Introduction

The law relating to weapons was one of the most controversial issues to emerge during and after the operation in the city of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. US military forces engaged insurgents in intense urban combat some months after the period of belligerent occupation had come to an end, when Iraq was no longer ‘ruled’ by the coalition; it was in theory governed by an Iraqi authority, with coalition forces deployed within the State to assist with security. The military situation in Fallujah was, however, one that, in purely military terms, demanded the application of force at a level consistent with combat during an armed conflict. Military commanders contemplating deploying units into the city were, very understandably, anxious to provide them with the ability to respond with lethal force in combat, as they believed the situation demanded, rather than to constrain them within minimum force limits appropriate to a domestic law enforcement or internal security situation. The decision was made to regard the operation as one in which international humanitarian law should be applied, ‘for policy, humanitarian and legal reasons’. The situation described is of a nature that modern conflict is increasingly creating – the so-called ‘three block war’ described by former US Marine Corp Commandant, General Charles Krulak.

At the time, allegations were made about the United States deploying chemical weapons against the insurgents.