Omer Aamir
There are various types of weaponry in use by the states around the world. One of the classes of weapons in usage is the chemical weapon. International law regulations regulating the use of chemical weapons are there, however they need to be enforced. Chemical weapons not only cause a horrid death but maims the one who survivesfrom a chemical attack for life, thus robbing him/her of dignity for life. This is similar to the use of pellet guns. Indian usage of pellet guns has caused injuries for life to victims such as blinding, disfiguring of their faces and other pellet gun wounds on the bodies of Kashmiris. Chemical weapons are similar in their nature and therefore need to be extensively regulated and their usage curbed.
A chemical weapon is used to cause intentional death or harm through its toxic properties. The full and legal definition of a chemical weapon can be found in Article II of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): a chemical weapon includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the convention.
Under International law, the use of chemical weapons is prohibited in international armed conflicts in a series of treaties, including the Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases, the Geneva Gas Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In 1989 and 1990, the US and the Soviet Union entered an agreement and both decided to end their chemical weapons program. Seven years later, the landmark and the world’s first chemical disarmament Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) came into force on April 1997. The United States ratified the agreement the same year. It provided for the elimination of an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. The event marked both the conclusion of many years of scrupulous negotiations in the conference on disarmament and heralded the birth of an international chemical weapons disarmament regime headed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).However, according to critics, the CWC had the blessings of the global powers because it was harder to control the proliferation of chemical weapons and therefore more likely to be used by weaker states as a weapon of choice whereas the stronger states had more sophisticated weaponry. Therefore chemical weaponry was to be prioritized to be eliminated compared to other armaments such as say cruise missiles or H-6 (the primary component of U.S ‘mother of all bombs’). The example of chemical weapon usage by North Korea and Syria and the ensuing response serves to elucidate the reasoning behind this banning.
Besides the CWC, around the world many military manuals prohibitthe use of chemical weapons. This prohibition is also contained in the legislation of many states. There are numerous statements and other practices by states from all parts of the world to the point that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited under customary international law. The statute of ICJ states that “employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices” is a war crime over which the Court has jurisdiction.The court has in recent years exercised its jurisdiction to punish the weaker states while turning a blind eye to the actions of the stronger and more influential ones like United States and Israel. For example, Israel used depleted Uranium shells on an attack on Syrian military facility in 2013. However, there was no condemnation or retaliatory legal action against this violation of International law by Israeli military.
Moreover, the recent past is littered with examples of micro level chemical attacks that include attacks on Kim Jong Un’s half-brother on 13February 2017, and the attack on Sergei Skripal on 4th March.
The attack on Kim Jong Nam was orchestrated using a VX agent. The attacker (two women who were later arrested) rubbed the VX agent on the cheeks of Kim Jong Nam’s face in Kuala Lumpur airport. The VX agent is known to cause death more instantly if rubbed on the cheek and twenty times deadlier compared to if it is found on the hand. The two women must have also taken some precautionary antidote to avoid self-harm.They rushed off after rubbing the agent on Nam’s cheeks. However, they were caught as their act was recorded on a videotape.Nam was dead within an hour though.
Next year around the same time, the UK government said that a Novichok agent had been used in an attack in the English city of Salisbury, in an attempt to kill Sergei Skripal, a double agent for U.K’s intelligence services and his daughter Yulia. Ten days later, the UK expelled 23 Russian diplomats after the Russian government refused to meet the UK’s deadline till 13 March 2018, to give an explanation for the use of the substance. Novichok is known to be eight times more toxic then nerve agent VX that was used on Kim Jong Nam. Expert evidence pointed to the involvement of a state actor as sophisticated chemistry was used in the attack. There has been widespread evidence (including video evidence, flight schedules of the two Russian agents, etc.) implicating the two agents of the Russian spy agency in the attack. However, Russia continued to deny its involvement in the attack, souring relations between the two cold war rivals.
Another example of chemical warfare was the extensive use of sarin gas in the Iran-Iraq war.In several resolutions between 1986 and 1988, the UN Security Council condemned the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. A few years after the war, in a Washington Post article the outrageous revelation came to the fore that despite chemical weapons being banned under the Geneva Convention, the United States continued to look the other way in order to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war.
However, chemical warfare with most serious repercussions in recent times has been in the Syrian civil war. ISIS used sulfur mustard on the town of Marea which resulted in numerous deaths. It continued its use of chemical warfare unabated and at least 53 people were killed in December 2016, in a nerve agent attack conducted in ISIS-controlled villages. Previously, In August 2016, reports by the United Nations and the OPCW explicitly blamed the Syrian military for dropping chemical chlorine bombs on the towns of Talmenes, Sarmin and Qmenas. Following that, the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on 4 April 2017, drew international condemnation and resulted inUS military action against the regime airbase at Shayrat. Similarly, the Douma chemical attack on 7 April 2018, also drew a military response from the United States, United Kingdom and France. The attack resulted in human rights lawyers taking Syrian President Bashar al Asaad to International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes for the use of chemical weapons. Even though Syria is not a party to Rome statue-the treaty that established the ICC- however, due to the precedent of Myanmar (another non-party to Rome statue)being taken to the ICC because of violations against Rohingya, this was made possible.
In conclusion, we can say that despite numerous stringent international conventions,in particular the CWC banning the use of chemical weapons, there is a dire need to ensure the enforceability of these conventions. The attacks in recent years on Kim Jong Nam and Sergei Skripal indicate that nerve agents are still widely used by authoritarian states to achieve their devious objectives in an ulterior fashion while undercutting international norms. There should be severe punitive measures, which are enforced under international law for such acts.The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war by the regime and ISIS has resulted in unilateral strikes from global powers. Nonetheless,the UN has been unable to act against the perpetratorsblatant use of chemical agents. The use of such warfare is a frantic measure by states and non-state actors and should be severely reprimanded as it causes a torturous death forthe sufferers that is in complete violation of International Humanitarian law and jus in bello (laws of war).Even contemplating the use of chemical warfare by stockpiling chemical weaponry should have a blanket ban as envisaged by CWC.Upholding international law and international conventions is the need of the hour. Punishing state and non-state actors who indulge in this practice will result in a much safer and secure world where safeguards are upheld for ensuring human dignity and no individual is exposed to the horrors of chemical warfare.
Same is the case for banning of pellet gun usage. Indian usage of pellet guns has robbed innocent Kashmiris of their dignity and they are in a situation of extreme distress after being maimed for life because of pellet gun usage. United Nations High Commission for Human Rights specifically outlined in its report that trauma is a recurring feature for those suffering from pellet gun injuries besides several deaths occurring as well due to pellet gun injuries. There needs to be a strict oversight of the actions of Indian forces who are protected under Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA). The international community must wake up to the unabated usage of pellet guns and respond expediently in a similar vein as it does to the Syrian chemical attacks. These violations of International law, in particular the physical and psychological harm caused to victims of pellet guns needs to be reported regularly by International news agencies. The usage of pellet guns has to have a blanket ban imposed on them same as was done on chemical weapons through the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Omer Aamir is a Researcher for National Security & Legal Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS)
