چکیده:
The rapid and intensive progress in science and technology in the world,
despite its abundant advantages and gifts of welfare and comfort for the
mankind, in many ways, it has pushed human security to face grave tragic
events. To give an example, the progress in chemistry before the Great War,
made it possible to produce and use toxic gases including Phosgene gas
causing enormous deaths of both military personnel and civilians. Another
example in man’s progress in nuclear physics led to innovating nuclear bomb
with no precedent and unheard of in terms of mass destruction and ruins.
In turn, the international humanitarian law, despite its progress in recent
decades, has had been slower than the development of aforementioned
scientific progresses. Nonetheless, one should consider the point that those
disciplines of human sciences have more essential and fundamental principles
that provide it with the ability to prevail with new conditions and situations.
To elaborate the subject, although the international humanitarian law lacks
explicit rules, regulations and treaties in addressing many of the modern
armaments and warfare, it still possesses the principle of distinction, principle
of unnecessary pain and suffering, principle of preventing vast and long-term
damages that could be enforced on new arms by assessing its legality in order
to boost human security. The present paper aims at studying various aspects
of this issue
خلاصه ماشینی:
In fact, the principle of good faith in executing conventions obligations urged governments to assess the legality of new arms based on the fundamental principles of the international humanitarian law when they start producing and developing such weapons and in this way, the mentioned principles that were supposed to be enforceable in using the arms in wartime have eventually expanded to include the pre-use period to become a basis to control arms.
Further, the participant countries in the second conference on revision of conventional armed convention in 2001 addressed the issue of revising and assessing new arms and asked those governments that were careless in observing their obligations stipulated in article 36 of the First Additional Protocol, to take actions on revising their new arms in accordance with relevant principles and laws.
In the final declaration of the conference it ruled: “Governments that have not taken such actions so far are required to perform revision in accordance with article 36 of the First Protocol of Geneva in order to specify if any of their new arms or new war methods and tools is banned on the basis of the international humanitarian law and/or other international imposable 128 laws?” (CWC/Conf.
It should be mentioned that in order to help governments in establishing national mechanisms in revising the legality of new arms, in 2006, the International Committee of the Red Cross developed and released a guideline on legal revision of arms, armaments and new war methods with the help of 30 experts from ten countries.