6. The signatory States undertake to execute in good faith any sentence or judicial award that may be rendered and to comply with the solutions recommended by the Council, as provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article. If a State fails to comply with these obligations, the Council exercises all its influence to ensure compliance with these obligations. Failing that, it shall propose the measures to be taken to implement it in accordance with the provision at the end of article 13 of the Covenant. If a State which fails to comply with the above-mentioned obligations goes to war, the sanctions provided for in article 16 of the Covenant, interpreted in the manner specified in the present Protocol, shall apply immediately to it. In the General Assembly, the 12 non-aligned members of the CCD, joined by 9 other countries, tabled a resolution condemning the use of all chemical and biological agents in international armed conflicts as contrary to international law. The U.S. legislature that opposed the resolution reaffirmed the U.S. interpretation of the protocol and found it inappropriate for the General Assembly to interpret the treaties through a resolution. The Resolution of the 21 Nations was adopted on 16 December 1969 by 80 votes in favour, 3 (Australia, Portugal, United States) and 36 abstentions (including France and Great Britain).

The France and many other abstentionists accepted the broad interpretation of the protocol, but felt that the resolution was not desirable for other reasons. Two days later, on the 12th. In December, the committee voted unanimously to send the minutes and convention to the Senate, and on December 16, the Senate also voted unanimously to approve it. The Committee recommended advice and approval for the ratification of the Protocol and noted that it attached particular importance to Mr. Ikles` response to the following question posed in relation to his statement of December 10: Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported positively on the minutes in 1926, there was a lot of lobbying against it, and the Senate never voted on it. After the war, President Truman removed it from the Senate along with other older treaties that were inactive. Little attention was paid to the Protocol for several years thereafter. During the Korean War, the communist side accused the United States of using bacteriological weapons in Korea, but at the same time, it rejected U.S. proposals for an international investigation into their allegations. In the Security Council, the Soviet Union submitted a draft resolution calling on all members of the United Nations to ratify the Protocol. At the time, the United States was unwilling to accept the prohibition on the use of weapons of mass destruction unless they could be eliminated by a disarmament agreement with effective safeguards. On 26 June 1952, the Soviet resolution is rejected by 1 vote to 0, with 10 abstentions (including the United States, the United Kingdom and the France).

While debate in the General Assembly was still ongoing, President Nixon announced on November 25, 1969, that he would resubmit the minutes to the Senate. He reaffirmed the United States` renunciation of the first use of lethal chemical weapons and extended this renunciation to incapacitated chemicals. On this occasion, he also announced the unilateral renunciation of the United States to bacteriological (biological) methods of warfare. Question: “Assuming that the Senate gives its opinion and consents to ratification for the reasons proposed by the government, what legal obstacle would there be to subsequent decisions by the President that expand the authorized use of herbicides and means of controlling the disorders? The interpretation of the Protocol remains a sensitive issue. In its preface to a UN report on chemical and biological weapons (1. July 1969), Secretary-General Thant recommended a new call for accession to the Protocol and a “clear confirmation” that it covers the use of all chemical and biological weapons, including tear gas and other nuisances, in times of war. Discussions in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) showed that most members agreed with Thant`s recommendations. Swedish Ambassador Myrdal, a strong advocate of a broad interpretation, stressed the risk of escalation if non-lethal chemical agents were approved. She also stressed that the military use of tear gas must be distinguished from its use to combat unrest and that there is a similar difference between the use of herbicides in time of war and the use of herbicides for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, British Disarmament Secretary Mulley believed that only the parties to the protocol had the right to say what it meant.

In the second half of 1974, the Ford government launched a new initiative to obtain Senate approval to ratify the Protocol (and at the same time the Biological Weapons Convention). The new approach was presented to the Committee on 10 September. In December 1920, the Special Protocol was opened for signature and to reconcile reservations with the said clause. Accession to this Special Protocol, opened for signature on 16 December 1920, shall take place within one month of the entry into force of this Protocol. States acceding to this Protocol after its entry into force shall comply with this obligation within one month of their accession. In 1966, communist countries sharply criticized the United States for the use of tear gas and chemical herbicides in Vietnam. In the General Assembly, Hungary accused the use of such agents in time of war of being prohibited by the Geneva Protocol and other provisions of international law. The United States denied that the protocol applied to non-toxic gases or chemical herbicides. Together with Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom, the United States introduced amendments to a Hungarian resolution that would have made the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons an international crime. In its final form, the resolution called for “strict observance of the principles and objectives” of the Protocol by all States, condemned “all acts contrary to those objectives” and called on all States to accede to the Protocol.

During the discussion, the representative of the United States stated that it was for each country to decide whether or not to accede to the protocol “in the light of constitutional and other considerations”. The Protocol and the Convention were ratified by President Ford on 22 January 1975. The American instrument of ratification of the Convention was deposited on 26 March 1975 and of the Protocol on 10 April 1975. Before World War II, the Protocol was ratified by many countries, including all major powers except the United States and Japan. When ratifying or acceding to the Protocol, some countries – including the United Kingdom, the France and the USSR – declared that it would no longer be binding on them if their enemies or their enemies` allies did not comply with the Protocol`s prohibitions. Although Italy was a party to the Protocol, it used poison gas during the Ethiopian War. Nevertheless, the protocol was generally adhered to during world War II. Referring to reports that the Axis powers were considering the use of gas, President Roosevelt said on June 8, 1943: The Foreign Relations Committee accepted the government`s interpretation of the means of fighting riots and herbicides. In a letter dated 15.

In April 1971, President Fulbright stated that many Members believed that it would be in the interest of the United States either to ratify the Protocol without “restrictive collusion” or to postpone measures until possible. The Committee therefore deferred its work. It also suspended the Biological Weapons Convention, which was submitted to it on 10 August 1972, until this issue was resolved. At the Geneva Conference to Monitor the International Arms Trade in 1925, the United States also took the initiative to ban the export of gas for war. At the suggestion of the France, it was decided to draw up a protocol on the non-use of toxic gases and, at the suggestion of Poland, the ban was extended to bacteriological weapons. .