Welcome

American Model United Nations (AMUN) is a non-profit, educational organization founded in 1989 to provide students with the highest quality, most professionally run simulation of the United Nations available. AMUN strives to combine educational quality with highly realistic simulations of the United Nations to give students an unparalleled Model UN learning experience. We return to these ideals year after year as we create the policies and applications expressed in this handbook. We are excited to have you join us for the 2024 Conference. 

2024 Simulations

In 2024, AMUN will simulate four main General Assembly (GA) Committees (Plenary, GA1, GA2 and GA3), the World Health Assembly (WHA), the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). AMUN will simulate two historical bodies the Historical Security Council of 1961(HSC61) and the Historical Commission of Inquiry (COI). Finally, AMUN features a simulation of the International Press Delegation (IPD), which produces the Conference newspaper and covers the work of all simulations.

The General Assembly Plenary (Concurrent), First (Disarmament & International Security), Second (Economic and Financial) and Third (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural) Committees, World Health Assembly and the Economic and Social Council are resolution-writing bodies. The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is report-writing body whose purpose is to build consensus and to write and ratify reports submitted to the ECOSOC.

The Contemporary Security Council will be responsible for dealing with international peace and security issues as they stand at the opening of the Conference. A tentative list of topics will be provided for preparation, but representatives should be prepared to discuss any and all security issues that might arise. The Historical Security Council of 1961 will simulate the events of that year; it will use contemporary rules of procedure but will role play from the viewpoint of their delegation at the time of the simulation. The Security Council and the Historical Security Council will meet all four days of the Conference, including an emergency session on Monday night and a debrief on Tuesday morning.

The International Press Delegation, the International Court of Justice and the Historical Commission of Inquiry are unique simulations that will meet throughout the Conference. Individuals must apply for positions on these simulations on the AMUN website (IPD, ICJ, and COI). The International Press Delegation will provide journalistic cover for the Conference, producing Accords articles throughout each day. The International Court of Justice will hear cases brought to the Court by Member States. The Historical Commission of Inquiry will conduct in-depth investigations into conflicts and disputes. 

How to Use This Book

This handbook is published to assist representatives in preparing for the AMUN Conference. This handbook provides representatives with a full picture of conference philosophies, policies and logistics, the rules of procedure required in each simulation, and substantive overviews of the simulations and topics for the Conference. The Introduction section is relevant to all participants at the Conference, while subsequent sections detail the specific rules and substantive overviews for different types of simulations at AMUN. Delegates should be familiar with the sections and chapters relevant to their Conference assignment; faculty advisors and permanent representatives will want to be familiar with the whole handbook. 

Safety at AMUN

AMUN places extreme importance on the safety of our participants and guests. We hope that you have an excellent and fun learning experience while at the Conference, but we encourage everyone to consider safety issues in and around the Conference hotel. Safety should always be more important than avoiding minor embarrassment to you or another person.

We suggest that you follow several common-sense rules to keep all participants safe during the Conference, including the following guidelines:

• As a general rule, do not leave the hotel grounds without letting your group know how to find you.
• Always let one of the leaders of your group (faculty, club officer, etc.) know where you are going prior to leaving the area around the hotel.
• Never leave any hotel alone after dark, and always travel with at least one person that you know.
• Always remove your credentials prior to leaving the hotel so as not to advertise yourself as a tourist.
• Help other participants to be safe by encouraging them to not travel outside of the hotel alone and to remember to remove their credentials.
• Inform one of the leaders of your group or an AMUN Secretariat Member immediately if you have a safety concern, or if any emergency situation involving you or another participant, regardless of the time.

AMUN encourages all faculty advisors and other group leaders to take time before the Conference to reinforce these and any other relevant safety instructions based on the rules of your schools.

In case of an emergency during the Conference, hotel security may be reached by dialing 0 on any hotel phone and requesting the security office. Also, please feel free to contact the AMUN Secretariat at any time during the Conference, day or night, if any emergency event occurs in which we can be of assistance.

Conference Policies

Minimum and Maximum Delegation Counts

AMUN strongly recommends delegations place two representatives on the Security Council and the Historical Security Council of 1961. Each delegation may place one or two representatives on the following committees: General Assembly Plenary, General Assembly First, General Assembly Second, General Assembly Third, the Economic  and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ). Each delegation may place only one representative on the Special Committee, the World Health Assembly (WHA). Seats on the Historical Commission of Inquiry, International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Press Delegation (IPD) are assigned by application. Generally, only two people from a school can be assigned to COI, ICJ or IPD. Any delegation participating in an ICJ case as an Advocate is advised to place two delegates in their all-Conference committee to allow for a continuation of debate. 

Delegations may also designate a floating permanent representative to assist with coordination across the delegation. Representatives may also have part-time assignments at the Conference as an advocate for the International Court of Justice or as a party to the dispute in the Security Council or Historical Security Council.

Schools may register up to four faculty advisors.

Dress Code

The appearance of AMUN participants provides the first impressions of their delegation to other representatives. Attention to proper appearance sets an expectation for professionalism and competence. In order to demonstrate respect to fellow representatives, Secretariat members and distinguished guests of the Conference, AMUN requires conservative professional business attire for all representatives and Secretariat during all formal sessions, including the Opening and Closing Plenaries.

Professional business attire is a business jacket or suit, dress slacks or skirt, dress shirt and dress shoes. Conservative accessories such as ties, scarves and formal jewelry are traditional in business settings. Sweaters or leggings are too casual for professional business attire. Clothing that reveals undergarments in any way is not appropriate. AMUN will not consider any manner of dress appropriate that includes T-shirts, jeans, shorts, hats, athletic shoes or any form of commercial advertising.

Participants shall not wear the traditional or religious garb of any State or organization. The only exception to this is required traditional or religious garb of a student’s personal religion or culture. Additionally, participants should not affect the mannerisms, linguistic characteristics or any other perceived traits of a State or culture that they are representing. These affectations are inappropriate and may be seen as offensive by other students or by natives of that State or culture. Small lapel pins representing the delegation’s flag or other national symbols are appropriate.

Please be aware that representatives who are not appropriately attired or who do not follow these rules may not be recognized during formal debate in any AMUN simulation. Further, AMUN reserves the right to refuse admittance to the Conference floor to any representative who is inappropriately attired or who violates the above provisions. Decisions about appropriate attire and professional behavior are at the discretion of the AMUN Secretariat.

A note about the AMUN Dress Code policy: The world of international diplomacy is both conservative and slow to change; while what is acceptable as professional attire in business settings is slowly shifting, the appropriate attire for visiting an embassy or engaging in international diplomacy remains conventional. Our goal at AMUN is to encourage students to engage with and experience professional business attire in an educational environment, while also acknowledging that this can be difficult for some of our participants. Representatives should feel free to express themselves and their gender identities within the boundaries of the dress code and should demonstrate an intent to conform with the dress code.

Conduct

Representatives are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting international diplomats. This means that every courtesy, both in speech and behavior, should be extended to all representatives, faculty advisors, hotel staff members, guests and AMUN Secretariat members at the Conference. AMUN expects the same level of diplomatic courtesy in written communications, including notes passed during formal session, posts to social media sites and communications within Google Workspace. AMUN reserves the right to expel any representative not acting in a courteous and professional fashion. Please refer to Rule 2.2, Diplomatic Courtesy, for more information.

To provide all participants, including representatives, faculty advisors, exhibitors, hotel staff and AMUN Secretariat the opportunity to benefit from the Conference, AMUN is committed to providing a harassment-free environment for everyone regardless of race or ethnicity, language, disability, appearance, religion, gender identity or expression, or any other group identity. AMUN seeks to provide a conference environment in which diverse participants may learn and enjoy an environment of mutual human respect. We recognize a shared responsibility to create and foster that environment for the benefit of all. Some behaviors are, therefore, specifically prohibited. Examples of such behavior include, but are not limited to:

• Harassment or intimidation based on race, color, religion (creed), gender expression or identity, age, language, national or social origin (ancestry), disability, marital or familial status, sexual orientation, occupation, political or other opinions, property, birth or other status.
• Sexual harassment or intimidation, including persistent and unwelcome sexual attention, stalking (physical or virtual) or unsolicited physical contact.
• Verbal or physical threats of any kind.
• Assault of any kind.

Speakers are asked to frame discussions as openly and inclusively as possible and to be aware of how language or images may be perceived by others. All participants are expected to observe these rules and behaviors in all conference venues, including online spaces. Participants asked to stop one of the aforementioned behaviors are expected to comply immediately. Any final rulings on violations of the Code of Conduct are subject to determination by the Executive Office with consultation as needed with the Board of Directors.

If anything happens throughout the Conference that makes you feel unwelcome, unsafe or that prohibits you from fully participating in the AMUN experience, please let us know so that we can help you understand your options and decide what steps can be taken to address the issue. You can contact us anytime by stopping by the Ohio Room, asking to speak to a member of the Executive Office at Conference Services, emailing us at mail@amun.org, or calling us at 773.777.2686.

Accessibility and Accommodation

AMUN makes every effort to ensure that all attendees are able to fully participate in their respective roles. If you or any member of your delegation requires any accommodations or modifications to get the most out of the AMUN experience, please contact AMUN staff at mail@amun.org as soon as possible, so we can discuss appropriate arrangements. Should you realize once Conference starts that you need an additional accommodation or modification, please alert your Chair/President/Director and a member of the AMUN Secretariat will be happy to assist you.

Accessibility and Collaboration

AMUN is committed to making its conference accessible to all participants. Further, collaboration and consensus-building are cornerstone philosophies for the organization. To further both of these aims, AMUN requests all participants work to ensure the work of the body is accessible to all who wish to participate. The work of the body includes participating in formal debate, informal caucusing during suspensions of the meeting, note-passing, and collaborating on working documents or conducting other substantive negotiations via electronic devices and cloud computing. In this broad consideration of accessibility, we ask participants to consider language, disability, access to mobile computing devices and online tools, country of origin and other factors that may limit some participants’ access. Ensuring accessibility is a matter of diplomatic courtesy. AMUN does not limit the tools that may be used for collaboration nor does it mandate specific access requirements, but the AMUN Secretariat is available for consultation about how to make the work of the body more inclusive and collaborative.

Use of Electronic Devices

The use of electronic devices, including laptops, tablets, e-readers and cell phones, is permitted in committee rooms provided they are silenced. All electronic devices must be set up and powered in a manner which does not create a safety hazard or distraction for other representatives. During formal session, groups may not congregate around electronic devices or caucus in the committee room. Any use of electronic devices during committee sessions should relate to the purposes of the Conference and must comply with the expectation of Diplomatic Courtesy as outlined in Rule 2.2. All representatives are expected to comply with the directions of the AMUN Secretariat regarding the use of electronic devices.

Plagiarism

AMUN strives to create a simulation of the United Nations which is as realistic as possible while still allowing for the fulfillment of our participants’ and the organization’s educational goals. As such, the AMUN policy regarding plagiarism focuses on an educational rather than a punitive goal. At AMUN, plagiarism involves the substantial, verbatim or near-verbatim copying of language, without attribution, in published or unpublished texts, speeches or documents. Representatives should adhere to their country’s policies at all times, but this does not give license to plagiarize existing materials. Thus, parts of speeches or position papers may be derived or paraphrased from previous speeches or papers, but should not be copied verbatim. Additionally, representatives should not copy and represent as their own the work of another representative or group of representatives. Collaboration and consensus-building is encouraged and appropriate, but representatives should take care that the authors of resolutions, reports and other documents are fully represented in the discussion of the body’s work. Collaborative work remains the work of the collaborators even when not all representatives are able to sign on to the final product.

Similarly, AMUN expects that all representatives are familiar with past resolutions at the United Nations, but the work of the United Nations should be expanded on in representatives’ work, not copied verbatim. There are some exceptions: for example, representatives are not necessarily expected to expand upon a phrase that is often or always used when a country gives a formal speech or a clause that is repeated verbatim through several years of resolutions on a topic. Generally, it is not necessary to explicitly credit such sources, although if substantial language is quoted, it should be acknowledged and cited. Final determinations on plagiarism and its consequences are at the discretion of the AMUN Secretariat.

The goal of any Model UN conference is to work toward the resolution of a problem facing the world. The documents created to this end are inevitably the work of a collaborative process; without that collaboration, States could never achieve consensus. Obtaining individual credit for the submission or sponsorship of a draft document should never be a State’s or representative’s goal during a Model UN conference. Representatives are expected to collaborate in the drafting and submission of draft documents with the utmost level of respect and diplomatic courtesy.

Credentials

Name badges act as representatives’ credentials for the Conference. Credentials will list a representative’s name, country and the Committee to which they are assigned. Credentials for permanent representatives will state “Permanent Representative” regardless of whether they are assigned to a particular simulation. Representatives, faculty advisors and Conference guests will be required to wear their assigned credentials at all times while in the Conference area. This includes social events after normal Conference hours. No one will be admitted to any Conference area, including social events, without approved credentials.

Representatives must also wear their credentials at all times while in the common areas of the hotel. This will allow both Conference and hotel staff to easily recognize representatives and will help to alleviate any potential problems that may arise within the hotel. Representatives should always remove their credentials immediately before leaving the hotel. A convention badge worn on the streets of a large city advertises you as a tourist and can decrease your safety. Please exercise caution in this area.

Seating and Placards

A placard with the name of each delegation will be placed at that delegation’s seat in each committee. These are the property of AMUN; the placard should not be defaced or removed from the location assigned by the Secretariat or removed from the room. Placards of Member States are generally always placed in alphabetical order, with the exact position of the placards changing at the beginning of each session to ensure equity in seating delegations. Observer States are generally always seated at the end of the Member States, and will also rotate positions when the room is reset. Exceptions to this are routinely made for representatives that require accommodations. Representatives are welcome to take their placard with them as a souvenir after their committee has convened for the last time.

Lost and Found

Any found unclaimed property can be turned in to the Lost and Found located at Conference Services. Items will be held until the end of the closing session, at which time they will be turned over to hotel security.

• The Conference Services staff will make every attempt to contact the owner if an email, phone number, country name or address is located on the item.
• In order to claim a lost item from the Lost and Found, the owner must describe as closely as possible the lost item.
• Conference Services’ hours are listed in the Conference Program.

Post-Conference Surveys

The AMUN Secretariat works year-round to prepare and run a premiere Model UN conference. With your feedback we are able to improve the educational and administrative experience for our participants. Please take a moment to complete a post-conference survey. Your feedback is invaluable to us as we plan for an even more successful Conference the following year. Surveys can be completed online during the Conference.

Special Conference Events

Keynote Speaker

AMUN strives to bring quality keynote speakers to the Conference. AMUN keynote speakers are usually individuals with extensive background in international affairs and have included ambassadors, United Nations employees, speakers from NGOs and notable personalities. The date and time of a keynote speaker will depend on the speaker’s schedule, and the conference agenda will be adjusted accordingly to accommodate the speaker and to maximize representatives’ time in committee. The Conference Program will provide the keynote speaker’s biographical information. If you have a suggestion for (and, ideally, a connection to) a keynote speaker at AMUN, please email the Executive Office at mail@amun.org.

After-Hours Caucusing Space

One of the draws of any Model UN conference is the after-hours informal caucusing. An informal meeting area is available in the exhibition hall on the lower level of the Conference hotel, which representatives are encouraged to use after hours. Gatherings in hotel sleeping areas are strongly discouraged; these could very easily disturb other guests in the hotel, reflecting poorly on both participating schools and on the Conference and possibly resulting in a visit from hotel security.

Representative Dance

AMUN encourages all participants to attend our representative dance on Monday evening of the Conference. The dance theme will be revealed on AMUN’s website and publications in the fall. Attire matching the dance theme is encouraged, although not required.

As the dance is hosted by AMUN, only representatives wearing appropriate attire and their current conference credentials will be allowed to enter the dance. Due to security and safety concerns, NO bags, glassware, bottles or other containers will be allowed on the level of the dance. Representatives bringing any of these items will be asked to take them to their rooms. Representatives participating in the overnight crisis session for the Security Council or Historical Security Council simulations will be provided storage space, which they can access at the start of the emergency session. AMUN is not able to provide storage space for other personal belongings. This policy requires planning and special attention, especially for representatives staying at area hotels other than the Sheraton. While attending the dance, representatives are guests of the Sheraton hotel and must remain in approved areas of the hotel at all times. Representatives must remain diplomatically courteous during and after the dance. AMUN and hotel security reserve the right to expel any participant acting in a discourteous or disruptive manner.

Security Council Emergency Session

Representatives in each Security Council will work to resolve a simulated crisis during the Conference. This unique simulation occurs late Monday evening, during and after the representative dance. All members of the Security Councils are strongly encouraged to stay at the Sheraton Grand Chicago Riverwalk Hotel during their participation at AMUN. The rules of procedure mandate that each member of the Council attend the emergency session. Attendance at crisis sessions is limited to Security Council and Historical Security Council representatives, requested parties to the dispute, permanent representatives, and their faculty advisors. Observers must secure the permission of the AMUN Secretariat members in charge of the session. Secretariat members have the authority to request anyone being disruptive to leave the area and return to other areas of the Sheraton or to their hotel.

Events for Faculty Advisors and Permanent Representatives

AMUN hosts several Conference-related events for permanent representatives and faculty advisors during each Conference. They are:

• Delegation Lottery: The Delegation Lottery is conducted at the Conference and allows the current year’s attendees to select countries for the following year. A deposit for next year’s Conference is required to participate.
• Permanent representative and faculty advisor meetings: Held on Sunday and Monday of Conference, these meetings allow you to share comments and concerns on this year’s Conference and any hotel issues your school is experiencing.
• Roundtables and workshops for faculty advisors: Guest speakers discuss running and advocating for Model UN with faculty advisors in informal discussions and roundtable presentations. Consult the Conference Program for times and locations.

Graduate School and Career Expo

The Expo is a great opportunity to meet with representatives from graduate schools and organizations across the country and plan your future. The Graduate School and Career Expo will be held this year on Monday, 25 November 2024 from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The event and exhibitors will be announced and highlighted both in our Conference Program and the AMUN Chronicle. The Expo will be located on the promenade on the Ballroom level, outside of the primary meeting rooms that hold most of the Conference events. Students will be introduced to the Expo area on their way to and from the open Monday morning meeting sessions.

AMUN Philosophy and Realism

One of the core principles of AMUN is to mirror the practice and dynamics of the United Nations as much as possible. To that end, AMUN strives to create and conduct simulations that are a realistic representation of diplomacy at the United Nations and within the broader international system. We believe this commitment furthers AMUN’s aims to create a fair and fun experience for all representatives and to enhance the educational mission of the organization.

For any issue before the United Nations, each Member State or Observer State will have a variety of responses available to it; however, a realistic simulation will consider only those options that would have reasonably been on the table for a State at a particular moment in time. In other words, there will always be options that States do not consider or dismiss out of hand because historical, cultural or political constraints limit their capabilities. In a realistic simulation, these options are not appropriate.

In conjunction with our policy on delegations that are “Out of Character” (OOC), members of the AMUN Secretariat will work with representatives to ensure the highest-quality and most realistic simulation of the United Nations possible, while still allowing innovative and creative thinking to open up new possibilities for the United Nations and the international community.

The Purview of Each Simulation

Each background guide contains a brief overview of that simulation’s purview, which provides a general outline of the types of discussions each simulation might have on the topics in question. Purview is an extremely important, though often unspoken, concept in the United Nations system, where a variety of different committees, councils and commissions may discuss different aspects of an international problem. Not stepping on another body’s toes or into its territory is a matter of diplomatic courtesy, respect and an acknowledgement of specific expertise. Representatives should research their topics carefully, so their deliberations can focus on the piece of the problem considered within their simulation’s purview.

Purview is usually best understood through an extended example. Consider the topic of development. A wide variety of committees, councils and commissions at the United Nations address this topic, but will do so in different ways. The General Assembly First Committee might discuss the relationship between disarmament and development. At the same time, the General Assembly Second Committee may discuss a variety of financing initiatives to assist Least Developed Countries. Similarly, the General Assembly Third Committee might discuss the social and humanitarian considerations that stem from a lack of development, including gender issues, economic concerns or the impact on underrepresented populations such as the elderly or disabled. The General Assembly Fourth Committee may discuss the development issues of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The General Assembly Concurrent Plenary might discuss the problem in its entirety or address issues that cut across the mandates of the committees. By contrast, the Economic and Social Council would focus on how the United Nations specialized and technical agencies work with Member States to support economic and social development. The Security Council would address the interlinkages between peace, security and development.

Clearly, different aspects of a single problem are regularly discussed in different bodies. More importantly, at the United Nations, delegations are typically careful to only discuss those aspects relevant to their own committees, councils and commissions, leaving other aspects to others in their delegation to address in the appropriate forum.

Representatives participating in the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Conference should be familiar with the history of the United Nations and with the changing role the organization plays in international affairs. This section provides a brief introduction to the United Nations system and some of the issues it faces today.

History of the United Nations

Origins of the United Nations

The United Nations came into existence on 24 October 1945. On that day, the United Nations Charter became operative, following ratification by the 51 original Members. The concept of all States uniting to settle disputes peacefully was born of the desire to avoid repeating the horrors of the First and Second World Wars. The United Nations developed as a successor to the League of Nations, which represented the first modern attempt by the countries of the world to achieve this unity.

United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the term “United Nations” in 1942, when 47 countries signed the Declaration of the United Nations in support of the Atlantic Charter. In 1944, representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China prepared the first blueprint of the United Nations at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. The final details for the United Nations were established at the Yalta Conference in 1945. On 26 June 1945, 51 States signed the Charter of the United Nations in San Francisco.

Purpose of the United Nations

The primary purposes for which the United Nations was founded are detailed in Chapter I, Article 1, of the Charter:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Structure of the United Nations

The United Nations has six primary organs. Understanding the role each respective organ takes on in relation to one another, along with how they interact with other United Nations agencies and affiliated organizations, is vital in preparing for Model United Nations.

The General Assembly (GA)

The General Assembly is the central deliberative organ of the United Nations. The General Assembly has been described as the nearest thing to a “parliament of mankind.” All Member States are Members of the General Assembly, and each Member has one vote. The General Assembly makes recommendations on international issues, oversees all other United Nations bodies that report to the General Assembly, approves the United Nations budget and apportions United Nations funds. On the recommendation of the Security Council, the General Assembly elects the Secretary-General and holds the authority to admit and expel Member States. Voting in the General Assembly is ordinarily by simple majority, but most of the body’s work is adopted by consensus.

The Security Council (SC)

The Security Council’s primary responsibility is maintaining international peace and security. It has the power to employ United Nations peacekeepers and direct action against threats to peace. Fifteen Members sit on the Security Council, including five Permanent Members (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 10 Member States representing five regions, which the General Assembly elects for rotating two-year terms. A majority in the Security Council consists of nine Members voting “yes”; however, a “no” vote by any of the Permanent Members has the effect of vetoing or blocking substantive actions.

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

The Economic and Social Council is the primary body dealing with the economic, social, humanitarian and cultural work of the United Nations system. It also has a mandate to coordinate the activities of United Nations technical and specialized agencies and programs. The Economic and Social Council oversees five regional economic commissions and nine functional, or subject-matter, commissions. The Economic and Social Council is composed of 54 Member States elected by the General Assembly for three-year renewable terms.

The Trusteeship Council (TC)

In 1945 there were 11 Trust Territories, which were regions without their own governments. These 11 regions were placed under the Trusteeship Council, which helped them prepare for and achieve independence. With the admission of Palau as a United Nations Member State in 1994, the Trusteeship Council has now completed its original mandate. Today, the Trusteeship Council is inactive but is formally composed of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Court of Justice, or World Court, is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations and decides international legal disputes. All United Nations Member States are able to bring matters before the International Court of Justice; however, States must agree to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice before it can decide a dispute involving that State. Jurisdiction is compulsory in Advisory Opinions, where the Court considers international legal questions rather than interstate disputes. Fifteen judges serving nine-year terms sit on the Court.

Secretariat

The Secretariat is composed of the Secretary-General and the United Nations staff. Approximately 44,000 people are employed as the staff of the United Nations, only 5,000 of whom work at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The vast majority work for various subsidiaries of the United Nations. The Secretary-General serves a five-year renewable term.

In addition to the six main bodies, the United Nations system includes a number of autonomous technical and specialized agencies and programs. Examples include the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). While most of these agencies and programs have independent governance structures, the Economic and Social Council coordinates their activities.

How the United Nations Seeks to Achieve Its Purpose

Since 1945, the United Nations has established itself as a forum for discussing international disputes. The United Nations seeks, through both its principal organs and various subsidiary bodies, to settle disputes through peaceful means without resorting to the threat or use of force. Through their participation in the various bodies of the United Nations, Member States recognize and legitimize the established machinery of the United Nations and its relevance to solving international problems. It should be understood that the United Nations is not a world government, nor does it legislate. Rather, the actions of the United Nations, in the form of resolutions passed by its bodies, have a strong moral persuasive effect. Member States frequently find it in their own best interests to follow United Nations recommendations.

Bloc Politics at the United Nations

Historically, Member States with mutual interests have used a system of bloc politics to organize their efforts within the United Nations. These blocs tend to be made up of Member States with similar political, historical or cultural backgrounds and are often, but not exclusively, formed on a geographical basis. By organizing themselves with other Member States that hold similar interests, bloc members hope to increase their influence above the level that they would have as a single Member State in the General Assembly.

Regional groups were formally established at the United Nations in 1957 with an endorsement by the General Assembly. As the number of Member States increased, the groups were realigned to form today’s five groups: Latin America and the Caribbean group (GRULAC), the Asia-Pacific group, the Africa group, the Eastern European group and the Western Europe and Others group (WEOG). These regional groups are still used today to manage the elections to various United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, and to determine who will serve as Vice Presidents of the General Assembly. Other smaller regional blocs with more specific affinities and interests, such as the Nordic countries or the JUSCANZ group (Japan, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are also important, but they lack the formal recognition granted to the five regional groups.

Regional groups are not the only blocs active at the United Nations. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formed in 1967 as a group seeking a middle course between the Western and Eastern blocs of the Cold War, rapidly became an active body for the coordination of action at the United Nations for developing countries. While its importance has diminished since the end of the Cold War, it is still active on numerous issues at the United Nations. The Group of 77 (G-77) was founded in 1964 as a coordinating body to protect the economic interests of small and developing countries. With 134 members, the G-77 is the largest United Nations bloc, though coordination among members is fairly loose.

Blocs often attempt to form a consensus among members, allowing them to act as a cohesive group. The effectiveness of any given bloc in exerting its positions in the General Assembly depends upon the bloc’s ability to form a consensus among its own members and to get its members to vote accordingly. These acts of compromise form the basis of United Nations politics and often occur within the various caucusing groups. They also form the starting points for debate in the larger United Nations body.

Bloc politics have changed considerably over time. Some blocs are still coherent, like the Nordic countries, while others, like the Western European and Others Group, lack continuing cohesion. In general, their viability as a political tool is diminishing, and blocs are falling out of use as a predictable measure of votes. Often, blocs get together to draft resolutions which will begin the discussion in the larger body, but ultimately, each Member State will usually vote in its own interest, regardless of bloc memberships. States may be part of multiple blocs with diverging or competing interests, which further complicates the issue.

Today, the most common blocs are small, temporary negotiating groups that gather around one issue to try to overcome stalemate in the larger membership bodies. Additionally, developing countries often bind together to maximize their power, especially given their relative lack of economic power. Some blocs have their own secretariat staff whose job is to draft proposals and find solutions that the larger body is unable to find. Some of the more well-funded and organized blocs have a formally recognized role as permanent observers with permanent observer missions at the United Nations headquarters. Examples include the African Union, the Caribbean Community, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. These blocs are powerful examples of Member States coming together to advance goals that may be independent of the regions they represent.

At AMUN, blocs are not treated as official bodies. Representatives are encouraged to caucus in their bloc groups only when appropriate. Representatives should be aware that the State they represent may no longer actively participate in bloc politics or may vote outside of its traditional bloc based on the circumstances. Above all, remember that you represent your State and your State’s interests, regardless of your participation in a bloc while caucusing and drafting.

Introduction

Resolutions are the primary tools for action at the United Nations. Debate at the United Nations focuses on solving, at least in part, the many problems facing the global community. After months of debate and behind-the-scenes discussion on a topic, Member States try to come to an agreement about how to proceed on an issue. This agreement is then codified in the form of a draft resolution. The text of a draft resolution is usually developed and agreed upon well in advance of its being brought to the floor, with many States making suggestions and changes behind the scenes. A draft resolution may be formally discussed, amended, rejected or adopted when it is brought to the floor, though it is very rare for a United Nations resolution to be rejected after being brought up for consideration. Most Member States prefer to bring a draft resolution to the floor only if they are sure it will be adopted. In fact, sponsoring Member States will often wait to bring a resolution to the floor until they are sure that all Member States present will agree to the resolution and adopt it by consensus.

Resolutions usually express a policy that the United Nations will adopt or implement, and may be included in the body of reports, treaties, conventions and declarations. Resolutions may range from general to very specific in content and, depending on the body involved, call for or suggest a course of action, condemn an action or require an action or sanctions on behalf of Member States. The General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, special committees and commissions may either call for or suggest actions. However, only the Security Council can require action from or place sanctions on Member States. In some cases, conventions and treaties may also require action, but such requirements would be applicable only to the States Parties (i.e., those States which have ratified or are otherwise party to the convention or treaty).

Resolutions are formal documents adopted by a United Nations body that follow a standard format and include at least one preambular and one operative clause. Any body may issue a resolution, but in practice most are adopted (often by consensus) by the General Assembly, its main committees and the Security Council.

Reports and presidential statements are similar to resolutions in that they state a United Nations policy or objective, but both have different purposes and utilize different formatting. Reports, which are typically written by long-standing commissions and committees composed of experts on the topics being discussed, advise and inform decision-making bodies of a committee’s work and are divided into chapters and sections that cover the various topics under discussion. Presidential statements comparatively offer a less formal pronouncement of some United Nations action or position and are often used when the Security Council cannot come to agreement or deems that the issue does not necessitate a formalized resolution. AMUN simulates both resolution-writing and report-writing bodies.

Draft Documents

AMUN simulations will accept draft resolutions, reports and other documents only during the AMUN Conference. Draft documents may not be submitted in advance of the Conference. Drafting documents is a collaborative process that begins with an idea about how to approach a problem that then incorporates ideas and concepts contributed by a group of delegations. The authors of draft documents obtain signatures from sponsors through caucusing and discussion, and eventually the draft may be moved to the floor for formal debate. The debate process brings the entire body into the discussion. Often, the debate identifies areas where the draft must be amended to bring about a final document that the body may support by consensus.

In preparing to attend AMUN, delegations should consider solutions they believe would help resolve the issues before the body. The most successful delegates will practice drafting preambular clauses that clearly articulate the background and context of the topic and operative clauses that form the policies they seek to advocate. Delegates should also practice reviewing and commenting on the work of others and practice negotiation, collaboration and amendments to achieve common objectives. These notes and practice documents may be useful at the Conference as working papers. When all delegations arrive at Conference prepared and ready to work together, the entire body benefits.  

At the Conference, when a delegation is asked to sponsor a resolution or report, they should ask themselves whether the document was drafted in collaboration with other delegations in attendance, and whether the drafting and amendment process has been open and collaborative. If a delegation cannot answer yes to these questions, they should consider either working with the drafters to bring the draft document into the collaborative environment, or, if that is not an option, foregoing sponsorship in favor of working on other draft documents that represent the collaborative work of the body.

AMUN strongly discourages delegations from bringing fully-formed pre-written resolutions to Conference with the intent to immediately circulate the draft for signatures and bring it to the floor. Any draft document that is not created with the input and assistance of other committee members, foregoing the collaborative process, will not reflect the will of the body and cannot hope to achieve consensus. While bringing these resolutions may seem to be an efficient way to jump-start the body’s deliberations, in reality they short-circuit the collaborative and consensus-building process that is central to AMUN’s educational mission and that reflects the real work of the United Nations. 

Draft resolutions are not eligible for formal consideration on the floor of General Assembly Committees, the General Assembly Plenary or reporting bodies until they receive the sponsorship of at least 35 percent of the total delegations registered for their respective simulation. In the Security Council and the Historical Security Councils, only one sponsor is required. In all bodies additional sponsors may be added as the document is written until the document has been moved to the floor, at which point a delegation may become a sponsor only with the consent of the original sponsors. Once a substantive vote has been taken on a draft resolution or report—or on a contested amendment thereto—it has become the property of the body and no new sponsors may be added or removed from the draft resolution or report. 

Chairs and presidents will entertain motions for a suspension of the meeting to facilitate the process of discussing, creating, combining and changing draft documents. It is recommended that representatives use this time to discuss the problems facing their committee and begin creating documents or combining existing drafts as proposed by members of the body. These sessions offer representatives an opportunity to enter the United Nations political process of working with others in an attempt to build consensus, but in a less formal setting.

The process of using drafts and requiring more than one sponsoring delegation is intended to replicate the United Nations practice of gaining near-universal support for drafts before they are brought to the floor for debate and decision. Further, it should push delegations away from looking at a proposal as “theirs” and toward working with others to find a solution and to gain consensus on the topic being discussed. AMUN requires a relatively high number of sponsors in order to encourage the body to work together on proposals, rather than individual delegations or small blocs working on separate proposals in isolation. Additionally, once a draft is accepted and brought to the floor for debate, the resolution becomes the work of the body and is not “owned by” or “credited to” any single Member State or bloc.

States that sponsor (or sign) a resolution should be in general agreement with its content at the time it is submitted, such that they would vote “yes” on the resolution. This sponsorship, however, is non-binding. Member States may exercise their sovereign right to vote in any way on any matter that affects the outcome of the resolution. To this end, representatives will need to work together and most likely combine clauses from a number of drafts or subsequent proposals made by other Member States at the Conference. Representatives are strongly encouraged to undertake this process before a draft is brought to the floor. As with the United Nations in New York, building support for one draft that encompasses the entire topic will be a much better use of the representatives’ time than trying to work on multiple draft resolutions, many of which will overlap. AMUN suggests that representatives not contend over which draft will come to the floor, but rather caucus and compromise to determine how best to combine drafts into a coherent, whole product that all Member States can accept. Representatives are encouraged to use friendly amendments or draft a new, all-encompassing document to accomplish this goal. Rapporteurs are available in General Assembly committees, special committees and reporting bodies to assist with this process.

After a draft resolution, report or presidential statement has been entered into the appropriate Representative Workspace and receives the requisite sponsorship, representatives must share a copy of the draft document with the dais staff for approval. The dais staff will review the draft and discuss with representatives any necessary or suggested edits. Once representatives have entered all necessary edits, the dais staff will approve the draft document and make it formally available to the body for consideration. The body will not formally act on a draft resolution until the entire body has been given the ability to review it. 

After a draft has been approved, the dais staff will announce that the draft has become available for consideration. The draft will be available to the body in the Representative Workspace (Google Drive) environment which all Representatives with an AMUN designated email can access. 

Points to Consider in Writing Draft Resolutions

The following list includes important points to consider when writing a draft resolution. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but should provide a good starting point to make draft resolutions as realistic as possible.

• In the preambular clauses, describe the recent history of the situation and the issue as it currently exists.
• Refer to specific past United Nations actions and previous resolutions passed on the topic, when available.
• In the operative clauses, include actions or recommendations that will address or solve the problem, not just make a statement.
• Avoid using blatantly political language in the content of the draft resolution—this may damage efforts to reach a consensus on the issue.
• Take into account the points of view of other States whenever possible.
• Write the draft resolution from an international or United Nations perspective, not just from a single country’s point of view.
• Consider whether the substance of the draft resolution is within the purview of the committee and refer relevant parts to other bodies where appropriate.
• Refer issues which need further discussion to appropriate, existing bodies.
• Do not create new committees/councils/commissions/working groups/etc. without first considering if other similar bodies already exist.
• Always consider previous United Nations resolutions on the topic; do not duplicate what other resolutions have done without referencing the appropriate sources.

Purview and Other Content Requirements for Resolutions

One point to consider when drafting a document is whether its content is within the bod’s purview. Each body within the United Nations has a purview, or subject-matter jurisdiction, over which that body is granted authority by the United Nations Charter. A body will not address subject matter that is outside its purview, because that subject almost always belongs to the purview of another body. The topic briefs for each simulation identify the purview for each United Nations body simulated at AMUN. Dais staff—Rapporteurs in committees and reporting bodies and Simulation Directors in the Security Councils—will review submitted documents to determine whether they are within the purview of the body. If necessary, dais staff will offer suggestions as to how to modify a draft document to bring it within the purview of the body, rather than rejecting a submission.

As part of our educational mission, AMUN strives to simulate the United Nations as realistically as possible within the confines of a four-day simulation. Accordingly, for all simulations outside of the Security Council and Historical Security Council simulations, AMUN limits the topics that may be discussed. These topics are identified in depth within this handbook. In committees with limited agendas, Rapporteurs will not accept resolutions unless they are directed to one of the topics for the simulation and can assist in migrating work in this direction as needed.

The dais staff will not accept draft resolutions or other documents that it views as disruptive to the work of the body or the Conference as a whole. Disruptive resolutions and other documents are those that are only tangentially related to a topic for that simulation, or those that contain language, proposals or solutions that are generally not seen in United Nations resolutions. Such disruptive resolutions detract from the educational experience of all AMUN’s participants. Accordingly, the submission of disruptive resolutions is considered diplomatically discourteous, and will be addressed by the Dais staff in accordance with Rule 2.2, Diplomatic Courtesy. Decisions of the Secretariat on these matters are final.

Draft Resolution Guidelines and Format

Draft resolutions will consist of a standard heading section followed by preambular and operative clauses. Preambular clauses are listed first; they are used to justify action, denote past authorizations and precedents for action or denote the purpose for an action. Operative clauses are the statements of policy in a resolution. Each operative clause is numbered, begins with a verb to denote an action (or suggested action) and usually addresses no more than one specific aspect of the action to be taken.

Draft resolutions must be generated and submitted using the resolution template available in the Representative Workspace that AMUN provides for the simulation. The draft resolutions must also comply with the following additional formatting requirements:

• During the processing of draft resolutions, do not use italics, bold or underlined print to highlight words. Italic text should only be used as shown in the Sample Draft Resolution.
• Clauses must begin with proper introductory words/phrases in italics.
• Do not add the topic number or name of your committee. This information will be added by your simulation’s Rapporteur when the document is approved.
• See the Sample Draft Resolution for additional requirements.

Rapporteurs and dais staff are available to assist representatives with any questions about format, grammar and entry into the Representative Workspace.

Sample Draft Resolution

Draft Resolution Guidelines

• All preambular and operative phrases are italicized.
• The first word of all clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses is capitalized. In a clause with a two-word introductory phrase (e.g., Further noting) both words are italicized, but only the first is capitalized.
• All preambular clauses begin with an “ing” form verb (e.g., Acknowledging, Recalling), or other appropriate phrase (e.g., Alarmed by).
• All operative clauses begin with a verb that demonstrates action (e.g., Requests, Calls upon).
• All words should be spelled according to standard American usage, except in formal program or organization names or titles (e.g., World Food Programme).
• Acronyms and initialisms are appropriate in resolutions, except when referring to the United Nations and its principal organs (e.g., the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council), which should always be spelled out in full.
• Acronyms and initialisms are written out in full the first time they are used within a resolution, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses (e.g., African Development Bank (ADB)).
• Full dates should always be used, including in reference to resolutions (e.g., 9 October 1977 or resolution 61/171 of 19 December 2006).
• In Security Council resolutions, the year the resolution was passed should be in parentheses along with the full date (e.g., resolution 1757 (2007) of 30 May 2007).
• When referencing a resolution, use the short resolution number instead of the full document symbol (e.g., resolution 61/171 instead of resolution A/RES/61/171).
• Whole numbers under 10 are written out, except in fractions, in lists or comparisons, in percentages, vote counts, ratios, etc. Do not use a % symbol. Use “none” instead of zero.
• Numbers between 10 and 999,999 should be written in figures, except at the beginning of a clause or sentence.
• Millions, billions and trillions, are written as follows: 1 million, 4.3 billion, etc.
• Isolated references to weights and measurements are spelled out (e.g., ten kilometers).
• Generally, do not use a comma before the final element of a list.
• Lists of sponsors and/or authors are not included in the final version of documents. Once passed, they become the work and property of the whole body.

Amendments

An amendment is a written statement that adds to, deletes from or otherwise modifies a draft resolution, report or other document. An amendment may be as small as changing a single word, or as large as the deletion or insertion of numerous clauses in a document. Both preambular and operative clauses in draft resolutions may be amended.

Member States typically propose informal changes to draft documents during the drafting process. If a sponsor of a draft document does not approve of the proposed changes, they will not be incorporated into the draft document. However, the proposed changes may be introduced via a formal amendment after the document is officially introduced to the body for discussion. Otherwise, a sponsor may choose to withdraw its sponsorship from the draft document into which the proposed changes are incorporated.

Once a document is approved by the body’s dais staff, amendments must be made through a formal process. This involves drafting the amendment in the appropriate Representative Workspace and submitting it to the appropriate Dais Staff for approval. See the Sample Amendment Form. A minimum of 15 percent of delegations must sponsor each amendment, although only one sponsor is required in the Security Council and Historical Security Councils. If all of the sponsors of a resolution are also sponsors of an amendment, the amendment is considered “friendly” and automatically becomes part of the draft resolution without a vote. If not all of the resolution sponsors have agreed to the amendment, it must go through the standard amendment process. This includes moving the amendment to the floor, discussion and voting procedure. If the body takes any substantive vote on an amendment or any part of the draft resolution, the document becomes the property of the body and the friendly amendment process is no longer available to the resolution’s sponsors. Any subsequent amendments must be voted on by the body to be incorporated into the resolution.

Formally submitted amendments should be in the Representative Workspace, and should provide information on what changes are to be made to the existing resolution. This should include what language is to be amended, where that language currently exists in the resolution and where the newly proposed language should go.

Sample Amendment

Reports

A report is another type of formal document at the United Nations. Reports of functional commissions, standing committees, regional commissions or other bodies that make reports to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) or the General Assembly generally follow the United Nations format for annual reports. At AMUN the reporting body may write only one report for each topic that is presented. The reports summarize the body’s discussion of the topic and make recommendations of actions to be taken by the appropriate body. At this year’s Conference, the following simulation will write reports: the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ).

The report format is outlined here, and a sample Table of Contents for the report follows. A more detailed description and sample reports are available online here. The dais staff in each report-writing body will provide additional details to the commission on the first day of Conference and will assist representatives throughout the report-writing process. Please note that in this section “commission” refers to the reporting body and “council” refers to the body that receives the report.

The first item in the report will be an executive summary, not exceeding one page, that outlines the major points of the report, including the commission’s findings and its recommendations to the council. It is important that the executive summary contains all the critical information for the body hearing the report. The special rapporteurs will guide representatives through the report-writing process and formal acceptance of the report. The executive summary is written last to encompass all parts of the compiled report once actions are determined and deliberations finalized.

Chapter I of the report will be titled “Matters calling for action by the Economic and Social Council or brought to its attention.” (For bodies reporting to the General Assembly, the chapter titles should be changed accordingly.) First, this chapter will contain the text of draft resolutions recommended by the commission for adoption by the council. With the exception of the title and numbering, the resolutions should follow standard resolution format as detailed in this handbook. Second, this chapter may contain a short statement on any other matter that requires action or attention by the council but has not been included in a draft resolution. Take care when including other matters that require action to ensure that there is consensus within the body for addressing these matters. Further, although Chapter I contains the text of draft resolutions recommended for adoption, the entire report should include substantially more material. The body should focus its efforts on drafting the report, rather than passing draft resolutions, which are merely recommendations, for inclusion in the report.

Chapter II of the report will be titled according to the official agenda item before the commission. This chapter should contain a brief account of the proceedings that the commission considers essential to transmit to the council and should focus on the decision making process that the commission followed in order to make its recommendations. This chapter is typically written throughout the entire time the commission is in session, taking into account all essential proceedings and decision making processes as they occur. Essential proceedings often include statements made by delegations regarding the topic at issue.

Chapter III, if necessary, should be titled “Decisions adopted by the Commission at its [year] session” and should contain those decisions, if any, adopted by the commission that do not require further action and that the commission takes in its own name. This practice is rare because ECOSOC Resolution 1623 (LI) states that resolutions of functional commissions and subsidiary bodies should normally be in the form of drafts for approval by the council. Generally, resolutions the body recommends (in other words, those that require further action) would not be incorporated in this chapter, but rather in Chapter I.

The last chapter should be titled “Adoption of the report.” The chapter should detail the manner in which the commission adopted the report, including the voting record, if any. This section of the report will be added by the Special Rapporteurs. Following the substantive chapters of the report, the commission may choose to include additional information as appendices for the council, including statements regarding the financial implications of the council’s recommendations; other relevant publications or statements; and relevant data, charts or graphs.

Reporting bodies should aim to conclude their substantive work by Monday evening, and they should finalize and accept the reports and compose the executive summaries for the reports on Tuesday.

Sample Table of Contents for Reports

Resolution Introductory Phrases

The following phrases/words are a partial list of appropriate introductions in resolutions.

Preambular Phrases

(single verb in present participle or other introductory phrase):

Operative Phrases

(verb in third person present indicative tense):

Lending Emphasis to Resolution Phrasing

Diplomatic communication relies heavily on connotation and nuance, and United Nations resolutions and decisions are no exception. When resolutions are constructed, they often contain language that actually conveys the very precise attitudes and intentions of the authors. At AMUN, representatives are urged to select words carefully when drafting resolutions. The introductory phrases listed above also carry significant emotional and diplomatic meaning. Accurate use of these introductory terms is of paramount importance at the United Nations, and should also be emphasized in AMUN simulations.

A more useful method for listing introductory phrases, rather than the alphabetical listing above, might be in order of the phrases’ emotional weight, described by United Nations practitioners as crescendos. Each of the following crescendos begins with a neutral phrase at the top (conveying little emotion) and concludes with a strongly worded phrase (conveying strongly positive or negative emotion). Some of these opening phrases also have common uses in the language of United Nations resolutions; when applicable, this information has been included parenthetically with each phrase. Some phrases that express strong insistence or negative emotion are typically only used in Security Council resolutions and even then are selected with great care—these are noted where appropriate.

Sample Preambular Phrase Crescendos

All lists of sample phrase crescendos presented below start with the most neutral/weakest phrase and end with the strongest phrases.

Noting (by being neutral, this term actually can connote negativity; for example, a resolution “noting the report of the Secretary-General” actually insults the Secretary-General’s work by not being more approving)

Noting with appreciation (this is the typical way to recognize a report or other document)

Noting with satisfaction

Noting with deep satisfaction

Alternatively, there can be further detail added to connote a more negative context for the point that is about to be made as shown in the following example:

Noting

Noting with regret

Noting with deep regret

Sample Operative Phrase Crescendos

Notes (See comments on “noting” above)

Notes with appreciation

Notes with satisfaction

Welcomes

Recommends (suggests that other United Nations organs take an action)

Invites (suggests that Member States take an action)

Requests (suggests that the Secretary-General take an action)

Appeals (suggests that Member States take an action, more emotional)

Calls Upon (suggests that Member States take an action, very emotional)

Urges (strongest suggestion by the General Assembly)

Demands (rarely used outside of the Security Council)

Notes with concern

Expresses its concern

Expresses its deep concern

Deplores

Strongly deplores

Condemns (rarely used outside of the Security Council)

Commonly Misunderstood Terms

Declares (used to make a statement)

Decides (used to indicate an action to be taken)

For sample usage of the phrases, see the Sample Draft Resolution and the Checklist for Resolution Formatting.

Security Council Presidential Statements

While the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies usually speak through reports and resolutions, the Security Council has another option: the presidential statement. At the United Nations, the Security Council adopts presidential statements more frequently than resolutions.

A presidential statement is a written statement issued by the President, noting that the Council has been discussing a specific topic and stating the general course of that discussion. These documents are frequently made at the beginning of or after a significant event in a crisis situation, but can be used at any point in the simulation. These statements can be as short as a sentence or two in length, but they can be longer if the situation dictates. Presidential statements are usually simple enough that they are agreed to by the entire body. This also means they often do not prescribe action and have little weight, unlike resolutions, which are technically binding on Member States. Presidential statements are often used when Members want to make a strong statement, but when one or more Member States, often Permanent Members, find it politically inexpedient to pass a binding resolution on the subject.

At AMUN, presidential statements are not written by the body’s President as they are at the United Nations in New York. Instead, presidential statements are written by the Council as a whole; the Council must enter a consultative session and reach consensus to adopt a draft presidential statement. While draft statements, like draft resolutions, may be constructed by individuals or small groups during suspensions, AMUN recommends that representatives collaborate as much as possible on the creation of presidential statements and suggests entering into a consultative session for this purpose. For more information, please see Security Council Rule 7.7 Consultative Sessions.

Representatives are free to circulate unofficial drafts, but a draft statement cannot be adopted until it has been entered into the Representative Workspace, has received approval by the Dais Staff and has been distributed to the Council. To adopt an approved draft statement, the Council must enter a consultative session. Once it appears consensus on the statement has been met, the president will ask if there is any objection to consensus on the document. If there are no objections to consensus, the statement will be adopted. If there are objections, the Council may wish to discuss the draft further and make changes. Once consensus is reached, the statement is considered adopted; the Dais Staff will update the document with any agreed-to changes and copies of the final presidential statement will be made available to the Council.

Sample Security Council Presidential Statement

A holistic approach to research and preparation

AMUN recommends a systematic and holistic approach to research related to Conference preparation. This approach can be broken into eight components, represented by the subsequent subheadings. This approach ensures representatives will be well versed in each of these areas, will allow for their fullest participation in the Conference and will maximize the educational benefit of their experience. This approach is recommended for students participating in traditional Model UN simulations such as the General Assembly Committees, Security Council or Historical Security Council. Students participating in specialized simulations, such as the International Court of Justice, the Historical Commission of Inquiry or the International Press Delegation, may have different preparatory requirements.

The United Nations system

Representatives must understand the basics of the organization which they are simulating—the United Nations. Well-prepared representatives not only know the basic structure of the United Nations, but also understand how their committee fits into the organization and how their committee accomplishes its work. This information allows representatives to make better decisions regarding what actions the body they are simulating can and cannot reasonably take. This basic delineation of responsibilities is called purview, and this handbook includes a brief description of each committee’s purview.

The history and current affairs of the represented State

Understanding the history and current affairs of the represented State is the first key to understanding what actions a State may prefer on specific issues. Research should include basic statistical data and general information such as population, demographics, government type, natural resources and trade data. Students should become familiar with the State’s traditional allies and adversaries. A State’s history can be crucial to understanding its contemporary actions, including the questions of whether that State was previously colonized or was a colonial power, when the State gained statehood and what means were used in gaining independence (e.g., civil or revolutionary war, peaceful protests or state dissolution).

The represented State’s viewpoints on the issues to be discussed at the Conference

This is the central point of most Model UN preparation: focused research on the issues being discussed in each committee and on your State’s position on those issues. Research can come from a variety of sources, beginning with United Nations documents and moving to other articles, periodicals, books and internet resources. United Nations resolutions and reports on relevant topics  are especially helpful because they provide a quick reference to what has already been accomplished in the past and what still needs to be done. These documents frequently provide voting information, which allows representatives to quickly determine their State’s past positions on issues. Relevant sources are provided throughout each topic brief in this handbook. Contacting the delegation’s permanent mission to the United Nations may also be helpful, but the level of assistance provided varies with each country’s policies and available resources.

It will be easy for some representatives to find specific information about their State’s position on most or all topics, while for others this information will be difficult or impossible to obtain. When clear-cut information is not available, representatives should make the best possible inferences about what their State’s policy would be given the facts available. Representatives can form these inferences based on the State’s background, its historical voting record and the positions of its traditional allies or regional group, among other factors. Regardless of the facts available, knowing exactly what a State would do in a given situation is often not possible. Representatives should strive to know as much as possible about their State’s stance on each topic and make reasonable policy assumptions on issues that are not totally clear.

The relationship between the current world situation and the represented State

This is a subset of the previous two areas of research, but it is important enough to be mentioned in its own right. The world situation is dynamic, as are the States that make up the international system, and States’ positions on some issues may hinge on their particular situation or perspective. For example, it may seem obvious that there are differences between the policies of a regional great power and a state with very little military might, but it is also worth considering the extent to which States are engaged militarily beyond their own borders. States with different development profiles—for example, industrialized States and developing States may have vastly different concerns and policy positions. A State that is currently in the midst of civil war or a State under United Nations sanctions may have unique positions on some issues. Knowing where a represented State fits into the current world geopolitical context can complement country-specific research and answer many questions that may arise during the simulation.

The perspectives of other States on the issues on the Conference agenda

Anticipating the positions of other delegations can be a challenging element of pre-Conference preparation. While it is reasonable to expect that a representative will know who their general allies and adversaries are on a given issue, it is very difficult to have detailed information about the policies of each State in the simulation. Limitations in preparation time require that representatives focus primarily on the policies of their own country, often learning about other delegations’ positions in the context of researching their own States’ positions. It is much more likely, though, that each representative will be learning the formal policies of the other States in the committee when other representatives give speeches from the floor and when they confer with others behind the scenes in caucus sessions. In roleplaying, flexibility is key: representatives must aggregate new information they gain at the Conference and assimilate it with their pre-Conference research to best reach consensus and compromise on complex issues.

AMUN rules of procedure

Substantive discussions of issues form the basis of any good simulation of the United Nations, while the rules of procedure facilitate this debate. In general, these rules are intended to provide an even playing field, allowing each State to accomplish its individual policy goals, while maximizing opportunities for the group to reach agreement or consensus. We recommend that each representative has a working knowledge of the principal motions which can be made during the simulation, which can be found on the Rules Short Forms. The dais staff of each Committee will assist representatives in using these rules and will work to create an even playing field for all representatives. For experienced representatives who have not attended AMUN in the past, we suggest reading AMUN’s rules in depth to note differences from other conferences they have attended. AMUN veterans should reread the rules as a refresher. Most Model United Nations conferences use different rules of procedure, and in some cases the contrasts are significant. In order to best facilitate everyone’s experience, it is incumbent on every participant to learn and use the rules established for this conference.

Practicing using the AMUN Rules of Procedure in a mock session is one of the best ways to prepare for this aspect of the conference. AMUN provides the Model UN in a Box simulation guide to all registered schools, which can assist faculty advisors or club leaders in running practice simulations. Please email the AMUN Executive Office if you have any questions about the AMUN Rules of Procedure.

Resolution and report writing

At AMUN the main substantive work of the body takes the form of resolutions and reports. These documents are the work of all the representatives in the body. There are several ways to become familiar with the resolution and report writing process. To begin we suggest reading the United Nations Documents chapter of this handbook for guidelines about crafting resolutions and reports. The UN Documents chapter includes a sample resolution, as well as a sample report table of contents. These can be used as a guide while drafting your own documents. Resolutions and reports at the United Nations often have a distinct tone and style, and representatives can familiarize themselves with these conventions by reading and analyzing the language and content of many resolutions or reports. Representatives can practice writing resolutions and their clauses and become familiar with the writing style to better translate ideas into clear statements at the Conference. Representatives should also familiarize themselves with the purview of each body, so they can develop an understanding of what their committee can and cannot do and how it fits into the larger United Nations system. More information about purview is included at the start of each simulation’s background briefs. The Dais Staff of each committee will answer any questions regarding documents and purview. Remember that while writing resolutions and reports ahead of time can be a great way to practice, the best documents reflect the consensus of your simulation and are crafted by the body as a whole.

Preparing as a group

All of these areas of preparation will require research and practice. We recommend team preparation whenever possible, as delegations should represent their State’s positions consistently across simulations and many of the preparatory categories cross committee boundaries. Representatives can work together by assigning various topics to individuals for research and then come back together as a group to hear each others’ reports and to discuss the implications for representing the State. Research about the United Nations system and the basic information about a country—its background, history, statistical data, contemporary situation, etc.—is best accomplished by a collaborative effort. Research about specific committees and topics will be more individualized. Still, other team members on the delegation may benefit from having a briefing on each topic. These briefings can give the entire delegation a broader picture of the State’s policies and positions. Formal briefings that include both general and topic-specific information also allow representatives to practice public speaking, answering questions, consolidating information and presenting information persuasively.

When representatives are working in pairs on a single committee, AMUN recommends against having one person become the expert in each topic. In simulations, the coverage of topics may be uneven and unpredictable, and teams function most effectively when both partners share expertise.

Developing a conference strategy

As part of its preparation, each delegation should determine its strategy and goals for the Conference. All delegations should be involved in working toward solutions to the problems placed before the United Nations. This requires a great deal of negotiation and compromise, often at the expense of certain positions that may be of concern to an individual delegation. Each delegation’s representatives must therefore decide which items are of greatest importance to their State and set their strategies accordingly. Strategic areas to consider include the following:

• What kind of role will your delegation play at the Conference (e.g., conciliatory, obstructive, aggressive, neutral or leading)?
• Will your delegation seek informal leadership positions in each committee?
• How can your delegation achieve the goals and interests identified in your research and delegation strategy?
• What other delegations will your delegation attempt to work with? Note: these delegations may vary by committee or by topic.
• Which delegations may present adversarial positions to your delegation and how will your delegation respond?

Remember, passing resolutions and reports is not the only or even truest measure of success at the Conference. While each delegation is encouraged to propose solutions on the various issues and to secure passage of resolutions and reports that outline the solutions, representatives must stand ready to compromise to achieve any real solution to the problems being discussed.

Conducting research

General sources of information

AMUN recommends the following general sources of information to use when researching a State and the issues discussed at the Conference. Many of these sources are available on the internet, either publicly or through subscriptions held by school libraries.

• United Nations UN News 
• The World Factbook (CIA)
• Permanent Missions to the United Nations
• United Nations Department of Global Communications
• The Europa World Yearbook
• United Nations Handbook (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade)
• Various periodicals and other news sources, including the United Nations Chronicle, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, and Reuters

United Nations sources

Most United Nations resolutions, documents, speeches and other resources can be accessed through the internet. Most United Nations agencies have a significant presence online and maintain a number of databases with relevant information on various regions around the world.

The main United Nations website provides current information and continuous updates on the work of the United Nations, especially in the General Assembly, Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. The website also includes historical information about these bodies, reports from the Secretary-General and a host of other useful documents. The United Nations website is updated frequently and the navigation sometimes changes, but it remains a useful starting point for research.

Most United Nations members now have websites for their permanent missions in New York and Geneva. When a website is available, it often includes details on the State’s policy and may include the text of speeches given by representatives at the United Nations.

The United Nations also provides public access to its Official Document System (ODS), which includes nearly all documents published by the UN, including many that are not available through the main website. Please note that the search engine available on ODS is not always easy to use. It is easiest to find files if you know the document number. Each UN document has a unique symbol at the top right of the document. Symbols include both letters and numbers, some of which have meanings while others do not. The bibliography section of each topic brief in this handbook contains references to several United Nations documents and can act as a starting place for your preparations. Typing this document number into an internet search engine is also often successful. The United Nations Digital Library provides an advanced keyword search for a wide array of official documents, including final and draft resolutions, reports and official correspondence.

AMUN materials

Most Model UN research is accomplished online, and there are a vast number of sources at representatives’ disposal. AMUN’s website offers a good starting point for your research, as it includes links to many United Nations-related sites. This website is updated with United Nations links as they become available and includes a great deal of background information to assist in your preparations for Conference. AMUN also publishes updates, UN-related content and tips for preparation on the conference blog, The AMUN Accords.

AMUN also provides each registered school with a complimentary copy of Model UN in a Box, a simulation guide faculty advisors and club leaders can use to assist with in-depth conference preparation. In addition to significant background on teaching Model UN and Model UN research, it also includes a number of hands-on and practical exercises to help students prepare for resolution-writing, caucusing, speaking and consensus building. The guide also includes three simulations for practice sessions. These simulations include everything you need to run a simulation, including topic briefs, country background guides, placards and facilitator notes.

Writing position papers

Why draft a position paper?

Well-crafted position papers serve several functions for Conference participants. Position papers are useful for a delegation’s internal preparation, as well as for signaling the delegation’s public position on a topic and for gaining insight into other delegations’ positions before the Conference. AMUN strongly encourages all delegations to outline their State’s basic public policy on each issue to be discussed at Conference. This public statement is crucial for pre-Conference preparations and is the most important thing delegations can provide to each other in advance. AMUN collects position papers and makes them publicly available to all delegations on our website before the Conference. AMUN requests that all delegations submit public position papers and strongly suggests that each delegation prepare internal position papers that more clearly and completely define their country’s perspective and strategy on the topics under discussion.

Internal position papers

An internal position paper is primarily a tool for your individual preparation and for the delegation as a whole. While internal position papers are not required, AMUN believes these to be an excellent exercise for consolidating and communicating your delegation’s positions on various issues. Internal position papers, often called white papers, are a broad-based statement of a country’s policies on a specific issue. An internal position paper might include a State’s public position on an issue, knowledge of any behind-the-scenes or backchannel diplomatic efforts and agreements (e.g., a deal made informally with a close ally or partner), information about the position of allies and adversaries on each topic, the State’s negotiating position and strategy, a statement of the State’s objectives, a bottom-line negotiating position (e.g., what things the delegation will demand or concede in the course of negotiations, what language must be included or excluded in a draft resolution or report) and any other useful information.

Internal position papers help representatives to think about the full complexity of their delegation’s perspective on the issues they are tasked with confronting. The process of writing an internal position paper can help each representative condense their large amount of research and ideas into a concise and comprehensible position that can be articulated at the Conference. Internal position papers do not need to be more than one or two pages long and can take any form that the delegation deems appropriate. AMUN recommends that delegations share all internal position papers with their entire team to provide a well-rounded view of the country’s positions on all topics at the Conference.

Public position papers

Public position papers offer public statements on a State’s position on a particular agenda item. At AMUN, delegations write a position paper for each topic on the Conference agenda. AMUN publishes these position papers on our website, where they can be sorted by delegation and topic to aid in preparation for the Conference. Each paper should include a brief statement about the State’s position on the topic and its opinions about recent United Nations action on the topic. It should indicate the State’s public position on how the United Nations should respond, especially noting proposals that a delegation has (or intends to have) sponsored, supported or not supported and why. Public papers do not need to go into detail about the delegation’s negotiating positions or other behind-the-scenes issues, but they should be seen as something that a diplomat might say in a public speech on the topic.

While a delegation can include anything it deems relevant in its public position papers, AMUN recommends including some key elements in each paper. First, each position paper should specifically state one or two key points that the delegation believes are most important on each topic. This exercise will help the delegation prioritize and find like-minded delegations when it is time to caucus and negotiate. The paper should then offer specific details about why these issues are important and what the delegation proposes should be done by the United Nations or individual States to improve the situation.

Depending on the agenda item, the available information and the State’s situation, there are a number of other elements that may be included in a public position paper. Representatives should consider incorporating some or all of these elements in their position papers:

• References to past United Nations resolutions and international treaties, providing the specific number or name of the document and the year it passed.
• References to the United Nations Charter, as appropriate for the topic.
• Past statements by the Secretary-General, a senior United Nations Secretariat member or by a Representative of a United Nations agency on the topic.
• Reference to the work the United Nations has already done on the topic, whether by specialized agencies, regional bodies or working with non-governmental organizations.
• Past statements relevant to the topic by government representatives.
• Specific suggestions of actions that the representatives’ State will support in solving the issue in question.

Finally, public position papers generally do not need to contain extensive background on a particular State’s internal factors related to the topic; the public position paper is about how the State positions itself within the international debate on the issue rather than its internal dynamics. Thus public position papers should generally not talk about the problems facing a specific State but rather the problems facing the international community. If a State offers  a clear example of a successful United Nations program in action, or if the State is a member of an affected group, representatives may want to include a brief reference to that in their paper; otherwise, there is usually no need to mention details about particular States in a position paper.

Position paper submissions

AMUN requests each delegation submit position papers to the Conference, covering each committee on which it is seated, no later than 25 October. These papers should be no more than one-half page on each topic covered in the committee. All delegations should submit a paper covering the Concurrent General Assembly Plenary, each of the three General Assembly Committees and the World Health Assembly (WHA), including both topics for each committee. Delegations represented on the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)  should also include the two topics of discussion for the Commission. Delegations represented on the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) should also include the two topics of discussion for the Committee. Delegations represented on the Security Council or Historical Security Council should choose up to three topics they think are the most important for their respective Council to discuss and include these in their position paper. Delegations seated on the Historical Commission of Inquiry should also include Preparatory Statements covering each inquiry; more information on Preparatory Statements can be found in Chapter 11: Introduction to the Historical Commission of Inquiry. 

One comprehensive position paper should be submitted online for each delegation, combining all of the papers for the committees on which that delegation is seated. A sample position paper, along with full submission instructions, is available on AMUN’s website.

The AMUN Secretariat will not judge the position papers other than to check for completeness and general germaneness. Position papers will be collected and organized by the AMUN Secretariat and posted on the AMUN website prior to the Conference. As public documents, position papers must conform to the standards laid out in AMUN’s policy on plagiarism (see below).

All position papers must be submitted via AMUN’s online web form. Additional submission information will be sent in the fall to all registered schools. AMUN reserves the right to reject any position paper that fails to address one of the topics as stated in this handbook, does not comport with basic standards of diplomatic courtesy or is determined to violate the policy on plagiarism.

Any school with a late fall start date (as may be common for schools on quarter or trimester systems) may request a one-week extension to the official due date listed above by emailing the AMUN Executive Office before 25 October.

Position Paper Awards

AMUN will provide a Position Paper Award for each delegation that submits an approved, complete position paper, including sections for each topic in all assigned simulations, by 11:59 p.m. Central Time on 25 October. Note that this must include sections for the Concurrent General Assembly Plenary, all General Assembly Committees and any other simulation on which the delegation has a representative seated. Submission of a position paper for the Special Committee (our optional-participation simulation) is not required for a Position Paper Award. If a school is representing multiple countries, each delegation will be considered separately for a Position Paper Award.

For answers to any questions about writing or submitting position papers or about Position Paper Awards, please email the AMUN Executive Office at mail@amun.org.

Simulations, Roles and Roleplaying

The AMUN Conference is a simulation of the United Nations. By nature, the quality and tone of debate will be different than at the United Nations in New York. AMUN’s policies, topics and rules of procedure are all designed to enhance the educational value of the simulation. Each person involved at AMUN, from representatives to faculty advisors to members of the Secretariat, has a role to play in ensuring a successful simulation. This chapter outlines the various roles and responsibilities of Conference participants.

AMUN Philosophy and the Realism of Simulations

One of the core principles of AMUN is to mirror the practice and dynamics of the United Nations as closely as possible within the confines of the simulation. To that end, AMUN strives to create and conduct simulations that facilitate realistic representations of diplomacy at the United Nations and the broader international system. We believe this commitment furthers AMUN’s aims to create a fair and fun experience for all representatives and that it enhances AMUN’s educational mission.

For any issue before the United Nations, each Member State or Observer State will have a variety of responses available to it; however, a realistic simulation will consider only those options that would have reasonably been considered by a State at a particular moment in time. In other words, there will always be options States do not consider or dismiss out of hand because they have limited capabilities or due to historical, cultural or political constraints; in a realistic simulation, these options are not appropriate.

In conjunction with our policy on delegations that are “Out of Character,” AMUN members of the Secretariat will work with representatives to ensure the highest-quality, most realistic simulation of the United Nations as possible while still allowing room for innovative and creative thinking to open up new possibilities for the United Nations and the international community.

The AMUN Secretariat

The AMUN Secretariat is made up of college students, graduate students and professionals from a variety of fields. All Secretariat members are highly trained and experienced in Model UN-ing, both as representatives and staff members at previous AMUN conferences or other Model UN conferences. Secretariat members will chair the committees; serve as Simulation Directors, and Rapporteurs; direct the International Press Delegation and the International Court of Justice; and run  Home Government, Conference Services and Executive Offices. Secretariat members will be able to answer any questions representatives or faculty members have about AMUN or direct them to someone who will answer their questions.

The Secretariat will also be available at after-hours functions. They will encourage all representatives to move all gatherings to designated areas and to minimize disruptions for other guests of the hotel. When possible, they will intervene with the hotel in disputes between the representatives and the hotel. In the interest of an orderly conference, please follow all directions of Secretariat members.

Executive Office

The AMUN Executive Office includes the Executive Director and other senior members of the AMUN Secretariat. This is the primary point of contact for participating schools throughout the year. At the Conference, the Executive Office handles all financial and registration issues, makes changes to credentials as needed, is available at Faculty and Permanent Representative meetings and conducts the lottery for country assignments for the next year’s Conference.

Home Government

The AMUN Home Government Secretariat is available to help representatives provide an accurate roleplaying experience at Conference by providing content support during the AMUN Conference. Home Government can provide roleplayers to address the simulations on the topics being covered; to enhance their debate and educational experience or  fulfill information requests and briefing requests submitted by representatives through the Dais Staff to supplement their pre-Conference research.

Conference Services

Conference Services is the all-purpose information hub for representatives and faculty. Visit Conference Services, on the Ballroom level, to find helpful information about all things related to the Conference.

Conferences Services is the place to purchase AMUN memorabilia to commemorate your AMUN experience and can print replacement credentials for representatives and faculty advisors. Those applying to join the AMUN Secretariat can submit their applications at Conference Services.

Dais Staff

Members of the AMUN Secretariat assigned to all simulations except the International Court of Justice and the International Press Delegation are referred to as Dais Staff. The specific makeup of a dais team will vary depending on the type of committee. Generally, resolution-writing bodies will have chairs or presidents who facilitate debate using the AMUN rules of procedure and rapporteurs who facilitate the resolution process. Report-writing bodies will have presidents to facilitate debate and rapporteurs who will guide the body through the report writing process. In the Security Council and Historical Security Councils, presidents and vice presidents will facilitate debate through the use of the AMUN rules of procedure and assist representatives with the processing resolutions and presidential statements, and simulation staff will act as the primary source of information for the Councils, including acting as the Home Office for the Councils’ participants. In the Commission of Inquiry, the simulation staff act as the primary point of contact for the Commissioners, facilitating Commission processes and procedures, managing witness testimony, and facilitating the reports.

International Court of Justice Staff

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is conducted differently than other simulations. The Court is structured and directed by the Justices, who are chosen by application prior to the Conference. The AMUN Secretariat members include the ICJ Director-Registrar and ICJ Registrars, assist Advocates in drafting Memorials and preparing for Oral Arguments, guide the simulation by providing advice about the structure of the simulation and provide supplemental research to the Justices.

International Press Delegation Staff

The International Press Delegation (IPD) is staffed by a Director and Editors who work to produce AMUN’s Conference newspaper, the AMUN Chronicle. Editors are responsible for assisting reporters in reviewing articles and for suggesting any corrections to spelling, grammar or style for all articles. The Director is responsible for making final content decisions, passing articles to the Publisher for inclusion in the Chronicle, submitting the final version of the Chronicle to the Executive Committee and Executive Office for approval and for publishing the Chronicle.

Delegations

Delegations are, collectively, the group of people who represent a United Nations Member State or Observer State at the Conference. A school may field more than one delegation; delegations from the same school may share a faculty advisor and meet together after-hours, but their in-character actions during the simulation should be based on their countries’ respective policies. Delegations can range in size from 5 people to more than 20.

The latitude allowed by roleplaying and simulation does not give delegations license to act “out of character.” Representatives should research and generally follow the policies of their State, modifying these as new circumstances dictate. Successful roleplaying involves walking a careful line on policy, avoiding the extremes of either reading verbatim a State’s past statements or creating an ad hoc policy with no previous basis.

The Representative

Well-prepared representatives are critical to the success of any Model UN conference. A representative’s job is to research the positions of a United Nations Member State or Observer State, both on the specific topics that will be discussed at the conference and for a general overview of that country’s policies.

With adequate preparation, representatives should be ready to discuss the issues with their counterparts and to prepare draft documents that, based on the specifics of each simulation, codify solutions to problems. These draft documents may be submitted for debate at the Conference provided they meet the requirements for formatting and content as outlined in this handbook.

Representatives attend the AMUN Conference to represent their country in discussing the issues presented. When representatives enter the opening session of AMUN, they assume the role of Distinguished Representative from their country with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

Unlike the United Nations in New York, at AMUN representatives will have only four days to assume the role of their State’s representative and simulate the actions of the United Nations. This consolidation of time leads to many different circumstances with which each delegation will have to contend. Among the challenges is the fact that representatives will rarely have the opportunity to give a pre‑written speech on a topic. Instead, they will often be forced to verbally react to circumstances as they arise, which may put them in a position where it is reasonable to reinterpret their country’s position in light of new context. Representatives should not simply read from their country’s established record on the issues presented; they should be prepared to compromise with the other States represented and adapt their policies when needed to meet the current circumstances as simulated at the Conference.

At the Conference, representatives (speaking on behalf of their governments) debate the issues on the agenda to seek solutions to problems facing the world community by caucusing with other State’s representatives and by drafting and discussing resolutions, reports and statements. Draft documents rarely maintain their original form between their first draft and what is eventually considered by the committee. Throughout the course of debate, draft documents may be amended or combined, or a body could engage in significant discussion of a particular issue, and still produce no final document. In the United Nations today, Member States and Observers often discuss an agenda item to reach a solution that can be agreed to by all, or at least by most, Member States.

Consensus-building is one of the most important goals for representatives in a Model United Nations simulation. At the United Nations, more than seventy‑five percent of the United Nations General Assembly’s resolutions are adopted by consensus. Adoption by consensus shows solidarity and strong support within the body for a decision or course of action. Passing resolutions by consensus is not possible on every issue, but this figure illustrates the importance of consensus-building in the international community. By aiming for universal agreement on written work, AMUN simulations strive to emulate this aspect of international diplomacy.

At the United Nations, representatives and their consular staffs spend months in preparation, caucusing behind closed doors and interacting with other delegations before an issue is brought to a vote. A United Nations representative, or Head of State, rarely makes a prepared speech that would surprise the other representatives present.

The Permanent Representative

Each delegation must appoint one person to act as the primary representative for that delegation who will assume the role of permanent representative when the delegation is on the floor for meetings. Schools with more than one delegation must appoint one permanent representative per delegation.

The permanent representative has several responsibilities including, but not limited to, the following:

• Being responsible to the Secretariat for the delegation and its actions
• Acting as the leader of the delegation for substantive matters
• Coordinating the delegation across Committees
• Coordinating and monitoring the delegation’s submission of draft documents
• Representing the delegation at general meetings of Permanent Representatives called by the Conference
• Acting as liaison to the Secretariat for any administrative matters at the Conference.

The permanent representative may sit in any committee at AMUN on which that delegation is seated in addition to the two regular representatives allowed in any body. The permanent representative may be assigned to a specific committee or may float throughout the various simulations at the Conference, helping where needed. The permanent representative may not be assigned to a Historical Security Council or the Historical Commission of Inquiry. If they are assigned to the Security Council (Contemporary), they must have a partner. If the permanent representative is not assigned to a specific committee, this person may be in the best position to represent the country if it is called as a party to the dispute in the Security Council or the Historical Security Councils or as a witness in the Historical Commission of Inquiry. Permanent representatives will be asked to provide their hotel room numbers, cellular phone numbers and primary committee assignment (if applicable) to the Secretariat during registration at Conference.

As the leader of the delegation, the permanent representative should be the focal point for coordinating the delegation’s efforts across the various simulations. This person should facilitate your delegation’s ability to maintain coherence in policy and statements across simulations.

Permanent representatives should maintain close contact with all committees to ensure that one representative is not acting inconsistently with their delegation’s positions. While the character of the delegation’s roleplaying should be thoroughly discussed in advance of the Conference, the permanent representative must ensure that individuals remain within character at the Conference.

Permanent representatives should also review draft documents sponsored by the delegation. Each draft document should be considered carefully to ensure that it is within the State’s policies and is of sufficient content to not prove embarrassing to the country if submitted for consideration on the floor.

The Faculty Advisor
If a school has a faculty advisor, AMUN suggests that their main role be in working with and preparing the school’s delegation(s) before the Conference. Faculty advisors can assist the delegation in both logistical and substantive preparation for the Conference.

AMUN recognizes the important role faculty advisors have in a delegation’s preparation for and negotiating the logistics of attending the Conference. Faculty can act as a sounding board for their students during the Conference, but that advice and consultation should generally be given outside of official session times. If consultation during sessions is required, it should occur outside of committee rooms.

It is important to note that faculty are not delegates to the Conference. Therefore, It is inappropriate for faculty to participate in or interfere with the work of the body. Faculty will not engage in caucusing or resolution drafting and may not take a seat at the Member State’s placard. Faculty from one school should never engage representatives from another school in debate on issues relating to Conference participation. Faculty are welcome to observe formal debate from the gallery seating provided at the back of committee rooms. Faculty should model the level of professionalism expected of all attendees of the conference.

Logistically, the faculty advisor may be the main contact with both the Conference and the school administration. This role could include working with finances and group organization, registering the school for the Conference, making hotel reservations, preparing travel arrangements and a host of other preparations. Alternatively, these roles could be delegated and assumed by the delegation leaders or club officers at a school.

In helping delegations prepare for the content issues they will face at the Conference, faculty advisors could either run a full-curriculum class or serve as a resource for a Model UN Club or other organization. They may use the well‑established, proven curriculum provided by the Model UN in a Box simulation guide, which contains resources to assist Model UN leaders in training delegations to participate at a Model United Nations conference. Also, the faculty advisor can coordinate and run preparatory sessions to better prepare students for the Conference.

Grading the Model UN Experience

AMUN strongly recommends faculty advisors not grade students based on quantitative measures of performance at the Conference. This practice often leads to poor roleplaying, as the students involved are working for their grade and not necessarily for the accurate portrayal of their country’s positions. Grading or evaluating students on quantitative measures can also undermine the collaboration and consensus-building that is at the core of the Model UN educational mission. Several areas where AMUN specifically discourages grading include the following:

• Students getting “their” draft resolution or amendment to the floor or passed
• Students speaking a certain number of times (stressing quantity over quality)
• Students making a certain number or type of motion

If grading is necessary, AMUN suggests the following as possible areas for appraisal:

• Pre‑Conference preparation, which may include papers or tests
• Quality of position papers, either internal or those submitted to the Conference
• Quality of resolutions drafted
• Attendance at scheduled Conference simulations and being on time for each session
• Effectiveness of roleplaying based on direct observations
  • Clearly stating and basing all actions upon the delegation’s position
  • Effectively working with other delegations, both on the floor and in caucusing
  • Effectively working toward consensus, when appropriate
• A post‑Conference reflection paper about the student’s learning and experience
• A post-Conference paper analyzing the substantive discussion from the conference
• Peer and self evaluation

The interactive nature of the Model UN experience provides incredible learning opportunities for students who attend and become immersed in that experience. AMUN requests that Faculty Advisors not dilute the students’ experiences by linking grades to quantitative performance at the Conference.

Additional simulation considerations

Roleplayers in Simulations

Representatives and members of the AMUN Secretariat may request roleplayers to represent a country, organization or entity that is not represented at AMUN. All requests for roleplayers should be directed to the dais staff. Roleplayers may be brought in to provide the following: a substantive report from the Secretariat; an expert report from a relevant United Nations body; an informational source from a non-governmental organization; or the perspective of an unrepresented Member State, observer or other unrecognized group. Roleplayers may, for example, be used to clarify any points of confusion about the work or goals of a simulation or to provide additional technical information about the current status of United Nations efforts in a particular area. Based on the availability of the Home Government roleplayer and at the discretion of the dais staff, representatives may have the opportunity to raise points of inquiry to gain additional information about the subject.

Briefings and Information Requests

Home Government is a resource center where representatives can obtain information to supplement their pre-Conference research. AMUN’s Home Government has specialized knowledge and training about the United Nations in general and the issues being discussed at AMUN in particular. They are expert researchers who excel at finding information about unexpected aspects of the topics. Home Government staff can assist representatives with supplemental information through both briefings and information requests. Briefings are delivered in person and cover country-specific information on a broader topic. Briefings are meant to help representatives become familiar with a specific topic and how their State may respond to discussion in the simulation; while Home Government is happy to provide expertise on a representative’s country, it will not advise a representative how to vote on any issue. Information requests are conducted through a virtual system and cover specific, smaller-scope questions. If you find yourself wondering which states are party to a specific treaty or what decisions were made at the last Commission on the Status of Women, an information request is a great resource to provide those answers. Requests for both Briefings and Information Requests are handled by your simulation’s Rapporteurs,  who liaise with Home Government on your behalf.

Purview

Issues occasionally arise that are outside the scope of an AMUN simulation. In these cases, representatives should consult their Rapporteur to determine whether the issue may be discussed at the Conference. Representatives in Security Councils and Historical Commission of Inquiry should consult their Simulation Directors about such issues. All decisions of the Secretariat are final.

Delegations that are “Out of Character”

Because students attending the Conference are not career diplomats representing their country and, in most cases, will not have lived in the country they are representing, questions do sometimes arise at Conference as to whether the individual’s action are “out of character” in relation to their delegation’s policies in the real world. AMUN has several specific suggestions to address this issue.

First, and most importantly, being “in character” is the responsibility of each delegation and ultimately falls to the permanent representative or the faculty advisor. There is no possible substitute for extensive preparation on your country and the issues to be discussed before attending the Conference. AMUN operates under the expectation and assumption that the members of each delegation will enter the Conference prepared and more knowledgeable about their individual country and their country’s stance on the issues than any other representative present.

If you or your delegation believe that a representative has not done sufficient research and is misinformed or acting “out of character” on a particular issue, AMUN recommends several steps: first, please revisit, internally, the actions taken by the representative in question. Is the representative “out of character” given the particular resolution and situation on the floor? Have circumstances (either in the real world or at the Conference) changed such that the representative could realistically modify their country’s stance on a particular issue? Are you certain that you know the actual stance of the country in question on the issue? Many cases of a representative appearing “out of character” stem from one party’s misinterpretations of what was said or of a country’s previously stated policies.

If you still believe that a representative is “out of character,” AMUN asks that you talk to the representative about the issue before bringing the problem to the Secretariat. This can be easily done in a non-confrontational manner by stating something like, “I hadn’t realized that was your country’s position on the issue; where did you see that?” -or- “I thought I read something in [state your source] about your country having a different opinion on this issue; have you seen that information?” Directly confronting a representative to say, “You’re wrong on this,” will likely not succeed and could damage your diplomatic relations in the future.

The representative will likely respond in one of two ways. The representative may respond with information to justify his or her position with a statement like, “I did the research and this is my country’s view on the issue,” or they may express interest in the new information you have provided. If this response answers your question, the issue is resolved. If a representative is interested in more information, please suggest that person visit the Rapporteurs or speak to a Simulation Director in Security Council and Commission of Inquiry simulations. If the representative is non-responsive or chooses not to answer your question, you can bring the issue to the attention of the Dais Staff who may assist representatives in seeking further assistance from Home Government or the Simulation Directors.

Chairs, Rapporteurs or Special Rapporteurs may arbitrate disagreements but will never render an opinion regarding an “out of character” situation. AMUN Secretariat members have different roles within the simulations, and Chairs, Rapporteurs and Special Rapporteurs are specifically instructed to not investigate or determine whether representatives are acting in or out of character. Chairs are specifically trained on the Rules of Procedure. Rapporteurs are trained to assist with issues related to drafting resolutions and reports and ensuring that documents fall within the purview of a specific simulation. The Rapporteurs and Simulation Directors are trained to assist representatives in refining and managing the consistent and accurate representation of their country. If delegations or individuals are finding it difficult to remain in character, AMUN’s goal is to provide them with the information needed to represent their country on a given issue correctly. AMUN will work with the delegation’s permanent representative and committee representatives to resolve the situation.

