Norma relacionada
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 71. Weapons That Are by Nature Indiscriminate
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that some weapons are “totally prohibited by the LOAC” because they are indiscriminate. It further states:
Weapons that are indiscriminate in their effect are prohibited. A weapon is indiscriminate if it might strike or affect legitimate targets and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Therefore, a weapon that cannot be directed at a specific legitimate target or the effects of which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict is prohibited. For example, it may be argued that the Scud missile used in the Gulf War falls in that category. 
Canada, LOAC The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-2, §§ 10 and 11.
The manual adds that the use of poison or poisoned weapons is
illegal because of their potential to be indiscriminate. For example, the poisoning or contamination of any source of drinking water is prohibited. Posting a notice that the water has been contaminated or poisoned does not make this practice legal, as both civilians and combatants might drink from that water source and be equally affected. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-2, § 20.
As regards lawful weapons, the manual states: “Legal weapons are limited in the way in which they may be used. Specifically, no weapons may be used indiscriminately.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-3, § 32.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons” that some weapons are “totally prohibited by the LOAC because they are … indiscriminate”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 508.
The manual further states:
Weapons that are indiscriminate in their effect are prohibited. A weapon is indiscriminate if it might strike or affect legitimate targets and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Therefore, a weapon that cannot be directed at a specific legitimate target or the effects of which cannot be limited as required by the LOAC is prohibited. For example, it may be argued that the Scud missile used in the Gulf War falls in that category. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 509.
It also notes the indiscriminate nature of poison:
Poison or poisoned weapons are illegal because of their potential to be indiscriminate. For example, the poisoning or contamination of any source of drinking water is prohibited. Posting a notice that the water has been contaminated or poisoned does not make this practice legal, as both civilians and combatants might drink from that water source and be equally affected. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 512.
With regard to limitations placed on weapons that are otherwise lawful under the law of armed conflict, the manual states: “Legal weapons are limited in the way in which they may be used. Specifically, no weapons may be used indiscriminately.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 520.2.
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
In 1973, in its comments on the UN Secretary-General’s report on napalm and other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, Canada stated:
Broadly, there should be concern with the use of all types of weapons in ways which could … be indiscriminate in effect; for this reason, the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which are currently being prepared under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in close co-operation with the United Nations General Assembly, should reaffirm the existing principles and rules of conventional and customary international law of armed conflicts which apply generally to the choice and use of weapons by States in armed conflict and are contained, inter alia, in the Hague Declaration [concerning Asphyxiating Gases] of 1899, the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925. 
Canada, Comments on the report of the UN Secretary-General on napalm and other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, UN Doc. A/9207/Add.1, 17 December 1973, p. 2.
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Canada stated: “Agreement was lacking on standards by which … ‘indiscriminate effects’ could be measured.” 
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.1, 13 March 1974, p. 14, § 31.
At the CDDH, Canada stated:
The definition of indiscriminate attack contained in paragraph 4 of Article 46 [now Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is not intended to mean that there are means of combat the use of which would constitute an indiscriminate attack in all circumstances. It is our view that this definition takes account of the circumstances, as evidenced by the examples listed in paragraph 5 to determine the legitimacy of the use of means of combat. 
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 179.