Human Rights Watch Calls for New Law on White Phosphorus

Human Rights Watch and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School are urging countries to create new international law to regulate white phosphorus munitions. The call follows a report documenting 23 verified incidents of Israeli forces using the weapon in southern Lebanon between March and May 2026.

The 45-page report, titled "Uncontrolled Burn: The Inhumane Effects of White Phosphorus Munitions and the Need for Stronger Law," was released on September 9, 2026. The groups want the issue raised at the United Nations General Assembly's monthlong disarmament meeting in New York in October 2026.

Documented Harm and Legal Gap

White phosphorus munitions produce fire when exposed to oxygen. They can inflict excruciating burns and cause lifelong physical, psychological, and socioeconomic harm. Bonnie Docherty, senior arms advisor at Human Rights Watch, stated that the weapons' unacceptable human costs require an adequate international legal response.

The report's findings are based on legal analysis, open-source investigation, 16 interviews, and desk research. It notes that white phosphorus is not regulated by a specific treaty. While its use in populated areas is indiscriminate and violates general international humanitarian law, it escapes the 1980 Protocol III on incendiary weapons.

That protocol defines incendiary weapons as being "primarily designed" to set fires and burn people. White phosphorus munitions are excluded because they are primarily designed for obscuring or illuminating military actions, despite producing identical incendiary effects.

A History of Use

The report lists additional instances of white phosphorus use since 2000 across multiple conflicts.

The Martens Clause and Public Conscience

In the absence of a specific treaty, the groups assessed white phosphorus through the Martens Clause. This provision of international humanitarian law protects civilians and combatants through the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience when no treaty exists.

Human Rights Watch and the Harvard clinic argue white phosphorus triggers this clause. The inhumane injuries are incompatible with the principles of humanity. White phosphorus can burn people to the bone, and particles left in wounds can reignite when exposed to oxygen during bandage removal.

Objections from countries, international organizations, civil society, medical professionals, and financial institutions provide evidence the munitions run contrary to the dictates of public conscience. "Diplomats, doctors, UN investigators, and others have expressed outrage at the cruel injuries caused by white phosphorus munitions," Docherty said.

The Path to Stronger Law

Because white phosphorus is designed for its burning effect, not toxicity, it is not considered a chemical weapon and falls outside the Chemical Weapons Convention. Most discussion has occurred under the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), where dozens of countries have condemned its harm.

Progress there is stalled. CCW meetings operate by consensus, and Russia and other opponents have blocked proposals to discuss the humanitarian impacts of incendiary weapons and the inadequacy of Protocol III. The groups urge supportive countries to also raise the issue at the CCW's five-year Review Conference in Geneva in November 2026.

Docherty argued that countries have adopted treaties on poison gas and blinding lasers because they were inhumane and contrary to public conscience. They should do the same for white phosphorus munitions. The ultimate goal is strong international law that closes legal loopholes and stigmatizes use. A complete ban on production, transfer, and use would have the greatest humanitarian benefits.