While the opioid epidemic engulfing the United States and the globe is well-documented, the potential use of powerful fentanyl derivatives as a weapon of terror is increasingly a concern. Carfentanyl, a powerful and deadly fentanyl derivative, is seeing a surge in popularity as an illegal street drug, and there is increasing congressional interest surrounding the classification of opioid derivatives under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) given their potential to cause harm. The combination of the potency of opioid derivatives along with the ease of accessibility poses a potential risk of the use of these deadly agents as chemical weapons, particularly by terrorist organizations. Disaster Medicine specialists in recent years have established a sub-specialty in Counter-Terrorism Medicine (CTM) to address and research the unique terrorism-related issues relating to mitigation, preparedness, and response measures to asymmetric, multi-modality terrorist attacks.

The use of chemical weapons in the armed conflict in Syria has attracted universal and widespread condemnation and has led to unified responses by various international bodies. This article examines the international community's responses to chemical weapons use in Syria from the perspective of international law. It also analyzes the potential options for accountability that are available for chemical weapons-related crimes. The intention is ultimately to make the case that the special status the international community has ascribed to chemical weapons crimes could be harnessed to create an accountability mechanism, such as an ad hoc tribunal, that could help pave the complex road towards a negotiated peace.

The controversy surrounding recent uses of white phosphorus (WP) to ‘flush-out’ suspected insurgents or in attacks against military targets in open ground has led to a renewed media interest in the legal status of WP-based munitions. An inherent public dislike for weapons that cause death or injury by fire is very natural, so one is entitled to ask whether humanity should not prevail when it comes to anti-personnel uses of such weapons. In the absence of a specific treaty dealing with the use of WP, this article, written jointly by a retired military lawyer and a scientist interested in the law, examines the use of such weapons in practice as well as the relevant legal and scientific background before attempting to reach conclusions about their legality. This involves a consideration of the reasons for the development of WP-based munitions, of their usual military uses and of some unconventional uses of such weapons. There follows an examination of the basic principles of customary international law as well as the treaty provisions dealing with incendiary weapons. Furthermore, because of the various harmful physiological interactions of WP, it was necessary to look closely at the legal provisions on poison, gas and chemical weapons. That demanded an interpretation of multiple aspects of the Chemical Weapons Convention before the legal status of WP could be fully determined. The convention is constructed in such a way that what at first sight appears to be a chemical weapon may not be as a matter of law unless it is consciously applied in a prohibited manner.

The law of international organisations needs to address comprehensively, the legal question of the accountability of such Organisations. In the contemporary world, whereas states, multinational corporations, and individuals can be held accountable under applicable systems of law, there is no equivalent set of rules that applies to international organisations. The OPCW, a global disarmament Organisation, is a good model of an accountable Organisation. The Chemical Weapons Convention embodies various sets of rules and provisions, which ensure the accountable functioning of the Organisation. This article examines the concept of the accountability of international organisations as envisioned by the International Law Association, and analyses the concept in the context of the OPCW.