By: Anjali Jena and Himanshu
Abstract
The article critically examines the triad of challenges posed by biological weapons: their ineffectiveness as a military strategy, their illegality under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and the inhumanity leading to war crimes and genocide. It dissects historical instances, like Unit 731 and Iraqi government actions, highlighting the catastrophic consequences and legal violations. The argument emphasizes the impracticality of bioweapons, citing their unpredictable nature and potential humanitarian fallout. In conclusion, it advocates for continued international efforts to prevent the development and use of biological weapons, stressing their inherent flaws and the imperative of accountability under international law.
Biological weapons, also known as bioweapons, are weapons that are designed to harm or kill people, animals, or plants using biological agents such as bacteria, viruses, and toxins. The use of biological weapons during conflicts raises a number of important legal and ethical concerns, as well as questions about their effectiveness as a military strategy. In this discussion, we will analyze the effectiveness and legality of using biological weapons during conflicts from the perspective of international humanitarian law (IHL).
The Bacterial Battlefield: Examining the Ineffectiveness of Biological Weapons as a Military Strategy
One of the main concerns surrounding the use of biological weapons is their effectiveness as a military strategy. While bioweapons have the potential to cause widespread harm and death, they are often unpredictable and uncontrollable, making it difficult to target specific groups or areas. Additionally, the effects of biological agents can take days or even weeks to appear, making it difficult to know when and where an attack has occurred. Furthermore, the use of biological weapons can also lead to unintended consequences, such as the creation of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
The effectiveness of biological weapons as a military strategy is highly debated among experts. While bioweapons have the potential to cause widespread harm and death, their unpredictable and uncontrollable nature, along with the potential for unintended consequences and severe humanitarian consequences, make them a poor choice for achieving military objectives.
One example of the ineffectiveness of biological weapons as a military strategy is the Japanese use of biological weapons during World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army established Unit 731, a biological and chemical warfare research unit, which conducted human experimentation and used biological weapons against Chinese and Soviet soldiers and civilians. However, the use of these weapons did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the war and ultimately resulted in severe war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Unit 731 members who went unpunished.
Another example is the Soviet Union's alleged development and stockpiling of biological weapons during the Cold War. Despite investing significant resources in the development of these weapons, they were never used in battle and ultimately proved to be ineffective as a military strategy.
Additionally, the use of anthrax as a bioweapon in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, which targeted government buildings and media outlets, caused widespread fear and panic, but it did not achieve any military objectives.
These examples demonstrate that the use of biological weapons is not only illegal under international humanitarian law but also ineffective as a military strategy. The unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of these weapons, along with the potential for unintended consequences and severe humanitarian consequences, make them a poor choice for achieving military objectives.
It's also important to note that the use of biological weapons in a modern context would be even more challenging and ineffective due to the advancements in science, technology and medicine. The development of vaccines and antibiotics has increased the ability of the international community to respond and contain the spread of biological agents.
Banned but not Forgotten: The Illegality of Biological Weapons
Another major concern is the legality of using biological weapons under IHL. The legality of using biological weapons under international humanitarian law (IHL) is clear: the use of biological weapons is prohibited. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is the first international treaty to ban the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Additionally, the use of any weapon that causes unnecessary suffering is prohibited by IHL.
One example of the illegal use of biological weapons is the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). During the conflict in FYROM in 2001, it was alleged that the ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA) used biological weapons in the form of an unidentified powder, which caused respiratory problems among Macedonian security forces. The allegations were investigated by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations, however, no conclusive evidence was found to prove the use of biological weapons.
Another example is the case of the alleged use of biological weapons by the Iraqi government during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iraq was accused of using biological weapons, including anthrax and botulinum toxin, against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was established to investigate these allegations, and while evidence of the production and stockpiling of biological weapons was found, there is still debate over whether or not they were actually used in combat.
Additionally, the case of Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese doomsday cult, which in 1995 released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system, killing 13 people and injuring more than 50. The group had also attempted to produce biological weapons, including anthrax and botulinum toxin, but their attempts were unsuccessful.
These examples demonstrate that the use of biological weapons is not only illegal under the Biological Weapons Convention but also prohibited by IHL. The use of these weapons causes unnecessary suffering, and in modern context, it is also a violation of human rights.
The Sinister Side of Bioweapons: War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity & Genocide
Moreover, the use of biological weapons can also lead to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This is particularly true if the biological weapon is used to target a specific group of people based on their ethnicity, race, or religion. One example of the use of biological weapons leading to war crimes is the case of the Japanese use of biological weapons during World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army established Unit 731, a biological and chemical warfare research unit, which conducted human experimentation and used biological weapons against Chinese and Soviet soldiers and civilians. The members of Unit 731 committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including vivisection, torture, and murder of prisoners of war and civilians. However, many of the members of Unit 731 went unpunished as they were granted immunity in exchange for their data by the US army during the Cold War.
Another example of the use of biological weapons leading to war crimes and crimes against humanity is the case of the alleged use of biological weapons by the Iraqi government during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the Anfal Campaign against the Kurdish population of Iraq in the late 1980s. The Iraqi government was accused of using chemical and biological weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians, causing widespread death and suffering. The use of these weapons constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Finally, the use of biological weapons as a tool of genocide is exemplified in the case of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where the Hutu-led government used radio broadcasts to encourage Hutus to kill Tutsi and moderate Hutus, and also distributed weapons and training to militias. The government also reportedly experimented with biological weapons, including the distribution of contaminated water and food to Tutsi populations. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over these crimes and can prosecute individuals who use biological weapons to commit these crimes.
Furthermore, it's important to note that the use of biological weapons can also lead to severe humanitarian consequences in the aftermath of the conflict. This is due to the fact that biological agents can cause long-term health effects and can contaminate the environment, making it difficult for people to return to their homes and for the country to recover.
In light of these concerns, it's clear that the use of biological weapons is not only illegal but also ineffective as a military strategy. The unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of these weapons, along with the potential for unintended consequences and severe humanitarian consequences, make them a poor choice for achieving military objectives.
In conclusion, the use of biological weapons during conflicts is not only illegal under international humanitarian law but also ineffective as a military strategy. The unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of these weapons, along with the potential for unintended consequences and severe humanitarian consequences, make them a poor choice for achieving military objectives. The international community must continue to work together to prevent the development, production, and use of biological weapons and to hold those accountable who use them in violation of international law.
Anjali is a 4th-year student enrolled in the law program at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, India (NUSRL). Her research interests lie in the realms of Intellectual Property and Data Privacy Laws. Himanshu is also a 4th-year student at NUSRL. He demonstrates a keen interest in private equity, venture capital, and start-ups. He actively cultivates expertise in these specialized fields through academic pursuits, internships, and certifications.
Comentários