Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Humanitarian Law
Humanitarian Law
Humanitarian Law
Seminar paper
humanitarian law
I. Introduction
X. Conclusion
XI. Bibliography
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher for the subject Dr Abdullah Nasir for
giving me such a challenging topic and also for the teacher’s invaluable advice, input and
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college for
their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing this
I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation during
Lastly, I thank the almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without
War is an all consuming evil . It sets back countries by decades in a very short time. There is
hardship and there is suffering too. Many people die because of heinous acts of tyranny during
warfare and because of lack of availability of adequate health care at the warzone. The huge cost
and lack of justifiability of war is one of the principle reasons why countries do , and rightfully
In order to get quick victories in warfare countries rely on Weapons of Mass Destruction that
have the capability to reduce entire cities to rubble and force enemy countries to bend their
knees. These weapons may be nuclear , chemical , or biological. This paper deals with chemical
Chemical Warfare refers to the usage of toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons.
This type of warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare and biological warfare, which together
make up NBC, the military acronym for nuclear, biological, and chemical (warfare or weapons),
all of which are considered "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). None of these fall under the
term conventional weapons which are primarily effective due to their destructive potential. With
proper protective equipment, training, and decontamination measures, the primary effects of
chemical weapons can be overcome. Many nations possess vast stockpiles of weaponized agents
in preparation for wartime use. The threat and the perceived threat have become strategic tools in
planning both measures and counter-measures. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited
1
Rule 74. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited., Customary IHL Database, International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC)/Cambridge University Press.
The development, production, storage, transfer, use, and destruction (demilitarization) of
chemical and biological weapons (CBW) pose a number of ethical issues. First, those weapons,
like nuclear weapons, are largely indiscriminate in their effects and are generally more effective
against vulnerable noncombatants than against combatants; they therefore are known as weapons
of mass destruction, and their use generally is considered a violation of the proportionality
principle of a just war. Second, CBW, also like nuclear weapons, are the subject of intensive
research and development on more effective CBW as well as on methods for defense against
Chemical weapons (CW), which have been known since antiquity, are designed to inflict direct
chemical injury on their targets, in contrast to explosive or incendiary weapons, which produce
their effects through blast or heat. In the siege of Plataea in 429 B.C.E., for example, the
Spartans placed enormous cauldrons of pitch, sulfur, and burning charcoal outside the city walls
to harass the defenders. Although nations that signed the 1899 Hague Declaration promised not
to use CW, during World War I those weapons, including in descending order of use tear gas,
chlorine gas, phosgene, and mustard gas, were employed. Overall, 125,000 tons of CW were
used during World War I, resulting in 1.3 million casualties. One-quarter of all casualties in the
Through this paper I will attempt to give a clear picture of the historical development of
chemical weapons law and the work that still needs to be done in light of the serious crimes
committed by use of Sarin gas in Syria and other instances of use of these weapons.
2
Harris and Paxman; Sidel and Goldwyn; Sidel, 1989; United Nations; World Health Organization
ANCIENT USAGE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
The use of chemical weapons is not something that is altogether new, for instance, it was a
popular military tactic to squirt a particular substance in to the noses of horses that would result
in them stampeding. This use of chemical weapons might not be so sophisticated in ots mode of
delivery as it is today , yet the general idea remains the same even several centuries later. 3
Chemical weapons in the form of poisoned arrows and spears have been used for thousands of
years. The earliest example of this type of chemical warfare being implemented is the late Stone
Age, circa 10,000 BCE. It was used by the San, a hunter-gatherer society in Southern Africa.
They would cover the tips of their bone, wood and stone arrowheads in poison acquired from
their natural environment. This would include venom from snakes and scorpions, poisonous
plants and also diamphotoxin, a slow-acting poison produced by beetle larvae of the
genus Diamphidia. Unlike most societies who utilise chemical warfare, the San employed it
mainly for hunting; the arrow was fired into the animal of choice, usually an antelope, and then
“Archeologists have found the oldest evidence of chemical warfare yet after studying the bodies
Clues left at the scene revealed the Persians were lying in wait as the Romans dug a tunnel
during a siege – then pumped in toxic gas – produced by sulphur crystals and bitumen – to kill
3
D'arcy Wentworth Thompson, University of St. Andrew ancient chemical warfare.
4
The Telegraph-Ancient Persians who gassed Romans were the first to use chemical weapons , 14 Jan 2009<
Retrieved on 15 March 2018>
Poisoned arrows also appear in classical literature. The epics of Homer, the Iliadand
the Odyssey5 both insinuate the use of the poisoned arrows in the Trojan War. The myths of
Hercules also allude to the use of poisoned arrows; after he slew the Hydra, as part of his Twelve
Labours, he dipped his arrowheads in the venom of the slain Hydra6. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, an
Indian manual on statecraft and military strategy, circa 400 BCE, encloses numerous recipes for
making poison weapons and other chemical weapons. Interestingly, another manual of the same
time period, the Laws of Manu, forbids the use of poison arrows. Having said that, the use of
these chemical weapons in India is confirmed in the 4th century BCE when Alexander the Great
The utilisation of chemical gases in warfare has also been rife throughout history. The earliest
known uses date back to the Chinese, circa 1000 BCE.7The Chinese employed an early form of
flamethrower, and also used suffocating smoke and a blistering agent in the form of a gas.
Another example occurred during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta in the
5th century BCE; a Spartan army that was besieging the Athenian city of Plataea positioned a
lighted concoction of sulphur, pitch and wood underneath the walls with the aim of
incapacitating the Athenians so that they would not be able to stop the Spartan assault on the
city8
History is like a building. The lower floors are needed before the higher ones can be made. It was
this early use of chemical warfare that inspired modern war tacticians to use toxins and gases to
5
Homer.1.260-266
6
Mayor, 2003; Strabo.8.3.19; Pausanias.5.5.9.
7
Richardt, 2013.4.
8
Mayor, 2003; Thucydides.2.77
CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
The Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention of 1907 forbade the use of "poison or
poisoned weapons" in warfare, yet more than 124,000 tons of gas were produced by the end of
World War I.
The first employment of gas during the war occurred when the Germans used chlorine in the
early part of 1915. Chlorine is a greenish gas and the method the Germans used was to compress
this into tanks and, when the wind conditions were right, that is blowing from themselves
towards the allies, they opened the valves of these tanks and the chlorine gas drifted down on the
opposing forces in a cloudlike formation. At that particular time, there was absolutely no gas
protection available and a great number of casualties resulted, as chlorine is toxic or deadly when
The allies soon extemporized crude methods of gas protection which eventually developed into
the well-known gas mask. About the same time that the gas protection was being perfected, the
Central Powers started to use other gases besides chlorine, with the final result that both sides,
during the latter phases of the war, resorted to several highly destructive gassing agencies. The
Germans principally used what is known as mustard gas, the name mustard being an arbitrary
.term ascribed to this agent which has no bearing on its chemical make-up. A suffocating gas
9
Seth Wiard-“ Chemical warfare munitions for law enforcement agencies” Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology Volume 26
After the war, the most common method of disposal of chemical weapons was to dump them into
the nearest large body of water.10 As many as 65,000 tons of chemical warfare agents may have
been dumped in the Baltic Sea alone; agents dumped in that sea included mustard gas,
and the chemicals leaked out. On the sea floor, at low temperatures, mustard gas tends to form
lumps within a "skin" of chemical byproducts. These lumps can wash onto shore, where they
look like chunks of waxy yellowish clay. They are extremely toxic, but the effects may not be
immediately apparent.
Between World War I and World War II, chemical agents were occasionally used to subdue
Lenin's Soviet government employed poison gas in 1921 during the Tambov Rebellion. An order
Ovseyenko stipulated: "The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of
poison gas. This must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and
During the Rif War in Spanish Morocco in 1921–1927, combined Spanish and French forces
dropped mustard gas bombs in an attempt to put down the Berber rebellion.
10
Curry, Andrew (November 10, 2016). "Weapons of War Litter the Ocean Floor". Hakai Magazine.
Retrieved March 14, 2018
11
Andrulewicz, E. (2007). "Chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea". In Gonenc, I.E.; Koutitonsky, V.G.;
Rashleigh, B.; Ambrose, R.B.; Wolflin,
12
Edvard Radzinsky (2011). Stalin. Knopf Doubleday. p. 173.
In 1925, 16 of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to
use gas in warfare again. Notably, while the United States delegation under Presidential authority
signed the Protocol, it languished in the U.S. Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.
WEAPONS
According to historians Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, Emperor Hirohito authorized the
use of chemical weapons in China.13 Furthermore, "tens of thousands, and perhaps as many
200,000, Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases", resulting from the
use of biological warfare. Although owing to systematic Japanese destruction of records, there is
destruction were partly researched, produced, and stockpiled in Manchukuo by the Kwantung
Army.
According to historians Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Kentaro Awaya, during the Second Sino-Japanese
War, gas weapons, such as tear gas, were used only sporadically in 1937, but in early 1938
the Imperial Japanese Army began full-scale use of phosgene, chlorine, Lewisite and nausea
gas (red), and from mid-1939, mustard gas (yellow) was used against both Kuomintang and
According to Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, Emperor Hirohito signed orders specifying the use of
chemical weapons in China. For example, during the Battle of Wuhan from August to October
1938, the Emperor authorized the use of toxic gas on 375 separate occasions, despite the 1899
Hague Declaration IV, 2 – Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the
13
Yoshimi and Matsuno, Dokugasusen kankei shiryô II, Kaisetsu 1997
14
Tanaka, Yuki (2015). "Poison Gas: The Story Japan Would Like to Forget". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases15 and Article 23 (a) of the 1907 Hague
Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.16 A resolution adopted by the League
Another example is the Battle of Yichang in October 1941, during which the 19th Artillery
Regiment helped the 13th Brigade of the IJA 11th Army by launching 1,000 yellow gas shells
and 1,500 red gas shells at the Chinese forces. The area was crowded with Chinese civilians
unable to evacuate. Some 3,000 Chinese soldiers were in the area and 1,600 were affected. The
In 2004, Yoshimi and Yuki Tanaka discovered in the Australian National Archives documents
showing that cyanide gas was tested on Australian and Dutch prisoners in November 1944
Nazi Germany made use of various types of gas chambers for mass killing. Beginning in 1939,
gas chambers were used as part of the Nazi euthanasia program aimed at eliminating physically
and intellectually disabled people. Experiments in the gassing of patients were conducted in
October 1939 in occupied Posen in Poland. Hundreds of prisoners were killed by carbon
monoxide poisoning in an improvised gas chamber18. In 1940 gas chambers using bottled pure
carbon monoxide were established at six euthanasia centres in Germany19. In addition to persons
with disabilities, these centres were also used to kill prisoners transferred from concentration
15
"Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or
Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2018-03-16
16
"Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the
Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907". International Committee of the Red Cross.
Archived from the original on 26 September 2013. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
17
Yuki Tanaka, Poison Gas, the Story Japan Would Like to Forget, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988
18
Browning, Christopher (2005). The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September
1939 – March 1942. Arrow
19
"Gassing Operations". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 16
March 2018.
camps in Germany, Austria, and Poland. Killings of concentration camp inmates continued after
Starting in 1941, gas chambers were used at extermination camps in Poland for the mass killing
of Jews, Roma, and other victims of the Holocaust. Gas vans were used at the Chełmno
and Treblinka used exhaust fumes from stationary diesel engines . In search of more efficient
killing methods, the Nazis experimented with using the hydrogen cyanide-based fumigant
Zyklon B at the Auschwitz concentration camp. This method was adopted for mass killings at the
Auschwitz and Majdanek camps. Up to 6000 victims were gassed with Zyklon-B each day at
Auschwitz..
Most extermination camp gas chambers were dismantled or destroyed in the last months of
the World War II as Soviet troops approached, except for those at Dachau, Sachsenhausen and
Majdanek. One destroyed gas chamber at Auschwitz was reconstructed after the war to stand as a
memorial.
CONVENTIONS REGARDING CHEMICAL WARFARE
A general concern over the use of poison gas manifested itself in 1899 at the Hague
Conference with a proposal prohibiting shells filled with asphyxiating gas. The proposal was
passed, despite a single dissenting vote from the United States. The American representative,
Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, justified voting against the measure on the grounds that
"the inventiveness of Americans should not be restricted in the development of new weapons."
We can see a timeline for efforts to limit the usage of chemical weapons-
August 27, 1874: The Brussels Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War is
although the treaty was not adopted by any nation whatsoever and it never went into
effect.
September 4, 1900: The First Hague Convention, which includes a declaration banning
the "use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious
January 26, 1910: The Second Hague Convention enters into force, prohibiting the use of
Treaty prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. It was signed by the
United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy, but France objected to other provisions in
The Chemical Weapons Convention was ratified in April 1997. Since then, Albania,
Libya, Russia, the United States, and India have declared over 71,000 metric tons of
chemical weapon stockpiles, and destroyed about a third of them. Under the terms of the
agreement, the United States and Russia agreed to eliminate the rest of their supplies of
chemical weapons by 2012. Not having met its goal, the U.S. government estimates
The debate in India has equated WMDs with nuclear weapons, which is unfortunate, since the
acronym includes biological and chemical weapons, but also radiological weapons — the so-
called ‘dirty bomb.’ There is little doubt that the use of nuclear weapons can inflict incalculable
destruction, instantaneously due to heat, blast and immediate radiation effects. More horrendous
is the still uncharted territory of secondary radiation within weeks and tertiary radiation that
could last for years after the nuclear incident. The most horrific aspect of nuclear weapons is the
largely unknown effects of their use that might be at least of equal importance to their known
effects. For instance, the breakdown of civil society might lead people to try and survive in near
anarchical conditions.
Public health and municipal systems would break down, especially if the first responders
become the victims of the nuclear attack, and take weeks to restore. All these possibilities,
supplemented by studies made and simulation exercises conducted, have privileged nuclear
disasters over those that might occur due to the use of chemical, biological and radiological
weapons
In 1992, India signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), stating that it did not have
chemical weapons and the capacity or intent to manufacture chemical weapons. By doing this
India became one of the original signatories of the CWC in 1993,20 and ratified it on 2 September
1996. According to India's ex-Army Chief General Sunderji, a country having the capability of
making nuclear weapons does not need to have chemical weapons, since the dread of chemical
20
"Member State - India". OPCW.
weapons could be created only in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Others
suggested that the fact that India has found chemical weapons dispensable highlighted its
India’s decision to accede to the CWC and declare its chemical weapons stockpile is in contrast
to its previous policy of denying the possession of any chemical weapons. This policy was
formally established in the 1992 India-Pakistan Agreement on Chemical Weapons under which
India and Pakistan agreed to “never under any circumstances… develop, produce, or otherwise
In June 1997, India declared its stock of chemical weapons (1,045 tonnes of sulphur
mustard).22 By the end of 2006, India had destroyed more than 75 percent of its chemical
weapons/material stockpile and was granted extension for destroying the remaining stocks by
April 2009 and was expected to achieve 100 percent destruction within that time frame.[19] India
informed the United Nations in May 2009 that it had destroyed its stockpile of chemical weapons
in compliance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention. With this India has become
third country after South Korea and Albania to do so.23 This was cross-checked by inspectors of
India has an advanced commercial chemical industry, and produces the bulk of its own
chemicals for domestic consumption. It is also widely acknowledged that India has an extensive
civilian chemical and pharmaceutical industry and annually exports considerable quantities of
chemicals to countries such as the United Kingdom, United States and Taiwan
21
“India-Pakistan Agreement on Chemical Weapons,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org.
22
India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009". Dominican Today. Archived from the original on 7
September 2013. Retrieved 16 March 2018
23
"India destroys its chemical weapons stockpile". Zee News. 14 May 2009. Retrieved 16 March 2018
India has twice been accused of using chemical weapons in the past. In June 1999, military
sources within Pakistan alleged that India had launched shells containing chemical weapons at a
Pakistani army position on the Line of Control between the two countries. 24 Additionally, in
October 2000, Raja Israr Abbasi, an opposition leader in the Azad Kashmir Assembly, claimed
that India’s use of chemical weapons had caused fields to become infertile. These claims were
never substantiated and India has denied them. Pakistan never requested a follow-up
24
Pakistan Alleges India Launches Chemical Weapons in Kashmir Attention - Updates with Indian Denial,” Agence
France Presse, 13 June 1999. Retrieved 16 March 2018
CHEMICAL WARFARE IN THE FUTURE
The current sense of complacency about the CW threat is partly the result of several positive
developments, including the demise of the Soviet Union, which possessed the world’s most
threatening chemical arsenal, and the entry into force in April 1997 of the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC), an international treaty banning the development, production, transfer, and
use of chemical arms, to which all but a handful of countries adhere. Nevertheless, there are real
grounds for concern about a future resurgence of the CW threat. A confluence of military,
economic, and technological trends — the changing nature of warfare in the twenty-first century,
the globalization of the chemical industry, and the advent of destabilizing chemical technologies
— have begun to erode the normative bulwark of the CWC and could result in the emergence of
new chemical threats from both state and sub-state actors. To prevent these potential risks from
materializing, much needs to be done at both the national and the international levels.
Some analysts have questioned whether chemical arms meet the criteria of a “weapon of mass
destruction” because large quantities of an agent like sarin would be required to cause thousands
of casualties in an outdoor attack. But if the threat posed by a weapon is thought of as the
product of the likelihood of its use and the scale of the potential consequences, then chemical
weapons must be taken seriously. Not only are the materials, equipment, and know-how for CW
agent production more accessible to states and terrorist organizations than those for nuclear or
biological weapons, but under the right atmospheric and weather conditions, toxic chemicals can
25
The New Atlantis-The Future of Chemical Weapons –Jonathan B Tucker
The major problem facing the chemical disarmament process is that the United States and
Russia, the world’s two largest possessors of chemical weapons, are behind schedule in
eliminating their vast toxic arsenals left over from the Cold War. As of December 2009, the
United States had destroyed 66 percent of its stockpile while Russia had reached the 45 percent
mark. At the current rate of destruction, the United States will have destroyed only 90 percent of
its stockpile by the extended CWC deadline of April 29, 2012, and it is not expected to finish the
job until 2021. Russia is also unlikely to meet the 2012 destruction deadline. Because the CWC
has no provision for further extensions, the expected failure by the two largest CW possessors to
eliminate their stockpiles on schedule could undermine the credibility of the chemical
disarmament regime. Even so, Washington and Moscow remain committed to the goals of the
CWC and have reaffirmed their intention to complete the task as soon as possible.
Synthetic biology involves designing and making biologically compatible parts and systems that
chemical and biological principles, synthetic biology facilitates the designing of cells to produce
chemicals that are identical to chemicals synthesised from other means, as well as novel
chemicals and materials with a vast range of useful applications. Synthetic biology offers major
benefits, including easing the production and magnifying the immune responses of vaccines and
antibiotics26. In the short term, synthetic biology is unlikely to have significant implications for
developing new chemical weapons, although barriers to producing certain toxic chemicals could
be lowered. In the longer term, synthetic biology could enable the biological production of
known and novel harmful chemicals that are the concern of the CWC, perhaps even including
26
Mukunda et al 2009
chemicals that could target specific ethnic groups by interacting with particular foods or genetic
markers
U.S. government reports and other public sources have identified a number of suspects. Even as
Russia destroys the vast stockpile of chemical weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union,
concerns linger about Moscow’s compliance with the CWC. According to Russian military
chemists who defected to the West, from the 1970s through the early 1990s the Soviet Union and
then Russia ran a top-secret program called Foliant that successfully developed a new generation
of nerve agents known as novichoks, after the Russian word for “newcomer.” Reportedly, these
compounds are more deadly and resistant to treatment than either the G-series or the V-series
nerve agents. Dr. Vil Mirzayanov, a former Soviet military chemist who worked on the Foliant
program, wrote in the Summer 2009 issue of the journal CBRNe World, “Agent 230 [a
novichok], which was adopted as a chemical weapon by the Russian Army, is 5-8 times more
poisonous than VX gas. It is impossible to cure people who are exposed to it.”
Despite the successful implementation of the CWC over the past dozen years, chemical weapons
remain a serious threat to U.S. and international security and deserve greater attention from
policymakers, the news media, and the general public. The CW threat is multifaceted,
encompassing military-grade agents, novel incapacitating agents, and toxic industrial chemicals.
hedge their bets by acquiring a standby capability to produce CW agents in a crisis or war. Such
“latent” proliferation enables states to break out of the CWC on short notice, creating serious
1997, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was formally
established. On 11 October, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the OPCW had
been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "extensive work to eliminate chemical weapons". In the
announcement, the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention were praised. The committee
further indicated how "Recent events in Syria, where chemical weapons have again been put to
use, have underlined the need to enhance the efforts to do away with such weapons.”27 In the
year ending September 2014, the OPCW had overseen the destruction of some 97 percent of
The organisation is not an agency of the United Nations, but cooperates both on policy and
practical issues. On 7 September 2000 the OPCW and the United Nations signed a cooperation
agreement outlining how they were to coordinate their activities.28 The inspectors furthermore
travel on the United Nations Laissez-Passer in which a sticker is placed explaining their position,
and privileges and immunities.[16] The United Nations Regional Groups also operate at the
OPCW to govern the rotations on the Executive Council and provide informal discussion
platform
The OPCW Technical Secretariat is located in The Hague, the Netherlands. Currently, 189
nations, representing about 98% of the global population, have joined the CWC. The OPCW
mission is to implement the provisions of the CWC and to ensure a credible, transparent regime
to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member
27
"Chemicals weapons watchdog OPCW wins Nobel peace prize". Times of India. 11 October 2013. Retrieved 11
March 2018.
28
United Nations General Assembly Session 55 ResolutionA/RES/55/283 Retrieved 16 March 2018
State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international
cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry; and to achieve universal membership of the
OPCW. The cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of
organisations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001. At all operational chemical
weapons destruction facilities, 24/7 inspections by the OPCW take place on site to verify the
success of the destruction as well as the amounts of weapons being destroyed.29 In light of the
hazardous environment in which the inspections take place, they are generally performed by
well as protective clothing and respiratory protection. Nanotechnology can also support
miniaturised, easily deployable sensors that could allow real-time awareness of how a chemical
These organizations have taken the task of conducting checks on the signatories of the Chemical
Weapons Convention to ensure that they have gotten rid of 100% of their stock of chemical
weapons. They also lead petitions in countries such as Syria , Russia and others that have not as
yet complied.
The United Nations , in cooperation with the International Red Cross and other humanitarian
associations works for the medical treatment of not just people rendered destitute by warfare but
also those who have serious health consequences due to chemical weapons.
29
Destruction of Chemical Weapons and Its Verification Pursuant to Article IV. [CWC], Verification Annex
The United Nations also uses its influence with organizations such as the IMF and the WTO to
impose strict sanctions on not just the countries who possess and use such chemical weapons but
also those who indulge in trade and commerce with such countries. In these circumstances it is
designed and implemented by the OPCW. This could be modelled on the International Atomic
Energy Agency’s International Nuclear Security Education Network that develops peer-reviewed
More effective engagement with the scientific community would also build capacity among
national delegations. The OPCW is based in The Hague in the Netherlands. The Hague is
primarily a bilateral posting for diplomats. In many cases, duties relating to the OPCW may be
additional to broader engagement with the Netherlands. Diplomats’ direct experience of the
While the usage of chemical weapons in outright warfare has now beem significantly reduced ,
what cannot be ignored is the fact that clandestine secret services are using chemical weapons
There have been several high profile assassination attempts such as the Poisoning of Sergei and
Yulia Skripal where on 4 March 2018, former Russian military intelligence officer and British
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were poisoned in Salisbury, England, with
a Novichok nerve agent.30 As of 26 March 2018,Sergei remained critically ill in hospital and
doctors have indicated that he may never fully recover;31 Yulia was conscious and able to
speak.32 A police officer also fell seriously ill and by 22 March had recovered enough to leave
hospital.33 An additional 46 people sought medical advice after the attack, but none required
treatment
Another incident that caused much international outrage was the Assassination of Kim Jong-
nam, who was the brother of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim arrived in Malaysia on
met with an unidentified American national, reported by the Asahi Shimbun to be an intelligence
officer.35 On 13 February 2017 at about 9am,36 Kim was attacked by two women37 with VX
30
Asthana, Anushka; Roth, Andrew; Harding, Luke; MacAskill, Ewen (12 March 2018). "May issues ultimatum to
Moscow over Salisbury poisoning". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
31
A poisoned Russian spy and his daughter may never recover their full mental functions, a British judge has
said". Newsweek. 23 March 2018.
32
"Russian spy: Yulia Skripal 'conscious and talking'". BBC News. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 29 March 2018
33
"Policeman discharged after ex-spy attack". BBC News. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
34
Latiff, Rozanna (29 January 2018). Fernandez, Clarence, ed. "Kim Jong Nam met U.S. national on Malaysian
island before he was killed, police say". Reuters. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
35
"North Korean leader's brother Kim Jong-nam 'killed' in Malaysia'". BBC News. 14 February 2017. Archived from
the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2018
nerve agent near an airport self check-in kiosk at level 3, departure hall in KLIA 2, the low-cost
carrier terminal at Kuala Lumpur International Airport[6] during his return trip to Macau. VX is a
chemical weapon banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. North Korea, which
It is a gross violation of the right to life that is a fundamental building block of human society,
not to mention massively undermining the sovereignty of the nations in whose territory such
attacks take place. It is a most painful way to die because a person may writhe in agony for
several hours before death and doctors will be unable to provide any sort of immediate relief
It is imperative that such horrible weapons be eradicated from the earth. Countries such as Russia
and North Korea are already the subject of massive economic sanctions that will only get
heavier. Organisations such as OPCW cannot rest on their laurels as long as this threat remains
36
McCurry, Justin (14 February 2017). "Kim Jong-un's half-brother dies after 'attack' at airport in Malaysia". The
Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2017.
37
Samuel Osborne (14 February 2017). "Kim Jong-un's half-brother 'assassinated with poisoned needles at
airport'". The Independent
CONCLUSION
War is definitely one avenue of life where it is not ok to say that desperate times call for
desperate measures. By using these chemical weapons , the users are not only being the judge ,
jury and executioner. They are also showcasing why such weapons should not have been
invented in the first place. It has been correctly and aptly stated that one death is a tragedy.
This year the Nobel Prize was won by ICAN , an organization that is appealing for
denuclearization across the globe. Their efforts to get a universal disarmament treaty passed
through the United Nations Security Council is applaudable. Yet their struggle to rid the world of
nucler weapons is just another example of how dearly countries want to hold on to these
weapons.
I sincerely believe that all weapons have as much caliber to be used for the good of humanity as
they can for its bad. Keeping this in mind I think it would be for the best if rather than outlaw
these chemicals outright we attempt to make use of them in civilian purposes. 21st century is
As long as geopolitical interests of different countries are at odds with each other these weapons
will be flaunted as deterrents. We might wish to truthfully say that there is no more attack on
In my conclusion I would like to strongly advocate that the harmful effects of these chemical
weapons must not be allowed to be forgotten. People must be made aware through drives and
documentaries why these weapons have been done away with to a larhe extent. Perhaps with the
dawning of a new generation we can finaly convince those countries and organizations who are
still holding out to relinquish these weapons and exercise their sovereign power for the
Increase significantly the budget of the OPCW, which has remained flat at about €74.5
million for the past five consecutive years despite the growing burden of inspections.
Provide greater political support for the OPCW action plans to achieve universal
adherence to the CWC and to ensure effective national implementation of the treaty by all
member states. Since the OPCW adopted the action plan on universality in 2003, thirty-
ambiguities about compliance, such as whether a particular facility should have been
declared, thereby avoiding the political risks of trying to catch suspected violators red-
handed.
Increase the total number of OCPF inspections per year, while further refining the site-
Clarify the law enforcement exemption in the CWC to restrict the types and quantities of
chemical agents that can be used for counterterrorism and paramilitary operations.
Improve the monitoring of global trade in dual-use chemical precursors and production
equipment, and support cooperative multinational efforts to track and interdict illicit
shipments.
Strengthen political and economic sanctions on companies and governments that continue
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6. www. Opcw.com
7. BBC