Why are chemical weapons worse than other weapons of mass destruction?

When the governments of Britain, France, and America used force against Syria earlier this month, they said they were doing so to ensure respect for international law. Yet, the use of force without authorisation of the UN Security Council conflicts with the charter of the same organisation. God. There is something wrong about breaking international law in order to promote international law enforcement. If there is a taboo in the use of chemical weapons, why is there not a taboo of the unilateral use of armed force contrary to international law? Don't you take each other down?

The expression of rage by three nuclear powers for inhumane weapons has some cynicism inside. Their behavior reminds us of tobacco companies who show how dangerous electronic cigarettes are to health. Although structured in humanitarian language, the true motives of the United States, France, and Britain may have more to do with protecting the weapons of terror monopoly than with what they declared.

The use of chemical weapons in civil war in Syria seems to be random and somewhat isolated, more than anything systematic. In a conflict that caused the deaths of 500,000 people, most of whom civilians, victims of chemical weapons are just a few hundred. Imagine, a few hundred more killed. The use of chemical weapons can hardly be called the most serious violation of international law in this conflict.

Many arms categories are prohibited by various treaties and statements that are part of international law. The oldest rule dates back 150 years. The 1868 St Petersburg statement condemned the use of explosive bullets. The Hague Convention before World Wars ruled that “the right of the warring parties to adopt means to hurt the enemy is not unlimited”. They immediately stopped “the antidote and toxic weapons”. After World War I, British government lawyers prepared criminal charges against Kaizer Wilhelm II for using poisonous gas and “liquid fire” by German forces. A century later, the list of forbidden weapons included asphyxiating gas, ammunition that killed crowds, anti-personnel mines and blinderic weapons.

The international court of justice has confirmed a general principle of stopping the use of any weapons that cause unnecessary damage. This formulation is incorporated into the Rome International Court statute, where the use of such weapons is described as a war crime. But the provision in Rome's statute is a toothless law, a simple theoretical tool. He is unable to principle the general principle by demanding that the list of such weapons be presented in an appendix. There's no list. There's no appendix.

The general provision on infamy weapons in the Rome statute insists that they be listed specifically in an appendix because nuclear powers would never trust judges in interpreting the phrase <x0 non-species”. Judges may come to the unreasonable conclusion that this term does not describe nuclear weapons. There is no list and no appendix because many states resist the hypocrisy of punishing the poor's “arms for mass destruction” while leaving the rich intact.

The statue of Rome in an experimental way prohibits only these three categories of weapons. It uses the language and technology taken from another meal - poison, or toxic weapons, toxic and asphyxiating gases, and distributed bullets. Furthermore, in a restriction to comment, the 1998 text in the statute limits the ban on these weapons in international armed conflicts. In 2010 alone, the statute was amended to extend the ban on such weapons in non-international armed conflicts. But only 36 of the tribunal's 120 members have ratified these amendments. Not even Britain and France have ratified them, imagine it.

Some argue that war crimes in the use of <x0 antidote or toxic weapons” and “toxic gas” include type chemical weapons being used in civil war in Syria. If that was the purpose of those who drafted the Rome statute, that is unknown, and it is a matter of many contradictions. When the statute was adopted, proposals to include an explosive ban on chemical weapons had been rejected.

Nuclear weapons explain the insufficientity of the universally accepted legal regulations that speak of forbidden weapons. They're non-remarkable quantum weapons. The unnecessary suffering and excessive hurt they have caused, in two cases when used, shortens the human fee attributed to chemical weapons of all conflicts over the centuries.

The international court of justice renewed the obligation imposed on nuclear powers to pursue in trust negotiations that would lead to a nuclear disarming. Nuclear powers have consistently ignored this demand. Only a principled attempt at disarming that would address all weapons of terror and mass destruction in a consistent manner would succeed.