Skip to main content

Chemical and Biological Weapons in the ‘New Wars’

Abstract

The strategic use of disease and poison in warfare has been subject to a longstanding and cross-cultural taboo that condemns the hostile exploitation of poisons and disease as the act of a pariah. In short, biological and chemical weapons are simply not fair game. The normative opprobrium is, however, not fixed, but context dependent and, as a social phenomenon, remains subject to erosion by social (or more specifically, antisocial) actors. The cross cultural understanding that fighting with poisons and disease is reprehensible, that they are taboo, is codified through a web of interconnected measures, principal amongst these are the 1925 Geneva Protocol; the Biological Weapons Convention; and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Whilst these treaties have weathered the storm of international events reasonably well, their continued health is premised on their being ‘tended to’ in the face of contextual changes, particularly facing changes in science and technology, as well as the changed nature and character of conflict. This article looks at the potential for normative erosion of the norm against chemical and biological weapons in the face of these contextual changes and the creeping legitimization of chemical and biological weapons.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a comprehensive account on various aspects of, and approaches to, the taboo see Jefferson (2009).

  2. 2.

    The proper titles of these treaties are as follows: The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, otherwise known as the Geneva Protocol, signed on 17 June 1925, entering into force on 8 February 1928. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, or BWC, opened for signature on 10 April 1972 and entering into force on 26 March 1975. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction opened for signature in Paris on 13 January 1993, and remained open for signature until its entry into force on 29 April 1997. The full text of the treaties can be found at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/Harvard-Sussex-Program-regime-overview.htm.

  3. 3.

    These are known as, respectively: the Final Act Of the International Peace Conference adopted on 29 July 1899 by the International Peace Conference 1899 in The Hague; and the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, adopted 18 October 1907 by the International Peace Conference 1907 in The Hague, and entered into force on 26 January 1910. Relevant parts of the 1899 agreement and the 1907 Convention can be found at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/Harvard-Sussex-Program-regime-overview.htm.

  4. 4.

    The US delegate, Theodore Burton, presented a text that formed the basis of CBW related discussions throughout the Conference. In an early intervention at the first meeting of the General Committee held in Geneva on 7th May 1925, he stated: “Before we pass from the consideration of Article I, I must express the very earnest desire of the Government and people of the United States that some provision be inserted in this Convention relating to the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, and deleterious gases”. The nature of the ‘provision to be inserted’, however, was disputed and subsequently referred to both a legal and a military technical committee. League of Nations (1925: 155).

  5. 5.

    Certainly, the Soviet reservations declared that, “[t]he said protocol only binds the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in relations to the States which have signed and ratified or which have definitely acceded to the protocol”. See Prince (1942: 425–445).

  6. 6.

    Earlier this year, at the Third Review Conference of the CWC in The Hague, States Parties to the Convention have once again failed to make headway in clarifying the character of domestic riot control and law enforcement despite long running attempts to do so. There are various reasons for this failure to agree upon a common definition, some directly related to the difficulty in defining the terms under the Convention. In this case, this divisive and difficult issue was sacrificed in order to reach a consensus on issues that were perceived to be more pressing and achievable in the current political climate.

  7. 7.

    In addition to these focused agreements, the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention, contains provisions prohibiting “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, longlasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury”—a particular focus is placed upon dangers arising from scientific and technical advances opening possibilities for new means of warfare with regards to modification of the environment with “effects extremely harmful to human welfare”. The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, otherwise known as the EnMod Convention, opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977, entering into force on 5 October 1978.

  8. 8.

    We use the term regime here in the sense of “Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations” see Krasner (1982).

  9. 9.

    This is the normative backbone of these treaties, the definition of prohibited purposes by a general purpose criterion and what elevates them above ‘mere’ disarmament treaties, although disarmament and destruction of stockpiles and facilities are provisions also contained in these treaties. See, for example Littlewood (2005).

  10. 10.

    Any conceptual category using the terms ‘modern’, ‘new’, or ‘post’ are vulnerable to attack, and give rise to various misconceptions. Various terms have been used to describe the phenomenon of changes in the nature of conflict—hybrid wars, privatised wars, post-modern wars, among other terms; even the validity of a change in the nature of conflict is open to question. The concept of ‘new wars’ has been established as a useful conceptualisation, it has been widely debated, criticised and clarified so that it yields a rich conceptual back drop (Kaldor 2012).

  11. 11.

    The thresholds between the condition of armed conflict, war, peace, and organized violence are, of course, not defined—there is no threshold—this is part of the complication.

  12. 12.

    The use of chemical and biological weapons has a long history, see for example Mayor (2003). Here we concentrate on ‘modern’ uses.

  13. 13.

    Historical examples include anti-colonialist Mau Mau movement in Kenya are alleged to have poisoned livestock with African milk bush in 1952; the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) contaminated Sri Lanka tea crops with potassium cyanide in an attempt to hamper exports in the mid-1980s.

  14. 14.

    These episodes of alleged uses of chemical weapons in the protracted civil war in Syria are still subject to an ongoing independent UN investigation. At the time of writing the UN mission to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has investigated the use of chemical weapons in only one location, and confirmed the use of sarin on 21 August 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus.

  15. 15.

    The release of chemical agents on 21 August 2013 has been independently verified by a UN mission of inspectors who reported on 16 September 2013 (UN 2013). However, the source of the attack is, at the time of writing, still unclear.

References

  1. Bernal Franco, L., & Navas Caputo, C. (2013). Urban violence and humanitarian action in Medellin. Rio de Janeiro: HASOW.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boot, M. (2013) The evolution of irregular war. Foreign Affairs.

  3. Boyle, M. (2013). Saddam Hussein’s terror Against the Kurds. In G. Duncan, O. Lynch, G. Ramsay, & A. M. S. Watson (Eds.), State terrorism and human rights: International responses since the end of the cold war. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cole, L. A. (1998). The poison weapons taboo: Biology, culture, and policy. Politics and the Life Sciences, 17(2), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dando, M. (2011). Neuroethics and the chemical and biological (CBW) web of prevention. University of Bradford.

  6. Davison, N. (2007) ‘Off the rocker’ and ‘on the floor’: The continued development of biochemical incapacitating weapons. Bradford Science and Technology report number 8.

  7. Davison, N., & Lewer, N. (2004). Bradford non-lethal weapons research project (BNLWRP) research report no. 5. Bradford.

  8. Donahue, S. (2001). Scorched earth: US chemical warfare in the Colombian rainforest. Peacework. Journal of the American Friends Service Committee.

  9. Erikson, K. (1994). A new species of trouble: The human experience of modern disaster. London: W.W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Furmanski, M. (2005). Military interest in Low Lethality Biochemical agents: the Historical Interaction of advocates, Experts, Pragmatists and Politicians, Background Paper prepared for the Symposium on Incapacitating Biochemical Weapons: Scientific, Military Legal and Policy Perspectives and Prospects, Geneva, Switzerland, 11 June 2005. Washington, DC: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

  11. Goldblat, J. (1971). CB disarmament negotiations 1920–1970, ‘The problems of chemical and biological warfare’, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) study (Vol. IV). New York: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. ICRC. (2010). Expert meeting report: Incapacitating chemical agents: Implications for International Law. Geneva: ICRC.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jefferson, C. (2009) The taboo of chemical and biological weapons: Nature, norms and international law. DPhil Dissertation, University of Sussex.

  14. Johnson, S. (2013). A number of Damascene moments, CBRNe World, April 2013.

  15. Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global Era (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kirby, R. (2006). Paradise lost: The psycho agents. The CBW Conventions Bulletin, 71, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variable. International Organization, 36(3), 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. League of Nations, (1925). In proceedings of the conference for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition and in implements of war. Geneva.

  19. Leitenberg, M. (1998). Resolution of the Korean war biological warfare allegations. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 24(3), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Littlewood, J. (2005). The Biological Weapons Convention: A failed revolution. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mangold, T. (2000). Britain’s secret war on drugs. BBC1 Panorama. 2 October 2000, 10 p.m. (as reported in The CBW Conventions Bulletin, Iss 50, December 2000, News chronology entry for the 2 October 2000).

  22. Mayor, A. (2003). Greek fire, poison arrows and scorpion bombs: Biological and chemical warfare in the ancient world. Gerald Duckworth and Co Ltd.

  23. Meselson, M. (2000). Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology. The CBW Conventions Bulletin, 48, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meselson, M., & Robinson, J. (2008). The yellow rain affair: Lessons from a discredited allegation. In A. Clunan, P. Lavoy, & S. Martin (Eds.), Terrorism, war, or disease? Unraveling the use of biological weapons. Stanford, CA: Standford Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Muggah, R. (2012). Researching the urban dilemma: Urbanization, poverty and violence. Ottawa: IDRC.

    Google Scholar 

  26. National Research Council (USA). (2011). Life sciences and related fields: Trends relevant to the biological weapons convention.

  27. New York Times. (1965). Asian reds make gas a top issue; propaganda drive believed effective though belated. New York Times New York, NY: Mar 25, 1965. p. 14.

  28. O’Shaughnessy, H., & Branford, S. (2005). Chemical warfare in Colombia: The costs of coca fumigation. Latin American Bureau.

  29. Pearson, A. M., Chevrier, M. I., & Wheelis, M. (Eds.). (2007). Incapacitating biochemical weapons: promise or peril?. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Prince, C. (1942). The U.S.S.R and International Organizations. The American Journal of International Law, 36.

  31. Rappert, B., & McLeish, C. (2007). A web of prevention: Biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Revill, J., & Jefferson, C (2013) Tacit knowledge and the biological weapons regime, science and public policy (forthcoming).

  33. Roberts, B. (1996). Weapons proliferation and world order: After the cold war. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Robinson, J. (1990). Banning chemical weapons. In J. Rotblat (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fortieth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Egham, UK, 15–20 September 1990: “Towards a secure world in the twenty-first century”.

  35. Robinson, J. (2009). Chemical and biological weapons. In N. E. Busch & D. Joyner (Eds.), Combating weapons of mass destruction: the future of international nonproliferation policy (pp. 74–94). London: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Robinson, J. (2013). Alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria (HSP occasional paper). Brighton: Harvard Sussex Program.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rogers, B. (2013). Promoting public resilience against CBRN terrorism. In B. Akhgar, & S. Yates (Eds.), Strategic intelligence management: National security imperatives and information and communications technologies. Butterworth-Heinemann.

  38. Royal Society. (2012). Brain waves module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  39. SIPRI. (1971). The rise of CB weapons: The problem of chemical and biological warfare volume II. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  40. SIPRI. (1973). The problem of chemical and biological warfare: Volume II CB weapons today. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  41. SIPRI. (2010). SIPRI yearbook 2010: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smart, J. K. (1997). History of chemical and biological warfare: An American perspective. In: medical aspects of chemical and biological warfare. United States Government Printing.

  44. Stevenson, S., & Bigwood, J. (2000) Drug control or biowarfare? Mother Jones, 3 May.

  45. Tucker, J. B. (2000). Toxic terror: Assessing the terrorist use of chemical and biological weapons. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tucker, J. B. (2012). Innovation, Dual use, and Security. London and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. UN. (2006). Background information document on new scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention. BWC/CONF.VI/INF.4. In Sixth Review Conference: 20 November–8 December, 2006, Geneva.

  48. UN. (2013). Report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013. United Nations mission to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.

  49. Van Courtland Moon, J. E. (2008). The development of the norm against the use of poison: What literature tells us. Politics and the Life Sciences, 27(1), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Veillette, C., & Navarrete-Frías. (2005). Drug crop eradication and alternative development in the Andes. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. RL33163.

  51. Vogel, K. (2006). Bioweapons proliferation: Where science studies and public policy collide. Social Studies of Science, 36(5), 659–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. WHO. (2004). Public health response to biological and chemical weapons: WHO Guidance (2nd ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Julian Perry Robinson and two anonymous reviewers for their considerate and useful comments on earlier drafts of this article. All remaining errors are of the authors’ own making.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Ilchmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ilchmann, K., Revill, J. Chemical and Biological Weapons in the ‘New Wars’. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 753–767 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9479-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biological and chemical weapons
  • Taboo
  • New wars
  • BWC
  • CWC
  • Norms