Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Absence in Science, Security and Policy pp 157–179Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

What Counts as the Hostile Use of Chemicals?

  • Chapter

  • 300 Accesses

Part of the book series: Global Issues Series ((GLOISS))

Abstract

Acid violence (AV), that is the deliberate use of acid (or alkalis)1 to attack another human being, is a frequent occurrence around the world. Yet, although clearly reliant on the hostile exploitation of chemicals, acid attacks are rarely described as chemical weapon attacks within the parlance of international diplomacy. This is somewhat of an anomaly when one considers the increasing attention given to terrorism at both the national and international level. Within this chapter we explore the significance of this apparent anomaly for our understanding of how chemical weapon issues are framed as political problems. In particular we examine how such processes shape which issues get attention and lead to others being ignored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Cook, Tim. 2000. “‘Against God-Inspired Conscience’: The Perception of Gas Warfare as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, 1915–1939,” War and Society 18(1): 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mayor, Adrienne. 2003. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock, NY, and London: Overlook Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zanders, Jean Pascal. 2003. “International norms against chemical and biological warfare: An ambiguous legacy,” Journal of Confl ict and Security Law 8(2): 393.

    Google Scholar 

  4. OPCW. 2006. History of Chemical Disarmament, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

    Google Scholar 

  5. SIPRI. 2005. Key Documents on CBW Disarmament.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grotius in Price, Richard M. 1997. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mayor, Adrienne. 2003. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock, NY, and London: Overlook Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kloot, W.V.D. 2004. “April 1915: Five future Nobel prize-winners inaugurate weapons of mass destruction and the academic-industrial-military complex,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society 58(2): 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones, E. 2014. “Terror weapons: The British experience of gas and its treatment in the First World War,” War in History 21(3): 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. British medical report cited in Harris, Robert and Jeremy Paxman. 1982. A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare. London: Arrow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haber, L.F. 1986. The Poison Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Oxford: Clarendon Press; see also

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lefebure, Victor. 1922. The Riddle of the Rhine. London and Glasgow: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  14. SIPRI. 1971. The Rise of CB Weapons. SIRPI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Volume I. Edited by SIPRI. Almqvist & Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cited in Girard, Marion. 2008. A Strange and Formidable Weapon: British Responses to World War I Poison Gas. University of Nebraska Press, p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Spiers, Edward M. 2006. “Gas disarmament in the 1920s: Hopes confounded.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (2): 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Creveld, Martin van. 2008. The Changing Face of War: Combat from the Marne to Iraq. Random House LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  18. SIPRI. 1971. The Prevention of CBW. The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Volume V. SIPRI, in association with Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rappert, Brian. 2013. Controlling the Weapons of War: Politics, Persuasion, and the Prohibition of Inhumanity. London: Routledge: 58.

    Google Scholar 

  20. League of Nations (1925) Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, June 17, 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Myrdal, Alva. 1967. Final Verbatim Record of the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament [Meeting 288], 1967. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library.

    Google Scholar 

  22. CIA. 1969. Intelligence Report—Disarmament: Chemical-Biological Warfare Controls and Pro [sic], “Central Intelligence Agency” case number: EO-2001–00138. http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chevrier, Marie. 2006. “The politics of biological disarmament,” in Mark Wheelis, Lajos Rozsa, and Malcolm Dando (eds). Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Harvard: Harvard University Press: 308.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Robinson, Julian Perry. 1980. “The negotiations on chemical warfare arms control,” Arms Control 1 (1): 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Josset, Patrice, and Alan H. Hall. 2014. “History of chemical burns and scope of the problem,” in Howard I. Maibach and Alan H. Hall (eds.). Chemical Skin Injury Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mannan, A., Ghani, S., Sen, S.L., Clarke, A., and P.E.M. Butler. 2004. “The problem of acid violence in Bangladesh,” The Journal of Surgery 2(1): 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bromberg, B.E., Song, I.C., and R.H. Walden. 1965. “Hydrotherapy of chemical burns,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 35: 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Welsh, Jane. 2009. A Comparative Exploration of Acid Attack Violence, Center for Global Initiatives, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sharma, Dinesh C. 2013. “India promises to curb acid attacks,” The Lancet 382: 9897. Elsevier Ltd: 1013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mannan, Ashim, Ghani, Samuel, Clarke, Alex, and Peter E.M. Butler. 2007. “Cases of chemical assault worldwide: A literature review,” Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 33(2): 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar, Pankaj. 2009. “Challenges of acid attack survivors” Society Today 2 (3): 25–34;

    Google Scholar 

  32. Welsh, Jane. 2009. A Comparative Exploration of Acid Attack Violence.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor, Eric R. 2001. Lethal Mists: An Introduction to the Natural and Military Sciences of Chemical, Biological Warfare and Terrorism. Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tuorinsky, Shirley D. (ed.) 2008. Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare. Government Printing Office: 44.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kleber, Brooks E. and Dale Birdsell. 1966. The Chemical Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army.

    Google Scholar 

  36. OPCW. 2012. Report of the OPCW on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction in 2012, C-18/4 December 4, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. James Revill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brett Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technology and Public Affairs, University of Exeter, UK

    Brian Rappert (Professor of Science) (Professor of Science)

  2. Department of Science, University College London, UK

    Brian Balmer (Professor of Science Policy Studies) (Professor of Science Policy Studies)

Copyright information

© 2015 James Revill and Brett Edwards

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Revill, J., Edwards, B. (2015). What Counts as the Hostile Use of Chemicals?. In: Rappert, B., Balmer, B. (eds) Absence in Science, Security and Policy. Global Issues Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137493736_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation