Non-lethal and reduced lethality weapons form part of a vast range available for the use of force but it is difficult to reach an internationally agreed definition, whereas internally they have already proved their worth in law and order enforcement. The attraction of these weapons is justifiable on moral grounds because of the intent not to kill but to neutralise an adversary temporarily, and to save men and equipment, but at the risk, among others, of leaving the soldier powerless against conventional weapons.
Reflections on Non-Lethal and Reduced Lethality Weapons
In 1999 NATO proposed a first definition of non-lethal weapons that was generally accepted around the world: ‘Non-lethal weapons (NLW) are weapons which are explicitly designed and developed to incapacitate or repel personnel, with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury, or to disable equipment, with minimal undesired damage or impact on the environment.’
Since then, a multitude of studies and discussions have on the one hand raised hopes, often illusory, and on the other inspired sceptical denial of the real potential of these weapons.
In France, the Armed Forces are interested in these weapons, an interest that has gone beyond the doors of the Ministry of Defence, since in June 2003 the French Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to his Defence colleague: ‘The question of NLW is of growing importance today in the military sphere. Following the United States, a number of countries are updating their programmes in this field. Availability of this technology offers their armed forces a wider range of options, in a context characterised by changes in the nature of conflict, increasing media coverage, and concern not to appear to be in breach of the current rules on international humanitarian law and disarmament.’
Il reste 92 % de l'article à lire
