From Collusion to contested multilateralism: The biological weapons regime complex

Over time, biological and chemical non-proliferation regimes have transformed into complex networks of nested and overlapping institutions. A number of cooperative endeavours have sprung alongside the core treaties - the Geneva Protocol, the BTWC, and the CWC – which, per se, no longer account for the full spectrum of norms and rules promoted and implemented in order to mitigate the manufacture, spread, and use of biological and chemical weapons. Under this perspective, this paper has concentrated on the institutional bargaining process (“bargaining with the objective of creating an institution”) of the main agreements that today are in place to govern the matter of biological and chemical disarmament. More specifically, this research has investigated the conditions of BW/CW regimes’ formation and development with a specific focus on the role of “great powers” as the main characters driving the process, their system of values, their engagement with the contractual environment each time at hand, and the way their power and capabilities have been deployed in order to prompt cooperation and to solve the collective action problem at stake (including bargaining leverage). Beyond literature, the analysis of published documents and statements, as well as the conversations entertained with key experts and practitioners within key institutions (interalia the GPWMD, the PSI, the UNSC 1540) have pointed to the US and the UK as leading actors. Since the British proposal for a biological disarmament in 1968 and Nixon’s unilateral renunciation to BW one year later, the UK and the US have continued playing a critical role in driving the development of both the BW/CW negotiated regimes not only by jointly reacting to exogenous shock and crisis but also by offering common interpretations of emerging threats and challenges, by furthering specific issue-linkages across areas of international relations (health and environment), by providing equitable solutions – where possible – or by initiating actions within a circumscribed group (coalition of the willing and core groups) which only later would have (successfully) involved larger membership.