Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-j9sz6 Total loading time: 0.68 Render date: 2021-03-09T12:02:14.536Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

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

Extract

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 bans the development and possession of biological and toxin weapons. Yet the threat that a country may acquire and use biological and toxin weapons (BTW) persists—not all nations are party to the treaty, and doubts remain about the compliance of countries who are. Seventy of the 118 nations who are parties to the treaty met in Geneva from September 9 to 27, 1991, to review the performance of the treaty and to grapple with its weaknesses. This was the third such conference convened since the treaty went into force in 1975. The relatively low level of participation in the Third Review Conference was not the result of any protest, but most likely a reflection of disinterest or neglect.

Type
Update
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.

References

Australia (1991). “National Position Paper: Australia.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Belgium (1991). “Belgian Contribution.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Canada (1991). “Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Observations on Confidence-Building Measures and Verification.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Czechoslovakia (1991). “Approach of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic to the Present State of the Biological Weapons Convention.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Doty, P.(1991). “Arms Control: 1960, 1990, 2020.” Daedalus 120:3352.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological and Toxin Weapons Verification (1990). Proposals for the Third Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological and Toxin Weapons Verification (1991). Implementation of the Proposals for a Verification Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists.Google Scholar
Geissler, E., ed. (1990). Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention by Confidence-Building Measures (SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, E.D.(1987). “Sverdlovsk and Yellow Rain: Two Cases of Soviet Noncompliance?” International Security 11:4195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, A.H.(1986). “Statement to the United States Congress on Chemical and Biological Weapons Issues.” Unofficial copy of his remarks of July 17.Google Scholar
India (1991). “Statement by Ambassador of India.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Japan (1991). “Presentation by Mr. J. Kage, Japanese Participant.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lundin, S.J., ed. (1991). Views on Possible Verification Measures for the Biological Weapons Convention (SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meselson, M.S.(1988). “The Biological Weapons Convention and the Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979.” Journal of the Federation of American Scientists 41:16.Google Scholar
Netherlands, The (1991). “National Position Paper: The Netherlands.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nigeria, (1991). “Statement by Ambassador E.A. Azikiwe of Nigeria at the Seminar on the Biological Weapons Convention in the Perspective of the Forthcoming Third Review Conference.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Norway (1991). “Biological Weapons Convention: Position paper, Norway.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Perry Robinson, J.(1980). “East-West Fencing at Geneva.” Nature 284:393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, N.A.(1988). The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament: Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, 1975-1985. New York: St. Martins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweden (1991). “Verification of the Biological Weapons Convention: A Swedish Position Paper.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
United Nations (1980). “Final Declaration.” In First 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.I/10,GE,80-60937.Google Scholar
United Nations (1986a). “Summary Records of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Meetings.” 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 Documents BWC/CONF.II/SR.3; BWC/CONF.II/SR.4; BWC/CONF.II/SR.5Google Scholar
United Nations (1986b). “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). “Draft Final Declaration.” In 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/22/Add.2.Google Scholar
United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1980). Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements: Texts and Histories of Negotiations. Washington, DC: United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.Google Scholar
Vasiliev, N. T.(1991). “A Few Proposals on Strengthening the 1972 Convention and Establishing a Verification Mechanism.” Paper presented at the Seminar on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Noordwijk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wade, N.(1980). “Death at Sverdlovsk: A Critical Diagnosis.” Science 209:1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., ed. (1990). Preventing a Biological Arms Race. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A.and Heden, C.(1991). “The Biological Weapons Convention: a Vehicle for International Cooperation.” In Lundin, S.J.(ed.), Views on Possible Verification Measures for the Biological Weapons Convention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 9th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *