Legal 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Note that if you are viewing this document electronically, each of the items listed in this table is a hyperlink to the location of that section in the document.
A Note on Research and Preparation ............................................................................................................. 1 Committee History ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Simulation ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 The Legal Uses of Force in Conflict ............................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 History and Description of the Issue ......................................................................................................... 6 Current Status ..............................................................................................................................................12 Bloc Positions ..............................................................................................................................................16 Committee Mission .....................................................................................................................................18 International Regulation of Cyberspace .......................................................................................................20 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................20 History and Description of the Issue .......................................................................................................21 Current Status ..............................................................................................................................................29 Bloc Positions ..............................................................................................................................................31 Committee Mission .....................................................................................................................................34 Research and Preparation Questions ............................................................................................................35 Important Documents ....................................................................................................................................36 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................37 Committee History ......................................................................................................................................37 Topic A .........................................................................................................................................................37 Topic B .........................................................................................................................................................42
N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS

The 37th Annual Conference March 9-12, 2011
November 2010 Dear Delegates,

Secretary-General
Dartmouth College
Max Ross
Director-General
Dartmouth College
Chris Talamo
Conference Director
University of Connecticut
Andrew Porter-Price
Molly Williams
Chief of Staff
Mount Holyoke College
Chief of External Relations

Northeastern University
Megan Spreitzer
I am delighted to be the first to welcome you to the 2011 National High School Model United Nations Conference! My name is Chelsea Wagenbrenner, and I serve as the Under-SecretaryGeneral (USG) of the General Assembly Mains Committees (GA Mains). As the USG of Mains, I worked with your directors and assistant directors (ADs) all summer helping them prepare your background guides. I have also been extensively working with them in preparation for the simulation in March. Essentially, my job is to ensure that all aspects of the GA Mains committees run smoothly, from the time that topics are selected to the time that actual debate takes place in committee this March. Your director and AD are both very well versed in the topics and in parliamentary procedure. They have been working very hard to ensure that 2011 will be the best NSHMUN yet! Mains committees are also unique for having a chair on the dais who will assist in matters of parliamentary procedure and decorum. You will soon see for yourselves that your dais is both exceptionally talented and extremely dedicated, and there is no doubt that this will be reflected in your experience at the conference. I hope you all take advantage of the wonderful background guide that your director and AD prepared for you. As for myself, I am from Roswell, Georgia, and I am a senior at the University of Georgia (UGA), go Dawgs! I am majoring in International Affairs and minoring in Arabic. I am also a director at NHSMUNs sister conference in Atlanta, the Southern United States Model United Nations Conference. Aside from Model UN, I am a member of the Demosthenian Literary Society here at UGA. We participate in heated extemporaneous debate every Thursday night. Recently I have been working on a new analyst internship I received with the British Standards Institute, and I have been trying to decide what my plans are for next year. I have been attending NHSMUN conferences since my sophomore year of high school, and I truly believe that the experience you receive from participating in MUN is exceptional. I will be highly accessible throughout the conference, and if you see me walking by, please stop me and introduce yourself! Id like to ask all of you to put effort into these topics and to respect the mission of our conference and the integrity of our staff. Make sure yall come prepared for some great debate and diplomacy. Im very excited to meet all of you in March! Until then, please feel free to contact me at the email address or telephone number below with any questions or concerns that you may have. Happy Researching! Chelsea Wagenbrenner Under-Secretary-General, GA Mains mains.nhsmun@imuna.org | (770)-778-8014
Director of Security
Boston University
Oliver Kempf
Under-Secretary-General
University of California, Santa Barbara
Florian Schratt
University of Georgia
Chelsea Wagenbrenner
Northwestern University
Max Brawer
Tufts University
Sarah Costello
University of Virginia
Francie Berger
Bryant University
Jason Fortin
NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-forprofit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.
N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS

The 37th Annual Conference March 9-12, 2011
November 2010 Delegates,

Secretary-General
Dartmouth College
Max Ross
Director-General
Dartmouth College
Chris Talamo
Conference Director
University of Connecticut
Andrew Porter-Price
Hello and welcome to the Legal Committee at NHSMUN 2011! My name is Brett Hunter Spielberg and I will be your director this year. Last year I was privileged and served as the Assistant Director of this very committee, and I am excited for this year to be even better than the last. I am from Long Island, New York, and currently am a sophomore at Adelphi University. I am majoring in communications with a concentration in journalism and possibly a minor in history. In my free time I work as a certified baseball umpire for the American Federation of Umpires as well as with a home aquarium maintenance business. I have trained in a range of martial arts over the past fourteen years and hold various degrees in multiple arts from Korean Karate to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to Muay Thai Kickboxing. This years topics are highly progressive, yet extremely pertinent to the Sixth Committee to in the contemporary international community. Topic A, Legal Uses of Force in Conflict, discusses the actions and implications of war focusing on uses of both direct and indirect force. Topic B, International Regulation of Cyberspace, centers on the Internet and its various uses. In the 21st century, society has embraced the Internet and cyberspace as the most prolific medium of communication and information, which presents dangers and opportunities. The Sixth Committee will debate these topics and establish some form of consensus on two diverse and highly pertinent subjects within the international community. It is my goal to have every Legal delegation to fully grasp their unique policies and participate fully throughout the conference. If any of you have questions or concerns, I am always available to assist you! Good luck with your research, have fun, and I will see you all in March 2011! Brett Spielberg Director, Legal Committee: NHSMUN 2011 legal.nhsmun@imuna.org (516) 582-7016 26 Beechwood Lane New Hyde Park, NY 11040
Molly Williams
Chief of Staff
Mount Holyoke College
Chief of External Relations

Northeastern University
Megan Spreitzer
Director of Security
Boston University
Oliver Kempf
University of California, Santa Barbara
Florian Schratt
University of Georgia
Chelsea Wagenbrenner
Northwestern University
Max Brawer
Tufts University
Sarah Costello
University of Virginia
Francie Berger
Bryant University
Jason Fortin
NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-forprofit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.
National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee
A NOTE ON RESEARCH AND PREPARATION

Delegate preparation is paramount to a successful and exciting National High School Model United Nations 2011 Conference. We have provided this Background Guide to introduce the topics that will be discussed in your committee; these papers are designed to give you a description of the topics and the committee. However, this Guide is not intended to represent exhaustive research on every facet of the topics. We encourage and expect each delegate to fully explore the topics and be able to identify and analyze the intricacies of the issues. Delegates must be prepared to intelligently utilize their knowledge and apply it to their own countrys policy. You will find that your state has a unique position on the topics that cannot be substituted for or with the opinions of another state. The task of preparing and researching for the conference is challenging, but it can be interesting and rewarding. We have provided each school with a copy of the Delegation Preparation Guide. The Guide contains detailed instructions on how to write a position paper and how to effectively participate in committee sessions. The Guide also gives a synopsis of the types of research materials and resources available to you and where they can be found. An essential part of representing a state in an international body is the ability to articulate that states views in writing. Accordingly, it is the policy of NHSMUN to require each delegate (or double-delegation team) to write position papers. The position papers should clearly outline the countrys policies o n the topic areas to be discussed and what factors contribute to these policies. In addition, each paper must address the Research and Preparation questions at the end of the committee Background Guide. Most importantly, the paper must be written from the point of view of the country you are representing at NHSMUN 2011 and should articulate the policies you will espouse at the conference. All papers should be typed and doublespaced. The papers will be read by the director of each committee and returned at the start of the conference with brief comments and constructive advice. Each delegation is responsible for sending a copy of their papers to the committee directors via our online upload process on or before February 14, 2011. Complete instructions for online submissions may be found in the Delegate Preparation Guide. If delegations are unable to submit an online version of their position papers, they should contact the Director-General (dg.nhsmun@imuna.org) as soon as possible to find an alternative form of submission.
Delegations that do not submit position papers to directors or summary statements to the Director-General will be ineligible for awards.
-1-
COMMITTEE HISTORY
The Sixth Committee of the United Nations (UN) is responsible for codifying and developing international law. It works mainly by taking topics and formulating solutions using legal framework, including international statutes and conventions. The Legal Committee ultimately receives the work of smaller committees, such as the International Law Commission (ILC) and ad-hoc bodies. It was established in 1946 to alleviate the international need for a body to devise, define, and structure international law and clarify the intents and purposes of the UN in the legal domain. According to Chapter IV, Article 13 of the UN Charter, the Sixth Committee works for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification (UN Charter 1). To fulfill its mandate, the committee reviews and revises work from other committees to ensure its terms and functions are legally correct. The committee is also a major driving force behind the creation of international treaties and other agreements. The Legal Committee persistently reviews international law to guarantee that it continues to be pertinent and effective. This requires its members to be candid about their stances on sections of international law, including treaties and resolutions, during discussion and debate. The committee unofficially requires a consensus of the entire body before an agreement is reached, and going outside of this consensus ideology is viewed as a breach of trust in the body. This celebration of consensus lends validity and strength to the actions of the Sixth Committee. The jurisdiction of the Legal Committee is arguably the broadest of the General Assembly Main Committees. The agenda for the Committees 65th session included: the rule of law at the national and international levels, responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, and how justice is administered within the UN itself. The wide range of topics and their importance to the international community illustrate the extensive jurisdiction of the body alongside its global significance, especially that in the UN.
-2-
SIMULATION
The Legal Committee has a broad jurisdiction and deals with many complex issues; hence, delegates will need to thoroughly prepare to ensure that working papers are realistic. Compromise is the most important part of this committee, and any resolutions passed require the support of many delegates to be feasible in the realm of international law. Delegates can turn to treaties, formal agreements, protocols, and even domestic legislation to assist them with research and provide a starting point for the resolution writing process. The purpose of our session is to write working papers with new solutions and ideas for the topics presented. If each delegate focuses on creativity and compromise through every committee session, the Legal Committee will be extremely successful in tackling its two topics. Each General Assembly Mains Committee has a director, an assistant director (AD), and a chairperson at the dais. The main focus of the director is to guide the flow of debate within the committee. The director will accomplish this in several ways; including speaking individually with delegates and ensuring that caucus blocs devise pointed and substantively-strong working. The AD will aid the director in moderating debate on topic and will be available to answer topical questions from the delegates. The chairperson will mostly remain at the dais and will be responsible for all dealings of parliamentary procedure. If delegates have any questions or concerns at any time during committee, all three of these individuals will be there to answer them or to direct delegates to someone who can. Parliamentary procedure can be unorthodox in large committees, especially if delegates are not particularly experienced with using it. Henceforth, the chairperson will be on the dais at all times to assist in the procedure of debate, which will fall into three main categories formal, informal, and caucusing. Formal debate allows delegates on the speakers list to present their states policy and ideas, and it can also be followed up by a short question and answer session if the delegate so desires (comments are not accepted at NHSMUN). Informal debate includes moderated caucuses and allows for delegates to quickly communicate opinions and ideas. Finally, there is caucusing, in which the rules are temporarily suspended for a set period of time and delegates are allowed to walk freely about the room. Delegates will mostly use this time to formulate working papers. Caucusing will allow delegates to establish relationships and to foster compromise. Working papers (informal draft resolutions) are undoubtedly the most important part of the committee. The Sixth Committee codifies and interprets international law. At any given time hopefully beginning the second committee session there will be many working papers circulating through the room. This allows many different delegations to communicate their ideas, and also allows them to see other delegations with similar ideas. If similarities are found, the director strongly encourages compromise to combine two or more working papers. This is extremely important because the Legal Committee will not pass more than a few resolutions. In fact, the director will strongly encourage that only one or two resolutions are passed, hopefully with the support of a strong majority of the Committee. Again, compromise is essential, and the director will guide delegations with similar thoughts together to work on building stronger and more substantial working papers. If decorum is maintained throughout each committee session, the process will go smoothly. Each delegation should prepare through in-depth research on each topic along with unique ideas to share with the committee. It is important that both members of a two-person delegation are familiar with each topic because the involvement of both members in committee is imperative. If delegates have -3-
any questions concerning research or the committee itself before NHSMUN 2011 begins, please feel free to contact the dais at legal.nhsmun@imuna.org. We are both available to help you and would be thrilled to help you prepare!
-4-
THE LEGAL USES OF FORCE IN CONFLICT

TOPIC A
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations - Article II, Section 4, UN Charter.
INTRODUCTION
In the international community the United Nations holds a role as a peaceful mediator; an alternative to the violent response of confrontation and conflict. Each member state of the UN has a responsibility to work towards peace through international dialogue and participation in the various outlets of the UN. Nevertheless, at present, states on nearly every continent are continuously engaged in warfare. While the escalating Korean Crisis brings back to perspective a stalemated and technically ongoing war of over 50 years, unrest lies within Kyrgyzstans different ethnic groups, and the Israel-Palestine conflict remains unresolved for 40 years. Historically, war has been immortalized as both noble and often times idealistic. The Japanese samurai dedicated their lives to war and chose death over defeat. This concept is not unique to Eastern Asia, as the Grecian Spartans held similar preconceptions on the outcome of battle. Conquest and conversion shaped the histories of societies. However, at the turn of the 20th Century, with the development of new technology and the onset of World War I, high death rates and new deadly weaponry decreased wars acclaim. In is generally accepted in the 21st century that war and the use of force is a necessity, but should be used as infrequently as possible, and only for severe national security reasons. International law and the United Nations itself seek to facilitate, as a third party, discussions for states to avoid the use of force. Furthermore, modern warfare has evolved over time from actions between states into actions between states and non-state groups. A distinct example of violence between states and non-state groups is the ongoing violence in Afghanistan. At this point, Afghani and Pakistani militaries both operate with America and its allies to combat al-Qaeda, a non-state actor. In certain cases, force is utilized as a means of national sovereignty (Krasner 233). Force has been and will continue to be utilized by nations in various different ways. However, by distinguishing what actions are justifiable, legitimate and ultimately legal, it is possible to lay a renewed groundwork towards curbing conflict without infringing on sovereignty. Various other forms of force, whether legitimate or illegitimate within the scope of international law need to be explored. Delegates should address national sovereignty and its implications of self defense and security, as well as more progressive topics, such as soft power. Soft power is the ability for an entity or state to get others to assist them by choice by the use of enticement or cooption (Nye 9). Technologys place in warfare requires extensive revision from its position as a medium of communication and potentially warfare to nuclear weaponrys place as a deterrent and weapon of mass destruction (Fordham 639).
-5-
HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

History of Force in Conflict War has been utilized to, among other reasons, achieve glory, attain land, and enforce authority. The means of war has varied and progressed over time, from simple hand to hand battles to the discovery of nuclear power and a physical detachment of war through laser guided missiles and remote controlled drones. This detachment, via computerized technology, allows for remotely controlled combat to separate the human element out of warfare arguably desensitizing soldiers violence. Technology has been consistently adapted or generated for effective military usage. For example, the first Ford Model T eventually was modified enough to build jeeps, tanks and more. Naval and aeronautical engineering were manipulated for the more effective model of aircraft carrier, battleship and fighter jet. The history of force has been shaped by the technology of the era. However, contemporary conflicts between states are not resolved by force instantaneously, rather there is typically a long political process that takes place before the international community will support a war. International politics has necessitated dialogue between states and even third parties. The United Nations serves as a forum for the international community to facilitate debate on issues varying from conflicts between states to regulations of trade. This illustrates a progressive shift in society from classical realism to a more modern liberal society. A Classical Realist society views human society as incapable of stasis because of mankinds constant power struggle between individuals. It states that the power pursuit propensity of states is derived from the basic nature of human beings as power maximisers (Beavis 1). A liberal society favours civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. Here states are but one actor in world politics, and even states can cooperate together through institutional mechanisms and bargaining that undermine the propensity to base interests simply in military terms (Beavis 3). With this type of society, international actors, namely the UN effectively engages in international politics. Because of this international political system, new tactics have been created to serve as tools of negotiation and manipulation. While military force cannot be taken lightly and no longer can be used as a means of achieving political congruence, indirect force has become prevalent. While there has not been a World War since the surrender of the Japanese in 1945, the international community is still embroiled in combat of an entirely non-conventional nature. International acts of terrorism take place not on a battlefield, but within unsuspecting societies. In retaliation, militaries attack non-state actors who are harbored anywhere in the world and are relatively impossible to track. Osama bin-Laden, perhaps the most famous and controversial terrorist in the world has still not been captured and he has been on the run from international forces for almost a decade. With a constant war on non-state actors the international community is engaged in conflict with no clear enemy and no clear victory point. Rather, both the civilians and government alike of any and every state are at a constant state of alertness. Since the 11 September 2010 attacks, it has become clear that many states including, but not limited to the United States, will continue to pursue its own security through the sovereign action of force. However, this ongoing war on terrorism has not yet yielded results significant enough to satisfy the international community to justify the constant and ongoing use of force. These reasons for war and the use of force can be distinguished as preemptive and defensive. A preemptive attack is made because the attacking body declares there is imminent threat. To protect your own state you would make a preemptive attack as a form of defense. Further, these situations depend entirely on a countrys definition of imminent. For example, al-6-
Qaeda says it will continue to attack the United States, does the United States have an openinvitation to consistently and violently repress al-Qaeda and its affiliates? Sovereignty, Self Defense, and Security Walt Whitman Rostow, a noted political theorist, provides the following definition of sovereignty: National sovereignty means that nations retain the ultimate right--a right sanctioned by law, custom, and what decent men judge to be legitimacy--the right to kill people of other nations in defense or pursuit of what they judge to be their national interest (Rostow 107). Clearly this perspective considers national sovereignty as a political tool to justify violence. Tracing back to the liberal ideology of John Locke, sovereignty grants an certain level of exclusive authority to a state and abstractly links this state to its past, present, and future citizens. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 provided the first example of states recognizing each others sovereignty and agreeing not to interfere in each others internal affairs. The major European states agreed to the principle of territorial integrity, meaning each state had sole rights over its territory and could not be infringed upon by other states. Sponsoring secessionist revolutionary movements or compromising a states territory would be labeled acts of aggression. Nearly 400 years ago, it was recognized that direct use of force is not the only legitimate (or illegitimate) form of force. This treaty set the precedence for multilateral debate as it was the first treaty of its kind between numerous states that differed on matters of religion and culture. The United Nations operates with a limited spectrum of enforceable authority as predetermined by the member states of the organization. To preserve each states sovereignty, the organization as a whole acts less as an authority, and more as a mediator. For security reasons any state can legitimize any action according to the principle of national sovereignty. On the other hand, the UN is cannot utilize force to counteract violence by states. Although peacekeeping operations have been created by the UN in specific cases, the organization as a whole acts in the interest of non-violent mediation. Individual states have been seen to utilize force by any means necessary to preserve the security of their state. Chapter VII constitutes the very heart of the global system of collective security. According to its provisions, the Security Council, after having determined that a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression has occurred, may, if necessary, take military enforcement action involving the armed forces of the Member States (Simma 1). Forced intervention has been deemed necessary when genocide is occurring; in fact it is required that all UN member states intervene in such cases under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. However, it is extremely difficult to get the UN to label a conflict as genocide because of its legal responsibilities. The convention criminalizes actions relating to all aspects of the systematic killing of a group of people and mandates that all states intervene on moral and legal grounds. According to UN Article LI: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security (UN Charter). -7-
Above all else, member states are assured that they have overall control over their self defense and foreign policy within the boundaries of ratified international treatises. Within the boundaries of the UN, the Security Council is utilized to facilitate crisis debate to prevent conflict, but regardless, nothing shall impair a states right to self defense. This overriding principle of national sovereignty leaves a clear and distinct loophole that prevents the international community from being forced into any political policy and likewise limits the authority of international politics. This loophole however is built into the framework of the United Nations by the charter authors to protect their interests and to prevent the organization of independent states from being able to be manipulated into a world governing authority (Krasner, 234). The Role of Non-State Actors in Conflict Although states are increasingly adopting and adapting to the military strategies used by non-state actors, non-state belligerents represent a new kind of combatant in conflict that often falls in a legal gray-area when it comes to international laws and conventions. For example, should a non-state actor commit genocide (as many suspect the janjawiid are doing in Darfur), they cannot appear before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) because they are not a state or member state of the UN. Therefore, the question of how the international community can hold non-state combatants to international standards in the use of force is a question of increasing urgency and pertinence. Non-state armed groups defy easy classification as their characteristics vary along almost every possible dimension: size, structure, ideology, strategies, and tactics (Jenkins 34). While one state might support an insurgency group seeking independence from the controlling body, another state might view the same group as rebels and criminals committing treasonous or terrorist acts. Depending on the context of the situation, a political party can be identified as a non-state actor especially in a state that has not yet accomplished a peaceful transition of power democratically. The last session of the Legal Committee included debate on material ultimately linked to this issue of distinguishing legitimate non-state actors. Several delegations reiterated their view that the draft convention should comprise a clear definition of terrorism which would differentiate it from the legitimate struggle of peoples in the exercise of their right to self-determination (A/C.6/64/SR.25). It is pertinent for this committee to understand that it should not focus on defining terrorism, but rather the emergence of modern warfare (acts of terrorism among the strategies used) in relation to conventional warfare. According to both the Montevideo Convention of American States and the European Unions definition of a sovereign state, a state exists if it has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (Black 1341). Many non-state actors feel that they qualify as a state according to these definitions. This perspective has merited a progressive push towards distinguishing legitimacy from illegitimacy in regard to statehood and international recognition. However, the United Nations reviews questions of statehood on a rigorous case by case basis either via the ICJ or by vote in the General Assembly (as was the case when the China represented in the UN was changed from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the Peoples Republic of China in the 1970s). When discussing the topic of non-state actors, the term largely refers to private actors in a conflict and not irregular forces belonging to a state (Watkin 6). It is difficult to draw a boundary between these two categories of actors, though. A private actor in a conflict could be a terrorist organization, but it could also include a private military corporation (PMC) hired by a non-state official. An irregular force belonging to a state could include state sponsored militias, but this term is -8-
similarly hazy. While private actors are typically seen as extremely dangerous by holding allegiance to only themselves and not for their state, irregular forces can be more dangerous. Mercenary forces are often times associated with atrocities and violent tactics. Again, it should not be the committees focus to define all of these terms. Instead, the committee should focus on establishing the legal framework that will be required to handle these new types of actors to international conflict. Non-state actors within domestic conflicts become easier to distinguish because states have the sovereignty to not give legitimate status to the insurgents they combat, so states can be engaged in armed conflict with an insurgent or revolutionary group, irrespective of that groups legitimacy, and vice versa (Watkin 8). The pressure to classify non-state actors arises more during situations when a government is fighting a non-state actor that is supported by another government. Basically, in situations of a non-state actor demanding statehood and autonomy through violence, it is more likely for that actor to be subject to different classifications if they are supported financially or in principle by another state. Terrorism The word terrorism and its definition have constantly changed ever since the words birth in France during the late 1790s (Hoffman 1). When it first appeared, the word meant revolutionary or anti-government activity undertaken by non-state or sub-state entities. La rgime de la terreur incorporated terrorism and terrorists to describe the newly formed government and intimidate its opposition. Coined by Robespierre, the word held connotations of virtue and democracy, much the opposite of its definition today. Today, the Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as, A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation. Following the supported Islamic and religious insurgency against the Soviet Union throughout 1970s-1990s, terrorism became closely associated with religious extremism. Up to that time, though, rarely was frequently used by non-state actors against their state, and so was typically a national phenomenon. After the attacks on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, however, terrorism became a global phenomenon, as non-state actors began to combat states they did not reside in or whose laws they were not subject to. Terrorism has even effected the development of countries; for example, the Indonesian economy was noticeably affected by the 11 September attacks because tourism, a major industry for the country, sharply declined (McPhail 2). Hotel occupancy rates fell from 74% to 10%, and the daily passenger volume in Bali fell from 5,000 passengers per day to 1,000 per day following the attacks. The following quote is taken from a UN synopsis of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, held in 2008: Delegations reiterated their strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and recalled that terrorism remained a major threat to international peace and security. They underlined that terrorism could never be justified. It was also emphasized that States should refrain from directly or indirectly supporting terrorist activities. Several delegations rejected the use or threat of use of force under the pretext of combating terrorism (Measures to Eliminate). The debate summarized here formally objects to terrorism and recognizes its threat to international peace and security. While it very directly condemned terrorism, it also directly urged states to refrain from taking military action against terrorism, even under the pretext of combating terrorism. This concept is especially important in regards to the concept of national sovereignty. More often than not a terrorist group that is attacking a country (Country A) is not always located in Country A; it -9-
may be located in Country B, which does not even need to be adjacent to Country A or be directly supporting the terrorist organization. In order to track down and stop said terrorist group from violating the country As national sovereignty, Country A will have to violate Country Bs national sovereignty. Such cycles of violence and infringement on states rights are what the GA tries to prevent, although it has met with only mixed success. Resolving the right of a state to defend itself with the right of another states territorial integrity should be in important topic of debate in our simulation. Indirect Force, Soft Power, and Technology Acts of force are no longer limited to direct military conflict. Soft power is a political term that is defined as the ability to obtain objectives through diplomatic means. Foreign policy expert Joseph Nye has said of soft power: Soft Power is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attractionYou can coerce them with threats; you can induce them with payments; or you can attract and co-op them to want what you want (Nye 2). While soft power is not a show of force, it is a highly manipulative tactic that can be labeled as aggressive foreign policy. What makes up strong soft power is variable to the perspective of each state. It arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced (Nye 190). While hard power is typically dependent on the potential of the military and the economy, soft power is the perception of legitimacy the international community holds for a state, Post World War II America was viewed as an apex of freedom and liberty. Across Western Europe during the Cold War period America was looked up to as a superpower, and states sought support in exchange for loyalty. Likewise, behind the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union held a similar soft power among the states in its bloc. Soft power is not limited only to examples of superpowers over the international community. Every state has the potential to utilize soft power in both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. The United Kingdoms ongoing problems with Northern Ireland provide a key example of a situation in which soft power is lacking between a state and its constituents. One of the reasons why England had so much trouble pacifying Northern Ireland was because of the flow of funds going to the Irish terrorists from the Irish community in the U.S. The bitter history of conflict between the English and Irish left England with no soft power influence with this key community (Nye). However, when the United States (namely President Clinton) made public statements encouraging for cooperation, there was relative progress. Technology is also being increasingly utilized in acts of aggression between states, and is similarly deregulated due to a relatively recent emergence on the international stage. The Internet provides a forum that allows espionage to take place via third parties (often inside leaks or journalists), protecting the individual from physical conflict. The lack of a physical presence and force create a false perception that these actions are non-agressive. Information is not the only thing that may be sold or distributed as an act of aggression; Crucial services such as banking, air travel, water, or energy distribution rely more and more on information technology IT to function (Eriksson 223). Compromising a states economy or utilities yields severe consequences within the country. One of the most notorious cyber-warfare attacks took place in 2007 in Estonia, when over one million individual computers jammed government, business and media websites. While Russia and Estonia are embroiled in their worst dispute since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a row that erupted at the end of last month over the Estonians' removal of the Bronze Soldier Soviet war memorial in central Tallinn, the country has been subjected to a barrage of cyber warfare, disabling the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks, and companies (Traynor). In 2009 the - 10 -
multinational corporation Google alleged that Chinese forces on cyberspace attacked Googles servers in an offensive intended on damaging the server and obtaining personal information of human rights representatives in China (Leung). This example is notable because it shows that nonstate actors are just as susceptible to cyber attacks as state actors are. If electricity, clean water and a stable financial system are disabled in a state, it may quickly slide into a state of emergency. Cyber attacks could be utilized across geographical boundaries separating the attacker from the attacked by thousands of miles. However, there are few international standards concerning the use of cyberwarfare; unless action is taken, it will be difficult to prosecute any state that is alleged to have conducted it. However, the technology of conventional warfare is still not entirely regulated by international convention. As technology continues to increase, there exists a widening gap between states that can afford to utilize the best available technology (such as rockets, missiles, and nuclear weapons) and those that cannot (Fordham). This gap of technology is what has historically separated the dominant empire of an era from its surrounding conquered lands. It has been asserted through studies of the past that as states further develop their means of military and security, their societies move more and more towards frequent uses of war. If a states economy is composed of a strong defense budget and various contractors, there is a necessity for conflict as the economy necessitates constant manufacturing production (Fordham, 634). Sanctions Sanctions can target any specific state, region or even specific individual entities in a variety of ways The purpose of sanctioning is to influence a state to alter its political course by prohibiting the sale of certain or all goods to the country or its nationals. They can limit imports and exports, if not cut trade entirely, and limit specific materials and even individuals from going one place to another. The effectiveness of economic sanctions difficult to measure quantitatively; the benchmark for measuring success is typically whether economic sanctions can change the behavior of a foreign government at an acceptable cost (Marinov). In some cases, sanctions been declared ineffective; proponents of sanctions however support them as an alternative to war that does less damage to ever state involved in a dispute. For example, the warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President alBashir prevents him from traveling to states that will enforce the warrant, acting as a sort of legal sanction against him as an individual. Sanctions could be enacted against a state, either its government or economy, but can also be engineered to target a head of state specifically The Sixth Committee has recently discussed the issue of the enforcement of sanctions, as there is a clear lack of international cooperation within the international community. In recent cases brought towards the Security Council there has been opposition to enact sanctions, as doing so would further destabilize the region by lowering the standard of living in the targeted country as well as slowing the process of settlement. Improperly applying sanctions could cripple local economies and the welfare of individuals rather than that of the government as a whole. Both China and Russia recently threatened to utilize their veto power on the most recent round of sanctions to Iran for the above reason. Though the United States has enacted bilateral sanctions on Iran separate from the UN, if other states, primarily China and Russia, fill the economic void the United States created, the effectiveness of the sanctions would be compromised (Ghattas). A new type of sanction has been asserted as an alternative to traditional sanctions. While sanctions normally target the economy and head of state directly, loan sanctions could more effectively be focused onto the political leadership without having as significant an effect on quality of life and - 11 -
human rights. Loan sanctions target the borrowing ability of a state and prevent outlandish spending and corruption. While states would still be able to adequately trade and individuals able to continue commerce, the leadership of government would be forced to limit spending, and especially situations of leadership suspected of stealing state funds (Jayachandran). Embargoes and Blockades States can take action against other states that are very similar to sanctions themselves. These types of actions could include trade tariffs, embargoes, and even blockades. An embargo is a government prohibition against the export or import of all or certain products to a particular country for economic or political reasons (Black). While none of these means is traditionally considered a use of force that implies a state of conflict or war, they are all actions that limit the target states economic potential (as well as the targeting state, depending on the size of its economy) and the standard of living of its citizens. Though it is a states decision to tax imports to increase domestic manufacturing, inciting boycotts derived for political purposes could cripple an exporting states economic infrastructure and be considered aggression between states (Arbuthnot). A blockade is potentially as dangerous as a formal act of force. By blocking imports there is a limit on both necessary supplies for the civilian population as well as necessary supplies for the government and military. This effect is evident within the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Without access to imports of weapons or technology, a states potential to retaliate against the blockading state is compromise, but the lifestyle of the people blockaded is also affected. Furthermore, a blockade may be a unilateral act by a state or group of states, but it has the potential to restrict legal trade between the targeted state and other states not involved or approving of the blockade, making the subject of widespread international interest (Arbuthnot). Individual states cannot always persuade the international community to formally enact sanctions for various political and economical reasons. Certain states that have strong trade or diplomatic relationships with the target state typically abstain from the debate or condemn it rather than support sanctioning, even if the policy being targeted by the sanctions is congruent with national policy (Erikson). The economical implications of sanctions ranging from multilateral UN draft resolutions could prevent the international community as a whole from enacting sanctions, and instead bilateral action would be taken. While sanction-like action is supported as a non-violent alternative to force, the effects of sanctions could hold consequences similar to war. An effective blockade, embargo or even UN sanction could affect the quality of life of individuals within the state by obstructing their ability to obtain food, supplies or even medicinal equipment.
CURRENT STATUS
Israel and Palestine Israel and Palestine have been engulfed in an ongoing war for control over the area of a land that both parties hold claim to. On 14 May 1948, Israel declared its statehood, and after a series of wars, came to occupy more territory than originally granted by both the British Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations proposed boundaries. While Israel declares its sovereignty over the area and supports its actions as necessary to preserve security, Palestine exists as a recognized entity without a state, though there are millions of Palestinians who live in the disputed land. Throughout the last 60 years the United Nations has sponsored both one state and two state solutions as an alternative to the ongoing and unresolved conflict between two parties who are both justified to live in their - 12 -
homes in peace. Nevertheless, the political powers of the region have both become highly conservative in their own right while trying to facilitate both dialogue and compromise between two parties who have considered each other enemies for over half of a century. The government of Israel has increased pressure on the regions designated for residential Palestinians due to the recent election of a Hamas-Katah coalition into governing power of the Gaza Strip (Big Hamas Win). Hamas and Katah are two unique political parties in Gaza, but during the last election the two groups formed a coalition in an effort to achieve greater political autonomy from Israel. Israel and the United States classify Hamas as a non-state actor and terrorist organization due to their history of supporting attacks in Israel. They have been continuously asserted as a major cause of violence in the region. Israel has claimed that actors within bordering countries have commenced rocket and mortar attacks as well as preparing suicide bombings on unsuspecting Israeli civilians. However, the opposition to Israel claims and asserts that Israel uses force on the civilian Palestinian population, and criticizes the claim of national security and sovereignty as illegitimate because many Arabic Middle Eastern states do not recognize Israel as a sovereign country. They assert that actions taken by Israel have borne the consequences of this type of retaliation; dialogue that clearly does not facilitate compromise. More so, they criticize an unnecessary use of force on Palestinian civilians, which they allege their own attacks are in opposition, setting the stage for a very unconventional conflict (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). More recently this issue has come to international scrutiny when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) raided a flotilla being sent to provide relief to Gaza. While Israel claimed that the soldiers were attacked, they too have ultimately condemned the situation (Israel Admits). By ceding to international pressure and acknowledging that the situation was mishandled, the Israeli government was able to preserve its integrity without compromising their soldiers, who acted with an excessive use of force. In this inquiry we found that there were some professional mistakes regarding both the intelligence and the decision-making process and some of the operational mistakes, said General Giora Eiland, Chairmen of the Inquiry Committee (Israel Admits). Since the rise of Hamas to power within Gaza, Israel had initiated a blockade of the small outlet to the Mediterranean Sea in an effort to prevent any materials from entering that could compromise security of Israel. Civilians of Israel are continuously killed by radical means of force including public suicide bombings and mortar attacks sent from across the military border. There have been countless instances of public suicide bombings within Israel in the last two decades (IsraeliPalestinian Conflict). Israel is not simply the victim, however. Actions that they have taken over the course of this ongoing war both politically and militarily further destabilize the region. Clearly, culpability and causality in this non-conventional conflict are difficult to proscribe. There has been another significant recent development in the ongoing situation within IsraelPalestine. Land in East Jerusalem that would potentially be in the Palestinian section of a two-state solution is under disputed ownership. The government of Israel has supported the demolition of homes in the area for new construction of homes for Israeli citizens. Presently the land is inhabited by Muslims who live as citizens of Israel in relative poverty. This action represents what many states construe as a use of force to change the demographics of the area; by establishing a Jewish Israeli majority in East Jerusalem, many states allege that Israel is trying to redefine the boundaries of any two-state solution based on religion. The United States, UK, EU, and almost every Middle Eastern state have implored Israel to halt the demolitions. Along with the situation in Gaza, this topic has become highly volatile and the government of Israel has been criticized nearly universally for the action. However, under significant pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel had ordered the halting of demolition temporarily, though it is likely that within months the project will commence. - 13 -
Though this is not technically an act of war or force, it is seen as an act of taking the land from the people who rightfully inhabit it. Nevertheless, this situation encompasses numerous major principles within this issue, specifically the role of non-state actors, and the sovereign right to national security. Israel supports its various unilateral sanctions against Palestine; ranging from the blockade of Gaza to the high military presence in the region. Palestine in turn is supported politically by a strong Middle Eastern bloc, some of which does not even formally recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Wars in the past have changed the borders of Israel-Palestine and expanded into the land of neighbors. As it stands, Israelis existence is threatened daily while concurrently the standards of life in Palestine are wholly unacceptable. This case study provides a key example of the topic at hand and provides room for progressive debate. Korean Peninsula The Korean War began in June 1950. The discourse of allied influence within the region created division between the North and South Korea, the North modeled after the Soviet style of governance and the South after the Western style. Open war during the Korean War lasted three years, and in many ways set the stage for the way conflicts would be fought throughout the Cold War. An armistice in the summer of 1953 declared a cease-fire between the two states, but diplomatically, they remain in a state of war. The demilitarized zone between the North and South is manned by thousands of soldiers on both sides. The United States has kept a strong presence in the region and holds the Republic of Korea (South Korea) as a close ally. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) does not have the Soviet Union serving as a facilitating partner anymore, but they do trade extensively with the Peoples Republic of China. On 26 March 2010, 46 South Korean sailors were killed when the Cheonan was sunk off the coast of the disputed Korean waters (South Korea urges). An international investigatory body quickly examined the wreck and determined that the ship was sunk by a DPRK naval vessels torpedo. Though new investigations into the incident have brought doubt to the guilt of the DRPK, it is clear that the situation on the Korean Peninsula has escalated in the past 12 months (South Korea urges). However, it is pertinent to recognize that though formal warfare has not taken place, various actions are made by both parties that viably can be determined as means of force. After the international investigatory body determined that the ship had been sunk by the DPRK, an assertion which is continuously disputed by more and more third party investigatory bodies, strong political dialogue deploring the actions and imploring restraint have been seen (Herman). South Korea threatened to begin audio broadcasts into the North in response to the attack that were immediately considered forceful propaganda by the DPRK. In light of the emergence of this tactic, it becomes important to think if information and media itself is a legitimate weapon. By limiting the media and especially news to only state sponsored broadcasts, the government has been able to maintain control over the population. However, if South Korea were to begin broadcasting antDPRK propaganda to the North it could potentially destabilize the region and reignite conflict. Though neither state threatened to directly engage the other, both recognize that the flow of information along with the economic situation could be seen as a powerful weapon within the region. By engaging in something as harmless as broadcasting unfiltered news could destabilize a state already suffering from a failing economy and an ongoing food crisis. In late July 2010 the United States and Republic of Korea engaged in a war games operation in the eastern waters of the Korean Peninsula. It has been described as the largest show of force in the - 14 -
region jointly by the U.S. and South Korea in a number of years (Herman). This war games operation has thought to be a deterrent to the DPRK after the sinking of the Cheonan months earlier. In retaliation, the DPRK has made public statements threatening South Korea and the United States, as well as other members of the international community, for unjustly blaming the DPRK for actions it has not committed. [The DPRKs] armed forces minister, Kim Yong-chun, vowed to mobilize his country's military might, including its nuclear deterrence to destroy opposing forces if the U.S.-South Korean joint exercises continue. Kim says the situation has been driven to the brink and war could easily erupt at any time (Herman). With such a volatile sense of politics on the peninsula it highlights the importance of preserving international diplomacy and along with it, peace. Kosovo Contemporary international law establishes beyond any doubt that serious violation of human rights are matters of international concern. In the event of human rights violations which reach the magnitude of the Kosovo crisis, these developments in international law allow states, acting individually, collectively or through international organizations, to make use of a broad range of peaceful responses (Simma). Kosovo is a territory in the Balkans that still remains disputed. The conflict and intervention that ensued has been referred to as the first humanitarian war by many analysts (Bos). The conflict spawned out of ethnical origins, as ethnic Serbs in power allegedly targeted Albanians in acts of genocide. In 1999 the Western military alliance NATO forced Serbian troops to end their crackdown on the independence-seeking ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo, which was then a Serbian province. Kosovo was placed under U.N. supervision in 1999, following a 78-day NATO bombing campaign that ended a two-year war between Serbia and the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo, which was then a Serbian province (Bos). At the time the international community supported intervention as a necessity to preserve human rights. President Slobodan Miloevi of Serbia and Yugoslavia was charged with acts of genocide for his role in the killings and displacement of thousands of individuals. He had been accused of inciting ethnic Serbs to start wars in Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. Western powers under NATO utilized force by means of a continuous air strike against Serbia and Yugoslavia in an attempt to destabilize Miloevis control over the area. The warfare was frequented in the media and tied closely with Tony Blair and Bill Clintons authority of NATO. With Miloevis death in 2006 the legal case on the subject has ended. He had been held in custody at the Hague as he defended himself in an ongoing trial that has lasted for five years without any clear decision. However, the past provides a key example towards the relationship between states, non-state actors, security, sovereignty and standards of human rights. Serbia, seeking to gain momentum towards solidifying their right to Kosovo had asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on Kosovos declaration of independence in February of 2008. Serbia was relying upon this non-binding ruling to give them momentum, the political, moral, legal, symbolic weight to go to the United Nations General Assembly and secure another resolution calling for the resumption of negotiations with Kosovo (Nesnera). However, the ICJ released its advisory opinion in late July 2010 much to the dismay of Serbia. The Court considers that general international law does not contain any prohibition on declarations of independence. Accordingly, it concludes that the declaration of independence [of Kosovo] on the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law. Sixty nine countries, including the United States, Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom have recognized - 15 -
Kosovo's independence (Bos). However, the Russian Federation and other states have adamantly declined to recognize Kosovos independence. It is a highly sensitive issue for many states to formally recognize Kosovos independence because Serbia still considers Kosovo a UN-governed province of Serbia. Aside from the Russian Federations tight relations with Serbia, there are other logical concerns with embracing the legitimacy of regional entities being granted independence (Bos). This ICJ ruling gives momentum to every non-state entity that considers itself to be a sovereign state, and takes away from the authority of larger states that span across cultural boundaries that may have rebel factions seeking political independence. This ruling of the ICJ is relatively unprecedented. The legal opinion has given the potential for nonstate parties to formally declare their independence with a higher likelihood of their sovereignty being recognized. While Kosovo is a state as it does have a permanent population, a government and the capacity to facilitate politics, many other third parties have similar means. However, most of these third parties did not gain as much international significance as Kosovo in the late 1990s. The international intervention and claims of genocide gave Kosovo a clear international sympathy and could be a likely reason that has assuaged the claim for independence. While declaring independence might not be considered a violent act by all perspectives, it is clear that the action is highly sensitive to the state that is being broken away from, as well as other states with similar situations foreseeable in the future.
BLOC POSITIONS
NATO and European Union The United States and European countries have historically considered the use of armed force as an accepted means of policing global conflicts. In 2003, the European Union, together with the United Nations, signed a Joint Declaration on EU-UN cooperation in Crisis Management (Joint Declaration 1). The declaration was aimed at determining how the EU can use its military strength in accordance with UN operations to effectively respond to crises. In 1999, European states signed the Helsinki Deadline Goal, under which EU states are able to deploy up to 60,000 combat troops for the purpose of crisis management, peacekeeping, and peacemaking operations (EU Facts 1). The effects of this goal can be witnessed in situations such as those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Somali Republic, where the EU felt that the instability and violent unrest in the regions were enough to warrant peacekeeping actions (EU Facts 1). According to previous incidents, the EU views itself as a policing force in international conflicts, so it is necessary for the global community to reach an understanding of when and how much force can be used when similar situations arise. At the same time, America believes that the UN Charters proclamation of every states right to selfdefense is sufficient in allowing it to use force in anticipation of an attack (Bellinger 1). In the face of the war on terrorism, the US feels the need to be able to attack first in the presence of a threat (Bellinger 1). Currently, the United States has a joint security alliance with the European Union in the face of the war on terrorism, where both have pledged to use their resources in assisting the other against the threat of al-Qaeda. The alliance has extended so far as to not only provide military cooperation and combat forces in the face of war, but also financing [and] training for Afghan forces (US-European Security Alliance 1). This alliance binds the EU to American objectives both militarily and financially, so international treaties regarding force would have to benefit them - 16 -
both equally. The main question regarding these two regions would be how to utilize their abilities to benefit the global community as a whole. African Union The African Unions main concern is the use of force to maintain as much stability in the region as possible a goal which has been enthusiastically approached by African countries such as Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nigeria, and the Republic of the Congo. Member states have signed onto a NonAggression and Common Defense Pact, in which they jointly pledge to work together in preventing anyone within their country from partaking in hostile actions in the region, as well as to prosecute any armed groups or terrorists inciting instability (African Union 1). Signatories have agreed to prohibit the use of its territory for the stationing, transit, withdrawal or incursions of irregular armed groups, mercenaries and terrorist organizations operating in the territory of another Member State, as well as to refrain from the use of force or threat to use force in their relations with each other and in any manner whatsoever (African Union 1). This presses African leaders to initiate diplomatic dialogue in resolving regional conflicts. The Constitutive Act of the African Union states that the AU has the right to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity (Constitutive Act 1). Countries have taken the initiative to alleviate these problems, such as earlier this year when the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed a peace agreement which will lead to the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from the DRC, as well as the disarmament of insurgent groups (Pahad 2). Similarly, the Inter-Congolese Dialogue of 2002 led to the adoption of resolutions calling for the integration of armed forces (Pahad 2). A primary issue from this region is the conditions in which a country is able to intervene on a humanitarian basis what constitutes as a humanitarian crisis, and how much force is allowed to resolve it (Gazzini 1). Because a continental understanding of humanitarian crises does not exist, conflicting policies and misunderstandings regarding the use of force may arise that may further tension between countries and increase instability in the area; thus, a great deal of the continents actions in the midst of armed conflict will rely on the definition of a humanitarian crisis. This regions primary concern is to alleviate the current exercise of force and prevent its future use by peaceful international dialogue. East Asian States The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded upon the principal of rejecting the use or threat of force. ASEANs Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) was created for the purpose of promoting perpetual peace, everlasting amity and cooperation in the region (Manyin 8). Likewise, most Asian states do not regard the use of force as a means of settling conflict, meanwhile promoting the right of every state to self-preservation. Though Asian countries even outside of ASEAN have acceded to the TAC, border conflicts have historically been a constant issue in the region. Clashes along the Sino-Vietnamese border throughout most of the 80s over conflicting military policies resulted in the use of ground troops between the two countries (Chinese Invasion of Vietnam 1). Conflict isnt limited to ASEAN states. Similarly, an IndianBangladesh border dispute (both states outside of ASEAN) in 2001 led to the use of rockets, mortars, and heavy machine guns, resulting in about ten thousand Bangladeshis and one thousand Indians fleeing the area (Priyangika 1). However, states with a growing military, such as Japan, have been increasingly using of a force as a means of containing conflicts. Currently, Japan holds the largest naval presence warding off pirates off the coast of Somalia and has offered its patrol in the Strait of Malacca to reinforce anti-piracy efforts (Nasu 1). With the rapidly changing political and - 17 -
military statures of these countries, their policies on the legal use of force are continuously being reshaped to suit their needs and concerns. Latin American States Latin America has historically exercised a policy of non-intervention under whatever circumstances, toward the absolute and unhampered sovereignty of the state, even toward its complete irresponsibility to foreign governments (Vales 1). Any policies towards the use of force have been shaped by the regions fear of being overpowered by outside forces, erecting the Doctrine of NonIntervention as an important pillar in its regional politics. The Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) holds a great significance in regards to the countries positions on interAmerican involvement in humanitarian intervention (Democratic Charter 1). The two greatest principles Latin American policies are based on are that no statehas the right to intervenein the internal or external affairs of any other state, and that the territory of the statemay not be the objectof military occupationby another state (Democratic Charter 1). The wording of the document makes it so that the prohibition against intervention cannot be weakened by exceptional situations; however, because it is difficult to even justify intervention due to human rights violations, some commentators say that human rights might best be served by general international law rather than the OAS charter (Democratic Charter 1). For this reason, new legislation may be needed to address situations which may pose a humanitarian crisis and outline the allowed actions to be taken by surrounding member states. For the most part, this region views force as only a very last option that must be avoided as much as possible. Middle East Force in the Middle East is predominantly used as a means of maintaining security. The use of force was perceived as necessary for protection in August 2010, when Lebanese troops opened fire on Israeli Defense Force soldiers it claimed had crossed into Lebanese territory (Israel-Lebanon Border 1). Israel has cited the use of force as a means of self-defense in the Freedom Flotilla incident. In June 2010, a humanitarian aid boat aspiring to break Israels blockade in Gaza made its way to the occupied territory. In an attempt to prevent violation of the blockade, the Israeli Defense Force waded into international water to board the ship and stop it from making its delivery (Saul 1). Israel claims that the activists onboard immediately began attacking the boarding soldiers with clubs and knives, resulting in the IDF opening fire and killing 19 people as well as injuring an additional 30-60 passengers (Horowitz 1). One of the greatest questions arising from this region is the proportionality of force. In 2009, in response to Hamas, Gazas elected administration, throwing unsuitable bombs into the Israeli border resulting in the deaths of four Israelis (Hamas Rockets 1), Israel launched a 23-day siege on Gaza in which it used highly advanced war weaponry, demolishing much of the major infrastructure within the territory and killing 1,440 Palestinians and injuring 5,380 (OConnell 1). With so many sides calling upon the use of force as a means of self-defense, it is necessary to address when and how much force can be used in these situations.
COMMITTEE MISSION
The purpose of the Legal Committee would be to adapt an international code of law that would not only stipulate the circumstances of necessary force, but also the process by which to moderate case by case the numerous situations applicable. The International Court of Justice and International Criminal Courts have been established to review on a case by case basis these situations across the - 18 -
world. However, the Legal Committee is responsible for creating the legal code that states and international courts adhere by. It would be within the committees mandate to establish the different processes of recognizing and dealing with cases of force between non-state actors and states. Delegates should decide where the distinction lies between legitimate and illegitimate force. Delegates are further encouraged to analyze their governments uses of force and look for similarities. The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Terrorist Bombings Convention) of the Legal Committee focused on a distinct issue of force, namely explosives. By distinctly outlawing bombings, even in instances of fighting for self determination could be utilized as precedence in relation with other aspects of force. If bombings, an act of force, are illegal in all ways, could this prohibition extend to then armed insurgencies, suicide bombings and even state sponsored armed attacks? More so, the Legal Committee has the task of evaluating different types of methods of force that have been utilized for different means. A trade embargo could be as volatile as a blockade if it cripples the states economy with as much precision. Different forms of sanctions, both multilateral and bilateral have to be evaluated to differentiate between forms of legitimate and illegitimate economic sanctions. The Legal Committee should ensure that any form of economic sanction should preserve humanitarian standards and take precautions against damaging the standard of life of civilians. Information itself, whether the obtainment of or distribution of could be considered an outlet of soft power or force and destabilization Even still, it is pertinent to not rashly declare any in particular action as abrasive, but rather evaluate the standards by which the international community can proceed forward. The Legal Committee is tasked with establishing an international consensus on the legality of indirect force in relation to broadcasting media propaganda as well as more direct uses of force such as cyber attacks. The Committee should work towards facilitating compromises to ensure both the preservation of National Sovereignty as well as basic standards of human rights. Overall, the Legal Committee is given the task of facilitating debate over the complex facets of legal uses of force in conflict. The role of non-state actors and the principles of legitimate uses of force will encompass aforementioned issues of economical and indirect force. With limited precedent on the topics, the committee has the opportunity to utilize progressive definitions and applications that fall within the jurisdiction of the Legal Committee.
- 19 -
INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF CYBERSPACE

