Hague & Hollowpoints

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctdonath

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
3,618
Location
Cumming GA
Considering the sporadic mentions of the Hague Convention and its relevance to hollowpoint etc. ammunition, I finally looked it up.
The Avalon Project Normandy Sabbath - Lawrence Beal Smith, 1944 : Courtesy of the U.S. Army Center of Military History at Yale Law School
Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.
Click to expand...
Of note is that this treaty was signed over 100 years ago, the USA was NOT a signatory, "dum-dum bullets" are not mentioned (Dum Dum being the city wherein the bullets were first developed, not an indication of IQ), and presumably anyone who refers to the Hague Convention in a "hollowpoints are illegal" fashion probably doesn't know what they're talking about.
 
I would have thought that the phrase "or is pierced with incisions" would cover dum-dums.

(assuming that my knowledge of dum-dums is correct - that they are ball rounds with an X cut in the top of the bullet)

Out or curiosity, how would this apply to lead slugs? Do they " expand or flatten easily in the human body"? You'd think not, or hollow points would not have been needed.... (or is it just how easy qualifies as 'easy'? The statement is too vague....)

Keith
 
The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
Click to expand...

Does this source (or another) indicate whether the US has so indicated its adhesion?
 
FYI.

"1. Hollow point ammunition. Typically, this is semi-jacketed ammunition that
is designed to expand dramatically upon impact. This ammunition is
prohibited for use in armed conflict by customary international and the
treaties mentioned above. There are situations, however, where use of this
ammunition is lawful because its use will significantly reduce collateral
damage to noncombatants and protected property (hostage rescue, aircraft
security)."

Source:
INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL, U.S. ARMY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
LAW OF WAR DESKBOOK
 
ctdonath said:
Considering the sporadic mentions of the Hague Convention and its relevance to hollowpoint etc. ammunition, I finally looked it up.Of note is that this treaty was signed over 100 years ago, the USA was NOT a signatory, "dum-dum bullets" are not mentioned (Dum Dum being the city wherein the bullets were first developed, not an indication of IQ), and presumably anyone who refers to the Hague Convention in a "hollowpoints are illegal" fashion probably doesn't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
I usually see Hague referred to as a counter to a claim that hollowpoints are outlawed by the Geneva Convention. More knowledgeable posters point out that Hague outlawed expanding bullets, and that while the US didn't sign it, we still abide by it (at least until recently). Even more knowledgeable posters then point out that the real reason most modern armed forces don't use HPs is that they don't feed well in automatic weapons. ;)
 
USCG is going to hollow points in their new 229's
Click to expand...

The Coast Guard isn't strictly military. They were part of the Department of Transportation before they moved to the Department of Homeland Security. And their work is generally law enforcement in nature, rather than war.
 
Coast guard clarification

USCG is DOT during peace time, they are transferred to DON(avy) during wartime. Not sure how the whole DHS thing works in there, but I'm sure it keeps our Puddle Pirates (sorry, I'm a squid and rivalries die hard) busy.
 
1. This treaty only applied to signatories fighting other signatories. The U.S. never signed this. Even if a country did sign it, if it's fighitng a country that didn't sign, the treaty doens't apply.

2. It doesn't apply to governments fighting terrorists or anyone not wearing a uniform (insurgents, spies), and it doesn't apply to police work.

3. There was a similar treaty signed a few years later that was signed by the U.S that outlawed the use of bullets that caused "unecessary suffering", but I don't see how this would apply to expanding/fragmenting bullets. Any projectile of a caliber smaller than 6 feet might not incapacitate someone instantly, so expanding bullets are necessary to create a bigger wound from weapons of a caliber under 6 feet.

I think it's funny that the U.S. still attempts to abide by the original Hague treaty while knowing that the 5.56 and 6.8 FMJ projectiles fragment, with a wound profile that's the same as that from a SP bullet, except with a longer neck.
 
funny you say that, I've been deployed six times in five years
Click to expand...

I said they aren't strictly military. I have an...associate that was in the Coast Guard and got deployed to the Gulf. I was merely pointing out that the Coast Guard probably doesn't fall under the same laws as the Armed Forces, esp while doing police work in our territorial waters. Perhaps they are required to carry FMJ while deployed? (I really don't know and am genuinely curious.)
 
Phantom Warrior said:
I said they aren't strictly military. I have an...associate that was in the Coast Guard and got deployed to the Gulf. I was merely pointing out that the Coast Guard probably doesn't fall under the same laws as the Armed Forces, esp while doing police work in our territorial waters. Perhaps they are required to carry FMJ while deployed? (I really don't know and am genuinely curious.)
Click to expand...

If you are Navy pehaps you have heard of JATF West, gave me three good years of central and s. america fun time (wild west). Word on the street is Dept of HLS says Coast Guard is not signatory to many of the conventional war treaties and rule
 
blackdragon said:
I would have thought that the phrase "or is pierced with incisions" would cover dum-dums.

(assuming that my knowledge of dum-dums is correct - that they are ball rounds with an X cut in the top of the bullet)

Out or curiosity, how would this apply to lead slugs? Do they " expand or flatten easily in the human body"? You'd think not, or hollow points would not have been needed.... (or is it just how easy qualifies as 'easy'? The statement is too vague....)

Keith
Click to expand...

Well, the Brits went from a lead bullet in their Webley MK VI to a jacketed bullet, supposedly to be in compliance.
 
The US didn't ratify THAT version, but they did sign another version. Instead of specifying bullet constructions, it bans bullets designed to cause grievous or un-necessary wounding, or something like that.
 
Ms. Rice gave an interesting speech yesterday in Germany, pretty much saying that the rules have changed for everyone. I would expect for the ammo to change also
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top