Dear Delegates,

It is my pleasure to welcome you to the United Nations General Assembly (I), DISEC of the SAI
Model United Nations 2014! My name is Himanil Raina, and I have the distinct privilege to
serve as your Chair for this conference. A bit about myself I am a DPS Noida pass out and am
presently a second year B.A L.L.B., (Hons) student at the NALSAR University of Law.
Originally from Kashmir I have had the opportunity to traverse most of the country and many a
nation abroad being a defence kid. I started MUNing in my 9th standard and have not stopped
since.
The UNGA First Committee deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that
affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international
security regime. It considers all disarmament and international security matters within the scope
of the Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any other organ of the United Nations;
the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, as
well as principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments; promotion of
cooperative arrangements and measures aimed at strengthening stability through lower levels of
armaments.
For the first agenda the Executive Board has chosen to provide a crisp summary of the agenda
touching upon the important thematic elements. A legal overview has been provided so as to
acquaint delegates with the burning international divisions the resolution of which will be critical
to enable any progress on the agenda.
With regard to the second agenda the resolution of legal issues is quite secondary to resolving
more basic political questions such as the role of the UN and the position of states with regard to
it. Therefore an overview of UN Peacekeeping mission as it exists has been provided before
presenting the many alternatives available to the present system which place more permanent
military formations at the UNs disposal.
This study guide should be a starting point for your research and you are encouraged to by all
means further expand your realm of knowledge by delving into the themes and sub themes raised
in the guide and the reference provided for further research. The Executive Board has not seen it

fit to list the Questions that a Resolution must answer since that will be entirely dependent on the
manner in which the committee probes and explores an agenda. Only Reuters reports will be
accepted by the Executive Board as proof of the fact that the UNO recognizes something to be
fact. Delegates may use reports by official government sources/agencies only against that
particular government. All claims, counter claims and allegations which delegates attempt to
further in committee will be expected to be via a hard copy of the same which is to be provided
to the Executive Board. Soft copies will not be accepted.
Delegates are especially requested to be well versed with basic principles of international law,
their foreign policy and display diplomatic courtesy befitting that of a representative in the
United Nations. In this committee we are not going to be judging delegates based on how
experienced or articulate they are. Delegates respecting others opinions/diversity of views while
finding ways around them in consonance with their foreign policy and creating a unanimously
acceptable solution are to be encouraged and thus in this respect newcomers have as good a
chance as veterans. Regardless, whether this is your first time or one of many conferences, I look
forward to impassioned and rigorous debates in the days to come. Feel free to contact the
Executive Board for any doubts you may have.
Wishing you the best of luck with your preparations.
Sincerely,
Himanil Raina
Chairperson, General Assembly First Committee (Disarmament & International Security)
SAIMUN 2014
himanilraina@gmail.com

Dear Delegates,
Welcome to the United Nations General Assembly of SAIMUN 2014! I am Ankit Sahu and I
guess most of you already know as one of your seniors. But for those who dont, I graduated
from SAI International School this year, where I have been studying since the past four years and
will be pursuing my higher studies in Japan. Its an immense privilege to Vice Chair this iconic
committee under the guidance of our academically brilliant Chair. I am just two MUNs old and
this is my first experience as the Vice Chair of any MUN and I look forward to this memorable
experience.
Here is something about DISEC. As the first standing committee of the United Nations, the
Disarmament and International Security committee (DISEC) addresses issues regarding global
security. According to Article 26 of United Nations Charter, DISECs mandate is to promote
the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for
armaments of the worlds human and economic resources. Under the UN Charter, all member
states and observers of the United Nations are automatically part of the First Committee of the
General Assembly and possess equally weighted votes. Resolutions require a simple majority to
be passed and, with similar topics to those discussed in the Security Council, DISEC meets once
a year for a five-week session in October. Similarly to other General Assembly committees,
DISEC can merely issue recommendations to the United Nations Security Council or the United
Nations Secretariat. Yet, the committee cannot impose sanctions, authorize armed interventions
or pass any binding resolutions.
Since our Chair has already briefed you about the agendas, let me tell you about what we expect
from you during the 3 days of continuous debate. As representatives of the Member Nations of
the United Nations, we expect you to be diplomatic in your approach not only in terms of debate
or discussion, but also in your dealings with your counterparts representing other nations, as well
as the other members of the Conference.
We take this opportunity to clarify at the outset that decorum and diplomatic behaviour will be
noted carefully, and shall be one of the many other factors that will play a role in the selection of
the awardees of the committee. We thus request you to work on your diplomatic skills in
addition to the research that you will be undertaking for the conference.

As a final note before we give you a background to the proposed agenda for the session, we
request you to keep in mind that this guide is not exhaustive. It gives only a background sketch
to the agenda, highlighting some key areas of interest. As such, you are expected to research indepth about any other area that you deem important/is important from your countrys standpoint
just as well as the areas mentioned below. Above everything, we urge you to be solution
oriented in your approach to this agenda.
We hope to see very fruitful and constructive discussion in the committee, with solutions to
many problems that we face today with regard to the agenda.
Best of Luck!
Sincerely,
Ankit Sahu
Vice -Chairperson, General Assembly First Committee (Disarmament & International Security)
SAIMUN 2014
ankitsahu13@gmail.com

AGENDA 1: Cybersecurity & Cyberwarfare

An Overview of the Agenda
Cyber security is divisible into 4 components espionage, crime, cyber war, and cyber terrorism.
These divisions can be further compartmentalized by dividing them into the politico military
stream and the economic stream. The politico military stream concerns itself with the use of
information technology that can result in consequences inconsistent with the goal of maintaining
international stability and security whereas the economic stream is concerned with the criminal
misuse of information technology. Whilst this council is free to deliberate upon either it is to be
noted that the nature of the council requires greater focus on the politico military stream than the
economic one. As of today cyber crime and espionage are the most pressing problems as they
occur on a widespread scale. By contrast cyber terrorism and cyber warfare have been quite
limited in their scope. However it is these which have the potential to wreck catastrophic damage
which is why it is imperative this council develop norms that will guide future attempts at
developing hard law. The cyberspace today presents with a situation quite similar to that
presented to the world with the dawn of the aircraft around World War 1. The aircraft then
seemed to simply have a role for reconnaissance and transportation but over time it has
developed to become so much more. This is why it is important for the UN to guide and shape
the development of the cyberspace. In addition, issue of internet governance also needs to be
addressed by the council which among other things would include the role of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers.
The architecture of the internet presents two problems today. Firstly, not withstanding continual
tweaking and modifications the protocols governing the Internet were made in the 1970s and
1980s, an era fundamentally different from the world today. The second problem and which is
at the core of the legal problems as well is the problem of attribution. The problem with
ensuring attribution is that it is fiercely resisted by proponents of privacy rights who are loath to
let go of the anonymity offered by the Internet. Anonymity has its benefits, for instance it can
render useless information collected on an internet user as without knowing who the user is there
is no commercial value in selling it to an interested company. The problem which excessive
privacy poses however is the problem of differentiation of an act of crime from an act of war.
Given the existence of botnets and hired guns or cyber mercenaries the problem of attribution

is compounded manifold. A lasting solution then requires for a balance to be struck between
political openness and security concerns.
The act of war can be perpetrated over 5 battle spaces, the land, the oceans, the air, space and
cyberspace. What makes cyberspace uniquely different from the other four is that unlike them
the cyberspace does not present any hard targets that can be detected, aimed at and be
physically destroyed. The understanding of weapons is quite distinct as from the other battle
spaces owing to the dual use nature of the weapons in the cyberspace which requires nothing
more than a laptop. This raises challenging questions for the committee as to how a cyber arms
race can be prevented and by extension how can deterrence be ensured. Further, given the
integrated nature of the cyberspace how is it proposed that collateral damage be avoided. The
present situation is one where an asymmetry of risk owing to the anonymous nature of the
cyberspace tilts the scales in favor of the attacker.

LEGAL ASPECTS
It is provided in Article 1 of the Draft Articles of the International Law Commission on
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001 that every internationally
wrongful act of a state entails responsibility of that state. International responsibility however is
secondary vis a vis international obligations that are the primary rules which are the source of the
states responsibility. Over the course of the development of international law many theories of
liability have existed. The damage theory draws an automatic link of responsibility between the
acting and the claiming state provided the claiming state has suffered damage. The fault theory
however would hold that looking at an objective criterion alone does not suffice and that states
should not be of help responsible unless the damaging acts are committed willfully or
maliciously or due to culpable negligence. There also exists the absolute liability/risk theory
which doesnt require fault on the part of the State to attribute liability. This is generally applied
to activities that are lawful but create serious risk (such as nuclear or space activities).
A state becomes responsible for breach of an international obligation only if it can be proved that
the breach of responsibility is imputable to the state. For the purposes of the same the conduct of
a State organ is taken to be the act of the State. The conduct of a States organ or a person or
entity authorized to exercise elements of government power is attributed to the State if the organ,

person or entity acts in that capacity, even if the authority granted is exceeded or the conduct is
in contravention to instructions. A state takes on no responsibility for the acts of an organ or
official acting without authority, such acts being ultra vires. However even in such a case a state
can become responsible if through the commission or default of other officials or organs it has
facilitated the commission of an ultra vires act or has broken an independent duty of international
law. As under the present law a state is not responsible for the illegal acts committed by a private
person provided they were not doing so on behalf of the statejbm,. The conduct of a person or
entity empowered by a States internal laws to exercise elements of governmental authority even
if not part a formal structure of the state is considered to be an act of the State.
This law as embodied in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts represents the culmination of decades of work and subscription to certain schools
of jurisprudential thought. The European Convention on Human Rights and the General
Agreement on Tariffs & Trade will for instance be found to have their own particular rules
determining state responsibility.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting the use or threat of use of force by one state against
another state cans conceivably extent to cyberspace activities as well. Were a cyber attack to
reach the threshold of an armed attack as defined under international law the right to self defence
permitting a state to respond with attacks becomes activated. One position held in the
international community and espoused by the United States is that cyber attacks amount to armed
attacks and are subject to international law. It acknowledges the possibility for cyber activities to
be interpreted as use of force in some situations. Another position advocates the need for new
treaties. The International Code of Conduct for Information Security advanced by this bloc
which counts amongst its members the Peoples Republic of China and the Russian Federation
amongst others expands the kinds of communication technologies that can be viewed as a
security threat. Whilst the UK & the USA have expressed their desire for the traditional law of
armed conflict to apply to cyberspace the opposing viewpoint argues that cyber attacks by virtue
of not threatening sovereignty or territorial integrity should not fall within the domain of the law
of armed conflict. Further this view says given the impossibility of maintaining neutrality in the
cyberspace and adhering to the principle of proportionality a new regime is needed.

For the Committee it is vital to forge a consensus as to which of the two approaches if not a
hybrid is to be pursued so as to define the norms that will shape the cyberspace over the coming
decades. Further it shall have to examine principles of state responsibility and determine whether
those are found up to the task or require modifications as well.

REFERENCE LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/cyberconflict-and-cybersecurity-initiative/pr1497
2. http://csis.org/category/topics/technology/cybersecurity
3. http://www.iiss.org/en/topics/cyber-security
4. http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/cybersecurity-and-cyberwarfarepreliminary-assessment-of-national-doctrine-and-organization-380.pdf
5. http://www.ccdcoe.org/publications/books/NationalCyberSecurityFrameworkManual.pdf
6. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/433828/EXPOSEDE_ET(2011)433828_EN.pdf
7. http://news.asis.io/sites/default/files/Cybersecurity_and_Cyberwar.pdf
8. http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Cybercrime/Cybercrime
9. http://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan
10. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126097038

Agenda 2: 'Reform Of United Nations Peacekeeping with Special emphasis

upon Creation of a Standing UN Force
An Overview of traditional Peacekeeping
The United Nations Organization developed the tool of peacekeeping to manage tensions
between the two superpowers, the USA & the USSR in the Cold War. That the UN founding
fathers never visualized the need for peacekeeping is evident from the fact that the term was
never mentioned in the UN Charter. The collective security system based on peace enforcement
by the UNSC became unworkable since it relied on consensus which was not available due to
tensions between the two superpowers. Early peacekeeping was then in response to interstate
conflict typically involving the non violent use of military force to ensure there was no
continuation or escalation of violence between the concerned parties.
Chapter VI deals with peaceful resolution of conflicts obligating disputing parties to firstly try
resolving their disputes by means of negotiations, conciliation, mediation, arbitration or resorting
to regional agencies or arrangements. Chapter VII which is the heart of the collective security
system kicks in on a failure of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. In case of a threat to
peace, breach of peace or an act of aggression the UNSC may resort to enforcement measures
which may include arms embargoes, economic sanctions and the use of force as a last resort.
The envisioned role of the UNSC acting as a global policeman never came to be, instead the
classical model of voluntarily drawn UN peacekeeping forces comprising armed peacekeepers
and unarmed observers deployed only with the consent of parties, impartiality by the forces and
the use of arms only in self defence came to develop, with the Korean crisis marking the only
incident when collective use of force was authorized under the UN Charter.
The Korean crisis experience led to a US led movement to enhance the General Assemblys role
in matters of international peace and security, more specifically in cases where lack of unanimity
between the Permanent members leads to inaction on pressing issues of the day. This led to the
Uniting for Peace resolution on 3rd November 1950.
Peacekeeping deployments then acted as important stabilizing influences in regions of power
vacuum where their absence might have led to potentially explosive confrontations between the

superpowers. The period from 1948-1988 saw only 13 UN Peacekeeping missions formed.
Following the demise of the Soviet Union, 5 UN Peacekeeping Missions were formed in 1988
and 1989. UN setbacks in Somalia, Bosnia & Rwanda in the 1990s marked the larger trend of
conflicts now not occurring between state parties but rather between intra state parties. UN
peacekeepers continued to deploy, trained in military skills but lacking in skills for policing,
electoral assistance and the whole spectrum post conflict society rebuilding tasks.
The mid 1990s saw the UN begin to respond to these changes by in building components to deal
with policing, justice, refugee assistance, human rights monitoring and electoral reform issues
within the UN Peacekeeping mission. However these larger mission required larger resources
and were slowly becoming larger failures. Many of the initiatives Yugoslavia and Somalia most
prominently became living examples of a peacekeeping effort developing into a nation building
effort. This saw a push by nations predominantly the US to shift responsibility for these
operations from the UN to regional organizations and military coalitions, for example the IFOR
& SFOR in the Balkans.
Another unplanned contingency which this had was the impact on the Western military forces as
peacekeeping in the early 1990s missions required a level of training far greater than for mere
warifighting, training not being imparted or not available at the time. Lacking training, troops
drew upon their own social values and education to respond to new, emerging situations which
created undesired or unexpected results frustrating troops. Though not warfighting missions, UN
Peacekeepers were taking further and further casualties leadign to greater troop unwillingness to
go to missions and also causing the policians to reassess their commitment to deploy their forces.
A bend to this end was also prompted by the rising costs of peacekeeping.

EXISTING PRINCIPLES OF UN PEACEKEEPING

Consent of the parties

Lacking this the UN risks being drawn towards enforcement operations since it would then be a
party to the conflict. The granting of consent does not necessitate actual consent all the way
down to the local level however.

 Impartiality

While essential for the consent and cooperation of parties this needs to be differentiated from
neutrality or inactivity.
Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
This principle has over time expanded to include resistance to forceful attempts aiming to
prevent the fulfillment of the missions mandate.

RELEVANT TERMINOLOGY
Conflict prevention involves the application of structural or diplomatic measures to keep intrastate or inter-state tensions and disputes from escalating into violent conflict. Ideally, it should
build on structured early warning, information gathering and a careful analysis of the factors
driving the conflict. Conflict prevention activities may include the use of the Secretary Generals
good offices, preventive deployment or confidence-building measures.
Peacemaking generally includes measures to address conflicts in progress and usually involves
diplomatic action to bring hostile parties to a negotiated agreement. The UNSG, upon the request
of the UNSC OR UNGA or at his her own initiative, may exercise his or her good offices to
facilitate the resolution of the conflict. Peacemakers may also be envoys, governments, groups of
states, regional organizations or the United Nations. Peacemaking efforts may also be under
taken by unofficial and non-governmental groups, or by a prominent personality working
independently.
Peacekeeping is a technique designed to preserve the peace, however fragile, where fighting has
been halted, and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers. Over the
years, peacekeeping has evolved from a primarily military model of observing cease-fires and
the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements
military, police and civilian working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable
peace.

