|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Who wrote this? It doesn't ban depleted uranium! Uranium is never even mentioned. --Penta 01:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is not a treaty, it's a protocol. That means anyone can break it any time they like. Gentlemens agreement, and we can agree atleast on one thing, nobody's a gentleman these days. You and I maybe, if we agree on the terms of gentlemanly behaviour. Actually the more I think about it, less this is about the actual agreement that was made about prisoners of war, and other much more burning topics when the geneva conventions were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hm. It might be nice to have a bit more explanation and definition regarding the terms accession, declaration of succession, and, for completeness, ratification. -- Malimar
This page is woefully inaccurate. It misspelled Versailles, and said that the Washington Naval Conference "failed", which is a bit of a strong statement considering the historical context, and that it was not primarily a chemical weapons ban. Needs correction, particularly in paragraphs above the table. - sc1olist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc1olist (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Although it is popularly believed that the German Army was the first to use gas it was in fact initially deployed by the French Army. In the first month of the war, August 1914, they fired tear-gas grenades (xylyl bromide) against the Germans."
Any reference for this? It is contradicted by the Chemical Warface article, which has a reference to confirm that Germany was "..the first side to employ chemical warfare on the battlefield".
Does the 1925 Geneva Protocol ban the use of defoliants such as Agent Orange? If so, can we describe it as a matter of fact that the US violated the Geneva Convention in Operation Ranch Hand (Vietnam, 1962-1971)?
Or should we say that Person X accuses the US of violating this treaty / protocol, while Person / Group Y denies the accusation?
That is, do we have a case for using NPOV policy to turn a assertion of fact into a description of two contradictory viewpoints?
In case anyone's interested in presenting an opposing POV, here's something from a US law journal:
- "In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appears for the Second Circuit [found that] applicable international law at the time of the Vietnam Wra did not prohibit the use of chemical agents such as Agent Orange as defoliants." JSTOR: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul., 2008), pp. 662-664
If no one objects, I intend to balance this viewpoint with the other viewpoint, altering the slant of the article from "USA broke the law" to "Sources differ over whether USA broke the law". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is enough potential for confusion to warrant a disambiguating link to , a failed League of Nations protocol of the same name in the previous year. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a difference between reservation 2 and 4? They look same.
The picture on the top-right states that Canada is still a participant to the Geneva Protocol as of 2012. It isn't. Does anybody have the software to change this? Decent_of_Darkness (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- See the section on Reservations. Many states only ratified the treaty subject to the condition that it "Ceases to be binding in regards to any state, and its allies, which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol." (or something along these lines.) Maybe it's not quite correct to say that the treaty only prohibits first use (it doesn't, it prohibits all use) but in practice, as a result of all the reservations, that's all in limits.
- See for example  which says "Moreover, a sizeable fraction of its parties have reserved a right to retaliate in kind if chemical and/or biological weapons should ever be used against them by enemies or allies of enemies. This, and the contractual character of the Protocol, has rendered it a no-first-use agreement." TDL (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)