# Geneva Protocol

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929. The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War signed on the same date, and followed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons between state parties, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects – the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.

## Negotiation history

In the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the use of dangerous chemical agents was outlawed. In spite of this, the First World War saw large-scale chemical warfare. France used tear gas in 1914, but the first large-scale successful deployment of chemical weapons was by the German Empire in Ypres, Belgium in 1915, when chlorine gas was released as part of a German attack at the Battle of Gravenstafel. Following this, a chemical arms race began, with the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the United States, and Italy joining France and Germany in the use of chemical weapons.
This resulted in the development of a range of horrific chemicals affecting lungs, skin, or eyes. Some were intended to be lethal on the battlefield, like hydrogen cyanide, and efficient methods of deploying agents were invented. At least 124,000 tons were produced during the war. In 1918, about one grenade out of three was filled with dangerous chemical agents. Around 500k-1.3 million casualties of the conflict were attributed to the use of gas, and the psychological effect on troops may have had a much greater effect. A few thousand civilians also became casualties as collateral damage or due to production accidents.
The Treaty of Versailles included some provisions that banned Germany from either manufacturing or importing chemical weapons. Similar treaties banned the First Austrian Republic, the Kingdom of Bulgaria, and the Kingdom of Hungary from chemical weapons, all belonging to the losing side, the Central powers. Russian bolsheviks and Britain continued the use of chemical weapons in the Russian Civil War and possibly in the Middle East in 1920.
Three years after World War I, the Allies wanted to reaffirm the Treaty of Versailles, and in 1922 the United States introduced the Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare at the Washington Naval Conference. Four of the war victors, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan, gave consent for ratification, but it failed to enter into force as the French Third Republic objected to the submarine provisions of the treaty.
At the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms the French suggested a protocol for non-use of poisonous gases. The Second Polish Republic suggested the addition of bacteriological weapons. It was signed on 17 June.

## Historical assessment

Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it does not prohibit:
* use against not-ratifying parties
* retaliation using such weapons, so effectively making it a no-first-use agreement
* use within a state's own borders in a civil conflict
* research and development of such weapons, or stockpiling them
In light of these shortcomings, Jack Beard notes that "the Protocol (...) resulted in a legal framework that allowed states to conduct [biological weapons] research, develop new biological weapons, and ultimately engage in [biological weapons] arms races".
As such, the use of chemical weapons inside the nation's own territory against its citizens or subjects employed by Spain in the Rif War until 1927, Japan against Seediq indigenous rebels in Taiwan (then part of the Japanese colonial empire) in 1930 during the Musha Incident, Iraq against ethnic Kurdish civilians in the 1988 attack on Halabja during the Iran–Iraq War, and Syria or Syrian opposition forces during the Syrian civil war.
Despite the U.S. having been a proponent of the protocol, the U.S. military and American Chemical Society lobbied against it, causing the U.S. Senate not to ratify the protocol until 1975, the same year when the United States ratified the Biological Weapons Convention.

## Violations

Several state parties have deployed chemical weapons for combat in spite of the treaty. Italy used mustard gas against the Ethiopian Empire in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. In World War II, Germany employed chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Soviet resistance fighters out of caverns below the city. They also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odesa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea, perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. After the battle in mid-May 1942, the Germans gassed and killed almost 3,000 of the besieged and non-evacuated Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians hiding in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry.
During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is known to have employed a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. Some 100,000 Iranian troops were casualties of Iraqi chemical weapons during the war.

## Subsequent interpretation of the protocol

In 1966, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2162B called for, without any dissent, all states to strictly observe the protocol. In 1969, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2603 (XXIV) declared that the prohibition on use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts, as embodied in the protocol (though restated in a more general form), were generally recognized rules of international law. Following this, there was discussion of whether the main elements of the protocol now form part of customary international law, and now this is widely accepted to be the case.
There have been differing interpretations over whether the protocol covers the use of harassing agents, such as adamsite and tear gas, and defoliants and herbicides, such as Agent Orange, in warfare. The 1977 Environmental Modification Convention prohibits the military use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. Many states do not regard this as a complete ban on the use of herbicides in warfare, but it does require case-by-case consideration. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention effectively banned riot control agents from being used as a method of warfare, though still permitting it for riot control.
In recent times, the protocol had been interpreted to cover non-international armed conflicts as well international ones. In 1995, an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that "there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts." In 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that customary international law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts.
However, such views drew general criticism from legal authors. They noted that much of the chemical arms control agreements stems from the context of international conflicts. Furthermore, the application of customary international law to banning chemical warfare in non-international conflicts fails to meet two requirements: state practice and opinio juris. Jillian Blake & Aqsa Mahmud cited the periodic use of chemical weapons in non-international conflicts since the end of WWI (as stated above) as well as the lack of existing international humanitarian law (such as the Geneva Conventions) and national legislation and manuals prohibiting using them in such conflicts. Anne Lorenzat stated the 2005 ICRC study was rooted in "'political and operational issues rather than legal ones".

## State parties

To become party to the Protocol, states must deposit an instrument with the government of France (the depositary power). Thirty-eight states originally signed the Protocol. France was the first signatory to ratify the Protocol on 10 May 1926. El Salvador, the final signatory to ratify the Protocol, did so on 26 February 2008. As of April 2021, 146 states have ratified, acceded to, or succeeded to the Protocol, most recently Colombia on 24 November 2015.

### Reservations

A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying with respect to other parties to the Protocol and/or that these obligations would cease to apply with respect to any state, or its allies, which used the prohibited weapons. Several Arab states also declared that their ratification did not constitute recognition of, or diplomatic relations with, Israel, or that the provision of the Protocol were not binding with respect to Israel.
Generally, reservations not only modify treaty provisions for the reserving party, but also symmetrically modify the provisions for previously ratifying parties in dealing with the reserving party.$^{:394}$ Subsequently, numerous states have withdrawn their reservations, including the former Czechoslovakia in 1990 prior to its dissolution, or the Russian reservation on biological weapons that "preserved the right to retaliate in kind if attacked" with them, which was dissolved by President Yeltsin.
According to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, states which succeed to a treaty after gaining independence from a state party "shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to that treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates unless, when making the notification of succession, it expresses a contrary intention or formulates a reservation which relates to the same subject matter as that reservation." While some states have explicitly either retained or renounced their reservations inherited on succession, states which have not clarified their position on their inherited reservations are listed as "implicit" reservations.
| Party | Signed | Deposited | Reservations | Notes |
| Afghanistan | | 2 September 1986 | — | |
| Albania | | 12 December 1989 | — | |
| Algeria | | 14 January 1992 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][45] | |
| Angola | | 30 October 1990 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][46] | |
| Antigua and Barbuda | | 1 February 1989 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Argentina | | 8 May 1969 | — | |
| Armenia | | 13 March 2018 | — | |
| Australia | | 22 January 1930 | Withdrawn in 1986. | |
| Austria | 17 June 1925 | 9 May 1928 | — | |
| Bahrain | | 9 November 1988 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2] [Reservation 3][48] | |
| Bangladesh | | 20 May 1989 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][49] | |
| Barbados | | 16 July 1976 | Withdrew the reservations made by the United Kingdom on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Belgium | 17 June 1925 | 4 December 1928 | Withdrawn in 1997. | |
| Benin | | 4 December 1986 | — | |
| Bhutan | | 12 June 1978 | — | |
| Bolivia | | 14 January 1985 | — | |
| Brazil | 17 June 1925 | 28 August 1970 | — | |
| Bulgaria | 17 June 1925 | 7 March 1934 | Withdrawn in 1991. | |
| Burkina Faso | | 1 March 1971 | — | Ratified as the Republic of Upper Volta. |
| Cambodia | | 15 March 1983 | | The Protocol was ratified by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea in exile in 1983. 13 states (including the depositary France) objected to their ratification, and considered it legally invalid. In 1993, the Kingdom of Cambodia stated in a note verbale that it considered itself bound by the provisions of the Protocol. |
| Cameroon | | 21 April 1989 | — | |
| Canada | 17 June 1925 | 6 May 1930 | Withdrawn in 1991 as regards bacteriological agents, and completely withdrawn in 1999. | |
| Cape Verde | | 20 May 1991 | — | |
| Central African Republic | | 30 July 1970 | — | |
| Chile | 17 June 1925 | 2 July 1935 | Withdrawn in 1991. | |
| China | | 7 August 1929 | Made on succession. | Ratified as the Republic of China, from which the People's Republic of China succeeded on 13 July 1952. |
| Colombia | | 24 November 2015 | — | |
| Costa Rica | | 17 June 2009 | — | |
| Côte d'Ivoire | | 27 July 1970 | — | |
| Croatia | | 25 September 2006 | — | |
| Cuba | | 24 May 1966 | — | |
| Cyprus | | 29 November 1966 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Czech Republic | | 19 September 1993 | Withdrawn prior to succession. | Succeeded from Czechoslovakia, which ratified the protocol on 16 August 1938. |
| Denmark | 17 June 1925 | 5 May 1930 | — | |
| Dominican Republic | | 4 December 1970 | — | |
| Ecuador | | 10 September 1970 | — | |
| Egypt | 17 June 1925 | 6 December 1928 | — | |
| El Salvador | 17 June 1925 | 12 January 2010 | — | |
| Equatorial Guinea | | 16 May 1989 | — | |
| Estonia | 17 June 1925 | 28 August 1931 | Withdrawn in 1999. | |
| Eswatini | | 10 July 1991 | | |
| Ethiopia | 17 June 1925 | 7 October 1935 | — | |
| Fiji | | 21 March 1973 | Retained the United Kingdom's reservations on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Finland | 17 June 1925 | 26 June 1929 | — | |
| France | 17 June 1925 | 10 May 1926 | Withdrawn in 1996. | |
| Gambia | | 5 November 1966 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Germany | 17 June 1925 | 25 April 1929 | — | |
| Ghana | | 2 May 1967 | — | |
| Greece | 17 June 1925 | 30 May 1931 | — | |
| Grenada | | 3 January 1989 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Guatemala | | 3 May 1983 | — | |
| Guinea-Bissau | | 20 May 1989 | — | |
| Holy See | | 12 October 1966 | — | |
| Hungary | 17 June 1925 | 11 October 1952 | — | |
| Iceland | | 19 December 1966 | — | |
| India | 17 June 1925 | 9 April 1930 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][60] | |
| Indonesia | | 14 January 1971 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the Netherlands. |
| Iran | | 4 July 1929 | — | |
| Iraq | | 18 August 1931 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][61] | |
| Ireland | | 18 August 1930 | Withdrawn in 1972. | |
| Israel | | 10 February 1969 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][63] | |
| Italy | 17 June 1925 | 3 April 1928 | — | |
| Jamaica | | 28 July 1970 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Japan | 17 June 1925 | 21 May 1970 | — | |
| Jordan | | 20 January 1977 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2] [Reservation 3][64] | |
| Kazakhstan | | 20 April 2020 | — | |
| Kenya | | 17 June 1970 | — | |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | | 22 December 1988 | | |
| Korea, Republic of | | 29 December 1988 | Reservation 2 withdrawn in 2002 as regards biological agents covered by the BWC. | |
| Kuwait | | 15 December 1971 | [Reservation 3] [Reservation 5][66] | |
| Kyrgyzstan | | 29 June 2020 | — | |
| Laos | | 16 January 1989 | — | |
| Latvia | 17 June 1925 | 3 June 1931 | — | |
| Lebanon | | 15 April 1969 | — | |
| Lesotho | | 10 March 1972 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Liberia | | 2 April 1927 | — | |
| Libya | | 21 December 1971 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2] [Reservation 3][67] | |
| Liechtenstein | | 16 May 1991 | — | |
| Lithuania | 17 June 1925 | 15 June 1933 | — | |
| Luxembourg | 17 June 1925 | 1 September 1936 | — | |
| North Macedonia | | 20 August 2015 | — | |
| Madagascar | | 2 August 1967 | — | |
| Malawi | | 4 September 1970 | — | |
| Malaysia | | 7 December 1970 | — | |
| Maldives | | 27 December 1966 | — | |
| Malta | | 9 October 1970 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Mauritius | | 23 December 1970 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Mexico | | 28 March 1932 | — | |
| Moldova | | 14 January 2011 | — | |
| Monaco | | 15 December 1966 | — | |
| Mongolia | | 18 November 1968 | Withdrawn in 1990. | |
| Morocco | | 7 October 1970 | — | |
| Nepal | | 7 May 1969 | — | |
| Netherlands | 17 June 1925 | 31 October 1930 | Withdrawn in 1995. | |
| New Zealand | | 22 January 1930 | Withdrawn in 1989. | |
| Nicaragua | 17 June 1925 | 5 October 1990 | — | |
| Niger | | 5 April 1967 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from France. |
| Nigeria | | 9 October 1968 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][71] | |
| Norway | 17 June 1925 | 27 July 1932 | — | |
| Pakistan | | 15 April 1960 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from India. |
| Palestine | | 19 January 2018 | — | |
| Panama | | 26 November 1970 | — | |
| Papua New Guinea | | 2 September 1980 | Retained Australia's reservations on succession. | Succeeded from Australia. |
| Paraguay | | 22 October 1933 | — | |
| Peru | | 5 June 1985 | — | |
| Philippines | | 29 May 1973 | — | |
| Poland | 17 June 1925 | 4 February 1929 | — | |
| Portugal | 17 June 1925 | 1 July 1930 | Reservation 2 withdrawn in 2003, and reservation 1 withdrawn in 2014. | |
| Qatar | | 16 September 1976 | — | |
| Romania | 17 June 1925 | 23 August 1929 | Withdrawn in 1991. | |
| Russia | 17 June 1925 | 5 April 1928 | Withdrawn in 2001. | Ratified as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. |
| Rwanda | | 21 March 1964 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from Belgium. |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | | 26 October 1989 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Saint Lucia | | 21 December 1988 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | | 23 April 1999 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Saudi Arabia | | 27 January 1971 | — | |
| Senegal | | 15 June 1977 | — | |
| Serbia | | 20 January 2003 | Implicit on succession. Serbia's Parliament voted to withdraw their reservation in May 2009 and the withdrawal was announced in 2010, but the depositary has not been notified. | Succeeded as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which had ratified the protocol as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on 12 April 1929. |
| Sierra Leone | | 20 February 1967 | — | |
| Slovakia | | 1 July 1997 | Withdrawn prior to succession. | Succeeded from Czechoslovakia, which ratified the protocol on 16 August 1938. |
| Slovenia | | 8 April 2008 | — | |
| Solomon Islands | | 1 June 1981 | Retained the United Kingdom's reservations on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| South Africa | | 24 May 1930 | Withdrawn in 1996. | |
| Spain | 17 June 1925 | 22 August 1929 | Withdrawn in 1992. | |
| Sri Lanka | | 20 January 1954 | — | Ratified as the Dominion of Ceylon. |
| Sudan | | 17 December 1980 | — | |
| Sweden | 17 June 1925 | 25 April 1930 | — | |
| Switzerland | 17 June 1925 | 12 July 1932 | — | |
| Syria | | 17 December 1968 | | |
| Tajikistan | | 15 November 2019 | — |
| Tanzania | | 28 February 1963 | — | Ratified as the Republic of Tanganyika. |
| Thailand | 17 June 1925 | 6 June 1931 | — | Ratified as Siam. |
| Togo | | 18 November 1970 | — | |
| Tonga | | 19 July 1971 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Trinidad and Tobago | | 24 November 1970 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |
| Tunisia | | 12 July 1967 | — | |
| Turkey | 17 June 1925 | 5 October 1929 | — | |
| Uganda | | 2 April 1965 | — | |
| Ukraine | | 7 August 2003 | Implicit on succession. | Succeeded from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. |
| United Kingdom | 17 June 1925 | 9 April 1930 | Reservation 2 withdrawn in 1991 as regards biological agents covered by the BWC, and reservations completely withdrawn in 2002. | |
| United States of America | 17 June 1925 | 10 April 1975 | | |
| Uruguay | 17 June 1925 | 12 April 1977 | — | |
| Uzbekistan | | 5 October 2020 | — | |
| Venezuela | 17 June 1925 | 8 February 1928 | — | |
| Vietnam | | 15 December 1980 | [Reservation 1] [Reservation 2][85] | |
| Yemen | | 11 March 1971 | Made in a second instrument of accession submitted on 16 September 1973. | Ratified as the Yemen Arab Republic. Also ratified by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen on 20 October 1986, prior to Yemeni unification in 1990. |

#### Reservations

* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Binding only with regards to states which have ratified or acceded to the protocol.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Ceases to be binding in regards to any state, and its allies, which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Does not constitute recognition of, or establishing any relations with, Israel.
* 1 2 3 Ceases to be binding as to the use of chemical weapons in regards to any enemy state which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol.
* ↑ Ceases to be binding in the case of a violation.

#### Notes

* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 According to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, states which succeed to a treaty after gaining independence from a state party "shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to that treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates unless, when making the notification of succession, it expresses a contrary intention or formulates a reservation which relates to the same subject matter as that reservation." Any state which has not clarified their position on reservations inherited on succession are listed as "implicit" reservations.
* ↑ Although the FR Yugoslavia claimed to be the continuator state of the SFR of Yugoslavia, the United Nations General Assembly did not accept this and forced them to reapply for membership.
* ↑ Listed as 28 October 1997 by the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs.
* ↑ Some sources list two reservations by Thailand, but neither the instrument of accession, nor the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs list, makes any mention of a reservation.
* ↑ According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, states may make a reservation when "signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty".

## Non-signatory states

The remaining UN member states and UN observers that have not acceded or succeeded to the Protocol are:
* Andorra
* Azerbaijan
* Bahamas
* Belarus
* Belize
* Bosnia
* Botswana
* Brunei
* Burundi
* Chad
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Eritrea
* Gabon
* Georgia
* Guinea
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Kiribati
* Mali
* Marshall Islands
* Mauritania
* Micronesia
* Montenegro
* Mozambique
* Myanmar
* Namibia
* Nauru
* Oman
* Palau
* Samoa
* San Marino
* São Tomé and Príncipe
* Seychelles
* Singapore
* Somalia
* South Sudan
* Suriname
* Timor-Leste
* Turkmenistan
* Tuvalu
* United Arab Emirates
* Uzbekistan
* Vanuatu
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe

## Chemical weapons prohibitions

| Year | Name | Effect |
| 1675 | Strasbourg Agreement | The first international agreement limiting the use of chemical weapons, in this case, poison bullets. |
| 1874 | Brussels Convention on the Law and Customs of War | Prohibited the employment of poison or poisoned weapons (Never entered into force.) |
| 1899 | 1st Peace Conference at the Hague | Signatories agreed to abstain from "the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases." |
| 1907 | 2nd Peace Conference at the Hague | The Conference added the use of poison or poisoned weapons. |
| 1919 | Treaty of Versailles | Prohibited poison gas in Germany. |
| 1922 | Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare | Failed because France objected to clauses relating to submarine warfare. |
| 1925 | Geneva Protocol | Prohibited the "use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods" in international conflicts. |
| 1972 | Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention | No verification mechanism, negotiations for a protocol to make up this lack halted by USA in 2001. |
| 1993 | Chemical Weapons Convention | Comprehensive bans on development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, with destruction timelines. |
| 1998 | Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court | Makes it a war crime to employ chemical weapons in international conflicts. (2010 amendment extends prohibition to internal conflicts.) |