disec study guide glass 2015

2015

The Global Leadership and Strategy Summit 2015

STUDY GUIDE UNGA DISEC [ ]The official study guide for UNGA DISEC at GLASS 2015. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced in any form without the prior permission of the Secretariat.

General Assembly DISEC Study Guide

1 | P a g e

Contents Letter from the Executive Board ..................................................................................................................... 2

The United Nations General Assembly ........................................................................................................... 3

The First Committee ....................................................................................................................................... 4

What are threats to International Peace and Security? ................................................................................. 4

How international law applies to conflicts ..................................................................................................... 5

The meaning of Sovereignty & its implications: ......................................................................................... 5

Types of Conflict: ........................................................................................................................................ 6

The Geneva Conventions: ........................................................................................................................... 7

Common Articles 2 & 3 relating to Armed Conflicts: .............................................................................. 7

Article 2- Relating to International Armed Conflicts: .............................................................................. 7

Article 3- Relating to Non-International Armed Conflict: ....................................................................... 7

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) & Intervention in case of Conflict: .............................. 8

Factors to Determine a Type of Conflict: .................................................................................................... 8

Background Causes & Foreground Factors: ............................................................................................ 9

Injustice & Mobilisation: ......................................................................................................................... 9

Ethnicity & Conflict: ................................................................................................................................ 9

Methodology & Typology: ...................................................................................................................... 9

The Right to Self Determination ...................................................................................................................11

Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................................13

Q. A. R. M. A (Questions a Resolution Must Answer) ...................................................................................13

References ....................................................................................................................................................13

Annexure: List of documents to be considered ............................................................................................13


2 | P a g e

Letter from the Executive Board Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the United Nations General Assembly at VIT GLASS 2015. I along with Vibha Vasuki will be

the Co-Chairpersons of this committee and we are honoured and excited to be on board. This committee

is the most deliberative of all the organs of the General Assembly and we hope to ensure the same at this

very simulation.

The agenda is a pertinent one, because of the growing loopholes in the international law and incapability

of it to address internal conflicts which are becoming internationalised. The growing number of such

threats to international peace and security is only testimony to the need to address this issue at hand.

From the ISIS in the Middle East to the Crimea, the world needs your thinking and rationality to find a

solution.

So put on your thinking hats, research hard and debate, deliberate and we assure you it will be a fun yet

technically challenging council at this years conference.

May the Odds be ever in your favour!

Co-Chairperson Co-Chairperson

Shouryadipta Sarkar Vibha Vasuki


3 | P a g e

Addressing threats to international peace and security due to internationalization of internal armed conflicts between a state party and groups seeking the right to self-determination.

The United Nations General Assembly The United Nations General Assembly, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and the

only body in which every member of the organization is represented and allowed to vote. The first

session of the assembly convened on Jan. 10, 1946, in London, with 51 countries represented. As of 2006

there were 192 members of the General Assembly. Numerous no-nmembers, such as states,

organizations, and other entities (e.g., the Vatican, the African Union, the International Committee of the

Red Cross, and Palestine), maintain observer status, enabling them to participate in the work of the

General Assembly.

The General Assembly exercises deliberative, supervisory, financial, and elective functions relating to any

matter within the scope of the UN Charter. Its primary role, however, is to discuss issues and make

recommendations, though it has no power to enforce its resolutions or compel state action. Other

functions include admitting new members; selecting members of the Economic and Social Council, the

non-permanent members of the Security Council, and the Trusteeship Council; supervising the activities

of the other UN organs, from which the General Assembly receives reports; and participating in the

election of judges to the International Court of Justice and the selection of the secretary-general.

Decisions usually are reached by a simple majority vote. On important questions, howeversuch as the

admission of new members, budgetary matters, and peace and security issuesa two-thirds majority is

required.

The General Assembly convenes annually and in special sessions, electing a new president each year from

among five regional groups of states. At the beginning of each regular session, the General Assembly also

holds a general debate, in which all members participate and may raise any issue of international

concern. Most work, however, is delegated to six main committees, known as (1) Disarmament and

International Security, (2) Economic and Financial, (3) Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural, (4) Special

Political and Decolonization, (5) Administrative and Budgetary, and (6) Legal. (Committees are generally

referred to by their number; thus, the Disarmament and International Security Committee is known as

the First Committee.)


4 | P a g e

The First Committee The First Committee deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the

international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime.

It considers all disarmament and international security matters within the scope of the Charter or relating

to the powers and functions of any other organ of the United Nations; the general principles of

cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as principles governing

disarmament and the regulation of armaments; promotion of cooperative arrangements and measures

aimed at strengthening stability through lower levels of armaments.

The Committee works in close cooperation with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the

Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament. It is the only Main Committee of the General Assembly

entitled to verbatim records coverage.

The First Committee sessions are structured into three distinctive stages:

1. General debate

2. Thematic discussions

3. Action on drafts

What are threats to International Peace and Security? In accordance with article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council shall determine any threat to the

peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.32 notwithstanding, the main problem is that neither

the terms breach of the peace act of aggression or threat to the peace have been defined in the UN

Charter. So, in these regards, an analysis of the form in which the Security Council has been interpreting

this article has to be done and also if it achieved the requisites established in the Vienna Convention.


5 | P a g e

At the time when the UN Charter was draft the only problems known or imaginable by the drafters were

military threats as constituting threats to the peace.33 But the problems and circumstances changed

through the years and after the Cold War the Security Council increased its activity, especially in framing

Security Council resolutions in a broader form, implying that civil wars, lack of democracy and serious

violations of international human rights law, among others constitute threats to the peace.

How international law applies to conflicts

The meaning of Sovereignty & its implications: Sovereignty has come to signify, in the Westphalian concept, the legal identity of a state in international

law. It is a concept which provides order, stability and predictability in international relations since

sovereign states are regarded as equal, regardless of comparative size or wealth. The principle of

sovereign equality of states is enshrined in Article 2.1 of the UN Charter. Internally, sovereignty signifies

the capacity to make authoritative decisions with regard to the people and resources within the territory

of the state. Generally, however, the authority of the state is not regarded as absolute, but constrained

and regulated internally by constitutional power sharing arrangements.

A condition of any one states sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other states

sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state

is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders.

Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If

that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political

independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states, and the correlative norm

intervention received its most emphatic affirmation n from the newly independent states.

In a dangerous world marked by overwhelming inequalities of power and resources, sovereignty is for

many states their best and sometimes seemingly their only line of defence. But sovereignty is more

than just a functional principle of international relations. For many states and peoples, it is also

recognition of their equal worth and dignity, a protection of their unique identities and their national

freedom, and an affirmation of their right to shape and determine their own destiny. In recognition of

this, the principle that all states are equally sovereign under international law was established as a

cornerstone of the UN Charter (Article 2.1).


6 | P a g e

Sovereignty implies a dual responsibility: externally to respect the sovereignty of other states, and

internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all the people within the state. In international human

rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing

this dual responsibility. Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good

international citizenship.

Types of Conflict: International humanitarian law refers to two different types of armed conflict: international armed

conflicts and conflicts of a non-international character. (1) For example, the four Geneva Conventions of

1949 (with the exception of common Article 3) and 1977 Additional Protocol I concern international

armed conflicts. Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol II

concern armed conflicts of a non-international character.

An international armed conflict usually refers to an inter-state

conflict. Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states

that:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in

peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of

declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise

between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the

state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total

occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the

said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Thus, it is generally agreed that a single incident involving the

armed forces of two states may be sufficient to be considered an

international armed conflict. In cases of insignificant border

incidents involving members of the armed forces of two states it

may be unclear whether the threshold has been reached for the incident to be considered an

international armed conflict. The occurrence of international armed conflict is clear, when it would be a

conflict between the legal armed forces of two different states. A good example would be the North

Korean- South Korean war of 1950.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) affirmed that a non-international

armed conflict exists when there is: protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and

organized armed groups or between such groups within a State. Thus, in the view of the ICTY, for there

to be a non-international armed conflict:

non-state armed groups must carry out protracted hostilities; and

These groups must be organised.

Two key treaty provisions set thresholds for identifying the law applicable to armed conflicts of a

non-international character:

Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; and

Article 1 of 1977 Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The definition of non-international armed conflict according to the Geneva convention common article 3

is basically that, the situation has to be within the territory of a high contracting party/state and assumes

that an armed conflict exists when the situation reaches a certain level that distinguishes it from other


7 | P a g e

forms of violence such as riots, sporadic and isolated forms of violence (situations of internal

disturbances) (Geneva convention common art 3, Vite, 2009).

For a situation to be classified as a non-international armed conflict, it has to achieve two variables: first,

the hostilities have to reach a certain minimum level of intensity and form in a collective character; and

second, there has to be a level of organization of the parties.

The Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the

standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The Geneva Conventions and their

Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the

barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers)

and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).

Common Articles 2 & 3 relating to Armed Conflicts: Articles 2 and 3 are among the most important of the Geneva Conventions. Their objective is to extend as

far as possible the field of application, hitherto confined to international conflicts and more or less left for

the States themselves to delimit; one Party to a conflict, by arguing that no state of war existed, could, it

seems, have contested the right of applying the Conventions. The Geneva Conventions apply at times of

war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms. The details of applicability are spelled

out in Common Articles 2 and 3. When the Geneva Conventions apply, governments have surrendered

some of their national sovereignty by signing these treaties.

Article 2- Relating to International Armed Conflicts: In the terms of Article 2, the new Conventions shall henceforth apply in "all cases at declared war or at

any other declared conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if

the state of war is not recognized by one of them", and in all cases of occupation," even if the said

occupation meets with no armed resistance. This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all

cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations has ratified the Conventions. In

addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply

to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the

High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High

Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are

parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the

Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3- Relating to Non-International Armed Conflict: Article 3 is perhaps the most striking example of the evolution of legal conceptions in the new

Conventions. It does no less than extend the Conventions to civil war, and, in general, to all conflicts

which cannot be classed as international war. In its first drafts, the Committee expressly mentioned "civil

wars, colonial wars, and wars of religion. This article states that the certain minimum rules of war apply

to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the

boundaries of a single country.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:

violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and

torture;

taking of hostages;

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;


8 | P a g e

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment

pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are

recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its

services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements,

all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) & Intervention in case of Conflict: In order to identify the body of law that applies to a specific consensual intervention, it should first be

established whether the consent is expressed in the form of an international treaty, and therefore is

subject to the provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The basic condition for

the application of the VCLT, as set forth in Article I, is that the treaty must be between states. Thus, any

agreement that might have been made between the ADFL (an opposition group), Rwanda and Uganda

during the First Congolese Conflict could not have been subject to the provisions of the VCLT.

Where consent is expressed between two (or more) states meaning a forcible intervention by state(s) in

support of in support of a consenting government- there are additional conditions that must be fulfilled

for the VCLT to apply. In general, the consent-establishing agreements must fall within the ambit of the

term treaty, as it is defined in article 2(1)(a) of the VCLT:

(A)n international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international

law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its

particular designation.

Article 2(1) (a), therefore, sets forth three additional requirements for an agreement to constitute a

treaty, for the purposes of VCLT applicability. The first basic requirement is the mere existence of an

international agreementmeaning, the element of consent. The second requirement for an agreement

to constitute a treaty is that it be in written form. The last of the formal requirements for a consensual

intervention agreement to be considered a treaty is that it needs to be governed by international law.

Once an intervention agreement is deemed a treaty, two basic provisions contained in the VCLT are of

specific interest. The first is pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), which places an obligation

on the intervening power to limit its intervention to the boundary of the consent. The second important

principle is that a treaty based on coerced consent, due to the unlawful threat or use of force, is void.

This principle places a heavy burden on intervening powers that legitimize their actions based on

retroactive consent.

Factors to Determine a Type of Conflict: Armed conflict has long been a subject of inquiry among policy makers and scholars.

A large volume of research has focused particularly on the political and economic factors that have given

rise to such conflict. Through a long process of cultural development, human beings are able to score

remarkable achievements in their life. However, people are still unable to avoid conflicts of

violent\armed character, which are destructive in their nature. Archaeological findings, anthropological

interpretations and historical records indicate that people have been engaged in armed conflicts since


9 | P a g e

the prehistoric period. Naturally, the following questions may ensue: What is the nature of this

phenomenon? What are the roots and responsible causes of waging limitless destructive wars without

interruption? Why are people not in a position to overcome conflicts of armed nature for the last time?

Background Causes & Foreground Factors: Social science theories of the causes of armed conflict concentrate on background conditions and long-

range causes in order to develop general explanatory power. However, these theories should not be

regarded with much greater respect than we might give to any other reasonable generalisation. They are

based on statistical generalisations, to which there are almost always exceptions. Poor, undemocratic

countries, for instance, are especially prone to armed conflict, but there are many armed conflicts in

countries that are not among the poorest and most repressive of the world. Likewise, there are countries

that are both extremely poor and repressed, yet in which there is no war.

Injustice & Mobilisation: There are two concepts that together depict the point at which the long-term and short-term causes

intersect, where political actors address structural, background issues. Those concepts are justice and

mobilisation. The combination of poor economic conditions and a lack of political openings functions as a

double injustice. Political mobilisation occurs around the theme of injustice: people commit themselves

to a cause because they believe it to be just, or because they at least think that it will redress the injustice

they see in their own lives. An exploitable sense of injustice, arising out of the underlying divisions of

power and prosperity in a society or between different countries, is thus the basic material for political

mobilisation.

Ethnicity & Conflict: Generalisations are particularly difficult and misleading because ethnic identity is recognised on a wide

variety of different bases. In different cases, groups identify themselves as an ethnically united

community by means of some combination of markers such as language, skin colour, religion, location, or

history.

The error lies not in regarding ethnic difference as one of the underlying social divisions and therefore as

a background cause. Rather, it is to neglect the question of how that underlying division can create the

conditions for war. Numerous case studies have made it clear that ethnic difference is often embroiled in

conflicts and that the individuals affected frequently believe that the fundamental issue over which they

are fighting is in fact ethnic difference. This is important, but it is not sufficient, for it is not the most

ethnically diverse countries in the world that are the most prone to violent conflict. This suggests that,

even in cases of armed conflicts involving parties divided by ethnicity, it is not possible to analyse the

situation adequately by looking at ethnicity alone. The results of the quantitative research cited above

indicate the importance of economic conditions and of the political system. It would therefore make

sense to examine other background causes beyond ethnicity.

Methodology & Typology: It has generally been distinguished that there are four types of conflict:

Background causes (basic elements of social and political structure, e.g. that certain groups

are excluded from power, or that there are regional economic differences) ;

Mobilisation Strategies (objectives of key political actors and the way they go about fulfilling

these objectives ;

Triggers (factors that affect the timing of the onset of the armed conflict) ;

Catalysts (factors that influence the intensity and duration of a conflict, including external

factors like an international intervention).

Many complex factors lead to armed conflicts within States. Some conditions that increase the

probability of war include the inability of Governments to provide basic good governance and protection


10 | P a g e

for their own populations. In many instances, weak Governments have little capacity to stop the eruption

and spread of violence that better organized and more legitimate Governments could have prevented or

contained. Armed conflicts can also be seen as the struggle for power by a section of the elite that has

been excluded from the exercise of power in authoritarian systems of one-party rule.

Countries afflicted by war typically also suffer sharp inequalities among social groups. It is this, rather

than poverty, that seems to be a critical factor, although poor countries have been far more likely to be

involved in armed conflicts than rich ones. Whether based on ethnicity, religion, national identity or

economic class, inequality tends to be reflected in unequal access to political power that too often

forecloses paths to peaceful change. Economic decline and mismanagement are also associated with

violent conflicts, not least because the politics of a shrinking economy are inherently prone to conflicts as

compared to those of economic growth. In some instances, the impact of radical market-oriented

economic reforms and structural adjustment imposed without compensating social policies has been

seen to undermine political stability.

Ethnic and religious animosities, mass violations of human and minority rights, and ethnic cleansing

resulting from extreme forms of nationalism propagated by hate media are factors that exacerbate

conflict. The relative ease with which arms are trafficked all over the world, particularly in countries and

regions afflicted by civil wars, is also a contributory factor. Although not in itself a cause of conflicts, the

wide availability of such weapons tends to fuel them, undermine peace agreements in situations where

combatants have not been completely disarmed, intensify violence and crime in society, and impede

economic and social development. It is estimated that some 500 million light weapons are in circulation

in the world. At least seven million small arms are in West Africa, where they have killed more than two

million people since 1990, more than 70 per cent of them women and children. Induced, mass

movements of populations have also contributed to the spread of conflicts, as in Central and West Africa.

In some countries in the sub-Saharan region, struggles for control over key natural resources, such as

diamonds and gold, coupled with wider political ambitions, have increased the level of intensity of armed

conflicts. For example, in Angola, where the rebel movement UNITA controls a substantial part of the


11 | P a g e

diamond production, estimated revenue of $3.7 billion from the sale of diamonds between 1992 and

1998 allowed UNITA to maintain its armed forces. The Angolan Government, for its part, is financing the

war mainly with revenue from oil concessions granted to foreign multinational companies. In the

Democratic Republic of the Congo, a number of complex factors, including the desire to get a share of the

countrys rich potential wealth in minerals, especially diamonds and gold have drawn six States in the

region into a battle either for or against the Government. In Sierra Leone, control of the diamond mines

by RUF has been a source of power and wealth for the rebel movement. Rebels, according to reports,

purchased arms through the sale of diamonds and paid in diamonds Liberian soldiers who fought

alongside their counterparts in the RUF/Armed Forces Revolutionary Council.

The Right to Self Determination

Towards the end of the First World War, a principle of self-determination was proposed as a

foundation for international order. In the words of its chief advocate, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, it

specified that the settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic

arrangement, or of political relationship is to be made upon the basis of the free acceptance of that

settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or

advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for sake of its own

exterior influence or mastery (Wilson 1927, 233). The principle played a significant role in deliberations

about lands newly liberated by the First World War, and, in the aftermath of the second, it was enshrined

within Article 1 of the United Nations Charter which called upon member nations to develop friendly

relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of

peoples. Its status within international law was further heightened by the 1966 Covenants on Civil and

Political Rights and on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, whose first articles specify the following: All

peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political

status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. In 1970, General Assembly

Resolution 2625 added that, every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the

provision of the Charter.

In general terms, self-determination is an entitys autonomy, viz., managing its own affairs as it sees fit

independently of external interference. While individuals almost never gain complete self-rule, societies


12 | P a g e

can achieve significant measures of autonomy within limited areas. In the strict sense usually intended,

self-determination is a matter of statehood, that is, of a political communitys possessing and exercising

sovereignty over its territory. There are lesser degrees of autonomy that fall short of full sovereignty,

however, and these might take various forms of restricted localized self-rule, e.g., at the level of

provinces, municipalities, neighbourhoods, or of culturally or economically defined minorities.

Whether collective self-determination is best conceived as a legal right, a moral ideal, or a political maxim

is a more difficult matter. Wilson spoke of an imperative principle of action which statesmen will ignore

at their own peril, in which case the principle is envisioned as a political maxim binding upon those who

possessed de facto control over unsettled territories, namely, to let the people immediately

concerned determine their own future.

Restricting ourselves to the strict political meaning of self-determination, different entitlements jump to

the fore. Perhaps the most obvious holders of a right of self-determination are states, and the simplest

description of a right of self-determination is the following:

Self-determination of States: Each statean organized political community already possessing control

over its territoryhas a right to exercise rule in that territory through the operations of governmental

institutions without external intervention. This is a claim-right placing a demand upon all other states,

groups, and individuals including its own citizensfor recognition of its sovereignty over its territory

and non-intervention in its internal affairs. It is limited in two ways. First, it can be overridden whenever

intervention by external agents is called for, e.g., against a state engaging in rampant human rights

abuses. For this reason, some would confine the right of self-determination to legitimate states, viz.,

those with effective institutional safeguards of human rights, thus, not engaged in systematic social,

economic, legal, or political discrimination over a segment of its population, and not pursuing a campaign

of belligerent aggression against external populations.

But even a legitimacy restriction does not overcome the second limitation stemming from a citizenrys

right to reconstitute the political institutions under which it exists whether by replacing the existing

constitution or basic laws, dissolving the state into separate sovereignties, or merging with a larger

political entity. In fact, this limitation stems from a more general right of self-determination:

Self-Determination of Citizens: The citizenry of each state has a right to establish, maintain, and alter the

political institutions under which it is to live and be governed, (viz., popular sovereignty belonging to the

people and exercised collectively). Arguably, a states right of self-determination derives from this more

basic right, implying that when an external agent violates a legitimate states sovereign right it thereby

violates the right of the citizenrya peopleto constitute and maintain itself as a self-governing political

entity in that territory.

The issue of how collective self-governance is to be implemented is another matter, and it is left

unspecified by both the mentioned international covenants. A citizenry's right of self-determination

requires that governing institutions are to derive from the consensus of the entire community, not by the

preferences of internal minorities or agencies, or by external communities or nations. But once the

decision is effected, the precise mode of subsequent citizenry participation in the governing institutions is

open to debate. While it has become customary to expect that institutions regulating public life be freely

determined through popular consent and operate on democratic principles, it is less clear that the

notions of popular consent to and free determination of a particular political order require

democracy.


13 | P a g e

Case Studies 1. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20140711Ukrai

neLaw_0.pdf

2. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Law

/300913summary.pdf

Q. A. R. M. A (Questions a Resolution Must Answer) 1. What parameters must the UN Consider for a situation to be a threat to international peace and

security?

2. What parameters must the UN Consider to determine if the right to self-determination of a

group seeking it is legitimate?

3. How does one prevent internationalization of Conflicts?

4. How can the UN prevent flow of foreign fighters/funds into essentially an internal conflict?

5. When does the right to secession the concept of territorial sovereignty?

References 1. http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml

2. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1770&context=ilj

3. http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/role-un-general-assembly/p13490

4. http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks7.pdf

5. http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/2010-2011/Part%20I/2010-2011_Threats%20to%20IPS.pdf

6. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/1888/1/gupea_2077_1888_1.pdf

7. http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/initiatives/GlobalGovernance/Thakur_GA_Thematic_De

bate_on_UN_in_GG.pdf

8. http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks7.pdf

Annexure: List of documents to be considered Delegates please keep the validity of reports in mind while researching as we would be following the

below structure very strictly in committee:

Valid and Binding:

1. Reports by all UN Agencies, Statements by the Secretary General

2. Reports by government agencies(Will be judged on an ad-hoc basis)

Valid but not binding

1. Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera

2. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

Not considered credible

1. Wikipedia, WikiLeaks

2. The Study Guide itself

disec study guide glass 2015

Documents

case of conflict

international armed

international law

type of conflict

types of conflict

ethnicity conflict

study guide unga disec

official study guide