ucmun 2015 disarmament and international security ... 2015 disarmament and international security...

UCMUN 2015 Disarmament and International Security Committee

Introductory Letter

Hello delegates, I’m excited to welcome you all to the Disarmament and International

Security committee at UCMUN 2015. My name is Joe Roessler and I will be the director of

DISEC. I’m looking forward to working with you all this year as we cooperatively devise

solutions for two security issues facing our global society. We live in an age where a state’s

sovereignty and security has never been more important. Society has progressed to a point where

we are all connected on a global scale. An event in one corner of the world can have an impact

on everyone. This implies a responsibility for the nations of the world to work together on

security, as threats to peace no longer have a single, local impact. The topics we will be

discussing are ‘Comprising National Sovereignty to Fight Terror Threats in the Middle East’ and

‘Weapons in Space; Stockpiling, Non-Proliferation, and Liability’. These will both touch upon

the issues of global security while provoking discussions on the issue of state sovereignty.

I was introduced to Model United Nations in high school when three of my friends

started the club my sophomore year. Since then, it has been a way for me to stay actively

engaged in the global issues facing our society and develop the skills necessary to face them.

Now, several years later, I’m a junior studying math and economics while still participating in

Model UN. Outside of my academic life, I enjoy playing music, exploring the Connecticut

woods with my friends, rooting for Bayern Munich, and taking advantage of what life has to

offer.

I hope this conference allows you all challenge yourselves by engaging in debate, learn

from one another, and discover many new possibilities that the future holds. If you have any

questions, please contact me through my email. See you all the November 13th!

Joe Roessler

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Committee History

Committee History

The First Committee has been past many landmark resolutions throughout its history. The

first being the first resolution ever adopted by the United Nations. It dealt with atomic energy

and the sharing of information for the benefit of society (“Disarmament” 2015). In 2010, The

First Committee made significant contributions to the area of nuclear non-proliferation and

disarmament. In total, it passed 16 resolutions on nuclear weapons, from topics concerning

disarmament to acquisition prevention (“United Nations” 2014). An effort has also been made by

DISEC to regulate other weapons of mass destruction such as bioweapons and chemical

weapons. Resolutions have been passed that prevent stockpiling and production (“United

Nations” 2014). DISEC has also shown concern over outer space and its possible military uses,

and therefore implemented several resolutions on that topic (“United Nations” 2014).


Committee History

Works Cited

"Dismarmament and International Security." United Nations General Assembly. UN, 2015. Web.

15 July 2015.

"United Nations First Committee." Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI, 2014. Web. 15 July 2015.


Committee Simulation


Role of the Delegates

Delegate cooperation is essential to the environment in any Model United Nations

conference. To foster debate delegates must first and most importantly, engage in the debate.

They do so through giving independent speeches and working cooperatively with other

delegates. In addition, at the core of delegate responsibility is to simulate the feel of a real

international debate, attained when the delegates view the issue through the eyes of the country

they represent. They must take into consideration the country’s actions and policy surrounding

war, arms trafficking, and security all at the international level.

A successful debate will only take place if all delegates are prepared. This means they

must research not only the topics at hand, but their country’s stance on such issues, and any

decisions that have set a precedent for them in the past. It is also important to note a country’s

national issues with similar problems, as this will influence their behavior on the international

stage. Understanding ideology, government structure, and various freedoms a country embodies

is an important part of the research process that will aid significantly in fruitful debate. Delegates

who wish to succeed will consider all of these points when conducting their research.

When debating, delegates will be expected to follow parliamentary procedure. These

rules govern the formal debate sessions and it is important that delegates are familiar with them.

Delegates should also be aware of each other and respect one another throughout the conference

as a whole. These rules only exist to keep debate in line, and creativity is greatly encouraged to

help keep the conference flowing.

Role of the Dais



The d, also known as the chair, is made up of three individuals; the Director and two

Assistant Directors. Their role is to moderate the debate and set the rules through the use of the

speakers list and caucuses.


Topic A: Comprising National Sovereignty to Fight Terror Threats in the Middle East

Introduction

Article two of the United Nations Charter explicitly states, “The Organization is based on

the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” (“Charter”). Here, the United Nations

is outlining how it intends to make all member states equal, through the principle that each state

is entitled to govern its own territory without interference. States can then use this as a way to

protect themselves from foreign invasion. If that sovereignty is breached, the invader has

violated UN law, and is subject to the consequences decided on by the UN. However, the shield

of sovereignty has provided safety not only for peaceful citizens of the world’s countries, but

also criminals. Terrorism has become a widespread issue in the modern world, threatening both

developed and developing countries. The Middle East is one of areas most plagued by terrorism

and terrorist attacks. In Iraq alone during 2005, 2,000 people were killed in terrorist attacks, most

of them civilians (Atran 131). In 2006, the total number of terrorist attacks totaled nearly 6,600,

with half of those attacks occurring in Iraq (Atran 132). With extradition being the only option,

and many states not signing extradition treaties, the need to pursue these criminals across

international borders has become apparent. Although, these pursuits can be a breach of national

sovereignty.

Questionable pursuits and invasions have occurred in the past, but with no real guidelines

in place, the legality of chasing criminals through other countries is disputed. The most

prominent example in recent history would be the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan. After

the September 11th attacks, the United States commenced an invasion in order to pursue the

Taliban. It was the first time this issue had really been questioned. The United States has the

right to apprehend such criminals, but did they have the right to enter another country in such a

fashion?



Terrorists have been able to hide behind the laws of national sovereignty, even though

they should be brought to justice. Countries should be able to capture criminals that commit such

serious crimes, but without infringing upon other states’ sovereignty. DISEC will examine past

cases and current laws to determine the best way to uphold article two of the UN Charter with

respect to the issue of combating terrorism in the Middle East.

History and Description of the Issue:

Israel and Palestine

The issue of sovereignty during pursuits pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates

back to the intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine in the mid-1900s, when Britain was

still involved with its former territory (Fortna 67). The history of the attacks began in 1987 with

Palestine and Hamas declaring the First Intifada against Israel (Kepel 154). Soon after in 1988,

the charter of Hamas called for the complete destruction of Israel, and many attacks would

follow, including a number of suicide attacks targeting civilians (Kepel 154). Israeli forces

combated this by occupying Palestinian territory, mainly the West Bank. Only at the end of the

Second Intifada in 2005 did Israel vacate the West Bank (Al-Mughrabi 2007). This did not mark

the end of the conflict, however. With attacks still coming from Palestine, Israel continues to

fight back, even crossing into Palestinian territory to pursue the fighters of Hamas they believe

are responsible for the attacks.

In recent years, Israel has returned to fight in the West Bank, and still has Gaza under

siege. In their pursuit, Israel has used “reckless violence” to track down those responsible for the

terrorist attacks (Balmer 2011). Amnesty International accused the Israeli army of allowing

soldiers to “Act with virtual impunity” in their campaign against Hamas. (Balmer 2011). The



human rights group asserts that during Israel’s operation in the West Bank from 2011-2013, 45

Palestinians died, six of whom were children, and 25 civilians (Balmer 2011). The current

pursuit is plagued by “unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians by

Israeli forces in the West Bank,” Amnesty International says (Balmer 2011). Israeli occupation

of Palestinian territory has led to continued terrorist attacks. Thus, Israel is trying to pursue the

culprits, unsuccessfully, through the foreign territory of Palestine.

Palestine remains a de facto sovereign state as recognized by the UN. With this

recognition by the United Nations, the UN charter, specifically article two, applies directly to

this conflict. Palestine is a sovereign state who is being invaded by another in the pursuit of

terrorists. In addition, Israel has been using excessive force and injuring over 8,000 Palestinian

civilians in the recent conflict (Balmer 2011). Though, it must be noted that sovereignty is a

right, it comes with responsibilities (Beehner 112, Yale Journal).

United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan

The rise of the terrorist groups known as the Taliban and Al-Qaida dates back to the late

1970s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The rise in these extremist groups eventually lead

to global terrorist activity and coordinated attacks. This bred a fear of these individuals and

global tension of how to deal with these radicals in the already unstable Middle East developed.

The tension between the West and Al-Qaida, along with the Taliban, came to a head on

September 11th, 2001 with the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. These

attacks started a series of campaigns in the Middle East to find and apprehend the individuals

responsible for the attacks. This lead to over a decade of war.



The Taliban was formed as a resistance movement to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

in 1979, ("History of the Taliban" 2008). The invasion was reportedly to help stabilize the

collapsing economy. Ten years later in 1989, the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Taliban took

control of the government ("History of the Taliban" 2008). The Taliban, at this point, was a

cultural and political party aimed at reforming and reorganizing the war torn nation. That

changed in 1996 when the Taliban welcomed Osama Bin Laden into the country to recruit and

train militants ("History of the Taliban" 2008). The Taliban refused to cease support for Bin

Laden and Al-Qaida, even after the UN Security Council passed two resolutions condoning their

activities ("History of the Taliban" 2008). Sanctions were even imposed in hopes that the Taliban

would give up Al-Qaida (Laub 2014). The Taliban government continued to harbor and support

Al-Qaida.

On September 11th, 2001, Al-Qaida attacked the United Sates by destroying the World

Trade Center. The United States responded by bombing the Taliban’s strategic bases ("History of

the Taliban" 2008). The invasion that followed saw the fall of the Taliban by December 9, 2001

("History of the Taliban" 2008). Many Taliban leaders fled to Pakistan as the United States

Army pursed Taliban officials and those associated with Al-Qaida throughout Afghanistan (Laub

2014). The United States continued their pursuit of the terrorists for over a decade, finally ending

combat operations in 2014 (Laub 2014).

Afghanistan was not the only country the United States pursued the terrorists through.

They also entered Pakistan, who voiced concern with what they called a breach of sovereignty

("Another US strike hits Pakistan" 2008). Pakistan had been reportedly hunting the Taliban and

members of Al-Qaida in their territory, and believed that it was enough, but the United States

launched air strikes and sent men into the region to find the terrorists responsible for 9/11



("Another US strike hits Pakistan" 2008). Pakistan voiced concerns for the United States

unilateral action in the war ("Another US strike hits Pakistan" 2008). These concerns were

realized when several US missiles killed Pakistani civilians ("Another US strike hits Pakistan"

2008). In 2011, the United States discovered Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, through a series

of secret operations conducted in Pakistan for almost a decade. Attempts to locate Bin Laden

intensified after 9/11, and by 2007 the CIA had learned the name his most trusted courier,

Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed (Ross 2011). After Following Saeed for several years, they learned he

lived in Abbottabad, just north of Islamabad (Ross 2011). Saeed lived in a large compound that

included two houses and a tall security wall (Ross 2011). Being that Saeed was Bin Laden’s

most trusted courier, the CIA speculated that he was also residing in the compound in

Abbottabad. President Barak Obama authorized Operation Neptune Trident in 2011, after

determining that enough intelligence had been gathered to prove Bin Laden’s residency in

Abbottabad (Ross 2011). This operation was conducted on May 2, 2011. US Navy Seals raided

the compound, killing Bin Laden on Pakistani soil.

At the same time, in 2003, the US also invaded Iraq. The war is sometimes considered to

be a spillover from the war in Afghanistan. Both campaigns had the goal of replacing the current

regime with a democracy (Bush 2003). Official reasons, however, cite the terrorist problem in

the Middle East and Saddam Hussein's potential possession of weapons of mass destruction

(Bush). The army toppled Saddam’s regime, but left a power vacuum (Karon 2005). A power

vacuum occurs when a government has been displaced and there is no immediate successor. A

state then has no central authority, creating a gap that needs to be filled. Most of the time, many

groups rush to fill this position and gain power, hence the term “vacuum”. These positions of

power are usually filled by militias or dictators. In the case of Iraq, a dictator had just been



removed and insurgent groups began to form and fight for control of the country (Karon 2005).

Many used guerilla tactics to fight against US and NATO forces, prolonging the war in Iraq

(Bush 2003). Both Shiite and Sunni groups fought over power, along with the Kurds who

contested the groups, and refused to give up any power they had (Karon 2005). This dead lock

created a “long term power vacuum” that only perpetuated and intensified the war (Karon 2005).

The Iraq War ended in 2011, three years before the war in Afghanistan did.

In the pursuit of terrorists in the Middle East, all three countries were invaded by foreign

forces in the name of justice. Although, many civilian casualties occurred as a consequence of

the resulting wars. Sovereignty must be considered when engaging criminals across state

borders. These are only a few examples of the many instances where sovereignty may have been

breached in the pursuit of justice. It is important to recognize that there are few international

laws governing this sort of action. With instances of these pursuits rising, it is the role of DISEC

to implement regulations that will allow for the pursuit of terrorists without the breach of

sovereignty that has been seen in the past.

Current Status

The rules for what is known as “hot pursuit” have not been clearly defined. Hot pursuit,

at its most basic definition, is the idea that states can cross international borders to track down

and capture wanted criminals, such as terrorists (Beehner 2007, Council on Foreign Relations).

The law is barely defined and vulnerable to abuse. International legal expect Michael P. Scharf

interprets the law by explaining a state “is allowed to temporarily violate borders to make an

apprehension under those circumstances” (Beehner 2007, Council on Foreign Relations). With

the growing presence of international criminals and terrorist groups, this law and idea of “hot

pursuit” needs to be addressed.



The law of hot pursuit is derived from the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,

Article 111. The beginning of Article 111 states “The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be

undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that

the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State” (“Agreement”). This clearly applies

to warships and naval vessels of countries, but it has been adapted, loosely, to be used to justify

land based assaults. Interestingly, one provision obviously left out is paragraph 3 from Article

111, it states “The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea

of its own State or of a third State” (“Agreement”). For example, the Taliban entered what is

considered a “third state” when they fled to Pakistan, but the US continued to pursue them. The

law, originally meant for ships, has not officially been stated as pertaining to land combat.

The current implied non-naval version of hot pursuit is somewhat supported by UN

Security Council resolution 1317 on combatting terrorism. This resolution calls for “UN member

states to work together to suppress terrorist financing, share intelligence on terrorism,” and

oversee the security of borders (“UN” 2001). It suggests that states have a duty to control the

influx of rebels and their actions, especially when discussing border security. In simple terms, “a

government has an obligation not to allow its territory to be used by non-state actors—or terrorist

organizations—to carry out armed attacks against its neighbors” (Beehner 2007, Council on

Foreign Relations”). If a state can prove that another country is not in control of rebel groups

inside its territory, then they can pursue them.

The issue at hand that this all applies to is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, better

known as ISIS or ISIL. ISIS was formed in 1999 and has progressed into a major terror threat in

the Middle East. In early 2014 the rebel group attacked several cities in western Iraq and

captured them, taking territory all the way up to the western edge of Baghdad (“Islamic”,



“Iraq’s” 2014). ISIS also took control of a portion of Syria when it fought the Syrian government

and other forces in the Syrian Civil War (“Islamic” 2015). The leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-

Baghdadi, declared an official caliphate in the region, and called all Muslims to a jihad

(“Iraq’s”). Al-Baghdadi has declared himself “caliph” and has yet to cease the intensity of his

operations. ISIS has been declared a terrorist organization and a threat by the United Nations,

United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations (Cooper

2014). Currently, more than 60 countries are at war with ISIS (Cooper 2014).

With the current laws in place, extradition is the only legal way, in writing, to apprehend

and prosecute an individual or group for war crimes or terrorism. Though, the use of hot pursuit

as a reason to invade is becoming more common. Groups like ISIS that pose a threat to

international security provoke this type of action.

Bloc Positions

The divide in opinion on the law of hot pursuit tends to come down do those countries

that use, and possibly abuse, the law, and those countries that are victim of invasion by hot

pursuit. In the Middle East, this division has grown over the past decade with the advent of

terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida an ISIS, as well as military operations like Operation Enduring

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Many countries that have been affected by terrorism in the Middle East tend to be in

favor of hot pursuit. The most obvious case would be the United States. With their invasion of

Afghanistan after September 11th, they are clearly in support of the law of hot pursuit (Laub

2014). Their subsequent invasion of Pakistan in pursuit of bin Laden was also a definitive move

that showed their support for hot pursuit. The United States has shown clear support for the law



of hot pursuit through their actions in the Middle East. Israel also stands in a similar position to

the US. They have continually pursued the terrorists associated with Hamas since the First

Intifada in 1987 (Kepel 154). Their persistent occupation of Palestinian territory, including Gaza

and the West Bank, shows support for hot pursuit.

Many other countries also have shown support for hot pursuit through their support for

the United States in the Middle East conflict. The United Kingdom is one such country. They

conducted Operation Herrick alongside the United States starting in 2003 (“UK Forces” 2015).

NATO itself has also been in support of the conflict. They lead the International Security

Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and Iraq (“ISAF’s” 2015). Many NATO countries

contributed to this force including Estonia, France, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and

Poland (“ISAF’s” 2015). Even Turkey supports this law, as they have used it in the past. Many

times, Turkey has cited hot pursuit as a reason to cross into northern Iraq to pursue the Kurdistan

Workers Party (Beehner 111, Yale Journal). These countries have all shown support for hot

pursuit through their actions in the Middle East conflict.

