Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III)

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Canada	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Israel	Yes	No
Palestine	Yes	No
United States of America	Yes	Yes

Canada

16-01-2015

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) and the Secretary-General's communication of 6 January 2015, C.N.17.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2, relating to that treaty. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary-General's capacity as Depositary for the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III). The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.
In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have 1 Refer to depositary notification C.N.17.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2 of 6 January 2015 (Accession: State of Palestine). Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

France

18-07-2002

[Protocol III]
The French Republic accepts the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, insofar as the terms used in these paragraphs do not lead to the assumption that an attack using incendiary weapons launched from an aircraft would involve any greater risk of indiscriminate hits than one launched by any other means.
It is the understanding of the French Republic that the term "clearly separated" used in article 2, paragraph 3, can be interpreted as meaning either a separation in terms of space or a separation by means of a physical barrier between the military target and the concentration of civilians.

Israel

16-01-2015

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary 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 (with Protocols I, II and III), and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 6 January 2015, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.17.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2).
'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

Palestine

06-02-2015

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.58.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2, dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine 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 (with Protocols I, II and III) dated 10 October 1980.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine ‘non-member observer State status in the United Nations’. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party 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 and Protocols I and III, which enter into force on 5 July 2015, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

06-02-2015

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.41.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2, dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), dated 10 October 1980.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine ‘non-member observer State status in the United Nations’. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects and Protocols I and III, which enter into force on 5 July 2015, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

06-02-2015

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.42.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2, dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) dated 10 October 1980.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States of America and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine ‘non-member observer State status in the United Nations’. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the Convention on Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects and Protocols I and III), which enters into force on 5 July 2015, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

United States of America

21-01-2009

[Protocol III]
The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing or executing military action shall only be judged on the basis of that person’s assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.

Objection Germany, 01-02-2010

The Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation submitted by the United States of America on 21 January 2009 concerning Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons of 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 (CCW) and raises an objection to it.
The Federal Republic of Germany understands that the intention of the reservation submitted by the United States of America is to cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage.
However, the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the CCW and Protocol III and that it would leave the decision of whether or not the respective norms of the Protocol should be applied to the discretion of a military commander.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of Protocol III between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 02-02-2010

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Government of the United States of America at the time of notifying the depositary of its consent to be bound by the Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III).
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that, in respect of paragraph 2 of article 2, the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, since it follows from the very language of this provision, being one of the core provisions of the Protocol, that no exception whatsoever is allowed.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands furthermore considers that, in respect of paragraph 3 of article 2, the reservation must also be deemed to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, since it widens the scope of the exception provided for under this paragraph and thereby risks to undermine the compromise nature of one of the core provisions of the Protocol.
According to international law a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the United States of America to the Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III).
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Protocol between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America.

Objection Sweden, 02-02-2010

[...] the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the United States of America concerning the latter's consent, on 21 January 2009, to be bound by Protocol III 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.
According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to fulfill their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden notes that the United States of America has made a reservation to the core provisions of Protocol III.
The Protocol provides (Article 2.2) that it is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. This is a clear-cut ban on the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons. The provision does not allow for any exceptions.
The formulation of the United States of America that it 'reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects' seems to open for an interpretation that air-delivered incendiary weapons could be used under certain conditions also when military objectives are located within concentrations of civilians. Such an interpretation is neither consistent with the wording of the treaty, nor with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Article 2.3 of the Protocol prohibits the use of attacks by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered weapons located within a concentration of civilians. This is the main rule. There is an exception to this main rule and the parameters of the exception are clearly set out in the Article. An attack against a military objective that is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians' and where 'all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects' is not prohibited under the Protocol.
The reservation of the United States appears to disregard the fact that incendiary weapons may only be used under these circumstances. It is, for example, not possible to neglect the requirement that the military objective must be clearly separated from the concentration of civilians.
Hence, this reservation is contrary to the obligation contained in Article 2.3 and inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.
It should be underlined that all States are under an obligation to take feasible precautions before an attack. This follows from customary law and from treaty provisions, including Article 2.3 of the Protocol on incendiary weapons. The duty to take feasible precautions does not remove the obligation to ensure that specific treaty obligations are fulfilled, such as the obligation to ensure that the military objective is clearly separated which goes to the heart of the object and purpose of the treaty.
The reservation of the United States of America concern the core provisions of the Protocol and must therefore also be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Sweden objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the United States of America to Protocol III 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 and considers the reservation without legal effect. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States of America and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the United States of America and Sweden, without the United States of America benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Belgium, 02-02-2010

Belgium has examined the reservation made by the United States of America to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Belgium considers that the interpretation of article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Protocol III derived from the wording of the reservation made by the United States could negate the specific object and scope of those provisions, thus leaving the Protocol devoid of any useful effect. For this reason, Belgium wishes to register an objection to this reservation, which it considers to be incompatible with the object and purpose of Protocol III. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to Protocol III remaining in force between Belgium and the United States of America.

Objection Norway, 02-02-2010

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway has examined the Declaration made by the Government of the United States of America at the time of its consent to be bound by the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) to the 1980 UN 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.
The Government of the Kingdom of Norway considers the declaration made by the Government of the United States of America to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Protocol on a unilateral basis in a way that is contrary to its object and purpose, namely by limiting the application of the prohibition on the use of incendiary weapons in those situations governed by paragraphs 2 and 3 of its Article 2, to which the declaration refers.
The Government of the Kingdom of Norway recalls that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of Norway objects to the aforesaid reservation by the Government of the United States of America to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) to the United Nations 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. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol in its entirety between the two States, without the United States of America benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Greece, 02-02-2010

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservation formulated by the United States of America when notifying its consent to be bound by Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons annexed 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.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation submitted by the United States of America with regard to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, which constitute core provisions of the aforementioned Protocol, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic therefore objects to the abovementioned reservation submitted by the United States of America to Protocol III. This does not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the United States of America and Greece.

Objection France, 02-02-2010

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made by the United States of America upon acceding to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) annexed 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.
By this reservation, the United States of America reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons. In so doing, the reservation both excludes the prohibition set out in article 2, paragraph 2, and alters the derogation regime set out in article 2, paragraph 3.
Accordingly, the Government of the French Republic considers this reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol since, despite the assurances given by the United States of America, it cannot guarantee the protection of civilians, which is the raison d'être of the Protocol. The Government of the French Republic therefore wishes to register an objection to this reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between France and the United States of America.

Objection Switzerland, 02-02-2010

Upon depositing the instrument of ratification of Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on 21 January 2009, the United States of America made a reservation with reference to paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2 of the said Protocol. According to the reservation, the United States "reserve the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects".
Switzerland appreciates the willingness expressed by the United States to take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and individual civilians not directly participating in hostilities. Switzerland considers that these measures are in keeping with the fundamental principle of distinction under international humanitarian law, a principle that is enshrined, in particular, in articles 57 (2) (ii) and 57 (4) of the first 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These provisions require each party to a conflict to "take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects".
Nonetheless, Switzerland considers that the reservation made by the United States is incompatible with the object and purpose of Protocol III, and therefore it objects to the reservation for the following reasons: in Switzerland's view, paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2 are core provisions that set out an absolute prohibition of the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military objectives located within concentrations of civilians (paragraph 2) and of attacks by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians (paragraph 3). These provisions were designed as specific rules that replace and strengthen the general customary and treaty obligations arising from international humanitarian law for the purpose of guaranteeing the full protection of civilians from incendiary weapons. The reservation made by the United States does not take into consideration the specific nature of paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2.
Switzerland considers that this objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of Protocol III as between Switzerland and the United States of America.

Objection Austria, 03-02-2010

The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the United States of America upon consent to be bound by 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 (Protocol III).
The Government of Austria finds that the reservation to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 affects essential obligations arising from the Convention and their observance is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Austria would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (article 19 sub-paragraph c), a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
For these reasons, the Government of Austria objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the United States of America 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 (Protocol III).
This position however does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the United States of America and Austria.

Objection Ireland, 04-02-2010

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservation made on 21 January 2009 by the United States of America to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Protocol III 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 upon notification of its consent to be bound thereby.
The provisions to which the aforesaid reservation refers prohibit, with one exception, the use of incendiary weapons against military objectives located within concentrations of civilians. The Government of Ireland regards the reservation made by the United States of America as invalid, inasmuch as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of Protocol III.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United
States of America.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of Protocol III between Ireland and the United States of America.

Objection United Kingdom, 04-02-2010

[...], this reservation appears to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol insofar as the object and purpose of the Protocol is to prohibit/restrict the use of incendiary weapons per se. On this reading, the United Kingdom objects to the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol.
The United States has, however, publicly represented that the reservation is necessary because incendiary weapons are the only weapons that can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets, such as biological weapons facilities, which require high heat to eliminate the biotoxins. The United States has also publicly represented that the reservation is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, which is to protect civilians from the collateral damage associated with the use of incendiary weapons. The United States has additionally stated publicly that the reservation is consistent with a key underlying principle of international humanitarian law, which is to reduce risk to the civilian population and civilian objects from harms flowing from armed conflict.
On the basis that (a) the United States reservation is correctly interpreted as a narrow reservation focused on the use of incendiary weapons against biological weapons, or similar counterproliferation, facilities that require high heat to eliminate the biotoxins, in the interests of preventing potentially disastrous consequences for the civilian population, (b) the United States reservation is not otherwise intended to detract from the obligation to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimising incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects, and (c) the object and purpose of the Protocol can properly be said to be to protect civilians from the collateral damage associated with the use of incendiary weapons, the United Kingdom would not object to the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol.

Objection Poland, 04-02-2010

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by the United States of America upon the ratification of the Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III) 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, done at Geneva, 10 October 1980.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the above-mentioned reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to it.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the United States of America.

Objection Denmark, 04-02-2010

The Kingdom of Denmark notes the reservation made by the United States of America upon its consent to be bound by Protocol III. The reservation appears - with its broad and general formulation - to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol. On this basis, the Kingdom of Denmark objects to the reservation.
The United States has represented that the reservation is intended to only address the highly specific circumstances such as where the use of incendiary weapons is a necessary and proportionate means of destroying counter-proliferation targets, such as biological weapon facilities requiring high heat to eliminate biotoxins, and where the use of incendiary weapons would provide greater protection for the civilian population than the use of other types of weapons.
The Kingdom of Denmark welcomes this narrowing of the scope of the reservation and the humanitarian considerations underlying the reservation of the United States of America. The Kingdom of Denmark further expresses its willingness to engage in any further dialogue, which may serve to settle differences in interpretation.

Objection Cyprus, 05-02-2010

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus considers that the reservation made by the United States of America with regard to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Protocol, is incompatible with its object and purpose.
For that reason, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus objects to the aforementioned reservation by the United States of America to Protocol III of the CCW.
This position does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Cyprus in its entirety.

Objection Finland, 05-02-2010

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservation and the text of Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and wishes to express its concerns with respect to the reservation.
Under Article 2, paragraph 2, it is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. Furthermore, under Article 2, paragraph 3, it is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Article 2, paragraph 2, allows no exceptions concerning the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons. Therefore, the reservation made by the United States of America in respect of that provision appears to undermine the object and purpose of Protocol III. Furthermore, Article 2, paragraph 3, provides for two conditions for the use of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered ones, both of which have to be met. While noting that the reservation made by the United States of America respects the condition of all feasible precautions, the Government of Finland considers that it fails to take account of the condition that the military objective must be clearly separated from the concentration of civilians. Article 2 does not provide for any exception to this condition. Therefore, the reservation appears to run counter to the object and purpose of the Protocol also in respect of paragraph 3 of Article 2.
Protocol III does not expressly prohibit reservations. However, a reservation should not undermine the object and purpose of the treaty in question. The reservation made by the United States of America appears to undermine the core purpose of Protocol III, that is the protection of civilians.
The Government of Finland has carefully noted the further explanations submitted by the United States. Finland is not, however, fully satisfied that the reservation in light of the explanations can be interpreted as a narrow reservation consistent with the underlying key principles of international humanitarian law, and with the object and purpose of the Protocol.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the said reservation and considers that it is without legal effect between the United States of America and Finland. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of Protocol III between the United States of America and Finland.

Objection Spain, 05-02-2010

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation to article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, presented by the United States of America at the time of its ratification of the Protocol.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the said reservation, in the terms in which it was formulated, runs counter to the prohibitions contained in article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and is therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of Protocol III.
Consequently, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservation presented by the United States of America to article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America.

Objection Portugal, 05-02-2010

The Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the United States of America on 21 January 2009 upon its consent to be bound by Protocol III of 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.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that, in respect of paragraph 2 of article 2, being one of the core provisions of the Protocol, the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol. Moreover, it follows from the provision itself that no exception whatsoever is allowed.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic furthermore considers that, in respect of paragraph 3 of article 2, the reservation must also be deemed to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, since it widens the scope of the exception provided for under this paragraph. In addition, it should be underlined that also this paragraph is a core provision of the Protocol.
According to international law, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the United States of America on 21 January 2009 upon its consent to be bound by Protocol III of 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.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol III between the Portuguese Republic and the United States of America.

16-01-2015

The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations and refers to the U.N. Secretary-General's depositary notification C.N.17.2015.TREATIESXXVI.2, dated January 6, 2015, regarding the purported accession of the 'State of Palestine' 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, done at Geneva October 10, 1980 (the Convention), and to Protocols I and III thereto.
The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine' qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention, and Protocols I and III thereto, is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede to the Convention and the said Protocols, and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' under the Convention and the said Protocols.