On September 6, the United States announced it was sending 120 mm depleted uranium armor-piercing tank rounds to Ukraine for use in the 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks to be delivered this fall. In response, a Kremlin spokesman asserted that the United States’ use of depleted uranium “in the former Yugoslavia has led to ‘a galloping rise’ in cancers and other illnesses and affected the next generations living in those areas.” And following the United Kingdom’s March announcement that it would provide depleted uranium rounds, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov charged that the United Kingdom was “ready to violate international humanitarian law as in 1999 in Yugoslavia” (see Casey-Maslen’s analysis).
The United States pushed back on the facts, with the Deputy White House Press Secretary countering that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had uncovered no evidence that depleted uranium rounds cause cancer. He added that the World Health Organization (WHO) “reports that there has been no increase of leukemia or other cancers . . . following any exposure to uranium or [depleted uranium]” and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “has stated unequivocally that there is no proven link between [depleted uranium] exposure and increases in cancers or significant health or environmental impacts.”
The exchange continues a long-standing debate over the munitions. In this post, we assess their use under international law. Following a short explanation of deleted uranium, we examine potentially relevant weapons treaties. A discussion of the environmental provisions and general conduct of hostilities rules within international humanitarian law (IHL) follows. Based in significant part on international scientific and medical studies, we conclude that the use of depleted uranium munitions, as such, does not violate international law.
Source: LIEBER