TOPIC B
Once the province of nations, the ability to destroy via cyber now also rests in the hands of small groups and individuals: from terrorist groups to organized crime, hackers to industrial spies to foreign intelligence servicesThis is not some future threat. The cyber threat is here today, it is here now. - US Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn
INTRODUCTION
Present and future conflicts both between states and non-state actors are and will continue to become more reliant on technological capabilities. If states and non-state actors use various forms of technology, such as hacking or viruses aggressively, it can best be classified as cyber warfare. The Internet and private networks (which can be hacked) serve as access points for all types of information, ranging from confidential military data to personal emails. Governments, civilians, and private and private corporations and businesses all use networks to conduct business and store information. The seemingly borderless, transnational scope of Internet communications has raised regulation questions especially in regards to state sovereignty (Harvard Law 1). Traditional geographical borders do separate the realm of cyberspace; hence, who holds jurisdiction over such unclear borders? Many of these entities, ranging from internationally known corporations (Google, AT&T, Apple), congressional information, military databases, and documents for smaller proprietorships and companies utilize Internets and networking for both business and information storage/transmission. With such a centralized storage facility, a security breach could threaten the stability of governments, financial markets, and lives everywhere. Two industries of particular interest to our committee are telecommunications companies and Internet providers. These entities utilize a vulnerable network and servers that cross geographic boundaries. They allow for civilians to do anything from making cell phone calls and emails, to browsing the Internet, researching, and shopping. Regardless of the use, history has shown us that any network or security system can eventually be breached by a dedicated assailant. Security involves the interests of civilians, governments, business entities and other non-state actors. Cyber crime and cyber terrorism are two of the terms directly related to a security that, for the purposes of our debate, must be distinguished and defined. While cyber crime is a broader definition of criminal activity across the medium of cyberspace, usually for financial gain, cyber terrorism connotes an explicit motive to destabilize a state and its society. While criminals participate in numerous scams and crimes over the Internet to obtain information, commit various forms of identity theft, and steal money, terrorists take actions not simply for financial gain but also with political motive. The interpretation of Internet freedom has in itself extended onto the issue of network neutrality, along with each individual states initiative to offer restricted or unabridged content. Network neutrality is a principle adopted by those who do not want Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or governments to place restrictions on content, sites, platforms and other kinds of equipment. One principle of network neutrality prevents telecommunications companies such as Comcast Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. from selling tiers of Internet access, in which some websites would receive preferential treatment on the Internet (Zeller). Corporations can use the tier structure to - 20 -
limit access to applications, programs or information that is supportive of its competition. Providing multiple tiers or levels of access increases the profits of companies and exploits individuals into paying more money for their higher tiered service. Tiers would be structured from less costly to more costly, with the more expensive providing better service and the cheaper providing less service. As it stands both interpretations are subject to the sovereignty of the individual state, meaning that each state can choose its policy. The regulation of cyberspace has to exist both domestically and internationally. Oftentimes, one states domestic policy is strongly contradicted by another. If there is an international cyber incident, how does one decide which country holds responsibility and more importantly which country has jurisdiction. Through debate on the intricacies of cyberspace regulation the international community should form a framework policy regarding cyberspace, especially in regards to censorship and national security. While individual states commit resources to prevent crime, an international effort would increase pressure on individual criminals, and more importantly on terrorist organizations that use the Internet as a medium for violence, coercion, and theft. Clearly, for economical reasons, network neutrality has been highly debated and its policy can be adjusted. On the other hand increasing security for users receives little opposition, but governmental control is strongly opposed, with little progress. Only though effective debate and reasonable compromise it is possible that the international community can create a comprehensive plan to incorporate necessary regulations. The fact that the Internet crosses geographic borders and serves as a medium for the transmission of information, in many different cases sensitive information, cyberspace requires an international perspective. As the seas of the 18th century, rails of the 19th, and skies of the 20th centuries were all new domains that needed regulation, precedence makes it clear that the Internet will need to be treated similarly. Network neutrality is pertinent to address as it handles the issues of access and censorship; likewise, cyber terrorism and crime necessitate international regulation or at least a consensus to support a unified front against terrorism.
HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

