Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925

1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 853-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Baxter ◽  
Thomas Buergenthal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Biological Warfare ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Defense Department ◽  
Defensive Measures

In his policy statement of November 25, 1969, on chemical and biological warfare, President Richard M. Nixon declared that the Administration would ask the Senate for advice and consent to the ratification of the Geneva Protocol of 1925. At the same time, the President reaffirmed the renunciation by the United States of “the first use of lethal chemical weapons” and extended “this renunciation to the first use of incapacitating chemicals.” With regard to biological weapons, the President renounced the use of all biological weapons and methods of warfare, declared that the United States would confine its biological research to defensive measures, and ordered the Defense Department to make recommendations for the “disposal of existing stocks of bacteriological weapons.” On February 14, 1970, the President extended the ban on biological weapons to include toxins.

History of Three Mobilizations: A Reexamination of the Chinese Biological Warfare Allegations against the United States in the Korean War

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiwei Chen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Korean War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Warfare ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Huge Amount ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

AbstractChinese allegations that the United States used biological weapons against Chinese troops and Korean civilians is one of the most shocking episodes of the Korean War. While the Chinese government repeatedly reprimanded the U.S. government for its uncivilized combat behavior, the U.S. government vigorously issued denials, treating the charges as an extreme propaganda maneuver applied by China in that moment of military crisis, ideological fervor, and political passion. Since then, a huge amount of scholarship has been produced on the allegation.1 None, however, provided a persuasive conclusion on the incident, mainly due to the lack of reliable sources.

Verifying the Unverifiable: Lessons from the Biological Weapons Convention

1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Isabelle Chevrier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
International Attention ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
Improved Methods

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is widely regarded as a treaty whose provisions are difficult to verify because of the paucity of measures to verify compliance within the treaty framework and the nature of the weapons themselves. Advances in biotechnology and their effect on the perceived military utility of biological weapons have focused international attention on this issue. This article examines the concepts of “adequate” and “effective” verification and argues that the treaty falls under the definition of adequate verification in the United States. For other countries, however, the lack of verification measures is of greater concern. The article describes measures that should be added to the BWC to detect violations and promote compliance with the treaty. These include improved methods of resolving allegations of noncompliance, increased reporting requirements for activities permitted under the treaty, greater openness in biological research, and inspections of laboratories and other facilities.

Chemical and Biological Weapons Policy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas I. Faith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Mass Casualties ◽  
World War ◽  
Chemical And Biological Weapons

Chemical and biological weapons represent two distinct types of munitions that share some common policy implications. While chemical weapons and biological weapons are different in terms of their development, manufacture, use, and the methods necessary to defend against them, they are commonly united in matters of policy as “weapons of mass destruction,” along with nuclear and radiological weapons. Both chemical and biological weapons have the potential to cause mass casualties, require some technical expertise to produce, and can be employed effectively by both nation states and non-state actors. U.S. policies in the early 20th century were informed by preexisting taboos against poison weapons and the American Expeditionary Forces’ experiences during World War I. The United States promoted restrictions in the use of chemical and biological weapons through World War II, but increased research and development work at the outset of the Cold War. In response to domestic and international pressures during the Vietnam War, the United States drastically curtailed its chemical and biological weapons programs and began supporting international arms control efforts such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. U.S. chemical and biological weapons policies significantly influence U.S. policies in the Middle East and the fight against terrorism.

Biotechnology, International Law, and the National Interest

1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-112
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Crump Hanson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Recombinant Dna ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Warfare ◽  
Richard Nixon ◽  
Effective Form ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

On November 25, 1969 Richard Nixon announced that because of the “massive, unpredictable, and potentially uncontrollable consequences” of biological weapons, the United States would never use these weapons, would destroy all existing stocks, and would confine its research to strictly defined measures of defense (Harris, 1987:193). This unilateral renunciation followed an extensive review by the National Security Council of U.S. chemical and biological warfare policy, which lasted six months and involved every relevant agency in the U.S. government and which concluded that U.S. biological warfare capabilities provided no compelling military advantages (Tucker, 1984-85:61). Three years later the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) was signed; it was the first postwar arms control agreement to elminate an entire class of weapons from the arsenals of states (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1982:122). The treaty was ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1974, and over 100 nations have acceded to it. This arms control achievement has been attributed in part to the serious doubts which many countries, including the United States, shared about the military value of biological weapons (Harris, 1987:205-6). Within a decade of the signing of this treaty, however, the development of recombinant-DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) technology had raised the possibility of a new and more effective form of biological warfare.

Iraq's Chemical Weapons Legacy: What Others Might Learn from Saddam

2005 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-208
Author(s):  
Richard L. Russell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Weapon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Nation States

Iraq's experience with chemical weapons provides ample lessons for nation-states looking to redress their conventional military shortcomings. Nation-states are likely to learn from Saddam that chemical weapons are useful for waging war against nation-states ill-prepared to fight on a chemical battlefield as well as against internal insurgents and rebellious civilians. Most significantly, nation-states studying Iraq's experience are likely to conclude that chemical weapons are not a “poor man's nuclear weapon” and that only nuclear weapons can deter potential adversaries including the United States.

scholarly journals State Control of the Interpretation of Genomic Studies and Medical Applications in the United States of America

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-344
Author(s):  
Anzhelika R Sakhipgareeva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Genetic Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
The State ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Medical Applications ◽  
State Control ◽  
Genomic Studies

This Article is devoted to the theoretical ideas about the features of state control in genomic research and medical applications in the United States of America. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal aspects of the interpretation of genomic research and medical applications in the United States of America, to study the features of the state control of medical applications, as well as companies providing services in the field of genomic research. As a result of the review, the author provides with the information about several features of the state control of the US Food and drug administration (FDA), degree of regulatory intervention in the activities of genetic research companies, identify classification of medical applications apps.

Ukrainian officials downplay Russian invasion fears

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
The United States ◽  
Defense Department ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Action

Significance Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on November 29 called for action "now, not later" to "deter" Russia. The same day, US Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said the Pentagon was watching Russian troop movements near Ukraine "with great concern". Fears of imminent conflict stem not just from the number of troops and tanks moved closer to Ukraine, but from Moscow's more than usually hostile rhetoric and its deliberate ambiguity, through hints that Ukraine may provoke it into some form of action. Impacts The threat of Russian action will accelerate and expand the defence assistance Ukraine gets from the United States and other NATO members. Moscow would hope its importance as a gas supplier mitigates EU sanctions imposed for military action against Ukraine. The Ukrainian government will be tempted to use the Russian threat to curb domestic opposition.

Treatment of Infants with Acute Diarrhea: What's Recommended and What's Practiced

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge A. Bezerra ◽  
Theodore H. Stathos ◽  
Burris Duncan ◽  
John A. Gaines ◽  
John N. Udall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acute Diarrhea ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Family Practitioner ◽  
Family Practitioners ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Strength Formula

In 1985, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a policy statement on the treatment of infants with acute diarrhea complicated by mild to moderate d ehydration. To determine how closely physicians in the United States follow the AAP's treatment guidelines, a questionnaire was sent to 457 pediatricians and 360 family practitioners. The questionnaire presented a hypothetical infant with acute diarrhea complicated by mild to moderate dehydration and included questions regarding the number of such patients seen yearly, length of time used to rehydrate the infant, and how formula or solids are introduced following rehydration. Complete responses were received from 53% of pediatricians and 40% of family practitioners. The number of patients with acute diarrhea seen per year did not affect physician's treatment. Pediatricians and family practitioners responded similarly to most questions. Contrary to the AAP's guidelines to rehydrate in 4 to 6 hours, 62% of responding physicians extend the rehydration period to 12 to 24 hours. Also contrary to the AAP's recommendations, 62% of pediatricians and family practitioners use a lactose-free formula. The majority of responding physicians do follow the AAP's treatment guidelines to initiate feedings with diluted formula. Significantly more pediatricians than family practitioner advance to a full-strength formula within 1 day (P = .011). Fewer than 50% of physicians polled started solids within 24 hours as suggested by the AAP. Overall, the findings suggest that very few pediatricians and family practitioners follow all aspects of the AAP's treatment guidelines for infants with acute diarrhea complicated by mild to moderate dehydration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document