NATIONAL LAW

INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL

B IOLOGICAL W EAPONS A S A M EANS OF

W ARFARE

I NTERNATIONAL H UMANITARIAN L AW

R ESEARCH P ROJECT

S EVENTH S EMESTER

2021-2022

S UBMITTED BY S UBMITTED TO

S HIVANSH V ISHWAKARMA M ISS N EHA K HURANA

2018 B.A.LL.B.101
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgment.......................................................................................................................2

Index of Authorities...................................................................................................................3

I. International Regulations and Conventions....................................................................3

II. Other Authorities.............................................................................................................3

Introduction................................................................................................................................4

Review of Literature..................................................................................................................5

Statement of Problem.................................................................................................................6

Research Objectives and Methodology......................................................................................7

Hypothesis..................................................................................................................................7

Research Questions....................................................................................................................7

Biological Weapons: Meaning, Usage and Impact....................................................................8

I. Meaning...........................................................................................................................8

II. Usage...............................................................................................................................8

III. Impact..........................................................................................................................9

Biological Weapons: Previous Instances.................................................................................10

Biological Weapons: Defences................................................................................................12

Biological Weapons: International Regulations and Their Effect...........................................15

I. International Regulations..............................................................................................15

II. Effect.............................................................................................................................17

Conclusions..............................................................................................................................18

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................21

I. Articles..........................................................................................................................21

II. Books.............................................................................................................................21

Page 1 of 24
III. Websites....................................................................................................................21

Page 2 of 24
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have taken efforts in this work. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Miss Neha Khurana for her guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for her support in
completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completing this project.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to the Vice-Chancellor of National
Law Institute University, Bhopal for giving me ample time and opportunity.

My cheers and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Page 3 of 24
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land..........................5
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction [1972]............16
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400
Grammes Weight, St Petersburg............................................................................................6
Geneva Conventions of 1949.................................................................................................5, 7
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts........................................................5
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases,
and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare [1925].............................................................16

II. OTHER AUTHORITIES

‘Biological Weapons’ (World Health Organization).................................................................9

‘What are Biological Weapons’ (Office of Disarmament Affairs, United Nations)................10
James Revill, John Borrie, Emma Saunders and Richard Lennane, Preparing for Success at
the Ninth Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Guide to the
Issues (UNIDIR Geneva, 2021)...........................................................................................20
Kathleen Lawand, A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of
Warfare (International Committee of the Red Cross 2006)...................................................5
United Nations, The Biological Weapons Convention An Introduction (UN 2017)...............17

Page 4 of 24
 INTRODUCTION

Combatants are limited in their choice when it comes to choosing their means and methods of
warfare. This is one of the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). 1 IHL is
nothing but a body of rules that finds its application during armed conflicts. The purpose of
IHL is twofold:

a. To protect persons who do not engage in hostilities or who no longer engage in

hostilities; and
b. To regulate the conduct of hostilities.

Therefore, IHL limits the intensity of armed violence so that suffering could be prevented or
at least reduced.2

IHL is based on norms which are as old as the war itself. These norms are rooted in the
traditions of all societies. Even the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Agni Purana, and the
Manu Smriti embody some of the core principles of IHL. 3 IHL has evolved over the last 150
years in international treaties, viz., the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional
Protocols of 1977. This has been complemented by another set of international treaties
dealing with specific matters including child soldiers, criminal justice, cultural property, and
regulating the usage of certain weapons like chemical and biological weapons. 4 Such rules
and regulations of the IHL are taken as part of the customary international law as these are
accepted as legal obligations by States and are thus mandatory for all parties to an armed
conflict.5

These IHL rules also limit the right of the combatants to choose their means and methods of
warfare. Many of such rules are found in Additional Protocol I of 1977 which includes rules
limiting the use of weapons, means and methods of warfare and protecting civilians from the
1
1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, art. 22 (Hague Regulations);
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), of 8 June 1977, art. 35(1) (Additional Protocol I).
2
Kathleen Lawand, A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare
(International Committee of the Red Cross 2006).
3
V. S. Mani, International humanitarian law: an Indo-Asian perspective, 842 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW
OF THE RED CROSS (2001).
4
Kathleen (n 2) 3.
5
ibid.

Page 5 of 24
effects of hostilities.6 Treaties, other than this, regulate the use of specific weapons, which
includes incendiary weapons, landmines, chemical weapons, laser weapons and biological
weapons. Therefore, many of the rules and regulations relating to means and methods of
warfare are found in international customary law.

Means and methods of warfare is an age-old concept. The St Petersburg Declaration was the
first international instrument to discuss the emerging military technologies. It discusses the
need to bring in line the changes in weapon technology with the laws of humanity in the
following terms:

“The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an

understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future
improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to
maintain the principles which they have established, and to conciliate the necessities
of war with the laws of humanity.”7

Various rules and conventions were thus evolved in order to fulfil this objective. One such
attempt was to regulate the use of biological weapons during armed conflicts. It is the States’
obligations to make sure that they do not violate the international law obligations in
developing new weapons, means and methods of warfare. A proper application of such
international regulations and obligations would ensure this.

Biological weapons are not different and their usage is supposed to follow the set
international standards and obligations. In this work, our main focus would be on such
weapons only. We will also try to know how these weapons have been regulated by the
international conventions and regulations.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Mani V. S., ‘International humanitarian law: an Indo-Asian perspective’

6
Additional Protocol I, pt III, s I, and pt IV, s 1, ch I-IV.
7
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, St
Petersburg, 29 November / 11 December 1868, para 11.

Page 6 of 24
 IHL is based on norms which are as old as the war itself. These norms are rooted in
the traditions of all societies. Even the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Agni Purana,
and the Manu Smriti embody some of the core principles of IHL.
2. Marie Isabelle Chevrier, ‘Waiting for Godot or Saving the Show? The BWC Review
Conference reaches modest agreement’
Regarding Article I for instance, the Final Declaration stated: “The Conference
reaffirms the undertaking in Article I never in any circumstances to develop, produce,
stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain weapons, equipment or means of delivery
designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict, in
order to exclude completely and forever the possibility of their use.”
3. Lawand K., ‘A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of
Warfare’
IHL has evolved over the last 150 years in international treaties, viz., the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. This has been
complemented by another set of international treaties dealing with specific matters
including child soldiers, criminal justice, cultural property, and regulating the usage of
certain weapons like chemical and biological weapons.
4. United Nations, ‘The Biological Weapons Convention: An Introduction’
Article XIII puts no limit on the expiry of the Convention and it also mentions that the
States can, in exercise of national sovereignty, withdraw itself from the Convention.
But the Security Council must be given a notice to such effect three months in
advance informing the reasons for the withdrawal.
5. Revill J., Borrie J., Saunders E. and Lennane R., ‘Preparing for Success at the Ninth
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Guide to the
Issues’
The Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention will be held in
November 2021, which has presented “a unique opportunity for States Parties to
strengthen this important disarmament agreement”.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Page 7 of 24
There have been many instances wherein States have used biological weapons as means of
attacking other parties. Though the rules have been in place to regulate its usage, the effect of
the same remains largely unstudied.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The main objectives of this study are:

i. To study the meaning of biological weapons;

ii. To study briefly the instances wherein biological weapons have been used;
iii. To study how these biological weapons can be defended against;
iv. To study how the biological weapons have been regulated by international law; and
v. To study how these regulations have affected the usage of such weapons.

The method of study employed in this work is doctrinal method of study.

HYPOTHESIS

Biological weapons have been used quite a few times in the past as a way of attacking and
winning over the other party’s military powers. But as the regulations pertaining to usage of
biological weapons were put in place, their usage during armed conflicts might have reduced
considerably.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Page 8 of 24
 1. What is the meaning of the term ‘biological weapon’? How it has been worked about?
What has been its impact?
2. How have these biological weapons been used in the past?
3. How can these biological weapons be defended against?
4. How the biological weapons have been regulated by the international law?
5. What has been the effects of such regulations on the usage of such weapons?

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: MEANING, USAGE AND IMPACT

I. MEANING

Microorganisms when they are used as weapons to cause disease and even deaths in animals,
plants or humans are called as biological weapons. These includes bacteria, virus, fungi and
even other toxins. Anthrax, plague and toxins like botulinum toxin pose a threat to public
health and can be prime cases of biological weapons. These weapons are difficult to contain
and can cause large number of deaths in short span of time.8

II. USAGE

The usage of biological weapons depends on several factors. These include the following:

1. Biological agent, i.e., what type of biological agent is used, for example, bacteria,
virus or toxins;
2. Preparation of biological agent, i.e., what all chemical processes have been used in the
creation of such agents;
3. Durability of such agent in the environment, i.e., how long would the agent survive if
released in the environment, and
4. Route of infection, i.e., what route does it take for its propagation, for example,
injection, ingestion, inhalation, or absorption, etc.9

8
‘Biological Weapons’ (World Health Organization) <https://www.who.int/health-topics/biological-weapons>
accessed 13 October 2021.
9
‘Introduction to Biological Weapons’ (Federation of American Scientists)
<https://programs.fas.org/bio/bwintro.html> accessed 13 October, 2021.

Page 9 of 24
Generally, attack by biological weapons consists of two stages, viz., (a) creating a
weaponised agent and (b) delivering the agent to its target.10

Creating a weaponised agent is synthetic process and it can be created from animal or plant
derivatives, microorganisms, or other chemicals. These agents are strengthened even more
from their natural state so that they can cause the desired result. Their conditioning also
becomes important for storage and distribution processes so that they can maintain their
stability for longer periods of time. Historically, agents like anthrax, foot and mouth disease,
rice blast, ricin, Q fever, glanders, tularaemia, aflatoxin, Rocky-mountain spotted fever,
botulinum toxin, and many others, have been used as weapons.11

Talking about the delivery system of such agents, it can take various forms. Delivery agents
like missiles, bombs, rockets and hand grenades have been used to transfer the biological
weapons from one place to another. Another way by which these could be delivered is by
spray-tanks fitted in aircrafts, cars, ships, boats, or in any other means of transportation.
Brushes, injections, and other means for infecting food and clothing are all ways through
which the target is attacked.12

III. IMPACT

Attacks with the help of biological weapons can cause an epidemic. These weapons are
subsumed by a larger class of weapons that are used for mass destruction. Chemical weapons,
nuclear weapons, and radiological weapons are examples of such mass destruction weapons.
These attacks can result in the destruction of crops, killing large number of people and
various other outcomes like political assassinations, environmental catastrophe, strategic
military application etc.13

These biological agents create a huge impact as these are not immediately identifiable or
detectable. Though systems for detecting biological agents are employed, these usually do not
come up with a quick response. This is because of the difficulty in first acquiring these agents

10
‘What are Biological Weapons’ (Office of Disarmament Affairs, United Nations)
<https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/what-are-biological-weapons/> accessed 13
October 2021.
11
ibid.
12
‘About Biological Weapons’ (BWC1972)
<http://bwc1972.org/home/the-biological-weapons-convention/about-biological-weapons/#:~:text=Biological
%20weapon%20delivery%20systems%20can,cars%2C%20trucks%2C%20and%20boats> accessed 15 October
2021.
13
See n 8.

Page 10 of 24
and then identifying its composition so that it can be neutralised completely. It is also true
that the effects of these agents are not usually seen straightaway. It takes time for the agent to
show its effects once it has been released and exposed to the desired target. Therefore,
disease outbreaks could be one of the indicators for biological weapons.

These biological weapons can even severely impact the health of undesired targets. For
example, if an agent like Coronavirus, Ebola virus, or even smallpox infects a person, who is
one of the identified targets, he can transmit this agent to other people as well, who may not
be the desired targets. This would result in infections to people who are far-situated from
where the agent was released. Therefore, such agents could also impact the health of large
number of people, who weren’t even the primary or secondary targets.14

With this preliminary information about biological weapons, let us now look at some of the
instances wherein such weapons have been employed by the parties to a conflict.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: PREVIOUS INSTANCES

Biological weapons have been said to be “the poor man’s atom bomb”. 15 They have been
used since very long. The first instance of its usage was when the Romans used dead animals
to foul the water supply of the enemies. This was done to decrease enemy numbers and lower
the morale of the army men.16 Another instance of its usage can be traced back to the year
1346 when “the Tartar army catapulted the bodies of plague victims into the Crimean
Peninsula city of Kaffa and infected its citizens”.17 Legend has it that this event swept across
medieval Europe and killed about 2.5 crore people.18

14
‘Introduction to Biological Weapons’ (Federation of American Scientists)
<https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/bioweapons.htm> accessed 19 October 2021.
15
Mark Shwartz, ‘Biological warfare: an emerging threat in the 21st century’ (Stanford News Service)
<https://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/bioterror117.html> accessed 19 October 2021.
16
‘Biological weapons’ (Research Critical Will)
<https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4579-biological-weapons> accessed
19 October 2021.
17
‘Bioterrorism: Should we be worried?’ (Medical News Today)
<https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321030#Biological-warfare:-The-early-days> accessed 19
October 2021.
18
See n 16.

Page 11 of 24
Some of the other instances wherein biological weapons were used by one of the parties to
the conflict are mentioned hereinbelow:

1. In the year 1710, the troops of Russia allegedly used corpses that were infected by
plague against the troops of Sweden.
2. In the year 1763 during the French and Indian wars, the British under the leadership
of General Jeffrey Amherst provided blankets that were used by people suffering from
smallpox to hostile Indian tribes.19
3. During the period of World War I, specifically during 1916-1918, Germans used
“anthrax and the equine disease glanders to infect livestock and feed for export to
Allied forces”. This includes the incidents when the Romanian sheep were infected
with anthrax and glanders before exporting them to Russian, when the mules of
Argentina were infected with anthrax before exporting them to Allied troops and
when the American horses were infected with glanders before exporting them to
France.
4. In the year 1937, Japan started its biological experiments through the Unit 731, which
was their biological weapon research and development unit. This was located in
Harbin, Manchuria. During the time this program ran, about 10,000 prisoners were
killed in experiments. All this happened despite Japan being one of the signatory
parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol20 that banned the usage of biological and
chemical weapons in war,
5. In the year 1939, the infamous Nomonhan incident took place wherein “Japan
poisoned the water supply with intestinal typhoid bacteria at former Mongolian
border”.
6. In the year 1940, Japan again was involved. This time, they dropped rice and wheat
that were “infected with plague-carrying fleas over China and Manchuria” during
World War II.
7. In the year 1942, United States of America started its biological weapons program and
selected Camp Detrick, Frederick, Maryland as its site for research and development.
Following this, several incidents took place in the United States of America. In 1951,
biological simulants were sprayed over San Francisco and in 1966, it conducted “a
test of vulnerability to covert BW attack by releasing a harmless biological simulant
into the New York City subway system”. This program was later in 1969 dismantled
19
See n 14.
20
See n 26.

Page 12 of 24
 by the then President Nixon and in 1970, it even extended the dismantlement to
toxins.
8. In the year 1945, the only known tactical usage of biological weapon by Germany
occurred wherein they used sewage to poison the large reservoir in Bohemia.
9. In the year 1979, there was an outbreak of pulmonary anthrax in Sverdlovsk, Soviet
Union. The responsibility of this incident was claimed by the Russian President Boris
Yeltsin in 1992 and he acknowledged that “the outbreak was caused by an accidental
relase of anthrax spores from a Soviet military microbiological facility”.
10. During the period 1985-1991, Iraq developed “an offensive biological weapons
capability including anthrax, botulium toxin, and aflatoxin.”
11. In the year 2001, a letter was addressed to former Senator Tom Daschle, wherein it
was stated:
“You cannot stop us. We have this Anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid?
Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great.”21

The letter attacks infected 22 people and killed about 5 people.

With these examples of the effect of biological weapons, let us now look at how these
biological weapons can be defended against.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: DEFENCES

There are various concerns that are associated with biological weapons, which have already
been highlighted above. In addition to these concerns, technological advances have increased
the chances of these weapons being used by non-State actors, that may include terrorist
organizations or even individuals. In the preceding century, biological weapons were used by
individuals and groups that were committing assassinations, and criminal acts. States also
conducted biological warfare in the same century.

Moreover, there were also false allegations pertaining to the usage of biological weapons,
which also highlights the problems in identifying accidents, naturally-occurring diseases and

21
See n 16.

Page 13 of 24
deliberate usage. To add more to this problem, the advancement in technologies have made it
easier for the ones with lesser resources to develop viruses, toxins and bacteria. This has also
given a boost to the chances of increased bio-terrorism. Therefore, the usage of biological
weapons is a serious problem and “the risk of using these agents in a bioterrorist attack is
increasing”.22

With such risk at stake, what should be the proper method to act against such weapons so that
the effects of such weapons can either be neutralised or reduced? Practically speaking, it is
not easy to determine if the attack was caused by an accident, by nature or if the attack has
been an act of bio-terrorism. Therefore, preparing a response to such acts, whether they be
accidental, natural or deliberate, has to be a combined effort of many sectors that must come
together to determine the cause and come up with a solution of the same. Similarly, the
prevention and even the preparedness for such an event involves the co-ordination of various
and multiple sectors. Since the biological hazards are not limited to a particular extent, the
efforts in managing the risks should be coordinated, multi-sectoral, and multi-disciplinary.

It has been observed that most lethal biological weapons are delivered through aerosols. For
this reason, one of the most effective way to counter such an attack would be usage of a
protective mask that can block bacteria, viruses and spores larger than 1 micron. Another way
to defend oneself against biological agents, that can enter through open wounds or breaks in
skin, would be using protective overgarments like boots and gloves.

Decontaminants can also help in the neutralisation of such biological agents in the infected
areas after the attack has occurred. Employing effective sensors that can detect biological
weapons would also help the personnel in preparing themselves against such agents. Medical
teams could then go on to the infected sites immediately and treat those who may have been
infected. Moreover, vaccination can also be an effective way to tackle the disease-causing
agent used in an attack.23

The medical system of the nation also plays a huge part in tackling the threats posed by the
biological weapons’ attack. It is this system only that helps in the “creation, testing and
approval of the vaccines that neutralises the effect of anthrax, smallpox, cholera, plague, and
other biological agents, including botulism, viral hemorrhagic fever, Venezuelan equine

22
See n 8.
23
Barry R. Schneider, ‘biological weapon’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 27 November 2017),
<https://www.britannica.com/technology/biological-weapon> accessed 20 October 2021.

Page 14 of 24
encephalitis, Q fever, and tularemia”. However, even today, there are certain biological
agents whose vaccines still do not exist. These include infections from T-2 mycotoxins, ricin,
staphylococcal enterotoxin B, brucellosis, or glanders. All these agents have been used as
weapons in the past. However, where vaccines are not available, medicines have been able to
help the ailing recover. Even today, medical research is being conducted to develop such
vaccines and medicines that may help in improving the immune system so that the effects of
all probable biological agents can be reduced to a substantial extent.

To cite an example, Strategic National Stockpile program has been developed by the United
States of America to prepare themselves against any biological emergency. Every State in the
country has bio-terrorism response plans in place post the attack of 9/11. This includes plans
for mass vaccinations, quarantines and even triage. The National Guard has also increased the
number of its Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams that helps in responding to
biological attacks, nuclear weapons attacks, radiological attacks, or chemical attacks.

Moreover, the United States of America has also embarked on a bioterrorism training
program with the purpose to train thousands of lab technicians and to further the research in
medicines, vaccines and bio-forensics.

Therefore, taking cue from this model, other countries should also strengthen their medical
and military facility so that the effect of biological weapons can be controlled. In India, our
Army has also developed and maintained “defensive biological warfare equipment” at
various protected sites. With the continuous and extensive assistance from defence labs and
pharmaceutical industries, the Indian army is finding ways to counter probable germs
warfare. The Defence Research and Development Organisation plays a huge role in
countering biological weapons including anthrax, cholera, smallpox, botulism, and many
others. The Indian Government has also established nuclear, chemical and biological
directorates in the armed forces. Moreover, a coordination committee has also been
established to monitor the training of the army men and preparation against biological
weapons.24

Therefore, what is needed to counter biological weapons’ attack is the building of capacities
across various sectors so that the disease could not only be monitored but also detected and

24
Ravi Shankar and N. C. Bipindra, ‘The history of germ warfare and how prepared India is’ (The New Indian
Express, 22 March 2020) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/mar/22/the-history-of-germ-
warfare-and-how-prepared-india-is-2118975.html> accessed 21 October 2021.

Page 15 of 24
aptly responded.25 To further this motive, the Biological Weapons Convention has been
brought in place long time back in 1975. More on this Convention and its implementation has
been discussed in the following section.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS AND

THEIR EFFECT

I. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

There are two international treaties that have made an attempt to regulate the usage of
biological weapons. These are:

1. Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare,26 and
2. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.27

The 1925 Geneva Protocol was signed on June 17, 1925 and it prohibited the use of
bacteriological methods of warfare, i.e., both chemical and biological weapons. The
Depositary Government for this Protocol was France. It is a short 2-page declaration wherein
the High Contracting Parties were asked to prohibit the usage of such weapons and were also
asked to induce other States to submit to this Protocol.28

The Biological Weapons Convention was entered into on March 26, 1975. As of now, 183
states are party to this convention.29 The States that have neither signed nor ratified the
Convention are Tuvalu, Micronesia, Djibouti, Comoros, Israel, Kiribati, Eritrea, Namibia,
South Sudan and Chad. This Convention has restricted the countries from “developing,

25
See n 10.
26
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare [1925] (1925 Geneva Protocol).
27
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological)
and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction [1972] (Biological Weapons Convention).
28
See n 9.
29
Daryl Kimball, ‘The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance’ (Arms Control Association,
March 2020) <https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc> accessed 21 October 2021.

Page 16 of 24
producing, stockpiling, or acquiring biological agents, weapons, and equipment outside of
peaceful purposes”. The Biological Weapons Convention is the “foundation of the
multilateral disarmament regime”. It is considered a successor of the 1925 Geneva Protocol
and has the objective of getting rid of such weapons. The text of the Convention is short and
runs into 15 Articles only. Some of the key provisions of the Convention include the
following:

1. Article I: This article strictly prohibits “developing, producing, stockpiling, acquiring

or retaining of biological weapons”.30
2. Article II: This article asks the States to “destroy or divert to peaceful purposes
biological agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery prior to joining
the Convention”.
3. Article III: This article places an obligation upon the States to “not transfer or assist,
encourage or induce anyone else to acquire or retain biological weapons”.
4. Article IV: This article talks about the implementation of the Convention at the
national level, i.e., within the territory of the contracting States.
5. Article V: This article asks the States to “consult bilaterally and multilaterally and
cooperate in solving any problems with the implementation of the Convention”.
6. Article VI: This article allows the State to report to the United Nations Security
Council any violation of the Convention by the other States. Such a complaint must
be made to the Security Council with all the possible pieces of evidence showcasing
the violation along with a request to the Security Council for considering the matter.
This provision also asks the States to comply with the decisions of the Security
Council pertaining this dispute.
7. Article VII: This article places an obligation upon the States to “help or assist the
State that has been exposed to danger as a result of the violation of the Convention”.
8. Article X: This article obligates the States to “facilitate the fullest possible exchange
of equipment, materials and information for peaceful purposes”.
9. Article XIII: This article puts no limit on the expiry of the Convention and it also
mentions that the States can, in exercise of national sovereignty, withdraw itself from
the Convention. But the Security Council must be given a notice to such effect three
months in advance informing the reasons for the withdrawal.31

Marie Isabelle Chevrier, ‘Waiting for Godot or Saving the Show? The BWC Review Conference reaches
30

modest agreement’ 68 Disarmament Diplomacy (December 2002-January 2003).

Page 17 of 24
 II. EFFECT

With all these regulations in place, it seems that everything should be hunky-dory given the
blanket ban on biological weapons for warfare purposes. But let us see as to what has been
the real effect of these international regulations.

One positive effect of these regulations has been that out of more than 190 members of the
United Nations, as of now, “only a dozen countries have been strongly suspected of still
continuing with biological weapons programs”.32 But such programs are very easy to hide in
the garb of pharmaceutical companies and vaccines plants. Therefore, even if there are no
active or visible biological weapon programs being run by the majority of the countries, there
is still a possibility that many of these might be running such programs surreptitiously.

It is to noted that biological weapons are not as expensive as nuclear weapons but they
nevertheless have tremendous potential and these can even help States win a war. This threat
posed by biological weapons appears to be even more dangerous when it is seen that the
Biological Weapon Convention has no inspection procedures to verify compliance by its
signatories and thus cheating on the Convention becomes easy, specially in the dearth of no
proof. There is also a possibility that despite the Convention being in full force, small States
can embark on a biological weapon program successfully as the production process of such
weapons requires only small investment and a small team of biologists that may even not
cross the hundred-mark. Moreover, such programs are also within the reach of non-State
actors including terrorist organizations owing to it being technologically and financially
affordable.33

These justified criticisms of the Convention led to the creation of Ad Hoc Group with the
purpose “to negotiate a legally binding protocol that would increase the transparency of
treaty-relevant biological facilities and activities and thereby help to deter violations of the
Convention”. But, ultimately, the text of the inspection protocol prepared by the Ad Hoc
Group for the Convention was not accepted in 2001 at the Fifth Review Conference of the
Convention and has not been brought back ever since.34
31
United Nations, The Biological Weapons Convention An Introduction (UN 2017)
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BWS-brochure.pdf> accessed 22 October
2021.
32
See n 23.
33
ibid.
34
Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, ‘Coronavirus pandemic and the 2021 biological weapons convention’ (Daily Sabah,
5 May 2020) <https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/coronavirus-pandemic-and-the-2021-biological-
weapons-convention> accessed 22 October 2021.

Page 18 of 24
Nonetheless, several countries have signified their intention of closing all its Biological
Weapons program. Amongst them are also the United States of America and Russia. Though
initially the Soviet Union was running clandestinely the Biological Weapons programs
despite signing and ratifying the Convention, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, later in 1991,
pledged to put an end to such programs. This also was the result of the lack of verification
regime under the Convention. Though this has been terminated by Russia, questions still arise
about “what happened to elements of the Soviet program”.35

Iraq also violated its obligations under the Convention by starting and continuing its own
Biological Weapons program. This was brought to light after the Persian Gulf War by the UN
Special Commission on Iraq. It is also to be noted that Iraq became a party to the Convention
only after the Persian Gulf War.

In the year 2001, accusations pertaining to violation of terms of the Convention were made
against Iraq and North Korea by the United States of America. America has also raised
concerns pertaining to violations by Iran, Libya, Syria and Cuba. Surprisingly, America itself
raised concerns in the same year 2001 pertaining to violation of the Convention by some of
its activities done in furtherance of its bio-defence program. In the year 2017, it indicated that
“Russia was the only state to have outstanding compliance issues with the Convention”.36

Therefore, though the Convention has been in effect since the last 46 years, it has not been
able to completely ban the usage of biological weapons as a considerable number of countries
still engage in Biological Weapons programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological weapons have been used a means of warfare since very long. The earliest use of
biological weapons can be traced back to the era of Romans. Since this period, these weapons
have been a force to reckon with. The tremendous ease with which biological weapons can be
created and delivered to its target have made it even more dangerous as now even the non-
State actors can access these weapons and can cause some serious damage to public health.

35
See n 29.
36
ibid.

Page 19 of 24
With such great risks at stake, it is not easy to determine whether the attack was caused by an
accident, by nature or whether the attack has been an act of bio-terrorism. Therefore,
preparing a response to such acts, whether they be accidental, natural or deliberate, has to be
a combined effort of multiple sectors so that the biological weapons can be effectively
defended.

To counter the effects of biological weapons, 2 international conventions were developed.

One of them was the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the second was the Biological Weapons
Convention. The 1925 Geneva Protocol was not a successful endeavour as Japan, despite
being a party to the Convention, violated this Convention many times during the World War
II. Along with this, there were various violations of the Convention by other States as well
including United States of America and the Soviet Union.

The Biological Weapons Convention was brought in place after the 1925 Geneva Protocol to
more effectively put restrictions on use of biological weapons. The text of the Convention,
like the 1925 Geneva Protocol, also is very short and runs into only 15 Articles. Though the
Convention goes one step ahead of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, it has its own set of
limitations. The lack of verification mechanism in the Convention has not been dealt with by
the State parties effectively till date. But, nevertheless, it has been effective to a substantial
extent in controlling the use of biological weapons in modern warfare. There are various
countries who take the obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention seriously but
with some obvious deviants.

The Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention will be held in
November 2021, which has presented “a unique opportunity for States Parties to strengthen
this important disarmament agreement”.37 This conference is of huge importance owing to it
being held first after the pandemic hit the world. Going by the present situation, the
Biological Weapons Convention is more than just a convention on weapons of mass
destructions.

Negligence in the implementation of this Convention can have severe effects on the public
health globally and even the world order. The pandemic has shown it to the world that even
microscopic pathogens can affect the world adversely. Therefore, these pathogens are just as

37
James Revill, John Borrie, Emma Saunders and Richard Lennane, Preparing for Success at the Ninth
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Guide to the Issues (UNIDIR Geneva, 2021)
vi.

Page 20 of 24
disruptive and destructive as large armed forces and expensive military equipment. Hence,
the Biological Weapons Convention assumes huge importance in the modern times as these
days biological weapons are as dangerous as bombs, guns, and tanks.

In the present work, we proceeded with the hypothesis that the coming into force of
international conventions might have some positive effects on the use of biological weapons.
What we have seen after going through the work is that though the international conventions
have been effective to a large extent in reducing the use of biological weapons as a means of
warfare, there are also some countries who still engage in Biological Weapons programs.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that the hypothesis stands proved.

Page 21 of 24
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. ARTICLES

1. Mani V. S., ‘International humanitarian law: an Indo-Asian perspective’ 842

International Review of the Red Cross (2001).
2. Marie Isabelle Chevrier, ‘Waiting for Godot or Saving the Show? The BWC Review
Conference reaches modest agreement’ 68 Disarmament Diplomacy (December 2002-
January 2003).

II. BOOKS

1. Lawand K., A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of
Warfare (International Committee of the Red Cross 2006).
2. United Nations, The Biological Weapons Convention: An Introduction (UN 2017).
3. Revill J., Borrie J., Saunders E. and Lennane R., Preparing for Success at the Ninth
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference: A Guide to the Issues
(UNIDIR Geneva, 2021).

III. WEBSITES

1. ‘About Biological Weapons’ (BWC1972) <http://bwc1972.org/home/the-biological-

weapons-convention/about-biological-weapons/#:~:text=Biological%20weapon
%20delivery%20systems%20can,cars%2C%20trucks%2C%20and%20boats>
accessed 15 October 2021.
2. ‘Biological weapons’ (Research Critical Will)
<https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4579-
biological-weapons> accessed 19 October 2021.
3. ‘Biological Weapons’ (World Health Organization) <https://www.who.int/health-
topics/biological-weapons> accessed 13 October 2021.
4. ‘Bioterrorism: Should we be worried?’ (Medical News Today)
<https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321030#Biological-warfare:-The-early-
days> accessed 19 October 2021.

Page 22 of 24
5. ‘Introduction to Biological Weapons’ (Federation of American Scientists)
<https://programs.fas.org/bio/bwintro.html> accessed 13 October, 2021.
6. ‘Introduction to Biological Weapons’ (Federation of American Scientists)
<https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/bioweapons.htm> accessed 19 October 2021.
7. ‘What are Biological Weapons’ (Office of Disarmament Affairs, United Nations)
<https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/what-are-biological-
weapons/> accessed 13 October 2021.
8. Barry R. Schneider, ‘biological weapon’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 27 November
2017), <https://www.britannica.com/technology/biological-weapon> accessed 20
October 2021.
9. Daryl Kimball, ‘The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance’ (Arms
Control Association, March 2020) <https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc>
accessed 21 October 2021.
10. Mark Shwartz, ‘Biological warfare: an emerging threat in the 21st century’ (Stanford
News Service) <https://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/bioterror117.html> accessed 19
October 2021.
11. Ravi Shankar and N. C. Bipindra, ‘The history of germ warfare and how prepared
India is’ (The New Indian Express, 22 March 2020)
<https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/mar/22/the-history-of-germ-
warfare-and-how-prepared-india-is-2118975.html> accessed 21 October 2021.
12. Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, ‘Coronavirus pandemic and the 2021 biological weapons
convention’ (Daily Sabah, 5 May 2020) <https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-
ed/coronavirus-pandemic-and-the-2021-biological-weapons-convention> accessed 22
October 2021.

Page 23 of 24