“Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
As these were remotely detonated, they do not fit the definition of a booby trap. Rather, the issue becomes a war crime because of Israel’s choice to detonate, which was very likely done in a manner that was reckless and without regard for collateral damage.
“Other devices” means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised
explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by
remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.
It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable
objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.
“Booby traps and other devices” is one legal thing, there’s no legal distinction. Pager bombs are always a war crime regardless of circumstances.
So would you classify them as an improvised explosive device instead? That the department of homeland security says are used by “criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and insurgents”
Didn’t say it was a good look. In fact, I quite explicitly noted that it was a shit move and likely a war crime. Just probably not because of international law on booby traps, but because of international law on discriminate use of force.
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.
As these were remotely detonated, they do not fit the definition of a booby trap. Rather, the issue becomes a war crime because of Israel’s choice to detonate, which was very likely done in a manner that was reckless and without regard for collateral damage.
“Booby traps and other devices” is one legal thing, there’s no legal distinction. Pager bombs are always a war crime regardless of circumstances.
You’re forgetting a couple or statements there. These were absolutely booby traps and command detonated traps exist.
So would you classify them as an improvised explosive device instead? That the department of homeland security says are used by “criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and insurgents”
That wouldn’t be a good look either
Didn’t say it was a good look. In fact, I quite explicitly noted that it was a shit move and likely a war crime. Just probably not because of international law on booby traps, but because of international law on discriminate use of force.
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.