Although this is pretty much just Internet rumor, this interested me because I have been toying with the idea of doing a scholarly article on the subject of the Hague Conventions.
As others noted, there are actually two Hague Conventions dealing with small arms ammunition - the 1899 convention which prohibits expanding projectiles, or projectiles with an exposed core and the 1907 convention which more broadly prevents "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
I think one important factor to keep in mind when reading the Hague Conventions is that they were devised and written prior to the discovery of antibiotics, or modern terminal ballistics for that matter. Up until WWII, the U.S. lost more soldiers to disease and accidents than it did to bullet or bomb. Lack of sanitation and proper hygiene was a bigger killer than any artillery.
At the time, a clean wound without ragged edges was notably more survivable than a ragged wound with debris in it. The types of wounds created by expanding bullets of the day were more prone to infection and a long, slow lingering death by sepsis. It wasn't the death that the powers that be objected to; but the suffering leading up to an inevitable death that the medical technology of the time could do little about. Although even then, it was a bit hypocritical since things like artillery shrapnel and bombs created wounds just as bad or worse than any expanding bullet. And even then, interpretations differed - for example the Germans felt that the use of shotguns in WWI trench warfare violated the Hague Conventions.
As noted, the U.S. has not ratified either provision of either convention; but despite that has observed both of them as part of the Laws of Land Warfare. Another point of note, the prohibitions do not apply universally, and arguably you'd have to go back to WWII to find a combatant we have fought where they might apply.
My thought is a good argument can be made that modern hollow point ammunition is actually more in keeping with the original intent of the Hague Conventions than FMJ ammo (which is one reason the police forces of practically every signatory of that convention use hollow point ammunition - because it is safer for non-combatants and more humane).
steveracer said:
AND we already use hollow point ammunition in DMR and Sniper rifles all the time for BETTER ACCURACY.
While this is technically true, the type of "hollow point" ammunition approved by JAG is boat-tail hollow-point or more accurately, open-tip match. There is a tiny open tip at the front of the bullet due to the reverse-drawn jacket (which provides better accuracy). This is allowed because the bullet is not designed to expand or flatten and there is no exposed core of the bullet. So while it is sometimes described as a "hollow-point" it is not a "hollow-point" in the sense that term is typically used to described hunting or self-defense ammo (or in the way the Hague Conventions defined it).
TimSr said:
Even so, if our allies have been abiding by this agreement, and we have also, to some extent, then to unilaterally, suddenly announce to the world, that you have decided to now ignore it, without consultation of other foreign leaders, especially our allies, would be an incredible foreign policy blunder.
Actually, almost all of our allies interpret the Hague Conventions differently and even among signatories there isn't universal agreement about what is and is not allowed. For example, both the British and the Swiss took the view that the United States 55gr M193 FMJ ammo and 62gr M855 FMJ ammo were prohibited by the laws of war because they were too prone to fragment. Both countries intentionally made their 5.56 ammo with thicker jackets so as to reduce the likelihood of fragmentation as the bullet yaws in accordance with their own views on the laws of war.
So while most Western countries claim to abide by the laws of war, there is some significant variation even among allies about what that means.