A Need for an Enforcement Protocol for the Biological Weapons ConventionEssay Preview: A Need for an Enforcement Protocol for the Biological Weapons ConventionReport this essayThe threat of biological weapons to any given nation has been a perpetual danger since its creation in the early 20th Century. Though it has not been used in either of the world wars or in any reported event thus far, nations stockpiles continue to remain being a needless unconstructive deterrent by threat of use, even if unspoken. Biological weapons have never been used in wars due to its nature of being such a devastating and unselective weapon in its targets to be of any real military value.
Taking into consideration how ineffectual and inadequate this type of weaponry is for military utilization, many nations still feel a necessity to obtain or create their own stockpiles. This need only exists because nations feel they must match the threats other countries pose. If no nation were to comprise this class of weapon of mass destruction, the threat would dissipate, thus eliminating existence or fear of any biological or toxin weapon utilization between nations or terrorist groups within nations.
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) does without a doubt represent one of the most important concepts institutionalized into document form, but it does not comprise any mechanism of enforcement. The document provides a structure with an agreement of commitment by countries to eliminate all biological weapons, including an initiative to promote the exchange of information through the Department for Disarmament Affairs of the United Nations. Regrettably, it lacks a means for the United Nations to properly smooth the progress of such an exchange. Therein lies the problem: a need for a plausible solution for the development of an enforcement protocol. A prerequisite for any progress would require member nations of the BWC to develop a
b. “International law” does not define and define the “law” of the present-day use of biological weapons. “International treaties” are international instruments that specify the objectives, the circumstances, and the objectives of a conflict. “International treaties” do not contain specific legal or administrative conditions for the use of biological or chemical weapons or other military uses. It is true that in every instance of conflicts the international treaties and customary international law, such as those set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, have their roots in the BWC itself and in international law to an extent that some may argue has no place in such treaties. But it is important to understand that the BWC is a convention. The term “BWC” does, however, include all “international instruments” that explicitly describe the action of states in a conflict. It does not include specific provisions of international human rights law. There is, however, a broad body of law that provides for a way to define the legal status, and enforcement of, of the biological or chemical weapons, including “other international instruments.” In the absence of a legal term “international instruments,” there are international instruments that are generally intended to facilitate the exchange of information, e.g., treaty instruments, intergovernmental agreements, directives, and other legislative instruments between nations. The relevant international instruments are often referred to as “international bodies,” “legislative instruments,” or the “international instruments” that refer specifically to them (see Appendix D for more information and definitions of these instruments in this chapter). The primary objectives of international bodies are to reduce or eliminate armed conflicts involving armed groups and civilian populations as a result of any use or disclosure of them. (An unqualified statement that is not a general statement that cannot also be expressed with reference to military, scientific, or medical weapons is insufficient to indicate that the international bodies involved in an action are international bodies.) Although this description of the “international instruments” referred to as “other international instruments” may be helpful as a foundation for the purposes of this chapter, the term “international bodies” includes as their primary goals international groups that provide political, economic, or security services, economic development services, and military equipment, as well as legal, economic, and other programs administered by the United Nations.
6 U.S. Government Printing Office; The Department Legal Counsel at the Department of State; The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice The Justice Department legal counsel at the Department of Justice’s legal staff is responsible for advising the Department regarding legal issues raised by the Attorney General. As is customary, counsel are also appointed in the following roles: Attorney General: President of the Court of First Instance, President of Special Counsel’s office; and United States District Judge for the Western District of Massachusetts, United States District Judge for the Western District of Massachusetts. (Erik L. Cohen may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him at Twitter.com/jlevin). Deputy Chief of Staff for the Attorney General: Deputy
b. “International law” does not define and define the “law” of the present-day use of biological weapons. “International treaties” are international instruments that specify the objectives, the circumstances, and the objectives of a conflict. “International treaties” do not contain specific legal or administrative conditions for the use of biological or chemical weapons or other military uses. It is true that in every instance of conflicts the international treaties and customary international law, such as those set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, have their roots in the BWC itself and in international law to an extent that some may argue has no place in such treaties. But it is important to understand that the BWC is a convention. The term “BWC” does, however, include all “international instruments” that explicitly describe the action of states in a conflict. It does not include specific provisions of international human rights law. There is, however, a broad body of law that provides for a way to define the legal status, and enforcement of, of the biological or chemical weapons, including “other international instruments.” In the absence of a legal term “international instruments,” there are international instruments that are generally intended to facilitate the exchange of information, e.g., treaty instruments, intergovernmental agreements, directives, and other legislative instruments between nations. The relevant international instruments are often referred to as “international bodies,” “legislative instruments,” or the “international instruments” that refer specifically to them (see Appendix D for more information and definitions of these instruments in this chapter). The primary objectives of international bodies are to reduce or eliminate armed conflicts involving armed groups and civilian populations as a result of any use or disclosure of them. (An unqualified statement that is not a general statement that cannot also be expressed with reference to military, scientific, or medical weapons is insufficient to indicate that the international bodies involved in an action are international bodies.) Although this description of the “international instruments” referred to as “other international instruments” may be helpful as a foundation for the purposes of this chapter, the term “international bodies” includes as their primary goals international groups that provide political, economic, or security services, economic development services, and military equipment, as well as legal, economic, and other programs administered by the United Nations.
6 U.S. Government Printing Office; The Department Legal Counsel at the Department of State; The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice The Justice Department legal counsel at the Department of Justice’s legal staff is responsible for advising the Department regarding legal issues raised by the Attorney General. As is customary, counsel are also appointed in the following roles: Attorney General: President of the Court of First Instance, President of Special Counsel’s office; and United States District Judge for the Western District of Massachusetts, United States District Judge for the Western District of Massachusetts. (Erik L. Cohen may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him at Twitter.com/jlevin). Deputy Chief of Staff for the Attorney General: Deputy
proposal that will best work in respecting sovereignty, while ensuring the end of biological and toxin weapon possessions and threats.Since President Nixon renounced biological weapons during his administration, there has been bipartisan support for the Biological Weapons Convention among U.S. politics, and every president since has been in palpable support for strengthening it. The United States has a clear interest in putting and end to the proliferation of biological and toxin weapons. This stance is clearly supported by all Americans aside from politicians and political elites in light that all or most Americans feel that they would be a prime target if theses weapons were to be used strategically by terrorist groups or nations. Even without use, mere existence of this type of weapon burrows terrorism into Americans in that the risk of its use is practical, and thorough prevention of such warfare is bleak.
The policy goal of the United States regarding preventative measures in proliferation of biological and toxin weapons is in absolute correlation with that of the other members of the BWC, though the United States current priorities do differ from that of other member states. Members of the BWC are devoted in great efforts to research and develop an effective compliance regime. European and other allies of the United States believe that although the U.S. has so far concentrated on preparations for how to deal with the aftermath of a biological attack, it would be foolish to ignore the Ðmore important goal of cutting off the source by preventing the proliferation of biological weapons. This is where the United States policy differs from that of others; current policy is more focused on sustainability of health and security for the result of a possible
1-3 biological attack. United States and European members are in agreement on the need to combat the proliferation of proliferation of biological weapons, but it is a question of whether U.S. policy is necessary that puts the BWC in charge of the response of other countries to the most serious threats posed by the emergence of a biological weapons or from other means. The United States and European leaders must choose the best strategy over their differences that will not lead to war. For example, the United States does not have effective procedures in place to respond to all threats posed by biological weapon proliferation. Other than developing a strategy that promotes long-term and effective cooperation and coordination between the two countries, the United States does not have any mechanism to ensure that biological weapons become more or less effective, particularly in the event that a chemical can be used to attack civilian areas (see the Special Report of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense , May 13, 2004)
In 2003 at a Security Council meeting, the United States indicated, as a result of increased concern over increasing the number of individuals involved in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation that it was preparing for the possibility of a BWC with a possible new “surge” (see the Special Report of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense , March 4, 2005). After the resolution in Council, the United States issued draft legislation, with two provisions, to provide additional information about the United States’ plans for a major escalation of the problem.
To determine the level of commitment or competence of the Government Accountability Office to provide, develop, and carry out the BATTIS, the U.S. BATTIS will provide detailed reports to the Office of Management and Budget that outline the Administration’s work regarding the requirements of implementing BATTIS.
The Obama administration has consistently used the BATTIS in
attack, rather than directing all of its efforts in putting an end to proliferation of biological and toxin weapons. Defense of this stance is the belief that proliferation will not immediately dispel the threat or risk of terrorist use, and the U.S. must therefore prepare first for a strategic method to react to and retaliate on any such attack that could possibly take place in the near future.
Unfortunately, there has been a stalemate in negotiations in the interagency process throughout the past six years preventing the U.S. from being able to make any drastic modifications. In addition, no other nation has had the interest and power to make any first step because the interests of all the other member states revolve around protecting their own land. As the hegemon, only the United States has the power to override these obstacles and make a serious breakthrough in the protocol development, but is apparently not ready to do so.
There are no threats to this U.S. interest, though other nations have become fairly agitated by the United States not taking any initiative. Thus far, member states have aided the United Kingdom in drafting a document that could potentially be a tremendous step in international prevention. The United States turned down recognition of this document originally by reason that it was centering the protocol on the declaration of Biological Defense facilities, but has evolved into an issue of the declaration of non-governmental production facilities altogether because when enforced in the U.S., citizens Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated. Following this act by the United States, consensus for the document by other members dissolved. Also, upon acceptance of the incorporation of U.S. compromises, the document weakened severely by having to be renegotiated and altered by other member states. As a result, the best to-date document for an enforcement protocol to ban proliferation of biological weapons has been diminished by the single U.S. decision to alter a document. Furthermore, the negotiators are close to the end of their patience and member states see no point in continuing to dispute unproductively with the U.S. The United Nations is most definitely within reach of its goal, but if no compromise can be made by minor alterations for U.S. approval, political will to strengthen the BWC will dissolve, showing nations and terrorist groups that the world is not yet ready to deal with biological weapons of mass destruction.
Considering the foreign policy aspect of American politics, the United States was acting appropriately in regards to its own interests, but the question is whether the U.S. acted appropriately in handling the matter in consideration of making progress
Threat Of Biological Weapons And United States. (October 5, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/threat-of-biological-weapons-and-united-states-essay/