Strategic Aspects of Countering Bioterrorism

  • Katarina Strbac
  • Branislav Milosavljevic
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology book series (NAPSA)


Article is devoted to phenomena of bioterrorism which is not new threat to security, technique and methods of combating this phenomena should be considered carefully in societies today. Authors in article emphasis that first step in combating bioterrorism are strategies which parts clearly explain what should be done. Legal frameworks, common understanding of challenges and threats, standardized rules of operation, improved exchange of information, increased capability to prevent biological attacks are procedures as an integral parts of strategies for combat weapon for mass destruction including bio weapon.

Article is consist of: basic terms which remind us what exactly biological weapon is and explaining that malevolent application of biological agents in terrorist acts to cause infectious diseases of civilians or military personnel, animals and plants, also international legal framework concerning biological terrorism, reasons for strategic approach for countering bioterrorism, as an example how control and prevent this phenomenon. In addition, the strategy can be seen as an expression of the evolution of the control of biological weapons focusing on the projection of future manifestations of bioterrorism, in order to take optimal measures in countering this phenomenon. Different international initiative are good tool for developing strategies as a first step in understanding and preventing use of biological weapon. In article are explained several regional initiatives and their action regarding bio weapon including national approaches to this security problem. Without contemporary thinking and acting, this issue cannot be solved in future years, threat of biological weapon will grow if humanity doesn’t take serious measures in prevention and combating this phenomena.


  1. 1.
    Chevrier MI, Chomiczewski K, Garrigue H (eds) (2004). The implementation of legally binding measures to strengthen the biological and toxin weapons convention: proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Held in Budapest, Hungary, 2001. Volume 150 of NATO science series: Mathematics, physics, and chemistry, illustrated edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke SC (2002) Bioterrorism: an overview. Br J Biomed Sci 59(4):232–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strbac K (2009) Emergencies-how to manage them? Institute for Strategic research and The OSCE Mission to Serbia, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costa H, Baños J (2016) Bioterrorism in the literature of the nineteenth century: the case of wells and the stolen bacillus. Cogent Arts & Humanit 3(1):1224538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica. League of nations. Internet ednGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meier E-C, Nelte K-M, Schaefer H-U (2006) Woerterbuch yur Sichereitspolitik-Deutschland in einem veraenderten internationalen Umfeld. 6. vollstaending ueberarbeitete Auflage. Verlag E.S. Mittler&Sohn, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Fidler DP (2002) Bioterrorism, public health, and international law. Chicago J Int Law 3(1):7–26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster T (2006) George, focus on bioterrorism. Nova Science Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaćinović R (2005) Terorizam. Draslar, BeogradGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Legal web portal of the European Union, EURLEX.
  13. 13.
    EU Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons, complementary to the EU Joint Action in support of the BTWC (2006/C 57/01).
  14. 14.
    EU non-proliferation consortium, The European Network of Independent Non-proliferation Think Tanks.
  15. 15.
    EU non-proliferation consortium, The European Network of Independent Non-proliferation Think Tanks.
  16. 16.
    SIPRI, The European Union and weapons of mass destruction: A follow-on to the global strategy?Google Scholar
  17. 17. Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Committee of the Red Cross.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Arms Control Association. Chemical and Biological weapon at glance
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Government of the Republic of Austria.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, The European Commission’s Task Force on Bioterrorism.
  27. 27.
    US Department of State. Proliferation Security initiative.
  28. 28.
    Organization of United Nations. The Biological weapon convention.
  29. 29.
    Organization of United Nations, 1925 Geneva Protocol.
  30. 30.
    International Committee of the Red Cross web database.
  31. 31.
    International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of terrorism (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    International Convention for the Suppression of the terrorist bombings (1997)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jončić V (2010) Međunarodno humanitarno pravo. Pravni fakultet, BeogradGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jović R, Savić A (2004) Bioterorizam, biološki rat. Institut za političke studije, BeogradGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Larsen MR (2010) Al qaeda weapons of mass destruction threat:hype or reality. Belfer center for science and international affairs, Cambridge.
  36. 36.
    Legal web portal of the European Union, EURLEXGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maddox PJ (2001) Bioterrorism: a renewed public health threat. Dermatol Nurs 13(6):437–441. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mainuddin RG (2014) Prohibiting chemical and biological weapons: multilateral regimes and their evolution. Choice 51(12):2265–2266. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meulenbelt SE, Nieuwenhuizen MS (2015) Non-state actors’ pursuit of CBRN weapons: from motivation to potential humanitarian consequences. International ReviewGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    NATO Glossary of terms and definitions (AAP-6).
  42. 42.
    Meulenbelt ES, Nieuwenhuizen SM (2015) The human cost of nuclear weapons, Nonstate actors pursuit of CBRN weapons:From motivation to humanitarian consequences. Int Rev Red Cross 97(899):831–858Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Official web page of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
  44. 44.
    Official web-site of the RACVIAC.
  45. 45.
    Ostfield ML (2004) Bioterrorism as a foreign policy issue. SAIS Rev Int Aff 24(1):131–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Paulun M (2003) Weapons of mass destruction, the first responder. Random, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lifton RJ (2000) Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, apocalyptic violence, and the new global terrorism. Picador, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Statement of Interdiction Principles. Presented at the web-page of the U. S. Government.
  49. 49.
    Katarina S, Milosavljevic B, Radivojevic B (2012) Some Aspects of Illegal Migrations, Zborník príspevkov6. medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie, Bezpečné Slovensko A Európska Únia, Vysoká Škola Bezpečnostného Manažérstva V KošiciachGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Strbac Katarina (2010) Evolving asymmetric threats in the Balkans. NATO Science for Peace and security series E: human and societal dynamics, vol 85. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Katarina S, Mitrovic M (2011) Asymmetric threats-common response in Western Balkans. The Review of International Affairs, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Katarina S (2010) The perspective on challenges and complementarities of the standpoints of the Republic of Serbia and the EU. In: Proceedings “Security and Defence aspects of the Republic of Serbia’s accession to the European union”. Strategic Research Institute and OSCE Mission to Serbia, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Katarina S (2016) Welcome address: implications of Climate Change and disasters on Military Activities. NATO Science for peace and security series – C: environmental security. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    The Final Protocol of the First Geneva Conference (1899)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) official web site.
  56. 56.
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Web page of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), American Anthrax Outbreak of 2001.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarina Strbac
    • 1
  • Branislav Milosavljevic
    • 2
  1. 1.Ministry of Defence of the Republic of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Strategic Research Institute, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations