Chemical and biological weapons

The international community banned the use of chemical and biological weapons after World War I
and reinforced the ban in 1972 and 1993 by prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and
transfer of these weapons. Today's advances in life sciences and biotechnology, as well as changes in
the security environment, have increased concern that long-standing restraints on the use of chemical
and biological weapons may be ignored or eroded.

The misuse of science or of scientific achievements to create weapons that poison and spread disease
has always provoked alarm and abhorrence in the public mind. The ICRC summed up the public horror
at the use of such weapons in its appeal in February 1918, calling them "barbarous inventions" that can
"only be called criminal". For centuries there have been taboos against such weapons, but the use of
poisonous gas in World War I led to the first international agreement – the 1925 Geneva Protocol –
banning asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare.

Despite the huge loss of life and destructiveness of World War II, and the crimes committed against
humanity, the main belligerents did not use chemical or biological weapons against each other. That
may have been due to a fear of reprisals using similar weapons, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol had
nevertheless established a new and clear norm in international law.

The Protocol has been respected in nearly all of the hundreds of armed conflicts that have taken place
since 1925. The handful of well-known and high-profile violations have provoked widespread
international condemnation and, in some cases, criminal prosecutions.

The 1925 Protocol was a landmark in international humanitarian law. Further legal instruments
followed in the form of Conventions adopted by States in 1972 and 1993.

The 1972 Convention, usually referred to as the Biological Weapons Convention or the Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), was a major step towards the total elimination of these abhorrent
weapons. As the use of such weapons was already banned by the 1925 Protocol, the Convention
prohibited the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, retention and transfer of such
weapons, including their delivery systems, and required their destruction.

The Convention also required each country to enact national legislation to enforce its prohibitions.
Regular review conferences of all signatories monitor compliance with the terms of the Convention and
adopt recommendations to promote its implementation and effectiveness.

The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was a similar legal development, extending the
prohibition on use in the 1925 Protocol to the development, production, stockpiling, retention and
transfer of chemical weapons, including their delivery systems. It also covered their destruction.

Because achievements in chemistry can nevertheless bring benefits to humankind, the Convention both
promotes and supervises the development of the chemical industry worldwide.

International verification measures are the responsibility of the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. It provides technical assistance to States in implementing the
provisions of the Convention. Each State is also required to set up a national authority to ensure liaison
and implementation.
The huge potential for both good and harm that major advances in the chemical and biological sciences
bring, means that vigilance against the misuse of these advances to develop chemical and biological
weapons remains vitally important.

In response to such concerns, the ICRC launched an appeal in September 2002 on "Biotechnology,
Weapons and Humanity". It focused not only on existing capabilities for the misuse of science but also
on emerging ones such as altering existing diseases to make them more harmful, manufacturing viruses
from synthetic materials, and creating chemicals that alter consciousness, behaviour or fertility.

The appeal called for renewed efforts to combat the emerging threats, in particular by mobilizing what
it called the "web of prevention" – a global network of all those involved in life sciences and
biotechnology, public, private, scientific and lay, who could help prevent the catastrophic consequences
of unregulated biotechnological development.

More recently, the ICRC has raised concerns about the interest among police, security and armed forces
in using toxic chemicals – primarily dangerous anaesthetic drugs – as law-enforcement weapons
designed to render targets unconscious or otherwise severely incapacitated. These substances have been
described as "incapacitating chemical agents".

These are not riot-control agents – commonly known as "tear gas" – which are permitted under the
Chemical Weapons Convention as a means for "law enforcement including domestic riot control
purposes" only.

The ICRC convened two international expert meetings in 2010 and 2012 to explore the implications of
"incapacitating chemical agents". Through this process it was established that using these weapons
would endanger the life and health of those exposed, risk undermining the international law prohibiting
chemical weapons, and constitute a "slippery slope" towards the reintroduction of chemical weapons in
armed conflict.

In order to counter these risks, in February 2013 the ICRC appealed to all States to limit the use of toxic
chemicals as weapons for law enforcement purposes to riot-control agents only

Conventional weapons
International humanitarian law bans or restricts certain types of conventional weapons in order to
protect civilians from their indiscriminate effects and to spare combatants from excessive injuries that
serve no military purpose. One of the main legal instruments for this is the 1980 Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons.

The 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons
Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects ("Convention on
Certain Conventional Weapons" or "CCW") is based on the general rules of international humanitarian
law that prohibit the use of weapons that are indiscriminate or of a nature to cause superfluous injury
or unnecessary suffering.

The prohibitions and restrictions of the Convention are laid out in its 5 Protocols. The first three
Protocols were adopted when the Convention was negotiated in 1980, while the fourth and fifth
Protocols were adopted in 1995 and 2003 respectively. Protocol I prohibit the use of weapons that injure
by fragments that cannot be detected by X-rays. Protocol II, amended in 1996, regulates the use of
landmines, booby-traps and other explosive devices. Protocol III restricts the use of incendiary
weapons. Protocol IV bans the use and transfer of laser weapons designed to cause permanent blindness.
Under Protocol V, States established a framework to minimize the risks and effects of explosive
remnants of war in post-conflict situations.

An important feature of the CCW is that it can be expanded and new Protocols can be adopted to respond
to the development of new weapons and to changes in the conduct of warfare. Through a process of
consultation and review, States are able to consider amendments to the Convention and its Protocols
and to propose additional Protocols on conventional weapons that are not covered in existing Protocols.
In the past, there have been proposals for new CCW Protocols on anti-vehicle mines, small calibre
bullets and cluster munitions.

Nuclear weapons
Since the first and only use of nuclear weapons in 1945, the international community has wrestled with
the issue of how the law of war applies to such weapons.

For decades the discourse about nuclear weapons was focused on their military and security aspects and
concerns about their proliferation. Increasingly, however, the debate is expanding to include a focus on
their international humanitarian law (IHL) implications, as well as their catastrophic humanitarian
consequences.

While a number of international agreements to limit the development and proliferation of nuclear
weapons were already in place, these weapons were only internationally prohibited in 2017, when the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement had been calling for a ban on nuclear weapons
since 1945 and welcomed the adoption of the TPNW as a historic and long-awaited step towards their
elimination. Given current regional and international tensions, the risk of nuclear weapons being used
is the highest it has ever been since the Cold War.

To ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again and are completely eliminated, the Movement
calls on States to join the ban treaty and to fulfil their longstanding nuclear disarmament obligations
and commitments.

Banning nuclear weapons is justified on humanitarian, moral, and legal terms. Nuclear weapons are the
most destructive weapons ever created and their testing and use would have catastrophic humanitarian
consequences.

These consequences result from the heat, blast and radiation generated by a nuclear explosion and the
distances over which these forces may be spread. As was seen from the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in 1945, the detonation of a nuclear weapon in or near a populated area can cause enormous
numbers of casualties and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

It can destroy medical infrastructure and services making the provision of aid and assistance almost
impossible, demonstrating the lack of adequate humanitarian response capacity in the immediate
aftermath. Many of those who survive the blast will fall victim to radiation sickness in the weeks and
months that follow, while others face an increased risk of developing certain cancers later in life.
In 1996 the International Court of Justice concluded that the use of nuclear weapons would be generally
contrary to the principles and rules of IHL. The Court also decided that States were under an obligation
to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

With the recent adoption of the ban treaty, the legal framework towards the elimination of nuclear
weapons is stronger than ever. By joining it, States are fulfilling their responsibility to protect humanity
from nuclear catastrophe, based on a vision of security without nuclear weapons, a security that is more
viable and humane.