Do Non-Lethal Capabilities License to ‘Silence’?

Abstract

Most contemporary conflicts can be characterized as ‘wars or conflicts amongst the people’. International military forces deployed in such conflicts are confronted with complex operational environments where the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is often impossible to make. At the same time, there is a moral requirement imposed on Western coalition forces to perform in a humane manner and to keep casualties to a minimum. Non-lethal weapons are expected to enable military forces to accomplish their mission without having to kill or destroy. The extent to which these weapons meet that promise in real world conditions is the subject of debate. A defence technology assessment of non-lethal weapons is proposed that validates their utility and moral implications by considering the user, the weapon and the target in the context of the deployment situation. It will be illustrated that the technical parameters of the non-lethal weapons are no guarantee that the weapons will perform as intended as the user and target introduce many factors of uncertainty in real world situations. Although such uncertainties undermine the moral acceptability of non-lethal weapons, it is argued that the principle of non-lethality is compliant with the Just War Tradition principle of proportionality. The principles of non-combatant immunity and discrimination need to be re-calibrated given the human-centricity of many military intervention operations.

Keywords:

• Non-combatant immunity
• non-lethal weapons
• discrimination
• proportionality
• defence technology assessment
• baton rounds
• CS gas
• active denial system

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Professor John Grin for his suggestions and constructive remarks on a draft of this article.

Notes

1. The article is based on a paper that I presented at the international conference Emerging Technologies, Ethics and Leadership, organized by the Netherlands Defence Academy, 5–7 November 2008, Amsterdam.

2. A distinction is made between the notions of non-lethality and non-lethal (weapons or capabilities). Non-lethality refers to wider strategic and operational concepts that guide the use of force that is supposed to deliver non-lethal effects. Non-lethal refers to the properties and effects of weapons. Compare Rappert (2002: 55, 73).

3. In an interview with the author, J. Bolle stated that in US prisons the spraying of CS gas to control turmoil in gatherings of inmates was less effective and led to replacement of the agent by the much stronger pepper spray, also dispersed as an area effect aerosol (Ossendrecht, Netherlands Police Academy, October 2007).

4. Interview by the author with Col (rtd) J. Wilson, who gave an account of the prison incident that took place in the 1970s (Upavon, HQ UK Army, 16 December 2008).

5. Interview by the author with a commander of an arrest team in the Dutch armed forces. The name of the interviewee is not disclosed for security reasons (March 2008).

6. Interview by the author with Brig (rtd) T. Longland (Shrivenham, DCDC, 18 December 2008).

7. Anecdotal accounts of such situations have been taken from interviews by the author in 2007 and the first half of 2008 with Dutch officers who have served with the Dutch Battle Group of Task Force Uruzgan in Afghanistan. Respondents are not quoted in this paper for security reasons.