Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2010
The law regulating the use of force at sea has long been due fora reevaluation in the light of developments in methods and means of warfare at sea and the fact that major changes have taken place in other branches of international law of direct relevance to this issue. This need was reflected in Resolution VII of the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, which noted that “some areas of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare are in need of reaffirmation and clarification on the basis of existing fundamental principles of international humanitarian law” and therefore appealed to “governments to co-ordinate their efforts in appropriate fora in order to review the necessity and the possibility of updating the relevant texts of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare”.
1 The term “interdiction” was used by the US forces.
2 The full title of this Convention is: “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”.
3 NWP 9(Rev.A)/FMFM 1–10. A new revised version is due to appear shortly.
4 Both the Manual and the Explanation are published by Cambridge University Press, “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea: Prepared by a Group of International Lawyers and Naval Experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law” (ed. Louise Doswald-Beck) 1995.
5 There had been a few seminars on the subject of the law of naval warfare, for example, in Brest 1987, ASIL panel 1988, Newport 1990, which highlighted the disagreements.
6 See hereinafter, pp. 595–637.
7 Paragraph 60.
8 Paragraph 47.
9 See, for example, the United States Manual, supra note 2 at pp. 8–9.
