Guía Académica

GUÍA ACADÉMICA

1 Security Council 3 ÍNDICE

1. Presentation letters.

2. About the committee.

3. About the Agenda.

3.1. Topic A. 3.2. Topic B.

4. Glossary.

5. Refferences

4 WELCOMING LETTER SECRETARY-GENERAL AND UNDER SECRETARY-GENERAL OF MONUA 2020

Delegates,

From the Ofﬁce of the Secretary-General, it is with great plea- sure that we welcome you to the ninth version of the Modelo de Naciones Unidas de la Universidad de los Andes.

My name is Jordi Enrique Buitrago Soetendal. I am a fourth- year Law student with a minor in International Studies at the Universidad de los Andes. For MONUA 2020, I have the honour of accomplishing the biggest dream of my MUN career: serving as Secretary-General of MONUA. I have been participating in MUN conferences for the last eight years, and MONUA 2020 is with no doubt the most complex and exciting challenge I have faced during all these years. Besides MUN, I am passionate about my career, particularly for Criminal Law, as well as football and literature.

On my behalf, I am Santiago Paz Ramos, a fourth-year Eco- nomics major with minors in International Relations and Law. In this edition, I have the huge honor to continue building dreams by your side, by serving as Undersecretary-General for MONUA 2020. I have been participating in these conferences for the past 7 years now, and each day I learn something new, meet one-of-a-kind people, and surpass the barriers of what I think I am capable of. Personally, aside from being deeply passionate about these conferences, I am profoundly inter- ested in Political Economy, Macroeconometrics and music.

5 We aspire to exceed the expectations you have from us in this edition of MONUA, by managing to build up an experience that is equally both welcoming and challenging, so as to en- courage you to leave your comfort zone and challenge the boundaries of the self. For all other matters, we remain at your entire disposition, and we warmly welcome you beforehand to MONUA 2020.

Best regards,

Jordi Enrique Buitrago Soetendal - Secretary-General for MONUA 2020

Santiago Paz Ramos - Undersecretary-General for MONUA 2020

6 WELCOMING LETTER UNDER SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR UNITED NATIONS

Dear all,

Be very welcome to the USG for United Nations committees, of the best MUN conferences in Latin America! My name is María Paula Cortés Monsalve, I am majoring in Law and pursu- ing minors in both Photography and International Relations at Universidad de los Andes, and I will be serving as USG for UN Committees in this edition. For the past five years I have embarked myself in participating in conferences that have allowed me to have a better grasp of international relations, and to eventually fall in love with the international system. Like- wise, I have managed to understand that this organization, that is more often than not deemed to be useless and bu- reaucratic, each year accomplished unimaginable feats for all those that do not take part within these academic exercises, since it has been responsible of aiding over 25,000 refugees in the world. This is why I consider that our work throughout the five days of the conference is crucial, for it allows us to become aware of the ongoing crises, their implications and possible solutions! Because of the latter, I consider that these conferences are not solely aimed at personifying countries, but rather playing as humans, who act based upon emotions, arguments and alliances. All this based upon the assumption that one day those humans will have the possibility to influence the decision-making processes that have direct reper- cussions upon the international system. Thus, I want to invite you to reflect about one of the last interventions of Kofi An- nan as Secretary-General of the UN, whereby he stated that

7 “Human Rights are your rights. Take them. Defend them. Pro- mote them. Understand them and insist upon them. Nurture them and enrich them… For they are the best of us. Give them life.”

Moreover, MONUA 2020 has betted on having committees that represent the dynamics of the international system, thus vindicating the most important organization in the international system. Nonetheless, it has also sought to be profoundly innovative, characteristic that you will surely ﬁnd in this USG. Accordingly, the upcoming 5 days will be the most demanding ones, for the 4 committees that make up the USG will not only represent 3 out of 6 UN organs, but will also be chaired by the best delegates of the national and international cir- cuits. Therefore, they will expect a wide range of qualities on your behalf, since it will not sufﬁce to merely excel at public speaking, but you will also have to understand that negotiation is a fundamental skill that is required to become the best delegate that we have all sought to be at some point. With this in mind, I would like to invite you to challenge yourselves throughout this extraordinary experience, to go beyond what is conventional, and to transcend the barriers that you will surely encounter, since only exceptional delegates (you included) attend MONUA.

I am eager to meet you, and see you on March 19th.

María Paula Cortés Monsalve [email protected]

8 WELCOMING LETTER BY THE DAIS

Honorable delegates,

Our names are Santiago Pérez, María José Medina and Fed- erico Freydell and we have the distinct honor of being your chair for the Security Council in this year’s edition of MONUA. Santiago is a second-year student of Law and Economics at Universidad de los Andes, Federico is an fourth-year student of Jurisprudence at Our Lady of the Rosary University and Majo is a second-year Government student at Universidad de los Andes with a minor in International Studies.

Through my experience in MUN (Santiago), I have built a special love for the Security Council due to two reasons. Firstly, because I consider that the dynamics proposed in the Secu- rity Council are those that approach more to the theoretical and practical discussions of International Public Law. I love International Law, all my projects in the university are within this topic area, hence I appreciate a lot the academic discussions around these contents. Secondly, because I was in your place one year ago and for me it was difﬁcult to understand how much information you need to use for the multidisci- plinary conversations that you might have with the rest of the committee, but at the end I realized that this is more about conciliating than debating, and more about building than demounting. Finally, I hope that with this experience you can learn how to use creativity in your favor because the best delegate is not the one that understands everything, but rather the one that transmits its knowledge in authentic ways.

