Presentation Issued: 11/11/02 Page Update: 10/12/03 Geneva

Presentation by Angela Woodward, Legal Researcher
The Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC)
at the launch of the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP)
Geneva, Switzerland, 11 November 2002

Thank you Madam Chair,

I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to introduce VERTICís project surveying national implementation measures adopted by States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention.

In particular, VERTIC is examining the existence and effectiveness of national implementation measures adopted by States Parties to enforce the treatyís prohibitions, which are contained in Article I.

Under Article IV of the treaty, all States Parties are obliged to ëtake any necessary measuresí in accordance with their constitutional processes to enforce the prohibitions contained in Article I. This is a mandatory requirement. In practice, it requires each state party to enact or amend national laws, regulations, administrative or executive orders, or any other form of national implementation measure, to ensure that the treatyís prohibitions are enforceable in all territory under its jurisdiction or control.

Even those States Parties whose constitution provides that international law is automatically enforceable at domestic law, that is, states with a monist legal system, should consider the adoption of specific legislation to enforce this treaty domestically. The complexity of the biological weapons prevention issue necessitates the adoption of comprehensive implementation legislation that categorises relevant criminal offences and applicable penalties. Specific legislation may also be necessary to extend states jurisdiction to crimes committed by its nationals outside its territory.

For those states parties with a dualist legal system, which requires the incorporation of international legal obligations into the domestic legal system through the adoption of national legislation, this process is essential to ensure compliance with Article IV of the Biological Weapons Convention.

This process of adopting appropriate national implementation measures in both monist and dualist legal systems is critically important for the treatyís enforceability. It serves to hold individuals, companies, national organisations and ideally government agencies accountable to the stateís obligations under international law. The importance of these measures has been publicly endorsed by many States Parties, particularly in light of the suspension of negotiations on the verification protocol last December. Yet there is no comprehensive source of information available either to States Parties or civil society on the status of national implementation measures adopted pursuant to Article IV of the Biological Weapons Convention. Information submitted by States Parties under Confidence-Building Measure Form E only relates to the existence or absence of these measures; states are not currently requested to provide information on the name or scope of any legislation adopted in the Confidence-Building Measure submissions. This makes an assessment by States Parties on the effectiveness of these measures difficult. Regrettably, what little information that may be gleaned from Confidence-Building Measure Form E is currently only available to States Parties.

In this respect, VERTIC welcomes Germanyís initiative in disseminating its national legislation as a paper of the Fifth Review Conference of the BWC in December last year. VERTIC also commends the recent decision by Australia to publish its entire Confidence Building Measures submission on the website of its Department of Foreign Affairs. We strongly encourage other states parties to consider making this information publicly available.

And so, VERTIC is conducting this survey in an effort to increase transparency on the status of national implementation measures, to promote compliance with the Article IV obligation and to provide examples of legislation adopted in a variety of languages and legal systems which may serve as models for other States Parties yet to adopt such laws.

I will now outline how VERTIC has sought to collect information for this project and highlight some of our preliminary findings. We have sought information from government officials in each state party by requesting the completion of a questionnaire. This questionnaire, which is available in English, French and Spanish, requests information on the status and scope of national implementation measures. Since we sent out the questionnaires in July this year, we have had responses from 11 States Parties to our questionnaire. Those states are listed on the information sheet on this project in the BWPP launch pack. We are currently following up the return of these questionnaires but I would like to take this opportunity to urge all other States Parties represented at this meeting to follow up its completion with officials in capital. I have extra copies of the questionnaire available at this meeting for this purpose.

We have also sought information from publicly available sources including legal databases and law libraries, the internet and under other reporting mechanisms, for example, states reports to the UN Counter Terrorism Committee under Security Council Resolution 1373. As for our findings to date, we have identified legislation that serves to enforce some or all of the prohibitions contained in Article I in a total of 65 States Parties. Of these 65, we consider that 16 have adopted comprehensive legislation which specifically prohibits all activities stated in Article I. It is important to note that within these 16 States Parties are states with monist legal systems. We commend their decision to adopt comprehensive legislation and encourage other states with a monist legal system to consider how effectively their current laws enforce the prohibitions and provide penal sanction for their violation.

We have found that other States Parties have included specific provisions in their criminal code or have adopted legislation relating to health, anti-terrorism or the control of war materials that relate to the Article I prohibitions. We are still seeking information for a further 81 States Parties.

We are aware that some States Parties have initiated a review of their legislation as a result of our project. We have also found that a number of states are unaware of their obligations under Article IV of the treaty, or face competing pressures on their bureaucracies in adopting measures for this treaty. Some states may require technical assistance in drafting draft appropriate measures. In this respect, the tailored legislative assistance offered by international organisations, such as the Legal Advisory Service of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or by regional organisations, or even by allies will be of great benefit to those states which seek their assistance.

The final findings of this project will be published in the first edition of the BioWeapons Prevention Project flagship publication, the BioWeapons Monitor. VERTIC will also publish a longer report on the project in its Verification Matters report series in February 2002. VERTIC is grateful to the Ploughshares Fund for providing funding for this project.

Finally, VERTIC is proud to be a founding member of the BioWeapons Prevention Project and we look forward to working with our BWPP partners and States Parties in monitoring implementation of this important treaty.

Thank you Madam Chair.