The Chemical Weapons Convention: Political and Constitutional Issues

Abstract

While 160 nations have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention ("CWC"), only 75 countries have ratified it thus far. On April 25, 1997, after years of political maneuvers, the U.S. Senate finally added the United States to the list, after a vote that was considered too close to call until shortly before ratification. 1 Although the final Senate vote was a lop-sided 74 to 26, the period prior to ratification witnessed a great deal of jockeying, as liberal supporters of the treaty criticized their conservative opponents.2 This liberal support was a little surprising because there are important objections to the treaty based on the Fourth Amendment, which liberals, in other contexts, have supported. Obviously the goal of the CWC-removing the terror of chemical weapons-is laudable, but its procedures raise important questions under the Bill of Rights, particularly under the Fourth Amendment, regulating searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, guaranteeing no taking of property without just compensation. Some proponents of the CWC have responded to the constitutional argument by attacking the motives of those who raise these constitutional questions, accusing them of really being "glued to a 'we're No.1' mentality."