The Internet has become the most important medium within society in the 21st century with unprecedented potential in both the public and private sectors. From communication between individuals to the mass storage of information, the Internet provides a seemingly endless number of services. As society continues to develop technology, the possibilities that the Internet provides us with become greater. Technology has rapidly developed at exponential rates no longer based on the needs of the people, but rather based on economic value and simply the individual drive to develop newer and more advanced systems. Likewise, the potential for actions detrimental to society are affiliated with the growth of the Internet, including hacking, fraud, and identity theft on an individual level, as well as attacks against infrastructure on a national level. States have felt strongly enough that material and information present on the Internet is detrimental to their societies and have limited content. Often times these occasions are linked with homozygous religious states (one state religion) that are often prohibit free media. However, even in states that promote free media, certain content is considered restricted either by age or by law altogether. Governments and nonstate actors alike have learned how to utilize the Internet for a variety of actions. Everything ranging from outreach to warfare can be done effectively with the Internet as the modern medium of choice. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was noted for its progressive campaigning tactics, utilizing social networking websites such as Facebook to encourage the youth demographic to vote. While major players in politics, business, and education utilize the Internet for their concerns, individuals can utilize the Internet similarly for their own means of choice. - 21 -
In this evolving age of technology, education is inherently linked to the Internet for various reasons. It is rare to see a collegiate institution in the developed world without ample supplies of computers. Nevertheless, the economic gap between the developed and developing world also has provided for strong proportions of the international population to have no personal access to a computer, let alone the Internet. This relationship between education and the Internet is likely a prime reason for such a strong government political interest; whether it be an approving or opposing regulation. Global Cyberspace vs. Domestic Cyberspace Cyberspace is not a geographical medium, and therefore its boundaries are highly complex. It is a fact that the Net enables transactions between people who do not know, and in many cases cannot know, each others physical location (Johnson). The implication of this ability to exchange and communicate across geographical boundaries at rapid speeds has created various issues ranging from censorship to security that effect every user regardless of their location. Nevertheless, each state has their own regulations over the Internet. While many states allow for a free exchange of information via the Internet as a medium, even the most liberal state has restrictions. The United States of America for example allows for nearly all material to be freely exchanged through the Internet. However, there are harsh penalties for specific information that is considered illegal, such as child pornography (Clemmitt). Likewise, many other states ranging from Pakistan and the UAE to China regulate their ISPs, some blocking out all information not sponsored by their state, others restricted content that they believe just does not belong in society. Recent disputes over the flow of information have created rifts between large corporations with various state governments. Everything from YouTube and Facebook to BlackBerry Messenger has come under governmental scrutiny and has been the subject of restrictions and even temporary prohibitions. Currently there is no international consensus on a standard of censorship or security of the Internet. Each state has their own right to regulate the content and access as they see fit. However, for the most part states do not regulate material unless it is considered offensive to the state or created with purpose to incite citizens against the government. While content and censorship has already been addressed, access is another complex issue, particularly network neutrality and cyber security concerns. Tthe lack of geographical boundaries and the expanding interdependence of states through the Internet leave room for this subject to expand to the international level. Network neutrality embraces the call for all individuals with a computer have the right to have fair and price regulated access to the Internet that allows for easy, effective and affordable Internet access. In any society with an economy founded on free market principles, telecommunications companies are able to offer a tiered service model, enticing (or exploiting) the customer into paying more money for equal access (Zeller). All Internet users may become victims to cyber crime ranging from identity theft of an individual to that of corporate information, as well as a more direct form of cyber warfare against the host state infrastructure (Johnson). Cyberspace has provided for an unprecedented medium that allows for rapid communication ranging from information flow to financial transactions. The security of this medium is of the concern of all states, entities, and individuals that utilize the medium for one reason or another. Regulation such a vast forum has been done in the past. In many ways, the situation in cyber-space is similar to the problems faced in dealing with the High Seas, where the absence of any consensus legislation had also created an avoidable and acute vacuum. The international community finally woke
- 22 -
up to the challenge, and started negotiations on the Law of the SeaThe world is much better off as a result.(Kamal). The United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea UNCLOS established the regulations over national and international waters and after a decade of debate established an international consensus. Though the Internet is not directly comparable to the oceans, both are mediums that precedence has pointed towards necessary regulation. Because regulation has yet to be debated and solved within the international community, in certain cases there has been dispute created over Transborder Data Flow (TDF). TDF is when information is accessed in one state from another. A simple example would be an American accessing the BBC as a news source. While in America, utilizing the BBC as a news source is not considered criminal or even taboo, in many states, there exist set restrictions over content. When this content holds comes from a foreign state, there is no way for the state in question to criminalize the material itself, as it is not within their jurisdiction. However, the government can prevent its own citizens from accessing that or other similar forms of disapproved content. While TDF portrays an issue of conflicting state sovereignty, it shows that each state has its own right to content (Rein). The Potential of Cyber Crime In the 21st century identity theft and fraud has become a lucrative and profitable criminal industry. Because of the fluidity of the Internet, crimes committed on persons in one state could be perpetrated by individuals thousands of miles away. Though the incidence of cyber crime is higher in wealthier states, individuals in every state are susceptible to attack or theft. Some sources claim the value lost by consumers in 2007 due to cyber fraud is as high as USD 239 million, just among reported cases (some victims dont even know that they are victims) (Cybrinth 2). Larger institutions such as banks often times do not report instances of fraud because compromised security produces highly detrimental negative press coverage (Cybrinth). If a bank were to publicly report losses due to security concerns they would undoubtedly lose business as weak security would indicate to customers to find a new, safer bank to deposit their money in. Personal information theft crimes can be committed from across the world. Each state currently decides its own policing methods over their jurisdiction of the Internet. Concurrently, international agencies, most notably Interpol, operate as another source of security. It is clear however that the police in place can not protect attacks on individuals through an undetected hacker. Without having to be present to make the attack, individuals are able to very effectively utilize the Internet as the modern medium for crime. Civilians can utilize servers in other states to phish and hack an ongoing list of various scams that target common civilians who, unbeknownst to them, have their most personal and sensitive information compromised. By obtaining anything from a name and address to social security and credit card numbers, criminals are able to compromise the identity of almost anybody who frequents the Internet without security measures in place. Clearly, the international community needs to find a consensus to classify cyberspace as a fluid medium and fundamentally decide a relatively uniform code of conduct for the Internet. Because of the unabridged realm of cyberspace concurrent with the lack of geographical classification, there is no boundary that can successfully prevent an individual from utilizing the Internet. Various states do successfully limit and/or monitor their network servers and prevent the flow of information and various other materials deemed unfit for society. Crime, however, undermines these preventative measures in order to manipulate the Internet to exploit individuals, or entities. With every state enacting its own standards of regulation, and with each state having a - 23 -
unique criminal code, it becomes difficult to adequately criminalize certain behaviors on the Internet. A user in Europe or Asia can commit a crime in America, without ever physically entering the country. Even if a suspect is identified, extradition laws further complicate the prosecution process so as to make it sometimes prohibitive to pursue these criminals. Cyber Terrorism The infrastructure of a state is vulnerable to advanced tactics that nearly every major state and business entity has the ability to attack and destabilize. The presence of this strength of technology necessitates stronger and more decisive means of security to insure against the potential of a devastating attack. Cyber terrorism would not target individuals as cyber crime does. Rather than seeking profit from their actions, terrorists seek to destabilize a state as their actions are based out of political means. According to Kevin Coleman (Oct. 10, 2003) the Internet being down for just one day could disrupt nearly USD 6.5 billion worth of transactions (Elmusharaf). Attacks on infrastructure could be perpetrated across geographical boundaries and could be extremely difficult to trace the origins of. A lack of physical evidence prevents an individual or even an entity from becoming implicated. Actions taken on a mass scale could be done by nothing more than a single individual with a computer, Internet access, and the necessary knowledge of computer hacking. Terrorist organizations are supported by strong funding as well as a network of sources and connections. Arguably the most notorious cyber-warfare attack of all time took place in 2007 in Estonia when over one million individual computers jammed government, business and media websites. Sources noted: While Russia and Estonia are embroiled in their worst dispute since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a row that erupted at the end of last month over the Estonians' removal of the Bronze Soldier Soviet war memorial in central Tallinn, the country has been subjected to a barrage of cyber warfare, disabling the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks, and companies (Traynor). In 2000, someone hacked into Maroochy Shire, Australia waste management control system and released millions of gallons of raw sewage on the town (Elmusharaf). This provides a malicious example of an unsolved crime where an individual committed crimes for anarchical purposes. Besides this one incident, various states and business entities have over the past ten years claimed a third party has gained access to sensitive information that compromised the security of a state, business, or its clients. An example of an infrastructure being targeted has an unconfirmed theory that the blackout of the North Western states in the US in Aug. 15, 2003 is unknown whether it was a terrorist act or not (Elmusharaf). With states and businesses alike modernizing their information storage facilities, therein leaves more and more opportunities for the potential exploitation of all types of information. Part of what makes cyber terrorism as a type of force so unique is that the size of a state and its military has no direct correlation to its cyber capabilities. If anything, larger states would provide more servers and more possibilities for anonymity and the possibility of cyber terrorism. A unified regulation that would remain consistent between individual states and the international community would likely strongly provide a crack down on cases of terrorism. The continued support of Interpol and its 178 member states has provided successful strides towards providing security (Elmusharaf).
- 24 -
Encryption Encryption is a cyber security technique that encodes data on the Internet or on a server to prevent a third party or hacker from accessing the data. Encryption may be thought of as a type of electronic self-help used to protect the content of ones electronic communications from unwanted intrusion by public governmental entities as well as from private actors (Aoki). Besides simply providing a safeguard for data, encryption is important to help defend a network from all forms of cyber attacks. Various networks would be easily compromised if not for strong encryption. Personal information could be accessed via e-commerce and even email accounts or simply just the wireless network. Because of this, businesses and states alike employ encryptions as part of their cyber security schemas. Encryption is necessary for various reasons and is utilized by various entities. ISPs and ICPs have large encryption investments and provide their users with necessary security for web browsing, emailing, and instant messaging. Programs and websites that attack a users computer or even personal information are often times filtered out before users know they are being attacked. The use of strong encryption does three things: (1) ensures confidentiality/privacy of a message; (2) ensuring authenticity of a message; and (3) ensures the integrity of the content of a message (Aoki). However, internet providers arent the only ones creating encryption services. Governments utilize encryption to protect important information on the Internet. Besides governments, banking and financial entities need to ensure their encryption is highly competent. Billions of USD are at risk if any form of financial related companies integrity is breached. Everything from credit card information to personal funds could be compromised, and if any of this became public the integrity of the business would likely be breached beyond repair (Cybrinth). The concept of encryption is not new. Similar techniques were developed to encrypt the transmission of information over older media as well. An example of this would be frequency hopping when the radio was the preferred medium of communication. Presently however, encryption is utilized across the spectrum, from governments to private citizens. Larger private entities such as Yahoo and Google have much greater security in place, with encryption programs that are comparable to that of a government. Stronger encryption technology preserves a states or businesss integrity and interests on the Internet. Encryption technology thus becomes highly valuable and, in the wrong hands, potentially dangerous. The US regulates exports of encryption technology for this very reason (Harvard Law). Citing state sovereignty as their reasoning for limiting exports of encryption technology, the US ensures that their encryption remains to a higher standard than those who they are selling it to. It is a form of preventative self defense as the sale of encryption technology could be compared to the sale of arms and other forms of weaponry. There are opponents to the free development of encryption technology itself. It has been considered dangerous and threatening to national sovereignty to not regulate encryption technology. Though it is highly controversial to limit the potential of development, it is true that in the development of highly volatile and potentially dangerous weaponry such as nuclear arms there is a strict regulation over production. If an unprecedented encryption technology was produced by one party there is the possibility that they could use their technological upper hand to manipulate the international community or worse. Governments and private entities, as well as private individuals, can utilize some form of encryption when operating on the Internet. While governments utilize an unchecked potential of security, many private entities and even individuals have sensitive information that could be as detrimental for it to be compromised as various government information. Individuals who work in sensitive fields, such - 25 -
as nuclear technology are likely subject to potential cyber attacks for purposes of both informational and identity theft. If passwords to specific databases or accounts are stolen the individual could be blackmailed for information, if the aggressors couldnt access the information to begin with. The Role of Private Entities Private entities consist of businesses and individuals not directly affiliated with a state (aside from being citizens of a state). It is important to first grasp that there are various types of private sector entities. The most common non-state entities involved within cyberspace are ISPs, which are companies that provide Internet access. A server is essentially the computer that is hosting and distributing the information a client receives when he accesses a website. The role of the ISP is to take a website request from the client, associate that with a server, and then facilitate the transfer of information from the server to the client. Many ISPs also function as Internet Content Providers (ICP). An ICP is an entity that provides a search engine (Google, Bing, etc). In the past year, Google has become one of if not the most easily identifiable non-state entity involved in international cyber security issues. Their ongoing conflict with China over security concerns, alleged cyber attacks and content provisions have brought to light the various links between governments and non-state entities through the Internet (Lee). China has allegedly been utilizing their capabilities to gather personal information by attacking the security of web providers and hacking into the accounts of potential human rights activists. Incidents of this nature are not unique; Chinas huge population and growing importance to the international economy is what made this case so extensive. ISPs and ICPs provide both the flow of traffic and the content provided on the Internet through their servers, which could be international in nature, but they are only subject to the laws of the state that they operate within. This creates complex problems when it comes to prosecution. The United Nations Interregional Crime & Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) began evaluating cyber-crime related issues in 2005. In many cases, they found that businesses have security capabilities that rival those of their government. Various telecommunications entities, such as Google and Verizon, were noted to have comparable security in place to defend and capabilities to even attack with the proficiency of many governments. With such an ample supply of technology, many cyber attacks are perpetrated by non-state actors ranging from juvenile hackers to organized criminal organizations. In terms of defense, it is accepted that a state provides security for its population. However, businesses are independent and provide their own cyber security that safeguards information ranging from critical financial data to personal information of both employees and clients. While it is very difficult to give equal rights in matters of security to individuals as the government, this is a unique format as billions of individuals have relatively equal access across geographical boundaries (UNCRI). By allowing all individuals to have free reign over the Internet would create disparity in security and capabilities by those with the economical means. With national regulation there is a limit to the potential of disparity. Regulations on private entities vary depending upon the state of origin and the state that they are operating within. The bilateral relations between the two states are of essential importance when evaluating the case by case basis of private entities. For example, an American business setting up offices in an amicable state such as Belize would be considered mutually beneficial. However, setting up that same business in Iran would be much more difficult and due to the political tensions between the states, highly unlikely. As cyberspace itself transcends geographical location, these bilateral regulations that deal with the laws of the sea and air become obsolete. An individual in any - 26 -
state can shop on websites that originate in any other state unless their government or web providers directly regulate the source. The fluidity of the Internet provides a medium that intertwines the rights of private entities with that of states in an unprecedented manner (Kobrin). It is pertinent to address the various concerns of private entities because if their information is compromised, that of their clientele is likewise compromised. If information of individuals is compromised on a mass scale, there is the potential for a grievously damaging panic. Private entities hold secure information not only of the corporation as a whole, but of its numerous consumers. The larger multinational corporations have millions of customers. In this technological age, nearly all information is stored within cyberspace. A decisive attack could not only compromise all of this information, but also the corporation as a whole. This is especially true if the core financial information of a corporation is compromised, putting billions of dollars at risk and in the hands of the wrong individuals. Using a well-known entity such as Google as an example, it is easier to see all of the implications of meager cyber security. Millions of email accounts, as well as personal information stored within accounts, viewed content and the network servers themselves could be compromised both on the level of information theft but also the potential for attacks on the system mainframe. Credit card companies and banks necessitate strong security practices to protect the integrity of their clienteles financial information and personal funds. If the security of a financial institution is compromised there is the likely consequence of a large loss of business and even legal action taken against the company by individual customers. Recently Apple and Paypal have been linked together as having been exploited through various scams. Thousands of individuals have claimed to have been cheated out of money up to hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Security experts said that most of the victims had likely fallen prey to a phishing scam. A phishing scam targets individuals through email, and experts warn that a real company would never ask you to provide personal information through an email randomly (Shiels). Private entities are required to adhere to the rule of law regarding cyberspace in every state that they commence business in (Johnson). In each state there are different rules and regulations of both content and security encryption that vary depending on a variety of different focuses, from content and cultural preservation to security concerns. While these content regulations are subject to the legislation of each state and fall within the realm of national sovereignty, security regulations could if poorly enacted could abridge the defense of an entity. By limiting encryption technology an entity could have its security and vital information easily compromised through aggressive hacking. Network Neutrality The issue regarding network neutrality concerns whether or not ISPs should continue to be allowed to operate by their own standards. Because most telecommunications are linked through the government it is debatable whether or not the government can limit free access to cable lines. The principle of the debate is basically creating or rejecting an international standard that governments should seek the implementation of network neutrality, or not. This would revolve around the principle of ISPs creating artificial scarcity by utilizing a tiered service model. The debate exists on both the domestic and international front and has in many cases not even been formally addressed (Zeller). A tiered service model is when ISPs charge different prices for relatively the same access. The tiers are separated by prices and quality of service, with a higher price earning a greater quality of Internet connection. To parties that pay for cheaper access, they create artificial scarcity which slows down the Internet connection, making their access to the Internet less than what parties paying more - 27 -
