Diplomacy disrupted: A mixed-methods analysis of Russian disinformation at the Ninth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

Q2 Social Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1017/pls.2025.3
Annie E Sundelson, Gigi Kwik Gronvall, Gary Ackerman, Rupali Limaye, Crystal Watson, Tara Kirk Sell
{"title":"Diplomacy disrupted: A mixed-methods analysis of Russian disinformation at the Ninth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.","authors":"Annie E Sundelson, Gigi Kwik Gronvall, Gary Ackerman, Rupali Limaye, Crystal Watson, Tara Kirk Sell","doi":"10.1017/pls.2025.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2022, Russia invoked Articles V and VI of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), requesting a formal meeting to discuss, and subsequent investigation of, alleged U.S.-funded biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. Such allegations have been dismissed as false by scholars and diplomats alike, many of whom have argued that Russia's actions represented an abuse of BTWC provisions and risked undermining the Convention. However, few scholars have assessed the implications of Russia's ongoing efforts to level false allegations in BTWC meetings following the Article V and VI procedures. Using mixed-methods analysis of BTWC meeting recordings, transcripts, and documents, we assessed the volume, consequences, and framing of Russian false allegations at the BTWC Ninth Review Conference. Analysis revealed that discussion of Russian allegations took over three hours and contributed to a stunted Final Document. Additional potential consequences are discussed, including increased division among states parties and the erosion of nonproliferation norms.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"28-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2025.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2022, Russia invoked Articles V and VI of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), requesting a formal meeting to discuss, and subsequent investigation of, alleged U.S.-funded biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. Such allegations have been dismissed as false by scholars and diplomats alike, many of whom have argued that Russia's actions represented an abuse of BTWC provisions and risked undermining the Convention. However, few scholars have assessed the implications of Russia's ongoing efforts to level false allegations in BTWC meetings following the Article V and VI procedures. Using mixed-methods analysis of BTWC meeting recordings, transcripts, and documents, we assessed the volume, consequences, and framing of Russian false allegations at the BTWC Ninth Review Conference. Analysis revealed that discussion of Russian allegations took over three hours and contributed to a stunted Final Document. Additional potential consequences are discussed, including increased division among states parties and the erosion of nonproliferation norms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外交中断:在生物和毒素武器公约第九次审查会议上对俄罗斯虚假信息的混合方法分析。
2022年,俄罗斯援引《生物与毒素武器公约》(BTWC)第五和第六条,要求召开正式会议,讨论并随后对据称由美国资助的乌克兰生物武器实验室进行调查。学者和外交官都认为这些指控是错误的,他们中的许多人认为,俄罗斯的行为是对《生物武器公约》条款的滥用,有破坏《公约》的危险。然而,很少有学者评估俄罗斯在《禁止生物武器公约》第五条和第六条程序之后的会议上不断努力消除虚假指控的影响。使用混合方法分析BTWC会议记录、抄本和文件,我们评估了俄罗斯在BTWC第九次审查会议上的虚假指控的数量、后果和框架。分析显示,对俄罗斯指控的讨论持续了三个多小时,最终文件的内容受到了阻碍。讨论了其他潜在后果,包括缔约国之间的分歧加剧和防扩散准则受到侵蚀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
期刊最新文献
Narratives in the nascent policy subsystem of AI biometrics. Why (and how) total numbers should matter for animal experimentation policy. Mental health and suicide policies in Colombia (1999-2021): Longing and despair. General anxiety, political anxiety, and support for conspiracy theories. Science advising and democracy: Governing gene editing technologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1