Because all participants at AMUN are learning about the United Nations as they participate, these situations may occur. AMUN expects that all delegations will take the time necessary to prepare and correctly portray their countries on each issue under consideration. AMUN also asks that representatives not jump to conclusions about other delegations’ roleplaying without having a detailed background on the other countries’ positions on the issues. Finally, AMUN asks that representatives on all sides handle potential “out of character” situations with the utmost diplomatic courtesy for all parties involved.

AMUN Rules of Procedure

While substantive discussions of the issues form the basis of any good simulation of the United Nations, the rules of procedure are essential to facilitating substantive debate. In general, these rules are intended to provide an even playing field, allowing each country to accomplish its individual goals in advocating their policies, while also maximizing opportunities for the group to reach agreement, or even consensus, on the issues. Several levels of preparation are possible on the rules. For new Model UN participants, AMUN recommends that each person have a working knowledge of the principal motions that can be made during the simulation, encapsulated on the Rules Short Forms. The Dais Staff of each committee will assist representatives in using these rules and assist in bringing everyone onto an even playing field. For experienced representatives, especially those who have not attended AMUN in the past, we suggest reading AMUN’s rules in depth, both as a refresher on these rules of procedure and to note differences from other conferences a school might attend. Most Model UN conferences use slightly different rules of procedure, and in some cases, the contrasts are significant. To best facilitate everyone’s experience, it is incumbent upon every participant to learn and use the rules established for this Conference. All representatives are encouraged to attend the appropriate Rules and Roleplaying session on Saturday afternoon before Opening Plenary. These are led by senior AMUN Secretariat members and are designed to give representatives an overview of AMUN’s rules and procedures.

The General Assembly is the central deliberative organ of the United Nations. The General Assembly has been described as the nearest thing to a “parliament of mankind” that exists. All Member States are members of the General Assembly and each delegation has one vote, regardless of size or population. The General Assembly makes recommendations on international issues, oversees all other United Nations bodies that report to the General Assembly, approves the United Nations budget and apportions United Nations funds. On the recommendation of the Security Council, the General Assembly elects the Secretary-General and holds the authority to admit and expel Member States. Voting in the General Assembly is ordinarily by simple majority, but most of the body’s work is adopted by consensus.

The General Assembly at AMUN

The Conference exists to provide a safe and educational environment for both representatives and AMUN Secretariat members to grow and learn. At the root of this is one of AMUN’s founding principles: to create the most realistic simulation possible by mirroring the United Nations’ structure and processes.

Due to time limitations on our simulations, AMUN has selected a set of two topics for each General Assembly simulation. We do this to help foster more thorough discussions around each topic.

General Assembly bodies use resolutions to help provide solutions and create pathways forward from the complex international issues under consideration. These are the principal documents produced by the General Assembly and they discuss the history of the topics before the body and suggest ways for the international community to address those issues. Every resolution must have at least one preambular and one operative clause, though most resolutions contain more. In addition to the requisite number of clauses, each resolution must be within the purview of the body. For more information regarding the crafting of resolutions please see the United Nations Documents Section of the AMUN Handbook. For more information on the purview of each committee, please reference the specific topic brief.

Research and resources available

One of the most important resources available is the research and preparation done before conference. This research can greatly affect a representative’s experience in the simulation. AMUN has several suggestions for how to go about researching a State’s position, history and culture. Information to aid in this research can be found in the Research and Preparation Section.

While pre-Conference research is one of the most valuable tools available to a representative, AMUN provides several other tools to support the educational experience. These resources are provided by several Secretariat members who will be available both in the simulation rooms as well as on the office level of the conference hotel.

Two types of dais staff are readily available in the simulation rooms: Committee Chairs and Rapporteurs.

The Committee Chairs preside over the room and facilitate debate in all simulations. They are the experts in the room when it comes to AMUN’s Rules of Procedure and are more than willing to help representatives understand and use the rules throughout the simulation. Chairs also observe substantive debate and keep track of the Committee’s proceedings.

Rapporteurs assist with content in each General Assembly simulation. Their role is to work with representatives as they write resolutions and to help ensure that the work of the body meets both AMUN and the United Nations’ standards for resolutions. They also provide guidance on committee purview and will help representatives work resolutions into purview, should it be necessary.

AMUN also provides content experts outside of committee. Home Government is available to help representatives with several tasks. If a representative wants an in-depth review of their country’s position on the topics being covered in a committee, Home Government can conduct briefings to provide them the information they need to participate more fully in the simulation. Home Government also has the ability to furnish committees with Roleplayers who provide information to the entire body as opposed to an individual representative.

Lastly, should representatives like to update the rest of the Conference on their progress, the International Press Delegation (IPD) is another resource they have for spreading information, be it through inclusion in an AMUN Chroniclearticle or a Press Conference.

1.0 Administrative 

1.1 The Secretariat. The Secretariat consists of the volunteer staff members of American Model United Nations (AMUN).

1.2 Rules Committee. The President of the General Assembly, the Senior Vice President(s) of the General Assembly, the Director of Rules and Procedures, the Director of Security Council Procedures and one other person as appointed by the Secretary-General shall compose the membership of the Rules Committee.

1.3 Credentials. All questions concerning the validity of representative credentials shall be submitted in writing to the Secretariat,

• The Secretariat has sole authority to create and distribute credentials,
• The Secretariat has sole authority to decide all questions concerning credentials, and
• Representatives must display approved credentials at all times while on the Conference premises.

1.4 Quorum/Majority. A quorum is one-fourth of the member delegations in attendance for each Committee; a majority is one-half of the member delegations in attendance for each Committee,

• A quorum must be present at all times during Committee sessions,
• A majority must be present for a substantive question to be put to a vote,
• Questions concerning quorum or majority should be directed to the Chair, and
• It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that a quorum is present at all times.

1.5 Committee Officers. The Secretariat shall appoint the President/Chairperson, Vice President/Vice Chairperson, and Rapporteur(s) for each Committee, and shall select any other positions necessary to help conduct the sessions of the Committees,

• Hereafter, in these rules, “Chair” will refer to both “Chairpersons” and “Presidents” and
• Hereafter, in these rules, “Committee” will refer to any Committee, Council or Commission, unless otherwise stated in the rule.

1.6 General Authority of the Chair. In addition to exercising such authority conferred upon the Chair elsewhere in these rules, the Chair shall,

• Declare the opening and closing of each session,
• Ensure the observance of the rules,
• Facilitate the discussions of the Committee and accord the right to speak,
• Advise the Committee on methods of procedure that will enable the body to accomplish its goals, and
• Rule on points and motions, and subject to these rules, have complete control of the proceedings of the Committee and the maintenance of order at its meetings.
• During the course of the session, the Chair may propose Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1), Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), Closure of Debate (rule 7.4), and Limits on Debate (rule 7.9). 

The Chair is under the direct authority of the Rules Committee and may be directed to inform the body on matters of procedure or the body’s topical competence if such action is deemed necessary by the Rules Committee.

1.7 Absence of Chair. If the Chair is absent during any part of a Committee Session, the Chair will designate a member of the AMUN Secretariat, usually the Vice Chair, to chair the session with the same authority.

1.8 Number of Accredited Representatives. Each delegation is allowed two representatives per Committee on which it is a member, plus one Permanent Representative,

• This excludes the Special Committee to the General Assembly, which only allows one representative plus one Permanent Representative.

1.9 Selection of Agenda Topics. Agenda topics shall be selected by the Secretariat prior to the start of the conference. Once selected, these topics are fixed for the duration of the conference.

1.10 Observer Status. Those delegations recognized as having Observer Status by AMUN shall be accorded all rights in the Committee except the following,

• They may not vote,
• They may not make or second the following motions:
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2),
  • Adjournment of Debate (rule 7.3),
  • Closure of Debate (rule 7.4), and
  • Decision of Competence (rule 7.7).

1.11 State of Palestine. In addition to the rights and privileges otherwise afforded to Observer States, the State of Palestine is accorded the right to be seated among Member States in alphabetical order. The State of Palestine may also,

• Co-sponsor resolutions and amendments
• Move for all procedural motions, including moving resolutions and amendments to the floor (7.13 and 7.14)

The State of Palestine is NOT accorded the right to vote on substantive matters. This rule only applies in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. 

1.11 State of Palestine. In addition to the rights and privileges otherwise afforded to Observer States, the State of Palestine is accorded the right to be seated among Member States in alphabetical order. The State of Palestine may also,

• Co-sponsor resolutions and amendments
• Move for all procedural motions, including moving resolutions and amendments to the floor (7.13 and 7.14)

The State of Palestine is NOT accorded the right to vote on substantive matters. This rule only applies in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. 

2.0 General Rules

2.1 Statements by the Secretariat. The Secretary-General or any member of the Secretariat may make verbal or written statements to a Committee at any time.

2.2 Diplomatic Courtesy. All participants in the AMUN Conference must accord Diplomatic Courtesy to all credentialed representatives, Secretariat Members, Faculty Advisors, Observers and Hotel staff at all times,

• Representatives who persist in obvious attempts to disrupt the session shall be subject to expulsion from the Committee by the Chair,
• The Secretariat reserves the right to expel any representative or delegation from the Conference, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.3 Speeches. No representative may address the Committee without obtaining the permission of the Chair,

• Delegations, not representatives, are recognized to speak; more than one representative from the same delegation may speak when the delegation is recognized,
• Speakers must keep their remarks germane to the subject under discussion,
• A time limit may be established for speeches (rule 7.9),
• At the conclusion of a substantive speech, representatives will be allowed to answer questions concerning their speech,
• A delegation that desires to ask a question of the speaker should signify by raising a Point of Inquiry (rule 6.3),
• All questions and replies are made through the Chair,
• A speaker who desires to make a motion may do so after speaking and accepting Points of Inquiry, but prior to yielding the floor, and
• By making a motion the speaker yields the floor.

2.4 Recognition of Speakers. Delegations wishing to speak on an item before the body will signify by raising their placards,

• The exception to this rule occurs on any Point of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2), or Inquiry (rule 6.3), at which time a representative should raise their placard and call out “Point of ___________” to the Chair,
• Points will be recognized in the order of their priority,
• Motions may not be made from Points of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2), or Inquiry (rule 6.3), or from any procedural speeches, except,
• A motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair (rule 7.6), may be made when recognized for a Point of Order.
• The Chair shall recognize speakers in a fair and orderly manner, and
• Speakers’ lists will not be used.

2.5 Right of Reply. The Chair may accord a Right of Reply to any representative if a speech by another representative contains unusual or extraordinary language clearly insulting to personal or national dignity,

• Requests for a Right of Reply shall be made in writing to the Chair,
• Requests shall contain the specific language which was found to be insulting to personal or national dignity,
• The Chair may limit the time allowed for a reply,
• There shall be no reply to a reply, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.6 Withdrawal of Motions. A motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has begun,

• Seconds to a motion may also be withdrawn,
• A withdrawn motion or second may be reintroduced by another delegation.

2.7 Dilatory Motions. The Chair may rule out of order any motion repeating or closely approximating a recent previous motion on which the Committee has already rendered an opinion,

• This decision is not appealable.

3.0 Rules That Relate to the Rules

3.1 Rule Priority and Procedure. The rules contained in this handbook are the official rules of procedure of the American Model United Nations and will be used for all Committee sessions. These rules take precedence over any other set of rules.

3.2 Precedence of Rules. Proceedings in the Committees and General Assembly sessions of AMUN shall be conducted under the following precedence of rules;

1. AMUN Rules of Procedure,
2. AMUN General Assembly (GA) & Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Order of Precedence of the Rules Short Form,
3. Rulings by the Rules Committee,
4. Historical usage of the AMUN Rules of Procedure,
5. Historical usage of the United Nations Rules of Procedure,
6. The Charter of the United Nations.

3.3 The Order of Precedence of Procedural Motions.The order of precedence of procedural motions is listed in both the General Assembly (GA) and Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Precedence Short Forms and in these rules under Section 7, “Procedural Motions In Order of Priority.”

3.4 Rule Changes. The Rules Committee reserves the right to make changes to these rules at any time. Should a change occur, it will be communicated to the representatives in a timely manner.

4.0 Draft Proposals & Amendments

4.1 Definition of Draft Resolutions. A draft resolution is a written proposal consisting of at least one preambular and one operative clause.

4.2 Draft Resolutions. Draft resolutions may be submitted to the Committee Secretariat for approval at any time during the Conference,

• For a draft resolution to be considered, it must be organized in content and flow, be in the proper format, have a minimum of 35 percent of the delegations in attendance listed as sponsors, and have the signature of the Rapporteur,
• The final required number of sponsors will be determined by the Rules Committee at conference registration in conjunction with the Director of Rapporteur Procedures. Rapporteurs shall remain apprised of the required number and shall make that information available to all representatives.
• After acceptance by the Rapporteur(s), draft resolutions shall be processed in the order in which they are received and distributed to all delegations as soon as feasible.

A draft resolution that has been distributed may be proposed when the Committee considers the agenda topic that is the subject of the draft resolution.

• Only one draft resolution may be considered on the floor at any time during formal debate,
• Once a draft resolution is on the floor for discussion, additional sponsors may only be added to that draft resolution with the consent of the original sponsors,
• Once a vote has been taken on a contested amendment to a draft resolution, no sponsors may be added or removed,
• Friendly amendments (rule 4.4) do not limit the addition of sponsors as noted above, and
• See also Closure of Debate (rule 7.4), Consideration of Draft Resolutions (rule 7.13) and Consideration of Amendments (rule 7.14).

4.3 Definition of Amendments. An amendment to a draft resolution is a written proposal that adds to, deletes from, or revises any part of a draft proposal.

4.4 Amendments. All amendments must be signed by 15 percent of the delegations in attendance,

• The final required number of sponsors will be determined by the Rules Committee in conjunction with the Director of Rapporteur Procedures at conference registration and announced at the opening of each committee session,

An amendment is submitted on an official amendment form to the Rapporteurs for approval.

• Amendments will be approved if they are legible, organized in content and flow, and in the proper format,
• Approved amendments will be assigned an identification letter by the Rapporteurs, and
• Typographical errors in a resolution will be corrected by the Rapporteurs and announced to the body.

One or more amendments may be considered on the floor at any given time (see also Closure of Debate (rule 7.4) and Consideration of Amendments (rule 7.14)).

An amendment will be considered “friendly” if all sponsors of the draft resolution or report are also sponsors of the amendment,

• A friendly amendment becomes part of a draft proposal upon the announcement that it is accepted by the dais,
  • A vote is not required to add a friendly amendment to a draft resolution,
• A dais member shall announce the acceptance of a friendly amendment on the first opportunity at which no speaker has the floor, and
• Friendly amendments cannot be accepted after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment or after closure of debate on the resolution has been moved.

4.5 Withdrawal of Sponsorship. Sponsorship of a resolution or amendment may be withdrawn at any time before entering into voting procedure on the item,

• Sponsorship of a resolution may not be withdrawn after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment,
• If a draft resolution or amendment falls below the number of sponsors required for consideration, additional sponsors may be added to that proposal with the consent of the original sponsors, and
• If a draft resolution or amendment falls below the required number of sponsors, it is automatically removed from consideration.

5.0 Voting

5.1 Voting Rights. Each Member State is accorded one vote in each Committee on which it is represented,

• No representative or delegation may cast a vote on behalf of another Member State.

5.2 Simple Majority. Unless otherwise specified in these rules, decisions in the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of those Members present and voting. If there is an equal division between yes and no votes, the motion fails.

5.3 Adoption by Consensus. The adoption of draft resolutions and amendments by consensus is desirable when it contributes to the effective and lasting settlement of differences, thus strengthening the authority of the United Nations,

• Any representative may request the adoption of a report, amendment or draft resolution by consensus at any time after closure of debate has passed,
• The Chair shall then ask whether there is any objection to consensus and then shall ask if any Member States wish to abstain from consensus,
• Delegations abstaining from consensus will be officially recorded,
• If there is no objection, the proposal is approved by consensus, and
• If any representative objects to consensus, voting shall occur as otherwise stated in these rules.

5.4 Method of Voting. The Committee shall normally vote by a show of raised placards,

• Any delegation may request a roll call vote on substantive matters, unless adopted by consensus,
• The Chair may grant a request by a delegation for a roll call vote on any substantive matter, and the Chair’s decision on such a request is not subject to appeal,
• When applicable, roll shall be called in English alphabetical order beginning with a member selected at random by the Vice Chair,
• Representatives shall reply “yes,” “no,” “abstain” or “abstain from the order of voting,”
• A member may abstain from the order of voting once during a roll call; a second abstention from the order of voting will be recorded as an abstention.

5.5 Conduct During Voting. Immediately prior to a vote, the Chair shall describe to the Committee the item to be voted on, and shall explain the consequences of a “yes” or a “no” vote. Voting shall begin upon the Chair’s declaration that “we are now in voting procedure” and end when the results of the vote are announced,

• Following Closure of Debate, and prior to entering voting procedure, the Chair shall pause briefly to allow delegations the opportunity to make any relevant motions,
• Relevant motions prior to a vote include:
  • Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1),
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), 
  • Decision of No Action (rule 7.5) (Only available in GA Plenary), 
  • Decision of Competence (rule 7.7),
  • Division of the Question (rule 7.10), or
  • Important Question (rule 7.12) (Only available in GA Plenary), and
• Relevant requests prior to a vote include: 
  • Adoption by Consensus (rule 5.3),
  • Request for a roll call vote (rule 5.4), and
• Once in voting procedure, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a Point of Order or Point of Information concerning the actual conduct of the vote.

5.6 Changes of Votes. At the end of a roll call vote, but before Rights of Explanation (rule 5.7) are granted and the subsequent announcement of the vote, the Vice Chair will ask for any vote changes. Any delegation that desires to change its recorded vote may do so at that time.

5.7 Rights of Explanation. Rights of Explanation are permitted on all substantive votes after voting. The Chair may limit time for Rights of Explanation. Limits on Rights of Explanation should be no less than 30 seconds.

6.0 Points of Procedure in Order of Priority

6.1 Point of Order. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may rise to a Point of Order if the representative believes that the Committee is proceeding in a manner contrary to these rules,

• The representative must call out their point and will be recognized immediately by the Chair and the point ruled on,
• A representative rising to a Point of Order may not speak substantively on any matter,
• If a representative’s ability to participate in the Committee’s deliberations is impaired for any reason, the representative may rise to a Point of Order,
• A Point of Order may interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.2 Point of Information. A Point of Information is raised to the Chair if a representative wishes to obtain a clarification of procedure or a statement of the matters before the Committee,

• The representative must call out their point to be recognized,
• A Point of Information may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.3 Point of Inquiry. During substantive debate, a representative may question a speaker by rising to a Point of Inquiry,

• Questions must be directed through the Chair and may be made only after the delegation has concluded their remarks, but before the delegation has yielded the floor,
• The representative must call out their point to be recognized,
• A Point of Inquiry may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

7.0 Procedural Motions in Order of Priority

7.1 Suspension of the Meeting. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move to suspend the meeting. Suspending a meeting recesses it for the time specified in the motion,

• This motion requires a second,
• This motion is not debatable,
• The Chair may request that the delegation making the motion modify the time of suspension, and
• If the motion passes, upon reconvening the Committee will continue its business from the point at which the suspension was moved.

7.2 Adjournment of the Meeting. The motion of adjournment means that all business of the Committee has been completed for the year, and that the Committee will not reconvene until the next annual session,

• This motion requires a second,
• This motion is not debatable,
• The Chair may refuse to recognize a motion to adjourn the meeting if the Committee still has business before it, and
• This decision is not appealable.

7.3 Adjournment of Debate. During the discussion of any draft resolution, or amendment, a representative may move for adjournment of debate,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion, and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• An item upon which debate has been adjourned must pass a vote of Reconsideration before it may be brought back to the floor for consideration (rule 7.11), and
• The effect of this motion, if passed, removes the item from consideration and allows the Committee to move on to another draft resolution or amendment.

7.4 Closure of Debate. A representative may move to close debate on a draft resolution or amendment before the Committee at any time during the discussion of item. The effect of this motion, if passed, is to bring a draft resolution or amendment that is on the floor to a vote,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak against closure; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• Representatives should specify whether the motion for closure applies to an amendment or a draft resolution,
• If closure passes on a draft resolution, all amendments on the floor will be voted on in the reverse order from which they were moved to the floor, and
• After voting on all amendments is completed, the draft resolution shall be voted upon in accordance with these rules.

At the conclusion of voting procedure, the draft resolution or amendment being voted on is removed from consideration, regardless of whether the proposal passes or fails. Debate then continues on the current agenda topic.

7.5 Decision of No Action. Applicable only in the General Assembly Plenary (rule 8.3).

7.6 Appealing a Decision of the Chair. Rulings of the Chair are appealable unless otherwise specified in these rules,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• An appeal must be made immediately following the ruling in question,
• This motion may be made by a delegation that has been recognized through a Point of Order,
• The Chair shall put the question as follows: “Shall the decision of the Chair be upheld?” A “yes” vote supports the Chair’s decision; a “no” signifies objection,
• The decision of the Chair shall be upheld by a tie, and
• Rulings by the Chair on the following rules or motions are not appealable: 
  • Diplomatic Courtesy (rule 2.2),
  • Right of Reply (rule 2.5),
  • Dilatory Motions (rule 2.7),
  • Granting of a roll call vote (rule 5.4),
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), and
  • Any time a ruling by the Chair is a direct quotation from these Rules of Procedure.

7.7 Decision of Competence. A motion calling for a decision on the competence of the Committee to discuss or adopt a draft resolution or amendment as outlined in the United Nations Charter is in order at any time prior to entering voting procedure,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote, and
• The effect is the same as Adjournment of Debate (rule 7.3) and requires a motion for Reconsideration of Proposals (rule 7.11) in order to discuss the item again.
• The Committee is always competent to discuss the topics in the agenda set by the Secretariat and listed in the AMUN Handbook (rule 1.9).

7.8 Consideration of Agenda Topics. Agenda topics will be considered in the order in which they appear in the AMUN Handbook, unless that order is altered by the passage of a motion for Consideration of Agenda Topics,

• This motion requires a second, and
• This motion is not debatable.

7.9 Limits on Debate. The body may choose to limit or extend the time allotted to each delegation, or limit the number of times each delegation can speak on a proposal,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The time allotted for substantive speeches shall be no less than three minutes,
• The time allotted for procedural speeches shall be no less than one minute,
• This motion may limit the number of Points of Inquiry a speaker may accept to a minimum of one, and
• A motion to limit the time of debate on an agenda topic, draft resolution or amendment is also in order.

7.10 Division of the Question. The Committee may choose to divide the question, proposing that clauses of an amendment or draft resolution be voted on separately,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• After a motion for Division of the Question passes, no other motion for Division of the Question is in order on that amendment or draft resolution,
• Those clauses or paragraphs of the amendment or draft resolution which are approved shall then be put to a vote as a whole, 
• The motion may be made at any point in deliberations once the relevant amendment or resolution is introduced to the floor, and
• If division causes the draft resolution to no longer be in the proper format (rules 4.1 and 4.3), the proposal as a whole is rejected.

7.11 Reconsideration of Proposals. A motion for Reconsideration of Proposals is in order on an amendment or draft resolution which has passed or failed when put to a final vote. The motion is also in order for proposals on which Adjournment of Debate has passed (rule 7.3), on proposals on which a Decision of No Action was decided (rule 7.5) and on proposals upon which the Committee has decided it was not competent to discuss or adopt (rule 7.7),

• This motion requires a second and a two-thirds majority vote for passage,
• Two delegations may speak opposed to the motion, and
• If the motion passes, the issue is brought back before the body for debate and may be voted on again.

7.12 Important Question. Applicable only in the General Assembly Plenary (rule 8.4).

7.13 Consideration of Draft Resolutions. A draft resolution may be moved to the floor by a motion for Consideration of Draft Resolutions,

• This motion requires a second,
• The motion is not debatable,
• Only one draft resolution may be on the floor at any time,
• If a draft resolution is on the floor and a motion to consider a different draft resolution passes, the previous draft resolution, and any amendments, may be returned to the floor with a motion for Consideration of Draft Resolutions, and
• If the motion passes, the delegation motioning for consideration will be allowed to speak first on the draft resolution, if desired.

7.14 Consideration of Amendments. To bring an amendment to the floor for discussion, a delegation must first be recognized by the Chair,

• No second is required. Upon recognition of this motion by the Chair, the amendment will be under consideration by the body,
• The Secretariat will present the amendment to the body, and
• The delegation motioning for consideration will be allowed to speak first on the amendment, if desired.

8.0 Rules Relating Only to the General Assembly Plenary Sessions

This section of the rules applies to the General Assembly Plenary session, which will convene at the same time as the main Committees.

8.1 Interchangeability of Rules. All Committee rules apply to the conduct of business in the General Assembly Plenary.

8.2 Quorum. The General Assembly Plenary will observe the quorum requirements of rule 1.4. 

8.3 Decision of No Action. During the discussion of any draft resolution or amendment, a representative may move that the body take no action on that matter,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The effect is the same as adjourning debate (rule 7.3) and requires a motion for Reconsideration (rule 7.11) in order to discuss the item again, and
• This motion is in order during the General Assembly Plenary sessions.

8.4 Important Question. An Important Question in the General Assembly requires a two-thirds majority vote of all Members present and voting for passage. Amendments to draft resolutions dealing with Important Questions also require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Decisions on Important Questions are applicable only to the General Assembly. When discussed in committees, these issues are debated and voted upon utilizing normal committee rules. Such questions shall include:

• Recommendations with respect to maintenance of international peace and security (only when the Security Council fails to act),
• Admission of new members to the United Nations,
• Suspension of rights and privileges of membership,
• Expulsion of Member States,
• Questions in relationship to the Trusteeship system, and
• Budgetary questions.

Draft resolutions which fall into these categories are automatically Important Questions, and will be designated as such by the President of the General Assembly. Determination of additional categories of Important Questions may be made by a simple majority vote of the Members present and voting before a vote is taken on any part of a proposal dealing with the subject,

• The motion must refer to a specific draft resolution for the body to consider as an Important Question,
• The motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote.
• This motion is in order only in the General Assembly Plenary sessions.

8.5 Security Council Priority Relating to Issues Concerning the Maintenance of International Peace and Security. The Security Council, as established in the United Nations Charter, shall have priority over the General Assembly on issues that pertain to the maintenance of international peace and security. Issues of this type, while under discussion in the Security Council, shall be seized from General Assembly action. Any General Assembly draft resolution pertaining to a seized issue cannot be put to a final vote until the Security Council has completed its deliberations on the subject,

• General Assembly draft resolutions that deal with a seized issue may be discussed and amended, but no final vote on the draft resolution may be taken,
• If no resolution has been adopted, the Security Council will be considered to have completed its deliberations on a seized issue once that agenda topic is no longer under discussion,
• The Council may declare itself actively seized on a topic by stating this in a resolution; this seizure will prevent the General Assembly from taking action until a two-hour time period has elapsed,
• General Assembly representatives will be kept informed by the Secretary-General of any seized issues, and
• Note that this rule applies to only the General Assembly Plenary sessions.

8.6 Applications for Admission of New Member States. Any State which desires to become a member shall submit an application to the Secretary-General prior to the start of the Conference and at a date communicated by the AMUN Secretariat. Applications shall contain a declaration, made in a formal instrument, that the State in question accepts the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter,

• The Secretary-General shall inform the Security Council and the General Assembly of any applications.

8.7 Consideration of Applications and Decisions Thereon. If the Security Council recommends the application of a State for membership, the General Assembly may consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter,

• Any draft resolution on admission is automatically an Important Question,
• If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership, or if it postpones consideration of the application, the General Assembly may, after full consideration of the special report of the Security Council, send the application back to the Council, together with a full record of the discussion of the General Assembly, for further consideration and recommendation, and
• Note that this motion is in order only in the General Assembly Plenary sessions.

8.8 Notification of the Decision and Effective Date of Membership. The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant State of the decision of the General Assembly. If the application is approved, membership shall become effective on the date on which the General Assembly takes its decision on the application.

General Assembly Short Form

Download a PDF version of these short form rules optimized for printing.

The General Assembly Plenary considers issues that are best addressed in a comprehensive manner or that require coordinating work between many bodies of the United Nations. The Plenary has the widest latitude of the deliberative bodies to discuss and pass resolutions on a wide variety of topics. For example, the 60th General Assembly established a Peacebuilding Commission that oversees the United Nations peacebuilding processes and coordinates the work of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General and Member States emerging from conflict situations. Note: if the Security Council, which is given the primary task of ensuring peace and security by the Charter, is discussing a particular issue, the General Assembly Plenary will cease its own deliberations and defer to the Security Council. Additionally, only the Fifth Committee is able to set or discuss the United Nations budget. No other body, including the Plenary, is able to do so.

The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment

General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Short Form

Download a PDF version of these rules optimized for printing.

The General Assembly First Committee addresses the disarmament of conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction and related international security questions. The First Committee makes recommendations on the regulation of these weapons as they relate to international peace and security. The First Committee does not consider legal issues surrounding weapons possession nor does it address complex peace and security issues addressed by the Security Council. The First Committee also adheres to the purview guidelines of the General Assembly as a whole.

Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures

Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures primarily refers to promoting peace and security by implementing methods to reduce and control conventional weapons. The need for “practical” measures refers to the fact that these methods must be agreed upon by states with vastly different military capabilities and goals. Modern efforts towards this goal precede the United Nations, with efforts to disarm States of conventional weapons beginning with the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. These conventions found some success in establishing various procedures regarding warfare, but no meaningful progress was made towards the disarmament of armies.

Between the First and Second World Wars, some limited efforts towards disarmament were made. The Washington (1921-1922) and London (1930) Naval Conferences focused exclusively on naval arms limitations. The various Geneva Conferences between 1927 and 1934 attempted to address disarmament, but largely failed to address any conventional disarmament measures. The Geneva Conferences found much less success than the preceding Geneva Protocol of 1925 which limited biological and chemical weapons, however the Geneva Conferences did lay out ideas that later United Nations bodies would pursue, such as limitations on military spending and regional disarmament measures.

Following the Second World War, attention within the sphere of disarmament was mainly directed at the emerging threat of nuclear weapons. The first major step towards conventional disarmament was taken in 1978; the First Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD-I) established the Conference on Disarmament (CD) which codified a long term agenda and goal for disarmament. SSOD-II (1982) and SSOD-III (1988) mainly revisited the agenda set in SSOD-I to review progress. SSOD-II established the United Nations Office on Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) while SSOD-III formally introduced confidence building measures for conventional arms control, which encourages States to be transparent with their arsenals and force postures. UNODA was reformed in 1998 to better facilitate the disarmament agenda following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has since stressed the need for compliance and verification measures for conventional disarmament.

UNODA has largely taken over conventional disarmament actions, being the primary facilitator and resource for the Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty, 1997), the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM, 2008) and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT, 2013). These three treaties work in conjunction with the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW, 1980), which banned various weapons deemed particularly egregious, including incendiary weapons, mines and certain fragmentation weapons.

In the present day, UNODA has taken more actions on trust and confidence building measures as a practical method of reducing risk of international conflict and consolidating peace. UNODA pursues disarmament through multiple data based transparency initiatives, including the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA), the Repository of Military Confidence-Building Measures and the Military Expenditure (MilEx) databases. These tools of modern disarmament were created with the goal of reducing military expenditure and development of new weapons among Member States. In their current iterations, they primarily serve as tools to increase transparency and confidence in peace between States. This assists in reducing tensions and risk of escalations, thereby consolidating peace.

The measures laid out by the MilEx, UNROCA, and UNODA in general form a more open ended, modern approach to augment historical bans on specific weapons and tactics, such as cluster munitions and mines, that States may be less likely to adopt. Emerging military technologies are being addressed within the framework of initiatives like the UNROCA and the Repository, alongside efforts to ban particularly problematic systems.

Future United Nations actions regarding consolidation of peace and practical disarmament are necessary to meet goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Future actions could accommodate the aforementioned emerging military technologies as well as existing threats to peace. Ongoing global conflicts demonstrate the need for increased transparency surrounding lethal autonomous weapons systems, specifically artificial intelligence being incorporated into lethal drones on the ground, in the air and at sea. New laser weapons systems also threaten to upend the current military operational environment, causing substantially decreased stability of peace amongst States with disparities in capabilities.

Approaches may focus on building confidence and transparency between State militaries. State militaries have come back into focus due to recent conflicts. However, the threat of non-State actors procuring quantities of conventional arms is still present. Revisiting the ATT and enhancing it with new technologies and greater cooperation to deny non-State actors access to weapons could form the basis of potential United Nations initiatives.

Questions to Consider

• How can the threat of lethal autonomous weapons use be countered to maintain peace and stability?
• How can new technologies like satellite footage and drone surveillance be incorporated into existing confidence building measures?
• How should a State’s right to defend itself be balanced with the need to preserve and consolidate international peace?

Bibliography

• Arms Trade Treaty (2014). Treaty Text.
• Beale, Casey (12 April 2024) DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line.
• International Committee of the Red Cross. Hague Conventions.
• Mills, Schuyler (March 1932). Notes on the Geneva Conference.
• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968).
• United Nations. Global Issues: Disarmament.
• United Nations. Special Sessions of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament.
• United Nations. United Nations Charter (Full Text).
• United Nations. United Nations Disarmament Commission.
• United Nations. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA).
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations General Assembly. Disarmament and International Security (First Committee).
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Conference on Disarmament.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Convention on Cluster Munitions.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. First Committee Resolutions and Decisions Database.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Military Confidence-Building Measures.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Military Expenditures.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Special Sessions of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. United Nations Disarmament Commission.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. United Nations General Assembly: Focus on Disarmament.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. UN Register of Conventional Arms.
• United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. About Us.
• United States Department of State. The London Naval Conference, 1930.
• United States Department of State. The Washington Naval Conference, 1921–1922.
• United States Office of the Historian (29 May 1934). Press Release Issued by the Department of State, May 29, 1934.
• Wagstaff, Jeremy (December 2023). NEW MODEL ARMY.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, General Assembly (13 December 2018). The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. A/RES/73/69.
• United Nations, General Assembly (12 December 2018). Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures. A/RES/73/53.
• United Nations General Assembly (12 December 2018). Assistance to States for curbing the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons and collecting them. A/RES/73/52.
• United Nations, General Assembly (19 November 2018). General and complete disarmament. A/73/510.
• United Nations, General Assembly (5 December 2016). Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. A/RES/71/151.
• United Nations, General Assembly (13 January 2011). Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. A/RES/65/66.
• United Nations, General Assembly (6 January2006). Relationship between disarmament and development. A/RES/60/61.
• United Nations, General Assembly (19 August 1997). General and complete disarmament: consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures: Report of the Secretary-General. A/52/289.
• United Nations, General Assembly (10 December 1996). General and complete disarmament. A/RES/51/45.

Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction

A Chemical Weapon is a chemical, or any equipment designed to weaponize chemicals, used with intention to cause harm or death through its toxicity. During the First World War, large and organized use of chemical weapons was introduced. The chemical agents employed included choking agents (chlorine, phosgene), blistering agents (nitrogen & sulfur mustard), and riot control agents (tear gas, pepper spray) collectively resulted in over one million casualties. The post-war period witnessed the enactment of the Geneva Protocol in 1925, marking a significant milestone in international law by proscribing the use of chemical weapons in armed conflicts, albeit permitting their manufacture and accumulation.

Following the First World War and Geneva Protocol, new and more dangerous chemical weapons such as nerve agents (VX & G-series agents) were invented. Nerve agents are the most dangerous chemical weapons that present a current threat to international peace and stability, as they are colorless, odorless, and require only the most minimal contact with an individual to cause catastrophic damage to a person’s physiology. Chemical weapons of any of the four main categories (choking, blistering, riot control and nerve) have been used infrequently in warfare.

Between 1925 and 1992, few actions were taken by the United Nations and international community in general on the issue of chemical weapons. As nuclear disarmament dominated discourse, chemical weapons were only briefly touched on by disarmament groups such as the 1960 Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament and the 1962-1969 Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament. Those bodies and their general cooperation on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) disarmament paved the way for the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD). The CCD met between 1969-1979, and successfully established that herbicides and non-toxic gasses were definitionally chemical weapons.

Succeeding all of these bodies was the Conference on Disarmament (CD), established in 1979. This body continued efforts to promote chemical weapons disarmament, culminating in its 1992 annual report, containing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC). The CWC, which came into force in 1997, binds all States Parties to agree not to use chemical weapons, destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons and disable or convert any factories that may produce them. The CWC also provides a verification mechanism following the model of the biological weapons convention (BWC), adopted 21 years prior. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC and BWC grant States Parties the ability to ensure stockpiles are destroyed, factories are no longer usable and that compliance is maintained over time. All but four United Nations Member States have ratified the CWC.

The CWC is supported and maintained by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the independent and autonomous international organization that promotes peaceful use of chemicals, preparing responses to usage of chemical weapons, and ensures national and international implementation. The OPCW led an investigation in 2013 that confirmed the use of sarin in an August 2013 attack in Ghouta. As result of this investigation and OPCW efforts to enforce and expand ratification of the CWC, the Syrian Arab Republic ratified the CWC in December 2013. As of December 2014, 98 percent of all Syrian stockpiles had been destroyed.

Five reviews of the CWC have been held since its enactment, in 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023. Each conference saw continued reduction in chemical weapons stockpiles and shifted to providing administrative and strategic direction to the CWC. By the fifth conference in 2023, topics discussed included preventing the re-emergence of chemical weapons, maintaining readiness to respond to deployments of chemical weapons and promoting peaceful usage of chemistry.

In defiance of United Nations and OPCW oversight of the CWC, unconfirmed reports have continued to emerge regarding suspected usage of chemical weapons in modern warfare and espionage. Alleged use of chemical weapons In both covert and overt State actions have elevated international concerns of escalation. While these cases of chemical weapon use do merit consideration, the CWC has largely been successful in preventing large scale use of chemical weapons in combat. As of 7 July 2023, 100 percent of chemical weapons stockpiles declared by CWC member states have been destroyed. Today, 98 percent of the global population lives under the protection of the Convention, and 100 percent of declared chemical weapons production facilities have been destroyed or converted as well.

While ensuring compliance with the CWC has remained a priority of the review conferences, recent conferences have also focused on preparations to respond to chemical attacks by non-state actors. Since 1970, 383 terror attacks have involved some use of chemical weapons, frequently chlorine, tear gas, and cyanide.

The international response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria was swift and effective, however the threat of chemical weapons still lingers in regional conflicts, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. These lingering concerns as well as ongoing pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 16 prompt further action. Further action could include the final ratification of the CWC and closing of loopholes involving precursor chemicals. Israel, South Sudan, Egypt and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remain outside of full ratification of the CWC, leaving the potential for chemical weapon use in State conflicts a possibility. Dual-use chemicals present a serious challenge to monitoring and enforcement mechanisms as States may legally trade for chemicals normally used in peaceful manners, but can be combined with other chemicals to create deadly weapons. Non-state actors’ ability to produce chemical weapons also create a need for preparedness and international mechanisms for countering their chemical weapons threat.

Additional verification methods are available today that were not widespread at the inception of the CWC. These methods include the incorporation of satellite monitoring and precursor chemical import controls. These methods can assist with preventing both State and non-state actors’ use of chemical weapons. While the CWC provides a valuable foundation for countering the threat of chemical weapons, modernization of the agreement is critical in ensuring continued disarmament and international stability.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• How can the United Nations and the international community prevent the acquisition and use of chemical weapons by non-State actors?
• How can the United Nations increase confidence that all chemical weapons have been declared and are subject to international monitoring?
• What methods can be deployed to allow the peaceful usage of chemicals by States and non-State actors while preventing chemical weapons development?

Bibliography

• Atlantic Counsel (7 May 2024). Putin cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons in Ukraine with impunity.
• Brody H, Leonard SE, Nie JB, Weindling P. (April 2014) U.S. responses to Japanese wartime inhuman experimentation after World War II.
• Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (1992).
• DeLuca, Michael, et al. (24 July 2020). Five Decades of Global Chemical Terror Attacks: Data Analysis to Inform Training and Preparedness.
• European Union External Action (30 November 2022). Chemical weapons remain a threat to the world.
• Fitzgerald, Gerard (April 2008). Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I.
• Ganesan K, Raza SK, Vijayaraghavan R. (September 2010). Chemical warfare agents.
• Mandel, Robert (1993). Chemical Warfare: Act of Intimidation or Desperation? Armed Forces & Society, vol. 19, no. 2.
• Meheut, Constant, and Marc Santora (2 May 2024). U.S. Accuses Russia of Using Chemical Weapons in Ukraine.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (11 June 2024). OPCW Fact-Finding Mission concludes investigation on reported allegations in Qalib al-Thawr and al-Balil, Syria.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (15 May 2023). OPCW Fifth Review Conference Opened Today.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (7 April 2023). OPCW confirms: All Declared Chemical Weapons Stockpiles Verified as Irreversibly Destroyed.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2 September 2019). UN Investigation Team Returns to the Hague from Syria.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. About Us: History.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Chemical Weapons Convention.
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. RC-5 Fifth Review Conference.
• Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (1925).
• The Chemical Weapons Convention Coalition. NGOs as Implementers: a Snapshot of NGO Work to Build a World Free of Chemical Weapons.
• United Nations (16 September 2013). ‘Clear and convincing’ Evidence of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, UN Team Reports.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Biological Weapons Convention.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Chemical Weapons.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Conference on Disarmament.
• United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. United Nations Disarmament Commission.
• Walker, Paul (December 2014). Syrian Chemical Weapons Destruction: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.
• Wintour, Patrick (13 October 2023). Israel Denies Using White Phosphorus Munitions in Gaza.

United Nations Documents

• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (8 April 2013). Report of the Third Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to Review the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. RC-3/3.
• United Nations, General Assembly (24 February 2023). Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. A/RES/77/272.
• United Nations, General Assembly (15 December 2022). Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. A/RES/77/73.
• United Nations, General Assembly (8 December 2021). Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. A/RES/76/29.
• United Nations, General Assembly (14 December 2020). Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. A/RES/75/55.
• United Nations, General Assembly (13 January 2011). Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. A/RES/65/51.
• United Nations, General Assembly (30 November 1992). Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. A/RES/47/39.
• United Nations, General Assembly (30 November 1987). Chemical and Bacteriological (biological) Weapons. A/RES/42/36.
• United Nations, Security Council (28 November 2004). Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. S/RES/1540.

The General Assembly Second Committee addresses the economic development of Member States and the stability and growth of international financial and trade networks. The Second Committee deals solely with the economic development of Member States and State-to-State assistance. It does not set or discuss the budget of the United Nations, which is addressed only by the Fifth Committee. The Second Committee also does not address social issues that affect development; such issues are considered by the Third Committee. The Second Committee also adheres to the purview guidelines of the General Assembly as a whole.

The General Assembly Third Committee focuses its discussions on social, humanitarian and cultural concerns that arise in the General Assembly, although its work often overlaps with that of other United Nations organs, including the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies. Human rights, education and cultural preservation are typical issues for the Third Committee. Notably, the Third Committee would not discuss the legal implications of human rights matters, as those are discussed by the Sixth Committee, nor would it call for special studies or deploy monitors, as those tasks are handled by the Human Rights Council. The Third Committee also adheres to the purview guidelines of the General Assembly as a whole.

Rights of indigenous peoples

Indigenous peoples make up about six percent of the global population and have long faced marginalization and discrimination. The historic injustices faced by indigenous peoples as a result of their colonization and the dispossession of their lands created the conditions that restrict development in accordance to indigenous peoples’ needs and interests. Persisting systematic discrimination is among the catalysts of forced evictions from ancestral lands and limited access to education, health care and housing for indigenous peoples.

In 1982, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights formed the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) to study international standards for indigenous rights due to concerns of oppression and to provide a platform for Indigenous peoples to share their experiences with the United Nations. In 1989, the International Labour Organization created the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, which recognized indigenous peoples’ self-determination and outlined rights pertaining to education, healthcare and equal employment opportunities. However, the binding nature of the Convention and its emphasis on indigenous autonomy made it unpopular—only 24 States have ratified the Convention. The United Nations declared 1993 as the International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples with the theme “Indigenous People – a new partnership” and stressed the need to make full use of the contributions of indigenous peoples towards sustainable national development. Further, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called for the formation of a permanent place for indigenous peoples within the United Nations system in the same year. In 1994, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed and launched the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, promoting the United Nations’ commitment to protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and recognizing the need for a permanent forum for indigenous peoples and adequate financial resources to support the design and implementation of projects on health, education, housing, employment, development and the environment.

In 2000, the United Nations established the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to ECOSOC, prepare and disseminate information on indigenous issues and promote the integration and coordination of activities related to indigenous issues within the United Nations system. In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly declared the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of indigenous peoples, their participation in decisions that directly or indirectly affect their lives, land and cultural integrity, and to re-define development policies to be culturally appropriate. The United Nations General Assembly established The Trust Fund for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples to promote and support projects, workshops, and seminars by indigenous peoples organizations and implement the objectives of the Decade. Twenty projects received grants from the Trust Fund in 2006, of which six supported indigenous women’s and youth’s livelihood. In 2007, the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP serves as the most comprehensive statement on the rights of indigenous peoples, affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all people, recognizing the importance of protecting indigenous peoples from discrimination and forced assimilation and reaffirming the right for indigenous peoples’ self-determination.

In 2014, the United Nations General Assembly organized the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples to share strategies for implementation and perspectives on UNDRIP. The outcomes of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples emphasized support for capacity-building of indigenous youth, the empowerment of indigenous women, and ensuring equal access to the high standards of physical and mental health. Additionally, the United Nations General Assembly requested the development of a system-wide action plan to meet the implementation demands and recommendations of UNDRIP.

The relationship between indigenous peoples and the environment also leaves indigenous peoples particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Often located in ecologically sensitive areas, Indigenous peoples face high risks of climate change induced displacement due to rising sea level and extreme weather events. Despite the continued efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations in recognizing the need for establishing improved, coordinated and coherent implementation of programs, Indigenous peoples still account for about nineteen percent of people living in poverty. Indigenous women and youth are particularly vulnerable as they are disproportionately impacted by the lack of access to education and employment opportunities, and limited access to justice by the State or customary justice systems. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the harmful effects of marginalization and discrimination as Indigenous peoples faced high risks of transmissions with limited access to adequate healthcare and vaccinations, leaving them more vulnerable to infections. With already high food insecurity due to loss of ancestral land and territories, indigenous peoples were further unable to practice their traditional livelihoods due to lockdowns posing greater challenges to access to food.

Although the international community has made progress in ensuring access to education and increasing literacy among indigenous populations, the lack of representation of Indigenous peoples and lack of respect for Indigenous peoples’ diverse culture within these organizations can lead to limited capacity in catering to pressing threats faced by indigenous people, their cultures and traditions. As such, educational materials that provide accurate and fair information on indigenous peoples and their ways of life are particularly rare and critical systems of communication, including indigenous languages, continue to face great threats of extinction. To help draw attention to and combat the loss of language and cultural exchange for indigenous peoples, in 2020 the United Nations General Assembly declared 2022-2032 as the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. The rights of indigenous people remains a priority for the United Nations under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development affirming the commitments to combating hunger, removing obstacles and meeting the needs of people with ​​complex humanitarian needs, and increasing access to education. However, governments continue to struggle with managing differences in sustainable development processes in line with international expectations against traditional indigenous needs and practices. Development projects including conservation and green-economy projects, although necessary for securing a suitable future for all people, tend to take place without the consultations or consent of indigenous people and often lead to the displacement, dispossession, violence and systematic discrimination of indigenous people.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• How can governments encourage language revitalization for Indigenous peoples and support knowledge resilience across indigenous groups that speak different languages?
• What mechanisms need to be in place to ensure the rights of indigenous women and youth within the cultural frameworks of indigenous cultures?
• How can efforts to mitigate climate change incorporate the traditions and practices of indigenous peoples, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas?

Bibliography

• Amnesty International. Indigenous peoples’ Rights.
• International Labour Organization (27 June 1989). Indigenous and Tribal peoples Convention, 1989.
• The World Bank (2023). Indigenous peoples Overview.
• T. W. McDade et. al (10 April 2007). Ethnobotanical knowledge is associated with indices of child health in the Bolivian Amazon. PNAS.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. COVID-19 And Indigenous peoples.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Indigenous peoples & the Covid-19 Pandemic: Considerations
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affair. Education.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affair. Indigenous peoples At The United Nations.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Permanent Forum On Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Trust Fund.
• United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2013). Indigenous peoples and the United Nations Human Rights System. 
• United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. About Indigenous peoples and Human Rights.
• United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Indigenous Languages.
• United Nations. System-wide Action Plan on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.
• World Economic Forum (9 February 2024). Land, loss and liberation: Indigenous struggles amid the climate crisis.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (19 April 2023). Indigenous Peoples Must Have Full Representation, Participation in Decisions Affecting Their Territory, Governance, Speakers Stress at Permanent Forum. HR/5477
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (28 July 2000). Establishment of Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. E/RES/2000/22.
• United Nations, General Assembly (14 August 2023). Annual report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A/HRC/54/64.
• United Nations General Assembly (4 September 2020). Regional consultation on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia. A/HRC/45/34/Add.3.
• United Nations General Assembly (23 January 2020). Rights of indigenous peoples. A/RES/74/135.
• United Nations, General Assembly (21 October 2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (25 September 2014). Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous peoples. A/RES/69/2.
• United Nations, General Assembly (2 October 2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. A/RES/61/295.
• United Nations General Assembly (24 February 2005). Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. A/RES/59/174.
• United Nations, General Assembly (21 December 1993). International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. A/RES/48/163.
• United Nations, General Assembly (24 March 1993). International Year of the World’s Indigenous People, 1993. A/RES/47/75.

Literacy for life

Literacy is an essential component of the right to education and focuses on developing proficiency in reading, writing and numeracy throughout life. Access to these skills works to empower individuals and expand access to resources for greater freedoms and enjoyment of other rights. An estimated 763 million adults lack basic literacy skills, with two-thirds being women, and about 250 million children are out of school, and at risk of failing to acquire the same skills. Since 1979, providing universal education to significantly reduce international illiteracy for all people, regardless of age, gender, socioeconomic status, ability, race or location has remained an approach to maintaining worldwide peace. Developing literacy in individuals increases sustainable development, enables greater participation in the labor market, improves child and family health and nutrition, reduces poverty, and expands life opportunities. In 1987, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1990 as the international Literacy Year, recognizing the importance of eliminating illiteracy as a prerequisite for the right to education and social and economic advancement. The United Nations further noted the need to remove gender-related differences in adult literacy and made efforts to address the disparities in access to education particularly for women.

In 2000, the World Education Forum adopted the Dakar Framework for Action, to set tangible targets and reaffirm commitments by the international community to achieve education for all. In 2002, the United Nation Millennium Campaign restored focus on literacy under Millennium Development Goal 2 by targeting efforts towards universal completion of primary education for children and access to all other levels by 2015. In conjunction, the United Nations Literacy Decade: Education For All, established in 2003, promoted and prioritized literacy for all groups and encouraged governments to increase development of national plans to enact the goals outlined by the Dakar Framework for Action. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) led the implementation of the United Nations Literacy Decade, worked to enhance collective efforts for literacy development and created the Literacy Initiative for Empowerment as a strategic framework and key operational mechanism for achieving the goals and purposes of the United Nations Literacy Decade. During this period, the definitions of literacy expanded to include new technology and information media and the emergence of knowledge economies. Intergenerational engagement with educational materials increases educational capital within households and contributes to the acquisition of literacy tools. In 2009, UNESCO produced a data-driven global report on adult learning and education as an implementation checkpoint for Member States and, through the UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning, promoted literacy implementation as a family activity that cultivates a literate environment across generations.

In 2013, UNESCO presented the report on the Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the United Nations Literacy Decade and noted steady progress towards Education for All with governments executing intensive and sustained efforts for the promotion of literacy. UNESCO provided recommendations to improve the actionable goals of the United Nations Literacy Decade, calling on governments to address new and changing literacies beyond the conventional concepts of literacy, including the use of the internet and other advancing information technologies to keep up with the changing information landscapes and upgrade the skills of all people. UNESCO further reiterated the importance of evidence-based advocacy and the scalability of literacy programs. In 2015, the United Nations adopted the Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development where Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4) was established to promote quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. Recognizing that increasing numbers of people are facing educational interruptions due to forced displacement, armed conflicts, climate emergencies and other crises, Member States launched Education in Crisis Situations: A Commitment to Action during the 2022 Transforming Education Summit, in an effort to improve educational access, quality, equity and inclusion for 222 million children and youth.

In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly established the United Nations Youth Office to lead engagement and advocacy for the advancement of youth issues across the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly encouraged Member States to support upscaling quality and inclusive education, skills development, capacity-building and training to bridge the digital divide in their societies. Globally, marginalized populations often do not have adequate access to technology, which threatens their continued access to crucial institutions and programs when conditions—like pandemics—cease their in-person support, which requires Member States to proactively ensure sustainable access for all. Recognizing the impacts of COVID-19 and the shift towards online learning, the United Nations General Assembly stressed the importance of a return to school for children and youth to maintain the concerted focus of the United Nations and partner organizations on increased and improved literacy through the implementation of early childhood, youth and adult literacy programmes.

While access to education and increased literacy amongst individuals persists and remains a focus of the United Nations, the United Nations struggles to reach communities with marginalized languages and adapt educational priorities to accommodate the economic and social development needs of communities that are under-resourced. The expansion of the digital ecosystem produces new challenges and requires the creation and implementation of strategies to address digital literacy and the broadening of the baseline of what is needed for information processing, stretching the resources required to implement programmes. Gender disparity continues to be a hurdle in the progress to increase literacy with women and girls facing greater challenges to accessing education. The United Nations continues to pursue solutions that include policy-level interventions that focus on introducing and sustaining gender-responsive educational environments.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• How can people affected by major displacement events be included and supported in next-step recommendations for literacy acquisition while experiencing changing language and cultural contexts?
• How can the United Nations continue to support the sustainable and scalable implementation of literacy programs that address the disparities women and girls face in accessing quality education?
• What measures can be taken to address the challenges of a growing digital ecosystem to bridge existing gaps in access to the internet, social media and digital training tools?

Bibliography

• Education Cannot Wait (June 2022). Global Estimates: Number of Crisis-Affected Children and Adolescents in Need of Education Support.
• EFA Global Monitoring Report Team (2005). Education for all: literacy for life; EFA global monitoring report, 2006, summary. UNESCO.
• International Literacy and Development (March 2024). 2023 Annual Report.
• International Literacy Association (2020). What’s Hot in Literacy: 2020 Report.
• Martínez, Rodrigo and Andrés Fernández (December 2010). The Social and Economic Impacts of Illiteracy: Analytical Model and Pilot Study. ECLAC-UNESCO.
• UNESCO (September 2007). Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE).
• UNESCO (April 2000). The Dakar Framework for Action. Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments.
• UNESCO. Literacy.
• UNESCO. Global Alliance for Literacy.
• UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2024). 2010-2014: Strengthening literacy programmes and launching the Global Network of Learning Cities.
• UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2009). Global Report on Adult Learning and Education.
• United Nations. Education and COVID-19: UN Helps Children Continue Their Learning.
• United Nations. Transforming Education Summit.
• Word Literacy Foundation. About Us.
• Zelezny-Green, Ronda, Steven Vosloo and Gráinne Conole (2018). Digital inclusion for low-skilled and low-literate people: a landscape review. UNESCO-Pearson.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (8 November 2019). UNESCO Strategy for Youth and Adult Literacy (2020-2025). 40/C/25.
• United Nations, General Assembly (30 December 2022). Literacy for life: shaping future agendas. A/RES/77/192.
• United Nations, General Assembly (12 September 2022). Establishment of the United Nations Youth Office. A/RES/76/306.
• United Nations, General Assembly (20 July 2020). Literacy for life, work, lifelong learning and education for democracy : report of the Secretary-General. A/75/188.
• United Nations, General Assembly (8 January 2019). Literacy for life: shaping future agendas. A/RES/73/145.
• United Nations, General Assembly (21 October 2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (17 August 2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Developing (Addis Ababa Action Agenda). A/RES/69/313.
• United Nations, General Assembly (26 July 2013). Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the United Nations Literacy Decade. A/68/201.
• United Nations, General Assembly (16 January 2003). United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all. A/RES/57/166.
• United Nations, General Assembly (18 January 2002). United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all. A/RES/56/116.
• United Nations, General Assembly (18 September 2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2.
• United Nations, General Assembly (7 December 1987). International Literacy Year. A/RES/42/104.
• United Nations, General Assembly (5 December 1980). International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade. A/RES/35/56.
• United Nations, General Assembly (14 December 1979). Establishment of a University for Peace. A/RES/34/111.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO). The Assembly first met in 1948 and now meets annually in Geneva. All WHO Member States participate in the WHA. The World Health Assembly sets policies of the Organization, evaluates and approves the proposed budget, and elects the Director-General.

Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health

Despite being half of the global population, women, children and adolescents are experiencing severe inequities when it comes to access to healthcare. Five million children die before reaching the age of five, women in developing regions are frequently unable to receive maternal healthcare and adolescents often lack access to contraceptives. While women, children and adolescents face diverse challenges when it comes to health, most work on this topic focuses on reproductive and early childhood health. Women and children play important roles in the development of a community and investing in their health can lead to saving the lives of millions.

Since 1948, the United Nations has recognized the important role women and children play in society. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations strived to ensure women and children received special care and attention, especially when it came to health. In 1959, the United Nations enacted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child with Principle 4 specifically focusing on the health and well-being of children and their mothers and emphasized the importance of providing prenatal and postnatal care. In 1966, the United Nations established the United Nations Capital Development Fund as a means of providing capital to developing nations without any adverse conditions; this fund would be renamed the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 1987 and focus on providing reproductive freedom for adolescents and women.

Progress towards ensuring women had access to necessary health care and were treated with respect continued to face challenges, leading the United Nations to establish the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979. CEDAW emphasized the importance of promoting equal rights between men and women, especially in the area of health where women continued to face discrimination because of limited access to family planning and reproductive counseling services. Ten years later, the United Nations enacted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), further emphasizing the family as a fundamental unit of society and the importance of providing children with special protections. Amongst other things, this convention recognized that children have the right to life and should have access to nutritious food and preventive healthcare.

In 1994, UNFPA held the International Conference on Population and Development, leading to the creation of the landmark Programme of Action, which established new standards for the promotion and protection of the health and well-being of women, children and adolescents. The Programme of Action aimed to provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare to women and adolescents such as infertility treatments, cancer screenings and education on HIV/AIDs. The Programme also aimed to decrease child mortality rates by eradicating infectious diseases and providing children with a safe, hygienic environment.

At the turn of the millennium, 529,000 maternal deaths occurred while ten million children were dying before the age of five. The United Nations established the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in 2000 as a means of improving human rights and development globally with MDGs 4, 5 and 6 focused on reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating diseases such as HIV/AIDs respectively. As a result of implementing the MDGs, maternal deaths were nearly cut in half to 289,000 while less than 6 million children died before the age of five by the year 2015. The United Nations continued this progress with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). SDG 3 focuses on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages, with specific targets towards reducing maternal mortality rate, providing universal access to reproductive health-care services, and supporting the research and development of vaccines.

In response to the SDGs, the World Health Assembly (WHA) enacted the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030), a bold roadmap for ending preventable maternal and newborn deaths and improving the overall well-being of women, children and adolescents. The strategy emphasizes three broad ideals: survive, thrive and transform. Since the Global Strategy’s implementation, WHA, in coordination with other United Nations agencies, has established several new programs and initiatives, including The Global Accelerator for Paediatric Formulations to provide appropriate medicines for infants and children and the establishment of a Sexual and Reproductive Health Team to address conflict-related sexual violence.

As of 2023, the Global Strategy has led to the development of the INSPIRE framework to target violence against children and the establishment of the Sexual and Reproductive Health Task Team for women and adolescents. However, the poor inclusion of women and children in data collection continues to slow progress. Furthermore, gender-based violence against women and girls increased between 2020-2023, while universal coverage of health services decreased. Universal Health Coverage is an important precursor as only 77.6 percent of women, children and adolescents receive general medical care, let alone specialized care. Community-based programs like UNICEF’s Community Health Roadmap have led sixteen countries to establish health-investment priorities towards a comprehensive community-health strategy.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• What steps can Member States take to encourage the implementation of the Global Strategy?
• How can Member States utilize the Global Strategy to effectively respond to the health challenges women, children and adolescents face?
• How should the Global Strategy address the increase of gender-based violence against women and girls?

Bibliography

• Catholic Medical Missions Board. Why Women and Children.
• Community Health Roadmap.
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979).
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
• Kaseje, Neema et al. (15 February 2024). 5 drivers of women and children’s health in under-served rural and refugee communities. World Economic Forum.
• Results for Development. Community Health.
• UNICEF (March 2024). Under-five mortality.
• UNICEF (17 October 2023). UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell’s remarks at the World Health Summit launch of the Community Health Delivery Partnership.
• UNICEF (1 May 2016). The Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030).
• UNICEF (2004). Maternal Mortality in 2000: Estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA.
• United Nations (10 December 1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• United Nations. Children.
• United Nations. Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality.
• United Nations. Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health.
• United Nations. Millennium Development Goals.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The 17 Goals.
• United Nations Population Fund (1994). Programme of Action.
• United Nations Population Fund. About us.
• Vledder, Monique and Juan Pablo Uribe (14 November 2022). Amid multiple crises, accelerating progress for women’s, children’s and adolescent health. World Bank Blogs.
• World Health Organization (26 April 2024). Maternal mortality.
• World Health Organization (18 April 2023). Committing to implementation of the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030).
• World Health Organization (18 October 2022). Staggering backsliding across women’s, children’s and adolescent’s health revealed in new UN analysis.
• World Health Organization (25 March 2021). 6 priorities for women and health.
• World Health Organization (2015). The Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030).
• World Health Organization. Global Accelerator for Paediatric Formulations Network (GAP-f).
• World Health Organization. Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health Data Portal.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, General Assembly (25 September 2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (18 September 2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2.
• World Health Assembly (6 April 2023). Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). A76/5.
• World Health Assembly (8 April 2019). Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). A72/30.
• World Health Assembly (10 May 2018). Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030): early childhood development. A71/19 Rev.1.

Public health dimension of the world drug problem

Drug abuse poses a grave threat to public health, with millions of lives impacted by addiction, overdose and related health complications each year. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 275 million people use psychoactive drugs annually, 36 million people suffer from drug use disorders and at least 583,000 annual deaths are the result of drug use, two-thirds of which are caused by opioid abuse or misuse. While the world population increased by ten percent in the past decade, the prevalence of opioid use increased by 76 percent, with the rate of non-medical opioid use doubling.

In 1961, the United Nations adopted the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which recognized that while narcotic drugs are indispensable for pain relief, addiction to narcotic drugs is a serious evil for individuals. By 1972, the United Nations added regulations for psychotropic drugs due to public health concerns surrounding abuse of them. However, the trafficking of illicit drugs continued to escalate throughout the 1980s, further driving levels of drug abuse in individuals. To combat this, the United Nations passed the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988. This convention created a legal enforcement mechanism while encouraging Member States to engage in capacity building and technology trading to decrease both drug trafficking and substance abuse.

Between 1990 and 2000, the United Nations General Assembly held two extraordinary sessions to increase efforts to fight against illicit drug abuse. At the first session, the United Nations enacted the Political Declaration and Global Program of Action, which focused on increasing cooperation at the international, regional and national levels to fight against the production of illicit drugs and create public health campaigns to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. At the second session, the United Nations proposed new strategies and practical measures, including utilizing demand reduction programmes to promote health and social well-being in areas most negatively impacted by drug abuse and drug trafficking.

In 2008, the United Nations established the Global SMART Programme to generate, manage, analyze and report illicit drug information. The next year, the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) released the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation Towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem where it shifted its response to the illicit drug problem by viewing the demand for drugs as a social disease and encouraging Member States to adopt drug demand reduction measures that focus on prevention and intervention over incarceration. Five years later, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs launched the Early Warning Advisory on New Psychoactive Substances to identify those drugs of most present and significant concern to the international community that would require coordinated response. Following this, the United Nations held a third special session on the world drug problem in 2016. This session further recognized drug abuse as a complex multifactorial health disorder that requires non-discriminatory treatment and intervention to resolve.

In 2018, UNODC launched the Opioid Strategy, a five pillar multilateral response to the opiate epidemic which consists of early warning and trend analysis, rational prescribing and access to opioids for medical and scientific use, prevention and treatment programmes, international law enforcement operations to disrupt trafficking, and strengthening national and international counter-narcotic capacity. The World Health Organization(WHO) launched the public health dimension of the world drug problem, a multisector, people-centered program that focuses on treating people with drug abuse, reducing the harm for people who use drugs and increasing the monitoring of illicit drug trafficking. Despite the movement restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a record amount of methamphetamines were manufactured in 2021. WHO, in coordination with UNODC, launched the Synthetic Drug Strategy in 2021. This strategy provides a framework for response composed of four main spheres: multilateralism, health responses, early warning and counternarcotic interventions.

While the Synthetic Drug Strategy has provided 120 countries with capacity building and technical assistance, conflicts and crises continue to drive the world drug problem. Fewer than 20 percent of people with drug use disorders have access to treatment, with women facing higher barriers to access due social stigmatization, lack of child care and fear of losing custody of their children while receiving treatment. However, the United Nations strives to provide evidence-based health services and programmes to people and their families that are either struggling with addiction or lack access to drugs for medical purposes. Furthermore, while the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) re-classified cannabis and cannabis resin, recognizing cannabis’ medical value, this change does not promote legalization of cannabis. Decriminalizing drug use and possession may allow individuals dealing with drug use disorders to seek help and increase access to treatment without fear of punitive measures taken against them. However, the negative effects of decriminalization like micro-trafficking and misuse of cannabis have caused some countries to repeal their own decriminalization laws. Harm Reduction International suggests divest/Invest programs could also be effective at shifting the focus away from the drug war and increase investment in harm reduction and social programs to improve local communities.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• Because of the disproportionate impacts of the drug crisis in relation to socioeconomic factors, how can Member States coordinate their efforts to find solutions that benefit the international community at large?
• Some Member States have sought to respond to the drug crisis with hardline punitive criminal measures, while others have attempted efforts at drug decriminalization. How should the United Nations accommodate this range of responses when discussing international drug policies?
• How can the United Nations improve the effectiveness of the Synthetic Drug Strategy, especially in high-conflict regions?

Bibliography

• Global Commission on Drug Policy. HIV, Hepatitis and Drug Policy Reform.
• Harm Reduction International (23 April 2024). Annual Report 2023.
• Oxford, Dwayne (11 April 2024). Why are some countries decriminalising drugs? Al Jazeera.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2024). Key Findings and Conclusions: 2024 World Drug Report.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2023). Executive Summary: 2023 World Drug Report.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (November 2021). UNODC Synthetic Drug Strategy.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2016). Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (March 2009). Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation Towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Global SMART Update 2009.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Implementation around the world.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Predict, Prevent, Protect.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Strategy.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. UNODC Synthetic Drug Strategy 2021-2025.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. What is the Early Warning Advisory?
• United Nations (1988). Final Act of the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
• United Nations (1972). Final Act of the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention On Psychotropic Substances.
• United Nations (1961). Final Act of the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs.
• World Health Organization (4 December 2020). UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs reclassifies cannabis to recognize its therapeutic uses.
• World Health Organization. Public health dimension of the world drug problem.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (2018). Report on the sixty-first session. E/2018/28.
• United Nations General Assembly (June 1998). Resolutions and Decisions adopted by the General Assembly during its twentieth special session. A/S-20/14(SUPP).
• United Nations General Assembly (23 February 1990). Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by the General Assembly at its seventh special session, devoted to the question of international cooperation against illicit production, supply, demand, trafficking and distribution of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. A/RES/S-17/2.
• World Health Assembly (25 April 2022). Public health dimension of the world drug problem: Report by the Director General. A75(43).
• World Health Assembly (31 May 2017). Public health dimension of the world drug problem. WHA70(18).

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

ECOSOC is the primary body that addresses the economic, social, humanitarian and cultural work of the United Nations system. It also has a mandate to coordinate the activities of United Nations technical and specialized agencies and programs. ECOSOC oversees five regional economic commissions and eight functional, or subject-matter, commissions. ECOSOC is composed of 54 Member States elected by the General Assembly for three-year renewable terms.

ECOSOC at AMUN

AMUN simulates ECOSOC as a Special Committee on a rotating basis. Much like the General Assembly bodies, and unlike the ECOSOC report-writing bodies discussed below, ECOSOC’s primary initiative is to discuss the designated topics and produce, preferably by consensus, resolutions. A resolution will often provide historical context for a topic or issue as well as present a path forward for Member States and for international institutions. A resolution must be in the purview of the committee that passes it, and it must contain at least one preambular clause and one operative clause. For more information on resolution formatting, requirements and best practices, please reference this chapter of the handbook or speak with the committee Rapporteurs at Conference.

As an update to AMUN’s procedures and as a way to preserve student’s productive time and experience, AMUN has chosen to forgo ECOSOC plenary sessions. Similarly, AMUN has also chosen to provide a streamlined set of report-writing rules meant to better facilitate the work of the body. 

A Note About AMUN’s Simulation Philosophy

The Conference exists to provide a safe and educational environment where both representatives and AMUN Secretariat members can grow and learn. At the root of this is one of AMUN’s founding principles—to create the most realistic simulation possible by mirroring the beliefs and processes of the United Nations. Diplomacy is a tool with the power to change lives for the better. Our RWBs offer another perspective on diplomacy as Representatives work with a small group throughout Conference to build not a single resolution, but entire reports. Report-writing leads to a non-competitive and free-flowing exchange of ideas that ultimately builds an intensely collaborative environment and informs ECOSOC on the actions it should take regarding the complex international issues that make up the topics.

Report-Writing Bodies and their Role at AMUN

Each year, AMUN simulates one or more bodies that write reports rather than resolutions. These bodies–which can be committees, councils, or commissions and which have various relationships to ECOSOC,–are generally referred to as “Report-Writing Bodies” (RWBs). These bodies have a unique function within the United Nations system, and delegates to these bodies are often subject-matter experts. Their role is to collaboratively produce reports on topics in their expertise, rather than to produce resolutions that define a specific course of action. Each body produces only one report on each of its topic, so collaboration and consensus-building in these committees is essential. Producing only one report also means that dissenting or minority opinions may be placed within the text of the document. Reports follow a specified format, but the length, content and complexity of each report varies. AMUN has adapted the format for annual reports for use in these reporting bodies. The time constraints of the simulation require a format that bears many similarities to those of the United Nations, but is not identical. Just as representatives familiarize themselves with their State’s positions, they must also do the same with the AMUN report format.

While RWBs are empowered to author resolutions, they are rarely empowered to make decisions in their own name; that work remains for plenary bodies. The main focus of an RWB is to create a report that functions as a recommendation for actions that may be subsequently taken by ECOSOC. Thus, it is important  that the report contains a record of how the body came to its conclusions. This is the primary function of the report’s Deliberations section, without which a report cannot exist. The nature of a report often leads to a process that is highly collaborative and inclusive of all Members of the body. If the body disagrees on an issue, it is common to include all sides of the discussion in the final report, thus allowing for consensus even if not all parties agree on specific recommendations. 

Consultative Session

Both ECOSOC and reporting bodies have available to them a special rule intended to facilitate their work: Consultative Session. Consultative Session is a designated period of time in which the Committee is still in session but the formal rules of debate, with the exception of Rule 2.2 Diplomatic Courtesy, are suspended. It is moderated by whomever the body chooses for the role, with the first Consultative Session usually being moderated by a member of the dais staff. Consultative Sessions allow for free and open exchange between representatives in a less-formal setting than is created in formal debate. It is an expedient method of accomplishing many of the report-writing processes and is typically also used to pass the Executive Summary, which is the final piece of a report.

Research and Resources Available

One of the most important resources available is the research and preparation done before Conference. This research can greatly affect a representative’s experience in the simulation. AMUN has several suggestions for how to go about researching a State’s position, history and culture. Information to aid in this research can be found here.

In order to provide a Conference of the highest quality, AMUN Secretariat members play distinct roles inside and outside of the Committee room. Inside the Committee room, the most recognizable resources available are the dais staff: Committee Presidents and Rapporteurs.

The Committee Presidents are experts on AMUN’s Rules of Procedure. They facilitate debate by helping representatives use the rules correctly to accomplish the work of the body. They answer all questions related to the AMUN rules. Presidents (and Vice Presidents) also observe substantive debate and keep track of the committee’s proceedings.

Rapporteurs assist with content in each RWB. Their role is to work with representatives as they write reports and to help ensure that the work of the body meets both AMUN and the United Nations’ standards. They also provide guidance on committee purview and will help representatives work reports into purview, should it be necessary.

AMUN also provides content experts outside of committee. Home Government is available to help representatives with several tasks. If a representative wants an in-depth review of their country’s position on the topics being covered in a committee, Home Government can conduct briefings to provide them the information they need to participate more fully in the simulation. Home Government also has the ability to furnish committees with roleplayers who provide information to the entire body as opposed to an individual representative.

Lastly, should representatives like to update the rest of the Conference on their progress, the International Press Delegation (IPD) is another resource they have for spreading information, be it through an AMUN Chronicle article or a Press Conference.

1.0 Administrative 

1.1 The Secretariat. The Secretariat consists of the volunteer staff members of American Model United Nations (AMUN).

1.2 Rules Committee. The President of the General Assembly, the Vice President of the General Assembly, the Director of Security Council Procedures, the Director of Rules and Procedures, and one other person as appointed by the Secretary-General shall compose the membership of the Rules Committee.

1.3 Credentials. All questions concerning the validity of representative credentials shall be submitted in writing to the Secretariat,

• The Secretariat has sole authority to decide all questions concerning credentials, and
• Representatives must wear approved credentials at all times while on the Conference premises.

1.4 Quorum/Majority. A quorum is one-fourth of the member delegations in attendance for each Committee; a majority is one-half of the member delegations in attendance for each Committee,

• A quorum must be present at all times during Committee sessions,
• A majority must be present for a substantive question to be put to a vote,
• Questions concerning quorum or majority should be directed to the President, and
• It is the responsibility of the President to ensure that a quorum is present at all times.

1.5 Committee Officers. The Secretariat shall appoint the President for each Committee, and shall select any other positions necessary to help conduct the sessions of the Committees,

• Hereafter, in these rules, “President” refers to the President who is presiding over the meeting, facilitating formal and informal debate, and ruling on procedural items before the body. 
• Hereafter, in these rules, “Committee” will refer to any Committee, Council or Commission, unless otherwise stated in the rule.

1.6 General Authority of the President. In addition to exercising such authority conferred upon the President elsewhere in these rules, the President shall,

• Declare the opening and closing of each session,
• Ensure the observance of the rules,
• Facilitate the discussions of the Committee and accord the right to speak,
• Advise the Committee on methods of procedure that will enable the body to accomplish its goals, and
• Rule on points and motions, and subject to these rules, have complete control of the proceedings of the Committee and the maintenance of order at its meetings.

• During the course of the session, the President may propose Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1), Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), Closure of Debate (rule 7.4), and Limits on Debate (rule 7.9).

The President is under the direct authority of the Rules Committee and may be directed to inform the body on matters of procedure or the body’s topical competence if such action is deemed necessary by the Rules Committee.

1.7 Absence of President. If the President is absent during any part of a Committee Session, the President will designate a member of the AMUN Secretariat, usually the Vice President, to chair the session with the same authority.

1.8 Number of Accredited Representatives. Each delegation is allowed two representatives per Committee on which it is a member, plus one Permanent Representative.

1.9 Selection of Agenda Topics. Agenda topics shall be selected by the Secretariat prior to the start of the conference. Once selected, these topics are fixed for the duration of the conference.

1.10 Observer Status. Those delegations recognized as having Observer Status by AMUN shall be accorded all rights in the Committee except the following,

• They may not vote,
• They may not make or second the following motions:
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), and
  • Closure of Debate (rule 7.3).

2.0 General Rules

2.1 Statements by the Secretariat. The Secretary-General or any member of the Secretariat may make verbal or written statements to a Committee at any time.

2.2 Diplomatic Courtesy. All participants in the AMUN Conference must accord Diplomatic Courtesy to all credentialed representatives, Secretariat Members, Faculty Advisors, Observers and Hotel staff at all times,

• Representatives who persist in obvious attempts to disrupt the session shall be subject to expulsion from the Committee by the President,
• The Secretariat reserves the right to expel any representative or delegation from the Conference, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.3 Speeches. No representative may address the Committee without obtaining the permission of the President,

• Delegations, not representatives, are recognized to speak; more than one representative from the same delegation may speak when the delegation is recognized,
• Speakers must keep their remarks germane to the subject under discussion,
• A time limit may be established for speeches (rule 7.8),
• At the conclusion of a substantive speech, representatives will be allowed to answer questions concerning their speech,
• A delegation that desires to ask a question of the speaker should signify by raising a Point of Inquiry (rule 6.3),
• All questions and replies are made through the President,
• A speaker who desires to make a motion may do so after speaking and accepting Points of Inquiry, but prior to yielding the floor, and
• By making a motion the speaker yields the floor.

2.4 Recognition of Speakers. Delegations wishing to speak on an item before the body will signify by raising their placards,

• The exception to this rule occurs on any Point of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2), or Inquiry (rule 6.3), at which time a representative should raise their placard and call out “Point of ___________” to the President,
• Points will be recognized in the order of their priority,
• Motions may not be made from Points of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2), or Inquiry (rule 6.3), or from any procedural speeches, except,
• A motion to Appeal the Decision of the President (rule 7.5), may be made when recognized for a Point of Order.
• The President shall recognize speakers in a fair and orderly manner, and
• Speakers’ lists will not be used.

2.5 Right of Reply. The President may accord a Right of Reply to any representative if a speech by another representative contains unusual or extraordinary language clearly insulting to personal or national dignity,

• Requests for a Right of Reply shall be made in writing to the President,
• Requests shall contain the specific language which was found to be insulting to personal or national dignity,
• The President may limit the time allowed for a reply,
• There shall be no reply to a reply, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.6 Withdrawal of Motions. A motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has begun,

• Seconds to a motion may also be withdrawn, and
• A withdrawn motion or second may be reintroduced by another delegation.

2.7 Dilatory Motions. The President may rule out of order any motion repeating or closely approximating a recent previous motion on which the Committee has already rendered an opinion,

• This decision is not appealable.

3.0 Rules That Relate to the Rules

3.1 Rule Priority and Procedure. The rules contained in this handbook are the official rules of procedure of the American Model United Nations and will be used for all Committee sessions. These rules take precedence over any other set of rules.

3.2 Precedence of Rules. Proceedings in the Committees and General Assembly sessions of AMUN shall be conducted under the following precedence of rules;

1. AMUN Rules of Procedure,
2. AMUN General Assembly (GA) & Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Order of Precedence of the Rules Short Form,
3. Rulings by the Rules Committee,
4. Historical usage of the AMUN Rules of Procedure,
5. Historical usage of the United Nations Rules of Procedure, and
6. The Charter of the United Nations.

3.3 The Order of Precedence of Procedural Motions.The order of precedence of procedural motions is listed in both the General Assembly (GA) and Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Precedence Short Forms and in these rules under Section 7, “Procedural Motions In Order of Priority.”

3.4 Rule Changes. The Rules Committee reserves the right to make changes to these rules at any time. Should a change occur, it will be communicated to the representatives in a timely manner.

4.0 Draft Proposals & Amendments

4.1 Definition of Draft Reports. A draft report is a formal written proposal consisting of sections and paragraphs that detail a committee’s deliberations and recommendations on a particular topic. The report may include resolutions that the reporting body recommends for adoption by the body that receives the report. Reports must include an Executive Summary (rule 4.8).

4.2 Draft Reports. Draft reports may be submitted to the Committee Dais for approval at any time during the Conference,

• For a draft report to be considered, it must be organized in content and flow, have a minimum of 35 percent of the delegations in attendance listed as sponsors, and the approval of the Dais staff,
• The final required number of sponsors will be determined by the Rules Committee at conference registration and announced at the opening of each committee session,
• After acceptance by the Dais staff, draft reports shall be processed in the order in which they are received,
• The full text of the draft report shall be issued to the committee, and a copy of the Executive Summary shall be distributed to all delegations as soon as feasible,
• Only one draft report per topic area shall be accepted for consideration by the Dais staff,
• Once a draft report is on the floor for discussion, additional sponsors may only be added to that draft report with the consent of the original sponsors,
• Any resolutions adopted by the committee on the topic of the report will be automatically included in Section III of the report, including after the adoption of the report or Executive Summary,
• Once a vote has been taken on any part of a draft report, including a contested amendment, it becomes the property of the body, and no additional sponsors or friendly amendments may be added or removed,
• Friendly amendments (rule 4.6) do not limit the addition of sponsors as above,
• See also Closure of Debate (rule 7.4) and Consideration of Draft Items (rule 7.11),
• Objections or reservations to the report shall be included in the text of the report, and
• Objections to the report must be in writing and may be submitted before or after the final vote on the report, and
• The default method of voting for reports shall be Adoption by Consensus (rule 5.3). If there is any objection, the Committee will proceed with a substantive vote, which requires a simple majority for passage.

4.3 Definition of Draft Resolutions. A draft resolution is a written proposal consisting of at least one preambular and one operative clause.

4.4 Draft Resolutions. Draft resolutions may be submitted to the Committee Secretariat for approval at any time during the Conference,

• For a draft resolution to be considered, it must be organized in content and flow, be in the proper format, have a minimum of 35 percent of the delegations in attendance listed as sponsors, and have the signature of the Rapporteur,
• The final required number of sponsors will be determined by the Rules Committee at conference registration in conjunction with the Director of Rapporteur Procedures. Rapporteurs shall remain apprised of the required number and shall make that information available to all representatives.
• After acceptance by the Rapporteur(s), draft resolutions shall be processed in the order in which they are received and distributed to all delegations as soon as feasible.

A draft resolution that has been distributed may be proposed when the Committee considers the agenda topic that is the subject of the draft resolution.

• Only one draft resolution may be considered on the floor at any time during formal debate,
• Once a draft resolution is on the floor for discussion, additional sponsors may only be added to that draft resolution with the consent of the original sponsors,
• Once a vote has been taken on a contested amendment to a draft resolution, no sponsors may be added or removed,
• Friendly amendments (rule 4.6) do not limit the addition of sponsors as noted above, and
• See also Closure of Debate (rule 7.4) and Consideration of Draft Items (rule 7.11).

4.5 Definition of Amendments. An amendment to a draft report or resolution is a written proposal that adds to, deletes from, or revises any part of a draft proposal.

4.6 Amendments. All amendments must be signed by 15 percent of the delegations in attendance,

• The final required number of sponsors will be determined by the Rules Committee in conjunction with the Director of Rapporteur Procedures at conference registration and announced at the opening of each committee session.

An amendment is submitted on an official amendment form to the Rapporteurs for approval.

• Amendments will be approved if they are legible, organized in content and flow, and in the proper format,
• Approved amendments will be assigned an identification letter by the Rapporteurs, and
• Typographical errors in a report will be corrected by the Rapporteurs and announced to the body.

One or more amendments may be considered on the floor at any given time (see also Closure of Debate (rule 7.4) and Consideration of Draft Items (rule 7.11)).

An amendment will be considered “friendly” if all sponsors of the draft report are also sponsors of the amendment. 

A friendly amendment becomes part of a draft proposal upon the announcement that it is accepted,

• A dais member shall announce the acceptance of a friendly amendment on the first opportunity at which no speaker has the floor, and
• Friendly amendments cannot be accepted after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment or after closure of debate on the report/resolution has been moved.

4.7 Definition of Executive Summaries. The reporting body must issue an Executive Summary of the finalized report which will briefly summarize the contents of the report.

4.8 Executive Summaries. Executive Summaries are discussed, drafted and accepted outside of formal Committee sessions during a Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1) or Consultative Session (rule 7.6),

• The default method of accepting the Executive Summary is through an informal consensus of the committee during Suspension or Consultative Session. If there is objection to consensus, the committee will proceed with an informal vote which requires a simple majority for passage.
• The final Executive Summary must be presented to the dais for inclusion with the Report and distribution to the Committee receiving the Report.

4.9 Withdrawal of Sponsorship. Sponsorship of a draft report, resolution or amendment may be withdrawn,

• Sponsorship of a draft report or resolution may not be withdrawn after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment,
• If a draft report, resolution or amendment falls below the number of sponsors required for consideration, additional sponsors may be added to that proposal with the consent of the original sponsors, and
• If a draft report, resolution or amendment falls below the required number of sponsors, it is automatically removed from consideration.

5.0 Voting

5.1 Voting Rights. Each Member State is accorded one vote in each Committee on which it is represented,

• No representative or Delegation may cast a vote on behalf of another Member State.

5.2 Simple Majority. Unless otherwise specified in these rules, decisions in the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of those Members present and voting. If there is an equal division between yes and no votes, the motion fails.

5.3 Adoption by Consensus. The adoption of draft reports, resolutions and amendments by consensus is desirable when it contributes to the effective and lasting settlement of differences, thus strengthening the authority of the United Nations,

• Any representative may request the adoption of a draft report, resolution or amendment by consensus at any time after closure of debate has passed,
• For reports, the default method of voting is adoption by consensus,
• The President then shall ask whether there is any objection to a consensus and then shall ask if any Member States wish to abstain from consensus,
• Delegations abstaining from consensus will be officially recorded,
• If there is no objection, the proposal is approved by consensus, and
• If any representative objects to consensus, voting shall occur as otherwise stated in these rules.

5.4 Method of Voting. The Committee shall normally vote by a show of raised placards,

• The President may grant a request by a delegation for a roll call vote on any substantive matter, and the President’s decision on such a request is not subject to appeal,
• When applicable, roll shall be called in English alphabetical order beginning with a member selected at random by the President,
• Representatives shall reply “yes,” “no,” “abstain” or “abstain from the order of voting” and
• A member may abstain from the order of voting once during a roll call; a second abstention from the order of voting will be recorded as an abstention.

5.5 Structure of Voting For Draft Reports. The Committee shall vote on any draft report items in the following manner. 

• The body shall vote individually on each chapter and resolution to be included in the report. A vote in favor of the chapter or resolution shall be a vote in favor of including that section or resolution in the final version of the report, and voting shall occur in the following order:
  • First, the body shall vote on any resolutions included in Chapter II (Matters calling for action) of the report. The body will vote on each resolution in the reverse order in which they are introduced to the body. For each resolution, the body will vote on any amendments to that resolution in the reverse order in which they were introduced to the body.
  • Second, the body shall vote on its findings in Chapter III of the report. The body will vote on any amendments to this chapter in the reverse order in which they were introduced to the body.
  • Third, the body shall vote on any resolutions included in Chapter IV (Decisions adopted) of the report, in the same order identified above for resolutions included in Chapter II. 
  • Fourth, the body shall vote on Chapter I (Executive summary). The body will vote on any amendments to the executive summary in the reverse order in which they were introduced to the body. See rule 4.8 for voting on the Executive Summary.
  • After all sections of the draft report have been voted upon by the body, the remaining sections shall be compiled into the final draft version of the report, and the body shall vote on the report as a whole.
• Each vote is entitled to the full rights and voting methods under Method of Voting (rule 5.4), including, but not limited to,
  • Division of the question (rule 7.10), 
  • Requests for roll call votes (rule 5.4),
  • Adoption by consensus (rule 5.3), and
  • The items enumerated in Conduct During Voting (rule 5.6).
• The body may request, when a report has been passed, a representative from the Secretary-General’s office or the Economic and Social Council plenary body to present their findings. The body may conduct this presentation orally in a structure and manner that the body determines is appropriate, and that conforms to the requirements of Diplomatic Courtesy (rule 2.2).

5.6 Conduct During Voting. Immediately prior to a vote, the President shall describe to the Committee the item to be voted on, and shall explain the consequences of a “yes” or a “no” vote. Voting shall begin upon the President’s declaration that “we are now in voting procedure” and end when the results of the vote are announced,

• Following Closure of Debate, and prior to entering voting procedure, the President shall pause briefly to allow delegations the opportunity to make any relevant motions,
• Relevant motions prior to a vote include:
  • Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1), 
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), 
  • Consultative Session (rule 7.6), or 
  • Division of the Question (rule 7.10), and
• Relevant requests prior to a vote include: 
  • Adoption by Consensus (rule 5.3), 
  • Request for a roll call vote (rule 5.4), and
• Once in voting procedure, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a Point of Order or Point of Information concerning the actual conduct of the vote.

5.7 Changes of Votes. At the end of a roll call vote, but before Rights of Explanation (rule 5.8) and the subsequent announcement of the vote, the President will ask for any vote changes. Any delegation that desires to change its recorded vote may do so at that time.

5.8 Rights of Explanation. Rights of Explanation are permitted on all substantive votes after voting. The President may limit time for Rights of Explanation. Limits on Rights of Explanation should be no less than 30 seconds.

6.0 Points of Procedure in Order of Priority

6.1 Point of Order. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may rise to a Point of Order if the representative believes that the Committee is proceeding in a manner contrary to these rules,

• The representative must call out their point and will be recognized immediately by the President and the point ruled on,
• A representative rising to a Point of Order may not speak substantively on any matter,
• If a representative’s ability to participate in the Committee’s deliberations is impaired for any reason, the representative may rise to a Point of Order,
• A Point of Order may interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.2 Point of Information. A Point of Information is raised to the President if a representative wishes to obtain a clarification of procedure or a statement of the matters before the Committee,

• The representative must call out their point to be recognized,
• A Point of Information may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.3 Point of Inquiry. During substantive debate, a representative may question a speaker by rising to a Point of Inquiry,

• Questions must be directed through the President and may be made only after the delegation has concluded their remarks, but before the delegation has yielded the floor,
• The representative must call out their point to be recognized,
• A Point of Inquiry may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

7.0 Procedural Motions in Order of Priority

7.1 Suspension of the Meeting. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move to suspend the meeting. Suspending a meeting recesses it for the time specified in the motion,

• This motion requires a second,
• This motion is not debatable,
• The President may request that the delegation making the motion modify the time of suspension, and
• If the motion passes, upon reconvening the Committee will continue its business from the point at which the suspension was moved.

7.2 Adjournment of the Meeting. The motion of adjournment means that all business of the Committee has been completed for the year, and that the Committee will not reconvene until the next annual session,

• This motion requires a second,
• This motion is not debatable,
• The President may refuse to recognize a motion to adjourn the meeting if the Committee still has business before it, and
• This decision is not appealable.

7.3 Adjournment of Debate. During the discussion of any draft resolution, report or amendment, a representative may move for adjournment of debate,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion, and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote, and
• The effect of this motion, if passed, removes the item from consideration and allows the Committee to move on to another draft resolution or amendment.

7.4 Closure of Debate. A representative may move to close debate on a draft report, resolution or amendment before the Committee at any time during the discussion of item. The effect of this motion, if passed, is to bring a draft report, resolution or amendment that is on the floor to a vote,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak against closure; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• Representatives should specify whether the motion for closure applies to an amendment or a draft report or resolution,
• If closure passes on a draft report or resolution, all amendments on the floor will be voted on in the reverse order from which they were moved to the floor, and
• After voting on all amendments is completed, the draft report or resolution shall be voted upon in accordance with these rules.

At the conclusion of voting procedure, the draft report, resolution or amendment being voted on is removed from consideration, regardless of whether the proposal passes or fails. Debate then continues on the current agenda topic.

7.5 Appealing a Decision of the President. Rulings of the President are appealable unless otherwise specified in these rules,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• An appeal must be made immediately following the ruling in question,
• This motion may be made by a delegation that has been recognized through a Point of Order,
• The President shall put the question as follows: “Shall the decision of the President be upheld?” A “yes” vote supports the President’s decision; a “no” signifies objection,
• The decision of the President shall be upheld by a tie, and
• Rulings by the President on the following rules or motions are not appealable:
  • Diplomatic Courtesy (rule 2.2), 
  • Right of Reply (rule 2.5), 
  • Dilatory Motions (rule 2.7), 
  • Granting of a roll call vote (rule 5.4), 
  • Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), and
  • Any time a ruling by the President is a direct quotation from these Rules of Procedure.

7.6 Consultative Session. The Council may choose to suspend the rules and enter an informal, consultative session if the Members determine that this process will better facilitate the discussion of a particular issue,

• The motion should specify a length of time and a moderator for the consultative session,
• A moderator can be a representative or Secretariat Member,
• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote, and
• The Council will move immediately into a formal session at the conclusion of the consultative session.

7.7 Consideration of Agenda Topics. Agenda topics will be considered in the order in which they appear in the AMUN Handbook, unless that order is altered by the passage of a motion for Consideration of Agenda Topics,

• This motion requires a second, and
• This motion is not debatable.

7.8 Limits on Debate. The body may choose to limit or extend the time allotted to each delegation, or limit the number of times each delegation can speak on a proposal,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The time allotted for substantive speeches shall be no less than three minutes,
• The time allotted for procedural speeches shall be no less than one minute,
• This motion may limit the number of Points of Inquiry a speaker may accept to a minimum of one, and
• A motion to limit the time of debate on an agenda topic, draft report, draft resolution or amendment is also in order.

7.9 Division of the Question. 

The Committee may choose to divide the question, proposing that clauses of an amendment or draft resolution or paragraphs of a draft report be voted on separately,

• This motion requires a second,
• Two delegations may speak in favor of the motion and two opposed; the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• After a motion for Division of the Question passes, no other motion for Division of the Question is in order on that amendment, draft resolution or draft report,
• Those clauses or paragraphs of the amendment, draft resolution or draft report which are approved shall then be put to a vote as a whole, and
• If division causes the draft document to no longer be in the proper format (rules 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5), the proposal as a whole is rejected.

7.10 Reconsideration of Proposals. A motion for Reconsideration of Proposals is in order on a report, resolution or amendment which has passed or failed when put to a final vote,

• This motion requires a second and a two-thirds majority vote for passage,
• Two delegations may speak opposed to the motion, and
• If the motion passes, the issue is brought back before the body for debate and may be voted on again.

7.11 Consideration of Draft Items. To bring a draft report, draft resolution or amendment to the floor for discussion, a delegation must first be recognized by the President,

• Draft reports and resolutions moved to the floor require a second, are subject to a vote by the body and must pass by a simple majority for consideration.
• No second is required to bring an amendment to the floor for discussion,
  • Upon recognition of this motion by the President, the amendment will be under consideration by the body, and
  • The Secretariat will present the amendment to the body.
• This motion is not debatable.
• Only one draft report or resolution is allowed on the floor at any time; any number of amendments to that draft proposal are allowed.
• The delegation motioning for consideration will be allowed to speak first on the item, if desired.

General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Short Form

Download a PDF version of these rules optimized for printing.

You can view a printable version of this shortform here.

The Economic and Social Council is the principal United Nations organ responsible for coordinating economic, social and related works of 14 specialized agencies, 10 functional commissions and five regional commissions. ECOSOC accepts reports and recommendations from other United Nations bodies, including the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Along with its coordinating role, ECOSOC gathers information and advises Member States on economic, social, humanitarian and human rights programs. ECOSOC also coordinates and collaborates with autonomous specialized agencies that work closely with the United Nations. These organizations include multilateral financial and trade institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality

Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality can play an integral role in addressing world inequality. Environmental degradation, uneven progress in economic development and processes that disempower people and communities are concerns of the United Nations. The Economic and Social Council notes that under unfettered market conditions and poor institutional frameworks, global economic development and technological advancement can become sources of exclusion and inequality. Economic systems oriented towards maximizing growth for limited stakeholders, including resource endowments accompanied by policies that may translate into costs and losses for recipient nations, generate cycles of inequality and restrict adequate resource distribution to secure the well-being of all people. These systems tend to perpetuate the inability of many to exercise their rights and limit the capacity of governments to implement policies that improve the lives of all people. Strong multilateral systems that require adequate representation of countries at all levels of development will aid in addressing immediate challenges and long‐term social, environmental and financial sustainability and human rights. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides the most recent pledge of the United Nations to leave no one behind. While the goals and targets set by the 2030 Agenda are instrumental in the generations of policy, the indicators of success risk a narrow focus on measurements of inequality that do not reflect the impacts of systems with a concentration of wealth at the top.

Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations and United Nations Charter stressed the need for solving economic and humanitarian problems and, in 1948, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming the United Nations’ commitment to freedom, equality, dignity and human rights for all people. The United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights laid the foundation and established a standard for social and economic development policies. United Nations Member States made considerable efforts to particularly advance economic development by forming regional economic commissions to initiate and facilitate collaborative actions towards collective progress. In early actions, the United Nations treated economic development and social advancement as independent goals. In 1957, the General Assembly created the Special Fund to help provide systematic and sustained assistance for the technical, economic and social development of countries in need of development support. Due to the expansion of the United Nations, visibility around issues of development grew. In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly designated 1960-1970 as the first United Nations Development Decade, urging Member States to intensify mobilization and support of efforts directed towards self-sustaining economic growth and social advancement for all people. Seeking to address urgent developmental concerns, the United Nations focused on reducing world hunger through international action led by the Food and Agriculture Organization and in 1961, established the World Food Programme to enhance financial resources to make surplus food available in the fight against hunger in least developed countries.

Further recognizing the need to join economic efforts and social empowerment and address discrimination to achieve a better quality of life for all, in 1973, the United Nations General Assembly declared the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, prompting Member States to implement a program addressing the obstacles faced by oppressed people specifically in territories under colonial governance. In 1981, the United Nations General Assembly designated the Third United Nations Development Decade, positioning human rights frameworks to address security and the creation of conducive environments for disarmament and the successful pursuit of development. Ten years later, the United Nations Development Programme launched the first Human Development Report, promoting the engagement of people’s choices and making development more democratic and participatory. The Human Development Report identified gaps in previous United Nations development efforts, noting that while economic growth was necessary, developing countries possessed the capacity to refocus on substantially addressing issues of poverty, inequality, food security and education.

In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, identifying the shared responsibility of upholding human dignity and equality principles. The Millennium Declaration brought together the past efforts of the United Nations and launched the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a transformative agenda with targets set for 2015 to meet the needs of the world’s poorest through collaboration between governments, civil society and other partners. In line with the established MDGs, the United Nations General Assembly created UN Women in 2010, a United Nations entity dedicated to addressing gender equality and the empowerment of women. While the implementation efforts of the MDGs identified vulnerabilities for developing countries including wealth disparities, gaps in educational access and varying impacts of climate change, they struggled to address discrepancies in implementation efforts for countries with high initial levels of poverty to make the same relative degree of progress as countries with lower initial levels of poverty. Least developed countries faced significant challenges in accessing international development assistance. Macroeconomic challenges, such as weakness in public sector financial management practices and policies, created obstacles in obtaining concessional loans. The United Nations hosted the UN Sustainable Development Summit and adopted Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development following the expiration of the MDGs in 2015. The agenda set the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as targets for countries to end global poverty, build a life of dignity for all and leave no one behind. The SDGs prompted governments to move towards systemic and holistic approaches that aligned with integrated United Nations policy support, more substantial synergies between development and humanitarian efforts and ensuring accountability and transparency from national governments.

Although globalization and industrialization have generated unprecedented economic and social progress, they continue to drive exclusion and inequality and stall progress on the targets set by the SDGs by hindering access to technology and necessary support for the achievement of inclusion and global equality in developing regions. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these gaps where disparities in technological advancements, limited financial means to invest in digital learning and unaffordable internet access widened the discrepancies in educational access for children in poorer economies. Additionally, limited global capacity for vaccine creation and distribution prolonged the impacts of the pandemic in developing countries, exacerbated by delayed access to patents and lower manufacturing capacity. While income inequality between countries has seen improvement, income inequality within countries has declined. The absence of adequate social protections, gender inequality, climate change and environmental degradation force more vulnerabilities on people and aid in enriching individuals at the expense of collective duties and mutual obligations, posing a threat to growing efforts around empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality. For the successful implementation of development strategies, the United Nations needs solutions that encourage the elimination of barriers that undermine human rights and promote the empowerment and inclusion of people furthest behind.

Questions to Consider from Your Government’s Perspective: 

• How can the United Nations ensure that people most affected by climate change are included in the solution building and decision making process?
• What safeguards can be in place to overcome the influence of individual interests to prioritize collective development and the extension of opportunities to all people?
• How can Member States continue to provide assistance through financial means and technological advances to empower people and ensure inclusiveness and equality without replicating colonial conditions?
• How do existing frameworks hinder the economic and social advancement of women and youth, and how can Member States improve them?

Bibliography

• Bhowmick, Soumya (12 August 2022). Asymmetric development geometries and SDGs. Observer Research Foundation. 
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. About FAO.
• Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing State (2023). Improving Access to Finance for the Least Developed Countries.
• Okonjo-Iweala, Ngozi, et al. (December 2021). Rethinking Multilateralism for a Pandemic Era. International Monetary Fund.
• UN System Task Team (March 2012). Review of the contributions of the MDG Agenda to foster development: Lessons for the post-2015 UN development agenda.
• United Nations (24 September 2015). United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015.
• United Nations (1945). United Nations Charter.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Youth Education, Employment and Empowerment Key to Global Progress. 
• United Nations Development Programme (1991). Human Development Report 1991.
• United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (September 2022). COVID-19 and Children.
• UN Women. About UN Women.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (1 May 2019). Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality. E/2019/65.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (2019). Committee For Development Policy Report on the twenty-first session. E/2019/33.
• United Nations, General Assembly (21 October 2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (18 September 2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/52/2.
• United Nations, General Assembly (5 December 1980). International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade. A/RES/35/56.
• United Nations, General Assembly (2 November 1973). Decade for Action Against Racism and Racial Discrimination. A/RES/3057(XXVIII).
• United Nations, General Assembly (19 December 1961). United Nations Development Decade. A/RES/1710(XVI).
• United Nations, General Assembly (19 December 1961). World Food Programme. A/RES/1714(XVI).
• United Nations, General Assembly (14 December 1957). Financing of Economic Development. A/RES/1219(XII).
• United Nations, General Assembly (10 December 1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A/RES/217(III).

Science, technology and innovation for development

Science, technology and innovation (STI) play a crucial role in United Nations development strategies and the socioeconomic transformation of countries. By taking advantage of modern technologies, developing economies can sidestep the development routes taken by the older, developed countries, while enabling them to increase national wealth and reduce their environmental impact. For this reason, STI for sustainable development is relevant to almost every country. However, the unique social environments of each country result in diverse challenges and opportunities for STI, from gender equity to managing unemployment caused by labor-saving technologies. Addressing these challenges becomes more important as the rate of technological advancement increases and widens the divide between countries with access to advanced STI and those without.

The United Nations first began discussing the role of STI for development in 1949 at the United Nations Scientific Conference for the Conservation and Utilization of Resources, where Member States discussed the potential for underdeveloped regions to benefit greatly from new technologies. It was not until 1961 that the Economic and Social Council would call for the creation of the United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas, which took place in Geneva in 1963. Following the Geneva Conference, least developed countries (LDCs) began lobbying for increased access to science and technologies, signaling an optimism towards technology transfers and references to past work done by developed countries as possible solutions for underdevelopment. However, developed countries questioned whether the United Nations could appropriately safeguard their intellectual property. In response to growing discontent, the United Nations General Assembly convened the 1979 Conference on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) in Vienna, which focused on improving the spread of technology and the technological capacity of least developed countries. The Conference concluded that building technological progress in a country required coordinated effort at the national and international levels and in turn the United Nations General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology for Development to assist in formulating policy guidelines and monitoring the activities and programmes related to science and technology. Despite this idea, the debt crisis of the 1980s in developing countries and the failure to adequately fund international agreements made in the wake of UNCSTD delayed progress.

The 1980s saw new efforts from the United Nations to employ STI in the implementation processes for social and economic development. This period ushered in the Third United Nations Development Decade which promoted the United Nations’ commitment to creating favorable conditions for development. In 1980, the United Nations General Assembly called on governments and other stakeholders to increase technical and financial cooperation and assistance, particularly to LDCs, in order to meet set targets, including substantial improvements to drinking water and sanitation. A year later, the United Nations held the United Nation Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy which called for strengthened measures to accelerate transfer of technology on new and renewable sources of energy and dedicated research into alternative energy mechanisms. Unfortunately, the United Nations did not set up a fund to adequately support the energy transitions discussed at the conference and progress stalled as the high costs to the necessary technological adjustments became a barrier, particularly for LDCs. Seeking to strengthen the role and effectiveness of the United Nations through enhanced multilateral co-operation, the United Nations General Assembly reviewed the efficiency of its administration functions in the economic, social and related fields in 1989, which prompted the establishment of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in 1992. CSTD provides a forum for countries to raise critical challenges and explore opportunities presented by rapid technological development and has since expanded the mandate to include the examination of science and technology questions and their implications for development.

In 2000, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, with ambitious goals for global development that necessarily relied on the successful application of science, the transformation of technology and the policy and structural conditions necessary for innovation. However, the international community continued to debate the appropriate policies to facilitate technology transfer. In 2013, the Committee for Development Policy called for considering STIs that aid provision of basic human needs as global public goods that are non-exclusive and available to all—a position favored by many developing States. This position would disrupt the traditional system of incentivizing researchers and inventors, which provides creators of new ideas with exclusive (and temporary) intellectual property rights (IPR) in the form of patents and copyrights. Two years later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and established the Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) which launched with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, to support the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals by facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration and partnerships through the sharing of information, experiences, best practices and policy advice. Since 2016, the TFM has convened the STI Forum, a multi-stakeholder discussion of STI cooperation around thematic areas involving scientific cooperation, innovation and capacity-building in order to identify and examine technology needs and gaps. Over the years, the STI Forum has focused on wide-ranging areas including eradicating poverty, ensuring inclusiveness and equality, and sustainable and resilient COVID-19 recovery. The STI Forums further demonstrate the commitment of the United Nations in using STI as tools for development and means for meeting the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals.

While the United Nations recognizes the vast possibilities of STI to improve human life through high levels of technological diffusion, a democratization of means to create and access new technologies, these scientific inquiries and technological advancements pose new and unique challenges and potential threats to security for all people. New biological advancements, designed to help scientists better understand disease, could be misused and transformed into weapons, while vulnerabilities in cyberspace can disrupt banking systems, hospitals, electrical grids and other parts of internet-connected critical infrastructure. Balancing these difficulties is further hindered by consistent underfunding and a lack of resources to support TFM activities.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• How can the United Nations mobilize the UN Technology Facilitation Mechanism multi-stakeholder system to effectively meet the Sustainable Development Goals?
• What safeguards can the United Nations employ to limit possible misuse of scientific, technological and innovative development?
• How should intellectual property rights be balanced with increasing access to STI in developing countries?

Bibliography

• Basosi, Duccio Basosi (2020). Lost in transition. The world’s energy past, present and future at the 1981 United Nations Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy. Journal of Energy History/Revue d’Histoire de l’Énergie. 
• Daño, Neth (2019). Spotlight on Sustainable Development.
• Gibboney, Carl (23 December 1949). The United Nations Scientific Conference for the Conservation and Utilization of Resources. Science, pp. 675-678.
• Nakamitsu, Izumi (December 2018). Responsible Innovation for a New Era in Science and Technology.
• National Research Council (2002). Knowledge and Diplomacy: Science in the United Nations System. National Academies. 
• Tatalović, Mićo and Naomi Antony (17 September 2010). Science: what has it done for the Millennium Development Goals?
• United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development. About CSTD.
• United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Mandate and Institutional Background.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021). 6th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019). STI Forum 2019.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2017). Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the SDGs (STI Forum), 2017.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016). First Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum).
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2007). The United Nations Development Agenda: Development for All.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Strategies for development and transformation.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. UN Technology Facilitation Mechanism.
• Utoikamanu, Fekitamoeloa (December 2018). Closing the Technology Gap in Least Developed Countries.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Committee for Development Policy (15 April 2013). Report on the fifteenth session. E/2013/33.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council, High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (2024). Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals: Note by the Secretariat. E/HLPF/2024/7.
• United Nations Economic and Social Council (3 June 1953). United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas. E/3772/Add.1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (25 September 2015). Transforming Our World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (17 August 2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda). A/RES/69/313.
• United Nations, General Assembly (18 September 2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2.
• United Nations, General Assembly (11 December 1989). ​​Restructuring and Revitalization of the United Nations in the Economic and Social Fields. A/RES/44/103.
• United Nations, General Assembly (5 December 1980). International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade. A/RES/35/56.
• United Nations, General Assembly (10 November 1980). Proclamation of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade. A/RES/35/18.
• United Nations, General Assembly (10 July 1980). United Nations Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy Report of the Secretary-General. A/35/321.
• United Nations, General Assembly (19 December 1979). United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development. 19 December. A/RES/34/218.

Membership of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Membership of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice includes: Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Libya, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Zimbabwe,

Introduction

The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is an ancillary body of the Economic and Social Council, and primarily responsible for the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice program. The Commission is charged with coordinating international efforts to combat national and transnational crime and utilizing criminal law to address such problems as threats to the environment, youth crime and urban violence. Additionally, the Commission is responsible for promoting the efficiency, integrity and impartiality of criminal justice systems. The Commission meets on an annual basis to discuss these areas of concern and reports its findings and recommendations.

Equal access to justice for all

Equal Access to Justice for all refers to the subject area within the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) which focuses specifically on ensuring that legal systems in all Member States afford their citizens equal access to justice and legal consideration. Maintaining the legitimacy of the rule of law is necessary to sustaining the sovereignty of states, and thus is a primary concern of the United Nations. Ensuring that all persons, regardless of their identity, have equal access to impartial arbitration before the law is a cornerstone of stability in Member States.

The United Nations Charter, paired with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), has set the foundation for equal treatment of all persons before the law. While the Charter and UDHR have articulated a precedent for equal access to justice, domestic law is often regarded as an internal matter by Member States. This has resulted in slow progress towards the goal of equal access to justice.

Past United Nations action advocating for equal access to justice has been characterized largely by advising Member States. Three advisory bodies preceded the CCPCJ: the International Group of Experts on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1949-1950), the Advisory Committee of Experts on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1950-1971), and Committee on Crime Prevention and Control (1971-1992). Each of these advisory bodies worked towards ensuring equal access to justice as a matter of crime prevention. However they largely focused on specific crimes and punishments rather than broader accessibility to justice and systemic issues. Following these more specific advisory bodies, the CCPCJ was formed in 1992 by Resolution 1992/22 from these bodies as a full commission of the Economic and Social Council.

The CCPCJ directly oversees the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which takes a more involved approach to ensuring equal access to justice. The main functions of the CCPCJ, and by extension the UNODC, are exchanging expertise, experience and information in order to develop national and international strategies, and to identify priorities for combating crime. These functions are currently being pursued within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals set for 2030. In particular, equal access to justice for all is essential for the success of goals 5, 10, and 16.

Current United Nations actions focus on building States’ capacity to ensure equal access to justice for all. The Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law (2021), as well as Equal Access to Justice for All show very recent advancement by the United Nations on equal access to justice. The CCPCJ additionally issued reports in 2021 and 2023 addressing specific crimes and how to ensure that victims are afforded equal access to justice within Member States.

In coordination with recent CCPCJ actions, multiple partnerships and non-governmental organizations are also pursuing the goal of equal access to justice for all. The Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies is one such partnership of multiple Member States, which produced the The Hague Declaration on Equal Access to Justice for All by 2030 in support of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2019. The NGO International Justice Mission supports capacity building in states and directly acts to empower vulnerable groups to seek and obtain justice as well. Both organizations are important examples of current and potentially future frameworks the CCPCJ could draw from to bring the world closer to ensuring equal access to justice for all.

Future United Nations actions working towards equal access to justice for all could be pursued through the UNODC’s technical assistance missions (data collection and analysis, policy development and advice, capacity building, and partnerships). These missions, when paired with the frameworks outlined in the Kyoto and Hague Declarations, could be influential in achieving the sustainable development goals set for 2030. Further empowering NGOs to help assist specific marginalized populations could also form another path to ensuring all individuals have equal access and treatment before the law.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective include:

• What regions or states have the greatest need for assistance in building their justice systems capacity for equal access and treatment of persons?
• Does your state consider criminal justice to be a purely domestic matter or an internationally important matter?
• How can equal access to justice be ensured for vulnerable and displaced persons?

Bibliography

• International Bill of Human Rights (1948).
• International Justice Mission. About IJM.
• Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies. About Us.
• Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies. Hague Declaration on Equal Access to Justice for All by 2030.
• United Nations Charter (1945).
• Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948).
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (1997). Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Measures to Eliminate Violence Against Women.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Crime Prevention.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (12 March 2021). Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law.

United Nations Documents

• Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (2023). Report on the thirty-second session. E/2023/30.
• Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (2021). Report Of The Thirteenth Session. E/2021/30.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (2023). Equal Access to Justice For All. E/2023/27.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (22 August 2016). Mainstreaming holistic approaches in youth crime prevention. E/RES/2016/18.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (27 July 2006). Strengthening the rule of law and the reform of criminal justice institutions, including in post-conflict reconstruction. E/2006/25.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (21 July 2004). United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice. E/2004/28.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (30 July 1992). Implementation of General Assembly resolution 46/152 concerning operational activities and coordination in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. E/RES/1992/22.
• United Nations, General Assembly (22 December 2023). Equal access to justice for all. A/RES/78/227.
• United Nations, General Assembly (10 January 2023). Strengthening the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity. A/RES/77/237.
• United Nations, General Assembly (8 January 2016). Thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. A/RES/70/174.
• United Nations, General Assembly (21 October 2015). Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
• United Nations, General Assembly (31 March 2011). Strengthening crime prevention and criminal justice responses to violence against women. A/RES/65/228.

International cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and corruption

Many crimes span multiple countries, whether due to the inherent nature of the offense or a desire to evade law enforcement by moving between jurisdictions. International cooperation is vital to combat these offenses, which include drug trafficking, cybercrime, corruption, terrorism and smuggling. While most crimes are solved by sovereign governments primarily acting in their own right, with some cooperation measures such as extradition, the fact that different parts of a transnational criminal network are in different countries allows criminals to take advantage of differences between legal systems, exploiting legal or cultural barriers to cooperation between countries, and sheltering in States where actions that are criminal elsewhere are legal. Transnational crime can occur on a very large scale; the United Nations estimates that $1.6 trillion per year is laundered or otherwise involved in transnational organized crime. This renders transnational crime a threat to all States, which has led to a push for international cooperation to combat it.

To this end, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established the Commision on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) in 1992. Following shortly after this, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNCTOC) in 2000 to strengthen international authority against transnational crime. The resolution included protocols for combating tracking by establishing a legally binding definition of the crime, as well as protocols against smuggling of migrants and illicit manufacturing and trafficking of firearms. States Parties resolved to expand infrastructure for extradition, mutual legal assistance and law enforcement. In 2003 the United Nations Convention against Corruption further strengthened the areas of preventative measures, criminalization and law enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery, technical assistance, and information exchange. In 2014, The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) began development of the Sharing Electronic Resources and Laws on Crime (SHERLOC) web system as a tool to continue implementing UNCTOC. SHERLOC contains resources concerning a number of transnational crimes from all 193 United Nations Member States, from wildlife trafficking to piracy.

The CCPCJ periodically compiles reports to the Secretary-General concerning the findings of SHERLOC, with the last three reports in 2019, 2021, and 2023. These reports are in pursuit of the broader sustainable development goals, primarily goals 16 and 17.  The 2019 report describes the continued work of UNODC towards improving infrastructure and cooperation to achieve the UNCTOC, in addition to combating the more recent expansion of cybercrime. In 2021, the report had an increased focus on human trafficking of various sorts, including kidnapping and migrant smuggling. The 2023 report focused on corruption and combating organized crime networks, particularly those that exist and operate across national borders.

The development and evolution of cybercrime is seen as a particularly serious concern in the realm of transnational crime. The Commission has noted several times the highly dynamic nature of organized cybercrime and its negative effects on Member State populations. One issue in combating cybercrime is that countries may have different levels of technical resources to address the issue. UNODC notes that cybercrime is a continually evolving transnational crime, and that UNODC is working to strengthen Member State’s capabilities to combat cybercrime through enhancing existing international cooperation structures as well as providing material support to Member States. Cybercrime is committed by many different criminal organizations, including terrorist groups.The international community’s approach to handling transnational organized crime is also at stake as national entities may choose to pursue their own internal systems of combating crime, or choosing to focus on building regional versus global cooperative systems to meet their own needs in regard to law enforcement. Renewed political will within states and a retreat from international cooperation create substantial issues with using the UNTOC’s tools and mechanisms.

The UNTOC was adopted nearly by consensus by Member States, but newly developed transnational crimes such as cybercrime have also presented new challenges in regard to building consensus and cooperating. As such, there is potential to see global international cooperation retreat in favor of national or regional systems of cooperation. Issue-specific cooperation such as the United States-United Kingdom- Australia pact on advanced technologies may also see continued development as cooperation becomes more challenging between countries. The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime foresees five possible futures regarding the UNTOC and international cooperation: together, unbound, going alone, retreat and renewal. None of these paths forward are foregone conclusions, and it is the decision of the international community as to which will manifest itself.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective include the following:

• How can the international community best combat the rise in cybercrime?
• How can CCPCJ preserve its relevance amid the rise of regional and bilateral mechanisms for fighting transnational crime?
• Should the United Nations continue to emphasize international cooperation mechanisms, or prioritize facilitating regional partnerships on specific issues?
• How can the United Nations increase the efficacy and maintain the relevance of existing conventions governing cooperation on transnational crime?

Bibliography

• Caprini, Marina (2 September 2022). Transnational Organized crime: a Threat to Global Public Goods.
• Christianson, Cooke, and Monaghan (10 July 2023). AUKUS Pillar Two: Advancing the Capabilities of the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. CSIS.
• Dandurand, Yvon, and Jessica Jahn (2021). The Future of International Cooperation Against Transnational Organized Crime.
• Finckenauer, James (July 2000). Meeting the Challenge of Transnational Crime. NIJ Journal.
• Human Wrongs Watch (26 March 2015). SHERLOC Against Organized Crime.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (21 March 2023). International cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and corruption: Report of the Secretary-General. E/CN.15/2023/4.
• United Nations, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (5 March 2021). International cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and corruption: Report of the Secretary-General. E/CN.15/2021/4.
• United Nations, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (6 March 2019). International cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and corruption: Report of the Secretary-General . E/CN.15/2019/4.
• United Nations, General Assembly (8 January 2001). United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. A/RES/55/25.
• United Nations, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014). Strengthening the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto. 7/1.
• United Nations, Economic and Social Council (6 February 1992). Establishment of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. E/RES/1992/1.

The Security Council’s primary responsibility is maintaining international peace and security. The membership of the Security Council consists of fifteen Members: five Permanent Members (China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States) and ten at-large Member States which the General Assembly elects for rotating two-year terms. A majority in the Security Council consists of nine Members voting “yes” (except in eleven-member Historical Security Councils before 1965, where a majority consists of seven Members voting “yes”); however, a “no” vote by any of the Permanent Members has the effect of vetoing or blocking actions.

As the Security Council only meets to discuss topics concerning international peace and security, representatives of the Security Councils at AMUN (both Contemporary and Historical) should note that the agenda provided is only provisional and represents a fraction of the issues the Security Council discusses. Unlike other Committees and Councils at AMUN, the topics presented do not constitute a complete list of topics the Security Councils can discuss. Likewise, the inclusion of the topics presented does not guarantee or mandate that a listed topic will be formally discussed during the simulation. Any issue regarding international peace and security for that time may be brought before the Councils.

Therefore, representatives on the Contemporary Security Council must have a broad knowledge regarding current events in the international community. Periodicals and online sources are some of the best sources available for day-to-day updates. Recommended resources include: The New York Times, United Nations Chronicle, The Times of London, Al Jazeera, the Mail & Guardian, Foreign Policy and The Economist. The UN News and  UN Chronicle are excellent resources for timely information, and good ways for representatives to stay abreast of the most recent reports published by the Security Council and other relevant United Nations bodies.

Historical Security Council (HSC) representatives should approach their Council’s issues based on events up to the start date of the simulation and should do their research accordingly. This means using historical materials whenever possible. The world has changed dramatically over the years, but none of these changes will be evident within the chambers of the HSC. While histories of the subject will be fine for a general overview, representatives should peruse periodicals and other primary sources from three to five years before the year in question to most accurately reflect the worldview at that time. Periodicals contemporary to the period, which can be easily referenced in a Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature or the New York Times Index, will provide a much better historical perspective and feel for the times than later historical texts.

AMUN’s Security Council simulation philosophy

One of AMUN’s core principles is to mirror the practice and dynamics of the United Nations as much as possible. To that end, AMUN strives to create and conduct simulations that are a realistic representation of diplomacy at the United Nations and the broader international system. We believe this commitment furthers AMUN’s aims to create a fair and fun experience for all representatives and that it enhances the educational mission of the organization.

This commitment to realism is especially important in Security Councils, where representatives respond to a simulated world that changes depending on the Council’s actions. Representatives are therefore asked to act within the realm of the possible.

Simulations Staff are always available to consult with representatives as they work through their diplomatic options. Representatives are encouraged to seek out Simulations Staff to act in the home office capacity when they need to supplement their research on a situation. Simulation Staff wear many hats, including acting as an in-house resource for representatives about their countries and the topics at hand.

All actions (as opposed to statements) proposed by Council Members must be approved by Simulations Staff, who are charged with managing each simulation’s timeline and alternate reality. As a rule, the Simulations Staff will give representatives a wide latitude in decision-making. However, the Simulations Staff may deny a certain action if it falls outside of the bounds of reality or would negatively impact the realism of the simulation for all participants.

For every issue before the Council, each Member is faced with a variety of options for how to react and what policy line to take. A realistic simulation will consider only those options that would have reasonably been on the table for a State at a particular moment in time. In other words, there will always be options States do not consider or dismiss out of hand because they have limited capabilities or due to historical, cultural or political constraints; in a realistic simulation, these options are not appropriate. These unrealistic approaches will not be permitted at AMUN.

This commitment to realism does not mean that simulations have a set trajectory they must follow. In the Historical Security Councils, there will certainly be many deviations from historical timelines, and re-thinking the way diplomacy played out in the past is encouraged. The same is encouraged in the Contemporary Security Council. As situations change, so do the options and attitudes of the Council Members and other countries. There are near-infinite possibilities within the bounds of realism, and our Simulation Staff will help representatives work through their options.

Declarative Statements and Operational Decisions

Security Council Members are able to make declarative statements and operational decisions that will affect the course of the simulation; this ability to change reality makes these simulations different from other simulations at AMUN. Council representatives must actively bring their State’s policies and capabilities into the simulation. Representatives are welcome and encouraged to make declarative statements—including real or implied threats and deals—that do not carry operational implications outside of the United Nations; however, representatives must always consult with the Simulation Staff before making any operational decisions.

Operational decisions include any actions that would have a real-world effect outside of the United Nations, including, for example, the announcement of movements of, or actions by, national military forces. In these cases, the Simulations Staff act as the home office or government of the involved Member States(s).

Parties to the Dispute

Sometimes other States and organizations will be involved in the deliberations of the Council as Parties to the Dispute. Delegations representing these States, if present at AMUN, will be asked to participate in deliberations by the Council. If they are not present, or cannot provide a representative to address the Council, a member of the AMUN Secretariat will represent them as necessary. It is customary for the Council to request the presence of relevant Member States during discussion of a topic relevant to that State’s interests, however it is not required. Any State mentioned in the background research for a specific Security Council simulation has the potential to be called as a Party to the Dispute in the Council as well as any State related to a topic relevant to international peace and security. The Secretariat will notify in advance States likely to be asked to appear before one or more of the Security Councils. Those delegations should have one or more representatives prepared to come before the Council at any time. Because these States will not be involved in all issues, the representative(s) responsible for the Party to the Dispute must be assigned to another Committee, preferably with a second representative who can cover that Committee while they are away. A floating Permanent Representative would also be ideal for this assignment.

Roleplaying in Historical Security Councils

AMUN’s HSCs are unique not only in their topics, but also in their treatment of those topics. History and time are the HSC’s media, and they are flexible. History will be as it was written until the moment the Council convenes; the start date for the historical simulations is provided later in this chapter. From the start date forward, what transpires will be dependent upon both Council Members’ actions and Simulation Staff decisions. Council Members are encouraged to exercise free will based on the range of all the choices within their national character, upon the capabilities of their governments and within the bounds of realistic diplomacy.

Effective roleplaying for an HSC Member State will not just be a routine replay of national decisions as they evolved in that year. Indeed, the problems of the era may not transpire as they once did, and this will force active evaluations—and reevaluations—of national policies. Thus, it cannot be said that the policy course a government took in that year will necessarily be the wisest. Even were circumstances the same, it is not a sure thing that any given government would do things exactly the same way provided a second opportunity to look at events. History is replete with the musings of foreign ministers and heads of State pining for second chances.

HSC simulations will follow a flexible timeline based on events as they occurred and as modified by the representatives’ policy decisions in the Council. The Secretariat will be responsible for tracking the simulation and keeping it as realistic as possible. In maintaining realism, representatives must remember that they are roleplaying the individual assigned as their State’s representative to the United Nations. They may have access to the up-to-the-minute policy decisions of their States, or they may be relatively in the dark on their State’s moment-to-moment actions in the world.

Open Agenda

A unique feature of each Security Council simulation at AMUN is the Council’s ability to set its own agenda. The situations outlined in the council-specific topic briefs on the following pages are only a few of those facing the world at the time, and each Security Council can discuss any topic that the body wishes. For the Contemporary Security Council, this includes any real-world event up until the day the simulation convenes. For the Historical Security Council, representatives should have a working knowledge of the events prior to and including the start date for their simulation. For the Historical Security Council of 1961, the start date is 1 January 1961.

For the time periods in question, open issues could include any active United Nations peacekeeping operations, the work of any United Nations body active at the time, and any social or economic issue of the day. It is strongly recommended that all representatives be well versed in current and historical global events relevant to their simulation.

Other Aspects to Consider

• Council Members must actively bring their country’s policies and capabilities into the simulation when discussing problems and issues before the Council.
• Representatives should consider the cost of involvement by the United Nations. An increase in costs often causes the Security Council to re-prioritize its efforts.
• Sovereignty and the role of the Council and the United Nations are also key points to consider. While State governments often do not want international meddling in what they feel are national policies or disputes, this in no way lessens the responsibility of Council Members to make the effort and find ways to actively involve themselves in crisis solutions. This task must, however, be accomplished without violating the bounds of the Member States’ national characters.

Background Research

The following sections offer brief synopsis of the main international situations facing the Security Council. For the Contemporary Security Council these briefs are current as of summer 2023. Information for the Historical Security Council covers information available up until the respective start dates of the simulation. AMUN recommends that representatives have a solid foundational knowledge of the background of major international issues. The topics laid out in this handbook are provided as a starting point for further research.

Security Council Rules Short Form Security Council Rules Short Form

Notes:

1. A majority in the Security Council shall always be 9 votes.
2. Historical Security Councils set before 1965 will require a 7 vote majority for passage.
3. Any motion may be seconded, but no seconds are required in the Security Council.

1.0 Administrative

1.1 The Secretariat. The Secretariat consists of the volunteer staff members of American Model United Nations (AMUN).

1.2 Rules Committee. The President of the General Assembly, the Director of Rules and Procedures, the Director of Security Council Procedures, the Vice President of the General Assembly and one other person as appointed by the Secretary-General shall compose the membership of the Rules Committee.

1.3 Credentials. All questions concerning the validity of representative credentials shall be submitted in writing to the Secretariat,

• The Secretariat has sole authority to create and distribute credentials,
• The Secretariat has sole authority to decide all questions concerning credentials, and
• Representatives must display approved credentials at all times while on the Conference premises.

1.4 Quorum. A quorum is made up of all Member States; to begin a Council session, all Members must be present,

• The Secretariat reserves the right to adjust quorum as it deems necessary.

1.5 Security Council Officers. The Secretariat shall appoint the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Security Council and shall select any other positions necessary to help conduct the sessions of the Council.

1.6 General Authority of the Security Council President. In addition to exercising such authority as conferred upon the President elsewhere in these rules, the President shall:

• Declare the opening and closing of each session,
• Ensure the observance of the rules,
• Facilitate the discussions of the Council and accord the right to speak,
• Advise the Council on methods of procedure that will enable the body to accomplish its goals, 
• Rule on points and motions and, subject to these rulings, have complete control of the proceedings of the Council and the maintenance of order at its meetings, and
• During the course of the session, the President may propose Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1), Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), Closure of Debate (rule 7.5), Consultative Session (rule 7.7), and Limits on Debate (rule 7.11). 

The President is under the direct authority of the Rules Committee and may be directed to inform the Council on matters of procedure if such action is deemed necessary by the Rules Committee.

1.7 Absence of Council President. If the Council President should find it necessary to be absent during any part of a Council session, the President shall designate an individual, normally the Vice President, to chair the Council session with the same authority.

1.8 Attendance at Security Council Sessions. Each Security Council Member delegation assumes the responsibility to have a minimum of one accredited representative at each Council session.

1.9 Emergency Council Sessions. Emergency Security Council Sessions may be called by the Secretariat at any time international conflicts require immediate Council attention, as established in the Charter of the United Nations.

1.10 Provisional Agenda. The Secretariat shall distribute a provisional agenda to all delegations prior to the start of the Conference,

• This agenda in no way limits the Council’s topics,
• This agenda in no way confirms the inclusion of topics during the Council’s deliberations, and
• The provisional agenda does not constitute a default agenda for the Council.

1.11 Daily Order of Consideration of Agenda Topics. The Council will establish the daily order of consideration of agenda topics at the start of each daily session. Once established, this will become the working agenda for the duration of that day,

• Agenda topics will be discussed in the order in which they appear on the working agenda (rule 7.10), and
• A delegation wishing to change this order may move to add an agenda topic (rule 7.8) and change the order of consideration of the working agenda (rule 7.9).

1.12 Participation by Non-Council Member States and International Organizations. When an issue before the Security Council involves a non-Council United Nations Member State or Observer, the Council may request that the delegation be represented during Council sessions in which the issue is being discussed,

• To do this a Council Member must move that the Member or Observer be brought as a Party to the Dispute (rule 7.15),
• A non-Council United Nations Member or Observer that has been requested to attend Council sessions will usually be given debating privileges, allowing the delegation to be recognized by the President during debate,
• A non-Council United Nations Member State or Observer may submit draft resolutions or amendments, but may not move these to the floor or vote at any time, and
• A non-Council Member requested to attend a Council session, but not given debating privileges, will be subject to a question and answer period.

When discussing any issue, if the Security Council finds it necessary to have a representative of a non-United Nations Member State, an international organization or any other persons it considers competent for the purpose present, the Council may request one by means of Party to the Dispute (rule 7.15). A representative will be made available to the Council in a timely fashion,

• These representatives may not be given debating privileges, but will be subject to a question and answer period, and
• The Secretariat will assume full responsibility to certify representatives’ credentials prior to their appearance before the Council.

Due to technical and logistical limitations the Contemporary Security Council will not be able to declare an “open meeting” during any virtual session.

1.13 Security Council Priority Relating to Issues Concerning the Maintenance of International Peace and Security. The Security Council, as established in the United Nations Charter, shall have priority over the General Assembly on issues that pertain to the maintenance of international peace and security,

• Issues of this type, while under discussion in the Security Council, shall be seized from General Assembly action,
• General Assembly draft resolutions that deal with a seized issue may be discussed and amended, but no final vote on the draft resolution may be taken, and
• Accordingly, any General Assembly draft resolution pertaining to a seized issue may be discussed and amended but cannot be put to a final vote in the General Assembly until the Security Council has completed its deliberations on the issue.

If no resolution has been adopted, the Security Council will be considered to have completed its deliberations on a seized issue once that agenda topic is no longer under discussion. The Council may declare itself actively seized on a topic by stating this in a resolution; this seizure will prevent the General Assembly from taking action until a two-hour time period has elapsed. General Assembly representatives will be kept informed by the Secretary-General of any seized issues.

2.0 General Rules

2.1 Statements by the Secretariat. The Secretary-General or any member of the Secretariat may make verbal or written statements to the Security Council at any time.

2.2 Diplomatic Courtesy. All participants in the AMUN Conference must accord Diplomatic Courtesy to all credentialed representatives, Secretariat Members, Faculty Advisors and Observers at all times,

• Representatives who persist in obvious attempts to disrupt the session shall be subject to expulsion from the Council by the President,
• The Secretariat reserves the right to expel any representative or delegation from the Conference, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.3 Speeches. No representative may address the Council without obtaining the permission of the President,

• Delegations, not representatives, are recognized to speak; more than one representative from the same delegation may speak when the delegation is recognized,
• Speakers must keep their remarks germane to the subject under discussion,
• A time limit may be established for speeches (rule 7.11),
• Representatives, at the conclusion of a substantive speech, will be allowed, if they are willing, to answer questions concerning their speech,
• A delegation that desires to ask a question of the speaker should signify by raising a Point of Inquiry (rule 6.3),
• All questions and replies are made through the President,
• A speaker who desires to make a motion may do so after speaking and accepting points of inquiry, but prior to yielding the floor, and
• By making a motion the speaker yields the floor.

2.4 Recognition of Speakers. Delegations wishing to speak on an item before the body will signify by raising their placards (or the virtual equivalent as directed by the President),

• The exception to this rule occurs on any Point of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2), or Inquiry (rule 6.3), at which time a representative should indicate their motion to the President in the manner directed by the President.
• Points will be recognized in the order of their priority,
• Motions may not be made from Points of Order (rule 6.1), Information (rule 6.2) or Inquiry (rule 6.3), except
  • A motion to Appeal the Decision of the President (rule 7.6), may be made when recognized for a Point of Order.
• The President shall recognize speakers in a fair and orderly manner, and
• Speakers’ lists will not be used, except during an open meeting (rule 1.12).

2.5 Right of Reply. The President may accord a Right of Reply to any representative if a speech by another representative contains unusual or extraordinary language clearly insulting to personal or national dignity,

• Requests for a Right of Reply shall be made in writing to the President,
• Requests shall contain the specific language which was found to be insulting to personal or national dignity,
• The President may limit the time for reply,
• There shall be no reply to a reply, and
• This decision is not appealable.

2.6 Withdrawal of Motions. A motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has begun,

• A withdrawn motion may be reintroduced by any other delegation.

2.7 Dilatory Motions. The President may rule out of order any motion repeating or closely approximating a recent previous motion on which the Council has already rendered an opinion,

• This decision is not appealable.

2.8 Open Debate on Motions. Representatives wishing to speak to a motion may do so for any motions which are subject to open debate,

• The President shall declare the opening and closing of debate on motions,
• Points of Inquiry are not in order during this debate,
• Motions of higher priority than the one being debated may be made from the floor during open debate,
• The President will declare debate closed when no other delegation signifies its desire to speak,
• Closure of open debate may not be moved by a delegation from the floor, and
• The body will move to an immediate vote on the motion following the President’s declaration of closure.

2.9 Consultative Session. The Council may choose to suspend its formal rules and enter an informal consultative session moderated by the Council President if the Members determine that this process will better facilitate the discussion of a particular issue,

• The Council will move immediately into a formal session once the time period or topic set for the Consultative Session has expired (rule 7.7).

3.0 Rules That Relate to the Rules

3.1 Rule Priority and Procedure. The rules contained in this handbook are the official rules of procedure of American Model United Nations and will be used for all Council sessions. These rules take precedence over any other set of rules.

3.2 Precedence of Rules. Proceedings in the Security Council of AMUN shall be conducted under the following precedence of rules

1. AMUN Rules of Procedure,
2. AMUN Security Council Order of Precedence of the Rules Short Form,
3. Rulings by the Rules Committee,
4. Historical usage of the AMUN Rules of Procedure,
5. Historical usage of the United Nations Rules of Procedure, and
6. The Charter of the United Nations.

3.3 The Order of Precedence of Motions. The order of precedence of motions is listed in order of priority in both the Security Council Precedence Short Form and in these rules under Section 7, “Motions in Order of Priority.” 

3.4 Rule Changes. The Rules Committee reserves the right to make changes to these rules at any time. Should a change occur, it will be communicated to the representatives in a timely manner.

3.5 Rule Priority and Procedure. The rules contained in this handbook are the official rules of procedure of AMUN and will be used for all Council sessions. These rules take precedence over any other set of rules.

3.6 Precedence of Rules. Proceedings in the Security Council of AMUN shall be conducted under the following precedence of rules:

1. AMUN Rules of Procedure,
2. AMUN Security Council Order of Precedence of the Rules Short Form (see page 40),
3. Rulings by the Rules Committee,
4. Historical usage of the AMUN Rules of Procedure,
5. Historical usage of the United Nations Rules of Procedure,
6. The Charter of the United Nations.

3.7 The Order of Precedence of Motions. The order of precedence of motions is listed in order of priority in both the Security Council Precedence of the Rules Short Form and in these rules under Section 7, Motions in Order of Priority. These motions, in the order given, have precedence over all other proposals or motions before the Security Council.

3.8 Rule Changes. The Rules Committee reserves the right to make changes to these rules at any time. Should a change occur, it will be communicated to the representatives in a timely manner.

4.0 Draft Resolutions, Amendments & Statements

4.1 Definition of Draft Resolutions. A draft resolution is a written proposal consisting of at least one preambular and one operative clause.

4.2 Draft Resolutions. Draft resolutions may be submitted to the Security Council President/Vice President for approval at any time during the Conference,

• For a draft resolution to be considered it must be organized in content and flow, in the proper format and approved by the Council Dais, 
• Approved resolutions will be assigned an identifying number by the Vice President, and
• After acceptance, draft resolutions shall be processed in the order in which they are received and distributed to all delegations as soon as feasible.

A draft resolution that has been distributed may be proposed when the Council considers the agenda topic that is the subject of the draft resolution,

• Only one draft resolution may be considered at any time during formal debate,
• Once a draft resolution is on the floor for discussion, additional sponsors may only be added to that draft resolution with the consent of the original sponsor(s),
• Once a vote has been taken on a contested amendment to a draft resolution, no additional sponsors may be added,
• Friendly amendments (rule 4.4) do not limit the addition of sponsors as noted above, and
• See also Closure of Debate on an Agenda Topic (rule 7.4), Closure of Debate (rule 7.5), and Consideration of Amendments (rule 7.14).

4.3 Definition of Amendments. An amendment to a draft resolution is a written proposal that adds to, deletes from, or revises any part of a draft resolution.

4.4 Amendments. All amendments must be submitted on an official amendment form to the President/Vice President for approval,

• For an amendment to be considered it must be organized in content and flow, be in the proper format, and be approved by the Council Dais,
• Approved amendments will be assigned an identification letter by the Vice President, and
• Typographical errors in a draft resolution will be corrected by the Council Secretariat and announced to the body.

One or more amendments may be considered on the floor at any given time (see also Closure of Debate on an Agenda Topic (rule 7.4), Closure of Debate (rule 7.5), and Consideration of Amendments (rule 7.14)).

An amendment will be considered “friendly” if all sponsors of the draft resolution are also sponsors of the amendment,

• A friendly amendment becomes part of a draft resolution upon the announcement that it is accepted by the dais,
  • No vote is required to add a friendly amendment to a draft resolution.
• The President shall announce the acceptance of a friendly amendment on the first opportunity at which no speaker has the floor, and
• Friendly amendments cannot be accepted after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment or after closure of debate on the resolution has been moved.

4.5 Withdrawal of Sponsorship. Sponsorship of a resolution or amendment may be withdrawn at any time before entering into voting procedure on the item,

• Sponsorship of a resolution may not be withdrawn after a vote has been taken on a contested amendment,
• If a draft resolution or amendment has all sponsorship withdrawn, any delegation may take up sponsorship of that draft resolution or amendment by informing the President, and
• If all sponsors withdraw from a draft resolution or amendment, it is automatically removed from consideration.

4.6 Definition of Presidential Statements. The Security Council may choose to issue a Presidential Statement on issues which do not warrant a resolution. This statement is formally issued by the President of the Council, but is drafted by the body, or its designees.

4.7 Presidential Statements. Presidential Statements are discussed, drafted and accepted in informal debate or outside of a formal Council session,

• This statement must be accepted by a consensus of the Council during a Consultative Session (rule 7.7),
• As this type of statement does not represent a formal decision of the Council, no formal vote is recorded on a Presidential Statement,
• Unlike resolutions, Presidential Statements are not binding on Member States.
• A Presidential Statement may be submitted to the Security Council President/Vice President for approval at any time during the Conference, and
• For a Presidential Statement to be considered it must be organized in content and flow, be in the proper format, and be approved by the Council Secretariat.

5.0 Voting

5.1 Voting Rights. Each Security Council Member is accorded one vote,

• No delegation may cast a vote on behalf of another Member State.

5.2 Votes Required for Passage. Unless otherwise specified in these rules or by the Rules Committee, decisions in the Council require nine affirmative votes for passage,

• Historical Security Councils occurring prior to 1966, consisting of eleven members, require seven affirmative votes for passage of decisions.

5.3 Adoption by Consensus. The adoption of amendments and draft resolutions by consensus is desirable when it contributes to the effective and lasting settlement of differences, thus strengthening the authority of the United Nations,

• Any representative may request the adoption of an amendment or draft resolution by consensus at any time after closure of debate has passed,
• For Presidential Statements, the required method of voting is adoption by consensus,
• The President shall then ask whether there is any objection to consensus,
• The President shall then ask whether there are any delegations wishing to abstain from consensus,
• Delegations abstaining from consensus will be officially recorded,
• If there is no objection, the proposal is approved by consensus, and
• If any representative objects to consensus, voting shall occur as otherwise stated in these rules.

5.4 Method of Voting. The Council shall normally vote on motions by a show of raised placards or other method as indicated by the President,

• The votes of Council Members on all substantive matters shall be officially recorded, and all substantive matters are subject to the Consent of the Permanent Members, regardless of the means by which they are voted upon (rule 5.8),
• Any delegation may request a roll call vote on substantive matters, unless adopted by consensus; the President may grant a request by a delegation for a roll call vote on any substantive matter, and the President’s decision on such a request is not subject to appeal,
• When applicable, roll shall be called in English alphabetical order beginning with a Member selected at random by the Vice President,
• Representatives shall respond with “yes,” “no,” “abstain” or “abstain from the order,” and
• A Member may abstain from the order of voting once during a roll call; a second abstention from the order of voting will be recorded as an abstention.

5.5 Conduct During Voting. Immediately prior to a vote, the President shall describe to the Council the proposal to be voted on, and shall explain the consequences of a “yes” or a “no” vote. Voting shall begin upon the President’s declaration, “we are now in voting procedure,” and end when the results of the vote are announced,

• Following Closure of Debate, and prior to entering voting procedure, the President shall pause briefly to allow delegations the opportunity to make any relevant motions,
• Relevant motions prior to a vote include Adoption by Consensus (rule 5.3), Suspension of the Meeting (rule 7.1), Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), Enter Consultative Session (rule 7.7) and Division of the Question (rule 7.12), and
• Once in voting procedure, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a Point of Order or Point of Information concerning the actual conduct of the vote.

5.6 Changes of Votes. At the end of roll call, but before Rights of Explanation (rule 5.7) are granted and the subsequent announcement of the vote, the Vice President will ask for any vote changes. Any delegation that desires to change its recorded vote may do so at that time.

5.7 Rights of Explanation. Rights of Explanation are permitted on all substantive votes after voting. The President may limit the time for Rights of Explanation.

5.8 Consent of the Five Permanent Members. As established in the Charter of the United Nations, each of the five Permanent Members (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States) shall have the right to veto any substantive matter which comes to a vote before the Security Council,

• A substantive matter which has a majority of votes in favor but receives a “no” by any Permanent Member fails due to lack of consent of the Permanent Members.

6.0 Points of Procedure in Order of Priority

6.1 Point of Order. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may rise to a Point of Order if the representative believes that the Council is proceeding in a manner contrary to these rules,

• The representative must identify their point in the method indicated by the President and will be recognized immediately by the President and the point ruled on,
• A representative rising to a Point of Order may not speak substantively on any matter,
• If a representative’s ability to participate in the Council’s deliberations is impaired for any reason, the representative may rise to a Point of Order,
• A Point of Order may interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.2 Point of Information. A Point of Information is raised to the President if a representative wishes to obtain a clarification of procedure or a statement of the matters before the Council,

• The representative must identify their point in the method indicated by the President,
• A Point of Information may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

6.3 Point of Inquiry. During substantive debate, a representative may question a speaker by rising to a Point of Inquiry,

• Questions must be directed through the President and may be made only after the speaker has concluded his/her remarks, but before he/she has yielded the floor,
• The representative must identify their point in the method indicated by the President,
• A Point of Inquiry may not interrupt a speaker, and
• See also Speeches (rule 2.3).

7.0 Motions in Order of Priority

7.1 Suspension of the Meeting. During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move to suspend the meeting. Suspending a meeting recesses it for the time specified in the motion,

• The motion is not debatable,
• The President may request that the delegation making the motion modify the time of suspension, and
• If the motion passes, upon reconvening the Council will continue its business from the point at which suspension was moved, unless otherwise stated in these rules.

7.2 Adjournment of the Meeting. The motion of adjournment of the meeting means that all business of the Council has been completed, and that the Council will not reconvene until the next annual session,

• The motion is not debatable,
• The President may refuse to recognize a motion to adjourn the meeting if the Council still has business before it, and
• This decision is not appealable.

7.3 Adjournment of Debate. During the discussion of any draft resolution, amendment or agenda topic before the Council, a representative may move for adjournment of debate,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall be put to a vote,
• Adjournment of debate on a draft resolution or amendment has the effect of removing that item from consideration and allows the committee to move on to another draft resolution or amendment,
• An adjourned draft resolution can be resubmitted to the floor by any delegation, at the discretion of the President as to the dilatory nature of such a motion,
• Adjourning debate on an agenda topic has the effect of postponing debate on the topic and allowing the Council to move on to consideration of other topics or issues, and
• The Council may return to discussion of an agenda topic by changing the order of consideration of the working agenda (Rule 7.9).

7.4 Closure of Debate on an Agenda Topic. A representative may move to close debate on an agenda topic at any time during the discussion of that topic. The effect of this motion, if passed, is to bring the draft resolution that is on the floor to a vote,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote, and
• If no draft resolution is on the floor, the effect of this motion is to end debate on this topic, removing it from the working agenda and moving to the next topic on the working agenda.

7.5 Closure of Debate. A representative may move to close debate on a draft resolution or amendment at any time during the discussion of that item. The effect of this motion is to bring the issue under discussion to an immediate vote,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• Representatives should specify whether the motion for closure applies to an amendment or a draft resolution,
• If closure passes on a draft resolution or agenda topic, all amendments on the floor will be voted upon in the reverse order from which they were moved to the floor,  and
• After voting on all amendments is completed, the draft resolution as amended, shall be voted upon in accordance with these rules.

At the conclusion of voting procedure, the draft resolution or amendment being voted on is removed from consideration, regardless of whether it passes or fails. Debate then continues on the current agenda topic.

7.6 Appealing a Decision of the President. Rulings of the President are appealable unless otherwise specified in these rules,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• An appeal must be made immediately following the ruling in question,
• This motion may be made by a delegation that has been recognized through a Point of Order,
• The President shall put the question as follows: “Shall the decision of the President be upheld?” A “yes” vote supports the President’s decision; a “no” vote signifies objection,
• The decision of the President shall be upheld by a tie, and
• Rulings by the President on the following rules or motions are not appealable: Diplomatic Courtesy (rule 2.2), Right of Reply (rule 2.5), Dilatory Motions (rule 2.7), granting of a roll call vote (rule 5.4), Adjournment of the Meeting (rule 7.2), and any time a ruling by the President is a direct quotation from these Rules of Procedure.

7.7 Consultative Session. The Council may choose to suspend the rules if the Members determine that this process will better facilitate the discussion of a particular issue,

• The motion should specify a length of time or topic, and a moderator, if desired, for the consultative session, 
  • This can be set to a specific time, or based on the discussion of a specific amendment, draft resolution or agenda topic (rule 2.9),
  • A moderator can be a Council Member or Secretariat Member, and
• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote.

7.8 Add an Agenda Topic. A motion to add an agenda topic to the working agenda is in order during any Council session,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote, 
• Once an issue is added as an agenda topic, it is placed as the last topic on the working agenda.

7.9 Change the Order of Consideration of the Working Agenda. A motion to change the order of consideration of topics on the working agenda is in order during any formal session. The effect of this motion is to change the order in which agenda topics are to be discussed by the Council,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote, and
• The delegation making this motion must state, in the motion, the new order in which the agenda topics are to be considered.

7.10 Set Working Agenda. At the start of each daily session the Security Council shall establish a working agenda (rule 1.11). A delegation may move to set the working agenda,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The motion must include the order in which agenda topics are to be considered, and
• A working agenda does not have to contain all agenda topics.

7.11 Limits on Debate. A motion to limit or extend the time allotted to each delegation, or limit the number of times each delegation can speak on any matter, 

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The time allotted for speakers on amendments, draft resolutions and agenda topics shall be no less than three minutes,
• The time allotted for non-substantive speeches shall be no less than one minute,
• This motion may limit the number of Points of Inquiry a speaker may accept to a minimum of one, and
• A motion to limit the time of debate on an agenda topic, draft resolution, or amendment is also in order.

7.12 Division of the Question. A motion to divide the question, proposing that clauses of an amendment or draft resolution be voted on separately, is in order at any time prior to entering voting procedure on the amendment or draft resolution,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• No debate or vote is necessary if the sponsor(s) of the draft resolution does not object to the division,
• If a vote has previously been taken on a contested amendment to the draft resolution, any Council Member may object to division and require a vote,
• After a motion for Division of the Question passes, no other motion for Division of the Question is in order on that amendment or draft resolution,
• Those clauses of the amendment or draft resolution which are approved shall then be put to a vote as a whole, and
• If division causes a draft resolution to no longer be in proper format (rule 4.1), the proposal as a whole is rejected.

7.13 Consideration of Draft Resolutions. A draft resolution may be moved to the floor by any delegation that receives recognition by the President,

• This motion is not debatable,
• Only one draft resolution may be on the floor at any time, and
• The delegation moving consideration will be allowed to speak first on the draft resolution, if desired.

7.14 Consideration of Amendments. To bring an amendment to the floor for discussion, a delegation must first be recognized by the President,

• This motion is not subject to debate
• The Vice President will present the amendment to the body, and
• The delegation moving consideration will be allowed to speak first on the amendment, if desired.

7.15 Party to the Dispute. When the Security Council discusses a topic/issue that involves a nation or international organization not represented on the Council, it may request a representative by moving for a Party to the Dispute,

• This motion is subject to open debate. Upon closure of the open debate period, the motion shall then be put to a vote,
• The motion must state the United Nations Member State(s), Observer(s) or organization(s) whose representative is desired and the length of time requested and, if a Member State or Observer, whether debating privileges are to be granted,
• If debating privileges are not granted, a formal “question and answer” period shall be instituted by the President, for the purposes of questioning the representative on the issue(s) at hand,
• If it is determined that many Members or Observers outside of the Contemporary Security Council have an interest in a specific issue, the Council may declare an “open meeting” on any issue being discussed, and
• See also Participation by Non-Council Member States and International Organizations (rule 1.12).

Security Council Rules Short Form

Download a PDF version of these rules optimized for printing.

Notes:

1. A majority in the Security Council shall always be 9 votes.
2. Historical Security Councils set before 1965 will require a 7 vote majority for passage.
3. Any motion may be seconded, but no seconds are required in the Security Council.

Membership of the Security Council

• Algeria
• China
• Ecuador
• France
• Guyana
• Japan
• Malta
• Mozambique
• Republic of Korea
• Russian Federation
• Sierra Leone
• Slovenia
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

Introduction

The topics covered in this chapter are a guide to help direct your research on your State’s positions. Updates on likely topics for the Contemporary Security Council will be posted online throughout the fall. These updates will be linked at the top of this page, directly under the Security Council header as they are published. The Contemporary Security Council topics below are current as of 1 June 2024 and may not include all topics that the Council might discuss at Conference. With the ever-changing nature of international peace and security, what is important to the Council may change between now and the start of Conference. However, representatives are encouraged to be familiar with these topics and the topics addressed in the fall updates.

For each topic area, representatives should consider the following questions to help them in gaining a better understanding of the issues at hand, particularly from their country’s perspective:

• How did this situation begin?
• Which parties are involved in the situation and what are their concerns?
• How have similar situations or conflicts been peacefully resolved?
• What roles can the United Nations take in the situation? What roles should the United Nations take in the situation?
• If there are non-state actors involved in a conflict, are there any States supporting them? If so, which ones?

The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestine question

The Situation in Gaza

On 7 October 2023, Hamas and allied organizations controlling the Palestinian territory of Gaza launched a coordinated attack against Israel. Many elements of the attack appear to have been chosen to inflict civilian casualties. Approximately 1,400 Israelis were killed and hostages were taken. The Israeli government responded with a declaration of war against Hamas and imposed a “total siege” on Gaza, cutting off supplies of water, food, electricity and fuel. Gaza is heavily reliant on supplies from Israel to ensure provision of food, basic emergency services and sanitation. Following heavy aerial and artillery bombardment throughout most of Gaza, the Israeli military surrounded Gaza City in the north of Gaza and mounted military operations in the south near the cities of Khan Younis and Rafah. Of Gaza’s pre-war population of 2 million, approximately 1.7 million people have fled to the south, principally around Rafah. During the spring of 2024, the Israeli government repeatedly announced a plan to attack and occupy Rafah as part of its war against Hamas The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warned an Israeli ground attack on Rafah would “incur massive loss of life and would heighten the risk of further atrocity crimes”. On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to halt its offensive near the outskirts of Rafah and to keep the Rafah border crossing open. Despite the order from the International Court of Justice, the Israeli government has continued to conduct airstrikes in Rafah. Peace talks between Hamas and Israel have been ongoing since the start of the conflict, but there has been little progress in securing even a temporary ceasefire.

By late April 2024, the estimated death toll in Gaza reached 34,000 people, the majority believed to be women and children. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, warned that famine in northern Gaza is imminent and that 1.1 million people in Gaza are facing catastrophic hunger, according to an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report. Secretary-General Guterres said this represents the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the Integrated Food Security Classification system. Despite pressure from the United Nations, the United States and statements from the Israeli government saying they would work to allow more aid into Gaza, the number of aid trucks entering Gaza each day remains approximately half of the pre-war level. Due to difficulties in delivering aid to Gaza by land, the United States constructed a floating dock and pier in Gaza where ships can offload aid. However, after the pier was completed the World Food Program warned the plan may fail due to a lack of security, citing the recent looting of aid trucks.

During the Israel-Hamas conflict, the United Nations Security Council has held numerous meetings and votes on resolutions. However, the Security Council frequently has found itself deadlocked with permanent members exercising their veto power to block resolutions. Speakers in the General Assembly have said continued vetoes of Security Council resolutions embolden the Israeli government, and Secretary-General Guterres warned the Security Council has “severely—perhaps fatally—undermined its authority”. On 24 March, the Security Council passed Resolution 2728 demanding an immediate release of hostages, lifting barriers to humanitarian aid and a ceasefire for the month of Ramadan to lay the groundwork for a further ceasefire. After a draft resolution failed to pass due to a veto from Russia and China, Resolution 2728 passed when the United States of America abstained.

Since the conflict began, Secretary-General Guterres has warned of the potential for the conflict to spread to the broader Middle East. Along Israel’s border with Lebanon, there has been continuous low-level fighting between the Israeli military and Hezbollah, a powerful political party in Lebanon that maintains its own army. In late April 2024, following an Israeli airstrike against the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran launched multiple missiles against Israel in response with many of those missiles shot down. Following the attacks by Israel and Iran, the Secretary-General again warned the region is on a “knife edge”.

The Situation in the West Bank

Since capturing the West Bank in 1967 during the Six-Day War, Israel has continued to maintain and establish new settlements in the region. Under the terms of the Oslo Agreement establishing peace between Israel and Palestine, Israel retained administrative control of approximately 60 percent of the West Bank, known as Area C. In the areas under Israeli control, formal and informal settlements have been established. Construction of the settlements displaced Palestinians living in the area, at times with violence. The construction of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and displacement of Palestinians contributed to violent clashes between Palestinians and Israeli settlers, and received significant international criticism, including from the United Nations Security Council in 2016. Although disputed by Israel, the settlements are generally held to be illegal under international law and create obstacles to the two-state solution for peace in the region.

Despite this international criticism, the Israeli government has continued to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Since the start of 2023, nearly 2,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank have been displaced due to violence directed at them from Israeli settlers, 43 percent occurring since 7 October. In March 2024 UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Turk, reported to the United Nations Human Rights Council that the Israeli government announced another 3,476 settler homes would be built in the West Bank. Combined with the 24,300 settler homes announced in 2023, this represented the highest rate of new settler homes announced since 2017. In the report, Mr. Turk noted that since 7 October, the UN Human Rights Office has documented 396 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank and another nine killed by Israeli settlers. The report also documented instances where settlers were observed wearing Israeli military uniforms or bearing military-issue rifles.

Bibliography

• After Months of Deadlock, UN Security Council Demands Gaza Cease-Fire (25 March 2024). VOA News.
• Berg, Raffi, et al. (19 April 2024). Why have Israel and Iran attacked each other? BBC News.
• Besheer, Margaret (11 October 2023). UN Chief: Middle East Conflict Must Not Spread. VOA News.
• Corder, Mike (24 May 2024).Top UN court orders Israel to halt military offensive in Rafah, though Israel is unlikely to comply. Associated Press.
• Frankel, Julia (11 April 2024). More aid is supposed to be entering the Gaza Strip. Why isn’t it helping? AP News.
• Gaza ceasefire talks: What are Israel and Hamas saying? (20 March 2024). Al Jazeera.
• Gaza: Rafah ground assault would increase risk of atrocity crimes. (8 March 2024). UN News.
• Gaza Strip in maps: How life has changed. (22 March 2024). BBC News.
• Gaza Strip: devastated by conflict and Israel’s economic blockade. (12 October 2023). Reuters.
• GAZA STRIP: Famine is imminent as 1.1 million people, half of Gaza, experience catastrophic food insecurity (18 March 2024). Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Famine Review Committee.
• Graham-Harrison, Emma (20 April 2024). Gaza death toll passes 34,000 as Israel and Iran missile strikes grab global attention. The Guardian.
• How Israeli Settlements Impede the Two-State Solution (7 March 2023). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
• Hutchinson, Bill (22 November 2023). Israel-Hamas War: Timeline and Key Developments. ABC News.
• Irish, John (28 April 2024). France pushes efforts in Lebanon to prevent war between Hezbollah and Israel. Reuters.
• Knickmeyer, Ellen, and Sam Magdy (21 May 2024).UN food agency warns that the new U.S. sea route for Gaza aid may fail unless Israel improves conditions. Associated Press.
• Kottasova, Ivana (10 February 2024). Unimaginable devastation seen inside Khan Younis, the southern Gaza city once a safe haven for the displaced. CNN.
• Mackintosh, Thomas, and David Gritten (27 May 2024). Dozens reported killed in Israeli strike on Rafah. BBC News.
• Pelham, Lipika (25 April 2024). Gaza pier: US begins building floating base to boost aid. BBC News.
• Planning Policy in the West Bank (6 February 2019). B’Tselem.
• Secretary-General’s press encounter on Gaza (18 March 2024). United Nations.
• Sudworth, John, and Alex Therrien (18 April 2024). Israel Gaza: US again warns against Rafah offensive. BBC News.
• Tetrault-Farber, Gabrielle (26 February 2024). Security Council ‘perhaps fatally’ undermined by Gaza, Ukraine deadlock, says UN chief. Reuters.
• The other mass displacement: while eyes are on Gaza, settlers advance on West Bank herders (1 November 2023). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
• United Nations General Assembly (5 March 2024). Veto of Security Council Resolution Calling for Ceasefire in Gaza Emboldens Israel to Continue Crimes against Palestinian People, Speakers Tell General Assembly.
• UN Human Rights Chief deplores new moves to expand Israeli settlements in occupied West Bank (8 March 2024). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
• United Nations Security Council (23 December 2016). Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms.
• United Nations Security Council (20 February 2024). Security Council Again Fails to Adopt Resolution Demanding Immediate Humanitarian Ceasefire in Gaza on Account of Veto by United States.
• United Nations Security Council (25 March 2024). Security Council Demands Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza for Month of Ramadan, Adopting Resolution 2728 (2024) with 14 Members Voting in Favour, United States Abstaining.
• United Nations Security Council Meetings and Outcomes Tables. United Nations.
• United Nations Secretary General (18 April 2024). Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council on the Middle East. United Nations.
• Who are Israeli settlers, and why do they live on Palestinian lands? (6 November 2023). Al Jazeera.
• Yerushalmy, Jonathan (17 October 2023). Crisis in Gaza: why food, water and power are running out. The Guardian.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Security Council (25 March 2024). The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. S/RES/2728.
• United Nations, Security Council (22 March 2024). Draft Resolution. S/2024/239.
• United Nations, Security Council (20 February 2024). Draft Resolution. S/2024/173.
• United Nations, Security Council (22 December 2023). The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. S/RES/2720.
• United Nations, Security Council (8 December 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/970.
• United Nations, Security Council (15 November 2023). The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. S/RES/2712.
• United Nations, Security Council (25 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/795.
• United Nations, Security Council (25 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/792.
• United Nations, Security Council (18 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/776.
• United Nations, Security Council (18 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/775.
• United Nations, Security Council (18 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/773.
• United Nations, Security Council (16 October 2023). Draft Resolution. S/2023/772.

The Situation in Abyei

The border region, Abyei, between present day Sudan and South Sudan has been disputed for decades. Decolonization of the region in the 1950s created one state of Sudan; South Sudan wasn’t internationally recognized as a separate state until 2011. Sudan experienced internal conflict almost constantly. A temporary resolution to the conflict was reached in 2005 when the sides signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), also called the Naivasha Agreement. This Agreement called for a permanent ceasefire monitored by the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS), a referendum vote in 2011 on whether South Sudan wanted to become an independent state and for the oil profits of the Abyei region to be split.

The current conflict in Abyei broke out in 2011 over a dispute on the referendum vote. South Sudan was officially recognized as its own sovereign country. However, the region of Abyei was claimed by both countries. The United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) was formed by the Security Council through Resolution 1990 due to the “violence, escalating tensions, and population displacements.” UNISFA was given the mandate to ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid with permission to use force as necessary to protect civilians and those delivering humanitarian aid.

However, even after the deployment of peacekeepers, the violence in the region continued, with violent disputes happening between various rebel and militia groups. In January of 2024, an attack occurred by the Twic faction in the village of Juba leaving 52 dead, including two peacekeepers, and 64 wounded. There have been reports of peacekeeper vehicles being targeted. In response the Security Council condemned the actions of the violent attacks and reaffirmed its commitment to UNISFA. UNISFA is set for renewal in November 2024.

Bibliography

• Closure of UNMIS (2011). United Nations Mission in Sudan.
• Joshi, Madhav, et al. (2015). Annualized Implementation Data on Comprehensive Intrastate Peace accords, 1989-2012. Journal of Peace Research.
• Machol, Deng (28 January 2024). 52 Killed in Clashes in the Disputed oil-rich African Region of Abyei, an Official Says. Associated Press.
• News, Irin (October 2013). The Roots of Abyei’s Dangerous Impasse. Africa Renewal.
• Peacekeepers and Civilians Killed during Clashes in Disputed Abyei Region (29 January 2024). UN News.
• Pospisil, Jan (5 March 2024). Crisis in Abyei: South Sudan Must Act and Stop Violence between Dinka Groups. The Conversation.
• Security Council Press Statement on Peacekeeper Deaths in Abyei (8 February 2024). United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.
• Sudan Country Profile (13 September 2023). BBC.
• Sudan-South Sudan Border: Clashes Kill Dozens in Disputed Abyei Region. (29 January 2024) BBC.
• Timeline: South Sudan’s History at a Glance (2022). Concern Worldwide.
• UNISFA Fact Sheet (2024). United Nations Peacekeeping.
• ‘Unique Opportunity’ to Resolve Border Dispute between Sudan, South Sudan (24 October 2019). UN News.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Security Council (27 June 2011). Resolution 1990. S/RES/1990(2011).

The Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, conflict broke out between the former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Although Nagorno-Karabakh was officially part of Azerbaijan, it was largely populated by ethnic Armenians who broke away from Azerbaijan with the support of the Armenian government. A Russian-brokered ceasefire proved only marginally effective and armed clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh continued for the next thirty years.

On 19 September 2023, Azerbaijan launched what it described as “local counter-terrorism activities” against Nagorno-Karabakh. In a meeting of the Security Council, Azerbaijan claimed it was responding to continued Armenian support for Nagorno-Karabakh and the death of Azerbaijani police in explosions placed by pro-Armenian forces. Armenia denied the accusations, blaming Azerbaijan for blockading the region. The blockades helped Azerbaijan’s army quickly and easily defeat Armenian forces and take control of Armenian positions in Nagorno-Karabakh. On 21 September Armenia accepted Azerbaijan’s demands to disarm the local Nagorno-Karabakh forces and agreed to the integration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan on 1 January 2024. Following the Azerbaijani victory, Azerbaijan announced it wished to integrate the ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan as “equal citizens”. However, due to the history between Armenia and Azerbaijan and claims of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, approximately 120,000 ethnic Armenians—almost the entire population of Nagorno-Karabakh—left for Armenia. A multiple-UN-Agency team sent to the region shortly after the conflict reported it saw no damage to civilian infrastructure and did not come across any reports of violence toward civilians following the ceasefire. Despite the assistance provided by the United Nations, the Armenian government has been struggling to support the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh and has faced major protests and demonstrations over its conciliatory approach to peace talks with Azerbaijan.

Since the conflict, progress toward a formal peace agreement remains slow. In December 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a prisoner exchange and for the first time issued a joint statement without a third party serving as mediator. However, major issues remain unsettled including transportation links between Azerbaijan and its territorial enclave of Nakhchivan inside Armenia and disputes over which maps to use for drawing the final border. Despite the ongoing peace talks, Armenia and Azerbaijani forces have exchanged gunfire across the border, resulting in four dead Armenian soldiers in February 2024. In March 2024 Armenia agreed to hand over four villages to Azerbaijan. The Armenian government said it had hoped to include the villages in a territorial exchange for Armenian villages under Azerbaijani control. However, the Armenian government said Azerbaijan refused the proposed exchange, and Armenia decided to hand over the villages to avoid war. In April 2024 the Russian government announced it would remove all of its peacekeepers—approximately 2,000 soldiers—from Nagorno-Karabakh. The withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers is seen as a response to Armenia increasingly looking to the United States and the European Union for support, rather than its traditional ally Russia.

Bibliography

• Armenia-Azerbaijan: Why did Nagorno-Karabakh spark a conflict? (12 October 2020). BBC News.
• Armenia says several soldiers killed in border flare-up with Azerbaijan (13 February 2024). France 24.
• Armstrong, Kathryn, and Nataliya Zotova (26 September 2023). Nagorno-Karabakh: Thousands flee as Armenia says ethnic cleansing under way. BBC News.
• Avetisyan, Avi (15 December 2023). No clear path forward for Armenia-Azerbaijan peace talks after prisoner swap. Eurasianet.
• Gavin, Gabriel (17 April 2024). Russia announces total withdrawal of troops from Nagorno-Karabakh. Politico.
• Gavin, Gabriel (19 March 2024). Armenian PM: We’ll hand Azerbaijan some territory to avoid a new war. Politico.
• Gunter, Joel (3 October 2023). Deserted Nagorno-Karabakh reveals aftermath of lightning-fast Armenian defeat. BBC News.
• Karabakh emergency escalates, thousands still pouring into Armenia: UN agencies (29 September 2023). UN News.
• Kirby, Paul (21 September 2023). Azerbaijan halts Karabakh offensive after ceasefire deal with Armenian separatists. BBC News.
• Krivosheev, Kirill (23 January 2024). Landmark Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Treaty Inches Closer. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
• United Nations Security Council (21 September 2023). Latest Clash between Armenia, Azerbaijan Undermines Prospects of Peace, Speakers Warn Security Council, Calling for Genuine Dialogue to Settle Outstanding Issues.
• UN team completes mission to Karabakh (2 October 2023). United Nations Azerbaijan.
• Wintour, Patrick (22 April 2024). Armenian PM defends decision to give four villages to Azerbaijan. The Guardian.
• Wintour, Patrick (27 December 2023). Azerbaijan close to peace agreement with Armenia, officials say. The Guardian.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Security Council (21 September 2023). Letter dated 13 September 2022 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia. S/PV.9422.

The Situation in Ukraine

In 2014 the Russian Federation gained control of the Crimea peninsula in Ukraine, an action that sparked conflict between the two countries which has extended to the present day. In 2020 Ukraine began negotiations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to eventually become a member state. The Russian Federation warned Ukraine not to attempt building further alliances with NATO, but Ukraine continued to pursue new relationships. In February 2022 the Russian Federation invaded eastern Ukraine under the justification of protecting the national security of the Russian Federation against the new allies Ukraine had acquired. Fighting in numerous regions in Eastern Ukraine began and still continues today.

The Security Council has discussed the situation in Ukraine many times. However, a resolution has not passed. Previously, only one draft was brought to the floor, but it failed due to a veto from the Russian Federation. The maintenance of international peace and security in Ukraine has been on the agenda and discussed in session every month in 2024. In the February debrief, it was noted that there has been a trend of increase in violence compared to the end of 2023.

Bibliography

• Bengali, Shashank, and Marc Santora (28 May 2022). Russia Attacks Ukraine: Ukrainian Officials Report Missile Attacks in Kyiv. The New York Times.
• Briefing Security Council on Ukraine, Under-Secretary-General Notes Significant Increase in Civilian Casualties, Dire Humanitarian Situation (6 February 2024). United Nations: Meetings Coverage and Press Release.
• UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables. Dag Hammarskjold Library.
• Woodruff Swan, Betsy, and Paul Mcleary (1 November 2021). Satellite Images Show New Russian Military Buildup Near Ukraine. Politico.

The Situation in the South China Sea

Since the 1970s, China, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have pressed competing territorial claims on islands and waters in the South China Sea, with China pressing the most expansive claims. Although the islands themselves—principally the Spratly and Paracel Islands and the Scarborough Shoal—are small and largely uninhabited, it is believed the region has substantial oil and natural gas reserves, along with productive fishing areas and heavily used shipping lanes. In 2002 China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes those countries with competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. In the Declaration, the parties pledged to abide by the United Nations Charter and international laws to promote peace and stability in the region.

In 2013 the Philippines began international arbitration proceedings against China regarding the status of islands in the South China Sea, claiming China unlawfully interfered inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. In 2016 the arbitration court ruled in favor of the Philippines. However, the Chinese government declined to acknowledge the ruling and continued to press its territorial claims in the South China Sea, known as the “Nine-Dash Line,” citing historic rights to the area. Regional negotiations on the topic are stalled, as China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are divided and China has signaled its preference for bilateral negotiations with individual countries.

China’s choice to ignore the arbitration court’s ruling and stalled regional negotiations have led to increased military tensions between China and the Philippines, especially in regard to the Second Thomas Shoal. China claims territorial rights over the Second Thomas Shoal, citing its location within the “Nine-Dash Line”; where, in an earlier dispute over the area during the late 1990’s, the Philippines intentionally grounded a transport ship, the BRP Sierra Madre, to strengthen the Philippine territorial claims to the area. In recent years, the Philippine government has accused the Chinese government of taking aggressive actions to press its territorial claims. Journalists invited onto ships by the Philippine government have documented Chinese coast guard ships using water cannons and near-collisions to deter Philippine vessels attempting to resupply the soldiers stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre. In April 2024, the United States of America, the Philippines and France announced they would hold joint military exercises in the region, focusing on retaking small islands.

Bibliography

• Calupitan, Joeal and Aaron Favila (6 March 2024). The Philippines says it won’t let China remove a Filipino military outpost on a disputed shoal. AP News.
• Calupitan, Joeal and Aaron Favila (6 March 2024). China coast guard flexes its might against the Philippines in disputed waters as journalists watch. AP News.
• Davidson, Helen (17 April 2024). China sounds warning after Philippines and US announce most expansive military drills yet. The Guardian.
• Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (4 November 2002).
• Gomez, Jim (25 March 2024). Philippines lodges its ‘strongest protest’ against China over a water cannon assault in disputed sea. AP News.
• McLaughlin, Timothy (2 December 2023). The Most Dangerous Conflict No One Is Talking About. The Atlantic.
•  Permanent Court of Arbitration (12 July 2016). The South China Sea Arbitration: The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China.
• Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. (4 May 2022). Council on Foreign Relations Global Conflict Tracker.
• What Is the South China Sea dispute? (7 July 2023). BBC News.

Membership of the Historical Security Council of 1961

• Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
• Chile
• China
• Ecuador
• France
• Liberia
• Turkey
• Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russian Federation)
• United Arab Republic (Egypt)
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

Introduction

The 2024 American Model United Nations Historical Security Council (HSC) will simulate world events beginning on 1 January 1961. Historically, the key international security concerns at this time revolve around the continuing hostilities between the United States and the Soviet Union, the civil war in the Congo, and the rise of hostilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Another key issue confronting the Security Council is the emerging role of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, whose actions challenged the authority of the Security Council on several occasions.

By early 1961, colonialism was collapsing while changing political and social climates forced governments to make drastic changes to deal with new pressures. Cold War tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States were high and played out on all levels of foreign policy and diplomacy. The internal political landscape of many developing and newly independent countries was influenced by this struggle for global ideological dominance. Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld continued his efforts to energetically use the Secretariat to fulfill the roles of the United Nations Charter as he saw fit, pursuing peace actively, sometimes at odds with the Security Council’s Member States.

The brief synopsis presented here offers introductory coverage of prominent international issues that can direct representatives’ continued research and preparation.

For each topic area, representatives should consider the following questions, which should assist them in gaining a better understanding of the issues at hand, particularly from their country’s perspective:

• How did this conflict begin?
• What parties are involved in the situation and what are their concerns?
• How have similar situations or conflicts been peacefully resolved?
• What roles can the United Nations take in the situation? What roles should the United Nations take in the situation?

The Situation in the Congo 

Throughout the 1950s, Belgium faced increasing pressure to grant independence to the Belgian Congo. In an effort to avoid fighting a prolonged insurgency, such as had been encountered by other colonial powers that sought to maintain their colonial holdings, Belgium agreed to grant independence to Congo on 30 June 1960.

As the agreed-upon date for independence approached, Congo found itself ill-prepared for self-governance. Its great size, coveted natural resources, fractured political leadership, tribal loyalties and dependence on the 10,000-strong Belgian colonial civil service contributed to an extremely precarious situation. Although a Treaty of Friendship, Assistance, and Cooperation with Belgium was signed by the first government on the eve of independence, it was never ratified and was quickly disregarded.

The first government of the newly independent Republic of the Congo (also called Congo-Leopoldville; note this is different from the former-French colony that would eventually become the current day Republic of the Congo, which was typically referred to as Congo-Brazzaville) was a coalition formed between the leaders of two opposing political factions, President Joseph Kasa-Vubu and Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. The power-sharing structure of the national government created by the newly minted constitution was plagued by instability caused by the two powerful and opposing factions vying for dominance and control.

Problems in the Congo began just five days after independence. A series of mutinies swept through the Congolese army, as Congolese troops removed European officers and installed native Congolese commanders between 5-9 July 1960. Mutineers roamed the capital city of Leopoldville and attacked Europeans. The new, all-Congolese military created a terrifying environment for Europeans living and working in the Congo, causing thousands of Belgians to flee to Congo-Brazzaville, Rhodesia and Belgium. On 10 July 1960, the Belgian military intervened unilaterally, sending 1,200 troops to supplement the force of 2,000 already in Congo under the Treaty of Friendship. By 12 July 1960, the Belgian troops had reestablished order in Leopoldville as well as other cities.

Neither Kasa-Vubu nor Lumumba were backed by Belgium or Belgians living in the Congo, and power struggles between the Belgians and the new Congolese government intensified. Belgium found an ally in Moise Tshombe, the President of the Katanga Province. Under Belgian rule, the Katanga Province was administered separately from the rest of the Congo, as it was mineral rich and economically vital. The new provisional constitution called for a unitary system which joined the Congo’s provinces together in one government. Because of Katanga’s economic strength and close ties to Belgium, Tshombe and his political faction supported a federated system, which would maintain more autonomy for Katanga, and he was unable to reach an agreement with Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba. With Belgian political, civilian and military support, using the excuse of the military riots, Tshombe declared Katanga Province independent from Congo on 11 July 1960.

The severity of the conflict and violence drew the attention of United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, who actively campaigned for United Nations involvement in establishing peace in the region. Ralph Bunche, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, kept Hammarskjöld apprised of the evolving situation. On 10 July 1960, the Congolese Cabinet formally requested United Nations’ help in the form of “technical assistance in the military field.”

On 13 July 1960, Hammarskjöld invoked Article 99 of the Charter, requesting an immediate meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation. The Security Council passed Resolution 143 (with abstentions by China, France and the United Kingdom) which called for the withdrawal of Belgian troops and the establishment of a United Nations force providing “military assistance as necessary,” per the Congolese request. On 16 July, the first of the eventual 3,500 United Nations troops, composed mainly of African regiments, entered the Congo, landing in Leopoldville.

United Nations forces have faced many challenges in meeting their mission. Resolution 143 had several problems: first, the Secretary-General’s responsibilities were not clear; second, there was no timetable for action; third, there was no description of the military assistance required; fourth, there was no mention of territorial integrity or direction with regard to the Katanga situation; and fifth, United Nations troops were authorized to use force only in self defense and were not to become a party to any internal conflicts.

The question of Katangan independence has exacerbated problems in the Congo and inflamed internal politics within the United Nations. On 12 August Secretary-General Hammarskjöld visited Katanga to personally negotiate with Tshombe to secure the admittance of United Nations forces into Katanga. As the situation with Katanga lingered, Prime Minister Lumumba has grown extremely critical and distrustful of the United Nations; he has issued several ultimatums for the United Nations to conform to his policies and provide United Nations military force against Tshombe in Katanga or withdraw.

Hammarskjöld has been deeply and personally involved in the handling of the Congo crisis, repeatedly appearing before the Council seeking endorsement of his actions. On 8 August, the Council passed Resolution 146, backing Hammarskjöld’s plan and actions, clarifying the territorial integrity issue by calling upon all States to refrain from any action that might undermine the territorial integrity of the Congo, and, again, demanding the departure of Belgian troops. Although the first United Nations troops entered Katanga in mid-August, the Belgians did not fully withdraw until mid-October.

In early September, Kasa-Vubu dismissed Lumumba and declared a new government with the support of the Army Chief of Staff, Colonel Joseph Mobutu. Lumumba, in turn, announced that President Kasa-Vubu was no longer Head of State and called upon the people, workers and the army to rise. The Council of Ministers published a communiqué depriving Kasa-Vubu of his power, nullifying his ordinances, revoking the government and accusing him of high treason. Both houses of the Congolese parliament voted to support Lumumba. Complicating matters further, on 14 September, General Joseph Mobutu, the recently appointed head of the Congolese army by Kasa-Vubu, declared a military take over of the government through 31 December, stating that he was suspending both Lumuba and Kasa-Vubu from their positions. Though he suspended Kasa-Vubu’s presidency, Mobutu is generally considered to be aligned with Kasa-Vubu. Lumumba and his supporters oppose Mobutu and still pursue their own claim for leadership. At the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in September, both factions vied for the Congo’s seat. The Kasa-Vubu/Mobutu delegate was seated after a long, drawn out political battle.

The interplay of Cold War politics has been an underlying and complicating factor in the Congo crisis. While western-bloc countries like the United States support Mobutu, the Soviet Union supports the legitimacy of the Lumumba government and the Congolese Parliament by providing military aid to Lumumba. The Soviet Union also has used the crisis as an opportunity to attack Hammarskjöld’s leadership. Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev addressed Hammarskjöld specifically in his remarks at the opening of the General Assembly in 1960, accusing Hammarskjold and the United Nations forces of conspiring with the United States and Belgium against Lumumba.

Other African states have also played major roles in influencing the political situation of the Congo. Seventeen African states were admitted to the United Nations General Assembly in the fall 1960 session, immediately becoming a bloc influencing negotiations and actions. While they have joined the West in isolating the Soviet bloc, they have not always been united and often disagreed with the West on specifics in the Congo. Three major African groups have formed: those which back Lumumba, those which back the actions of the United Nations, and those which back Mobutu and Kasa-Vubu.

Near the end of 1960, events again moved toward an imminent crisis. On 28 November, Lumumba was arrested by forces loyal to Mobutu and jailed, and he currently remains a captive as 1961 dawns. Katanga is independent, with a strong Belgian infrastructure still in place, and both the Belgians and the Soviets are supplying various factions in bids to establish new independent territories.

Bibliography 

• Adams Schmidt, Dana (11 July 1960). U.S. Aides Say Belgian Troops Are Taking Control in the Congo; Brussels’ Embassy in Washington Reports That Lumumba and Kasavubu Have Restored Order in Leopoldville. The New York Times.
• Army Takes Control in the Congo: Mobutu Suspends Rival Premiers and Kasavubu Army Takes Over Control in Congo (15 September 1960). The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Belgium Asks for Help (12 July 1960). The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Belgium Sends More Troops (10 July 1960). The New York Times.
• Bigart, Homer (26 June 1960). ‘In-de-pen-DANCE!’ Comes to the Congo; This Has Been the Chant of All Congolese. but Their Emergence as a Free Nation Thursday May Be the Sternest Test yet of Africa’s Ability to Rule herself. The New York Times.
• Brady, Thomas F. (6 September 1960). LEADERS DISAGREE; Kasavubu Picks New Premier but Action Meets Challenge LUMUMBA DEFIES OUSTER in CONGO. The New York Times.
• Childs, Marquis (22 July 1960). A Hammarskjold Miracle in Congo. The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Cordier, A.W., and Wilder Foote (1967). The Quest for Peace: the Dag Hammarskjöld Memorial Lectures.
• Feron, James (12 September 1960). 2 CONGO GROUPS HEADED for U.N.; Security Council May Hear Rival Delegations — Will Resume Session Today. The New York Times.
• Gilroy, Harry (19 June 1960). THE CONGO: PROBLEMS of INDEPENDENCE; Struggle for Control of Belgian Colony Grows Amid Regional and Tribal Controversy. The New York Times.
• Hamilton, Thomas J. (13 July 1960). U.N. WEIGHS PLEA for CONGO FORCE; Premier’s 150-Word Note May Alter Limited-Aid Plan — Council Meets Today. The New York Times.
• Heinz, G., and H. Donnay (1970). Lumumba: the Last Fifty Days.
• Hoskyns, Catherine (1965). The Congo Since Independence: January 1960 – December 1961.
• House, Arthur H (1978). The U.N. in the Congo: the Political and Civilian Efforts.
• Katanga Says Belgium Pledged Troops; Unlimited Military Offer Reported by Tshombe Provincial Chief Stands by Plan to Secede (14 July 1960). The New York Times.
• Kenworthy, E. W. (8 September 1960). EISENHOWER BIDS SOVIET STOP AID to CONGO FORCES; Takes ‘Serious View’ of Help to Lumumba — Warns of Increase in Tensions URGES RELIANCE on U.N. President Charges Kremlin’s ‘Political Designs’ Pose Threat to Congolese PRESIDENT WARNS SOVIET on CONGO. The New York Times.
• LeFever, Ernest (1968). Uncertain Mandate: Politics of the United Nations Congo Operation.
• Lumumba Note to U.N. (3 August 1960). The New York Times.
• LUMUMBA SENDS PROTEST to U.N.; Says He Will Call Meeting of Council if Katanga Is Not Taken Over Now (2 August 1960). The New York Times.
• Lumumba Wins Rule in Congo; Africans Support U.N. action: Top Nationalist Takes Over to Form Government Comprise Rejected Appeals to Europeans 13-nation Session in Addis Ababa Favors Proposal (22 June 1960). The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• O’Brien, Conor Cruise (1968). The Rise and Fall of Moise Tshombe: a Biography.
• Reuters (7 August 1960). Lumumba for U.N. Ouster; Guinea and Ghana Aid Him; LUMUMBA ASKING U.N. FORCE OUSTER. The New York Times.
• Rosenthal, A.M. (23 September 1960). New U.N. Policy to Use Force Tests Soldiers on Duty in Congo. The New York Times.
• Ryan, Nigel, and Henderson Gall (9 July 1960). Congo Mutiny Ended by pact: Terrorized Whites Flee Republic Premier Agrees to Let President Command the Army Calm in 5 Provinces near-anarchy Ends in Congo as Mutineers Agree to Deal Soldiers Desert Streets Envoy Stands off Rioters Seeking Photographer. The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Ryan, Nigel (16 July 1960). U.N. Force Airlifted to Congo: Tension Relaxes; Lumumba Insists Belgians Depart Agreement Reached First U.N. Soldiers Flown to Leopoldville Lumumba Voices Threat Cango ‘Declares War’ Missionaries Airlifted. The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Ryan, Nigel (12 July 1960). Congo’s Richest Province Secedes: Lumumba Asks Help Battle Continues. The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Soviet Renews Attack on Dag: Castro Coming to U.N. Threatens Bid to Reds (14 September 1960). The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Tanner, Henry (8 September 1960). Leopoldville’s Parliament Rejects Ousters — Step Helps Lumumba; DEPUTIES REJECT CONGO DISMISSALS. The New York Times.
• Text of Hammarskjold’s Report to the U.N. on Lumumba’s Arrest in the Congo (6 December 1960). The New York Times.
• Text of Notes from the Congo and Excerpts of U.N. Security Council Debate (14 July 1960). The New York Times.
• Text of Premier Khrushchev’s Speech before United Nations General Assembly (24 September 1960). The New York Times.
• Texts of Letters Exchanged between Hammarskjold and Officials of the Congo (16 August 1960). The New York Times.
• THE STRUGGLE for the CONGO CONTINUES — in AFRICA and at the UNITED NATIONS Still the Congo (14 August 1960). The New York Times.
• Topping, Seymour (10 September 1960). MOSCOW DEMANDS U.N. AID LUMUMBA; Bids Security Council Back Premier — Leadership of Hammarskjold Is Scored. The New York Times.
• United Nations (1996). The Blue Helmets: a Review of United Nations Peace-Keeping, 3rd Edition.
• Urquhart, Brian (1994). Hammarskjöld.
• Urquhart, Brian (1991). A Life in Peace and War.
• Young, Crawford (1965). Politics in the Congo: Decolonization and Independence.

United Nations Documents 

• United Nations, Security Council (17 September 1960). The Congo Question. S/4526.
• United Nations, Security Council (9 August 1960). Fourth Report of the Secretary-General on the Implementation of Security Council Resolutions S/4387 of 14 July 1960, S/4405 of 22 July 1960 and S/4426 of 9 August 1960. Addendum No. 4. 5 October. S/4482.
• United Nations, Security Council (22 July 1960). The Congo Question. S/4426.
• United Nations, Security Council (22 July 1960). The Congo Question. S/4405.
• United Nations, Security Council (14 July 1960). The Congo Question. S/4387.
• United Nations, Security Council (13 July 1960). The Congo Question. S/4383.
• United Nations, Security Council (13 July 1960). Letter from the Secretary-General. S/4381.

The Situation in Latin America and the Caribbean

Many Latin American and Caribbean countries were dealing with severe and mounting problems in the first years of the 1960s. Countries in this region often faced challenges in their attempts to develop an industrialized economy, enact land reform and establish stronger civilian control over the military. The rapidly changing domestic political, social and economic climate in Latin American and Caribbean countries, coupled with the growing importance of the Cold War in international affairs, led to significant instability throughout the region.

For example, in Argentina, a civilian government was elected in 1958 following a series of military coups in the 1950s. Among the many challenges facing the new civilian government, mass strikes and rapid inflation were two of the most pressing issues. Brazil, attempting to achieve decades of economic growth and reform in a few years, was facing pressure from international creditors and growing military unrest. Civil unrest and economic instability were also prevalent in Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The seizure of power in Cuba by Fidel Castro in early 1959 shocked the region and international community—especially the United States. While Castro does not consider himself a Marxist, the growing mistrust between the Cuban government and the United States has heightened Cold War tensions in the region. Castro has increasingly relied on assistance from the Cuban Communist Party for organizational and political support in pursuing a populist economic agenda and has clamped down on unsympathetic organizations and members of the press. Further, Castro has begun developing stronger political, economic and military ties with the Soviet Union. These developments have been a cause of concern among the United States and its Latin American allies, who worry about the possibility of a Marxist state in the Caribbean coupled with the potential for a Soviet military presence close to the US mainland.

Cuba accused the United States of seeking to destabilize and overthrow the Cuban government. Cuba claimed the United States was arming and protecting Cuban war criminals and counter-revolutionary elements, and cited multiple violations of Cuban airspace in 1960. In July 1960, the Cuban government requested to be heard before the Security Council to discuss “repeated threats, reprisals and aggressive acts” by the United States against Cuba. On 19 July 1960, the Security Council responded with Resolution 144, which deferred the issue until a report was received from the Organization of American States (OAS) on the issue. In addition the Security Council called for all parties to reduce tensions in the region.

Current issues facing the Council include the possibility of increased tension between Cuba and other States in the region and the likelihood of new political instability caused by economic and social turmoil. The political developments in Cuba when added to the global tension concerning the spread of communism have further heightening the conflict between communist and democratic states in other global topics and negotiations.

Bibliography

• ARGENTINA URGED to COMBAT CRISIS; Monetary Fund Proposes Immediate Action Toward Reforming Economy (26 October 1958). The New York Times.
• Associated Press (19 April 1960). CASTRO SEES PLOT at U.S. NAVY BASE to HELP HIS FOES; Says Guantanamo Officials Are Aiding Dissidents — Mountain Flights Cited CAPITAL DENIES CHARGE Declares Americans at Post Are Doing Own Work, Not Mixing in Cuban Politics Castro Accuses U.S. Officials at Base of Aiding His Enemies. The New York Times.
• Barraclough, Solon L. (25 September 2007). The Legacy of Latin American Land Reform. North American Congress on Latin America.
• de Onis, Juan (4 December 1958). ARGENTINE UNION ENDS RAIL STRIKE; Surrenders Unconditionally to Military Pressure — All Lines Running Normally. The New York Times.
• de Onis, Juan (16 September 1960). The Act of Bogota is a Reply to Reds. The New York Times.
• Mansfield, Mike (4 December 1960). The Basic Problem of Latin America. The New York Times.
• Matthews, Herbert L. (14 September 1958). Economics Now Chief Latin American Worry. The New York Times.
• Organization of American States (17 August 1961). Declaration of Punta del Este.
• Shapiro, Samuel (6 February 1961). Castro’s Cuba Revisited. The New Republic.
• Szulc, Tad (3 January 1960). BRAZIL FACES ’60 with UNREST HIGH; National Election Campaign Due to Underline Problems Raised by Inflation. The New York Times.
• Szulc, Tad (14 January 1959). TROUBLES PILE up for LATIN LANDS; REMEDY SOUGHT; Deflated Exports Unable to Meet Cost of Imports Vital to Development WORST YEAR in DECADES Budgets Go Deep in Red as Nations Push Plans for More Industry Troubles Rise for Latin Lands. The New York Times.
• U.S. Department of State (8 October 1962). US states position on OAS consideration of coups d’etat. Department of State Bulletin.
• Victory in Argentina (25 February 1958). The New York Times.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations Security Council (26 August 1960). Letter dated 26 August 1960 from the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 1 September. S/4476.
• United Nations Security Council (19 July 1960). Complaint by Cuba. S/4395.

Security Council / Secretariat Cooperation

During its early years, the United Nations was generally allowed only those duties and roles the great powers were willing to extend to it. As a result, the relationship between the Security Council and the Secretary-General and the Secretariat was rarely acrimonious. Furthermore, the United Nations as an organization rarely took an active role in international crises. After Dag Hammarskjöld took over the role of Secretary-General from Trygvie Lie in 1953, the Secretariat has taken a more activist role. Compared to his predecessor, Hammarskjöld has demonstrated an increased willingness to take independent action in international affairs to promote the ideals of the United Nations. As Secretary-General, he has expanded the influence of the United Nations and the role of peacekeeping efforts, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.

Hammarskjöld has promoted the use of the good offices of the United Nations in a number of situations around the world in an attempt to prevent war and further the ideals of the United Nations Charter. Though rebuffed by the great powers, Hammarskjöld attempted to intercede during the Suez Crisis and other conflicts in the Middle East. Hammarskjöld was also active in Africa, as decolonization issues came to prominence in the late 1950s. In addition to providing the good offices of the United Nations, Hammarskjöld has promoted the role of the United Nations as a peacekeeping force.

Under Hammarskjöld, United Nations peacekeeping forces have been deployed to more areas of dispute than any time before, including the Republic of Congo in one of the largest peacekeeping operations in history. Hammarskjöld’s activist approach to his role as Secretary-General and the Secretariat has often led to tensions both within the United Nations bureaucracy and between the Secretariat and Member States. Hammarskjöld has shown he is willing to take actions without having first gained what others would consider to be full approval for those actions; he is also known to take particularly broad interpretations of approvals. Hammarskjöld’s role in interpreting the orders of United Nations forces and reporting back to the Security Council is one such example. Hammarskjöld often defended his actions on the principles of working toward the maintenance of international peace and stability or on expansive views of General Assembly actions and authority.

Irrespective of the source of his authority, the activist nature in which the office of the Secretary-General is viewed (both by Hammarskjöld and his Secretariat support staff) has led to many disagreements. Several Member States have publicly expressed disapproval with what they viewed as the Secretary-General’s meddling in what were otherwise sovereign affairs or policies.

Bibliography

• Bloomfield, Lincoln P (1963). Headquarters-Field Relations: Some Notes on the Beginning and End of ONUC.
• Cool Under Fire: Dag Hammarskjold (27 September 1960). The New York Times.
• Marder, Murrey (24 September 1960). Assembly Jolted by Soviet Plan: Hammarskjold’s Removal Sought as ‘Tool’ of West Khrushchev’s Demand for Shakeup Jolts U.N. Strange Performance Recalls U-2 Incident Africa Bears Brunt Demand Justified. The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973).
• Mr. Hammarskjold’s Case (1 May 1958). The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959).
• Othen, Christopher (2015). Katanga 1960-63: Mercenaries, Spies, and the African Nation that Waged War on the World.

Relations Between the Great Powers

Cold War tensions have affected international relations throughout the past decade. Most political thinkers view the international situation as a zero-sum game for virtually every decision made by the United States, the Soviet Union and both countries’ allies. It is increasingly accepted by politicians and decision makers that any success by an ‘enemy’ country meant a loss for their country, and that the ‘enemy’ needed to be confronted around the globe. As 1961 dawns, tensions between the Soviet Union and the west are higher than ever before.

While many minor events have occurred over the last few years, the most significant issue occurred on 1 May 1960 when Soviet missiles shot down a United States U-2 spy plane in Soviet airspace. The incident took place just prior to a major East-West Summit in Paris, significantly increasing the tense setting for the meeting. The Security Council took up the discussion under the heading “The Question of Relations Between the Great Powers,” and discussions were held in several meetings from May through July. A draft resolution concerning the violations of Soviet airspace failed to gain a majority on 26 May. A more acceptable and neutrally phrased resolution, Resolution 135, passed on 27 May. The resolution appealed to United Nations Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force in international relations, called for continued disarmament talks between the major powers (especially on nuclear issues) and urged the four nuclear powers (France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States) to continue discussions in order to reduce tensions.

The Soviet Union again complained to the Council of continuing aggressive acts and overflights of Soviet territory by the U.S. Air Force, which was met with repeated denials from the United States. This led to three additional draft resolutions in July, but each failed due to vetoes by Permanent Members of the Security Council.

It is in the context of Cold War relationships and tensions that the Security Council must address the issues of 1961. The Council’s ability to act, and the efficacy of such action, could be predicated on overall United Nations activity and on the actions of its Member States. The Cold War, and its attendant military, political and economic implications, threatens to destabilize the system and efficiency of the Security Council and possibly the United Nations as a whole.

Bibliography

• United Nations (1962). Yearbook of the United Nations: 1961.
• United Nations (1961). Yearbook of the United Nations: 1960.
• Westad, Odd Arne (2005). The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations Security Council (27 May 1960). Question of Relations Between the Great Powers. S/4328.
• United Nations Security Council (1960). Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly: 16 July 1959 – 15 July 1960. A/4494.

Commissions of Inquiry conduct in-depth investigations into conflicts and disputes. The United Nations Security Council establishes each Commission of Inquiry individually via a resolution. Commissions of Inquiry are tasked with providing reports that clarify the issues involved in the dispute and, if necessary, identify which party or parties involved in the dispute bear responsibility for particular facets of the issue (e.g., the breaking of a ceasefire or violation of a border). Often, Commissions are also tasked with providing “good offices” to the parties in dispute by acting as a mediator in negotiations.

Each Commission is unique and created to address a specific conflict or dispute. While Commissions’ reports and recommendations are not binding, they often form the basis for actions by the United Nations Security Council and the parties involved in the dispute.

The Historical Commission of Inquiry (COI) simulates two Commissions in a given year. The same group of representatives will form both of the separate Commissions, although this would be unlikely in practice at the United Nations in New York. The COI will operate primarily as an investigative body, with a mandate from the Security Council to provide clarity on the nature, causes and events within the disputes it has been asked to investigate; keep the Security Council apprised of new developments; and provide the Security Council with recommendations for a path toward a peaceful and final resolution of the dispute. These experts will include representatives from states which were seated on the historical Commissions and representatives from states which applied for placement on the AMUN Commission. If the Commission sees fit and the Parties to the Dispute agree, the Commission may act as a mediator to help peaceably resolve the conflict.

Historical Commission of Inquiry Membership

The Historical Commission of Inquiry is limited to 10 participants. These positions are for the duration of the Conference, and representatives serving as experts shall not be assigned to other simulations. Up to two students per school may be seated on the Commission.

The delegations eligible to appoint an expert to the Commission are additionally limited by several elements specific to the inquiries before the Commission in a given year. Additional background about this year’s simulation is available in the topic review following this section.

The Commission is a historical simulation. Successor States will be identified for historical Member States that are no longer recognized as United Nations Members. This limitation is to preserve the integrity of the simulation and to encourage realistic historical research and simulation dynamics.

Several seats are determined by the States involved in the inquiries before the Commission. Each Party to the Dispute has the opportunity to nominate a Commission representative from another Member State. Because these positions are essential to the simulation and are also limited, a Commission seat designated for the nominated Member States will be assigned as part of the Delegation Lottery in the preceding year. For more information about the unique role of the nominated experts, please see the “Duties of Commissioners” section later in this chapter.

The remaining positions are assigned by application on a first-come, first-served basis until the 10 seats on the Commission are filled.

Some States may not seat an expert on the Commission. In addition to those who were not Member States of the United Nations in the simulation year, any State involved in the conflicts being discussed by the Commission may not seat a representative; in 2024 this will be India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Netherlands. However, these delegations should anticipate having to represent their interests as Parties to the Dispute should the Commission wish to speak with them and should prepare accordingly. Finally, Permanent Five members (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States) may not appoint an expert to the Commission. This limitation is to provide expanded opportunities for non-P5 countries to participate in a premier simulation and to limit the size of the delegation required to represent a P5 State.

Structure of AMUN’s Commission of Inquiry

As a historical simulation, many facts are known now that were not available at the time to anyone outside of the immediate dispute. To maintain the historical accuracy of the simulation, we strive to use only the material which would have reasonably been known to participants at the time. A start date, as well as a general overview of the dispute to that point, is provided for each inquiry. Events up to the start date are static, though these events may not be widely known or their import understood by all parties as of the start date. After the start date, all historical events may be preempted by the actions of the Commission which can affect how events ultimately play out in the simulation, if at all. This element of change and contingency separates the Commission’s work from a simple historical research project.

COIs are fact-finding instruments of the Security Council, established to deliver timely analysis of highly volatile situations. How the Commission chooses to conduct itself, the conclusions it draws and what it chooses to report back to the Security Council all will have a direct impact on the world of the simulation and subsequent lines of inquiry. Immediate and direct reactions will be observable throughout the work of the body, from particulars like the amenability of a witness, to more sweeping changes such as the Security Council expanding or curtailing the Commission’s mandate.

At AMUN, Simulation Staff are responsible for moderating how the world responds to the Commission’s actions, progressing the simulation, guiding the report-writing process and keeping the simulation as realistic as possible. Simulation Staff will play many roles throughout the simulation. They function as the Security Council receiving the COI’s reports and requesting more information from the Commission; they act as each expert’s home office, providing, upon request, supplemental research and general information to representatives; they are the clearinghouse for Commissioners to call Parties to the Dispute and witnesses before the COI; and they are general Secretariat Members who can speak to the simulation and AMUN in general.

Commissions of Inquiry at AMUN simulate two historical inquiries established by the Security Council, which are addressed sequentially during the Conference by the COI’s Commissioners. The Simulation Staff sets the order in which the inquiries are to be addressed; this will be the order in which the topics are presented below. At AMUN, the members of the COI remain the same for both inquiries.

Throughout each inquiry, the Commission can make periodic reports back to the Security Council, and the Security Council may ask for additional information or focus on particular elements of the dispute. The Commission will also be able to take testimony of representatives of the Parties to the Dispute, as well as take testimony from additional witnesses such as inhabitants of the region, nongovernmental organizations on the ground, and other United Nations bodies and States. For each inquiry, the Commission will elect a President and Vice President to help conduct its business. Each inquiry will conclude with a final, written report of the Commission’s findings to the Security Council.

The final Commission session (Tuesday morning) will be a debrief by the Simulation Staff. This is a unique opportunity for Simulation Staff and Commissioners to discuss how and why the simulation differed from historical events, the behind-the-scenes consequences of the Commission’s actions, which may have been only indirectly visible to the COI as a whole, and the historical diplomatic themes of the inquiries and how those themes wound through the simulation.

Duties of the Commissioners at the Conference

The first task of the Commission will be to elect a President and Vice President of each inquiry from among its members. The President and Vice President will help facilitate discussion, coordinate oral and written reporting requirements and moderate the Commission’s experts taking testimony for the duration of the inquiry. Elections are by secret written ballot at the beginning of each inquiry. Commissioners may self-nominate for these positions, and the Commission will be encouraged to discuss the decision before balloting takes place. Commissioners’ pre-conference preparatory statements (see below) outline thoughts on the initial direction of the inquiry and may be especially useful in this discussion.

By its mandate, the Commission is authorized to take its decisions by majority vote and otherwise determine its own procedures. General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and Security Council rules of procedure do not apply to Commissions. The Commission will need to informally adopt procedures that it feels best facilitate its work. That said, Rule 2.2, Diplomatic Courtesy, applies at all times at AMUN.

The Commission will gather information primarily by taking testimony from the Parties to the Dispute and other witnesses. The Commission, through its own processes, will decide who to call to give testimony. However, there will be time between the formal request of testimony and the arrival of the Party to the Dispute or witness. Commissioners will need to consider the criticality and urgency of testimony against the volatile dispute it is investigating, as they decide which Parties to the Dispute or witnesses they call and in what order.

Before the final report of an inquiry is submitted, the Commission will make interim reports to the Security Council. Interim reports provide more frequent updates on the status of the Commission’s work and can be especially useful diplomatic tools to open previously closed lines of inquiry or to ensure access and talks continue unimpeded. The Security Council may also request interim reports on specific elements of the dispute or in response to prior interim reports or events. These less formal reports are drafted as short letters to the Secretary-General and adopted by majority vote.

Throughout each inquiry, the Commission will compile a report on the dispute. This report is a living document that will evolve with the information provided by each new testimony, line of inquiry or uncovered fact. The Commission will need to establish the processes and responsibilities of its members for recording testimony and general note-taking. Commissioners are given wide latitude on the format of the report; however, to be accepted by the Secretariat each report must contain the following elements:

• An overview of the work and actions of the Commission.
• Analysis of the dispute, including a judgment of fault or an explanation of its absence.
• Recommendations to the Security Council to move forward.

The inquiry will conclude upon the formal adoption by majority vote of the final report.

Preparing for the Historical Commission of Inquiry at AMUN

Commissioners will need to read the topic review section following this one, as well as conduct their own research on the background of each of the disputes. This research should focus on acquiring a working knowledge of the historical context of the Commissions that will be simulated at Conference.

The Commission is a historical simulation, similar in some respects to the Historical Security Council simulations. History will be as written until the indicated start date for each Commission. Once the simulation for each Commission begins, events that transpire will be affected by the decisions and actions of the Commission, as well as those of the Simulation Staff. Critically for the Commission, many of the facts which we know today about the disputes may not have been known or were understood differently at the time of the Commission’s operations. First and foremost, Commissioners will need to identify which facts were known at the time and which facts were not. Representatives should also endeavor to find timely materials in order to learn not just about the events themselves but also about the worldview of that time.

While Commissioners are intended to render to the Security Council objective reporting and are expected to act as unbiased observers and mediators, they often come to the Commission with inherent biases based on their home country’s history, culture, religion and laws. Specifically, experts should understand whether their State historically preferred a particular outcome over another. Representatives from certain States, particularly those chosen by a Party to the Dispute to serve on the Commission, may be expected by their State or other actors to advocate certain courses of action or lines of inquiry. Clear understanding of these expectations as they were known and understood historically is critical for effective roleplaying. Regardless of State motives or expectations, experts should keep in mind that they are independent actors and not officials representing their respective States. As such, they are free to take positions which are merited by their own understanding of the inquiry.

Preparatory Statements

Commissioners will need to submit preparatory statements prior to Conference. These Statements will differ substantially from a conventional position paper and from a memorial prepared for the International Court of Justice.

The purpose of the Commission is to act in an investigative and mediating role in a dispute rather than in a legislative capacity (such as in the General Assembly) or as an operational body (such as in the Security Council). The role of the Commission is more aligned with other report-writing bodies, such as the regional or functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council. Thus, preparatory statements should be seen as an opportunity to develop lines of inquiry and identify areas of interest to the Commission as a whole prior to Conference, rather than as declarations of intent or policy preference.

Preparatory statements are a vital element of preparation for Conference. The potential witnesses, areas of interest and key questions identified by Commissioners in their preparatory statements will play a critical role in shaping the direction, and ultimately the success, of the Commission of Inquiry. The quality of preparatory statements will likely be taken into account by the Commission when deciding who to choose as the President and Vice President. These statements must be submitted by 25 October as part of your delegation’s position paper submission. Preparatory statements will be considered when determining Position Paper awards: any delegation seating an expert on the Commission must submit a preparatory statement for each inquiry in order for the delegation to receive a Position Paper Award.

When preparing preparatory statements, consider the following questions:

• What are the major unanswered questions in the dispute? How would the answers to these questions affect the resolution of the dispute?
• Are there any major obstacles to the Commission fulfilling its mandate? Are there any steps the Commission can take or recommend to the Security Council to address those obstacles?
• What witnesses, experts or representatives could be called to address the Commission and answer questions to best assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate? What information can those persons provide to best assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate?

The Historical Commission of Inquiry (COI) simulates two historical commissions established by the United Nations Security Council to provide in-depth reporting on the facts and developments of a particular dispute. The Commissions may also be empowered by their mandate to serve as mediators in negotiations between the parties to the dispute. At the United Nations, each Commission is unique in membership and purpose. At AMUN, however, for the purposes of our Conference simulation, two disputes which have been the subject of past Commissions will be scrutinized by the same body of experts. These experts will also include representatives from Czechoslovakia and Argentina, nominated by India and Pakistan respectively, and Belgium and Australia, nominated by the Netherlands and Indonesia respectively.

Members of the United Nations can formally raise disputes to the Security Council through Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The Security Council investigates those disputes through Article 34 of the Charter, historically by forming Commissions of Inquiry. The objectives of the Commission of Inquiry are to investigate the facts and allegations of the disputes, keep the Security Council informed of their findings and developments, and to tender a final report on the facts of the dispute at the conclusion of each investigation. That final report may also include recommendations for future actions that the Commission believes the Security Council should take.

The Commission of Inquiry is a historical simulation. History as it happened is considered to have happened until the start date for the simulation. Events after that date become variable and subject to change through the actions of the experts and simulation staff. This brief is a contemporary perspective of the issues before the Commission as of the start date of the simulation. Events that are ongoing as of the start date are referred to in present tenses, while events that are anticipated to happen after the start date but have not yet happened as of the start date, are referred to in future tenses. The start date for this year’s Commission is 20 January 1948. 

United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan

In the mid-1700s, the British East India Company established control over much of the Indian subcontinent after a series of military victories over local Indian powers. However, in response to the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, the British government nationalized the East India Company and began its rule of India, known as the British Raj. Over the next 90 years, India’s territories were governed by a combination of direct British administration and indirect rule through so-called “princely states,” each of which retained control over its internal affairs. By 1947, nearly half of its territory on the subcontinent was governed by 562 self-administered princely states, dispersed all over the subcontinent.

Following the upheaval of World War II and facing increasingly nationalist movements within India, the British resolved to emancipate its Indian colony. Overseen by Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, British India was divided into two independent states: the primarily Muslim Dominion of Pakistan established on 14 August 1947, and the primarily Hindu Dominion of India established on 15 August 1947. The vast majority of princely states were assigned to either Pakistan or India depending on their geographic location. Kashmir, however, located along the borders of Afghanistan and China, now straddles the territory of the newly formed states of Pakistan and India. While most provinces immediately joined either India or Pakistan, Kashmir remained open to joining either.

Kashmir (also known as Jammu and Kashmir) is one of the largest principalities of British India. It has been self-administered by Maharaja Hari Singh, whose ancestors conquered and purchased territory in and around the Kashmir Valley throughout the period of British East India Company rule. The principality was officially recognized by the British government in 1846.Kashmir’s population is 77 percent Muslim and 20 percent Hindu; it trades primarily with areas now within Pakistan. The name Pakistan itself is tied to Kashmir. Derived from the acronym conceived in 1933, The “k” of Pakistan stands for Kashmir. The new leader of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and his administration, immediately began courting Singh to join the Dominion of Pakistan.

While the geography of Kashmir has been historically tied to what is now Pakistan, the rulers have come from a century-old line of Hindu maharajas. The strongest political group of Kashmir, the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (NC), though overwhelmingly Muslim, has close ties to the Indian National Congress, in particular to the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, whose family is from the Kashmir Valley. The NC, led by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, has been highly critical of the hereditary and autocratic rule of Kashmir as well as the crushing poverty of its Muslim inhabitants.

Singh attempted to keep negotiations open with both states, seeking an arrangement that would preserve the autonomy Kashmir had enjoyed while continuing the powers of the hereditary maharajah. However, as negotiations stalled with India, tribal raiders began to make incursions along the Pakistan-Kashmir border.

In October 1947, after weeks of accusations from Kashmir that Pakistan was supporting raids and rebellion along their shared border, tribal forces moved en masse from Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province into Kashmir. Kashmir’s limited defenses were dispersed within days, and the tribal forces moved deep into Kashmiri territory, nearly to the capital city of Srinagar.

Seeing no other option, Singh wrote to Mountbatten requesting his support in approaching India for assistance. India requested the maharaja accede to the Dominion of India, so India would be acting in defense of its own territory. On 26 October 1947, Singh ceded all authority over Kashmir province to India. Sheikh Abdullah also wrote to the government of India strongly supporting the accession to the Dominion of India. Indian forces arrived in Srinagar within 24 hours and pushed Pakistani forces out of most of Kashmir by the end of November 1947.

On 1 January 1948, the Representative of India submitted a letter to the President of the Security Council, formally issuing a complaint against Pakistan under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The letter detailed past incursions into the Punjab and Kashmir regions by Pakistani raiders. It further alleged that Pakistan must be materially supporting these forces and that to effectively repel them, without Pakistani or international assistance, Indian forces would need to move into Pakistani territory. The letter requested the Security Council call upon the Pakistani government to cease its alleged support of the raiders and actively discourage its nationals from participating in invasions of India’s provinces.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan responded on 15 January 1948, rebutting India’s claims and issuing a complaint against India under Article 35. In its letter, Pakistan alleged genocide of Muslims in Kashmir under Indian rule and claimed that the resistance India is facing in Kashmir is the true voice of Kashmir’s people, who are rebelling due to the maharaja’s collusion to accede to an oppressive, non-representative government. Pakistan requested that the Security Council call upon the Indian government to stop the genocide of Muslims, arrange for the cessation of fighting within Kashmir, expel all forces not from Kashmir and facilitate a plebiscite to determine the ultimate fate of the Kashmir province.

The Security Council responded on 20 January 1948 by establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. The Commission has two functions: “to investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter” relating to allegations of the 1 January and 15 January letters submitted by the parties to the dispute and to exercise a mediatory influence while carrying out and reporting on any directions given to the Commission by the Security Council.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• To what extent are India and Pakistan contributing to current unrest within the Kashmir province? What are their goals?
• India and Pakistan have made incendiary, contradictory complaints against each other. How will the Commission conduct its investigation while still maintaining a mediatory influence?
• What steps can the Security Council take to facilitate the Commission’s fact finding? What steps need to be taken to reach a peaceful resolution?

Bibliography

• Battle in Kashmir (2 November 1947). The New York Times.
• Casualties in Kashmir (24 December 1947). The New York Times.
• Lewis, Charles (28 October 1947). The Charge in Pakistan (Lewis) to the Secretary of State.
• Nayak, Venkatesh (5 August 2019). The Backstory of Article 370: a True Copy of J&K’s Instrument of Accession. The Wire.
• Schofield, Victoria (2003). Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan, and the Unending War.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Security Council (20 January 1948). The India-Pakistan Question. S/RES/39.
• United Nations, Security Council (15 January 1948). Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan Addressed to the Secretary-General. S/646.
• United Nations, Security Council (2 January 1948). Letter from the Representative of India Addressed to the President of the Security Council. S/628.

The United Nations Committee of Good Offices on the Indonesian Question

The Indonesian archipelago, commonly referred to as the Dutch East Indies, fell under the colonial control of the Netherlands at the beginning of the 19th century. Dutch colonial power was disrupted during World War II on 10 January 1942, when Japan invaded the colony to seize its strategically vital natural resources, particularly oil and rubber. The Dutch military in the colony was overwhelmed within a few months, and the Japanese occupied the islands for the remainder of the war. During their occupation, the Japanese ordered the internment and deportation of all Dutch citizens, effectively dismantling the Dutch colonial government, and built a new occupation government staffed largely with native Indonesians. The Japanese conscripted several million Indonesians into forced-labor units which were used across Japan’s Pacific holdings. As the war turned against them, Japan also created Indonesian military units to police and defend the territory. The Japanese promised eventual independence for the colony as a member of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but such promises had only gotten as far as the creation of a Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence by the end of World War II and Japan’s surrender.

Indonesian nationalist leaders Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who had been leaders on the Preparatory Committee, proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Indonesia on 17 August 1945, two days after Japan’s surrender. Troops from the British South East Asia Command eventually arrived on the islands to liberate Europeans and other internees from Japanese prisons and work camps. During the period between the Japanese surrender and the arrival of these Allied troops, the Japanese were expected to both disarm and maintain order, which resulted in the widespread transfer of weapons and policing responsibilities to native Indonesian forces. An unplanned delay in the arrival of the Allied troops allowed the new Republic to solidify its political control in the vacuum of the Japanese withdrawal. Scattered violence erupted between the newly-empowered Indonesian militias and the British troops, with the largest incident being the death of British Brigadier Aubertin Mallaby and the general destruction of his command in the city of Surabaya on 30 October 1945. The British counterattacked, and fighting consumed Surabaya from 10 to 24 November 1945.

By June 1946, British troops had been replaced by Dutch soldiers and administrators. On the outer islands of the archipelago they met little resistance and re-established Dutch control. On Java and Sumatra, the two key islands, the Dutch were able to hold the major cities but met resistance in the countryside. Both parties agreed to declare a ceasefire in October 1946 in order to begin negotiations. The result of those negotiations was the Linggadjati Agreement. The Dutch agreed to recognize Republican control over Java, Sumatra and the smaller island of Madura. Both sides agreed to a plan for a semi-autonomous, federal, United States of Indonesia, whose constituent parts would be the Republic and the governments of the Dutch-controlled portions of the archipelago. The ultimate goal of this plan was a Netherlands-Indonesian Union, ruled by the Dutch Queen and consisting of the Netherlands, the United States of Indonesia and all other Dutch colonial territories. The agreement was signed on 25 March 1947. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the ceasefire. At midnight on 20-21 July 1947 the Netherlands initiated an offensive named “Operation Product,” which they described as a “police action” in response to Indonesian violations of the Linggadjati Agreement. Through this operation, the Dutch expanded the areas of Java and Sumatra they controlled considerably. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 27 on 1 August 1947, calling for a ceasefire. The Dutch announced a ceasefire at midnight on 4-5 August 1947, and the Republican government followed suit.

On 25 August 1947, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 31, establishing the Committee of Good Offices on the Indonesian Question “to tender [the Security Council’s] good offices to the parties in order to assist in the pacific settlement of their dispute.” The Netherlands selected Belgium as its chosen representative on the Committee, and Indonesia chose Australia. On 8 December 1947, the Committee of Good Offices opened its first formal session with representatives from the Republic of Indonesia and the Netherlands onboard the American warship USS Renville anchored in the harbor at Batavia. Negotiations stalled, prompting the Committee to issue its “Christmas Message,” laying out a proposal for a settlement of the dispute: the Dutch would withdraw within three months from the areas it had seized since 21 July and allow the Republic to re-establish civilian control; and the two sides would work toward the fulfillment of the Linggadjati Agreement. Another round of negotiations produced the Renville Agreement on 17 January 1948. Under the terms of this new agreement, the Netherlands maintain sovereignty over Indonesia until it has been transferred to a federal United States of Indonesia as laid out by the Linggadjati Agreement. The areas occupied by the Dutch since 21 July 1947 are to undergo plebiscites to allow those areas to choose from three options: rejoin the Republic, join one of the Dutch established states or form their own state within the federal United States of Indonesia.

There remain several unresolved issues hampering the peaceful resolution of the dispute. The current borders on Sumatra and Java, the so-called “Van Mook Line,” which was declared by the Dutch on 29 August 1947, greatly exceed the known positions of Dutch forces when the ceasefire went into effect on 5 August 1947. The line excludes the Republic of Indonesia from all major seaports and most of the economically valuable regions of both islands. The Netherlands also continues to maintain a blockade against the Republic of Indonesia. The Republic of Indonesia and the Netherlands both accuse the other of committing violations of the ceasefire. The Dutch also claim that Indonesia has not suspended support for guerillas operating in Dutch-held territory. On 11 November, Dutch forces crossed the Van Mook Line and overran the other half of the island of Madura. Formations of the Indonesian army have skirmished with Dutch troops while attempting to move from Dutch-controlled areas to territory controlled by the Republic of Indonesia. Dutch troops killed a number of civilians in the village of Rawagede on 9 December, but the Netherlands and Indonesia have made different claims regarding the number of deaths and no disciplinary action has been initiated by the Dutch government.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• Does the framework of the Linggadjati Agreement still provide a viable political solution to the conflict?
• What steps can the Security Council take to encourage adherence to its previous Resolutions and ultimately a peaceful resolution to the conflict?
• What role can the Committee of Good Offices play moving forward to mediate a resolution?

Bibliography

• Anderson, David (17 January 1948). DUTCH PLEDGE BAN on FORCE in INDIES; Announcement Made at the Hague as Truce Accord Is Reached in Java. New York Times.
• Borch, Fred L. (2017). Military Trials of War Criminals in the Netherlands East Indies 1946-1949.
• Centre for Contemporary and Digital History (18 January 1948). Telegram from Étienne Raux on the Signing of the Renville Agreement on 17 January 1948.
• CIA (9 June 1947). Basic DUTCH-INDONESIAN Issues and the Linggadjati Agreement.
• JAVA SETTLEMENT REPORTED REACHED; Dutch-Indonesian Agreement Due to Be Signed Saturday under U.N. Auspices (16 January 1948). The New York Times.
• Kahin, George McT. (2003). Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia.
• Kahin, George McT. (April 2000). Sukarno’s Proclamation of Indonesian Independence.
• Ricklefs, M.C. (1981). World War II and the Japanese Occupation, 1942–5.
• Security Council Awaits Report (16 January 1948). The New York Times.
• van der Kroef, Justus M. (1953). Dutch Policy and the Linggadjati Agreement, 1946-1947.
• Zaalberg, Thijs, and Bart Luttikhuis (2022). Empire’s Violent End: Comparing Dutch, British, and French Wars of Decolonization, 1945–1962.

United Nations Documents

• United Nations, Security Council (1 November 1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/36(1947).
• United Nations, Security Council (3 October  1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/35(1947).
• United Nations, Security Council (26 August 1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/32(1947).
• United Nations, Security Council (25 August 1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/31(1947).
• United Nations, Security Council (25 August 1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/30(1947).
• United Nations, Security Council (1 August 1947). The Indonesian Question. S/RES/27(1947).

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes referred to as the World Court, is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It sits in The Hague, Netherlands, and is composed of fifteen independent Justices from around the world. The ICJ is the only court in the world with general and near-universal jurisdiction. Countries may bring cases before the Court even without becoming United Nations Member States as long as both countries have consented to be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. It may entertain any question of international law, subject to the provisions of its founding statutes.

The Court’s role is to examine international law and to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states. It also dispenses advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. Since 1946, the Court has heard more than 160 cases, including more than 25 advisory proceedings. ICJ opinions, unlike most national legal systems, do not create binding legal standards for other United Nations Member States, and each cases is treated independently. The Court does not create legal precedent in its cases. 

The Justices are nominated by regional groups and elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. Justices must receive a majority vote in each body to be named to the Court, and one-third of the Court is elected every three years. When a state is party to a case before the ICJ, it enjoys the right to appoint an ad hoc justice. The ad hoc Justice does not need to be from that State. The ad hoc Justice enjoys the same privileges and responsibilities as the other Justices, but his or her obligation is limited to proceedings in that case.

Unlike most other international organizations, the members of the Court are not representatives of governments; they are independent judges whose first duty is to exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously by applying relevant international law and conventions to the facts of each case before the Court.

Proceedings before the Court can last for several years, involving complex issues of international law and difficult political questions. The States party to the case submit pleadings, or Memorials, in writing along with extensive records supporting their cases.

The States also participate in oral arguments, which allows them to emphasize their key points and respond to questions from the Justices. The Justices deliberate in private, then read the judgment in an open forum.

Common Types of Cases

Contentious Cases

The Court hears two types of cases. First, there are contentious cases between two States where there is a legal dispute and the States parties are bound to the Court’s decision. States may institute proceedings by mutual agreement or by unilateral application against a respondent State. This is different from the International Criminal Court, which hears cases against individuals for crimes such as genocide.

Many of the Court’s cases—historical and contemporary—are border or territorial disputes, where two States agree to let the ICJ decide where the border should be. Other cases are highly charged and quite political in nature. While the Court hears only legal questions, and Justices are charged to objectively consider relevant law, it is rare that the interpretation and application of the law operates entirely outside of the realm of political discourse, and in the international arena, this is especially true.

Advisory Opinions

Second, the Court can issue advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by other agencies, such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. This opportunity is open to the other five major organs of the United Nations and 16 specialized agencies. Unlike the rulings in contentious cases, advisory opinions are not binding on the parties that request the opinion; the organization is under no legal obligation to follow the Court’s recommendation. The Court requests written and oral proceedings for the case, although these processes may be truncated compared to those used for contentious cases.

Structure of the AMUN ICJ

In keeping with AMUN’s philosophy of simulating United Nations bodies as closely as possible, the AMUN ICJ closely resembles the ICJ in the Hague. The ICJ at AMUN is composed of student Justices who hear oral arguments, deliberate on the cases before them and collaboratively develop opinions of the Court. Students also participate as Advocates, presenting their case first in a written memorial and then in oral arguments, where they present their case in person and respond to questions from the Justices.

The AMUN Secretariat Members are composed of the Director-Registrar and Registrars, who prepare the relevant materials for each case, guide the simulation’s logistical operations, act as topic experts for the Justices on the year’s cases and provide legal research for the body upon request. It is important to note the ICJ is a Justice-led simulation, and the Secretariat Members’ goal is to play a supporting role rather than a leading role in the functions of the Court.

The cases preselected by the AMUN Secretariat form the Court’s docket. This year the Court is deliberating three cases:

• Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia; Honduras and Costa Rica)
• Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)
• Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia)

Additionally, the General Assembly or the Security Council may submit a request to the Court for an Advisory Opinion on a topic of international law. The Secretary-General, with the advice of the Director-Registrar of the ICJ, will decide whether to include additional cases on the Court’s docket. The Court is in session to hear arguments and develop opinions throughout the Conference.

The Justices should expect to spend the first session setting the docket, electing officers, determining the final procedures of the Court and reviewing the substantive issues in each case. The rest of the Conference will be spent hearing cases, deliberating and rendering opinions on those cases.

Although the Secretariat strives to give the Justices as much freedom as possible in setting the docket, some restraints do exist in the interest of promoting a fair and equal experience for the Advocates as well as the Justices. All advocates will receive an equal amount of time in the docket to present their arguments, and respond to questioning from the Justices. Although Advocates will not know the order of the cases and arguments prior to the first evening of the simulation, the Secretariat, in conjunction with the Justices, will strive to communicate the order as soon as it is set to the Advocates. The docket is also published in the AMUN Chronicle. After the docket is set, the Court elects a President and Vice President by secret ballot. Their duties are to moderate and time the oral arguments and facilitate the closed deliberations.

Joining the International Court of Justice

Permanent Justices

Justice positions are assigned by application on a first-come, first-served basis until the fifteen seats on the Court are filled. It is not a requirement for Justices to be a member of a delegation. Permanent Justices are full-time Conference assignments and representatives serving as Justices shall not be assigned to another simulation.

Ad Hoc Justice Application and Role at Conference

States involved in a case before the Court are strongly encouraged to place an Ad Hoc Justice on the Court if they do not already have a permanent Justice. States wishing to do this may do so in two ways: (1) they may apply to be a permanent Justice (see above); or (2) they may appoint an ad hoc Justice. Ad hoc Justices sit on the Court only for the case in which their country is involved and must be assigned to another simulation. If States wish to appoint an ad hoc justice they must contact the Secretary-General and the Director of the International Court of Justice by 1 October by e-mailing icj@amun.org. Ad hoc Justices should, whenever possible, be paired with another representative in their committee so their country is fully represented while the ad hoc Justice participates in the Court’s proceedings.

Advocates

Advocate positions are not full-time Conference assignments. ICJ Advocates are assigned as members of the delegations who have cases before the Court. Generally, Advocates should expect to spend two to three hours presenting their case and hearing the Court’s opinion during the Conference. Advocates must also serve as representatives in another AMUN simulation or as a delegation’s permanent representative. ICJ Advocate teams are limited to two people. ICJ Advocates should, whenever possible, be paired with another representative in committee, so the State is fully represented in the committee while the Advocate participates in the Court’s proceedings.

Preparation

Preparing as a Justice

Familiarizing yourself with the information provided in this handbook and on AMUN’s website is a key starting point for your preparations. Justices should familiarize themselves with the factual and legal disputes at hand, as well as the international treaties involved. Another helpful resource is previous ICJ opinions that are similar. While reading opinions, note the tone and style used by the Justices. Pay special attention to the way the Court addresses questions of jurisdiction; this can often be the crux of the winning argument for the Court. Memorials written by the Advocates will be made available on the AMUN website in November as soon as Memorials from all sides of a case are received by AMUN staff. Reviewing these resources is key to a successful experience.

Each Justice, while independent, will still have a roleplaying function. ICJ Justices retain citizenship with the country their school represents at the Conference. Justices not affiliated with a delegation will be assigned citizenship with a state; while ICJ Justices are supposed to be independent advocates for the law, they often come to the Court with inherent biases based on their home country’s history, culture, religion and laws. Similar to the ICJ in The Hague, a Justice’s citizenship is important as it can sometimes cause a Justice to favor for the position advocated by their country of origin when that State comes before the Court.

All Justices will be expected to hear arguments and question the Advocates in all cases on the docket. Any Justice not present during the Court’s Oral Arguments may not participate in the subsequent deliberations and opinion writing for that case. After each case is argued, the Justices retire behind closed doors to deliberate and draft the opinion of the Court. As per Article 25, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, 60% of all Justices present for oral arguments shall suffice as a quorum for deliberations. This number may be adjusted by the Director of the International Court of Justice as appropriate to facilitate the simulation. Justices discuss the case in-depth, pulling from their research prior to the Conference, the Advocates’ memorials and the points raised during oral arguments to draft an Opinion or Opinions. If the Justices require any additional information, they are encouraged to request it from the Registrars. Justices collaborate to write a majority opinion and as many concurring and dissenting opinions as the body requires. Justices use their persuasive writing and speaking skills to sway additional Justices to their position throughout the drafting process.

Preparing as an Advocate

Advocates’ opportunity to present their case is twofold: written memorials and oral arguments. Memorials are the written pleadings submitted to the Court prior to the Conference and delineate the facts, relevant international law, and preferred outcome requested by the Advocates. Oral Arguments are the in-person, verbal presentation of the case before the Justices and occur at the Conference. Advocates must thoroughly understand the legal principles that support, and those that oppose, their position and be able to articulate them in their Memorials And Oral Arguments as they will face strict scrutiny from the Justices. The research and creation of an Advocate’s Memorial is one of the most important parts of preparation for an Advocate’s at-Conference role. Time spent thoroughly researching the Advocate’s State’s positions and arguments provides Advocates with the vital information necessary to respond to questions at Conference and helps them effectively craft a memorial to present their arguments to the court before the Conference.

Prior to oral arguments, Advocates have the opportunity to consult with an ICJ Registrar about their oral argument. To take advantage of the opportunity, Advocates should attend the Advocate meeting on the first evening of the Conference, where the Registrars will share information about the simulation timeline and give Advocates the opportunity to set up a practice session.

Written Memorials

ICJ memorials should contain:

• Jurisdictional statement and arguments (outlining whether your country recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction in this case)
• Statement of facts (what are the relevant facts in the case?)
• Statement of law (what treaties, customs or laws apply?)
• Argument section (detailing how the law and facts apply to the merits of the case – how do the laws and facts support your case?)
• Summary and prayer for relief (what do you want the Court to do?)

The Court does not require these sections to be in any particular order, although they are typically laid out in the order shown. As you draft your memorial, think carefully about how best to use these sections to your advantage to advocate your position.

The party bringing the case is called the Applicant. The defendant is called the Respondent. In an Advisory Opinion, each country is known as a Party. Due to time constraints, all Parties in any AMUN ICJ case must prepare their memorials without seeing the memorial of their opponent. However, each side should anticipate and seek to counter the arguments opposing Advocates might make. All memorials must be submitted by 25 October to the AMUN Secretariat at icj@amun.org.

Oral Arguments

Oral arguments provide Advocates with an opportunity to explain to the Justices the factual and legal merits of their case. In adversarial cases, the Applicant will argue first. The Respondent will then have the same amount of time to reply. Finally, the Applicant will have the opportunity to present a brief rebuttal. In Advisory Opinion cases, each Party will have a set amount of time to present their argument to the Court and for rebuttal, the order for which will be determined by the Justices on the first evening. Advocates presenting amicus curiae arguments will then be accorded no more than five minutes each to speak. The Justices will create the docket and define the amount of time for oral arguments. Advocates, with the exception of amicus curiae, should prepare between 10 to 20 minutes for arguments. The oral argument is not simply an opportunity to give a prepared speech; Justices often interject with multiple questions throughout the presentation. At least the first five minutes of each Advocate’s presentation will be uninterrupted, to allow each side the opportunity to freely present the key issues of their arguments. After the initial five minutes, the Advocates may continue with their presentations, but the Justices may also interject and question the Advocates on the merits of their case. Therefore, Advocates must be prepared to both answer questions and defend their positions. The following steps should be taken to prepare for oral arguments:

1. Identify the critical issues in the case. You should try to have at least three main points to your argument.
2. Develop a theme which incorporates your best arguments on the critical issues. Keep it simple. Remember, the best arguments are structured around a story with a unified theme, which explains why your country has been wronged, and what the Court can do to provide a fair and just solution.
3. Prepare an outline. The outline should include your theme, your best arguments on the critical issues, your responses to your opponent’s best arguments and ideas about answers to any other questions you think the Justices might ask. Try to make your memorial and oral argument outline consistent, so the first issue addressed in the memorial is the first issue addressed in the oral argument. Your Oral Argument should not, however, only restate the contents of your Memorial as Justices will be familiar with this document prior to the simulation.
4. Practice, practice, practice! There is no substitute for practicing oral arguments: your presentation will be smoother and more persuasive. Have your Faculty Advisor or other students fire questions at you. Learn to field those questions and then transition back to the point you were making prior to the question.
5. Learn proper courtroom demeanor. Remember to be polite and deferential to the Justices at all times. While argument is the method, persuasion is the goal.

Though each Advocate will have more than five minutes to present oral arguments, keep in mind that only the first five minutes of the presentations will be uninterrupted. Focus on the main points and key issues during the first five minutes. AMUN suggests you follow a pyramid format in your oral arguments: present the crux of the argument first and then use the remainder of the allotted time to expand on the subsequent issues of the case. This format can also allow for a quick means of referencing issues during the remaining period of the presentation and questions. It is also wise to conclude the presentation by summarizing the key points again.

Try to anticipate questions the Justices might ask and develop answers. Do not write out answers verbatim. Do, however, write out key phrases or legal terms you will want to remember precisely. Simple, concise answers that repeatedly stress the same points are persuasive and will be remembered by the Justices. Oral arguments will involve extemporaneous speaking and responses, not the presentation of a memorized speech.

Outline the specific names of conventions, treaties and cases in your memorial and your outline. Your oral argument requires these citations to maintain your credibility with the Justices and articulate the reasons your side of the case is stronger.

Note: Remember that the AMUN ICJ is a simulation. No one expects participants, who are not lawyers or Justices, to make presentations, decisions or render opinions with the same level of sophistication as actual ICJ Justices or Advocates. The participants’ duty is to gain a basic understanding of what considerations are taken into account when presenting or presiding over a case and to prepare to argue their cases before the Court.

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia; Honduras and Costa Rica)

This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 6 December 2001. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates..

On 6 December 2001, the Republic of Nicaragua (“Nicaragua”) filed an application with the International Court of Justice instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”) regarding legal issues concerning title to certain island territories and maritime features. In 1928, Nicaragua and Colombia mutually entered into the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty, which recognized Colombia’s sovereignty over the Archipelago of San Andres and stated Nicaragua had no claim or interest of claim to the Archipelago’s Roncador, Quitasueno and Serrana. Included, but less relevant, was the recognition by Colombia of Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast and the Islas Mangles, two islands of the San Andres Archipelago. Finally, it was established that the 82 West Meridian would serve as the maritime limit between both countries.

In 1969, Nicaragua began issuing licenses for exploration and commercial use of the waters west of the 82 West Meridian. By 1980, Nicaragua began disclaiming the validity of the 1928 Treaty altogether because it had been signed under military occupation by the United States and thus did not represent a sovereign decision. Colombia, in response, would detain any boats with Nicaraguan licenses or flying the Nicaraguan flag and would escort them to San Andres or back over the 82 West Meridian.

Citing the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), Nicaragua asserts they have title to the Roncado, Quitasueño, Serrana and Serranilla Keys that lie north of the Archipelago since these keys and maritime features lie within 200 miles of their economic zone. Nicaragua claims the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty of 1928 is invalid, thus making the Treaty an inappropriate means of exacting the right to title. Colombia has patrolled the waters in and around the disputed territory, particularly stopping vessels licensed in Nicaragua and escorting them to a controlled port on San Andres Island. Nicaragua holds that this alleged illegal assertion of the right to title and control of the maritime area has impacted its citizens and their maritime economy on the Caribbean coast.

Colombia, for its part, argues the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application because the issues have been previously resolved through the mutually agreed to the Barcenas Esguerra Treaty in 1928. In this Treaty, Colombia was granted control of the San Andres islands. Thus, Colombia disagrees with Nicaragua’s position of jurisdiction and refutes Nicargua’s argument that military occupation by the United States invalidated the treaty. Further, both Nicaragua and Colombia are parties to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 1948, known as the “Pact of Bogota”. In Article VI of the Pact, it says, “The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.” Thus, Colombia argues the Pact prohibits the Court’s intervention in this case. Colombia’s third objection to jurisdiction cites the 1988 Case concerning Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), claiming that a similar issue has already been resolved in the ICJ and, therefore, prohibits jurisdiction. Colombia argues that the reasons for granting jurisdiction by Nicaragua are a misapplication of the 1948 Pact of Bogotá.

The Court must determine whether it has the jurisdiction to rule on this case. If jurisdiction is found, it should examine the validity of the 1928 Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty when considering Nicaragua’s ability to enter into a treaty while under foreign influence. Finally, the Court should decide whether Colombia or Nicaragua has title to the outlined island territories and maritime features.

Questions to Consider:

• Does a treaty signed while a party was influenced or under colonial rule have legal standing?
• Does more recent international law take precedence over previously signed treaties when considering the outcome of a dispute?
• When considering a dispute involving maritime economic/territorial boundaries, how much significance should be placed on agreements enacted before establishing the United Nations?

Bibliography

• American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (1948).
• Bekker, Pieter (2001). Nicaragua Sues Colombia before the World Court over a Dispute Concerning Territorial Questions and Maritime Delimitation in the Western Caribbean.
• American Society of International Law.
• International Court of Justice (2004). Written Statement of the government of Nicaragua. 
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
• International Court of Justice (2003). Preliminary Objections of the Government of Colombia (Nicaragua v. Colombia).
• International Court of Justice (2001). Application Instituting Proceedings (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)

This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 19 February 2009. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.

On 19 February 2009, the Kingdom of Belgium (“Belgium”) filed an Application with the International Court of Justice (“the Court”) against the Republic of Senegal (“Senegal”), alleging Senegal had a duty to prosecute or extradite Hissène Habré under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and had failed to uphold that duty. Hissène Habré was the President of Chad from 1982 to 1990. During his time as President, he is accused of committing grievous war crimes, including murder, rape and torture. After being overthrown, Habré fled to Senegal, where he was granted political asylum by the Senegalese Government.

Several of Habré’s alleged victims filed a criminal complaint in Senegal in January 2000, accusing him of Crimes Against Humanity, violating the Convention Against Torture (1984) and customary law. A Senegalese judge indicted Habré but the appellate courts dismissed the case on the grounds that the Senegalese courts did not have jurisdiction to try international crimes.

In 2005, alleged victims, including Belgian citizens, filed a criminal complaint in Belgium, whereafter Habré was indicted and his extradition was requested. The Senegalese Government decided it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on Belgium’s extradition request and referred the case to the African Union (AU). The African Union established a Committee of Eminent African Jurists to assess whether Habré should be tried in Senegal or extradited to Belgium. In 2006, the committee recommended Habré be tried in Senegal on behalf of Africa, and Senegal accepted.

In its 2009 Application to the International Court of Justice, Belgium argued the Court had jurisdiction under Article 30 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), which has been ratified by both nation-states. Under Article 30, Belgium argues former heads of state are subject to universal jurisdiction for grave violations of international law. Belgium argues Senegal was obligated to prosecute Habré for the crimes that had been ascribed to him, and by failing to extradite him to Belgium and their continual delay in prosecution constituted Senegal’s violation of these obligations.

Accompanying their Application, Belgium submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures. This indication asked the Court to order “Senegal to take all the steps within its power to keep Mr. H. Habré under the control and surveillance of the judicial authorities of Senegal so that the rules of international law with which Belgium requests compliance may be correctly applied.”

Belgium argues Senegal disagreed with it on the meaning of certain provisions of the Convention against Torture and requested its interpretation by the Court. Since Senegal failed to extradite or initiate criminal inquiry against Habré thus far, Belgium contended that Senegal’s actions and inactions violated the Convention against Torture and other rules of conventional and customary international law.

Senegal disputes Belgium’s claims and postulates the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this issue since they have adopted a clear position regarding the Convention against Torture and have taken steps towards prosecuting Habré. Senegal argues any interference by the Court would disturb a clear state of affairs between the parties, creating an artificial conflict where one does not exist, as there is an absence of any dispute between the two parties. Therefore, Belgium’s Application should be rendered inadmissible.

Thus, the Court must consider whether it has jurisdiction to issue a decision under conventional and customary international law, including the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. If the Court finds that they do have jurisdiction, the Court must interpret the obligations under international law regarding the duty to prosecute or extradite individuals accused of certain serious crimes, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes. Finally, the Court must analyze the concept of state responsibility to determine whether Senegal had failed in its obligations.

 Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• Does the Court have the jurisdiction to issue a decision in this dispute?
• Does a dispute between the Nation States of Belgium and Senegal exist?
• How does the Court apply each party’s commitment to the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to this particular case?
• What obligations do Member States have to prosecute crimes from other States under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

Bibliography

• Andena, Mads and Thomas Weatherall (2013). International Court of Justice: Questions Relating to the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Belgium v. Senegal) Judgement of 20 July 2012.
• International Court of Justice (2017). Case Overview. 
• International Court of Justice (2011). Memorial of the Republic of Senegal.
• International Court of Justice (2010). Memorial of the Kingdom of Belgium. 
• International Court Of Justice (2009). Belgium Application.
• International Court Of Justice (2009). Request for Indication of Provisional Measures by the Kingdom of Belgium.
• United Nations Office of the High Commissioner (1984). Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia)

This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 1 December 1990. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.

In 1989, the Republic of Nauru (“Nauru”) filed an Application to institute proceedings in the International Court of Justice (“the Court”) against the Commonwealth of Australia (“Australia”) to rehabilitate phosphate lands Australia mined during its administration before Nauruan independence.

After World War I, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom were granted co-Trusteeship of Nauru, granting all three countries access to the rich phosphate deposits there. The agreement explicitly permitted the mining of the phosphate deposits under the provisions of Article 22.  Upon the League of Nations dissolution, the previous agreement became invalid, and the United Nations emerged as a new forum. Thus, Nauru and Australia entered into a treaty on 1 November 1947 to place Nauru under the trusteeship of Australia, with the authority granted by the United Nations International Trusteeship System. Within this agreement, Australia had joint authority with New Zealand and the United Kingdom to exercise the administration of Nauru.

Provisions of this agreement included the stated objectives concerning Article 76 of the United Nations Charter, which states a basic tenant of the trusteeship system is “to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories…”. The 1947 agreement between Nauru and Australia states Australia must “take into consideration the customs and usages of the inhabitants of Nauru and respect the rights and safeguard the interests, both present and future, of the indigenous inhabitants of the Territory…”.

Nauru finds jurisdiction of the Court in this case under Article 36 of the Court’s Statute, “the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation.” Nauru argues Australia mined phosphate from Nauruan land, resulting in massive environmental degradation with no benefit for Nauru and resulting in a breach of its trusteeship obligations under Article 76 of the Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement of 1947. Further, Nauru claims Australia has made no effort to fix or ameliorate the environmental effects of the mining, arguing that this is  a breach of their trusteeship obligations under international law, particularly infringing on Nauru’s right to self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Nauru requests the Court order Australia to make restitution or other reparations for the damages suffered.

Australia argues the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter based on its position that jurisdiction can “not apply to any dispute regarding which the Parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement” per the Statute of the Court. Further, Australia argues any dispute arising from a trusteeship should be considered settled when the trusteeship is terminated. Australia emphasizes the Nauru Island Phosphate Agreement of 1967 between Nauru, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom and states Nauru waived its claim to rehabilitate the phosphate lands within said agreement.

The Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to issue an opinion on this dispute and under what statute it finds jurisdiction. Further, concerning Article 76 of the Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement of 1947, the Court must settle whether Nauru is entitled to reparations from Australia.

Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:

• Under what international law does the Court have the authority to issue an opinion on this dispute?
• What responsibilities does Australia have to Nauru under Article 74 of the United Nations Charter?
• Does the 1967 agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Nauru invalidate Nauru’s claim for reparations?

Bibliography 

• Angie, Anthony (1993). Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru. The American Journal of International Law.
• Statute of the International Court of Justice (1946).
• International Court of Justice (1989). Application instituting proceedings (Nauru v. Australia).
• International Court of Justice (1990). Preliminary Objections of the Government of Australia.
• International Court of Justice (2024). Overview of the Case: Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia).
• Scobbie, Iain (1993). Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections Judgment (1993). International and Comparative Law Quarterly.
• The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924).
• The Nauru Island Phosphate Agreement (1967).
• Treaty of Versailles (1919).
• Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of Nauru (1947).
• United Nations Charter (1945).

The International Press Delegation (IPD) is a unique simulation that allows students to fill the role of reporters as they work to produce AMUN’s Conference online publication, the AMUN Chronicle, and keep participants informed about the proceedings of the simulations at the AMUN Conference

While at AMUN, the International Press Delegation simulates the work of hundreds of reporters from news agencies around the world. Even though IPD does not exist at the United Nations in New York, reporters there still cover the work of the organization—publishing essays, opinion pieces, articles and videos on the debates and activities of the United Nations—to share with audiences around the world. By doing so, the members of the International Press Corps assist the United Nations in fulfilling one of its fundamental objectives: the dissemination of information about the United Nations and world events to all people. In order to best simulate the independent nature of the international press corps, AMUN’s student reporters do not represent specific countries and are otherwise unaffiliated with the students representing member states.

Recognizing the critical role the press plays at the United Nations, AMUN’s IPD simulation has two major goals:

• To keep all AMUN participants informed about newsworthy events from each simulation with social media and a high-quality online updates (the AMUN Chronicle) throughout Conference.
• To provide representatives the opportunity to present their country’s positions through press releases and press conferences and to gain familiarity with the opportunities and challenges of strategic communications.

AMUN Secretariat Members will serve in the following roles:

• The Director of the International Press Delegation, who is responsible for overseeing all IPD activities and for content of the published AMUN Chronicle.
• The Publisher, who is responsible for uploading the content for the AMUN Chronicle.
• The Editors, who are responsible for advising reporters on article content, grammar and structure.

What do IPD Reporters do?

Participants will be issued specific press credentials that will identify them as IPD reporters to the AMUN Secretariat and representatives. Each IPD reporter will be assigned to at least one beat, which is a specific simulation (e.g., Security Council, ICJ, General Assembly Third Committee) that they will have primary responsibility for reporting on throughout the Conference. Reporters are assigned to beats to ensure consistent and thorough reporting of how each committee functions. All IPD reporters will submit content covering their assigned beats for the AMUN Chronicle.

Reporter content will include a short ticker story for their beat and a committee feature (100-125 words) or a general feature (200 words). Reporters will create their own content and review their peer’s content and assist with the production of the paper as needed. Additionally, reporters will be assigned to cover press conferences and other Conference events, such as interviews with guest speakers.

Ticker stories will offer brief coverage of high-level events in a simulation. Each simulation should have a ticker story in every edition of the AMUN Chronicle. Tickers should be no more than 50 words and must be tightly constructed and edited to briefly convey the main point. A ticker story for General Assembly Second Committee might read as follows:

Although GA 2nd continues debate concerning revised guidelines for alleviating sovereign debt crises, several representatives from Latin America seek more impactful regulation to mitigate capital flows to violent extremists.

General features will cover the primary, newsworthy events that occurred on a reporter’s beat. When drafting features, reporters should investigate the motivations for and representatives involved in the notable event. By conducting thorough interviews and seeking accurate primary and secondary sources, features can clarify the various activities of the United Nations. Reporters are advised to build in-depth relationships with representatives on their beat. Reporters should strive to feature two to three quotations from different representatives. To assist in planning and drafting articles, fellow reporters and editors will provide feedback on reporters’ content.

The content of the AMUN Chronicle is set in a budget meeting that reporters attend in their assigned work space. At each budget meeting, in consultation with IPD Secretariat staff, reporters assess the type and length of article(s) they will draft for the next edition of the AMUN Chronicle. Reporters’ content will be published to all participants at Conference; therefore accurate reporting is critical to ensure unbiased information is disseminated.

Joining the International Press Delegation

Any interested student can join the IPD. However, IPD reporters cannot also be members of their school’s delegation(s). In other words, participation as a reporter is a mutually exclusive, duration-of-the-Conference assignment. Reporters do not represent a country in a specific committee; instead, they get press credentials and have a truly unique AMUN experience. Up to two students from any school may become IPD reporters. Students from schools that are not sending a delegation to AMUN are also welcome to apply to participate in the IPD. Students not attending with a school delegation must pay only the AMUN delegate fee.

Due to the resource-intensive and specialized nature of this simulation, AMUN will generally accept up to 14 IPD reporters. Positions will go to applicants on a first-come, first-served basis. The application is available on the AMUN website; please contact the AMUN Executive Office (mail@amun.org) for more information. For the best chance of being accepted as a reporter, apply by mid-October.

Connect with IPD at Conference

All AMUN representatives and delegations are encouraged to explore the news-coverage possibilities offered by the IPD. In particular, representatives should get to know the reporter(s) covering their simulations, make themselves available for interviews and provide background information when it is requested or when it is in their country’s interest to seek press coverage. Also, representatives and delegations are strongly encouraged to call press conferences and to submit press releases and letters to the editor.

Press conferences allow representatives a chance to give an oral statement and to answer questions from reporters and other conference participants. Representatives request press conferences using the IPD Request Form. They are asked to provide three specific pieces of information: (1) the requested time for the press conference, (2) the first and last names and countries of the participating representatives and (3) the topic(s) that will be discussed. Representatives have a maximum of 15 minutes to complete the press conference, including the optional question-and-answer session. Time slots are made available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Press Releases are official statements from a Representative’s country that explain a country’s stance on one of the topics under debate at AMUN. Press releases are a maximum of 150 words. Press releases must be typed and submitted to the Press Release Submission form on the Google Drive Representative workspace. This form will only be available during Conference. Press releases are edited by IPD Secretariat members for content and clarity.

Letters to the Editor may be submitted by any attendee and can be on any topic germane to the Conference. Letters to the editor are limited to 250 words. Letters to the editor must be submitted through the Press Release Submission form.

The decision to include material submitted to the IPD office in the AMUN Chronicle is left to the discretion of the Director of the IPD and the AMUN Executive Committee. AMUN Secretariat will screen and edit all content submitted to the IPD for clarity and adherence to rules for diplomatic courtesy.