Ok, will have to look up the details, but like the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention has been updated and/or had several follow-up treaties that expanded on the regulations given there, some of them even added as late as after WW2 or even after Vietnam (there are e.g. regulations banning napalm, phosphor and any other chemical agent designed specifically to start fires - the reason, why the Bundeswehr doesn't have any flamethrowers or incendiary bombs in stock anymore). Many of those additional protocols and treaties were neither signed or ratified by the USA, they just gave a standing order (don't know if it's still in effect) to adher to those regulations when involved in multinational operations with the European NATO-members, who have ratified those regulations.

And actually IRC the Hague Convention actually is quite fuzzy about what is allowed and what isn'T as it calls for a ban of any weapon causing "excessive wounds", with stuff like expanding bullets etc. given only as examples, but not constituting a complete list.

The exact English text of the relevant portion of the relevant declaration is as follows:

That's pretty clear-cut and unambiguous.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm




No, they're fragmenting bullets. Fragmenting and expanding are sort of mutually exclusive actions.

Dictionary.com definition for expand: 1. to increase in extent, size, volume, scope, etc.: Heat expands most metals. He hopes to expand his company.

I'm pretty sure that fragmenting increases the surface area the bullet has, much like how a bullet expanding increases its surface area. So, don't they basically achieve the same effect and are not mutually exclusive, but rather a fragmenting bullet by definition is expanding?

Nope. When a bullet fragments each of its parts can be classified as a separate projectile.

Btw: The point about the Hague Convention talking about a 5 year ban from 1899 on is not really a point, as there is more than one Hague Convention (actually, there are 13 different treaties and all of them have been reviewed and expanded during the time of the Hague Peace conferences). On the land warfare regulations, they were updated and expanded in 1907 (the 5 original articles from 1899 and 4 new ones), and later amended by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Treaty of 1949 (with additional protocols added in 1977) and the Hague Convention of 1954.

I don't know, which of those treaties were ratified in the US (mos of them were not) to what extend, so I can only talk about what I learned at the army about which weapons are allowed or not, which is based on the treaties Germany has signed and ratified on the subject. German Army regulations rule out using anything beyond 20mm calibre for direct anti-personel fire (so basically if you see a soldier running in the field and actually take with down with a MBT's 120mm cannon instead of using the machine gun, you - theoretically - get into trouble), no nbc weapons whatsoever (and that includes also stuff like tear-gas or incendiary agents like napalm or phosphor), no anti-personel landmines, etc. pp.

Counting that all into the Hague Convention may be wrong, but most of those Treaties were direct expansions to the original HC.



That depends on wether it fragments before or after it entered the body. OTOH the Bundeswehr ruled out the use of shotguns in the military.

By definition, breaking into little pieces is also a form of expansion. If you want to call each piece a new projectile at that point, you can, I guess, but it doesn't mean the projectile you shot originally hasn't expanded its surface area.

Ah, I found what I was refering to above:

From the Annex to the II. Hague Convention:

One thing to keep in mind is that during the Hague Convention's initial appearance there was a pretty good brawl going over the two main types of bullets in use. The United States was all for using soft-nosed expanding rounds and Germany(IIRC) was plugging the use of their new Spitzer-style of round. You can see which one won out in the end.

Just goes to show that there is money involved even when you're trying to "clean up" warfare, which is a uniquely European concept.

Wouldn't it be more advisable to look for a similar type of ammunition in 9mm since doing so wont require an expensive reissuing of the current service pistols and cause a potential loss of the political ground gained with Italy by choosing the M9?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear with that info. The US military will be using a 9mm Para version of this ammo so they will get a per-round effectiveness increase without swapping issue pistols (and saving a ton of money as well). While ancillary units often use non-M9 pistols, they are largely 9mm in caliber for ease of supply so these weapons would use the new EFMJ 9mm Para rounds as well.

Neat, an equipment upgrade idea that isn't going to be ridiculously expensive.

Operational Law Handbook (2006)
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/oplaw_hdbk.pdf

-- This goes into more detail on the subject as it applies to the US then anyone cares to know
-- The most interesting section for the purposes of this discussion seem to be on pp. 231-242 but I haven't read it exhaustively or anything.