The Peace Bloc

Working Paper 1.2

Signatories: USA, Bangladesh, Chile, UK, Canada,australia, Belgium, China, Thailand, Morocco, New Zealand,
Oman,egypt,brunei,luxemborg,egypt,chad,japan,india,france,South Korea, France, Russia, Italy
Sponsors: France, Canada, United Kingdom, Chile, Pakistan

1.​ Bioshield Compliance and Transparency Framework (BTCF):

Recommends the Bioshield Compliance and Transparency Framework (BCTF), a detailed ten-year framework
to counter the core loopholes and vulnerabilities of the Biological Weapons Convention , Additionally, the states
participating in this initiative will sign legal ordinances and international commitments which would explicitly
mention the agreement to surprise audits and routine inspections of high-risk laboratories:
a.​ Firstly, to address the lack of authority and inspection, the Bioshield Compliance and
Transparency Framework (BCTF) proposes the use of the model proposed by the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the International Atomic Energy Agency:
i.​ It proposes the deployment of a team of trained inspectors on existing BWC
structures to conduct regular surprise audits of high-risk laboratories;
ii.​ These surprise audits will be conducted by the BWC’s Implementation Support Unit
and will be done by trained bio-inspectors to guarantee compliance with the
two-system enforcement
iii.​ The first warning will be a period with a deadline for the nation to provide inspection
access, and the second warning will be reporting on non-compliance publicly, a
temporary suspension of bio-technology collaboration, and a final call will be
reporting to the United Nations Security Council for measures against continuous
violators;
iv.​ Inspections will follow a highly strict standardized protocol, which would include
microbiological sampling chain-of-custody protocols to guarantee validity and guard
against manipulation, The WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual, Fourth Edition,
serves as the basis for biosafety and containment checks, dual-use risk assessments,
making sure that high-risk studies (such as CRISPR-based pathogen engineering and
gain-of-function) are properly approved and monitored, Audits of secure facility
paperwork, comparing research logs with inventory of pathogens and claimed
activities, Digitally tracking requests for DNA synthesis helps stop illegal orders for
harmful genetic sequences;
v.​ All inspection reports will be submitted to the BWC’s Implementation Support Unit
to create worldwide transparency and accountability;
b.​ Secondly, to counter the weak state implementation of Article IV of the BWC, there will be
the establishment of a Global Legal Compliance Index, which would in detail evaluate each
state yearly based on:
i.​ All high-risk biological research operations, such as synthetic biology,
gain-of-function investigations, dual-use experiments, and CRISPR-based pathogen
modification, must have licensing processes in place, Only these will be eligible for
licensing establishments with containment measures certified to Biosafety Level 3
(BSL-3) or above, researchers who complete clearance checks and receive
biosecurity training that has been approved internationally, and Labs are keeping
up-to-date pathogen inventory management systems linked to the digital platform of
the BWC Implementation Support Unit;
ii.​ mandatory inspection systems, which, by the framework's legal laws, call for yearly
internal inspections and permit surprise foreign verification audits;
 iii.​ established sanctions for noncompliance, such as fines, license suspension, and
criminal charges for illegal biological activity;
iv.​ Confidence-Building Measures must be submitted annually without omissions using
transparent reporting mechanisms;
v.​ To participate in transparency tours and be eligible for support, such as legal aid,
biosafety training, lab upgrades to BSL-3/4, and DNA synthesis screening
instruments, states must achieve 80% compliance.
vi.​ Countries with a score of less than 50% will be placed in a Biosecurity Improvement
Program, where they will receive focused assistance to comply within three years, If
they continue to fail to comply, they will be denied access to biotech financing and
partnership;
c.​ Finally, the frameworkc proposes the making of a Permanent Scientific and Technological
Advisory Board (PSTAB) to keep technology up to date and guarantee that the Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC) can continue to handle swift scientific breakthroughs,
Internationally renowned specialists in gene editing using Clustered Regularly Interspaced
Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), synthetic biology, biotechnology applications of
artificial intelligence (AI), gene drives, advanced pathogen modeling, and DNA synthesis
technologies will make up this board:
i.​ The PSTAB will work in close collaboration with the expanded ISU and work in
close coordination with the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Office
for Disarmament Affairs, and several renowned scientific regulatory agencies;
ii.​ Its responsibilities would include Annual Threat Assessments, creating thorough
reports every year that examine new biotechnologies that have the potential to be
weaponized, such as AI-driven super-pathogen creation, weaknesses in digital DNA
synthesis, and innovative gene-editing methods, Threats will be divided into low,
medium, and critical risk categories based on these evaluations;
iii.​ Science-based criteria for participating states will be established by regulatory
recommendations, For example, any study that modifies pathogens utilizing
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) will
immediately be subject to a dual-use risk assessment conducted by global biosafety
experts, Before any synthesis is permitted, projects employing artificial intelligence
(AI)-generated pathogen designs must pass a multi-layered, human-reviewed ethical
and safety supervision process, The Permanent Scientific and Technological
Advisory Board (PSTAB) will also cross-check all digital DNA synthesis orders
against a Global Pathogen Database, Any suspect or harmful sequences will be
highlighted, banned, and the subject of a biosafety investigation;
iv.​ Implementation and Compliance, Within a year of the PSTAB's revised norms being
released, all participating states are required to include them in their national legal
frameworks, If these precautions are not taken, there will be suspension of technical
assistance programs and transparency tours, number of surprise laboratory
examinations and Noncompliance should be made public to foster scientific and
diplomatic accountability;
d.​ The timeline for this ten-year project is divided into three major phases to make sure that it
transforms from a legal document to a full enforcement mechanism and a worldwide oversight
project:
i.​ States adopt the framework, sign legal commitments, and match national legislation
with defined terminology throughout Phase 1 (Years 1–3), The Global Legal
Compliance Index (GLCI) is introduced, and pilot surprise audits are started;
ii.​ The Permanent Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (PSTAB) is established,
and the BWC Implementation Support Unit (ISU) grows, Digital pathogen tracking
systems are launched, and regional PRMOP offices are established, combining with
WHO monitoring;
 iii.​ Phase 2 (Years 4–6) is all about enforcement and growth, Complete legal
harmonization, required licensing for high-risk research, and penalties for infractions
are implemented in every state;
iv.​ PRMOP publishes quarterly compliance reports, compliant states are supported by
technical assistance programs, and the 80% compliance milestone is sought,
AI-based anomaly detection improves monitoring, and a midterm assessment
evaluates progress;
v.​ Sustainability and global integration are combined in Phase 3 (Years 7–10), Persistent
violators lose biotech funding, surprise inspections increase, and the Global
Biosecurity Risk Map is made public;
vi.​ PSTAB introduces a Future Threat Projection Model, collaboration with IAEA and
CWC grows, and preemptive measures are enforced through real-time genome
monitoring. A thorough examination and switch to a long-term, self-sustaining
monitoring system mark the end of the decade.

2. Neutral State Framework:

-​ a)Top scientists from different countries will be verifying the research submitted by countries at
Zealand Centre lab of biotechnology

b)To know the nature of the research,

1)stop if the research posses any threat to humanity, if fail to comply

2)if fail to comply, impose heavy fines and restrict their reach to information, scientist and resources.

3)neutral body ensure the sensitivity of research shared and will safeguard it

3. TRUST (Transparency In Risky Use Of Synthetic Technology)

The delegate of Bangladesh proposes the TRUST framework. This works by monitoring high risk genetic
research under the ISU. Each country is required to submit an Annual Biotechnology Transparency Report
which lists

1) National biotechnology activities overview

List of high containment laboratories and summary of ongoing high risk genetic research

2) Gene editing research projects

Description of CRISPR, TALEN or other gene editing work and their purpose(medical, agricultural or
industrial)

3) Pathogens Research Data

Any work on dangerous pathogens and their security measures to prevent theft or misuse

4) Export and Import of biological materials

Details of cross border transfers of sensitive biological samples or other imports or exports to make certain
advances
5) Incident and violation reporting

Any accidents, lab leaks or suspected security breaches and immediate action to contain them.

Countries must ensure that all these points are covered in the report. If a country is unwilling to make the report
public due to any reason they can submit it to a Confidential scientists council with the ISU that will consist of
independent biotech experts and bio safety officers. They will then review the confidential report and issue a
redacted summary to the ISU without revealing sensitive data. If the Scientist's council suspects anything
suspicious they can conduct an audit and in case if any evidence found, it will be referred to the Public
Biosecurity Council which can then debate and vote on penalties. The scientists will be stationed within the
ISU's existing regional hubs maintaining co ordination and will be appointed by the ISU to prevent bias.

1.​ Recommends the creation of an annual “Biological Transparency Index (BTI)” under a newly
established Biological Weapons Verification Authority (BWVA) , which shall 1 Rank all UN
member states based on their cooperation with biological weapons verification processes
2.​ Highlight levels of transparency, compliance tiers, and public reporting participation
3.​ Present annual reports to the UN General Assembly, WHO, and Security Council
4.​ Encourage independent media like BBC World Service, scientific communities like
International Science Council, and academic researchers to publicize results
5.​ B. Authorizes the BWVA to refer cases of verified non-cooperation to the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC), especially where ​
1. A state refuses all verification access or blocks inspections without valid cause ​
2. Significant technical or whistleblower evidence suggests development or stockpiling
of biological weapons ​
3. Diplomatic outreach and regional consultations have been exhausted 4. Such
referrals are made in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1540 and the principle of collective
security
6.​ C. Proposes the adoption of a three-tiered agreement framework under the BWVA to
support realistic, scalable verification across states​
1. Tier I a. Mandatory declarations of genome editing and biotechnology facilities and
activities b. Annual submission of lab registries ​
2. Tier II a. Limited access for document review, site photographs, and virtual audits by
BWVA b. Regional confidence-building visits with neutral observers ​
3. Tier III a. Full on-site inspection by international inspectors, technical sampling, and
review of export-import logs b. Real-time cross-verification with other disarmament treaties
(CWC, NPT, etc.) ​
4. States may begin at Tier I and opt into higher tiers voluntarily or upon BWVA
recommendation 5. Failure to comply with Tier I may result in BTI downgrades and limited
access to global bio-research consortia D. Establishes a confidential and protected platform
under the BWVA to receive reports from NGOs, whistleblowers, and researchers, ensuring 1.
Anonymous digital submissions with encryption and anti-traceback protocols 2. Verification
by a neutral technical panel of experts with no national allegiances 3. No identification of
whistleblowers to any member state 4. Partnership with international human rights NGOs to
offer legal protection and, if needed, asylum advocacy E. Mandates that all data and reports
from the BWVA, including Biological Transparency Index(BTI) rankings and state
declarations, be published openly, ensuring 1. Accessibility in all official UN languages via an
interactive website and public media portals 2. User-friendly infographics, datasets, and
annual summaries for civil society, academics, and media 3. Right of reply for states to
explain, rebut, or inspect findings 4. Organization of an annual “Global Transparency Forum”
 to review reports and collect public feedback F. Requests collaboration with institutions like
the World Bank, World Health Organization(WHO), World Trade Organization(WTO), the
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations(CEPI), and GAVI to apply goads and
penalties based on BWCby 1. Prioritizing development funds, vaccines, research grants, and
biotech trade access for Tier II and Tier III states 2. Suspending or downgrading eligibility for
states that rank in the bottom 10% of the BTI for two consecutive years 3. Restricting
high-risk biotech exports to non-compliant or opaque regimes 4. Offering technical aid and
laboratory upgrades to developing countries that commit to reaching Tier II status within a
defined two-year window

Endorsing the implementation of the GENESHLD Framework which advocates for;

a)​ Genomic surveillance and enhancement, achieved through robust epidemiological

b)​ Partnering with genome-based technologies such as DNA sequencing tools and
diagnostics, which are used in the rapid and highly accurate diagnosis of infections,
enabling the management, and prediction of the disease’s behaviour, as well as
analysis and identification of cross-species interactions and the categorization of
infectious agents, by comparing the genetic profiles of different strains, and track
bioengineered strains through comparative genomic profiling;

c)​ Amplifying enforcement of the Genetic Gene Editing Registry to include all genome
editing activities, such as preclinical research, somatic and germline clinical trials,
which will require compulsory registration as a precondition for ethical review and
funding approval, with non compliance seen as a violation of scientific integrity,
which will;

3. Entailing data collection and transparency by mandating the standardized collection and submission
of genetic research data from national laboratories, research institutions, and private-sector actors to a
central database monitored by the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration with GISAID
and UNODA, which will:

d)​ Request countries to submit annual reports detailing ongoing gene-editing projects,
including funding sources, objectives, and potential biosecurity risks, to the
International Bioethics Committee, under UNESCO;​

e)​ To engage in data collection for rural or less-developed regions or conflict settings,
individuals can enter data using the mobile phones delivered through the WHO
EWARS kit, by utilizing web-based platforms, cell phone technologies, and
PDAs/laptops, which will submit reports and function through tracking appointments,
documentation, and case management to relevant stakeholders and agencies;

f)​ Ensure that data collection is clean, reliable, and accurate through the establishment
of a system for transparency and accountability, as:

i)​ Annual reports of the findings will be provided to the United Nations Office
for Project Services (UNOPS) to ensure the data is correct, reliable, and
promotes transparency in data collection,
 a)​ Establishes a Regulated Global Gene Editing Usage Registry, with quarterly oversight
audits coordinated by WHO and GISAID, requiring:

i)​ Mandatory certification for any user or institution accessing CRISPR kits;​

ii)​ Real-time logging of CRISPR activity in the registry;​

iii)​ Access by the International Biosafety Committee for security assessments;​

b)​ Requires that each CRISPR kit include a QR code–linked genomic watermark,
allowing traceability of any edits back to the authorized user or institution, supported
by embedded security software that can detect phishing attempts, tampering, or
malicious website links, to ensure full transparency and accountability in the purchase
and use of CRISPR kits,​

4. National biosecurity innovation hun which would serve as a BWC compatible pilot project. It will
integrate AI driveb data screening, dark web monitering and dual use research oversight under BWCs
existing CBMs. If its successful, this will go internationally first to allied countries. Non compliance
will result in public shaming snf diplomatic isolations. Sanctions will be backed by UNSC

5. Red Flag Index is a scoring system that helps scientists and international organizations identify
which gene editing experiments or synthetic DNA sequences could be dangerous – especially if they
might be misused as biological weapons.

Green (low risk): Vaccines, agriculture, or medical research.

Yellow (medium risk): Could potentially be misused, but is being watched

Red (high risk): Sequences that might allow someone to recreate dangerous viruses.

This idea fits under WHO’s role in high-risk assessment, as IHR (2005) Article 44 where countries are
expected to work together to detect and respond to public health risks.

This index would identify research that accidentally or secretly breaches this law

It also supports the Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibits the creation or handling of
biological weapons.

Article 44 focuses on collaboration and assistance between countries to help detect and respond to
public health risks.

Increased toxicity or engineer antibiotic resistance.

Every time a scientist tries to create or order synthetic DNA, the sequence would be checked by a
WHO-approved system.

If it matches dangerous genomes (like those from deadly pathogens or synthetic toxins), it triggers a
red flag.
The lab would be asked to explain the research, and it might be paused or inspected by international
biosecurity teams

Countries must work together and share resources, expertise, and information to strengthen health
systems.

They should help each other build capacity for surveillance, response, and prevention of disease
outbreaks

The World Health Organization (WHO) is expected to coordinate international support, offer technical
guidance, and promote cooperation especially with developing countries

[Link] the Global Biotechnology Safeguard Initiative under WHO and in cooperation with the
BWC Implementation Support Unit to:

a. Register and track high-risk gene editing and synthetic biology research globally,

b. Implement licenses to be adopted nationally for laboratories conducting such research which:

i) provides benefits to laboratories such as funding assistance, training and resources

ii) shows the laboratories have given consent for the other clauses to occur,

c. Dispatch inspection teams for compliance audits annually on consent which:

i)causes benefits to continue and safety being ensured

ii) if refused will cause the benefits to be cut off unless compliant

2. Calls for the adoption of a DNA Sequence Screening Protocol by all gene altering providers with
the license to:

a. Automatically flag and report sequences that could be weaponised,

b. Deny flagged orders unless cleared by WHO and GBSI authorities,

c. Create a Red-Flag Database of prohibited sequences held by the WHO;

3. Requests the formation of a Global Biosecurity Response Task Force, coordinated by WHO and
UNODA, empowered to:

a. Be sent within 48 hours to verify threats or leaks,

b. b. Investigate and shut down unauthorized or dangerous biotech activities,

c. Contain and neutralize pathogens created or evolved by mankind;

a. Build secure labs and train scientists in developing countries,

b. Deliver global bioethics education programs,

c. Ensure all nations can access peaceful biotechnology without security risks

5. ISU framework [Link] for upgrading the existing ISU implementation Support UNIT a. Each State
Party can nominate experts (scientists, arms control specialists, legal advisors) for 2–3 year
secondments ii. Salary paid by the sending state, but operational control is under the ISU Director iii.
Ensures global representation and less financial burden on the BWC budget b. Open, merit-based
hiring coordinated by United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) i. Contract terms:
fixed 3–5 years with renewals based on performance. ii Funded by the BWC Compliance Fund iii.
SpecialisedTechnicalStafffro mPartnerOrganisations will also be appointed