Interesting legal position. Art IX(2) of the Chemical Weapons Convention imposes an duty on State parties to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with the Convention. /1
Russia appears to suggest that the UK is in breach of this duty, having requested an explanation concerning Russia’s involvement in the Skripal poisoning by the end of today. The Russian position seems to be based on a misunderstanding. /2
First, contrary to what the Embassy’s tweet suggests, Art IX(2) of the Convention does not call for a “joint investigation”. Rather, it calls for an exchange of information and consultation. /3
Second, the duty to make every effort to clarify and resolve the situation, through the exchange of information and consultation, is not an absolute one. It applies only “whenever possible” and is phrased as a “should” rather than “shall”. /4
Against this background, it is absurd to suggest that the process set out in Art IX(2) is the exclusive remedy available to a State party that has suffered a chemical weapons attack. /5
Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that such a State could not take appropriate measures to defend itself from further chemical attack or that in an armed conflict it would have to cease all operations if its adversary were to use chemical weapons against it. /6
Art XII of the Convention also recognises that serious or particularly grave instances of non-compliance may call for remedies, including enforcement measures, outside the framework of the Convention. /7
Given the gravity of the incident, it is not contrary to Art IX(2) to expect the Russian Federation to offer an explanation in less than the 10 day period foreseen in that provision. /8
