1

OPCW

ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

2

My name is Italo Raul Orihuela Odicio and I will be one of the directors of the aforesaid committee. I am Peruvian and bachelor in Business Administration at the University of South Florida. Currently I am manager at a fintech in Peru, having as objective to develop the market of microfinances.

Regarding my MUN experience, it has been part of my life since 2013, year in which I participated as delegate from Peruvian Universities for Harvard World Model United Nations in Melbourne, Australia. Since then, I was part of the following WorldMUNs as delegate or advisor, been Chief Advisor of Peruvian Universities for Panama 2018. With reference to the awards I have been part of, in WorldMUN 2014 I received the Diplomacy Award for DISEC and at the same time was part of the delegation awarded with Best Large Delegation. Also, in 2016 I was part of the Outstanding Large Delegation Award and in 2017 the small delegation I coached received the Best Small Delegation Award from MUNUR. Besides the experiences as delegate or coach, I had the chance to direct different committees in Peru and other countries. I have been director at USILMUN and LIMUN at Peru; while I was director at MUNUR 2015 for the first time.

Regarding my spare time, I like watching movies and series, especially the ones referring to comedies and science fiction. Besides that, I characterize myself as a person that likes to receive diverse points of view but supported with arguments and consistent information. I intend you to develop structured proposals, but with a touch of innovation, considering that the world is in constant change and part of our job is to analyze how reality can be different within years. Needless to say, our committee should be guided under the scope of diplomacy and cooperation, emphasizing the need of exchanging ideas for developing strong supported proposals.

Director

Italo Raul Orihuela OdicioItalo.orihuela15@gmail.com

1. LETTERS BY THE DAIS

3

My name is Eduardo Manuel Martín Ibárcena Callirgos and I will be serving as one of your directors in this committee. Currently I’m studying Business Administration and Marketing at ESAN Business School in Lima. Besides college, I run a educational platform teaching people how to trade the financial markets, specifically currencies and cryptocurrencies.

My MUN experience started 2 years ago linked with Peruvian Universities, I had the opportunities to participate in International conferences like World Harvard Model United Nations 2017 and 2018 winning Diplomacy award in DISEC, Harvard National Model United Nations Latin America with Outstanding Delegate awards and MUNUR 2017 where we won the Best Small Delegation award. On national conferences I also have participated on small committees like Security Council and Crisis, winning Best Delegate at IDPMUN 2017. I consider MUN is the best way to develop soft skills and prepare a person to be more prepared in a such competitive world. If this is your first time in this model, enjoy the process of learning and never quit becoming the best version of yourself. For this committee, we face challenges the current International Community cannot solve, and it is our duty find, develop and share our ideas seeking for solutions.

Outside MUN I love to travel around the world, make friends and have fun! So, don’t hesitate to reach out to me during conference or at social events to meet and have fun. I am looking forward to meeting you all at this edition of MUNUR 2018 and have incredible experiences.

Director

Eduardo M. Ibárcena Callirgosemibarcena@gmail.com

4

My name is Juan Pablo Coy Jaramillo and I will be your moderator. I am doing my undergraduate degree in Law at Universidad del Rosario, currently in the third semester and I am looking for a double degree with International Relations.I have participated in MUN for nine years, and I have participated in numerous conferences both nationally and internationally. My first approach to MUNUR was back in 2015 as a delegate. However, the last 2 years I have worked as a Dais member of several committees in national conferences, this being my first time at MUNUR. I am waiting for the best of you before, during and after the conference, redundant to say I invite you to do the best possible research to come with good, viable and realistic proposals that adapt not only to the needs of the committee, but to what the world curr ently needs. Moderator

Juan Pablo Coy Jaramillocoyjuanpablo@gmail.com

5

Regarding position papers, there should be one according to each topic. They should be written in Arial 12 with 1.5 space line. Each document should have a maximum length of 1 page per topic, considering that it is a summary of the countries position and the potential proposals that will be presented within committee.

The first paragraph should include an introduction and detailed facts of your countries’ position. The second paragraph should present the already developed aspects regarding the topic and how your nation cooperated with them. Finally, the third and last paragraph should specify your proposals and how you plan to implement them within the committee. You are encouraged to use strong details that support your ideas and quotes if believed as suitable.

There will be no extensions, so please deliver them to the mentioned mails at the scheduled time with the specific format.

The first multilateral disarmament agreement came to live in April 1997 with the creation of the Chemical Weapon Convention (CWC), the solution for the elimination of a whole category of Weapon Mass Destruction (WMD) after many failed chemical disarmament efforts. Since then, the Organization has accomplished all efforts to fulfill the main goal of the Convention, to eliminate all kind of development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons within a determined time frame. Nevertheless, the world still faces chemical attacks by Violent Non-State Actors and Terrorist Organizations who still find the way to acquire such weapons. In Russia, 96.3% of their declaredchemical weapons have already been destroyed, reducing the chances of future chemical attacks. (OPCW, 2017)

1. POSITION PAPERS

2. HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE

Taken from: https://www.gettyimages.com

3. TOPIC A:Control and regulation of easy access components that could be used to manufacture potential chemi-cal weapons.

Since the last century and even before, the use of chemical weaponry in war times has set the difference between victory and defeat, however, it is impossible to deny the devastating effects that these weapons bring to population. Historically, due to its frequent use during wars, millions of people have been left with permanent or transitory sequels such as genetic problems, lung disorders or cardiovascular problems. (Razavi, S; Ghanei, M; Salamati, P; Safiabadi, M, 2013)

Gas attack in Syria (April 4th, 2017) Taken from: www.timesofisrael.com

6

Although the threat of massive use of this type of weaponry has been decreasing over the years, we cannot ignore that clandestine chemical weaponry is a threat in actual conflicts such as the ones in Syria (Lusher, A, 2018). The use of this casual weapons have been increasing in the past years since some of the components of the weapon by their own do not represent a risk, but with the help of degrees in chemistry or chemical science it is easy to create a threat to people. Due to the easy access, manufacturing processes become easy as well. Adding that, no regulation on the matter has been proclaimed, which is why there is a need of regulation on obtention, use, laboratory practices and waist on highly potential components for chemical weaponry

History of the Issue Nonetheless science has evolved, this is not a current issue. We are able to go back to the Middle Ages and see the use of chemistry in warfare, for example with poisoning arrows and swords, using incendiary weapons, that cause asphyxia due to the carbon monoxide and of course scorch on people bodies (Bañon, n.d.). To mention a few more, there is the Greek fire, a mixture of pitch, naphtha, sulfur and oil, created in 1200 and A.C. capable of burning even in water (“A Brief History of Chemical and Biological Weapons”, 2004).

Keeping on with more actual chemical weapons, the first alarming use of these was during the World War I or Great War for historians. The use of gases such as the mustard gas were held responsible for a great amount of deaths during this period of war, among other gases based on nerve agents and this exercise throughout all the XX century. (Everts, 2015) Shortly after WWI ended, during the interwar years, the German regime and the USSR made alliances that resulted in the construction of German chemical weaponry plants in the USSR territory, these whole new research lead to the creation of sarin back in 1939 among others that are still used today in war times -such as the case of the mentioned gas in Syria- (Cordette, 2005). When World War II came up, this did not change at all, and it was used as well during

US Mustard Gas Experiments in WWII Taken from: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com

the conflict, what is remarkable to mention of this period is the intervention of the US to standardize protection measures for civilians (Smart, 2004).

Actual context is not so different, the responsibility of deaths by nerve agents in Middle Eastern conflicts are even greater that the ones during WWI or WWII. Development has been the key word throughout these years but that development as well has become the reason why chemical weapons is so used in war.

7

Current situation of the topic Once reviewed the history of the issue, it is suitable to understand the current situation of chemical weapons and how they are used nowadays. As regulations and conventions were established through the years, such as the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction” (CWC) in 1997, countries were more conscious regarding the effects and the responsibility that chemical weapons meant to the society and international peace. Nevertheless, the context for the design of such said documents was based upon direct recognition of nations’ possession of these types of weapons. Said that, these conventions and regulations were made to regulate complete states and identify the event once it occurred.

