Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes / Julian P. Perry Robinson discusses the implementation of the General Purpose Criterion in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Yes / Negotiation of the BTWC in the late 1960s resulted at entry into force in a much weaker treaty regime than had been envisaged in the original proposal put forward by the British. In this video Nicholas A. Sims describes the ways in which specific parts of the original proposal were weakened.

Yes / Nicholas Sims, Reader in International Relations, London School of Economics, 'Evaluation of Proposals: Resumed Session of Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Fifth Review Conference', November 2002.

Yes / The Ad Hoc Group (AHG) of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) have touched from time to time on the question of the organisation needed to implement the legally binding instrument being negotiated to strengthen the BTWC. Now that the work of the AHG has intensified with the fleshing out of a rolling text for the legally binding instrument, the nature of the organisation is receiving more and more attention as its size and cost are likely to influence the nature and effectiveness of the regime developed by the AHG. This Briefing Paper considers what can be learned from existing relevant organisations, notably the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its counterparts for animal and plant diseases (OIE and FAO), the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The developments thus far in the AHG deliberations are then addressed and some estimates are made for the optimum size and cost of a BTWC rganisation. It is emphasised that these estimates are necessarily broad as the actual size of the BTWC Organization will depend on the precise functions and responsibilities that it is given.

Yes / The Ad Hoc Group (AHG) of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) has the consideration of measures to implement Article X of the Convention as an element of its mandate agreed by the Special Conference in September 1994. The AHG has considered how to address this at each of its substantive meetings with a Friend of the Chair, initially Ambassador Jorge Berguno of Chile and subsequently, Carlos Duarte of Brazil carrying out this responsibility. As progress is being made on the development of the rolling text for the Protocol to strengthen the Convention, it is timely to consider how the implementation of Article X might contribute to the strengthening of the effectiveness of the Convention. Briefing Paper No 6 considered some of the developments that have occurred nationally, regionally and internationally in respect of the use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes. It noted that there is increasing awareness world-wide because of public health and environmental concerns of the need to control the handling, use, storage and transfer of such biological agents. That paper examined some of the current controls and regulations for biosafety and the international initiatives that are ongoing to strengthen biosafety around the world. These were seen as building blocks which might be considered from a point of view of strengthening the BTWC as well as contributing to the implementation of Article X although care will need to be taken in the Protocol for the AHG to avoid unnecessary duplication with other international activities. This Briefing Paper is complementary to Briefing Paper No 6 as it considers the national regulations in the UK, the EEC and in the United States as well as some other countries in respect of micro-organisms with the aim of providing some further building blocks to be considered in the strengthening of the BTWC and the implementation of Article X of the Convention. The challenging goal continues to be to identify how these other national, regional and international activities can be utilised to contribute to the strengthening of the BTWC.

Yes