Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:38:37.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nanotechnology and challenges to international humanitarian law: a preliminary legal assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2013

Hitoshi Nasu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of nanotechnology into our civil life and warfare is expected to influence the application and interpretation of the existing rules of international humanitarian law. This article examines the challenges posed to international humanitarian law by the widespread use of nanotechnology in light of four basic rules of international humanitarian law: (1) the obligation to ensure the legality of weapons; (2) distinction; (3) proportionality; and (4) precaution. It concludes by identifying three areas of concern, which arise from widespread use of nanotechnology, for the application of international humanitarian law.

Keywords

nanotechnologysuperfluous injury or unnecessary sufferingenvironmental protectionthe principle of distinctionproportionalityprecaution
Type
New Technologies and the Law
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 94 , Issue 886: New Technologies and Warfare , June 2012 , pp. 653 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See generally, Dombrowski, Peter and Gholz, Eugene, Buying Military Transformation: Technological Innovation and the Defense Industry, Columbia University Press, New York, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartlett, Henry C. et al. , ‘Force planning, military revolutions and the tyranny of technology’, in Strategic Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, Fall 1996, pp. 28–40Google Scholar.

2 See e.g., the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Addressing Nanomaterials as an Issue of Global Concern, May 2009, p. 1, available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/CIEL_NanoStudy_May09.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

3 International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, Report on the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 28 November–1 December 2011, p. 36, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/report/31-international-conference-ihl-challenges-report-2011-10-31.htm (last visited 30 October 2012). For an earlier study on the impact of technology in general on international humanitarian law, see especially, Schmitt, Michael N., ‘War, technology and the law of armed conflict’, in Helm, Anthony M. (ed.), The Law of War in the 21st Century: Weaponry and the Use of Force, US Naval War College International Law Studies, Vol. 82, Naval War College, Newport, 2006, p. 137Google Scholar.

4 Thus, this article does not concern futuristic, speculative applications of nanotechnology, such as universal molecular assemblers and autonomous nano-robots, though some of the findings in this article may well be applicable to them. For a comprehensive account of scientifically possible applications of nanotechnology, see, e.g., Altmann, Jürgen, Military Nanotechnology, Routledge, London, 2006Google Scholar; Jun Wang and Peter J. Dortmans, ‘A review of selected nanotechnology topics and their potential military applications’, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian Government Department of Defence, 2004, pp. 22–30, available at: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/2610/DSTO-TN-0537.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

5 The application of nanotechnology for biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons requires a separate legal analysis by reference to relevant treaty regimes and is therefore excluded from the focus of this article.

6 For different definitions of nanotechnology, see, e.g., European Commission, Commission Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/pdf/commission_recommendation.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012); US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nanotechnology White Paper, Office of the Science Advisor, EPA 100/B-07/001, February 2007, p. 5, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

7 The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars regularly updates an inventory of nanotechnology consumer products, which is available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/ (last visited 30 October 2012).

8 See, e.g., US EPA, above note 6, pp. 29–62; UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ‘Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles: a second UK government research report’, 2007, available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk (last visited 30 October 2012); UK Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, 2004, available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm (last visited 30 October 2012).

9 See, e.g., Bottini, Massimo et al. , ‘Multi-walled carbon nanotubes induce T lymphocyte apoptosis’, in Toxicology Letters, Vol. 160, 2006, pp. 121–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 See, e.g., Ahamed, Maqusood, Alsalhi, Mohamad S. and Siddiqui, M. K. J., ‘Silver nanoparticle applications and human health’, in Clinica Chimica Acta, Vol. 411, 2010, pp. 1841–1848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wijnhoven, Susan W. P. et al. , ‘Nano-silver – a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment’, in Nanotoxicology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009, pp. 109–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See, e.g., Trouiller, Benedicte et al. , ‘Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce DNA damage and genetic instability in vivo in mice’, in Cancer Research, Vol. 69, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8784–8789CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 See, e.g., Wang, Bing et al. , ‘Acute toxicity of nano- and micro-scale zinc powder in healthy adult mice’, in Toxicology Letters, Vol. 161, No. 2, 2006, pp. 115–123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

