Geneva Protocol

 ( Biological Warfare ) 

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929. League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 94, pp. 66–74. The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War signed on the same date, and followed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons between state parties, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects – the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.Beard, J. (2007). "The Shortcomings of Indeterminacy in Arms Control Regimes: The Case of the Biological Weapons Convention". American Journal of International Law. 101(2): 271–321. doi: 10.1017/S0002930000030098. p., 277

---

Negotiation history In the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the use of dangerous chemical agents was outlawed. In spite of this, the First World War saw large-scale chemical warfare. France used tear gas in 1914, but the first large-scale successful deployment of chemical weapons was by the German Empire in Ypres, Belgium in 1915, when chlorine gas was released as part of a German attack at the Battle of Gravenstafel. Following this, a chemical arms race began, with the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the United States, and Italy joining France and Germany in the use of chemical weapons.

This resulted in the development of a range of horrific chemicals affecting lungs, skin, or eyes. Some were intended to be lethal on the battlefield, like hydrogen cyanide, and efficient methods of deploying agents were invented. At least 124,000 tons were produced during the war. In 1918, about one grenade out of three was filled with dangerous chemical agents. Around 500k-1.3 million casualties of the conflict were attributed to the use of gas, and the psychological effect on troops may have had a much greater effect. A few thousand civilians also became casualties as collateral damage or due to production accidents.

The Treaty of Versailles included some provisions that banned Germany from either manufacturing or importing chemical weapons. Similar treaties banned the First Austrian Republic, the Kingdom of Bulgaria, and the Kingdom of Hungary from chemical weapons, all belonging to the losing side, the Central powers. Russian and United Kingdom continued the Tambov Rebellion in the Russian Civil War and possibly in the Middle East in 1920.

Three years after World War I, the Allies wanted to reaffirm the Treaty of Versailles, and in 1922 the United States introduced the Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare at the Washington Naval Conference. Four of the war victors, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan, gave consent for ratification, but it failed to enter into force as the French Third Republic objected to the submarine provisions of the treaty.

At the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms the French suggested a protocol for non-use of poisonous gases. The Second Polish Republic suggested the addition of bacteriological weapons. It was signed on 17 June.

---

Historical assessment Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it does not prohibit:

Eric A. Croddy, James J. Wirtz (2025). 9781851094905, ABC-CLIO. . ISBN 9781851094905

• use against not-ratifying parties
• retaliation using such weapons, so effectively making it a no-first-use agreement
• use within a state's own borders in a civil conflict
• research and development of such weapons, or stockpiling them

In light of these shortcomings, Jack Beard notes that "the Protocol (...) resulted in a legal framework that allowed states to conduct biological research, develop new biological weapons, and ultimately engage in biological arms races".

As such, the use of chemical weapons inside the nation's own territory against its citizens or subjects employed by Spain in the Rif War until 1927, Japan against Seediq people indigenous rebels in Taiwan (then part of the Japanese colonial empire) in 1930 during the Musha Incident, Iraq against ethnic Kurds civilians in the Halabja massacre during the Iran–Iraq War, and Syria or Syrian opposition forces during the Syrian civil war.

Despite the U.S. having been a proponent of the protocol, the U.S. military and American Chemical Society lobbied against it, causing the U.S. Senate not to ratify the protocol until 1975, the same year when the United States ratified the Biological Weapons Convention.

---

Violations

Several state parties have deployed chemical weapons for combat in spite of the treaty. Italy used mustard gas against the Ethiopian Empire in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. In World War II, Germany employed chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Soviet resistance fighters out of caverns below the city. They also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odesa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea, perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of Schutzstaffel troops with the help of a field engineer battalion.

(2010). 9780271047737, Penn State Press. . ISBN 9780271047737

After the battle in mid-May 1942, the Germans gassed and killed almost 3,000 of the besieged and non-evacuated Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians hiding in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry.Merridale, Catherine, Ivan's War, Faber & Faber: pp. 148–150.

During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is known to have employed a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. Some 100,000 Iranian troops were casualties of Iraqi chemical weapons during the war.

---

Subsequent interpretation of the protocol

In 1966, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2162B called for, without any dissent, all states to strictly observe the protocol. In 1969, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2603 (XXIV) declared that the prohibition on use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts, as embodied in the protocol (though restated in a more general form), were generally recognized rules of international law. Following this, there was discussion of whether the main elements of the protocol now form part of customary international law, and now this is widely accepted to be the case.

There have been differing interpretations over whether the protocol covers the use of harassing agents, such as adamsite and tear gas, and defoliants and herbicides, such as Agent Orange, in warfare. The 1977 Environmental Modification Convention prohibits the military use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. Many states do not regard this as a complete ban on the use of herbicides in warfare, but it does require case-by-case consideration. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention effectively banned riot control agents from being used as a method of warfare, though still permitting it for riot control.

In recent times, the protocol had been interpreted to cover non-international armed conflicts as well international ones. In 1995, an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that "there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts." In 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that customary international law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts.

However, such views drew general criticism from legal authors. They noted that much of the chemical arms control agreements stems from the context of international conflicts. Furthermore, the application of customary international law to banning chemical warfare in non-international conflicts fails to meet two requirements: state practice and opinio juris. Jillian Blake & Aqsa Mahmud cited the periodic use of chemical weapons in non-international conflicts since the end of WWI (as stated above) as well as the lack of existing international humanitarian law (such as the Geneva Conventions) and national legislation and manuals prohibiting using them in such conflicts. Anne Lorenzat stated the 2005 ICRC study was rooted in "'political and operational issues rather than legal ones".

---

State parties

To become party to the Protocol, states must deposit an instrument with the government of France (the depositary power). Thirty-eight states originally signed the Protocol. France was the first signatory to ratify the Protocol on 10 May 1926. El Salvador, the final signatory to ratify the Protocol, did so on 26 February 2008. As of April 2021, 146 states have ratified, acceded to, or succeeded to the Protocol, most recently Colombia on 24 November 2015.

---

Reservations

A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying with respect to other parties to the Protocol and/or that these obligations would cease to apply with respect to any state, or its allies, which used the prohibited weapons. Several Arab states also declared that their ratification did not constitute recognition of, or diplomatic relations with, Israel, or that the provision of the Protocol were not binding with respect to Israel.

Generally, reservations not only modify treaty provisions for the reserving party, but also symmetrically modify the provisions for previously ratifying parties in dealing with the reserving party. Subsequently, numerous states have withdrawn their reservations, including the former Czechoslovakia in 1990 prior to its dissolution, or the Russian reservation on biological weapons that "preserved the right to retaliate in kind if attacked" with them, which was dissolved by President Yeltsin.

(2025). 9781899548354, Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC). . ISBN 9781899548354

According to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, states which succeed to a treaty after gaining independence from a state party "shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to that treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates unless, when making the notification of succession, it expresses a contrary intention or formulates a reservation which relates to the same subject matter as that reservation." While some states have explicitly either retained or renounced their reservations inherited on succession, states which have not clarified their position on their inherited reservations are listed as "implicit" reservations.

			—
			—
			{

| |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1986.

| |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrew the reservations made by the United Kingdom on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1997.

| |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1991.

| |- | | | |— |Ratified as the Republic of Upper Volta. |-style="background:orange;" | | | | |The Protocol was ratified by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea in exile in 1983. 13 states (including the depositary France) objected to their ratification, and considered it legally invalid. In 1993, the Kingdom of Cambodia stated in a note verbale that it considered itself bound by the provisions of the Protocol. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1991 as regards bacteriological agents, and completely withdrawn in 1999.

| |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1991.

| |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Made on succession.

| Ratified as the Republic of China, from which the People's Republic of China succeeded on 13 July 1952. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |

Withdrawn prior to succession.

|Succeeded from Czechoslovakia, which ratified the protocol on 16 August 1938. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1999.

| |- | | | | | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Retained the United Kingdom's reservations on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1996.

| |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the Netherlands. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1972.

| |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Reservation 2 withdrawn in 2002 as regards biological agents covered by the BWC.

| |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1990.

| |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1995.

| |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1989.

