5cjxburmr

are not prohibited by this rule. 178 In addition, the rule is understood only to prohibit weaponswhose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate. 179 Thus, for example, smoke,flame, napalm, conventional explosives, and nuclear weapons are not covered by this rule, eventhough these weapons may produce asphyxiating or poisonous byproducts. 1806.8.3 Chemical Weapons. Chemical weapons are subject to a number of prohibitions.6.8.3.1 Definition of Chemical Weapons. Under the Chemical WeaponsConvention, chemical weapons mean the following, together or separately:(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes notprohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities areconsistent with such purposes;(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harmthrough the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph(a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions anddevices;(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with theemployment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b). 181Toxic chemicals refer to any chemical that through its chemical action on life processescan cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals. Thisincludes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, andmotive behind the movement to outlaw poison gas is that it is considered a barbarous and inhumane weapon againsthuman beings, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering upon them.”).178 William P. Rogers, Letter of Submittal, Aug. 11, 1970, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING THE 1925GENEVA GAS AND BACTERIOLOGICAL PROTOCOL VI (“It is the United States understanding of the Protocol that itdoes not prohibit the use in war of riot-control agents and chemical herbicides.”).179 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 248 (55) (“The Courtwill observe that the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV do not define what is to be understood by‘poison or poisoned weapons’ and that different interpretations exist on the issue. Nor does the 1925 Protocolspecify the meaning to be given to the term ‘analogous materials or devices’. The terms have been understood, inthe practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is topoison or asphyxiate. This practice is clear, and the parties to those instruments have not treated them as referring tonuclear weapons.”).180 See William P. Rogers, Letter of Submittal, Aug. 11, 1970, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING THE1925 GENEVA GAS AND BACTERIOLOGICAL PROTOCOL VI (“Smoke, flame, and napalm are also not covered by theProtocol.”); Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America, 25, Jun. 20, 1995, I.C.J., Requestby the United Nations General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons (“Once again, the [1925 Geneva Gas and Bacteriological] Protocol does not prohibit conventionalexplosives or incendiary weapons, even though they may produce asphyxiating or poisonous byproducts, and itlikewise does not prohibit nuclear weapons.”); GREENSPAN, MODERN LAW OF LAND WARFARE 359 (“The use ofsmoke for smoke screens concealing movements and operations could not be considered an infringement of the lawagainst gas warfare.”).181 CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION art. 2(1).346