The intent of the inclusion of boobytraps within that definition is pretty clear. Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome. How does one know if a device they are purchasing or picking up is one that’s been modified to explode during normal usage?
No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines on military objectives where the risk of civilian injury is low and explosives that are ‘remotely sent’ where the locations must be accurately recorded to prevent accidental discharge after the conflict has ceased.
I see no way to argue that they can ensure the pagers or radios were placed on such ‘military targets’, nor can they account or record the locations of any that failed to discharge. For all the Lebanese know, there are pagers or radios still in circulation that did not explode on the day of the attack, or that there are more explosives in other mobile devices that have yet to be activated, or were abandoned for use for whatever reason and may go off unexpectedly in the future. It is exactly that uncertainty and the use of everyday objects that makes this terror attack a war crime - not that it matters to a body that has been completely neutered and is incapable of holding Israel accountable without the consent of the US.
Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.
I’m not sure what you’re even on about, if the pagers (in your view) don’t qualify as ‘booby traps’, they’d still fit the description of ‘other devices’ that are in the same restriction:
“Other devices” means manually-emplaced munitions and devices designed to kill, injure
or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.
I personally think their being disguised as civilian objects is of particular note and makes the offence more severe, but even without that classification it’s considered a war crime
This Article applies to: (a) mines (b) booby-traps; and ( c) other devices.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct weapons to which this Article applies, either
in offence, defence or by way of reprisals, against the civilian population as such or against
individual civilians.
The indiscriminate use of weapons to which this Article applies is prohibited.
Indiscriminate use is any placement of such weapons:
(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective; or
It would be a tall order to prove that the pagers were actually and exclusively distributed to Hezbollah combatants
(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific
military objective; or
As with above, they had no reasonable way of knowing that the pagers would be directed as intended or be on their intended target at the time of discharge
( c) 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.
Pretty clearly caused incidental loss of civilian life and injury, especially in relation to the concrete military advantage. I haven’t even heard stated any material military advantage gained from this other than relating to the fear they intended to evoke
All feasible precautions shall be taken to protect civilians from the effects of weapons to
which this Article applies. Feasible precautions are those precautions which are practicable
or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including
humanitarian and military considerations.
No matter how you’re slicing it, under Protocol II of the UN the pager attacks would be a violation and subject to war crime charges. It being a literal ‘booby trap’, ‘mine’, or ‘other device’ is immaterial to its criminality.
I think you’re splitting hairs.
The intent of the inclusion of boobytraps within that definition is pretty clear. Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome. How does one know if a device they are purchasing or picking up is one that’s been modified to explode during normal usage?
Almost like someone would say they booby trapped the devices. The intent was clear as you stated.
Please, point out to me which prohibition here was violated.
I think you’re looking for excuses. Fuck’s sake, splitting hairs? That’s quite literally the legal fucking definition.
You’re right, that’s also why maskirovka is illegal. If you disguise a tank as a house, what comes next?
/s
Also why anti-tank landmines are illegal. If you disguise an explosive under a road, what other dastardly things can you do?
/s
No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines on military objectives where the risk of civilian injury is low and explosives that are ‘remotely sent’ where the locations must be accurately recorded to prevent accidental discharge after the conflict has ceased.
I see no way to argue that they can ensure the pagers or radios were placed on such ‘military targets’, nor can they account or record the locations of any that failed to discharge. For all the Lebanese know, there are pagers or radios still in circulation that did not explode on the day of the attack, or that there are more explosives in other mobile devices that have yet to be activated, or were abandoned for use for whatever reason and may go off unexpectedly in the future. It is exactly that uncertainty and the use of everyday objects that makes this terror attack a war crime - not that it matters to a body that has been completely neutered and is incapable of holding Israel accountable without the consent of the US.
Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.
Landmines are addressed entirely separately, but thanks for confirming you don’t have the first clue you’re talking about.
“How dare you quote the law when talking about the law”
Sorry, your feelings on the matter override international law, I know.
I’m not sure what you’re even on about, if the pagers (in your view) don’t qualify as ‘booby traps’, they’d still fit the description of ‘other devices’ that are in the same restriction:
I personally think their being disguised as civilian objects is of particular note and makes the offence more severe, but even without that classification it’s considered a war crime
It would be a tall order to prove that the pagers were actually and exclusively distributed to Hezbollah combatants
As with above, they had no reasonable way of knowing that the pagers would be directed as intended or be on their intended target at the time of discharge
Pretty clearly caused incidental loss of civilian life and injury, especially in relation to the concrete military advantage. I haven’t even heard stated any material military advantage gained from this other than relating to the fear they intended to evoke
No matter how you’re slicing it, under Protocol II of the UN the pager attacks would be a violation and subject to war crime charges. It being a literal ‘booby trap’, ‘mine’, or ‘other device’ is immaterial to its criminality.