Acknowledgement.

I have taken efforts in the time-bound and plagiarism-free competition of this project.
However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of a number of
individuals that are part of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal.

I am greatly indebted to Neha Ma’am for her able guidance and constant supervision
towards this project as well as for imparting the knowledge required for the same. I would
also like to express my gratitude towards all staff members of the National Law Institute
University, Bhopal for their kind cooperation and for providing us all with the resources
required to make this project.

My gratitude and appreciation also goes out to my colleagues who helped me in developing
this paper and to people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities. Thank you.
1. Introduction.

War is an all-consuming evil. Apart from the obvious loss of life and human suffering, it
undoes all development and economic growth and sets back countries by decades in a very
short time.
The casualties pour in over months; some due to the actual events of war and some in the
aftermath, owing to inadequacy in healthcare, among other reasons. The cost of war is too
high, not only for the defeated party, but in most cases, for the “winner” as well.

Countries, primarily in order to shorten the war, resort to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. These weapons are capable of turning entire cities to rubble in a matter of
minutes. Their aftermath is even horrific! It plagues not just those who chanced to survive the
actual events of war but even future generations. Case in point, the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

These weapons have historically been nuclear or chemical, but the scope in modern times has
been expanded to include biological weapons. Today, these three form part of what is the
NBC, in terms of warfare or weapons, which stands for nuclear, biological and chemical, and
which is considered to be “weapons of mass destruction”.

Chemical warfare is the usage of toxic properties of chemicals as weapons in war.

The threat and perceived threat of use of the NBC trifecta have become strategic tools in
planning both measures and counter-measures.

Customary IHL prohibits the use of chemical weapons. Rule 74 states that “The use of
chemical weapons is prohibited.”

The disproportionate civilian casualties when weighed against that of the actual combatants is
the fundamental ground behind the international community’s efforts to curb their use.

1.1. Statement of Problem.

This paper is a study of the use of chemical weapons in warfare, the implications of the same
under international humanitarian law, and law regulating their use. The paper also discusses
the historical use of chemical weapons in wars , and what lies in the future for chemical
weapons. Lastly, the discusses the position of India with regard to chemical warfare.

1.2. Objectives.

 To understand chemical warfare and its implications under international humanitarian

law.
 To trace the historical use of chemical weapons in war.
 To review the laws regulating the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
 To determine India’s position with regard to chemical warfare.
 To ascertain what lies in the future for chemical warfare.

1.3. Hypothesis.

That the use of chemical weapons, and the NBC trifecta in general, poses a serious threat
when employed in warfare and their use must be curbed, and that the current legislations or
customs under international law regulating the use of chemical weapons in warfare will be
successful in curbing their deployment in war.

1.4. Research Questions.

 What is chemical warfare and what are its implications under international
humanitarian law?
 How have chemical weapons been historically employed in war.
 What laws or customs under the international law today regulate the use of chemical
weapons in warfare?
 What is India’s position with regard to chemical warfare?
 What lies in the future for chemical warfare?

1.5. Research Methodology.

The mode of writing this research paper is doctrinal in nature. Secondary and electronic
resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic. Books and
other reference material have been helpful in giving this paper a firm structure. Websites,
dictionaries, and articles have also been referred. Footnotes have been provided, where
needed, to acknowledge the source.
2. Historical Use of Chemical Weapons in War.

Not exactly chemical warfare, but among the first use of chemicals in war was a popular
warfare strategy whereby certain chemicals were squirted into the noses of horses which
resulted in them stampeding. This might not have been the most sophisticated deployment
when it comes to chemical warfare but it was a start. The idea remains the same, but the
methods sure have evolved since.

This was followed by the concept of poisoning sharp weaponry like arrows and spears with
chemicals and physically attacking the enemy with them. They were first used and
popularised as early as around 10,000 BC. This employment of this tactic was not just limited
to warfare; even hunter-gatherers at the time would poison their tools with poisons found in
nature, from plants or from animals like snakes.

“Archeologists have found the oldest evidence of chemical warfare yet after studying the
bodies of 20 Roman soldiers found underground in Syria. Clues left at the scene revealed the
Persians were lying in wait as the Romans dug a tunnel during a siege, then pumped in toxic
gas produced by sulfur crystals and bitumen to kill all the Romans in minutes”1

Arthashastra, authored by Kautilya, which is revered as the source on administration and

warcraft also lays down the processes for the creation of chemical weapons. The Laws of
Manu, another work of authorship from the time, forbade the use of poison arrows. The use
of chemical weapons in India is confirmed in the 4 th century BC when Alexander the Great
encounters them at the Indus Basin.

The Chinese have been credited with the first use of chemical gases in war. They primarily
employed tactics to suffocate the enemy.

1
The Telegraph, Ancient Persians who gassed Romans were the first to use chemical weapons, 14 Jan 2009.
3. Use in Recent History.

Even before World War I, the Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention of 1907
forbade the use of “poison or poisoned weapons”. This did not seem to have any influence on
the warfare strategies of nations as over a 100,000 tons of poisonous gases were deployed in
the War.

The first employment of a chemical in World War I was the use of chlorine by the Germans.
Chlorine, when inhaled even in moderately high quantities is extremely toxic. Chlorine was
stored in tanks and when the wind direction was favourable, it was released towards the
enemy.

At the time, no protective gear against gases had been developed. Over time and out of
necessity, the gas mask was invented. Concurrently began the use of other gases, most even
more toxic than chlorine. Towards the end of the war, all parties were extensively using the
deployment of toxic gases as a standard tactic.

At the end of the War, most parties to it ended by dumping any and all forms of chemical
weapons into water bodies.2 Over time, the containers corroded and released these toxind into
water bodies, severely impacting not only coastal ecosystems but also had long term impacts
on human health as these highly toxic chemicals washed onto the shores.

The use of chemical weapons obviously did not end with World War I. Between the two
World Wars, chemical weapons were regularly employed to suppress protests. Case in point,
the tear gas.

One such account is available from the Soviet Union:

"The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This
must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and kills everyone
hiding there."3

2
Andrew CURRY, Weapons of War Litter the Ocean Floor, published in the Hakai Magazine.
3
Edvard Radzinsky, Stalin (Knopf Doubleday), p. 173.
1925 saw 16 nations signing the Geneva Protocol, wherein the use of chemical gases as a
warfare tactic was prohibited. Even though the US was a party to the Protocol, it did not
ratify the Protocol until well after the end of World War II.
4. Chemical Weapons in World War II.

Japan and Germany were the two major employers of chemical weapons in the post-World
War I world. The Second Sino-Japanese War saw an intermittent use of chemical, and
specially gas, weapons.

In early 1938, the Imperial Japanese Army began full-scale use

of phosgene, chlorine, Lewisite and nausea gas, and from mid-1939, mustard gas was used
against both Kuomintang and Communist Chinese troops.4

This was done despite Japan being a signatory to both the Hague Declaration of 1899 and the
Hague Convention of 1907. The Hague Declaration law down the Declaration on the Use of
Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases 5.
Article 23(a) of the Hague Convention lay down the The Laws and Customs of War on Land6.

An example of the use of chemical weapons is the Battle of Yichang. Thousand of gas sheels
were launched at Chinese troops, Chinese civilians were also present, thousands were
affected. Japanese reports stated that “the effect of gas seems considerable”7.

We are not oblivious to the use of chemicals in Nazi Germany. The use of the infamous and
much-dreaded gas chambers began as part of a program to euthanize the disabled population.
The first tests were conducted in Poland. The experiment was then introduced to kill
prisoners. Carbon monoxide was chiefly employed. Gas chambers were improvised and
perfected. Eventually, euthanasia centers were established in Germany.

The program moved from experimenting on the disabled and prisoners to targeting Jews. The
infamous concentration camps were established in Germany, Austria and Poland. The
euthanasia program was discontinued in 1941 but the killings continued.

4
Tanaka Yuki, Poison Gas: The Story Japan Would Like to Forget, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.
5
Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or
Deleterious Gases, July 29, 1899, available at avalon.law.yale.edu.
6
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the
Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, International Committee of the Red Cross.
7
Supra note 4.
Starting in 1941, gas chambers were used at extermination camps in Poland for the mass
killing of Jews, Roma, and other victims of the Holocaust. The Nazis experimented with gas
chambers and other enclosed spaces. Experiments were also conducted into finding more
efficient chemicals. Different chambers and different chemicals were employed at different
concentration camps.
5. Regulation of Chemical Warfare.

The first concerns regarding the use of chemicals in war were brought forth in the Brussels
Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War of 1874 which forbade the use of
poison and poisoned weapons. The Declaration was not adopted and never came into force.

At the Hague Conference of 1899, a proposal sought to prohibit the use of gas shells. The
proposal was passed and was included in the Hague Declaration of 1899.

The Hague Declaration law down the Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of
Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases. Article 23(a) of the Hague
Convention lay down the The Laws and Customs of War on Land.

After World War I, the Washington Arms Conference Treaty prohibited the use of

asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. It was signed by the United States, Britain, Japan,
France, and Italy, but France objected to other provisions in the treaty and it never came into
force.

1925 saw 16 nations signing the Geneva Protocol, wherein the use of chemical gases as a
warfare tactic was prohibited. Even though the US was a party to the Protocol, it did not
ratify the Protocol until well after the end of World War II.

Despite being a signatory to both the Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention
of 1907, Japan began full-scale use of several gases and chemicals against the Communist
Chinese.

Finally, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and
Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or
CWC) was drafted and signed and entered into force in 1997.

“The Convention aims to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by

prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of
chemical weapons by States Parties.”
Today the Convention has 193 State Parties. Israel is the only nation to have signed but not
ratified the convention. Egypt, South Sudan and North Korea are not parties to the
Convention.

The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits:

 Developing, producing, acquiring, stockpiling, or retaining chemical weapons.

 The direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons.
 Chemical weapons use or military preparation for use.
 Assisting, encouraging, or inducing other states to engage in CWC-prohibited
activity.
 The use of riot control agents “as a method of warfare.”

and further requires State Parties to destroy:

 All chemical weapons under their jurisdiction or control.

 All chemical weapons production facilities under their jurisdiction or control.
 Chemical weapons abandoned on other states’ territories.
 Old chemical weapons.
6. India’s Stance on Chemical Warfare.

India was one of the original signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention having signed
the CWC on 14th January, 1993. India soon ratified the CWC on 3rd September, 1996.

In signing the CWC, India stated that it did not have the capacity or the intent to manufacture
or use chemical weapons in warfare. In addition to that, under the CWC, India was also
required to destroy its existing stockpile of chemical weapons. In June 1997, India declared
the exisiting stock of chemical weapons it possessed. By the end of 2006, India had destroyed
more than 75 percent of its chemical weapons/material stockpile and was granted extension
for destroying the remaining stocks by April 2009 and was expected to achieve 100 percent
destruction within that time frame.8 India informed the United Nations in May 2009 that it
had destroyed its stockpile of chemical weapons in compliance with its obligations under the
CWC. With this, India became only the third country after South Korea and Albania to do
so. India’s claims were verified by the UN.

This stems from India’s belief in its nuclear power. India believes that its nuclear and its
other conventional weapon systems are sufficient to avert any threat posed to the sovereignty
and territory of the nation. Therefore, the country does not need additional weapons of mass
destruction like chemical and biological weapons in its arsenal. Though with certain nations
believing that Covid-19 is a result of Chinese biological warfare, this stance may change in
the near future.

While India has acceded to the prohibition of chemical weapons in warfare, India continues
using tear gas to suppress protests.

8
India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009, published in the Dominican Today.
7. What Lies in the Future.

The CWC has been a resounding success so far with 193 State Parties. Only a few nations are
not part of the CWC. This a reassuring. Most nations have complied with their liabilities
under the CWC. Countries have declared their existing stockpiles of chemical weapons and
have moved towards destroying them, with some countries, Including countries as big and
powerful as India, having already all existing stocks.

Despite the success of the CWC, the possibility of a resurgence of chemical warfare must not
be downplayed. This can be attributed to a confluence of military, economic and
technological trends. Technological advancements have been made in all sectors and
chemical weapons is no different. Destabilizing chemical technologies have been developed.
The nature of warfare is ever-evolving. Globalization of the chemical industry will also lead
to lobbying efforts like that of the defence manufacturers in the US.

With regard to the disarmament and destruction of existing stockpiles, US and Russia are the
two concerning parties with the largest existing stockpiles. A failure on part of the CWC in
getting the powerful countries like US and Russia to destroy their weapons and comply with
their obligations will undermine the credibility of the Convention.

When it comes to State Parties, Israel, which is in a constant state of conflict with its
neighbours has not ratified the CWC. North Korea has not signed the Convention.

The technological advents in synthetic biology, which involves the use of biological means to
generate chemicals, is another evolving concern. In the long run, this could lead to the
production of biological weapons which produce known and unknown chemicals.

Covid-19 being construed as a step in biological warfare is an immediate and serious concern
which could revamp countries’ interest in developing biological and chemical weapons.
8. Conclusion.

Disarmament has always been a highly debated topic at international conventions across the
globe and over time. Even though it is clear that NBC warfare is more harmful to the civilians
than it is to combatants, countries refuse to enter into disarmament treaties to protect their
vested geopolitical interests.

The three major arguments I can make against chemical warfare are:

A. Impact on civilians.
The purpose of chemical weapons is mass destruction and the threat that it possesses.
This is exactly the concern with the use of such weapons. War, if at all, should be
between combatants and should not impact civilians and create mass destruction,
destroying entire cities in the process. Case in point, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

B. Long term implications.

The impact of chemical weapons is not just limited to the actual event of the use of
these weapons and there are far-reaching implications. Certain chemicals may spread
through the air or seep into the water thereby impacting people in and around the
epicenter. Certain chemicals have an impact on the genetic makeup and impact future
generations as well. Case in point, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

C. Disposal of the weapons and chemicals after use.

At the end of the War, most parties to it ended by dumping any and all forms of
chemical weapons into water bodies.9 Over time, the containers corroded and released
these toxind into water bodies, severely impacting not only coastal ecosystems but
also had long term impacts on human health as these highly toxic chemicals washed
onto the shores. This has long-term and far-reaching impact on the environment and
with existing concerns around global warming, we really should focus on improving
rather than worsening existing conditions.

9
Supra note 2.