Abstract
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the development of biological weapons, but it permits almost any kind of research in the name of defense. Some biodefense activities are justifiable, but others edge closer to the blurred line between defensive and offensive work. Unusually for a disarmament and non-proliferation treaty, however, the BWC was agreed upon without including verification mechanisms to ensure compliance. This chapter argues that the interactive and flexible information-sharing initiatives that have been tested by a number of states in the interim between the Seventh and Eighth BWC Review Conferences have potential, in the longer term and in conjunction with other efforts, to develop the transparency and trust in biodefence programs required to sufficiently reassure member states that biological weapons are not being developed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Miller J, S Engelberg and W Broad (2001) Germs: The Ultimate Weapon. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- 2.
Ibid.
- 3.
See e.g. 2013 BWC, Meeting of Experts, ‘We need to talk about compliance: a response to BWC/MSP/2012/WP.11’, Working paper submitted by the United Kingdom, BWC/MSP 2013/MX/WP.1.
- 4.
Much of the material in this chapter is based on previous publications, including Koblentz G and F Lentzos (2016) ‘21st Century biodefence: Risks, trade-offs and responsible science’ ILPI BWC Review Conference Series Paper No. 3 available at http://nwp.ilpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/03-21st-century-biodefence-gold.pdf [accessed 17 July 2017]; Lentzos F (2016) ‘Increasing transparency in biodefence: A 2016 visit to a German military medical biodefence facility,’ EU Non-proliferation Consortium Paper No. 52; Lentzos, Filippa (2015) ‘3D Bio: Declare, Document & Demonstrate,’ EU Non-proliferation Consortium Paper No. 45; and Lentzos, Filippa (2011) ‘Strengthening the BWC confidence-building measures: Toward a cycle of engagement’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 67(3):26–33.
- 5.
For more details on the information requested as part of the CBM exchange, see the blank form templates and the ‘Guide to participating in the confidence-building measures of the Biological Weapons Convention’ (Revised edition 2015) prepared by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, available from www.unog.ch/bwc [accessed 17 July 2017].
- 6.
Sims N.A. (2001) The Evolution of Biological Disarmament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 7.
BWC Article V states: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objective of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter.
- 8.
Op. cit. Koblentz G and F Lentzos (2016).
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
National Research Council (2011) Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-Containment Biological Laboratories. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- 11.
Kaiser J. (2011) ‘Taking stock of the biodefence boom’, Science Vol. 333, No. 6047: 1214.
- 12.
US Department of State (2015) Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation. In 2016 and 2017, these reports limited themselves to Russia only on the grounds that “there is insufficient information to support the inclusion of other countries”.
- 13.
Lentzos F and RA Hamilton (2010) BWC Confidence Building Measures: Preparing for a Comprehensive Review of the CBM mechanism at the Seventh Review Conference, Report prepared for BWC MX 2010.
- 14.
2016 BWC Review Conference, ‘Strengthening confidence-building and consultative mechanisms under the Biological Weapons Convention,’ Working Paper submitted by the United States, BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/WP.6, 21 April 2016.
- 15.
Watson C, M Watson and T Kirk Sell (2017) ‘Federal funding for health security in FY2018,’ Health Security Vol. 15(4).
- 16.
www.unog.ch/bwc [accessed 17 July 2017].
- 17.
2010 BWC Meeting of States Parties, ‘National implementation of the BTWC: compliance assessment: a concept paper’, Working Paper submitted by Canada, BWC/MSP/2010/WP.3/Rev.1.
- 18.
2012 BWC Meeting of Experts, ‘National implementation of the BTWC: compliance assessment’, Working Paper submitted by Canada and Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2012/MX/WP.17.
- 19.
2012 BWC Meeting of States Parties, ‘National implementation of the BTWC: compliance assessment: update’, Working Paper submitted by Canada, the Czech Republic and Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2012/WP.6; and 2013 BWC Meeting of Experts, ‘National implementation assessment report of the Biological Weapons Convention’, Working Paper submitted by France, BWC/MSP/2013/MX/WP.16.
- 20.
2011 BWC Review Conference, ‘A peer review mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention: enhancing confidence in national implementation and international cooperation’, Working Paper submitted by France, BWC/CONF.VII/WP.28.
- 21.
2014 BWC Meeting of States Parties, ‘Peer review pilot exercise held from 4 to 6 December 2013 in Paris’, Working Paper submitted by France, BWC/MSP/2014/WP.3.
- 22.
2016 BWC Preparatory Committee, ‘Strengthening the BWC: reflecting on the peer review concept’, Working Paper submitted by Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands, BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/WP.26; and 2016 BWC Preparatory Committee, ‘Peer review: an innovative way to strengthen the BWC’, Working Paper submitted by Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Netherlands, BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/WP.13.
- 23.
2016 BWC Review Conference, ‘BWC Implementation Review Initiative’, Working Paper submitted by Canada, Chile, Ghana, Mexico and the United States of America, BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.22.
- 24.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ‘Remarks at the 7th Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference,’ 7 December 2011. Available at: www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/12/178409.htm [accessed 17 July 2017].
- 25.
2012 BWC Meeting of States Parties, ‘The United States Government’s Bio-transparency and Openness Initiative,’ Working Paper submitted by the United States, BWC/MSP/2012/WP.3.
- 26.
2016 BWC Review Conference, ‘Confidence in compliance: peer review visit exercise at the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology in Munich, Germany’, Working Paper submitted by Germany, BWC/CONF. VIII/WP.11.
- 27.
Lentzos F (2016) ‘Increasing transparency in biodefence: A 2016 visit to a German military medical biodefence facility,’ EU Non-Proliferation Consortium Paper No. 52.
- 28.
Lennane R. (2011) ‘Verification for the BTWC: If not the protocol, then what?’ Disarmament Forum No. 1, pp. 39–50.
- 29.
2016 BWC Review Conference, ‘Building confidence through voluntary transparency exercises,’ Working Paper submitted by Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ghana, Germany, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United States, BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.35.
- 30.
Ibid.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lentzos, F. (2019). Trust and Transparency in Biodefense. In: Singh, S., Kuhn, J. (eds) Defense Against Biological Attacks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03053-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03053-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03052-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03053-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)