DISEC Background Guide Hello delegates!

My name is Charlie Peskin and I’m the chair of the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC)! I am a sophomore here at Tufts and I have been participating in Model UN since I was a sophomore in high school. I’m from Atlanta, Georgia but I’m currently living in Boston year-round.

I hope you are all as excited for this committee as I am! This will be my first time chairing a conference after attending six conferences in high school and two conferences last year with the Tufts Model UN team. My Model UN experience has been a blast, and that's why I’m so excited to see you all participate at this year’s TUMUN Conference. Representing countries from Kazakhstan to the Marshall Islands, on issues such as landmine usage and the ivory trade, my Model UN experience has afforded me a more global perspective, something that I hope that you all can take away from this conference.

Please feel free to contact me prior to the conference if you have any questions! I am here

to help. Before my first conference as a high school student I was definitely quite nervous and could have used some guidance.

I hope you all have fun conducting your research and I look forward to reading everyone’s

position papers! Sincerely, Charlie Peskin

Committee Information This committee, the committee on Disarmament and International Security, is known as the First Committee of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the main body of the UN, and these committees, including DISEC, debate and pass resolutions in an attempt to foster positive change worldwide. Along with the other five General Assembly committees, this committee began with the founding of the United Nations in 1945. The divisions within the General Assembly are why this committee is focused only on certain issues. The main goals of this particular committee are to foster international peace and security by addressing this issues head on, as well as looking into the issues of disarmament, which lead into peace as well. The non-binding resolutions passed within this committee do end up affecting real change and are paid attention to by many main global players, as they help to shift the direction in which the world is going towards a more peaceful coexistence For our purposes, as this committee is in the General Assembly, issues will first be debated before they are formed into draft resolutions, which are then edited and voted on as full resolutions, calling for some sort of lasting change. It is my hope that this committee will be able to emulate what goes on every October in New York at the annual DISEC meeting in helping to usher in a more peaceful future. Topic 1: Non-UN-Sanctioned Military Intervention Since the creation of the United Nations in the wake of World War II, the organization has sought to regulate military action around the world to prevent unjustified conflict. Often times, however, countries will choose to ignore the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations and proceed with violence

in cases they deem necessary for their interests and the interests of the nations that they intervene in. The allowance of any military action by the United Nations comes from a vote by the UN Security Council. Issues arise with this, because any proposal for action can be easily shut down, requiring only one veto from one of the permanent members, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), France, Russia, or China, for it to fail, making approval something that countries can see as unnecessary or irrelevant.1 In this committee, we will discuss the current implications of one of these Security Council mandates, and the repercussions that can or should occur with a failure to comply with them. This committee, beginning July 1st 2015, will seek to solve this issue.

Source: Snipview2 UN-sanctioned military intervention began shortly after the creation of the organization itself. This occurred after the first authorized peacekeeping missions, which were put into place to stem conflicts that had either ended or were not seen to need a strong force to be stopped. The first ever full scale military intervention approved by the UN Security Council was the Korean War. In 1950, the composition of the main powers of the committee was different than it is

1"Security Council." UN News Center. UN, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/>.2"Division of Korea." Snipview. Snipview, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.snipview.com/q/Division_of_Korea>.

today. At the time, the seat held by China was actually that of the exiled democratic Chinese government that only held power in Taiwan. This was due to pressure by the US and other nations in their opposition to the global spread of communism. The Soviet Union, also allotted a permanent seat in the Security Council, boycotted the UN as a result of the fact the Communist Chinese government was barred from having their representative in the committee. The lack of communist influence in the Security Council ensured easy passage of a declaration allowing the use of force by the United States against the new Soviet backed North Korean army as it invaded South Korea.3 Thus, the Korean War began, as the US under UN command fought on behalf of democracy in South Korea, and the Chinese and Soviets did the same with the North Korean forces. The war came to a ceasefire in 1953, ending in almost effectively the same way it started, with a partitioned Korea; the Northern half communist and the Southern half a capitalist nation backed by the United States. The Korean War proved a curious example of what the UN should authorize in terms of military action, as it potentially exacerbated conflict on the peninsula by serving as a proxy war between the United States, the USSR, and China. It also caused millions of military and civilian casualties, as just one of the numerous Cold War proxy-conflicts that would permeate the globe for the next four decades. The circumstances that led to the war were deeply rooted in the national interests of the countries involved, an unintended consequence of the ideological politics of the time, effectively making the UN no longer a neutral party in the war but one that was representative mostly of US interests rather

3"Soviets Boycott United Nations Security Council." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-boycott-united-nations-security-council>.

than a representative of the USSR and China’s communist aggression.4 Another prominent example of UN sanctioned military intervention was the First Gulf War. After the ground invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi forces in August of 1990, the UN Security Council passed eleven resolutions calling for economic sanctions, condemnations, and blockades against Iraq to attempt to bring an end to the occupation through non-combative means. The resolutions also called for a no-fly zone to be established over Iraqi airspace, as well as a naval blockade of the Persian Gulf to prevent the export or import of most goods from either Iraq or occupied Kuwait. These measures failed to stop Iraqi aggression, so a United States-led coalition invaded Kuwait to push back Iraqi forces. While this wasn’t explicitly authorized by the Security Council through any resolutions, this use of force was de facto allowed due to the situation in Kuwait and the hardships occurring there. The Security Council did allude to the allowance of conflict, however as they did state in their resolutions that the conflict should come to an end with international help by any means necessary. After the invasion by the foreign coalition, the war came to a quick end and a ceasefire was signed between Iraq and Kuwait, with the Iraqi army retreating back from the occupied territory. These sanctions passed by the UN, however, had effects lasting far beyond the war, as they were not repealed until 2003 in order to ensure the ceasefire and help Kuwait. During the decade of sanctions, life for Iraqi civilians deteriorated rapidly, and many hundreds of thousands of deaths have been blamed on the lack of resources caused by the prolonged implementation of sanctions stemming from

4"Korean War." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war>.

Iraq’s aggression and failure to comply to with international norms.5 6 It is clear to see that even military interventions allowed by the UN can be seen as controversial in some respects, as no conflict is without a loser on one end. However, these previously listed wars and others were deemed more permissible than others undertaken, as their purposes were seen to outweigh any negative effects that could result in the aftermath of a war. Military intervention specifically condemned by the Security Council on the other hand is seen by at least one major global player to have a negative impact that outweighs the reasoning by any nation to engage in some form of conflict. This type of condemnation usually comes in the form of sanctions from the Security Council, but often times it goes unpunished by the UN. There are many examples of both of these occurrences in the last few decades. In 1999, the US and other NATO forces joined the fighting in the former Yugoslavia in order to secure liberation for Kosovo. This mission was one of humanitarian intervention, as there were many documented instances of mass displacements and ethnic cleansing in the region. The UN, however, did not pass any resolution through the Security Council allowing for this action. Despite this, it received little international condemnation, and was seen on the whole as a good move by the international community and as a successful instance of humanitarian 5"The First Gulf War." The First Gulf War - Short History - Department History - Office of the Historian. US Department of State, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf>.6"Gulf War Case Study." Polity (n.d.): Polity. Polity Books. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://www.polity.co.uk/up2/casestudy/UN_and_the_Gulf_War_case_study.pdf>.

intervention. This bombing campaign by NATO only came after failed diplomatic measures that called for an end to hostilities by both the Kosovars and the Yugoslavs. The goal was achieved, and the refugees who had been forced to leave Kosovo were allowed back, the Serbian troops left the area, and Kosovo effectively gained autonomy within the Federation of Serbia and Montenegro.7 The operation as a whole was deemed illegal under international law but highly justified, with the head of the UN at the time, Kofi Annan, saying, “It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force is legitimate in the pursuit of peace.”8 Other instances of unauthorized intervention have, unsurprisingly, not been viewed so favorably by the UN. One of these is the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the decade following the Gulf War, the Security Council repeatedly asked Iraq to comply with weapons inspections by international monitors and denounced the country’s failure to do so. This situation escalated to the point that in 1998, Iraq completely refused cooperation to let UN weapons inspectors in. These inspections and other sanctions against Iraq were to make sure Kuwait was not invaded again and keep up security in the region. This failure to comply led to suspicion that Iraq was now in possession of weapons of mass destruction. This came from a now controversial report in 2002 heralded by both the US and UK governments as fact enough to legitimize another full scale invasion of Iraq to get rid of the weapons, depose Saddam Hussein from power, and ultimately protect the Iraqi people.

7"A Kosovo Chronology." PBS. PBS, 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html>.8"Nato Air Strikes - the World Reacts." BBC News. BBC, 25 Mar. 1999. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/303446.stm>.

The US spoke to the UN multiple times about this, and in 2002 the Security Council passed a resolution again calling for compliance by Iraq with weapons inspectors, which Iraq failed to do by 2003. This resolution and previous ones from the Iraq war with Kuwait a decade earlier were used by the US and the UK to fully justify an invasion of Iraq. With this in mind, and support of both domestic governments, the invasion began in March 2003, kicking off the Iraq war, which wouldn’t end until 2011.9 Immediately after the war began the invasion faced condemnation by the UN and many nations around the world for its illegality within the standards of international law. In 2004 Kofi Annan declared the war illegal, and by 2006, there were reports of hundreds of war crimes stemming from the war. The only way for a war to be considered legal would be for it to be brought before the Security Council, an action that was never done before the start of the invasion, clearly making this an illegal misstep by the US and the UK as the previous resolutions they were going off of were not valid justification to initiate an invasion of Iraq.10 Many illegal wars are condemned by the Security Council, however this has and likely never will be brought before the committee, as both the US and the UK hold veto power and could end any and all condemnation directed at the actions of either nation. The International Court of Justice, also part of the UN, could also pass along rulings against the war, however the US and UK would be very unlikely to comply to any such rulings, as the US has not done so in the past. In all there has been no legal repercussion against the US and the UK for

9 "War in Iraq Begins." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins>.10 "Iraq War | 2003-2011." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War>.

the Iraq war, and it is unlikely that any will come in the future, as the UN itself doesn't have the independent authority to do so in a binding fashion.

(Security Council Vote Against Crimean Annexation; Blue: Against Annexation Green: Abstain Red: Veto) Source: Wikipedia11 One of the most recent instances of an illegal invasion was committed by Russia in the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine in 2014. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea was joined with a newly independent Ukraine as it had been since 1954 when Crimea was transferred to the Ukranian SSR. This status quo was upheld for the next two decades, with a referendum expressing Crimean support to remain part of the Ukraine, and with Ukraine allowing a limited presence of Russian troops in Crimea.12 The situation in Crimea erupted in 2014, however, after protests in Ukraine ousted the Pro-Russian government, instating a Pro-European president. This sparked counter protests across the country calling for stronger ties with Russia, many of which

11"2014 UN Security Council Vote to Condemn Crimean Referendum." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_UN_Security_Council_vote_to_condemn_Crimean_referendum.png>.12Taylor, Adam. "To Understand Crimea, Take a Look Back at Its Complicated History." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/27/to-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history/>.

occurred in Crimea. Protestors began to demand secession from Ukraine due to the new policies of the central government. Because of this, Russian forces were ordered to take control of main infrastructure and government buildings in Crimea in the hopes of securing the strategic peninsula. They also helped hold a referendum on the peninsula for residents to vote for or against annexation. This vote which lacked any international observation was said to have passed by 95%, effectively ceding Crimea into Russian control, despite calls that the referendum was illegal by the Ukrainian government. The Russians then took over all Ukrainian military bases and installations on the peninsula, finishing annexation. The annexation drew harsh international outcry from many nations, as they saw this as a direct attack on the national sovereignty of Ukraine. In order to try and make Russia face repercussions for its actions, the issue was brought before the Security Council to condemn Russia’s actions. This measure, however, failed due to the fact that Russia has veto power on the Security Council.13 Russia argued that their actions were not illegal based on the UN support of the independence of Kosovo from Serbia in 2010. However, this logic was not accepted by other nations, as Kosovo was not annexed by another power undermining the autonomy of Serbia, it was a completely separate movement for independence. Even with this justification the move by Russia was still illegal under international law, but the UN was never able to pass a binding action against Russia because of Russia’s veto power14 The

13Chappel, Bill. "Russia Vetoes U.N. Security Council Resolution On Crimea." NPR. NPR, 15 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/15/290404691/russia-vetoes-u-n-security-council-resolution-on-crimea>.14Walker, Shaun, and Ewen MacAskill. "Russian 'invasion' of Crimea Fuels Fear of Ukraine Conflict." The Guardian. The Guardian, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

General Assembly passed a resolution against Russia, but this had no direct effect on the country.15 In lieu of UN backed sanctions, the US and other European nations passed their own sanctions against Russia for their belligerence in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. These sanctions have proved ineffective and Crimea effectively remains part of Russia, and Russia remains without full international condemnation. As seen from the previous examples, non-UN-sanctioned military actions are often able to go unpunished, with the perpetrator facing no real multilateral action from the international community. The examples also show that there are times when many nations agree that wartime actions supersede approval by the Security Council. DISEC is committed to working through all challenges that come up as threats to peace, international security and disarmament. It is the task of this committee to devise appropriate punishments for nations that violate international law via unjustified military action. How this occurs is up to the delegates of this committee. It is of the utmost importance that this committee uses its power to try and maintain peace and stability worldwide by reducing the number of state actors that break international law. The committee must work to urge the enactment of punitive measures on those actors who do so.

<www.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2Ffeb%2F28%2Frussia-crimea-white-house>.15"General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region." United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. United Nations, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fpress%2Fen%2F2014%2Fga11493.doc.htm>.

Discussion Questions 1. What are punitive measures that should be taken on countries that disobey international law? Sanctions, as seen through examples, are not always very effective and at times can backfire. Is there anything that could be called for that would be more effective than sanctions that are within the powers of this committee and the Security Council other than direct intervention? 2. How can we justify a correct break from international law? While the Secretary-General in the past has been the one that has laid out an opinion on whether or not an action was valid or not, could DISEC do the same? How would this work out and what would the stipulations be? 3. Is it possible for countries like the US and Russia to face punishment from the UN for their actions? As it stands due to veto power, there is nothing the Security Council can do to try and reprimand those nations. In the interest of global peace and security would it be wise for DISEC to pass a resolution asking of an override of these capabilities? In what circumstance would that be worth it? 4. All of these interventions, like any war, end up with many civilian victims. Because of this, and the nature of how these wars occur, should the invading power be held responsible to compensate for the dead civilians? Should they do so for killed soldiers as well, as they were not supposed to be attacked? Bibliography: "Security Council." UN News Center. UN, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/>. "Division of Korea." Snipview. Snipview, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

<http://www.snipview.com/q/Division_of_Korea>. "Soviets Boycott United Nations Security Council." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-boycott-united-nations-security-council>. "Korean War." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war>. "The First Gulf War." The First Gulf War - Short History - Department History - Office of the Historian. US Department of State, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf>. "Gulf War Case Study." Polity (n.d.): Polity. Polity Books. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://www.polity.co.uk/up2/casestudy/UN_and_the_Gulf_War_case_study.pdf>. "A Kosovo Chronology." PBS. PBS, 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html>. "Nato Air Strikes - the World Reacts." BBC News. BBC, 25 Mar. 1999. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/303446.stm>. "Iraq War | 2003-2011." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War>. "War in Iraq Begins." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/war-in-iraq-begins>.

"2014 UN Security Council Vote to Condemn Crimean Referendum." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_UN_Security_Council_vote_to_condemn_Crimean_referendum.png>. Taylor, Adam. "To Understand Crimea, Take a Look Back at Its Complicated History." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/27/to-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history/>. Chappel, Bill. "Russia Vetoes U.N. Security Council Resolution On Crimea." NPR. NPR, 15 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/15/290404691/russia-vetoes-u-n-security-council-resolution-on-crimea>. Walker, Shaun, and Ewen MacAskill. "Russian 'invasion' of Crimea Fuels Fear of Ukraine Conflict." The Guardian. The Guardian, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <www.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2Ffeb%2F28%2Frussia-crimea-white-house>. "General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region." United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. United Nations, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fpress%2Fen%2F2014%2Fga11493.doc.htm>. Topic 2: Cyber Espionage and Government Surveillance Over the past few decades a new threat has arisen which jeopardizes global peace and security. This is the threat posed by cyber espionage and the government surveillance of telecommunications. While

previously not possible, the global rise and usage of the internet has created these issues which pose a threat to every country. Cyber espionage is not a threat that just stems from non-state actors; it also comes from states themselves and their spy agencies. Little is known about much of the operations that go on, as they remain secretive until the damage is done or they are exposed by an internal or external source that leaks the information. These operations also inherently violate national sovereignty, something that the UN works to uphold for every nation. While DISEC usually focuses on conventional conflict, this type of cyber conflict has reached a point that can cause harm to many nations on a scale equivalent to conventional conflicts. That is why it is up to this committee to devise a solution for how to handle these kinds of activities, decide when they should be allowed, and determine what constitutes an appropriate response to harmful actions. The proceedings of this committee will start on August 21st, 2015. Non-state actors prove a major threat when it comes to the issues of cyber security. Non-state actors, like states, are subject to the punitive measures of international law when their actions are on behalf of states themselves. This means that it is important for this committee to focus on this issue with the same magnitude of importance that is given to those caused directly by states. Non-state actors should refrain from the usage of force through online cyber attacks just as states should, as they can cause the same amount of harm. One of the issues that rises up and will continue to, however, is the difficulty in where exactly to place the blame in instances of cyber crime. These non-state actors, like states, often times get away with their covert actions and never have their identities revealed. Therefore, it is important not to jump the gun in accusations, but to take thorough steps in finding exactly who and what is responsible for any action before taking any punitive measures. This is

especially important with non-state actors, as their actions will fall out of the jurisdiction of the UN if they in fact have absolutely no proxy association with any state’s government. Non-state actors not only can attack through the internet, they can also monitor the activities of anyone in cyberspace just as governments can, and they use this information any way they wish.16 While this issue remains important, as billions could be affected by the actions of these groups, it is of the utmost importance of this committee to focus mainly on the actions of those groups that we can directly influence: states themselves.

Source: Telegraph17 While looked down upon by many nations, cyber espionage is all too common around the world. Many of the nations that condemn this sort of action take part in it themselves, as they see it as a form of self-defense. These countries do so in order to stay ahead of the curve and to gain an advantage militarily, politically, or economically. It is done to uncover

