I had some ideas in ways Chemical Weapons Convention could potentially be tightened

The current gaps seem to be as follows:

1. The CWC makes no specific reference to the responsibilities for use, transfer, or operation of chemical weapon production or storage facilities, in areas that are not under the jurisdiction of a State Party, but not under the jurisdiction of another State Party/State either. For example: international waters or polar regions.
2. The term “production” does not reference, as part of its definition: (1) the word “electrolysis” as a component of the “final technological stage”, (2) the adjectival phrase “in situ” with respect to “electrolysis” as a final technological stage; and (3) any phrasing to the effect of: “in any location, including areas outside the jurisdiction of the State Party, such as international waters”
3. The General Obligations do not specifically cover the use of chemical weapons to target another State deploying from a area beyond the official border of the target State. For example, by releasing chemical agents, or producing toxic chemicals in situ, in international waters, in a manner that would impact upon the target State that is down-wind or down-stream of the release.
4. The CWC makes no specific reference or provisions to the actions of non-state actors or proxies acting under the direct control of States Parties to the CWC – covert or otherwise – which may have the capacity and resources to produce and deploy toxic chemicals.

Consider a scenario in which a malicious State Party procures the services of a non-state actor agent to produce, in situ, in international waters, via the electrolysis of brine, quantities of chlorine gas – the express purpose of which is to target civilians within another State. Such a scenario would probably be covered under CWC Article 1 General Provision (b), or potentially under the terms of “transfer”.  If is not however, could it even be officially reported to the OPCW for example? In that case it might require a case to be built, losing critical time.

Generally speaking, I have serious doubts as to the judicious and ethical use of international waters, Polar Regions, and even Low Earth Orbit. For the purposes of mounting attacks upon adversaries, these locations are no less strategic than being on the de jure territory of a State. If anyone else has a better understanding than I do on how this could be covered under the CWC, I’d be very interested to hear from them. Otherwise, to my mind there is a sizeable loophole within the treaty.