Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:11:30.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Verification to Strengthening Compliance: Prospects and Challenges of the Biological Weapons Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Marie Isabelle Chevrier
Marie Isabelle Chevrier*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Get access

Abstract

International concern with the ability of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention to fulfill its purpose induced the treaty parties to explore the means to promote compliance with the treaty and to detect noncompliance. In September 1995, the Conference on Disarmament hosted a Special Conference to discuss the findings of the ad hoc group of governmental experts to identify and examine potential verification measures from a scientific and technical standpoint. This article analyzes the work of the Special Conference and the most contentious issues raised there, especially (1) objective criteria for permitted and prohibited activities; (2) the concept of a threshold quantity of agent; (3) technical assistance to States Parties; (4) export controls; (5) the use of a list of agents and toxins for facility declarations; (6) on-site measures to promote compliance; (7) the intrusiveness of these measures; and (8) the protection of sensitive information. Ultimately, the conference delegates endorsed a legally binding protocol to strengthen the treaty. The article concludes with a discussion of the trade-offs necessary to achieve consensus on such a protocol.

Type
The Biological Weapons Convention
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , August 1995 , pp. 209 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australia (1994). “Initial Comments from Australia on Consideration of the VEREX Report.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.6.Google Scholar
Brazil (1994). “Strengthening the BWC: Elements for a Possible Verification System.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.4.Google Scholar
Bulgaria (1994). “Strengthening the BWC: The Bulgarian View.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.14.Google Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1990). “Verifying the Unverifiable: Lessons from the Biological Weapons Convention.” Politics and the Life Sciences 9:93–105.Google Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1992). “The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference.” Politics and the Life Sciences 11:86–92.Google Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1993). “Deliberate Disease: Biological Weapons, Threats, and Policy Responses.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 11:395–417.Google Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1995). “BW Arms Control: Countering Proliferation by Changing the Incentive Structure.” Working Papers in Political Economy No. 95-14. Richardson, TX: University of Texas at Dallas.Google Scholar
China (1994). “China's View on Follow-Up Mechanism for Strengthening the BWC.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.13.Google Scholar
China, India, and Iran (1994). “Working Paper by China, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of).” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.15.Google Scholar
Dahlburg, J.(1992). “Russia Admits It Violated Pact on Biological Warfare.” Los Angeles Times (September 15):A1.Google Scholar
European Union (1994). “Proposal for a Mandate for an Ad-Hoc Working Group on Verification.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.1.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological and Toxin Weapons Verification (1994). Beyond VEREX: A Legally Binding Compliance for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists.Google Scholar
Japan (1994). “Illustrative Guidelines for Considering a Mandate of an Ad-Hoc Working Group on Measures to Strengthen BWC.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.9.Google Scholar
Lacey, E.J.(1994). “Tackling the Biological Weapons Threat: The Next Proliferation Challenge.” The Washington Quarterly 17(4):53–64.Google Scholar
McNeill, W.H.(1979). Plagues and Peoples. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Moodie, M.(1993). “Arms Control Programs and Biological Weapons.” In Roberts, B.(ed.), Biological Weapons: Weapons of the Future? Volume XV. Significant Issues Series. Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
Moon, J.E.V.C.(1991). “Biological Warfare Allegations: The Korean War Case.” Paper presented at a conference at the University of Maryland, April 4.Google Scholar
Netherlands and Canada (1993). “Bilateral Trial Inspection in a Large Vaccine Production Facility: A Contribution to the Evaluation of Potential Verification Measures.” Paper submitted to the Ad Hoc Group of Governmental Experts to Identify and Examine Potential Verification Measures from a Scientific and Technical Standpoint, Third Session. Geneva.Google Scholar
New Zealand (1994). “New Zealand Submission to the Committee of the Whole.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.8.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B.H.(1993). “North vs. South: Politics and the Biological Weapons Convention.” Politics and the Life Sciences 12:69–77.Google Scholar
Russia (1994). “Comments by the Delegation of the Russian Delegation [sic] with Regard to the Document Tabled by the German Delegation on Behalf of the European Union.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.7.Google Scholar
SIPRI (1971). The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Volume I: The Rise of CB Weapons. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
South Africa (1994). “Mandate to Strengthen the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.11.Google Scholar
Switzerland (1994). “Swiss View on a Mandate to Strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.3.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (1994). “United Kingdom BTWC Practice Compliance Inspection (PCI) Programme: Summary Report.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.2.Google Scholar
United Nations (1986). “Final Declaration.” In Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. UN Document BWC/CONF.II/13/2.Google Scholar
United Nations (1991). “Final Declaration.” In Final Document of the Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. UN Document BWC/CONF.III/23.Google Scholar
United Nations (1993). “Summary Report.” In Ad Hoc Group of Governmental Experts to Identify and Examine Potential Verification Measures from a Scientific and Technical Standpoint. Fourth Session., 1-20. UN Document BWC/CONF.III/VEREX/8.Google Scholar
United Nations (1994). “Final Declaration.” In Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/FD.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council (1995). Report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Implementation of the Special Commission's Plan for the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification of Iraq's Compliance with Relevant Parts of Section C of Security Council Resolution 687 (1991). UN Document S/1995/284, April 10.Google Scholar
United States (1994). “Statement of U.S. Representative Donald A. Mahley to the Committee of the Whole.” In Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.16.Google Scholar
United States of America (1994). “Consideration of VEREX Report.” Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. UN Document BWC/SPCONF/WP.10.Google Scholar
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1980). Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements: Texts and Histories of Negotiations. Publication 105. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee (1993). Countering the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat in the Post-Soviet World. Report of the Special Inquiry into the Chemical and Biological Threat. 102nd Cong. 2nd Sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Vachon, G.K.(1993) “Weighing the Value of Possible On-Site Measures Through a Trial Inspection.” Paper presented to a forum entitled “Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention,” sponsored by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, the Federation of American Scientists, and the NGO Committee on Disarmament, October 21.Google Scholar
van Ham, P.(1994). Managing Non-Proliferation Regimes in the 1990's: Power, Politics, and Policies. Royal Institute of International Affairs. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.Google Scholar
Williams, P. and Wallace, D.(1989). Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A.(1990). “Biological Warfare and the Third World.” Politics and the Life Sciences 9:59–76.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. and Heden, C.G.(1991). “The Biological Weapons Convention: A Vehicle for International Co-operation.” In Lundin, S.J.(ed.), Views on Possible Verification Measures for the Biological Weapons Convention. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar