Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:51:57.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biological Weapons Convention: The Third Review Conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Marie Isabelle Chevrier
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
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 86 - 92
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 (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 120:33–52.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 11:41–95.Google 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 41:1–6.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.Google Scholar
Sims, N.A.(1988). The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament: Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, 1975-1985. New York: St. Martins Press.Google 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.Google 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