[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And didn’t Assad do exactly this with chlorine?
"“Chemical Weapons” means: 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.
“Toxic Chemical” means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. "
It doesn’t ban their possession of or peaceful use of it and it wasn’t declared as a weapon, but using it as a weapon is illegal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSBREA4M08V20140523
“Chlorine is likely to be lethal than sarin but its use as a weapon is still illegal under a global chemical weapons convention that Syria signed.”[/quote]
Oh, boy.
“…except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention”
Domestic law enforcement is one of those purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
Gassing dissidents falls under the definition of “domestic law enforcement”.
Reuters reporters are not arbiters of the legality of chemicals under international law. The reporter, Dominic Evans, has twice (in this article and in the previous one you linked) called the chlorine gas attacks “illegal”, a violation of “a global chemical weapons convention”, by which I assume he means the CWC.
But again, chlorine gas is not specifically banned by the Convention, so I wonder if, like you, Dominic has not bothered to read the original text.
He also mentions that “Syria did not declare chlorine as part of its stockpile”, but of course it was under no obligation to do so.
[/quote]
It doesn’t list it specifically as a chemical weapon, but it prohibits the use of any chemical as a weapon against people.
“A high-stakes U.S.-Russian plan for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons is in jeopardy on several fronts, with the regime in Damascus facing growing allegations that it violated the agreement by attacking rebels and civilians with chlorine gas.”
“As part of the deal, Syria signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention, which allows countries to have chlorine, but forbids using it as a weapon. So if the regime used chlorine gas in attacks since the agreement, that would be a violation.”
“Chlorine is not listed as a chemical Syria is expected to give up under the Security Council resolution. But its use as a weapon of war is prohibited under the 1925 Chemical Weapons Convention, of which Syria is a signatory.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/state-dep-t-suggests-chlorine-gas-attack-syria-would-violate-deal
“[The CWC] prohibits the use of any toxic chemical, including chlorine, with the intent to kill or incapacitate people,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at a daily briefing, noting that Syria joining the CWC was “part of what was agreed to in September.”
“According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees the CWC, â??a toxic or precursor chemical [such as chlorine or hydrogen cyanide] may be defined as a chemical weapon depending on its intended purpose.”
“Put simply, a toxic or precursor chemical is defined as a chemical weapon unless it has been developed, produced, stockpiled or used for purposes not prohibited by the Convention,” it says.
So even though chlorine was not one of the agents declared by the Assad regime for surrender and destruction, if itâ??s determined that the regime has used it as a weapon that would violate the CWC â?? and therefore indirectly also violate the deal negotiated in Geneva between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov."
“Experts said if it is proven that Syria used chlorine as a weapon, Damascus would be in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which it signed last September.”
"The U.S. State Department, which is examining the allegations, said on Tuesday that if the Syrian government used chlorine with the intent to kill or harm this would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which it joined as part of last September’s Geneva agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
“The use of any toxic chemical with the intent to cause death or harm is a clear violation of the convention,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki."
“Syriaâ??s apparent use of chlorine gas as a weapon â?? not to mention targeting of civilians â?? is a plain violation of international law,” said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
Everybody from the State department, the Russians, the OPCW says if proven true, then it was a violation of the agreement and international law.[/quote]
Both Syrian government and oppositional forces are accused of using chemical weapons in 2013 during the Syrian civil war, though as any such use would be within Syria’s own borders, rather than in warfare between state parties to the protocol, the legal situation is less certain. - Wikipedia