The Chemical Weapons Convention: Negotiations, Obligations and the Destruction Process

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention, expanded a prohibition on use into a system covering production, stockpiling and destruction. Its preamble built on the principles of the 1925 Geneva Protocol while incorporating peaceful chemical activities and international cooperation among its objectives.

In 1992, the Conference on Disarmament's Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons in Geneva was chaired by German Ambassador Adolf Ritter von Wagner and held 32 meetings between 24 January and 26 August. Its report recorded China's submission of information on chemical weapons abandoned on its territory, Australia's materials on industry surveys and trial inspections, and U.S. experience in destruction. Negotiations thus had to address concrete matters including what to declare, access to plants, verification technology and safety. On 3 September, the Conference on Disarmament adopted the committee's report and draft convention.

Disagreements remained in the final text. Cuba's representative expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of herbicidal warfare but explicitly stated that Cuba would not break the consensus on submitting the draft to the United Nations General Assembly. This statement shows that agreement on a common text did not require every party to abandon all reservations; reaching agreement itself involved compromise.

References: [1] [2]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/39 of 30 November 1992 endorsed the Convention and requested that the Secretary-General open it for signature in Paris on 13 January of the following year. The 1993 milestone marked the start of states signing their acceptance of the treaty text. Article XIX still required signatories to ratify in accordance with their constitutional procedures and deposit their instruments of ratification with the UN Secretary-General as depositary.

Article XXI set the condition for general entry into force at 180 days after deposit of the 65th instrument of ratification, and no earlier than two years after opening for signature. The treaty entered into force on 29 April 1997. China's registered actions clearly distinguish signature on 13 January 1993 from deposit of its instrument of ratification on 25 April 1997. A signature date cannot replace a ratification date, much less be represented as the date on which an entire national stockpile had been destroyed.

References: [2] [3]

Article I required states parties never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or transfer chemical weapons, use them, prepare to use them, or assist others in prohibited activities. Existing chemical weapons and related production facilities also had to be dealt with as prescribed. The Convention additionally prohibited the use of riot-control agents as a method of warfare.

Article II did not reduce the prohibition to a fixed list of agents. Whether toxic chemicals and their precursors constituted chemical weapons depended on their purpose, types and quantities. Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, protective and other non-prohibited uses were permitted, while munitions, devices and related equipment specifically intended to cause harm through toxicity were subject to restrictions. A verifiable boundary therefore had to be established between legitimate chemical industry and military chemical activities.

References: [2]

Article III generally required states parties to submit initial declarations within 30 days after the Convention entered into force for them, covering chemical weapons, production facilities and related activities. Article IV placed stockpile locations and destruction facilities under on-site inspection and instrument monitoring, while Article VI subjected specified peaceful chemical activities to declaration and verification. Obligations extended beyond armed forces to the state's knowledge of relevant business activities.

Verification did not mean unrestricted access. Article VI required avoidance of undue interference with legitimate chemical activities and protection of confidential information. At the same time, Article IX gave states parties the right to request challenge inspections to clarify possible non-compliance. Requests needed appropriate grounds and could not be abused; the inspected state could protect sensitive information unrelated to the Convention. Verification effectiveness and confidentiality interests were thus incorporated into the same procedure.

References: [2]

Article IV originally required stockpile destruction to be completed no later than ten years after the Convention's general entry into force. The Verification Annex permitted applications for extensions through specified procedures, but not beyond fifteen years. These deadlines must be distinguished from actual progress. A 2011 decision of the Conference of the States Parties made arrangements for the possibility that Libya, Russia and the United States would not fully meet the final deadline of 29 April 2012.

That decision did not declare the original deadline invalid. Instead, if destruction was not completed on time, states were required to continue as quickly as possible, submit detailed plans and anticipated completion dates, and report progress to the Council and Conference. The Technical Secretariat was also required to report independently on information obtained through inspections. National planning and international verification of completion were separate responsibilities that could not substitute for one another.

References: [2] [4]

The implementation report for 2023 recorded that the U.S. Blue Grass destruction facility processed its last munition on 7 July, completing destruction of the country's declared stockpile. By year-end, the declared stockpiles of all eight former possessor states had been destroyed. This was a significant result of long-term verification, but applied only to declared stockpiles and did not establish that chemical-weapons problems no longer existed anywhere in the world.

The same report continued to record cooperation between China and Japan in dealing with chemical weapons abandoned by Japan in China, as well as the disposal of old chemical weapons. The organization also completed 196 inspections of industrial facilities that year and continued clarifying unresolved issues in Syria's declaration. Stockpile destruction, treatment of abandoned weapons, completeness of declarations and prevention of renewed production are related implementation tasks, but cannot be combined into a single measure of completion.

References: [5]