Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Civil Society in Combating the Misuse of Incapacitating Chemical Agents and Riot Control Agents

  • Chapter
Chemical Control

Part of the book series: Global Issues Series ((GLOISS))

  • 293 Accesses

Abstract

The previous chapters have explored the State-centric nexus of arms control and disarmament treaties and agreements, relevant international law and other regulatory regimes that are potentially applicable to ICA weapons, RCAs and related means of delivery. It is clear from such analysis that many of these instruments and regimes have ambiguities, weaknesses and limitations which the relevant Member States have been unable or unwilling to address. Furthermore, a number suffer from inadequate and patchy national implementation and a failure of States Parties and relevant regime organizations to challenge reported treaty violations by certain Member States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Bohn, L. Rand Corporation Memorandum, 1956, as cited in Rotblat, J. Societal Verification, in Rotblat, J., Steinberger, J. and Udgaonkar, B. (eds), A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Desirable? Feasible? Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Melman, S. (ed.), Inspection for Disarmament, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clark, G. and Sohn, L. World Peace through World Law, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960, 2000, p. 267.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Portnoy, B. Arms Control Procedure: Inspection by the People: A Revaluation and a Proposal, Cornell International Law Journal, volume 4, number 2, 1971, pp. 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deiseroth, D. Societal Verification: Wave of the Future? 2000 Verification Yearbook, VERTIC, 2000, p. 267.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Deiseroth, D. (2000) op.cit.; Deiseroth, D. Societal Verification: Citizen Reporting and Whistleblowing as Integral Elements of the Disarmament Process and of Technological and Other Verification Systems, 2nd edn, Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Falter, A. Including Civil Society into Confidence Building: Protecting Whistleblowers and Societal Verification, in Finney, J. and Slaus, I. (eds), Assessing the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series — E: Human and Societal Dynamics. volume 61, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 2010, p. 291.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Deiseroth, D. (2000) op.cit., p. 265.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For further discussion see Crowley, M. and Persbo, A. The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Monitoring and Verification of International Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements, in Borrie, J. and Martin Randin, V. (eds), Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disarmament and Arms Control Negotiations. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 2006, pp. 225–252.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For further examples see (Bosnia) — Hay, A. Surviving the Impossible: The Long March from Srebrenica. An Investigation of the Possible Use of Chemical Warfare Agents, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, volume 14, number 2, 1998, pp. 38–73; (Kurdistan/Iraq) — Physicians for Human Rights, Iraq: Winds of Death: Iraq’s Use of Poison Gas Against Its Kurdish Population. Report of a mission to Turkish Kurdistan. February 1989; Physicians for Human Rights/Human Rights Watch statement, Scientific First: Soil Samples Taken from Bomb Craters in Northern Iraq Reveal Nerve Gas — Even Four Years Later, 29th April 1993, Physicians for Human Rights press release; Physicians for Human Rights, Iraq: PHR Documentation of Chemical Weapons Attacks against Kurds by Hussein Regime’s Anfal Campaign, 24th August 2006; the Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, 1993; Black R. J., Clarke, R. W. and Reid, M. T. J. Application of Gas Chromatography — Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography — Tandem Mass Spectrometry to the Analysis of Chemical Warfare Samples, Found to Contain Residues of the Nerve Agent Sarin, Sulphur Mustard and Their Degradation Products, Journal of Chromatography, A 662, 1994, pp. 301–321, as cited in Perry Robinson, J. Scientists and Chemical Weapons Policies, in Finney, J. and Slaus, I (eds), Assessing the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 2010, p. 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meselson, M. and Perry Robinson, J. The Yellow Rain Affair: Lessons from a Discredited Allegation, in Clunan, A. L., Lavoy P. R. and Martin, S. B. (eds), Terrorism, War, or Disease? Unravelling the Use of Biological Weapons, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008, pp. 72–96.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hay, A., Giacaman, R., Sansur, R. and Rose, S. Skin Injuries Caused by New Riot Control Agent Used Against Civilians on the West Bank, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, volume 22, number 4, October–December 2006, pp. 283–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hay, A. Giacaman, R. Sansur, R. and Rose, S. (2006) op.cit., p. 287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., p. 288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., p. 288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Royal Society, Science Policy Centre, Brain Waves Module 3, Neuroscience, Conflict and Security, London, February 2012, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  18. For further discussion, see Hoffman, P. and Stephens, B., International Human Rights Cases Under State Lawand in State Courts, UC Irvine LawReview, volume 3, number 1, 2013; Steinhardt, R. Weapons and the Human Rights Responsibilities of Multinational Corporations, in Casey-Maslen, S. (ed.), Weapons Under International Human Rights Law. Cambridge University Press, 2014; Stephens, B. Chomsky, J., Green, J., Hoffman, P. and Ratner, M., International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2nd ed., 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffman, P. and Stephens, B. (2013) op.cit., p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bradley, C.A. International Law and the US Legal System, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 220.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. National Research Council, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (Fink Report), Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Research Council, Globalisation, Biosecurity and the Future of the Life Sciences (Lemon Report), Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Research Council (2006) op.cit., p. 216

