Fact check: Which countries haven't signed the VX treaty?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, four countries have not fully committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which includes the ban on VX nerve agent:

• Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan have neither signed nor ratified the CWC ^{[1] [2]}
• Israel has signed but not ratified the treaty, meaning it remains a signatory without full legal commitment ^{[1] [2]}

Multiple sources consistently identify North Korea as one of the few countries that isn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}. The analyses indicate that 193 states are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention ^[2], leaving these four countries as the notable exceptions.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important contextual information that the analyses reveal:

• VX is not covered by a separate "VX treaty" - it falls under the broader Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, which bans the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons including VX nerve agent ^{[5] [4]}
• The analyses mention additional treaties beyond chemical weapons - some sources reference the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), noting that Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Kiribati have neither signed nor ratified the BWC ^[1], though this is separate from VX restrictions
• The question doesn't acknowledge the distinction between signing and ratifying treaties - Israel's case demonstrates that signing alone doesn't constitute full legal commitment ^{[1] [2]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a fundamental factual error by referring to a "VX treaty" as if it were a standalone agreement. The analyses clearly show that VX restrictions fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention, not a separate VX-specific treaty ^{[5] [4] [6]}. This mischaracterization could mislead readers about the international legal framework governing chemical weapons.

The question's framing also oversimplifies the complex nature of international treaty obligations by not distinguishing between countries that haven't signed versus those that have signed but not ratified, which represents different levels of international commitment ^[2].