As I understand it chemical weapons such as tear gas are prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention but allowed in law enforcement, possibly by section 9 (d):
- "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
In this world without declarations of war and different intensities of conflict what does this mean in practice?
This is prompted by the news that EU funded weapons were used for domestic riot control purposes including the use of tear gas. The "scandal" as presented is the use of this equipment to "violently suppress recent pro-democracy protests", where is was provided for the purpose of "special intervention unit in the town of Kidira, on the border of Mali, to protect Senegal from potential incursions by armed groups and cross-border crimes, including migrant smuggling".
The question is raises to me is at what point is the use of chemical weapons such as tear gas become a breach of the Chemical Weapons Conversion? When one may be engaging pro-democracy protests, economic criminals such as people smugglers, elements of the state, Wagner mercenaries or as part of an international military mission against Islamist fighters is there a point where it gets "serious enough" that it is no longer legal to use chemical weapons against a "column" of your opponents as witnessed by the twitter video linked in the article?