Editing Depleted uranium (section)

===Legal status in weapons===
In 1996, the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion on the "[[legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons]]".<ref>[http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/unan5a.html Advisory Opinion 1996 8 July 8; General List No. 95 (req: UNGA)] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140522005411/http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/unan5a.html |date=22 May 2014 }}. Cornnet.nl. Retrieved 16 January 2011.</ref> This made it clear, in paragraphs 54–56, that [[international law]] on poisonous weapons—the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925—did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate. This ICJ opinion was about nuclear weapons, but the sentence "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate," also removes depleted uranium weaponry from coverage by the same treaties as their primary use is not to poison or asphyxiate, but to destroy [[materiel]] and kill soldiers through [[kinetic energy]].

The [[Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities]] of the [[United Nations Human Rights Commission]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.houstonprogressive.org/hpn/iraq08.html |title=Citizen Inspectors Foiled in Search for DU Weapons |website=HOUSTON PROGRESSIVE |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150901205246/http://www.houstonprogressive.org/hpn/iraq08.html |archive-date=2015-09-01 |url-status=dead |access-date=16 January 2011}}</ref> passed two motions<ref>{{Cite web |title=Depleted Uranium UN Resolutions |url=http://www.prop1.org/2000/du/resource/000310un.htm |access-date=2024-06-05 |website=www.prop1.org}}</ref>—the first in 1996<ref>[http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0811fcbd0b9f6bd58025667300306dea/887c730868a70a758025665700548a00 International peace and security as an]. Unhchr.ch. Retrieved 16 January 2011.</ref> and the second in 1997.<ref>{{cite web
 |url= http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/21a4acb0f1b289ed80256633004ce147?
 |title= Opendocument Sub-Commission resolution 1997/36
}}</ref> They listed [[weapons of mass destruction]], or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. The committee authorized a working paper, in the context of [[human rights]] and humanitarian norms, of the weapons.

The requested UN working paper was delivered in 2002<ref>{{cite web |date=27 June 2002 |title=Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering |url=https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G02/141/67/PDF/G0214167.pdf?OpenElement |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170305030034/https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G02/141/67/PDF/G0214167.pdf?OpenElement |archive-date=5 March 2017 |access-date=31 October 2016 |publisher=United Nations Economic and Social Council}}([http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/AllSymbols/22481F4157DE6274C1256C00004C29BB/$File/G0214167.pdf?OpenElement backup]) "In its decision 2001/36 of 16 August 2001, the Sub-Commission, recalling its resolutions 1997/36 and 1997/37 of 28 August 1997, authorized Mr. Y. K. J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare, without financial implications, in the context of human rights and humanitarian norms, the working paper originally assigned to Ms. Forero Ucros."</ref> by [[Y. K. J. Yeung Sik Yuen]] in accordance with [[Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights]] resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: [[the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], the [[Charter of the United Nations]], the [[Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide|Genocide Convention]], the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]], the [[Geneva Conventions]] including [[Protocol I]], the [[Convention on Conventional Weapons]] of 1980, and the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]]. Yeung Sik Yuen writes in Paragraph 133 under the title "''Legal compliance of weapons containing DU as a new weapon''":

{{quotation|Annex II to the [[Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material]] 1980 (which became operative on 8 February 1997) classifies DU as a category II nuclear material. Storage and transport rules are set down for that category which indicates that DU is considered sufficiently "hot" and dangerous to warrant these protections. But since weapons containing DU are relatively new weapons no treaty exists yet to regulate, limit or prohibit its use. The legality or illegality of DU weapons must therefore be tested by recourse to the general rules governing the use of weapons under humanitarian and human rights law which have already been analysed in Part I of this paper, and more particularly at paragraph 35 which states that parties to [[Protocol I]] to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have an obligation to ascertain that new weapons do not violate the laws and customs of war or any other international law. As mentioned, the [[International Court of Justice]] considers this rule binding customary humanitarian law.}}

[[Louise Arbour]], chief prosecutor for the [[International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]] led a committee of staff lawyers to investigate possible treaty prohibitions against the use of DU in weapons. Their findings were that:<ref>Sills, Joe ''et al.'' (April 2002) ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20041015050907/http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/env-crime-icc-printer.pdf Environmental Crimes in Military Actions and the International Criminal Court (ICC) – United Nations Perspectives]'' (PDF) ([https://web.archive.org/web/20041015050907/http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/env-crime-icc-printer.pdf HTML]) of American Council for the UN University. p. 28 </ref>

{{quotation|There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.<ref>{{cite report |title=Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia |section=ii. Use of Depleted Uranium Projectiles |url=https://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVA2 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090806072638/http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVA2 |archive-date=6 August 2009}}</ref>}}According to the [[United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research]], depleted uranium does not meet the legal definitions of nuclear, radiological, toxin, chemical, poison or incendiary weapons, as far as DU ammunition is not designed nor intended to kill or wound by its chemical or radiological effects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McDonald|first=Avril|date=October 2008|title=Depleted uranium weapons: the next target for disarmament?|url=https://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/uranium-weapons-en-328.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/uranium-weapons-en-328.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|journal=Disarmament Forum|publisher=United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research|volume=3|pages=19–20}}</ref>