Noncombatants

Despite disagreements at the Washington Conference, members did achieve a small measure of success concerning chemical weapons. Gas was still seen as something “different” than conventional weapons, and as such, conference members agreed that something needed to be done to protect civilians and noncombatants from the indiscriminate effects of chemical warfare. As a result of this effort, conference members signed a treaty with an article aimed at protecting noncombatants from gas. This provision states,

The use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices,   having been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world and a prohibition of such use having been declared in treaties of which a majority of the civilized Powers are parties. The Signatory Powers, to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of international law binding alike the conscience and practice of nations, declare their assent to such prohibition, agree to be bound thereby as between themselves and invite all other civilized nations to adhere to.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/270?OpenDocument

Although not specifically worded, this provision was designed to prohibit the use of chemical weapons against “cities and other large bodies of noncombatants in the same manner as high explosives may be limited.” Unfortunately the Washington treaty never went into effect. While it was signed by the United States, among others, and ratified by the U.S. Senate, France contested antisubmarine provisions contained in the treaty and refused to ratify it. Although ineffective, the Washington Conference created necessary momentum that carried over into the 1925 League of Nations Conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

            The Washington Conference exhibited the dichotomy existing between competing chemical warfare theories. Morally, the revulsion over the indiscriminate nature of gas, a threat to soldier and civilian alike, was the cornerstone of anti-chemical weapon sentiment. Militarily, the use of chemical weapons was still deemed as legitimate as any other form of armament. And practically, the international community saw little hope in successfully regulating and enforcing any type of ban on chemical weapons research and production. Far from the linear path of initial chemical weapon use to moral repugnance to international prohibition, the debate over gas warfare was contentious, difficult, and a constant battle.