Disarmament!and!International!Security!...

MUNCH 2014: Disarmament and Security Committee

Model United Nations at Chapel Hill (MUNCH) 2014 – Carolina International Relations Association

Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC)

Carolina International Relations Association


Welcome from the Committee Directors

Dear delegates,

Hello and welcome to MUNCH 2014! I’m Srihita Bongu, a freshman at UNC-‐CH, and I’m thrilled be your chair for the Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC).

Let me introduce myself further. I’m currently studying Chemistry and Economics as a double major at UNC, and am particularly fascinated by the interplay of neuroscience with genetics. When I’m not studying for my tests or doing homework, which is often as I’m a chronic procrastinator, I spend most of my time practicing piano, which I’ve been learning since I was 9, gaming, or out and about on Franklin Street.

It is my distinct pleasure and honor to be directing the committee of DISEC this session. As you may know already, we will be discussing the following topics:

I. Reforms in the UNSC II. Nuclear Globalism III. Counter-‐Terrorism

Before I delve the reasons why my co-‐chair and I have chosen these topics, I’d like to note that you have the unique privilege of participating in the General Assembly, the only platform in the UN in which all 193 member states congregate and hold equal representation. The effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council and its cascading influence on all other UN organs, the powerful, bilateral ramifications of nuclear technology, and our continuing fight against the various manifestations of terrorism are all pressing issues to the global community. Thus, my co-‐chair and I strongly believe they must accordingly be addressed through international collaboration in the DISEC, an organ that is most versatile and egalitarian.

We hope these topics will stimulate dynamic debate and motivate you to think outside the box as you tackle these issues, and, in particular, attempt to find and explore intersections of the agendas at hand. In the following weeks, my co-‐chair and I strongly encourage you to become familiar with your member state in order to do your delegation justice and generate convincing arguments in committee. In addition, as these topics are at the forefront of news today, it is important that you reach out to sources apart from the study guide to develop a solid and up-‐to-‐date knowledge base. Please do not hesitate to email me with any questions and concerns.

Sincerely,

Srihita Bongu (chair)

[email protected]

Dear Delegates,


Delegates,

My name is James Collette and I am pleased to welcome you to the committee of DISEC at MUNCH 2014!

I am a freshman here at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and am currently majoring in Public Policy and Peace, War, and Defense. My career goals include working for United Stated Department of State, becoming an international ambassador at an embassy in another country, or working under the administrations of up and coming politicians or political groups.

I previously attended MUNCH last year as a competing delegate in the DISEC committee from my high school Model United Nations class. I enjoyed last year’s event, and couldn’t help but want to be involved this year.

As co-‐chair of this committee, I’d just like to outline some guidelines I expect all participating delegates to follow. Be respectful of fellow delegates, as well as the chair and myself, speak only when it is your time or you have been called on, follow proper parliamentary procedure during the session, and most importantly be creative and have fun. I’m excited to see you at MUNCH ’14!

Best,

James Collette (co-‐chair)

[email protected]


Topic 1: Reforms in the United Nations Security Council

Since it held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Westminster, London, the United Nations Security Council has been pivotal in the conduct of international relations. Founded towards the end of the Second World War, the UNSC has remained essentially unchanged in the midst of a rapidly shifting geopolitical climate that involved decolonization, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and ever increasing globalization to say the least. There have been attempts to modernize the goals and functions of the UNSC since; however, the five Permanent Members have persistently and successfully resisted them.

I. Its Pivotal Role

As explicitly stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter, the UNSC is the primary organ of the UN responsible for international peace and security. As the only organ whose decisions possess legal authority, the UNSC’s resolutions are binding upon all members of the United Nations. It is a common misconception that other organs, such as the General Assembly, hold the same


binding powers, but this authority is applicable only the UNSC. Decisions made by other bodies are simply recommendations.

Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter outline the specific powers of the UNSC. The Council must first attempt to settle disputes using peaceful, non-‐military means, but if they prove ineffective, it has the mandate “to take action, by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary” in order to carry out its role of upholding the peace. It is of paramount importance to note here that international peace and security can be extrapolated to the right to sovereignty that every state is deemed to have. When this sovereignty of a self-‐determined, independent, and inviolable state is violated, it falls upon the Council to secure and restore that state’s territorial integrity.

If need be, the UNSC has the full legal authority to exercise armed force to implement its resolutions. Although the Council itself does not possess an army, the Charter gives it the jurisdiction to employ the armed forces of its member States for use.

II. The Veto

When the Security Council was first established in San Francisco, it consisted of some elected members and some Permanent ones. The Permanent Five, or P5, consisted of the “victors” from WWII – the United Kingdom, the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Republic of China, and France. These states were able to argue for and garner powers that elected Members did not share despite severe opposition; this is because their powers at the time were so great that without their unity and cooperation, the organization could simply not exist. The special powers awarded to the P5 included the clearly implied permanency of their positions as well as the power of the veto.

The veto is perhaps the most simple but also powerful tool at a P5 Member’s disposal for the following reasons:

v The veto can be used over any binding resolutions that address Article 25 v They can also be used over the recommendation of the UN Secretary-‐General by the

General Assembly v They can control the electors from the applications for membership of the UN v They can veto any amendments to the Charter v “Double vetoes” can be used. These occur when a P5 member has the power to make a

ruling on whether a matter is of procedural or substantive character. Procedural decisions are voted on through simple majority, while substantive decisions allow further exercise of the veto power. In the words of a Representative of Australia,


considering a scenario where he was Permanent Member: “not only can I veto the decision of the Council, but I will determine which I will veto.”

v Threatened veto, which is the ever-‐present influence and leverage of the veto power used in informal and private discussions within the Council.

v Vetoes can also be cast in the defense of a non-‐Permanent member, who may be a client state for a P5 member. During the Cold War, the majority of the vetoes were cast by the USSR and USA, each on the behalf of Eastern European states and Israel respectively.

v Vetoes create a “cascade effect.” The fact that the UNSC is the only authority to make legal, binding decisions and further considering the fact the P5 have an uncontested power over the Council collectively, allows the power of the veto to be felt throughout the UN, throughout every agency, Commissions, and Committee.

An Aside if you will….

Although the General Assembly adopted the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution 377 in 1950 to overrule the vetoes of the SC whenever it fails to maintain international peace, it is after all a precautionary clause and emergency sessions cannot be called on every occasion of disagreement within the Council.

There is great variation in the interpretation of the powers of the P5. Some consider them to be an enormous responsibility, which are justly and well placed. Meanwhile others consider them to be an abuse of power and more frequently than not, are aimed towards protecting selfish, national interests.


III. The Dynamics of Politics

Yet others simply feel that the Security Council, particularly the P5, is no longer representative of the political climate in the world today. Since its establishment in San Francisco, a mere 4 members have been added to the Security Council. In the meantime, the member state population of the UN has grown from 50 states to 193. Several of these perhaps new, independent states bring a variety of cultural diversity and political experience to the mixture, and have populations and economies significant to global commerce, none of which are proportionally represented in the membership of the Security Council or the P5 constituency.

IV. Areas of Reform

A. Membership: Currently there are four regional electoral groups for the non-‐permanent members of the council, each elected seat carrying for two terms. (Africa and Asia: 5; East Europe: 1; Latin America and the Caribbean: 2; Western European and Others group: 2). The candidates are put to vote by the General Assembly, with a two-‐thirds majority required for the installment of an elector. Problems with this model are the under allocation of vast and populating regions of the world such as Latin America and Asia as well as the over representation of certain regions such as Western Europe, which already regionally holds two of the five P5 positions. The current model is a blatant misrepresentation of today’s world on a number of levels.

B. Controversial Decision-‐Making: There have been grave concerns about the differential treatment of issues that threaten international peace based on their region of origin. For example, events in Western Europe or oil-‐producing regions tend to get more attention than humanitarian emergencies in Africa. Not to say that the Council has not had its successes, but its repeated failure to treat all issues equally due to a P5’s members’ self-‐interests has given the UNSC a tarnished record. It is also alarming to see vetoes used as favors, which is a blatant and unfair abuse of P5 privileges. The UNSC’s methodology is in dire need of reform, in particular regarding the usage of veto powers and necessary unanimity for resolutions to pass.

C. Centrality of the P5: A few decades ago, a state’s relative power in the world was determined by its military strength. However, given the nature of global problems today, including, but not limited to, organized crime, terrorism, and modern slavery, these problems cannot be solved through conventional military strength, but cooperation by international actors. These are the sorts of issues that challenge peace and security today more so than the possible outbreak of war; therefore, the P5 alone are not equipped to resolve these issues. In fact, it is virtually impossible to tackle these issues without the collaboration of the international community as a whole.


V. Previous Initiatives for Reform

Overall, the proposed solutions call for increased representation and decision-‐making power for electors in the Security Council. Talks in the General Assembly about necessary reforms in the Security Council have been ongoing since 1993. Though they were hotly debated, these talks made little progress. Although the P5 is generally opposed to expansion of membership and dilution of their power, there have been recent bids of support from the Permanent Members.

However, the simple ascension of more Permanent Members does not solve the problem. In the 1990’s the Coffee Club proposed that there be more parity in regional representation; this movement was revitalized in the 2000’s by Italy under a new name: Uniting for Consensus. The group Small Five (S-‐5) including the nations of Costa Rica, Jordan, Lichtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland, also put forth a series of proposals that demanded greater transparency and coordination between the UNSC and others organs of the UN. The African Union, another bloc, suggested expansion in the sense that veto powers should be awarded to new permanent members. In 2004, Secretary-‐General Kofi Annan proposed some landmark changes to the


UNSC, and reiterated and pushed the two models suggested in his plans again in 2005, but without much success.

Questions to Consider

Does your country have a stance on possible reforms in the Security Council?

If so, what kind of initiatives has it taken? If not, why?

What are the views that other countries in your region adopted?

Suggested Readings

"Global Policy Forum." Security Council Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Jan. 2014.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-‐council/security-‐council-‐reform.html

Rothwell, Sonia. "Security Council Reform: Why It Matters and Why It's Not Happening.” OpenDemocracy. N.p., 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Jan. 2014.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/sonia-‐rothwell/security-‐council-‐reform-‐why-‐it-‐matters-‐and-‐why-‐its-‐not-‐happening

Laub, Zachary. "The UN Security Council." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 06 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.

http://www.cfr.org/international-‐organizations-‐and-‐alliances/un-‐security-‐council/p31649


Topic 2: Nuclear Globalism

What is Nuclear Power?

Harnessing the energy created by nuclear fission produces nuclear power. What is nuclear fission? In basic terms, nuclear fission occurs when the nucleus of an atom is split, releasing a great amount of energy. Humans are able to use this energy in the production of nuclear weapons or to create heat and electricity through nuclear reactors. The reactors’ purpose is to create nuclear power by splitting the nucleus of uranium atoms from rods insides the reactor. Once done, these rods are lowered into tanks of water in order to cool them, which heat the water into steam, which can be used to drive turbines that produce electricity. Nuclear power accounted for 5.7% of the world’s energy and 13% of the world’s electricity in 2012. The reason why many nations have harnessed nuclear energy is that they do not to burn fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, to create energy, such as heat and electricity. The main disadvantage of nuclear energy is the volatile nature of the energy released by nuclear fission. When the process of creating nuclear energy goes wrong and a reactor containing uranium rods overheats, explosions are known to happen and radioactive waste can spill; both effecting the native population surround the plants. Examples of these disasters include the meltdowns at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Christmas Island, and most recently in Fukushima, Japan.


Three Mile Incident

Disaster at Fukushima March 11, 2011


History of Nuclear Weapons

The emergence of nuclear power used for war began during World War II. After Germany surrendered in May 1945, the only Axis power that had still not surrendered was Japan. In an effort to end the war, the United States Army Air Forces dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The first, deemed “Little Boy”, was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Japan still refused to surrender to the Ally forces, and so the second bomb, “Fat Man”, was dropped on Nagasaki three days later. Japan then agreed to surrender on August 15, and the war officially ended on September 2nd, 1945. The bombs cost Japan hundreds of thousands of lives, and the effects of radiation lasted for decades. Whether the decision to drop the bombs was considered an ethical end to the war remains highly debated. No nuclear weapons have been used during wartime in recorded history since.

Nuclear Arms Race

After the end of WWII and the formation of the United Nations in 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union began what has become known as the “Nuclear Arms Race” as a part of the Cold war between the two nations and their respective allies. Both nations desired nuclear supremacy after several disagreements on how to regulate nuclear weapons came up within UN talks. During the Arms Race, the two countries, along with their allies came up with, tested, and mass produced various forms of nuclear technology such as of bombs, missiles, launchers, as well as defense mechanisms in case one side chose to use any of the technology against the other.

Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

After a decade of unrest and revolution in Cuba, Fidel Castro’s rebel group took control of the island and its government, forming a Communist nation in 1959. After the United States placed nuclear arms in Turkey and Italy aimed at Moscow, the Soviet Union immediately chose to cultivate a relationship with Castro’s Cuba. Cuba then agreed to let the Soviet Union put nuclear weapons and launchers on their soil aimed at the US to deter any US attacks on Moscow in exchange for trade benefits. US spy planes over Cuba spotted the Soviet launchers


and on October 15th President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade around the island nation in an attempt to intimidate Cuba into ending their alliance with the USSR and to remove the Soviet missiles. The Soviet Union also put up a naval blockade and USSR Leader Nikita Khrushchev sent a message that the US actions were an “act of aggression” and could lead to war. With tensions high between the United and States and the Soviet Union, this was the closest the two nuclear weapons-‐rich nations have ever come to a “Nuclear War”. On October 28th, an agreement was reached between the two parties, ending the confrontation under the agreement that the Soviets would remove all nuclear missiles from Cuba, the United States would never invade Cuba, and that the United States would remove all their missiles aimed at Moscow in Italy and Turkey.

End to the Arms Race and Nuclear Proliferation

The Cold War and the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union dwindled down in the 1980s, marked by several small disarmament agreements, such as the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, calling for the elimination of certain classes of nuclear weapons, as well as decreased nuclear warhead stockpiles in both countries. The official end of the Cold War and the Arms Race was marked by the dissolving of the Soviet Union on December 8th, 1991.

Chart showing US and USSR warhead stockpiles

during and after the Cold War.


Nuclear proliferation is the spread of fissionable material, weapons-‐applicable nuclear technology, nuclear weapons, and information to nations not recognized as “Nuclear Weapon States” (NWS) under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty was drawn up due to the possible global risks of proliferation. These risks include, but are not limited to: increased tensions between countries with poor relations, power struggles, and the possibility of use of weapons in wartime activities. The treaty sets the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) as the designated Nuclear Weapon States, declaring that all states, including NWS must move towards disarmament, that every state has the right to peaceful nuclear technologies, and NWS will share nuclear technology for such peaceful uses. NWS are not required to share nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to states that are not signatories of the treaty. Current States that are not a part of the treaty include: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Sudan, and North Korea. Though there are only five states that are not signatories, many states such as Iran are thought to be in non-‐compliance with the terms of the treaty.

Current Situation

In recent years, tensions between countries around the globe, especially in the Middle East, have caused concern within the United Nations about the stability of peace and relationships in the region, such as the states of Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan. This concern has also lead member states of the UN to ask other questions. Under the NPT, what peaceful nuclear technology should be considered to be enriching a nation, or arming it? Four of the five non-‐signatory states are thought to have nuclear weapons. What should be done in regards to these states? Are the NWS still moving towards disarmament? Currently, all five NWS are reluctant to disarm a combined stockpile of at least 22,000 weapons. The remaining concern is particular states’ lack of transparency about their nuclear programs (Iran, Israel, North Korea, etc.). The UN has little to no knowledge of the nuclear programs in these countries, and whether they plan to use the technology peacefully or not. These are the questions and points delegates should be prepared to research, discuss, and come up with solutions for during committee.



What is your country’s current stance on nuclear technology and disarmament? Does your state possess nuclear arms?

Who has the right to nuclear technology, and how should it this technology be regulated in the future by the United Nations?

Should the current Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) be the only nations to be allowed to possess nuclear arms?

NWS have not shown interest or motivation in complete disarmament enacted by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, as combined, they still possess over 22, 000 nuclear weapons. Should new, United Nations legislation be considered on how to acknowledge and effectively deal with this problem?

Suggested Readings

"UNODA -‐ Non-‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml

"UN Chief Encourages Conference on Disarmament to Live up to World’s Expectations." UN News Center. UN, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2014. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46972&Cr=disarmament&Cr1=#.UxKchvRdWf8

"UNODA -‐ Non-‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/

"UNODA -‐ Non-‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/


Topic 3: Counter-‐Terrorism

The 11 September terrorist attacks at the start of the 21st century demonstrated new global threats and the challenges that international terrorism presents. Weeks later, on 28 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1373 to prevent and criminalize funding of terrorism, while establishing a Counter-‐Terrorism Committee (CTC) to enforce the enactment of the resolution. Acts of terrorism have continued since the terrorist attacks of 2001, including those in the London Underground, Moscow Metro, and Baghdad UN headquarters. The Security Council has continued to act against these tragic occurrences with motions such as resolution 1540 and the Global Project against Terrorism, as it is the duty of the United Nations to take measures against terrorism at all levels.


About the Counter-‐Terrorism Committee

A. Composition: Each committee is comprised of fifteen member states (identical to the members of the Security Council), with the five permanent members being: China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States. The remaining members are currently Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Libya, Vietnam, Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda. These states all operate on a two-‐year term. Each country has one vote, and the veto power does not apply to either the CTC or the 1540 Committee.

B. Responsibilities: Because terrorism is transnational and so widespread, UN has established several committees, which specialize in particular sects of terrorism. One of these committees is the Counter-‐Terrorism Committee. This committee was established by UNSC/R 1373, the Security Council resolution passed in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Part of the CTC’s responsibility involves monitoring whether states are adhering to stipulations that incorporate international human rights law into their counter-‐terrorism efforts. The CTC reports to the UNSC also identify gaps and recommend how to balance civil liberties with national security. The 1540 Committee, conversely, was established by the Security as part of UNSCR/1540, a resolution that legally obligates all states to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. The 1540 Committee deals mostly with counter-‐nuclear terrorism, while the CTC deals with rights and terrorism.

C. Powers: These committees do not have the ability to pass resolutions. They report to the UNSC with recommendations to the UNSC on how to fully implement the resolutions.

Counter-‐Nuclear Terrorism

Quite simply, nuclear weapons can be defined as “weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that are powered by nuclear reaction.” They are capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Currently, there are five nuclear weapon states. As stated in the Nuclear Non-‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the permanent five are: The United States, The Russian Federation, The United Kingdom, China and France. However, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all either: alleged, undeclared or known nuclear states. Although the NPT deals with state-‐state nuclear threats, in terms of the


CTC, the threat is when nuclear weapons get into the hands of non-‐state actors. Many experts believe that technically sophisticated terrorists could, without state support, fabricate a nuclear bomb from highly-‐enriched uranium (HEU). HEU is the main ingredient in the production of nuclear weapons. This new method of terrorism is expensive, and terrorists must have access to criminal networks to finance their operations. Thus, nuclear weapons and nuclear technology is vulnerable to theft and internal corruption if proper safeguards by nuclear states are not properly put in place. Although the chances of this are slim, the consequences of this happening would be devastating. Therefore, high-‐nuclear security measures are of utmost importance.

The role of the UN regarding counter-‐nuclear terrorism is similar to an umbrella-‐group reaching across several layers of issues. The UN’s branches include: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (Nuclear Terrorism Convention), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as the CTED, 1540 Committee, and several other resolutions and committees enabling the UN to mediate this potentially global threat.

Indeed it is challenging to secure international peace and security with respect to nuclear terrorism, especially when it involves gathering intelligence in states that have nuclear weapons and/or nuclear weapon technology. States would worry about providing each other with congenial conditions for their operations. I urge the committee to think about frameworks that can foster collaboration on nuclear efforts while protecting the sovereignty of individual states.

Although States have access to nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, fear that HEU may get into the hands of non-‐state actors is prevalent and justified. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) was announced by the US and Russia in July 2006 and subsequently endorsed by G8 leaders at the St. Petersburg Summit in 2007. This document focuses on eight key areas:

1. protection systems;

2. security of civilian nuclear facilities;

3. detection and prevention of illicit trafficking;

4. capabilities for search, seizure and control over unlawfully held material;


5. capabilities for response, mitigation and investigation of terrorist attacks;

6. prevention of the provision of safe haven or resources to terrorists;

7. national legal and regulatory frameworks; and

8. information sharing.

Terrorism and Human Rights Violations

According to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR), “human rights are universal values and legal guarantees that protect individuals and groups against actions and omissions primarily by State agents that interfere with fundamental freedoms, entitlements and human dignity.” This is reflected in a number of international treaties and the fact that many rights and freedoms have become part of Customary International Law. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter empowers the UN Security Council as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations.

Terrorism, as understood by the UNHCR, includes “acts of violence against civilians in the pursuit of political or ideological aims.” Legally however, there is no comprehensive


international definition of terrorism. The United Nations and the international community have instead passed multiple documents -‐ international Conventions, Protocols and Resolutions -‐ which categorize the forms of terrorism that are deemed illegal. The General Assembly is working on a more comprehensive Convention on Terrorism to work in conjunction with the existing Conventions, Resolutions and Protocols; this has not yet been presented to the Assembly.

Regardless of the lack of a legal definition, the international community agrees that terrorism is an infringement upon human rights. The duty of states to protect individuals in their jurisdiction from infringements upon human rights also extends to the protection of citizens from terrorist attacks. However, counter-‐terrorist measures can themselves be a violation of international human rights laws. This includes illegal detention of civilians, torture, illegal restriction of movement, and any other methods, which, without just cause, remove an individual’s right to ‘life, liberty and physical integrity.’ According to the Human Rights Watch the following countries have been found to be violating human rights under counter-‐terrorism measures: Australia, Belarus, China, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Macedonia, Malaysia, Russia, Syria, United States, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe. Thus, states are also required to integrate human rights law into their counter-‐terrorist measures to ensure that they are not themselves violating an individual’s rights.

The key UN treaty that relates to the subject of human rights and terrorism is Security Council Resolution 1624, which “deals with incitement, stresses that States must ensure that any measures they take to implement the resolution comply with all of their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law.

With terrorism being such a ubiquitous issue, efforts towards intensifying counter-‐terrorism measures should come from autonomous as well as collective actions taken by the international community. Member states of the DISEC should look to examine the current (nuclear-‐related) terrorist threats their citizens face, what existing initiatives are in place to mitigate these threats and secure the safety of their citizens, and what other actions can be taken internally or externally to fight this global “War on Terror.”



What stance does your state adopt with regards to a nuclear weapons program? What about with regards to counter nuclear terrorism?

If your state has nuclear energy/weapons, what measures has it taken to safeguard them from corruption and criminal organizations?

What has your state’s response been to the Security Council’s Resolutions? Has your state ever supplied information to/visited by/or denied a visit to the CTC?

What kind of intra-‐ and inter-‐governmental efforts does your state undertake in order to curb terrorism?

Suggested Readings

"UN Counter-‐Terrorism Committee." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/

"United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism, Counter-‐terrorism, Global Counter-‐terrorism Strategy, General Assembly and Counter-‐terrorism, Secretary-‐general and Counter Terrorism, SG, UN, SC, Terrorism, GA, General Assembly." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.

http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/

"Counter-‐Terrorism Implementation Task Force, CTITF." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2014.

http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/

"International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism | Treaties & Regimes | NTI." NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.

http://www.nti.org/treaties-‐and-‐regimes/international-‐convention-‐suppression-‐acts-‐nuclear-‐terrorism/


Works Cited

"Global Policy Forum." Security Council Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Jan. 2014.

<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-‐council/security-‐council-‐reform.html>

Rothwell, Sonia. "Security Council Reform: Why It Matters and Why It's Not Happening.” OpenDemocracy. N.p., 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Jan. 2014.

<http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/sonia-‐rothwell/security-‐council-‐reform-‐why-‐it-‐matters-‐and-‐why-‐its-‐not-‐happening>

Laub, Zachary. "The UN Security Council." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 06 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.

<http://www.cfr.org/international-‐organizations-‐and-‐alliances/un-‐security-‐council/p31649>

"UNODA -‐ Non-‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml>

"UN Chief Encourages Conference on Disarmament to Live up to World’s Expectations." UN News Center. UN, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46972&Cr=disarmament&Cr1=#.UxKchvRdWf8>


<http://www.un.org/disarmament/>


<http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/>

"UN Counter-‐Terrorism Committee." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/>

"United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism, Counter-‐terrorism, Global Counter-‐terrorism Strategy, General Assembly and Counter-‐terrorism, Secretary-‐general and Counter


Terrorism, SG, UN, SC, Terrorism, GA, General Assembly." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/>

"Counter-‐Terrorism Implementation Task Force, CTITF." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2014.

<http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/>

"International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism | Treaties & Regimes | NTI." NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.

<http://www.nti.org/treaties-‐and-‐regimes/international-‐convention-‐suppression-‐acts-‐nuclear-‐terrorism/>

Disarmament!and!International!Security!...

Documents

Transcript of Disarmament!and!International!Security!...