16Wolter, Detlev. "Arms Control Today." The UN Takes a Big Step Forward on Cybersecurity. Arms Control Association, 4 Sept. 2013. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_09/The-UN-Takes-a-Big-Step-Forward-on-Cybersecurity>.17Holehouse, Matthew. "Britain 'losing the War on Cyber Crime' as Costs Hit £205 Million." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 30 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9771627/Britain-losing-the-war-on-cyber-crime-as-costs-hit-205-million.html>

information that has been classified as secret by the governments of the countries which are being spied on. Cyber espionage is not only an issue that crosses international boundaries, but is something that is commonly done domestically by governments to gather information on their own citizens. Both of these actions are viewed as reckless, and are greatly condemned by many people. Examples of these actions come from all around the world. China has been one of the nations at the forefront of this issue, not only accused of spying on many nations and institutions, particularly in the United States, but also on its own citizens. With some of the strictest internet censorship laws of any country, China monitors the online activities of its citizens to maintain its government’s stronghold over its population. China’s international espionage is, in their view, a way to benefit their nation by gaining intelligence to keep their nation alert. However, very little of this has been admitted by China, as it is easy to keep this type of action under wraps as it all occurs away from the public eye.18 19 The United States, while a victim of Chinese and many other nation’s cyber espionage, is also a major perpetrator. The US has admitted to these actions, and justifies their legality in the name of both counter-terrorism efforts and efforts to maintain global peace and security. The US also has been shown to monitor communications of its citizens justifying the action as a means to protect them. 20 Other

18Schwartz, Felicia, and Ian Talley. "U.S. Officials Warn Chinese Cyber Espionage Imperils Ties." WSJ. Wall Street Journal, 23 June 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-urges-honest-direct-talks-between-u-s-china-1435071461>.19Xuecun, Murong. "Scaling China’s Great Firewall." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/opinion/murong-xuecun-scaling-chinas-great-firewall.html?ref=topics&_r=0>.20Moran, Theodore. Cyber Surveillance Regulations: Is the United States Asking China to Accept a Double Standard? (n.d.): n. pag. AEI. AEI,

countries have been accused of these and very similar actions as well, such as Israel, North Korea, Iran, India, and many European nations. Those countries that admit to their actions consistently work to justify them, however it is clear that many of these actions may be outside the boundaries of international law.21

One of the most recent outbreaks of a spying virus was Stuxnet. Stuxnet is a computer worm that still has an uncertain origin, but it was used to monitor and attack computer systems all over the world while going undetected. Its specific purpose was to take down industrial systems made by Siemens. The main focus of Stuxnet is believed to be an attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. Iran wasn’t the only country to receive the infection, and Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan, the United States, and Pakistan all had computers infected by the virus.22 It is believed that this was the largest and most expensive program of its kind developed in history, showing that the information that was sought through its creation was of great importance to the developers. From analyzing the code, it was said to have taken at least six months to develop Stuxnet. The virus reached the Apr. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <Cyber surveillance regulations: Is the United States asking China to accept a double standard?>.21Rubenstein, Dana. "Nation State Cyber Espionage and Its Impacts." Nation-State Cyber Espionage and Its Impacts. Washington University in Saint Louis, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-14/ftp/cyber_espionage/>.22Kroenig, Matthew. "A Time to Attack." Google Books. Macmillan, 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://books.google.com/books?id=vNJXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=stuxnet%2Bazerbaijan&source=bl&ots=abfZIrJW1B&sig=I5zEePZxQ9nNTYxLFoU4FsB8_wU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgKahUKEwjOk5-a0rrHAhUG2R4KHW3aDeE#v=onepage&q=stuxnet%20azerbaijan&f=false>.

majority of Iran’s nuclear facilities, dropping the capabilities of Iran’s centrifuges and decreasing Iran’s nuclear capabilities for a few months. Iran reacted saying that while they acknowledge the virus, there was no serious damage done to any of their systems by Stuxnet, and they were able to continue with their nuclear related activities. The Iranians were able to get rid of the virus from their computers and continue on with what they were doing, likely to the surprise of the creators of the virus. While there is no definite answer as to where the virus came from, most people agree that it was developed by Israel and the United States, not only because of their mutual desire to end Iran’s nuclear program, but also from admissions of general cyber warfare activity by the United States and Israel. There are also pieces of code and names from which many experts have drawn easy connections to Israel.23 Because of the lack of clear information of who was behind Stuxnet, it is highly doubtful any nation will face repercussions for their actions in the development of this virus, even though it goes against international law. While Stuxnet was not successful in causing any real damage in Iran, its ability to infiltrate its nuclear program shows the beginning of a new age in cyber warfare.24 Many experts have stated that this was the first electronic weapon of geopolitical importance, and therefore it can change the way wars are fought in the future. Other recent cases of cyber espionage and attack haven’t happened on such a large scale, but they certainly

23Zetter, Kim. "An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/>.24Nakashima, Ellen, and Joby Warrick. "Stuxnet Was Work of U.S. and Israeli Experts, Officials Say." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2 June 2012. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/stuxnet-was-work-of-us-and-israeli-experts-officials-say/2012/06/01/gJQAlnEy6U_story.html>.

garnered a lot of attention due to the nature of the action, bringing theses cyber security issues to the forefront of many people’s minds.

