By Olga Symeonoglou

A U.S. official has anonymously confirmed the presence of sulfur mustard on weaponry used in attacks in Syria and Iraq. It is not clear whether the Islamic State is manufacturing the chemical weapon or using caches of it found in either Iraq or Syria. It seems unlikely that the U.S. would have overlooked any chemical weapons in Iraq, and Syria gave up its chemical weapons pursuant to a 2013 UN Security Council Agreement. Some have also suggested the Syrian regime or the rebels could be responsible for using sulfur mustard, which is banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Read More

September 16, 2015

By Ena Cefo

The Syrian regime has once again been accused of using chemical weapons on civilians—using chlorine gas during a March 16^th attack on the town of Sarmin and between March 16th and 31st on the town of Idlib. The regime’s continued use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria ratified in 2013, as well as the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2209, which “reiterate[d] that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons.” Resolution 2209 warns that future non-compliance with the Security Council’s prior resolution, Resolution 2118, that prohibited the use of chemical weapons in Syria will lead to the “impos[ition of] measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.” The United States and other members of the Security Council supported a continuing investigation into the recent allegations of chemical weapon use by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Read More

May 04, 2015

Stock Photo © Kentannenbaum | Dreamstime.com

By Kevin L. Cope*

Bond v. United States, a Supreme Court case due for decision this spring, has it all: a jilted lover, an impregnated best friend, a mailbox covered in bright orange powder, and a global disarmament treaty.  No doubt, the soap-opera-esque facts of Bond are bizarre.  But what really makes Bond’s story unusual is that the whole premise of the case – which could transform U.S. federalism and foreign relations – apparently came as a shock to nearly everyone, including those most responsible for the challenged law. 

The root of the case is the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a now-190-member treaty aimed at stopping the development, stockpiling, and deployment of chemical weapons of mass destruction.  (The CWC recently made other news when Syria was pressured into joining last October.)  The United States ratified it in 1997, and Congress enacted the CWC Implementation Act a year later. Among other things, state parties to the CWC are required to prohibit the development and use of chemical weapons, a term defined quite broadly. By largely cutting-and-pasting from the CWC’s pertinent provisions, the CWC Implementation Act does just that.

In fact, it may have done it too well.  

Read More

February 07, 2014

By Julie Inglese

President Barack Obama would like the United States to become an aggressor in Syria’s civil war. The Syrian government's “alleged” use of chemical weapons to kill hundreds crossed a redline that U.S. President Barack Obama claimed a year ago would be the game changer.

Obama is trying to go through the formal measure of getting Congress to okay the attack, but does that make it legal?

Putting aside whether attacking Syria is the right thing to do, let us look at what the law is and predict what the legal and institutional consequences of law breaking might be.

Read More

October 23, 2013

A child at his bombed out family home in Syria. FreedomHouse. 

By Stephen Kozey

A year ago, President Obama said that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, it would cross a “red line.” That red line has been crossed, with recent reports confirming the use of sarin nerve agent and estimating between 300 and 1,300 casualties, including women and children. The U.N. Security Council has responded to the situation by adopting Resolution 2118. This resolution strongly condemns the chemical attack and requires Syria to forfeit and destroy its chemical weapons stockpile, as well as its means of production and delivery of chemical weapons.

International law prohibits the use of chemical weapons, but doesn’t permit military intervention in another country on that basis alone. Military intervention in another country is justified only in the case of self defense or when there is a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the intervention. The conflict in Syria, however, has remained an internal one and has not yet posed a substantial security threat to neighboring countries. Moreover, Russia and China have consistently vetoed any resolution even hinting at the possibility of intervention. It does not appear that the use of chemical weapons has caused these veto-wielders to change their view, so there is little chance of a legally justifiable intervention as things stand today.

But is the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons the only legal argument that the pro-intervention members of the U.N. Security Council (namely France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) can use to try to sway Russia and China? What about Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as adopted in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document?

Read More

October 16, 2013

By Julie Inglese

The most significant use of chemical weapons against civilians since 1988 occurred last month in Syria. CNN reported that the "United Nations Mission has… confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria." The horrific event, likely a result of the President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, sparked an agreement between Russia and the United States. Russia has agreed to work with the United States to remove all chemical weapons from Syria, but this must be done on the honor system, which may make for a bad outcome. Only time will tell how the agreement plays out. 

Read More

September 16, 2013