A (F)utile Intersessional Process?

Diplomats will be meeting for three weeks in Geneva this December to review the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Over the course of its thirty-five years, the BWC has been scarred by treaty violations, failed compliance negotiations, and ambiguous treaty language.

Essentially a bruised paper tiger, the BWC adds no clarification to its distinction between biological activities for peaceful versus hostile purposes and has amplified - rather than lessened - mistrust in states' biological research and development potential. In their article “A (F)utile Intersessional Process?” Cindy Vestergaard and Animesh Roul examine the BWC's ambiguous language and how it has affected biological non-proliferation diplomacy. It reflects on the annual intersessional discussions held over the past years and acknowledges the (limited) scope of appropriate peaceful activities that can be identified under the BWC and addresses ways in which to reinvigorate the treaty.

Link to the article


Further Reading:

The full Special Issue of the Nonproliferation Review: Global Perspectives on Re-envisioning the Biological Weapons Convention

The BWC and Industry: A Plea for Industry Outreach, CBW Magazine: Journal on Chemical and Biological Weapons, June 2011

Status of the Biological Weapons Convention Today, DIIS Brief, 2008