    Google Scholar 

  24. For a discussion of such initiatives, see Rappert, B. The Benefits, Risks, and Threats of Biotechnology, Science & Public Policy, volume 35, number 1, 2008, pp. 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rappert, B. Introduction: Education as … in Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, Australian National University E-Press, 2010, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Journal Editors and Authors Group, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, volume 100, number 4, 18th February 2003, p. 1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Aken, J. and Hunger, I. Biosecurity Policies at International Life Science Journals, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, volume 7, number 1, 2009, pp. 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rappert, B. (2010) op.cit., p. 8. Rappert cited the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Center for Disease Control, and the Southeast Center of Regional Excellence for Emerging Infectious Diseases and Biodefence.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rappert, B. (2010) op.cit., p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sunshine Project, Earth Calling NSABB: Voluntary Compliance Won’t Work, Press Release, 17th April 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Royal Society, The Roles of Codes of Conduct in Preventing the Misuse of Scientific Research. RS Policy Document 3/05. London: Royal Society, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pearson, G. and Mahaffy, P. Education, Outreach, and Codes of Conduct to Further the Norms and Obligations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (IUPAC Technical Report), Pure and Applied Chemistry, volume 78, 2006, p. 2186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pearson, G. and Mahaffy, P. (2006) op.cit., p. 2186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. See Pearson, G., Becker, E. and Sydnes, L. Why Codes of Conduct Matter, Chemistry International, volume 33, number 6, November–December 2011, pp. 7–11. See also IUPAC, Statement by Prof. Alastair W. M. Hay and Prof. Graham S. Pearson on Behalf of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry to the Meeting of Experts, BTWC Meeting of Experts, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rappert, B. Biological Weapons and the Life Sciences: The Potential for Professional Codes, in Disarmament Forum, 2005 volume one, Science Technology and the CBW regimes, Geneva: UNIDIR, 2005, pp. 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See, for example, Bell, C. Pledge by Neuroscientists to Refuse to Participate in the Application of Neuroscience to Violations of Basic Human Rights or International Law, 2010, available at http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEF4RFhhSWZwNktCakYtbTdkd1cxckE6MA (accessed 14th July 2015); Bell, C. Neurons for Peace: Take the Pledge, Brain Scientists, New Scientist, Magazine issue 2746, 8th February 2010; Bell. C. Why Neuroscientists Should Take the Pledge: A Collective Approach to the Misuse of Neuroscience, in Giodarno, J. (ed.), Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014, pp. 227–238.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Perry-Robinson. J. Near-Term Development of the Governance Regime for Biological and Chemical Weapons, Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), 4th November 2006, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Corneliussen, F. Adequate Regulation, a Stop-Gap Measure, or Part of a Package? Debates on Codes of Conduct for Scientists Could Be Diverting Attention Away from More Serious Questions, EMBO Reports, volume 7 (European Molecular Biology Organization Special Issue), 2006 July, p. 53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Corneliussen, F. (2006) op.cit., p. 54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rappert, B. (2010) op.cit., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Trapp, R. OPCW Activities and Perspectives on the Content, Promulgations, and Adoption of Codes of Conduct for Scientists, Third Meeting of the States Parties of the Biological Weapons Convention, Meeting of Experts, Geneva, 13th–24th June 2005, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Balali-Mood, M., Steyn, P., Sydnes, L. and Trapp, R. Impact of Scientific Developments on the Chemical Weapons Convention, IUPAC Technical Report, Pure and Applied Chemistry, volume 1, 2008, p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dando, M. Biologists Napping While Work Militarized, Nature, volume 460, issue 7258, 2009, p. 951. Dando’s concerns are echoed in an accompanying Nature editorial entitled: A Question of Control: Scientists Must Address the Ethics of Using Neuro-Active Compounds to Quash Domestic Crises.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. For further discussion, see Dando, M. Dual-Use Education for Life Scientists, Disarmament Forum, volume 1, 2009, pp. 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rappert, B. (2010) op.cit., p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See, for example: Maclean, A. Historical Survey of the Porton Down Volunteer Programme, Part 4: Human Studies with Incapacitating Agents, London: Ministry of Defence, June 2006, pp. 109–142; Ketchum, J. S. Chemical Warfare: Secrets Almost Forgotten, self-published, 2006; Gould, C. and Folb, P. Project Coast: Apartheid’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme, UNIDIR, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See, for example: Hess, L. et al. (May 2005) op.cit.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gross, M. Medicalized Weapons and Modern War, Hastings Center Report 40, number 1, 2010, pp. 34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  51. For example, the US Army textbook of military ethics has urged medical professionals “to stay in the business of healing and not hurting, which includes not participating in or contributing to weapons research and development”. Frisina, M. E. Medical Ethics in Military Biomedical Research, in Beam, T. E. and Sparacino, L. R. (eds), Military Medical Ethics, volume 2, Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General/Borden Institute, 2003, pp. 533–361, as cited in Gross, M. (2010) op.cit., p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, for example: World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki, Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and last amended at the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008; Nuremberg Code, as detailed in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, volume 2, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949, pp. 181–182.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Nathanson, V. Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, in Incapacitating Chemical Agents: Implications for International Law, ICRC, Expert meeting, Montreux, Switzerland, 24–26th March 2010, pp. 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  54. British Medical Association, The Use of Drugs as Weapons: The Concerns and Responsibilities of Healthcare Professionals, London: BMA, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  55. British Medical Association (2007) op.cit., p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Deiseroth, D. (2000) op.cit., p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Dando. M., Pearson. G., Rozsa. L., Robinson. J. and Wheelis, M. Analysis and Implications, in Wheelis, M., Rozsa, L. and Dando, M. (eds), Deadly Cultures, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 373.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Perry Robinson, J. P. Scientists and Chemical Weapons Policies, in Finney, J. and Slaus, I. (eds), Assessing the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press, 2010, p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ruppe, D., CWC: Red Cross Says It Was Muzzled Over Stand on Incapacitating Weapons, Global Security Newswire, 30th April 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wheelis, M. Toxic Chemicals and Law Enforcement, Washington, DC: Scientists’ Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bradford, UK

    Michael Crowley

Authors
  1. Michael Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Michael Crowley

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crowley, M. (2016). The Role of Civil Society in Combating the Misuse of Incapacitating Chemical Agents and Riot Control Agents. In: Chemical Control. Global Issues Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137467140_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation