生物恐怖主义:预防灾难的法律措施

B. Kellman
{"title":"生物恐怖主义:预防灾难的法律措施","authors":"B. Kellman","doi":"10.4324/9781003123644-29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biological terrorism is a truly despicable subject, raising nightmares of primal fear. Disease -- plague, smallpox, and other decimating maladies -- is dire trauma embedded in humanity's collective consciousness. Now, when the threat of thermonuclear holocaust may be ebbing, a few zealots or criminals can kill thousands (or more) and destabilize social order by revealing that no government, even that of superpower America, can protect its citizenry. A biological attack means that everyone is vulnerable. This is terrorism nonpareil. This Article's agenda is modest: Set forth legal initiatives that might reduce the risks of bioterrorism, recognizing that those initiatives must be combined with nonlegal policies. For example, more money to develop sensors and to train medical personnel could be advantageously spent without proposing or amending legislation or regulations. Legal initiatives should be seen, therefore, as only part of a larger policy response to reduce terrorism opportunities, strengthen detection, focus resources, and deter those terrorists who are averse to harsh penalties.(1) The agenda here is also overt. Law's contribution to preventing bioterrorism, though limited, is crucial. And time, unfortunately, is not on the side of the angels. This Article, therefore, is a call to action. Part I of this Article synthesizes the vast literature on bioterrorism,(2) describing various diseases that could be used and how those diseases might fulfill different objectives. Part II and Part III develop this Article's thesis that threats of bioterrorism call for a two-dimensional set of carefully tailored policies to reduce biological threats, but do not justify radical new overtures. Proposed regulatory modifications can restrict the availability of useful materials and equipment and increase the cost and likelihood of detection. Part II advances a regulatory agenda, mindful to not over-burden the bio-pharmaceutical industry, that would raise barriers to obtaining pathogens and weaponization technology. Since these regulatory measures are not perfectly prophylactic (i.e. terrorists might still gain deadly agents), modifications of law enforcement policies should detect, investigate, and stop terrorists who overcome the regulatory barriers and prepare weapons. Part III discusses the unique problems that clandestine biological terrorism presents for law enforcement and recommends measures to better identify bioterrorism threats without overstepping civil liberties and privacy rights. Put simply, the best strategy is two-pronged: Deny access to biological weapons capabilities, and-if capabilities are obtained -- apprehend the terrorist before attack. Legal measures offer no guarantee for preventing bioterrorism, but the measures described here might substantially diminish risks when combined with enhanced pathogen-relevant research and development, improved planning and communication among officials, and advanced intelligence capabilities. Many topics tangentially relevant to biological terrorism are not discussed here, either because law cannot significantly address them or because, even if addressed, law cannot materially diminish the risks of biological terrorism. This Article will not discuss the broad array of issues that span counter-terrorism policy.(3) Neither will it assess the merits of promoting enhanced research on pathogenicity nor consider the appropriate levels of stockpiled vaccines; these questions are better addressed by the medical and pharmaceutical communities.(4) This Article will not discuss the need for enhanced foreign intelligence; crucial information is not publicly available, and legal measures would not make much difference.(5) Nor will this article address preparations to respond after an attack happens; those measures are necessary but do not serve to prevent the attack.(6) A vast set of issues, substantially outside the scope of this Article and meriting separate attention, concerns the international proliferation of biological weapons and negotiated efforts to stanch their spread. …","PeriodicalId":279937,"journal":{"name":"Bioterrorism: The History of a Crisis in American Society","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biological Terrorism: Legal Measures for Preventing Catastrophe\",\"authors\":\"B. Kellman\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781003123644-29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Biological terrorism is a truly despicable subject, raising nightmares of primal fear. Disease -- plague, smallpox, and other decimating maladies -- is dire trauma embedded in humanity's collective consciousness. Now, when the threat of thermonuclear holocaust may be ebbing, a few zealots or criminals can kill thousands (or more) and destabilize social order by revealing that no government, even that of superpower America, can protect its citizenry. A biological attack means that everyone is vulnerable. This is terrorism nonpareil. This Article's agenda is modest: Set forth legal initiatives that might reduce the risks of bioterrorism, recognizing that those initiatives must be combined with nonlegal policies. For example, more money to develop sensors and to train medical personnel could be advantageously spent without proposing or amending legislation or regulations. Legal initiatives should be seen, therefore, as only part of a larger policy response to reduce terrorism opportunities, strengthen detection, focus resources, and deter those terrorists who are averse to harsh penalties.(1) The agenda here is also overt. Law's contribution to preventing bioterrorism, though limited, is crucial. And time, unfortunately, is not on the side of the angels. This Article, therefore, is a call to action. Part I of this Article synthesizes the vast literature on bioterrorism,(2) describing various diseases that could be used and how those diseases might fulfill different objectives. Part II and Part III develop this Article's thesis that threats of bioterrorism call for a two-dimensional set of carefully tailored policies to reduce biological threats, but do not justify radical new overtures. Proposed regulatory modifications can restrict the availability of useful materials and equipment and increase the cost and likelihood of detection. Part II advances a regulatory agenda, mindful to not over-burden the bio-pharmaceutical industry, that would raise barriers to obtaining pathogens and weaponization technology. Since these regulatory measures are not perfectly prophylactic (i.e. terrorists might still gain deadly agents), modifications of law enforcement policies should detect, investigate, and stop terrorists who overcome the regulatory barriers and prepare weapons. Part III discusses the unique problems that clandestine biological terrorism presents for law enforcement and recommends measures to better identify bioterrorism threats without overstepping civil liberties and privacy rights. Put simply, the best strategy is two-pronged: Deny access to biological weapons capabilities, and-if capabilities are obtained -- apprehend the terrorist before attack. Legal measures offer no guarantee for preventing bioterrorism, but the measures described here might substantially diminish risks when combined with enhanced pathogen-relevant research and development, improved planning and communication among officials, and advanced intelligence capabilities. Many topics tangentially relevant to biological terrorism are not discussed here, either because law cannot significantly address them or because, even if addressed, law cannot materially diminish the risks of biological terrorism. This Article will not discuss the broad array of issues that span counter-terrorism policy.(3) Neither will it assess the merits of promoting enhanced research on pathogenicity nor consider the appropriate levels of stockpiled vaccines; these questions are better addressed by the medical and pharmaceutical communities.(4) This Article will not discuss the need for enhanced foreign intelligence; crucial information is not publicly available, and legal measures would not make much difference.(5) Nor will this article address preparations to respond after an attack happens; those measures are necessary but do not serve to prevent the attack.(6) A vast set of issues, substantially outside the scope of this Article and meriting separate attention, concerns the international proliferation of biological weapons and negotiated efforts to stanch their spread. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":279937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioterrorism: The History of a Crisis in American Society\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioterrorism: The History of a Crisis in American Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003123644-29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioterrorism: The History of a Crisis in American Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003123644-29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

生物恐怖主义是一个真正可鄙的话题,引起了原始恐惧的噩梦。疾病——瘟疫、天花和其他致命的疾病——是根植于人类集体意识中的可怕创伤。现在,当热核浩劫的威胁可能正在消退时,少数狂热分子或罪犯可以杀死数千人(或更多),并通过揭示没有政府,即使是超级大国美国,可以保护其公民来破坏社会秩序。生物攻击意味着每个人都很脆弱。这是无懈可击的恐怖主义。本文的议程是适度的:提出可能减少生物恐怖主义风险的法律倡议,认识到这些倡议必须与非法律政策相结合。例如,在不提议或修改立法或条例的情况下,可以将更多的资金用于开发传感器和培训医务人员。因此,法律举措应被视为减少恐怖主义机会、加强侦查、集中资源和阻止那些反对严厉惩罚的恐怖分子的更大政策反应的一部分。劳对防止生物恐怖主义的贡献虽然有限,但至关重要。不幸的是,时间并不站在天使这一边。因此,这篇文章是一个行动的号召。本文的第一部分综合了大量关于生物恐怖主义的文献,(2)描述了可以使用的各种疾病以及这些疾病如何实现不同的目标。第二部分和第三部分发展了本文的论点,即生物恐怖主义的威胁需要一套精心定制的二维政策来减少生物威胁,但并不证明激进的新提议是合理的。拟议的法规修改可能会限制有用材料和设备的可用性,并增加检测的成本和可能性。第二部分提出了一个监管议程,注意不要使生物制药行业负担过重,这将增加获得病原体和武器化技术的障碍。由于这些管制措施并非完全预防(即恐怖分子仍可能获得致命药剂),执法政策的修改应发现、调查和阻止克服管制障碍并准备武器的恐怖分子。第三部分讨论了秘密生物恐怖主义给执法部门带来的独特问题,并提出了在不侵犯公民自由和隐私权的情况下更好地识别生物恐怖主义威胁的措施。简而言之,最好的策略是双管齐下:拒绝获得生物武器的能力,如果获得了能力,在袭击之前逮捕恐怖分子。法律措施不能保证预防生物恐怖主义,但如果与加强病原体相关的研究和开发、改进官员之间的规划和沟通以及先进的情报能力相结合,这里描述的措施可能会大大降低风险。许多与生物恐怖主义无关的主题没有在这里讨论,要么是因为法律不能显著地解决这些问题,要么是因为即使解决了,法律也不能实质性地减少生物恐怖主义的风险。本文不讨论涉及反恐政策的一系列广泛问题。(3)本文也不评估促进加强致病性研究的优点,也不考虑储存疫苗的适当水平;这些问题最好由医学界和药学界来解决。(4)本文将不讨论加强外国情报的必要性;关键信息不公开,法律措施也不会产生太大影响。(5)本文也不涉及攻击发生后的应对准备;这些措施是必要的,但无助于防止攻击。(6)生物武器的国际扩散和为制止其扩散而进行的谈判努力涉及大量问题,这些问题基本上超出了本条的范围,值得单独注意。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biological Terrorism: Legal Measures for Preventing Catastrophe
Biological terrorism is a truly despicable subject, raising nightmares of primal fear. Disease -- plague, smallpox, and other decimating maladies -- is dire trauma embedded in humanity's collective consciousness. Now, when the threat of thermonuclear holocaust may be ebbing, a few zealots or criminals can kill thousands (or more) and destabilize social order by revealing that no government, even that of superpower America, can protect its citizenry. A biological attack means that everyone is vulnerable. This is terrorism nonpareil. This Article's agenda is modest: Set forth legal initiatives that might reduce the risks of bioterrorism, recognizing that those initiatives must be combined with nonlegal policies. For example, more money to develop sensors and to train medical personnel could be advantageously spent without proposing or amending legislation or regulations. Legal initiatives should be seen, therefore, as only part of a larger policy response to reduce terrorism opportunities, strengthen detection, focus resources, and deter those terrorists who are averse to harsh penalties.(1) The agenda here is also overt. Law's contribution to preventing bioterrorism, though limited, is crucial. And time, unfortunately, is not on the side of the angels. This Article, therefore, is a call to action. Part I of this Article synthesizes the vast literature on bioterrorism,(2) describing various diseases that could be used and how those diseases might fulfill different objectives. Part II and Part III develop this Article's thesis that threats of bioterrorism call for a two-dimensional set of carefully tailored policies to reduce biological threats, but do not justify radical new overtures. Proposed regulatory modifications can restrict the availability of useful materials and equipment and increase the cost and likelihood of detection. Part II advances a regulatory agenda, mindful to not over-burden the bio-pharmaceutical industry, that would raise barriers to obtaining pathogens and weaponization technology. Since these regulatory measures are not perfectly prophylactic (i.e. terrorists might still gain deadly agents), modifications of law enforcement policies should detect, investigate, and stop terrorists who overcome the regulatory barriers and prepare weapons. Part III discusses the unique problems that clandestine biological terrorism presents for law enforcement and recommends measures to better identify bioterrorism threats without overstepping civil liberties and privacy rights. Put simply, the best strategy is two-pronged: Deny access to biological weapons capabilities, and-if capabilities are obtained -- apprehend the terrorist before attack. Legal measures offer no guarantee for preventing bioterrorism, but the measures described here might substantially diminish risks when combined with enhanced pathogen-relevant research and development, improved planning and communication among officials, and advanced intelligence capabilities. Many topics tangentially relevant to biological terrorism are not discussed here, either because law cannot significantly address them or because, even if addressed, law cannot materially diminish the risks of biological terrorism. This Article will not discuss the broad array of issues that span counter-terrorism policy.(3) Neither will it assess the merits of promoting enhanced research on pathogenicity nor consider the appropriate levels of stockpiled vaccines; these questions are better addressed by the medical and pharmaceutical communities.(4) This Article will not discuss the need for enhanced foreign intelligence; crucial information is not publicly available, and legal measures would not make much difference.(5) Nor will this article address preparations to respond after an attack happens; those measures are necessary but do not serve to prevent the attack.(6) A vast set of issues, substantially outside the scope of this Article and meriting separate attention, concerns the international proliferation of biological weapons and negotiated efforts to stanch their spread. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信