Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

“(1)  Each  State  Party  to  this  Convention  undertakes 
never  under any circumstances:

“(a)  To  develop,  produce,  otherwise  acquire,  stock-
pile  or  retain  chemical  weapons,  or  transfer,  directly
or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;

“(b)  To use chemical weapons;
“(c)  To  engage  in  any  military  preparations  to  use 

chemical weapons;

“(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, any- 
one  to  engage  in  any  activity  prohibited  to  a  State
Party under this Convention.”  Art. I, id., at 319. 

“Chemical  Weapons”  are  defined  in  relevant  part  as
“[t]oxic  chemicals  and  their  precursors,  except  where
intended  for  purposes  not  prohibited  under  this  Conven-
tion,  as  long  as  the  types  and  quantities  are  consistent 
with such purposes.”  Art. II(1)(a), ibid.  “Toxic Chemical,” 
in  turn,  is  defined  as  “Any  chemical  which  through  its
chemical  action  on  life  processes  can  cause  death,  tempo-
rary  incapacitation  or  permanent  harm  to  humans  or 
animals.  This  includes  all  such  chemicals,  regardless  of
their  origin  or  of  their  method  of  production,  and  regard-
less  of  whether  they  are  produced  in  facilities,  in  muni-
tions or elsewhere.”  Art. II(2), id., at 320.  “Purposes Not
Prohibited  Under  this  Convention”  means  “[i]ndustrial, 
agricultural,  research,  medical,  pharmaceutical  or  other 
peaceful  purposes,”  Art. II(9)(a),  id.,  at  322,  and  other 
specific purposes not at issue here, Arts. II(9)(b)–(d). 

Although  the  Convention  is  a  binding  international 
agreement,  it  is  “not  self-executing.”    W.  Krutzsch  &  R. 
Trapp, A Commentary on the Chemical Weapons Conven-
tion  109  (1994).  That  is,  the  Convention  creates  obliga-
tions only for State Parties and “does not by itself give rise 
to  domestically  enforceable  federal  law”  absent  “imple-
menting  legislation  passed  by  Congress.”  Medellín  v. 
Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 505, n. 2 (2008).  It instead provides