Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Issues, Outcomes, and Unfinished Business

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Malcolm R. Dando
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, United Kingdom
Graham S. Pearson
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, United Kingdom
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

The Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was held November 25 to December 6, 1996. It successfully re-emphasized the norm against biological warfare, usefully broadening this to include molecular biology and applications resulting from genome studies. It also emphasized that use in any way and under any circumstances would be a violation of Article I. Disappointingly, compliance concerns regarding Iraq and the former Soviet Union were less strongly addressed. Article IV and the importance of national legislation as a potential counter to possible terrorist use was underlined. The importance of the existing confidence-building measures (CBMs) was confirmed and the work of the Ad Hoc Group was strongly endorsed, with a change to a negotiating format being explicitly stated, although without setting the target date of 1998 for completion. Article X was re-emphasized, with special note made of the advances made at the Rio Summit, Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and of the initiatives being taken by the World Health Organization to counter new, emerging, and re-emerging infectious diseases. This article addresses the issues, outcomes, and unfinished business of the Fourth Review Conference.

Type
Controlling Biological Weapons
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

Agence France-Presse International News (1996). “Iraq May Have between Six and 16 Long-Range Missiles.” UN, July 1.Google Scholar
Bailey, J.E. (1991). “Toward a Science of Metabolic Engineering.” Science 252:1668–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barinaga, M. (1996). “A Shared Strategy for Virulence.” Science 272:1261–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartfai, T., Lundin, S.J., and Rybeck, B. (1993). “Benefits and Threats of Developments in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering.” In SIPRI Yearbook, World Armaments and Disarmament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beardsley, T. (1996). “Vital Data: Trends in Human Genetics.” Scientific American 274 (March):7681.Google Scholar
Berkelman, R.L. (1994). “Infectious Disease Surveillance: A Crumbling Foundation.” Science 264:368–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. (1996). Ambassador of Australia for Disarmament Matters, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Canada, (1991). Novel Toxins and Bioregulators: The Emerging Scientific and Technological Issues Relating to Verification and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Ottawa, September.Google Scholar
Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin (1996). “Criminalizing BW.” Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin 31 (March):1.Google Scholar
Chevrier, M.I. (1995). “From Verification to Strengthening Compliance: Prospects and Challenges of the Biological Weapons Convention.” Politics and the Life Sciences 14:209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffield, J.A. et al.(1994). “Clostridial Neurotoxins in the Age of Molecular Medicine.” Trends in Microbiology 2:6772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, F. and Galas, D. (1993). “A New Five-Year Plan for the US Human Genome Project.” Science 262:4346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro, June 5, HMSO, Cm 2127, January 1993:4, 11.Google Scholar
Dando, M.R. (1996a). “New Developments in Biotechnology and Their Impact on Biological Warfare.” In Thränert, O. (ed.), Enhancing the Biological Weapons Convention. Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Dando, M.R. (1996b). A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons. London: Brassey's.Google Scholar
Davis, D. (1996). MP, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Day, M. (1996). “Scourge of Infections Kills Third World's Young.” New Scientist (May 25):6.Google Scholar
de Macorio, E.C. and Macorio, A.J.L. (1994). “Heat-Shock Response in Archaea.” Trends in Biotechnology 12:512–18.Google Scholar
Deutch, J. (1996). Director of Central Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment Brief, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, February 22.Google Scholar
Ekeus, R. (1996). “Iraq's Biological Weapons Programme: UNSCOM's Experiences.” Memorandum by Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission, November 20. Circulated to States Parties at the Fourth Review Conference.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists (1996). Proposals for the Fourth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. Mimeo, April.Google Scholar
Fetter, S. (1991). “Ballistic Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What Is the Threat: What Should Be Done.” International Security 16 (1):5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransman, M. et al. eds.(1995). The Biotechnology Revolution? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. (1995). “Technological Revolutions: Historical Analogies.” In Fransman, M. et al. (eds.), The Biotechnology Revolution? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ghose, H.E.Ms. Arundhati (1996). Ambassador, Permanent Representative of India, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Hockney, R.C. (1994). “Recent Developments in Heterologous Protein Production in Escherichia Coli.” Trends in Biotechnology 12:456–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holum, J.D. (1996). Director, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Horwell, D.C. (1995). “The Peptoid Approach to the Design of Non-Peptide, Small Molecule Agonists and Antagonists of Neuropeptides.” Trends in Biotechnology (April): 132–34.Google Scholar
Jazumski, S.M. (1996). “Longevity, Genes and Aging.” Science 273:5459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, P. (1996). “Gene Hunters Close in on an Elusive Prey.” Science 271:1352–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D.E. and Marshall, A. (1996). The Cult at the End of the World: The Incredible Story of Aum. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Lederberg, J. et al.(1992). Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K.B. and Hu, L.S. (1996). “Biotechnology: Past, Present, Future.” Chemistry and Industry (May 6): 334–37.Google Scholar
Lehman, R.F. II (1991). Head of United States Delegation, Statement, Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Third Review Conference, September 10.Google Scholar
Leitenberg, M. (1996). “Biological Weapons Arms Control.” Contemporary Security Policy 17:179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, K. et al.(1996). “Potential Values of a Simple BW Protective Mask.” Institute for Defense Analyses IDA Paper P-3077, September.Google Scholar
Marx, J. (1996). “Searching for Drugs that Combat Alzheimer's.” Science 273:5053.Google Scholar
Meselson, M. et al.(1994). “The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979.” Science 266:1202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mestel, R. (1996). “Putting Prions to the Test.” Science 273:184–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moher, M. (1996). The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations at Geneva, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Moxon, E.R. (1995). “Whole Genome Sequencing of Pathogens: A New Era in Microbiology.” Trends in Microbiology 3:335–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasseri, S. (1996). Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 26.Google Scholar
Office of the Secretary of Defense (1996). Proliferation: Threat and Response. Department of Defense, Washington, DC(April):A-4, A-5.Google Scholar
Patterson, J.E. et al.(1996). “Inhibition of Oleamide Hydrolase Catalyzed Hydrolysis of the Endogenous Sleep-Inducing Lipid cis-9-octadecenamide.” Journal of the American Chemical Society 118:5938–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, G.S. (1996). “Implementing Article X of the BTWC: Avoiding Duplication.” Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin, Issue 32, June.Google Scholar
Pearson, G.S. and Dando, M.R., eds. (1996). Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Key Points for the Fourth Review Conference. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.Google Scholar
Pennisi, E. (1996a). “Genome Meeting: Seeking Life's Bare (Genetic) Necessities.” Science 272:1098–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennisi, E. (1996b). “Premature Aging Gene Discovered.” Science 272:193–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry Robinson, J.P. (1996). “Implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Impact on the Biological Weapons Convention.” In Thränert, O. (ed.), Enhancing the Biological Weapons Convention. Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Primrose, S.B. (1995). Principles of Genome Analysis: A Guide to Mapping and Sequencing DNA from Different Organisms. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Roobeck, A.J.M. (1995). “Biotechnology: A Core Technology in a New Techno-Economic Paradigm.” In Fransman, M. et al. (eds.), The Biotechnology Revolution? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saboia, G.V. (1996). Head of the Delegation of Brazil, Statement, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 25.Google Scholar
Setlow, P. (1995). “Mechanisms for the Prevention of Damage to DNA in Spores of Bacillus Species.” Annual Review of Microbiology 49:2954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, M. (1995). “Applications of Biotechnology: An Overview.” In Fransman, M. et al. (eds.), The Biotechnology Revolution? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sims, N.A. (1996). “Article IV: National Implementation.” In Pearson, G.S. and Dando, M.R. (eds.), Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Key Points for the Fourth Review Conference. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.Google Scholar
Smith, A.E. (1995). “Viral Vectors in Gene Therapy.” Annual Review of Microbiology 49:807–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solesby, T. (1991). Leader of the Delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Statement to 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, September 11.Google Scholar
Springham, D.G. (1994). “The Established Industries.” In Moses, V. and Cape, R. (eds.), Biotechnology: The Science and the Business. Switzerland: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (1996). Minister for Equality and Law Reform of Ireland, Statement on Behalf of the European Union, Biological Weapons Convention Fourth Review Conference, November 25.Google Scholar
Touchette, N. (1996). “You Must Remember This.” New Scientist (July 6):3035.Google Scholar
Tucker, J.B. (1994). “Dilemmas of a Dual-Use Technology: Toxins in Medicine and Warfare.” Politics and the Life Sciences 13:5162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, J.B. (1996). “Chemical/Biological Terrorism: Coping with a New Threat.” Politics and the Life Sciences 15:167–83. (See also the various commentaries published in the same issue.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom (1974). Biological Weapons Act 1974, HMSO, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
United Nations (1969). Report of the Secretary General, Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of Their Possible Use, A/7575/Rev.1, S/9292/Rev. 1. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (1972). Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, General Assembly resolution 2826 (XXVI). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (1986). The Second Review 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, BWC/CONF.II/13, September 8-26, 1986, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1991). New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. BWC/CONF.III/4, August 26, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1992a). The Third Review 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, BWC/CONF.III/23, September 9-27, 1991, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1992b). Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992, A/CONF. 151/26, August 12, New York. “Earth Summit '92.” London: The Regency Press Corporation.Google Scholar
United Nations (1994). 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, Final Report, BWC/SPCONF/1, September 19-30:10, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996a). Letter dated 5 July 1996 from the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, A/51/208, S/1996/543, July 12. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996b). Ad Hoc Group 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, Procedural Report, BWC/AD HOC GROUP/31, July 26:6277, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996c). Ad Hoc Group 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, Procedural Report, BWC/AD HOC GROUP/32, September 27, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996d). Fourth 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, BWC/CONF.IV/INF. 3, December 5, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996e). Fourth 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, BWC/CONF.IV/CRP. 1, November 25. (See also BWC/CONF. IV/COW/WP. 2, November 28), Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996f). Fourth 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, Report of the Committee of the Whole, BWC/CONF.IV/6, November 29:12, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996g). Fourth 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, Final Declaration, BWC/CONF.IV/9, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations (1996h). Fourth 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, Background Paper on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, BWC/CONF.IV/4, October 30, Geneva.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program (1995). Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19, November 30, Decision II/5.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (1993). Forty-Eighth Session, 4th Plenary Meeting, September 27, 1993, A/48/PV.4, October 4. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (1996a). “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” letter dated August 1, 1996 from the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, A/51/261, August 1. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (1996b). Fifty-First Session, 6th Plenary Meeting, September 24, 1996, A/51/PV.6:2, 4. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council (1995a). Eighth Report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Implementation of the Plan for the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification of Iraq's Compliance with Relevant Parts of Section C of Security Council Resolution 687(1991), S/1995/864, October 11. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council (1995b). Tenth Report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, S/1995/1038, December 17. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council (1996a). 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). S/1996/258, April 11. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council (1996b). Report of the Secretary-General on the Activities of the Special Commission Established by the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Resolution 687 (1991). S/1996/848, October 11. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1993). Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control Agreements and the President's Report to Congress on Soviet Non-Compliance with Arms Control Agreements, Washington, DC, January 14.Google Scholar
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1994). Threat Control through Arms Control, Report to Congress, Washington, DC:37.Google Scholar
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1995). Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control Agreements, Washington, DC, May 30.Google Scholar
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1996). Threat Control through Arms Control, Report to Congress, Washington, DC, July 26.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1993). Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks, OTA-ISC-559, S/N 052-003-01335-5, August 5; Background Paper, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115, S/N 052-003-01361-4, December 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1996). 104th Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives, Terrorism Prevention Act, Conference Report, Report 104-518, April 15.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State (1992). Office of Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Joint US/UK/Russian Statement on Biological Weapons, Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman, September 14.Google Scholar
U.S. Federal Register (1996). Proposed Rules for Section 511 of Public Law 104-132, vol. 61, No. 112, June 10.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate (1995). Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations (Minority Staff), “Hearings on Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Case Study on Aum Shinrikyo,” Staff Statement, October 31, 1995.Google Scholar
Vachon, G.K. (1996). “Verifying the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: The Role of Visits and Inspections.” In Thränert, O. (ed.), Enhancing the Biological Weapons Convention. Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. and Lindow, S.E. (1993). “Release of Recombinant Microorganisms.” Annual Review of Microbiology 47:913–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, S. and Dajas, F. (1994). “Neurotoxins: Nature's Untapped Bounty.” Trends in the Pharmacological Sciences 15:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (1995). Forty-Eighth World Health Assembly, Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control: New, Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases. Resolution WHA 48.13, May 12.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: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-6585876b8c-d5djx Total loading time: 0.441 Render date: 2021-01-28T16:22:13.922Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": false }

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 Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Issues, Outcomes, and Unfinished Business
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 Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Issues, Outcomes, and Unfinished Business
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 Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Issues, Outcomes, and Unfinished Business
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *