Talk:Chemical Weapons Convention

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 28, 2009, April 29, 2011, April 29, 2014, April 29, 2016, and April 29, 2017.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Sustainability High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. Science Policy B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (before 2010)

The sentence "In 2009, Iraq declared five production sites which were destroyed in the 2003 war; OPCW inspections were still required." doesn't have any reference. I tried to look for them on the Chemical Weapons Convention site with no luck. Does someone has a reference? Could it be that someone mistook the storage sites where the old chemical shells are kept for production sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.229.70 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tried google but the only match I find is wikipedia itself! I'm going to remove the statement until a reference could be found

The reference was already in the Iraq section of the page which made the same claim but which you didn't remove. I have returned it to the other section as well. Rmhermen (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved everything older than 1 year to an archive, which can be found here. L.tak (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Syria is "suspected of having chemical weapons." I'm guessing that giving the use of chemical weapons and the deaths of hundreds/thousands, that language can now be changed.

Also, how does the CWC apply in cases of civil war? I'd like to see that added to this article. In other words, if Syria uses chemical weapons in a civil war, does that violate the CWC? If it doesn't violate the CWC, what are the legal grounds for international intervention?

I don't know. I'm hoping someone here will see this and modify the page accordingly. --Lawfare (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syria is not in the CWC, so it is not violating the CWC. The CWC bans all use, and production, so would apply to any war, including civil wars (except riot control agents can be used other than in warfare - a civil war-like situation could be debateable if it is anti-terrorist or warfare). There is useful discussion on the internal conflict situation in Geneva Protocol, which Syria has agreed. Rwendland (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. --Lawfare (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ratification count 189 counting Syria, or not counting Syria? I know Syria has deposited an instrument, does that imply it's ratified? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 189 figure does not include Syria. The OPCW website says Somalia's ratification brought the number of parties to 189. If you look at the history of this article, you'll see a premature edit (since corrected) to raise the number of parties to 190 - counting Syria. NPguy (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't premature at all, it was an accurate reflection of what WP:RS say on the subject. It's really just a matter of semantics. Does accession occur with the deposit of an instrument of accession, or when it enters into force? Official UN sources, including the United Nations Treaty Series and United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, give the number of Parties to be 190: [1] and [2]. The UN depository notification says under the heading "SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC: ACCESSION" that "The above action was effected on 14 September 2013". The OPCW lists the date of "Ratification, accession or succession" as the date of deposit of the instrument, a month prior to the date of entry into force. All evidence suggests that they have acceded, but that the provisions have not yet entered into force, making statements such as "As of September 2013, 189 states have ratified the CWC" incorrect. I think we should follow the sources rather than trying to make our own interpretation of the sources. However, given that this will resolve itself in a few weeks, I personally don't feel that it's worth investing the effort to try to rectify this error if users are going to edit war over it. TDL (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a conflict between two primary sources. The UN (the depositary for the NPT) says Syria is a party. The OPCW says Syria is not a member. Perhaps there is some confusion about whether there's a difference between being a "member" of the OPCW and being a "party" to the CWC. In any case it is not "original research" to rely on a different primary source from yours. NPguy (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really a conflict. In every past case, the date of accession listed by the OPCW is identical to the date of accession listed by the depositary, which is identical to the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification (compare [3] to [4] to [5]). It took the OPCW weeks to update their website to account for Somalia's accession earlier this year, but they ultimately backdated it to 29 May, the same date as the other sources. I don't think that an un-updated website is very convincing evidence that they haven't acceded to the CWC, especially in the face of all the other sources. If the OPCW still doesn't include Syria on its list on 14 October, are you going to continue arguing that they aren't a party to the CWC due to this "conflict" of sources? If the answer is no, then why shouldn't we list them as a party now? TDL (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With articles on Syria all over the OPCW main page, it seems unlikely that the OPCW would somehow have forgotten to update its list of parties. The fact that it took "weeks" in the past is consistent with waiting until the accession takes legal effect (30 days) before recording it. In any case, this is an ephemeral divergence that should be resolved - in a few weeks! NPguy (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6] states, without comment, that Syria has "neither signed nor acceeded", so I'm afraid it's just out-of-date. Also, digging into the U.N. website, "ratification" seems to equal "deposition of an instrument" for the U.N. So with respect to the most common terminology, 190 seems to be the current count. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both statements are probably correct. Syria did not sign the CWC. That option was only available before the CWC entered into force. After that the only way to become a party is through accession. Syria is not yet a party. It has deposited its instrument of accession with the UN, but its accession does not go into effect until October 14. NPguy (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the "signed", though I still think there would be an asterisk or something explaining Syria's status if the OPCW had updated that page in the last couple weeks. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just found a smoking bullet: [7] lists Somalia as acceeded 29/05/2013 but in-force 28/06/2013. Therefore exactly 190 countries have ratified if we count accession (which is fine with me, though if anyone objects we can just say 'joined'); if we don't count accession then about 170ish countries have ratified. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I re-read TDL's comment, I guess that's exactly what he was saying all along with respect to "backdating". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf, yup that was exactly my point. When Somalia acceded the OPCW didn't update their list until weeks after their entry into force. Not weeks after deposit, weeks after entry into force. Even if the OPCW is intentionally holding off on updating until the treaty enters into force, that doesn't change the fact that they acceded on 14 September. When the OPCW updates their list, they WILL list them as having acceded on 14 September because that's when accession took place. That's what they've done in every past case. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines accession to be "the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty". Note the emphasis on "consent to be bound". Syria consented to be bound by the CWC on September 14, hence they acceded. They actually become bound on October 14, but that is a separate issue.

NPguy, your argument is explicitly refuted by all of the sources. The only organization which the treaty gives the authority to decide who has acceded (the UN) says that they are a party, and that their accession was "effected" September 14. How can you argue that their accession has not gone "into effect" when the UN says exactly the opposite? Yes, the treaty isn't in force for them, but their accession has already taken place. The OPCW has said that "Syria has acceded to the CWC..." (past tense). Here is a UN news release saying they have acceded: [8]. Lots of media reports say they have acceded: [9], [10], [11], [12]. There are many many independent sources which state that they are a party and have acceded. Your only argument is that they aren't listed on a single source which is infrequently updated. Unless you are arguing that all the other sources, including the authoritative UN and OPCW, are wrong, there is only one logical conclusion to draw from all this, the list simply hasn't been updated yet. We need to give WP:DUE weight here to the vast quantity and quality of sources which say they have acceded, not cherry pick a single outdated source.

Also, you didn't respond to my question above. If come October 14 they still aren't listed as a party on the OPCW website, are you going to continue arguing that they aren't yet a party and haven't acceded? If the answer is no, then the OPCW list is nothing more then a red herring. TDL (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some ambiguity about what it means to "accede" to a treaty. Does this happen when a state deposits an instrument of accession, or when the treaty enters into force for a state following accession? In other treaties I am familiar with, accession and entry into force are simultaneous. The CWC is the first treaty I have seen when they are not simultaneous. Or citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is accession the "consent ... to be bound" in the form of the deposit of an instrument of accession, or does it not occur until the state becomes bound? It is noteworthy that the VCLT treats ratification as such consent, even if a treaty has not yet entered into force.

Based on the usage I am familiar, I consider accession to take place when the treaty enters into force for a state. For Syria, that will be October 14. NPguy (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a merely theoretical discussion. The point is: it has not taken effect; so whether they are a party in this month or not has no material effect. That's why it's more important to clarify things in a note or setting than to fight over it... I think the general thing we do with this -extremely common; I believe many treaties have it; e.g. all recent HCCH and International Labour Organization- solution is to add them as a party upon depositing. L.tak (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has been updated to reflect Syria's status as a full party to the CWC. The OPCW web site has also been updated. NPguy (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Progress of destruction" section uses the term "Category". Is this the same as the three "Schedules" mentioned in the "Controlled substances" section? If so, it seems like "all Category 3 declared chemicals" seems wrong since that's not actually required. -- Beland (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the article is fully correct and consistent (I'll check later), but Category refers to chemical weapons in a military sence(weapon filled with agent, chemical weapons not incorporated in weapon, empty weapons); while Schedule refers to types of chemicals that are declarable under the convention in a chemical industry sense (and determines how chemical industries should report on them: Schedule 1: chemical weapons and its direct precursors; Schedule 2: can be converted to chemical weapons; Schedule 3: plays a role in chemical weapons production). I hope that clarifies a bit... L.tak (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification! I've found a source and added an explanation to this article and Chemical weapons. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Palestine was listed in two places in the article as a state which has neither signed nor acceded to the treaty. However, none of the sources given mention Palestine (or any other non-UN member outside of Taiwan). The clumsy wording used – "Of the four United Nations Member States that are not parties to the treaty, Israel has signed but not ratified the treaty, and four states have not acceded to the treaty (Egypt, North Korea, the State of Palestine and South Sudan)" – seems to suggest Palestine was added as an afterthought, perhaps to balance the inclusion of Israel. Given the OPCW's website mentions that some form of approval by the UN Secretary-General is necessary, it's unclear if Palestine (as a non-UN member) is even eligible to sign the treaty, so I think it's best if we leave it out for now. If there are sources that state Palestine (or any other partially recognised state) is eligible, then it could definitely be re-added. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem leaving it out, as it is probably hard to get a definite proof that explicitly mentions Palestine in relation to CWC and OPCW. However, I am 100% positive that Palestine can join for the following reason:

• The CWC has an "all states clause": the treaty is open to accession to all states
• The depositary is the UN Secretary General
• Palestine has successfully acceded to other conventions with an all states clause, in which the depositary is the UN Secretary General, and depositaries are consistent in their application throughout various treaties....

In other words, since Palestine has "non member state" status at the UN, it is treated as a state by the UN (even though it always results in objections from Canada, Israel and the US).... L.tak (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.tak is correct, the Secretary General has already acknowledged Palestine's right to accede to a number of other treaties which are deposited with it: [13][14][15][16][17].

This is confirmed here from Patricia O'Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs:

"A significant legal effect of the resolution for the UN Secretariat is that Palestine may participate in multilateral treaties to which the Secretary General is the depositary and in international conferences convened under the auspices of the UN that are open to "all States" (the "all States" formula)."

I think this is sufficiently clear sourcing, but agree the old wording was bad. TDL (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical Weapons Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020181433/http://world.time.com/2013/09/27/syrian-chemical-arms-inspections-could-begin-soon/ to http://world.time.com/2013/09/27/syrian-chemical-arms-inspections-could-begin-soon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The be a WMD, the chemical must be 'a liquid or gas' so Novichok agents slip through. Likewise, 3-methyl fentanyl, Kolokol can be classed as a riot agent. Of course, polonium 210 isn't covered nor is dimethyl mercury. I honestly think that a critique should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just deleted references to Syria having destroyed its CW stockpile. I suggest an alternative. The article could say that Syria has destroyed its declared stockpile, but has continued to use CW including suspected nerve agent in the recent attack near Idlib.

Agreed, that is better. TDL (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical Weapons Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119233859/http://www.nacwc.gov.sg/ to http://www.nacwc.gov.sg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]