Currently, there is a new threat that affects the international community and does not differentiates targets, it is the use of chemical weapons as a resource of terrorism or subversive attacks. For that sake, this is a list of some of the attempts and their results (Johnston, 2017):

• March 20, 1995.- Aum Shinriko cult released sarin nerve gas in a subway in Tokyo, as aresult 12 people were killed and 5,511 injured.

• October 26, 2002.- Russian soldiers used fentanyl incapacitating agent against Chechen terrorists that took 800 hostages at Moscow theater; they used the agent when executing the operation, killing the terrorists but also killing or injuring hostages with the gas.

• April - August 2010.- Islamist terrorists targeted Kabul, Kunduz and other Afghan cities, by developing around 20 gas attacks on girls’ schools with what was supposed to be a type of pesticide.

• March - April 2013.- Alleged Syrian military used multiple chemical agents to develop diverse attacks targeting rebel soldiers and affecting civilians. Around 44 people were killed and 76 injured; nevertheless, it was not confirmed that the Syrian government undergo the attack.

• August 21, 2013.- Syrian military launched rockets with chemical agents, such as sarin gas, at suburbs in south and east Damascus for targeting rebel-held areas. As consequence, 1,429 people were killed (among 426 children) and 2,200 injured.

• March 8, 2016.- The Islamic state used a blistering agent on Taza, Iraq, killing a 3 year old child and having 600 injured.

Taken from: https://www.theperspective.com/subjective-timeline/politics/rise-fall-berlin-wall/

8

Those are some of the cases, having some of them developed in further sections of the current document as it is important to understand their context, parties involved and the process of recognition of the event. Hence these cases are just the image of a harsh reality, chemical weapons are large scale weapons that can be used by any type of faction. Furthermore, they are considered accessible and effective as they attack a wide range of targets. One quick example are nerve gases, which have similar components to the ones included within pesticides. One of their most common ingredients is organic phosphorus compounds, also called organophosphates, which is commonly used within the composition of nerve gases. Accumulated in right amounts and mixed with other ingredients it can be deathly to its victims as it affects the nervous system. The question that arises as part of this situation is, which should be the recommended actions for managing ingredients and components that could be accessible for developing chemical weapons?

Another key point besides the components is the human capital necessary for manufacturing and managing the potential chemical weapon. Hence James Tour, chemical weapons expert and Rice University Professor, stated that anyone with some experience and training in chemistry could easily produce chemical weapons such as sarin gas if they had access to some freely available raw materials (Tour, 2013). It is true that these components are not so easy to be found, but they can be found in chemical markets and even though they are not the exact ones, similar resources can be found and specially adapted by a chemist with a master’s level of training.

Hence the situation is not so simple, there is the need not only to control easy access raw materials but also capacitated personnel that can create these types of weapons. Not anybody can build them up, but in the right hands they are lethal. As James Tour responded to the question if chemical weapons can be eradicated: “No that’s absolutely impossible. They’re too easy to make, and they are frightening if made”; so effective control measures and responses are key to their potential threat (Tour, 2013).

Taken from: https://www.aa.com.tr

9

Types of Chemical Weapons

To understand better the situation, it is necessary to analyze some of the diverse types of chemical weapons that exist and that can be made. How effective they are, depends on a different number of factors, such as: age, purity, weather conditions, wind direction, means of dissemination, besides other more. They can be executed as liquids, vapors, gases and aerosols; being able to get into someone´s body through the eyes, lungs or skin, and blood agents. Depending on the agent some of the chemicals can take hours to kill, generate immediate failure of the respiratory or nervous system, skin irritation, headaches, heart palpitations, respiratory difficulty, vomiting and convulsions (ABC News, 2017).

According to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a chemical weapon is “any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves (“Chemical Weapons”, n.d.). Such definition seems very general as it intends to englobe any type of mechanism that could deliver a harmful chemical component.

Hence here are some of the most common chemical agents known and used through the last small-scale attacks developed (“Types of Chemical Weapons”, 2017):

• Sarin. Is a colorless and odorless nerve gas which is a member of the organophosphate chemical family. It is important to mention that some of its main components can be found in many modern pesticides, but also it can be difficult to mix properly and safely as it can be highly unstable. The most resounded case of its use was in August 2013, when Syrian militaries launched rockets with this substance to attack rebel held areas.

• Soman. It is an extremely toxic chemical substance that interferes with the normal functioning of the nervous system. It has a yellow to brown color and with a strong odor; and it is more lethal and persistent than sarin or tabun.

• VX or O-ethyl S-disopropylaminomethyl methylphosphonothiolate. Is brownish in its liquid form and odorless as a vapor. It is considered as one of the most toxic substances known as it can stay on materials, equipment and terrain for long periods of time. Furthermore, some droplets of this substance can be enough to kill a person.

• Tabun. Is colorless or brownish as a liquid and odorless as a vapor. Like many pesticides, it is an organophosphate, considered as one of the easiest nerve gases to manufacture, even for non-industrialized countries.

• Hydrogen cyanide. It is a component commercially produced and used in plastic and organic chemical products around the world. At normal temperatures it is colorless in its vapor form, having a similar smell to bitter almonds. It has high toxicity and in concentrated quantities can lead rapidly to death.

• Mustard agents. It is one of the most common gases used throughout history. In fact, it was first used by the end of World War I and several nations produced them. They cause severe eye and lung damage, and the injuries generated by them resemble burns or blisters. They are easy to make and got their name because of their smell which is similar to rotten mustard or onion door.

10

Current conventions and regulations Chemical weapons as we know them nowadays, started to be used in World War I, when different parties used poisonous gas to inflict agonizing suffering and significant casualties. Some of the agents used were the following: chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas. As it was expected, victims were indiscriminate, having almost 100,000 deaths. As consequence of the harsh reality of using these types of weapons, the Geneva Protocol was signed in 1925, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in warfare. It was a first step and became the base for further developments as this original document lacked several aspects, such as the development, production or stockpiling (“Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use”, n.d.).

Considering this regulatory progress, during World War II chemical agents were not used in the battlefield; however, they were used in concentration camps by Nazis. Years later in the Cold War, an estimated of 25 States were developing chemical weapons as part of their struggle to develop international strength and to assure their potential response to an aggression.

All those events led to the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1992. It finally entered into force in April 1997 and was the first multilateral agreement that established a framework to eliminate entire categories of weapons of mass destruction under the scope of international control. The CWC is composed by 24 articles which state general obligations of member parties, definitions and criteria regarding chemical agents, chemical weapons and their facilities, National implementation measures, cooperation and settlement of dispute, economic and technological development, and other concepts more (“Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention”, n.d.).

Unfortunately, the CWC was developed, recognizing States´ potential threat by their using these weapons, without considering small scale attacks developed by subversive or terrorist factions. Nevertheless, other institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross have issued statements in which they congratulate the achievements made by the Convention and urged outside nations that

have chemical weapons to join, considering the current existing trends in the world (“Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross”, 2017). Its role as such in this issue has led them to become an active team that helps OPCW activities, especially when assisting active war zones. Study Cases

Here you will find some of the most relevant cases regarding the use of simple manufactured chemical weapons, which were used by diverse organizations and entities. Each one presents a different scenario, hence the need to understand the complete scope for regulating and managing these types of weapons:

Tokyo´s Subway (1995) In 1984, a simple yoga class became what would be called Aum Shinrikyo, a doomsday Japanese cult which years later would let to a devastating attack in Tokyo. By the early 1990s, it had around 10,000 members in Japan and thousands of people around the globe. A strong belief of this cult was that parents were evil and were part of the present, not the future, hence developing an anti-parent rhetoric. With time, the cult tried to enter Japanese politics for taking over the government; however, it failed. In consequence the group began to gather weapons from Russia and developed an illegal narcotics trade network to finance their activities. Finally, on March 20, 1995, members of this cult boarded a subway in Tokyo and released sarin gas agents, which killed 12

Taken from: https://www.elobservador.com.uy

11

people and left around 5,500 injured. This was one of the first chemical attacks developed within a main city and by a small radical group, and it was an attack that had a large area of impact (DeLong, 20180).

Moscow´s theater (2002) Chemical weapons have also been used by government agents to control and suppress subversive or rebel attacks. Nevertheless, their ineffective management and the lack of precautions have led to catastrophic results, affecting the civil society. In October 23rd, 2002, 40 Chechen militants lead by Movsar Barayev took over Dubrovka theatre in Moscow, taking around 912 hostages. For maintaining the secrecy of the situation and showing that it was under control, Russian militaries pumped sleeping gas into the location, killing the attacker and having 130 casualties from the hostages. The outcomes from this operation, were caused by the untaken precautions (Krechetnikov, 2012).

Taken from: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2002/10/31/death-in-the-theatre

Syrian attack in Damascus (2013)

Possibly this is the most known case of a chemical attack, especially as it occurred in an active war zone, making much more complicated to gather evidence regarding to point who must be taken accountable for the attack. At the morning of August 21st, 2013, several rockets were launched to suburban areas of Damascus with the purpose to defeat rebels. The result was catastrophic, around 1,429 people were killed, from which 426 were children, and 2,200 were injured.

This case was completely covered by the media and totally rejected by the international community, that saw the harsh images of innocent people and children death because of the use of the nerve gas, also known as sarin. Nevertheless, as this was a conflict that also involved several international parties, such as Russia and the US, the real accountability for the attack was never completely assessed (Warrick, 2013). 1. How could governments control common

12

components that could be used for manufacturing chemical weapons?

2. Regarding terrorist groups that use chemical weapons, how should the OPCW act and how nations should manage the issue?

3. Should there be an additional protocol, article or amendment to the CWC regarding the topic or a new convention?

4. There should be a standardized control of common day components that could be part of a chemical weapon? Or should it be up to each country´s jurisdiction?

5. How can governments manage the role and participation of specialized professionals that can build up chemical weapons?

6. In case of a chemical attack, which should be the response for managing the situation?The demilitarization of chemical weapons

A. Introduction to Topic B

After seeing the effects of using chemical weapons in World War I and World War II, the idea of limiting their use became a reality. During the Cold War, many discussions took place, especially considering that world hegemonies were developing and managing chemical weapons, as a so-called security mechanism for their sovereignty. The truth is that all the paths led finally to the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on 1992. With it, signing members accepted the demilitarization of chemical weapons

and understood that their use would involve sanctions from the international community.Having that in mind, the scope of demilitarization initially was meant for States, as they were easily recognize and address by the OPCW. Nevertheless, there are several components to take into consideration when proceeding to the destruction of existing chemical weapons. Factors such as the type of weapon, its chemical components and potential collateral damages, must be deemed when developing a mechanism to effectively destroy this type of armament. All those efforts have resulted in that, by 2010, almost 70% of the existing registered stockpiles in the US have been destroyed (“US gains momentum destroying chemical weapon stockpiles”, 2010). Results as the one mentioned demonstrate real achievements; nevertheless, there are still non-declared weapons and facilities for their development.

Meanwhile, recent events have also shown that chemical weapons are not only managed by States nowadays but by subversive groups and individuals too. Hence, the process of demilitarization does not only involve mechanisms for States but also for potential minor scale threats. In this sense, it is important to design plans for the collection and destruction of chemical weapons that can be developed by any type of actor, with the support of the international community and the OPCW.

Some of the first chemical weapons to be used in modern battlefields were chlorine and phosgene gases, which were first used as such during World War I. As a result, the use of these weapons, including mustard gas, resulted in 90,000 deaths and several casualties which suffered harsh wounds (“Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use”, n.d.). Despite the deathly effects seen during World War I, they were used again in World War II, specifically in concentration camps. The atrocities generated by its use marked an entire generation that understood these armaments required to be effectively

QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER (QARMAS)

4. TOPIC B:

B. History of the Topic

13

managed, and if possible should not be used at all. A relevant fact of this period was that as consequence of their use during wars, large scale productions were left abandoned in different countries, something which is still a problem considering the conditions in which they have been existing.

Once the Cold War took place, power States followed their mutually assured destruction (MAD) by developing not only nuclear weapons but also chemical ones. Large stockpiles of chemical weapons were developed by the United States and the Soviet Union, a reality that threatened the entire world. The amount held was such, that these two countries could wipe out all of life on Earth. This undeniable threat became the beginning of several discussions and conferences for regulating not only chemical weapons but also nuclear ones.

It was a matter of time before other States started to develop chemical weapons and use them as a sign of power and intimidation. One of the most relevant cases was in the 1980s, where Iraq used chemical weapons in Iran for targeting Kurdish residents of Halabja (“Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use”, n.d). Around 5000 people, especially women and children lost their lives on that attack, and approximately 12,000 died with the pass of

the years due to the sequel left on them by the chemical components used. This reality became the horrific image that the international community carried with them during the negotiations in Geneva for eliminating chemical weapons.

Finally, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was adopted in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on 1992 with the purpose of the destruction and non-production of chemical weapons and on measures to facilitate their banning from the international community. Of the 188 states signing the convention, 7 declared chemical weapons stockpiles: Albania, Libya, Iraq, South Korea, Russia and the United States (Walker, 2010). Albania and Libya maintain the smallest stockpile, while the US and Russia possess the highest ones. Since then, the process of destruction has been taking place; for instance, the US has constructed and operated 5 large incinerators for accomplishing the compromise of eliminating its existing tons of chemical weapons.

C. Types of Inspection for Chemical Destruction

To ensure the CWC mandate to destroy facilities and stockpiles of Chemical weaponry, the convention provides a verification process that features on-site inspection. Nonetheless, this is not the whole verification process, the inspection process is just one part of the whole regime. In this order of ideas, the inspection routine process is divided into three main parts. The Pre-Inspection, In-Country activities, and Post-Inspection. (OPCW, 2000)

During the Pre-Inspection process the inspection team dedicates to logistic matters which are non-relevant to the case. Moreover, during the In-Country activities, the inspection team is transported to the Chemical Weapons Production Facilities (CWPFs) were they begin with the inspection process. They sample, photograph and conduct an inventory of each chemical weapon, device, and munition that resides within the facility. Nevertheless, the team also verifies the accuracy of relevant data declared previously by the State Party under Articles III, IV and V of the CWC. The nature of the inspection depends on which Schedule is the chemical located. This is better explained in the graph below. (OPCW, 2000)

Taken from: https://www.ocr.org.uk

14

“Routine Inspections of Chemical Production Facilities” (OPCW, 2000)Shortly after this process, the team gathers at the OPCW headquarters to show the results and create a report for the Inspected State Party (ISP), the OPCW further checks the information and see if its complacent with the principles of the CWC. On the other hand, inspection processes on State Parties can also begin from the challenge inspection. One State Party calls to the OPCW to challenge inspect another State Party in any part of the territory, naturally, the ISP may not refuse to be inspected, shortly, a team is launched to the country and begin the inspection due to non-compliance of the ISP. (OPCW, 2000)

Lastly, the third way to begin an inspection to a State Party is for the Alleged Use of Chemical weaponry. For this to work, a State Party has to either begin the challenge inspection by a request submission or submit a request to the Director-General for assistance due to the fact that the weaponry has been used against the requesting State Party. The goal of this inspection is no other than verify data related to the alleged use and second to provide a basis of information to help the OPCW Executive Council whether further actions should be taken to provide with assistance to the requesting Party. (OPCW, 2000)

D. Destruction of Chemical Weapons Process

To destroy chemical weapons in a proper manner, the OPCW established a process for Member States to accomplish. The first step for Member States is to declare all chemical weapons, munitions and items used for their creation. The Convention requires States Parties to destroy their chemical weapons within 10 years after the creation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, with the opportunity for Countries to request extensions up to five years with the approval of the OPCW. By 2012 only 3 Member States accomplished to destroy their arsenal on time (OPCW, 2014), nonetheless, many State Parties have asked for extensions to fulfil their goals. Most of them have not been accomplished due the high expenses and difficultness of destroying any type of chemical weapon.

Member States who possess and/or have jurisdiction over chemical weapons must have declared to the OPCW, including the quantity of each chemical, the locations of their inventories of all chemical weapons storage facilities (CWSFs) and the form of the weapons (chemical agent, munitions, binary or multicomponent chemical weapons, equipment, etc.) (OPCW, 2014). Each Member State can choose and apply the appropriate destruction method for their weapons, depending on what is being destroyed. For example, chemical agents may be incinerated or

15

neutralized, whereas unfilled munitions may simply be cut apart. Therefore, the correct safety measures must be implemented in order to promote secure destruction procedures for the safety of the people and the environment during the process. Therefore, a destruction proses is being used where the Convention divides chemical weapons into three categories.

Category 1 weapons are based on Schedule 1 chemicals, Category 2 weapons are based on other chemicals, and Category 3 weapons consist of unfilled munitions, devices and other equipment (OPCW, 2014). Time frames for each destruction process vary according to the category of the weapon. Category 1 weapons were to be destroyed in four phases, beginning no later than two years after the CWC entered into force (1997) and ending no later than ten years after entering into force (2007).

1. Should there be included new mechanisms for regulating and destroying existing chemical weapons?

2. How could the international community promote demilitarization in non-signing nations of the CWC?

3. Destruction of chemical weapons is a very delicate process, how could unexperienced countries, with no adequate facilities for demilitarization, work toward a successful elimination and management process?

4. Regarding terrorist and subversive groups, should new objectives and regulations have established? If so, which ones and how are they going to be executed?

E. QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER (QARMAS)

16

A Brief History of Chemical and Biological Weapons. (2004, December 5). Retrieved June 15, 2018, from Internet Archive, wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20041205051646/http://www.cbwinfo.com/History/History.html

ABC News. (2017, October 5). Types of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from ABC News:https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117208&page=1

Bañon, D. (n.d.). Las Armas Químicas. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from Vix: https://www.vix.com/es/btg/curiosidades/4164/las-armas-quimicas

Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2005, April 16). Retrieved June 16, 2018, from Internet Archive, Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20050416035052/http://www.want2race.net/hper/Chemical_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction.ppt

DeLong, W. (2018, April 24). Aum Shinrikyo Believed They Alone Would Survive The Apocalypse – So They Decided To Start It On Their Own. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from All That’s Interesting: https://allthatsinteresting.com/aum-shinrikyo

Everts, S. (2015). A Brief History of Chemical War. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from Science History Institute: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war

Johnston, R. (2017, December 5). Summary of historical attacks using chemical or biological weapons. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from Johnston Archive: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/chembioattacks.html

Krechetnikov, A. (2012, October 24). Moscow theatre siege: Questions remain unanswered. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20067384

Lusher, A. (2018, April 18). Syrian government accused of using nerve agents as death toll from Douma ‘chemical weapons attack’ rises. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-latest-sarin-douma-eastern-ghouta-nerve-agent-chlorine-russia-us-uk-a8294741.htmlOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (n.d.). Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of

REFERENCES

17

Chemical Weapons:https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (n.d.). Brief Description of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons:https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (n.d.). Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/history-of-cw-use/

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (2000, July 25). Fact Sheet 5, Three types of Inspections. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/publications/fact_sheets/05.pdf

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (2014, November 3). Fact Sheet 6, Eliminating Chemical Weapons and Chemical Weapons Production Facilities. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from American Chemical Society: https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/program-in-a-box/documents/2016-global-security/cw-destruction.pdf

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (2017, October 11). OPCW Marks Completion of Destruction of Russian Chemical Weapons Stockpile. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (2017, December). Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/C22/national_statements/ICRC_statement_CWC_CSP_22_2017_final_edited.pdf

Razavi, S. M., Ghanei, M., Salamati, P., & Safiabadi, M. (2013). Long-term effects of mustard gas on respiratory system of Iranian veterans after Iraq-Iran war: a review. Chinese Journal of Traumatology, 16 (3), 163-168.Smart, M. (2004, October 15). HISTORY OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE. Chapter 2 HISTORY OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE.

18

Retrieved June 16, 2018, from Internet Archive, Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20041015013158/http:/usuhs.mil/cbw/history.htm

Tour, J. (2013, September 12). Chemical weapons: Easy to make and disperse, impossible to get rid of. (Y. Shino, Interviewer)

US gains momentum destroying chemical weapon stockpiles. (2010, February 8). Retrieved July 4, 2018, from Defence Talk: https://www.defencetalk.com/us-destroying-chemical-weapon-stockpiles-24069/

Walker, P. (2010, November 4). Abolishing Chemical Weapons: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from Arms Control Association: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_11/Walker

Warrick, J. (2013, August 30). More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10b281d230fc