{{Short description|1975 treaty that comprehensively bans biological weapons}} {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2021}} {{Infobox Treaty | name = Biological Weapons Convention | long_name = Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction | image = BWC Participation.svg | image_width = 400px | caption = Participation in the Biological Weapons Convention {{Col-begin}} {{Col-2}} {{legend|#00aa00|Signed and ratified}} {{legend|#008000|Acceded or succeeded}} {{legend|#008080|Unrecognized state, abiding by treaty}} {{Col-2}} {{legend|#eeee00|Only signed}} {{legend|#ff1111|Non-signatory}} {{Col-end}} | type = | date_drafted = | date_signed = 10 April 1972 | location_signed = London, Moscow, and Washington, D.C. | date_sealed = | date_effective = 26 March 1975 | condition_effective = Ratification by 22 states, including the three depositaries<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention#Article_XIV Article XIV, Biological Weapons Convention].</ref> | date_expiration = | parties = 189<ref>{{cite web|url=https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc |title=Status of the Biological Weapons Convention |publisher=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs |access-date=2024-07-03}}</ref> (complete list) <br /><small>8 non-parties: Chad, Djibouti, Egypt (signatory), Eritrea, Haiti (signatory), Israel, Somalia (signatory), and Syria (signatory).</small> | signatories = 109 | depositor = United States, United Kingdom, Russian Federation (successor to the Soviet Union)<ref>Biological Weapons Convention, [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention#Article_XIV Article XIV].</ref> | language = | languages = Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish<ref>Biological Weapons Convention, [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention#Article_XV Article XV].</ref> | wikisource = Biological Weapons Convention }} {{Non-proliferation, Disarmament, & Arms control}} The '''Biological Weapons Convention''' ('''BWC'''), or '''Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention''' ('''BTWC'''), is a disarmament treaty that effectively bans biological and toxin weapons by prohibiting their development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=Biological Weapons Convention – UNODA|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210215200800/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons|archive-date=2021-02-15|access-date=2021-02-15|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}}</ref> The treaty's full name is the '''Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.'''<ref name=":4" />
Having entered into force on 26 March 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.<ref name=":4" /> The convention is of unlimited duration.<ref>[https://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc/text Article XIII, Biological Weapons Convention]. Treaty Database, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.</ref> As of May 2025, 189 states have become party to the treaty.<ref name=":5" /> Four additional states have signed but not ratified the treaty, and another four states have neither signed nor acceded to the treaty.<ref name=":22">Report on universalization activities, 2019 Meeting of States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://undocs.org/BWC/MSP/2019/3 BWC/MSP/2019/3]. Geneva, 8 October 2019.</ref>
The BWC is considered to have established a strong global norm against biological weapons.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cross|first1=Glenn|last2=Klotz|first2=Lynn|date=2020-07-03|title=Twenty-first century perspectives on the Biological Weapon Convention: Continued relevance or toothless paper tiger|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|volume=76|issue=4|pages=185–191|doi=10.1080/00963402.2020.1778365|bibcode=2020BuAtS..76d.185C|s2cid=221061960|issn=0096-3402|doi-access=free}}</ref> This norm is reflected in the treaty's preamble, which states that the use of biological weapons would be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind".<ref>[https://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc/text Preamble, Biological Weapons Convention]. Treaty Database, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.</ref> It is also demonstrated by the fact that not a single state today declares to possess or seek biological weapons, or asserts that their use in war is legitimate.<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Feakes|first=D.|date=August 2017|title=The Biological Weapons Convention|journal=Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics)|volume=36|issue=2|pages=621–628|doi=10.20506/rst.36.2.2679|issn=0253-1933|pmid=30152458|s2cid=52100050 }}</ref> In light of the rapid advances in biotechnology, biodefense expert Daniel Gerstein has described the BWC as "the most important arms control treaty of the twenty-first century".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gerstein|first=Daniel|title=National Security and arms control in the age of biotechnology: the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=2013|isbn=978-1-4422-2312-7|location=Lanham, Maryland|pages=53}}</ref> However, the convention's effectiveness has been limited due to insufficient institutional support and the absence of any formal verification regime to monitor compliance.<ref name=":28">{{Cite news|last=Tucker|first=Jonathan|date=2001-08-01|title=Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Compliance Protocol|url=https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/biological-weapons-convention-bwc/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216180256/https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/biological-weapons-convention-bwc/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}</ref> The treaty has seen notable violations in offensive biological weapons programs of the Soviet Union,<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":33" /> and of Ba'athist Iraq.<ref name=":37" /><ref name=":14" /> Its Article VI mechanism for complaint of a violation has been invoked once, by Russia in 2022, regarding the debunked Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory.
== History == While the history of biological warfare goes back more than six centuries to the Siege of Caffa in 1346 CE,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wheelis|first=Mark|date=2002|title=Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa|journal= Emerging Infectious Diseases|language=en-us|volume=8|issue=9|pages=971–975|doi=10.3201/eid0809.010536|pmid=12194776|pmc=2732530|doi-access=free}}</ref> international restrictions on biological warfare began only with the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use but not the possession or development of chemical and biological weapons.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Text of the 1925 Geneva Protocol|url=https://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925/text|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150408104523/http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925/text|archive-date=8 April 2015}}</ref> Upon ratification of the Geneva Protocol, several countries made reservations regarding its applicability and use in retaliation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: 1925 Geneva Protocol|url=http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130825083028/http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925|archive-date=25 August 2013}}</ref> Due to these reservations, it was in practice a "no-first-use" agreement only.<ref name=":29">{{Cite journal|last=Beard|first=Jack M.|date=April 2007|title=The Shortcomings of Indeterminacy in Arms Control Regimes: The Case of the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/shortcomings-of-indeterminacy-in-arms-control-regimes-the-case-of-the-biological-weapons-convention/F0FCA907A496B488DEE91630C812C6DE|journal=American Journal of International Law|language=en|volume=101|issue=2|pages=277–284|doi=10.1017/S0002930000030098|s2cid=8354600|issn=0002-9300|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In particular, it did not prevent multiple states from starting and scaling offensive biological weapons programs, including the United States<ref name="guillemin05">{{cite book|last1=Guillemin|first1=Jeanne|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780231129428/|title=Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism|date=2005|publisher=Columbia University Press}}</ref> (active from 1943 to 1969) and the Soviet Union (active from the 1920s until at least 1992).<ref name="rimmington18">{{Cite book|last=Rimmington|first=Anthony|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zfhyDwAAQBAJ&q=stalin+rimmington|title=Stalin's Secret Weapon: The Origins of Soviet Biological Warfare|date=2018|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-092885-8|language=en}}</ref>
[[File:Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations, Palais des Nations in Geneva (3).jpg|thumb|The Council Chamber at the Palace of Nations in Geneva where the BWC was negotiated]]
The American biowarfare system was terminated in 1969 by President Nixon when he issued his Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs.<ref name="miller02">{{cite book |last1=Miller |first1=Judith |last2=Engelberg |first2=Stephen |last3=Broad |first3=William J. |title=Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War |date=2002 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=9780684871592 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RBb8ss3GG1MC&pg=PA63}}</ref><ref name="remarks">Nixon, Richard. "[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2344 Remarks Announcing Decisions on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs]", via The American Presidency Project, 25 November 1969, accessed 21 December 2008.</ref> The statement ended, unconditionally, all U.S. offensive biological weapons programs.<ref name="graham02">Graham, Thomas. ''Disarmament Sketches: Three Decades of Arms Control and International Law'', University of Washington Press, 2002, [https://books.google.com/books?id=SNxp-gqDb1EC&pg=PA27 pp. 26–30], ({{ISBN|0-295-98212-8}})</ref> When Nixon ended the program the budget was $300 million annually.<ref name="cirincione">Cirincione, Joseph, et al. ''Deadly Arsenals'', p. 212.</ref><ref name="cirincione05">{{cite book |last1=Cirincione |first1=Joseph |title=Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats |date=2005 |publisher=Carnegie Endowment |page=212 |isbn=9780870032882 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7F-nbw6q8S4C&pg=PA212}}</ref>
The BWC sought to supplement the Geneva Protocol and was negotiated in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva from 1969 to 1972, following the conclusion of the negotiation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|title=History of the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/history|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216203033/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/history|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs}}</ref> Of significance was a 1968 British proposal to separate consideration of chemical and biological weapons and to first negotiate a convention on biological weapons.<ref name=":6" /><ref>United Kingdom (6 August 1968), Working Paper on Microbiological warfare, [https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cpdpsbbtwd/_notes/19680806%20ENCD-231%20UK%20WP%20on%20microbiological%20warfare.pdf ENDC/231]. Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament.</ref> The negotiations gained further momentum when the United States decided to unilaterally end its offensive biological weapons program in 1969 and support the British proposal.<ref>Richard Nixon (1969), Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs. Wikisource link.</ref><ref name=":24" /> In March 1971, the Soviet Union and its allies reversed their earlier opposition to the separation of chemical and biological weapons and tabled their own draft convention.<ref>{{Cite book |editor-last=Wright|editor-first=Susan|date=2016|chapter=Evolution of Biological Warfare Policy, 1945–1990 |title=Preventing a Biological Arms Race |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-23148-0}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Goldblat|first=Jozef|date=June 1997|title=The Biological Weapons Convention – An overview – ICRC|url=https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jnpa.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216181539/https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jnpa.htm|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=International Review of the Red Cross|language=en-us}}</ref> The final negotiation stage was reached when the United States and the Soviet Union submitted identical but separate drafts of the BWC text on 5 August 1971.<ref name=":6" /> The BWC was opened for signature on 10 April 1972 with ceremonies in London, Moscow, and Washington, D.C., and it entered into force on 26 March 1975 after the ratification by 22 states, including its three depositary governments (the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States).<ref name=":6" />
There have been some concerned scientists who have called for the modernization of the BWC at the periodic Review Conferences. For example, Filippa Lentzos and Gregory Koblentz pointed out in 2016 that "crucial contemporary debates about new developments" for the BWC Review Conferences included "gain-of-function experiments, potential pandemic pathogens, CRISPR and other genome editing technologies, gene drives, and synthetic biology".<ref name=koblentz16/>
== Treaty obligations == [[File:Biological Weapons Convention original document.png|thumb|The Biological Weapons Convention<ref>United Nations (1972). [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BWC-text-English.pdf Biological Weapons Convention].
</ref>]] With only 15 articles, the BWC is relatively short. Over time, the treaty has been interpreted and supplemented by additional politically binding agreements and understandings reached by its States Parties at eight subsequent Review Conferences.<ref name=":41">{{Cite journal|title=The Biological Weapons Convention: An Introduction|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BWS-brochure.pdf|url-status=live|journal=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|pages=2|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200203010447/https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BWS-brochure.pdf|archive-date=2020-02-03}}</ref><ref name=":49">Implementation Support Unit (Geneva, 31 May 2016). Background information document: Additional understandings and agreements reached by previous Review Conferences relating to each article of the Convention, [https://undocs.org/en/BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/4 BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/4].
</ref>
=== Summary of key articles ===
* '''Article I''': Never under any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire, or retain biological weapons.<ref name=":7">Article I, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article II''': To destroy or divert to peaceful purposes biological weapons and associated resources prior to joining.<ref>Article II, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article III''': Not to transfer, or in any way assist, encourage, or induce anyone else to acquire or retain biological weapons.<ref name=":8">Article III, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article IV''': To take any national measures necessary to implement the provisions of the BWC domestically.<ref name=":9">Article IV, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article V''': Undertaking to consult bilaterally and multilaterally and cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objective, or in the application, of the BWC.<ref name=":10">Article V, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article VI''': Right to request the United Nations Security Council to investigate alleged breaches of the BWC and undertaking to cooperate in carrying out any investigation initiated by the Security Council.<ref name=":11">Article VI, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article VII''': To assist States which have been exposed to danger as a result of a violation of the BWC.<ref name=":12">Article VII, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> * '''Article X''': Undertaking to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and information for peaceful purposes.<ref name=":13">Article X, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> The remaining articles concern the BWC's compatibility with the 1925 Geneva Protocol (Article VIII), negotiations to prohibit chemical weapons (Article IX), amendments (Article XI), Review Conferences (Article XII), duration (Article XIII, 1), withdrawal (Article XIII, 2), joining the convention, depositary governments, and conditions for entry into force (Article XIV, 1–5), and languages (Article XV).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Wikisource|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214085130/https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention|archive-date=14 February 2021}}</ref>
=== Article I: Prohibition of biological weapons === Article I is the core of the BWC and requires each state "never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
# microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes; # weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict."<ref name=":7" />
Article I does not prohibit any specific biological agents or toxins as such but rather certain purposes for which they may be employed.<ref name=":14">{{Cite news|last=Rissanen|first=Jenni|date=2003-03-01|title=Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/biological-weapons-convention/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216174432/https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/biological-weapons-convention/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}</ref> This prohibition is known as the general-purpose criterion and is also used in Article II, 1 of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).<ref name=":15">{{Cite book|last=Dando|first=Malcolm R.|url=https://oneworld-publications.com/bioterror-and-biowarfare-pb.html|title=Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide|publisher=Oneworld|year=2006|isbn=9781851684472|pages=94|access-date=17 February 2021|archive-date=5 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211205041339/https://oneworld-publications.com/bioterror-and-biowarfare-pb.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>[https://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/cwc/text Article II, 1, Chemical Weapons Convention]. Treaty Database, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.</ref> The general-purpose criterion covers all hostile uses of biological agents, including those developed in the future,<ref name=":15" /> and recognizes that biological agents and toxins are inherently dual use. While these agents may be employed for nefarious ends, they also have several legitimate peaceful purposes, including developing medicines and vaccines to counter natural or deliberate disease outbreaks.<ref name=":14" /> Against this background, Article I only considers illegitimate those types and quantities of biological agents or toxins and their means of delivery which cannot be justified by prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes; regardless of whether the agents in question affect humans, animals, or plants.<ref name=":19" /> A disadvantage of this intent-based approach is a blurring of the line between defensive and offensive biological weapons research.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2011-05-01|title=Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention confidence-building measures: Toward a cycle of engagement|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211406876|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|volume=67|issue=3|pages=26–33|doi=10.1177/0096340211406876|bibcode=2011BuAtS..67c..26L|s2cid=143444435|issn=0096-3402|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
While it was initially unclear during the early negotiations of the BWC whether viruses would be regulated by it since they lie "at the edge of life"—they possess some but not all of the characteristics of life—viruses were defined as biological agents in 1969 and thus fall within the BWC's scope.<ref>[https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/res/2603(XXIV) United Nations General Assembly, Twenty-Fourth Session, 1969. 2603: Question of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons].</ref><ref name="johnson20">{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Durward|last2=Kraska|first2=James|date=14 May 2020|title=Some Synthetic Biology May Not be Covered by the Biological Weapons Convention|publisher=The Lawfare Institute|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/some-synthetic-biology-may-not-be-covered-biological-weapons-convention}}</ref>
While Article I does not explicitly prohibit the "use" of biological weapons as it was already considered to be prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, it is still regarded as a violation of the BWC, as reaffirmed by the final document of the Fourth Review Conference in 1996.<ref name=":16" />
=== Article III: Prohibition of transfer and assistance === Article III bans the transfer, encouragement, assistance, or inducement of anyone, whether governments or non-state actors, in developing or acquiring any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment, or means of delivery specified in Article I.<ref name=":8" /> The article's objective is to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons by limiting the availability of materials and technology which may be used for hostile purposes.<ref name=":14" />
=== Article IV: National implementation === Article IV obliges BWC States Parties to implement the convention's provisions domestically.<ref name=":9" /> This is essential to allow national authorities to investigate, prosecute, and punish any activities prohibited by the BWC; to prevent access to biological agents for harmful purposes; and to detect and respond to the potential use of biological weapons.<ref>VERTIC (November 2016). [https://www.vertic.org/media/assets/Publications/BWC%20NIM%20Report%20Text%20REV3%20WEB.pdf Report on National Implementing Legislation], National Implementation Measures Programme, Biological Weapons Convention. London.</ref> National implementing measures may take various forms, such as legislation, regulations, codes of conduct, and others.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Drobysz|first=Sonia|date=2021-02-05|title=Verification and implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention|journal=The Nonproliferation Review|volume=27|issue=4–6|pages=487–497|doi=10.1080/10736700.2020.1823102|s2cid=234045475 |issn=1073-6700|doi-access=}}</ref> Which implementing measures are adequate for a state depends on several factors, including its legal system, its size and geography, the development of its biotechnology industry, and its participation in regional economic cooperation. Since no one set of measures fits all states, the implementation of specific obligations is left to States Parties' discretion, based on their assessment of what will best enable them to ensure compliance with the BWC.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dunworth|first1=Treasa|last2=Mathews|first2=Robert J.|last3=McCormack|first3=Timothy L. H.|date=2006-03-01|title=National Implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/11/1/93/861720|journal=Journal of Conflict and Security Law|language=en|volume=11|issue=1|pages=93–118|doi=10.1093/jcsl/krl006|issn=1467-7954|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=National Implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/national-implementation|url-status=live|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227044739/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/national-implementation|archive-date=27 February 2021|access-date=17 February 2021}}</ref>
A database of over 1,500 laws and regulations that States Parties have enacted to implement the BWC domestically is maintained by the non-governmental organization VERTIC.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|title=BWC Legislation Database|url=https://www.vertic.org/programmes/biological-weapons-and-materials/bwc-legislation-database/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216203651/https://www.vertic.org/programmes/biological-weapons-and-materials/bwc-legislation-database/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=VERTIC|language=en-US}}</ref> A similar database on national implementation measures developed by VERTIC and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research was launched in 2023.<ref>{{cite web |author1=UNIDIR |author2=VERTIC |title=Biological Weapons Convention National Implementation Measures Database |url=https://bwcimplementation.org/ |date=2023}}</ref> These concern the penal code, enforcement measures, import and export controls, biosafety and biosecurity measures, as well as domestic and international cooperation and assistance.<ref name=":17" /> For instance, the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act implemented the Convention for the United States.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Coen|first1=Bob|title=Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail|last2=Nadler|first2=Eric|publisher=Counterpoint|year=2009|isbn=978-1-58243-509-1|location=Berkeley, California|pages=205}}</ref> A 2023 VERTIC report concluded that "gaps persist in States Parties' legal frameworks for implementing the Convention at the national level".<ref>{{cite web |author1=VERTIC |title=The BWC Ninth Review Conference: an overview of outcomes, outlooks and national implementation |url=https://www.vertic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/VERTIC-Brief-35_FINAL.pdf |location=London, United Kingdom |pages=12 |date=March 2023}}</ref> The BWC's Implementation Support Unit issued a background information document on "strengthening national implementation" in 2018<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Support Unit|date=2018|title=Background information, BWC/MSP/2018/MX.3/2.|url=https://undocs.org/bwc/msp/2018/mx.3/2|journal=2018 Meeting of Experts on Strengthening National Implementation of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention}}</ref> and an update in 2019.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Support Unit|date=2019|title=Background information update, BWC/MSP/2019/MX.3/INF.2.|url=https://undocs.org/en/bwc/msp/2019/mx.3/INF.2|journal=2019 Meeting of Experts on Strengthening National Implementation of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention.}}</ref>
