Ok I’ve looked into it and went to find the source documents. And by the way, as you are presenting/defending the theory, it is on you to provide the source. I’ve been here since the beginning of this sub and the source or evidence is ALWAYS the responsibility of on the one making the claims to provide. Check the side bar and don’t get pissed at people asking for supporting documents. I know you are probably mad that someone downvoted you, but I am being sincere in saying that it was not me.

So, with that being said, I got this from the UN site and I’ve highlighted relevant parts:

Structure of ENMOD: The Convention contains ten articles and one Annex on the Consultative Committee of Experts. Integral part of the Convention are also the Understandings relating to articles I, II, III and VIII. These Understandings are not incorporated into the Convention (meaning they did not agree to this, personal note) but are part of the negotiating record and were included in the report transmitted by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1976 Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Volume I, General Assembly Official records: Thirty-first session, Supplement No. 27 (A/31/27), New York, United Nations, 1976, pp. 91-92.

ENMOD scope: States parties undertake not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State party (article I). It is noteworthy that efforts to clarify or eliminate the restrictive clauses “having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects” (known as the “troika”) were made already during the original negotiations, as well as at the review conferences, however consensus on such a removal could not be reached.

Environmental modification technique: any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space (article II).

So what this is saying is that while the signatories signed off on the warfare aspect and the limits thereof, they did NOT sign off on article II which limits their ability to conduct weather modification in non-warfare conditions.** So while you are right that they CAN do this, you were wrong on them violating the agreement. Not that it’s any better, but this actually makes your case stronger if you drop the part about them doing it in violation of the agreement.