Changing Arms Control Norms in International Society by Kenki Adachi

Author:Kenki Adachi [Adachi, Kenki]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: International Relations, Arms Control, Political Science, General
ISBN: 9781000379563
Google: ngMiEAAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 55869249
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2021-04-29T07:00:09+00:00

Weapons use during World War II: incendiary weapons, aerial bombing, and chemical weapons

These norms relating to weapons use developed gradually, but it was at the time of World War II that their value was put to the test. When the entire world was swept up in war and every country faced an existential emergency, to what extent would a norm against weapons use be observed? First, let’s look at the norm against weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering. It is true that widespread agreement existed in inter-state society regarding a ban on weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering. But this norm did not provide clear criteria for determining whether a specific weapon was legal or not. Therefore, determining which weapons were banned from use and which weapons were allowed to be used was problematic. An example of a weapon type whose evaluation fluctuated was incendiary weapons. These are weapons that reduce their target to ashes using bombs or ammunitions filled with incendiary agents. This kind of weapon may inflict chemical damage due to the incendiary agent. Also, because they burn victims to death with fire and thus count as weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering, the view of incendiary weapons as illegal is said to have been common before World War II. But that does not mean there was an explicit rule banning incendiary weapons. During World War II, the US used large numbers of incendiary weapons against Japan. With that, the view supposedly emerged that using incendiary weapons did not specifically violate the norm against the use of weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering.120 As we can see clearly from this example, the norm against the use of weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering did not necessarily provide criteria for drawing a distinction as to whether specific weapons were legal or illegal. In order for the norm against the use of weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering to actually have the effect of causing parties to refrain from using such weapons, it is necessary to clearly establish whether the norm applies to a specific weapon or not. But around the time of World War II, for nearly all weapons there was still a contestation taking place among various viewpoints regarding whether the norm applied to them or not.

The same is true when it comes to observing the civilian protection norm. In all-out war, ordinary citizens in countries that were parties to the war were being integrated into the war effort in some form or another. Under those circumstances, distinguishing between combatants and civilians was difficult. But if we look at the norm against aerial bombing, which was grafted onto the civilian protection norm, a certain degree of observance was seen in the early stages of World War II. It has also been noted that the fact that “there was a stigma attached to bombing noncombatants” contributed to a certain extent to curbing aerial bombing.121 Aerial bombing itself was not banned, and, as it was grafted onto the civilian protection norm, the only thing being called for was a ban on aerial bombing on sites other than military targets.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.