|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The latest escalation in missile exchanges between Israel and Iran has revived international debate over the controversial use of cluster munitions. While Israeli officials have condemned recent Iranian strikes as potential war crimes, legal experts emphasize that the legality of such weapons depends on how they are used rather than an outright global ban.
Cluster munitions, which disperse dozens or even hundreds of smaller explosive submunitions over a wide area, are widely criticized for their potential to harm civilians. However, international law does not universally prohibit their use.
Neither Israel nor Iran is a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty banning the production, transfer, and use of these weapons. As a result, both countries are not legally bound by its provisions.
According to Col. (res.) Dr. Liron Libman, former head of the Israel Defense Forces’ International Law Division, customary international law still allows their use under certain conditions.
“Customary international law does not prohibit the use of cluster munitions per se,” Libman said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post. “Only states that are parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions have undertaken an obligation not to use them.”
Libman noted that several major military powers, including the United States, Russia, China, India, and Turkey, have also chosen not to join the treaty. Their reasoning often centers on the weapons’ effectiveness against dispersed military targets.
Cluster munitions can be particularly useful when striking large military installations, such as airfields or troop formations spread across broad areas. However, those same characteristics raise significant legal and humanitarian concerns.
“The features that make them militarily effective also make them legally problematic when used near civilian populations,” Libman explained.
Recent reports suggest that Iran may have used missiles carrying cluster munitions during attacks on Israeli territory. Some of these strikes reportedly involved Khorramshahr-4 missiles, a long-range system capable of delivering large payloads.
The central legal question is not the existence of the weapon itself, but whether its use violates the core principles of international humanitarian law. These principles include distinction — separating military targets from civilians — and proportionality, which limits attacks that could cause excessive civilian harm.
“International law prohibits the intentional targeting of civilians and also prohibits indiscriminate attacks,” Libman said. “Intentionally targeting civilians constitutes a war crime.”
Reports of munitions impacting residential areas have prompted accusations that Iranian forces may have deliberately targeted Israeli civilian populations. Alternatively, analysts suggest the attacks may represent indiscriminate use of weapons that lack sufficient precision.
The controversy surrounding cluster munitions is not limited to Iran. Israel itself has faced criticism for using the weapons during past conflicts, particularly during the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
The Winograd Commission, which investigated Israel’s conduct during that war, highlighted significant concerns about the reliability of cluster munitions. Its findings remain one of the most detailed public analyses of their battlefield effects.
According to the report, three key issues contributed to civilian risk: the limited accuracy of delivery systems, the wide dispersal pattern of submunitions, and the high number of unexploded “duds.”
These unexploded bomblets can remain active long after hostilities end, posing serious risks to civilians returning to affected areas.
The commission estimated that failure rates for artillery-delivered cluster munitions ranged between 12% and 18%. Rocket-launched systems had lower failure rates but still averaged around 5%.
These figures differ significantly from claims by some defense manufacturers, who often cite failure rates as low as 0.01% for modern “smart” submunitions tested under controlled conditions.
Libman cautioned that such discrepancies often arise from differences in testing environments and battlefield realities.
“Failure rates can vary depending on conditions of use, the specific munition type, and how unexploded ordnance is counted,” he said.
The Winograd report also documented cases in which cluster munitions landed inside Lebanese villages despite standing orders from Israel’s military leadership to avoid firing into inhabited areas.
Investigators attributed these incidents to unclear orders and disciplinary failures rather than deliberate violations of international law.
The commission ultimately concluded that while the weapons were controversial, it found no evidence that Israeli forces intentionally violated international law during the conflict.
In response to the findings, Israel established procedures requiring military units to document and share strike coordinates with demining organizations after conflicts. This process helps facilitate the removal of unexploded submunitions and reduces risks to civilians.
Applying such protocols in the current confrontation with Iran could prove far more difficult.
Unlike past conflicts involving neighboring territories, strikes occurring deep inside Iranian territory would present major logistical challenges. The absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries further complicates the possibility of post-war coordination.
Libman noted that the legality of any specific strike ultimately depends on the circumstances in which the weapons are used.
“I do not know whether or where such munitions are being used by the IDF in Iran,” he said. “The key legal question is how, where, and against which targets they are used.”
As the conflict escalates, the debate over cluster munitions illustrates a broader dilemma in modern warfare.
While these weapons may offer strategic advantages against certain military targets, their humanitarian consequences risk undermining the legal and moral legitimacy of those who deploy them.
For both Israel and Iran, the balance between military effectiveness and adherence to international law may increasingly shape the global perception of their actions in the ongoing confrontation.
This article was created using automation technology and was thoroughly edited and fact-checked by one of our editorial staff members