Provisions (twenty-four articles). Article I. Parties agree to never develop, produce, stockpile,
transfer, use, or engage in military preparations to use chemical weapons. Retaliatory use (second use) not allowed;
significant departure from 1925 Geneva Protocol. Requires destruction of chemical stockpiles. Each party agrees not to
use Riot Control Agents (RCAs) as a "method of warfare." Article II. Definitions of chemical weapons, toxic chemical,
RCA, and purposes not prohibited by the convention. Article III. Requires parties to declare stocks of chemical weapons
and facilities they possess. Articles IV and V. Procedures for destruction and verification, including routine on-site
inspections. Article VIII. Establishes the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC). Article IX.
Establishes "challenge inspection," a short notice inspection in response to another party's allegation of non-compliance.
RCA Controversy. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits RCA use as "method of
warfare." "Method of warfare" is undefined, however some argue the phrase includes any actions that involve
"combatants" - including traditional hostage rescue/SAR missions and human shield scenarios previously allowed by EO
11850. The rationale for the prohibition - we do not want to give states the opportunity for subterfuge. Keep all chemical
equipment off the battlefield, even if it is supposedly only for use with RCA. Secondly, we do not want an appearance
problem - with combatants confusing RCA equipment as equipment intended for chemical warfare. EO 11850 is still in
effect and RCA can be used in certain defensive modes with presidential authority. (However, any use in which
"combatants" may be involved will most likely not be approved.) The Senate's resolution of advice and consent for
ratification to the CWC (S. Exec. Res. 75 - Senate Report, S-3373 of 24 April 1997, section 2- conditions, (26) - riot
control agents) required that the President must certify that the U.S. is not restricted by the CWC in its use of riot control
agents, including the use against "combatants" in any of the following cases: when the U.S. is not a party to the conflict,
in consensual (Chapter VI, UN Charter) peacekeeping operations, and in Chapter VII (UN Charter) peacekeeping
operations.
The implementation section of the resolution requires that the President not modify E.O. 11850.
(See S. Exec Res. 75, section 2 (26)(b), S-3378). The President's certification document of 25 April 1997 states that "the
United States is not restricted by the convention in its use of riot control agents in various peacetime and peacekeeping
operations. These are situations in which the U.S. is not engaged in the use of force of a scope, duration, and intensity
that would trigger the laws of war with respect to U.S. forces." Thus, during peacekeeping missions (such as Bosnia,
Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti) it appears U.S. policy will maintain that we are not a party to the conflict for as long as
possible. Therefore RCA would be available for all purposes under E.O. 11850. However, in armed conflicts (such as
Desert Storm, Panama, and Grenada) it is unlikely that the NCA will approve the use of RCA in situations where
"combatants" are involved due to the CWC's prohibition on the use of RCA as a "method of warfare." (Opinion: use of
RCA would be unlikely in the CSAR and the human shield situations used as examples of defensive modes under E.O.
11850, if the RCA use would appear to be a "method of warfare.")
Herbicides. E.O. 11850 renounces first use in armed conflicts, except for domestic uses and to control
vegetation around defensive areas. (e.g., Agent Orange in Vietnam.)
Biological. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits bacteriological methods of warfare. The 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention (ref. 11) supplements the 1925 Geneva Protocol and prohibits the production, stockpiling, and use
of biological and toxin weapons. U.S. renounced all use of biological and toxin weapons.
Nuclear Weapons. (FM 27-10, para. 35.) Not prohibited by international law. On 8 July 1996, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that "There is in neither customary nor international law
any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons." However, by a split vote, the ICJ
also found that "The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law
applicable in armed conflict." The Court stated that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear
weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of the state
would be at stake. (35 I.L.M. 809 (1996).)
BOMBARDMENTS, ASSAULTS, AND PROTECTED AREAS AND PROPERTY
Military Objectives. Objects that, by their nature, use, location, or purpose, make an effective contribution to military
action are legitimate military objectives. (FM 27-10, para. 40, GP I, art. 52(2).) Their destruction, capture or
neutralization is justified if it offers a definite military advantage. There must be a nexus between the object and a
Chapter 2
12
Law of War
Previous Page
