-6.4
.

PEFM
6OJUFE
/BUJPOT

ΕΞΖΞΗ
ΡΒ
D I S A R M A M E N T   A N D  
I N T E R N A T I O N A L   S E C U R I T Y  
COMMITTEE
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the Committee................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction to the Committee at LUMUN XI....................................................................................... 2
Topic Area A ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction to the Topic Area................................................................................................................. 4
Nuclear Disarmament ............................................................................................................................... 4
Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Major States ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Possible Solutions....................................................................................................................................... 9
Chemical and Biological Weapons ........................................................................................................ 12
Case Study: Damascus Chemical Attack .............................................................................................. 13
Cyber Warfare .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Country and Regional Bloc Stances ....................................................................................................... 18
Case Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Outer Space ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Questions a Resolution Must Answer................................................................................................... 22
Topic Area B ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Introduction to the Topic Area............................................................................................................... 25
History of the Topic ................................................................................................................................. 25
Important Issues Surrounding the Topic .............................................................................................. 26
Case Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Questions a Resolution Must Answer................................................................................................... 32
2

Introduction to the Committee and to the UN Secretariat on several

occasions, this makes DISEC one of the
The UN General Assembly is made up of main UN actors currently playing a
30 committees, 6 of which can be considerable role in the vision for global
considered as ‘the main committees’ of peace.
the GA. The first committee of the
General Assembly is the Disarmament Introduction to the Committee
and International Security Committee at LUMUN XI
(DISEC).
As LUMUN commences another decade
DISEC deals with issues regarding the of diplomacy, it builds on its prestige
promotion, establishment, and with innovation. To that end, DISEC at
subsequent maintenance of global peace LUMUN XI will be something you may
while simultaneously working to have never experienced before. While
prevent weapons proliferation. you may be familiar by the dynamics of
According to Article 26 of United the committee, it will be a thorough test
Nations Charter, DISEC’s mandate is “to of your patience, adaptability, skill and
promote the establishment and potential; the four relentless days of high
maintenance of international peace and level debate will have lasting impact on
security with the least diversion for you for years to come. Looking forward
armaments of the world’s human and to see you all amidst the chills of
economic resources.” December.

Under the UN Charter, all member states The topics are tailored to present to you
and observers of the United Nations are problems that have riddled diplomats
automatically part of the first committee since the culmination of the UN itself.
of the General Assembly, and have an However, these are problems that are
equal vote. Documents drafted by this either not addressed well, or not
committee require a simple majority to addressed at all. These are issues that
be passed. Like the other committees of frame each individual country’s foreign
the United Nations General Assembly, policy and military strategy and yet are
DISEC is unable to impose sanctions, still not solved in a codified manner.
authorize armed intervention, or pass
binding resolutions. That being said,
DISEC has submitted recommendations
to the United Nations Security Council
 3

Topic Area A

Multilateral Disarmament
4

Introduction to the Topic Area Given the absolute basic resources, a

cyber-terrorist can cause havoc and
Multilateral Disarmament quite simply evade accountability with ease. The
refers to the act of laying down arms. greatest challenge the international
Over the course of history, the world has community faces is to whether
expanded its arsenal into variety of incorporate Cyber Warfare within the
diverse fields, such as Nuclear, Chemical Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which
and Biological, Cyber Space and even currently includes land, sea and air; the
Outer Space. Multilateral Disarmament, Charter allows states to respond with
as the name suggests, urges states to proportion in another means within the
disarm all of their arsenal. armed conflict. Incorporating cyber
warfare within the Law of Armed
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conflict means granting immense power
(NPT) stands on three essential pillars: to non-state actors, given the lack of
Non-proliferation, disarmament, and accountability that surrounds this kind
use of nuclear energy for peaceful of warfare. Case studies that we will
purposes. Despite its amity, the NPT focus on include but are not limited to
comes under great criticism, with non- Russia and the Georgian War (2008),
member states such as Pakistan, India, Stuxnet, Plan X.
Iran, Israel and North Korea expanding
each of their nuclear arsenals and hence Nuclear Disarmament
worthy case studies.
Many have deemed the post-World War
The first piece of international law in era as a state of ‘Technological Boom’.
regards to chemical and biological While the term certainly sums up the
weapons originated in the Hague technological advances the world has
Conventions of Hague Conventions of made since the World War, it must not be
1899 and 1907, where it condemned the taken entirely in a positive note.
‘the use of projectiles that cause the Currently, there are numerous forms of
diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious warfare which a state can resort for ‘self-
gases’. Despite the Convention on defense’ or for the safeguarding of its
Chemical and Biological Weapons ‘national security’. Most of these are
becoming effective in 1997, there have included in the United Nations Law Of
been growing concerns in the Armed Conflict (LOAC), but there are
international community regarding the certain exceptions.
possession of these weapons by third
party actors. An interesting case study in We reside today in a world where states
this regard would be the use of chemical live in fear of one another, as well as in
warfare in Syria amidst the ongoing that of third parties. Progression in all
crisis. forms of warfare is encouraged by most
states; defense spending tops annual
Cyber Warfare is perhaps the fast spending in most of the world’s top
growing warfare in the modern world. nations. Yet nuclear arsenal production
 5

has crossed all boundaries of military Non-Nuclear-Weapons States (NNWS)

spending. The number of warheads must not import, create, or acquire any
currently possessed by Russia and the sort of nuclear weapons, and must
United states can easily annihilate the refrain from encouraging any other
entire world. Quite ironically, this has NNWS from doing the same. Any and all
also acted as a form of deterrence, since a groups of states are allowed to form
nuclear war would most likely result in a nuclear-weapon-free zones within the
mutual ensured global destruction. respective regional territories.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or Most importantly, the treaty calls for the
the NPT, was formed in the wake of the world’s only legally binding obligation
cold war arms race between the United on Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to
States and former USSR. Brought gradually decrease and subsequently
forward in 1968, and entered into force in eradicate their nuclear arsenal. Article VI
March 1970, the NPT represents ‘the only calls upon states to "to pursue
binding commitment in a multilateral negotiations in good faith on effective
treaty to the goal of disarmament by the measures relating to cessation of the
nuclear-weapon States’. The UNODA nuclear arms race at an early date and to
expands the NPT as ‘a landmark nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on
international treaty whose objective is to general and complete disarmament
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international
and weapons technology, to promote control". Later in 2000, NWS agreed on
cooperation in the peaceful uses of the 13 step commitment to accommodate
nuclear energy and to further the goal of their disarmament needs.
achieving nuclear disarmament and
general and complete disarmament.’ All State Parties to the Treaty are
obligated to facilitate and participate in
The NPT expands into three distinct yet the exchange of equipment, materials,
mutually reinforcing pillars of non- and scientific and technological
proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful information for the peaceful uses of
uses of nuclear energy. The Treaty nuclear energy. NNWS parties must
established states into two distinct accept and comply with International
groups: Nuclear-Weapons-States, and Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Non-Nuclear-Weapons-States. All states safeguards as a condition for peaceful
to have acquire any form of a nuclear nuclear co-operation. IAEA safeguards
device prior to 1st January, 1967 are are "based on an assessment of the
deemed as Nuclear-Weapons-States; the correctness and completeness of the
rest are Non-Nuclear-Weapons-States. State's declarations [to the Agency]
The three pillars of the NPT call for the concerning nuclear material and nuclear-
following: related activities." The IAEA uses
safeguard activities to verify that States
honor their commitments not to use
6

nuclear programs for nuclear weapons. and Southeast Asia. As a result, over half
The NPT encourages international co- of earth is free from nuclear weapons.
operation for peaceful uses of nuclear Calls for a Middle Eastern NWFZ have
energy, from medical diagnostics and strengthened over time, but disharmony
treatments to power production. within the Arab ranks, Iran and Israel in
particular, have prevented that from
According the aforementioned criteria happening so.
for establishing a state as NWS or
NNWS, the NPT establishes China, Case Studies
France, the Soviet Union (now Russia),
the United States and United Kingdom Case Study: Iran
as the five Nuclear Weapons States. The
NWS are prohibited to “nuclear weapons Iran is perhaps the most scrutinized
or other nuclear explosive devices" or country in terms of its nuclear program.
"not in any way to assist, encourage, or Speculation regarding Iran’s nuclear
induce" any other state from obtaining program began in the 1990s, with United
any form of a nuclear arsenal. Article II States placing its first trade embargo in
prohibits these NWS to "receive," 1995. International criticism regarding
"manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear has had its highs and lows, but the
weapons or to "seek or receive any interest in its nuclear program increased
assistance in the manufacture of nuclear exponentially in 2002 when Iran’s two
weapons". By article III these NNWS nuclear sites were exposed by an Iranian
parties consent to International Atomic resistance group. Further reports
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and suggested that Iran was producing
inspections to ensure that any nuclear enriched Uranium, which could fuel
energy under the banner of ‘peaceful nuclear reactors as well as nuclear
uses’ is not being converted to any form weapons. In response to the
nuclear weapons and/or devices. overwhelming criticism, Iran allowed
United Nations and International
The NPT has received all sorts of Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to
criticism over time, since countries like examine its nuclear program. The
Pakistan, India and North Korea were inspectors believed that Iran had in fact
able to obtain nuclear weapons much been obscuring much of its nuclear
after the establishment of the Treaty. In program, to which Iran responded by
wake of the NPT’s deficiencies, several agreeing to stop Uranium enrichment.
states have come together to form
regional nuclear free zones known as Iran broke the agreement in less than a
Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ). year, with the newly elected president,
Much as the name suggests, NWFZ are Mahmoud Ahmadinjad recommenced
free of any form of nuclear weapons in Iran’s Isfahan power plant (closed since
their territorial soil, waters, or space. 2004 after an agreement with EU). Half a
Three NWFZ currently exist in the dozen broken Security Council
world: Latin America, the South Pacific, resolutions later (1696, 1737, 1747, 1803,
 7

amongst others), the situation is pretty officials have repeatedly stated that
much the same. Embargos and sanctions “Israel would not be the first to introduce
on Iran have been worsened, but it still nuclear weapons to the Middle East”.
remains persistent. To that end, Iran’s Speculation suggests that this statement
nuclear program has developed issues a direct warning to Iran, and
significantly in that time period. therefore exacerbating the situation. In
spite of overwhelming international
Tehran’s long standing argument pressure, Israel adheres to its decision of
regarding its nuclear program is benign not signing the NPT, stating that to do so
and completely legal according to its would be against its ‘national security’,
membership of the nuclear Non- once again raising concerns about the
Proliferation Treaty, which allows it to possibility of a shrouded nuclear arsenal.
“develop nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes”. Despite Iran’s claims, the Experts argue that the reason behind the
United States leads the counterargument general acceptance regarding Israel’s
that Iran has no need for nuclear energy. nuclear program, compared to that of
While extremists might deem this as Iran’s, might its timing. During the 25
another west propaganda, Iran boasts year window between the 1945
significant oil and gas reserves which detonation of the first nuclear weapon by
would serve as much cheaper source of the United States and the establishment
energy. Thus, the United States accuses of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty,
Iran of using its civilian energy program Israel managed to acquire nuclear
to camouflage its nuclear weapon weapons.
production. In June 2003, U.S. President
George W. reiterated his zero tolerance The Israeli nuclear program was fuelled
for Iran’s nuclear program by stating that by the obsessive fear that gripped the
the United States and its allies "will not nation's founding Prime Minister, David
tolerate the construction of a nuclear Ben-Gurion. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli
weapon" in Iran. His successor has taken war, in which the new country fought off
an identical stance. Egyptian and Jordanian armies, Ben-
Gurion decided that Israel could survive
Case Study: Israel only if it had a gigantic military deterrent
-- nuclear weapons.
One of the four countries to have not
signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Back in the mid-19th century, Israel was
Treaty, Israel is speculated to be the sixth the polar opposite of the state it is now. It
country to have obtained nuclear did not boast the financial and military
weapons. Israel adapts the rare stance of firepower it has now, nor did it enjoy the
‘nuclear ambiguity’, where it refuses to modern-day overwhelming support
comment on its nuclear status. To that from the US and the west. How Israel
end, Israel has never declared possessing managed to compete with the top guns
nuclear weapons. However, Israeli in the nuclear field is an inspiring tale;
8

one that explains both the initial US comply with the same. China has played
reluctance and the subsequent a vital role in the establishment of
compliance, but that tale goes beyond the Pakistan’s nuclear program from its
scope of this study guide. onset; the Chinese offered all sorts of
nuclear expertise to Pakistan over years.
Recent developments Recently, reports suggest that China
might have helped Pakistan obtain a new
Nuclear weapon fuel consists of either nuclear warhead in addition to the
enriched uranium or plutonium. These Chagai-1 that it already possessed, and
materials are "fissile" because they are has also happed the Khusab power plant
unstable and fission, or split, when increase its Uranium enrichment
struck by neutrons. Both can fuel a capabilities.
nuclear bomb or be used as fuel in a
nuclear power reactor. However, India
producing nuclear fuel, regardless of its
ultimate use, is a difficult task. India acquired nuclear weapons around
the same time as Pakistan. India believes
that it reserves the right to possess
nuclear weapons as long as other nations
in the world possess them. India’s
nuclear arsenal is estimated to be around
a hundred and fifty warheads, although
it has consistently stressed that it believes
in a no first use policy.

Democratic People’s Republic of

North Korea (D.P.R.K)

North Korea is the only state to have ever

Major States withdrawn from the NPT. In late 2002,
the US accused North Korea of enriching
Pakistan uranium for a possible nuclear arms
program. North Korea reacted by
Pakistan’s nuclear program began in the withdrawing from the Treaty in January
1970s, mainly because of its long sought 2003, bringing its 18-year stint in the NPT
conflict with India. Pakistan uses to an end. Two years later, North Korea
Uranium for both peaceful purposes as publicly admitted to possessing nuclear
well as to produce nuclear weapons, weapons. Six Party talks were held to
albeit the former only constitutes of resolve North Korea’s concerns, but they
2.34% of Pakistan’s electrical production. were of little help. North Korea
Pakistan’s longstanding eventually pulled out of the talks, and
counterargument for not signing the stated that it had ‘manufactured nuclear
NPT remains India’s reluctance to arms for self-defense to cope with the
 9

Bush administration’s evermore Ukrainian nuclear warheads that were

undisguised policy to isolate North transferred to Russia for dismantlement.
Korea’. To that end, the United States made
available substantial resources and
In September 2005, it was agreed that technical assistance to aid the elimination
North Korea would terminate all of its of Ukraine’s missiles and silos, bombers
nuclear arms program, and rejoin the and related infrastructure.
NPT on the condition that nuclear power
plants be replaced by light water Without these bold steps, Ukraine would
reactors. A year later of failed have been the third largest nuclear-
negotiations later, the North Korean armed state with 176 long-range ballistic
foreign minister announced that his missiles and 42 strategic bombers armed
country was planning to conduct a with more than 1,800 nuclear warheads,
nuclear test "in the future”. The and a potential source of instability in the
following week, the United States post-Soviet era. The denuclearization of
Geological Survey detected a magnitude Ukraine was—and still is—in the
4.3 seismic event 70 km (43 mi) north of security interests of Ukraine, Russia,
Kimchaek, North Korea (thus indicating Europe, and the entire international
a nuclear test). The North Korean community.
government announced shortly
afterward that they had completed a Nevertheless, Russia’s actions clearly
successful underground test of a nuclear undermine the security assurances of the
fission device. Budapest Memorandum and, unless
Russia returns its troops to their home
Russian Federation bases and refrains from annexing
Crimea, they will have a chilling effect on
The Russian Federation currently boasts efforts to assure nonnuclear weapons
the biggest nuclear warhead, along with states that their security will not be
USA. However, Russian has recently threatened by NPT nuclear weapon
come under stern criticism for its action states.
in the Crimean crisis. Russia’s actions to
occupy Crimea are not only inconsistent Possible Solutions
with international law, but also post a
direct threat to the guarantees given to The New START Treaty
Ukraine by Russia in 1994 to help
Ukraine clear its non-nuclear status and “The New START Treaty responsibly
bring it to the NPT. According to the reduces the number of nuclear weapons
agreement, Russia agreed to provide and launchers that the United States and
Ukraine with fuel rods for Ukrainian Russia deploy, while fully maintaining
nuclear reactors containing low enriched America’s nuclear deterrent.” –
uranium equivalent to the highly President Barack Obama
enriched uranium removed from the
10

The New Strategic Arms Reduction The origin of the proposal can be traced
Treaty is an agreement between the back to December 1993, where UN
United States of America and the Russian General Assembly adopted resolution
Federation signed on April 2010 in 48/75 which recommended the
Prague, and entered into force on negotiation of a “a non-discriminatory,
February 2011. Under terms of the treaty multilateral, and internationally and
the number of strategic nuclear missile effectively verifiable treaty banning the
launchers will be reduced by half. The production of fissile material for nuclear
Treaty proposed a revised inspection weapons and/or other nuclear explosive
and verification regime to be established, devices.” This treaty is now known as the
which would replace the then-existing Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Since
mechanism created under the Strategic then, the endorsement of the FMCT
Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). negotiations in the CD have been
However, it does not limit the number of endorsed by the numerous NPT Review
operationally inactive stockpiled nuclear Conferences. Quite notably, at the NPT
warheads that remain in both the conference in 2000, the negotiation of the
Russian and American inventories. FMCT was deemed as one the 13
Under this treaty, both the United States practical steps towards disarmament.
and the Russian Federation are obliged
to meet the Treaty’s central limit on While the general lauded by all states,
strategic arms by February 5, 2018, which there are certain contentious issues. The
is seven years from the day the New issue of existing stockpiles has always
START entered into force. The Treaty’s been a problem. NWS unsurprising favor
duration is ten years, with a possible a treaty which only limit the future
extension of no more than ten years. production of these fissile materials, but
other states, most notably the ones
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty – belonging to the Non-Aligned
Conference of Disarmament Movement, believe that already existing
fissile stockpiles must be address
Formation of nuclear weapons require a simultaneously. If the latter is
variety of radioactive substances, such as incorporated into the Treaty, nuclear
enriched uranium, neptunium, and weapon states would have destroy their
curium. While all these substances are existing stocks of fissile material, which
required for the efficiency of a nuclear could never be used for nuclear weapons
weapon, they are useless without fissile again. To that end, many feel that
materials - the key ingredient during the ‘mechanisms for the management of
production of nuclear weapons. Since the fissile material’ should also be included
formation for the NPT, calls for banning in the FMCT.
fissile material have increased drastically
over the years – the issue is now the UN The second contentious issue is the idea
agenda for quite some time, and is tabled to expand the Treaty to include other
on the Conference of Disarmament (CD) elements used in nuclear weapon
for many years. production. This would drastically limit
 11

the power of these nuclear weapons. For nuclear weapons countries freeze the
instance, while the FMCT would most total number of warheads in their
certainly ban production of highly arsenals and commit to participate in
enriched uranium and plutonium, if it multilateral negotiations for
could also incorporate and limit the proportionate reductions of stockpiles
production of tritium, states would be (as outlined in Phase 2).
unable to replace tritium in their already Phase 2 (2014-2018)
existing nuclear devices (it has a half-life
of 12 years), hence rendering them Through a multilateral framework, the
useless. Similarly, other substances, such United States and Russia reduce their
as depleted uranium, neptunium, nuclear arsenals to 500 total warheads
natural uranium, plutonium 240 and 242, each by 2021 – as other nuclear weapons
americium, curium and californium, countries maintain a cap on their
though not fissile, could be incorporated stockpiles until 2018 and commit to a
to aid the removal of existing stockpiles. proportionate reductions until 2021. A
rigorous and comprehensive verification
Global Zero Action Plan and enforcement system is implemented,
including no-notice, on-site inspections,
‘The Global Zero Action Plan calls for the and strengthened safeguards on the
United States and Russia – who hold civilian nuclear fuel cycle to prevent
more than 90% of the world’s nuclear diversion of materials to build weapons.
weapons – to negotiate deep cuts in their
arsenals, followed by international Phase 3 (2019-2023)
negotiations to eliminate all nuclear
weapons by 2030.’ The world’s nuclear-capable countries
negotiate and sign a Global Zero Accord:
The Global Zero Action is a phased a legally binding international
elimination plan of verified elimination agreement for the phased, verified,
of all nuclear weapons by the year 2030. proportionate reduction of all nuclear
The action plan is divided into four arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030.
phases, the key elements of which are the
following: Phase 4 (2024-2030)

Phase 1 (2010 – 2013) The phased, verified, proportionate

dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals to
Following the conclusion of a START zero total warheads is complete by 2030.
replacement accord, negotiate a bilateral The comprehensive verification and
accord for the U.S. and Russia to reduce enforcement system prohibiting the
to 1,000 total warheads each (to be development and possession of nuclear
implemented by 2018). Earlier if possible, weapons is in place to ensure that the
but not later than the ratification of the world is never again threatened by
U.S.-Russia bilateral accord, all other nuclear weapons.
12

Many other states are accused of secretly

Chemical and Biological hoarding stockpiles, which will be one of
the main objectives of the committee, to
Weapons put all kinds of stockpiling to an end.
The use of Chemical and Biological
Recent Developments
Weapons dates back to the times of sticks
and stones, when the Greeks were
The Seventh Review Conference of the
suspected of coating the swords and
States Parties to the Convention on the
spears in fatal substances. Centuries
Prohibition of the Development,
later, The Hague Conventions were the
Production, and Stockpiling of
first to prohibit the use of these weapons
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
(Geneva Protocol?). The United States
Weapons and on Their Destruction was a
and the United Kingdom initiated a joint
three week session that resulted in the
Biological weapons program in 1941,
adoption of a Final Document, this
although the latter’s biological weapons
document includes a declaration on the
program was shut down three decades
articles of the convention and a series of
later under Richard Dixon, with the UK
decisions and recommendations. These
destroying all of its stockpiles after
include the usual condemning of the use
signing the Biological Weapons
of biological and Toxic weapons and the
Convention.
importance of the safety of the human,
plant and animal populations of the
The introduction of Chemical and
world, it also understands how vital it is
Biological Weapons Conventions aims to
to get more countries to become state
tackle the threat posed by the two
parties to the BWC and thus end the
weapons of mass destruction, although
stockpiling of Biological Weapons, the
the latter is often criticized for lacking a
importance of such conferences and
formal verification mechanism, which
whether any more should take place can
explains the reluctance of over 20 states
also be touched upon in the committee
to not sign the Biological Weapons
and what these conferences aims and
Convention; the number lies around four
objectives should be.
for the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In 1994, the creation of VERTEX was
The world’s most committed and
proposed by a number of states to form a
fanatical radical organization has only
legally binding verification and
recently gone by its current name, after
implementation mechanism; the talks
the unrecognized Islamic State in Iraq
dissolved in 2001 subsequent to the
and al-Sham (ISIS) was proclaimed in
United States withdrawing its support.
April last year. Currently, ISIS
The sourness amongst the Middle
strongholds extend from Raqqa in
Eastern ranks does little to help the cause
northern Syria all the way down to the
of the two conventions;; Israel’s
outskirts of Baghdad – a stretch of more
unwillingness to sign the BWC is a major
than 500 km, though the group doesn’t
cause of concern for many Arab states.
have comprehensive oversight of the
 13

roads and settlements between them. animals. The document states that, “The
The speed with which the Islamist group advantage of biological weapons is that
is closing in on Baghdad can be they do not cost a lot of money, while the
compared – if not exceeds – the pace of human casualties can be huge.”
the 2003 invasion. Unlike the US and
allies, though, ISIS does not have a Case Study: Damascus
capability of launching destructive air
strikes, however in its latest offensives
Chemical Attack
the group has reportedly managed to
On August 21, 2013, in midst the Syrian
significantly boost its military power
civil war, several of the opposition
capturing dozens of US-made armored
control areas around Damascus were
vehicles and other heavy weaponry from
stuck by sarin containing rockets.
the retreating Iraqi military.
Estimates say between 800 to 1500 people
sustained fatal injuries and/or died. In
Recently, many reports have suggested
response to the attack, the UN
that ISIS might have established
dispatched investigators to scrutinize the
Biological weapons as a significant part
attack site, who later confirmed the sarin
of their agenda. In August 2014, Abu Ali,
was indeed used in the attack. The report
a commander of a moderate Syrian rebel
also stated that the quality (purity) of the
group in northern Syria, found a laptop
sarin gas was significantly high, with the
from an ISIS hideout. He claimed that the
Syrian government and the rebel groups
fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and
both blaming each other for the attacks.
al-Sham (ISIS), which have since
While many believed that the attack was
rebranded themselves as the Islamic
indeed the Assad regime’s work, no
State, all fled before he and his men
conclusive evidence was found. In the
attacked the building. The attack
following September, the Syrian
occurred in January in a village in the
government agreed to destroy its
Syrian province of Idlib, close to the
chemical stockpiles, and join the
border with Turkey, as part of a larger
Chemical Weapons Convention.
anti-ISIS offensive occurring at the time.
"We found the laptop and the power
In the September Switzerland talks, the
cord in a room," he continued, "I took it
United States and Russia orchestrated a
with me. But I have no clue if it still
framework by which Syria would
works or if it contains anything
destroy its chemical weapons. Under the
interesting.” The laptop was taken into
agreement, Syria was to submit a
investigation, when Harald Doornbos
comprehensive list of all its stockpiles
and Jenan Moussa from Foreign Policy
within a week, and international
managed to scrutinize it. Amongst other
inspectors would be dispatched no later
things, the laptop contained a nineteen
than the following November.
page Arabic document about creating
Furthermore, to achieve accountability
biological weapons and how to
for their chemical weapons, the Syrians
weaponize bubonic plague from infected
14

must provide the OPCW, the UN, and and defensive use of cyber weapons.
other supporting personnel with the Aside from a number of minor
immediate and unfettered right to scrimmages and exchanges, a high scale,
inspect any and all sites in Syria. The state-sponsored coordinated attack is yet
extraordinary procedures to be proposed to be seen.
by the United States and the Russian
Federation for adoption by the OPCW The most dreading aspect of Cyber
Executive Council and reinforced by a warfare is perhaps the failure of the
UN Security Council resolution, should international community to thus far
include a mechanism to ensure this right. agree on a set of principles, rules and
In April 2014, Syria missed its deadline norms which would govern the cyber
for destroying its stockpiles, but later space. The major bone of contention,
destroyed over 93% of its chemical however, remains whether Cyber
arsenal. warfare should be classified under the
Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The
Cyber Warfare Law of Armed Conflict (also referred to
as ‘LOAC’ and ‘laws of war’) originated
The 21st century has brought with itself in the mid-19th century; since their early
another era of modern combat as the beginnings, these laws applied primarily
information age has revolutionized to interstate conflict as carried out by
warfare. Cyber-attacks refers to uniformed armed forces between two or
computer-to-computer attacks that more states. The principles, rules, and
undermine the confidentiality, integrity, norms that guide today’s LOAC can be
or availability of a computer or found in a variety of sources: customary
information resident on it. Around the law, international treaties, judicial
world, cyberspace has become an decisions, legal philosophers, and
increasingly important part of the military manuals.
political, economic and military
infrastructure. Subsequently, experts Three important LOAC principles
have cyber warfare as the next frontier of govern armed conflict—military
combat – beyond land, sea, air or space, necessity, distinction, and
as technology now permits hackers, proportionality:
irrespective of state support, to wage a
new kind of war that involves computer Military Necessity: Military necessity
sabotage. requires combat forces to engage in only
those acts necessary to accomplish a
Cyberspace has been established as the legitimate military objective. Attacks
new battleground. After land, sea, air shall be limited strictly to military
and space, military organizations, state objectives. In applying military necessity
and non-state actors are on the brink of to targeting, the rule generally means the
implementing what will become the new United States Military may target those
hybrid wars. However, we cannot facilities, equipment, and forces which, if
predict what lies ahead for the offensive destroyed, would lead as quickly as
 15

possible to the enemy’s partial or force’ that violates their territorial

complete submission. Example: integrity. The subsequent response
Operation Desert Storm, Iraq. might be through any of the three
frontiers of combat. In the case of cyber
Distinction: warfare, however, it is extremely
Distinction means discriminating difficult to determine if an attack in
between lawful combatant targets and cyberspace is equal to an ‘act of force’
noncombatant targets such as civilians, against a state has violated its territorial
civilian property, POWs, and wounded integrity and if it warrants a response
personnel who are out of combat. The through conventional warfare.
central idea of distinction is to only
engage valid military targets. An Many call for the UN body of law, “jus
indiscriminate attack is one that strikes ad bellum”, to be applied to cyberspace.
military objectives and civilians or Jus ad bellum refer to the laws governing
civilian objects without distinction. the decision of a state to resort to the use
of force, subject to a variety of reasons.
Proportionality: These laws aid the victim nation in
Proportionality prohibits the use of any identifying whether the incident justifies
kind or degree of force that exceeds that engaging in armed conflict or triggers the
needed to accomplish the military provisions of the UN Charter on a
objective. Proportionality compares the nation’s right to use force in self-defense
military advantage gained to the harm (the right of self-defense applies whether
inflicted while gaining this advantage. the attacker is a State actor or a non-State
Proportionality requires a balancing test actor). The provisions of the UN Charter
between the concrete and direct military provide the legal framework for the “Jus
advantage anticipated by attacking a ad bellum” and decisions on the use of
legitimate military target and the force in self-defense. To trigger the right
expected incidental civilian injury or of self-defense, national authorities
damage. Under this balancing test, would need to decide if a cyber-exploit
excessive incidental losses are constituted an armed attack. A cyber
prohibited. exploit that was a violation of
sovereignty is by itself insufficient,
While some states believe that if cyber where as an exploit that did not directly
warfare is approached as the use of cause substantial death or physical
technology to gain a military advantage, destruction would most likely not
then the Law of Armed Conflict can qualify as an armed attack.
indeed be applied to cyber warfare. To Subsequently, the applications of these
that end, the distinctive nature of this provisions of the UN remain highly
kind of warfare raises a variety of ambiguous, as there no clear framework
questions with disputed responses. as to when an attack classifies as an
The Law of Armed Conflict allows states armed attack. Moreover, if Cyber
to retaliate if they are subject to an ‘act of Warfare is classified under LOAC, it
16

would allow nations to use it as a means field can be changed [spoofed] by an

of conventional warfare. However, given attacker to make it seem like it's coming
the magnitude of damage that can be from someplace it's not," says Sami
caused and the risk that comes with it, Saydjari, president of the cyber-security
many argue it should be classified as a consultancy Cyber Defense Agency.
Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) Cyber attackers use viruses, worms and
instead. other malware to take control of Internet
servers or even personal computers,
Secondly, classifying cyber warfare into creating a network of "zombie"
the LOAC would greatly undermine the computers (also called botnets) under
role of non-state actors. Unlike their control that they can use to launch
conventional weapons, cyber weapons their attacks. As a result, an attack may
are so ready available and inexpensive, appear to come from a particular server
that the role of non-state actors, with or or computer, but this does not mean the
without state support is highly attack originated at that device. One of
significant. Moreover, even individuals the primary methods of creating zombies
acting by their own accords can acquire is by getting computer users to
and use cyber weapons to attack unwittingly infect their computers by
computer systems or networks of a opening e-mails and Web pages
nation-state. Even in non-government containing malware. In the case of RSA
hands, these weapons include some that hackers used "spear phishing" e-mails to
are as capable of doing great harm as trip up someone within the company.
those available to governments. Thus, The offending e-mail purported to be a
the distinction between state, non-state, document about staff hiring issues and
individual hackers is unclear. had been caught by the company's spam
filter. The employee opened the e-mail,
Another problem with cyber warfare is thinking it had been erroneously
the inability to trace the aggressor. One quarantined by the filter. The email
common practice that attackers employ actually contained an Excel document
to evade detection is to break into poorly that, once opened, installed malware on
secured computers and use those the employee's computer and from there
hijacked systems as proxies through spread to other computers within the
which they can launch and route attacks company.
worldwide. Although such attacks are an
international problem, there is no To make matter worse, even cyber
international response, which frustrates espionage and crime is problematic to
local law enforcement seeking categorize. Cyber conflict today almost
cooperation from countries where these exclusively involves crime and
proxy servers typically reside; thus espionage. Crime is not an act of war, nor
making the job of finding the source a is espionage. Even reconnaissance in
tedious task. Each data packet sent over preparation for later conflict is not an act
the Internet contains information about of war. The individuals and nations that
its source and its destination. "The source engage in these activities do not think of
 17

themselves as engaging in warfare as relying on existing LOAC norms is

international law defines it, and a lack of understandable. After all, most of the
international norms for responsible international agreements and practices
behavior in cyber space reinforces the of nation-states that comprise LOAC
perception that this is not warfare. The predate the cyber era. Indeed, many
current LOAC presumes that a clear observers believe the need for a new
distinction can be drawn between the use legal regime or an international treaty
of force and espionage, where espionage designed for cyber war is urgent. Jeffrey
is openly not a use of force. However, the Addicott, a highly respected cyber-law
distinction between cyber-attack and authority, asserts that “international
cyber exploitation may be very hard to laws associated with the use of force are
draw from a technical standpoint, and woefully inadequate in terms of
may lie primarily in the intent of the user, addressing the threat of cyber warfare.”
which is, of course, very difficult to However, opponents argue that the time
determine. All in all, there may be cases for an international treaty is not ripe and
in which espionage can be deemed as an it might not even be required; they argue
act of cyber warfare and/or an act of that while there is certainly room for
force, which would allow the victim state improvement in some areas, the basic
to respond through cyber warfare itself, tenets of LOAC are sufficient to address
or even by conventional warfare. the most important issues of cyber war.

Many believe that for a cyber-attack to As cyber warfare moves to the forefront
classify as an ‘act of force’, or ‘cyber war’, of more government agendas, more
it must take place alongside actual questions arise as to how the Law of
military operations. Others disagree; Armed Conflict and the Geneva
they argue that cyber-attacks can be Convention apply to cyberspace. The
deemed as acts of war regardless of the answers are likely to be disputed in two
use of conventional warfare. For others, sides: those who see cyber warfare as
the strongest definition of cyber war fitting neatly under existing LOAC (as
requires that cyber attacks cause well as under the UN charter), and on the
widespread harm, rather than mere other side, those who see the need for an
inconvenience. To that end, delegates entirely new set of international laws and
need to keep in mind that agreement on treaties to govern this intimidating form
a definition is essential, because under of warfare, or perhaps classifying it as a
international law, a country that Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD).
considers itself the victim of an act of war Nevertheless, the committee needs to
has the right to self-defense—with consider all possibilities when deciding
conventional military means and that upon the appropriate course of action
requires clear rules of engagement. that needs to be taken to address the
Given the number of problems topic.
associated with applying LOAC to cyber
war, discomfort among cyber strategists
18

Country and Regional Bloc response China has accused the US of

fomenting cyber- warfare.
Stances
India
China
Cyber-attacks pose more than a
Chinese cyber-warfare is a growing issue
theoretical challenge to the Indian
that leaves the United States vulnerable
government’s day-to- day national
in a very serious way. Not only must the
security agenda due to the intrusions and
US face the fact that it is beholden to
web defacements experienced after New
Chinese manufacturing and the growing
Delhi’s nuclear weapons test and in the
might of Chinese consumers, but it must
confrontation with Pakistan over
now concede that its days as the world’s
Kashmir. To further augment its cyber
only cyber superpower might be
warfare doctrine, India published a
numbered. In 2003 the ‘then-director of
comprehensive ten year IT road map. In
the PLA’s electronic warfare department,
the framework of the roadmap, the
Dai Qingmin, proposed a comprehensive
government has granted permission for
information warfare effort, including
closer government/industry cooperation
cyber-attack, electronic attack and
to leverage the output of India’s world-
coordinated kinetic attacks in military
class IT software industry. In addition, a
operations’. A Northrop Grumman
new National Defense University and
report from March had a conclusion
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) have
about the ability of China to disrupt the
been established. According to
US military if there was a conflict over
journalistic accounts, the armed forces
Taiwan. This growing evidence is both
plan to establish an information warfare
intimidating and incredibly fascinating.
agency within the DIA with
The vast majority of the attacks over the
responsibility for cyber war,
last year have been “straightforward”
psychological operations, and
zero-day exploits. The sheer amount of
electromagnetic and sound wave
man power available to the Chinese
technologies.
appears to be the issue at hand. Even if
most of the attempts at infiltrating
United States of America:
security networks fail, the occasional
breakthrough is enough to potentially
Plan X:
severely compromise the US. While most
of the detected attacks are aimed at
The Pentagon has always been secretive
gathering information (espionage), this
about its desire and ability to carry out
is a clear indication that China cannot be
offensive cyberwarfare. Now, Plan X
ignored. In January 2010 Google accused
makes it clear that offensive cyber-
China of facilitating hostile attacks on its
attacks will be in the Pentagon playbook.
information systems leading to a high-
The same Pentagon futurologists who
level diplomatic row with the US. In
helped create the Internet are about to
begin a new era of cyber warfare. For
 19

years, the Pentagon has been open and Case Studies

adamant about the nation's need to
defend itself against cyber-attack, but its Case Study: South Ossetian war of
ability and desire to attack enemies with 2008
cyber weapons has been cloaked in
mystery. Plan X is an effort to improve
In the summer of 2008, many days prior
the offensive cyber-warfare capabilities
to Russia’s military invasion of Georgia,
“needed to dominate the cyber battle
cyber attacks began on its websites and
space,” according to an announcement
network infrastructure. These attacks
for the workshop. The relatively public
effectively disabled Georgia’s web-based
message is a first for the Pentagon. For
communication with the outside world
one, it shows that the
and made it very difficult to offer the
global media its perspective on the
Pentagon is now essentially treating its
conflict. According to reports, attacks
preparations for cyberwar the same way
were “well-coordinated with what
it treats its preparations for any potential
Russian troops were doing on the
conventional war. Just as it takes bids
ground” and lasted through the duration
from aerospace companies to develop
of the 2008 Russian- Georgian conflict.
new jet fighters or helicopters, Plan X
The attacks share remarkable similarities
will look at bids from groups that can
with the cyber attacks on Estonia the
help it plan for cyber warfare and expand
previous year. Government, bank,
technologies. Moreover, it opens a
business, and media websites suffered
window into the highly secretive world
worst. To raise international awareness
of offensive cyber warfare.
about the attack, Georgia had to work
around its Internet blackout to plead for
Russia international support and assistance.
Attackers even targeted Russian media
Russia’s armed forces, collaborating with outlets that provided a more balanced,
experts in the IT sector and academic occasionally pro-Georgian take on the
community, have developed a robust war.
cyber warfare doctrine. Currently,
Russia is one of the few countries to be Post war reports by Microsoft and Oracle
accused of committing cyber attacks on indicated that much of the work was
other states, most notably during the done by expert hackers who flooded the
South Ossetian war of 2008. websites and increased the traffic on
Georgian servers; hence making
communication difficult. There was no
conclusive evidence that this was
sanctioned by the Russian government,
again highlights one of the main
problems of cyber warfare, which is the
20

inability to trace the aggressor, as well oil refineries, at pipelines–and, yes, in

the substantial role of third party actors. nuclear power plants. These PLCs are
While the damage done in this case was often controlled by computers, and
minimal, cyber attacks do have the Stuxnet looks for Siemens SIMATIC
potential to target bank systems and WinCC/Step 7 controller software.
transportation networks, making If it doesn’t find one, it does nothing. If it
accountability very important. does, it infects it using yet another
unknown and unpatched vulnerability,
Case Study: Stuxnet this one in the controller software. Then
it reads and changes particular bits of
Through the use of thumb drives in data in the controlled PLCs. It’s
computers that were not connected to the impossible to predict the effects of this
Internet, a malicious software program without knowing what the PLC is doing
known as Stuxnet infected computer and how it is programmed, and that
systems that were used to control the programming can be unique based on
functioning of a nuclear power plant. the application.”
Once inside the system, Stuxnet had the
ability to degrade or destroy the software Different variants of Stuxnet targeted
on which it operated. Although early five Iranian organizations, with the
reports focused on the impact on probable target widely suspected to be
facilities in Iran, researchers discovered uranium enrichment infrastructure in
that the program had spread throughout Iran; Symantec noted in August 2010 that
multiple countries worldwide. From the 60% of the infected computers
perspective of many national security worldwide were in Iran. The Iranian
and technology observers, the nuclear program, which uses embargoed
emergence of the Stuxnet worm is the Siemens equipment procured secretly,
type of risk that threatens to cause harm was damaged by Stuxnet. Kaspersky Lab
to many activities deemed critical to the concluded that the sophisticated attack
basic functioning of modern society. The could only have been conducted "with
Stuxnet worm aims directly at a nation’s nation-state support". This was further
infrastructure. supported by the F-Secure's chief
researcher Mikko Hyppönen who
Bruce Schneier, a security technologist at commented in a Stuxnet FAQ. Unlike
BT, provides a useful explanation most malware, Stuxnet does little harm
regarding the nature of the virus: “What to computers and networks that do not
Stuxnet looks for is a particular model of meet specific configuration
Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) requirements. The United States and
made by Siemens (the press often refers Israel have been accused of the attack;
to these as SCADA systems, which is however officials disregard these
technically incorrect). These are small accusations, but simultaneously applaud
embedded industrial control systems the results.
that run all sorts of automated processes:
on factory floors, in chemical plants, in
 21

Outer Space (Israel, United States).” In addition a

second resolution on transparency and
Outer Space Treaty confidence-building measures in outer
space activities “was adopted by a
recorded vote of 183 in favor to none
In 1967, the GA adopted the Treaty on
against, with 1 abstention (United
Principles Governing the Activities of
States).”
States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, including the Moon and
Currently, there are about 125 countries
Other Celestial Bodies, which is simply
in the world that are in some form or
referred to as the Outer Space Treaty.
another engaged in space activities.
This treaty prohibits the placement of
While the USA and Russia can be
nuclear weapons and other weapons of
claimed leaders with France, China and
mass destruction in outer space (such as
Japan are following close by newly
biological and chemical weapons). It
industrialized countries like Pakistan,
does not however, place any restrictions
India and Argentina have also started
on basing conventional weapons there.
actively injecting into their research and
As of October 2011, 100 UN member
development programs. Many of these
states have ratified this treaty, and 26
nations are engaged in developed
states have signed but not ratified it. 60
programs or programs of creation and
states have never signed it.
utilization of space technologies for
information support of weapon systems.
This treaty however does not regulate
The issue of transparency is thus
Anti- Satellite Weapons (ASAT) which is
especially important for less-developed
generally used to destroy satellites for
countries, who do not have the
strategic military purposes. The use of
capabilities to participate in space
ASAT has the ability to create a trigger
exploration and therefore have no way of
for two or more parties involved in a
monitoring the actions of more
conflict or create ramifications for parties
developed countries. In the resolution on
already involved in a conflict. This treaty
that topic, the GA called on the UN
also does not prohibit the launching of
Secretary-General to establish an
nuclear weapons from earth into space
international working group with
for the purposes of destroying incoming
“equitable geographic representation” to
missiles.
make recommendations on how the
countries that are active in outer space
“Preventing an Arms Race in Outer
can be encouraged to report more fully
Space” has become a regular item on the
on their activities.
GA’s agenda, and at least one resolution
per year has been passed on the topic in
recent years. In 2010, the resolution “was Asia’s Space Race
passed by a recorded vote of 178 in favor
to none against, with 2 abstentions Among the increasing number of
countries who are investing heavily in
22

space research and development Questions a Resolution Must

programs include mostly Asian
countries. While China has banned
Answer
weapons in outer space they have
What kind of mechanisms should
developed anti-satellite and manned
space flight capabilities. Japan has for the implemented in order to
ensure transparency?
long time continued to possess the most
sophisticated equipment and programs How can the international
in the region. In 2008, the Japanese community strengthen the
parliament also lifted their ban on the use current ban of the proliferation of
of space for defense purposes. This opens biological weapons?
door for pre-emptive attacks once again, How can the United Nations
and increases volatility in space for effectively regulate and verify the
present parties. India’s space program is regulation of chemical and
also adopting a more militaristic biological weapons while still
approach and orientation, doing so by, upholding the values of the UN
building satellites for reconnaissance, Charter, especially the implicit
intelligence and navigation purposes right to sovereignty?
with potential applications for missile Current regulatory measures deal
defense and retaliatory capabilities. strictly with national entities and
their derivatives. How can the
South Korea’s space program may be a United Nations extend current
latecomer in global dynamics, but has and future measures towards sub-
come about with great purposes and has national or otherwise non-state
been developed mainly in cooperation actors (i.e. terrorist organizations)
with other states and spurred in part and prevent these actors from
based on the need for surveillance of acquiring and/or using such
North Korea’s missile activity and other weapons?
military developments. South Korea is What should countries do in order
incorporating its space program for to prepare in the event of a
active defense purpose in the region; biological attack? What can the
however this does not mean that they individual countries do in
may not develop pre-emptive strike response to a biological attack
capability while bordering North Korea against a neighboring or allied
with increasing tensions every day and country? How should the
decreasing chances of negotiations. international community act in
instance of a biological attack?
With about a dozen more states in Asia Should the international
incorporating space programs Asia has community focus on preventing a
now become the new epicenter of space biological terrorist attack or
activity. deterring terrorists from using
biological weaponry? Or both?
 23

How can cyber warfare be How can countries better defend

defined? How can acts of cyber against and respond to cyber-
warfare be differentiated from attack initiated by
those of cybercrime and nongovernmental actors. Are host
espionage? countries responsible for attacks
If an international treaty initiated within their borders?
governing cyberspace is to be Should state work to crack down
formulated, what will be its on domestic-based cyber
salient features? How will it differ attackers? Do victim states have
and improve on the existing legal the authority to attack foreign-
framework? based cyber intruders without
If cyber war is to be restricted, official consent?
what will be the terms of What can be done to ensure that
disarmament and the Moon and other celestial
nonproliferation? How might the bodies do not become new
international community go about locations of conflict?
disarming countries with existing Does there lie a need for a new
cyber operations? Outer Space Treaty? If not how
can the existing mechanism be
What can to the international
enhanced?
community do to make cyber-
Should conventional weapons
attack more transparent? Is (like nuclear and other weapons
accountability possible within the of mass destruction, which are
realm of digital combat? banned by the Outer Space
Is cyber war compatibility with Treaty), be completely banned
previous deterrence models? from outer space, or should they
What should be done to limit state simply be limited? If they should
sponsored cyber-attacks? Should be limited how should they be
punitive measures be imposed, regulated?
should there be more proactive
controls, or both?
24

Topic Area B

Right of Hot Pursuit

 25

Introduction to the Topic Area the territorial waters of any other state,
the right of hot pursuit expires. The
Article two of the UN Charter reaffirms possible expansion of the right of hot
the former, stating that, “Nothing pursuit to land, and its incorporation
contained in the present Charter shall within the existing laws and norms of
authorize the United Nations to territorial integrity lies upon DISEC to
intervene in matters which are decide.
essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state”. Several non- History of the Topic
state actors, such as high-profile
criminals and terrorists have taken The United Nations was established with
advantage of these territorial lines in two primary aims: to respect territorial
order to evade justice. These non-state integrity, and curb the loss of human life.
actors often cross national borders, not Article two of the UN Charter reaffirms
only avoiding capture, but spreading the the former, stating that, “Nothing
turbulence to a regional level. contained in the present Charter shall
authorize the United Nations to
Case Study: The Lord’s Resistance Army intervene in matters which are
is the one of the major non-state actors essentially within the domestic
who took advantage of this law. jurisdiction of any state”. Several non-
Although originating in Uganda, the state actors, such as high-profile
LRA travelled through borders to avoid criminals and terrorists have taken
extradition, spreading violence advantage of these territorial lines in
throughout its path. Since the African order to evade justice. These non-state
countries lacked a vigilant refugee actors often cross national borders, not
monitoring system, it became easier for only avoiding capture, but spreading the
LRA to slip its members through turbulence to a regional level.
borders.
Such undermining of territorial lines by
Such undermining of territorial lines by third party actors has compelled the
third party actors has compelled the international community to consider
international community to consider revising the current standing norms.
revising the current standing norms. Currently, according to the UN
Currently, according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the
Convention on the Law of the Sea, the “right of hot pursuit” allows states to
“right of hot pursuit” allows states to continue pursing criminals if the crime
continue pursing criminals if the crime was conducted within the territory of the
was conducted within the territory of the pursuing state. However, this right
pursuing state. However, this right presently only applies to ships leaving
presently only applies to ships leaving territorial waters and entering
territorial waters and entering international waters; once a ship enters
international waters; once a ship enters the territorial waters of any other state,
26

the right of hot pursuit expires. The Important Issues Surrounding

possible expansion of the right of hot
pursuit to land, and its incorporation
the Topic
within the existing laws and norms of
territorial integrity lies upon DISEC to What is the Right of Hot Pursuit?
decide.
Simply put, the right of Hot Pursuit,
Since the start of 20th century, warfare on under current international law, is right
earth has evolved in many different of a state to chase a vessel which has
ways. New frontiers of combat have been committed a crime in its state. Professor
established - most notably outer space Melquiades Gamboa elaborates on it in
and cyber space, the role of third party his 1973 treatise on international law, “A
actors has increased exponentially, as state has the right to pursue into the high
states set out to ensure their individual seas and arrest a foreign vessel which has
national securities. Even within the committed an offense within its waters.
established forms of combat, we see the The hot pursuit has to commence when
resurgence and the aftermath of the offending vessel is within the
Asymmetric warfare. Currently we have national waters, territorial sea or
most of central Africa and Syria contiguous zone of the pursuing state
experience this form of warfare, where and must come to an end when the vessel
the opposite sides vary vastly in terms of has entered part of its own country or of
strength, tactical approach and a third state. The pursuit must be
objectives. uninterrupted and only necessary and
reasonable force may be used to effect the
The United Nations was established with seizure and bringing into port of the
two primary aims: to respect territorial pursuit ship.”
integrity, and curb the loss of human life.
Article two of the UN Charter reaffirms The right of hot pursuit originated in the
the former, stating that, “Nothing 1958 High Seas Convention, when the
contained in the present Charter shall threat of pirates became highly alarming.
authorize the United Nations to By allowing states the right to pursue
intervene in matters which are these vessels in international waters, the
essentially within the domestic Convention aimed to tackle the issue of
jurisdiction of any state”. While the pirates without undermining state
article best serves to ensure state sovereignty. Article 111, which is termed
integrity and upholds jurisdictional as the ‘Right of hot pursuit’, states, “The
lines, it also hands non state actors a hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be
golden opportunity to evade justice. undertaken when the competent
authorities of the coastal State have good
reason to believe that the ship has
violated the laws and regulations of that
State. Such pursuit must be commenced
when the foreign ship or one of its boats
 27

is within the internal waters, the Legal challenges to expanding Hot

archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or Pursuit to land
the contiguous zone of the pursuing
State, and may only be continued outside Legal experts seem to like the idea of the
the territorial sea or the contiguous zone right of Hot Pursuit, but believe that the
if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It idea ‘stretching’ certain principles of
is not necessary that, at the time when the territorial integrity. Micheal P. Scharf, a
foreign ship within the territorial sea or legal expert teaching in the Case Western
the contiguous zone receives the order to School of Law, states, “Let's say [U.S.
stop, the ship giving the order should forces] were to wait for a bunch of
likewise be within the territorial sea or terrorists to cross into Iraq and launch an
the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is attack and then chase them over the
within a contiguous zone, as defined in [Syrian] border, no one will ever
article 33, the pursuit may only be complain about that," says Scharf. "But to
undertaken if there has been a violation invade another country without an
of the rights for the protection of which actual pursuit on is going to stretch the
the zone was established.” idea of international law." Peter Danchin,
another legal expert, believes that idea is
Over the years, the rise of asymmetric extremely absurd: "This idea of 'hot
warfare has been a real source of concern pursuit' is just an attempt to twist the law
for the international community. The rise of the sea doctrine into a self-defense
of the Third Party actors such as the idea. What you're talking about is the use
Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the of force against the territory of another
ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) have state….” “Let's say [the jihadis] go into
highlighted the procedural gaps that Turkey? You'd have a hard time making
exist while countering terrorism. Their the case that the 101st Airborne should
little regard for international borders has go in and take them out without Turkish
thoroughly made pursuit difficult. It is consent.” Another interesting
then that the idea of expanding the right notification by Danchin is that US
of ‘Hot Pursuit’ to land was born. currently is an “occupier” in Iraq rather
than a “sovereign” which means it has
even lesser rights regarding the use of
force. Any armed incursion by U.S.
forces into Syria, he adds, would "be a
serious breach of international law and
technically an act of war."

As in the current convention of high seas,

the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’ merely exists
for international waters, which means
that no sovereign lines are being
breached; the right expires if the vessel
28

enters the waters of another state. sovereignty to pursue various militant

Regarding “international rules on and criminals, rather than adhering to
territorial sovereignty, the arguments on international legal norms and extradition
'hot pursuit' are going to be much weaker processes. For instance, in the aftermath
than in the high seas case because you're of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the Tutsi-
not infringing on the sovereignty of any led army pursued Hutu militia suspected
other state [in the latter case],", says in the genocide across the border into
Danchin. Congo. The US sent a predator drone into
Yemen in 2002, targeting a car and taking
Yet there is an argument that the west out five suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. In
could give regarding the right of ‘Hot recent times, the Turkish authorities
Pursuit’. Similar to what Israel did to have regularly seduced an invasion of
justify strikes against Hezbollah Iraqi Kurdistan, which is part of
settlements in southern Lebanon, the sovereign Iraq, in pursuit of Kurdish
United States could argue that a limited guerillas who launch cross-border
strike against bases used by foreign attacks into Turkey. Similarly, Russia’s
jihadis in Syria would be justified under appetite for Chechen rebels across the
the principle of anticipatory self-defense, border of Syria never seems to diminish.
which some legal scholars say is upheld Moreover, even a possibility of military
by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Other action justified by Hot Pursuit can fuel
experts point to the 1837 Caroline case, in wide-scale humanitarian crises. As one
which British and Canadian rebels such example, Thailand relocated large
crossed into U.S. territory and set the refugee camps from its border areas into
steamer Caroline ablaze, killing two the disputed Kampuchea region in the
Americans in the process. The Americans 1980s to ward off possible raids by
argued that the British claim of self- Vietnam in pursuit of Khmer Rouge.
defense—the ship was suspected of These relocations exacerbated the
ferrying arms to anti-British rebels— humanitarian emergency sparked by
failed to "show a necessity of self-defense Vietnam’s 1978 invasion, which
[that was] instant, overwhelming, displaced a quarter-million Cambodians,
leaving no choice of means, and no worsening poverty and starvation.
moment for deliberation," a line of
argument often cited by legal authorities In invoking the right of Hot Pursuit, one
to justify anticipatory self-defense. In the makes the general assumptions that
case of Syria, the U.S. government could security is the top priority of the pursuer,
invoke UN Security Council Resolution and that does not hold true in all cases.
1373, which says that states have the Turkey, for example, is the perfect case
responsibility to prevent the misuse of study in this position. As elaborated
their territory by non-state actors like al- below, Turkey has often has cited the hot
Qaeda. pursuit doctrine too many times in recent
memory, using it to justify repeated
Quite ironically, perhaps, states ground incursions into Iraq to target
routinely violate other states' Kurdish separatists. Yet when the
 29

Western states requested more robust Case Study: Lord’s Resistance Army
Turkish military support in combating (LRA)
the ISIS, Ankara refused to cooperate. Its
two main fears -- of Kurdish separatism The Lord’s resistance army is an
and of a resurgent Assad regime -- extremist movement based mainly in
overrule its other security central Africa in the countries of Uganda
considerations. and South Sudan, it has been described
as an extremist Christian movement and
The open-endedness of the phrase and one of its stated goals is ruling Uganda
the lack of a legal framework, even to the according to the Ten Commandments.
level of high seas, underpinning it would The LRA is led by Joseph Kony who was
make for a rather unclear war mandate, made famous by the documentary in
potentially opening the door to chasing 2012 and who has been indicted for war
militants beyond Iraq and Syria. This crime and crimes against humanity by
could result in cascade of events, in turn the international criminal court. The LRA
setting the precedent for border itself has been accused for a wide range
violations by other states elsewhere in of crimes ranging from using child
the world. If the United States can carry soldiers to being involved in the sex
out cross-border incursions into Syria on trade. The LRA continues to launch
such weak legal grounds, then there is strikes against both civilians and military
little to stop Russia from invoking the targets throughout central Africa and
phrase in Ukraine, or Pakistan from thus do have the capability to cross
chasing militants well beyond the borders freely. Moreover, the lack of
Baluchistan border, or China from border security and policing in these
apprehending Uighur separatists across countries means that the LRA can carry
its border. Even the nominally out strikes freely.
noninterventionist Brazil has jumped on
the bandwagon to invoke the right to hot
pursuit as a justification its cross border
actions against drug lords in Peru. The
delegates of DISEC must decide whether
it is wise to expand to the convention,
and if so, then come up with a
comprehensive yet transparent
framework regarding the
implementation of the right that ensures
that the legal challenges that stand in its
way are well and truly conquered.

Case Studies
30

There have been efforts to reach a peace against the LRA. To that end, the United
agreement between the LRA and the States passed a legislation in 2012 to end
Ugandan government; none being the threat of the LRA and has since then
successful as the sides refuse to adhere to deployed over a hundred military
it. The LRA has slowly increased its hold advisors to assist the Ugandan army.
over central Africa and are now believed Even after numerous attempts to counter
to have large number of soldiers in the the threat of the LRA, no efficient method
Central African Republic. The Central has been put forth so far. Calls for the
African Republic has been particularly right of ‘Hot Pursuit’ to be implemented
susceptible to the formation of safe has gained staunch support recently,
havens because of the political unrest with many urging for a ‘task force
and economic turmoil that has gripped without borders’ to be dispatched that it
the country in the past. Sudan is another is confined to the entire Central African
country that has been accused of turning region, and has the right to cross borders
a blind eye and doing little to get rid of in order track down the militants. In this
the LRA presence in the country. There case, however, the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’
have been reports that the LRA is on the would be relatively easier to implement,
move into regions such as Darfur in the given that most countries hosting the
north of Sudan with tacit support from LRA are willing to combat them.
the Sudanese government which until Nevertheless, state sovereignty is a major
2002 openly supported the LRA against issue, with several countries, most
the Ugandan government. notably China and Russia staunchly
against the entire idea of Hot Pursuit.
The complexity of this conflict and the
sheer number of countries involved in it Case study: U.S. conducting air
mean that the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’ is a strikes in Syria
very pertinent part of the conflict. The
lack of the infrastructure and military The Islamic State is a Sunni extremist
strength in these regions makes it even group, whose original aim was to
tougher to combat these militants. This establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-
becomes especially problematic for majority areas of Iraq, however later on
countries like Uganda which has been they declared a worldwide caliphate,
the epicenter of violence in recent times. and claimed to have religious authority
Villages and towns on the border of over all Muslims worldwide. Gradually
Sudan and Uganda have been raided in they took control of certain areas in Iraq.
the past, and by the Ugandan To curb this growing power of the
government could gather enough Islamic State U.S. has conducted more
resources to launch counter terrorism than 190 airstrikes in Iraq against the
operations, the militants had fled into Islamic State targets. The United States
neighboring countries. Foreign countries of America, assisted by other partner
have largely avoided direct involvement countries, conducted an air strike in Syria
in the conflict and usually NGOs along on Islamic State. The partner nations
with the African Union provide support include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain
 31

and the United Arab Emirates. However Numerous international law experts
the idea of hot pursuit come into play in claim that the right of hot pursuit is
this situation as Iraq invited the U.S. to recognized to pursue ships escaping in
help it fight the Islamic State, therefore international waters, however no such
U.S. received support from other nations, authority would allow a nation to violate
but the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad another nation’s border to pursue a
has made no such request for aid against threat or an opposing force on land.
the Islamic state and the United States Therefore this condition in Syria relating
still conducted an air strike in Syria. to the Islamic state and the U.S. closely
Their justification for conducting an air ties with the idea of Hot pursuit based on
strike in Iraq was given by U.S. secretary the actions taken by the U.S. in Syria
of state John Kerry, who stated, “you against the Islamic State, especially
have a right of hot pursuit, you have a because Michael Eisenstadt, director of
right to be able to attack those people Washington’s military and security
who are attacking you as a matter of self- studies program claimed that air trikes
defense.” His claim was further backed were just a “beginning” of what would
up by Samantha Powers, the U.S. we needed to defeat the ISIS.
ambassador to the UN, who tried to
justify the air strike conducted in Syria The current situation in Syria is the
by writing a letter to the general perfect example of the many problems
secretary of the United Nations, stating that could surface if the right of Hot
that “the Syrian regime has shown that it Pursuit is indeed expanded to land.
cannot and will not confront these safe While it may significantly aid nations in
havens effectively itself. Accordingly, the combating asymmetric warfare, it will
United States has initiated necessary and most certainly undermine many articles
proportionate military actions in Syria." of the UN Charter. The delegates in
Moreover the Russian ambassador DISEC at LUMUN XI would be expected
Vitaly Churkin, whose country backs to come up with a robust framework as
Assad, commented that it would be how Hot Pursuit can be expanded to
“considered illegal” to conduct air other forms, and the manner of its
strikes in Syria without Assad’s implementation, whilst also dealing with
approval. Even though France joined the obvious threat that it poses to the
U.S. in the air strikes in Iraq, President sovereignty of the states.
Francois Hollande was initially against
the idea of the attacks in Syria, as they
were called in by Iraq to help it against
the Islamic state, but not by Syria. The
U.S. also stated that the 2001
authorization for the use of military force
against terrorists provided them with a
basis to attack the Islamic state since it
has direct ties to the al-Qaeda.
32

The fleeing of criminals to other states is

nothing new. Over the course of history,
international extradition has always
been a disputed domain, causing a web
of extradition treaties to evolve. The
United States emerged as the forerunner
in establishing extradition treaties, first
with France in 1909, and then with
Canada in 1971. These treaties were
meant to be mutual agreements for the
extradition of known or suspected
criminals on either county’s soil but
years of struggle with this issue have
proven these treaties to be anything but
declarations created in good faith. For a
long time the United States Government
Questions a Resolution Must
has continually struggled with the Answer
French and Canadian Governments to
regain custody of individuals who have How can the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’
been accused or convicted of serious be expanded to land?
crimes on American soil but fled to these In what cases might the right of
countries. Since Canada and France ‘Hot Pursuit’ be applied? Should
disagree with the US methods of capital it be used only to combat high
punishment, extradition between the profile militant groups like the
two sets of states has ceased over the LRA and the ISIS or can it also be
years. Such disputes have strongly aided used to for simple criminals?
criminals and rebels to seek asylum in If the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’ is
such countries, which again highlights expanded, how can it be
the need of a framework in the form of implemented? Does the United
Hot Pursuit to be implemented. Nations Security give the nod for
invoke the the right of ‘Hot
Pursuit’?
How can the right of ‘Hot Pursuit’
be expanded and successfully
implemented without violating
state sovereignty?
How can the legal challenged
faces the right be countered?