9 As for me (Majo), I have very high expectations of the committee and the delegates that will be participating in this challenging but extremely fun competition. First of all, it is never enough to reiterate the importance of fair play and integrity in a MONUA committee, however, I will remind you every opportunity I get that it is crucial for us that the delegates play fair during their participation in the model. Re- garding my personal expectations, as an HNMUN delegate, I tend to appreciate some of the criteria used in this amazing model. It is very important to me for you to work in perfect sync and dynamic with your corresponding couple, and that it shows both in negotiation and in committee interventions. Additionally, academic excellence will be a crucial factor for the committee, not entirely in terms of international law and other disciplines, but also regarding public policy and decision making. As a Government student, there is nothing that I could appreciate more than an applicable integral solution that is based on real evidence! Remember that all of us have different perspectives, interests, and things we look for in a committee, but overall we look for delegates that are authentic and that show a great attitude towards this challenging and fun activity!

(Federico) The Security Council is one of the most paramount elements of international relationships, being one of, if not the most, powerful international organization on Earth, with the capacity of wide-ranging option that can change international relations forever, establish strong methods of conﬂict

10 against threats to peace and security, and even create new ﬁgures of international law. Due to this, the responsibility lies heavily on our delegates - you must resolve some of the biggest issues that the world is facing, and have extreme powers to combat any threats that might arise against the continua- tion of international peace and security.

Best regards,

Santiago Pérez [email protected] María José Medina [email protected] Federico Freydell [email protected]

11 2. ABOUT THE COMMITTEE

A. INTRODUCTION

The Security Council is one of the six main organs of the United Nations. According to article 23 of the UN Charter, it is composed of 15 members from which 5 are permanent and 10 shall be elected by the General Assembly in periods of 2 years. The 5 permanent members have veto power, which consists in the power that is conferred to these States to reject a resolution to pass with its vote against. The objective of the Council is, primarily, to maintain international peace and security through resolutions and decisions that are binding for the Member States of the United Nations, following the purposes and principles that the UN Charter establishes for the United Nations, as stated in article 24.

The Security Council not only takes military actions regarding international security and peace, but it also discusses acts of aggression among and within States, recommends peaceful approaches for them and follows the States in their decision-making processes when they regard to international matters. Accordingly, Chapter VI of the Charter speciﬁcally refers to the resolutions that the Security Council takes in the peaceful agreements of a dispute and negotiated settlements among Member States. For this purpose, the Charter has established some mechanisms of negotiation when actors have disagreements that might threaten international peace.

B. COMPETENCE

The Security Council of the United Nations is one of the most important bodies, if not the most important, of the United Nations, due to the special powers it possesses, according to Chapter V of the UN Charter. These powers include one of the most important decision-making tools in the international scenario, known as resolutions. The resolutions, although they might see as agreements among States, are not considered international treaties under international law. In contrast, resolutions of the Security Council are agreements that could have binding force due to the Charter that gives the Council to take such decisions, hence they are considered to be hard-law, but with a different nature from the international treaties, currently known as conventions and others. The resolutions imposed

12 by the Security Council may become binding, however, not all of them are. For a Security Council resolution to be considered binding by the Member States, the orders or actions implemented must be directed towards a speciﬁc State, not to the international community as a whole. As mentioned above, the Security Council counts with special powers such as diplomatic sanctions, embargos, and other recommendations of appropriate procedures or methods for the settlement of disputes.

C. ORGANIZATION The UN Security Council is organized as a council of 15 members, 5 of them permanent members, which include the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the French Republic, the People’s Republic of China, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As established in Article 30 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is free to establish its own rules of procedure, such as the method of selection for its presidency. The presidency of the Security Council is rotating on a monthly basis within the members of the council, in alphabetical order as established in the English language.

(Picture taken from Google Images, UN Security Council, general structure)

13 As an organization, the Security Council is composed of several subsidiary organs and related organizations. Under the subsidiary organs, there are 6 types of committees or commissions:

1) The Counter Terrorism Committee.

2) The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.

3) The Military Staff Committee.

4) Peacekeeping Operations and Missions.

5) The Sanctions Committees (ad-hoc).

6) The Standing committees and ad-hoc bodies.

All of these sub-committees and organizations assist the Security Council in the accomplishment of its objectives. Additionally, within their structure the Council has an advisory sub-committee named the Peace Consolidation Committee, which is an intergovernmental advisory body that focuses on peace efforts in conflict struck States through. It is composed of 31 Member States, elected from the General Assembly, the ECOSOC Council and the Security Council. It is also composed by “the top financial contributing countries and the top troop contributing countries to the United Nations system” (UN Official Website, 2019).

A relevant organ for the topics established in committee is the the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC). The Counter Terrorism Committee is one of the key players in conﬂict, especially concerning non-state actors recognized as terrorist organizations. Its main function is “to prevent terrorist acts both within their borders and across regions. It was established in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States.”

It works under the assistance of “the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), which carries out the policy decisions of the Committee, conducts expert assessments of each Member State and facilitates counter-terrorism technical assistance to countries.” Additionally, the UNSC does not only operate through its subsidiary organs, but it can also create binding resolutions which may establish

14 working groups or additional subsidiary organs that may help the Council achieve its mission and expand its efforts. In resolution 1540, for example, in the month of April in 2004, the UNSC established the principle under Chapter VII of non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In order to enforce its authority, it created the 1540 committee which regulates, observes and makes accountable those States that might not be taking all appropriate measures to regulate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

All these commissions are structured in the competence of the Security Council and are a key tool in the discussions of international peace, since these sub-organs can also release documents related to the topics that the Security Council addresses in a period of sessions. Both, the subsidiary organs and the many related organizations of the Security Council, as well as the entirety of the United Nations are crucial to the efforts regarding the maintenance of international peace and security.

3. ABOUT THE AGENDA 3.1. Topic A: The Role of the Security Council in transitional politics A. INTRODUCTION TO TRANSITIONAL POLITICS AND THE ROLE OF THE UNSC

Throughout history, transitional periods of government in different countries’ politics have been among the most unstable periods in the latter. Those countries have been recently ravaged by war, dictatorship or other radical social upheavals; and what remains of organized governance either drops off into the background especially in the case of overthrown dictatorships like Libya, Iraq or East Timor, where what remained of previous power structures survived in paramilitary fashion, or disappears propitiating the creation of power vacuums. These transitional periods, furthermore, usually contain fundamental decisions to things like the role of previous leaders or those that committed crimes during the period previous to transition; in many cases, they retain an important role in the government of countries in transition as is the case in, for example, Myanmar, where the military junta remains very powerful even after a period of limited return to civil governance, or they retain immunity from any possible persecution, as was the case of Augusto Pinochet in post-dictatorship Chile. The issue of transitional politics has not only concerned State leaders and international organizations, since it is during these periods where a country is most unstable and therefore its citizens end up facing the consequences. Transitional periods of justice are not always easy to detect and they may seem to come out of the blue in some cases. However, it is the role of the Security Council as well as the corresponding governments of each Member State to ensure that even du-

15 ring, said, transitional periods peace and stability is kept for the sake of its own citizens and the international community.

A generally accepted deﬁnition of transnational politics is:

“A transition is an interval between two regimes. Many political systems enter into a transition because their old regime, that is, their rules, procedures, and institutions, has become untenable, and they remain in the transition because no new regime succeeds in becoming consolidated.”

Within transitional processes, a specific political transition which entails the transition from a once authoritarian or radical regime, to a new democratic and participative regime, may this be through the use of force or through democratic processes. This is known amongst international relations scholars as democratization, and is evidenced in many cases throughout history of different governments and regimes. A widely known term, transitional justice, is one of the key players in transitional processes in the international system. As defined by the International Center for Transitional Justice, “transitional justice refers to the ways countries emerging from periods of conflict and repression address large-scale or systematic human rights violations, so numerous and so serious that the normal justice system will not be able to provide an adequate response.” Although transitional justice refers mainly to the legal aspect of transitional processes, it is at the core of peace maintenance and the formation of State capacity.

Only a true and effective process of transitional justice can assure the stability of both the government and the wellbeing of the population after the transitional process has been completed, and it is the responsibility of the United Nations and other international entities to aid in such process. This allows us to understand not only the process of political transition but also the possible consequences that might arise from such process, and the role that the members of the Security Council may assume in light of this process in the international system.

Transitional politics and the transition of a State from a situation of conflict -or dictatorship- to that of a stable democracy has been one of the most important sources of conflict in the world, which also means that, in many different cases have been treated by the Security Council as a paramount topic. However, the management of transitional justice has only been treated on a case-by-case basis, not as a generalised topic. Indeed, the first cases of transitional justice -such as the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo and the trials of military juntas in Greece in 1975 and

16 Argentina in 1983- saw next to no participation by the United Nations.

The second wave of development of International Criminal Law after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, heavily changed this system. The prevalence of the United States as sole hegemon of the international community saw the United Nations start to participate strongly in transitional justice schemes, as the Permanent Members of the Security Council no longer saw the need to stop each other from intervening in countries undergoing a strict structural change. The 1990s, therefore, saw the greatest amount of interventions by the United Nations, in strict adherence to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to protect international peace and security through the establishment of different UN actions in countries undergoing heavy political transition. These processes occurred through different systems:

A. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS

The first of the systems, usually considered one of the most prolific forms of UNSC intervention in countries in transition, is the creation of international criminal courts -different from the International Criminal Court, created in 1998 after the approval of the Rome Statute- in which people responsible for gross violations of International Humanitarian Law -through the undertaking, either directly or by omission, in crimes against humanity and war crimes, established through customary International Law and the Geneva and Hague conventions which layout International Humanitarian Law- were brought to trial before a court composed of international or, eventually, both international and national judges that would determine degrees of plausibility. The first systems that followed these rules were the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia, established in 1993, and Rwanda, established in 1994, which would judge the events of the Yugoslav War and the Rwandan Genocide, respectively. These Tribunals are created through a Security Council resolution and granted a certain degree of independence from both national and international influence. Their competence is established within their own charters and constitutive bodies, however, it is clear that international crime tribunals necessarily pertain to individuals’ actions and may only operate as long as they do not interfere with the justice of the target State. This is important since the interference of said tribunals in transitional justice systems may aid or infringe upon the States autonomy and capacity.

17 Purely international criminal tribunals experienced a golden age throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, with the creation of the International Criminal Court, an independent international organization with no formal ties to the Security Council, as well as the expedition of new Security Council resolutions, which determined the creation of new international tribunals. These tribunals were the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia, created in 1997; the International Criminal Tribunals for Special Court for Sierra Leone, created in 2002; and, eventually, the hybrid creation of the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor (2003) and Special Tribunal for Lebanon (2009), which contained not only judges appointed by the Security Council, but also some appointed by national organizations and pursuant not to International Criminal Law but to the national criminal legislation of each country.

The result of the international criminal tribunals has been mixed at best, as well as heavily controversial. There is evidence to argue that international criminal tribunals do not effectively punish all those responsible for crimes in situations of conflict, but instead only indict and convict members of the defeated side, while the victor, dominant in international negotiations, does not allow its criminals to be persecuted. This can be seen, for instance, in regards to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which indicted a total of 93 individuals and sentenced 63 of them: however, not a single one of these indicted individuals belonged to the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front led by Paul Kagame, which dominates Rwandan politics to this day. This can be seen with the low amounts of convictions that have been carried out by international courts: the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted 63 people, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia convicted only 90, the Special Panels in East Timor convicted 84 people, while the Khmer Rouge tribunal has only convicted three people, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is yet to convict its first individual, with its first sentence awaiting judicial deliberation.

B. PEACEKEEPERS

Peacekeepers refer to the United Nations’ forces that are tasked with carrying out resolutions that look to protect international peace and security, with the stated goal of “help[ing] countries navigate the difﬁcult path from conﬂict to peace”.

18 Peacekeeping forces are sent by the Security Council after a peace operation is established through a resolution, with several different causing factors, which include: i. Whether there is a ceaseﬁre in place and the parties have committed themselves to a peace process intended to reach a political settlement. ii. Whether a clear political goal exists and whether it can be reﬂected in the mandate iii. Whether a precise mandate for a UN operation can be formulated iv. Whether the safety and security of UN personnel can be reasonably ensured, including in particular whether reasonable guarantees can be obtained from the main parties or factions regarding the safety and security of UN personnel.

The United Nations Security Council has an independent subsidiary body that aids it with the taking of military decisions, known as the United Nations Military Staff Committee (or UNMSC). The Military Staff Committee advises the Security Council regarding all elements of military actions to resolve international security. The Military Staff Committee is tasked with approving any peacekeeper intervention before the Security Council acts on it.

If these conditions are all independently met, then the Security Council determines, through an independent resolution, the size and scope of the mission, as well as its stated mandate. The Security Council also has a duty to continually observe and monitor peacekeeping missions and can alter their mandate and size or end the mission at will. The United Nations Security Council has usually recognized several different mandates for the peacekeeper forces, but their application has been remarkably consistent. In general, UNSC mandates can be resumed in the following categories: i. Deploy to prevent the outbreak of conflict or the spill-over of conflict across borders ii. Stabilize conflict situations after a ceasefire, to create an environment for the parties to reach a lasting peace agreement iii. Assist in implementing comprehensive peace agreements iv. Lead states or territories through a transition to stable government, based on democratic principles, good governance and economic development.

19 C. “NATION-BUILDING”

Additionally from International Law and peacekeeping operations, nation-building is one of the most important factors in transitional politics due to the fact that a stable independent nation is always the ﬁnal product sought in transitional processes. Nation-building is a term based around the concept of national unity as a prerequisite for national stability. The idea around nation-building is based, essentially, on the need for stable civil administration and strong government institutions, that, in cases of countries that lack civil governance -or where governance is highly unstable-, needs to be implemented by foreign countries or international organizations such as the United Nations.

The process of nation-building takes many different elements such as the establishment of national stability, humanitarian aid, investment in economic development, and the creation and aid of strong and capable national institutions. The construction of State capacity is highly linked to the main objective of nation-building, however, it is one of the most arduous and difﬁcult things to achieve.

When realized by the Security Council, nation-building operations are highly complex, and usually involve a mix of peacekeeping operations, international investment, and international criminal justice schemes. They also have very varying scopes of implementation, for instance, while the United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan only had the goal of overseeing the implementation of different peace accords, the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor oversaw the entirety of civil administration in the region until it was ready for independent civilian rule, even including elements such as aiding in the drafting of a new Constitution for the country. It is the role of the Security Council to understand the situation in these transitional processes, to evaluate the needs of the State in question, and to implement the according method to achieve the necessary State capacity and autonomy, however there is still a long way till achieving a complete, integral and effective way of aiding States in the process of transitional politics, justice and nation-building.

20 Nation-building, as a concept, has been tainted after the ﬁrst half of the XXI Century due to its close ties to the Bush administration and its interventionism in the Middle East, as well as in regards to the concept of responsibility to protect (R2P): the idea that all States are obligated to protect all civilians of the world from mass atrocities, which, although supported by all Member States of the United Nations in 2005 (as an independent concept derived from the outcome of the 2005 World Summit), slowly lost inﬂuence and popularity as the concept was increasingly seen as a way for hegemonic powers, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, which used R2P as a way to justify intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, to exert power beyond the scope of individual States’ sovereignty. That being said, it must still be remarked that even when the concept is more or less discredited in international politics nowadays, it is still fundamental to understand United Nations missions internationally.

Within nation-building there is a large variety of concepts and academia that is used to understand such a process of transitional justice and politics. One of the most important and interesting ones being the concept of positive peace. As defined by Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies in academia, positive peace refers to “the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way. Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interests of all concerned.” Positive peace refers not only to the objective criteria that might be used to establish justice in a conflict ridden zone, but also to the processes of restorative justice and truth seeking that are used in transitional justice. These include, but are not limited to truth commissions, such as the one established in Guatemala restorative processes to victims and the participation of the community in peace construction through mechanisms such as peace judges. The construction of positive peace has been effective in several cases such as Rwanda, after the Rwandan Genocide, South Africa, after the apartheid, and Colombia, with the law of victims and the “Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz” (JEP) in implementation of the peace process.

D. THE UN PROTECTORATE SYSTEM

21 The Security Council’s most radical powers can be understood through the United Nations Protectorate System, which allows the UNSC to undertake the civil administration of a given territory for a period of time, when it is considered that direct UN administration is the best way for the State to rapidly gain its independence and become a peaceful, democratic and sovereign state. In these cases, the United Nations can go in and directly administer a territory, maintaining order through the use of peacekeeping forces, and where the UN can attribute itself such powers as the administration of justice and organization of elections.

The UN Protectorate System is strongly different from what used to be known as UN Trust Territories, managed through the Trusteeship Council. In the case of Trust Territories, which share the faculty of not being considered ready for independent self-rule, but not that of being territories that are tasked with the transition from a situation of conﬂict to one of peace, the administration of a trust territory was directly granted to a country that had an ethnic, economic or historical tie to the territory, and was overseen by the United Nations Trusteeship Council; on the other hand, protectorates are not beholden to a single nation, but rather are directly administered by the United Nations.

UN Protectorates have not been common, but are not unheard of. They are very varied in scope, duration and size, with the smallest being the administration of small buffer zones between hostile countries, such as the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone, at the border between the Israel-administered Golan Heights and the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium, in the border between Croatia and Serbia, or the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus between Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. These missions tend to be mainly staffed through peacekeeper forces to prevent the outbreak of civil conﬂict and tend to be very long-lasting, with the missions in Cyprus and Syria having lasted 45 years. On the other hand, the United Nations has also embarked upon the administration of large swathes of territory such as the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority over Western Papua, which issued elements like postage and payment of ofﬁcials in its transition of power from the Netherlands to Indonesia in 1962, and even, in limited cases, entire territories as was the case in Cambodia between 1992 and 1993, where the UN managed justice systems, an election to Parliament and the security and public

22 administration systems, East Timor between 1999 and 2002, where the UN helped with the overseeing of a Constitucional Assembly and the implementation of a new system of governance, and Kosovo between 1999 and 2008, with limited continued presence to this day, with the task of managing police and justice, civil administration, democratization and institution-building and reconstruction and economic development.

UN protectorates can, in conclusion, manage everything from day to day civil administration, through military and security matters to justice, either through ordinary or International Criminal Law, either through the administration of existing court systems or the creation of new international tribunals or hybrid tribunals, economic development, the drafting of new institutions and political organization, and even the organisation of elections. The UN has extremely broad power in this institution and protectorates remain one of the strongest forms of UN intervention in the world through a direct action of the Security Council in resolutions to intervene in different States.

CURRENT SITUATION

I. SOUTH SUDAN

The situation in South Sudan is one of the most important ones in the oversight of current UN management of different transitional structures, both in the framework of an incipient State seeking to attain independence as well as in the development of a newly-independent State in the international community. That being said, the situation in South Sudan is also profoundly complex for the United Nations due to the instability and heavy atrocities that have taken place in the region before, during and after the declaration of independence in 2011, and the seeming lack of effectiveness of all UN measures in the meantime.

South Sudan has historically been considered a part of its larger northern neighbor, the Republic of Sudan, despite strong ethnic differences; while the northern two-thirds of Sudan is deeply Muslim and, outside of the western region of Darfur, Arabic-speaking, and dominant in the country’s economic and political system -as well as far more dependent on the Muslim world, and particularly Egypt-, while the south third of the region is deeply Christian, speaks a variety of African languages, and mostly looks southward to the Great Lakes region. Conﬂict broke out in the

23 1980s between an increasingly Islamist government in Khartoum which sought to take control over the oil ﬁelds in the South. This prompted the creation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which after several decades of conﬂict managed to take control over the southern region of Sudan, and, through a UN-Sponsored peace deal, declared its independence in 2011.

The new South Sudanese government, however, would not last for long. Soon, the fragile coalition that existed between different ethnic groups soon broke apart, creating an internal conflict between the President of South Sudan and his fired deputy. The conflict soon became a nasty ethnic combat between South Sudan’s two major ethnic groups, resulting in nearly 400,000 additional deaths. The creation of several UN intervention schemes, including, amongst others, several peace treaties and a UN peace mission, ended up with the partial interruption of the conflict, however, many problems remain.

II. THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

The situation in the Central African Republic has been, to say the least, tense for several decades. The CAR has been a particularly unstable State throughout most of its history, rife with coups and short-lived dictatorships, with only 10 years of civilian rule throughout its independence. The CAR currently undergoes strong transitional tensions after the end of a long civil war that deposed the military rule of General Bozize.

Lawlessness is rife in several territories of the Central African Republic, which, due to its unstable neighbors, has not been able to impose rule of law throughout the entire country. Especially affected are the borders with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which receives many armed people moving from the conﬂict zones to the South and East, including not only Congolese militias like the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo, led by Jean-Pierre Bemba (of International Criminal Court fame) as well as Ugandan militias like the Lord’s Resistance Army, led by famous warlord Joseph Kony, and Sudan.

2014 ﬁnally saw UN intervention through the creation of MINUSCA - the UN Mission to the Central African Republic-, which deploys over 12,800 uniformed personnel and over 14,000 total personnel. MINUSCA has several key goals related to peacekeeping such as humanitarian

24 assistance, aid towards refugees and internally-displaced persons, promotion and protection of human rights, repatriation and disarmament, demobilization, amongst others.

III. LIBYA

The Libyan crisis has its origins in the Arab Spring, where the long-time President of the Country, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was toppled in a violent but short civil war that occurred in late 2011. Gaddafi was an eccentric and brutal leader that proved a constant foil to Western interests in the region, constantly upholding Libya as an important power in its own right, so the West helped in the toppling of Gaddafi, starting with an arms embargo and ending up with direct airstrikes that killed important members of the Libyan government as well as parts of Gaddafi’s own family.

However, although NATO’s humanitarian intervention was paramount in the toppling of Gaddafi, there was no presence in the following attempts to rebuild the State, with Libya being left to its devices. A power vacuum soon ensued, which initially was filled by the General National Congress, the elected representative body that held office in the eastern city of Tobruk. Meanwhile, however, Islamists took control in the Western city of Tripoli, historically the capital of Libya, creating the rival National Salvation Government.

United Nations intervention initially seemed to be able to bridge the divide with a national agreement being negotiated between the two sides and the creation of a new Government of National Accord. That being said, however, the Government of National Accord is not fully recognized by all sides of the conﬂict (many details remain doubtful) and it has a difﬁcult future ahead trying to establish itself as the only government, especially as most forces in the country remain loyal to the GNC.

VI. NEPAL

Nepal’s case is interesting, as it has been a historically stable country with very recent bouts of strong violence. The violence erupted in 1996 when the violent Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a series of attacks against the then Nepali monarchy, which managed an

25 increasingly authoritarian government that refused to concede even basic civil and political rights to its citizens. The monarchy, however, was more or less well-liked, and throughout the 90s and early 2000s, even pro-democracy activists were mostly opposed to communist violence.

This changed, however, starting in 2001 with the Nepalese Royal Massacre, where the heir to the throne of Nepal, Crown Prince Dipendra, allegedly murdered all members of the Nepali royal family (including his father, King Birendra) except for his uncle, Gyanendra. Gyanendra, very unpopular with the public, was soon seen amongst many conspiracy theories as to the instigator behind the massacre, which greatly worsened the reputation of the Nepali monarchy. Gyanendra, furthermore, greatly opposed any overture towards democracy, suspending the democratic rule in Nepal in 2005. This greatly angered the Nepali populace, who started to march on the streets demanding democracy, allied with the Maoists who had previously been considered by most Nepalis as terrorists. A coalition between all seven Nepali political parties and the Maoists forced Gyanendra to re-establish Parliament, which immediately stripped Gyanendra of all political rights and, one year later, agreed upon a peace deal with the guerrillas. Part of the peace deal included the elimination of the monarchy, which was done in 2007.

The interim government soon asked for the United Nations to help with the implementation of the transitional government systems in the country, which prompted the creation of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), created by Security Council Resolution 1740. Resolution 1740 foresaw UNMIN as a mission that would oversee the demobilization of armed Maoist groups and their integration to civilian life, as well as the organization and election of a Constitutional Assembly.

V. AFGHANISTAN

The situation in Afghanistan is one of the most complex situations in International Law nowadays, considering the fact that Afghanistan’s government, in 2001, deeply threatened international peace and security due to the nature of the Taliban political group, a radical Islamist organization that deeply destroyed the country’s non-Islamic cultural heritage and seemed to threaten international peace and security. This prompted a UN Security Council resolution that caused international intervention in the Central Asian country, resulting in what was known as

26 the Afghan War - a mostly NATO-led intervention and administration of the country, with resulting profound consequences to the international system.

Afghanistan’s case is of paramount importance to the study of United Nations Security Council intervention for a number or reasons. The clearest of these reasons is that it was the ﬁrst time that the Security Council had, through different resolutions, tied the acts of a terrorist organization to that of the country harboring said terrorists (as can be seen in UNSC Resolution 1267, which demanded Afghanistan turn over Osama bin Laden, leader of the organization Al-Qaeda and the alleged mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center that occurred on September 11, 2001) and therefore authorized a nation (in this case, the United States of America) to act in purported self-defense. The self- defense, however, went much further than just extraditing bin Laden to the United States (which, as per Resolution 1267, was the main goal to supposedly restore peace and security, but failed as a goal as bin Laden ﬂed to Pakistan) - instead, the US-led intervention ended up completely toppling Afghanistan’s radical Islamist government and establishing a democratic republic in its place, giving birth to the modern Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The United Nations, however, did not stop after authorizing intervention into Afghanistan, but instead, after the toppling of the Taliban regime, engaged in nation-building processes regarding international security: most notably through UNSC 1386, which created the International Security Assistance Force to help the transitional Afghan authorities take control from mujahideen groups.

The War in Afghanistan is therefore of paramount importance to understanding the different aspects of intervention the UNSC has, as it has both involved military intervention (to such a degree that the entire government of Afghanistan, considered a threat to international peace and security) as well as subsequent nation-building and development efforts that have had real effects on the country, with the average GDP quintupling since 2001 and the Human Development Index of the country rising from 0.345 in 2000 to 0.496 in 2018.

RELEVANT ACTORS

27 To address efficiently the topic presented before the Council, a complete understanding of the relevant actors is necessary, such as one would when first approaching any study case regarding transitional justice movements. Bearing this in mind, these issues should be studied considering 7 main actors: the Government that is in power, the Government that recently withdrew from the power, if it is the case, the group that took the power or tried to exercise it, the civilian population, non-political minorities that are considered apart from the national jurisdiction, regional bodies that participate, and finally neighboring states that might be affected.

When the question of which of the actors are present in a specific situation, then it comes to the most difficult analysis: how these actors influence and how can the Security Council use them within its competence.

QARMAS

- What role can international organizations other than the Security Council have in processes of transitional justice?

- What are the best examples of processes of transitional politics and how may they be applied to current cases?

- Should there be any reforms done to the UN Charter regarding political intervention in zones of conﬂict? If so, how should they be applied?

- How can the already existing methods and programs of the UN used in conﬂict zones be modiﬁed to be more effective in times of transitional politics?

- Should the UNSC intervene when there is a clear violation of international law in the form of violation of sovereignty in a country that is currently in a transitional period? If so, how should the UNSC intervene?

3.2. Topic B: Applicability of chapter VII of the UN Charter to non-state actors

A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The UN Charter was signed on June 26th of 1945, in San Francisco, as the

28 outcome of the United Nations Conference on International Organizations. Under the theory of sources of international law, the UN Charter is an international treaty, ratiﬁed by all its Member States, and hence they are responsible for complying with obligations included within the text. As established in general International Law theory, an international treaty is “a binding formal agreement, contract, or other written instrument that establishes obligations between two or more subjects of international law (primarily states and international organizations).”

The United Nations, as a matter of fact, was created in a milieu of post- conﬂict, giving rise to new and groundbreaking principles that will rule International Law and, therefore, the behavior of the Member States. World War II has just ended and a core objective of the United Nations would be that of maintaining peace and international security, as established in the Charter. As established before, the UN Charter is recognized as an international treaty and is ruled by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which regulates treaties between States. However, due to the nature of the United Nations as an international organization, it is also ruled by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations (1986). The Charter establishes principles that rule the Organization, along with the administrative structure of the Organization. Therefore, making it binding for all its Member States, which ensures the commitment of the member States with the objectives of the United Nations.

Chapters V to VII are dedicated to the functioning of the Security Council, the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and Actions that regard to threats to peace. Nonetheless, the text was written looking forward to the conduct of Member States, bearing in mind that in the early and middle twentieth century, conflicts were primarily between States. Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which will be the focus of this committee, regulates the use of force in both international conflict and non-international conflict, as it is typified in International Law. As it is textually written in the UN Charter, Chapter VII exists with the purpose of understanding and establishing the corresponding “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

However, this deﬁnition, as well as many others is open to the interpretation of States and therefore must be used very carefully when discussing the applicability of different areas of International

29 Law to such actors. Consequently, the area on which we will focus on regarding the applicability of the chapter to non-State Actors is that of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. It is established that International Law seeks to regulate State and individual behavior, specifically when it implicates an effect on topics of international interest, such as international security and peace. The most important topics for the United Nations, and more specifically the Security Council. Within International Law, there are two different ways of regulating armed conflict, whether it is international or non-international. One of them known as ius ad Bellum, which establishes the norms used before the actual conflict, to determine the legality of the conflict and the actors participating in such. The second is known as ius in Bello, which regulates the behavior of actors that are in conflict, therefore it is mostly known as the Law of War or International Humanitarian Law. This type of law applies to all actors in the conflict, indifferently of the cause behind the conflict, since all civilians must be protected in situations of conflict. As is used in International Law, this behavior is usually regulated by international treaties, conventions, protocols, and others, which tend to be based on customary law, the main source of International Law.

As established by the International Red Cross Committee, “The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols form the core of International Humanitarian Law, which regulates the conduct of armed conﬂict and seeks to limit its effects. They protect people not taking part in hostilities and those who are no longer doing so” (Red Cross, 1949). These conventions, as well as rulings by international courts, are used as sources in order to determine what is prohibited, and therefore what is allowed, in the law of war. To understand International Humanitarian Law and the possible applications to non-State Actors, we recommend further research regarding the conventions, their additional protocols, their main principles and the different cases which regulate such situations.

I. SECTION I: USE OF FORCE AND CHAPTER VII

Prior to understand how the use of force is schemed in the language of International Law, and parallely in the scope of the Security Council, it has to be addressed that there is a conceptual and practical difference on what is understood as an international armed conflict and a non- international armed conflict. According to article 3 common of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, non-international armed conflicts are those

30 in which the hostilities reach a minimum of intensity, and one or more of the actors is not a State, hence non-international armed conﬂicts can be between a State and a non-State actor, or even between two non-state actors. In contrast, an international armed conﬂict is such in which all the actors are States.

International and non-international conflicts on a first-term are regulated by Chapter VII, which establishes the functions of the United Nations and the Security Council regarding the international obligations and rights that arise in such situations of conflict. In order to understand Chapter VII and its overall applicability, it is crucial to first understand and interpret Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which establishes the prohibition of the use of force. Article 2(4) establishes the following: “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.” (United Nations Charter, Art. 2, para. 4)

This prohibition of the use of force is deeply related to the principle explained before, Ius ad Bellum, which regulates the right to war. This article has caused intervention and use of force between states to be illegal, therefore it establishes non-intervention as the customary practice and it is backed by this important International Law source. However, different nations have interpreted Article 2(4) in different ways depending on their needs and intentions in international relations, and have used this same article and its exceptions in order to use force under the margin of legality. An important case to understand the interpretation of the prohibition of the use of force is the International Court of Justice (ICJ): Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).

31 As stated before, there are certain exemptions to Article 2(4), however, these exemptions must be evaluated by the Security Council, who will determine the existence of all threats to international peace and security and therefore will decide the corresponding measures to apply to such a threat, as stated in Article 39 of the UN Charter. Subsequently, these measures will be established according to Article 41 and 51 (considered as exemptions to the prohibition of use of force). Article 41, establishes that the Security Council shall be the one to determine which measures do not constitute a use of force, and the means of employment of the same measures, as follows: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.” (United Nations Charter, Art. 41)

If those actions do not prove to be effective towards the situation in question, then Article 51 applies, where the gravity of the measures is evaluated and can be applied in exception to Article 2(4), stated as follows: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence 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.” (United Nations Charter, Art. 51)

Within this article, it is clear to examine the principle of individual or collective-self defense, contained within Article 51 but contained as well in many ICJ decisións, International Law Journals, and internal and external declarations from States. Within the principle of legitimate defense, it is important to acknowledge that it can only be justiﬁed as a defense from an armed attack. Therefore a deﬁnition of armed attack is necessary for said interpretation. “A use of force intentionally directed at a state which, by virtue of its scale

32 and effects, is of such gravity as to justify a responsive use of force by that state in self-defense; contrast with the mere frontier incident.” (John H. Currie, 2001)

This definition, for example, defines the same word with its own responsive principle (self defense) and complementing principle (use of force) in order to establish a somewhat clear definition. Although the understanding of what constitutes an armed attack is difficult to establish in an objective manner, international institutions have discussed the subject thoroughly. This will constitute one of the biggest challenges in the committee and may be used by delegates as a tool for the ideas that may arise regarding the application of Chapter VII to non-State Actors.

II. SECTION II: NON-STATE ACTORS

Throughout history, specifically since World War II, International Law has evolved to regulate the actions States can take regarding each other. However, there have been new actors emerging in the system of international relations, such as non-State Actors. It is important to have a clear definition of said term in order to understand their role in new international and non-international conflicts and what can be done regarding said role. The International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) defines non-State Actors as: “non-state actors include organizations and individuals that are not affiliated with, directed by, or funded through the government. These include corporations, private financial institutions, and NGOs, as well as paramilitary and armed resistance groups.”

Although this topic area seems to be mainly theoretical, the analysis of the applicability understanding the current situation in different parts of the world is necessary to understand the requirements of current global politics. Hence, the War on Terror, and the new arising terrorist groups, are a ﬁrst approach to understand why Chapter VII, as it is written, needs a further legal development applicable to new warfare methods and different structures of threats to international peace.

B. PREVIOUS DECISIONS

After the September 11 attacks, the United States initiated what is known as the Global War against terrorism, starting with an era of non-international

33 armed conﬂicts all around the world to combat terrorist groups. The US- led coalition, that included NATO and other western countries were mainly targeting Muslim extremist groups as ISIS, Al-Shabab, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, among others. The following map illustrates the incidence of American troops in the Middle East and Northern Africa, the zones where the great majority of these events happened.

The actions in the Global War against terrorism are an example on how non-State actors can be subjects of International Law. A lot of discussions regarding non-state actors, criminal groups, and others, have been under the agenda of the subcommittees of the Security Council. The Sanctions Committee has taken decisions regarding groups as ISIL and Al-Qaeda, through resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015), in which the committee has resolved to take measures against designated individuals, entities and aircraft that were owned, controlled, leased or operated by these groups.

34 QARMAS

- What may constitute an armed attack?

- What implications may the use of force have on the principle of self- defense, for and against non-State actors?

- To what extent can the international law permit or prohibit the use of force by non-State actors?

- Could any use of force by a non-State actor be justiﬁed when is against a State?

- What tools does the Security Council have to defend international security and peace when States’ and non-State actors ’interests might collide with such interest?

Links for further investigation:

- The Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols: https://www. icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions

- Rules of War (in a nutshell) by the ICRC: https://youtu.be/HwpzzAefx9M The UN Charter: https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/

- Glossary of International Law Terms: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml

4. GLOSSARY

Transitional Politics: “A transition is an interval between two regimes. Many political systems enter into a transition because their old regime, that is, their rules, procedures, and institutions, has become untenable, and they remain in the transition because no new regime succeeds in becoming consolidated.”

Transitional Justice: “Transitional justice refers to the ways countries emerging from periods of conﬂict and repression address large-scale or systematic human rights violations so numerous and so serious that the normal justice system will not be able to provide an adequate response.”

35 5. REFERENCES (APA OR CHICAGO)

International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR- Net), Non-State Actors, taken from: https://www.escr-net.org/resources/ non-state-actors.

International Red Cross Committee, (1949), The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, taken from: https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and- law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions