[rougka]

Your quote concerns the convention on POWs

His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield.

This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org.

I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here

[aspenmayer]

I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege...

That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants:

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/

> Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.

[rougka]

I read the site you linked and it was very interesting

I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.

In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original

[aspenmayer]

> On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II.

> The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis.

Both above quotes from the West Point link.

Another view:

https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t...

> Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties).

Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.

[rougka]

I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that clause

Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?

[aspenmayer]

Israel is a signatory nation as I have laid out in quotes from the West Point article above. Lebanon may or may not be from what I can tell, but that doesn't affect whether or not Israel is bound.

I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article.

https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/

> Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934

> Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced.

What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.

[rougka]

My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed

Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case