By: Maggie Li, Student Reporter*

Actors have technologically advanced their use of weapons, increasing casualties of war as these advancements occur. One example, bacteriological and toxic weapons, leads to tragic loss of life, food, economic stability and environmental damage. In order to prevent the worst-case scenario, some Member States signed and entered the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Yet, looking back to the United Nations history, there is a lack of comprehensive accountability mechanisms to encourage compliance from Member States, in abiding by regulations and collaborating in nonproliferation, which GA First plans to address. 

In light of these considerations, Member States debate the biological weapons flood in the GA First. Members hold different positions on prohibiting, supervising and trading biological weapons. The Representatives of New Zealand, Australia and Malta shared perspectives on not having biological weapons and on accountability toward real change; therefore, they formed a bloc to further explore these options. While the Representative of Congo and many of the African Members differ somewhat in position, as they want biological weapons regulated and call for oversight and emphasis on understanding the difference between biological weapons and technology. As for trading biotechnology, the Representative of Bulgaria suggests creating trade groups and monitoring them via trading data. After illustrating Member States’ opinions on biological technology and weapons, GA First set about merging ideas in order to make consensus.

_{The views and opinions expressed in this article were part of simulation of the United Nations held from 18 to 21 November 2023 and do not reflect the views and opinions of the American Model United Nations Conference, American Model United Nations International, LLC., *National Chengchi University or the governing bodies of the states mentioned in the article.}