13 See, e.g., Horev-Azaria, Limor et al. , ‘Predictive toxicology of cobalt nanoparticles and ions: comparative in vitro study of different cellular models using methods of knowledge discovery from data’, in Toxicological Sciences, Vol. 122, No. 2, 2011, pp. 489–501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

14 See, e.g., Pietruska, Jodie R. et al. , ‘Bioavailability, intracellular mobilization of nickel, and HIF-1α activation in human lung epithelial cells exposed to metallic nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles’, in Toxicological Sciences, Vol. 124, No. 1, 2011, pp. 138–148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15 See, e.g., Feng, Weiyue et al. , ‘Nanotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles in vivo’, in Sahu, Saura C. and Casciano, Daniel A. (eds), Nanotoxicology: From In Vivo and In Vitro Models to Health Risks, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 2009, pp. 247–269Google Scholar; Donaldson, Ken et al. , ‘Pulmonary and cardiovascular effects of nanoparticles’, in Monteiro-Riviere, Nancy A. and Tran, C. Lang (eds), Nanotoxicology: Characterization, Dosing and Health Effects, Informa Healthcare, New York, 2007, pp. 267–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oberdörster, Günter et al. , ‘Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles’, in Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 7, 2005, pp. 829–833CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16 See generally, Doak, Shareen H. et al. , ‘Genotoxicity and cancer’, in Fadeel, Bengt et al. , (eds), Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials: Exposure, Toxicology, and Impact on Human Health, Elsevier, London, 2012, pp. 243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gonzalez, Laetitia, Lison, Dominique and Kirsch-Volders, Micheline, ‘Genotoxicity of engineered nanomaterials: a critical review’, in Nanotoxicology, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2008, pp. 252–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 CIEL, above note 2, pp. 11–12.

18 The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) was established as a centre for research collaboration between the US Army and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to conduct basic and applied research to enhance soldier survivability, see the website at: http://web.mit.edu/ISN/ (last visited 30 October 2012).

19 See, e.g., Di Falco, Andrea, Ploschner, Martin and Krauss, Thomas F., ‘Flexible metamaterials at visible wavelengths’, in New Journal of Physics, Vol. 12, 2010, p. 113006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See, e.g., Shi, Haofei et al. , ‘Low density carbon nanotube forest as an index-matched and near perfect absorption coating’, in Applied Physics Letter, Vol. 99, 2011, p. 211103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See, e.g., Levitsky, I. A., ‘Highly sensitive and selective explosive detector based on nanoporous silicon photonic crystal infiltrated with emissive organics’, in IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine, September 2010, p. 24Google Scholar.

22 For a detailed analysis, see Kosal, Margeret E., Nanotechnology for Chemical and Biological Defense, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009, pp. 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 J. Wang and P. J. Dortmans, above note 4, p. 28.

24 The US Department of Defense identified electrochemical power source applications of nanotechnology as one of the primary goals of its nanotechnology research and development programme. See US Department of Defense, ‘Defense nanotechnology research and development program’, 2007, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/nano2007.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

25 Raynolds, Jefferson D., ‘Collateral damage on the 21st century battlefield: enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict, and the struggle for a moral high ground’, in Air Force Law Review, Vol. 56, 2005, p. 99Google Scholar (nano-energetics provide more effective control of blast, relying on nano-structured explosives and fuel additives, as well as catalytics and photovoltaics); Miziolek, Andrzej W., ‘Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance’, in Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information Analysis Center (AMPTIAC) Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2002, p. 43Google Scholar.

26 An advanced armour-piercing projectile involving the potential use of NanoSteel™ is patented in the US: Daniel James Branagan, ‘Layered metallic material formed from iron based glass alloys’, The Nanosteel Company, Inc., US Patent 7482065, 21 April 2009, available at: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7482065.html (last visited 30 October 2012).

27 The ‘nano air vehicles’ are extremely small, ultra-lightweight airborne vehicles capable of performing a military mission, developed by the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA). See, William A. Davis, ‘Nano air vehicles: a technology forecast’, Blue Horizons Paper, Center for Strategy and Technology, US Air War College, 2007, available at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/bh_davis.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

28 Blake, Duncan and Imburgia, Joseph S., ‘“Bloodless weapons”? The need to conduct legal reviews of certain capabilities and the implications of defining them as “weapons”’, in Air Force Law Review, Vol. 66, 2010, p. 180Google Scholar.

29 See, e.g., Sabine Greßler and André Gazsó, ‘Nano in the construction industry’, in NanoTrust Dossiers, No. 32, 2012, available at: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/nanotrust-dossiers/dossier032en.pdf (last visited 1 November 2012).

30 See, e.g., Chen, Tao et al. , ‘Flexible, light-weight, ultrastrong, and semiconductive carbon nanotube fibers for a highly efficient solar cell’, in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Vol. 50, 2011, pp. 1815–1819CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; OECD, ‘Fostering nanotechnology to address global challenges: water’, 2011, available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/58/47601818.pdf (last visited 1 November 2012).

31 Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska, Grazyna, Golimowski, Jerzy and Urban, Pawel L., ‘Nanoparticles: their potential toxicity, waste and environmental management’, in Waste Management, Vol. 29, 2009, p. 2592CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. In fact, Canadian fire services consider released ENMs and ENPs to be serious health hazards. See, Ed Ballam, ‘Nanotechnology spells danger for firefighters’, in Firehouse.com News, 24 April 2012, available at: http://www.firehouse.com/news/10705138/nanotechnology-spells-danger-for-firefighters (last visited 30 October 2012).

32 Handy, R. D. and Shaw, B. J., ‘Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology’, in Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2007, pp. 125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Klaine, Stephen J. et al. , ‘Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials’, in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2012, pp. 3–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Brar, Satinder K., Verma, Mausam, Tyagi, R. D. and Surampalli, R. Y., ‘Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge – evidence and impacts’, in Waste Management, Vol. 30, 2010, pp. 504–520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; CIEL, above note 2; US EPA, above note 6, pp. 36–41.

34 Initially, no causal link was established. However, scientific evidence proving the hazardous effects of toxic chemicals released upon impact of deplete uranium weapons has continued to mount. For details, see, e.g., Fahey, Dan, ‘Environmental and health consequences of the use of depleted uranium weapons’, in McDonald, Avril, Kleffner, Jann K. and Toebes, Brigit (eds), Depleted Uranium Weapons and International Law: A Precautionary Approach, T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2008, pp. 29–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDiarmid, Melissa A. et al. , ‘Health effects of depleted uranium on exposed Gulf War veterans: a 10-year follow-up’, in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2004, pp. 277–296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; The Royal Society Working Group on the Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions, ‘The health effect of depleted uranium munitions: a summary’, in Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 22, 2002, pp. 132–134Google Scholar.

35 See, e.g., Roedel, Erik Q. et al. , ‘Pulmonary toxicity after exposure to military-relevant heavy metal tungsten alloy particles’, in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 259, 2012, pp. 74–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kalinich, John F. et al. , ‘Embedded weapons-grade tungsten alloy shrapnel rapidly induces metastatic high-grade rhabdomyosarcomas in F344 rats’, in Environmental Health Perspective, Vol. 113, 2005, pp. 729–734CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Miller, Alexandra C. et al. , ‘Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metal tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects’, in Carcinogenesis, Vol. 22, 2001, pp. 115–125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

36 For a detailed analysis of the failed attempt to ban the use of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and silver nanomaterials in the European Union, see, Nasu, Hitoshi and Faunce, Tom, ‘The proposed ban on certain nanomaterials for electrical and electronic equipment in Europe and its global security implications: a search for an alternative regulatory approach’, in European Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2011Google Scholar, available at: http://ejlt.org//article/view/79 (last visited 30 October 2012).

37 See, e.g., National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), ‘Guidance on new chemical requirements for notification of industrial nanomaterials’, 2010, available at: http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Current_Issues/Nanotechnology/Guidance%20on%20New%20Chemical%20Requirements%20for%20Notification%20of%20Industrial%20Nanomaterials.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

38 Nasu, Hitoshi and Faunce, Tom, ‘Nano-safety or nano-security? Reassessing Europe's nanotechnology regulation in the context of international security law’, in European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 3, 2012, pp. 416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 See Whitman, Jim, ‘The arms control challenges of nanotechnology’, in Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2011, pp. 99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. J. Altmann, above note 4, pp. 154–176; Sean Howard, ‘Nanotechnology and mass destruction: the need for an inner space treaty’, in Disarmament Diplomacy, Vol. 65, 2002, available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65op1.htm (last visited 30 October 2012).

40 Kalshoven, Frits, ‘The Conventional Weapons Convention: underlying legal principles’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 30, No. 279, 1990, p. 518Google Scholar; McCormack, Timothy L. H., ‘A non-liquet on nuclear weapons – the ICJ avoids the application of general principles of international humanitarian law’, in International Review of the Red Cross, No. 316, 1997, p. 90Google Scholar.

41 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, 10 April 1972, 1015 UNTS 163 (entered into force 26 March 1975).

42 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 13 January 1993, 1974 UNTS 45 (entered into force 29 April 1997).

43 Protocol (I) on Non-Detectable Fragments to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

44 Protocol (IV) on Blinding Laser Weapons to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have indiscriminate Effects, 13 October 1995, 1380 UNTS 370 (entered into force 30 July 1998).

45 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 4 December 1997, 2056 UNTS 211 (entered into force 1 March 1999).

46 Protocol (V) on Explosive Remnants of War to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 28 November 2003, 2399 UNTS 100 (entered into force 12 November 2006).

47 Convention on Cluster Munitions, 3 December 2008 (entered into force 1 August 2010).

48 Duxbury, Geoffrey et al. , ‘Quantum cascade semiconductor infrared and far-infrared lasers: from trace gas sensing to non-linear optics’, in Chemical Society Reviews, Vol. 34, No. 11, 2005, pp. 921–934CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

49 Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo and Aguayo, Francisco, ‘Nanotechnology and the international regime on chemical and biological weapons’, in Nanotechnology Law and Business, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, pp. 58–59Google Scholar; Kosal, Margaret E., ‘The security implications of nanotechnology’, in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 66, July/August 2010, pp. 58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Pinson, Robert D., ‘Is nanotechnology prohibited by the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions?’, in Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, 2004, p. 298Google Scholar.

50 Greenwood, Christopher, ‘The law of weaponry at the start of the new millennium’, in Schmitt, Michael N. and Green, Leslie C. (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the New Millennium, US Naval War College International Law Studies, Vol. 71, Naval War College, Newport, 1999, p. 192Google Scholar.

51 Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, CTS, Vol. 205, 1907, p. 277, 18 October 1907 (entered into force 26 January 1910), Article 22, reproduced in Roberts, Adam and Guelff, Richard, Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 73–82Google Scholar (hereinafter 1907 Hague Regulations); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978), Art. 35(1) (hereinafter Additional Protocol I).

52 Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight, CTS, Vol. 138, 1868–1869, p. 297, 11 December 1868, reproduced in A. Roberts and R. Guelff, above note 51, pp. 54–55 (hereinafter 1968 St Petersburg Declaration); Additional Protocol I, Art. 1(2), which reads: ‘In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.’

53 See, e.g., Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Historical development and legal basis’, in Fleck, Dieter (ed.), Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, p. 101Google Scholar; Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Martens Clause: half a loaf or simply pie in the sky?’, in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, 2000, p. 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meron, Theodor, ‘The Martens Clause, principles of humanity, and dictates of public conscience’, in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, 2000, p. 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, pp. 405–409 (Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting opinion).

54 Belt, Stuart Walters, ‘Missiles over Kosovo: emergence, lex lata, of a customary norm requiring the use of precision munitions in urban areas’, in Naval Law Review, Vol. 47, 2000, p. 140Google Scholar.

55 For a more detailed analysis of this issue, see Nasu, Hitoshi and Faunce, Tom, ‘Nanotechnology and the international law of weaponry: towards international regulation of nano-weapons’, in Journal of Law, Information and Science, Vol. 20, 2010, pp. 20, 34–43Google Scholar.

56 See ICRC, ‘A guide to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare: measures to implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977’, 2006, pp. 18–19, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0902.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012).

57 Additional Protocol I, Art. 35(2).

58 Additional Protocol I, Art. 35(3).

59 Cf. Cassese, Antonio, The Human Dimension of International Law: Selected Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, p. 214Google Scholar (stating that the principle remains a ‘significant source of inspiration’).

60 See, e.g., Boothby, Bill, ‘The law of weaponry – is it adequate?’, in Schmitt, Michael N. and Pejic, Jelena (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2007, p. 303Google Scholar.

61 It reads that ‘the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable … would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity’.

62 F. Kalshoven, above note 40, p. 511.

63 Hague Convention (II) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, CTS, Vol. 187, 1899, p. 227, 29 July 1899 (entered into force 4 September 1900), Art. 23(e); 1907 Hague Regulations, Art. 23(e). Although the authentic French text remained the same (maux superflus), the identical phrase in the two instruments was translated differently. The English translation of the treaty texts is provided in Scott, James Brown, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, Oxford University Press, New York, 1915, p. 116Google Scholar. Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I places those two expressions side by side.

64 See, e.g., Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, Vol. 1, pp. 237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 See Legality of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 53, p. 257, para. 78.

66 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Art. 8(2)(b)(xix) and (xx).

67 This was the view generally held by states during the UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1979–1980. See, e.g., Parks, W. Hays, ‘Conventional weapons and weapons reviews’, in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 8, 2005, pp. 76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; William J. Fenrick, ‘The Conventional Weapons Convention: a modest but useful treaty’, in International Review of the Red Cross, No. 279, 1990, p. 500.

68 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmerman (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva, 1987, p. 408, para. 1428 (hereinafter ICRC Commentary). For critical analysis see, e.g., C. Greenwood, above note 50, pp. 195–199; Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Arms, armaments and international law’, in Recueil des Cours, Vol. 191, 1985-II, pp. 234–235Google Scholar; Meyrowitz, Henri, ‘The principle of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering: from the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to Additional Protocol I of 1977’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 34, No. 299, 1994, pp. 106–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Domínguez-Matés, Rosario, ‘New weaponry technologies and international humanitarian law: their consequences on the human being and the environment’, in Fernández-Sánchez, Pablo Antonio (ed.), The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts: In Honour of Professor Juan Antonio Carrillo-Salcedo, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2005, p. 115Google Scholar; David, Éric, Principes de Droit des Conflits Armés, 4th edn, Bruylant, Brussels, 2008, pp. 358–361Google Scholar.

70 Bothe, Michael, Partsch, Karl Josef and Solf, Waldemar A., New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1982, p. 196Google Scholar.

71 For a similar view in the context of fragmentation of bullets, see, Coupland, Robin, ‘Clinical and legal significance of fragmentation of bullets in relation to size of wounds: retrospective analysis’, in British Medical Journal, Vol. 319, 1999, pp. 403–406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

72 See Carnahan, Burrus M. and Robertson, Marjorie, ‘The Protocol on “blinding laser weapons”: a new direction for international humanitarian law’, in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90, 1996, p. 485CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The same influence can be observed in relation to the treaties on explosive remnants of war, in particular regarding anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

73 Cf. Bruch, Carl E. et al. , ‘Post-conflict peace building and natural resources’, in Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Vol. 19, 2008, p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Cf. Boothby, William H., Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, p. 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 The ICRC Commentary considers that the term ‘natural environment’ in the Protocol refers to the ‘system of inextricable interrelations between living organisms and their inanimate environment’: ICRC Commentary, above note 68, para.1451.

76 See ICRC Commentary, above note 68, para. 1457; M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, pp. 347–348. This is contrasted with the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 10 December 1976, 1108 UNTS 152 (entered into force 5 October 1978) (ENMOD Convention), which uses a disjunctive formula (‘widespread, long-lasting or severe’). This Convention does not prohibit or regulate the use of nanotechnology unless it is specifically used to manipulate the environment for hostile purposes. For an analysis of this Convention, see, e.g., Goldblat, Jozef, ‘The Environmental Modification Convention of 1977: an analysis’, in Westing, Arthur H., (ed.), Environmental Warfare: A Technical, Legal and Policy Appraisal, Taylor & Francis, London, 1984, p. 53Google Scholar.

77 See Bémer, Denis et al. , ‘Ultrafine particles emitted by flame and electric arc guns for thermal spraying of metals’, in Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Vol. 54, No. 6, 2010, pp. 607–614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

78 See Martin Seipenbusch and Gerhard Kasper, Recommendations to the European Commission – Transport of Nanoparticles in the Workplace Environment and Its Effects on the Size Spectrum, Nanotransport-Project, 30 April 2008, available at: http://research.dnv.com/nanotransport/NANOTRANSPORTdownload/Recommendations-final-EC.pdf (last visited 30 October 2012); US EPA, above note 6, p. 33. Cf. Ma-Hock, Lan et al. , ‘Generation and characterization of test atmospheres with nanomaterials’, in Inhalation Toxicology, Vol. 19, No. 10, 2007, pp. 833–848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (observing that as for many substances, agglomeration effects limited nanoparticle exposure).

79 See Stone, V., Johnston, H. and Clift, M. J., ‘Air pollution, ultrafine and nanoparticle toxicology: cellular and molecular interactions’, in IEEE Trans Nanobioscience, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2007, pp. 331–340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (showing that ultrafine particles are found more toxic and inflammogenic than fine particles due to low solubility).

80 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Green war: an assessment of the environmental law of international armed conflict’, in Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, 1997, pp. 72–73Google Scholar.

81 The principle of distinction has been recognized as customary international law. See, e.g., Legality of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 53, p. 257, para. 78; J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 64, Vol. 1, Rule 1.

82 Additional Protocol I, Art. 48. See also, 1907 Hague Regulations, Art. 1(2) (requiring combatants ‘[t]o have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance’ (emphasis added)); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Art. 4(A)(2)(b) (‘having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance’ (emphasis added)).

83 ICRC Commentary, above note 68, p. 528, para. 1693.

84 See generally, Lee, Tae-Woo, Military Technologies of the World, Praeger Security International, Westport, 2009, Vol. 1, pp. 178–180Google Scholar.

85 See A. Di Falco et al., above note 19.

86 See H. Shi et al., above note 20, p. 211103-1 (suggesting that the low refractive index of carbon nanotubes can absorb light and cloak an object against a black background).

87 See generally, UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, p. 64Google Scholar; Green, Leslie C., The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2000, pp. 146–147, 186–187Google Scholar.

88 Additional Protocol I, Art. 37(1) and (2).

89 Additional Protocol I, Art. 57.

90 Although it refers generally to ‘works and installations containing dangerous forces’, the term ‘namely’ and the intention of the parties during the treaty negotiations make it clear that protected objects are only those listed in the provision. See ICRC Commentary, above note 68, pp. 668–669, paras. 2146–2150; M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 354.

91 As noted above, engineered metal nanomaterials are widely seen as having a great potential to enhance the capacity and efficiency of solar power plants. See above note 30 and accompanying text.

92 See James Crawford, W., ‘The law of noncombatant immunity and the targeting of national electrical power systems’, in Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer/Fall 1997, p. 105Google Scholar.

93 See, e.g., J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 64, Vol. 1, Rule 14.

94 For a detailed account as to why the reference to proportionality was avoided, see Lt Col. Fenrick, William J., ‘The rule of proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare’, in Military Law Review, Vol. 98, 1982, pp. 102–106Google Scholar; Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts: the diplomatic conference, Geneva, 1974–1977, Part II’, in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 9, 1978, p. 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 The literature on this subject is voluminous. See especially, Gardam, Judith, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 98–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 See literature cited above note 8.

97 See, e.g., Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Customary international law and the First Geneva Protocol of 1977 in the Gulf Conflict’, in Rowe, Peter (ed.), The Gulf War 1990–91 in International and English Law, Routledge, London, 1993, p. 79Google Scholar.

98 See Meron, Theodor, The Humanization of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2006, p. 67Google Scholar.

99 Shue, Henry and Wippman, David, ‘Limiting attacks on dual-use facilities performing indispensable civilian functions’, in Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 35, 2002, pp. 565, 573–579Google Scholar.

100 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘The principle of discrimination in 21st century warfare’, in Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. 2, 1999, p. 168Google Scholar.

101 Legality of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 53, p. 242, para. 30.

102 The provision, in full text, reads: ‘Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population’ (emphasis added). For the difference between Article 35(3) and Article 55(1), see, Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Humanitarian law and the environment’, in Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 28, 2000, pp. 275–277Google Scholar.

103 ICRC Commentary, above note 68, pp. 663–664, para. 2135.

104 See, e.g., Gottschalk, Fadri and Nowack, Bernd, ‘The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment’, in Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 13, 2011, pp. 1145–1155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Jayoung Jeong et al., ‘In vitro and in vivo toxicity study of nanoparticles’, in Saura Sahu and Daniel Casciano (eds), above note 15, pp. 320–324 (pointing out that very few airborne exposure studies have been conducted).

105 ICRC Commentary, above note 68, p. 663, para. 2133.

106 Cf. Bothe, Michael et al. , ‘International law protecting the environment during armed conflict: gaps and opportunities’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, pp. 577–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 M. N. Schmitt, above note 102, p. 283. A broader incorporation of environmental effects into the proportionality calculus was suggested in ICTY, ‘Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’, in International Legal Materials, Vol. 39, 2000, pp. 1262–1263, paras. 15–22 (hereinafter ICTY Final Report). See also, Bothe, Michael, ‘Legal restraints on targeting: protection of civilian population and the changing faces of modern conflicts’, in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 31, 2002, pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

108 Additional Protocol I, Arts 51(5)(b), 55(1), and 57(2)(a)(iii) (using the expression ‘may be expected’).

109 For a detailed analysis, see Quéguiner, Jean-François, ‘Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No. 864, pp. 793–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 See J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 64, Rule 15.

111 Ibid., Rule 44.

112 Cf. M. Bothe et al., above note 106, p. 575; Desgagné, Richard, ‘The prevention of environmental damage in time of armed conflict: proportionality and precautionary measures’, in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 125–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Verwey, Wil D., ‘Observations of the legal protection of the environment in times of international armed conflict’, in Hague Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 7, 1994, p. 52Google Scholar.

113 J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 64, Rule 22. Cf. Parks, W. Hays, ‘Air war and the law of war’, in Air Force Law Review, Vol. 32, 1990, p. 1Google Scholar, at p. 159 (stating that this provision is not obligatory).

114 ICTY Final Report, above note 107, p. 1271, para. 51. See also, Rogers, Anthony P. V., Law on the Battlefield, 2nd edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2004, pp. 120–126Google Scholar.

115 See, World Trade Center Health Program: Addition of Certain Types of Cancer to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, US Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 177, 2012, pp. 56138–56168.

116 See, Preamble to the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration, above note 52.

117 See, e.g., Ruby, Tomislav Z., ‘Effects-based operations: more important than ever’, in Parameters, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2008, p. 26Google Scholar; Smith, Edward A. Jr., ‘Effects-based operations’, in Security Challenges, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2006, p. 43Google Scholar; Sloan, Elinor C., The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implication for Canada and NATO, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002, p. 15Google Scholar; Deptula, David A., Effects-Based Operations: Change in the Nature of Warfare, Aerospace Education Foundation, Arlington, 2001, pp. 21–22Google Scholar.