Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
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
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 (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 9:93105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1992). “The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference.” Politics and the Life Sciences 11:8692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrier, M.I.(1993). “Deliberate Disease: Biological Weapons, Threats, and Policy Responses.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 11:395–417.CrossRefGoogle 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):5364.CrossRefGoogle 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 12:6977.CrossRefGoogle 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 9:5976.CrossRefGoogle 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

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: 5 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-r79h5 Total loading time: 0.517 Render date: 2021-01-27T19:45:58.423Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": 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.

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

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

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

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *