Progress at the Ad Hoc Group in Geneva
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Successful Outcome of the Sixth BTWC Review Conference Item Type Conference paper Authors Pearson, Graham S. Citation Pearson, G.S. (2007). The Successful Outcome of the Sixth BTWC Review Conference. Bradford, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. BTWC Review Conference Papers, No. 19. Rights © 2007 University of Bradford. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk). Download date 24/09/2021 00:19:58 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/857 The University of Bradford Institutional Repository This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from the repository home page for further information. Author(s): Pearson, G.S. Title: The Successful Outcome of the Sixth BTWC Review Conference Project: Bradford Project on Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) Publication year: 2007 BTWC Review Conference Papers: No. 19 Series Editor(s): Dando, M.R. and Whitby, S. Publisher: University of Bradford (http://www.brad.ac.uk) Publisher’s repository: http://bradscholars.ac.uk:8080/dspace Link to original publication: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/rcp19.pdf Copyright statement: © 2007 University of Bradford. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- nd/2.0/uk/). Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference Paper No 19 The Successful Outcome of the Sixth BTWC Review Conference January 2007 Series Editors Graham S Pearson and Malcolm R Dando Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford 1 Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference Paper No 19 The Successful Outcome of the Sixth BTWC Review Conference Graham S. Pearson Series Editors Graham S Pearson and Malcolm R Dando Department of Peace Studies University of Bradford Bradford, UK January 2007 2 THE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME OF THE SIXTH BTWC REVIEW CONFERENCE† Graham S. Pearson Introduction 1. The Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) was held in Geneva from Monday 20 November to Friday 8 December 2006. This followed the Preparatory Committee meeting held in Geneva on Wednesday to Friday 26 to 28 April 2006 which had agreed a provisional agenda, draft rules of procedure and a recommended distribution of the posts of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the subsidiary bodies (the Committee of the Whole, the Drafting Committee and the Credentials Committee) among the three regional groups. 2. This Review Conference Paper provides a detailed report on the Sixth Review Conference with sections covering the Opening of the Review Conference, the General Debate, the Committee of the Whole, Cross-Cutting Issues, Informal Consultations and the Final Plenary Session. An analysis is then provided first of the Article by Article Final Declaration and then of the Decisions and Recommendations section of the Final Report. Finally some reflections summarize the outcome of the Review Conference and conclude that it was indeed successful. The Sixth Review Conference 3. On the opening day of the Review Conference, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan was elected President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Doru-Romulus Costea of Romania elected as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr Knut Langeland of Norway as Chairman of the Drafting Committee and Ambassador Maria Nzomo of Kenya as Chairman of the Credentials Committee. The provisional agenda was also adopted with its three substantive items: 10. Review of the operation of the Convention as provided for in its Article XII (a) General debate (b) Articles I - XV (c) Preambular paragraphs and purposes of the Convention 11. Consideration of issues identified in the review of the operation of the Convention as provided for in its Article XII and any possible consensus follow-up action 12. Other matters, including the question of future review of the Convention. 4. The three week Review Conference was structured so as to commence with two days of General Debate in which representatives of 40 States Parties and one Signatory State (Egypt), six specialized agencies and other international organizations (The Food and Agriculture † This Review Conference Paper is based on the report of the Sixth Review Conference published in the CBW Conventions Bulletin, Issue No. 74, December 2006. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/ pdfbulletin.html 3 Organization (FAO), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) made statements. One Signatory State (Syria) exercised its right to reply. This was then followed by the Committee of the Whole which met on Wednesday 22 November through to Thursday 30 November and carried out an Article by Article review of the Convention producing a report containing language proposed by individual States Parties or groups of States Parties for the Final Declaration. It presented this report on Thursday 30 November. The President then held informal plenaries from Friday 1 December through to Friday 8 December 2006 which focussed on finding consensus language for the Final Declaration. 5. 107 States Parties participated in the Review Conference as follows: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen and Zimbabwe. This was a significant increase on the 91 States Parties who participated at the Fifth Review Conference in 2001: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Botswana, Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Holy See, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Serbia, Sudan, Swaziland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Zimbabwe all participated in 2006 whilst Armenia, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [which no longer exists: Serbia participated whilst Montenegro has yet to accede], Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Nicaragua and Panama who had participated in 2001 did not in 2006. 6. Ten Signatory States participated: Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Haiti, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Tanzania which was six more (Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Haiti, Madagascar, Syrian Arab Republic and Tanzania) than in 2001. One State, Israel, was granted Observer status in 2006, one less than in 2001 when the Holy See and Israel were accorded Observer status. The Holy See has since acceded to the Convention which now has 155 States Parties, 16 Signatory States and 24 States which have neither signed or ratified (BWC/CONF.VI/INF.5 dated 28 September 2006). 7. The Secretariat prepared six background documents (these and other documents for the Sixth Review Conference are available at http://www.opbw.org) in 2006 instead of the previous three such documents. Whilst at first sight the fact that six instead of three papers were produced was a forward step, a more detailed examination of these background papers shows that changes – 4 which were not specifically requested by the Preparatory Committee – were made to past practice with mixed results. Considering the background papers in sequence the following observations can be made: BWC/CONF.VI/INF.1 Additional Understandings. This is a new background document that provides a summary of the additional understandings and agreements reached by previous Review Conferences. It does not, however, show how these extended understandings have developed over the years as successive Review Conferences have frequently amended the language and these amendments are not necessarily of equal merit or are always progressive. Although it would have been a longer document, the development of the language over the years is significant and important in considering language at the Sixth Review Conference. BWC/CONF.VI/INF.2 Developments in other International Organizations relevant to the Convention. This is a second new background document. This reviews developments in regard to the UN and specialized agencies: 1540 Committee, ECOSOC, FAO, IMO, OCHA, Secretary-General, UNDP, IVI, UNESCO, UNEP, WCO, and WHO. It then considers