The countries that stand against the law of hot pursuit include Afghanistan, Pakistan, and

Palestine. Citizens of Afghanistan have been outspoken about the US invasion and how it is a

breach of sovereignty. Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (“Taliban”

2001), released a statement saying that the Afghan people should be responsible for

overthrowing the Taliban, and that foreign intervention will only cost more lives (“Taliban”

2001). Pakistani government has made a very clear stance on hot pursuit. They released a

statement in 2010 that read “We will never allow any foreign boots on our soil. This is one of our

red lines and the international community including the U.S. knows about it” (Beehner 110, Yale

Journal). Palestine has experienced much violence associated with Israel’s occupation of its



territory. As of recent, a 21 year old female college student and a 16 year old schoolboy were

shot and killed by Israeli forces (Balmer 2011). Neither was taking part in a protest (Balmer

2011). Palestinians certainly oppose the law if not only for the violence and death it has caused.

These three countries have experienced the opposite end of hot pursuit, and stand firm that it is a

breach of sovereignty.

Committee Mission

DISEC must address the current issue of hot pursuit. The committee must understand the

issue as it applies to the Middle East and the multiple long standing conflicts that have occurred

in order to come up with a course of action that would be effective.

Delegates must consider the idea of sovereignty as a right that confers responsibilities to

protect ones borders and non-state actors within its borders (Beehner 111, Yale Journal). A

viable solution is one that must address the issue of terrorism and individual rights of a state.

With the Middle East being a hotbed of rebel activity in the present moment, the solution must

also take into consideration the idea of extradition for crimes committed against other states by

such rebel groups.

The goal of DISEC in resolving this issue is to formulate a policy that will ease tensions

over cross border incursions in the Middle East. The solution will also set a precedent for the

rules of hot pursuit in a land based assault. This means that care must be taken so that any

resolutions drafted can be universal and adaptable to many situations. Any policy drafted must

have an emphasis on sovereignty and the idea that it implies a responsibility of security to the

international community.



Questions to consider

1. If a sovereign country is unable to control internal factions, is it still sovereign?

2. When does a foreign state have the right to cross another state’s borders to attempt to

bring a wanted terrorist to justice?

3. Is harboring a suspected terrorist because a state wishes to remain sovereign an act of

war?

4. Is there a need for large scale invasions to bring terrorists to justice?



Works Cited

"Agreement Relating To the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention." UN Law of the Seas.

United Nations, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

This source explains the Law of the Sea, and specifically Hot Pursuit. It outlines the law

and it’s used to explain how the law has been adapted to be used to justify land based

assaults.

Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. "Hamas Says Still Seeks Israel's Destruction." Reuters. Reuters, 12 Mar.

2007. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

This article explains the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. It provides an update to the

conflict as well as some history. The history helps to explain why it has lasted so long.

"Another US strike hits Pakistan." BBC. BBC, 12 Sept. 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

Atran, Scott. "The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism." Washington Quarterly

(2006): 127-47. Print.

Atran provides many statics about causalities in the Middle East, especially Iraq. He also

breaks down the deaths into categories such as suicide bombings and their specific death

toll.

Balmer, Crispian. "Amnesty says some Israeli West Bank killings may be war crimes." Reuters.

Reuters, 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

This article provides information on possible war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers. It

helps to create a non-biased tone when discussion Palestinian terroism.



Beehner, Lionel. "Can States Invoke ‘Hot Pursuit’ to Hunt Rebels?" Council on Foreign

Relations. CFR, 7 June 2007. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Beehner analyzes hot pursuit and how it has affected the war in the Middle East. He

focuses on its present day effects and ties in new resolutions passed by the Security

Council.

Beehner, Lionel. "Can Nations “Pursue” Non-State Actors across Borders?" Yale Journal of

International Affaris (2011): n. pag.. Yale Journal. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Beehner again takes a critical look at hot pursuit, but in a more general sense. He adds

commentary about Pakistan, Turkey, and the United States. He provides a compelling

closing argument about why sovereignty is a right that comes with responsibilities.

Bush, George W. "President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Whitehouse.gov.

United States Government, 2 Mar. 2003. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

President Bush gives insight into Operation Iraqi Freedom and explains his reasons for

taking military action against Saddam Hussein. He also discusses the war in Afghanistan

and the ongoing efforts to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice.

"Charter of the United Nations: Chapter 1: Purpose and Priciples." The United Nations. UN, n.d.

Web. 21 Feb. 2015.

This contributes Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. It is the basis for this

entire discussion on sovereignty and hot pursuit.

Cooper, Helene. "Obama Enlists 9 Allies to Help in the Battle Against ISIS." New York Times.

New York Times, 5 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.



Cooper talks about the war with ISIS and those who have become involved. She outlines

the allies President Obama has recruited to help stop this terror threat.

Fortna, Virginia Page. Peace Time: Cease-fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace.

Elizabeth: Princeton University, 2004. Print.

Fortna discusses the beginnings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in her book. The reif

excerpt used established the fact that Britain once controlled the region and the possible

effect of the colonizers leaving.

"History of the Taliban." Nazareth College. Nazareth College, 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

Collegiate source on the history of the Taliban, from its rise to its involvement with

terrorism and Al-Qaida, to its decline and its exile from Afghanistan. Describes many of

the issues that came up in the American invasion of Afghanistan.

"Iraq's Baghdadi calls for 'holy war.'" Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera Media, 2 July 2014. Web. 27 Mar.

2015.

The article details ISIS’s leader calling for a jihad. This source establishes the legitimate

threat that ISIS poses in the Middle East.

"ISAF's mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014)." North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO, 13

Jan. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.

Documentation about the International Security Assistance Force and their role in the

Middle East conflict, including Iraq and Afghanistan. It details which countries were

involved and who supplied troops.



"Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)." Encyclopedia Brittanica. Encyclopedia Brittanica,

10 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

Definition of ISIS/ISIL and their formation. The entry outlines their differences from Al-

Qaida and serves to emphasize the point about needing to address their actions.

Karon, Tony. "A Power Vacuum in Iraq?" Time. Time, 29 Mar. 2005. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

The removal of Saddam Hussein is discussed and the many insurgent groups that

attempted to fill the space left behind. Karon talks about the dangers it posed at the time

and how the system needed to be supported correctly in order to achieve a successful

government.

Kepel, Gilles. Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Cambridge: Belknap, 2002. Print.

Kepel provides the background for the Palestinian conflict. He discusses the First and

Second Intifada and how the war has gotten to its current state.

Laub, Zachary. "The Taliban in Afghanistan." Council of Foreign Relations. CFR, 4 July 2014.

Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

Laub provides more information on the Taliban as a government party, and separates it

from the birth of Al-Qaida. It details the rise and popularity of the party, and why it

succeeded in becoming the majority during the Russian Occupation.

Ross, Brian. "Osama Bin Laden: Navy SEALS Operation Details of Raid That Killed 9/11 Al

Qaeda Leader." ABC News. ABC, 2 May 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.



The report explains the gathering of intelligence that led to Operation Neptune Trident,

the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. It uses quotes from the president

and details CIA operations that gathered the necessary information to find Bin Laden.

"Taliban Should Be Overthrown by the Uprising of Afghan Nation." Revolutionary Association

of the Women of Afghanistan. RAWA, 11 Oct. 2001. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan explain their side of the

story after witnessing the invasion of Afghanistan. This is an account of the war and a

political statement on the opinions of many Afghan citizens.

"UK forces: operations in Afghanistan." Gov.Uk. United Kingdom, 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 Mar.

2015.

This article explains how the United Kingdom assisted with the war in Afghanistan as

well as Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is critical to discussing who supports hot pursuit in

the Bloc Positions section of this paper.

"UN Security Council Resolution 1373, Combating Terrorism." Council on Foreign Relations.

CFR, 28 Sept. 2001. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

This press release explained briefly the contents of Resolution 1373. It was a resolution

to encourage member states to share intelligence about terrorist organizations in order to

quell the threats.


Topic B: Weapons in Space; Stockpiling, Non-Proliferation, and Liability

Introduction

The first article of the United Nations Charter states that the United Nations exists “To

maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures

for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of

aggression or other breaches of the peace” (“Charter”). This statement comes before all else in

the charter, and emphasizes that the main obligation of the UN is to, first and foremost, create a

more peaceful environment for the citizens of the world. Member states are obligated to support

this, and to adapt to keep peace through an ever changing society. To fulfill this responsibility,

states must work together to insure, collectively, to agree on policy that will make the world a

safer place to live.

There is no other time than now in history where

mankind, and world peace, faces its biggest threat.

That threat is global war and mutual destruction. For

example, the number of total nuclear weapons in the

world is estimated at 16,300 (Kristensen 1). Most of

these weapons are designed to travel through space on

intercontinental ballistic missiles. This makes them

highly deployable, to anywhere in the world. The

figure shows the estimated total number of nuclear

weapons, as the actual figures are highly guarded

Military secrets (Kristensen 2). In fact, the largest

number of nuclear weapons is held by Russia, and they provide almost no information on their

nuclear program and storage facilities (Kristensen 8).

“World” 2015



The present issue is not only with nuclear weapons, but their delivery system and other

weapons that travel through and make use of outer space. The use of space as a means of

delivery started during the cold war. The militarization of space has included spy satellites,

missile guidance systems, orbital ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is

a great threat to peace that the world faces in the 21st century. While wars are fought in the

Middle East, conflicts such as “hot pursuit” tend to divert attention away from the dangers of the

militarization of space. Still, tensions grow over how to handle this problem; from the issues of

production and proliferation, to liability. Policy must be made to solidify the international laws

on weapons in space.

History and Description

World War II

The beginnings of space weapons can be traced back to the mid-1930s in Nazi Germany.

Scientists had begun experimenting with ballistic missiles, in a program known as the

“Wundewaffe”, or “wonder weapon” program (Cornwell 145). The first was the A2 rocket, a

liquid fueled missile that could carry a small payload (Cornwell 145). The designer of these

rockets was none other than Wernher von Braun, the man who eventually took the United States

to the moon. Further developments were made, and the project progressed to the A5, a reliable

missile with a one ton payload (Cornwell 146). The A5 was also the first weapon, and manmade

object, to enter space (Cornwell 146). The famous V-2 rocket followed in the footsteps of the A

series, and became the first widely used guided ballistic missile (Coldwell 149). World War II

was only the beginning of the development of weapons for use in space.

Cold War



After World War II ended, the Soviets and the United States each saw the potential for

long range ballistic missiles and space faring rockets. Each country assembled teams of

engineers to design such rockets. The Soviet Union had Sergei Korolev, known as the “Chief

Designer” and inventor of early Soviet rockets deigns dating to the mid-1930s (Schefter 7). The

United States had Wernher von Braun and his team of scientists from the Nazi V-2 program

working at Redstone Arsenal to develop long range, high payload rockets (Cornwell 149). With

their small armies of engineers and scientist, the two superpowers set out on a race for space.

In 1955, the world held its breath as the “Space Race” was officially declared. Both

nations, the Soviet Union and United States, announced that they would launch satellites into

orbit by 1957 (Schefter 3-4). Shortly after, the first ideas about sovereign space above a nation

were expressed. Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States at the time, expressed that an

orbiting satellite could be a possible violation of a country’s sovereign airspace (Schefter 8). To

avoid conflict, and avoid being labeled as a war monger, he disallowed the use of military launch

vehicles in the United States rocket program (Schefter 16). Von Braun was only allowed to use

Vanguard rockets, instead of the more powerful and reliable Jupiter-C, as it was intended for use

as a weapon (Schefter 18). In the long run, this hurt the United States as it allowed the Soviets to

have the advantage in power. Ultimately, the Soviets would reach space first.

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 into orbit (Cadbury 165). The

satellite was small, weighing less than 200 pounds and barely two feet in diameter (Cadbury

165). It distinctive beeping noise was its only transmission, but this simple design allowed it to



be tracked, picked up by radio, as it circled the earth (Cadbury 165). Pictured below is a replica

of Sputnik 1.

The United States had seemingly lost the space race. Scrambling, they decided to move

up the launch of Project Vanguard, to attempt to answer the Soviet’s accomplishment. The

launch was planned for December 6, 1957 (Cadbury 170). The payload was very similar to

Sputnik, The TV3 Satellite was a small orb with antennae and a simple transmitter. However, the

launch was rushed, and the Vanguard TV3 exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral

(Cadbury 170). Following this failure, Eisenhower throughout the old policy of not using

military rockets, and approved the use of Jupiter-C as a launch vehicle (Schefter 18). The United

States was able to move forward quickly after this approval, and soon after von Braun’s team

would launch its own satellite.

On January 31, 1958, the United States launched Juno-1, carrying its first satellite into

space (Cadbury 171). With the Soviets still leading in the space race, Eisenhower created a

civilian branch for aeronautics and space research. This branch became known as the National

“Sputnik 1”



Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA (Cadbury 194). The Redstone Arsenal became

the George Marshall Space Flight Center. Wernher von Braun was the first director. The Military

also handed over development of the Saturn rocket family, a much more powerful missile.

Manned Space Flight

Both countries had plans for manned space flight following their success at launching the

world’s first satellites. Although, the Soviets had a considerable lead on the American’s, and the

race to put a man in space would pan out in a similar way Sputnik did.

The Soviet Union had begun the Vostok program began shortly after the launch of

Sputnik. The Soviets began to design and test larger rockets capable of lifting heavier payloads.

They also began work on capsules that could carry a person and successfully reenter the

atmosphere. In 1960 the program had selected its six cosmonauts, known as the Vanguard Six

(Siddqi 245). These men were Gagarin, Kartashov, Nikolayev, Popovich, Titov, and Varlamov;

all six would go through accelerated training on space flight (Siddqi 249). Overall, the program

had mixed success rates in its unmanned tests, from partial failures, to complete failures (Siddqi

253-280). They refined the designs, going through seven intertaions of the Vostok rocket and

capsule (Hall, David, & Vis 191). After two sucessfule tests in a row, the designs were deemed

ready for use (R. Hall et. All 200). By 1961, the Soviets were ready to send a man into space.

The Vostok 1 was the name given to the first mission by the Soviets that sent a man into

space. Yuri Gagarin prepared for launch on April 12, 1961 (Siddqi 274). Sergei Korolev knew

the Vostok launcher had only a fifty percent success rate, and as a result was extremely unsure of

the mission (R. Hall et. All 201). Gagarin’s flight ended up being a success, and he was first man



in space. His flight lasted only an hour and 48 minutes, but he made one complete orbit of the

Earth (Siddqi 293). Once again, the Soviets had beaten the United States.

The Vostok program went on to fly five more successful missions. Several achieved

notable feats. Valery Bykovsky had the longest solo flight, at almost five days (R. Hall et. All

204). The Soviets also put the first woman in space that same year, 1963 (Siddqi 301).

The United States counterpart to Vostok was Project Mercury. It was just as successful, if

not more. Seven astronauts took part in the program, but only six went into space (Alexander,

Swenson, & Grimwood, 1966). Alan Sheppard became the first American to go into space on

May 5, 1961, only 5 weeks after Gagarin (Alexander et all 1966). Another five flights were

flown, including John Glenn’s, where he became the first American to Orbit (Alexander et all

1966). The final Mercury flight lasted over a day, with Leroy Cooper orbiting 22 times

(Alexander et all 1966). The Mercury program was extraordinarily successful and paved the way

for the future of space flight. It was the precursor to project Gemini, which tested long deration

manned spaceflight with multiple crew (Alexander et all 1966). Gemini was the test program that

eventually led to the famous Apollo program, and its success was built on that of the Mercury

missions.

“Alan”

“Yuri”



Race to the Moon

After the success of Mercury, President John F Kennedy authorized the Apollo program.

Apollo was the beginning of the end for the space race, and the first time the United States would

surpass the Soviet Union in ballistic technology. The Apollo program was the culmination of the

technological advancements from Mercury and Gemini and would be one of the most advanced

achievements at that point in history.

The program had a rough start, with Apollo 1 catching fire, killing all astronauts inside

(L. Hall 298). Following the disaster, six unmanned flights were tested with the Saturn rocket,

designed by von Braun. Apollo 8 was the first flight to the moon. The mission took the crew to

the moon where they orbited ten times before returning to Earth (L Hall 305). Seven months

later, the United States sent the first men to land on the moon. Apollo 11 launched July 16, 1969

and Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the moon July 20 (L. Hall 317). July 24, all crew returned

safely to Earth after being the first men on the moon. The United States beat the Soviets to the

moon, and this signaled the end of the space race. The countries focused on orbital laboratories

until 1972 when they decided to run a joint program to space (L Hall 344).

The Space race was crucial in developing the technology that powers many weapons

today. These include intercontinental ballistic missiles and orbital weapons. The space race

pushed countries into creating powerful rockets that were then weaponized to carry their arsenals

of nuclear weapons.

Projects

Two projects were drawn up after the successful moon landing. These included one from

the United States and one from the Soviet Union. Project Horizon was the first, developed by the



US to be a lunar military base. The base was to be armed with small, low yield nuclear weapons

for defense along with ballistic weapons (L. Hall 360). It failed the feasibility study and was

never implemented. The Soviet counterpart was the Almaz, an orbital military installation. It

carried small cannon for defense and housed small crew (L. Hall 377). Three were built and

flown in complete secrecy, designated as a research station. These early projects were the first

instances of the militarization of space.

Current Status

Weapons and Militarization

At the present time, major countries like the United States and Russia have the capacity

to militarize space, beyond reconnaissance satellites. These countries, and other world super

powers, have the technology to put nuclear weapons, kinetic weapons, and other weapons of

mass destruction in space. The Cold War had essentially sped up the process of acquiring and

testing this type of technology capable of such destruction.

There are three main types of “space weapons”; space-to-space, earth-to-space, and

space-to-earth. Space-to-space weapons are primarily fitted to satellites or other orbiting bodies.

They exist for the protection of a satellite or space station, or for the purpose of combat in space.

As previously discussed, the Soviet Union had created their own orbiting space station called

Almaz. Almaz had a cannon on board for protection, and was most likely the first weapon in

space, besides Soviet pistols (L.Hall 377). Space-to-space weapons can include manually

operated cannons, like those on Almaz, or missiles designed to target other objects. These types

of weapons generally do not pose a great risk to those on earth, as they are not designed to target

earth or survive reentry.



Earth-to-space weapons, currently, are meant for defensive purposes. The only offensive

capability they possess is destroying enemy satellites. Generally, these weapons are designed to

intercept incoming missiles and destroy them before they reach the ground. A modern example

would be the Aegis Missile Defense System, developed and used by the United States. This

system uses ballistic missile based on warships to intercept enemy rockets (“Aegis” 2015). Aegis

is among the most popular defense system in the world. It uses 33 United States Navy warships

based in the Pacific and Atlantic, and even helps to protect Europe (“Aegis” 2015). It is the first

defense system to be used by another country as well. Japan uses this system on its destroyers as

a means of protection (“Aegis” 2015). There are future plans to make the Aegis system land

based as well (“Aegis” 2015). Earth-to-space weapons, as explained, are generally for defense

only.

The last type of space weapon, space-to-earth, is considered to pose the greatest threat to

countries. These are weapons systems based in space that house nuclear warheads for

deployment. They are considered extremely dangerous because of their ability to easily target

anywhere on earth and reach it in a matter of minutes. This threat, however, was deescalated by

the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which prohibits the placement of weapons of mass destruction

in orbit or partial orbit around earth (Treaty 2015). It does not, however, forbid the use of

conventional weapons. Therefore orbital kinetic weapons are legal under the treaty, since they do

not use explosive warheads.

Another class of weapons that should be discussed are Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.

These are missiles with ranges greater than 3,400 miles with the ability to target exact locations

(“Intercontinental” 1998). These missiles are designed to carry a payload of one or more

thermonuclear warheads. Today, most are designed to carry multiple warheads. These are called



Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) (“Intercontinental” 1998). An

example of a modern intercontinental ballistic missile with MIRVs would be the United States

LGA-118A Peacekeeper. It can deliver up to ten independently targeted nuclear warheads

(“Intercontinental” 1998). The photo below shows eight of the ten possible warheads reentering

the atmosphere during a test. There are several countries that have demonstrated the ability to

build intercontinental missiles. These countries have all launched space vehicles and include the

United States, Russia, China, France, Japan, India, and Israel (“Intercontinental” 1998).

These missiles can launch from various points on land, or deployed on warships for faster

delivery. Their adaptability makes them extremely dangerous as they can be moved and launched

from almost anywhere on the globe. Although not considered a space weapon, intercontinental

ballistic missiles use space as a means of delivery. Most, if not all, leave the atmosphere then

deploy their payload, which reenters and travels to its target. Weapons like these that use space

for delivery should be included in discussions about space weaponry.

(“LGA-118A Peacekeeper”, 2005)



Intercontinental ballistic missiles pose a problem because their main payload is nuclear

warheads. Nuclear nonproliferation then also becomes an issue. With 16,300 warheads in play,

there needs to be a way to curb stockpiling (Kristensen 1). The biggest offenders are the United

States and Russia, whose stockpiles make up over 75 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons

(Kristensen 2). With an estimated 15,300 nuclear warheads combined, and an untold number of

intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them, the destruction is untold (Kristensen 5).

Controlling the use of space weapons can be a way to curb the nuclear threat.

Treaties

There have already been two treaties proposed to ban weapons of mass destruction in

space. The first, the Outer Space Treaty, was passed in 1967 after being ratified by the United

States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom (“Treaty” 2015). The second, the Space Preservation

Treaty, was passed in 2006 and amended in 2014 (“General Assembly” 2014).

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 lays out the basic principles for the international law of

space. The treaty deems outer space as place of peace. It forbids any nation from placing nuclear

weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the earth, moon or other celestial body

(“Treaty” 2015). It also prohibits placing weapons on the moon or using the moon for military

purposes (“Treaty” 2015). The treaty bans countries from testing weapons in space, or

conducting military action in space (“Treaty” 2015). Furthermore, no one country can lay claim

to space or any bodies in it. Article two states explicitly “Outer space, including the Moon and

other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means

of use or occupation, or by any other means” (“Treaty” 2015). This language, however, does not

forbid the use or placement of conventional weapons in space. These include ballistic weapons

as well as orbital kinetic weapons. The treaty also fails to cover weapons that use space as a



vehicle for delivery, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles. This treaty was ratified by the

major world powers at the time; the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union.

The Space Preservation Treaty of 2006 was an addition to the Outer Space Treaty of

1967. This new treaty proposed that no first placement of weapons was allowed in space (“61st

Session” 2006). It essentially limited the danger of an arms race in space by preventing anyone

from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, with a focus on regulation of nuclear

weapons (“61st Session” 2006). This treaty was only opposed by the United Sates, who voted

against it, and Israel, who abstained (“61st Session” 2006). It was amended in 2014 by the

Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China ("General Assembly” 2014). Both

countries proposed legislation to ban an arms race altogether. It was passed, with only the United

States and Israel abstaining ("General Assembly” 2014). A second resolution was also passed

that prohibited first placement; therefore ensuring an arms race would not be started ("General

Assembly” 2014). This was opposed by four countries: the United States, Israel, Georgia, and

Ukraine ("General Assembly” 2014). Forty-six countries also abstained, most being from the

European bloc ("General Assembly” 2014).

Bloc Positions

With the issue of the militarization of space, two positions have been taken up. The first

favors less regulation, while the second favors more regulation. Each position has justified their

stance with possible problems that may arise in the future, but the side in favor of more

regulation heavily outnumbers those in favor of less.

There are four countries that have made it clear that they favor less regulation on the

militarization of space. These countries include the United States, Israel, Georgia, and Ukraine.



The United States and Israel have both shown opposition toward the Space Preservation Treaty

and its amendments. The United States first voted against the treaty then abstained for its first

amendment, and opposed the second ("General Assembly” 2014). The United States cited self-

defense concerns as their reason for opposition ("General Assembly” 2014). Israel also opposed

all three documents, showing support for less regulation. Georgia and Ukraine both opposed the

latest amendment, which was extremely regulation heavy ("General Assembly” 2014). Self-

defense is the main concern these countries have over the heavy regulation of the militarization

of space, and it is important to note that all of these countries have space flight capabilities

except Georgia.

The majority of the world’s countries are in favor of more regulation on the militarization

of space. Included in this bloc is the Russian Federation, as well as the United Kingdom and

France. These three countries possess missile technology and nuclear weapons. The majority of

the countries in this bloc, however, do not have space flight capabilities. They also do not

possess advanced missile technology or nuclear weapons. The main concerns these countries

have are protection from more advanced countries who have the capability to place weapons in

space.

Committee Mission

The First Committee, DISEC, has the responsibility of maintaining a standard of peace in

the world. With such advanced technological capabilities, the human race poses a great threat to

itself with the ability to place weapons in space. The first goal of DISEC must be to consider the

dangers that these new weapons pose and define legislation that will bring about a peaceful

resolution.



The committee must also consider how a space weapon is currently defined. It is only

defined as a weapon that is used against an object in space, or one that is fired from space. It

does not include those weapons that use space as a vehicle for transport. Defining a space

weapon is critical in policy implementation. The committee should then examine the number of

space capable weapons, and decide on laws of nonproliferation. It is also important to look at the

impact this would have on current weapons of mass destruction. Any new legislation should not

provide a loophole for the production of weapons of mass destruction, but rather help to

deescalate tensions by reducing production and stockpiling.

Questions to Consider

1. Should weapons that use space as a means of transport is considered space weapons?

2. In the past there has been secret military space projects, should there be a program to

audit thing like this?

3. What rights does a country have to self-defense with respect to using space?



Works Cited

"61st Session of the General Assembly." United Nations. UN, 6 Dec. 2006. Web. 2 June 2015.

Transcription of the session. Details the resolutions voted on and the country positions.

"Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense." Missile Defense Agency. US Department of Defense, 2015.

Web. 2 June 2015.

This document discusses the Aegis system, its current deployment, and uses.

"Alan Sheppard." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, n.d. Web. 28 May 2015.

Photo of Sheppard.

Alexander, Charles, Loyd Swenson, and James Grimwood. This New Ocean: A History of

Project Mercury. Technical rept. no. 14934. Washington D.C.: NASA, 1966. PDF file.

This is a technical report released by NASA that covers all the details of Project Mercury.

Cadbury, Deborah. Space Race: The Epic Battle Between America and the Soviet Union for

Dominion of Space. N.p.: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.

This book is about the space race, and it provides many facts about the space programs of

the United States and the Soviet Union.

"Charter of the United Nations: Chapter 1: Purpose and Priciples." The United Nations. UN, n.d.

Web. 21 Feb. 2015.

The charter of the United Nations. It explains the guiding principles of the organization.

Cornwell, John. Hitler's Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil's Pact. N.p.: n.p., 2001. Print.



This book provides information about the development of rockets during World War II,

with a focus on Wernher von Braun.

"General Assembly Adopts 63 Drafts on First Committee’s Recommendation with Nuclear

Disarmament at Core of Several Recorded Votes." United Nations. UN, 2 Dec. 2014.

Web. 2 June 2015.

This article talks about the many drafts recently adopted during the 63rd session. It

provides details on the most recent resolutions pertaining to space law.

"Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles." Federation of American Scientists. FAS, 28 Oct. 1998.

Web. 2 June 2015.

This article discusses ICBMs and their use in warfare. It also gives information about

range, class, and payload.

Hall, Loretta. Space Pioneers: In Their Own Words. N.p.: Rio Grande, 2014. Print.

This book gives information about the space program of the United States through

interviews with the people who worked on the many programs.

Hall, Rex D., Shayler David, and Burt Vis. Russia's Cosmonauts: Inside the Yuri Gagarin

Training Center. N.p.: Springer Praxis, 2005. Print.

This book provides information about the Soviet Union’s space program from the time of

Yuri Gagarin. It details his mission, through the many other manned spaceflights that

took place.

Kristensen, Hans M. "Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014." 2014. PDF file.



This article gives information about the deployment of nuclear weapons around the

world. It also provides statistics about the number of nuclear weapons and the breakdown

by country.

"LG-118A Peacekeeper." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, 2005. Web. 2 June 2015.

Photo of the LG-188A missile.

Schefter, James. The Race: The Complete True Story of How America Beat Russia to the Moon.

N.p.: Anchor, 2000. Print.

This book talks about the space race, and specifically the Apollo program. It gives insight

into the trials that went into making Apollo 11 successful.

Siddqi, Asif. The Soviet Space Race with Apollo. N.p.: University Press of Florida, 2003. Print.

A book about the Soviet counterpart to the Apollo program, it is a great source for

information about the Soviet’s technology and development at that time.

"Sputnik 1." NASA. US Government, 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Photo of the Sputnik satellite.

"Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies." United Nations Office for Outer

Space Affairs. United Nations, 2015. Web. 2 June 2015.

The full text of the Outer Space Treaty.

"World Nuclear Weapon Stockpiles." Infographic. Ploughshares Fund. Ploughshares Fund,

2015. Web. 25 May 2015.



Graphic that depicts the total nuclear weapons count and breakdown by country.

"Yuri Gagarin saying hello to the press during a visit to Malmö, Sweden 1964." Wikipedia.

WikimediA, n.d. Web. 28 May 2015.

Photo of Yuri Gagarin.

ucmun 2015 disarmament and international security ... 2015 disarmament and international security...

Documents