Talk:Geneva Protocol

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion 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

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Isn't succession meant to be secession?, after all, it is the splitting of one country into another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.117.205 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this? It doesn't ban depleted uranium! Uranium is never even mentioned. --Penta 01:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not a treaty, it's a protocol. That means anyone can break it any time they like. Gentlemens agreement, and we can agree atleast on one thing, nobody's a gentleman these days. You and I maybe, if we agree on the terms of gentlemanly behaviour. Actually the more I think about it, less this is about the actual agreement that was made about prisoners of war, and other much more burning topics when the geneva conventions were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.238.199 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It might be nice to have a bit more explanation and definition regarding the terms accession, declaration of succession, and, for completeness, ratification. -- Malimar

This page is woefully inaccurate. It misspelled Versailles, and said that the Washington Naval Conference "failed", which is a bit of a strong statement considering the historical context, and that it was not primarily a chemical weapons ban. Needs correction, particularly in paragraphs above the table. - sc1olist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc1olist (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did the United States sign the treaty? 1974? Low Moral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.147.247 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually ratified this? Mercruz (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

"Although it is popularly believed that the German Army was the first to use gas it was in fact initially deployed by the French Army. In the first month of the war, August 1914, they fired tear-gas grenades (xylyl bromide) against the Germans."

Any reference for this? It is contradicted by the Chemical Warface article, which has a reference to confirm that Germany was "..the first side to employ chemical warfare on the battlefield".

138.38.150.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defoliants

Does the 1925 Geneva Protocol ban the use of defoliants such as Agent Orange? If so, can we describe it as a matter of fact that the US violated the Geneva Convention in Operation Ranch Hand (Vietnam, 1962-1971)?

Or should we say that Person X accuses the US of violating this treaty / protocol, while Person / Group Y denies the accusation?

That is, do we have a case for using NPOV policy to turn a assertion of fact into a description of two contradictory viewpoints?

In case anyone's interested in presenting an opposing POV, here's something from a US law journal:

"In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appears for the Second Circuit [found that] applicable international law at the time of the Vietnam Wra did not prohibit the use of chemical agents such as Agent Orange as defoliants." JSTOR: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul., 2008), pp. 662-664

If no one objects, I intend to balance this viewpoint with the other viewpoint, altering the slant of the article from "USA broke the law" to "Sources differ over whether USA broke the law". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Perhaps there is enough potential for confusion to warrant a disambiguating link to [1], a failed League of Nations protocol of the same name in the previous year. 108.46.137.243 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reservation 2/4

Is there a difference between reservation 2 and 4? They look same.

Error?

The picture on the top-right states that Canada is still a participant to the Geneva Protocol as of 2012. It isn't. Does anybody have the software to change this? Decent_of_Darkness (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First use

Where does it say anything justifying the introduction saying "...a treaty prohibiting the first use...."?68.98.190.214 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the section on Reservations. Many states only ratified the treaty subject to the condition that it "Ceases to be binding in regards to any state, and its allies, which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol." (or something along these lines.) Maybe it's not quite correct to say that the treaty only prohibits first use (it doesn't, it prohibits all use) but in practice, as a result of all the reservations, that's all in limits.

See for example [2] which says "Moreover, a sizeable fraction of its parties have reserved a right to retaliate in kind if chemical and/or biological weapons should ever be used against them by enemies or allies of enemies. This, and the contractual character of the Protocol, has rendered it a no-first-use agreement." TDL (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geneva Protocol. 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/20140702004808/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22365/Bunn_Banning_Poison_Gas_and_Germ_Warfare.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22365/Bunn_Banning_Poison_Gas_and_Germ_Warfare.pdf

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violations

This section includes the paragraph:

"During the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq War and the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, United States and Europe gave and funded Saddam Hussein's use of several different chemical agents, including anthrax, mustard gas, sarin, and VX, against Iran and against Iraqi civilians in instances such as the Halabja chemical attack. Although the United States provided Saddam Hussein with anthrax, it was never actually used in the conflict."

From St Petersburg with love?

Beyond the fact that no citation is provided, the statement itself is grossly misleading. While there is a basis for the claim that a number of powers provided certain forms of support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, there is no clear evidence from any credible source that any western power ever intentionally provided Saddam with chemical weapons, or intended to support his development or use of chemical weapons. That claim was based upon a disingenuous and highly propagandistic reinterpretation of the dual use problem (i.e. the problem of legitimate civilian use materials and technology being diverted to chemical warfare purposes by the end user). Likewise, there is no credible evidence that the US intentionally provided anthrax to Iraq or was willing to allow Iraq to weaponize anthrax. The anthrax Iraq acquired from a US source came from a private biomedical research supplier that served the needs of researchers conducting legitimate civilian medical research. As such, it was another dual use issue. It should not be misrepresented as an intentional governmental policy to supply the Saddam regime with anthrax for the purpose of the creation of a biological weapon.

I recommend that the paragraph in question be rewritten to the more limited, and more solidly factually based statement that:

"During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is known to have employed a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian forces, as well as nerve agents against Kurdish civilians, the most notorious example of which was 1988 attack on Halabja." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.238.130 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thermobaric weapons

Are these banned by the Geneva Convention? Didn’t US and UK use these weapons in Afghanistan? 2A02:C7F:E876:6800:AD91:9C32:41D8:5B7F (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes Genocidal acts

Asphysiating G agents is a real threat in today's world. Article 3 and Geneva protocol just being ignored. This is terrorism. US should be aware. 174.29.95.87 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]