=== Article V: Consultation and cooperation === Article V requires States Parties to consult one another and cooperate in disputes concerning the purpose or implementation of the BWC.<ref name=":10" /> The Second Review Conference in 1986 agreed on procedures to ensure that alleged violations of the BWC would be promptly addressed at a consultative meeting when requested by a State Party.<ref name=":18" /> These procedures were further elaborated by the Third Review Conference in 1991.<ref name=":19" /> Two formal consultative meetings have taken place, the first in 1997 at the request of Cuba,<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":38">{{Cite journal|date=1997|title=Report of the Formal Consultative Meeting, BWC/CONS/1|url=https://undocs.org/BWC/CONS/1|journal=Formal Consultative Meeting to the States Parties of the Biological Weapons Convention}}</ref> and the second in 2022 at the request of the Russian Federation.<ref name="fcm_2022">{{cite web |title=Final report of the Formal Consultative Meeting of the States Parties, BWC/CONS/2022/3 |url=https://undocs.org/BWC/CONS/2022/3 |website=Formal Consultative Meeting 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 |location=Geneva, Switzerland |date=19 September 2023}}</ref>
=== Article VI: Complaint about an alleged BWC violation === Article VI allows States Parties to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Security Council if they suspect a breach of treaty obligations by another state.<ref name=":11" /> Moreover, the article requires states to cooperate with any investigation which the Security Council may launch.<ref name=":11" /> There is a general unwillingness to invoke Article VI due to the highly political nature of the Security Council, where the five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—hold veto power, including over investigations for alleged treaty violations.<ref name=":43">{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2019|title=Compliance and Enforcement in the Biological Weapons Regime|url=https://unidir.org/publication/compliance-and-enforcement-biological-weapons-regime|journal=WMDCE Series, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research|location=Geneva, Switzerland|volume=4|pages=7–8|doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE4|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":20">{{cite web |last1=Kimball |first1=Daryl |title=The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance |url=https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc |publisher=Arms Control Association |date=February 2022}}</ref> One formal complaint pursuant to Article VI has been lodged by the Russian Federation in 2022.<ref name="artvi_2022">{{cite web |author1=Russian Federation |title=Draft resolution, S/2022/821 |url=https://www.undocs.org/en/S/2022/821 |website=United Nations Security Council |date=2 November 2022}}</ref>
=== Article VII: Assistance after a BWC violation === Article VII obliges States Parties to provide assistance to states that so request it if the UN Security Council decides they have been exposed to danger as a result of a violation of the BWC.<ref name=":12" /> In addition to helping victims in the event of a biological weapons attack, the purpose of the article is to deter such attacks from occurring in the first place by reducing their potential for harm through international solidarity and assistance.<ref name=":24">{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2019|title=Compliance and Enforcement in the Biological Weapons Regime|url=https://unidir.org/publication/compliance-and-enforcement-biological-weapons-regime|journal=WMDCE Series, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research|volume=4|pages=3–4|doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE4|doi-access=free}}</ref> Despite no state ever having invoked Article VII, the article has drawn more attention in recent years, in part due to increasing evidence of terrorist organizations being interested in acquiring biological weapons and also following various naturally occurring epidemics.<ref name=":21" /> In 2018, the BWC's Implementation Support Unit issued a background document describing a number of additional understandings and agreements on Article VII that have been reached at past Review Conferences.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Support Unit|date=2018|title=Background information document on assistance, response and preparedness, BWC/MSP/2018/MX.4/2|url=https://undocs.org/BWC/MSP/2018/MX.4/2|journal=Meeting of Experts on Assistance, Response and Preparedness of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention}}</ref>
=== Article X: Peaceful cooperation === Article X protects States Parties' right to exchange biological materials, technology, and information to be used for peaceful purposes.<ref name=":13" /> The article states that the implementation of the BWC shall avoid hampering the economic or technological development of States Parties or peaceful international cooperation on biological projects.<ref name=":13" /> The Seventh Review Conference in 2011 established an Article X database, which matches voluntary requests and offers for assistance and cooperation among States Parties and international organizations.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Assistance and Cooperation Database|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/assistance-and-cooperation/assistance-and-cooperation-database|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216204024/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/assistance-and-cooperation/assistance-and-cooperation-database|archive-date=16 February 2021}}</ref>
== Membership and joining the BWC == {{Main|List of parties to the Biological Weapons Convention}} [[File:BWC States Parties 1972 - 2020.png|thumb|326x326px|Number of BWC States Parties from 1972 to 2020<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc|url-status=live|access-date=2021-05-05|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505073530/https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc|archive-date=5 May 2021}}</ref>]] The BWC has 189 States Parties as of May 2025, with Kiribati the most recent to become a party.<ref>{{cite web |title=Disarmament Treaties Database: Biological Weapons Convention |url=https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc |access-date=2024-07-03 |publisher=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs}}</ref> Four states have signed but not ratified the treaty: Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, and Syria.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/PC/7/Rev.1">{{cite web |author1=Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Support Unit |title=Status of universalization of the Convention, BWC/CONF.IX/PC/7/Rev.1 |url=https://undocs.org/BWC/CONF.IX/PC/7/Rev.1 |publisher=Preparatory Committee for the Ninth Review Conference |date=7 April 2022}}</ref> Four additional states have neither signed nor acceded to the treaty: Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea and Israel.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/PC/7/Rev.1" /> For one of these four non-signatory states—Chad—significant progress toward joining the BWC has been achieved; another of the four (Djibouti) has begun to "identify concrete steps" toward its own accession,<ref name=":22" /> while—of the four non-ratifying signatories—a similar situation obtains for Somalia (albeit with the "concrete steps" here referring to progress toward ratification, rather than accession).<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 17, 2025 |title=Meeting 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 |url=https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/181/16/pdf/g2518116.pdf |access-date=November 25, 2025 |website=UN.org}}</ref>
The BWC's degree of universality remains low compared to other weapons of mass destruction regimes, including the Chemical Weapons Convention with 193 parties<ref name=":30">{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: Chemical Weapons Convention|url=https://treaties.unoda.org/t/cwc|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210503221127/https://treaties.unoda.org/t/cwc|archive-date=3 May 2021}}</ref> and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons with 191 parties.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)|url=https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505073238/https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt|archive-date=5 May 2021}}</ref>
States can join the BWC through either ''ratification'', ''accession'' or ''succession'', in accordance with their national constitutional processes, which often require parliamentary approval.<ref name=":23">{{Cite web|title=Achieving Universality|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/universalization-and-joining-the-bwc/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216204233/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/universalization-and-joining-the-bwc/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}}</ref> Ratification applies to states which had previously signed the treaty before it entered into force in 1975.<ref name=":23" /> Since then, signing the treaty is no longer possible, but states can accede to it.<ref name=":23" /> Succession concerns newly independent states that accept to be bound by a treaty that the predecessor state had joined.<ref name=":23" /> The Convention enters into force on the date when an instrument of ratification, accession, or succession is deposited with at least one of the depositary governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States).<ref name=":23" />
Several countries made reservations when ratifying the BWC declaring that it did not imply their complete satisfaction that the treaty allows the stockpiling of biological agents and toxins for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes", nor should it imply recognition of other countries they do not recognize.<ref name=":5" />
===JACKSNNZ=== JACKSNNZ (pronounced "Jacksons") is the colloquial name of an informal grouping of the world's affluent non-EU countries, excluding the United States, within the context of the convention. The JACKSNNZ states are Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.<ref>[http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NABio.asp''News Analysis'', Bioweapons Treaty Progress Predicted. Arms Control Association website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511181241/http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NABio.asp |date=11 May 2008 }}</ref> The term originated in the proceedings to the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention held in Geneva in 2006. In the previous review, conference talks broke down over American refusals to allow for a verification mechanism be established to monitor biological weapons programs in states parties. This was against the wishes of other Western European and Others Group (WEOG) states, which also include Canada, Turkey, Australasia and Western Europe. At the 2006 Review Conference the JACKSNNZ states remain supportive of a verification protocol (although are unlikely to push for it knowing that the current US government will not accede on this point). However, the JACKSNNZ also seeks balance within the WEOG, and to protect the interests of non-EU states. Takeshi Aoki, director of the Bioweapons and Chemical Weapons Conventions Division of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that JACKSNNZ is "neither a binding instrument, nor an exclusive one."
== Verification and compliance ==
=== Confidence-building measures === [[File:BWC CBM submissions 1987-2020.png|thumb|324x324px|Number and percentage of BWC confidence-building measures submissions from 1987 to 2020<ref name=":25">{{Cite web|title=Electronic Confidence-Building Measures Portal|url=https://bwc-ecbm.unog.ch/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-15|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200813061306/https://bwc-ecbm.unog.ch/|archive-date=13 August 2020}}</ref>]] At the Second Review Conference in 1986, BWC States Parties agreed to strengthen the treaty by exchanging annual confidence-building measures (CBMs).<ref name=":18" /><ref name=":26">{{Cite web|title=Confidence-Building Measures|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/confidence-building-measures/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201216151323/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/confidence-building-measures|archive-date=16 December 2020}}</ref> These politically binding<ref name=":27">{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2019|title=Compliance and Enforcement in the Biological Weapons Regime|url=https://unidir.org/publication/compliance-and-enforcement-biological-weapons-regime|journal=WMDCE Series, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research|location=Geneva, Switzerland|volume=4|pages=11–12|doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE4|doi-access=free}}</ref> reports aim to prevent or reduce the occurrence of ambiguities, doubts and suspicions, and at improving international cooperation on peaceful biological activities.<ref name=":18" /> CBMs are the main formal mechanism through which States Parties regularly exchange compliance-related information.<ref name=":27" /> After revisions by the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Review Conferences, the current CBM form requires states to provide information annually on six issues (CBM D was deleted by the Seventh Review Conference in 2011):<ref name=":26" />
* '''CBM A''': (i) research centres and laboratories, and (ii) national biological defence research and development programs * '''CBM B''': outbreaks of infectious diseases and similar occurrences caused by toxins * '''CBM C''': efforts to promote research results * '''CBM E''': legislation, regulations, and other measures * '''CBM F''': past activities in offensive and/or defensive biological research and development programs * '''CBM G''': vaccine production facilities
While the number of CBM submissions has increased over time, the overall participation rate remains slightly above 50 percent.<ref name=":25" /> In 2018, an online CBM platform was launched to facilitate the electronic submission of CBM reports.<ref name=":25" /> An increasing number of states are making their CBM reports publicly available on the platform, but many reports remain only accessible to other states.<ref name=":27" /> The history and implementation of the CBM system have been described by the BWC Implementation Support Unit in a 2022 report to the Ninth Review Conference.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/PC/3">{{Cite book|last=Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Support Unit|url=https://undocs.org/BWC/CONF.IX/PC/3|title=Background document: History and operation of the confidence-building measures, BWC/CONF.IX/PC/3|publisher=Ninth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention|year=2022|location=Geneva, Switzerland}}</ref>
=== Failed negotiation of a verification protocol === Unlike the chemical or nuclear weapons regimes, the BWC lacks both a system to verify states' compliance with the treaty and a separate international organization to support the convention's effective implementation.<ref name=":14" /> Agreement on such a system was not feasible at the time the BWC was negotiated, largely due to Cold War politics<ref name=":29" /> but also due to a belief it was not necessary and that the BWC would be difficult to verify. U.S. biological weapons expert Jonathan B. Tucker commented that "this lack of an enforcement mechanism has undermined the effectiveness of the BWC, as it is unable to prevent systematic violations".<ref name=":28" />
Earlier drafts of the BWC included limited provisions for addressing compliance issues, but these were removed during the negotiation process. Some countries attempted to reintroduce these provisions when the BWC text was submitted to the General Assembly in 1971 but were unsuccessful, as were attempts led by Sweden at the First Review Conference in 1980.<ref name=":47" />
Following the end of the Cold War, a long negotiation process to add a verification mechanism began in 1991, when the Third Review Conference established an expert group on verification, VEREX, with the mandate to identify and examine potential verification measures from a scientific and technical standpoint.<ref name=":19" /><ref>Duncan, Annabelle, and Robert J. Mathews. 1996. "Development of a Verification Protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention", in Poole, J.B. and R. Guthrie (eds). Verification 1996: Arms Control, Peacekeeping and the Environment. pp. 151–170. VERTIC.</ref> During four meetings in 1992 and 1993, VEREX considered 21 verification measures, including inspections of facilities, monitoring relevant publications, and other on-site and off-site measures.<ref>VEREX (1993). Final report, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BWC_CONF.III_VEREX_09.pdf BWC/CONF.III/VEREX/9]. Geneva. [https://web.archive.org/web/20210216204534/https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BWC_CONF.III_VEREX_09.pdf Archived].</ref> Another stimulus came from the successful negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which opened for signature in 1993.<ref name=":30" />
Subsequently, a Special Conference of BWC States Parties in 1994 considered the VEREX report and decided to establish an Ad Hoc Group to negotiate a legally-binding verification protocol.<ref>Special Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention (September 1994). Final Report, [https://undocs.org/BWC/SPCONF/1 BWC/SPCONF/1]. Geneva.</ref> The Ad Hoc Group convened 24 sessions between 1995 and 2001, during which it negotiated a draft protocol to the BWC which would establish an international organization and introduce a verification system.<ref name=":20" /> This organization would employ inspectors who would regularly visit declared biological facilities on-site and could also investigate specific suspect facilities and activities.<ref name=":20" /> Nonetheless, states found it difficult to agree on several fundamental issues, including export controls and the scope of on-site visits.<ref name=":20" /> By early 2001, the "rolling text" of the draft protocol still contained many areas on which views diverged widely.
In March 2001, a 210-page draft protocol was circulated by the chairman of the Ad Hoc Group, which attempted to resolve the contested issues.<ref name=":48">Ad Hoc Group (April 2001). Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://undocs.org/BWC/AD%20HOC%20GROUP/CRP.8 BWC/AD HOC GROUP/CRP.8].</ref> However, at the 24th session of the Ad Hoc Group in July 2001 the George W. Bush administration rejected both the draft protocol circulated by the Group's Chairman and the entire approach on which the draft was based, resulting in the collapse of the negotiation process.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dando|first=Malcolm|title=Chapter 9: The Failure of Arms Control, In Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide.|publisher=Oneworld|year=2006|isbn=9781851684472}}</ref><ref name=":29" /> To justify its decision, the United States asserted that the protocol would not have improved BWC compliance and would have harmed U.S. national security and commercial interests.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information |first=Bureau of Public Affairs |title=Biological Weapons Convention |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/ac/rls/rm/2001/5497.htm |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=2001-2009.state.gov |language=en}}</ref><ref>Mahley, Donald (25 July 2001). "Statement of the United States to the Ad Hoc Group of Biological Weapons Convention States Parties".</ref> Many analysts, including Matthew Meselson and Amy Smithson, criticized the U.S. decision as undermining international efforts against non-proliferation and as contradicting U.S. government rhetoric regarding the alleged biological weapons threat posed by Iraq and other U.S. adversaries.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Slevin|first=Peter|date=2002-09-19|title=U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://ngin.tripod.com/190902a.htm|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216205118/https://ngin.tripod.com/190902a.htm|archive-date=2021-02-16}}</ref>
In subsequent years, calls for restarting negotiations on a verification protocol have been repeatedly voiced. For instance, during the 2019 Meeting of Experts "several States Parties stressed the urgency of resuming multilateral negotiations aimed at concluding a non-discriminatory, legally-binding instrument dealing with (...) verification measures".<ref name=":31">Chairperson of the 2019 Meeting of Experts on Institutional Strengthening of the Convention (Geneva, 4 October 2019). Summary Report, [https://undocs.org/BWC/MSP/2019/MX.5/2 BWC/MSP/2019/MX.5/2].</ref> However, since "some States Parties did not support the negotiation of a protocol to the BWC" it seems "neither realistic nor practicable to return to negotiations".<ref name=":31" /> Notably, the Biden administration seems to reconsider the U.S. position on verification, as demonstrated by U.S. ambassador Bonnie Jenkins calling on the 2021 BWC Meeting of States Parties to "establish a new expert working group to examine possible measures to strengthen implementation of the Convention, increase transparency, and enhance assurance of compliance".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-11-22 |title=Remarks to the 2021 Biological Weapons Convention Meeting of States Parties |url=https://geneva.usmission.gov/2021/11/22/remarks-to-the-2021-biological-weapons-convention-meeting-of-states-parties/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428131429/https://geneva.usmission.gov/2021/11/22/remarks-to-the-2021-biological-weapons-convention-meeting-of-states-parties/ |archive-date=2022-04-28 |access-date=2022-04-28 |website=U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva |language=en-US}}</ref>
In December 2022, States Parties decided to establish a Working Group on strengthening the Convention, which aims to address among other issues, measures on verification and compliance.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/9">{{cite web |author1=Ninth Review Conference 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 |title=Final Document of the Ninth Review Conference, BWC/CONF.IX/9 |url=https://undocs.org/BWC/CONF.IX/9 |location=Geneva, Switzerland |date=22 December 2022}}</ref>
=== Accusations of non-compliance === A number of BWC States Parties have been accused of breaching the convention's obligations by developing or producing biological weapons. Because of the intense secrecy around biological weapons programs,<ref name=":24" /> it is challenging to assess the actual scope of biological activities and whether they are legitimate defensive programs or a violation of the Convention—except for a few cases with an abundance of evidence for offensive development of biological weapons.<ref name=":28" />
==== Soviet Union and Russia ==== {{Main|Soviet biological weapons program|Russia and weapons of mass destruction}} Despite being a party and depositary to the BWC, the Soviet Union has operated the world's largest, longest, and most sophisticated biological weapons program, which goes back to the 1920s under the Red Army.<ref name=":32">{{Cite book|last1=Leitenberg|first1=M.|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jbscf.30|title=Conclusion. In The Soviet Biological Weapons Program|last2=Zilinskas|first2=R.|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|isbn=9780674047709|location=London|pages=698–712|jstor=j.ctt2jbscf.30}}</ref><ref name=":33">{{Cite book|last=Alibek|first=Ken|title=Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World, Told from the Inside by the Man who Ran it|publisher=Delta|year=1999|isbn=0-385-33496-6}}</ref> Around the time when the BWC negotiations were finalized, and the treaty was signed in the early 1970s, the Soviet Union significantly expanded its covert biological weapons program under the oversight of the "civilian" institution Biopreparat within the Soviet Ministry of Health.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Leitenberg|first1=M.|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jbscf.7|title=Chapter 2: Beginnings of the "Modern" Soviet BW program, 1970–1977. In The Soviet Biological Weapons Program|last2=Zilinskas|first2=R.|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|isbn=9780674047709|location=London|pages=51–78|jstor=j.ctt2jbscf.7}}</ref> The Soviet program employed up to 65,000 people in several hundred facilities<ref name=":32" /> and successfully weaponized several pathogens, such as those responsible for smallpox, tularemia, bubonic plague, influenza, anthrax, glanders, and Marburg fever.<ref name=":28" />
The Soviet Union first drew much suspicion of violating its obligations under the BWC after an unusual anthrax outbreak in 1979 in the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk (formerly, and now again, Yekaterinburg) resulted in the deaths of approximately 65 to 100 people.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Leitenberg|first1=M.|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jbscf.21|title=Chapter 15: Sverdlovsk 1979: The Release of Bacillus anthracis Spores from a Soviet Ministry of Defense Facility and Its Consequences. In The Soviet Biological Weapons Program|last2=Zilinskas|first2=R.|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|isbn=9780674047709|location=London|pages=423–449|jstor=j.ctt2jbscf.21}}</ref><ref name=":34">{{Cite journal|last1=Meselson|first1=M.|last2=Guillemin|first2=J.|last3=Hugh-Jones|first3=M.|last4=Langmuir|first4=A.|last5=Popova|first5=I.|last6=Shelokov|first6=A.|last7=Yampolskaya|first7=O.|date=1994-11-18|title=The Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak of 1979|url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.7973702|journal=Science|language=en|volume=266|issue=5188|pages=1202–1208|doi=10.1126/science.7973702|issn=0036-8075|pmid=7973702|bibcode=1994Sci...266.1202M|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The Soviet authorities blamed the outbreak on the consumption of contaminated meat and for years denied any connection between the incident and biological weapons research.<ref name=":34" /><ref name=":35">{{Cite book|last=Alibek|first=Ken|title=Chapter 7: Accident at Sverdlovsk. In Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World – Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It|publisher=Delta|year=1999|isbn=0-385-33496-6}}</ref> However, investigations concluded that the outbreak was caused by an accident at a nearby military microbiology facility, resulting in the escape of an aerosol of anthrax pathogen.<ref name=":34" /><ref name=":35" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Guillemin|first=Jeanne|title=Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak|publisher=University of California Press|year=1999|isbn=9780520229174}}</ref> Supporting this finding, Russian president Boris Yeltsin later admitted that "our military developments were the cause".<ref>{{Cite web|date=2005-10-11|title=Yeltsin rewrites history on 1979 anthrax epidemic|url=https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1992/06/16/yeltsin-rewrites-history-on-1979-anthrax-epidemic/|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Tampa Bay Times|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Dahlburg|first=John-Thor|date=1992-09-15|title=Russia Admits It Violated Pact on Biological Warfare|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-15-mn-859-story.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211212154245/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-15-mn-859-story.html|archive-date=2021-12-12|access-date=2021-12-12|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US}}</ref>
Western concerns about Soviet compliance with the BWC increased during the late 1980s and were supported by information provided by several defectors, including Vladimir Pasechnik and Ken Alibek.<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":33" /> American president George H. W. Bush and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher therefore directly challenged President Gorbachev with the information. After the Soviet Union's dissolution, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia concluded the Trilateral Agreement on 14 September 1992, reaffirming their commitment to full compliance with the BWC and declaring that Russia had eliminated its inherited offensive biological weapons program.<ref name=":36">{{Cite journal|last=Kelly|first=David|date=2002|title=The Trilateral Agreement: lessons for biological weapons verification. David Kelly.|url=https://www.vertic.org/media/Archived_Publications/Yearbooks/2002/VY02_Kelly.pdf|journal=VERTIC Yearbook 2002|pages=93–110}}</ref> The agreement's objective was to uncover details about the Soviet's biological weapons program and to verify that all related activities had truly been terminated.<ref name=":36" />
David Kelly, a British expert on biological warfare and participant in the visits arranged under the Trilateral Agreement, concluded that, on the one hand, the agreement "was a significant achievement" in that it "provided evidence of Soviet non-compliance from 1975 to 1991"; on the other hand, Kelly noted that the Trilateral Agreement "failed dramatically" because Russia did not "acknowledge and fully account for either the former Soviet programme or the biological weapons activities that it had inherited and continued to engage in".<ref name=":36" />
Milton Leitenberg and Raymond Zilinskas, authors of the 2012 book ''The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History'', assert that Russia may still continue parts of the Soviet biological weapons program today.<ref name=":32" /> Similarly, as of 2021, the U.S. Department of State "assesses that the Russian Federation (Russia) maintains an offensive [biological weapons] program and is in violation of its obligation under Articles I and II of the BWC. The issue of compliance by Russia with the BWC has been of concern for many years".<ref>{{Cite web|title=2021 Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments|url=https://www.state.gov/2021-adherence-to-and-compliance-with-arms-control-nonproliferation-and-disarmament-agreements-and-commitments/|access-date=2021-10-30|website=United States Department of State|language=en}}</ref>
In February 2026, scientists at Porton Down discovered epibatidine in tissue samples taken from Alexei Navalny's body, and a joint statement was made by the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden that ″Moscow had the means, motive and opportunity to administer this poison to him″. British toxicology expert Alastair Hay said that if Russia was behind the poisoning, it would have broken the BWC treaty, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of such weapons.<ref name="s008">{{cite web | title= How Porton Down scientists exposed Putin's chemical weapons arsenal | website=The Telegraph | date=14 February 2026 | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/14/how-porton-down-scientists-blew-the-lid-off-putins-chemical/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_youtube_the-lid-off-putins-chemical%2F | access-date=17 February 2026}}</ref>
==== Iraq ==== {{Main|Iraqi biological weapons program}} Starting around 1985 under Saddam Hussein's leadership, Iraq weaponized anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and other agents,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Zilinskas|first=Raymond A.|date=1997-08-06|title=Iraq's Biological Weapons: The Past as Future?|url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/417897|journal=JAMA|language=en|volume=278|issue=5|pages=418–424|doi=10.1001/jama.1997.03550050080037|pmid=9244334|issn=0098-7484|url-access=subscription}}</ref> and created delivery vehicles, including bombs, missile warheads, aerosol generators, and spray systems.<ref name=":14" /> Although this program would have breached the provisions of the BWC, which Iraq had signed in 1972, Iraq only ratified the Convention in 1991 as a condition of the cease-fire agreement that ended the 1991 Gulf War.<ref name=":37">{{Cite book|last=Dando|first=Malcolm|title=Biological warfare 1972–2004. In Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide|publisher=Oneworld|year=2006|isbn=9781851684472|pages=51–53}}</ref><ref name=":5" /> The Iraqi biological weapons program—along with its chemical weapons program—was uncovered after the Gulf War through the investigations of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was responsible for disarmament in post-war Iraq.<ref name=":14" /> Iraq deliberately obstructed, delayed, and deceived the UNSCOM investigations and only admitted to having operated an offensive biological weapons program under significant pressure in 1995.<ref name=":37" /> While Iraq maintained that it ended its biological weapons program in 1991, many analysts believe that the country violated its BWC obligations by continuing the program until at least 1996.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leitenberg|first=Milton|date=1997|title=Biological Weapons, International Sanctions and Proliferation|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42704143|journal=Asian Perspective|volume=21|issue=3|pages=7–39|jstor=42704143|issn=0258-9184}}</ref><ref>[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-DUELFERREPORT/summary Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, with Addendums] (Duelfer Report). Volume 3-Biological Warfare. (Washington, D.C., September 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20210216205311/https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-DUELFERREPORT/summary Archived].</ref>
==== United States ==== In April 1997, Cuba invoked the provisions of Article V to request a formal consultative meeting to consider its allegations that the United States introduced the crop-eating insect ''Thrips palmi'' to Cuba via crop-spraying planes in October 1996.<ref name=":38" /><ref>{{Cite journal|date=September 1997|title=Cuba BW allegations|url=http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/TV/TV77.pdf|url-status=live|journal=VERTIC Trust & Verify|volume=77|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216205330/http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/TV/TV77.pdf|archive-date=2021-02-16}}</ref> Cuba and the United States presented evidence for their diverging views on the incident in a formal consultation in August 1997. Having reviewed the evidence, twelve States Parties submitted reports, of which nine concluded that the evidence did not support the Cuban allegations, and two (China and Vietnam) maintained it was inconclusive.<ref name=":14" />
On 4 September 2001, in the weeks prior to the September 11 attacks and 2001 anthrax attacks, the ''New York Times'' published an article outlining three US Department of Defense or Intelligence Community biological weapons programs, Project Bacchus, Project Clear Vision, and Project Jefferson, which focused on both anthrax and technology from the Soviet biological weapons program. While the Bush administration argued all three projects were defensive and in compliance with the BWC, several international law scholars argued the BWC was violated on two grounds. The first ground was the exclusion of these classified projects from the US BWC confidence-building measure declarations. The second was that the aim of Clear Vision was to construct a functional biological agent-containing cluster munition, and that the BWC's ban on biological weapons munitions and delivery vehicles is absolute, not allowing for their construction under the cover of defensive research.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today |url=http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Tucker.asp |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517115818/http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Tucker.asp |archive-date=2008-05-17 |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=www.armscontrol.org}}</ref>
A 2003 article published in ''Politics and the Life Sciences'' raised concerns about the compliance of the United States. Milton Leitenberg, James F. Leonard, and Richard Spertzel wrote that aspects of the U.S. biodefense program—particularly research conducted at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center—could be perceived as violating the BWC. The authors said that research on genetically modified pathogens, pathogen dispersal modeling, and "Red Teaming" activities, which simulate biothreat scenarios, resembled elements of past offensive biological weapons programs. The report questioned whether these activities, though carried out under the guise of defense, risked undermining the treaty’s prohibitions.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Leitenberg | first1 = M. | last2 = Leonard | first2 = A. J. | last3 = Spertzel | first3 = R. | title = Biodefense crossing the line | journal = Politics & the Life Sciences | volume = 22 | issue = 2 | year = 2003 | pages = 2–3 | doi = 10.1017/S0730938400006602 | url = https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400006602 | access-date = 2025-02-17 | url-access = subscription }}</ref>
===== By Russia ===== {{Further|Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory}} In recent years, Russia has repeatedly alleged that the United States is supporting and operating biological weapons facilities in the Caucasus and Central Asia, in particular the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research in the Republic of Georgia.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Isachenkov|first=Vladimir|date=2018-10-04|title=Russia claims US running secret bio weapons lab in Georgia|url=https://apnews.com/article/0cf158200e674f41bd3026133e5e043d|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102181657/https://apnews.com/article/0cf158200e674f41bd3026133e5e043d|archive-date=2021-01-02|access-date=2021-02-16|website=AP News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-05-27|title=Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Georgian Foreign Ministry's response apropos of the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research|url=https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4139421|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216205713/https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4139421|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation|language=en-GB}}</ref> The U.S. Department of State called these allegations "groundless" and reaffirmed that "all U.S. activities (...) [were] consistent with the obligations set forth in the Biological Weapons Convention".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf|title=Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments|publisher=U.S. Department of State|year=2019|pages=6|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122040233/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf|archive-date=2021-01-22|url-status=live}}</ref> Biological weapons expert Filippa Lentzos agreed that the Russian allegations are "unfounded" and commented that they are "part of a disinformation campaign".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2018-11-19|title=The Russian disinformation attack that poses a biological danger|url=https://thebulletin.org/2018/11/the-russian-disinformation-attack-that-poses-a-biological-danger/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210206102409/https://thebulletin.org/2018/11/the-russian-disinformation-attack-that-poses-a-biological-danger/|archive-date=2021-02-06|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|language=en-US}}</ref> Similarly, Swedish biodefense specialists Roger Roffey and Anna-Karin Tunemalm called the allegations "a Russian propaganda tool".<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Roffey|first1=Roger|last2=Tunemalm|first2=Anna-Karin|date=2017-10-02|title=Biological Weapons Allegations: A Russian Propaganda Tool to Negatively Implicate the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2017.1377010|journal=The Journal of Slavic Military Studies|volume=30|issue=4|pages=521–542|doi=10.1080/13518046.2017.1377010|s2cid=148825395|issn=1351-8046|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Federation convened a Formal Consultative Meeting under Article V of the Convention to address outstanding questions concerning the operation of biological laboratories in Ukraine by the United States. The meeting did not reach a consensus.<ref name="fcm_2022" />
==== By United States ==== At the Fifth BWC Review Conference in 2001, the United States charged four BWC States Parties—Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea—and one signatory, Syria, with operating covert biological weapons programs.<ref name=":29" /><ref name=":14" /> Moreover, a 2019 report from the U.S. Department of State raises concerns regarding BWC compliance in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.<ref name=":39">{{Cite book|url=https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf|title=Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments|publisher=U.S. Department of State|year=2019|pages=45–50|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122040233/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf|archive-date=2021-01-22}}</ref> The report concluded that North Korea "has an offensive biological weapons program and is in violation of its obligations under Articles I and II of the BWC" and that Iran "has not abandoned its (...) development of biological agents and toxins for offensive purposes".<ref name=":39" />
== Implementation Support Unit == [[File:UN Building A Southern Lawn.jpg|thumb|The Palace of Nations in Geneva, which houses the BWC ISU]] After a decade of negotiations, the major effort to institutionally strengthen the BWC failed in 2001, which would have resulted in a legally binding protocol to establish an Organization for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (OPBW).<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":48" /> Against this background, the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 created an Implementation Support Unit (ISU) funded by the States Parties to the BWC and housed in the Geneva Branch of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.<ref name=":40">{{Cite web|title=Implementation Support Unit|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/implementation-support-unit/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216205958/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/implementation-support-unit/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":1" /> The unit's mandate is to provide administrative support, assist the national implementation of the BWC, encourage the treaty's universal adoption, pair assistance requests and offers, and oversee the confidence-building measures process.<ref name=":40" />
The ISU was initially composed of three full-time staff with a budget smaller than the average McDonald's restaurant,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ord|first=Toby|url=https://theprecipice.com/|title=Chapter 2: Existential Risk. In The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity|publisher=Hachette Book Group|year=2020|isbn=978-1526600219}}</ref> and does not compare with the institutions established to deal with chemical or nuclear weapons. For example, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has about 500 employees,<ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-10-30|title=Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216210046/https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons/|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}</ref> the International Atomic Energy Agency employs around 2,600 people,<ref>{{Cite web|date=16 May 2014|title=Staff|url=https://www.iaea.org/about/staff|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216210125/https://www.iaea.org/about/staff|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=International Atomic Energy Agency}}</ref> and the CTBTO Preparatory Commission employs around 280 staff.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Annual_Report_2018/English/00-CTBTO_AR_2018_EN.pdf|title=Annual Report 2018|publisher=CTBTO Preparatory Commission|year=2018|pages=62|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207095333/https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Annual_Report_2018/English/00-CTBTO_AR_2018_EN.pdf|archive-date=2021-02-07}}</ref> In December 2022, as a result of the Ninth Review Conference, States Parties decided to establish one new full-time staff position within the ISU, only for the period from 2023 to 2027.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/9" />
== Review Conferences == States Parties have formally reviewed the operation of the BWC at periodic Review Conferences held every five years; the first took place in 1980.<ref name=":42">{{Cite web|title=Meetings under the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/meetings/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201220213620/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/meetings/|archive-date=2020-12-20|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}}</ref> The objective of these conferences is to ensure the effective realization of the convention's goals and, in accordance with Article XII, to "take into account any new scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention".<ref name="koblentz16">{{cite news |last1=Koblentz |first1=Gregory D. |last2=Lentzos |first2=Filippa |title=It's time to modernize the bioweapons convention |url=https://thebulletin.org/2016/11/its-time-to-modernize-the-bioweapons-convention/ |publisher=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=4 November 2016}}</ref><ref name=artXII>Article XII, Biological Weapons Convention. Wikisource.</ref> Most Review Conferences have adopted additional understandings or agreements that have interpreted or elaborated the meaning, scope, and implementation of BWC provisions.<ref name=":41" /> These additional understandings are contained in the final documents of the Review Conferences and in an overview document prepared by the BWC Implementation Support Unit for the Eighth Review Conference in 2016.<ref name=":49" /> Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ninth Review Conference originally scheduled for 2021 was postponed to 2022.<ref name="BWC/MSP/2020/7">{{cite web |author1=Meeting of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention |title=Report of the 2020 Meeting of States Parties, BWC/MSP/2020/7 |url=https://undocs.org/BWC/MSP/2020/7 |location=Geneva, Switzerland |date=29 November 2021}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" ! Review Conference ! Date ! Key outcomes and issues ! BWC States Parties ! Chairperson ! Final Document |- |First<ref name=":47">Final Document of the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-First-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.I/10]. Geneva, 1980.</ref> |3. – 21. March 1980 |1. Encouragement of voluntary declarations of (i) past possession of BWC-relevant items, (ii) efforts to destroy or divert these items to peaceful purposes, (iii) and enactment of national legislation to implement the convention. 2. Elaboration of the cooperation under Article X by including personnel training, information exchange, and the transfer of materials and equipment. |87 |Ambassador Oscar Vaerno (Norway) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-First-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.I/10] |- |Second<ref name=":18">Final Document of the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Second-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.II/13]. Geneva, 1986.</ref> |8. – 26. September 1986 |1. Agreement on the annual exchange of confidence-building measures (CBMs), including information on (i) high-containment research laboratories, (ii) abnormal infectious disease outbreaks, and (iii) the encouragement of BWC-relevant research in publicly available journals. 2. Bringing bioterrorism within the convention's scope by agreeing that it applies to all international, national and non-State actors and that it covers all relevant current and future scientific and technological developments.
3. Strengthening of Article V by agreeing on the Formal Consultative Process, a procedure to resolve doubts about compliance through consultative meetings.
4. Agreement that the World Health Organization would coordinate the emergency response in the event of suspected biological and toxin weapons use. |103 |Ambassador Winfried Lang (Austria) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Second-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.II/13] |- |Third<ref name=":19">Final Document of the Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Third-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.III/23]. Geneva, 1991.</ref> |9. – 27. September 1991 |1. Expansion of the CBMs by including information on (i) national implementation measures such as legislation, (ii) past offensive and defensive biological weapons programs, and (iii) vaccine production facilities. 2. Establishment of an expert group on verification, VEREX, mandated to identify and examine potential verification measures from a scientific and technical standpoint.
3. Clarification that investigations under Article VI can also be requested through the Secretary-General and not only through the Security Council.
4. Reaffirmation that the BWC covers not just agents affecting humans but also those affecting animals and plants.
5. Clarification of the coordinating role of intergovernmental organizations responding to attacks allegedly involving biological weapons.
6. Assertion that information on the implementation of Article X on peaceful uses of the biological sciences should also be provided to the United Nations. |116 |Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan (Argentina) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Third-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.III/23] |- |Fourth<ref name=":16">Final Document of the Fourth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Fourth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.IV/9]. Geneva, 1996.</ref> |25. November – 6. December 1996 |1. Reaffirmation that the use of biological weapons is considered prohibited under Article I. 2. Assertion that the destruction and conversion of former biological weapons and associated facilities should be completed before accession to the BWC.