receive, providing an incentive to purchase a higher tier (Zeller). Though both are paying different amounts for access and a surplus of access is available, the providers who are either private telecom companies or even the government themselves impose a bandwidth usage limit because in a capitalist economy it is necessary to increase profits. Network neutrality would define this doctoring of scarcity as a last mile (or kilometer) infraction, because limiting the Internet connection is done via telecom lines within the literal last mile between the server and the individual customer. That would basically incriminate the ISP for limiting the potential for free access to the individual party (Zeller). Many states might support network neutrality in principle, but economically cannot endorse the policy for political reasons. Network neutrality would be a clear imposition on the telecommunications industry as it would eliminate billions of dollars of a huge industry a year. The tiered service model basically coerces individuals into paying more money for better access. The access is there regardless of what is paid, but the practice of artificial scarcity limits access to the Internet for the individual who doesnt pay for the better tier. Artificial scarcity would become, in theory, criminalized if net neutrality is passed, thus totally eliminating the tiered service model and all of the profit that it creates. Depending on the legislation passed, net neutrality could even eliminate competition to provide for a state integrated Internet service provider (Zeller). Network neutrality has been argued as a necessary step for any progressive government to make in the establishment of modern rights. The Internet provides every individual with opportunities ranging from education to employment and, in the 21st century, is the most prolific medium for communication, information, and more. By limiting the quality of the Internet for no reason other than profit margins, it can be argued that current telecommunications companies are committing financial exploitation over their customers. Transitively, if governments are to allow this continued practice, they are abridging the rights of their citizens. This international debate bridges a gap between domestic and international policy for the betterment of the individuals whom utilize the Internet. Government Influence With regards to the Internet, each state acts largely independently of the international community. Certain states limit web content and website access based on not only national security, but also on principles of cultural preservation. The censorship of a website, such as Pakistan's temporary ban of both Facebook and YouTube provides a direct example of a society restricted content to preserve the integrity of the Internet according to state religious law (Johnson). The government felt that material present on the site would be detrimental to be viewed by the citizens of the religious state. This was not the first time that offensive material was banned for religious purposes. A newspaper caricature of the prophet Mohammad has sparked backlash and censorship in 2006. States that engage in domestic policies that limit the flow of information do so to preserve their society and the authority of the government within the state. This has been a commonplace practice across the world: For example, Bavaria used this aspect of the principle to enforce its anti-pornography laws against CompuServe's Munich office after the service provider refused to shut down over two hundred Usenet newsgroups that contained pornographic content (Harvard Law). States have the right and jurisdiction to limit content on the Internet; however, the international community could decide upon an international standard regarding the role of ISPs (Arquilla). By possibly creating an international means of registering as an Internet provider it would eliminate conflict between entities and individual states, as issues of compliance would be under international regulation and jurisdiction, eliminating the issues of various standards in various places. - 28 -
Governments do not intervene in the Internet simply for cultural or governmental preservation. The economic implications of a cyber attack could compromise not only individuals, but the stability of the state as a whole. If a state feels that it can not provide adequate security for the cyber infrastructure of its citizens, it could be considered a logical move to limit the flow of information on the Internet. Many states limit content for a variety of reasons ranging from issues of content censorship, prevention of piracy, and more (Johnson). Religious states limit content that they deem unfit for society such as Pakistans temporary censorship of YouTube in 2009. Other states limit content they deem as material that the government believes has the ability to incite rebellion (Liversedge). Material that praises enemies of the state could also be censored for obvious reasons. Internet regulations can be used by the dominant social party in a country to prevent new ideologies from being injected into society, or to shape the values and collective identity of that society; for this reason many countries are unwilling to budge in regards to their hold on Internet regulations (Harvard Law). First and foremost there is the debate over the legal jurisdiction of the Internet. States are free to monitor and police the Internet for purposes of security under the doctrine of national sovereignty. Just as states have the right to have police forces for public security, there in supports the argument for providing regulated security of the Internet. Cyber security however, requires an entirely different toolkit. Across the international community, it is becoming clearer that cyber security is a multifaceted issue involving the wellbeing of both private entities as well as the infrastructure of the state itself. Considering the frequency of cyber attacks on individuals for financial exploitation in the United States, Western Europe, China, Japan, Russia and India therein remains the growing potential for further expansion into new markets. However, with a strong international front regulating together it would be both a deterrent and likely a strong form of security (Johnson). Cyber warfare ranges from the capability to illegally corrupt or disrupt computer networks and software, computer forensics, espionage and notably hacking. Militaries can use their capabilities to obtain information of all kinds, jam networks, and even destabilize a power grid. As recently as July of 2009, German espionage agents reported Internet spying operations that targeted industrial secrets and their power grid. Without stringent enough security in place a states entire infrastructure could be infiltrated and broken apart compromising the utilities of a developed society. Each example presented has to be distinguished between cyber crime and terrorism, as well as distinguishing warfare between states and between a state and a non-state entity. The example between Estonia and Russia earlier in the paper highlights a clear example of cyber warfare between two states, whereas the ongoing example of China and Google represents similar attacks of warfare, however between a state and a private entity. However, in the case of a similar cyber attack onto a nations infrastructure from a non-state entity, namely a terrorist organization, this may be defined as cyber terrorism.
CURRENT STATUS
Finland Net Neutral In an unprecedented political move, Finland has become the first state in the world to ensure access to the Internet as a basic human right. The provisions of the legislation ensures that all residents of Finland have the legal right to be able to access a personal broadband connection that provides no less than 1MB per second download speeds(Verona). Finland may have been the first country to make this move, but they probably will not be the last. The Spanish government is currently looking into drawing up similar legislation, which they hope to have ready to roll out early next year - 29 -
(Verona). Although over 90% of Finlands population already has the legally required broadband access, this still represents a bold new step towards international network neutrality. The government of Finland has supported the legislation on the grounds of the Internet being a necessity in the 21st century. China & Google- Compromise Google operates internationally as an ICP, and as such they are required to be approved by each states governmental organization that provides oversight on the issue. The Chinese government has allowed Google to operate within China as long as they complied with the various restrictions of subject matter (Leung). China operates under a strict policy of dividing global cyberspace from domestic cyberspace. By restricting outside news sources and certain content it protects the population from material deemed unfit for the society, but the country draws protest both domestically and internationally for this policy. Previously, Google had been operating on Google.cn via their servers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, as a special province of China, exists within its own administrative government and has no restrictions on subject matter. However, to reach the rest of China, Google reached a special agreement with the Chinese government to censor search material for Chinese users using Google.cn. This conflict between the non-state entity Google and the government of China has been ongoing for years, though had escalated drastically in January of 2010. It has been recorded that Google has had a long history of run-ins with the Chinese authorities, but without a license granted by Beijing, it cannot operate in China. In January, Google said it might pull out of China following what it called a sophisticated cyber attack originating from the country. The attacks targeted the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, along with the computers and infrastructure of Google and several other US firms (Leung). Google reacted immediately to their users content being compromised; they quickly condemned China in various statements to the international media. A statement later released by Google confirmed this: We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. (Drummond). Google promptly pulled its services out of the Chinese domestic cyberspace. This was no token gesture. China is considered to be the worlds second or third largest economy and is still expanding. Analysts estimate Google's revenue in China at $300 million to $600 million out of its $24 billion annual revenue (Lee). Though this is not the majority of business for Google, in the future with an expanding market it is very likely for this estimation to change. Compromise has been made as of July 2010. In June, Google agreed that they would no longer automatically redirect users to the unrestricted servers in Hong Kong. Google offered Beijing a face-saving compromise: it stopped automatically rerouting google.cn to its uncensored Hong Kong site. Now, visitors to google.cn must click once to go to the Hong Kong page (Lee). Along with no longer automatically transferring users onto the Hong Kong page, Google agreed to abide by domestic regulations of the Internet on the Chinese page and provide no lawbreaking content. As of early July 2010, Google had its ICP license to operate in China renewed, thus keeping Google operations in China for at least another year, barring incident (Leung).
- 30 -
BLOC POSITIONS
NATO and the European Union Both the United States and European states have relied on self-regulation to police Internet usage in their territories by implementing codes of conduct and service for their Internet service providers. Due to their highly liberal and modernized nature, Western states attempt to refrain from intervening in the Internet realm; they would prefer it remaining a free space providing users with as much liberty as possible, promoting the spread of online information and expression. However, the recent growth of the Internet and questionable online material, such as the spread of child pornography and copyright infringement, has led to these countries implementing more specific regulations (Tambini 1). The United States has turned to an ad hoc individual approach to these problems, while Europe has chosen to create blanket policies through the creation of a Ministry of European ISPs, which is responsible for instilling regulations developed by intergovernmental agencies (Tambini 1). The US has recently initiated legislation that would make the secretary of state designate a point person for cybersecurity policy in every relevant country or region (Jackson 1); meanwhile, European countries have turned to blanket policies over how to prosecute cyber crimes through international documents like the Convention on Cybercrime. In 2001, the Council of Europe drafted the Convention on Cybercrime, which harmonized European countries legal approach to illegal online activity (Convention on Cybercrime 1). The Convention was later ratified by the United States in 2007. The Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime came into force in 2006, offering further actions against hate speech expressed online. The United States was recently the victim of a highly publicized cyber attack, when last January Googles American-based computers were hacked from China. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on NATO members to initiate more advanced tools that protectcyber networks (Samuel 1). While the US tries to maintain as unrestricted a cyberspace as possible, online threats may call for regulations aimed at further security measures. ASEAN and Asian States The member states of ASEAN have attempted to maintain a free and unrestricted Internet space. With a thriving business sphere, Asian countries are more interested in regulating cyberspace for the benefit of their e-commerce. India primarily turns to the Information Technology Act of 2000, which promotes e-commerce as well as offers penalties for online crimes (Indias First Cyber Law 1). In August 2010, India voiced a similar concern over BlackBerries as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia, and demanded to have access to the phones messaging services. The country has given Research in Motion (RIM), BlackBerrys manufacturer, until August 31 to reveal the codes to its highly advanced encryption methods of data sent through its phones (McElroy). Such regulations would give the government more access to users information. Over the past decade, Japan has become more inclined toward regulating web content, mobile phone access, and file sharing for those under the age of 18 as access to this technology has quickly become popular amongst younger users (Regulating the Japanese 1). However, one of the greatest challenges the state is currently facing in its policies are that definitions, such as what constitutes as illegal filesharing and what falls under existing filtering categories, are ill-defined and extremely vague, creating discrepancies in what rights Internet users actually have or what information the country is actually entitled to regulate (Regulating the Japanese 1). Distinguishing between the definitions of downloading and streaming could ultimately lead to the regulation of sites such as Youtube (Regulating the Japanese 1). China has developed a tighter framework for its e-commerce due to - 31 -
its closed economic system (Global E-Commerce 1). The country is more conservative with its cyberspace regulation, exercising censorship over content that poses security concerns to the country or its society. Online publications must first go through the necessary governmental bureaus for approval, preventing the spread of content that is unlawful to the countrys regulatory policies (Global E-Commerce 1). In July 2009, South Korea was victim to one of the broadest and longest-lasting assaults perpetrated on its government and commercial websites (Ramstad 1). The attack exposed vulnerabilities in the countrys online business sector, especially because they were considered very basic attacks and not near the more sophisticated hacking the country may later have to face. South Korea is one of the states that has been increasing its online censorship; its Minister of Communication may mandate ISPs to delete or restrict material deemed inappropriate, while its Information & Communication Ethics Office may censor any content and public domain services that encroaches on public morals,.may cause a loss of national sovereignty,[and] information that may harm youths' character, emotions and the sense of value (Ang 1). Singapore has taken on a unique approach to regulating cyberspace with a multi-pronged approach its censorship only targets content of a broadcast nature, and content is given class licenses so that certain classes of content are deemed to be automatically licensed provided a code of practice is abided by (Ang 1). Singaporean ISPs rely on proxy servers to automatically block blacklisted sites, which are listed so largely for hosting pornographic material. Though the country has a reputation for censorship, it has taken on a very stylized approach similar to its regulation of print media (Ang 1). African Union By 2000, all 54 African countries had officially obtained Internet access (Mbarika 1). Rather than see cyberspace regulation as a means to control or oversee Internet usage, African ministers view it as a means to make Internet accessible to everyone in a secure and stable manner. At the same time, heads of state are taking advantage of cyberspace regulation to satisfy the multilingual nature of the region. The goal of providing widespread Internet has given rise to many new developmental institutions in the reason working towards a brighter future of equitable Internet access, such as the African Networking Symposium, the African Internet Group, and the African Internet Service Providers Association (Global Governance 1). The African Networking Symposium is an international conference attended by global Internet companies and heads of state to address the enhancement of Africas Internet infrastructure, content, and expertise. The African Internet Group aims to increase the representation of African issues at international conferences regarding the Internet, such as the annual Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meeting. The African Internet Service Providers Association (AfrISPA) offers technology consulting and studies technology regulations in African countries, reporting on how each country is addressing its cybersphere. Together, regional initiatives such as these hope to enhance Africas presence in any international treaties regarding cyberspace, as well as maintain the utmost efficiency of regulations within African countries to reach their objectives of increasing Internet usage. South Africa, as a budding business capital in the continent, has been quickly developing cyberspace regulations to the needs of its own people especially in regards to e-commerce; for instance, as a type of selfregulation, employers can be held responsible for any questionable online activities committed by employees (Liversedge 1).Mainly, the regions primary objective of instilling regulations is to increase the advantage of Internet service in Africa.
- 32 -
Latin American States For the most part, many Latin American countries are interested in a free cyber world, facilitating the rapidly increasing number of Internet users; Brazil alone provides one of the highest numbers of Internet users in the world. Countries are actively promoting the use of the Internet, enacting regulations to promote development, increase competition, and reduce rates (Trope 1). Columbia has been engaged in a controversial debate about whether the Internet should be considered a service or a technology, which would impact its legislative approach to cyberspace (Trope 1). If the Internet is regarded as a service, the government would be able to more widely regulate different aspects of it. States enacting Internet laws, such as Chile, have opted for European-styled regulations, which would include self-regulation (Trope 1). Often, ISPs are mandated to oversee content uploaded by its servers, censoring them according to the requirements of the government they serve. Recently, Venezuela has announced its intentions of creating a more regulated Internet sphere, with the possibility of inciting censorship as a means to police cyberspace (De La Fuenta 1). While the regions legislation regarding cyberspace is underdeveloped and troublesome to Internet companies, Chile is the first state creating a law for a fair use exception and limiting the liability of third parties (Sreeharsha 1). This prevents companies from becoming liable for content uploaded through their services. On the other hand, Argentina and Brazil are two of the countries whose cyberspace offers no protection for Internet companies from third parties. Hundreds of lawsuits are coming from these two countries alone against Internet services like Google and Yahoo for content being accessed and used by third parties; Argentine entertainer Virginia Da Cunha lost a case in which she sued the two companies for having her pictures turn up in search results related to sex sites (Sreeharsha 1). For this reason, other Internet companies are hesitant to provide their services in the region, such as Twitters recent new service in Brazil. The region has become a legal hotspot due to its lack of addressing the rights of these companies in regards to their users and the content they upload (Sreeharsha 1). Middle Eastern States The Middle East has relatively more regulatory and restrictive cyberspace policies. Because of the strong Islamic nature of the region, regulations by countries such as Saudi Arabia have become a means of maintaining its religious character; similarly, with the security concerns between countries, regulations are viewed as necessary to maintaining stability (Saudi Arabia 1). Recently, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain have voiced the possibility of a BlackBerry ban (Schreck 1). The countries have voiced security fears because BlackBerry manufacturer Research in Motion (RIM) uses a Canadian technology firm to encrypt and transmit data on BlackBerries. This transfer of data outside of the Middle East is worrisome to countries within the region, resulting in regulatory requirements for RIM to fulfill in order to continue the usage of BlackBerries within their countries (Halliday 1). As of now, RIM has begun to comply with the requirements, stalling any bans from taking place (Halliday 1). Security concerns are a large reason behind cyberspace regulation in the Middle East, but the question arises of how much access governments should have to users information. While Iran has one of the largest blogger populations in the world, there is heavy surveillance over online activities. Regulatory initiatives are also taking place for the legal safety and creative integrity of Internet users; last year, Creative Commons, a copyright that helps users retain rights of their work online, took hold in the region for the first time, with a Creative Commons Arab World Meeting taking place in Qatar (Ratta 1). The initiative started as a method of encouraging future developments in the region - among the issues discussed, one of the foremost priorities agreed upon by attending states was that a key component for [Creative Commons] in the - 33 -
Arab World should be to foster content creation in Arabic and to encourage innovation in tools and software (Ratta 1). Though cyberspace regulations have been utilized by the government for restrictive purposes, they are increasingly being used for the advantage of technological and creative development in the Middle East.
COMMITTEE MISSION
The Legal Committee has the task of beginning a very complex debate on the regulation of cyberspace on an international level. This would have to adequately facilitate debate on the various critical pieces of subject matter ranging from network neutrality to standards of international security. It should be known that compromise will without a doubt be necessary for any resolution to be supported by the majority of the committee. For an effective resolution to pass the committee must keep in mind current domestic laws and the necessity of consensus for any viable international solution. To facilitate compromise there should be a consensus on any concessions made to delegations, but it should be noted that the Legal Committee does not craft resolutions in a substantive manner. The Legal Committee is tasked with creating a draft resolution that could eventually serve as the framework for international code of law regarding the regulation of the Internet. Issues range from content restrictions to international security concerns. Third party non-state actors or private entities have to be taken into consideration also as their security is often linked with the security of the state itself. However, many multinational corporations maintain and utilize cyber security capabilities that rival that of their host state. As per this issue it is pertinent for the committee to address the role of the non-state actors and their rights and limitations if any regarding cyber security and cyber capabilities. While addressing the rights and roles of private entities it is also pertinent to keep in mind the necessity of the collective security of a country and the individuals that populate the state. The most pertinent of all facets that the committee faces is the security of its member states. Cyber terrorism holds the potential for catastrophe if security was compromised by a decisive strike. With all states presently enacting their own diverse policies and tactics to deter and secure against cyber strikes, a lack of geographical boundaries has allowed for criminals to operate outside the borders of the state that they are afflicting. The Legal committee establishing a set code would assuage the international community in its attempts on cooperation and collaboration against both cyber crime and terrorism. The Legal Committee also has the power to establish a body to specifically handle the evolving issues of cyber crime. It could be beneficial for the international community to debate this aspect of the topic and decide whether there is a majority acknowledging and supporting further progress in international security. The topic of network neutrality also should be facilitated within the debate as it encompasses both the accessing of the Internet as well as the content provided on the Internet. Though the principles of national sovereignty will always take precedence over any resolution created by the international community, it would be an important progressive and transparent step for the committee to discuss standards and policies of censorship/restriction as well as stances on the consumer call for network neutrality. With recent steps of domestic legislation having been made on the direct issue of network neutrality, it is pertinent for the Legal Committee to review precedence and form a consensus on possible steps to take, or if the issue should be left for individual states to legislate themselves. - 34 -
RESEARCH AND PREPARATION QUESTIONS

As mentioned in the Note on Research and Preparation, delegates must answer each of these questions in their position papers
TOPIC A 1. Is your country involved in a conflict or geographically in a conflicted region? How does this impact its policy in regards to the use of force? 2. Has your country ever applied force in an armed conflict in the past? If so, what type of an action was it? What was the reason behind your countrys actions? 3. Has your country ever experienced the use of force on it by another country? If so, what was the reason behind the force? What was your countrys response? 4. Is your country currently signed onto any regional or international treaties regarding armed conflict? What principles do those treaties emulate? 5. What issues is your country primarily concerned with? Is it the preservation of peace? The war against terrorism? How have these issues impacted its policy toward force? 6. Has your country implemented any complementary legislation to UN Charters on armed conflict? What do they consist of? If not, what parts of the current charter does it favor? 7. What measures has your country taken to promote stability? Has it signed onto any pacts with other countries? Is it a part of a regional, political, or economical union? How do those unions impact its use of force? TOPIC B 1. What is your countrys position on cyberspace regulation? Does it try to uphold restrictions over internet or try to maintain the internet as an open space? 2. When it comes to the sharing of information, what principles is your country most concerned with? Is it national security, freedom of speech, preserving societal values or culture? Are its priorities economical, political, or social? 3. Does your country regulate internet sites within its borders, or foreign sites being accessed within the country? Why does it do so? If neither, why not? 4. Has your country enacted any legislation or signed onto any treaties regarding cyber crimes? Has it instilled any precautionary measures or methods to prosecute these criminals? 5. What role does the internet play on your countrys economy? Does it have a large e-commerce usage? Does providing internet service provide monetary benefits? 6. Has your country experienced a cyber terrorism or is in a region where cyber terrorism is witnessed? Has it taken any measures to prevent cyber attacks from occurring within the country? What security measures has it implemented? 7. What is the method in which internet is provided in your country? Does your country regulate telecom companies or internet service providers?
- 35 -
IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS
The following documents have been hand-selected by Directors to further aid in delegate preparation. Please make a concerted effort to read and analyze these documents prior to the conference.
TOPIC A Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law. Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.cfr.org/publication/5862/authority_for_use_of_force_by_the_united_states_ against_iraq_under_international_law.html>. Discusses the main principles behind the USs actions and their place in an international law context. Herman, Steve. War Games Coincide With Korean War Armistice Anniversary. Voice of America 27 July 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. <http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/War-GamesCoincide-With-Korean-War-Armistice-Anniversary-99303444.html>. This source discusses the ongoing situation on the Korean Peninsula as of late July 2010. Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (agenda Item 99). Sixth Committee. United Nations, 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/63/Terrorism.shtml A summary description provided by the UN regarding the debate surrounding the topic of terrorism during the GAs 63rd session. TOPIC B Cyber Regulation and Legislation. Cybrinth Newsletter (2008): 1-2. Web. 14 July 2010. <www.cybrinth.com/uploads/CybrinthNewsletter-April08.pdf>. This source discusses cyber security on both a national and an international level and provides examples of cyber crime. Johnson, David R., and David Post. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48.5 (1996): 1367-402. JSTOR. Web. 27 July 2010. This source is a Stanford Law Review paper on the rise of law in cyberspace. Kamal, Ahmad. United Nations. The Law of Cyberspace. New York City: United Nations Institute for Training and Research, n.d. N. pag. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.un.int/kamal/thelawofcyberspace/index.htm>. This source is a very comprehensive book that discusses cyberspace and its relation to both national and international law.
- 36 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
COMMITTEE HISTORY
The United Nations Charter. 24 Oct. 1945. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/> The Charter of the United Nations. A foundational document that not only gives the Legal Committee its mandate, but also sets aside some fundamental rights of states that are integral to our simulations debate.
TOPIC A
UN SOURCES Joint Declaration on UN-EU Co-operation in Crisis Management. European Union @ United Nations. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.europa-euun.org/articles/en/article_2768_en.htm>. Discusses how EU-UN charter came about and its potential impact on the world and the relationship between the two. Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (agenda Item 99). Sixth Committee. United Nations, 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/63/Terrorism.shtml A summary description provided by the UN regarding the debate surrounding the topic of terrorism during the GAs 63rd session. NON-UN SOURCES Arbuthnot, Felicity. Embargoes and Blockades used as a Method of Warfare: Center for Research on Globalization, 2010. N. pag. Web. 31 Aug. 2010. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19756>. This source discusses embargoes and blockades as uses of force. Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law. Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.cfr.org/publication/5862/authority_for_use_of_force_by_the_united_states_ against_iraq_under_international_law.html>. Discusses the main principles behind the USs actions and their place in an international law context. Big Hamas win in Gaza's election. BBC News 28 Jan. 2005. Web. 18 July 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm>. This is a BBC News article that discusses the election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Black, Henry Campbell (1990). Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.. St. Paul, MN.: West Publishing. p. 1341. This is a dictionary of legal terms and provides a legitimate definition of various concepts.
- 37 -
Bos, Stefan. ICJ: Kosovo Independence Does Not Violate International Law. Voice of America 22 July 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. <http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/ICJ-KosovoIndependence-Consistant-with-International-Law-99023854.html?refresh=1>. This source discusses the ICJ ruling of Kosovos legitimate independence. Bos, Stefan. Serbia Rejects Kosovo's Independence Ruling. Voice of America 23 July 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. <http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Serbia-Rejects-KosovosIndependence-Ruling-99120639.html>. This source discusses Serbias reaction to the ICJ ruling on Kosovo independence. Chinese Invasion of Vietnam. GlobalSecurity.org. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm>. Historical significance of the border conflicts between China and Vietnam. Constitutive Act. African Union. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.africaunion.org/root/au/aboutau/constitutive_act_en.htm>. Text of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which basically is the foundation that the union is founded upon. From African Unions official site. Democratic Charter. OAS - Organization of American States: Democracy for Peace, Security, and Development. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/Democractic_Charter.htm>. The text of the OAS Charter. Outlines Latin Americas self-imposed place in international conflicts. Relates the history that Latin America has experienced and how it has shaped their policies today. Eriksson, Johann, and Giampiero Giacomello. The Information Revolution, Security, and International Relations: (IR) Relevant Theory? International Political Science Review 27.3 (2006): 221-44. JSTOR. Web. 21 June 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20445053>. This source discusses the role of information technology on international security. EU Facts: European Security and Defence Policy. CIVITAS: the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSEXR/EX4.htm>. Facts on European countries policies in regards to force. Fordham, Benjamin O. A Very Sharp Sword: The Influence of Military Capabilities on American Decisions to Use Force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 48.5 (2004): 632-56. JSTOR . Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/stable/4149813?&Search=yes&term=stat es&t This source discusses the influence of Americas military capabilities on its foreign policy. Gazzini, Tarcisio. The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law. Huntingdon [i.e. Huntington], NY: Juris, 2005. Print.
- 38 -
Analyzes how the African Union Constitutive Act can work with the UN Charter. Discusses the principles outlined in it and how they come to life in Africas real world situation. Considers the possibility of the Act actually making a difference in the regions stability. Ghattas, Kim. US gets serious on Iran sanctions. BBC News 3 Aug. 2010. Web. 30 Aug. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10850161>. This source discusses sanctions on Iran. HAMAS Rockets. GlobalSecurity.org. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm>. Provides statistics on Hamass actions towards Israel. Herman, Steve. War Games Coincide With Korean War Armistice Anniversary. Voice of America 27 July 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. <http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/War-GamesCoincide-With-Korean-War-Armistice-Anniversary-99303444.html>. This source discusses the ongoing situation on the Korean Peninsula as of late July 2010. Horowitz, Adam. Reports 19 People Killed, 30-60 Injured in Israeli Attack on Freedom Flotilla.Mondoweiss: The War of Ideas in the Middle East. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/israeli-ships-bear-down-on-freedom-flotilla-in-thedark.html>. Provides statistics on the Freedom Flotilla incident. Israel admits Gaza flotilla raid 'mistakes'. BBC News 13 July 2010. Web. 18 July 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10603486>. This is a BBC News article discussing Israels investigatory committees ruling on the Gaza flotilla incident. Israel-Lebanon Border Clash Kills Five People. BBC. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10851692>. BBC news article about the recent clash between Israel and Lebanon, seemingly the most aggressive face-to-face conflict between the two countries since the 2006 war. Questions what happened to initiate the clash and what this could mean for peace in the region. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 15 Years After the Oslo Accords (Research Feature). World News Digest. Facts On File News Services, Sept. 2008. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.2facts.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/article/r00121>. This source gives extensive background on the situation in Palestine from Post WWII- present. Jayachandran, Seema, and Michael Kremer. Odious Debt. The American Economic Review 96.1 (2006): 82-92. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2010. This source discusses loan sanctions along with the economic implications of sanctioning. Jenkins, Bonnie. Combating Nuclear Terrorism: Addressing Nonstate Actor Motivations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 607 (2006): 33-42. JSTOR. Web. 21 June 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097835>. - 39 -
This source focuses upon the role of non-state actors in international security mainly regarding nuclear proliferation. Jenson, Laura S. Government, the State, and Governance. Polity 40.3 (2008): 379-85. JSTOR. Web. 21 June 2010. This source discusses the qualifications of a legitimate governing body Krasner, Stephen D. Abiding Sovereignty. International Political Science Review 22.3 (2001): 229-51. JSTOR. Web. 21 June 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601484>. This source discusses how national sovereignty shapes states foreign policies. Leung, Elinor. Google says China licence renewed by government. BBC News 9 July 2010. Web. 15 July 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10566318>. This BBC news article discusses the complex situation between Google and China. Manyin, Mark E. US Accession to ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC).Congressional Research Service. Web. 12 Aug. 2010. <http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/R40583.pdf>. The paper discusses the political motivation behind theUSs decision to sign onto TAC and the impact it will have on the USs role with ASEAN countries. Marinov, Nikolay. Do Economic Sanctions Destabilize Country Leaders? American Journal of Political Science 49.3 (2005): 564-76. JSTOR. Web. 18 July 2010. This source discusses sanctions from a non biased perspective. Masci, D. (2004, February 27). The United Nations and global security. CQ Researcher, 14, 173-196. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from CQ Public Affairs Collection, <http://library.cqpress.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/cqpac/cqresrre2004022700>. This document discusses the United Nations role in global security. It ranges from the implementation of peacekeepers in various examples to Security Council Resolutions that have been used to intervene within conflict. McPhail, Adrienne. Terrorism's Adverse Effects on Development. Arab News Newspaper. 28 Oct. 2003. Web. 02 Aug. 2009. <http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=34266&d=28&m=10&y=2003> . This article sites how the 9/11 terrorist attacks specifically affected travel and tourism in South East Asia. It also sheds some light on how imperative tourism is for the South Asian countries. Nasu, Hitoshi. JURIST - Forum: Law at Sea: Challenges Facing Japan's Anti-piracy Mission.JURIST - Legal News and Research. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/03/law-at-sea-challenges-facing-japans.php>. Japanese reporter reviews Japans historic policy in regards to the use of force and how its changing to meet todays conflicts. Nesnera, Andre D. Will Ruling on Kosovo Entice Other Regions to Declare Independence? Voice of America 22 July 2010. Web. 28 July 2010.
- 40 -
<http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Will-Ruling-on-Kosovo-Entice-OtherRegions-to-Declare-Independence-99068974.html>. This is a Voice of America news source discussing the ICJ ruling on Kosovo independence Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. Web. 28 July 2010. This source defines and discusses soft power within international politics. O'Connell, Mary Ellen. Proportionality and the Use of Force in the Middle East Conflict.JURIST. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/proportionality-and-useof-force-in.php>. Article surrounding Israels actions in Gaza during the 2009 siege. Takes the issue and applies it to global scheme, discussing the importance and necessity of proportionality in international conflicts. Pahad, Aziz. Nepad and South Africas Foreign Policy: Progress Report.SARPN. Web. 25 Aug. 2010. <http://www.sarpn.org.za/NEPAD/pahad/Pahad.pdf>. South Africas attempts at creating stability within the African continent. Plethi, Crethi. Is Israels Naval Blockade of Gaza Legal?Middle East Affairs Information Center. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.crethiplethi.com/is-israels-naval-blockade-of-gazalegal/israel/2010/>. Cites important articles from international treaties answers a variety of questions about Israels actions in the Freedom Flotilla incident and the Gaza blockade in general. Priyangika, Nishanthi. India-Bangladesh Border Still Tense after Worst Clash in 30 Years. World Socialist Web Site. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/bangm21.shtml>. Impact of the Indian-Bangladeshi border conflict. Simma, Bruno. NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects. (1999). Web. 18 July 2010. This source is focused upon international law and the Kosovo case. South Korea urges restraint over sunken warship. BBC News 1 Apr. . Web. 18 July 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8598267.stm>. This is a BBC News article discussing the Korean Peninsula situation in regard to the sinking of the Cheonan The IR Theory Knowledge Base. Ed. M Beavis. N.p., 19 July 2010. Web. 31 Aug. 2010. <http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm>. This source discusses international theory including definitions of realist and liberal societies. Traynor, Ian. Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia. The Guardian 17 May 2007. Web. 15 July 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia>. The article is from an international newspaper that details the cyber attack on Estonia suspected by the Russian Federation. - 41 -
U.S.-European Security Alliance Is Vital and Must Be Revamped.National Security Network. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1266> Discusses the United States relationship with the European Union in Afghanistan. Watkin, Kenneth. Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law 98 (). Web. 28 July 2010. <http://www.asil.org/ajil/watkin.pdf>. This source thoroughly discusses the use of force within armed conflict W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 107. This source discusses the many facets of a states economic perspective.
TOPIC B
UN SOURCES Kamal, Ahmad. United Nations. The Law of Cyberspace. New York City: United Nations Institute for Training and Research, n.d. N. pag. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.un.int/kamal/thelawofcyberspace/index.htm>. This source is a very comprehensive book that discusses cyberspace and its relation to both national and international law. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. N.p., 2010. Web. 29 July 2010. <http://www.unicri.it/institute/>. This source is a UN institute that researches crime and justice, and has some focus on cyberspace. Non- UN Sources Abadie, Alberto, and Javier Gardeazabal. Terrorism and the World Economy. Publication. 1-10. A complex and detailed assessment terrorism and the global economy. Much of the document is difficult to understand with a micro/macroeconomics background, but the introduction and assessment simplify the issue in to comprehensible terms. Aoki, Keith. Privacy and Encryption Export Controls. University of Oregon School of Law, 24 Aug. 2000. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/aoki/index.html>. This source discusses encryption for cyber security purposes and what it provides Ang, Peng Hwa. How Countries Are Regulating Internet Content. Internet Society (ISOC). Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B1/B1_3.HTM#s7>. Summaries on many different countries approach to cyberspace regulation. Arquilla, John. Review: Strategic Warfare In Cyberspace. Political Science Quarterly 117 (2002): 31921. JSTOR . Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/stable/798191?&Search=yes&term=cyber
- 42 -
&term=warfare&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcyber %2Bwarfare%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dforce%2Bby%2>. This source deals with the governments and militarys role in cyber warfare, the capabilities of cyber warfare and steps that need to be taken to preserve security. Cheung, Anne S.Y. The Business of Governance: China's Legislation on Content Regulation. NYU Law. New York University, 07 Nov. 2006. Web. <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3 A%2F%2Fwww.law.nyu.edu%2Fidcplg%3FIdcService%3DGET_FILE%26dDocName%3 DECM_DLV_015050%26RevisionSelectionMethod%3DLatestReleased&ei=5eFNTJhxhIid BuYgNgL&usg=AFQjCNFZzF8SbvKXPLKx0t_tAe4KMgW2MA&sig2=3TF5rjr1ShNoArT kDtZWGA>. This source details Chinese domestic policy of regulating cyberspace. China Defends Internet Regulation. BBC News - Home. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4715044.stm>. BBC news article framing Chinas initial refute of global criticisms toward their internet policies. Basically, a native Chinese analyst compares the regulations of China to those of America, stating that its unfair of the global community to judge one and not the other. China calls this a double standard and insists that their policies are best for their people. Clemmitt, M. (2006, May 12). Controlling the Internet. CQ Researcher, 16, 409-432. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from CQ Public Affairs Collection, <http://library.cqpress.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/cqpac/cqresrre2006051200>. This source discusses government control and regulation over the internet. It discusses the potential a cyber attack could have. Council of Europe - ETS No. 185 - Convention on Cybercrime. Council of Europe - Treaty Office. Web. 13 Aug. 2010. <http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/185.htm>. The text of a joint treaty by European states on how to address cyber crimes. Addresses actions to be pursued by a state in case of such activity and the limitations of how such perpetrators can be tried by their governments. Creates an equal playing field for all countries involved. Cyber Regulation and Legislation. Cybrinth Newsletter (2008): 1-2. Web. 14 July 2010. <www.cybrinth.com/uploads/CybrinthNewsletter-April08.pdf>. This source discusses cyber security on both a national and an international level and provides examples of cyber crime. Cyberspace Regulation. Berkman Center. Harvard Law Review, May 1999. Web. 26 July 2010. <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/hlr.html>. This source is a comprehensive law review of the regulation of cyberspace and provides examples in various topics. Drummond, David. A new approach to China. Official Google Blog. Google, 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 July 2010. <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html>. This source is Googles official policy on China as of January 2010. - 43 -
Elmusharaf, Dr. Mudawi M. Cyber Terrorism : The new kind of Terrorism . Computer Crime Research Center, 8 Apr. 2004. Web. 18 Aug. 2010. <http://www.crimeresearch.org/articles/Cyber_Terrorism_new_kind_Terrorism/>. This source is an in depth discussion of cyber terrorism and cyber crime. First Creative Commons Arab World Meeting Held in Qatar at Al Jazeera Media Forum.Rami Olwan. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.olwan.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=279:donatelladella-ratta&catid=6:cc-jordan&Itemid=26>. Mentions Jordans initial adoption of Creative Commons in its country and the continuing emergence of this copyright throughout the region. The countries held a forum about Creative Commons and voiced their united effort in maintaining creative rights for users. Global E-Commerce Regulation. Hostip. Web. 12 Aug. 2010. <http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/507/Global-E-Commerce-RegulationREGULATING-CYBERSPACE-WITHOUT-BORDERS.html>. Countries attempts at regulating e-commerce within their borders and their aspirations in doing so. Explains what countries are doing and how their decisions will improve the e-commerce for both customers and companies in their region. Hansen, B. (2002, April 12). Cyber-crime. CQ Researcher, 12, 305-328. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from CQ Public Affairs Collection, <http://library.cqpress.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/cqpac/cqresrre2002041200>. This source discusses the potential of cyber crime by individuals which would be most likely done by members of a non-state organization. It discusses the potential for disaster depending on the attack. Hansen, Lene, and Helen Nissenbaum. Digital Disaster, Cyber Security, and the Copenhagen School. International Studies Quarterly 53.4 (2009): 1155-75. JSTOR. Web. 14 July 2010. This source gives thorough description of cyber crime, potentials for disaster and viable methodology on cyber security. Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia UP, 1998. This source provides a scholarly approach to defining terrorism. India's First Cyber Law. Nasscom. Web. 12 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nasscom.in/download/CyberLaw.pdf>. Text of the primary law India relies on to regulate its cyberspace. Maintains internet freedom while regulating ecommerce to insure optimal economic benefits for the country. Johnson, David R., and David Post. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48.5 (1996): 1367-402. JSTOR. Web. 27 July 2010. This source is a Stanford Law Review paper on the rise of law in cyberspace. Kobrin, Stephen J. Territoriality and the Governance of Cyberspace. Journal of International Business Studies 32.4 (2001): 687-704. JSTOR. Web. 14 July 2010.
- 44 -
This source discusses the governance of cyberspace in relation to economics, business transactions and the usage of sensitive information online. Lee, Melanie, and Jennifer Sabe. Google gets nod from China to keep search page. Reuters 9 July 2010 [Shanghai/ New York] . Web. 26 July 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6676L220100709>. This source discusses the relationship between Google and China as of July 2010. Leung, Elinor. Google says China licence renewed by government. BBC News 9 July 2010. Web. 15 July 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10566318>. This source is a valid BBC news article that discusses the situation between Google and China. Liversedge, Steven. Cyberlaw in South Africa. InternetNews. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/788611/Cyberlaw-in-SouthAfrica.htm>. News article discussing South Africas initial attempts at regulating cyberspace. The country is primarily interested in e-commerce regulations due to its growing presence in international trade. Mentions what South Africa is doing and the impact they hope it will have. Mbarika, Victor. Cyberspace Across Sub-Saharan Africa. PSU.edu. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. <http://www.vmbarika.com/files/cyberspace_across_africa.pdf>. Statistics that demonstrate where Africa has been and where it is now in regards to internet access. Displays growth rate and where Africa is headed in regards to this technology, and what regulations are being implemented to promote it. Analyzes how these regulations could help Africa in the future. OShaughnessy, Joseph. Net NeutralityFree Speech on the Internet. Populist Daily 7 July 2010. Web. 26 July 2010. <http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/net-neutrality-free-speech-onthe-internet.html>. This source discusses network neutrality and the principles of free speech on the internet. Ramstad, Evan. Cyber Blitz Hits U.S., Korea - WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124701806176209691.html>. North Koreas recent cyber attacks on the US and South Korea; their responses. Regulating the Japanese Cyberspace, One Step at a Time. Gyaku. Web. 13 Aug. 2010. <http://gyaku.jp/en/index.php?cmd=contentview&pid=000320>. News article about Japans sudden increase in internet regulation. Discusses the role of technology in todays society and how it has impacted the needs of the people. Reports the regulations Japan plans to impose and why. Rein Turn, An Overview of Transborder Data Flow Issues, sp, pp.0003, 1980 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1980 This source discusses Transborder Data Flow in depth.
- 45 -
Samuel, Henry. Hillary Clinton Urges Nato to Tackle Cyber Terrorism Telegraph.co.uk. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7104720/Hillary-Clintonurges-Nato-to-tackle-cyber-terrorism.html>. Summary of the USs response to Googles Chinese cyber hackers. Saudi Arabia OpenNet Initiative. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://opennet.net/research/profiles/saudiarabia>. A short overview on the reasons behind Saudi Arabias cyberspace policies. Schreck, Adam. Info Freedom at Center of Gulf's BlackBerry Debate. Google. Web. 13 Aug. 2010. <http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRWN46gZ9uZLPhPp771cWu hBP5jgD9HGPCN80>. Associated Press article on the recent BlackBerry ban threats in the Middle East. Reports which countries may be implementing the ban and reasons why. Considers the possible outcomes of such a ban and its effectiveness. Shiels, Maggie. Web scam hits iTunes and Paypal users. BBC News 2010. Web. 24 Aug. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11065301>. This source describes a current example of cyber security concerns Sreeharsha, Vinod. No Safe Harbors in Argentina. NYTimes.com. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/no-safe-harbors-in-argentina/>. Financial implications of not enough cyberspace regulation in Latin America. Tambini, Damian. Codifiying Cyberspace. Suffolk Law. Web. 12 Aug. 2010. <http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/jhtl/book_reviews/2008_2009/Mastroma uro.pdf>. Comparative information about the different approaches the US and EU are taking towards internet regulation. Discusses what theyre doing and where their regulations could be taking them. The Emergence of Cyber-Security as a Policy Driver. The american Journal of International Law 102.3 (2008): 650. JSTOR. Web. 11 July 2010. This source provides support for the growing international consensus of cyber crime and the potential for infrastructure exploitation. Traynor, Ian. Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia. The Guardian 17 May 2007. Web. 15 July 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia>. The article is from an international newspaper that details the cyber attack on Estonia suspected by the Russian Federation. Verona, Guy. Finland Takes Firm Stance on Net Neutrality. Tech and Social Media. N.p., 4 July 2010. Web. 13 July 2010. <http://tech.massivelinks.com/index.php/tech/article/finlandtakes-firm-stance-on-net-neutrality/>. This article is a detailed explanation of Finlands recent legislative action to authorize net neutrality. - 46 -
Zeller, S. (2010, January 25). How neutral should net neutrality be?. CQ Weekly, 204-204. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from CQ Public Affairs Collection, <http://library.cqpress.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu:2048/cqpac/weeklyreport11100000328339 5>. This source outlines the principle of net neutrality and discusses its various aspects as well as the debate that has existed for about 10 years.
- 47 -

Legal 2011

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Legal 2011

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TABLE OF CONTENTS

N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS

November 2010 Dear Delegates,

Chief of External Relations

N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS

November 2010 Delegates,

Chief of External Relations

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

A NOTE ON RESEARCH AND PREPARATION

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

THE LEGAL USES OF FORCE IN CONFLICT

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF CYBERSPACE

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

RESEARCH AND PREPARATION QUESTIONS

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

National High School Model United Nations 2011 Legal Committee

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi