Hofstra University Model United Nations Conference

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY MODEL UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE

______

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE

FIRST COMMITTEE

______

Chair Johannes Sorto

Chair’s Welcome

Dear Delegates, Hello, and welcome to the Disarmament and International Security committee. My name is Johannes Sorto and it is an honor to be serving as your Chair for the Hofstra Model United Nations Conference. I am a senior at Hofstra University and will be looking to graduate in May of 2016, with a double major in Political Science and Global Studies. Through my college career I have always had a passion for international affairs but I was not aware of Model UN until last year. I was able to participate in the 2014 University of Pennsylvania Model UN conference and since then I have fell in love with Model UN. Aside from my involvement in Model UN, I am also the current President of Hofstra College Republicans as well as a member of the Hofstra History Club. Outside of school I enjoy playing soccer, tennis, videogames, and I also DJ. I am very excited to be serving as Chair for DISEC. I find disarmament and security as one of the most interesting and complex issues in foreign affairs. For this conference, we will be focusing on small arms trade and the use of weaponized drones. I hope you all will find these two topics to be fun and challenging. I encourage you all to read the background guide and use it as starting point for your research. If you have any questions regarding either topic or the committee as a whole feel free to email me. I am very excited to meet all of you and I hope you all enjoy the conference!

Sincerely,

Johannes Sorto Chair, Disarmament and International Security Committee [email protected]

Introduction to the Disarmament and International Security Committee

The First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, also known as the

Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC), 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.”1 According to Chapter 4, Article 11 of the

Charter of the United Nations, the primary purpose and objective of the General Assembly is to:

Consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.2

With this as the General Assembly’s charge, DISEC thus considers all matters of disarmament and international security under the purview of the committee. To achieve its ultimate goals of reducing the level of armaments around the globe and promoting cooperative approaches to international security, the committee works closely with the United Nations

Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.

At the 2016 Hofstra Model United Nations Conference, you will be tasked with trying to balance your national interests while at the same time looking for cooperation in order to create and pass effective resolution on two important issues: small arms trade and the use of both surveillance and weaponized drones.

For decades now the United Nations has focused on small arms trade, understanding that these weapons can, at times, be as dangerous as even a nuclear bomb. Currently 90% of civilian casualties are cause by small arms, showing the magnitude of the situation. Over the years the

UN has been able to make significant progress in decreasing these weapons. This includes the 3

UN mission to Liberia, which help end a 15-year conflict along with collecting hundreds of thousands of military weapons from local militia groups.3 Therefore progress is being made in regards to this issue. However, there is still a long way to go before the issue is completely resolved. That is why this committee must look to tackle this issue once again. With another successful resolution the UN can once again make significant progress in security and continue to convince global citizens to have faith in the international system.

As for the second topic, the use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones, is a relatively new issue. However, the significance of weaponized drones are incredibly important as it questions one of the most fundamental principles the UN protects: sovereignty. Because UAVs have only be in use for a short period of time there are few resolutions that apply to it. But recently in the Human Rights Council, Pakistan led a coalition of nations to pass a resolution demanding that all use of UAVs follow all regulations of international law and specifically international human rights law.4 There is also growing fear that the U.S. is setting a negative precedent on the use of drones, which could lead other actors to follow a similar path that may further destabilize different regions. It is imperative that DISEC looks into the matter and finds a way for nations to be able to use UAVs but also be able to respect sovereignty along with following international law and human rights.

Topic A: Small Arms Trade

Introduction

While the public seems to be focused on nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the majority of deaths around the world come from small arms. Small arms are defined as any weapon that can be carried and managed by a single person. This includes all firearms, along with hand grenades and land mines, among other types of weapons.5 Because small arms are easily transportable, nearly anyone can obtain one. Rebels, terrorists, and gangs are not the only ones who use small arms.

Violence that is caused by small arms has occurred around the whole world. Regions in

Latin America along with Africa and the Middle East all see large death tolls because of the easy access of small weapons. Approximately half a million people die each year due to small arms, the estimate sales of small arms in the black market is over 2 billion.3

Because of the mass violence that is caused by civilians, the World Health Organization

(WHO) launched a resolution in 1996 declaring violence a public health issue.5

The serious immediate and future long-term implications for health and psychological and social development that violence represents for individuals, families, communities and countries; the growing consequences of violence for health care services everywhere and its detrimental effect on scarce health care resources for countries and communities.

While it is true that terrorist groups are only hold a small percentage of guns, they still cause a massive amount of harm to people. In 2015, Boko Haram – a terrorist organization based in northeast Nigeria – launched its deadliest attack yet, killing nearly 2,000 people. Just last year alone Boko Haram killed approximately 10,000 people while nearly 1.5 million people have been displaced because of the violence.6 As of right now Boko Haram has 5 expanded to other countries including Cameroon and Chad. In summer of 2015, Boko Haram killed 26 people in Chad7 and in Cameroon 400 have died due to the militant group.8

As for Syria, the country has been plagued by a civil war since 2011 with no end in sight.

While the Syrian military may be mostly using airstrikes and artillery, the rebel forces have largely been using small arms with their weapon of choice being the Ak-47. There are multiple rebel groups in Syria, including ISIL or ISIS along with Al Nusra and several other minor rebel factions. Since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War over 20,000 civilians have died due to small arms. Along with the high death toll, there has now been a large exodus of Syrians heading towards Europe, creating a major refugee crisis.9

In both Nigeria and Syria, the easy access of small weapons has allowed these militant groups to strengthen and expand. This has led to high death tolls and massive civilian displacement, along with economic and political instability.

The United Nations has enacted a number of resolutions that attempt to directly lower the number of illicit small arms in these unstable regions. The most recent resolution passed is the

Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which became effective after many states ratified the treaty.

One of goals of the ATT is to attempt to prevent any small arm from getting into the hands of a person who would cause violence. The way the ATT tackles this issue is by creating a better system of tracking the transfers of small arms between countries. The treaty requires states to prevent the diversion of arms and regulate brokering activity. The treaty also requires states to maintain records of export and import transactions for a minimum of 10 years.10

In the process of creating the treaty, there were a number of countries that expressed opposition to some part of the resolution. The most notable opposition was the U.S. that 6 expressed concerns of it violating national sovereignty. Other countries that expressed opposition were Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Syria.11

The United Nations also created the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and

Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA). The PoA was a conference held in 2001 as one of the first efforts to attempt to lower the sales of illicit small arms trade. The PoA on small arms provides a framework on how to tackle the illicit trade of small arms as follows:

(a) Strengthening or developing agreed norms and measures at the global, regional and national levels that would reinforce and further coordinate efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects;

(b) Developing and implementing agreed international measures to prevent, combat and eradicate illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in small arms and light weapons;

(c) Placing particular emphasis on the regions of the world where conflicts come to an end and where serious problems with the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of small arms and light weapons have to be dealt with urgently;

(d) Mobilizing the political will throughout the international community to prevent and combat illicit transfers and manufacturing of small arms and light weapons in all their aspects, to cooperate towards these ends and to raise awareness of the character and seriousness of the interrelated problems associated with the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in these weapons;

(e) Promoting responsible action by States with a view to preventing the illicit export, import, transit and retransfer of small arms and light weapons.12

While the ATT and PoA on small arms are some of the latest ways the international community has attempted to deal with the scourge of small arms, there were previous efforts as well. But these were limited. For example, there was only one international treaty that dealt with 7 small arms, but only indirectly. The Brussels Act (1890) was primarily an anti-slavery convention, but also regulated some aspects of conventional arms trade. It was only after the

Cold War that there was an increase in UN activity, driven mainly by state security and reducing international tensions. One of the first steps was in the in the 1990s when the United Nations created the Register on Conventional Arms which required every state to provide information on their imports and exports. This has greatly help increase transparency on international arms transfers, but has struggled with state participation.11

Current Situation

In 2011 the top ten exporting countries sold 100 million dollars of small arms. This includes the U.S., Italy, Germany, Brazil, and Russia, along with many others.13 These countries are reluctant to support any small arms treaty that limits their own sales of weapons.

In terms of weapons around the world, there are approximately 900 million small arms around the world. Civilians own 650 million, and another 200 million are in the possession of armed forces. The rest are in the possession of law enforcement, gangs, private security groups, and non-state armed groups. Thus, the vast majority of small arms are currently held by either civilians or by the military, with only one percent of small arms in the possession of gangs and terrorists. The United States leads the world in gun ownership, with about 270 million firearms owned by U.S. citizens in 2007. India and China come in second and third, with the former having 44 million and the latter 40 million.14

Currently there is controversy over what to do with the legal trading of guns. Countries like the U.S. do not want to increase regulations on firearms because of the strong domestic 8 pushback it may face from small arms producers and any potential negative effect on its economic productivity by limiting the gun trade. Because of this, the U.S. and several other countries wish to focus solely on the illicit trading of weapons, while other countries seek to limit the sales of all small arms. Some states, notably China and Russia, have reservations about infringements on sovereignty as well. Without the cooperation of these major world states and leaders in the United Nations, progress has been difficult and a consensus position on small arms has been elusive.

Bloc Positions

United States

The United States is the largest manufacturer of small arms in the world. The U.S. is also one of the only countries that puts strict limits on the government’s ability to regulate small arms.

Despite this, the U.S. is still in favor of a reduction of the illicit trade of small arms that fuel conflict and empower potentially destructive non-state actors. The U.S. did sign the Arms Trade

Treaty but it has not ratified it due to the domestic political climate. Because the U.S. has a tremendous amount of influence, its refusal to ratify and its initial opposition to the ATT gave support to other countries who had reservations to also voice out their opposition. Therefore U.S. support can play a crucial factor in any future resolution.11

Europe

European countries are largely in favor of the reduction in small arms. Despite a few reservations they have all expressed support for the ATT. The major European powers including Germany,

UK, France, Italy and Spain have all signed and ratified the treaty giving it further credibility.

Africa

This region has arguably faced the biggest impact of small arms and therefore understands the importance of tackling the issue. This region been impacted greatly both economically and politically. It currently has the most peacekeeping operations and is currently facing the most turmoil. Therefore this region greatly supports action to lower small arms and hopes to eliminate all smalls arms as quickly as possible.

Middle East

This region faces a tremendous amount of conflict thus bringing a large amount of instability.

Many of the weapons used in this region originally come from other countries including the

United States and Russia.15 This makes the Middle East one of the major buyers of weapons and thus undermines the goal to bring peace to the region. The Arab-Israeli conflict is also one that greatly undermines peace in the region and encourages countries to increase military spending.

Latin America

This region has dealt with numerous civil wars in past decades and is now beginning to reach some stability. Although violence is still a problem, the number of deaths have decreased in the last decade. A large amount of the violence is also a result to class warfare with the rich pitted against the poor. 10

Asia

Conflicts in this region have been high, specifically in the South Asian region. Conflict in

Thailand has greatly destabilized a state once hailed as a tourist haven. The region has also been careful to regulate its arms trade. However, as a region with one of the biggest suppliers of small arms, members of this bloc need to also consider solutions that do not impose upon a nation’s autonomy to legally sell arms.

Guiding Questions

• Should the UN take further action to limit or otherwise regulate the massive sales of

small arms between countries?

• Are there ways to track the sale of small arms, in order to prevent them from getting into

the wrong hands?

• Do countries who have large sales in small arms have an obligation to assist developing

countries that deal with high rates of violence?

• How can states balance the need for armed police and military forces that drives part of

the arms trade against the negative affects of this arms trade on civilians?

Topic B: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are the latest advancement in military technology. These UAVs are able to infiltrate another state territory and gather intelligence without risking military personnel. UAVs are not only used for surveillance but also have the capability to perform military strikes. While drones have only been around for a short period of time, their impact on international security has grown exponentially. Currently, quite a few states have surveillance drones but only the United States, the United Kingdom, and

Israel have used weaponized drones. Out of these three, the U.S. has utilized drones most extensively to perform military operations. Since 2002, the U.S. has performed hundreds of drone strikes in regions with little government stability, especially in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and

Yemen.

One of the major concerns for the United Nations is the civilian death toll due to drone strikes. Although drone strikes may be focused on targeting terrorists, civilian casualties are a major concern. The United Nations appointed a special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and

Human rights to investigate the use of armed drones and found that in both Afghanistan and

Yemen there have been a high number of civilian causalities. The so-called Emmerson Report that followed shows that, for example, drone strikes were responsible for forty percent of civilian casualties that occurred in Afghanistan in 2013. While it is difficult to get accurate casualty figures in war zones, the Emmerson Report highlights the use of armed drones is an important issue the international community must address if it wants to protect human rights.16

Because of the short history of the use of drones, the United Nations does not have any resolution that deals with UAVs directly. However, there are many resolutions that have been passed that deal with the use of military force and the violation of state sovereignty. For 12 example, in the UN Charter Article II proclaims that “states must refrain 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 purpose of the United Nations.”17 This would suggest that there are important questions regarding the use of drones for military purposes by an outside state without the explicit consent of a host state, among other issues.

The UN Charter goes further to explain when it is acceptable for a state to violate sovereign territory and perform a targeted killing. The first condition necessary to make such an act consistent with international law is, as mentioned above, that a foreign state gives consent to an outside power to perform a military strike. The second condition that may allow a state to violate another state’s sovereignty is if it is for self-defense.17 This second condition is more controversial and has different interpretation, as self defense can be defined differently. For example, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) “only allows one state to enter the territory of another without consent when armed attacks by nonstate actors are traceable to that state.”17

In contrast, the United States believes that self-defense justifies the use of drone strikes as currently practiced in its counterterrorism efforts. According to the United States, three accounts create the right to use self-defense against an aggressor. The first is after an actual armed attack occurs. The second is in the presence of a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation. Finally, the third is when a state uses a pre-emptive self-defense against a continuing threat.17 These conditions allow the U.S. to argue its targeting of terrorist suspects in

Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and potentially other countries conforms with international law.

However, there is controversy revolving around the definition of “imminent threat” and the concept of preemptive self-defense is legally complicated. 13

Other important laws that can be applied to the use of drones are both International

Human Rights Law (HRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). International

Humanitarian Law has been practiced since antiquity. It seeks to limit the impact of armed conflict by protecting people who are not part of a conflict. That is, while International

Humanitarian Law recognizes self-defense, it seeks to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. It is important to note that International Humanitarian Law only takes effect in armed conflict. Armed conflicts are determined by two criteria. The first is that all parties must have a certain level of organization and the second is that the conflict must reach a certain level of intensity.17

While much of this international law has been part of the world community for quite some time, drone technology and their use is a relatively recent phenomenon. Indeed, it is only until the 1990s when the modern UAVs emerged. Weaponized drones did not play a critical role in military use until the Bush administration. Today we now see weaponized drones play a crucial role in U.S. military operations, while other countries are increasing their drone capabilities.

Only the United States, United Kingdom, Israel, China, and Iran have armed drones, while only the first three states have launched drone strikes. The United States leads the world in conducting drone strikes. The United States has launched more than 1,000 drone strikes in

Afghanistan since 2008 and an estimated 400 drone strikes in Pakistan as of 2014.18 Because of the lack of transparency by the U.S. government it is difficult for the exact number of terrorists and civilians killed in these operations. However, according to The Bureau of Investigative

Journalism an estimated 500 civilian casualties have been killed as of 2015.19 14

While drone strikes have become a common occurrence in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has publicly voiced its outrage against U.S. drone strikes. In 2013 a U.S. drone strike destroyed a compound in North Waziristan and was followed by an immediate condemnation by Pakistan’s Ambassador Sherry Rehman, who claimed “the use of drones was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty”.20 To bolster this case and counter accusations that the state had secretly agreed to the U.S. use of drones in its territory, a UN special rapporteur on counter terrorism was told by the Pakistan government that it has regularly urged the American government to cease all drone strike operations.21

To justify its armed-UAV programs, the United States claims that it is in a non- international armed conflict with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. A non-international armed conflict is defined when one state is in conflict with a non-state actor. The non-state actor must also have a certain level of organization, along with a certain level of hostility and duration. The level of hostility must go beyond that of riots and random acts of violence, and the duration must be protracted. 17

Establishing that the U.S. is in a type of armed conflict is necessary because International

Humanitarian Law overtakes any contradictory International Human Rights Law for the parties of an armed conflict, which effectively weakens the limitations on the use of force and thus increasing acceptable justifications for killings.17 That is, once a state is considered to be in an armed conflict, its duty is to limit harm to civilians but some level of civilian casualties are likely to occur without necessarily violating international law.

While the US armed drone programs are by far the most prevalent, the U.S. is not the only country to use drone strikes. During its conflict with Gaza in 2008-09, the Israeli government launched approximately 42 strikes from UAVs. The Israeli government has also 15 used drones in the Sinai Peninsula to target suspected terrorists with the consent of the Egyptian government.18 And in 2011, an Israeli drone strike killed seven Palestinian militants in southern

Gaza. Israel claimed they were preparing to fire long-range rockets into Israel22 and thus, if this argument is accepted, there was an imminent threat and thus the Israeli action could be argued to be self-defense. A similar situation occurred in 2012, when an Israeli drone strikes killed 36 in

Gaza.23

Critical Considerations for the Use of Armed Drones

One of the biggest issues plaguing the use of drone strikes is clearly civilian casualties. A large number of the civilian deaths have occurred in regions that are not in a state of war. This raises alarm bells to many humanitarian groups, and therefore concerns the UN as well. Another pressing issue is the destruction of infrastructure. Nearly sixty-one percent of drone strikes in

Pakistan are targeted at buildings considered to be primarily civilian. As of 2014, over 132 buildings in Pakistan have been destroyed because of drone strikes. 24

In addition to these humanitarian concerns, there is a concern for the precedent that the

U.S. and other states are setting for drone strikes. As the largest user of armed drones, many countries will look to the United States as the standard for how these drones should be used. The

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, acknowledged this in 2012, "If we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly."18

Part of the controversy surrounding drones is targeted at the balance between self-defense and national sovereignty. Many countries such as Pakistan are worried that larger states will be able to fly over their territory and launch strikes without any repercussions. States like the U.S. 16 argue that these actions are necessary self-defense measures in light of terrorists who have in the past succeeded in attacking the U.S. mainland. This is where the United Nations can step in and find a pragmatic solution.

The Committee should seek to lower civilian casualties caused by drone strikes. The use of drones is increasing and yet there is littler oversight over weaponized drones. DISEC should take the initiative and set some guidelines on the use of drone strikes in order maintain the general principle of human rights.

To do this, the committee should also look to better define self-defense, specifically in regards to the use of weaponized drones and how this affects the principle of state sovereignty.

That is, the committee must balance the important principle of sovereignty against the equally important principle of states being able to properly defend themselves especially in non- international armed conflict

An important issue related to the use of armed drones includes the transfer of drone technology to additional states. That is, the committee should address the issue of proliferation of drones additional states holding this technology could lead to the greater use of armed drones.

Lastly the committee may wish to consider mechanisms to increase transparency about the use of armed drones. Increasing transparency can shed light into who exactly is being attacked, along with a more precise number of civilian casualties, which may help the international community establish better protection of human rights.

Bloc Positions

Africa

As of 2015, no African country has used weaponized drones. However, African states have been the target of drone use by others (both for surveillance and armed attacks) and therefore many of these countries may be concerned with issues pertaining to state sovereignty. Another great concern is human rights, because drones have at times killed civilians and have damaged states’ infrastructure.

Asia-Pacific

With China being the only state in Asia that has weaponized drones, it certainly believes that it has a right to use drones in self-defense. Other states in Asia – many of which have territorial conflicts with China – are weary of violations of sovereignty and may look to find ways to ensure that their sovereignty is not infringed upon. However, some Asian states besides China are looking to develop their own drone capabilities including Japan and some Southeast Asian states

Eastern European

Currently, only Russia has drone capability for surveillance in this region. However, it is developing the technology needed for weaponized drones. Because of this, Russia may not support any resolution that would constrict Russia’s use of drones. However, it has been critical of Western states use of drones claiming that they have violated state sovereignty using drones.

Other Eastern European countries are seeking stricter restrictions on the use of drones. This is because they are concerned of Russia’s recent actions with Ukraine, and fear that weaponized drones can only put their state in more danger. 18

Latin America/Caribbean

Many Latin American and Caribbean states have terrible histories of human rights violations, and thus this issue is likely of great concern in the debate over the use of drones. None of these countries have weaponized drones or are seeking to develop them. Therefore they have a higher interest in protecting civilians and state sovereignty and may discount arguments of self-defense made by other states like the United States.

Western European and Other Groups

While staunch supporters of human rights generally, many states in this bloc have recently stressed self-defense more than human rights concerns or state sovereignty with regard to the use of drones. This is largely driven by the threat of terrorism. Both the U.K. and U.S. have weaponized drones and will likely only look to increase their use in the future.

Guiding Questions

• Is there a better way to define self-defense with regard to the use of drones?

