It is not an exaggeration that COVID 19 has completely made a paradigm shift in the normal geo political order by creating an aura of uncertainties around us and the outcomes that may possible to emerge in the aftermath of COVID 19 may alter the whole world. The harsh encounter that has erupted between the USA and China exposes many of the political quibbles as both states are accusing each other over the state responsibility of creating COVID 19. US president Trump was audacious to call COVID 19 as Chinese epidemic creating a diplomatic limbo and in retaliation Chinese accused the USA for bringing the virus to Wuhan. While all this conspiracy theories remain obscure with no substantive evidence, many of the states in Europe and International Law intellectuals tend to seek justice from International Law against China . In fact, the International Council of Jurists, which is based in London, went to United Nations Human Rights Council, seeking compensation from China for causing rigorous harm to International community by unleashing a biological weapon under the principle of state responsibility. It’s time for International law scholars, students and human rights activists to reconsider whether weapons of mass destruction are in existence or not.
In the realm of International law the exact scope for weapons of mass destruction remains ambiguous as none of the International Organization or a treaty have not been able to grant a solid explanation to define weapons of mass destructions. However, the illustration developed by International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion regarding the legality of nuclear weapons is a notable factor to mention with its seminal relevance.
According to the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ the International law regulates the weapons of mass destruction with its three bodies the arms control treaties, International law on the use of force and International humanitarian law. Firstly, a number of treaties are still in existence, which have banned use of weapons of mass destruction category weapons. These treaties are the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons including the Partial Test Ban Treaty. These conventions have been joined, ratified and accepted by a large number of states including the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The Biological Weapons Convention is the first multilateral disarmament treaty at the international stage to prohibit the weapons of mass destruction. Article 1 of the Biological Weapons Convention, effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons. In the same way, article 1 of the Chemicals Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production, acquisition, retention, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons and as well as it also requires each state party to destroy chemicals weapons and chemical weapons production facilities. Secondly, there are contentious customary rules and norms on the use of force and weapons of mass destruction. International law has traditionally allowed states to defend themselves by use of its force. For instance, the United States during the Bush administration, under the doctrine of preemptive use of force, attacked Iraq which was led by Saddam Hussein and categorically told the international community that Iraq was conspiring to attack America with its weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, International humanitarian law also has primary provisions prohibiting the weapons of mass destruction. Prior to Geneva Conventions or International humanitarian law, there was Geneva Protocol of 1925, prohibits use of chemical and biological weapons in war. Customary International humanitarian law has banned use of many weapons including biological and chemical weapons. International humanitarian law strictly imposes rules on the means and methods of warfare. Nevertheless, most of the International law scholars cited that the permanent members of the Security Council have been containing the weapons, as per article 24(1) of the UN Charter, the members who have fundamental responsibility to protect and promote International peace and security.
A renowned International law scholar, Prof Francis Boyle has articulated in his astonishing work“BIOWARFARE AND TERRORISM” that the United States has bio weapons and besides that he openly cites COVID 19 is a bio war.
Anomaly existing today in prohibiting the weapons of mass destruction seems to have unveiled the susceptibility of international law reminding of Austinian maxim “ International Law is the weakest law at all “. Yet, it is important to remember that international law is grounded on the consents of the states, thus the future of international legality and its force is primarily attributed to the will of states. In this statement, International law which is made by states does not create any issue while International law which is implemented by states creates plenty of obstacles. Because, different states have different obstacles in their foreign policies and as well as different states have different interests in their international relations. A large number of western states emphasize that terrorism is a reason to have certain weapons, like nuclear arms.
I would like to make a couple of points here in this conclusion. Post cold war world, mainly two factors are making tensions and instigating to invent WMDs. One is that first world interests and another is that security concern of the third world. So, arms control treaties, International humanitarian law and customary International law would not prevent the weapons. It can ban the weapons only.
The question arises in the conclusion is that to which extend international law has the agency to prevent further developing the weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion the modern international law requires the global participation of both Northern and Southern states for a better mechanism to increase the binding force of international law from its decadent stage.