Source: TNW25

The November 2014 hack of Sony by North Korea came as a shock to many. As a developing nation lacking in major cyber infrastructure, North Korea isn’t seen as a major player in the field. However, over 100 terabytes of data was stolen from Sony computer networks. This data included personal information about thousands of employees, and countless communications as well. The hack was done by a group going under the name Guardians of Peace. Their demands were for Sony to cancel the release of the comedic Sony Pictures movie, The Interview, due to the plot revolving around an assassination attempt on North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-Un. Sony refused to comply with the hackers’ demands, and therefore the data collected by the hackers was released and distributed, much of the information putting a dent in Sony’s reputation. While Sony still went on with the showing of the film, the majority of theaters in the US refused to show it due to threats coming from not only the hackers but also increased rhetoric from North Korea. The US was the first to say definitively that the North Koreans were indeed the ones behind the cyber attack,

25Lopez, Napier. "The FBI Says There’s No Link between North Korea and the Sony Hack." TNW. The Next Web, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/12/09/fbi-says-theres-link-north-korea-sony-hack/>.

stemming from their investigations by the FBI. The hackers from North Korea left a clear trail from which the US was able to track these attacks back to North Korea. North Korea, however, denied their involvement in these actions, yet they decided to go ahead the commend the actions of the hackers, calling them and important and righteous act in support of the their government and ideology. There are some other doubts about the hacks originating from North Korea, due to the overtness of the attacking group, and the high likelihood that this could’ve been an inside job done by a disgruntled Sony employee. Despite the denials, it is very clear to most people that this attack was in fact of North Korean origin. North Korea, like many other nations, is unlikely to face and punishment from the United Nations for their actions.26

In 2013, the United States experienced the largest leak of classified information in its history. This leak was caused by one man working for the NSA (the US National Security Agency), and this man was Edward Snowden. Snowden was a system administrator hired by the NSA who gained access to millions of classified documents through his job, and personally released 1.7 million of them. What this leak revealed changed many people’s opinions of how the US government surveillance programs worked, as they were mostly unaware of the scope of these operations both domestically and abroad. These documents that were released revealed many of the operations undertaken by the US government. They exposed that the US was not only monitoring activity in places like North Korea and China, but also in strong allies in Europe such as

26Network, Lori Grisham. "Timeline: North Korea and the Sony Pictures Hack." USA Today. Gannett, 05 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/18/sony-hack-timeline-interview-north-korea/20601645/>.

Germany. Other documents found included classified information sent from Australia and the United Kingdom and 900,000 documents from the US Department of Defense. The most incriminating information revealed were the documents that pertained strictly to surveillance by the US government. These were given by Snowden to different journalists to be analyzed and published through various US and worldwide media outlets. Programs that were revealed included PRISM, which monitors internet activities in the US, Bullrun, which monitors US email communication, and others in which the US cooperated with its allies to engage in global surveillance. The US says that all of this was done in the interest of national security, something that Snowden says many of these actions superseded, going beyond the point where these actions were helpful. Snowden left the US before facing criminal charges for espionage and leaking information, seeking asylum in Russia where he remains today. Many around the world and in the US revere him as a hero for disclosing all of this information. Many others, however, including the governments of many nations other than the US, condemn his actions due to the fact that they now have to find new ways to go about their counter terrorism and national security efforts. However, all nations see that cybersecurity is a major issue, unanimously adopting GA resolution 68/167 which states the right for protection and privacy against unlawful surveillance.27 This shakeup caused by Snowden changed the general discourse about government surveillance, making it much more tangible now that it was known what actually was going on behind closed

27"Developments - General Assembly Resolution "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age", A/RES/68/167." Developments - General Assembly Resolution "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age", A/RES/68/167. UN, 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/developments/?d=11687>.

doors. The US and the other nations that were exposed for their actions through these leaks are very unlikely to face any sort of action from the UN even though they likely broke international law. If there were attempted action to enact consequences on these nations, it is unlikely that they would be complied with in the interest of maintaining national security and upholding what they see as their rights to gather information. While the UN thus far has done little to prosecute these nations, this doesn't mean that there is no infrastructure in place to try and remedy these issues.28 The biggest organization that has been created to deal with cyber threats is the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats, IMPACT. IMPACT works with the existing UN body the International Telecommunication Union, ITU, to fight cyber threats from a neutral perspective. This program is called GCA, Global Cybersecurity Agenda, and its ITU’s department on fighting this issue. This effort is supported by 152 nations around the world, all working to try and make sure that comprehensive approaches are taken to ensure cyber security. IMPACT is based in Malaysia, and the member’s of its advisory board hail from a variety of changing nations who are either important government officials or experts in the field. As IMPACT expands its operations, it is expected to partner with more committees and groups within the UN to help under its existing cyber security operations.29 In addition to work by IMPACT and ITU, the UNODA, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, also works on this issue.

28Bamford, James. "Edward Snowden: The Untold Story." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/>.29"ITU-IMPACT | About Us - IMPACT." ITU-IMPACT | About Us - IMPACT. IMPACT, 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.impact-alliance.org/aboutus/ITU-IMPACT.html>.

This committee releases an annual report with input from all countries that seek to be involved that states what they are individually doing and what they would like to see happen for increased cybersecurity. This committee is also working to enforce its ruling about the justification of international law in prosecuting cyber security issues, as well as the need to uphold national sovereignty. Together with the existing framework set up by these committees, DISEC can work to pass a comprehensive resolution to address these issues of cyber espionage and government surveillance.30 While these committees have mostly focused on cyber attacks, this committee can add dialogue to the issue by showing the importance that these issues hold as well. International law is strongly applicable in this situation as well, as proven by the other UN committees, and therefore this committee has the responsibility to decide what to do about these other outstanding cyber threats. Discussion Questions 1. Should standard UN punishments such as sanctions be used against countries that are caught committing espionage against another country’s peoples? Would sanctions be successful in this? What could be some alternatives to sanctions that might be successful? 2. It is very hard to prove who is behind many instances of cyber surveillance and attacks as well. What should happen in those cases in order to try and bring the perpetrators to justice? Is it the responsibility of a UN body to try and seek them out?

30"UNODA - Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security." UN News Center. UN, 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/>.

3. Do the laws permitting self-defense as detailed in the UN Charter apply to cyber attacks, whether they are intentionally destructive or data breaches? While many nations claim self-defense in almost all instances of cyber attacks, these are often considered to be breaches of national sovereignty. How should these differences be defined? Should it be different than how we define conventional wars and attacks? 4. Does this issue take the same level of precedent that conventional wars do? Many experts agree about this, but for developing nations, they may not face these kinds of issues due to differences in infrastructure. Because of this how should this issue be handled from the perspectives of nations that may not be affected for at least the next few decades? 5. What constitutes necessary and proportional force in response to a cyber attack or malicious digital surveillance program? A service like UN peacekeepers obviously can’t be used in this type of situation to defuse it. Could there be a UN backed organization that could do so? Many nations have this kind of capability already, could they be trusted in aiding in these efforts? Bibliography Wolter, Detlev. "Arms Control Today." The UN Takes a Big Step Forward on Cybersecurity. Arms Control Association, 4 Sept. 2013. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_09/The-UN-Takes-a-Big-Step-Forward-on-Cybersecurity>. Holehouse, Matthew. "Britain 'losing the War on Cyber Crime' as Costs Hit £205 Million." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 30 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/

crime/9771627/Britain-losing-the-war-on-cyber-crime-as-costs-hit-205-million.html>. Schwartz, Felicia, and Ian Talley. "U.S. Officials Warn Chinese Cyber Espionage Imperils Ties." WSJ. Wall Street Journal, 23 June 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-urges-honest-direct-talks-between-u-s-china-1435071461>. Xuecun, Murong. "Scaling China’s Great Firewall." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/opinion/murong-xuecun-scaling-chinas-great-firewall.html?ref=topics&_r=0>. Moran, Theodore. Cyber Surveillance Regulations: Is the United States Asking China to Accept a Double Standard? (n.d.): n. pag. AEI. AEI, Apr. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <Cyber surveillance regulations: Is the United States asking China to accept a double standard?>. Rubenstein, Dana. "Nation State Cyber Espionage and Its Impacts." Nation-State Cyber Espionage and Its Impacts. Washington University in Saint Louis, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-14/ftp/cyber_espionage/>. Kroenig, Matthew. "A Time to Attack." Google Books. Macmillan, 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://books.google.com/books?id=vNJXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=stuxnet%2Bazerbaijan&source=bl&ots=abfZIrJW1B&sig=I5zEePZxQ9nNTYxLFoU4FsB8_wU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgKahUKEwjOk5-a0rrHAhUG2R4KHW3aDeE#v=onepage&q=stuxnet%20azerbaijan&f=false>. Zetter, Kim. "An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015.

<http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/>. Nakashima, Ellen, and Joby Warrick. "Stuxnet Was Work of U.S. and Israeli Experts, Officials Say." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2 June 2012. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/stuxnet-was-work-of-us-and-israeli-experts-officials-say/2012/06/01/gJQAlnEy6U_story.html>. Network, Lori Grisham. "Timeline: North Korea and the Sony Pictures Hack." USA Today. Gannett, 05 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/18/sony-hack-timeline-interview-north-korea/20601645/>. "Developments - General Assembly Resolution "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age", A/RES/68/167." Developments - General Assembly Resolution "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age", A/RES/68/167. UN, 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/developments/?d=11687>. Bamford, James. "Edward Snowden: The Untold Story." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/>. "ITU-IMPACT | About Us - IMPACT." ITU-IMPACT | About Us - IMPACT. IMPACT, 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.impact-alliance.org/aboutus/ITU-IMPACT.html>. "UNODA - Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security." UN News Center. UN, 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/>.

Parliamentary Procedure Workshop

Parliamentary procedure is the set of rules that governs a committee session. The Chair or President presides over the chamber.

There is a difference between procedural matters and substantive matters:

x Procedural matters are those that relate to the workings of the committee, e.g. voting on voting or voting for a moderated caucus, etc. All delegations must vote “yea” or “nay” on procedural votes.

x Substantive matters are those that relate to the real world, e.g. the content of resolutions or amendments. Abstentions are allowed on substantive votes.

Points

Point of Order: A point of order is used when a delegate wishes to draw attention to procedural errors made by other delegates or the Chair. At most conferences, the point must be raised immediately and may interrupt a speaker, but you should check the rules for each conference or committee, as they vary.

Point of Parliamentary Procedure: This point is used to ask a question about what you should do, if you are confused about the rules of parliamentary procedure. It should not be confused with a point of order, which is correcting someone else’s misuse of the rules.

Point of Information: This point can be asked to the speaker (usually a delegate) or to the Chair. A speaker may yield to points of information after a speech, and the Chair shall recognize delegates who have questions. The speaker and the delegate

should never enter into a dialogue, and all questions, clarifications, and responses should be directed through the Chair.

Speaker: “The Commonwealth of Uphill believes that Carmichael dining hall is better. I yield my time to questions.”

Delegate: “Point of information?” Chair: “The delegate from the Republic of Downhill is recognized.” Delegate: “Mr. Chair, would the delegate not admit that Dewick has far superior food and the

lighting in Carm is absolutely terrible?” Speaker: “Mr. Chair, I would say the delegate has her priorities off: the pizza uphill is so much

better.” Chair: “Thank you, please step down.”

Point of Clarification: This point does not exist. Don’t use it. The point you’re looking for is a point of information (e.g. “Point of information to the speaker?” or “POI to the Chair?”).

Point of Personal Privilege: A delegate may rise to a point of personal privilege if he or she experiences some personal discomfort (e.g. “could the lights be turned down? I had a crazy night in Times Square.”). The point may interrupt a speaker only if the delegate cannot hear the speaker. The point may never be substantive.

Motions

Motion to Set the Topic/Agenda: In a General Assembly, or some committees with multiple set topics, the committee will vote to set the order of the topics. Requires a simple majority.

Motion for a Moderated Caucus: In most committees (not crises), the committee may choose to enter closed debate on a topic. I.e. instead of a speaker’s list, where anyone may speak about anything, the topic is confined and the Chair will choose speakers. The motion requires a fixed time limit and a simple majority to pass.

Motion for an Unmoderated Caucus: This motion is in order during debate. The delegate must include the length of the moderated caucus and the motion requires a simple majority. During an unmoderated caucus, delegates may leave the hall, mill around, talk, write, etc. It is generally proposed in order to talk in groups and to respond to crisis updates.

Motion to Introduce a Working Paper/Resolution/Amendment: This motion brings a resolution (which usually has the support of a number of signatories and sponsors), a working paper (which is a resolution without signatories) or an amendment to the floor for consideration. The sponsors may read it and answer questions and a movement to call the previous question or close debate on it would result in a vote. There is typically no vote on this motion.

Motion to Close Debate/Motion to Call the Previous Question: This motion normally requires a two-thirds vote to pass and, if passed, the committee will move into voting procedure on the topic currently on the floor. At some conferences, it’s called “Motion to Close Debate” and at others, “Motion to Call the Previous Question.” Either way, it requires speakers for and against, and if it passes, all debate ends and all current resolutions and amendments on the topic are brought to a vote.

Motion for a Roll Call Vote: When the committee moves in to voting procedure, a delegate may motion for a roll call vote, which requires each delegate to vote “yea,” “nay,” or “abstain” (if the matter is substantive). Some conferences vote on this motion, some do not; check the rules.

Motion to Divide the Question: This motion, if passed, allows the body to vote on each clause of a resolution or amendment separately. This motion typically requires a simple majority.

Motion to Table: Tabling a resolution or topic requires a simple majority (in most cases; not at UPMUNC, which requires 2/3) and, if it passes, the resolution or topic may not be discussed unless a motion to reconsider is passed, which requires a 2/3 majority.

There are other motions, such as the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair, motion to suspend the meeting or the motion to adjourn the session, but these will likely be used only once or twice a session, if at all, and only then by that one really annoying delegate who sits in the front and probably goes to Georgetown.

You should always read the rules of parliamentary procedure for your conference and committee, as they are often different from the general rules we have laid out here.

Sources: UPMUNC parliamentary procedure guide, CMUNNY parliamentary procedure guide, McMUN parliamentary procedure guide, personal experience