Geneva Protocol of

It is vital to realise that the continued use of chemical weapons in the present conflict increases the risk of their use in future conflicts... In our view, only concerted efforts at the political level can be effective in ensuring that all the signatories of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 abide by their obligations. Otherwise if the Protocol is irreparably weakened after 60 years of general international respect, this may lead, in the future, to the world facing the spectre of the threat of chemical weapons.31... 

This chapter examines the prohibitions in the relevant treaties - the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention - and concludes that chemical weapons are totally prohibited. Consideration is given to the risk of use of chemical weapons posed in the 21st Century, both by states and by other organizations and individuals, such as terrorists, and to how these risks can be countered by the effective implementation of the treaties. 

These reservations meant that in World War II, States acquired chemical and biological weapons so that they would be able to retaliate in kind should chemical or biological weapons be used against them. Acquisition and stockpiling of such weapons was not prohibited under the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which applied only to the use of such weapons in war. It thus became regarded, because of the reservations, as a prohibition of first-use . 

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the first use of chemicals for wartime use. Since 1928, an international treaty has banned the use of chemical weapons but not their development and production. A multilateral treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), would require the destruction of chemical weapons and the means to produce them. The United States signed the convention in 1993 but has not ratified it as of July 1996. Earlier, the United States signed bilateral agreements with Russia aimed at destroying both countries chemical weapon stockpiles. 

Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. There is a great concern that many terrorist gronps have either accessed or seeking to acqnire the technologies and expertise to prodnce and nse snch bio-weapons. 

The initial Italian offensive from Eritrea was not pursued with the proper vigor in Mussolini s opinion, and the Italian commander was replaced. The new commander, Marshal Pietro Badoglio, was ordered to finish the war quickly. He resorted to chemical weapons to defeat the Ethiopian troops led by Emperor Haile Selassie. Despite the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Italy had ratified in 1928 (and Ethiopia in 1935), the Italians dropped mustard bombs and occasionally sprayed it from airplane tanks. They also used mustard agent in powder form as a dusty agent to burn the unprotected feet of the Ethiopians. There were also rumors of phosgene and chloropicrin attacks, but these were never verified. 

Geneva Protocol of 1925. A multilateral agreement that prohibits the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological weapons in war. It was opened for signature in 1925 and was ratified by the United States in 1975. 

Balfour S (2002) Deadly Embrace Morocco and the road to the Spanish Civil War. OUP, Oxford Baxter RR, Buergenthal T (1970) Legal aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Am J Int Law... 

As a consequence, the first significant discussions of a ban on chemical weapons since the Geneva Protocol of 1925 started soon after the conclusion of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 1972. During negotiations at UN disarmament conferences in Geneva, exploratory initiatives by Japan (1974) and the United Kingdom (1976) were proposed for a chemical weapons ban. 

Although debates over the issue of CW inspections and disarmament continue to this day, 1992 marked the starting date of a truly historic ongoing agreement. Having learned the hard way from the deficiencies of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the CWC was written more forcefully, and refined almost endlessly, in the hopes that chemical weapons would be banned, and banned in a comprehensive and permanent fashion. 

A year later, in April 1953, the Soviets insisted that the failure of the United States to ratify the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was further evidence that the US did in fact use BW in Korea. The granting of immunity by the US to Japanese personnel involved with Unit 731 was also used to buttress the Communist allegations. 

Article VIII reaffirms the BTWC as following the Geneva Protocol of 1925, but only alludes to the prohibition rather than exphcitly stating it, which is a particular sticking point for China, Iran, and several others. Article IX requires member countries to continue in good faith negotiations for the international control of chemical weapons. 

Determined for the sake of all mankind, to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons, through the implementation of the provisions of this Convention, thereby complementing the obligations assumed under the Geneva Protocol of 1925,... 

The withdrawal of a State Party from this Convention shall not in any way affect the duty of States to continue fulfilling the obligations assumed under any relevant rules of international law, particularly the Geneva Protocol of 1925. 

---