Abstract
Therapeutic advances in neuropharmacology and drug delivery could be exploited for the development of incapacitating biochemical weapons. This chapter examines the international legal restraints on chemical and biological weapons, with a particular focus on arms control law, human rights law, and international humanitarian law. It also examines the legal implications of other potential neuroweapons, such as neural-interface weapons systems, with a particular focus on the challenges posed to notions of criminal responsibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BMA. (2007). The use of drugs as weapons: The concerns and responsibilities of healthcare professionals. London: British Medical Association.
Casey-Maslen, S. (2011). Weapons termed ‘non-lethal’; and international human rights law. Geneva: Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention), 10 April 1972.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention), 13 January 1993.
Crowley, M. (2009). Dangerous ambiguities: Regulation of riot control agents and incapacitants under the chemical weapons convention. Bradford: Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project.
ECHR. (2011). Use of gas against terrorists during Moscow theatre siege was justified, but the rescue operation afterwards was poorly planned and implemented. Press release issued by the Registrar of the Court. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
Fidler, D. P. (2005). The meaning of Moscow: ‘Non lethal’ weapons and international law in the early 21st century. International Review of the Red Cross, 87, 525–552.
Gillespie, T., & West, R. (2010). Requirement for autonomous unmanned air systems set by legal issues. The International C2 Journal, 4, 1–32.
Herby, P. (2007). Protecting and reinforcing humanitarian norms: The way forward. In A. M. Pearson, M. I. Chevrier, & M. Wheelis (Eds.), Incapacitating biochemical weapons: Promise or peril? Lanham: Lexington.
ICRC. (2005). Customary international humanitarian law, Volume 1: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ICRC. (2010). Incapacitating chemical agents: Implications for international law. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
ICRC. (2012). Toxic chemicals as weapons for law enforcement: A threat to life and international law? Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
Jefferson, C. (2009). The taboo of chemical and biological weapons: Nature, norms and international law (DPhil Dissertation). University of Sussex.
Kelle, A. (2012a). Legally incapacitated, politically outmanoeuvred. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/alexander-kelle/legally-incapacitated-politically-outmaneuvered. Accessed 30 Nov 2012.
Kelle, A. (2012b). The message from Strasbourg. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/alexander-kelle/the-message-strasbourg. Accessed 30 Nov 2012.
Kelle, A., Nixdorff, K., & Dando, M. (2012). Preventing a biochemical arms race. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Koch, B. L., Edvinsson, A. A., & And Koskinen, L. O. (1999). Inhalation of substance P and thiorphan: Acute toxicity and effects on respiration in conscious guinea pigs. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 19, 19–23.
Meselson, M. (2000). Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology. The CBW Conventions Bulletin, 48, 16–19.
Meselson, M., & Robinson, J. P. (1994). New technologies and the loophole in the convention. Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin, 23, 1–2.
MOD. (2011). Joint Doctrine Note 2/11: The UK approach to unmanned aircraft systems. Shrivenham: Ministry of Defence.
Pearson, G. (2002). Relevant scientific and technological developments for the first CWC review conference: The BTWC review conference experience. CWC review conference paper No. 1. University of Bradford: Department of Peace Studies.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
The Royal Society. (2012). Brain waves 3: Neuroscience conflict and security. London: The Royal Society.
Wax, P. M., Becker, C. E., & Curry, S. C. (2003). Unexpected ‘gas’ casualties in Moscow: A medical toxicology perspective. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41, 700–705.
White, S. E. (2008). Brave new world: Neurowarfare and the limits of international humanitarian law. Cornell International Law Journal, 41, 177–210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Jefferson, C. (2015). International Legal Restraints on Chemical and Biological Weapons. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_140
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_140
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4706-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4707-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law