Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(131,063 posts)
Sat Apr 14, 2018, 04:41 PM Apr 2018

Chemical Weapons Convention

'The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. . .

The treaty entered into force in 1997. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the large-scale use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of chemical weapons. Very limited production for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes is still permitted. The main obligation of member states under the convention is to effect this prohibition, as well as the destruction of all current chemical weapons. All destruction activities must take place under OPCW verification.

As of April 2016, 192 states have become parties to the CWC and accept its obligations. Israel has signed but not ratified the agreement, while three other UN member states (Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan) have neither signed nor acceded to the treaty.[1][5] Neither has the State of Palestine,[6] which since becoming a UN observer state in 2012 is eligible to accede to UN deposited treaties.[7] Most recently, Angola deposited its instrument of accession to the CWC on 16 September 2015.[8] In September 2013 Syria acceded to the convention as part of an agreement for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons.[9][10]

As of January 2018, over 96% of the world's declared chemical weapons stockpiles had been destroyed. . .

Some chemicals which have been used extensively in warfare but have numerous large-scale industrial uses such as phosgene are highly regulated, however, certain notable exceptions exist. Chlorine gas is highly toxic, but being a pure element and extremely widely used for peaceful purposes, is not officially listed as a chemical weapon. Certain state-powers (e.g. the Assad regime of Syria) continue to regularly manufacture and implement such chemicals in combat munitions.[12] Although these chemicals are not specifically listed as controlled by the CWC, the use of any toxic chemical as a weapon (when used to produce fatalities solely or mainly through its toxic action) is in-and-of itself forbidden by the treaty. Other chemicals, such as white phosphorus, are highly toxic but are legal under the CWC when they are used by military forces for reasons other than their toxicity.'>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chemical Weapons Convention (Original Post) elleng Apr 2018 OP
This all sounds very good, however, guillaumeb Apr 2018 #1
The US has long taken the position that the CWC does not apply domestically. TomSlick Apr 2018 #2

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
1. This all sounds very good, however,
Sat Apr 14, 2018, 04:59 PM
Apr 2018

US history is filled with examples of the US Government using chemical weapons against civilians as well as military personnel.

https://mic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about#.U4QHH2MBB

As well, from the same article, we have:

2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 - 2009
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

TomSlick

(11,107 posts)
2. The US has long taken the position that the CWC does not apply domestically.
Sat Apr 14, 2018, 08:43 PM
Apr 2018

If the CWC applies domestically, it would forbid the use of teargas in law enforcement. If you accept that the CWC does not apply domestically (a position that I personally question) then CWC does not prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in a domestic civil war. Given the US position on the CWC, it cannot be used as a justification.

Whether or not the CWC applies, a violation does not justify a military intervention. A military strike which is clearly not in self defense violates the UN Charter - and therefore international law. An unprovoked (again not in self-defense) military attack is a crime against peace under the Nuremburg precedent.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Foreign Affairs»Chemical Weapons Conventi...