Description
This paper rethinks weapons limitation initiatives through the lens of the “taboo.” This area of international law, which has traditionally aimed to protect combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering in war, has come to be regarded as an important component of international peace and security. This paper analyses the taboos surrounding the use of expanding bullets, which have yet to be the subject of systematic analysis despite their status as the first conventional weapons to be regulated under IHL. It discusses the origin of the taboo associated with the use of expanding bullets and the perceived horror brought forth by their use in war. It engages with the literature on the taboos surrounding the use and non-use of these bullets and questions the degree to which they have influenced the decision of states to not use them. Finally, it confronts the political and national interests underlying the decisions of states to either use or not use expanding bullets in international and domestic conflicts. In doing this, the paper shows why ideas of the ‘taboo’ are more nuanced than conventionally thought, and how they lose effectiveness when under conflict with other, more powerful taboos.
