Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

National Implementation Measures

By Graham S. Pearson and N.A. Sims

Abstract

YesArticle IV of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention sets out the obligation for\ud States Parties to implement the BTWC through appropriate national measures. Although\ud some States have enacted such legislation, others have not and the Aum Shinrikyo incident in\ud Tokyo in March 1995 underlined the importance of appropriate penal legislation both to\ud implement the BTWC (and the Chemical Weapons Convention) and to criminalise any\ud development, production, stockpiling or acquisition of such weapons for terrorist or criminal\ud purposes. This Briefing Paper reviews the development of the language relating to Article IV\ud of the BTWC by the four Review Conferences, notes the requirements of the Chemical\ud Weapons Convention and then addresses the opportunity provided by the Ad Hoc Group\ud negotiations to strengthen the BTWC through stronger implementation measures

Topics: National Measures, Implementation Measures, Penal Legislation, Biological and Toxin Weapons Convetion, BTWC
Year: 1998
OAI identifier: oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/728
Provided by: Bradford Scholars

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1996). 10 Analysis of 41 CBM Returns in
  2. (1996). 16Nicholas A Sims, Article IV: National Implementation in Graham S Pearson & Malcolm R Dando (eds), Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Key Points for the Fourth Review Conference, Quaker United Nations Office,
  3. (1996). 41Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin, Criminalizing BW,
  4. (1997). 46 U n i t e d N a t i o n s , 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, doi
  5. (1978). 4anticipated the Article IV legislation of States Parties at a time when it appeared most unlikely that France would ever accede to the Convention then ready opened for signature. (It did in fact accede in 1984). Belgium’s law of 10
  6. (1975). 6Nicholas A Sims, The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament: Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, doi
  7. 9The Rio Group comprised all four Parties to the Mendoza Agreement, plus
  8. (1992). Accordingly the Russian Federation’s CBM returns were eagerly awaited. Their continued absence in UN documentation led to intensive negotiations on BTW compliance issues with London and Washington and eventually to the conclusion in
  9. (1996). Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving Select Agents, Final Rule for Section 511 of Public Law 104-132,
  10. (1996). An additional impetus to encourage all States Parties to enact appropriate national legislation was provided prior the Fourth Review Conference by the Declaration on Terrorism42 agreed by the G7/8 on 27
  11. (1992). and Add.1 doi
  12. (1978). anticipated the Article IV legislation of States Parties at a time when it appeared most unlikely that France would ever accede to the Convention then ready opened for signature. (It did in fact accede in 1984). Belgium’s law of 10
  13. Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives, Terrorism Prevention Act, Conference
  14. (1996). from the Permanent Representative of Guinea to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, A/50/953, S/1996/344, 10 doi
  15. (1994). Hoc Group 39. The mandate for the Ad Hoc Group was determined by the Special Conference of States Parties to the BTWC held45 on 19 -
  16. (1990). Legislative Needs, in Susan Wright (ed), Preventing a Biological Arms Race
  17. (1991). p 12, based on the Italian proposal
  18. (1991). p 5, based on the Argentinean-Brazilian-Chilean-Uruguayan proposal
  19. (1991). p 5, based on the Argentinean-Brazilian-Chilean-Uruguayan proposal of 13
  20. (1992). p 9, pp 18-19; Russia shuns Biological Weapons,
  21. (1986). paragraph 56. Barend ter Haar (The Netherlands). doi
  22. (1991). Peru proposed to invite the Foreign Ministers of the other ten Rio Group member states to a conference in Lima in
  23. (1996). States making a short generally one page return 13
  24. (1991). Such a provision in Article X would accord with the Final Declaration of the Third Review Conference (see para 15 above). In
  25. (1991). The event which precipitated this recognition was the agreement reached on 5
  26. (1992). The information-sharing ambitions of the Third Review Conference in this area went further still.
  27. (1980). The term prevention is absent from CWC Art VII but is coupled with prohibition in Article IV of the BTWC and in the relevant paragraphs of all four Final Declarations in the Review Conferences of
  28. (1991). The Third Review of the Biological Weapons Convention: Issues and Proposals, doi
  29. (1997). This rolling text was developed further during the September/October
  30. (1991). Working Paper: Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.