| |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from France. |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from India. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Retained Australia's reservations on succession.

|Succeeded from Australia. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Reservation 2 withdrawn in 2003, and reservation 1 withdrawn in 2014.

| |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1991.

| |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 2001.

|Ratified as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from Belgium. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession. Serbia's Parliament voted to withdraw their reservation in May 2009 and the withdrawal was announced in 2010, but the depositary has not been notified.

|Succeeded as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which had ratified the protocol as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on 12 April 1929. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |

Withdrawn prior to succession.

|Succeeded from Czechoslovakia, which ratified the protocol on 16 August 1938. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Retained the United Kingdom's reservations on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1996.

| |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Withdrawn in 1992.

| |- | | | |— |Ratified as the Dominion of Ceylon. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— |- | | | |— |Ratified as the Republic of Tanganyika. |- | | | |— |Ratified as Siam. |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the United Kingdom. |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:#EEEE00;" | | | |

Implicit on succession.

|Succeeded from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. |-style="background:#6495ED;" | | | |

Reservation 2 withdrawn in 1991 as regards biological agents covered by the BWC, and reservations completely withdrawn in 2002.

| |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |- | | | |— | |-style="background:orange;" | | | | | |-style="background:orange;" | | | |

Made in a second instrument of accession submitted on 16 September 1973.

|Ratified as the Yemen Arab Republic. Also ratified by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen on 20 October 1986, prior to Yemeni unification in 1990. |}

Reservations

Notes

---

Non-signatory states

The remaining UN member states and UN observers that have not acceded or succeeded to the Protocol are:

---

Chemical weapons prohibitions

1675	Strasbourg Agreement	The first international agreement limiting the use of chemical weapons, in this case, poison bullets.
1874	Brussels Convention on the Law and Customs of War	Prohibited the employment of poison or poisoned weapons (Never entered into force.)
1899	1st Peace Conference at the Hague	Signatories agreed to abstain from "the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."
1907	2nd Peace Conference at the Hague	The Conference added the use of poison or poisoned weapons.
1919	Treaty of Versailles	Prohibited poison gas in Germany.
1922	Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare	Failed because France objected to clauses relating to submarine warfare.
1925	Geneva Protocol	Prohibited the "use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods" in international conflicts.
1972	Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention	No verification mechanism, negotiations for a protocol to make up this lack halted by USA in 2001.
1993	Chemical Weapons Convention	Comprehensive bans on development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, with destruction timelines.
1998	Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court	Makes it a war crime to employ chemical weapons in international conflicts. (2010 amendment extends prohibition to internal conflicts.)

---

Further reading

• Frederic Joseph Brown (2025). 9781412804950, Transaction Publishers. . ISBN 9781412804950
• Bunn, George. "Gas and germ warfare: international legal history and present status." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 65.1 (1970): 253+. online
• Webster, Andrew. "Making Disarmament Work: The implementation of the international disarmament provisions in the League of Nations Covenant, 1919–1925." Diplomacy and Statecraft 16.3 (2005): 551–569.

---

External links

• The text of the protocol
• Weapons of War: Poison Gas

Categories: Biological Warfare, Chemical Warfare, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Arms Control Treaties, Human Rights Instruments, Hague Conventions Of 1899 And 1907, Treaties Concluded In 1925, Treaties Entered Into Force In 1928, Treaties Of The Democratic Republic Of Afghanistan, Treaties Of The People's Socialist Republic Of Albania, Treaties Of Algeria, Treaties Of The People's Republic Of Angola, Treaties Of Antigua And Barbuda, Treaties Of Argentina, Treaties Of Australia, Treaties Of The First Austrian Republic, Treaties Of Bahrain, Treaties Of Bangladesh, Treaties Of Barbados, Treaties Of Belgium, Treaties Of The People's Republic Of Benin, Treaties Of Bhutan, Treaties Of Bolivia, Treaties Of The Military Dictatorship In Brazil, Treaties Of The Kingdom Of Bulgaria, Treaties Of Burkina Faso, Treaties Of The People's Republic Of Kampuchea, Treaties Of Cameroon, Treaties Of Canada, Treaties Of Cape Verde, Treaties Of The Central African Republic, Treaties Of Chile, Treaties Of The Republic Of China, Treaties Of Costa Rica, Treaties Of Ivory Coast, Treaties Of Croatia, Treaties Of Cuba, Treaties Of Cyprus, Treaties Of The Czech Republic, Treaties Of Czechoslovakia, Treaties Of Denmark, Treaties Of The Dominican Republic, Treaties Of Ecuador, Treaties Of The Kingdom Of Egypt, Treaties Of El Salvador, Treaties Of Equatorial Guinea, Treaties Of Estonia, Treaties Of The Ethiopian Empire, Treaties Of Fiji, Treaties Of Finland, Treaties Of The French Third Republic, Treaties Of The Gambia, Treaties Of The Weimar Republic, Treaties Of Ghana, Treaties Of The Kingdom Of Greece, Treaties Of Grenada, Treaties Of Guatemala, Treaties Of Guinea-bissau, Treaties Of The Holy See, Treaties Of The Hungarian People's Republic, Treaties Of Iceland, Treaties Of British India, Treaties Of Indonesia, Treaties Of Pahlavi Iran, Treaties Of Mandatory Iraq, Treaties Of Ireland, Treaties Of Israel, Treaties Of The Kingdom Of Italy, Treaties Of Jamaica, Treaties Of Japan, Treaties Of Jordan, Treaties Of Kenya, Treaties Of North Korea, Treaties Of South Korea, Treaties Of Kuwait, Treaties Of Laos, Treaties Of Latvia, Treaties Of Lebanon, Treaties Of Lesotho, Treaties Of Liberia, Treaties Of The Libyan Arab Republic, Treaties Of Liechtenstein, Treaties Of Lithuania, Treaties Of Luxembourg, Treaties Of Madagascar, Treaties Of Malawi, Treaties Of Malaysia, Treaties Of The Maldives, Treaties Of Malta, Treaties Of Mauritius, Treaties Of Mexico, Treaties Of Moldova, Treaties Of Monaco, Treaties Of Mongolia, Treaties Of Morocco, Treaties Of Nepal, Treaties Of The Netherlands, Treaties Of New Zealand, Treaties Of Nicaragua, Treaties Of Niger, Treaties Of Nigeria, Treaties Of Norway, Treaties Of Pakistan, Treaties Of Panama, Treaties Of Papua New Guinea, Treaties Of Paraguay, Treaties Of Peru, Treaties Of The Philippines, Treaties Of The Second Polish Republic, Treaties Of The Estado Novo, Treaties Of Qatar, Treaties Of The Kingdom Of Romania, Treaties Of Russia, Treaties Of Rwanda, Treaties Of Saint Kitts And Nevis, Treaties Of Saint Lucia, Treaties Of Saint Vincent And The Grenadines, Treaties Of Saudi Arabia, Treaties Of Senegal, Treaties Of Serbia, Treaties Of Sierra Leone, Treaties Of Singapore, Treaties Of Slovakia, Treaties Of Slovenia, Treaties Of The Solomon Islands, Treaties Of The Union Of South Africa, Treaties Of The Soviet Union, Treaties Of Spain Under The Restoration, Treaties Of The Dominion Of Ceylon, Treaties Of The Democratic Republic Of The Sudan, Treaties Of Eswatini, Treaties Of Sweden, Treaties Of Switzerland, Treaties Of Syria, Treaties Of Tanzania, Treaties Of Thailand, Treaties Of Togo, Treaties Of Tonga, Treaties Of Trinidad And Tobago, Treaties Of Tunisia, Treaties Of Turkey, Treaties Of Uganda, Treaties Of Ukraine, Treaties Of The United Kingdom, Treaties Of The United States, Treaties Of Uruguay, Treaties Of Venezuela, Treaties Of Vietnam, Treaties Of The Yemen Arab Republic, Treaties Of South Yemen, Treaties Extended To Curaçao And Dependencies, Treaties Extended To Greenland, Treaties Extended To The Faroe Islands, Treaties Extended To The Dutch East Indies, Treaties Extended To Surinam, Treaties Concluded In Geneva

Post Comment