Talk:Geneva Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Government / Public policy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Public Policy.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Isn't succession meant to be secession?, after all, it is the splitting of one country into another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.117.205 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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 91.152.238.199 (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 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When did the United States sign the treaty? 1974? Low Moral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.147.247 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Who actually ratified this? Mercruz (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

"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".

138.38.150.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

Deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Defoliants[edit]

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:

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)

Disambiguation[edit]

Perhaps there is enough potential for confusion to warrant a disambiguating link to [1], a failed League of Nations protocol of the same name in the previous year. 108.46.137.243 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

reservation 2/4[edit]

Is there a difference between reservation 2 and 4? They look same.

Error?[edit]

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)

First use[edit]

Where does it say anything justifying the introduction saying "...a treaty prohibiting the first use...."?68.98.190.214 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2013 (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 [2] 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)