Peace enforcement involves the application, with the authorization of the Security Council, of a
range of coercive measures, including the use of military force. Such actions are authorized to
restore international peace and security in situations where the Security Council has determined
the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The Security
Council may utilize, where appropriate, regional organizations and agencies for enforcement
action under its authority.

Peace building involves a range of measures targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing
into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay
the foundation for sustainable peace and development. Peacebuilding is a complex, long-term
process of creating the necessary conditions for sustainable peace. It works by addressing the
deep-rooted, structural causes of violent conflict in a comprehensive manner. Peacebuilding
measures address core issues that effect the functioning of society and the State, and seek to
enhance the capacity of the State to effectively and legitimately carry out its core functions.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CASE FOR A PERMANENT UN FORCE

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated the UN is the only fire brigade in the
world that has to wait for the fire to break out before it can acquire a fire engine. Sad as the
statement may be, it is one that accurately reflects the state of affairs of the UN today. Lack of
political consensus to create a more permanent UN military force has resulted in the UN being
deprived of an effective military capability that can act as a deterrent and give effect to rapid
response.
In 2000, the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations called upon the international
community to help the United Nations achieve what it referred to as rapid and effective
deployment capacity. In its wideranging report (usually referred to as the Brahimi
after the panels chairperson, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi), the panel argued that
many missions were struggling to fulfill their mandates due to a combination of several

Report,

factors, including slow deployment times, shortages of well trained troops, and poor access
to necessary materiel and financial resources.
Contrary to popular perception, there exist provisions in the UNSC to give effect to such an
organization. The UN Charter provides for a Military Staff Committee (MSC), it being the only
subsidiary body named in the UN Charter has been entrusted with the task of conducting military
planning and exercising command over forces that the Charter provides are to be mandatorily
placed under the UNs command. Cold War rivalries however never allowed this potentially
significant arm of the UN to fulfill its visualized role. The Military Staff Committee was
therefore perhaps accurately described by British historian, Dr. Eric Grove, as "a sterile
monument to the faded hopes of the founders of the UN.

POSSIBLE POLICY OPTIONS:

1. The Present System
UNSAS (United Nations Standby Arrangement System) is essentially a troop procurement
mechanism in which member nations sign up with the UN to make a certain number of troops
available for UN Peacekeeping operations. When the UN authorizes a mission it must go through
those lists and ask nations to fulfill their obligations.
UNSAS is less of an institution in itsown right as it is an arrangement between Member States an
d the governing bodies of the UN. UNSAS is based on conditional commitments by Member St
ates of specified resources within the agreed response times for UN peacekeeping operations.
To this day, there are only a small number of states that reliably give troops to peace operations.
As of December 2008, only four countries contributed more than 4,000 troops each: Pakistan (10
,189), Bangladesh (8,358), India (7,963), and Nigeria (4,903).
Although these countries are very generous, the UNs dependence on them for troop contributio
ns poses serious problems. Aside from the longstanding enmities between the first three countrie
s that prevent them from training together, it is troubling that the UN has to rely on a small group
of developing nations for a major portion of its troop needs. If India and Pakistan were to go to

war with one another again, then the UN would lose two of its most reliable troop contributors.
Bangladeshs state is very fragile, and as the recent mutiny by the Bangladesh Rifles demonstrate
d,Bangladeshs internal security situation is far from stable enough to guarantee that the country
will be able to continue supplying large numbers of troops for peace operations. Nigeria has oth
er security obligations through the Economic Community of West African States, in which it is a
very active provider of troops for peace operations.Countries with poorly equipped militaries are
often drawn topeace operations believing that the UN will help supply them with arms and suppl
ies.
2. The Halfway Approach
A popular alternative approach is the halfway approach, a proposal of which 2 basic variants
exist.
First there is the idea of a permanent standing multinational force. Member states would either l
ease or donate national contingents to the UN for use in peace operations. Once the troops and
materiel had been contributed, the UN would be free to deploy them for use in peace operations
without national parliamentary approval
An alternative to this proposal is the concept of a multinational force where countries retain the ri
ght to veto troop deployments.National governments would retain the final say over troop deploy
ment, and each country could decide on their level of participation in missions on a case by case
basis.
This proposal has been implemented before by the UN in the form of the Stand by Forces High
Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) which became operational 1999 end for Chapter VI operations,
this Danish led initiative aims would allow 5000 troops to be committed within 15 to 30 days
from 10 member nations.
While conceptually a good idea SHIRBRIG problem was that it was dependent on member states
to contribute forces who have been resistant to contribute to missions where there might be
fatalities. At its core, there are 4 primary problems associated with SHIRBRIGs:

Officially, SHIRBRIG was supposed to have 4,0005,000.In reality, however, SHIRB

RIG has never been able to deploy nearly thismany troops at any given time; in fact, t

he maximum number of soldiers it succeeded in deploying was 1,200 during the UN

Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) in 2000

SHIRBRIG is not under direct UN command and the forces interests have not alway
s been compatible with that of the United Nations. For instance, SHIRBRIGs leader
ship has frequently competed with DPKO officials for control over peace operations.
For instance, SHIRBRIGs planning element has argued that it should have more pow
er than the DPKO over designing peace operations

SHIRBRIG has been frequently unwilling to deploy except in missions that the Steeri
ng Committee feels are safe, such as Chapter VI peacekeeping missions.When SHI
RBRIG participated in more complex peace operations, such as the United Nations M
ission in Cote d Ivoire (UNOCI), it only served in a planning capacity,and very few t
roops were deployed

Fourth, SHIRBRIG does not deploy quickly. Although SHIRBRIGs founders intend
ed the force to be capable of deploying within 1530 days, in reality the amount of tim
e between authorization and deployment is considerably longer. For example, the ma
jority of SHIRBRIGs 1,200 troops deployed in UNMEE did not arrive on the ground
until the end of December 2000, approximately three and half months after the Secur
ity Council authorized the mission on September 15, 2000
That these were indeed significant problems that rendered almost null the purpose of
creating this force is evident in that the UN did not renew its mandate in June 2009
ever since when it has been deactivated.

3. The Volunteer School

GeneralRomo Dallaire is famous for his claim that he could have stopped the Rwandan genocid
e with a mere force of 5,000 troops. His statement was one in a long line of efforts that has
sought to establish a more permanent UN armed forces establishment.
The benefits of an all volunteer UN force is apparent, for starters it would be free of charges of
accusations of meddling and self interest that accompany participation of troops from
neighbouring states in UN interventions. States can be unwilling to get involved in conflicts for
reasons of their own and even impede others when their interests are threatened. A rapid

response force if available in say Rwanda could have intervened and prevented a large part of the
million plus deaths which followed.
A standing army would not render the UN a de facto state for army would still be under the
authority of the UNSC and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. With
regard to the question of cost a UN standing army would offset its expenses by bringing benefits
to the world economy (preventing refugee crisis, humanitarian disasters, cut down global
security expenditure). Member states providing troops presently to the UN are paid for their
services so a new system cannot be much more expensive than the existing one
Brian

Urqhart,

Former

Undersecretary

General

of

the

UN

estimates that a brigade

sized force would cost approximately $300 million/year.

For a six thousand strong force with a few helicopters, this number would still probably come in
at under $1 billion/year. For comparison The international community spent

approximately

$200 billion on conflict management in seven major interventions in the 1990s (Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, the Persian Gulf, Cambodia, and El Salvador).
Financing would not be a major problem as existing peacekeeping contributing nations are
already paid for their services and nations in the region where there exists a transitional state
have historically been willing to set up trust funds to help it tide over the crisis and achieve
stability since its spillover effects often affect them adversely.

Presently the General

Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special scale of assessments under a

complex formula that Member States themselves have established. This formula takes into
account, among other things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five
permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share because of their
special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Challenges confronting the proposal

Firstly, some have argued that a standing force could never train for all the different potential tas
ks that they might be asked to carry out, nor could they have the necessary equipment for all poss
ible scenario. Secondly, small forces are insufficient for many operations, especially complex mi
ssions spread out over large areas, such as Somalia and Bosnia. Thirdly, most recent UN peace o

perations have involved civil wars. These kinds of conflicts require longterm engagement and r
equire a large amount of military involvementmore than a small rapid reaction force could provid
e on its own. Fourthly,many proposals include a time limit on deployment of between 46 month
s. This short deployment period would probably be too short for conventional peace forces to ta
ke over the operation. Fifthly, the creation of a permanent UN force could hurt the UNs reputati
on as an impartial body and could cause people to see the SecretaryGeneral primarily as a milita
ry official.Sixthly, regional organizations and alliances are oftenbetter suited to carry out peace o
perations which raises the issue of whether the UNSC is the body best suited to be the military
decision making body. There is finally the question of the creation of an appropriate legal regime
to enable such a revolutionary proposal to be put into effect and whether such a regime could
aspire to be of a universal character or not.

REFERENCE LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/newhorizon.pdf
2. http://polisci.uoregon.edu/acrobat/HTGriffith.pdf
3. http://www.un.org/peace/reports/peace_operations/
4. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/PKO%20A%2064%20573.pdf
5. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1246498.pdf
6. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/PBC%20S%202011%2085.pdf
7. https://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/SG%20Report%20on%20PoC%2022%20May

%202012.pdf
8. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/publications/unpolmag/SG_report_december11.pdf
9. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/7FAB3596D7EB5EAF4925777200

08ACD0-Full_Repoert.pdf

GUIDELINES FOR THE POSITION PAPER

A position paper is an introductory document which reflects your research and the position of
your country with regard to the agenda at hand. At a glance, it should make clear the urgency of
the matter and a wholehearted effort to resolve the same. The format of the Position Paper should
be as follows:
Name: ABC
Committee: UNGA (DISEC)
Agenda: (Both to be addressed in different documents)
Country: XYZ

The position paper begins after the above details and should not exceed 1 page in Times New
Roman,

12

font,

line

spacing

1.5.

All

position

papers

should

be

mailed

to

himanilraina@gmail.com & ankitsahu13@gmail.com .The paper should cover the following:

Introduction to the Agenda

Causes and Effects of the problem

Recent Developments

Current Scenario

Country position on the agenda

Treaties and Conventions signed by the country with regard to the agenda

Work done by country to combat the concerned problem

National Initiatives taken up by the country

Suggestions for the International Community

Possible Solutions for implementation by the United Nations

Sample Position Papers can be found at the following link: http://www.unausa.org/globalclassrooms-model-un/how-to-participate/model-un-preparation/position-papers/sample-positionpaper

AFTERWORD
In the entire guide, we have tried our best to keep to the practices of the UN by giving only the
background of the agenda, and its main arms, without resorting to quoting countries or polarizing
the agenda by favouring any bloc-outlook. It is expected of the delegates to research well on the
various tangents that this agenda can take, and take the proceedings forward. We have, still,
given a few additional guidelines to help you research by incorporating the same in the form of
comments.
One needs to be mindful while researching on this agenda to keep the perspective of the country
that you will be representing, and the nature of the problem that you want to address, in prime
focus. Allegations and counter-allegations are bound to occur, but what the world today needs
are solutions that need to be multi-faceted so as to take into account all the players in the
scenario.
And lastly, we remind you that a backing, or proof, of your statements from independent sources
(such as Wikipedia, local newspapers, free-lance researchers, etc.) can be subject to questioning
on the grounds of credibility and authority, and may be dismissed if deemed so. As such, we
recommend that documents from the UN system, or those published from any Governmentauthorized body (such as government releases, state-owned newspapers, press releases, etc.) be
given preference for formulating your proofs/backing statements.

Best of luck with your preparations!