Are UK police about to get chemical weapons?
January 23, 2014 9:07 AM Subscribe
"The British Government has traditionally taken the view that only a relatively mild class of irritant chemical agents that affect the eyes and respiratory tissues, such as CS gas, are exempt from the treaty, and then only strictly for use in riot control. But the Royal Society working group says the Government shifted its position to allow the development of more severe chemical agents, such as the type of potentially dangerous nerve gases used by Russian security forces to end hostage sieges."
"They concluded that the Government may be preparing to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the use of incapacitating chemical agents for domestic law enforcement. The 1993 convention [has] an exemption for certain chemical agents that could be used for "peaceful" domestic purposes such as policing and riot control. The British Government has traditionally taken the view that only a relatively mild class of irritant chemical agents that affect the eyes and respiratory tissues, such as CS gas, are exempt from the treaty, and then only strictly for use in riot control. But the Royal Society working group says the Government shifted its position to allow the development of more severe chemical agents, such as the type of potentially dangerous nerve gases used by Russian security forces to end hostage sieges." This April 2012 link on the Independent front page (they often do that, they're always bankrupt) made me wonder.
"Future riots could be quelled by projectiles containing chemical irritants fired by police using new weapons that are now in the final stages of development. The Discriminating Irritant Projectile (Dip) has been under development by the Home Office's centre for applied science and technology (Cast) as a potential replacement for plastic bullets. Documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that last summer's riots in England provided a major impetus to Home Office research into new-generation riot control technology, ranging from the Dip to even more curious weaponry described by Cast technicians as "skunk oil"." The Guardian, also April 2012.
Dip appears to just be plastic bullets ("baton rounds") with irritants on and some physical design improvements to make them less lethal. The USA seems to have ruled out any further development (metafilter).
There is an excellent earlier metafilter post on chemical weapons, but in warfare, whereas I was trying to find out whether the UK government was developing any, and what circumstances they were allowed to use them in - what is a 'riot' legally? - and what were these 'loopholes' the article mentioned? There is a lot of stuff out there, this article is good on how constant improvement in chemical production and discovery/invention of new combinations of chemicals makes it hard for the law to keep up, and how states can make excuses for not publishing data ('terrorists could copy it!'). The UN Disarmament Forum has a pdf which highlights some problems, the ICRC has two excellent pdf links here about the where the boundary blurs e.g. on 'incapacitating agent' (not allowed).
But my original question arose because of the new changes in policing public disorder in the UK, (or are they ongoing?,) the recent claim that water cannon would now be allowed for British police use for the first time, and in the light of privatising of the police in Britain. This is a post that failed, in short! But i often find the answers in comments sections. All i know is, chemicals known collectively as tear gas or pepper spray are allowed and the London Riots killed about six people (three in Birmingham), less than the French 2005 ones (three).
The best evidence of a change of position is the lack of condemnation shown when the Russian police used fentanyl, an 'incapacitating agent' in the Moscow Theatre Siege, and killed of loads of civilians. "When survivors of the 2002 theater siege in Moscow - in which Russian police used a gas widely believed to be a fentanyl derivative to flush out terrorists - brought claims before the European Court of Human Rights, the ruling came down with mixed results. On one hand, the court prescribed greater prerequisites for law enforcement's use of incapacitating chemical agents; on the other hand, the ruling can be interpreted as legitimizing their use and making police employment of incapacitants acceptable. Meanwhile, with myopic rules governing the use of incapacitating agents, thanks to the foot-dragging of states party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, these toxic chemicals are perilously close to becoming just another tool in law enforcement's arsenal.
States party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) have procrastinated in clarifying the law enforcement provision outlined in the convention for a decade. And now they may be outmaneuvered by NATO's Standardization Agency, which has just published its own definition of incapacitating chemical agents - giving law enforcement broad scope to employ them." (Best article.)
I deliberately made this so you could just read the post not the links, as I didn't manage to build any big coherent detailed argument out of it, i just had a question. Thanks.
"They concluded that the Government may be preparing to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the use of incapacitating chemical agents for domestic law enforcement. The 1993 convention [has] an exemption for certain chemical agents that could be used for "peaceful" domestic purposes such as policing and riot control. The British Government has traditionally taken the view that only a relatively mild class of irritant chemical agents that affect the eyes and respiratory tissues, such as CS gas, are exempt from the treaty, and then only strictly for use in riot control. But the Royal Society working group says the Government shifted its position to allow the development of more severe chemical agents, such as the type of potentially dangerous nerve gases used by Russian security forces to end hostage sieges." This April 2012 link on the Independent front page (they often do that, they're always bankrupt) made me wonder.
"Future riots could be quelled by projectiles containing chemical irritants fired by police using new weapons that are now in the final stages of development. The Discriminating Irritant Projectile (Dip) has been under development by the Home Office's centre for applied science and technology (Cast) as a potential replacement for plastic bullets. Documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that last summer's riots in England provided a major impetus to Home Office research into new-generation riot control technology, ranging from the Dip to even more curious weaponry described by Cast technicians as "skunk oil"." The Guardian, also April 2012.
Dip appears to just be plastic bullets ("baton rounds") with irritants on and some physical design improvements to make them less lethal. The USA seems to have ruled out any further development (metafilter).
There is an excellent earlier metafilter post on chemical weapons, but in warfare, whereas I was trying to find out whether the UK government was developing any, and what circumstances they were allowed to use them in - what is a 'riot' legally? - and what were these 'loopholes' the article mentioned? There is a lot of stuff out there, this article is good on how constant improvement in chemical production and discovery/invention of new combinations of chemicals makes it hard for the law to keep up, and how states can make excuses for not publishing data ('terrorists could copy it!'). The UN Disarmament Forum has a pdf which highlights some problems, the ICRC has two excellent pdf links here about the where the boundary blurs e.g. on 'incapacitating agent' (not allowed).
But my original question arose because of the new changes in policing public disorder in the UK, (or are they ongoing?,) the recent claim that water cannon would now be allowed for British police use for the first time, and in the light of privatising of the police in Britain. This is a post that failed, in short! But i often find the answers in comments sections. All i know is, chemicals known collectively as tear gas or pepper spray are allowed and the London Riots killed about six people (three in Birmingham), less than the French 2005 ones (three).
The best evidence of a change of position is the lack of condemnation shown when the Russian police used fentanyl, an 'incapacitating agent' in the Moscow Theatre Siege, and killed of loads of civilians. "When survivors of the 2002 theater siege in Moscow - in which Russian police used a gas widely believed to be a fentanyl derivative to flush out terrorists - brought claims before the European Court of Human Rights, the ruling came down with mixed results. On one hand, the court prescribed greater prerequisites for law enforcement's use of incapacitating chemical agents; on the other hand, the ruling can be interpreted as legitimizing their use and making police employment of incapacitants acceptable. Meanwhile, with myopic rules governing the use of incapacitating agents, thanks to the foot-dragging of states party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, these toxic chemicals are perilously close to becoming just another tool in law enforcement's arsenal.
States party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) have procrastinated in clarifying the law enforcement provision outlined in the convention for a decade. And now they may be outmaneuvered by NATO's Standardization Agency, which has just published its own definition of incapacitating chemical agents - giving law enforcement broad scope to employ them." (Best article.)
I deliberately made this so you could just read the post not the links, as I didn't manage to build any big coherent detailed argument out of it, i just had a question. Thanks.
This post was deleted for the following reason: I can't tell if this is a misplaced AskMe question or an intentional FOP. I think it needs reworking in either case. Contact us and we can give you some guidance. -- jessamyn
« Older The Sami Yoik | Where'd You Go, Thora Birch? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments