This research entitled "indiscriminate weapons between military necessity and the requirements of international humanitarian law" is primarily intended to discuss and test the extent to which these weapons meet the standards and basic principles of international humanitarian law applicable at the time of international or non international armed conflict by defining the criterion on which specific weapons can be considered as indiscriminate and may have been contrary to the requirements of international humanitarian law, which in its description and adaptation of weapons in terms of legality and legitimacy depend on a set of criteria and principles that constitute the cornerstone upon which it is based. When discussing the subject of this research, two contradicted theories will be under consideration. One of them justifies the use of indiscriminate weapons at the time of armed conflict for military reasons (military theory) and the other prohibit and deny their use for humanitarian and legal justifications. To what extent and on what basis can certain weapons be classified as non-discriminatory? Does that description conflict with the rules of international humanitarian law? When and why? What is the result of such analysis?