military laws-of-war
Can there be a scenario where the use of an IED against an enemy is legally justifiable? (It&#39;s for a book, I swear...)
<p>Before I go any further, let me be clear that <strong>this is for a work of fiction</strong>.</p>

<p>Doing some research for a story where a military protagonist becomes trapped behind enemy lines, with a plan to have her hold out until rescue against superior forces by adopting asymmetric warfare tactics, including the use of improvised explosive devices. This is an urban environment, but it's a situation where most of the civilians formerly in the area are already gone (either dead, fled, or captured), and she's actively trying to keep the enemy away from a pocket of survivors.</p>

<p>Under standard Western rules of war, is it legal for her to use <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device" rel="nofollow">IEDs</a> in this context? <a href="http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/09/are-ieds-ever-ethical-weapon-battlefield/70892/" rel="nofollow">I did a little research already</a> but that article mostly just deals with IEDs being used partially or fully for ideological reasons with no care to collateral damage (and often deliberately targeting civilians).</p>

<p>The fact that an explosive device is <em>improvised</em> is irrelevant to any law of war with which I am familiar.</p>

<p>"Legal in war" is more a matter of deciding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war" rel="noreferrer">which treaty, convention, or custom</a> you care to respect.</p>

<p>An IED is simply a land mine that is home made rather than mass produced in a factory. Land mines are illegal under the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty" rel="nofollow">Ottawa Treaty</a> which currently has 165 parties: if used by or against members of the forces of those countries the user would be liable to prosecution as a war criminal.</p>
