Sabitlenmiş Tweet

#ChemicalWeapons #BiologicalWeapons #GenevaProtocol
The 1925 Geneva Protocol: The League of Nations’ Only Arms Control Agreement
Historical Notes #6 (July 2025), 107pp.
For download: the-trench.org/1925-geneva-pr…
The origins of the Geneva Protocol and the history of its negotiation 100 years ago, including an analysis of why Poland insisted on inserting bacteriological weapons in the document.
On Wednesday, 17 June 1925, the Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms successfully concluded six weeks of negotiations with three agreements. One of them was the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Of the forty-four participating delegations, twenty-six possessed plenipotentiary power to sign the Protocol before the closing of the Conference. Another twelve states affixed their signatures and ratified the document before its general entry into force on 8 February 1928. As of June 2025, 147 states are party to the Geneva Protocol, as the legal instrument is commonly known.
Despite being a mere single-page long, the agreement has limited the use of chemical weapons (CW) in armed conflicts and all but prevented the deliberate spread of disease as a method of warfare. Being part of the laws of war, it did not forbid the development, production and possession of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons (CBW). Still, it paved the way for the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). In addition, it provides the legal foundation for the UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism to investigate alleged CBW use. The 1998 Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, uses Protocol language to declare CW use a war crime. (A later amendment added BW use to the list of war crimes but utilised the reference to biological and bacteriological agents in the BTWC.)
While today nobody contests the Geneva Protocol’s contribution to the development of the norm against CBW, little is known about the factors that contributed to its emergence and negotiation. Why was the document a protocol and not a treaty? Given the supposed widespread abhorrence against CW after the massive and systematic use of gas during the First World War, why did it take almost seven years for the international community to translate this repugnance into a global ban? Why did the centuries-old customary prohibition of poison use, codified for the first time at the 1899 Hague Convention and restated at the 1907 Hague Convention, no longer suffice? How did the negotiators, seemingly out of nowhere, decide to include disease as a method of warfare in the Protocol? This issue of Historical Studies aims to answer these and many other questions.

English







