2015 10

Ibid

„Populated areas‟ broadly equates to the legal concept of „concentration of civilians,‟ as used in

Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW).11

This term should be

interpreted and understood in a common and broad way in order to encompass all those areas

where civilians are at risk of harm, but also to include the indirect harm and danger these

weapons cause, such as destruction of vital infrastructure, resulting in a pattern of wider, long-

term suffering.12

1.1 Legal Framework on Explosive Weapons

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also known as the „law of war‟ or international law of

armed conflict, is one of the two branches that govern use of weapons the other one being

Disarmament Law. It lays down rules intended to minimize suffering in armed conflict by

regulating how hostilities are conducted so as to protect combatants from unnecessary suffering

and civilians from the perils arising from military operations.

The main principles of IHL regarding protection of civilians from attacks, which are reflected in

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and also underpin international customary law,

are “distinction,” “proportionality,” and “precaution”.

The Principle of Distinction according to Article 48 of Additional Protocol I is to the effect that

at all times during conflict combatants must be distinguished from civilians and only the former

11

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Explosive Weapons, Framing the Problem (April

2010), UNIDIR 12

Human Rights Watch & International Human Rights Clinic, Documentation of Use of Explosive Weapons in

Populated Areas (2011) <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2011_armsother_EWIPA_0.pdf.>

accessed 9 April 2015

can be targeted, furthermore, civilian objects have to be distinguished from military objects, have

to be protected, and are generally unlawful as direct targets.13

The Principle of Proportionality is highlighted in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I which

prohibits attacks violating the principles of proportionality, which means an “attack which may

be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects,

or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military

advantage anticipated.14

The Principle of Precaution in IHL requires the one attacking to take precautions in the choice

of means and methods of attack. Article 57 of the Additional Protocol I obliges conflicting

parties to constantly take care to spare civilians as well as to take feasible precautions to if

possible avoid, or minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects, this includes the

requirement to avoid locating military objects near densely populated areas.15

Parties to armed conflict are to direct their operations against military objectives only, the rule of

distinction is supplemented by the rule against indiscriminate attacks, this rule determines that

such attacks are: those which are not directed at a specific military objective; those which

employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

and those which employ a method or means of combat, the effects of which cannot be limited as

required by this Protocol.16

13

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of

International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. 14

Ibid Article 51 (5) (b) 15

Ibid Article 57 (2) (b) 16

Ibid Article 51 (4)

Despite the three principles many have argued that IHL is insufficient to adequately regulate

explosive weapons use. This is because it provides context against which arguments for

regulation can be made, but in itself fails to “articulate the serious risk of humanitarian harm

associated with the use of explosive weapons in populated areas in a manner that adequately

protects civilians, that is, people who share a legitimate expectation to be protected against the

effects of explosive weapons.”17

The three principles of customary international law

notwithstanding, discussed below are additional protocols and conventions which supplement

these principles as far as use of explosive weapons in populated areas and protection of civilians

is concerned.

1.2 CCW Amended Protocol II

This Protocol was adopted in 1996 by High Contacting Parties to the CCW to deal with

landmines, booby-traps and other devices including mines laid to interdict beaches, waterway

crossings or river crossings by limiting their use and requiring that some general measures be

taken to reduce the dangers to civilians for instance by giving warnings of attacks where

feasible.18

It also states that these mines, booby-traps or other devices must not target civilians or

civilian objects or be used indiscriminately, moreover, it prohibits the use of anti-personnel

mines19

and anti-vehicle mines which are designed to explode when mine detection equipment is

passed over them.

It must be noted that this Protocol remains the sole legally-binding instrument which covers

IEDs, these are devices placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating explosive

17

M. Brehm, „Protecting Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons: An Analysis of International Legal and

Policy Standards’ (2012),UNIDIR/2012/8, p. xi 18

Article 3 (10 and 11) Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other

Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention as amended on 3 May 1996) 19

Ibid Article 4

material, destructive, lethal, noxious, incendiary, pyrotechnic materials or chemicals designed to

destroy, disfigure, distract or harass.20

1.3 CCW Protocol V

This is the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War, The High Contracting Parties adopted this

Protocol in November 2003. Protocol V defines Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) as

unexploded ordnance (UXO) and abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO). UXO is an explosive

ordnance that has been primed, fuzed, armed, or otherwise prepared for use and used in an armed

conflict and should have exploded but failed to do so21

, they include hand grenades, mortar

shells, explosive submunitions or bombs that have been used but which have not detonated as

intended.

AXO means „explosive ordinance that has not been used during an armed conflict, but that has

been left behind or dumped by a party to an armed conflict, and which is no longer under control

of the party that left it behind or dumped it‟.22

Under this Protocol the party in control of the

affected territory is responsible for the clearance, removal or destruction of ERW23

and to take

all feasible precautions to protect civilians from their risks and effects.24

1.4 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC)

It was adopted on 18 September 1997 and entered into force on 1 March 1999 with the main aim

being to eliminate the civilian harm caused by anti-personnel mines, this is clear from the onset

20

Ibid Article 2 (5) 21

Article 2 (2) Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003 22

Ibid article 2 (3) 23

Ibid article 3 24

Ibid Article 5

as set out by its preamble.25

Towards this end, the Convention adopted comprehensive

prohibitions to prevent new use of anti-personnel mines as well as remedial measures to address

the needs of those who have already suffered from these weapons. For instance it prohibits the

development or production and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines, it requires the destruction of

stockpiled anti-personnel mines within four years26

, it also requires the clearance of emplaced

anti-personnel mines within ten years27

and the support for assistance for victims.28

1.5 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)

The CCM is the most recent, adopted in May 2008 and entered into force in August 2010 to

restrict the use of cluster munitions and their development, production, transfer and stockpiling.29

It requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years30

, clearance of

cluster munition remnants (unexploded submunitions or abandoned cluster munitions) within ten

years31

and age and gender-sensitive assistance to victims for those injured by explosive

submunitions as well as their families and affected communities.32

Legal analyses have concluded that the legal regulation of explosive weapons within

international law is incoherent and fragmentary.33

Existing regulatory categories and notions are

25

The Preamble states as follows; „States Parties [are] determined to put an end to the suffering and casualties

caused by anti-personnel mines, that kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless

civilians and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of

refugees and internally displaced persons, and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement.‟

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on

their Destruction, 18 September 1997 26

Ibid Article 4 27

Ibid Article 5 28

Ibid Article 6 29

Convention on Cluster Munitions, Article 1 (1) 30

Ibid Article 3 (2) 31

Ibid Article 4 (1) (a) 32

Ibid Article 5 33

M. Brehm, Protecting Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons An Analysis of International Legal and

Policy Standards (2012), United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR/2012/8, p. 147

at times vague, ill-defined and overlapping and do not formally recognize the common

functioning of explosive weapons through blast and fragmentation.34

However, no international instruments exist dealing with the problem of explosive weapons in all

their aspects, in particular the problems they pose when used in populated areas but their use is

still a subject of International Humanitarian Law.35

This inadequacy of IHL has on occasions

been challenged not only in terms of its ability to encompass new realities of organized armed

violence within existing classifications, but also in terms of the existence of a sufficient body of

substantive norms and its applicability in a given situation.

1.6 The Humanitarian Impact of Explosive Weapons

It has been argued that collateral damage may now be a more serious humanitarian issue than

war crimes in some conflict zones36

, however it is to be noted that it is not the use of explosive

weapons per se, but rather their tendency to cause indiscriminate destruction which may result in

unacceptable levels of civilian harm that forms the key humanitarian dilemma.37

Therefore, this

relatively indiscriminate effect of explosive weapons is central to their ability to pose a key

humanitarian threat, especially when used in populated areas.38

When explosive weapons detonate, they emit a destructive blast wave which travels faster than

sound. Most of the lethal effects are often caused by flying fragments of casing or shrapnel

34

Ibid 35

J. Borrie & M. Brehm, Enhancing civilian protection from use of explosive weapons in populated areas: building

a policy and research agenda (2011), International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 93, number 883 September

2011, p. 819 36

Charli Carpenter, „Collateral Damage Control‟, New York Times (11 August 2010).

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/opinion/12iht-edcarpenter.htm > accessed 9 April 2015 37

Roos Boer,et al Protecting Civilians from Explosive Violence: defining the humanitarian problem February 2011 38

UNIDIR, „Background Paper No 2 of the Discourse on Explosive Weapons (DEW) project‟, (UNIDIR Resources,

July 2010) 1. < http://www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf10-act499.pdf.> accessed 9 April 2015

which can have a long reach,39

many of these weapons are also unguided or used without

spotters meaning they cannot be targeted precisely, posing additional civilian risk.40

Upon

detonation these weapons therefore injure and kill people and damage or destroy objects present

in the area around the target, these constitute the immediate or primary effects of explosive

weapons. Destruction of hospitals, markets, schools, power plants and the long-term disruption

of vital socio-economic activities constitute the secondary effects. Added to these long-term

effects are the dangers posed by unexploded ordinances which can maim and kill people many

years after the conflict has ended and which can deny the use of or access to the areas they

contaminate, for instance depriving populations of valuable arable land.41

The primary effects of explosive weapons are: immediate death of persons in the direct vicinity

of the explosion, potentially fatal damage to organs and tissue caused by the blast wave,

propensity to cause a host of potentially fatal injuries by explosively projecting weapon

fragments and other debris into the body, indirect death and injury through the post-detonation

collapse of buildings and destruction of buildings, roads and other infrastructure.42

The secondary (long-term) effects of explosive weapons include: victims suffering permanent

physical disabilities or traumatic brain injury, victims suffering from psychological trauma such

as Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD), damage to socio-economic infrastructure such as

houses, schools, power plants, markets, hospitals, roads and railway systems and water supply

39

Supra N.5 40

Ibid 41

Caecilie Buhmann, „The Direct and Indirect Costs of Explosive Violence: Recognition and Documentation Need

to Translate into Policy Action and Political Support‟, (2009) 339 BMJ 761 42

International Campaign to Ban Landmines, „What are cluster munitions?‟.

<http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Problem/Cluster-Munitions/What-are-Cluster-Munitions.> accessed 9 April

2015; Christopher Rogers, „Civilians in Armed Conflict: Civilian Harm and Conflict in Northwest Pakistan‟,

(Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict 2010) 33-34.

<http://www.civicworldwide.org/storage/civicdev/documents/civic%20pakistan%202010%20final.pdf.> accessed 9

April 2015

and lastly deaths and injuries caused by unexploded ordinances years after hostilities have been

concluded and can deny access to valuable land.43

1.7 What to do to enhance protection of Civilians and Civilian Property

It must be noted that explosive weapons are generally excluded as instruments for domestic

policing and states tend to prohibit private ownership of explosive weapons44

, however states

have over the years lost their monopoly over these weapons as non-state actors have acquired

them and used them in armed conflicts which has posed a serious military challenge for states45

,

as well as posing a major risk to civilians especially when used in populated areas.

A combination of factors determines the degree to which civilians‟ lives and livelihoods in

populated areas are at risk from explosive weapons, including civilians‟ vulnerability and

exposure, and capacity to respond to the threat posed by explosive weapons.46

Analyzing each of

these factors would be vital for purposes of protection programming that aims at reducing risks

to civilians and civilian property.

The risk that explosive weapons pose to civilians can be reduced by mitigating the hazard itself,

that is, by reducing the threat that explosive weapons pose to civilians in populated areas for

43

Robin M. Coupland and Adriaan Korver, „Injuries from antipersonnel mines: experience of the International

Committee of the Red Cross‟ (1991),303 BMJ 1509-1512; Daya J. Somasundaram and Kea Kiri Renol, „The

psychological effects of landmines in Cambodia‟, Medicine, Conflict and Survival 14:3 (1998) 219-236; 44

Landmine Action, Explosive Violence: The Problem of Explosive Weapons, 2009, p. 46 45

IED use by non-state armed actors has become widespread. In addition, some non-state actors have acquired more

sophisticated explosive weapons. The Lebanese Hizbullah, for instance, damaged an Israeli naval vessel with an

anti-ship cruise missile in 2006 and has flown drones over northern Israel several times in recent years. Hizbullah‟s

alleged Scuds raise storm clouds over Lebanon, IISS Strategic Comments, vol. 16, Comment 20, 2010; Hezbollah

drone brought down over Galilee held 30kg of explosives, Haaretz, 14 August 2006. 46

Exposure can vary depending on the presence of a military target, infrastructure releasing dangerous forces, or

non-blast proof buildings in the vicinity of civilians. Vulnerability, or susceptibility to losses, depends on a complex

interplay of many factors. Within a civilian population, some groups may be more prone to loss, suffering and

damage than others. Characteristics of these variations include gender, age, and physical and mental constitution.

Civilians‟ capability and resources available to cope with explosive weapons hazards differ in function of, for

instance, their knowledge about explosive weapons and explosive remnants, or their social and socio-economic

situation.

instance by advocating the use of less explosive weapons in populated areas. The presumption

that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas will result in unacceptable civilian harm

should also be given more emphasis, and it would entail:47

better collection, analysis and dissemination of data on explosive weapons use and its

impacts on civilians;

recognizing that explosive weapons use in populated areas represents a serious

humanitarian problem and developing a common language of humanitarian concern in

response to unacceptable use of explosive weapons;

more publicity and transparency about policies on explosive weapons use;

increased user accountability and more rigorous scrutiny of claims regarding the

acceptability of explosive weapons use; and

greater recognition of the rights of victims of explosive weapons.

1.8 Conclusion

The international stigma against the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is growing and

the message is clear that when they are used it is civilians who pay the price. International

customary law principles, the Additional Protocols and conventions discussed above merely

touch on a small part of explosive weapons, apart from this there exists no specific international

instrument which deals with explosive weapons in all their aspects. Efforts should be made to put

such an instrument in place that deals with explosive weapons exclusively.

1.9 Recommendations

47

This section builds on the recommendations put forward in Landmine Action, Explosive Violence, The Problem of

Explosive Weapons, 2009, p. 14.

Parties concerned with explosive violence in populated areas should speak out in one language

so as to advocate for a common cause, attract public and media attention, and challenge the

status quo which views the use of explosive weapons in populated areas as a regrettable but

„normal‟ aspect of armed conflicts. By doing this they will be building on the debate on

explosive weapons use in populated areas.

States should also collect data on the human costs of the use of explosive weapons in populated

areas. By doing this and reminding states of their legal obligations to do so, states, policy makers

and advocacy groups can more accurately assess the risks that explosive weapons pose to

civilians, and review states‟ compliance with IHL.

Users of explosive weapons should be challenged to justify when and how they use explosive

weapons in populated areas, by doing this the international community can improve its ability to

hold states accountable for the consequences of explosive violence.

Rules of IHL legally oblige states to provide assistance to the victims of specific explosive

weapons, therefore efforts should be deployed to broaden state responsibility to encompass any

kind of explosive weapon, and to increase states‟ responsibility for assisting with the post-

conflict clearance of unexploded ordnance.

References

Additional Protocol I to The Geneva Convention of 12th August 1949 relating to the Protection

of victims of international armed conflict (API) (Adopted on 8th June 1977)

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as

amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention as amended on 3 May 1996)

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-

Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997

Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November

2003

Convention on Cluster Munitions, 30 May 2008

Buhmann C, „The direct and indirect costs of explosive violence‟,(2009) BMJ, Vol.339, p. 761.

Steve Goose and Ole Solvang „Deadly Cargo: explosive weapons in populated areas’,

<www.opendemocracy.net/open-security/steve-goose-ole-solvang/deadly-cargo-explosive

weapons-in-populated-areas>

International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), INEW Call Commentary (2011),

<http://www.inew.org/about-inew/inew-call-commentary>

Human Rights Watch & International Human Rights Clinic, Documentation of Use of Explosive

Weapons in Populated Areas (2011)

Brehm M, Protecting Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons An Analysis of

International Legal and Policy Standards (2012), United Nations Institute for Disarmament

Research, UNIDIR/2012/8

J. Borrie & M. Brehm, Enhancing civilian protection from use of explosive weapons in

populated areas: building a policy and research agenda (2011), International Review of the Red

Cross, Volume 93, number 883 September 2011,

M. Brehm, Protecting Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons An Analysis of

International Legal and Policy Standards (2012), United Nations Institute for Disarmament

Research, UNIDIR/2012/8

UNIDIR, „Background Paper No 2 of the Discourse on Explosive Weapons (DEW) project‟,

(UNIDIR Resources, July 2010) 1.< http://www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf10-act499.pdf.>

Roos Boer et al, Protecting Civilians from Explosive Violence: defining the humanitarian

problem (2011)

Caecilie Buhmann, „The Direct and Indirect Costs of Explosive Violence: Recognition and

Documentation Need to Translate into Policy Action and Political Support‟,

International Campaign to Ban Landmines, „What are cluster munitions?‟

<http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Problem/Cluster-Munitions/What-are-Cluster-Munitions>

Christopher Rogers, „Civilians in Armed Conflict: Civilian Harm and Conflict in Northwest

Pakistan‟, (Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict 2010) 33-34.

Robin M. Coupland and Adriaan Korver, „Injuries from antipersonnel mines: experience of the

International Committee of the Red Cross‟, BMJ 303 (1991) 1509-1512

Daya J. Somasundaram and Kea Kiri Renol, „The psychological effects of landmines in

Cambodia‟, Medicine, Conflict and Survival 14:3 (1998) 219-236

Landmine Action, Explosive Violence: The Problem of Explosive Weapons, 2009

Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed

Conflict, UN document S/2009/277, 29 May 2009

“Sixty Years of the Geneva Conventions: Learning from the Past to Better Face the Future”,

address by Jakob Kellenberger, Geneva, 12 August 2009