en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
2 corrections found
As of the end of April 2018, the protocol had been agreed to by 109 nations.
The official UN treaty status shows 108 parties as of April 2018, not 109.
Full reasoning
The UN Treaty Collection is the depositary record for this protocol. It currently lists 111 parties and shows the dates on which each state consented to be bound. Only three parties joined after April 2018: Benin (27 Sep 2019), Singapore (21 Sep 2023), and Trinidad and Tobago (29 Jul 2024). That means the total at the end of April 2018 was 111 - 3 = 108, not 109.
So the article's historical count is off by one.
1 source
- UN Treaty Collection: Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV)
Status: Parties: 111 ... Benin 27 Sep 2019 P ... Singapore 21 Sep 2023 P ... Trinidad and Tobago 29 Jul 2024 P.
Article 3 allows for attacks on electronic optical equipment, because damaging it would not cause human injury.
Attacks on electro-optical equipment were not treated as harmless to people. Contemporary sources note that such attacks could still blind or injure the person using the device.
Full reasoning
This explanation of the protocol is too broad and gets the rationale wrong.
Contemporary sources on the protocol made clear that attacks on optical or electro-optical systems could still injure people. The UN's own 1995 conference summary said anti-matériel lasers used against electro-optical devices had an anti-personnel component because they could blind persons looking directly into the optical device.
Human Rights Watch's 1995 report likewise explained that most tactical laser attacks on optical/electro-optical devices worked by endangering the operator's eyes, and that only some systems where there is a physical separation between the sensor and the human eye (for example, certain FLIR or closed-circuit camera sensors) would not attack the person involved.
So it is incorrect to say these attacks were allowed because damaging the equipment would not cause human injury. The historical record shows negotiators and analysts recognized that such attacks could still harm the user; the protocol instead carved out incidental or collateral blinding from otherwise legitimate military use.
2 sources
- UN Press Release DC/2535, Review Conference of States Parties to Conventional Weapons Convention, Vienna, 13 October 1995
Anti-matériel lasers, used to destroy or damage electro-optical devices such as tank periscopes, were also described as targeting equipment, but with an anti-personnel component in that they blind persons looking directly into the optical device.
- Human Rights Watch, U.S. Blinding Laser Weapons (May 1995)
It is only in the cases of electro-optical devices such as forward-looking infrared sensors (FLIRs) or closed circuit camera sensors - where there is a separation between the sensor and the human eye ... - that the tactical laser weapon would not 'attack' the person involved.