The Great Lakes Invitational Conference Association

Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

The international community has long deemed chemical warfare to be a crime against humanity. In the largest multilateral effort to restrict the use of chemical weapons, all but four UN member states have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Since taking effect in 1997, the CWC has prohibited the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states that are party to the treaty. As of 2016, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which ensures CWC compliance, has verified the destruction of over 90 percent of declared chemical weapon stockpiles. During the ongoing Syrian Civil War, several parties have allegedly engaged in chemical warfare. In September 2013, the Syrian government agreed to become a party to the CWC and, per United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118, eliminate its stockpile of chemical weapons such as sarin, VX nerve agent, and sulfur mustard. News reports accuse Syria of reneging on this deal and non-state actors, including the Islamic State and rebel groups, of repeatedly using chlorine and sulfur mustard in attacks in Syria and Iraq. North Korea has also allegedly amassed large stockpiles of nerve agents such as sarin and VX, and recently used VX to assassinate the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Malaysia.

 

On the 20th anniversary of the CWC, the treaty has shown signs of age and arguably struggles to address how state and non-state actors currently produce and deploy chemical weapons. The relatively narrow definition of a chemical weapon under the CWC regulates chemicals that serve only to kill or harm people. Under the CWC, states may legally stockpile chemicals that can serve both a commercial and a military purpose. A wide variety of commercial industries use chlorine, a chemical element, for peaceful purposes. However, chlorine is highly toxic in its gaseous form and, although states may legally stockpile the chemical agent, warring parties have used it as a weapon since World War I. The CWC also allows states to stockpile incapacitating chemical agents (ICAs), which can provide a non-lethal means of crowd control, and illumination devices, such as highly toxic white phosphorus munitions. Although the CWC prohibits states from using ICAs and illumination devices as offensive weapons, states have released lethal doses of ICAs, such as when Russian special forces killed 130 civilian hostages with an ICA in the 2002 Moscow theater siege.

 

Recent developments in chemistry have blurred the line between chemical and biological weapons. Biological processes can now yield toxic compounds. The CWC does not regulate these processes, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) does not require states to verify if they have destroyed the compounds. To address this gap in arms control, policymakers have proposed merging the CWC and BWC in an updated treaty that more closely regulates biotech industries and sales of chemicals and reactor technology. The proposal would broaden the remit of the CWC beyond member states, restricting non-state actors’ access to chemical weapons and equipment, such as compact reactors, necessary to produce toxic compounds. This body must decide whether to move forward with this proposal, direct the OPCW to more proactively regulate emerging innovations in chemistry, and more forcefully penalize actors who breach the CWC. In addition, delegates should consider how a broader definition of chemical weapons would affect the use of chemicals for commercial and non-lethal purposes.

  • Bwozniak27
    Bwozniak27 November 9, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Indonesia
    Ben Wozniak

    Chemical weapons are some of the most inhumane, deadly weapons available. Because of this, The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was formed and ratified by all but four UN member states. The CWC bans the use and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but is too specific in its description of a chemical weapon. Many chemicals that are in themselves not lethal- not considered a chemical weapon- can be combined with others to produce a deadly chemical weapon. Another issue is with the recent developments in chemistry, the lines between chemical and biological weapons have become blurred. Indonesia is concerned by the recent developments around the world including Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons and North Korea’s use in the recent assassination of Kim Jong Nam. We are committed to stopping the use of chemical agents and believe the United Nations needs to take action.

    Indonesia is fully against the use and development of chemical weapons. Indonesia has recently been the victim of ISIS-inspired chemical attacks. We understand the dangerous effects of chemical weapons. We ratified the the Chemical Weapons convention in 1998 and have recently reaffirmed this by passing a law on “the Use of Chemicals and on the Prohibition of the Use of Chemicals as Weapons”. After Syria’s alleged chemical weapon air strike, we requested that the UN formally investigate this incident and take to court those responsible for the air strike. Indonesia believes the use of chemical weapons needs to be stopped worldwide to protect people from the deadly effects of it.

    Indonesia proposes that the United Nations update the CWC to incorporate the BWC into it. Dangerous chemicals can now be produced through biological processes. The new CWC treaty must account for non-lethal chemicals that can be created into lethal weapons. A stricter approach to the issue needs to be taken. We recommend that build up of any chemical that has the potential to be weaponized be prohibited, unless the specific purpose of the stockpile is stated. This stricter approach will help eliminate the threat of chemical weapons in the world.

  • Spdziuba
    Spdziuba November 9, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Malaysia
    Spencer John Dziuba

    The use of chemical weapons has, since the Geneva Convention in 1925, been announced as a crime against humanity. In 1997, the UN has since ratified the CWC which commissions the destruction of existing chemical weapons, and prohibits the further use of said weapons. The CWC has been criticized for its effectiveness. As well as the CWC, the UN has ratified the BWC or Biological Weapons Convention. The BWC is a resolution enacted by the UN in 1975. The BWC prohibits the use and creation of all biological weapons. However, the BWC does not require a state to verify if they have destroyed their biological weapon. Recently, in 2013, the Assad regime used chemical weapons to kill 1,000 people near Damascus. Today, North Korea has, allegedly, amassed a large stockpile of chemical weapons including VX and sarin gas. Malaysia is has been affected by chemical very recently. Kim Jong Nam, half brother of Kim Jong Un, was assassinated in a Malaysian airport, through the use of VX.

    Chemical weaponry has recently become an issue in Malaysia, with a recent chemical attack on Kim Jong Nam. On an international level, Malaysia signed the CWC 20 years ago and is now even stricter on its anti-chemical weapons policy, in light of recent events. Malaysia does not produce, stockpile, import, export or use any Schedule 1 toxic chemicals including VX and has complied with all its obligation under the CWC. Malaysia is in close contact with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), particularly regarding the recent incident involving the death of a North Korean national at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

    Malaysia recommends further effort and funding for the destruction of chemical weapons, as well as verification of the destroyed weapons. Malaysia also suggests the broadening of the CWC definition of chemical weapons to include all that have a commercial or military purpose: in order to prevent the stockpiling of legal chemical weapons, like chlorine gas. In order to address that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) does not require states to verify if they have destroyed the compounds. Malaysia encourages the merging of the CWC and the BWC, as well as requiring the verification of the destruction of all biological and chemical weapons alike.

  • Jonathanandrews
    Jonathanandrews November 9, 2017 Reply

    Jonathan Andrews
    Delegate of Rwanda
    Legal

    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    The CWC was passed to limit the amount of chemical weapons that countries have stored and manufactured. In recent years, parts of the treaty have begun to show some aging as developments in the production of chemical weapons have been made. There are several chemicals that can and are being weaponized that currently have no restrictions in the treaty. Rwanda is a signatory of the original CWC, but believes that the development, production, and stockpiling of chemicals must be placed under more limitations. The current situation in Syria in regards to the use of chemical weapons on civilians concerns us. We are ready and willing to cooperate with any efforts to rid the world of chemical weapons.
    Several past UN actions have been passed in regard to chemical weapons and their use, the first one being the Geneva Protocol. That only prohibited the use of chemical weapons, not their production and storage. The CWC was later passed to limit the storage and production of them as well. We signed the treaty on the seventeenth of May, 1993. The treaty took effect in our country starting on the thirtieth of April, 2004.
    While the CWC helps to control chemical weapons, more can be done, including revising the CWC or writing new legislature. This new legislature should include limitations on chemicals that can be used militantly that are currently not prohibited under the CWC. We are ready and willing to cooperate with any nations that wish to establish further revisions to the CWC.

  • Gsoccer348
    Gsoccer348 November 9, 2017 Reply

    UN General Assembly Sixth Committee
    Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Republic of India
    Grant Charles Centner

    Recently there has been chemical weapon attacks in Syria and Malaysia, the debate on chemical weapons has once again become a prominent issue facing the world today. Chemical weapons are weapons that use chemical substances to kill or bring harm to their targets, while biological weapons use bacteria or other organisms to kill or bring harm to their targets. The advancement of technology has brought a new weapon to the world stage, biological weapons. Not regulated under the current Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), biological weapons are regulated by the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The issue is that unlike the CWC, which requires and verifies that countries destroy their chemical weapon stockpiles, the BWC does not verify that biological weapon compounds are destroyed. To ensure the safety of all countries the United Nations must merge the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention into one document that ensures that chemical or biological weapons are regulated by the same rules and regulations.

    India was the third country in the world to eliminate their entire chemical weapons stockpile, it is of great importance that all countries destroy their entire chemical weapons stockpile. India has stated that it will never use any Weapon of Mass Destruction for offensive purposes, the indian government still needs to be prepared to defend itself “Although chemical weapons have been banned by the United Nations, it could be used by an adversary,” (Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat ). When the UN re-evaluates the CWC, they need to make sure that all countries that have signed the treaty are in compliance with it by sending agents to inspect facilities that are used to create chemical or biological. The world has seen the threat and danger of chemical and biological weapons so it is imperative that other countries destroy their own chemical weapon stockpiles as well.

    India encourages the this committee to merge the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention into one comprehensive document. This document should verify that countries who sign the treaty destroy their entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in a timely manner. The UN also would benefit from updating the definition of chemical weapons so that commercial and military chemicals such as chlorine gas and incapacitating chemical agents are covered by this document. Countries who do not destroy their stockpiles by the time that they are required of should to be met with punishments, such as sanctions on trade or their chemical and biological industries. The new Chemical Weapons Convention should also address countries such as North Korea and Syria who are stockpiling dangerous chemical weapons for offensive purposes.

  • Alex-Zvk
    Alex-Zvk November 14, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Yemen
    Alex Vankuiken
    Yemen is strongly against the production, stockpiling, and use of both biological and chemical weapons in all forms. Yemen has never used or stockpiled chemical or biological weapons before, and is a signatory of both the chemical and biological weapons conventions. Yemen’s civilians have been the victims of chemical weapons and biological weapons many times before, convincing Yemen that we must reassess the chemical and biological weapons conventions. The stockpiling of chemicals which, although can be used for non-lethal and other commercial purposes, is still problematic due to how easily they can end up being used as weapons, and biological weapons are not required to have their destruction verified under the Biological Weapons Convention. Developments in chemistry which create dangerous chemical weaponry need to be recognized early so they are not used as weaponry, and the sales of this weaponry cannot reach terrorist organizations that may use them on innocent people.
    Yemen does support the merging of the chemical and biological weapons convention, but believes there must be other provisions taken as well. Yemen feels that the trade of dangerous chemicals should be strictly regulated by governments so they do not end up in the hands of terrorist organizations that may use them against innocent people. The stockpiling of chemicals for non-lethal purposes which could be used in harmful ways should be strictly regulated or ended altogether, though Yemen is willing to consider alternatives, such as bodies independent from a state’s military being the ones who control these chemicals. Penalties need to be strictly enforced on any nation that continues to stockpile or use chemical weapons on innocents no matter what the reasoning may be. Even non-lethal chemical weapons should not be stockpiled considering how harmful they can be. The world cannot allow the continued use of such technology that has proven to inflict so much harm and suffering upon the human race, and the United Nations should do anything it can to stop it.

  • Ngrout
    Ngrout November 14, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    State of Japan
    Fishers High School
    Nicholas Grout
    The government of the State of Japan (Japan) is currently for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) mission on the destroying all chemical weapons, as well as the prevention of the making of these chemical weapons.
    The country of Japan has a history with chemical weapons. From being attacked by these chemical weapons, to the creation of chemical weapons. For the history of creating these chemical weapons, the history goes back to WWII.
    During WWII, Japan went by the name of the “Empire of Japan”. During the time that the Empire of Japan stood, it produced 5 different types of chemical weapons to use against its enemies. These chemical weapons included: phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, lewisite, diphenylcyanoarsine and mustard. The Empire of Japan employed these chemical weapons and used them against it enemies from 1937 to 1945. For those chemical weapons that were not spent, the Empire of Japan discarded the chemicals, or buried them in a multitude of different places.
    In 1947, the Empire of Japan signed its new constitution, and became known as the “State of Japan”. Since becoming the Japan the world knows our country as today, we signed into the United Nations (UN) in 1956. Furthering our stance in the UN, we signed in 1993 and ratified the signing in 1995.
    Though Japan is against chemical weapons and wishes to further the mission of the CWC in destroying and preventing these chemical weapons, Japan was attacked by these chemical weapons in 1995. A cult used a nerve gas called “sarim” to attack our people of Japan. These attackers were never identified, but the attack moved the State of Japan to strengthen our stance on the CWC.
    To help remove the chemical weapons that the Empire of Japan left behind after WWII, the State of Japan approved the creation of the Abandoned Chemical Weapons Coordinating Council (ACWCC) in 1997. To further this effort of removing and destroying the chemical weapons, the ACWCC made a group named the Technology Study Group for the Destruction of Abandoned Chemical Weapons (Study Group). The main objective of creating both these groups was to study and advance the various technologies used in the destruction of chemical weapons.

    Alfred, Charlotte. “20 Years Ago, A Shadowy Cult Poisoned The Tokyo Subway.” Huffington Pst, The Huffington Post, 20 Mar. 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/tokyo-subway-sarin-attack_n_6896754.html.
    “Japan.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, NTI, Feb. 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/japan/.
    “Chemical Weapons Program.” FAS, Federation of American Scientists, 16 Apr. 2000, https://fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/cw/.
    Metzler, John J. “Japan’s Road to United Nations Membership, 1956.” Japan: United Nations, Asia Times, 24 Dec. 2016, http://www.atimes.com/japans-road-united-nations-membership-1956/.
    “Chemical Weapons Convention.” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/.

  • Senpai152
    Senpai152 November 14, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    The Plurinational State of Bolivia
    Brandon Pham

    Chemical warfare has long been declared an instrument of destruction against mankind. Even after the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997, they still remain a pivotal topic in the international community today. The CWC has effectively prohibited the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer, and use of chemical weapons by states that are party to the treaty. However, in the ongoing Syrian Civil War, many parties have allegedly engaged in chemical warfare. Since then they have agreed to become a party to the CWC, but news reports accuse Syria of reneging on this deal and non-state actors, including the Islamic State and rebel groups, of continuously using chlorine and sulfur mustard attacks in Syria and Iraq. This issue must be addressed. If certain countries party to the CWC are allegedly going back on their agreement and engaging in the use of chemical weapons, what’s to say that other countries won’t follow suit? The violation of the CWC, by any country, is a direct threat to the safety and liberty of the Bolivian people.

    As a nation party to the CWC, the Plurinational State of Bolivia remains staunchly opposed to the use of chemical weapons. The duty of the Security Council of the United Nations is to defend multilateralism, which is what we should continue to do. Although there has never been a direct attack on Bolivia including the use of chemical weapons, we have witnessed the devastation it had upon the people of Syria. The chemical agents that serve to only hurt or harm people should continue to be prohibited, but the wide variety of chemicals used for commercial purposes should be left alone. Transparency between the UN and other countries party to the CWC is paramount. There can be no “wiggle room” for the countries to potentially violate the terms of the treaty. It must be clear, concise, and direct in order for there to be no “misunderstandings” or violations of the treaty.

    Bolivia believes the treaty should be re-evaluated. The proposal would broaden the remit of the CWC beyond member states, restricting non-state actors’ access to chemical weapons and equipment, such as compact reactors, necessary to produce toxic compounds. This body must decide whether to move forward with this proposal, direct the OPCW to more proactively regulate emerging innovations in chemistry, and more forcefully penalize actors who breach the CWC.

  • 17904
    17904 November 14, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Delegate: Abigail Zhang

    Using chemical weapons in warfare has been regarded as criminal. In an attempt to reduce the usage of chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was created. Every member state of the UN has ratified the CWC except for four. The CWC came into effect on April 29, 1997, and works to ban the creation, possession, and and use of chemical weapons in the countries that have signed the CWC. The DRC believes that chemical weapon usage should be prohibited because it is an inhumane method of killing.

    On January 14, 1993, the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed the CWC, and on October 12, 2005, it was ratified by the DRC. The DRC has also signed and ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), a treaty banning the production of chemical and biological weapons. To fully apply the CWC’s ideals in Africa, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) established a relationship with the African Union. Finally, the DRC is a member state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1970, making it a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) and does not possess any chemical weapons. All of these actions have helped transform the DRC into a more humane, safe country.

    The DRC, along with countries that do not currently use chemical weapons and have signed and ratified the CWC and BWC, believe that the use of any chemical weapons for any use should be banned. The DRC also proposes that the UN combine the CWC and BWC to better control the selling of chemical technology. Finally, the DRC suggests that the definition of chemical weapons should be clarified further to affect and reduce the use of chemicals for commercial and military causes.

  • 20HerezaMo
    20HerezaMo November 14, 2017 Reply

    Country: Senegal
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Molly Hereza
    School: Williamston High School

    Chemical warfare has been considered a crime against humanity for many years. The United Nations created the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and the transfer or use of weapons by the states that are party to the treaty. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ensures the CWC’s compliance and they have verified that they have destroyed over 90 percent of declared chemical weapons. Many countries such as China, Israel, and Russia are suspected to have stockpiles of chemical weapons and under the CWC they may stockpile chemicals that are for commercial and military purposes. However, many of these chemicals are harmful and the use of incapacitating chemical agents can also kill people.

    Senegal is deeply concerned with the use of chemical weapons and the destruction and harm that chemical weapons can cause. The country signed the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons in 1993. In August of 2002 they also developed a national commission on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Senegal has no biological weapons and they do not produce them and they do not wish to acquire the weapons or develop programs to produce them. Senegal has also banned several different harmful chemicals, such as those used in pesticides, from being put in products and then sold to people in the country.

    As a signatory state Senegal will abide by the treaties they have signed relating the use and distribution of chemical weapons. As relating to harmful chemicals Senegal is party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and wishes to have other countries ban harmful chemicals as well by disposing of the weapons. Senegal will not stand by any country who has stockpiled nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons due to the mass destruction and the loss of life they cause. Broadening the definition of what a chemical weapon it will affect what chemicals countries can and can not use. It will benefit them because people will not be consuming harmful chemicals. Senegal will be ready to work with any country who is ready to stop countries from having these dangerous weapons and ban harmful chemicals from going into circulation.

  • Matthewwedeven
    Matthewwedeven November 14, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Iceland
    Matthew Brian Wedeven

    Chemical weapons are weapons with chemicals to mutate cells and cause death by mutating or manipulating the body’s cells. They have become a major problem due to the destruction and the collateral they inflict when used. The Chemical Weapons Convention was designed to remove various stockpiles of chemical weapons, prevent the production of chemical and biological weapons, and put an end to their development. Much like the CWC the Biological Weapons Convention eliminate stockpiles of biological weapons. Over 90% of the world’s chemical weapons have been destroyed by the Organization for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons. Due to the OPCW, Russia has decreased their amount of chemical weapons from 40,000 to 20,000 and many more countries have decreased their stockpiles intensely. The removal of chemical weapons is a top priority for Iceland along with 23 other countries. Countries such as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are a major problem when decreasing the number of chemical and biological weapons due to their recent weapon tests. The removal of chemical and biological weapons remains to be a pivotal question that the Legal Committee must address. In order to make peace, all countries must come to an agreement revolving the removal of chemical weapons due to the destruction they have the possibility to cause.

    As a country with no standing military or any chemical weapons, Iceland understands the importance of ridding the world of weaponry. Iceland only fought in three wars and discontinued its standing military since then. This forces Iceland to resort to diplomatic agreements rather than waging wars to find a solution to a problem. Iceland has denied the placement of chemical weapons on Icelandic soil and will continue to do so. As a Member State of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of chemical weapons, Iceland supports the eradication of all nuclear weapons. The Reykjavík Summit even meet with President Ronald Reagan during his presidency to discuss the complete elimination of weapons within the next few decades. Numerous countries including Russia and The United States have taken initiative and have done so. In a country with little physical encounters, the Icelandic government continuously refuses any further increase in the production of chemical or biological weapons weapons. The Icelandic government heavily supports the BWC as well as the CWC and desires the combination of the two conventions.

    The United Nations must determine a way to deal with the situation revolving around the destruction of chemical weapons. Iceland’s politicians, including Iceland’s prime minister Bjarni Benediktsson, are in unanimous decision that the United Nations must emphasize the destruction of chemical and biological weapons. It is of utmost importance that chemical weapons are destroyed to limit the possibility of a future crisis. Iceland proposes that the United Nations must declare that all chemical and biological weapons are to be destroyed. To encourage the deconstruction of chemical weapons, the UN must set forth a proposal to steadily remove chemical weapons from countries as well as cease all production. The proposal consists of a cease fire from the use of weapons such as XN or sarin bombs and introduces a requirement for all plants to be disabled that produce chemical weapons. Doing this, will limit countries firepower ability when at war minimizing total destruction. Ultimately, this is the best way for the United Nations to promote peace and will save thousands of innocent lives. Without the use of chemical and biological weapons in war, civilian casualties will drop because these weapons are not accurate and have high levels of collateral. This decision will allow countries at war to delve in more diplomatic approaches rather than launching a global war.

  • Sarah-Skaleski
    Sarah-Skaleski November 14, 2017 Reply

    November 11th, 2017
    SUBMITTED TO: Legal
    FROM: Namibia
    SUBJECT: Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
    Sarah Skaleski

    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was developed to destroy a classification of weapons that have the potential to lead to mass destruction. The CWC prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer, and use of chemical weapons. 192 state-parties have ratified the CWC, including Namibia. The country of Namibia recognizes the importance of the CWC for its goal is to protect all nations, including their own, from the dangers that chemical weapons present to the global community. Namibia believes it is their responsibility, as an engaged nation in the international community to promote the protection of all countries, and ensuring that the goals of the CWC are met, addressed and clearly stated. Namibia highly enforces that all countries who believe in retaining and keeping the international peace are to take part in the CWC and look to update sections of the treaty to ensure its success to protect all nations from the potential dangers of chemical weapons.

    The CWC was last updated in 1997, and went into effect on April 29th 1997. From the moment the CWC was set into the place of international law, questions have arisen about whether it has been too vague on its policy and regulation of chemical weapons. Many loopholes in the CWC allow for stockpiling of chemical weapons for military and commercial use as long as they are not used to inflict harm. Cases where a chemical can have a completely harmless commercial use but when used in its militant form it can cause large amounts of harm and destruction, go almost unregulated by the CWC leaving room for countries to possess dangerous weapons. As a result, these nations pose an international threat to armed forces, peacekeepers, infrastructure and more. Not to mention, they put civilians in harm’s way. In order to update the CWC to contain more regulatory measures regarding the uses and limitations of chemical weapons world leaders must discuss what powers the CWC should receive and the bounds it may take to protect all nations from the dangers of chemical weapons. Problems also arise as recent updates in science have led to problems determining the difference between chemical and biological weapons. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), which the country of Namibia is close to joining, deals with biological weapons and is much less specific in its regulations than the CWC, even though biological weapons are not proven to be any less dangerous or harmful. This leads to problems with regulating weapons. If a country believes the weapon is biological then it is subjected to much less regulation, compared to a weapon believed to be a chemical weapon. What defines a chemical weapon? What defines a biological weapon? Who should decide the weapon classification, do we leave it to the individual country to decide or have a standard system that all nations must comply to? Should biological and chemical weapons be handled with the same regulations? Should the CWC and BWC be merged? If they are not merged how will nations determine the difference between the two? Most importantly, what ways can the CWC be amended to be more in control of the uses of chemical weapons so that international safety is secured?

    The CWC parties meet every 5 years to discuss and review the progress of the CWC, but little has been changed since the treaty was put into action, despite the numerous problems that have arisen from the treaty’s vagueness and limited control of the regulation of chemical weapons. In 2002 the United States made reports of police enforcement in Moscow Russia, using “non-lethal” chemicals in an enclosed theater during a hostage crisis. Russian officials used a gas that killed a total of 117 hostages. Reports strongly suggested that the gas used was a version of a “non-lethal” chemical modified to have much stronger effects. The reports remain tentative because Russian officials refused to offer samples of the gas used, and would not offer information about its content. The CWC did not regulate or record any of the chemicals used in the attack nor did they enforce Russia to provide the information. For this reason, Nambia believes that a resolution that updates the CWC needs to include clauses that are regulatory and limit the use, production, and stockpile of all chemical weapons, while clearly defining what a chemical weapon constitutes. A resolution should include specific definitions stating the difference between chemical and biological weapons and what regulations apply to their use. A resolution should include a way to merge the CWC and BWC or to clearly define the difference between each convention, so there is no uncertainty of what regulations apply to what weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are becoming more similar and can have similar impacts and use, because of this they should have similar regulations and controls. Resolutions should not leave loopholes for countries to escape the regulations and punishments of using chemical or biological weapons against permitted uses.
    The CWC’s goal must be to monitor, protect, and regulate a clear and specific system to monitor chemical weapons, this is necessary for the protection and safety of all counties.

    Namibia looks forward to building a strong resolution and working with all members of LEGAL to succeed in creating the means for all nations to come together and create a successful chemical weapon free world

    Sources
    Judith Miller And William J. Broad. “U.S. Suspects Opiate in Gas In Russia Raid.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/world/hostage-drama-in-moscow-the-toxic-agent-us-suspects-opiate-in-gas-in-russia-raid.html.

    “Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention – GLICA.” GLICA, http://www.modgear.net/glica17/hello-world-4/.

    “Namibia Makes Headway towards Full Implementation of Chemical Weapons …”Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/news/article/namibia-makes-headway-to-full-implementation-of-chemical-weapons-convention/.

  • Vipuladu
    Vipuladu November 14, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re Evaluating The Chemical Weapons Convention
    United States Of America
    Nagasai Vipul Adusumilli

    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which is an organization based in The Hague, Netherlands. The treaty entered into effect in 1997. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of chemical weapons. Any chemical used for warfare is considered a chemical weapon by the Convention. Some chemicals such as Chlorine are deemed safe under the CWC but using it as a weapon is illegal. The CWC allows stockpiling incapacitating chemical agents (ICAs) like chlorine. Due to recent developments in chemistry, biological and chemical weapons have been perceived as the same thing. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) does not require states to verify if they have destroyed the compounds, meaning states secretly have biological weapons. Biological and Chemical weapons can not be manufactured but places such as Syria still make them. These weapons should have been destroyed in 2012 as Syria claimed but have not.

    The United States of America believes Chemical and Biological Weapons must be banned for warfare from all countries. We are going to destroy ours by 2023 and already have destroyed nearly 90% of all our chemical weapons. We have signed and ratified both the CWC and the BWC. We believe they can be used only for industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical reasons as stated in the CWC. We believe merging the BWC with CWC, as suggested by some policymakers, will be a commendable idea because it would further enforce the banning of Biological Weapons to states that have not signed the BWC. We have attacked Syria to destroy their Chemical weapons because Syria has been using Chemical Weapons such as Sarin on its’ people. Syria has signed and ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture. This means Syria cannot harm or torture their citizens with any weapons which they have done. We believe there should be consequences for these actions. Other countries such as South Sudan have signed the CWC but have not ratified it which alarms some states. We believe the definition of Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons should be adjusted since new advancements in chemistry and biology have been made which help the greater good. Non-usable chemicals in the CWC are defined as “any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.” We believe Schedule 1 chemicals should be banned while Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 may exist only for scientific purposes and that we should limit the stockpile of these chemicals in countries based on their previous history with these weapons.

    We would like to see the UN impose sanctions on countries that have used these weapons and urge them to destroy biological and chemical weapons as soon as possible. We would like to see the UN merge the CWC and the BWC together in order for states to understand the severity of both weapons. We recommend other countries to help financially or with military power to destroy these weapons. We further hope to broaden the definition of chemical weapons.

  • Sethwoodbury
    Sethwoodbury November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Kingdom of Swaziland
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Seth Woodbury
    School: Williamston High School

    Chemical weapon warfare has been deemed illegal and as one of the most inhumane tactics of war. Dating back to 1860, chemical warfare began after the invention of a highly toxic chemical gas called sulfur mustard and was exploited by the Germans during the battles of World War I. Since then, many other harmful chemical weapons such as nerve gas and hydrogen cyanide have surfaced; chemical weapons are classified under eight different categories according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: blister agents, blood agents, nerve agents, riot control agents, potential chemical weapon agents, mustard agents, psychomimetic agents, and toxins. However, recent chemistry and biology advances have questioned what the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention encompass; currently countries can possess Riot Control Agents, Potential Chemical Weapons, and possibly even illegal Toxins because they are not required to report to OPCW. The terms and limits to these conventions are arguably outdated and must be brought up to modern standards to encompass the constantly expanding chemistry and biological advances as well as defining what makes a chemical viable for commercial purposes. In addition, new methods for enforcing and regulating chemical weapons must be established.

    Swaziland is a current member of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and 1925 Geneva Protocol. Although Swaziland has never possessed large quantities of chemical or biological weapons, many countries around it, such as Sudan, have had recent outbreaks or problems with these weapons. This poses a threat to the Kingdom of Swaziland because these chemical weapons could possibly be smuggled into the country or used against Swazi people. Swaziland seeks to prevent a potential conflict involving chemical weapons within the country or around it. This is especially urgent and relevant now because chemical weapons are being distributed and used in neighboring African countries like Sudan.

    The delegation of Swaziland is a strong supporter for the complete abolition of all chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore, Swaziland would like all harmful chemicals for commercial purposes to be deemed illegal for maximal protection and minimal risk of chemical weapons ever resurfacing. Thus, the terms of the CWC and BTWC must be updated to encompass all harmful chemicals and these terms must be enforced more strictly by requiring every country to undergo regulation and inspection that all biological and toxin weapons are destroyed. Swaziland would like to partner up with its fellow African nations, especially Sudan, to ensure that Africa can be completely annihilated of chemical and biological weapons. Swaziland would like to help work with countries like Sudan who are struggling with the problem to ensure a better future.

  • Lillywaterfall
    Lillywaterfall November 15, 2017 Reply

    SUBMITTED TO: Legal
    FROM: Botswana
    SUBJECT: Chemical War

    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is a party that requires its members to destroy the production of chemical weapons and the facilities that hold them. Following Botswana’s entrance into the CWC in 1998, problems have arisen about the clarity of the convention. We have found some loose ends within the convention that need to be more clearly explained and place harsher restrictions on certain chemicals due to the severity and harm that could possibly be placed on one another to keep safety and security within this convention. Botswana wants to ensure that no slip ups could possibly be made due to loopholes, and we must be aware of the chemicals, chemical combinations, and weapons used to administer them, that could do harm to others.
    Botswana has no room, or tolerance for the use, or making of chemical weapons or any lethal, inhumane ways of warfare. One of the ways we have taken a step to promote the safe eradication of chemical weapons is passing the Chemical Weapons Bill. The main objective of this bill was to focus in and ensure there is no way around the development, production, stockpiling and transfer of dangerous chemical weapons and/or related material. As we are a part of the CWC, we must add clarity and provisions of the convention and help take a role in the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and implement new provisions and ideas on the CWC convention. We know that some state parties have expressed a concern that we, as Botswana may have a domestic issue with the manufacturing and trafficking of chemicals that could possibly be used in warfare. We want to reassure that the reason for our postponed actions and provisions was not due to our lack of support to either the CWC or OPWC, but to ensure we were wholly aware of ratifications, provisions and cautions we have taken recently to ensure Botswana has no place with chemical warfare.
    The signing and enforcement of this bill now is laying down a legislative framework with more instructions and guidelines designed specifically for Botswana so the control and prevention of the use of chemical weapons is minimized to none and can be effective for us. In our country, those who disobey may face life imprisonment and various other punishments regarding what level of violation. We also have inspectors ready to search and questions factories and areas as needed and you must allow the inspector to access to any area. Punishments for these actions are non negotiable. Creating, manufacturing, and transferring chemical weapons of any source (against the ones we have listed as against the law) is a terrifying act within our country and for others around us.
    Botswana has already ratified the CWC, but within our we have implemented ways within our country to have stronger restrictions. We will continue to implement and enforce rules, follow through with inspections, and safely destroy chemical factories within Botswana and will successfully zero out the use of any dangerous chemicals that could harm/ our/ other societies. We are strongly against the use of chemical weapons, but, in anyway we can cut down on Syria’s use of chemical weapons and how we can be sure that the instructions and guidelines are followed through.

  • EthanChu123
    EthanChu123 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Canada
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    School: Williamston High School
    Delegate: Ethan Chu

    The international committee has long deemed chemical warfare as a crime against humanity. This has resulted in the creation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to prohibit the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling,a retention, transfer, or use of these weapons. At this point all but four members of the UN have agreed to these policies. After 20 years the destruction of 90% of declared chemical weapons stockpiles has occurred, but the line between chemical, biological, and inbetween has been become undefined and almost nonexistent. Countries like Syria, DPRK, Islamic States, and rebel groups have repeatedly used these weapons and have stockpiles too. For these infringements and confusion on classifying weapons several proposals have been made to include new weapons that are harder to be classified. One of the major ones is to fuse the CWC and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) to better control Chemical Weapons that can be also accepted as biological or toxin Weapons. The other major proposal is to just have these weapons “doubled regulated” making regulations enforced two times more than a normal regulated weapon.

    Canada in the past has supported the CWC with its attempts to weaponize chemical weapons in countries like Syria. Canada has not just helped with the CWC to support the destruction of chemical weapons though. Canada has also spent $2.5 million to strengthen the investigation into Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile through the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), along with another $25 million in 2012 to destroy Libya’s and Syria’s chemical weapons and support special missions and contingency operations related to chemical weapons. Canada has continued to provided significant contributions to be used in destroying chemical weapons and related activities in countries. These fundings from Canada’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program builds on Canada’s position as one of the largest national contributors to global efforts to end chemical weapons in Syria. Also through Canada’s WMD Threat Reduction Program (WMD TRP) Canada has supplied even more funding into the assistance in destroying Libya, Syria, and Russia’s chemical weapons.

    Canada will continue to fund efforts and groups that will work to destroy chemical weapons in the international and national communities. Canada will also continue to support any new amendments, laws, and policies the CWC will have. Furthermore, Canada will continue to support the international community’s goals to deter and detect the illegal use of chemical weapons against any and all citizens of the global community. Canada will fully comply with the CWC including reporting and yielding to international inspection of all infrastructure as outlined by Other Chemical Production Facilities(OCPF). This helping to support the elimination of the crime against humanity known as chemical weapons.

  • Reianz
    Reianz November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Iraq
    Name: Reian Zhang

    From the first full-scale deployment of the deadly chemical warfare agents during WWI, it has been a critical issue. Because of the pain and suffering that was experienced by the soldiers of WWI, it was justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world. Therefore, in order to ensure the ban on chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was created. Iraq, who recently joined the CWC on February 12, 2009, agrees to prohibit the use of chemical weapons.

    Due to the instability of the Middle East, Iraq has used chemical weapons to defend its country. Although Iraq has used both chemical and biological weapons under the Saddam Hussein regime, Iraq today has no active chemical and biological programs. Iraq displays that they want to comply with the OPCW by declaring that there are “two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities (CWPFs).” In addition, all of the bunkers and the chemical weapons production facilities are not in service and do not contain chemical weapons that can be used. Furthermore, ISIS and their use of chemical weapons against Iraq should be stopped immediately.

    Since Iraq no longer uses chemical or biological weapons, we believe that the United Nation should merge the BWC and the CWC in an updated treaty. Iraq wants the ban on all chemical and biological weapons, whether it be lethal or non-lethal. In addition, it is necessary that the new proposal would broaden the remit of the CWC beyond member states, restricting non-state actors’ access to chemical weapons and equipment. With more defining definitions of what constitutes chemical weapons, there should be no misunderstandings. Therefore, a more serious consequence should be implemented if any country decides to use chemical or biological weapons.

  • Mccarthyk
    Mccarthyk November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Cambodia
    Katie McCarthy

    Chemical weapons caused problems on both sides of battle during World War I. Following this event In 1925, the Geneva Protocol was passed to prohibit the usage of these devices during warfare. However, this document had flaws that lead to devastating outcomes, including the genocide during WWI and the huge developments during the Cold War. In 1992, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was enacted to only watch these weapons when being used against people. This still leaves a problem of regulating all potential chemical weapons that could lead to mass destruction. More recently, a serious concern in the handling of chemical weapons has been made following modern advancements in chemistry. The practice of these devices has grown to biological processes which are not closely monitored by the CWC or the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC.) Therefore, solutions have been proposed to solve this along with the flaws of previous protocols. These plans consist of combining the two conventions which would lead to a more strict policy in terms of restricting certain access to the devices.

    Cambodia has been one of the 189 nations to ratify the CWC. It was the ninth country of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to join this convention. Cambodia, along with the rest of ASEAN, are working with this committee to provide more regulation and security within all members of the party. They are also trying to develop a plan that will ban chemical weapons globally and prevent the spreading of more through time. In contributing with the CWC and being a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the country of Cambodia, along with all the time other members receive benefits. If given a threat by an outside force that breaches the convention’s protocol, they are entitled to assistance through the CWC. As one of the countries with the lowest gross domestic product (GNP), Cambodia appreciates this help. As a member of this party, Cambodia agrees that the usage of such chemical weapons need to be monitored and eventually banned worldwide.

    Cambodia has more recently had a national meeting to discuss their stance on chemical weapons. They have decided to destroy all chemical weapons in the northeastern part of the country, along the border with Vietnam. After doing so, they faced problems with radioactive and nuclear contaminants. The country is constantly working to improve these plan in ways that don’t harm the environment in the future. In international terms, Cambodia recommends the unity of the CWC and BWC to create a stronger regulation process. This would restrict chemical weapons from unauthorized personal which would ultimately lead to a more secure system with stockpiles reduced per country.

  • Ludwant
    Ludwant November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Brazil
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Anton Ludwig
    School: East Grand Rapids High School

    Chemical and biological weapons are some of the greatest threats to humanity’s well-being. They pose a serious, uncontrollable threat if allowed to proliferate, and have the potential to wreak destruction and chaos if they fall in the wrong hands. Therefore, organizations like the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) are essential to ensuring the safety of every nation’s citizens.
    Brazil is ready to take every action necessary to keep chemical and biological weapons from being used. Brazil believes in the power of organizations like the CWC and BWC, but would like to see more liability in member countries. There should be some method to ensure compliance in member nations, so that joining these organizations is not an empty promise. Brazil is also open to the possibility of merging these two organizations, as this would pool more resources and authority in one place.
    While Brazil agrees with the current definition of chemical and biological weapons as defined by the CWC, Brazil believes it is imperative that there be a clear guideline on the ingredients of chemical weapons and their other applications. Many substances are used in other contexts, but can be an ingredient that is necessary to manufacture a certain chemical or biological weapon. These substances must be identified, as well as regulated to ensure that they cannot be used for harmful purposes. However, there must not be any hindrance to using the substances in their correct manner. With these goals in mind, Brazil is open to reforming the CWC and BWC, as well as the guidelines surrounding these terrible weapons.

  • GrantSizemore
    GrantSizemore November 15, 2017 Reply

    11-15-17
    SUBMITTED TO: Legal Counsel
    FROM: Republic of Chad
    SUBJECT: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

    The Republic of Chad, having signed the first chemical weapons convention and, having had first hand experience with the effects of chemical weapons and chemical warfare, find it very important that the current chemical weapons convention get either re-evaluated or more strictly enforced. While each nation has their different views on the topic of chemical weapons, one thing that we can all agree on is their ability to cause mass destruction and death.

    We as a committee must pose important questions if we plan on making any progress or changes. The biggest question the Republic of Chad would like to pose the committee is, Has the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibited the possession of chemical weapons? One question we must ask to ensure a solution is, What criteria must we have on the use and possession of chemical weapons? Another vital question we must ask is, Can we fix the problems of the Chemical Weapons Convention or do we need to create a new Convention that meets our demands and expectations of chemical weapons?

    The Republic of Chad is excited to get the chance to say their peace on chemical weapons and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Republic of Chad feels that as a committee we need to instate that no nations should be allowed to have possession of chemical weapons, due to the amount of devastation they can cause. The Republic of Chad also feel that as a committee we need to entice or provide punishment to the nation who possesses chemical weapons to get rid of them. If theses expectations can not be implemented into the current Chemical Weapons Convention then we as a committee need to make a new one that meets those expectations and the expectations of other nations.

    The Republic of Chad is very excited to get to work with all of the other delegations on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Republic of Chad hopes that our expectations can be met and that we can work with all of the other delegations to progress and make this world a safer place.

    • avatar image
      Grant Sizemore November 22, 2017 Reply

      Grant Sizemore
      Royal Oak High School

  • Kayzubkus
    Kayzubkus November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Reevaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Bangladesh
    Forest Hills Northern High School
    Kay Zubkus

    The use of Chemical Weapons for mass destructions in one of the most inhumane and repulsive crimes against humanity. In response to all of the damage they have caused, the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 (going into effect in 1997) prohibited the development, production, compiling, and use of chemical weapons. For the past twenty years the CWC treaty has helped to destroy 71,000 million metric tonnes of chemical agents have been destroyed as well as having 188 nations ratify the treaty, 2 signed but not ratified, and only 5 nations separate from the CWC. However, being that the treaty is aging, there are more accommodations that need to be met for present day chemical weapon issues. Bangladesh is completely against the development and use of chemical weapons, and is for the amending of the CWC so that modern chemical developments can be included for the prevention of loopholes in the treaty.

    In response to the CWC, Bangladesh took its own preventative measures against the use of development of chemical weapons in joining the OPCW along with the majority of the nations that signed the treaty. To make sure that nuclear weapons were not a problem in Bangladesh, they joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNT) as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Bangladesh has taken multiple preventative measures to prohibit the development of chemical weapons in their country, but they hope that this is soon to be customary in other countries in the fast approaching future.

    Bangladesh recommends the continuation of funding for the destruction of chemical weapons as well as for the continual search for alternate agents that could be used for chemical weapon construction in the future. They also believe that the CWC’s definition of chemical weapons needs to broadened and refined for modern chemical developments. It should also include the prohibition of chemical weapon use for military purposes since it is currently not included in the CWC.

  • Musicsong01
    Musicsong01 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Ms. Jordan Bick
    Fishers High School
    Syrian Arab Republic
    LEGAL- Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

    On 14 October 2013, the CWC entered into force for the Syrian Arab Republic, making it the 190th State Party to the treaty. The CWC is an arms control treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Today, the Syrian Arab Republic is in the midst of a civil war involving chemical weapons. This war has been in effect since the Arab Spring beginning on March 15, 2011. Since then, there have been three ceasefires. Each ceasefire was followed by foreign and domestic forces that forced their hands to continue striking. Some of these forces include the rise of Islamic extremist groups, interventions from foreign governments, and unresolved issues in the country. The Republic is now in a position where chemical warfare may help to throw the civil war and end it once and for all.

    To make an agreement, the Syrian regime and the insurgents in the area would have to agree to a ceasefire to allow for independent inspections that allows the OPCW to make a determinative judgement about the perpetrator of the attack. Syria would not agree to these terms, therefore this solution would be ineffective. The government and the rebels have both made it very clear that they want the best for their country, and will use as much force as needed to come to a consensus. They will not give up their chemical weapons until the war is ended and the government can be sure that the weapons are no longer necessary. The fact that other countries continue to interfere and rile the people does not help the situation at all. Syria does not have the manpower to fight a military battle, and with the constant threat of terrorism, one can never be too careful, especially when Syria is one of the countries the Islamic State has already invaded. With more foreign intervention, civilian casualties continue to rise. In short, Syria is in between a rock and a hard place, with not a lot of time to think and plan other alternatives. Syria would like to give up all its chemical weapons, but it cannot because of the difficulties that the country still faces.

    One thing that the delegation of Syria would like to see discussed is complete state sovereignty over the matter, without the use of military force from outside nations, such as in Article 4, Section 11, Article 8, Section A, Subsection 5, and Article 10, Section 8. Also, a more detailed plan of how to confiscate and deal with weapons for countries in national crises, like Article 1, Section 1, Subsection A and Article 5, Section 13, and giving more time to such countries to develop a plan of disarmament. Instead of being as specific as possible, Syria suggests a more general approach to the disarmament plans of the State Members of the CWC, like Article 3, Section 1, Subsection 5 and Article 4, Section 7 of the CWC agreement.

    Sources include:
    “Syria’s Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Enters into Force.” OPCW.org, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 14 Oct. 2013, http://www.opcw.org/news/article/syrias-accession-to-the-chemical-weapons-convention-enters-into-force/.
    “Syria and the OPCW.” OPCW.org, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/special-sections/syria/.
    Borger, Julian, et al. “Syria Pledges to Sign Chemical Weapons Strategy and Reveal Scale of Stockpile.” The Guardian, 10 Sept. 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/russia-un-syrian-chemical-weapons.
    Stein, Aaron. “It Didn’t Have to Be This Way: Finding Leverage in Syria.” War on the Rocks, War on the Rocks, 12 Apr. 2017, http://www.warontherocks.com/2017/04/it-didnt-have-to-be-this-way-finding-leverage-in-syria/.
    Haidar, Jadd. “Syrian Civil War.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Nov. 2017, http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War.
    “Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.” OPCW.org, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/mission/.
    “Q&A: Syria Chemical Weapons Disarmament Deal.” BBC.com, BBC News, 30 Jan. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23876085.
    “Syria Accepts Russian Plan to Surrender Chemical Weapons Stockpile as Strike Momentum Eases.” CBS News, CBS Interactive Inc., 10 Sept. 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-accepts-russian-plan-to-surrender-chemical-weapons-stockpile-as-strike-momentum-eases/.
    Harigel, Gert G. “Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment.” Wagingpeace.org, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 22 Nov. 2001, http://www.wagingpeace.org/chemical-and-biological-weapons-use-in-warfare-impact-on-society-and-environment/.
    Fitzpatrick, Matthew. “Five Reasons Military Intervention in Syria Is Wrong.” Abc.net.au, ABC News, 28 Aug. 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/fitzpatrick-syria/4918406.
    Darwish, Musood. “How Foreign Intervention in Syria Has Made Everything Worse.” Egyptianstreets.com, Egyptian Streets, 3 Nov. 2015, http://www.egyptianstreets.com/2015/11/03/how-foreign-intervention-in-syria-has-made-everything-worse/.
    Laub, Zachary, and Jonathan Masters. “Syria’s Crisis and the Global Response.” CFR.org, Council on Foreign Relations, 11 Sept. 2013, 2017, http://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/syrias-crisis-and-global-response.
    Fisher, Max. “Why the Syrian Chemical Weapons Problem Is So Hard to Solve.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/middleeast/why-the-syrian-chemical-weapons-problem-is-so-hard-to-solve.html.
    Plumer, Brad. “Everything You Need to Know about Syria’s Chemical Weapons.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Sept. 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-syrias-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.d22ef9283b2c.
    Erickson, Amanda. “Which Chemical Weapon Was Used in Syria? Here’s What Investigators Know.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Apr. 2017, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/06/which-chemical-weapon-was-used-in-syria-here-are-some-clues/?utm_term=.f41be3ebe9ba.
    “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.” State.gov, United States State Department, 13 Jan. 1993, http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/127917.htm.

  • MattCatchick
    MattCatchick November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Tajikistan
    Matt Catchick
    First and foremost, the Nation of Tajikistan is fully against use of chemical weapons. Tajikistan signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on January 14th, 1993, and entered ratification/accession on January 11th 1995. Tajikistan also joined the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on January 11th 1995. The nation of Tajikistan is also party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) gaining ratification/access on June 27th, 2005. Tajikistan houses no chemical, nor biological weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are seen as a crime against humanity, and thus far have been effectively kept out of the nation of Tajikistan. During the era of Soviet Russia, Tajikistan had worked under the USSR Ministry of Health to deal with public health-related services and tasks, including the formation of the Anti-Plague (AP) System. The AP System opened in 1956, Dushanbe. Despite relations to Soviet biological weapons program, there is no evidence supporting the AP worked on any biological or chemical weapons. Still to this day, the AP system stands in the nation of Tajikistan, with no biological or chemical weapons in relation to it. Tajikistan does possess the resources to industrialize chemical or biological weapons, but will not now nor in the future proceed to do so, because the nation of Tajikistan recognizes the use of chemical weapons is illegal, and inhumane.
    Tajikistan recognizes the danger in possessing components used to build these deadly weapons, therefore, we support strict regulation and monitoring of access and transportation of said components/chemicals. The nation of Tajikistan is also in favor of combining the CWC and BWC. This will allow closer regulation of all aspects of biotech and chemical industries thereby curtailing illegal production. In expanding the reach and coverage, Tajikistan recognizes that a broader definition of biological and chemical weapons must be considered. We must also consider the impact of the use of these chemicals commercially, since broader definitions and stricter regulations may burden industry. A closer eye to detail, a harsher punishment, and regulating as well as maintaining chemical innovations should make for a safer and better pact.

  • Will_Mester
    Will_Mester November 15, 2017 Reply

    November 11, 2017
    SUBMITTED TO: Legal
    FROM: The Republic of Cuba
    SUBJECT: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

    The Republic of Cuba sees chemical and biological weapons as dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It is very important to Cuba that all chemical and biological weapons are eliminated. Cuba believes the Chemical Weapons Convention has done a remarkable job in working to reduce use of chemical weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons. The same cannot be said about biological weapons because they are hardly mentioned in the convention. Cuba also believes that the definition of chemical weapons needs to be made clear so that states aren’t using them for lethal purposes.
    With this being said, how can we include biological weapons in the chemical weapons convention? Are there other documents regarding prohibition of biological weapons we can reference? And how can we broaden the definition of chemical weapons to reduce the amount of lethal chemistry research?
    Cuba believes we can address these questions in 1-2 thorough resolutions. One regarding biological weapons and the other creating a new definition for chemical weapons. A good resolution will use uncompromising timeframes to ensure the reduction of biological weapons in all states. A good resolution will create a broad enough definition for chemical weapons so that all states are clear on what is/isn’t ok in chemical research.
    Sources we can use for the inclusion of biological weapons include the resolutions from the Biological Weapons convention like the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction Resolution A/RES/71/87. As a committee, we can review these documents and see if there is the potential for a merger between the two or at least some more inclusion of biological weapons in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Sources for defining chemical weapons could come from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or from merging specific chemical weapon related terms.
    Cuba, again, urges the committee the importance of the topic as it has killed thousands worldwide. For Cuba to consider the committee successful we must cover not only biological weapons, but also cover the redefining of the term chemical weapon with a more broad description. Cuba looks forward to working with other delegates to create 1-2 strong resolutions that thoroughly cover the issue mentioned before.

    • Will_Mester
      Will_Mester November 22, 2017 Reply

      November 11, 2017
      SUBMITTED TO: Legal
      FROM: The Republic of Cuba
      SUBJECT: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
      NAME: William Mester

      The Republic of Cuba sees chemical and biological weapons as dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It is very important to Cuba that all chemical and biological weapons are eliminated. Cuba believes the Chemical Weapons Convention has done a remarkable job in working to reduce use of chemical weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons. The same cannot be said about biological weapons because they are hardly mentioned in the convention. Cuba also believes that the definition of chemical weapons needs to be made clear so that states aren’t using them for lethal purposes.
      With this being said, how can we include biological weapons in the chemical weapons convention? Are there other documents regarding prohibition of biological weapons we can reference? And how can we broaden the definition of chemical weapons to reduce the amount of lethal chemistry research?
      Cuba believes we can address these questions in 1-2 thorough resolutions. One regarding biological weapons and the other creating a new definition for chemical weapons. A good resolution will use uncompromising timeframes to ensure the reduction of biological weapons in all states. A good resolution will create a broad enough definition for chemical weapons so that all states are clear on what is/isn’t ok in chemical research.
      Sources we can use for the inclusion of biological weapons include the resolutions from the Biological Weapons convention like the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction Resolution A/RES/71/87. As a committee, we can review these documents and see if there is the potential for a merger between the two or at least some more inclusion of biological weapons in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Sources for defining chemical weapons could come from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or from merging specific chemical weapon related terms.
      Cuba, again, urges the committee the importance of the topic as it has killed thousands worldwide. For Cuba to consider the committee successful we must cover not only biological weapons, but also cover the redefining of the term chemical weapon with a more broad description. Cuba looks forward to working with other delegates to create 1-2 strong resolutions that thoroughly cover the issue mentioned before.

      • Will_Mester
        Will_Mester November 22, 2017 Reply

        This Position Paper has been submitted by William Mester from Royal Oak High School, The Cuban Delegate, to the Legal committee.

  • Ecbonnell
    Ecbonnell November 15, 2017 Reply

    Argentina
    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Ethan Bonnell

    Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons are some of the most dangerous weapons in human history, capable of destroying lives and cities efficiently and inhumanely. And the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) were important steps in securing the safety of all those around the world who could be in danger of these weapons. But as science has advanced, the weaknesses of these agreements being to show.

    There are four states which are non-signatories to the CWC, and more which are non-signatories to the BWC, though the process of becoming a signatory has begun in many of those states. But while the CWC does a good job regulating chemical weapons for its signatories, non-signatories are free to store chemical weapons without fear of repercussion. And this can be potentially hazardous, as we saw with the actions of Syria in the past decade. Argentina believes it would be beneficial to expand some parts of these agreements to all countries, which would make it easier to regulate the storage of chemical weapons for all states and for non-state actors. It would also be beneficial, in the opinion of Argentina to combine the CWC and the BWC in order to better stop countries from utilizing loopholes in regulations about the destruction of chemical weapons to keep stocks of weapons legally. Third, Argentina would recommend that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) better ensures compliance with any new regulations in the storage of chemical weapons that also may serve a commercial purpose as to prevent countries from potentially stockpiling dangerous chemical weapons for military use under the guise of industry.

  • MoeOmran
    MoeOmran November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Mohamed Omran
    The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
    Forest Hills Northern
    The nation of Jordan is a strong advocate of the CWC, Jordan was one of the first nations to adhere to the convention and have continued following protocol since the official ratification in 1997. Jordan is disappointed to see the continued possession and use of chemical weapons, such as sarin and sulfur mustard, in their neighboring nation of Syria. Syria’s use of chemical warfare against its own people creates not only a human rights violation, but also exposes Jordan to potential illicit transshipment of illegal substances. Jordan believes that in order to create peace in the middle-east, nations possessing harmful chemical weapons must dispose of their weapons immediately, and join the Chemical Warfare Convention. The treaty of the CWC has found itself to be ineffective due to the list of nations not participating, as well as a lack of consequences for the nations who refuse to join.

    Improvements could be made if the CWC were to be written so that biologically toxic chemicals are included, this would force nations to dispose of their biologically toxic chemicals if they’re being held. The CWC should also be adjusted so that military use of chemical weapons is banned as well, as this is not stated in the current version. The lack of clarity in the usage of toxic chemicals for commercial or violent remains an issue as chemical weaponry is not a subject where a lack of clarity may be deemed acceptable. Lives are at stake and there need to be serious changes in the CWC to ensure no more lives are lost in chemical warfare. These proposed changes will help prevent the continued use and harboring of chemical weapons in any country, ensuring no more lives are lost in inhumane techniques.

    Syria believes an absence of toxic chemicals in the middle-east will ensure less torment to the people of the Arabic region, which has seen great death ad suffering over the course of recent history. Unity in the middle-east creates less death, and if major nations such as Iraq, Syria, and Israel were to dispose of their chemical weapons, we would be more willing to discuss and negotiate solutions to the problems plaguing the middle-east. However, none of this can happen until the Chemical Warfare Convention of 1997 is massively improved upon.

  • Luisv.
    Luisv. November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Convention
    Norway
    Luis F. Vazquez

    Chemical weapons have been an increasingly growing topic for concern with new chemical compounds being constantly created .It is important to recognize these new developments and to make sure they are regulated.The biological and toxic weapons convention and the chemical weapons convention have tried to address this topic of chemical weapons and biological weapons.The CWC has been able to have all but 3 countries sign the treaty (being Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan) and 1 country has signed but has not ratified (Israel). Although the CWC has made great strides to regulating and controlling these weapons the CWC does not regulate biological weapons which is where the BWC steps in. The BWC do help in having countries sign into the agreement of outlawing biological weapons,but does not require states to verify if they have destroyed compounds which are identified as being biological weapons.

    Norway understand the importance of regulating chemical and biological weapons. We make sure that our country’s ability to help is used at its highest capacity. Our help in this field of topic is seen by The 2013 Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons By the chairman of the Norwegian parliament elected Nobel Peace Prize Committee (Thorbjørn Jagland) for defining “the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law”.If we had the resources to help more in the fight against the regulation of biological and chemical weapons, right now, we would. For example we were given the opportunity to help the U.S. in destroying syrian chemical weapons but we came to the conclusion that we did not have the necessary regulatory requirements and capacity.We are also part of the the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. So as a resolution to help countries who do not have the ability to contribute the necessary resources in fighting biological and chemical weapons, we believe that the merging of the CWC and the BWC would be in order. By Merging the CWC and the BWC it can achieve a higher level of security worldwide as well as allowing and making it easier for smaller countries to contribute to the cause .

    Norway proposes that it would be most beneficial to merge the CWC and the BWC to ensure that the regulation of new chemical and biological compounds being created is not left alone but instead constantly being checked to ensure security around the world. The purpose of merging the CWC and the BWC should be so smaller countries have an easier opportunity to help and assist the regulation of chemical and biological weapons. While creating a pathway to help smaller countries assist the BWC and the CWC is necessary, it should also be assured that Countries who might not be in the proper state to help are not forced to help.

  • Laurenea
    Laurenea November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Warfare
    Country: Pakistan

    On the 28th of October 1997 Pakistan ratified the Chemical Warfare Convention (CWC). Pakistan does not admit to the production of chemical warfare, but it does consume chemicals that can be utilized for producing chemical arms. Under the CWC Pakistan was required to to open its installations for inspection. On the 19th of February 1999 UN inspectors visited Wah Ordinance Factory, On report says the Pakistani government had dismantled the chemical plant in the factory, the earth was dug up quite deeply after the plant was dismantled, and it was followed by a leveling of the land.
    Even though Pakistan ratified the CWC, intelligence believe they have manufactured weapons for blister, blood, choking, and nerve agents. Pakistan has numerous aerial bombs, missiles, and artillery. Its is as well developed than India but it is believed that it will be just as capable in time. Pakistan has numerous industrial chemicals, including but not limited to soda ash, caustic soda, sulfuric and hydrochloric acid. Most of the chemicals are acquired through imports from the United States, the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Holland, and France.
    Pakistan believes that countries that supply them with industrial chemicals like the United States and the U.K. would stand with Pakistan because, they are gaining economically by supplying Pakistan with the chemicals. Pakistan would like to continue with the current regulations, if not loosen them.

  • Haquez
    Haquez November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Qatar
    Zaid Haque

    Using chemical weapons is considered on of the most derogative crimes against humanity. The chemical weapon attacks in Syria has risen the debate on chemical weapons has once again become a prominent issue facing the world today. Chemical weapons are weapons that use chemical substances to kill or bring harm to their targets, while biological weapons use bacteria or other organisms to kill or bring harm to their targets. With the advancements of technology, chemical and biological weapons pose a stronger threat to society. Qatar acknowledges and supports the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), stating the need for elimination of weapons of mass destruction and prevention of acquisition.

    Qatar ratified the CWC on September 3, 1997, marking it at the time as one of the ninety-eight states that have already deposited their accession. Furthermore, Qatar condemns the usage of chemical weapons by any party. In 2012, Qatar attended the Organization of Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) where we agreed to open the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Training facility under OPCW presence in Doha, Qatar. This helps address chemical threats and peaceful uses of chemistry. In addition, we commend the efforts made by OPCW and support the investigations of the chemical attacks on Syrian civilians.

    The main goal of Qatar is to support the implementation of the CWC and also promote other systems that combat against the use of weapons of mass destruction. Qatar believes that a complete disarmament of chemical weapons is necessary to obtain peace within the nation. In addition, Qatar recognizes stockpiling of chemical weapons and that the removal of these stockpiles is quintessential.

  • Phungjohncity
    Phungjohncity November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Belgium
    John Phung

    As we reexamine the use of chemical weapons in the 20th century, Belgium suffered in WWI due to its unexpected interactions with the first time use of chemical weapons hurting million of soldiers and civilians in the European region. Belgium still finds more than 200 tons of active munitions while 5% of are chemical weapons. Belgian actively cooperates with Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) through its discovery and disarmament of those chemical weapons through the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company of the Belgian Army,

    One of Belgium’s most notably policies against chemical weapons was the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Belgium signed in 1968 and ratified in 1975. In this treaty Belgium heavily emphasized the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the ultimate removal of all nuclear weapons and the international cooperation to limit their use of chemical weapons. As an active member of the Chemical Weapon Conventions (CWC) since 1997, Belgium’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs oversees the reports of such chemicals demonstrating Belgium’s transparency to the CWC and its full cooperation to the convention. In addition Belgium is a part of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Biological and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BTWC) which aims to prevent the spread of deadly disease through any means. Belgium believes toxic biological agents that carries deadly disease, viruses, or bacteria should never be possessed by any country. In addition, Belgium deposed a proposal of amendment to the Rome Statue that regulates the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order to qualify the use of biological weapons for war purposes. To maintain this international peace Belgium ask other delegations to limit the proliferation weapons and adding stricter legislation for the use of chemical or biological weapons to prevent this expansion of mass destruction that we have witnessed in the 20th century. Belgium hopes that the production of chemical weapons are reduced therefore we ask other delegations to continue to actively cooperate with the CWC to eliminate the use of any biological agent capable of causing massive mortality rates.

  • RTalla
    RTalla November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention Philippines
    Rushil Talla

    Since the beginning of the 20th century, chemical weapons have been used in full-scale deployment to kill mass populations, starting with Germany’s use of chlorine gas in the first world war. After that, many other countries followed by making more chemical weapons such chlorine, phosgene, mustard gas, and nerve gases and using them as weapons of war. Millions of people died because of the use of chemical weapons during wars or because the government needed to control its people. During the Holocaust of World War II, Germany used many chemical weapons, such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, and killed millions of Jews. Also, during the war, Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were hidden in caves and tunnels near the Adzhimushkai quarry, and after about three months of hiding, the caves were gassed and all but a few of the civilians asphyxiated due to exposure to the gas. After noticing how easily hidden and how fast chemical weapons could kill someone, the countries formed the Chemical Weapons Convention in order to put an end to the lethality of chemical warfare. According to the CWC, any chemical that is used as a weapon is considered a CWC and all countries are to dispose of them safely. However, the CWC has a major flaw. Some deadly chemicals are not listed as chemical weapons because they have many uses other than murder, such as chlorine. This is a large issue because it gives countries the power to keep chemicals that could be used as weapons of mass murder.

    The Philippines has seen the destruction that chemical weapons can do, and although there have not been any chemical weapon attacks inside the country, they know that one could happen at any time and would like to prevent one from happening by broadening the definition of a chemical weapon. The chairman of the committee on national defense and security said, “In our modern society, the use of chemical weapons, especially by non-state actors such as terrorists, poses a grave threat to international security,” as a reason to dispose of chemical weapons and create laws against them. Out of the interest of protecting the people, the government signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Senate passed legislation that validated and enforced it. The legislation set imprisonment for violating the CWC from one day to a lifetime based on the magnitude of the offense, and there was a fine of between two and five million pesos. The Philippines joined the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 1997. This organization hosted a workshop in July 2017 to raise awareness of the proliferation of chemical weapons and the risks they pose to global security so people would stop producing them. The representatives at the workshop discussed the implementation of the requirements and prohibition set by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    The Philippines would like to propose that the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention should be combined and the definition for a chemical weapon should be revised and broadened in order to provide a more effective regulation for chemical weapons. So far, a chemical weapon is only defined as a chemical compound that is used solely for killing people. Chemicals that are deadly and have potential to kill people, but are used in manufacturing, such as chlorine, should be put under watch for abuse. There should be laws that make sure people don’t abuse the deadly chemicals and murder someone. The people responsible for using the chemical for murder should be denied access to the chemical, placed under governmental probation, and put in jail for at least 10 years. A resolution that defines a chemical weapon with a broad definition and effectively restricts the use of chemical weapons will prevent the death of many people and increase international security.

  • Jaziegler00
    Jaziegler00 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-evaluating the Chemical Warfare Convention
    Algeria
    Jack Ziegler
    Algeria is a country in the northwestern region of Africa which was given independence in the year 1962. Algeria was granted independence from the Country of France and have been independently making decisions ever since the 1960’s. One of the decisions that Algeria has had to make in the past 50 years is our stance on the ever-growing number of countries that possess chemical weapons; if Algeria would choose to cooperate with them or go against the countries that do support the use of chemical weapons. In the grand scheme of things, having a particular stance on chemical weaponry is very important to a country because of the continually growing number of countries that are increasing their chemical weapons in anticipation of a possible nuclear or chemical war.
    Algeria is not believed to possess a chemical weapons program. Algeria ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on August 8th 1995, and is an active Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) member. The Chemical Weapons Convention is a multilateral treaty that bans chemical weapons and requires their destruction within a specified period of time In June 2007, Algeria hosted a workshop on the Chemical Weapons Convention to encourage African countries to join the treaty. Since the year 2007, Algeria has had no further involvement in the area of chemical weapons and has not expressed any change in heart or mind regarding their stance on the topic.
    Algeria believes that a solution to the continuous problem of chemical warfare is for the countries that have not yet signed the treaty to go and do so, as Algeria strives for a world that does not use chemical weapons in the act of war. Algeria would heavily lean towards the total destruction of chemical weapons in all countries instead of countries still having chemical weapons and not using them.

  • Calebgreene7
    Calebgreene7 November 15, 2017 Reply

    UN General Assembly 6th Committee
    Determining whether it is necessary to Re-Evaluate the Chemical Warfare Committee
    Australia
    Caleb Jeffery Greene

    Australia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in January 1993 and ratified it in May 1994. Australia has abided by the regulations set by the committee. Australia has disposed of all of its chemical weapons, with the exception of a few World War II era chemical weapons which are immediately reported to the OPCW. However, they did stockpile Chemical weapons including mustard gas, phosgene, lewisite, adamsite and CN gas, in which were later disposed of. The United Nations needs to address this major issue and other countries need to discard of their chemical weapons, as Australia has already done. Australia wants to rid the world of these weapons for the good of humanity.

    Australia has seen the devastation that has occurred due to chemical weapons and is committed to solve the problem. Australia currently opposes chemical weapons and is currently an active player in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is working to end the production and use of chemical weapons. They are also part of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires the destruction of existing weapons and bans the development, production, possession or use of chemical weapons. Australia passed the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act in 1994, which is actively working to end chemical weapons. The CWC needs to come together and sign a new resolution to make chemical weapon restrictions stricter.

    Australia recommends that the United Nations and the rest of the world works to end chemical weapons production and use. We have been actively supporting the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and abiding by the regulations set forth by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention needs to convene to further solidify and expand the definition of a chemical weapon and also develop new and improved ways to stop them. Also, the Biological Weapons Convention should gather to update the definition of a biological weapon and discuss joining the two conventions. Australia would support a resolution to end chemical weapon use and production, and recommends that the international community do the same.

  • Jarichards
    Jarichards November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Greece (The Hellenic Republic)
    Joseph Richards

    Greece, along with over 192 state-parties believe that the use of chemical weapons in warfare is a crime against humanity. The ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), enables the prohibition of the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, or transfer or use of chemical weapons in countries that are in compliance with the treaty. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has verified the destruction of over 90 percent of what was during the time declared as a chemical weapon. Currently the definition of a chemical weapon is a specialized munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on humans. However, the continuing and escalating problem in Syria has provided new motivation for an expansion of the definition of a chemical weapon, and Greece is opening broadening that definition to include ICAs and anything else that would limit the use of such weapons.

    Chemicals such as chlorine and sulfur mustard may not necessarily be a chemical weapon in themselves however the chemical is lethal and has been used on dozens of occasions in recent history. Greece does not in any way support the use or development of chemical weapons of any kind and believes that any countries that hold stockpiles of these materials should be monitored and if the material are used for any kind of warfare the United Nations should take actions to prevent it.

    Greece fully supports funding for the destruction and decommissioning of chemical weapons. However, the means in which chemical weapons are destroyed is an issue that deeply concerns Greece. Greece is concerned that if the syrian chemical weapons in the Mediterranean are destroyed in the wrong way that it could potentially turn one of Europe’s most popular vacation hot spots into a graveyard of high toxic agents. The seizing and proper removal of these chemical weapons is supported by Greece however they must be destroyed in a manner that does not negatively affect the environment.

  • Asherlock
    Asherlock November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
    Forest Hills Northern High School
    Alison Sherlock

    Ethiopia has a long and complicated history with the use of chemical weapons, notably during the second Italo-Ethiopian War in 1935-36. Chemical weapons have had an absolutely devastating impact on our people as well as the rest of the world. While the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has done a lot to end the use of chemical weapons, we must keep in mind that it was written in 1997 and the world has changed beyond compare to when the CWC was originally written.

    Ethiopia believes that the CWC should have greater provisions that support underdeveloped nations get rid of chemical weapons. Getting rid of chemical weapons can be an expensive process that many countries cannot afford. Ethiopia also recommends that the CWC should be revised to include provisions for counties that have chemical weapons that were left behind by an invading force. Ethiopia still has mustard gas that was left by Italy during the second Italo-Ethiopian war and from Somalia during their invasion. Countries that leave chemical weapons in other countries need be held responsible for their past actions.

    Ethiopia has led in Africa in stopping the spread of chemical weapons, we have created a program to train border agents in searching for smuggled chemical weapons. We look forward to seeing a united Africa. We are hopeful that through diplomacy all countries can reach a solution that is beneficial for all.

  • Nweller1
    Nweller1 November 15, 2017 Reply

    United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Côte d’Ivoire
    Nathan Weller

    During the 20th century, approximately 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical weapons agents. Chemical weapons blister and choke the nerves and can clog the blood of the body. Over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, there have been multiple attacks involving chemical weapons, all of which led to death in some form. For example, the 1995 Tokyo Subway sarin gas attack killed nearly a dozen people, and left at least 5,000 others injured. This attack is one of a smaller amount of attacks over the past century, and attacks have occurred in other countries and conditions as well. All but 4 member states, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Israel, of the United Nations have signed and/or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) over the years of 1993 to 1997. In order to truly limit or prohibit the production and use of chemical weapons, the United Nations must redefine what classifies something as a chemical weapon by broadening the definition in order to make it include those weapons that are currently claimed to be biological weapons.

    Over the recent years, chemical weapon attacks have not been an issue in Côte d’Ivoire, nor have they ever been, but remain an issue in other parts of the world. Côte d’Ivoire has signed and ratified the CWC in January 1993, and is a member state of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Côte d’Ivoire, as a member of the OPCW strongly encourages the stoppage of stockpiling, development, production, and usage of chemical weapons. Although chemical weapon attacks in the modern world have not occurred often, they are extremely lethal when they do occur. Côte d’Ivoire wishes to broaden the definition of a chemical weapon to make it include biological weapons. Although chemical weapon attacks in the modern world are rather rare, they are extremely lethal when they do occur.

    Côte d’Ivoire encourages the united nations to broaden the definition of a chemical weapon in such a way that it combines the CWC with the BWC (Biological Weapons Convention). This would classify chemical and biological weapons under the same category, and get rid of loopholes being used by non-signatory countries. Côte d’Ivoire would like to see the countries that have not signed the CWC discard of their chemical weapons along with the broadened definition of a chemical weapon. Côte d’Ivoire would like this new resolution to be signed and ratified by all member states, and be placed into effect in all member states.

  • Jeev3s
    Jeev3s November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Bhutan
    Delegate: Rajeev Nag, FH Northern HS

    Chemical weapons are any toxic chemicals that contained in some sort of delivery system, such as a bomb or shell. These weapons can cause blisters, choking, nerve damage, or many other things. The effects of these weapons are always felt immediately after being exposed. Chemical weapons were officially banned on April 29th, 1997 when the CWC or Chemical Weapons Convention was formed. The CWC not only banned the use of chemical weapons, but also the possession of them.
    Bhutan is committed to combating terrorism as it is a great threat to national and international peace and security. Because of this, they have signed numerous treaties to combat terrorism. On August 18th, 2005, Bhutan ratified the CWC, and then went on to become a member of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on September 17th, 2005. Bhutan does not possess, manufacture, or trade chemical weapons, believing that they are unnecessarily harmful during wartime.
    It is extremely important that chemical weapons should be banned because they add a barbaric twist to an already horrible event- war. Chemical warfare should not be tolerated; The after effects of these weapons are horrendous and can last for a lifetime. In World War 1, many exposed to mustard gas had burns outside the body, and blisters on their lungs. After World War 1, countries began to see how horrible these weapons were, and banned them. Of all the members of the UN, only 4 have not signed the CWC. Completely banning chemical weapons is a necessity as they are inhumane.

  • 18statteka
    18statteka November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Germany
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Kathleen Stattelman
    School: Williamston High School

    It is widely recognized that the use of chemical weapons has historically brought massive amounts of destruction to civilization. However, while this is a commonly held notion amongst the vast majority of nations, there have been increasing disasters regarding the use of such weapons in countries such as Syria and North Korea. While great advances have been made in eradicating much of the existence of chemical weapons and their use, new grey areas have arisen in just what qualifies as a chemical weapon and the proper methods to address state and non-state actors in the use and distribution of such materials. With the changing times of violence in the Middle East and North Korea, the Chemical Weapons Convention and its current legislation and policy have become dated.

    Germany understands that advances need to be made in holding nations accountable for their commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention without furthering tensions. Additionally, Germany concurs that the current understanding of what constitutes as a chemical weapon needs to be modified to take into account other dangerous materials such as chlorine and white phosphorous munitions. Germany, like most nations, operates on the consensus that the use of chemical weapons presents a crime against humanity. For this reason, Germany has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and has been working with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Warfare since 2014, supplying two million Euros to the cause and providing training for OPCW staff and transport to Syria. Additionally, Germany has assisted greatly in destroying chemical weapon reserves in Russia, Iraq, and Libya. Germany has also allotted logistical support in verifying newly declared weapons. Germany views the threats that accompany the presence of chemical weapons and notes the potential danger of the possession of such weapons by non-state actors such as the terrorist group Al Qaeda. In these cases, the threat is no longer localized and serves as a danger to the West. Germany also serves as a state of party of the Biological Weapons Convention and fully supports their initiative to abolish the use and presence of such weapons.

    As Germany has been such an active participant of the Chemical Weapons Convention and supporter of the Biological Weapons Convention, it is in support of the efforts to combine the bodies, and thus maximize both forces. Germany acknowledges that the goal is to minimize to the fullest extent the presence of dangerous weapons, and therefore seeks to collaborate with like-minded nations to provide new terminology and policy that would properly recognize the extent of the different forms of chemical, biological, or other weapons. With these initiatives in place Germany would hope to witness increased regulation of the distribution of these weapons by both state and non-state actors to ensure the safety of all global citizens. Germany proposes to create unifying legislation that addresses the measures taken by nations against non-state actors within their domains. Germany seeks the collaboration of all members of the European Union and any nation affected by the threat of non-state actors containing chemical Weapons.

  • Hsanchez134
    Hsanchez134 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    People’s Republic of China
    Mark Sanchez

    Chemical weapons serve as one of the great international concerns. With the Chemical Weapons Convention aiming prohibit the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties. States Parties, in turn, must take the steps necessary to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction. However, as with many things, this convention has failed to keep up with the technology of the present, and many new chemicals circumvent the restrictions laid out in the Chemical Weapons Convention. With the news of chemical assaults in countries such as Syria and Malaysia, this issue must return to the forefront of the United Nations minds.

    It is true that in the past the People’s Republic of China has created various forms of Chemical Weapons. However, in compliance with the CWC, the People’s Republic of China has since converted this facilities into civilian use. While China is not for the use of chemical weapons, by anyone and for any reason, China does feel that in the case of Syrian Chemical attacks, an impartial investigation is warranted to reveal who the true perpetrator is before any major action is taken. As proof to China’s commitment to the CWC, the OPCW has performed over 300 inspections in China that prove the removal of what few chemical weapon sites used to operate within the State.

    In the future, China would hope to re-evaluate and refurbish the CWC to prevent more modern technologies from escaping the jurisdiction of the convention. In addition, China would like to call for the insurance of an impartial investigation protocol for whenever a chemical or otherwise deadly technology is used internationally.

  • Jpetruska111
    Jpetruska111 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating The Chemical Weapons Convention
    Vietnam
    Joey Petruska

    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the use of chemical weapons for military purposes. Today the CWC is enforced by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This organization, while limiting the creation of chemical weapons for military purposes, still allows lethal chemicals to be sold and manufactured commercially. The introduction of Biological weapons have made us aware that the original CWC has become outdated.

    Vietnam is one of the countries with the most experience of dealing with chemical weapons, primarily Agent Orange, during The Resistance War Against America (Vietnam War). We are strongly opposed to it’s use in any medium, be it commercial or martial. Biological weapons are a strong reason to revise the CWC and update it.

    Vietnam knows firsthand the absolute atrocity that is known as chemical weaponry. Seeing as though Biological weapons may have a similar effect, Vietnam only sees it appropriate that the BWC and the CWC merge to prevent it’s destruction. Vietnam does not believe that any country should use chemical weapons for any reason. We are also open to introduce some more strict policies regarding Chemical Weapons

  • Rafaelpaz
    Rafaelpaz November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Sweden
    Delegate: Rafael Paz
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: REEVALUATING THE CHEMICALS CONVENTION

    With science growing at the rate that it is, it would be unrealistic to eliminate the use of chemicals. Working with chemicals, through biological and chemistry methods, have brought massive innovations: medicines, compounds, weapons, and much more. Sweden has generally accepted the use of chemicals, however our intentions follow closely to those found in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Compared to most countries, we are more accepting of newer developments in fields of biology and chemistry, so long as they are beneficial. However, creating lethal tools and weapons are greatly resented by our country.

    This issue with the reevaluation of the Chemical Weapons Convention is determining whether or not to emphasize its regulations and punish those who breach the CWC. Today, several nations possess stockpiles of chemicals, where weapons seem more popular than commercial purposes. With chemistry growing at a rapid rate, the use of chemicals in multiple fields has become popular around the world. Some advancements in chemistry include new drugs (medicine) and renewable forms of energy, however, some nations have gone in other directions producing and improving lethal weapons. Restricting access to chemistry and equipment can potentially lead to barriers for economic development. Innovations in chemistry are fundamental to developing countries, especially when a nation lacks the resources other countries have.
    Sweden encourages further development in areas of chemistry, however, as a nation we work with other governments to ensure that existing international conventions are implemented. In essence, we hope for world peace and use disarmament methods as a step towards this. Despite our disarmament aims, we welcome the use of chemicals for commercial and non-lethal purposes. Our intentions are to encourage promote economic growth, development and sustainability. Reinforcing chemistry encourages the creation of new medicine, equipment, and tools resulting in a more sustainable development. Merging the CWC and BWC (Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention) brings tighter regulation on what chemicals are accessible, and developments that could be made.

    In order to move forward with this proposition, Sweden suggests the following:
    Increase supervision on the more dangerous products: weapons, lethal chemicals and dangerous reactions
    Promote the advancement of Chemistry so long that its purpose is beneficial towards sustainability and development.

    Work Cited:
    http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/statements/pdf/SE_en.pdf
    https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/C-21/national_statements/Sweden_csp21.pdf
    http://www.swedenabroad.com/en-GB/Embassies/Geneva/Sweden–the-UN/Disarmament-and-Non-proliferation/
    http://www.swedenabroad.com/en-GB/Embassies/Geneva/Sweden–the-UN/Health-and-Development/
    http://www.government.se/government-policy/sweden-and-the-un/swedens-priorities-in-the-un/

  • Janerob
    Janerob November 15, 2017 Reply

    Robert Janes
    Legal
    Re-Evaluating The Chemical Weapons Convention
    Italy
    When the Chemical Weapon Convention was formed, its main role was to prevent chemical weapons being used in wars. While this seems like a good idea at first, the execution of it was poor. Today chemical weapons are still being used in places such as Syria. Italy would like to see stricter enforcement of the CWC to prevent further use of chemical weapons.
    Italy is strongly opposed to the idea that people are still able to buy and sell components of chemical weapons with little to no regulation. Italy urges the UN to add components of chemical weapons onto a watchlist to prevent stockpiling. Doing this would make it nearly impossible to create more chemical weapons. Italy would like to see countries that currently haven’t signed the CWC to sign it, ensuring the safety of the global community.
    Italy would also like to see the CWC and BWC to merge to ensure the complete safety of the globe. Each of these are good on their own, except if combined the two would be much stronger. Italy urges countries and the UN to try to combine the two. If the two can’t be combined, Italy would like to see something about biological weapons added to the CWC. The CWC is a stronger document, and if biological weapons were added to it, it would cover all bases when it comes to the dangers facing chemical warfare.
    Italy urges the UN and member nations to increase national security regarding chemical weapons. Whether it be with components of chemical weapons or combining CWC and the BWC. Doing this keeps the global community safe from the devastating result of chemical warfare.

  • Br481216
    Br481216 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Portugal
    Committee: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Topic: International Intellectual Property Rights
    Delegate: Matthew Russell
    School: Williamston High School

    Since their Genesis chemical weapons have always caused soldiers on the battlefield a great deal of harm and an undo amount of suffering. World War I showed the devastating power as well as the horrible repercussions of using chemical weapons. As they are considered a weapon of mass destruction chemical weapons have been held by some nations especially those who are not able to effectively produce nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons have also been unjustly deployed against civilian populations especially in the form of mustard gas which dates back to World War I. Chemical weapons poses a great danger to the world and especially civilian populations. Many nations have taken steps to avoid chemical weapons however some have used them openly in their arsenals. 1 used chemical weapons have had terrible and inhumane effects of pain the populations of where they were used.
    Portugal completely denounces the use, development and research of chemical weapons. Being part of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Portugal is also party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Portugal has always steered chemical weapons as far away from our borders as possible, even the regulated transport of chemical weapons is frowned upon.
    Portugal advocates for a plan that calls for the complete dismantling of all chemical weapons as well as a ban on all research of chemical weapons. Portugal believes it is the duty of all Nations to put a complete end to the production, use and research of all chemical weapons. Portugal advocates for the creation of a specialized committee of the UN to deal with the destruction of chemical weapons as it is a complex task. Portugal would expect to see support from every nation in the EU, North America and all countries that are party to the CWC and the BWC.

  • Brekenhummel
    Brekenhummel November 15, 2017 Reply

    Uruguay
    Breken Hummel
    Grand Blanc High School
    Legal
    Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

    The Chemical Weapons Convention is a decades old agreement between most of the major countries in the world in agreement for the banning of the use, sale, trade, and stockpiling of chemical weapons. These chemical weapons are those use to kill or harm humans. However, states are not recognized by the convention and are still allowed to stockpile chemical weapons. Chemical weapons have been deemed a crime against humanity in the convention, but since the convention is old, it is time to re-evaluate some of the decisions made. Many countries and states have found ways around and even broken the convention in the use of chemical weapons, so changing this policy may be best for humanity as a whole.
    The use of chemical weapons is bad for humanity, and Uruguay agrees. As a developing country, Uruguay does not have an extremely strong military and cannot defend itself easily against possible imperialist interests. In the CWC, Uruguay is recognized as a state, which is in our best interest. Allowing the stockpile of chemical weapons by Uruguay serves as a sort of shield against bigger, more developed countries taking advantages of the poor state the country is in. Uruguay’s yearly gross domestic product is just above $50 million, and is falling. Uruguay’s main source of income comes from the service industry. This is because of how inherently undeveloped Uruguay is. Allowing Uruguay to stockpile chemical weapons may allow for us to strengthen our economy without being taken advantage of by larger countries, as it is clear is already happening. Once Uruguay is stable enough to be recognized as a country by the CWC, we will be glad to join, since the use of chemical weapons is not something we condone; however, allowing us to stockpile them acts as a shield. Uruguay is already a part of an organization against the use of chemical weapons.
    Uruguay proposes that the CWC recognize developing countries as states to allow for the development of these countries. We also propose that the CWC strengthen its restrictions on what classifies as a chemical weapon, since as of now the ruling is too loose and there have been developments in science since the convention was established. The punishment for breaking this agreement should be significantly harsher since many countries still find the benefit of using these weapons outweighs the detriment of the punishment of the committee.

  • KamlewisFHPS
    KamlewisFHPS November 15, 2017 Reply

    Re-Evaluating Chemical Weapons Convention
    Re-Evaluating and Laws On What Chemical Weapons Are
    Honduras
    Kameron Lewis

    When chemical weapons first came into war they were mainly just gases set off in enemy territory that when inhaled can harm and kill an individual. Gases such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas were deemed unethical in war but now other chemicals with pharmaceutical benefits. Chlorine is normally just a cleanser for pools, hot tubs, etc. but when turned gaseous it becomes highly toxic. Along with that other chemicals can be used for illumination purposes as well, but again when it turned into a gas it becomes deadly when inhaled. This became a problem so we created the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to regulate these incapacitating/deadly agents. Although over 90% of the countries initially approved and signed; all but four countries have ratified this convention causing problems in the stockpiling of these agents.

    Honduras is apart of the CWC to help prevent these unnecessary weapons. We hope to edit and enforce more rules in the CWC as well as make it harder to not be apart of it. Some of the recent attacks in Syria should be a red flag to show we need more regulations on these chemicals. Honduras hopes that other countries join and aid in the regulation/banning of these agents. We cannot do this ourselves so we hope to gain insurance and help from other countries in steps to legitimize these laws. We push for a chemical weapon free world for war, but also hope to list what chemicals can be used for incapacitating and crowd control agents.

    Honduras hopes that we are going to be able to restrict the amount of chemicals with deadly attributes. The UN needs to start taking action on the stockpiling of these chemicals along with the ability to obtain incapacitating agents. We hope to ban these weapons for they cause mass chaos, anger and can not target just soldiers. It can attack and kill anyone who inhales them,

  • Ristaue1
    Ristaue1 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Submitted To: UNGA Sixth Committee (Legal)
    From: The Russian Federation
    Subject: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
    Delegate: Emma Ristau
    School: Royal Oak High School

    To pursue international peace is to have faith in the international process. To protect global security with any remote seriousness is to respect the international rule of law. To attempt to augment pre-existing mechanisms without first fulfilling them is to reject all of the above. The Russian Federation understands the gravity of these ideas, and views the Chemical Weapons Convention through no other lens. In order to adequately realize the principles of international security, mutual enrichment, and inclusivity which underscore the UN, we must believe in international frameworks.
    As the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, we are tasked with deciding whether we want to believe in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia itself believes, having destroyed 100% of its declared chemical weapons stockpiles three years prior to its 2020 deadline. Russia has honored Article VII of the Convention, enacting a national plan for implementation, where many States Parties have yet to do so. The Russian Federation takes pride in its meeting and exceeding of CWC expectations.
    The key issues that Russia has not seen reconciled in the current implementation of the CWC is universality of membership, incomprehensive fulfillment of Article VII, and the politicized actions of the OPCW. Russia’s belief in the CWC holds despite these faults; the Convention’s failures of full implementation are not irreconcilable. As far as complete universality of membership, Russia has faith in the possibility. For example, Russia was a key facilitator in Syria signing the CWC, which marked a momentous step in the global pursuit of CW prohibition. From this we know universality is possible, which not only resonates symbolically, but also pragmatically. If the Sixth Committee proceeds in broadening the definition of chemical weapons, the opposite of such resonation is achieved; the expansion of a not yet universal definition drives nonmember States further from the table, and even further from ratification. Why would we purposely work to alienate and exclude States? What incentive does the United Nations have to stifle inclusive, constructive dialogue?
    True universality of the current CWC is compromised in other ways, like the lack of implementation of the abovementioned Article VII. Without a large portion of national legislatures integrating the CWC into their own contexts, the CWC’s full potential is curbed. Why would we deem the CWC as it stands inadequate when it isn’t even being fully realized? The merging of the BWC with the CWC would make national implementation less likely, with its stricter and expanded expectations. The merger will detract from imminent progress toward universality of the CWC.
    Finally, the flaws of the OPCW compromise the potential of the existing CWC. As evidenced by the recent UN-OPCW investigation in Khan Sheikhoun, the OPCW has been selective, inconsistent, and generally erroneous in fulfilling its mandate. In not investigating the site of the alleged chemical weapons usage, the OPCW outrightly violated a procedure fundamental to its mandate, specifically the “chain of custody” principle of investigation. Russia has been outspoken in the UN GA on multiple occasions about the OPCW’s failures to be objective, non politicized, and thorough in the case of the Khan Sheikkoun investigation. When and only when we hold the implementing parties of the CWC accountable, namely the OPCW, to meet the standards required (i.e. Article VIII (A) (5) and Article IX (3)) can we reap the full benefits of the Convention. Opening up the CWC to absorb biological weapons is counterproductive, as the implementation standards cannot be met with chemical weapons now. We must first reassert the necessity of the OPCW’s objectivity and complete fulfillment of its investigation procedures, and ensure that investigations are invariably compliant with the CWC’s high standards. The quality of implementation must precede the widening scope of the Convention on the Legal Committee’s priority list. If not, we fail the international process, and grow more estranged from the goal of the very document we “enhance”.

    The Russian Federation is optimistic that the Legal Committee’s work will reflect a commitment to the international system, and looks forward to discussing the matter further in committee.

  • Creitenour
    Creitenour November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Chile
    Cooper Reitenour

    Chemical warfare is a major crime in many nations. Chemical weapons will burn, paralyze and possibly kill any human they come into contact with. This is possibly one of the most inhuman ways of war. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has been in effect since 1997. There goal is the prohibit the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. All but 4 UN members have ratified the CWC. the CWC has so far declared the destruction of 90% of Chemical weapons but is working to demolish all of them.

    Chile is strongly against chemical weapons. Chile recently co-hosted the OPCW (organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons) and has ratified the CWC. In the opening of the meeting the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alberto van Klaveren Stork stated that chile is fully against chemical weapons and the implementation for them. Chile believes that all chemical weapons should be destroyed and and chemical warfare is a crime. To destroy the chemical weapons they take them to a supervised destruction facility. Again chile is strongly against chemical weapons and chemical warfare and will persecute those with them in their country

    I look forward to talking to the other members of the CWC to see there takes on chemical weapons. I Also am Looking forward to talking the the country’s that have not ratified the CWC to see why they have not yet done it and to see their side of chemical warfare and if they ever will ratify the CWC.

  • Chloewendlandt
    Chloewendlandt November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: France
    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Chloe Wendlandt
    School: Forest Hills Central High School

    Chemical weaponry is a constant threat to world peace and ultimately, the safety of mankind. Since World War I, chemical weapons such as mustard gas and chlorine have been used to kill thousands of people at once. With the introduction of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, countries involved in the treaty are prohibited to produce any chemical weapons and be involved with them in any way.

    France is currently a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and as a result is not known to possess any chemical or biological weapons. France believes that the eradication of chemical weapons will lead to a better protected world. Because of this belief, France is prompting a move toward international disarmament of these types of weapons.

    In direct response to the chemical weapon situation in Syria, French President Emmanuel Macron has stated: “Any use of chemical weapons would results in reprisals and an immediate riposte, at least where France is concerned.”

    Summarily, France believes that the use of chemical weapons is inhumane and a threat to world peace and the general safety of its citizens, as well as those from other countries. France would like to work with other countries in the Legal Committee that believe in peace through the destruction of any and all chemical weapons to create a resolution that will hopefully bring more stability to all countries that are members of the United Nations.

  • BennyFink
    BennyFink November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Saudi Arabia
    Benjamin Finkelstein

    The use of chemical weapons of any type strongly goes against the beliefs of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands by its Islamic foundation to protect the well-being of all humans and stop powers of evil with equivalent justice. The Kingdom now, more than ever, backs the Chemical Weapon Convention (CWC) and supports the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in hopes to bring an end to the inhumane delivery of genetic altering chemicals onto mass human populations.

    Saudi Arabia seeks an end to the use of chemical weapons on humanity, specifically by terrorist groups. Governments should not be forcefully altered by outside groups, but by diplomacy and negotiation. Foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir stated, “Saudi Arabia will continue to counter terrorism in all forms and manifestations.” The Kingdom iterates its determination to use any means necessary to halt the terrorism opposing the established Yemen government.

    In recognition of advancing technology and innovation, the Kingdom hopes to further counter the use of chemical weapons by redefining chemical weapons in the CWC. Additionally, Saudi Arabia seeks a resolution that will inflict stricter sanctions on non-member states, including terrorist organizations who continually build their stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

    The Kingdom advises a renewed presence of OPCW to better impose restrictions on large governing bodies, whether they or members or not. Saudi Arabia aims to meet terrorism with equal justice, and elsewhere looks to improve the current CWC and strengthen the OPCW to monitor all regions that exhibit a concerning circumstance.

  • Asantos
    Asantos November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons
    Country: South Korea

    Chemical weapons are a huge problem around the world and many people have died because of them. The UN took a step forward to get a hold of this problem by creating the CWC. Following this, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was made and as of 2016 has worked to destroy 90% of known chemical stockpiles. There was a large progression in both the CWC and the OPCW until recently when North Korea and multiple other countries have begun amassing large stockpiles of nerve agents. Many countries can get away with continually making certain chemical weapons as the definition of a chemical weapon was vague and they could technically continue to make it for commercial and non-lethal reasons. BWC was also created to control biological processes that can have a hold of toxic compounds; however the problem is getting worse and the definition of chemical weapon needs to be more specific as to make these organizations be more proactive toward avoiding chemical warfare without interfering with the use of chemicals for non destructive purposes.
    The Republic of Korea believes that these three organizations are not doing enough as to keep people safe from chemical weapons. More rules and regulations should made so as to avoid the easy production of dangerous weapons in multiple countries like North Korea. We have received constant death threats from North Korea and the amount of weapons they have a hold of is deadly. We remind the international community that North Korea serious threat to not just us, but the world and we urge them to accede to the CWC. The Republic Of Korea is willing to contribute to any resolution dealing with the denuclearization of North Korea.

  • 09884
    09884 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Panama
    Vicksburg High School

    The use of chemical weapons has been labeled as a crime against humanity. In 1997 the Chemical Weapons Convention was put into place, prohibiting the use, creation, and stockpiling of chemical weapons and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (active as of 2016) has helped confirm the destruction of left over chemical weapons. While this has been effective to an extent so far, the definition of chemical weapons is narrow and the CWC only prohibits lethal or harmful chemical weapons. It leaves the use of weapons such as chlorine gas, an extremely toxic gas, as means of crowd control.

    The use of these weapons has been seen through lax eyes and need attention drawn to them. In recent years, many deaths have been caused by weapons such as chlorine gas or incapacitating chemical agents, and yet, they are still not registered as lethal chemical weapons.

    In recent years, the lines between chemical weapons and biological weapons have blurred, and while the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention prohibits the use, making and stockpiling of biological weapons, there is no way to verify the destruction of such weapons. There have been proposals to review both the CWC and BWC, and merge the two into a new and updated treaty to broaden the weapons categorized, and further limit the accessibility of these weapons. The Republic of Panama agrees with the re-evaluation of the chemical Weapons Convention, and would not be opposed to discussing the proposals at hand. Panama looks forward to meeting and discussing such important topics in committee.

  • Rthapa01
    Rthapa01 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Afghanistan
    Rashane Thapa

    Following the devastating aftermath of World War I, countries from around the world banded together to prevent the future use of chemical weapons with the Geneva Convention of 1925. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), since its implementation in 1997, has prohibited the development, production, procurement, stockpiling, retention, transfer, or use of chemical weapons by states that are party to to the treaty. Yet, In Afghanistan and the surrounding regions of the Middle East, the use of chemical weapons persists. In 2012, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported on an attack with chemical weapons in Kabul. The attack had been on 156 female students of an all-girl high school in the Rostaq District when a poisonous chemical had been added to the school’s well water. Such attacks make evident the serious risk chemical weapons pose to the world and in particular, weaker countries with smaller budgets as they may turn to chemical weapons as a cheaper, more destructive alternative to conventional troops.

    As a member of the CWC since 24 October 2003, Afghanistan is all too familiar with the needless devastation inflicted upon countries and their citizens with the use of chemical weapons. From the 1979 Soviet Union invasion to our state’s fall to the Taliban in 1996, Afghanistan has endured much conflict involving the use of deadly chemical weapons..

    Hampered by a severe shortage of overall resources exhausted on the fight against regional Taliban activities and a lack of international support, Afghanistan urges nations around the globe to assist us in strengthening the CWC. We request that UN member states to contribute to the merging of the CWC and BWC to more closely regulate biotech industries and sales of chemicals and reactor technology. We also believe that the UNAMA should strengthen its co-coordinating role in the regions surrounding Afghanistan. Finally, Afghanistan recommends to the rest of the world a broadening of the definition of chemical weapons in an effort to further reduce risk of accidental chemical or biological weapon use or production.

  • Rthapa01
    Rthapa01 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Afghanistan
    Rashane Thapa

    Following the devastating aftermath of World War I, countries from around the world banded together to prevent the future use of chemical weapons with the Geneva Convention of 1925.The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), since its implementation in 1997, has prohibited the development, production, procurement, stockpiling, retention, transfer, or use of chemical weapons by states that are party to to the treaty.Yet, In Afghanistan and the surrounding regions of the Middle East, the use of chemical weapons persists. In 2012, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported on an attack with chemical weapons in Kabul. The attack had been on 156 female students of an all-girl high school in the Rostaq District when a poisonous chemical had been added to the school’s well water. Such attacks make evident the serious risk chemical weapons pose to the world and in particular, weaker countries with smaller budgets as they may turn to chemical weapons as a cheaper, more destructive alternative to conventional troops.

    As a member of the CWC since 24 October 2003, Afghanistan is all too familiar with the needless devastation inflicted upon countries and their citizens with the use of chemical weapons. From the 1979 Soviet Union invasion to our state’s fall to the Taliban in 1996, Afghanistan has endured much conflict involving the use of deadly chemical weapons..

    Hampered by a severe shortage of overall resources exhausted on the fight against regional Taliban activities and a lack of international support, Afghanistan urges nations around the globe to assist us in strengthening the CWC. We request that UN member states to contribute to the merging of the CWC and BWC to more closely regulate biotech industries and sales of chemicals and reactor technology. We also believe that the UNAMA should strengthen its co-coordinating role in the regions surrounding Afghanistan. Finally, Afghanistan recommends to the rest of the world a broadening of the definition of chemical weapons in an effort to further reduce risk of accidental chemical or biological weapon use or production.

  • Rachel_K12300
    Rachel_K12300 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-evaluating the chemical weapons convention
    Peru
    Rachel Klomparens

    The use of chemical weapons has been considered a crime since the Geneva Convention in 1925. The UN created the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) in 1997 as a means to reduce the use of chemical weapons. The CWC’s main goal is to reduce the use, possession and creation of chemical weapons within the countries who have agreed to the convention. It is obvious that the CWC must be revisited as science has advanced past the boundaries set in place. Peru is against the creation, possession and use of chemical weapons and actively works to reduce the number of weapons within the country.

    Peru is a state party of the BTW, otherwise known as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, as well as a state party of the CWC and Participated in the convention of chemical weapons in 2016. Peru believes, along with the majority of South America, namely Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Peru believes that cooperation is needed in order to end the use of biological weapons (a similar cooperation that South America used with nuclear weapons). Peru believes in the complete elimination of now that biological processes can lead to toxic compounds Peru believes that the CWC needs to be stricter and have a larger definition for the word “chemical weapon”. Both the BCW and the CWC must work together in order to better regulate chemical weapons manufacturing and use. Peru also agrees that those in violation of the conventions should receive harsher punishment.

  • Ryanpep
    Ryanpep November 15, 2017 Reply

    Country: Kazakhstan
    Committee: Legal
    Topic : Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Delegate: Ryan Peplinski
    School: Saginaw Arts and Sciences Academy

    The Republic of Kazakhstan believes in the present Chemical Weapons Convention. Our nation believes that it is an inhuman crime and those nations that have broke the convention be punished.

    The country of Kazakhstan inherited chemical and nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union when under its control. However our nation in the first ten years of independence have dismantled the soviet weapon systems and facilities. One of which was Stepnogorsk one of the largest bioweapon plants during the Cold War. The facilities like Stepnogorsk have been changed for other uses by the National Center for Biotechnology (a Kazakhstan civilian body created in 1993). In the United Nations meeting on April 12, 2017, where they created a resolution that condemned the chemical weapon attacks on Khan Shaykhun in Syria. Even though the resolution failed Kazakhstan delegate Kairat Umarov condemned the use of chemical weapons. Our nation believes that the Middle East should be free from all weapons of mass destruction. Especially nations such Syria that are in an ongoing civil war.

    In re-evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention we seek to help nations get rid of facilities used for making these weapons. For nations that break the convention and use such weapons should be punished through sanctions and other means. Our nation would like to help other nations in getting rid of these weapons and helping them re purpose the chemical weapon facilities for the greater good. The Republic of Kazakhstan looks forward to working with the other nations, and giving its insight in chemical weapons to help the other nations.

  • avatar image
    Carter Wade November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal Affairs (UNOLA)
    Topic Area 1: Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Country: Columbia
    Delegate: Mr. Carter Wade

    Fellow Delegates and Honourable Chair,
    It is with a determination that I stand before you today so that we as an international body may update, renew, and improve the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is nearly universally agreed that the Chemical Weapons Convention has accomplished great leaps and bounds above its predecessors in regard to its success at diminishing the existence of chemical weapons. It is with certainty that we may say that the use of such indiscriminate tactics and their long-term collateral damage is no way for “civilized” nations to go about combat. It must also be recognized, however, that the Chemical Weapons Convention is reaching its second decade of age, and that recent technological advances are able to poke out loopholes in the agreement.
    Recent advances in bioengineering and non-weapon uses for formerly weaponized chemicals, such as diatomic Chlorine, have allowed for both the manufacture and stockpiling of these substances. Therefore, Columbia believes that the definitions of chemical and biological weapons in the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention should be broadened in a similar manner to those of nuclear weapons: including the component parts necessary for their manufacture. The nation of Columbia also believes that a merger of these two conventions, the CWC and the BWC, would be far simpler and more robust piece of international legislation than the two sets of regulations separated.

  • Bgr914
    Bgr914 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Israel
    Benjamin Raterink

    World War I, the beginning of devastation for the masses. This was the introduction of chemical-weapon use on the battlefield and later moved on to the Nazi party using more deleterious chemicals during World War II. Most countries began using chlorine, phosphates, toxin, sarin, and numerous others in standard munition productions. Afterwards, the United Nations (UN) held a convention where the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was written in response to public outrage. Many people welcomed the protocol, however, the document came with more shortcomings than advantages because it had little restraint on the prohibition of production, stockpiling, or development of chemical weapons. Due to the lacking restraints of the Geneva Protocol, the Conference on Disarmament adopted the ‘Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)’ which instituted the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on 3 September 1992. But, from the 1990’s to the 21st century, there has been improved development of new chemicals and new manufacturing processes for consumer goods. The market has remained unrestricted with new chemicals thus providing citizens within any country the capability to purchase these chemical used in the building of chemical weapons and artillery. The Legal Committee should be urged for the re-evaluation of the CWC to reinforce and establish new regulations over such chemicals that are capable of being converted into weapons of mass destruction.

    The country of Israel provides no insight to the chemical weapons within their country but urges for the re-evaluation of the the CWC for stricter regulations on the retail and production of chemical weapons. We have been a continued war-front zone where militant groups such as ISIS, Hamas, and Fatah have brought a plethora of brutality to the borders of Israel. Along with the continued Palestine-Israeli conflict, chemical weapons have been an ongoing issue since the early 20th century. Not only chemical weapons, but also biological weapons are a concern for Israel. Israel has taken an abundance of efforts in strengthening their defence against such weapons due to the constant threat from nearby country neighbors. The military government of Israel will not take any risk in the deployment of bio-weapons or chem-attacks for the feared increased risk of bring devastation upon their own citizens. Most actions by Israel are under a government-controlled military faction which specializes in the reduction of chemical and biological weapons by removing these items from the civilian sectors. Israel hopes that other Middle-Eastern populations will work towards a similar goal by taking the desired precautionary measure where various weapons are under only the government or even a complete eradication of the weapons altogether from the its reigne.

    From the first World War to manufacturing marvels of today, chemicals are being consumed by the market for goods and services. However, with much lament, those very chemicals contain the potential which is harnessed in chemical weapons and biological weapons for the purpose of ruination of culture, history, and life. The State of Israel has noted the progression made by the CWC and OPCW and has seen that most of the United Nation participants have taken the appropriate measures by signing and ratifying the document. However, for the position which Israel is placed — because of their geographical location — we urge for additional definition of what a chemical and biological weapon is and what is regulated under international law and what is encompassed as a larger scope of chemical materials. Furthermore, the government of Israel hopes that all nation within the Middle-East regions will endorse the CWC or a revised volume of the document in order to bring more stability to the region and confidently rebuild newfound trust inside the region.

  • AGR911
    AGR911 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Reevaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Republic of Turkey
    Alan Garrett Raterink

    Chemical weapons have been deemed a crime against humanity if used by belligerent nations in time of war or revolution. Careful consideration should be given to this issue on the part of the United Nations Legal committee due to the weapons’ highly-destructive nature. Nearly 100,000 casualties resulted from the use of chemical weapons in World War I alone, and that was over a hundred years ago, and over 1 million have accumulated in several conflicts since then (“Chemical”). Their use spiked in World War I, using typically-generic chemical material in standard munitions, like those of grenades and large artillery shells. Chlorine gas, choking agents like phosgene, and mustard gas were among the chemicals first used. Other, more-dangerous chemicals are in use today, such as sarin gas used by the Syrian government. All but four members of the UN states, including Turkey, have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), except Egypt, Israel, North Korea, and South Sudan. The CWC was established in 1997 by UN member states, prohibiting the development, production, stockpile, acquisition, retention, transfer, or use of chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was established as the conduit of enforcement of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The OPCW is located in The Hague, the Netherlands. 189 nations have joined the CWC. The OPCW’s purpose is to implement the provisions of the CWC and to ensure a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons, prevent their re-appearance in any member nation, to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons, and to encourage cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry on the international level. It also aims to achieve universal membership of the OPCW (“Chemical”).

    The Turkish government has taken upon itself the task of eliminating the number of chemical weapons within its borders, and preventing their usage outside of their borders as well. Turkey signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and supports the decrease of such weapons. We signed it the 14th of January, 1993, and began disposing chemical weapons the 12th of May, 1997. Turkey was one of the first to investigate the sarin gas attack in Syria in 2017, showing our commitment to the reduction of the use of chemical weapons on the international stage (“Chemical Weapons Experts”). The Turkish government believes in keeping and enforcing a comprehensive interpretation the CWC to help mitigate their use and ensure that the proper restrictions are enforced, including, but not limited to sarin, mustard, and chlorine gas. Turkey thwarted a convoy of vehicles that tried to enter from civil-war-torn Syria with a cache of potential chemical-weapon ingredients, in hopes to prevent the building, use, or transport of such weapons in the future (“Report”). Biological weapons can cause as much, or more, suffering on the behalf of the attacked and decimate far greater numbers in one blow. Therefore, Turkey supports that any and all biological weapon use should be restricted or banned. Our government signed the Biological Weapons Convention on April 10, 1972 and ratified it on October 25, 1974.

    Turkey recommends, from this point forward, that the international community as a whole should work unanimously to end the threat of chemical and biological weapons in misguided hands in broad terms. Considering that Turkey has stopped several convoys working to transport ingredients for chemical weapons across its borders, Turkey suggests that other nations work to dramatically improve and strengthen border security to limit the flow of chemical weapons to the wrong people, as our interceptions have in Syria. Once this is achieved, the international community can identify and isolate the largest threat of chemical weapon producers. Turkey proposes that every governing body work to improve border strength and establish isolated and protected networks of trade to help identify and single out rogue transport of dangerous materials and weapons across international borders, particularly into war-torn regions of the world. The international community should then work to eliminate any source of such weapons or power that tries, or succeeds in, using them.

    Sources:
    “Chemical Weapons – UNODA.” United Nations, United Nations, http://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/.

    “Chemical Weapons Experts Are Reportedly in Turkey to Investigate the Alleged Sarin Attack in Syria.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 13 Apr. 2017, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-chemical-weapons-experts-in-turkey-to-investigate-alleged-syrian-sarin-attack-sources-2017-4.

    Bar’el, Zvi. “Report: Turkey Intercepts Material for Missiles, Chemical Weapons on Iranian Trucks.” Haaretz.com, Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. Read More: https://Www.haaretz.com/Middle-East-News/Report-Turkey-Intercepts-Material-for-Missiles-Chemical-Weapons-on-Iranian-Trucks-1.408461, 21 Jan. 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/report-turkey-intercepts-material-for-missiles-chemical-weapons-on-iranian-trucks-1.408461.

  • Petersage
    Petersage November 15, 2017 Reply

    Chemical Weapons are extremely destructive, inhumane, and cause extensive collateral damage. To stop and prevent these weapons from being produced and used, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was signed by many of the world’s nations. The treaty prohibits the creation, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Any chemical that is used to kill or harm humans is considered a chemical weapon by the CWC. The CWC allows for the stockpiling of incapacitating chemical agents (ICAs) such as chlorine. This is an issue, however, as chlorine is deadly in its gaseous form. The CWC fails to address the use of chemical weapons by countries such as Syria, and what actions should be taken to ensure the rest of any stockpiles in those countries are destroyed. Consequently, the CWC should be revised. Switzerland believes that the CWC is necessary and important. As a neutral state, they follow the treaty’s policies, but take to part in enforcing them on other states.

    With advancements in chemistry, toxic materials can now be created biologically. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) does not prohibit the production and stockpiling of these materials. These advancements have complicated how biological and chemical weapons are differentiated. A solution to this issue would be to merge the CWC and BWC. The definition of chemical weapons given by the CWC is too broad. It allows for chemicals such as chlorine to be stockpiled, because of their non malicious uses. A revision to this policy is necessary, as these stockpiles could be turned into weapons.

    Switzerland proposes that the CWC should be revised to include a more specific definition of what a chemical weapon is, so as to control the use of substances that could be used for malicious and non malicious purposes. The revision should also merge the CWC with the BWC, so that toxins created biologically are regulated. The revised CWC should also account for recent deployments of chemical weapons by Syria by including retributions to be applied in response to any future use.

  • avatar image
    Hannah Kos November 15, 2017 Reply

    Committee: Legal
    Topic: Re-evaluating the Chemical Weapon Convention
    Country: Azerbaijan

    After having more than one occurrence of war where chemical weapons were involved and many civilians were lost, Azerbaijan does not support the use of chemical weapons. Azerbaijan does not feel that it is beneficial in any way, shape, or form and that the there should be no let up on the prohibition of chemical weapons should it be reevaluated.

    It is clear to us that there is no positive use of chemical weapons, as can be seen in the situation in Syria in 2013 where they were used chemical weapons and the result was the death of numerous civilians— something that could have been avoided.

    In that time, Elmar Mammadyarov spoke to the president stating, “Azerbaijan strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria.” This statement not only applies to the situation in Syria, but anything else as well as Azerbaijan has not seen any positive effects of chemical weapons on our citizens.

  • Annelise2002
    Annelise2002 November 15, 2017 Reply

    Spain- Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention Annelise Ivanescu

    Fellow Delegates,
    Spain believes in the necessity of reaffirming the International Nuclear non-Proliferation Regime, as it has set the basis for our country’s foreign policy. We wish to strongly affirm the importance of protection of peace and stability; the promotion of human rights and and security conditions for the suitable development of people.

    We believe that the Democratic People ‘s Republic of Korea have become a primary threat to international peace. North Korea’s renewal of nuclear testing in 2016 has directly defied former resolutions, and undermines International Nuclear non-Proliferation Regime. Spain calls on North Korea to work forwards to negotiations for a complete, verifiable, denuclearization. We warn that if North Korea choses to continue on this path it will ultimately lead to political and economic isolation of said country.

    Spain believes firmly in the Chemical Weapons Conventions (CWC) which was ratified by our nation in 1994. We believe it is unnecessary to produce chemical weapons without intent of using said weapon. According to the treaty, no country may develop, produce, or otherwise obtain chemical weapons; to transfer, directly or indirectly, any chemical weapons; to use or engage in military activity with chemical weapons; or to assist, encourage or induce, while they are prohibited by this convention.

    We have taken many initiatives to enforce the agreements of the CWC, such as; The Proliferation Security Initiative, which is in efforts to prevent the illegal trafficking of chemical weapons; The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which attempts to develop international cooperation and the prevention of nuclear terrorism; The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, a legal basis in the reduction of conventional weapons; and The Vienna Document of 2011, which was an effort to boost security in europe.

    Spain reaffirms its call on North Korea, and believes that we should take further action if they do not comply. It is most necessary that we remain confident in the CWC, and other treaties in order to protect our people.

  • Cboston
    Cboston November 16, 2017 Reply

    Estonia
    Corrionna Boston
    Grand Blanc High School
    GA-Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention

    Chemical weapons have become the definition of destruction in humanity, that intentionally cause harm to humans or animals and with the progression of chemistry the line between chemical and biological weapons become blurred and the destruction of those weapons also become thin. Making the too narrow definition of chemical weapons unclear. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) established in 1997 to fight this type of crime against humanity. Declared chemical weapons to all state and non-state members as prohibited in the development, production, acquisition, storage, retention, and transfer of chemical weapons. But, for the most part many countries like Syria and North Korea violated this agreement as a means to fight the war in the Syrian Civil War and kill Kim Jong-un; half- brother of North Korea’s leader. In addition, as another means to control chemical weapons, the CWC destroyed over 90 percent of knowing chemical weapons stockpiles. Though, the CWC is struggling as time goes on to regain control of chemical weapons and chemical weapons uses.

    In the foreground, with chemical weapons attack in Syria on its own civilians, Estonia; a state party of the CWC and the Biological Weapons Convention.(BWC) believes in arms control as a means of security, therefore, supported the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria in 2017 for 50,000 euros. (Republic of Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs para. 3) But, in means of revenge Estonia favored the retaliation of Syria in 2017. (Vahtla para. 1) Overall, Estonia supports the implementation and guidelines authorized in the CWC agreement.

    As means of addressing this issue, Estonia proposes the penalization of states and non-states for the violation of the CWC international law. Giving consequences could potentially prevent the those from breaking the agreement. Another, purpose is the CWC and BWC working as one since the line between one and the other is not definite as time and science progresses. All thing considered the the definition of chemical weapons can become more broader. Lastly, the BWC have states and non-states report the number of biological weapons and if they have been destroyed. Hence, the CWC has control of chemical weapons and potential chemical weapons in the hopes of reforming its laws.

  • Diget77
    Diget77 November 16, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    The United Arab Emirates
    Ashley Diget

    Chemical weapons are some of the most inhumane, deadly weapons available. Because of this, The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was formed and ratified by all but four UN member states. In recent years, parts of the treaty have begun to show some aging as developments in the production of chemical weapons have been made. There are several chemicals that can and are being weaponized that currently have no restrictions in the treaty. The UAE is willing to cooperate with any efforts to rid the world of chemical weapons.

    UAE is a state party on The CWC and the BTWC. We don’t possess either biological weapons or chemical. UAE is taking a regional leadership role in biotechnology issues though. We are not programs for there development either of chemical weapons. We believe the world would be better off without these weapons.

    The UAE is willing to help revise the treaty to clarify what exactly is against the treaty. As the world advances we must keep the Treaties that hold the world together to prevent massive death and the destruction of the world. Combining the two treaties is what is best for everyone.

  • Lifs
    Lifs November 16, 2017 Reply

    Legal
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Laos
    Tristan Harman

    From the development of Chlorine gas in WW1 to recent developments in Syria with Sarin, chemical weapons have always been highly effective weaponry for a low cost, and one of the most inhumane things mankind has developed. Taking note of the devastating effects and consequences of chemical weapons, the Geneva Convention labeled the use of chemical weaponry a “crime against humanity” in 1925, and the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibited the storage of chemical weapons in 1977. Sadly, as seen in recent years, this is not entirely effective, especially not with new developments in the synthesis of biological chemical weapons. Moving forward, there are two main courses that we, as delegates, can take: We can advocate for stricter control over chemical weapons, or we can leave policies as they are. Stricter control over chemical weapons would help to prevent their use and production, something that the current CWC policies fail to do. Imposing stricter consequences for the use and possession of chemical weapons would further serve to discourage their use; however, limiting the ability of individual nations to decide their own policies regarding chemical weapons could impose on national sovereignty.

    The Alo People’s Democratic Republic has never been the victim of extreme chemical weaponry, barring a scare in the 1980’s that has been determined to be from completely natural causes. Despite this, Laos is firm in its belief that chemical and biological weapons are extremely dangerous and should not be used under any circumstances. Laos signed the CWC on May 13, 1993, and has seen the horrific effects that chemical weapons have on their victims. Stricter guidelines regarding chemical weapons would be welcomed by all, guaranteeing the safety of innocents and economic interests alike. Therefore, Laos commends the UN for its proactiveness in endeavoring to effectively eliminate chemical weapons as a practice.

    The production or transfer of chemical weapons in Laos is punishable by up to 12 years in prison, and the use of chemical weapons is punishable with from 20 years in prison for a minor offense to the death penalty for a major offense. Having signed the CWC, Laos prohibits the use, production, or storage of chemical weapons, and would encourage those states who have not signed to do so. Again, Laos is of the belief that chemical weapons are not in any way humane and should be more strictly regulated. Laos would call on attending delegates to effectively and decisively end the use of chemical weapons, so that none will be forced to endure such atrocities again.

    Sources:
    “Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention” – GLICA, GLICA
    http://www.modgear.net/glica17/hello-world-4/

    “Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties” – Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

    Penal Law – Vientiane Times

  • Cameron
    Cameron November 16, 2017 Reply

    Legal Committee
    Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons Convention
    DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
    Cameron Holtman

    Whole Roast Suckling Pig
    Ingredients (5)

    1 (12- to 18-pound) whole suckling pig
    15 quarts water
    6 1/2 cups kosher salt
    4 1/2 cups granulated sugar
    1/2 cup vegetable oil, for basting

    1) Rinse pig in cold water and set aside. Line a 32-gallon garbage bag with 2 more 32-gallon garbage bags. Place water, salt, and sugar in the tripled-up garbage bags and stir to dissolve, taking care not to puncture the bags. Place pig in the bags, remove excess air and tie tightly. Place in a 15-quart container in the refrigerator and brine 12 to 24 hours, turning once.

    2) Heat the oven to 250°F and arrange a rack on the lowest level. Remove the pig from the brine and pat dry with paper towels; discard brine. Lay the pig on its side and stuff the interior with 15 to 20 large (20-inch-long) pieces of lightly crumpled aluminum foil until it’s filled out. (This will prevent caving during roasting.)

    3) Transfer the pig to a baking sheet fitted with a roasting rack. Arrange it stomach down with the back legs tucked underneath and pointing forward, and the front legs tucked underneath and toward its sides. (You may need to add more foil if it is not sitting properly.) Prop up the head with foil or a large ramekin to keep the back aligned. Cover tightly with aluminum foil and place in the oven.

    4) Roast the pig, rotating once, until it reaches 130°F, about 2 1/2 to 3 hours. Remove the foil, baste with oil, and increase the oven temp to 400°F.

    5) Roast, basting every 15 minutes with oil and rotating once more until the internal temperature reaches 160°F, about 45 minutes to 1 hour more. (If the ears or snout become too brown, cover with foil.) Remove from the oven and let rest 20 minutes before carving.

    https://www.chowhound.com/recipes/whole-roasted-suckling-pig-13693

    Garces, Jose. “Whole Roasted Suckling Pig” chowhound.com. 15/11/17

Leave a reply