Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:24:11+00:00

Document:
That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition.
No State has at any time ratified or acceded to the Protocol with a reservation or declaration of interpretation limiting the types of chemical weapons to which it applies.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article I(5).
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article II(1)(a).
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article II(2).
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article II(7).
The cumulative effect of these provisions is that riot control agents may not be used as a method of warfare but may be used for certain law enforcement purposes including riot control.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article II(9)(d).
(a) The prohibition of the use of chemical weapons shall apply to the use, by any method whatsoever, for the purpose of injuring an adversary, of any natural or synthetic substance (whether solid, liquid or gaseous) which is harmful to the human or animal organism by reason of its being a toxic, asphyxiating, irritant or vesicant substance.
Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War, adopted by the International Law Association, Fortieth Conference, Amsterdam, 29 August–2 September 1938, Article 7(a) and (b)(iii)–(iv).
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 312.
Riot control agents, including tear gas and other gases which have debilitating but non-permanent effects as a means of warfare, is prohibited in armed conflict under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. This does not mean riot control agents cannot be used in times of conflict (e.g. against rioting prisoners of war). Legal advice should be sought on the occasions when their use is considered.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 413.
The use of riot control agents, including tear gas and other gases which have debilitating but non-permanent effects as a means of warfare is prohibited under the CWC [1993 Chemical Weapons Convention]. This does not mean riot control agents cannot be used in times of conflict to maintain order, for example, in a prisoner of war camp, or to contain a riot by the civilian population. Legal advice should be sought on the occasions when their use is considered.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.19.
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “it is uncertain whether … chemical products that do not cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment” are covered by the prohibition on the use of asphyxiating and other analogous gases.
[The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention] imposes an absolute prohibition of chemical weapons both during international and internal armed conflicts. However, it is important to point out that riot control agents remain authorised to maintain order.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 272, § 631.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-3, § 27.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 3, § 9.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 518.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 3, § 9.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 54.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), under the heading “Chemical Weapons”, proscribes “the use of irritant agents for military purposes”.
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 434.
Tear gas. Apparently, even the tear gas used by the police to disperse demonstrations is a chemical weapon and thus prohibited under the Protocol, despite its relatively minor effect. An absurd situation results in which demonstrators are “endangered” by tear gas whereas fighters going out to battle are protected from it.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 19.
Opinion is divided over whether or not the prohibition applies to tear gas, defoliants and other non deadly means. It is said, with regard to tear gas, that it should be prohibited in armed conflicts. It can be used to control order. This should be distinguished from the use in armed conflict because there it runs the danger of provoking the use of other more dangerous chemicals.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-6/IV-8, § 14.
Riot control agents such as tear gas may not be used as a method of warfare (Chemical Weapons Convention Article 1). Use as a means of maintaining order, including the control of internal unrest, is not prohibited. Military use must be distinguished from this. This conceals the danger that the use of a relatively harmless chemical may unleash the use of some other, more lethal one by the adversary.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0456.
[M]ilitary use of a non-lethal weapon may pose the danger that the adversary perceives it as a forbidden means, which may induce the adversary to use other, more lethal means. One example is the use of tear gas, mentioned above.
Some countries consider that the use of tear gas (CS gas) conflicts with the 1925 [Geneva] Gas Protocol. This poses inevitable problems for the peace force when using means of riot control. In such a case, troops must be sought from a country which sees no conflict with the Gas Protocol, so that tear gas may still be used, e.g., to disperse a crowd if strictly necessary.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 200.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) prohibits the use of riot control agents as a means of warfare.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, § 3.3.b.(8).
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.3.b.(8).
2 tear gas and other irritant gases.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 230(2).
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 6.8.2.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual prohibits the use of “chemical weapons, including riot control agents, as a method of warfare”.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.28.
Australia’s Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act (1994) provides: “A person must not intentionally or recklessly: … use riot control agents as a method of warfare. Penalty: imprisonment for life.” It adds, however, that use for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes” is not prohibited.
Australia, Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, 1994, p. 13, Section 12(f) and p. 95, Section 9(d).
Bangladesh’s Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act (2006) prohibits the use of “riot control agents as a method of warfare, willingly or unlawfully”.
Bangladesh, Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, 2006, § 5(1).
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or a long-term imprisonment.
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term between one and three years.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, as amended on 18 June 2006, Article 193a(2) and (3).
3) Using riot control agents as a method of warfare.
Ethiopia, Proclamation on the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, 2003, § 8(3).
Fiji’s Chemical Weapons Convention Act (2005) provides that “[a] person who intentionally or recklessly … uses riot control agents as a method of warfare … commits an offence”.
Fiji, Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2005, § 9.
b) the use of riot control agents within the meaning of Article II Nr. 7 of the Convention for the maintenance of public security and order by the police forces of the Federation and the Länder or by the Federal Armed Forces when taking measures according to the Law on the Use of Coercive Force and the Exercise of Special Powers by Soldiers of the Federal Armed Forces and Civilian Guards, as well as the training for such a use.
Germany, Law Implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, 1994, Section 1(2)(a)–(b).
as well as the training for such a use.
Germany, Law Implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, 1994, as amended in 2004, Section 1(2)(a)–(b).
Greece’s Chemical Weapons Convention Act (2002) provides: “With incarceration is being punished whoever … makes use of uprising suppression means as war means [sic]”.
Greece, Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2002, § 4(2)(d).
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, employing “chemical weapons and chemical instruments of war” as defined in Article II(1) and (7) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention is a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160, §A(3)(c).
India, Chemical Weapons Act, 2000, Chapter III, § 13.
Liberia’s Chemical Weapons Act (2008) states: “A person commits an offence who … uses a riot control agent as a method of warfare”.
Liberia, Chemical Weapons Act, 2008, Section 3.1.
Malaysia, Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2005, as amended to 2006, Article 18(1).
(e) use a riot control agent as a method of warfare.
Pakistan, Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Ordinance, 2000, Section 3(1)(e).
5) abetting or assistance in engaging in the activity prohibited under subparagraphs 1–4 above.
A person who uses riot control agents as a method of warfare shall be sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year up to 10 years.
Poland, Law on the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, 2001, Articles 4 and 27.
(e) to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
(2) Persons means any natural or legal person on the territory of Romania including public authorities.
Romania, Law on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 1997, Article 3.
(1) The act of using chemical weapons is considered a criminal act and is punished by imprisonment, for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 15 years, and prohibition of certain rights.
(2) In the case of an act with serious consequences, the penalty is imprisonment for not less than 10 years and not exceeding 20 years and prohibition of certain rights and if it caused the death of one or more persons, the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 15 years and not exceeding 25 years and prohibition of certain rights.
Romania, Law on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 1997, Article 50.
(ii) a fine not exceeding $1 million.
Singapore, Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, 2000, Section 8.
(g) uses any riot control agent as a method of warfare, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period not exceeding twenty years and a fine not exceeding one million rupees.
“riot control agent” means any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
Sri Lanka, Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2007, Sections 19(g) and 47.
… uses riot control materials as a means of warfare shall be sentenced, if the act is not regarded as a war crime against international law, for unlawful handling of chemical weapons to [punishment].
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, 1962, Chapter 22, § 6a(4).
Viet Nam’s Law on the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (2005) prohibits the use of “riot control agents as a method of warfare”.
Viet Nam, Law on the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, 2005, § 3e.
The draft resolution [on chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons under discussion] would declare as contrary to the [1925 Geneva Gas Protocol] “any chemical agent of warfare” with “direct toxic effects on man, animals and plants”. It is the view of the Australian Government that the use of non-lethal substances such as riot control agents … and defoliants does not contravene the Geneva Protocol nor customary international law.
Australia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/PV.1716, 9 December 1969, § 180.
It is now generally accepted internationally, however, that riot control agents are not chemical weapons. The Australian Government’s view is that widespread availability and use of these agents and their relative lack of toxicity and persistence makes it impossible to include these agents within the scope of a convention which is to attract widespread adherence and is to be effectively verifiable.
Australia, Senate, Minister for Community Services and Health, Question Without Notice: Chemical Agents, Hansard, 5 October 1989.
Neither lethal nor non-lethal gases are employed at present in any part of [the Australian Military Forces], including [the Pacific Islands Regime]. No soldiers are trained in use of weapons involving the use of either such type of gas. In [Papua New Guinea] the civil constabulary are trained in the use of and have available non-lethal gas weapons.
Australia, Protection of the Civil Population Against the Effects of Certain Weapons (unknown author), Doc. AA-A1838/267, File No. AA-889/702/7/2 Pt 1, May 1971, Report on the Practice of Australia, 1998, Chapter 3.5.
As a state party to the [Chemical Weapons Convention], Australia is obligated not to use riot control agents as a weapon of war. The [Chemical Weapons Convention] does, however, explicitly allow the use of such agents for riots and quelling civil disturbances.
Report on the Practice of Australia, 1998, Chapter 3.5.
Tear gas and other riot- and crowd-control agents were excluded from Canada’s commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or use any chemical weapons in warfare … Canada’s reservations with regard to the use of these agents in war should be waived.
Canada, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc A/PV.1827, 11 November 1971, p. 7.
I.All the texts at present in force or proposed in regard to the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or similar gases are identical. In the French delegation’s opinion, they apply to all gases employed with a view to toxic action on the human organism, whether the effects of such action are more or less temporary irritation of certain mucous membranes or whether they cause serious or even fatal lesions.
II. The French military regulations, which refer to the undertaking not to use gas for warfare (gaz de combat) subject to reciprocity, classify such gases as suffocating, blistering, irritant and poisonous gases in general, and define irritant gases as those causing tears, sneezing, etc.
III. The French Government therefore considers that the use of lachrymatory gases is covered by the prohibition arising out of the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 … The fact that, for the maintenance of internal order, the police, when dealing with offenders against the law, sometimes use various appliances discharging irritant gases cannot, in the French delegation’s opinion, be adduced in a discussion on this point, since the Protocol … relates only to the use of poisonous or similar gases in war.
France, Note by the French Delegation to the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference regarding a British Memorandum, reprinted in League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 311.
On 15 October 2004, an amendment to the Law Implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention came into force. This amendment created the legal basis for the admissibility of the use of riot control agents by the Federal Armed Forces in deployments within the framework of systems of collective security. The Chemical Weapons Convention allows such use. The violent riots in Kosovo in March 2004 had made clear that in deployments abroad within the framework of Article 24 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Armed Forces need to have at their disposal, apart from military equipment, also means which effectively and in a proportionate manner serve to maintain public security and order. The equipment of the Federal Armed Forces with riot control agents, e.g. irritants and pepper spray, will, under the threshold of the use of firearms, enable them to react in a way that is adapted to the situation and graduated.
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2004, 17 June 2005, p. 33.
34. … It was sometimes argued that the Geneva [Gas] Protocol referred to circumstances existing in 1925, and not to the present situation when new types of gases, including comparatively harmless riot-control agents, had been invented. But practising riot control and conducting warfare were two distinctly different problems. The former fell within the domestic jurisdiction of each State, whereas the latter was governed by international law.
36. The hollow pretexts given for using riot-control gases in Viet-Nam had been rejected by world public opinion and by the international scientific community, including scholars in the United States itself. Weapons of that kind … were difficult to control and might affect those who were using them, as well as those against whom they were used.
Hungary, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ SR.1451, 11 November 1966, §§ 34–36.
In 1931, during the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Italy, with respect to a memorandum submitted by the United Kingdom, stated that it “interprets the 1925 [Geneva Gas] Protocol to mean that ‘other gases’ include lachrymatory gases – that is to say that, subject to reciprocity, the use of lachrymatory gases is prohibited”.
Italy, Statement before the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, 15 January 1931, League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 313.
In 2009, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on other weapons of mass destruction, the ambassador for disarmament affairs of Norway stated that “we must ensure that the use of non-lethal gases such as riot control agents are in conformity with the provisions [of] the Convention and [do] not have unacceptable humanitarian consequences”.
Norway, Statement on “Other Weapons of Mass Destruction” made before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 16 October 2009.
108. … I wish to mention a particular gas which is being used in many countries, namely tear gas, which is used inhumanely for breaking up demonstrations. Of course, here we are discussing the question of disarmament, the international aspect of these weapons, but we should not neglect or ignore the covenants of human rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its third article states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. We should at some time in the future go further than prohibiting or trying to prohibit the use of chemical weapons among nations. They should be banned inside every State, even tear gas should be banned.
109. … If conventional means are not enough and tear gas or any similar gas is used to disperse crowds, then the Government had better fold up and dissolve.
110. … I hope that in the future the United Nations will consider the use of any gas or germ as a criminal act.
Saudi Arabia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/PV.1717, 10 December 1969, §§ 108–110.
Turkey, Statement before the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, 15 January 1931, League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 313.
Basing itself on this English text [of the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol], the British Government have taken the view that the use in war of “other gases”, including lachrymatory gases, was prohibited. They also considered that the intention was to incorporate the same prohibition in the present Convention [i.e. in a draft convention on disarmament discussed at the Preparatory Commission].
United Kingdom, Memorandum by the UK Delegation to the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, reprinted in League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 311.
Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Romania, Spain and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were among the States which expressly associated themselves with the UK memorandum.
Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Romania, Spain and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Statements before the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, 15 January 1931, League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 311.
That is still the Government’s position. However, modern technology has developed CS smoke which, unlike the tear gases available in 1930, is considered to be not significantly harmful to man in other than wholly exceptional circumstances; and we regard CS and other such gases accordingly as being outside the scope of the [1925 Geneva Gas Protocol]. CS is in fact less toxic than the screening smokes which the 1930 statement specifically excluded.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Reply by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Hansard, 2 February 1970, Vol. 795, Written Answers, p. 18.
Under the terms of the [1993 Chemical Weapons Convention], states parties will be entitled to use toxic chemicals for law enforcement, including domestic riot control purposes, provided that such chemicals are limited to those not listed in the schedules to the convention and which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. States parties will undertake not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Reply by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 7 December 1992, Vol. 215, Written Answers, cols. 459–460.
The Association of Chief Police Officers is considering the possible use of products containing the incapacitating inflammatory agent, oleoresin capsicum … The only chemical agent which police forces are currently permitted to use is CS irritant. The considerable research which has been undertaken into this agent was evaluated by the 1969–1971 inquiry into the medical and toxicological aspects of CS … Police forces are permitted to use CS in extreme public order incidents where the chief officer of police judges such action to be necessary because of risk of loss of life or serious injury or widespread destruction of property; or against armed besieged criminals or violently insane persons where a senior officer judges that not to use it would endanger lives. There are no current proposals to change arrangements relating to CS.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Reply by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Hansard, 31 March 1994, Vol. 240, Written Answers, col. 946.
How is the development and manufacture of chemical weapons for “domestic riot control purposes”, which are included as “Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention’” in Article (9) of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to be distinguished from the development and manufacture of chemical weapons for purposes prohibited under the convention, and who is to be responsible for making these distinctions, and whether international peacekeeping operations are included among the “Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention”.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Question addressed to the Government by Lord Kennet, Hansard, 18 June 1996, Vol. 573, Written Answers, cols. 23–24.
The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the development and manufacture of any chemical weapons. The term “chemical weapons” includes toxic chemicals except those intended for purposes not prohibited by the convention, including “domestic riot control purposes”. Provided that the types and quantities of chemicals used are consistent with the intended permitted purpose they are not prohibited under the convention. Each State Party is obliged to declare details of chemicals held for riot control purposes (commonly known as riot control agents). The convention establishes a verification mechanism to monitor States Parties’ compliance with their obligations. The provisions include inspections of declared sites and investigations into allegations that riot control agents have been used in warfare. Inspections and investigations will be carried out by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The [Chemical Weapons Convention] prohibits the use of toxic chemicals as a method of warfare in international peacekeeping operations.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Reply by Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 18 June 1996, Vol. 573, Written Answers, col. 24.
In 1998, the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces provided a public explanation of why, in written answers to two parliamentary questions, he had told one questioner that “CS irritant is the only riot control agent held by my Department”, having just informed the other questioner that “the Ministry of Defence currently holds stocks of CR gas … a riot control agent designed to cause temporary irritation”. His explanation was that because the physiological effects of CR are among those which the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention uses to define a “riot control agent” – because CR, in the words of Article II(7) 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, “can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure” – CR can properly be described as a “riot control agent”, even though it is in fact held by the UK Defence Ministry for a purpose other than riot control, namely “maintaining an effective terrorism response capability”.
United Kingdom, Letters dated 25 March 1998 from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces addressed to Messrs Harry Cohen and Ken Livingstone, with copies placed in the House of Commons Library.
In 1998, in reply to a question in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that the government had recently approved the export to the Netherlands of 2,500 rounds of CS gas and shotgun ammunition for use in riot control by the Dutch contingent to the UN forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Reply to a question by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Hansard, 12 January 1998, Vol. 584, Written Answers, cols. 122–123.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 February 2003, Vol. 400, Written Answers, cols. 421W–422W.
In 1929, the Soviet delegation proposed not only the renunciation of the use of gases in warfare, but also of their preparation in peace-time; this proposal, however, was rejected by the majority of the Commission.
We interpret this paragraph [of the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol] to mean that the use of all gases, including irritant gases, is prohibited.
As regards the text proposed by the French delegation [according to which “the use of lachrymatory gases is covered by the prohibition arising out of the Geneva Protocol of 1925” and “the fact that, for the maintenance of internal order, the police, when dealing with offenders against the law, sometimes use various appliances discharging irritant gases cannot … be adduced in a discussion on this point, since the Protocol … relates only to the use of poisonous or similar gases in war”, (emphasis in original)], the Soviet delegation is of [the] opinion that it is not for the Preparatory Commission to legalise the use of these gases by police forces, and it accordingly regards as unacceptable, particularly as one speaker referred to the use of gases by police forces for the purpose of controlling mobs.
USSR, Statement before the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, 15 January 1931, League of Nations Doc. C.4.M.4. 1931, IX, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, Series X, Minutes of the Sixth Session (Second Part), 15 January 1931, p. 313.
The use of … tear gases and other gases of a similar nature … was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925. The United States signed that Protocol, but did not ratify it. However, that does not mean that the prohibition of the use of poisonous substances does not extend to the United States. That prohibition has become a generally recognized rule of international law, and countries which violate it must bear responsibility before the international community.
USSR, Reply dated 30 December 1969 to the UN Secretary-General regarding the preparation of the study requested in paragraph 2 of General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII), annexed to Report of the Secretary-General on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, UN Doc. A/8052, 18 September 1970, Annex III, p. 120.
Special “cheremukha” (27 units) containing chloracetophenone and three units of K-51 containing CS were employed. They are not chemical weapons. In the US and other countries CS is ranked among the so-called “police gases”. Let me also note that a USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium decree of 28 July 1988 makes provision for the use of special means … The arguments set out were confirmed by UN experts. Experts confirmed that only 30 people had been poisoned in connection with the troops’ use of the special means “cheremukha” and K-51. Experts are continuing their studies … Nor do the claims that the troops allegedly used chloropicrin correspond with reality. Neither the Soviet Army nor the MVD internal troops have products containing chloropicrin designed for such purposes.
N. Belan, Sovetskaya Rossiya (Moscow), 13 December 1989, p. 4, as translated in FBIS-SOV-89-246, 26 December 1989, pp. 57-60; David Remnick, “Soviet aides blamed in Georgian deaths”, Washington Post, Washington, D.C., 22 December 1989, pp. A37 and A39.
(a) Any chemical agents of warfare – chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid or solid – which might be employed because of their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants.
UN General Assembly, Res. 2603 A (XXIV), 16 December 1969, preamble and § (a), voting record: 80-3-36-7. (The resolution was adopted by 80 votes in favour, 3 against) (Australia, Portugal and United States) and 36 abstentions (Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela), UN Doc. A/PV.1836, 16 December 1969, p. 4.
The large number of abstentions was partly due to disagreement by some States on the scope of the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. Other States thought that the UN General Assembly should not interpret multilateral treaties.
Debates in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/PV.1716, 9 December 1969; UN Doc. A/C.1/PV.1717, 10 December 1969.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/10, 31 August 1988.
This statement was repeated in four further resolutions on the same subject between 1991 and 1993. The last two of these added that the acts were violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/4, 31 August 1989, p. 20; Res. 1991/6, 23 August 1991, p. 30; Res. 1992/10, 26 August 1992, p. 40; Res. 1993/15, 20 August 1993, p. 45.
SIPRI reported that in 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, Spanish government forces fired tear-gas shells against insurgent positions on the Guadarrama front. Threats by the insurgents to retaliate with their own stocks of “gas” were also reported.
SIPRI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Vol. I, The Rise of CB Weapons, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1971, p. 147.
SIPRI reported that in 1949, during the later stages of the Greek Civil War, the Greek War Ministry stated that a respiratory irritant had been used to drive guerrillas out of caves.
SIPRI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Vol. I, The Rise of CB Weapons, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1971, p. 157.
SIPRI reported that according to Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State, the South Vietnamese Army used irritant-agent weapons, both in riot control and combat situations.
SIPRI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Vol. I, The Rise of CB Weapons, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1971, p. 185.
Robinson has stated that in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, CS irritant and perhaps Agent BZ were reportedly used by Serb factions to disrupt resistance and to drive people out of protective cover. He further stated that in Turkey in May 1999, CS grenades were reportedly used by the Turkish army against 20 members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
Julian Perry Robinson, “The General Purpose Criterion and the New Utility of Toxicants as Weapons”, Working paper for the Pugwash Meeting No. 264, 17 June 2001, p. 4.

References: § 312
 § 413
 § 4
 § 631
 § 27
 § 9
 § 518
 § 9
 § 434
 § 14
 § 0456
 § 3
 § 3
 § 230
 § 6
 § 15
 § 5
 § 8
 § 9
 § 4
 § 13
 § 6
 § 3
 § 180