Paper short abstract:

We explore how multiple epistemic constituencies contribute to make a weapon and its uses. The historical characterization of CS tear gas inter-twined different forms of epistemic authority (scientists, lawyers, diplomats, military, police etc), each licensed to make specific claims about CS gas.

Paper long abstract:

International law clearly states that the use of chemical weapons as a tool of warfare is banned. Yet 'use' is not straightforward, as certain chemical weapons have proven utilities outside of warfare but which lie firmly within the 'security domain', including as tools to counter social disorder. STS scholars have shown that this situation constructs ambiguity around so-called non-lethal weapons, such as tear gases: permitted in domestic riot control but banned on the battlefield. Yet, what tear gas 'is' - its properties, utility and legality - has a contested history. One example was the announcement, in 1970 by the British government, that they interpreted international law to mean that CS tear gas was permitted in both domestic and international conflict. Using this case study, we demonstrate how the characterization of CS gas was inter-twined with different forms of epistemic authority, each 'licensed' to make particular claims about these weapons. Experts such as scientists, lawyers, diplomats, civil servants and politicians, military commanders and the police all made claims, based on their own domains of expertise, about what tear gases 'are' and what therefore ought to be done with these weapons. STS has long recognized how science intersects with different forms of expertise e.g. public, legal or military knowledge. In our study, we build on this work and show how tear gases had a large number of epistemic constituencies speaking on their behalf, thus providing a novel opportunity to understand other cases where numerous different expertises compete to make knowledge claims about weapons.