3. Recommendation of specific measures to improve the implementation of Article X on peaceful uses of the biological sciences. |135 |Ambassador Sir Michael Weston (U.K.) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Fourth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.IV/9] |- |Fifth<ref name=":0">Final Document of the Fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Fifth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.V/17]. Geneva, 2002.</ref> |19. November – 7. December 2001; 11. – 22. November 2002 |1. Suspension of the conference by one year in response to the U.S. proposal to terminate the Ad Hoc Group's mandate. 2. Establishment of an intersessional program, including annual Meetings of States Parties and Meetings of Experts, to promote discussion and agreement on a variety of topics relevant to the BWC. |144 |Ambassador Tibor Toth (Hungary) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Fifth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.V/17] |- |Sixth<ref name=":1">Final Document of the Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Sixth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VI/6]. Geneva, 2006.</ref> |20. November – 8. December 2006 |1. Establishment of the BWC Implementation Support Unit within the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva to provide administrative support and strengthen the Convention in other ways. 2. Renewal and modification of the intersessional program. |155 |Ambassador Masood Khan (Pakistan) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Sixth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VI/6] |- |Seventh<ref name=":2">Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Seventh-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VII/7]. Geneva, 2011.</ref> |5. – 22. December 2011 |1. Revision of the CBM reporting forms, including the deletion of CBM form D on the active promotion of contacts. 2. Establishment of a database to facilitate assistance and cooperation under Article X.<ref>{{Cite web|title=BWC Article X Assistance and Cooperation Database|url=https://bwc-articlex.unog.ch/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-15|website=bwc-articlex.unog.ch|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920021837/https://bwc-articlex.unog.ch/|archive-date=20 September 2020}}</ref>
3. Establishment of a sponsorship program to support developing States Parties to participate in the annual BWC meetings.<ref>{{Cite web|title=BWC Sponsorship Programme – UNODA|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/assistance-and-cooperation/bwc-sponsorship-programme-2019/|access-date=2021-02-15|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}}</ref>
4. Reform of the convention's financing system. |165 |Ambassador Paul van den IJssel (Netherlands) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Seventh-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VII/7] |- |Eighth<ref name=":3">Final Document of the Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Eighth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VIII/4]. Geneva, 2016.</ref> |7. – 25. November 2016 |1. Renewal of the ISU's mandate, the sponsorship program, the intersessional program, and the Article X assistance and cooperation database. |177 |Ambassador György Molnar (Hungary) |[https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BWC-Eighth-Review-Conference-Final-Document.pdf BWC/CONF.VIII/4] |- |Ninth<ref>Meetings under the Biological Weapons Convention, [https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/meetings/]. Geneva, 2016.</ref> |28. November – 16. December 2022<ref>Final report of the Preparatory Committee to the Review Conference, [https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/BWC-PrepCom-9-final-report_ADVANCE-VERS.pdf BWC/CONF.IX/PC/10]. Geneva, 2022.</ref> |1. Establishment of a Working Group to identify, examine and develop specific and effective measures, including possible legally-binding measures, and to make recommendations to strengthen and institutionalise the Convention in all its aspects. 2. Decision to develop with a view to establishing two mechanisms, one on international cooperation and assistance under article X, and the other on the review of scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention. 3. Renewal of the ISU's mandate and the sponsorship program. 4. Progress of the implementation of decisions and recommendations agreed upon at the Eighth Review Conference. |184 |Ambassador Leonardo Bencini (Italy) |[https://undocs.org/BWC/CONF.IX/9 BWC/CONF.IX/9] |- |Tenth |No later than 2027<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/9" /> |1. New scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention; 2. The progress made by States Parties on the implementation of the Convention; and
3. Progress of the implementation of decisions and recommendations agreed upon at the Ninth Review Conference, taking into account, as appropriate, decisions and recommendations reached at previous Review Conferences. |185 |TBD |None |}
== Intersessional program == As agreed at the Fifth Review Conference in 2001/2002, annual BWC meetings have been held between Review Conferences starting in 2003, referred to as the intersessional program.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Biological Weapons Convention: An Introduction|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BWS-brochure.pdf|journal=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|pages=22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200203010447/https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BWS-brochure.pdf|archive-date=2020-02-03}}</ref> The intersessional program includes both annual Meetings of States Parties (MSP)—aiming to discuss, and promote common understanding and effective action on the topics identified by the Review Conference—as well as Meetings of Experts (MX), which serve as preparation for the Meeting of States Parties.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":42" /> The annual meetings do not have the mandate to adopt decisions, a privilege reserved for the Review Conferences which consider the results from the intersessional program.<ref name=":21" /> {| class="wikitable" !Intersessional program period !Duration !Topics |- |2003 – 2005<ref name=":0" /> |MSP: 1 week MX: 2 weeks |1. the adoption of necessary national measures to implement the prohibitions set forth in the convention, including the enactment of penal legislation 2. national mechanisms to establish and maintain the security and oversight of pathogenic microorganisms and toxins
3. enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of cases of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease
4. strengthening and broadening national and international institutional efforts and existing mechanisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals, and plants
5. the content, promulgation, and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists |- |2007 – 2010<ref name=":1" /> |MSP: 1 week MX: 1 week |1. Ways and means to enhance national implementation, including enforcement of national legislation, strengthening of national institutions and coordination among national law enforcement institutions 2. Regional and sub-regional cooperation on implementation of the Convention
3. National, regional and international measures to improve biosafety and biosecurity, including laboratory safety and security of pathogens and toxins
4. Oversight, education, awareness-raising, and adoption and/or development of codes of conduct with the aim of preventing misuse in the context of advances in bio-science and biotechnology research with the potential of use for purposes prohibited by the Convention
5. With a view to enhancing international cooperation, assistance and exchange in biological sciences and technology for peaceful purposes, promoting capacity building in the fields of disease surveillance, detection, diagnosis, and containment of infectious diseases: (1) for States Parties in need of assistance, identifying requirements and requests for capacity enhancement; and (2) from States Parties in a position to do so, and international organizations, opportunities for providing assistance related to these fields
6. Provision of assistance and coordination with relevant organizations upon request by any State Party in the case of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons, including improving national capabilities for disease surveillance, detection and diagnosis and public health systems |- |2012 – 2015<ref name=":2" /> |MSP: 1 week MX: 1 week |1. Cooperation and assistance, with a particular focus on strengthening cooperation and assistance under Article X 2. Review of developments in the field of science and technology related to the Convention
3. Strengthening national implementation
4. How to enable fuller participation in the CBMs
5. How to strengthen implementation of Article VII, including consideration of detailed procedures and mechanisms for the provision of assistance and cooperation by States Parties |- |2018 – 2020<ref name=":3" /> |MSP: 4 days MX: 5 separate meetings across 8 days |1. Cooperation and assistance, with a particular focus on strengthening cooperation and assistance under Article X 2. Review of developments in the field of science and technology related to the Convention
3. Strengthening national implementation
4. Assistance, response and preparedness
5. Institutional strengthening of the Convention |- |2023 - 2026 <ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/9"/> | MSP: 3 days WG: 15 days | 1. Measures on international cooperation and assistance under Article X 2. Measures on scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention
3. Measures on confidence-building and transparency
4. Measures on compliance and verification
5. Measures on national implementation of the Convention
6. Measures on assistance, response and preparedness under Article VII
7. Measures on organizational, institutional and financial arrangements |}
== Challenges ==
=== Potential misuse of rapid scientific and technological developments === Advances in science and technology are relevant to the BWC since they may affect the threat presented by biological weapons. The ongoing advances in synthetic biology and enabling technologies are eroding the technological barriers to acquiring and genetically enhancing dangerous pathogens and using them for hostile purposes.<ref name=":44">{{Cite web|last1=Brockmann|first1=Kolja|last2=Boulanin|first2=Vincent|last3=Bauer|first3=Sibylle|date=2019|title=Bio Plus X: Arms Control and the Convergence of Biology and Emerging Technologies|url=https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/sipri2019_bioplusx_0.pdf|publisher=Stockholm International Peace Research Institute|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216211512/https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/sipri2019_bioplusx_0.pdf|archive-date=2021-02-16}}</ref> For example, a 2019 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute finds that "advances in three specific emerging technologies—additive manufacturing (AM), artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics—could facilitate, each in their own way, the development or production of biological weapons and their delivery systems".<ref name=":44" /> Similarly, biological weapons expert Filippa Lentzos argues that the convergence of genomic technologies with "machine learning, automation, affective computing, and robotics (...) [will] create the possibility of novel biological weapons that target particular groups of people and even individuals".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2020-11-01|title=How to protect the world from ultra-targeted biological weapons|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|volume=76|issue=6|pages=302–308|doi=10.1080/00963402.2020.1846412|bibcode=2020BuAtS..76f.302L|s2cid=228097168 |issn=0096-3402|doi-access=}}</ref> On the other hand, these scientific developments may improve pandemic preparedness by strengthening prevention and response measures.<ref name=":44" /><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Future|first1=Commission on a Global Health Risk Framework for the|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK368388/|title=Accelerating Research and Development to Counter the Threat of Infectious Diseases|last2=National Academy of Medicine|first2=Secretariat|date=2016-05-16|publisher=National Academies Press (US)|language=en}}</ref>
=== Technological challenges in the verification of biological weapons === There are several reasons why biological weapons are especially difficult to verify. First, in contrast to chemical and nuclear weapons, even small initial quantities of biological agents can be used to quickly produce militarily significant amounts.<ref name=":45">{{Cite journal|last=Lentzos|first=Filippa|date=2011-11-01|title=Hard to Prove: The Verification Quandary of the Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2011.618662|journal=The Nonproliferation Review|volume=18|issue=3|pages=571–582|doi=10.1080/10736700.2011.618662|s2cid=143228489|issn=1073-6700|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Second, biotechnological equipment and even dangerous pathogens and toxins cannot be prohibited altogether since they also have legitimate peaceful or defensive purposes, including the development of vaccines and medical therapies.<ref name=":45" /> Third, it is possible to rapidly eliminate biological agents, which makes short-notice inspections less effective in determining whether a facility produces biological weapons.<ref name=":14" /> For these reasons, Filippa Lentzos notes that "it is not possible to verify the BWC with the same level of accuracy and reliability as the verification of nuclear treaties".<ref name=":43" />
=== Financial health of the Convention === BWC intersessional program meetings have recently been impeded by late payments and non-payments of financial contributions.<ref name=":50">{{Cite web|last=Mackby|first=Jenifer|date=January 2019|title=BWC Meeting Stumbles Over Money, Politics|url=https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-01/news/bwc-meeting-stumbles-over-money-politics|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216202757/https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-01/news/bwc-meeting-stumbles-over-money-politics|archive-date=2021-02-16|access-date=2021-02-16|website=Arms Control Association}}</ref> BWC States Parties agreed at the Meeting of States Parties in 2018, which was cut short due to funding shortfalls, on a package of remedial financial measures including the establishment of a Working Capital Fund.<ref name=":50" /><ref name=":46">Report of the 2018 Meeting of States Parties, [https://undocs.org/BWC/MSP/2018/6 BWC/MSP/2018/6]. Geneva, 11 December 2018.</ref> This fund is financed by voluntary contributions and provides short-term financing in order to ensure the continuity of approved programs and activities.<ref name=":46" /> At the Ninth Review Conference, States Parties welcomed the improvement of the financial situation following the measures endorsed by the 2018 Meeting of States Parties, confirmed their effectiveness and decided to review them at the Tenth Review Conference.<ref name="BWC/CONF.IX/9" /> Live information on the financial status of the BWC and other disarmament conventions is available publicly on the financial dashboard of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Financial Dashboard|url=https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTcxZTYwZTgtODMyZC00MzQwLWFhM2ItMDdiODlkNjY4NmNlIiwidCI6IjBmOWUzNWRiLTU0NGYtNGY2MC1iZGNjLTVlYTQxNmU2ZGM3MCIsImMiOjh9|url-status=live|access-date=2021-02-16|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024121040/https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTcxZTYwZTgtODMyZC00MzQwLWFhM2ItMDdiODlkNjY4NmNlIiwidCI6IjBmOWUzNWRiLTU0NGYtNGY2MC1iZGNjLTVlYTQxNmU2ZGM3MCIsImMiOjh9|archive-date=24 October 2020}}</ref>
== See also ==
=== Biological weapons and warfare ===
* Australia Group of countries controlling exports to prevent the spread of biological and chemical weapons * Biological weapons * Biological warfare * Biological terrorism * Geneva Protocol, the first treaty to prohibit the use of biological and chemical weapons * International pandemic treaty * United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, resolution to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly to non-state actors
=== Treaties for other types of weapons of mass destruction === {{Main|List of weapons of mass destruction treaties|List of parties to weapons of mass destruction treaties}}
* Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (states parties) * Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (states parties) * Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (states parties) * Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (states parties)
== References == {{reflist}}
== External links == {{wikisource|Biological Weapons Convention}} * '''Official resources created by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs''' ** [https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/ Official website of the Biological Weapons Convention] ** [https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc Full text of the Biological Weapons Convention], Treaty Database ** [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-BWC-An-Introduction.pdf Brochure: The Biological Weapons Convention: An Introduction] ** [https://meetings.unoda.org/ Meetings Place]. A page with details on disarmament meetings, including documents and presentations. *** [https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/bwc-msp-2020/ BWC Meeting of States Parties] *** [https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/bwc-mx-2020/ BWC Meetings of Experts] ** [https://bwc-ecbm.unog.ch/ Electronic Confidence-Building Measures facility] ** [https://bwc-articlex.unog.ch/ Article X cooperation and assistance database] * '''External resources''' ** "[https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/convention-prohibition-development-production-and-stockpiling-bacteriological-biological-and-toxin-weapons-btwc/ Treaties and Regimes: The Biological Weapons Convention]", Nuclear Threat Initiative ** "[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) at a Glance]", Arms Control Association ** "[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/historical-context-origins-biological-weapons-convention-bwc The Historical Context of the Origins of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)]", University College London *** "[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/sites/sts/files/ahrc_report_270717.pdf Understanding Biological Disarmament: Final Report]"
Category:Arms control treaties Category:Biological warfare Category:Cold War treaties Category:Human rights instruments Category:Non-proliferation treaties Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union Category:Treaties concluded in 1972 Category:Treaties entered into force in 1975 Category:1975 in politics Category:Treaties of the Republic of Afghanistan Category:Treaties of Albania Category:Treaties of Algeria Category:Treaties of Andorra Category:Treaties of Angola Category:Treaties of Antigua and Barbuda Category:Treaties of Argentina Category:Treaties of Armenia Category:Treaties of Australia Category:Treaties of Austria Category:Treaties of Azerbaijan Category:Treaties of the Bahamas Category:Treaties of Bahrain Category:Treaties of Bangladesh Category:Treaties of Barbados Category:Treaties of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic Category:Treaties of Belgium Category:Treaties of Belize Category:Treaties of the Republic of Dahomey Category:Treaties of Bhutan Category:Treaties of Bolivia Category:Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina Category:Treaties of Botswana Category:Treaties of the military dictatorship in Brazil Category:Treaties of Brunei Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Bulgaria Category:Treaties of Burkina Faso Category:Treaties of Myanmar Category:Treaties of Burundi Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Kampuchea Category:Treaties of Cameroon Category:Treaties of Canada Category:Treaties of Cape Verde Category:Treaties of Chile Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of China Category:Treaties of Taiwan Category:Treaties of Colombia Category:Treaties of the Republic of the Congo Category:Treaties of Zaire Category:Treaties of the Cook Islands Category:Treaties of Costa Rica Category:Treaties of Croatia Category:Treaties of Cuba Category:Treaties of Cyprus Category:Treaties of Czechoslovakia Category:Treaties of the Czech Republic Category:Treaties of Denmark Category:Treaties of Dominica Category:Treaties of the Dominican Republic Category:Treaties of Ecuador Category:Treaties of El Salvador Category:Treaties of Equatorial Guinea Category:Treaties of Estonia Category:Treaties of the Derg Category:Treaties of Fiji Category:Treaties of Finland Category:Treaties of France Category:Treaties of Gabon Category:Treaties of the Gambia Category:Treaties of Georgia (country) Category:Treaties of West Germany Category:Treaties of East Germany Category:Treaties of Ghana Category:Treaties of Greece Category:Treaties of Grenada Category:Treaties of Guatemala Category:Treaties of Guinea-Bissau Category:Treaties of Guyana Category:Treaties of the Holy See Category:Treaties of Honduras Category:Treaties of the Hungarian People's Republic Category:Treaties of Iceland Category:Treaties of India Category:Treaties of Indonesia Category:Treaties of Pahlavi Iran Category:Treaties of Ba'athist Iraq Category:Treaties of Ireland Category:Treaties of Italy Category:Treaties of Ivory Coast Category:Treaties of Jamaica Category:Treaties of Japan Category:Treaties of Jordan Category:Treaties of Kazakhstan Category:Treaties of Kenya Category:Treaties of Kuwait Category:Treaties of Kyrgyzstan Category:Treaties of Laos Category:Treaties of Latvia Category:Treaties of Lebanon Category:Treaties of Lesotho Category:Treaties of Liberia Category:Treaties of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Category:Treaties of Liechtenstein Category:Treaties of Lithuania Category:Treaties of Luxembourg Category:Treaties of North Macedonia Category:Treaties of Madagascar Category:Treaties of Malawi Category:Treaties of Malaysia Category:Treaties of the Maldives Category:Treaties of Mali Category:Treaties of Malta Category:Treaties of the Marshall Islands Category:Treaties of Mauritania Category:Treaties of Mauritius Category:Treaties of Mexico Category:Treaties of Moldova Category:Treaties of Monaco Category:Treaties of the Mongolian People's Republic Category:Treaties of Montenegro Category:Treaties of Morocco Category:Treaties of Mozambique Category:Treaties of Nauru Category:Treaties of Nepal Category:Treaties of the Netherlands Category:Treaties of New Zealand Category:Treaties of Nicaragua Category:Treaties of Nigeria Category:Treaties of Niger Category:Treaties of North Korea Category:Treaties of Norway Category:Treaties of Oman Category:Treaties of Pakistan Category:Treaties of Palau Category:Treaties of Panama Category:Treaties of Papua New Guinea Category:Treaties of Paraguay Category:Treaties of Peru Category:Treaties of the Philippines Category:Treaties of the Polish People's Republic Category:Treaties of Portugal Category:Treaties of Qatar Category:Treaties of the Socialist Republic of Romania Category:Treaties of Rwanda Category:Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis Category:Treaties of Saint Lucia Category:Treaties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Category:Treaties of San Marino Category:Treaties of São Tomé and Príncipe Category:Treaties of Saudi Arabia Category:Treaties of Senegal Category:Treaties of Yugoslavia Category:Treaties of Seychelles Category:Treaties of Sierra Leone Category:Treaties of Singapore Category:Treaties of Slovakia Category:Treaties of Slovenia Category:Treaties of the Solomon Islands Category:Treaties of South Africa Category:Treaties of South Korea Category:Treaties of Spain Category:Treaties of Sri Lanka Category:Treaties of the Republic of the Sudan (1985–2011) Category:Treaties of Suriname Category:Treaties of Eswatini Category:Treaties of Sweden Category:Treaties of Switzerland Category:Treaties of Tajikistan Category:Treaties of Thailand Category:Treaties of Timor-Leste Category:Treaties of Togo Category:Treaties of Tonga Category:Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago Category:Treaties of Tunisia Category:Treaties of Turkey Category:Treaties of Turkmenistan Category:Treaties of Uganda Category:Treaties of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Category:Treaties of the United Arab Emirates Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom Category:Treaties of the United States Category:Treaties of Uruguay Category:Treaties of Uzbekistan Category:Treaties of Vanuatu Category:Treaties of Venezuela Category:Treaties of Vietnam Category:Treaties of the Yemen Arab Republic Category:Treaties of South Yemen Category:Treaties of Zambia Category:Treaties of Zimbabwe Category:Treaties extended to Greenland Category:Treaties extended to the Faroe Islands Category:Treaties extended to the Netherlands Antilles Category:Treaties extended to Aruba Category:Treaties extended to Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla Category:Treaties extended to Bermuda Category:Treaties extended to the British Virgin Islands Category:Treaties extended to the Cayman Islands Category:Treaties extended to the Falkland Islands Category:Treaties extended to Gibraltar Category:Treaties extended to Montserrat Category:Treaties extended to the Pitcairn Islands Category:Treaties extended to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Category:Treaties extended to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Category:Treaties extended to the Turks and Caicos Islands