بی ٹی ڈبلیو سی کا پہلا انٹر سیشنل عمل 2005-2003

of 26/26
ل م ع ل ن ش سی ر ٹ ن ا لا ہ پ ی کا س و ی ل! ب ی ڈ ٹ ی! ٹ2005 - 2003 ر! مٹ ن ر چ ک ن ل9

Post on 04-Jan-2016

39 views

Category:

Documents

8 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

بی ٹی ڈبلیو سی کا پہلا انٹر سیشنل عمل 2005-2003. لیکچر نمبر 9. ا۔ خاکہ. - تعارف ۔ سلائیڈ 3-2 - مذاکرت کے پروٹوکول کا انہدام ۔ سلائیڈ 6-4 - انٹر سیشنل عمل ۔ سلائیڈ 9-7 - اجلاس 2003 ۔ سلائیڈ 11-10 - اجلاس 2004 ۔ سلائیڈ 13-12 - اجلاس 2005 ۔ سلائیڈ 20-14. ب- تعارف : ویریکس. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

PowerPoint Presentation

2005-2003

91 - 3-2- 6-4- 9-7 - 2003 11-10- 2004 13-12 - 2005 20-14

2Notes: The aim of this lecture is to provide an overview of what has variously been termed (first) Inter-sessional Process specifically looking at the new approach taken by the BTWC post 2001 and the role of scientists within this new approach. For interested parties that wish to know more, there is a wealth of official documentation for this lecture that is easily accessible on the internet.

- : - 1991 ( ) " "

- : " "

-

3Ref:Jez Littlewood (2005) The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution Ashgate Publishing

- : - ( ) 1995

-

-

- 4Notes: VEREX served as the basis for Political negotiations intended to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the implementation of the BTWC through a legally-binding instrument.

*The draft Protocol set out the sole purpose of this on-site measure for determining the facts relating to a specific concern about possible non-compliance with the Convention by any other state party (Littlewood, 2005: 121) Similar to the intrusiveness of Challenge Inspections in the CWC or the Safeguard system of the IAEA, investigations in the BTWC Protocol were envisaged as the most intrusive on-site measures compared to other elements in the Protocol. The on-site measures such as sampling of biological agents and medical examination are allowed to an investigating team in addition to the on-site measures adopted in visits.

- : ()- : " "5Notes: Over the course of the AHG an extensive protocol text was developed however there were many trade offs between states over political issues. It is important to note that although the US is often held responsible for the collapse of the verification Protocol efforts, several states were secretly unsupportive of the protocol and were able to hide behind the US statement.

- : ()

- 2001 : 6Notes: However, the USs decision was not welcomed to many of its allies who supported the Protocol. - : ()- 2001

- 2002 : " " 7Notes: The only course of action available was to suspend the conference and seek agreement to resume at a later date. See Interim Report page. 11 paragraph 33. (BWC/CONF.V/17Annex I: Available from further Inf. of the slide)

- ()- 2003 :

- "

-

8- ()

-

- ,

- "

9 - ()-

-

-

10Notes: This is significant for scientists as it is much more focused on the national and affects national scientific communities.

- 2003 ()- 2003

- " : "

11 - 2003 ()

- " : "

12 - 2004 ()- 2004 - : " , "- " "13 - 2004 ()- ,

- ( )

14 - 2005 ()- 2005

- , ,

- 280

- 15Notes: In 2005 States Parties met twice. Because of the special nature of this meeting twenty-three scientific, professional, academic and industry bodies attended the Experts Meetings to ensure scientists were represented. This was particularly important given that focus was codes for scientists and the process of engagement enabled scientists to more closely engage with diplomats.

- 2005 ()

-

- " "

-

-

16Notes: One of the areas in which there was broad concern was the limited awareness amongst the life science community of: 1) of the biological weapons convention; 2) the potential risk of dual use research; and 3) The biological weapons and bioterrorism threat.

- 2005 ()- " : "17Notes: The initial discussion proved useful in stimulating thinking both in the 2005 meetings and beyond.

- 2005 ()- " "18 - 2005 : ()" :

- - -

- "19Notes: Significantly during the 2005 Meeting of States Parties of the Biological Weapons Convention, the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues issued a statement which had been agreed by more than 60 academies across the world. - 2005 : ()" - ,

- "

20 - 2005 : ()

" -

- "- ?

- ?

- / ?

- References(Slide 2)

VEREX (2003) Summary Report, BWC/CONF.III/VEREX/8, 24 September 1993,Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/verex/docs/final_dec/verex%20final%20declaration.pdf

Littlewood, J. (2005) The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing

(Slide 3)Dando, M. (2002) Preventing Biological Warfare The Failure of American Leadership, (Global Issues Series) Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke

Littlewood, J. (2005) The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing23(Slide 4)Mahley, D. [US] (2001) Statement by the United States to the ad hoc group of biological weapons convention states parties Geneva, Switzerland July 25, 2001. http://www.usmission.ch/press2001/0725mahley.htm

(Slide 5)Pearson. G. S, Dando. M. R & Sims. N. A (2002) The US Statement at the Fifth ReviewConference: Compounding the Error in Rejecting the Composite Protocol Strengthening theBiological Weapons Convention, Review Conference Paper No 4.http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/RCP_4.pdf

(Slide 6 - 8)United Nations (2002) Final Document BWC/CONF.V/17, Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/rev_cons/5rc/docs/rev_con_docs/i_docs/BWCCONF.V-17-(final_doc).pdf

(Slide 9)UNOG (2002) Biological Weapons Conference Reaches Agreement on Future Work, Press Release DC/2848, 15/11/2002. http://www.opbw.org/rev_cons/5rc/docs/press_releases/5rcpress-021115b.pdf (Slide 10 and 11)United Nations (2003) Report of the Meeting of States Parties BWC/MSP/2003/4 (Vol. I), 26 November 2003, Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/new_process/msp2003/BWC_MSP_2003_4_Vol.1_E.pdf

(Slide 12 and 13)United Nations (2004) Report of the Meeting of States Parties, BWC/MSP/2004/3, 14 December 2004, Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/new_process/msp2004/BWC_MSP_2004_3_E.pdf

(Slide 14)Dando. M. R & Revill. J (2005) Raising Awareness; A Hippocratic Oath for the life sciences, Bradford Briefing Paper no.18. University of Bradford, Peace Studies Department. Available from: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/

Rappert B (2004) Towards a Life Sciences Code: Countering the Threats from Biological Weapons Bradford Briefing Papers (2nd series) No. 13. http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/BP_13_2ndseries.pdf (Slide 15)UNOG (2005) Biological Weapons Conference Reaches Agreement on Future Work, Press Release DC/2973, 24/6/2005. Available from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/dc2973.doc.htm

United Nations (2005) Report of the Meeting of States Parties, BWC/MSP/2005/3, 14 December 2005, Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/new_process/msp2005/BWC_MSP_2005_3_E.pdf

(Slide 16 and 17)United Nations (2005) Report of the Meeting of Experts, BWC/MSP/2005/MX/3, 5 August 2005, Geneva: United Nations. Available from http://www.opbw.org/new_process/mx2005_finalreport.htm

(Slide 18-20)InterAcademy Panel (2005) Statement on Biosecurity, Available from http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.interacademies.net/%3Fid%3D5405&ei=mhSQSanrE4iyjAfTpazECg&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNEcqxKn3je-MvFsCzTMsEXAjjWzog