• Should weaponized drones be banned? If so, what type of international agreement could

be developed to ban weaponized drones?

• If drones are going to be used in armed conflict, what can be done to lower civilian

casualties?

• Should the UN seek to strengthen the norm of sovereignty and punish those states that

violate other states’ sovereignty with drones?

1 “General Assembly of the United Nations: Disarmament and International Security,” http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/. 2 "Charter, United Nations, Chapter IV: The General Assembly," http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html.

3 Shah, Anup. "Small Arms-they Cause 90% of Civilian Casualties." - Global Issues. N.p., 21 Jan. 2006, http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian- casualties.

4 Goodman, Ryan. "United Nations Human Rights Council Adopts Resolution Calling for Drone Transparency and Accountability." Just Security RSS. 28 Mar. 2014, https://www.justsecurity.org/8712/unhrc-adopts-drones-resolution/.

5 Organization, W. H. (2001). Small Arms and Global Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/small_arms/en/.

6 Mark, Monica. "Boko Haram's 'deadliest Massacre': 2,000 Feared Dead in Nigeria." The Guardian. 10 Jan. 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest- massacre-baga-nigeria.

7 "Boko Haram Slit Throats of 26 Civilians' in Chad." - Al Jazeera English. N.p., 8 July 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/haram-slit-throats-26-civilians-chad- 150708171934359.html.

8 "Cameroon: Hundreds Slaughtered by Boko Haram and Abused by Security Forces." Amnesty International. 16 Sept. 2015, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/09/cameroon- hundreds-slaughtered-by-boko-haram-and-abused-by-security-forces/.

9 Yourish, Karen, and K. K. Rebecca. "How Syrians Are Dying." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/14/world/middleeast/syria-war-deaths.html?_r=0.

10 Meyer, Paul. "A Banner Year for Coventional Arms Control? The Arms Trade Treaty and the Small Arms Challenge." Global Governance (2014): 203-212.

11 Mark Bromley, Neil Cooper, and Paul Holtom. "The UN Arms Trade Treaty: arms export controls the human security agenda and the lessons of history." International Affairs (2012): 1029-1048.

12 United Nations. "Programme of Action - Implementation Support System." Programme of Action - Implementation Support System. July 2001, http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx

13 Associated Press. Turkey and China among Major Small arms exporters: UN. Retrieved from Hurriyetdailynews. June 17 2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-and-china-among- major-small-arms-exporters un.aspx?pageID=238&nID=67890&NewsCatID=359. 20

14 Karp, A. (2011, September). Estimating Civilian Owned Firearms. Geneva : Small Arms Survey Graduate Institute of INternational and Development Studies, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf.

15 Hill, G. C. (2011, October 24). Tracing the Middle East weapons flow. Retrieved from Aljazeera, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/10/20111019152444131301.html.

16 Emmerson, B. (2014). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. Genva: Human Rights Council, https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Special-Rapporteur- Rapporteur-Emmerson-Drones-2014.pdf.

17 Nasser, T. (2014). “Modern War Crimes By The United States: Do Drone Strikes Violate International Law? Questioning The Legality Of U.S. Drone Strikes And Analyzing The United States' Response To International Reproach Based On The Realism Theory Of International Relations.” Sounthern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 24(1), 289-327. 18 Zenko, S. K. (2014). The Next Drone Wars. Foreign Affairs, 68-79, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2014-02-12/next-drone-wars. 19 Get the data: Drone Wars. (2015, September 1). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/. 20 SIegel, J. N. (2013, February 7). Pakistan Says U.S. Drone Strikes Violate its Sovereignty. NPR, http://www.npr.org/2013/02/07/171413259/pakistan-says-u-s-drone-strikes-violate-its- sovereignty. 21 Bowcott, O. (2013, March 15). US Drone Strikes in Pakistan 'carried out without government's consent'. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/us-drone-strikes- pakistan. 22 Kershner, F. A. (2011, October 29). Israeli Drone Strike Kills Militants in Southern Gaza. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/israeli-drone-strike-kills- militants-in-gaza.html. 23 Hass, A. (2014, March 01). Clearing the Fog on Israeli Drone Use in Gaza. Haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.577283. 24 Serle, A. K. (2014, May 23). Most US drone strikes in Pakistan attack houses. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/05/23/most-us-drone- strikes-in-pakistan-attack-houses/.