The Encyclopedia is a project of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights launched on 2 December 2013. The Enyclopedia aims to provide accurate, up-to-date information on weapons, the effects of their use, and their regulation under public international law, in a format that is accessible to non-specialists.
+ Find out moreThe Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons was adopted on 13 October 1995 at the First Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Vienna, Austria, and was annexed to the CCW as Protocol IV. The Protocol entered into force on 30 July 1998.
The Protocol was adopted to 'counter the silent and invisible threat to human sight posed by the threat of blinding laser weapons', deemed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.Final Declaration, Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Final Document, Part I, Annex C, UN doc. CCW/CONF.I/16 (Part I).
Blinding laser weapons are defined in Article 1 of the Protocol as
laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.
CCW Protocol IV prohibits the employment and the transfer of blinding laser weapons. It also imposes precautionary obligations with respect to the use of ‘laser systems’ more generally ‘to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision’. The Protocol does not define ‘laser systems’, but the category presumably includes range-finders and target designators, as well as laser weapons that do not fall within the ambit of Article 1.
Experts at a 1973 meeting on certain conventional weapons considered that the use of lasers as antipersonnel devices was unlikely,Weapons that may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, Report on the Work of Experts, ICRC, Geneva, 1973, §240. but throughout the 1980s concern grew about the potential humanitarian impact of ‘battlefield’ or ‘tactical’ laser weapons. In 1987, Sweden raised concern about the development of ‘battlefield laser weapons’ for anti-personnel purposes within the UN General Assembly First Committee, arguing
that methods of warfare which are intended and may be expected to cause irreversible injury to the human eye are already prohibited under existing principles of humanitarian law. Those principles should be laid down in an international instrument in order effectively to prevent such methods of warfare. There is therefore a need to elaborate a prohibition on the use of battlefield laser weapons specifically designed for anti-personnel use.Verbatim Record of the 34th Meeting: 1st Committee, Friday, 6 November 1987, New York, General Assembly, 42nd Session, UN doc A/C.1/42/PV.34.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) convened four expert meetings on laser weapons between 1989 and 1991 and began advocating for a ban on the anti-personnel use of laser weapons to blind.For a brief introduction, see L. Doswald-Beck, ‘New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons’, 312 IRRC 1996. For more detail, see L. Doswald-Beck (ed) Blinding Weapons: Reports of the Meeting of Experts Convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross on Battlefield Laser Weapons : 1989 – 1991, ICRC, 1993.
In February 1993, France requested the convening of a review conference of the CCW, mainly to address the humanitarian impact of anti-personnel landmines. The First Review Conference of the CCW was convened pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 3(a) of the CCW and consisted of three sessions between September 1995 and May 1996.Documents and Summary Records of the Conference, Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Final Document, Part II, UN doc CCW/CONF.I/16 (Part II). In the course of preparatory expert discussions, Sweden and the ICRC introduced proposals for a new protocol to the CCW to outlaw the use of certain laser weapons. The ICRC’s proposal aimed at explicitly prohibiting blinding as a method of warfare.L. Doswald-Beck, ‘New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons’, 312 IRRC 1996.
The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, adopted in its current form on 13 October 1995 is the first instrument since the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration to prohibit the employment of a weapon with perceived military utility before its use had led to streams of victims.ICRC, Weapons that may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects, Report on the Work of Experts, Geneva, 1973, pp 67-69. For the history of the Protocol see, L. Doswald-Beck, 'New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons', International Review of the Red Cross, no. 312, 1996.
Rather than describing the technical characteristics of the prohibited weapons, the Protocol defines them in Article 1 as
laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.
‘Specifically designed’ in this context includes ‘dual use’ laser weapons designed, both, for use against optical systems and against eyesight.
For the purpose of the Protocol ‘permanent blindness’ was defined in Article 4 as ‘irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery’, where ‘[S]erious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes’. Laser injuries to the eye are generally irreversible, uncorrectable and with no prospect of recovery. Importantly, though, ‘seriously disabling’ does not necessarily mean total loss of sight.The choice to use the Snellen scale to measure blindness caused by laser weapons was criticised by specialists during the negotiations. Today, efforts are underway to revise the definition and categorization of visual impairment and blindness. (‘Change the Definition of Blindness’, International Classification of Diseases Updated and Revision Platform, (undated).) In the Final Declaration of the Review Conference, states noted that ‘a number of issues could be considered in the future, …taking into account scientific and technological developments, including … the definition of "permanent blindness", including the concept of field of vision’. (Final Declaration of the Review Conference, Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Final Report, Geneva, 1996, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/16(PartI), Annex C.) See also L. Doswald-Beck, 'New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons', International Review of the Red Cross, no. 312, 1996.
The Protocol was the first treaty to explicitly prohibit not only the employment but also the transfer of a specific weapon for humanitarian reasons. Although questions of prohibition on the development, production and stockpiling of blinding laser weapons were also discussed during the negotiations, the Protocol does not contain a prohibition on these activities.Report of Main Committee III, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/4, 12 October 1995, in CCW/CONF.I/16(PartII), p. 123.
Article 2 provides
In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Pursuant to Article 3 of the Protocol,
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
The provisions underline that the Protocol does not prohibit the use of all laser systems, even though their ‘legitimate military’ use, for example, for the detection and destruction of optical equipment, may inadvertently cause blindness. The reference to ‘legitimate military’ employment suggests that such systems could also be used for other, illegitimate, purposes. But as such systems (e.g. range-finders or target designators) are not ‘specifically designed … to cause permanent blindness’ they would not fall within the definition of a blinding laser weapon under Article 1. It has therefore been argued that Articles 2 and 3 imply a ban on the deliberate blinding, that is, a prohibition on blinding as a method of warfare.
Earlier drafts of the Protocol contained an explicit prohibition on blinding as a method of warfare, but no such prohibition was included in the final version. In spite of this, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) argues with regard to the object and purpose of the Protocol that it ‘has the effect of prohibiting the deliberate use of other laser systems (for example, range-finders) to blind combatants’.ICRC Customary IHL study, 2005, Rule 86. It can also be argued that the use of a laser system against optical equipment like binoculars would amount to a breach of Article 3. The laser would not affect the binoculars, but the eyesight of the person using them and resulting harm could hardly be deemed ‘an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment’ of a laser system. (See on this point, L. Doswald-Beck, ‘New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons’, 312 IRRC 1996.)
The obligation on states to ‘take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision’ echoes the general obligation under IHL to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental civilian harm.Art. 57(2)(a)(ii), 1977 Additional Protocol I. In this case, however, the precautionary obligation is not limited to the protection of civilians, but concerns the prevention of blindness in combatants as well. This further supports the interpretation that the Protocol prohibits blinding as a method of warfare.
The CCW and its annexed Protocols do not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature. As Protocol IV contains no provision on its scope, its applicability is tied to the scope of application of the framework convention, the CCW. Consequently, for States Parties to the CCW that have not ratified the 2001 Amendment to the CCW, Protocol IV applies in international armed conflicts only. For States Parties to the CCW bound by the 2001 Amendment, the Protocol applies in international and non-international armed conflicts.The question of the scope of the Convention itself and of its protocols was subject to intense debate at the first Review Conference. 1980 Protocol II on Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices was revised at the conference and its scope of application was extended to cover non-international conflicts. However, no consensus could be reached on extending the scope of Protocol IV to conflicts not of an international character.
It is noteworthy that a number of states made declarations upon expressing consent to be bound by Protocol IV to the effect that the Protocol's provisions should apply ‘at all times’ or ‘in any circumstances’. Australia, for example, declared: ‘It is the understanding of the Government of Australia that the provisions of Protocol IV shall apply in all circumstances’. In the context of the CCW, it is not entirely clear whether ‘in all circumstances’ extends beyond times of armed conflict, however. According to one commentator, ‘delegations intended this Protocol also to apply at least to non-international armed conflicts as described in Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions’.L. Doswald-Beck, ‘New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons’, 312 IRRC 1996. Some states made it clear, however, that they deemed at least some of the Protocol’s provisions to apply outside of armed conflict as well. Ireland made the following declaration in relation to Article 1:
It is the understanding of Ireland that the provisions of the Additional Protocol which by their contents or nature may also be applied in peacetime, shall be observed at all times.
Several other States Parties to the Protocol made identical or similar declarations.See the declarations of Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein and South Africa. See also the declarations by Belgium, The Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland.
The possible extension of the temporal scope of application of the Protocol raises a number of questions. First, like other protocols to the CCW, Protocol IV a priori aims to regulate means or methods of warfare, that is, the use of blinding laser weapons for the conduct of hostilities. At least for those states that understand (some of) the Protocol’s provisions to apply in all circumstances, including in peace time, the prohibition would extend to situations of law enforcement as well, irrespective of whether these take place in the context of an armed conflict or not. In light of this, what implications does Protocol IV have for the use of dazzlers and laser weapons generally, as well as other weapons that may lead to blindness, in the context of law enforcement?
Second, under international treaty law, relations between two states are usually governed by treaties to which both states are parties. From this standpoint, a state party to an international armed conflict would only be bound by the provisions of Protocol IV in relation to another state party to that conflict if both states have ratified the Protocol. However, the Protocol’s prohibition on the transfer of blinding laser weapons applies in respect of any state or non-state entity. In light of the humanitarian object and purpose of the Protocol, this wording supports the interpretation that the transfer of blinding laser weapons is always prohibited, including in peace time. Also with a view to the object and purpose of the Protocol it can be argued that a state may never use a blinding laser weapon against anyone.The 1997 Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions follow this logic by instituting complete weapon bans.
In any case, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the prohibition on the use of blinding laser weapons is today a norm of customary international humanitarian law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The prohibition is therefore binding on all parties to conflict, irrespective of whether they have ratified the Protocol.ICRC Customary IHL study, 2005, Rule 86. See the Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Database (RULAC) for a discussion of how international (humanitarian) law binds non-state actors, (parties to an armed conflict).
According to the ICRC, there have been no reports of laser weapons being used by any state or non-state actor in violation of the Protocol since its adoption.ICRC Customary IHL Study, 2005, Rule 86.
Last updated on: 08 August 2017