Control and Disarmament

  • Eric Croddy
  • Clarisa Perez-Armendariz
  • John Hart

Abstract

Historically, chemical warfare has sometimes been viewed at the very least with suspicion, and more often with a combination of terror and abhorrence. Chemical weapons were considered, and remain in the minds of most of us, uncivilized if not barbaric tools of war. As early as 1675, France and Germany both condemned the use of poisoned bullets in combat, and over the years, dozens of international treaties and declarations have been drafted to ban or limit their use. In this chapter we take a look at some of these attempts at disarmament and control, and speculate on not just the chances but even the desirability of treaties.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Russel H. Ewing, “The Legality of Chemical Warfare,” The American Law Review 61 (January–February 1927): p. 63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Author of the highly influential treatise, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1918).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare (New York: McGraw-Hill: 1921): p. 6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emphasis added. Article 23 (a) and (2), Hague Conference of 1899, II Convention, found in Russel H. Ewing, “The Legality of Chemical Warfare,” The American Law Review 61 (January–February 1927): p. 62.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare (New York: McGraw-Hill: 1921): p. 6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kölnische Zeitung, June 26, 1915, quoted in http://www.sipri.se/cbw/research/cbw-continuity.html.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russel H. Ewing, “The Legality of Chemical Warfare,” The American Law Review 61 (January–February 1927): pp. 63, 67.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Victor A. Utgoff, The Challenge of Chemical Weapons: An American Perspective (New York: St. Martin’s Press: 1991): p. 15.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Russel H. Ewing, “The Legality of Chemical Warfare,” The American Law Review 61 (January–February 1927): pp. 69, 71.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Chemical Weapons Convention, http://www.opcw.nl/.Google Scholar
  11. 18.
    Chemical Weapons Convention, http://www.opcw.nl/.Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    Chemical Weapons Convention, http://www.opcw.nl/.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    Gordon M. Burck, “Chemical Weapons Production Technology and the Conversion of Civilian Production,” Arms Control (September 1990): p. 134.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    Chemical Weapons Convention, http://www.opcw.nl/.Google Scholar
  15. 26.
    Jonathan B. Tucker, “Viewpoint: Converting Former Soviet Chemical Weapons Plants,” The Nonproliferation Review (Fall 1996): pp. 78, 85.Google Scholar
  16. 27.
    “Science in Russia.The Diamonds in the Rubble,” The Economist (November 8, 1997): p. 25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Croddy
  • Clarisa Perez-Armendariz
  • John Hart

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations