disarmament and international security committee final copy.pdf

8/10/2019 Disarmament and International Security Committee FINAL copy.pdf

1/53


2/53

!

Letter from the Chair of the Disarmament and

International Security Committee

27 October 2013

Dear Delegates,

Let me be the first to welcome you to MUNUC XXVI! My name is Sam Shapiro, and I

will be your chair for the General Assembly, Disarmament and International Security

Committee. I am a junior at the University of Chicago, double majoring in Economics and

Philosophy. I was born in Memphis, Tennessee, but grew up in Middlebury, Connecticut. I am

an avid sports fan, especially of the Philadelphia Eagles and Swansea City. In addition to

MUNUC, I am active in my fraternity and the universitys undergraduate business community. I

spend much of my time listening to music; especially jam bands such as Phish and the Grateful

Dead. If not listening to music, I enjoy reading fiction and historical non-fiction, or watching

Wes Anderson movies.

I have been involved in Model United Nations for four years, but, living in Connecticut, I

attended Harvard Model United Nations rather than MUNUC as a delegate. I have a lot of

experience with small committees, but this will be my first attempt at running a General

Assembly. I think larger committees offer an extraordinary opportunity for depth of insight and

opinions that might not get presented in smaller committees, but it will be a great challenge to

ensure that each delegate becomes involved in the discussion. Each country is important to the

overall strategy adopted by DISEC, and so everyone will have a responsibility to themselves and

the committee at large to impact the topic meaningfully. Our topics this conference will be The


3/53

#

Militarization of the Arctic and The Protection of Civilians in Warfare. These topics are

important to every member of the General Assembly, even if they may not appear to be at first. I

urge you to go deep into researching your countrys position while preparing for conference.

There is still a while yet to go until conference, and I do not expect you to be eating and

breathing DISEC from now until February (I was a delegate, I know how these things go), but I

encourage you, if interested, to take note of the news as it relates to DISEC. This committee is

focusing on important and timely topics--ones that could very well impact all of our futures. That

being said, MUNUC is intended to be a fun as well as enlightening experience, and despite my

inability to write a funny letter, I assure you that Im actually a pretty relaxed person in general,

and I will do my absolute best to make this MUNUC a great experience for all of you. Feel free

to contact me with any questions about the topic, the committee, MUNUC, or college in general.

Sincerely,

Sam Shapiro

Chair, DISEC

[email protected]


4/53

$

Disarmament and Security Committee

History of the Committee

The Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC) concerns itself primarily with issues

of global security and threats to peace. DISEC is often called the First Committee because it is

the first General Assembly committee to meet during each session of the United Nations (UN).

Each member nation of the UN is allowed a delegation (of no greater than five representatives)

in DISEC, and the body meets for a four to five week session every year beginning in October. 1

This year will mark the 68thmeeting of the first committee, and the UN in general.

The first committee has a very wide purview in that it is charged with dealing with every

threat to global peace within the Charter of the United Nations.2This charter charges the General

Assemblies with dealing with issues that might concern DISEC, including the general principles

of co-operation and security, including the principles governing disarmament.3The purpose of

the General Assemblies is to provide a forum for discussion and debate amongst all member

nations of the UN (under some circumstances, nonmembers), allowing for a diversity of opinion

that is hard to find in smaller decision making bodies such as the Security Council. However,

DISEC, like all other general assemblies, maintains an advisory role rather than one of direct

action. In fact, Article 10 of the United Nations charter limits the power of the general

assemblies, stating that their ultimate power is to make recommendations to the Members of the

United Nations or to the Security Council or to both.4

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1Disarmament and Security: The First Committee General Assembly of the United Nations,2013,http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/.2Ibid.3UN Charter, Chapter IV: The General Assembly, 1945.4Ibid.


5/53

&

As the first committee to meet with a direct imperative to deal with matters of global

security, DISEC has a very important role in the General Assembly. The other committees of the

General Assembly have varied concerns, some of which will have security implications.

However, these committees meet after DISEC and do not explicitly overlap with the matters of

global security and peace that are the main concerns of DISEC. Voting in DISEC is identical to

the other General Assemblies. Substantive decisions on international peace and security

(determined so by being declared as an Important Question), are passed by a two-thirds

majority where every nation gets exactly one vote. Minor decisions such as The determination

of additional categories and questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, are made by a

simple majority of member nations.5

Despite its inability to pass treaties or laws that bind Member Nations, DISEC

nonetheless remains an integral part of the United Nations, as it serves as an invaluable measure

of global opinion and a fair forum for international debate. The resolutions, the main instrument

of legislation for DISEC, are carefully considered by the rest of the General Assembly and voted

on. The Security Council depends on DISEC for input on its decisions. Important action taken in

the past as a result of discussions in DISEC include the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.6,7The Disarmament and Security

Council has a mandate to protect the peace and stability of the world through open discussion

and discourse, and has shown that this is an effective tool in the past. The role of DISEC and the

importance of this role are only set to grow as matters of international security become

increasingly difficult to understand and polarizing.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5UN Charter, Chapter IV: The General Assembly, 1945. 6Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, 1996, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-245.htm.7Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1968,http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml.


6/53


7/53

'

Topic Area A: The Militarization of the Arctic

Statement of the Problem

The Arctic region has multiple definitions to describe the area it occupies. One definition

uses the concept of latitude to mark the region as everything above the Arctic Circle (66

32N). An alternative definition uses temperature to assign the label of Arctic to any region on

Earth where the average temperature is below 10C (50F) in July. 8 In addition to the incredibly

low temperatures, the Arctic features unique cycles of sunlight in which the sun can be present

for 24 hours in a row in summer months, or disappear for days at a time in the winter.9The

Arctic is also home to the Northern Aurora (Aurora Borealis), a phenomenon in which solar

storms cause the Earths magnetosphere to glow brilliantly.10The Arctic one of the last places on

Earth to be explored, and one where relatively few people settle, most unwilling to brave the

harsh conditions year round. However, many nations have claims on the Arctic, and changing

conditions in this region could lead to territorial clashes. It is the role of DISEC to ensure that

these competing claims do not manifest in the widespread militarization of the region, a

development that would threaten world peace and security.

Before we can discuss possible military action, we must understand the rise of the threat

of militarization of the Artic. Sea ice is integral to a comprehensive discussion of the Arctic. Sea

ice, or frozen seawater, forms on open water through a complicated process of crystallization that

is contingent on formation in calm or choppy water. Roughly 7% of all open oceans contain sea

ice, the majority of which exists in the Arctic Region.11 As of June 2013, 11.58 million km2of

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%8What is the Arctic?, NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html9Midnight Sun and Polar Night, Lofoten, http://www.lofoten.info/article.php/?Id=399 10Arctic Phenomena, NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/phenomena.html11How Does Sea Ice Form and Decay? Peter Wadhams, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html


8/53

(

sea ice existed in the arctic region, most of it impassable.12This makes the Arctic unique in that

it is the only region where sea ice forms in large quantities. Furthermore, there is no Arctic

Continent or land mass as there exists in the Antarctic. This means that the only thing rendering

the Arctic impassible and its resources impossible to exploit is its sea ice. As this sea ice

continues to retreat more each year, Arctic nations are beginning to vie for control of the region

because of its potential for resources and navigation.13

The main impetus behind the possible militarization of the Arctic is the phenomenon

known as climate change. Climate change, colloquially known as global warming, is a theory,

which states that an increase in greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane),

released by human activity, is leading to a rise in global temperatures. Many scientists estimate

an increase of 1.4F over the past century and anywhere from 2 to 11.5F in the coming hundred

years.14In addition to (and as a result of) this rapid warming, climate change theorists predict an

increase in violent storms, droughts, flooding, and other adverse effects such as ocean

acidification. There is enough support for climate change theory and it is rapidly approaching a

scientific consensus, making the physics behind greenhouse gases widely understood. As the

atmospheric concentration of certain gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increases, more

of the suns energy (heat) that radiates from the earth is trapped in the atmosphere and is unable

to escape to space leading to an increase in the Earths average temperature.15The greenhouse

effect has taken a particularly large toll on the Arctic region, warming the northernmost area of

the planet at a considerably faster rate than the rest of the Earth.9

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%12NSIDC, Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.13Ibid.14EPA, Climate Change: Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/.15EPA, Causes of Climate Change, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html.9 IPCC, Climate Change Synthesis Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-3-3.html.


9/53

)

This warming affects the sea ice coverage of the Arctic, drastically altering the dynamics

of the Arctic that have typically prevented people from traveling through the region or exploiting

its resources.16 Almost all current scientific models of climate change include the complete

disappearance of Arctic sea ice in the future, but there is significant disagreement on when the

final block of ice will melt. Some models predict all the ice could be gone by 2030, while other

more conservative models predict a date closer to 2080. 17,18 What these models all share in

common the belief that the ice in the arctic region will eventually melt, making accessible an

extremely strategic area almost the size of the continental United States.

There are eight Arctic Nations that have laid claims to the land (and sea) within the

Arctic Circle: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United

States of America. These nations all have a vested interest the changing conditions of the Arctic,

and tens of nations, including many far removed from the Arctic, have stated their interest in

exploring the region for resources or other purposes.19 It is exceedingly rare for new territory to

become available, and it is difficult to decide which nation should have the rights to any new

land, resources, or even sea territory that might become available. The melting of Arctic ice

provides the opportunity for a land grab of the kind that has not been seen in years. All eight

nations have taken some sort of actions in an attempt to regulate new territory in the Arctic, with

territorial claims being justified by anything from an extension of the continental shelf, or

shallow water extending outward from the continent, to a simple finders keepers mentality.20

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%16Pappas, Stephanie, When Will Arctic Ice Completely Disappear?, http://www.livescience.com/23362 -arctic-summer-ice-disappearance.html.17Ibid.18Gerdes, Rudger, Will the North Pole be Ice Free in Summer?,http://www.awi.de/en/news/background/climate_change/will_the_north_pole_be_ice_free_in_summer/19After Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound, Clifford Krauss,(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/10arctic.html?ref=thebigmelt.20Byers, Michael, Who Owns the Arctic? byers.typepad.com/arctic/.


10/53

*

These attempts at regulation and negotiation will be covered in depth in the Past Actions section

of this guide.

A melting Arctic presents a contentious future because it offers abundant, but not

inexhaustible, opportunity. New shipping lines are the most immediate benefits of melting

impassable sea ice. Currently, traveling from Asia to the eastern coast of the United States is

both time-consuming and expensive. However, when the arctic sea ice melts, traveling through

the arctic could reduce travel time by as much as 30%.21

While all nations should be able to

benefit from these new shipping lanes equally, issues of maritime sovereignty and the safety of

ships operating in the region could become of notable international concern.

One of the most contested issues surrounding the Arctic in coming years will be the

natural resource uncovered by the melting sea ice. Because the area is impassable to all traffic,

and will be for some time, it is currently impossible to exploit the resources of the Arctic. The

most important of these resources are massive petroleum and natural gas reserves, estimated by

the United States Geological Survey to be 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of

natural gas.22 To put that in perspective, the Arcticsnatural gas would supply the entire world

for more than 15 years (using 2010 consumption data).23This large reserve of natural resources

has prompted heated talks to determine the future of this newly volatile region, with major

international players such as China entering talks.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%21Zabarenko, Deborah, Warmer Climate to Open new Arctic Shipping Routes by 2050: Study,http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-climate-arctic-shipping-idUSBRE92718420130308.22USGS, Oil and Natural Gas Assessed in Arctic, http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980 .23WorldWatch, Global Natural Gas Consumption Regains Momentum, http://www.worldwatch.org/global-natural-gas-consumption-regains-momentum-0.


11/53

+

A smaller consideration with the retreating Arctic ice is the possibility of discovering

newly habitable land. Climate models already suggest that areas of Greenland that were

previously unsuitable for human habitation may become viable with rising Arctic temperatures.24

While such territories will likely be covered under existing sovereignty law such as the Law of

the Sea, DISEC must remain vigilant and proactive to prevent possible disputes between nations

regarding newly habitable land.

The changing conditions in the Arctic will lead to new interactions between countries

with different vested interests. Currently maritime laws and international agreements are not

sufficient to ensure peace and stability in the region in the face of massive, conflicting national

interests. It will be up to DISEC to negotiate and craft new agreements that will allow for the

peaceful and beneficial use of the Arctic for all member nations, not only those that have

territorial claims. Without international agreement, disputes and conflicts could threaten the

Arctic and the economic bounty it offers the international community.

History of the Problem

The Arctic has a unique position in global history in that has remained relatively peaceful

in an incredibly tumultuous world. The deep Arctic has remained relatively unscathed

throughout a history of warfare, although conflicts have occurred in Arctic regions of countries

such as Norway and Russia. The farthest north any battle has taken place was a battle between

Nazi and British forces on the island of Spitsbergen, more than 500 miles south of the North

Pole.25

Despite the abundance of valuable natural resources, the deep Arctic has not been the

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%24Bradley, Michael, Svalbard: High Arctic Habitable, http://www.mountaingazette.com/mountain-notebook/dateline/svalbard-high-arctic-habitable/.25Sentry, Lone, British Task Force, Spitsbergen Operation,http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/commandos/spitsbergen.html?title=Spitsbergen


12/53

!,

center of any conflicts of global scale, likely due to its harsh conditions and the difficulty of

travel.

The relative peace of the Arctic region makes it difficult to draw upon historical

examples of conflict, but contingency plans have been put in place. Both the United States and

Russia have significant military interest in the Arctic, as both nations maintain a sizeable fleet of

nuclear submarines in the Arctic, and likely have since the Cold War. 26 Similarly, many

international treaty organizations and military partnerships such as NATO, EUCOM, and

NORTHCOM maintain operational responsibility for the region, meaning that future military

operations in the region already have specific organizations responsible for their undertaking.

27

Finally, as a response to changing conditions, nations with interest in the Arctic region have

ramped up exploratory and even military operations, conducting training exercises and research

operations at the top of the world, perhaps as a show of force.28However, as the climate changes,

even this thin veneer of peace is likely to give way to greater conflict. The vast reserves of

natural gas and petroleum combined with more hospitable conditions and improved technology

make it a virtual certainty that the Arctic will be the location of increased international activity, if

not full-blown conflict. Due to the lack of illuminating examples from the Arctics past, it is

helpful to turn to other historical circumstances to determine possible results of this unique

situation.

The essence of the possible issue of Arctic militarization is a battle for resources. In

2011, the world used 870 million barrels of crude oil, with an average value of more than $100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%26Carafano, James, EUCOM Should Lead U.S. Combatant Commands in Defense of National Interests in theArctic, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/eucom-should-lead-us-combatant-commands-in-defense-of-national-interests-in-the-arctic.27Ibid28Ibid


13/53

!!

per barrel.29,30 The market value of petroleum is high, and the demand is growing. Many

industrialized nations such as the United States and Western Europe are trying to reduce their

petroleum consumption, but the fact remains that it is an expensive and time intensive process.

Petroleum will be a valuable commodity for the foreseeable future . There has been some

headway in reducing the usage of petroleum, but this is usually achieved through increased usage

rates of natural gas.31 Coincidentally, the only natural resource that is more abundant in the

Arctic than petroleum is natural gas, with almost 1,670 trillion ft3of natural gas.32This ranks the

Arctic among the most valuable, yet untapped areas on the planet.

For a historical perspective on the sheer amount of undiscovered and unexploited

resources available in the Arctic, it is useful to examine the discovery and subsequent

colonization of the Americas. Before the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas, Native

Americans mainly subsistence farmed or hunted, rarely taking more than they needed to

survive.33 After the colonization of the Americas and the wholesale exploitation of natural

resources such as arable land and gold, the economic output of America rose from nearly

baseline levels to a productive and thriving economy exporting goods such as tobacco and

lumber.34This analogy, while far from perfect, has several direct analogs to the future melting of

the Arctic. First, the colonization represented an unprecedented new availability of natural

resources. Timber, land, gold, and other goods were available in quantities only dreamt of in

Europe, much as the energy reserves of the Arctic represent a massive increase in available

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%29Indexmundi, World Crude Oil Consumption By Year, http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx.30US Energy Information Administration, Crude Oil Average Prices,http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4550.31US Energy Information Administration, Market Trends- Oil/Liquids,http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_liquidfuels.cfm.32USGS, Oil and Natural Gas Assessed in Arctic, http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980.33Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, Native American Agriculture,http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.ag.052.xml.34Edwin J. Perkins, The Economy of Colonial America(2nd ed. 1988).


14/53

!#

global reserves. Also similarly to the Arctic, the colonization of the Americas had several

competing international powers vying for a share of the resources that would certainly make their

nations rich and powerful. The motives of profit, power, and competition between nations are

very similar in the two cases.

This is not to say the colonization of the Americas an unqualified economic success. The

colonizing countries of Europe were well aware of the vast economic resources at stake in the

Americas and were willing to create conflict and fight for the claims. The result was competing

land claims from Native Americans, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch citizens.

These competing claims were sometimes settled peaceably, but more than often led to bitter

conflict. These conflicts were about increasing the economic viability and thus power of the

home countries through exploitation of previously untapped resources. Without the watchful eye

of the United Nations or other governing body, the conflicts for North American resources killed

anywhere from 50-75 million Native Americans, while estimates for Europeans are impossible to

determine.35 The toll of death and destruction is one of the largest on record of the world and has

left an indelible mark on history. The conflicts sparked during this period have shaped the world

we live in today. The power of new, valuable resources to ignite conflict between self-interested

actors is tremendous. Each nation believed that the security of their nation both in the present

and the future was heavily dependent on the acquisition of newly found resources.

While the colonization of America shows the incredible capacity for violence and

destruction in the pursuit of natural resources, more recent disputes over scarce resources offer

insights as to how important natural resources remain as a catalyst for global action. One

particularly relevant example is rare earth metals. Rare earth metals are a good relation to

undiscovered resources because although they have been known for some time, their true value

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%35Taylor, Alan,American Colonies; Volume 1 (2002).


15/53

!$

as components in high-tech batteries has recently been discovered and made them extraordinarily

valuable.36 The rapid increase in the value of these metals has made those with the rights to

exploit them much richer, and their relative rarity had made them a very important commodity.

Because these metals are frequently used in energy efficient as well as weapons technologies,

they are seen as incredibly important to the future economic viability and military strategic

capability of many nations.37

The first global power to truly understand and beginning harnessing the power of rare

earth metals was China. Understanding the vast importance and value that these metals would

have in the future, China began an extensive program of buying overseas mines that were known

to be rich in the minerals, as well as developing massive mines within its own borders.38This

early jump has given China an estimated 95% share of these incredibly valuable resources.39

Wielding the enormous power of this monopoly, China proceeded to cut export quotas by 40%,

subsequently distorting the market. As a response, the United States, Brazil, Canada, Vietnam,

and Malawi began work on creating their own rare earth metal mines, although these are not

expected to be operational until 2018.40Whereas the discovery of new resources in the Americas

led to warfare and strife, the discovery of rare earth metals has led to rampant profiteering and

economic strong-arming.

While these two historical examples are imperfect analogs to the situation in the Arctic,

they do offer insight on how international powers react to new, essential resources being

introduced into a market. The response is always competitive; nations will do whatever they

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%36Tasman Metals Ltd, Principal Uses of Rare Earth Metals, http://www.tasmanmetals.com/s/PrincipalUses.asp. 37Ibid.38Nesbit, Jeff, Chinas Continuing Monopoly Over Rare Earth Metals, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2013/04/02/chinas-continuing-monopoly-over-rare-earth-minerals.39Ibid.40Ibid.


16/53

!&

think is necessary to secure new resources for themselves for an edge in the global power

struggle. Whether this competitive reaction is violent or economic depends on a variety of

factors, each of which must be considered carefully by DISEC as they prepare for the rapid

change of the Arctic.

Past Actions

While the predicted warming and subsequent warming of the Arctic region is

unprecedented, there have been many attempts to regulate the area and establish control over the

region. For as long as the Arctic has been known, its owner has been disputed. The United

Nations (UN) has taken several approaches to defining an owner, although no truly satisfactory

resolution has been achieved.

Before the United Nations existed, and since the 17thcentury, nations have held on to the

idea of free seas. First discussed by a Dutch Jurist named Hugo Grotius, the Free Seas

principle states that while countries control a small portion of the ocean that is directly adjacent

to their land territory, the open ocean was free from the control of any single nation. 41 A

following of this principle continued for some time, until nations wanted to extend their sea

rights. Harry Truman extended the United States controlled seas to the end of the continental

shelf.42This would later be adopted by the United Nations as legal maritime law.

The third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was the most

important attempt to address the issue of unclaimed ocean territory beyond sovereign waters (up

to twelve miles off the coast). This convention was third in a series of conventions on the

sovereignty of seas, and was also known as the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%41Hugo Grotius, The Freedom of the Seas (Latin and English version, Magoffin trans.)[1608].42Truman Proclamation on Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil andSea Bed of the Continental Shelf http://www.cfr.org/world/truman-proclamation-policy-united-states-respect-natural-resources-subsoil-sea-bed-continental-shelf/p20650


17/53

!'

Treaty. The convention took place between 1973 and 1982 and produced a set of rules and

regulations that replaced earlier laws of the sea passed in 1958. 43

UNCLOS III established clearer definitions of different types of ocean waters, and more

rigid definitions as to what these different classifications meant. The continental shelf of a nation

was defined to be the extent of the continent as it juts outward into the ocean, or 200 nautical

miles, whichever is further. This distance cannot be greater than 400 nautical miles. Within the

area owned by a country, the nation has exclusive access to any minerals and non-living

resources on the seabed. Within the continental shelf area, the nation has the ability to exclude

others from these resources, but not living resources or resources not located directly on the

seafloor. A more exclusive area is known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and is rigidly

defined as 200 nautical miles from the coastline of a nation. Within the EEZ, the nation has all

the rights and privileges of a continental shelf zone, but also has exclusive control over living

resources such as fish stocks, as well as resources that may not be located on the seabed, such as

petroleum or natural gas. The concept of the EEZ was created to provide solutions to increasing

debates over petroleum and fish stocks.44

Unfortunately, while UNCLOS III provided extensive guidance about property rights

within a continental shelf, it did little to settle disputes in open ocean, or ocean more than 400

nautical miles away from coastlines. Due to the vast size of the Arctic and its relative distance

from coastlines, UNCLOS III does not include a sizeable portion of the Arctic. The nearest

settlement to the North Pole is in fact some 508 miles away from the Pole, and even that is not

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%43United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.44Ibid


18/53

!(

settled permanently. Without an undisputed owner of this area, existing international agreements

would not properly apply to the Arctic region.45

To solve these disputes, the UN held another conference and initially decided that a new

commission, known as the International Seabed Authority (ISA), would oversee any minerals or

resources outside of any states territorial waters or EEZ. This commission would be responsible

for regulating these mineral or resource deposits and disbursing royalties. It has granted licenses

to several corporations to begin exploratory work, and no companies have begun commercial

exploitation of resources. More troubling is the fact that the United States has yet to ratify the

treaty, stating that the ISA is contrary to US economic and security objectives. This lack of

support has taken away legitimacy from the ISA. Even though the territory in the Arctic outside

of any countryscontinental shelf zone or EEZ should fall under the jurisdiction of the ISA, there

is no mechanism to ensure that countries, such as the United States, heed to the agencys rules.46

The regulatory system created by the United Nations is technically in place to determine

ownership or regulations for of all parts of the ocean. However, reluctance from the United

States and the fact that the body has not actually approved any disciplinary action may not be

sufficient for regulation of the open seas. Resource exploration thus far has been relatively tame.

As more important natural resources such as energy resources come into play, it is unlikely that

the jurisdiction of the ISA will be respected, leaving the Arctic as an unregulated area. It is up to

the United Nations, and specifically DISEC, to ensure that strong, enforceable, and agreed upon

rules are in place for the regulation of these valuable resources.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%45Reynolds, Lindor,"Life is cold and hard and desolate at Alert, Nunavut",Guelph Mercury,Retrieved 16 March2010.46See Note 37
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/445998211.html?dids=445998211:445998211&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+31%2C+2000&author=Reynolds%2C+Lindor&pub=Daily+Mercury&desc=Life+is+cold+and+hard+and+desolate+at+Alert%2C+Nunavut&pqatl=googlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Mercuryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Mercuryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Mercuryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Mercuryhttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/445998211.html?dids=445998211:445998211&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+31%2C+2000&author=Reynolds%2C+Lindor&pub=Daily+Mercury&desc=Life+is+cold+and+hard+and+desolate+at+Alert%2C+Nunavut&pqatl=google


19/53

!)

Possible Solutions

Presented with the issue of fierce international competition for Arctic resources and the

definite possibility of violence between nations, it is essential that the United Nations, and

DISEC in specific, take swift and appropriate preventative action. There exist several different

possible solutions for DISEC, varying in difficulty and effectiveness. It is ultimately up to the

committee to decide the most fruitful way to address these topics and how to best

One possible solution for the United Nations is to act as a mediator between nations as

they discuss possible agreements or even purchases of rights for mineral extraction in the Arctic.

This would place the United Nations and DISEC in the position of moderator and arbiter of

multiple deals between nations as they seek to settle territorial disputes. Such deals are not

unprecedented, even in this region. Norway and Russia were able to reach a deal over the

petroleum rich and disputed Barents Sea. 47The two nations have agreed to split the area more or

less evenly, with each using state-owned resource extraction companies in tandem to exploit the

petroleum and natural gas deposits.48Such an agreement happening on its own is unlikely, and it

might be up the United Nations to ensure that such accords are agreed upon. The United Nations

General Assembly has many member nations who depend on these resources and can apply

massive pressure to Arctic nations to solve these agreements peaceably and quickly, allowing for

resource extraction that will benefit all of mankind. However, the possibility exists of alienating

Arctic nations by trying to dictate how they should split their territory and how they should

negotiate with other nations, and such treaties would almost inevitably create winners and losers,

a difficult pill to swallow for many nations. Such a solution requires an incredibly delicate

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%47Russia and Norway Agree Deal Over Oil-Rich Barents Sea, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13686049.48Gibbs, Walter, Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea, New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/europe/28norway.html?_r=0.


20/53

!*

democratic touch as well as firm negotiation from the entire world, no small feat. The benefits of

successfully solving the crises in the manner cannot be overstated, however, as the entire world

would benefit from an estimated 25% increase in the global supply of fossil fuels.49

Another solution to Arctic border disputes is the strengthening of maritime and

International Seabed Authority laws through the full force of the UN. This would involve, in

essence, another convening of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS IV), but this

time involving all DISEC nations. This solution has the benefit of historical precedent. This is

how the United Nations dealt with the issue in the past. However, the focus would have to be

solely on the Arctic. With this region in mind, ISA powers and definitions would have to be

extended such that the entire Arctic was peaceably and rigidly defined. This would prevent any

future disputes between nations by giving them a clear set of rules and an enforcing body. The

ISA would have to gain new powers and some enforcement mechanism in order to ensure that

nations like the United States are not able to flaunt the regulations of the ISA and continue

exploiting resources however they choose. This solution would be attractive in that it has the

legitimacy and power behind a United Nations operation and would likely solve the problem

completely. However, it would be very difficult to ensure completion because of the variety of

state interests involved, as well as the fact that DISEC possesses only the ability to make

suggestions, not to establish United Nations directives in its own right.

An unsatisfactory solution that DISEC can technically employ would be to maintain the

status quo. In this case, the International Seabed Authority would be responsible for dealing with

any Arctic minerals and resources that exist further out than each nations Exclusive Economic

Zone or Continental Shelf rights extend. This solution is attractive because it does not require

more regulations or intervention on the part of the United Nations. It gives approval and displays

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%49Ibid.


21/53

!+

faith in the previous conventions of the sea and puts the full faith of the United Nations in

previous UN decisions, showing consistency. The problem with this solution is that although the

system is technically in place, it is not widely respected and there are few measures to get

countries to comply with ISA regulations. The United States, along with many other major

international players, has yet to ratify the ISA, basically saying that it will refuse to abide by ISA

laws, which would undoubtedly cause other nations to do the same. In fact, many disputes have

begun to erupt between nations such as Canada and the United States, Canada and Demark, and

others over the letter of the law.50 Without a strong framework in place, it is possible, even

likely. that these conflicts will increase in intensity as the fight for resources becomes more

desperate in an increasingly resource starved world. This cannot be truly considered an option

for DISEC, as it would be a failure to adhere to its mandate.

Solutions must be crafted to prevent the Arctic from becoming another economic

warzone, especially given the stakes of fighting war in the modern era. It falls squarely upon the

shoulders of DISEC to determine creative, effective, and palatable solutions for all member

nations to resolve this issue. Whether the solution ends up being one of the above, a mix of the

three, or something completely different, a wide international consensus will be required, so

make sure to make your suggestions fair, useful, and realistic.

Bloc Positions

Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Russia,

Sweden, United Kingdom, United States (13)

The countries in this bloc are heavily vested in the matter and would be impacted no

matter what action the committee chooses to take, or are allied with a country that believes so.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%50McAlister, Terry, Rush for Arctic ResourcesProvokes Territorial Tussles,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/06/arctic-resources-territorial-dispute.


22/53

#,

They believe that the Arctic could be developed and have strongly considered proposals to

increase the amount of infrastructure, potentially militaristic ones. This bloc contains all the

members of the Arctic Council, an 8-member committee where they unanimously agree on a set

of principles when dealing with the Arctic.51While these countries may have territorial disputes

with one another, they mostly believe that they are capable of settling it themselves, and do not

need to discuss it openly in an international forum. This is amply demonstrated by the example

in the Statement of the Problem.

This bloc also contains the permanent observers to the Arctic Council who do not have

territory in the Arctic Circle but have demonstrated interest in the region. For example, China

has conducted more than five exploratory missions to the Arctic since 1999. 52 In addition,

Argentina and Chile also work in conjunction with members with this bloc in coordinating

efforts in the Antarctic; it is important that these countries work together and take their opinions

into consideration because a change in the Arctics status quo may potentially change the

Antarctics situation.

Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Estonia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, The Republic of

Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Poland,

Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Tanzania, Turkey (24)

This bloc contains the remainder of the countries who are permanent members on the

Arctic Council, countries that have participated in the Arctic Council on an ad-hoc basis, and

their major allies.53These countries rely heavily on their ports, which are on significant maritime

trading routes, as large contributors to their economy. They are primarily concerned with the

effect using the Arctic as a new trading route will have on their own economies. They will likely

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%51Member States, Arctic Council, http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states.52A Warmer Welcome, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/international/21578040-arctic-council-admits-its-first-permanent-asian-observers-warmer-welcome. May 18th, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2013.53Member States, Arctic Council.


23/53

#!

try to prevent militarization efforts in the Arctic because they are opposed to developing the

Arctic in general and would like to maintain the status quo vis a vis the current maritime trading

routes.

Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic,

Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, DR Congo, Comoros, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea,

Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic), Lesotho,Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Senegal, South

Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe (36)

The countries in this bloc are those that are not as economically developed and do not

have sustained industries in the mineral resources that the Arctic could potentially provide. These

states would be concerned if more developed countries controlled increased their natural

resource capacities and would be uncomfortable with all these larger economies having more and

more global power.54These countries would be against the idea of militarization, as they would

begin to fear the possible imperialistic tendencies of the more economically developed countries

that have made the Arctic a priority.

Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Fiji, Indonesia, Guatemala, Kiribati, Maldives, Myanmar, Panama,

Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Viet Nam (15)

According to the Climate Change Vulnerability Index, most of the countries in this bloc

are most significantly affected by climate change or are in close proximity to countries that are. 55

These countries immediate priority would concern solving the short-term problems of the

Arctic. They believe that before they can even consider options on how to use the land they must

first combat the climate change issues plaguing the Arctic. These are the nations that have

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%54Patrick, Stewart M., Why Natural Resources Are a Curse on Developing Countries and How to Fix it, TheAtlantic, 30 April 2012, 31 November 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-natural-resources-are-a-curse-on-developing-countries-and-how-to-fix-it/256508/.55Climate ChangeVulnerability Index 2013Maplecroft Global Risk Anaytics. Press Release.http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi_2013.html. Accessed November 20, 2013.


24/53

##

experienced firsthand the dire consequences of climate change and want the issue efficiently

dealt with before they can discuss anything long-term.

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti,

Jamaica, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe,Soloman Islands, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis, Tonga, Trinidad

and Tobago, Vanuatu (23)

This bloc contains countries that are among the smallest in the world, and are all smaller

islands surrounded by large amounts of water. These countries are not self-sufficient and their

natural resources are quite limited, relying instead on other countries for this sort of aid. 56Since

they are islands, they are naturally quite concerned about the impact using the Arctic, as a trading

route will have on their own local economies, which for the most part they are still trying to fully

develop. 57 These countries might only be interested in militarization if it means that their

economic situations and prowess will improve.

Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine,

United Arab Emirates, Yemen (13)

This bloc contains countries that currently possess significant natural resources and that

mining them is a noteworthy component of their local economies. Their primary concern would

be the economic impact of increased competition that surveying the Arctic for resources would

bring.58 These countries would also be against militarization because they would be wary of

increased military centers for the countries of the Arctic Circle.

Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos,

Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Paraguay,

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%56Small Island Developing States, United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 21 November2013, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=203.57Ibid.58Patrick, Stewart M., Why Natural Resources Are a Curse on Developing Countries and How to Fix it, TheAtlantic, 30 April 2012, 31 November 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-natural-resources-are-a-curse-on-developing-countries-and-how-to-fix-it/256508/.


25/53

#$

Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (36)

These countries are primarily landlocked nations that would have a neutral stance

towards any significant change in how the Arctic is globally managed. They are most likely to

adopt a position that will allow the status quo to remain the way it currently does and would be

against any power that would change the balance of power in the world. However, the European

Union nations in this bloc that do not actively participate in the Arctic Council must balance their

allegiances to the other European nations alongside these beliefs.59

Angola, Albania, Algeria, Belize, Cambodia, Colombia, Cote dIvoire, Ecuador, Egypt, El

Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Ireland, Latvia, Libya, Madagascar,Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Somalia, Suriname, Togo,

Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela (33)

These are countries that have reliant on the ocean for their economies but will not be as

affected by the change in maritime trading routes as other countries would be. 60However, they

are unlikely to support any militarized action should the Arctic ice melt because these nations,

for the large part, will not support the idea of increasing the presence of weapons in shipping

routes. Not only this will affect their business, but also, for some nations, it would be directly

counterproductive to sustaining a conducive environment for creating a successful ocean-based

economy.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%59International Ministerial Conference of Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries, Outcomes onLandlocked Developing Countries, 21 November 2013,http://www.un.org/en/development/devagenda/landlocked.shtml.60Ocean Reliance, Marine Traffic, 21 November 2013,http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/details/ships/377339000.


26/53


27/53

#&

Topic Area B: The Protection of Civilians in Combat Zones

Statement of the Problem

There was a time when warfare was conducted entirely by professionals when battles

were confined to a field miles away from nearby towns. This brief period of military history is no

longer. Since the end of World War II, the most recent war that involved truly clear-cut

objectives and opposing standing armies, over 90% of wartime casualties have been unarmed

civilians.61When counting every soldier, guerrilla soldier, freedom fighter, insurgent, or other

armed participant in a conflict, nine unarmed civilians have died. In 1990, this figure stood at

5%.62It has become apparent that war in the 21stcentury is considerably more dangerous for the

average civilian than at any point in the last two hundred years. In the past, civilians died mainly

due to disease, starvation, and other indirect means.63 Today, civilians are more likely to die

from direct military action such as bombing or gunfire. 64 The problem that DISEC needs to

address is how this direct military action can be diverted away from civilians.

It is important to understand exactly what is meant by these statistics. Especially in

todays world where it may be difficult to understand what constitutes a soldier or an army,

concise definitions, or at least attempts at them, can be immensely difficult. In 1977, a Geneva

Convention treaty defined civilians negatively, as those who are not armed forces of a Party to a

conflict, armed forces in this case meaning combatants[who] have the right to directly

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%61Patterns in Conflict: Civilians are Now the Target, UNICEF, http://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm.62Ibid.63World War II Death Statistics, Arsenal of Democracy,http://www.arsenalofdemocracy.org/images/WWIIlibrary/stats.pdf.64Shah, Anup, Small Arms- They Cause Nearly 90% of Civilian Casualties, Global Issues,http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian-casualties.


28/53

#'

participate in hostilities.65 Furthermore, the Geneva Convention is careful and emphatic in

stating that if the civilian status of a person is in question, that person must be treated as a

civilian. These treaties designate anyone who is armed and fighting in a conflict as a non-

civilian. Using the definition of both civilian and non-civilian leaves no doubt that the 90%

civilian death rate cited earlier is truly the killing of unarmed people lending no military support.

There are many beliefs as to why this problem has become so dire in recent years. One likely

culprit is the fact that the nature of war has changed. Perhaps the most poignant example of this

in recent times is the advent of unmanned drone technology. Drones, remote operated aircraft,

allow governments to attack enemies from across the globe without having to risk their own

soldiers or even tell people that they are going to attack. This allows almost anyone in the world

to be attacked without knowing and without leaving his home or village and gives military

operations unprecedented range and strike times. The United States currently operates no less

than sixty drone bases in places such as the Seychelles and Ethiopia, allowing strikes to be

conducted around the world in short time frames.66 Drones and other long-range attack methods

operate on the element of surprise, striking their enemies unaware. In the past, combatants

(soldiers, military personnel, etc.) fought behind battle lines or were otherwise separated from

civilians, and so usually knew when they were going to be attacked or at least when they were in

danger of being attacked. This functioned as a crude kind of warning system, helping to cut

down on civilian deaths. With surprise drone strikes and long range attacks, this is no longer the

case and more and more enemies are attacked in their homes, inevitably causing death and

destruction to those surrounding them. By some estimates, 98% of those killed in drone strikes

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%65Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Red Cross,http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470..

66Ruder, Eric, Remote Control Warfare, http://www.globalresearch.ca/remote-control-warfare-some-sixty-us-drone-bases-around-the-world/5330325.


29/53

#(

are civilians, with evidence suggesting that the CIA sometimes strikes the same area twice,

deliberately killing mourners in an attempt to ensure their target was killed. 67This enormous

shift in the potential range and warning time of strikes has contributed to a marked increase in

civilian casualty ratios in war.

Perhaps more important than when war is fought in modern times is where. In so-

called traditional wars, such as the ones we think of with lines of riflemen firing at one

another, civilian casualty ratios were much lower than they are today.68This can be attributed

largely to the fact that, armies normally fought their battles away from population centers.69

With armies far away from cities and towns, the chance of a civilian getting caught in the

crossfire or in a shell explosion was drastically reduced. While actions aimed primarily at

civilians still occurred in these traditional wars, they normally took the place of sieges of

strategically important cities rather than targeted attacks on civilians.70This changed rapidly as

time progressed, however. World War II blurred the lines between attacking civilians and

military targets to the point of obscurity. In an attempt to destroy military production capacity

and to cow the population into submission, the United States and the other Allied powers

conducted ferocious bombing campaigns in both Germany and Japan. The firebombing of

Dresden, one of the most costly attacks in Germany, is estimated to have killed 25,000-

civilians.71 In Japan, the tolls climbed much higher. The combined death toll of the Tokyo

firebombing and nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is somewhere above 300,000

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%67Predator Drone Strikes, Robert Taylor, PolicyMic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare.68Ibid.69Heidler, David, Daily Lives of Civilians in Wartime Early America, 67.70Ibid.71Frederick Taylor, Der Spiegel, How Many Died in the Bombing of Dresden?,http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-toll-debate-how-many-died-in-the-bombing-of-dresden-a-581992.html.


30/53

#)

civilian deaths, with countless more wounded and dying of radiation sickness.72,73The change of

the theater of war from a decided and isolated battlefield to the city was almost unprecedented in

the history of warfare, and compounded with technological prowess has allowed human life to be

taken on a massive scale.

The result of the changing tactics and location of warfare in recent times has led to a

fundamental point--as times have changed, the focus of warfare has shifted from the soldier to

the civilian. The civilian is now firmly within the crosshairs of the war machine, as war has

moved to his backyard, and he is unable to understand when or why he might become a target.

The result of this shift is seen clearly in statistics. The killing of civilians in war is defined as a

war crime, technically one that should be punishable.74No American was punished or even

formally tried for the bombing of Japan in the Second World War.75The fact that history is so

often written by the winners means it is difficult to understand exactly who is responsible for war

crimes, or if they even happened. Those who prevail in war, often using war crimes to

accomplish victory, are often immediately absolved of these very same crimes. For example, the

United States use of the nuclear bomb in WWII was a direct targeting of hundreds of thousands

of civilians, leaving a legacy of nuclear fallout and destruction. By any account, the action was a

war crime, and yet no Americans were tried.76Although the Geneva Conventions clearly define

and condemn war crimes, their enforcement to winners of wars is spotty at best.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%72Coleman, Joseph, 1945 Tokyo Firebombing, Common Dreams,http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm.73Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll, Children of the Atomic Bomb,http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html74Maass, Peter, Willful Killing, Crimes of War, http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/willful-killing/75Falk, Richard A.,"The Claimants of Hiroshima", February 1965.76Kohls, Gary, The Hiroshima Myth. Unaccountable War Crimes and the Lies of US Military History,http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hiroshima-myth-unaccountable-war-crimes-and-the-lies-of-us-military-history/5344436


31/53

#*

Over the past decade, the world has seen many commissions of war crimes, and even

more accusations. The Middle East remains a hotspot for civilian violence, but the rest of the

world has been plunged into violence as well. The fact remains that the rising ratio of civilian to

military deaths seems to not be slowing, and is already intolerably high. As the United Nations

Disarmament and International Security Committee, it is firmly within your mission and

imperative to defend the civilians of international community from possible death at the hands of

war criminals. The issue will not be an easy one to resolve, and many have attempted it before,

but it cannot be allowed to persist. The people of the world must be protected.

History of the Problem

Civilians have always been threatened in warfare. Warfare has been conducted

throughout history for a wide variety of reasons: territorial conquest, religious conversion,

natural resources, greed, and confusion have all motivated war in the past and will no doubt do

so in the future. No matter the driving force behind war, its objectives will undoubtedly include

some action that will put civilian lives at risk or lead directly to their destruction. This can

include anything from express orders to kill a conquered population to the siege of cities. With

besieged cities, it can be difficult or prohibitively time consuming to attempt to distinguish

between soldiers and civilians. At any rate, cutting off supplies to a city, either through sieges,

sanctions, or blockades, affects civilians and soldiers at least proportionately, if not affecting the

civilians more.77The deaths of civilians while persistent throughout history, has grown orders of

magnitude direr in recent years.

Until recently, the distinction between soldiers and civilians has not been explicit. The

majority (there exist rare counterexamples) of armies were not professional until the mid to late

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%77The Siege of Leningrad, History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/siege_of_leningrad.htm.


32/53

#+

15th century.78 Prior to 1600, civilians would be called upon in times of need to defend their

country without formal training. The rise of professional armies created a distinction between

full-time soldiers and civilians. Whereas previously any civilian conceivably could be called into

military service at anytime through conscription (The Draft), once a professional standing

army was created, there was a clear distinction between those who were tasked to protect and

those who were being protected.

In these earliest wars, statistics are not an accurate descriptor as to how many civilians

were killed, but it can be useful to look at how wars were fought and draw assumptions from

there. Wars were largely fought for territorial dominance, which meant that a conquering army

had to occupy and hold territory, as well as possibly siege and/or destroy cities. For example, the

Mongol Hordes of the 12thand 13thcenturies were responsible for some of the largest territorial

conquests in history, a feat they accomplished by often destroying cities they came across. One

such city was Baghdad, which in 1258 was completely pillaged and destroyed by the Mongols,

resulting in the loss of 200,000 to 1,000,000 lives, presumably the majority of which were

civilians.79This type of wanton destruction was not uncommon during this period, as wars of

territorial conquest resulted in massive civilian loss of life due to invading armies destroying and

pillaging cities in an effort to suppress uprisings and make their hold on the land more secure.

As professional armies became more established and the line between civilian and soldier

became increasingly stark, military tactics began to change. While the majority of the conflicts

fought from the 14th to the 19th centuries still involved territorial conquest, the prevalence of

cities being sacked or destroyed completely with all of their inhabitants went down dramatically

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%78Beigent, Leigh R, The Temple and the Lodge, London, 1989, 100.

79The Mongol invasion and the Destruction of Baghdad, Lost Islamic History,http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/.


33/53

$,

as occupying armies tended to rule occupied cities harshly without killing all occupants, such as

Napoleons occupation ofEgypt, in which great care was taken to appease the citizens rather

than slaughter them.80This has led many historians to estimate that almost 1,000,000 civilians

died during the French Empires invasion of Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, while

suggesting that about twice that many soldiers died. 81 While technological improvements

continued increasing the deadliness of warfare, the ratio of civilian deaths to soldier deaths

appeared to reach a maximum at about two soldier deaths for every one civilian. In wars

involving the modern conception of lines of rifleman firing upon one another, the average

civilian was able to escape warfare relatively easily, as battlefields were determined well in

advance and non-military personnel could evacuate, protecting themselves and their families. As

people became differentiated from soldiers in all aspects of life, they were able to distance

themselves from soldiers on the battlefield. It became increasingly easy to distinguish who was a

soldier and who wasn't. A soldier was available 12 months a year for paid military service. His

dress, his mannerisms, and most importantly, his duties during wartime were different. The

soldier was on the frontlines during the defense of his country while the majority of his

countrymen were able to stay behind. The line between soldier and civilian has never been more

defined throughout human history than it was in the early 20 thcentury, when only 1 civilian died

for every 19 soldiers killed.82

This peak of delineation between soldier and civilian has not yet been equaled, and

indeed the ratio of civilian to soldier deaths has been rising extraordinarily fast in the past 110

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%80Egypt History- French Occupation Period , Tour Egypt, http://www.touregypt.net/hfrench.htm.81Statistics of Wars, Oppressions, & Atrocities of the Nineteenth Century, Necrometrics,http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm.82Patterns in Conflict: Civilians are Now the Target, UNICEF, http://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm.


34/53

$!

years. During the First World War, this ratio sat at about two civilians for every three soldiers. 83

There are many reasons for the elevated civilian death rate, the most significant of which was the

Spanish Influenza that ravaged Europe. On the contrary, the civilian death rate was lower than it

could have been because World War I involved trench warfare, and the static battlefronts

allowed civilians ample time to evacuate or avoid the most intense fighting. With World War I

came the advent of Total War, the idea that an entire nation focused all of its resources on a

war effort, mobilizing citizens and manufacturing capacity to provide for the military.

This shift of the role of civilians would have major impacts on their survival during war.

The effect became very pronounced in World War II, in which civilians became a viable military

target. Strategic bombing intended to destroy manufacturing or demoralize populations

necessarily (and often by design) destroyed entire cities, killing many of the inhabitants. In

previous wars, killing civilians would do little to the fighting effectiveness of the military-

civilians at home would perhaps be farming or sewing uniforms. In total war, however, the

civilians were just as valuable to the war effort as standing armies. Without a strong

manufacturing base from which to draw the massive resources needed to conduct truly modern

war, a state would quickly crumble. Combined with the fact that citizens had an increasingly

powerful voice in politics and morale could influence whether or not a nation could continue

war, civilians became an appetizing target for opposing armies. In World War II, the deadliest

conflict in human history, over fifty-five million people died, and for the first time in modern

war, more civilians died than soldiers, at a rate of about three civilian deaths for every two

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%83Clodfelter, Michael, Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures,Cambridge: London, 150.


35/53

$#

soldiers. 84 As civilians increasingly became a target for bombing campaigns, especially

firebombing and nuclear attack, the casualty ratios climbed

The smaller conflicts related to the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam, saw yet another

increase in civilian casualties. Lengthy occupations by American forces and bombing an on

unprecedented scale led to casualty ratios of approximately two civilians for every one soldier. 85,

86As opposition groups, such as the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, made it difficult for

occupying soldiers to determine who was a combatant and who was a civilian, civilians were

inevitably involved in the fighting and thus died in greater numbers. 87Increased technological

advancement allowed bombers to level cities and villages with impunity, indiscriminately killing

civilians. An example is Operation Rolling Thunder, an American bombing campaign that

killed between 52,000 and 182,000 Vietnamese civilians. 88 Recent wars have often been

conducted asymmetrically, meaning that one party has a standing army while the other uses

guerilla warfare tactics or operates as a terrorist group, making it difficult to determine who

exactly is a combatant and who is a civilian. 89New technology such as cruise missiles,

unmanned drones, and smart bombs have allowed targeted bombing and destruction of

population centers without necessitating massive bombing campaigns and global wars. The

combination of fading lines between civilians and soldiers and increased ability to destroy targets

through remote bombing and other long-distance methods has created a civilian casualty ratio far

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%84

Civilian Casualties of World War, History Learning Site,http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm.85Taylor, Robert, Predator Drone Strikes,, PolicyMic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare.86Shenon, Philip, 20 Years After Victory,http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=2322414020.87Vietnam War Statistics, Statistic Brain http://www.statisticbrain.com/vietnam-war-statistics/.88Rummel, RJ, Statistics of Democide,, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM.89Buffaloe, David, Defining Asymmetric Warfare, http://www.ausa.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/ILW%20Web-ExclusivePubs/Land%20Warfare%20Papers/LWP_58.pdf.


36/53

$$

in excess of anything recorded in history, up to 19 civilians killed for every combatant in some

cases.90

Throughout history, civilians have suffered in warfare. The extent to which that suffering

is manifested through the killing of civilians is highly dependent on the method of conducting

war and the strength of the delineation between soldier and civilian. In recent history, both of

these factors have led to an unprecedented rise in civilian casualties. With war increasingly being

conducted asymmetrically and through remote killing rather than soldiers on the ground,

civilians have never been more at risk. It is the task of DISEC to understand these trends,

consider them heavily, and attempt solutions to mitigate their effect on the safety of civilians in

wartime.

Past Actions

The protection of civilians from the horrors of war is not a new concern for the

international community. Attempts have been made in the past to alleviate the suffering of non-

combat personnel in wartime, but it has become apparent that more must be done to safeguard

the most vulnerable during war.

The most visible action conducted by the United Nations often involves United Nations

troops (often called peacekeeping forces). United Nations peacekeeping forces constitute soldiers

from many different member nations, and are used to help nations transition from conflict to

peace.91United Nations peacekeeping forces have a strict objective, known as a mandate that

they are trying to accomplish.92

Peacekeeping forces have three major rules that they must abide

by: the nation that they enter must consent to peacekeeping forces being there, the peacekeepers

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%90Taylor, Robert, Predator Drone Strikes, PolicyMic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare.91What is Peacekeeping?, United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peacekeeping.shtml.92Ibid.


37/53

$&

must remain impartial in any local conflicts, and finally peacekeeping forces are not authorized

to use force except for self defense or defense of their mandate. 93 The official functions of

peacekeeping forces include facilitating political processes, protecting civilians, assisting in the

disarmament of former combatants, protecting and promoting the rule of law, and restoring the

rule of law. Peacekeepers do not choose a side in conflicts, nor do they force warring factions to

make peace. They are inserted after conflicts in order to ensure that civilians are protected. There

are currently sixteen active United Nations peacekeeping operations, and sixty-eight over the

course of the program.

One of the most notable UN peacekeeping actions was the United Nations Operation in

the Congo (UNOC). In July of 1960, the Security Council mandated the peacekeeping forces

with overseeing the withdrawal of Belgian troops from the Congo and to maintain law and order.

The peacekeepers were authorized to use force, if necessary, to ensure that all Belgian troops

were removed from Congolese territory and also acted as a police force to ensure order was

maintained during the transition period. This mandate was eventually extended to include the

prevention of civil war and the removal of all foreign military agents from the Congo.94250

United Nations personnel died while serving in the Congo protecting civilians there. 95

Peacekeeping missions directly impact civilians by putting boots on the ground and so directly

impacting civilians day-to-day lives. Peacekeeping operations remain the most direct, visible

way for the United Nations to take action to prevent civilian casualties, however DISEC must

keep in mind that the body does not have the authority to mandate peacekeeping missions but

instead must petition the Security Council to do so.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%93Ibid.94Republic of the Congo ONUC Mandate, United Nations,http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/onucM.htm.95Republic of the Congo ONUC Facts & Figures, United Nations,http://www.un.org/depts/DPKO/Missions/onucF.html.


38/53

$'

A more indirect but perhaps ultimately more successful way the United Nations has

addressed civilian casualties is to pass resolutions creating laws and/or regulations (it is

important to note here that DISEC does not have the ability to pass binding resolutions) that are

designed to either prevent the killing of civilians in warfare in the future, or to attempt to end the

killing of civilians in conflicts that are currently happening. The first type of resolution is more

rare; most UN member nations have ratified the Geneva Conventions, including the extension of

1977 that deals with the protection of civilians in warfare. However, it is not unheard of for the

United Nations to issue resolutions or declarations condemning the killing of civilians in warfare.

A recent example is UN SC/10913, a resolution announced by the United Nations Security

Council that places the majority of the responsibility for preventing civilian deaths on member

nations rather than the United Nations as a whole, although the resolution does call for member

states not directly involved in the conflict to take steps to reduce civilian deaths. The resolution

states that if state governments fail to prevent civilian casualties, the Security Council must

press the Government to fulfill its obligations, no small threat coming from a Security Council

composed of the most powerful nations on Earth.96These types of resolutions are more broadly

based, serving as reminders that the United Nations (and the international community as a

whole) condemns civilian casualties.

A more common policy tool of the United Nations is a direct mandate tailored to address

current conflicts and reduce or stop civilian deaths completely. These resolutions include threat

of military actions by members, establishments of no-fly zones, economic embargoes, etc.

designed to put pressure on regimes that are killing civilians and coerce them into obeying

international humanitarian law. One such example is a resolution adopted by the Security

Council on January 28, 2005, Resolution 1582. This resolution strongly condemned the killing of

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%96UN SC/10913, February 12, 2013, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc10913.doc.htm.


39/53

$(

civilians in the Gali district of Abkhazi.97In this resolution, the Security Council explicitly lists

the actions that it finds unacceptable and lists ways that they must be rectified. In this type of

document, the United Nations is not making a wide statement about civilian safety to be accepted

by everyone but is instead explicitly speaking to a certain party or parties and compelling them to

cease the killing of civilians. These resolutions are usually made by the Security Council but can

be heavily influenced by DISEC and other bodies of the United Nations.

The United Nations has completed many actions designed to prevent civilian casualties,

as this is one of the largest international issues and is a central part of the United Nations charter.

DISEC serves a vital role in these operations as a wide forum of opinion and as the primary

source of information and suggestion to the Security Council. While DISEC cannot codify

international law, it is an extremely influential voice in suggesting these laws. The actions of

DISEC on this issue will undoubtedly have a massive impact of the safety and security of

civilians world-wide for the foreseeable future.

Possible Solutions

Presented with the lingering issue of intolerably high civilian mortality rates in warfare

combined with disturbing trends about the future of these rates, it is essential that the United

Nations, and DISEC in particular, takes swift and appropriate corrective action. There exist

several different possible solutions for DISEC, varying in difficulty and effectiveness. It is

important to remember the limitations of the powers of the General Assembly--DISEC does not

have the ability to mandate United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, declare war, or impose

sanctions. The strength of DISEC lies in its tremendous ability to issue declarations and

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%97Security Council Resolution 1582, United Nations, http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POCSRES%201582.pdf.


40/53

$)

resolutions that have the power to spur individual bodies (such as countries) and the United

Nations Security Council to substantive action.

The first action that DISEC can employ would be to suggest the creation of a dedicated

subcommittee to deal exclusively with the protection of civilians. This solution has some

potential but also some very serious flaws. The upside of this solution is that, if implemented,

would create a taskforce with the sole purpose of protecting civilians. If appropriately structured,

this committee could have enough influence and power to enact meaningful change in how

civilians are protected by the United Nations. In an organization that has so many different topics

and crises to deal with, the creation of a dedicated committee would help focus efforts. However,

the creation of a subcommittee in itself is not a solution. It is buck-passing in every sense of

the phrase; DISEC would be relying on others to take up its task of making the world a safer

place for civilians, while also creating more bureaucracy than existed previously. It is unlikely if

not impossible that the DISEC would give the subcommittee more expansive powers than it itself

possesses to deal with the issue, meaning that any action taken by the committee could have been

taken by DISEC more easily. Similarly, the creation of a subcommittee could waste resources

that could have been better-spent accomplishing objectives. Instead of creating a dedicated

subcommittee, it might be more prudent to commission research or consulting on the subject, but

that has the risk of being a Band-Aid solution rather than amore permanent one. (Also name

that other bodies area already concerned with this type of task and demonstrate how they deal

with it)

Another possible solution that could be adopted by DISEC involves advocating for more

direct resolutions to deal with specific conflicts that threaten the lives of civilians today.

Unfortunately, the situations vary across the board and require individual attention. The Middle


41/53

$*

East alone is host to a great many humanitarian crises, especially in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and

Syria. The advantages of this solution are that direct, meaningful action will likely be taken if the

United Nations decides to heed the resolution passed by DISEC. The United Nations has a