International legal regulation of the circulation of dual-use biotechnologies

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of each country, regardless of the economic well-being and health system development, highlighting the need for further rethinking of the global security and human security concepts. The need to sustain the spread of infectious diseases, as well as the treatment of life-threatening diseases, determine the relevance of scientific research on all key aspects related to the development of technologies, both by states and non-state actors. In view of the efforts made over the past decades, significant advances have been made in the field of biotechnology, which allows to detect the vulnerability of viruses, as well as to influence the genes responsible for the development of diseases. Such trends not only contribute to ensuring the human right to health and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, but also bring humanity closer to executing Sustainable Development Goals. The reverse side of the scientific research increase is the expansion of the availability of scientific data, as well as the simplification of the reproduction of various technological solutions, which leads to the risk of their use for military and terrorist purposes. The development of technologies, the use of which can not only counteract life-threatening diseases, but also create new threats to human security, has influenced the formation of the term “dual-use technologies” in the scientific literature and documents of international organizations. The article presents a systematic analysis of biotechnologies impact on the formation of “human security” concept, as well as the definition of “biological security” concept. The authors consistently consider international treaties, as well as documents of international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations in the field of regulating the circulation of technologies that pose a threat to state security. Special attention is paid to the consideration of the features of control over the spread of biological agents in the context of the activities of the European Union, as well as ensuring the implementation of the national security strategy of the Russian Federation.

About the authors

Aslan Kh. Abashidze

RUDN University

Email: aslan.abashidze@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0012-8795
SPIN-code: 8944-1427

Doctor of Legal Sciences, Full Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Head of the Department of International, Law Institute

6 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198, Russia Federation

Vladislav S. Malichenko

Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russia; Higher School of Economics (National Research University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: vlad.malichenko@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3136-8054
SPIN-code: 4939-0747

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Senior Researcher, Department of Social Legislation, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation; Researcher, Institute of National and Comparative Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics (National Research University)

34 Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya str., Moscow, 117218, Russia Federation; 3 B Trekhsvyatitelsky per., Moscow, 109028, Russia Federation

References

  1. Cello, J., Paul, A.V. & Wimmer, E. (2002) Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science (New York, N.Y.). 297(5583), 1016-1018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072266
  2. DiEuliis, D. & Giordano, J. (2018) Gene editing using CRISPR/Cas9: implications for dual-use and biosecurity. Protein & cell. 9(3), 239-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-017-0493-4
  3. Elbe, S. & Nakray, K. (2011) Security and global health. Sociological Research Online. 16(3), 212-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/136078041101600303
  4. Evans, J. (2010) Pandemics and national security. Global Security Studies. 1(1), 100-109.
  5. Fidler, D. (2004) International law and weapons of mass destruction: end of the arms control approach? Duke Journal of comparative & International Law. (14), 39-88.
  6. Flora, S.J.S. (2020) Biological warfare agents: History and modern-day relevance. In: Handbook on biological warfare preparedness. Academic Press. pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812026-2.00001-3
  7. Fuller, D.H. & Berglund, P. (2020) Amplifying RNA vaccine development. New England Journal of Medicine. 382(25), 2469-2471.
  8. Gostin, L.O. & Fidler, D.P. (2006) Biosecurity under the Rule of Law. Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 38(3), 437-478.
  9. Hottes, A.K., Rusek, B. & Sharples, F.E. (2011) Biosecurity challenges of the global expansion of high-containment biological laboratories. In: Anticipating biosecurity challenges of the global expansion of high-containment biological laboratories international workshop. National Academies Press (US).
  10. Huang, C., Wang, Y. & Li, X. et al. (2020) Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet (London, England). 395(10223), 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
  11. Jernigan, D.B., Raghunathan, P.L. & Bell, B.P., et al. (2002) Investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001: epidemiologic findings. Emerging infectious diseases. 8(10), 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0810.020353
  12. Joyner, D. (2005) The proliferation security initiative: nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and international law. Yale Journal of International Law. (30), 507-548.
  13. Kanetake, M. (2018) Balancing innovation, development, and security: dual-use concepts in export control laws. In: Craik, N., Jefferies, C., Seck, S. & Stephens, T. (eds.). Global environmental change and innovation in international law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 180-200. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108526081.011
  14. Kelle, A. (2007) Securitization of international public health: Implications for global health governance and the biological weapons prohibition regime. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 13(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01302006
  15. Koblentz, G. (2003) Pathogens as weapons: the international security implications of biological warfare. International security. 28(3), 84-122. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 016228803773100084
  16. Lewis, G., Millett, P., Sandberg, A., Snyder-Beattie, A. & Gronvall, G. (2019) Information hazards in biotechnology. Risk Analysis. 39(5), 975-981. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13235
  17. Liang, H., Xiang, X., Ma, H., & Yuan, Z. (2019) History of and suggestions for China’s biosafety legislation. Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity. 1(2), 134-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2019.08.002
  18. Lifton, R. (2000) Destroying the world to save It: Aum Shinrikyo, apocalyptic violence, and the new global terrorism. London, Picador.
  19. Malichenko, V.S. (2022) International Legal Regulation of Access to Health Technologies in the Activities of the UN Specialized Agencies. Matters of Russian and International Law. 12(5А), 400-407. https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2022.48.28.058 (in Russian).
  20. Malichenko, V.S. (2021) International legal mechanisms for counteracting health emergencies. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. (1), 174-197. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2021.1.174.197 (in Russian).
  21. Martins, B.O. & Ahmad, N. (2020) The security politics of innovation: Dual-use technology in the EU’s security research programme. In: Emerging Security Technologies and EU Governance. Routledge. pp. 58-73.
  22. Maslove, D. M., Mnyusiwalla, A., Mills, E. J., McGowan, J., Attaran, A., & Wilson, K. (2009) Barriers to the effective treatment and prevention of malaria in Africa: A systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-698X-9-26
  23. Meulenbelt, S.E. & Nieuwenhuizen, M.S. (2015) Non-state actors’ pursuit of CBRN weapons: from motivation to potential humanitarian consequences. International Review of the Red Cross. 97(899), 831-858. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383116000011
  24. Mukherjee, S. (2017) Emerging infectious diseases: epidemiological perspective. Indian journal of dermatology. 62(5), 459-467.
  25. Musunuri, S., Sandbrink, J.B., Monrad, J.T., Palmer, M.J. & Koblentz, G.D. (2021) Rapid proliferation of pandemic research: implications for dual-use risks. Mbio. 12(5), e01864-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01864-21
  26. Nordmann, B.D. (2010) Issues in biosecurity and biosafety. International journal of antimicrobial agents. (36), S66-S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.06.025
  27. Radosavljevic, V., Banjari, I. & Belojevic, G. (eds.). (2018) Defence against bioterrorism: methods for prevention and control. Springer.
  28. Singh, S.K. (2019) Infectious diseases national security and globalisation. World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues. 23(1), 10-23.
  29. Singer, P.A. & Daar, A.S. (2009) How Biodevelopment can Enhance Biosecurity. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 65(2), 23-30.
  30. Tucker, J.B. (2007) Verifying the chemical weapons ban: Missing elements. Arms Control Today. 37(1), 6-13.
  31. Tumpey, T.M., Basler, C.F. & Aguilar, P.V., et al., (2005) Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science. 310(5745), 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119392
  32. Wimmer, E. (2006) The test-tube synthesis of a chemical called poliovirus: The simple synthesis of a virus has far-reaching societal implications. EMBO reports. 7(S1), S3-S9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400728.
  33. Zhou, D., Song, H. & Wang, J., et al. (2019) Biosafety and biosecurity. Journal of biosafety and biosecurity. 1(1), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2019.01.001

Copyright (c) 2023 Abashidze A.K., Malichenko V.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies