Vad lagstiftningen säger om fosforammunition

Det påstås allmänt i media att Israel gjorde sig skyldig till ett krigsbrott när de använde fosforammunition i Gaza. Men det är inget brott att använda fosfor om det används på rätt sätt.
I undersökningen "ISRAEL AND WHITE PHOSPHORUS DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD: A CASE STUDY IN ADHERENCE TO INADEQUATE HUMANITARIAN LAWS " går man igenom vad lagstiftningen säger och hur Israel använde fosforammunition.
För den som är intresserad är det nyttig läsning.

I sammanfattningen säger man:
Israels användning av vit fosfor i dess Gaza offensiv från december 2008 till januari 2009 var inte olagligt enligt internationell humanitär rätt.

Israel's use of white phosphorus in its Gaza offensive from December 2008 to January 2009 was not illegal under international humanitarian law. Israel's use of white phosphorus was legal under the Geneva Gas Protocol, the CWC, Protocol III of the CCW, and the fundamental international humanitarian rules as found in the GCIV and customary international humanitarian law norms. Although not a signatory to many of the above treaties, Israel followed the rules listed therein. All of the evidence of civilian casualties and injuries caused by Israel's white phosphorus use is consistent with casualties resulting from errant, mistaken, and incidental harm caused by white phosphorus used legally as an obscurant.

However, while the world has been focused on Israel's failure to further limit civilian casualties during the Gaza Conflict, the failure of the international legal community to address the dangers of white phosphorus has been largely ignored. Although Israel cannot be faulted for not following laws that should exist, but do not,[245] the international legal community can be faulted for not having already recognized this serious gap in international humanitarian law and taken immediate remedial measures. White phosphorus has many uses, some of them quite benign, but the possibility of conflict escalation from a conventional war to an unconventional war, and the lingering effects of white phosphorus even when white phosphorus is used wholly within the bounds of existing international humanitarian law, shows the international legal community has not yet properly addressed this serious issue. The failure of international humanitarian laws to prohibit behavior that is incompatible with international humanitarian principles, morals, and goals is a major flaw in a typically comprehensive system. Hopefully, a White Phosphorus Convention Conference will be convened in the near future. A White Phosphorus Convention, completely banning the use of white phosphorus in military conflicts would be a necessary, and welcome, step towards the goal of eliminating, as much as possible, incidental pain and suffering of civilian populations during wartime. "