Biosecurity as national security: A comparative analysis of biosecurity strategies in the United States, China, and the European Union

Authors

  • Dr. Sultan Salah Ud Din PhD in International Relations, Department of Politics and International Relations, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan Author

Keywords:

Biosecurity, National Security, Securitization Theory, Global Health Governance, Biotechnology, United States, China, European Union

Abstract

Biosecurity has increasingly moved beyond the traditional domain of public health to become an important component of national security. This shift raises questions about how major political actors define biological threats and translate them into national and international policy. This study comparatively examines how the United States, China, and the European Union (EU) conceptualize, institutionalize, and implement biosecurity policies related to pandemics, biotechnology risks, and bioterrorism. Drawing on securitization theory and the global health security literature, the study uses a comparative qualitative analysis of relevant policies, strategies, and institutional arrangements. It finds that all three actors increasingly frame biological threats as major security concerns, but they differ in their threat perceptions, institutional structures, and approaches to balancing security with scientific and economic openness. The United States increasingly links biosecurity to strategic competition and supply-chain security; China integrates it within a broader national-security framework; while the EU emphasizes collective resilience, institutional coordination, and strategic autonomy. These differences demonstrate that the securitization of biosecurity is not producing a single global model but rather distinct governance approaches shaped by different political and strategic contexts. The analysis further shows that these approaches have important implications for global health governance, scientific cooperation, international coordination, and the implementation of the 2025 WHO Pandemic Agreement. The study concludes that securitization can strengthen national preparedness and institutional capacity, but excessive emphasis on national control and strategic competition may weaken the international cooperation required to manage biological risks that transcend national borders.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bengtsson, L., & Rhinard, M. (2019). Securitisation across borders: The case of 'health security' cooperation in the European Union. West European Politics, 42(2), 346-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510198

Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Cepa. (2026, April 15). The new national security risk: Biotech. Center for European Policy Analysis. https://cepa.org/article/the-new-national-security-risk-biotech/

Duan, W. (2024). Securitising biotic risk: Reframing biosecurity in China. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.386

Elbe, S. (2006). Should HIV/AIDS be securitized? The ethical dilemmas of linking HIV/AIDS and security. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 119–144.

Enemark, C. (2009). Is pandemic flu a security threat? Survival, 51(1), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330902749798

European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority (HERA): Getting ready for future health emergencies. (2021, September 22). European Union External Action Service. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/104487_me

Fidler, D. P. (2007). Architecture amidst anarchy: Global health's quest for governance. Global Health Governance, 1(1), 1–17.

Foley Hoag LLP. (2025, December 18). Congress passes BIOSECURE Act: Here's what you need to know.https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/publications/alerts-and-updates/2025/december/congress-passes-biosecure-act-here-s-what-you-need-to-know/

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. (2025, December 11). The new WHO pandemic treaty and global health governance: Incorporating common but differentiated responsibilities into PABS. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2025/12/11/the-new-who-pandemic-treaty-and-global-health-governance-incorporating-common-but-differentiated-responsibilities-into-pabs/

International Peace Institute Global Observatory. (2025, May 21). A new pandemic agreement: Multilateralism under strain, but still standing. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/05/a-new-pandemic-agreement-multilateralism-under-strain-but-still-standing/

Jamestown Foundation. (2021, August 17). China's new biosecurity law gives limited insight into government priorities and next steps. https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-new-biosecurity-law-gives-limited-insight-into-government-priorities-and-next-steps/

McInnes, C., & Rushton, S. (2013). HIV/AIDS and securitization theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111425258

McMahon, A. M. (2025). Intellectual property rights and global access to health technologies during pandemics: Reflecting on vaccine nationalism, COVID-19 and the WHO Pandemic Agreement negotiations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10149

National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. (2020, October 17). Biosecurity Law of the People's Republic of China. http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/2020-10/17/c_703568.htm

Preparing Europe for future health threats and crises: The European Health Emergency and Preparedness Authority. (2022). Frontiers in Public Health / PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9693794/

Public Health, European Commission. (2022, February 10). European Health Union: HERA launches first work plan with €1.3 billion for preparedness and response to health emergencies in 2022 [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/

Substack. (2024, November). Drawing battle lines in US-China biotech relations: Issue Voter bill of the month. https://billtrack50.substack.com/p/drawing-battle-lines-in-us-china

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2022, October 18). The 2022 National Biodefense Strategy builds upon administration S&T priorities for pandemic preparedness. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/10/18/the-2022-national-biodefense-strategy-builds-upon-administration-st-priorities-for-pandemic-preparedness/

United States Congress. (2024). H.R.7085 — BIOSECURE Act, 118th Congress (2023-2024). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7085/text

World Health Organization. (2025). WHO Pandemic Agreement. https://www.who.int/health-topics/who-pandemic-agreement

Yin, H. (2024, June 7). Political logic and U.S. biosecurity. China-US Focus. https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/political-logic-and-us-biosecurity.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-13

Issue

Section

Articles

Categories

How to Cite

Din, S. S. U. (2026). Biosecurity as national security: A comparative analysis of biosecurity strategies in the United States, China, and the European Union. Journal of Climate and Community Development, 5(1), 175-184. https://joccd.com/index.php/joccd/article/view/130