DISEC STUDY GUIDESt. Michael’s Model United Nations

Introduction to the Committee:After the first session of the United Nations in 1946, it became apparent that there was a need for multiple committees to deal with a multitude issues at once. As such, the First Committee, otherwise known as the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) was the first of six main committees of the General Assembly. Today, the First Committee is considered to be one of the most powerful committees as it can introduce resolutions that can call for the United Nations to intervene. These non-binding resolutions often go to the Security Council which can then act for the United Nations as a whole.

All general assembly committees are formed of 193 members. As such, all 193 states participate in DISEC and each member state has one vote. Most votes taken on designated important issues, such as such as recommendations on peace and security, the election of Security Council members and Economic and Social Council members, and budgetary questions — require a two-thirds majority of Member States.

DISEC emerged out of a need to discuss peace and security issues among member states, especially considering the destruction that had emerged out of the First and Second World Wars. The UN Charter sets out the mandate of DISEC in Article 11 by stating that “The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both”.

The First Committee has a close relationship with other subsidiary committees in order to achieve it’s goals. In particular, the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament. These cooperative efforts with many smaller committees serve to focus on the debate of the larger assembly

Even though it is a large committee, one of the main advantages of DISEC is that all member states can have their voices heard equally. Seeing that each member state has an equal vote, each representative has a say in the focus and flow of the debate, unlike in other UN Committees such as the Security Council. Thus it could be said that the First Committee is, in principle, one of the most democratic committees.

Topic A: Countering the threat of ISIS

Introduction

The Syrian Civil War is an ongoing armed conflict with devastating consequences both in regards to human dignity, economy, and regional stability.1 The conflict was sparked in the wake of the Arab Spring, a revolutionary wave of protests throughout the Middle East aiming at ousting corrupt and illegitimate despots in the Arab World, both violent and non-violent. 4 years have gone and the human costs continue to climb as the fighting goes on. The UN has stopped updating the death toll because it says it can no longer verify the information, but according to human rights groups, then number is significantly over 200.000, half of whom are believed to be civilian casualties2. In addition, millions of refugees have sought sanctuary in the neighboring countries. Three quarters of refugees are children and woman. At the same time the unrest has proved a magnet for militant Islamists, including al-Qaeda affiliates and Iranian-backed Hezbollah.On June 29, 2014 The Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, referred to as ISIL, ISIS, or IS, proclaimed a caliphate in Syria, with the intent of expanding this caliphate to cover most of the Arab world, including the African Maghreb. The Islamic State is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, having publically executed a large number of prisoners, and committing countless breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other statutes of international law. Futhermore, UNESCO have warned that Islamic State are committing a “cultural cleansing,” destroying or defacing many historic sites and artifacts in this culturally and historically rich part of the world, some of which are even on UNESCO world heritage list.According to a UNSC report in March 2015, more than 25,000 foreign nationals from over 100 nations have traveled to Syria to fight for extremist organizations, leading the UN to call Syria and Iraq a “finishing school for extremists". Many nations worry that these foreign nationals could pose a serious security threat, both in their own nations and elsewhere, once they disperse from the area. The situation is complex but it is the UN’s task to fight extremism and promote peaceful development and security in Greater SyriaThe options are numerous: E.g. UN peacekeepers could be sent to the area to reinforce the safety. Some countries may be against as it could be a breach of a nation’s sovereignty. Should Syria be granted a membership of the Arab League again, which could help the

1 http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/syria-dashboard/ 2 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/07/us-mideast-crisis-toll-idUSKBN0LB0DY20150207

country re-stable their economy? In addition, what issues should have first priorities – the infrastructure, schools, rehabilitation centers, or fighting terrorist organizations, or establishing a central government in Syria? Moreover, do developed countries have a responsibility to financially support humanitarian efforts in the area? It is your responsibility as a delegate to find the solution that benefits the entire region without forgetting your country’s policy.

Key Terms and Points

Arab League: The Arab League facilitates political, economic, cultural, scientific and social programs designed to promote the interests of the Arab world. The league has also blamed the al-Assad regime for use of chemical weapons, and called for the UN to take “deterrent measures” against these. Syria has been suspended from the league since 2011 as a consequence of the internal conflict and instability.

UNHCR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Foreign Nationals: More than 25,000 foreign nationals from over 100 nations have traveled to Syria to fight for extremist organizations, leading the UN to call Syria and Iraq a “finishing school for extremists". Many nations worry that these foreign nationals could pose a serious security threat, both in their own nations and elsewhere, once they disperse from the area.

Background information

The Syrian government’s violence against civilians has seen it suspended from the Arab League in 2011 and the Organisation of Islamic Relations in 2012.

Both China and Russia have significant economic and military relations with Syria. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, the duo has vetoed three resolutions designed to isolate the Assad regime

In November 2012, several opposition factions came together to form an umbrella group in exile known as the Syrian National Council(SNC)The United States recognizes   the coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people," hoping it will serve as a counterweight to extreme Islamist groups fighting in Syria.

Syria has become a breeding ground for extremist terror organization, both new have been established and veteran organizations such as the Islamist State regained their strength. If Greater Syria is not stabilized, it could end up becoming the new Afghanistan. In this sense, the Syrian Civil War poses a security threat to the whole world.

SyriaThe following text should give you a quick understanding of the parties involved:

The conflict is overtly sectarian in nature. The government is headed by Assad, an Alawite (offshoot of Shia Islam), and the majority of the opposition is of Sunni Islam faith. Assad receives assistance from Iran, the largest Shia country in the world; Hezbollah, a Shi'ite State within a State in Lebanon; and Russia, who utilized Syria as a surrogate against Israel during the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Adding to the complexity, the opposition is divided amongst the relatively secularist Free Syrian Army, which is funded by the United States; the fundamentalist Islamic Front, which is armed by Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia; Al Nusra Front, who pledged themselves to Al Qaeda; the Kurdish Supreme Committee, a third party of ethnic Kurds who seek greater autonomy or independence; and the independent Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with dozens of clashes between all parties involved.

Demographics of Syria

Key players and neighboring countries

Republic of Iraq: Iraq and Syria have long been regional opponents. The pan-Arab socialist Ba’ath party ruled both regimes, this ideological common ground has however lead to more political adversity than cooperation. In the race to becoming the greatest defender of pan-arabism, tensions sparked and hostilities increased. However, ever since the ousting of Saddam Hussein, thus ending the ideological struggle, relations have begun normalizing. Iraq even abstained from voting to expel Syria from Arab League. Iraq is in a very unstable and weak position; it has been called a ’regional playground’ rather than a ’regional player’. The Syrian Civil War works as a catalyst for Iraq’s own domestic problems. The secterian and religious violence in Iraq is sparked further by spillover from the Syrian Civil War. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a major al-Qaeda linked terror organization operating within Syria and Iraq, have successfully occupied large swaths of Iraqi territory. Iraq sees it in its greatest interest to ensure stability in Syria, following the civil war, because it is key to Iraq’s own stability and future.

The Islamic Republic of Iran: The current relationship between Iran and Syria has existed ever since the Islamic Revolution 1979’ in Iran. Although Iran is a full blooded theocracy and Syria is lead by a socialist party, they share one of the strongest political ties in the region. Syria serves as an extremely important ally to Iran and as a geographical link and landbridge to Iran’s proxy in Lebanon: Hezbollah. Therefore it is key for Iran to ensure that the Shiite Alawites remain in power, or at least a pro-Iranian government is installed in the aftermath of the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic Republic of Iran may end up losing both Syria and the links to Lebanon, and thus she will stand weaker and more isolated than she has ever been. Therefore, it is vital for Iran that there is room for Iran in a post-Syria, to secure the Islamic Republic’s future well-being.

Jordan: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan feels that it is very important that the international society and/or the Arab League deals with economically supporting Jordan with the huge influx of Syrian refugees, that are currently swarming to Jordan. So far almost 950.000 refugees have amassed, counting for over 1/5 of the population a number that is growing every day and has the potential to cripple Jordan’s economy and overload its infrastructural capacity – that is why Lebanon sees this problem dealt with sooner than later. Furthermore, Jordan are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, and remain committed to destroying the organization.

Saudi Arabia: Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia has backed the opposition groups that are trying to topple Assad's Shiite regime. It's suspected that the Saudis have even provided the opposition with arms, as have its allies in Qatar and Turkey. The Saudis are also believed to have strong ties with opposition leader Ahmad Jarba. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, and remain committed to destroying the organization.

Turkey: Relations between Turkey and Syria have long been tense, Syria has been one of the main supporters of the PKK, a Kurdish-nationalistic militant separatist organization within Turkey, which has so far cost the Turkish government between 300 and 450 billion dollars. In 1999 it even came close to war, with Turkey calling for Syria to expel PKK’s leader Abdullah Öcalan or face Turkey’s military. Since then relations have begun thawing, however with the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War Turkey, as a NATO country, has been one of the key supporters of the opposition. The Syrian National Council has its headquarters in Turkey, and Turkey has allowed for opposition groups to attack Syrian government positions from Turkish borders. Syrian military has downed a Turkish jet and Turkey has, with the help from EU and NATO, deployed defensive Patriot Missiles along her borders. The Turkish parliament has even signed and ratified a decree in 2012, that allowed for military action in Syria. For Turkey Assad cannot stay, he is too illegitimate and the people must be represented by the people. However, it is in Turkey’s gravest interest that the Kurdish minority residing in North Syria does not create a breakaway de facto Kurdistan following the Syrian Civil War as this could serve as an agent provocateur for Turkey’s own Kurdish minority. This means that Turkey will do anything to support and promote the legitimacy of the Syrian National Council.

Israel: Israel’s long standing conflict with the Lebanese-based Hezbollah group, who are strong supporters of the al-Assad regime, has caused extremely strained relations with the regime. They are vocally supportive of the SNC, and have even gone as far as to launch an air strike against a Syrian weapons depot, “What we can say is that Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, specially to Hezbollah in Lebanon”, one Israeli official commented. Israel has publically supported the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, but have not participated themselves.

Russia: Russian association with the ruling Assad family go back four decades and the country enjoys a stable friendly relationship with Syria. According to The Moscow Times Russia have investments in Syria valued at $19.4 billion in 2009. In addition Russia has sold around $1.5 billion worth of arms to Syria between 2000 and 2010 – Damascus is Moscow’s seventh largest client. As a result Russia has supported the Syrian government and promised to veto any sanctions against Syria. Furthermore, Russia opposed the military intervention "without the consent of the legitimate government" and said that "this step, in the absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law"

United States: United States-Syria relations are officially non-existent. In August 2011 President Obama called for Assad’s resignation and as a result sanctioned Syrian government by e.g. banning imports of Syrian petroleum products. The White House has provided nonlethal aid – namely, food and medical kits – to the opposition. Furthermore, the United States leads the coalition intervening in the area with airstrikes, in an attempt to curb the Islamic State and fight international terrorism. The United States officially recognizes the SNC as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

The People’s Republic of China: Much like Russia, has economic and military relations with Syria. China has prevented any UN action in Syria beyond providing humanitarian aid and fostering dialogue. To this end, China has joined with Russia to veto Western-backed UN resolutions that would have placed sanctions on the al-Assad regime.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: David Cameron narrowly lost a vote for a military response to the alleged chemical weapons use. The United Kingdom officially recognizes the SNC as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and maintains extremely strained relations with the Al-Assad Regime. Furthermore, The UK are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State, although they have only provided surveillance services.

France: The former French President Nicolas Sarkozy took the initiative for the Friends of Syria conference in February 2012, and recognizes the SNC as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. France maintains extremely strained relations with the Al-Assad Regime. Furthermore, France are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, and remain committed to destroying the organization.

Germany: Germany recognizes the SNC as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. They maintain extremely strained relations with the Al-Assad Regime. Furthermore, Germany are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, and remain committed to destroying the organization.

Republic of India: Ever since the partition of India, India has pursued relations with the Muslim world in general and Arab World in particular. Furthermore India took a pro-Arab stance in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict to counter Pakistani influence in the region and secure a stable flow of energy resources from the region. This means India will be

likely to share the same opinion as most Arab countries and the Arab League, and seek to counter most of Pakistan’s arguments.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: During the Yom Kippur war of 1973 between Israel and Syria and Egypt, a strong military contingent was dispatched under order of the Pakistani foreign minister to combat train and help advise Syrian soldiers. Relation between Pakistan and Syria have gone up and down, and during the Syrian Civil War Pakistan was quick to announce its neutrality. However, Pakistan has more than one declared its resistance towards military intervention in Syria, stating it would only ‘make things more complicated’. Despite Pakistan’s neutrality, its con-intervention stance and growing relations with China seems to make Pakistan’s interests more aligned with that of Russia and China, more so than Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan have, however, supported the fight against Islamic State, arresting IS member operating in Pakistan and deploying troops to the Saudi-Iraq border.

Canada: Since the start of the Syrian uprising in March of 2011, Canada has worked to support the Syrian people. They have been active in calling on the international community to come together and defend the rights of the Syrian people to determine their own future. As a response to the chemical weapons found in Syria, Canada imposed sanctions against Syrian government, including the import of goods, new investments in Syria and the export to Syria of goods. Furthermore, Canada are part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State with airstrikes, and remain committed to destroying the organization.

United Arab Emirates: The UAE share close ties with many of the Sunni countries in the region, and have thus had historically, relatively strained relations with the Al-Assad Regime. They have traditionally opted to follow a political line close to that of Jordan or Saudi Arabia concerning Syria, and especially in relation to the fight against Islamic State, continue to do so, as an active member of the international coalition intervening with airstrikes.

Republic of Belarus: The Republic of Belarus is entirely dependent on Russia to keep its economy running, and the two countries share extremely close ties, with some even going as far as suggesting the Belarus is a Russian puppet-state, due to the extensive plans to join the two nations in a Russian-led union. Therefore, the Belarus’ foreign policy is heavily influenced by their large neighbour, and this is no less the case with Syria, where Belarus maintains almost identical policy with Russia.

The Kingdom of Denmark: Denmark is part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State, but is only confining their actions to Iraq. This is considered more a case of strategic matters, and Denmark is also in support of military interventions in Syria. Just after Belgium Denmark has the highest number of foreign fighters per capita in Syria. Denmark also sees Syria is a threat towards its internal affairs because of the radicalization among youths in Denmark.

Republic of Korea: Despite having little direct stake in the Syrian civil war, it is important to South Korea that the international community responds to the violations of human rights. Korea sees itself as an internationally active middle power and has since the outburst of the civil war supported the Syrian rebels non-militarily. Korea will continue to look for resolutions based on humanitarian aid and provide its expertise on economic development.

Commonwealth of Australia: Australia is part of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State, and has conducted several airstrikes over Iraq targeting facilities belonging to ISIL. Australia has also carried out humanitarian aid, as well as training to Kurdish land troops. Australia is part of the “core coalition” and has chosen to back the US in their interventions towards ISIL. One of these options is cracking down on the financial transfers from individuals in the gulf to jihadi type groups in Syria and targeting the oil reserves from which ISIL gains financially.

Arab Republic of Egypt: Since the military coup in Egypt that toppled Mohammed Morsi Mohammed, Egyptian-Syrian relations has restored to the same good relations as under the reign of Hosni Mubarak. Since the outbreak of the civil war Egypt has supported the Syrian opposition, but has refused to back a military strike on Syria and has urged the warring parties to launch peace talks. Very recently Egypt has changed its rhetoric and president el-Sisi has talked about an Arab coalition against ISIS. Because of Egypt’s strategic and political importance in the region, this could be a crucial step towards a potential pan-Arab force with a common enemy

Topic B: The legalities and role of drones in modern day warfare

The legalities and the role of drones in modern warfare has been one of the most contentious issues of recently. Drones, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are aircraft with no pilots on board, the movements and actions are controlled by either computers within the aircraft or a pilot in another location. UAVs have the capability to carry out surveillance or military strikes from across the world.

There are other aspects to consider when looking at drones. In particular opponents of their use claim that they have been a major cause of civilian casualties as seen by drone attacks in Palestine, Yemen and Pakistan. Major organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross producing extensive reports on the use of drones and their impacts.

On the other hand, many member states maintain what the President of the United States Barack Obama stated: “battlefields have changed and technology has evolved”. Drones give a direct advantage to the states who use them, they can target and deliver deadly force within an instant of seeing an enemy combatant with no risk to the pilot. However, there is also an aspect of this immediacy of drones which brings danger to innocent civilians when the line between enemy combatant and innocents is blurred

In the Special Rapporteur report on Drones to the Human Rights Committee, the Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson states that ‘In conventional theatres of armed conflict, the primary function of remotely piloted aircraft is the provision of intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance.’ Most of the debate in the international community occurs around the use and legality of armed drones in Pakistan, Gaza, Yemen and Afghanistan.

History of the Topic:The first vehicles that could be considered drones originated from the Second World War as military technology progressed due to high demand. Earlier attempts had been made during Word War I which had failed due to successes of Allied forces by the end of the war. During World War II, drone development advanced as the warring factions experimented. The most famous example of an early drone is the German V-1 Flying

bomb which was capable of flying up to a range of over 150 miles. By the end of the war, the Germans launched thousands of these unmanned flying missiles against targets in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

The next major development in drone technology occurred during the Vietnam war. With the development of technology, drones could also provide stealth and reconnaissance capabilities. This capability of drones was developed due to the unknown landscape of the Vietnamese jungle. Despite the loss of the Vietnam war, drones became a mainstay in the arsenals of many states, in particular, the United States and Israel. Israel in particular has been using since the Syrian war of the 1980s. The mixture of reconnaissance and manned aircraft gave the Israeli airforce incredible real time information with accurate enemy locations. Eventually Israel became so successful with their use of drones that they started exporting them to a number of member states including the United States, Brazil and the United Kingdom. As of present, Israel is responsible for 41% of all exported UAVs.

Indeed, when considering the uses of drones, the ability for UAVs to provide near-real time video feeds around the clock gives an unprecedented advantage. Their ability to gather intelligence for long period of time before a strike, coupled with precision-guided munitions means that they can ‘carry out more precise attacks, and helps avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life’, as noted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Most of the impetus to use armed drones arises from the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration quickly sent drones to Afghanistan to begin the search for Osama bin Laden. The United States justified the use of drones by stating that the attacks were strictly targeting known Al-Qaeda leaders and members. With further successes in Afghanistan, the United States expanded its operations to Yemen where a drone strike killed Abu Ali al Harithi, a high ranking Al-Qaeda official who was implicated for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Indeed, the success of this operation led to the use of drones in Pakistan where many Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders were residing.

Even though their use was limited to surveillance at first, drones eventually became a key component of the American strategy in fighting the war on terror. The number of drones grew exponentially as they began to survey large areas of land from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and even Iran; despite no official conflict between the United States and these states. As such, delegates need to question the legality of drone strikes where consent has not been granted by the affected member state.

For many years, the United States has been quiet about it’s use of drones in Pakistan. It is known that the first drone strike to occur in Pakistan was directed against Nek Muhammad Wazir, a prominent anti-Western tribal leader in Pakistan. He was not a member of the Taliban, however as an ally of the Taliban, he was considered an enemy of the Pakistani state. Thus the first targeted killing in Pakistan was not against an enemy of the United States, but that of another state. The following years saw an increased use in drones, eventually leading over 1000 deaths between 2004 and 2010. In 2008 alone, at least half of the casualties were civilians.

As protests erupted worldwide over the use of drones, the once secret program came to the forefront of the media with continued calls to the US government and CIA to release information on drone strikes.

Drone strikes in Gaza have been a major concern as of recently. With the United Nations currently estimating that of the 2192 Palestinians that were killed during the most recent conflict, at least 519 of them were children under the age of 18. Israel has acknowledge that it’s military operations have resulted in ‘many civilian deaths and injuries’. However, Israel has not released any information on civilian casualties which would allow for the analysis on the effectiveness of drone strikes.

Drone deployments by make and country:While over 40 nations have drones, only the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom have deployed drones with the exact purpose of targeting and eliminating enemy combatants. The major countries with lethal and non lethal drones in their military are:

United States of America: The United States has ~680 operational drones, used throughout the Army, Navy, and Air Force. They include the RQ-5A Hunter, RQ-7A Shadow, MQ-1B Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper.

France: The French Army has twenty Sperwerclass drones and the French Air Force uses three Harfang-class drones.

Germany: The German Armed Forces have six KZO-class and three Heron-class drones.

Italy: The Italian Air Force owns five RQ-1B Predator drones, modeled off the United States program.

Turkey: Turkey has ten Heron-class drones, eighteen Gnat 750s and an unknown number of Falcon 600s, Firebee-class drones, and CL-89s among others.

United Kingdom: The Royal Air Force uses ten Reaper drones and an unknown number of Hermes 450s and Watchkeeper drones.

Russian Federation: The Russian Army owns an unknown number of Tu-143 and-243 drones and Tu-300 Korshun drones.

China: The Chinese Army owns an unknown number of CH-1 Chang Hong-class drones, BZK-005s, ASN-105s, and -206s among others

India: The Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force have fourteen Nishant-class drones, over twenty Searcher Mk IIs, and four Heron-class drones.

Iran: The Iranian Army owns an unknown number of Mohajer IV drones.

Israel: The Israeli Air Force owns fourty-four Searcher Mk IIs and four Heron-class drones, as well as an unknown number of RQ-5A Hunter drones among others.

Legality of Drone StrikesUnder international humanitarian law: the set of laws governing armed conflict, drones are not prohibited. However, they clearly fall under the mandate of humanitarian law, they are no different to weapons launched from manned aircraft such as helicopters and fighter jets. While drones are not illegal, their use is subject to international law.

When considering the legality of drones, delegates should firstly consider the definition of drones. Due to a rapid change in technology, we do not necessarily know where this technology is heading. As such, having a flexible definition for drones is vital when assessing their legality as different drones can be used for widely different or similar purposes. Delegates must distinguish between drones which are armed and those which are not. As not all drones are armed, a number of unarmed drones can help and save the lives of civilians. From drones which monitor environmental levels and detect

fires to collecting vital information for relief personnel working in areas affected by natural disasters.

Drones per se, are not specifically mentioned in treaties or other legal instruments. Seeing as drones are subject to the rules of international humanitarian law, this means that when drones are used, parties to a conflict must always distinguish between civilians and combatants. The parties must take all reasonable precautions in order to spare the civilian population and infrastructure. The parties must cancel or suspend the drone strike if expected damage to civilians or civilians objects is excessive in comparison to the military advantaged gained from the drone strike. However, what is not clear under international law is what is considered ‘excessive’.

‘The single greatest obstacle to an evaluation of the civilian impact of drone strikes is the lack of transparency, which makes it extremely difficult to assess claims of precision targeting objectively’ as stated by Emmerson. Indeed, Emmerson in his report considers transparency should apply to all cases of drones strikes where there are grounds to believe that civilians may have been injured or killed. Indeed, he considers that a full explanation should be made publicly in each case, subject to reductions on the grounds of national security. ‘This obligation ought to be viewed as an inherent part of the State’s legal obligations of accountability under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.’

This is especially important when considering the involvement of the CIA in ‘lethal counter terrorism operations in Pakistan and Yemen has created an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency’. This is principally because secret services operate on a basis of neither confirming or denying their operations.

In an interview with the British tabloid The Daily Telegraph, one of Israel’s most experienced drone commanders pointed out the life and death decisions which have to be taken in a matter of seconds. In particular drone strikes are more dangerous in populated, small areas, such as Gaza. Indeed one of the difficulties in using drones in Gaza is the fact that combatants use civilians as cover from drones. Due to the high density of Gaza there little opportunity to see the potential consequences of the drone strikes if civilians are not identified prior to the attack.

There are a number of areas of legal controversy. Firstly we need to look two criteria under international law governing the extraterritorial use of force. A State’s valid consent to the use of force by another State on its territory precludes any claim that its territorial sovereignty has been violated. Indeed, the United States has made an effort in to ask the Government of Yemen on a case by case basis for consent before a lethal drone strike. If consent is not given then the attack will not take place.

Secondly, self-defense is the central justification used by the United States government and others in justifying drone strikes. Article 51 of the UN Charter says that states have a right to self-defense if an armed attack occurs against them. Indeed, the International Court of Justice held that in the absence of consent, the use of force in self-defense by one state against an armed non-state actor in another territory can be justified only where the actions of the group concerned are attributed to the host state. This can

extent to situations in which an armed non state actor are being protected by another state. However, with an absence of this connection, the use of drone strikes is an unlawful violation of national sovereignty, unless it takes place with the authorization of the Security Council or the consent of the state concerned.

On the other hand, the United States and other countries involved in drone strikes view the law of self-defense as entitling them to engage in non-consensual military actions against armed groups that pose a direct and imminent threat. This is especially where the state does not have the capability or willingness to neutralize the threat that emanates from within its own borders. As such, they argue that the state which is threatened with an attack is entitled under the law of self-defense to cross the host state’s borders and use effective military action on its territory against the armed group that presents a threat.

UNITED NATIONS ACTION ON DRONESThe United Nations Human Rights Council condemned the United States’ drone warfare in June 2012. Christ of Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, told a conference in Geneva that Obama’s attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to disregard human rights standards. He even went as far as qualifying certain drone strikes as the modern equivalent to war crimes.

Ben Emmerson, Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, announced he would be prioritizing inquiries into drone strikes. He insisted the issue will “remain at the top of the UN political agenda until some consensus and transparency has been achieved”.

Emmerson proposed to open drone recordings of strikes to the independent assessors in order to ascertain the truth of the number of reported casualties. “We can’t make a decision on whether it is lawful or unlawful if we do not have the data. The recommendation I have made is that users of targeted killing technology should be required to subject themselves, in the case of each and every death, to impartial investigation,” said Emmerson.

The United Nations has taken other actions in relation to drone usage. In particular, Security Council Resolution 1706 mandated the use of aerial surveillance to monitor trans-border activities of armed groups along the Sudanese boarders with the Central African Republic and Chad. Despite progress in this debate, the United Nations requires further action in this area. The First Committee must take substantive actions. Considerations must be made with regard to the sovereignty of member states as well as possible implications of inaction against armed groups and the proliferation of drones.

KEY ISSUES FOR DEBATEThere are four key areas that should be pertinent in committee debate sessions. They are:

1. Use of Lethal Autonomous Robots2. Technical deficiencies3. Violation of international law4. Moral concerns about the use of drones.

1. Use of Lethal Autonomous Robots

So far we have only delved into the history and use of drones, but as mentioned in the introduction, there are two types of drones that are used in eliminating enemy targets, and it is the second type we focus on now.

Lethal Autonomous Robots (LARs) refer to vehicles that navigate by means of preprogrammed computer that does not need a human in the process. LARs choose and eliminate targets based on their own calculations. They pose extremely complicated questions about who should be held accountable for uses of LARs and also the morality of their use.

UN Special Rapporteur Christ of Heyns said that ‘machines lack morality and mortality, and many people believe they should as a result not have life and death powers over humans,’ and claims that LARs have “the potential to pose new threats to the right to life…[to] create serious international division and weaken the role and rule of international law – and in the process undermine the international security system.” “No State is currently using fully autonomous weapons that would classify as LARs, but the technology is already available, or will soon be. A number of States that are active in this field have committed themselves, for the foreseeable future, not to use LARs. However, it is clear that very strong forces – including technology and budgets – are pushing in the opposite direction.”

2. Technical deficiencies

In 2002, the first major drone mishap occurred and attracted international attention. Daraz Khan and two other Afghan men were killed in a targeted drone strike. The men were all innocent civilians, but because of Khan’s height and the interactions between the men, the drone surveying them registered them as potentially being Osama bin Laden.

During the first few years that the US operated drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there were several reported mechanical failures. Drones were crashing because of software malfunctions. These incidents have been attributed to the United States

military’s hasty use of drones, without having properly developed and tested the proper technology. US drone technology has now improved to the point where drone crashes are far and few between but acts as evidence of the dangerous consequences resulting from preemptive use of untested drone technology.

In 2009, Iraqi militants hacked into live video feeds from a US Predator drone by using a rudimentary software program. These militants were able to breach security systems and access potentially important information such as the drone’s collected surveillance or programmed mission. Iranian militants downed a US drone in the same manner in 2011. The breach in security did not have any long lasting consequences, but it showed that as technology advances so do methods of breaking in and manipulating these technologies, which presents a major security concern for all those who look to utilize remote-controlled technologies.

3. Violation of international law

A huge issue surrounding the use of drones is their legality under international law. Drones almost always cross into another state’s airspace, which compromises the sovereignty of that state.

The Montevideo Convention, signed by the United States, states that the fundamental rights of states, such as sovereignty, are not to be violated, and that “no state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” The United Nations recognizes the convention as customary international law.

Taking the example of the United States’ use of drones in Pakistan’s airspace, the US argues that drone strikes are targeted at terrorist groups operating out of tribal areas. Pakistan government officials have clarified that they the government of Pakistan openly opposes these drone strikes and have called upon the United States to immediately end their entire drone campaign. The United States justifies their drone strikes in Pakistan as a counter-terrorism operation designed to dismantle groups such as Al-Qaeda through targeted elimination of key leaders. President Obama has stated that the United States is not at war with Pakistan, but instead at “war with terror.”

The government of Pakistan has stated its commitment to ending terrorism and believes that the most effective way of achieving long term peace in the area is by addressing terrorism internally, and that the United States should ease its counter-terrorism efforts within Pakistani territory.

The legal debate arises from the fact that the United States and Pakistan are not at war with each other, and the United States’ drone presence does not have the approval of the government of Pakistan.

4. Moral concerns about the use of drones

The US government’s increased reliance on drones has sparked public debate around the morality of drone strikes. While proponents of the use of drones claim that they are effective tools in the war on terror, opponents stress that they kill innocent civilians and that they are a general public safety concern.

They also contend that there is an ethical question of whether targeting and eliminating people without either a trial or without formally declaring a war on another state is morally justified.

There are two groups however that moral concerns directly affect. The first is the families and friends of drone strike victims. The number of non-militants killed by drone attacks outnumbers targeted militants and consequently turns families, friends, and supporters into new followers to militant causes in what is called “accidental guerrilla” phenomenon. Strikes can also push supporters to conduct symbolic revenge attacks, like the Khost bombing in 2009, which sought to avenge the drone killing of Beitullah Mehsud in Waziristan earlier that year. The second group is the human controller behind the drone. They are almost all military personnel (except for the political elite in the White House) and these officers are often detrimentally affected by their actions with respect to drone strikes. They can feel helplessness, guilt, exhaustion, and even experience post-traumatic stress as a result of what they do or witness remotely. They may also be taking part in war crimes.

Bloc and Country Positions:There are a number of different positions which member states take. Firstly, delegates should consider whether their country is involved in the usage and production of drones. This includes countries such as the United States, Israel and to a certain extent the United Kingdom. Israel and the United States are the largest exporters of drone technology in the world. On the other hand, there are nations such as Pakistan and Yemen which are the site of many drone strikes which are naturally against the usage of drones.

However, there are other nations which play crucial roles in drone strikes. These nations usually might serve as the launching or storage point of these drones due to their strategic locations. Indeed, because of the movement of targets, these nations might become targets themselves meaning that surrounding nations might have serious concerns about drone strikes as they might be eventually targeted.

The positions of these nations vary. In particular, the United States and Israel are against against the further regulation of drones, arguing that they prevent the further loss of human life by removing solders from the battlefield. This is because drones are

an important part of their counter terrorism strategy, additional UN regulations would interfere with their ability to act immediately upon information on their targets. The United States and Israel also argue that they are capable of regulating their own military actions and do not need UN regulations to reduce the number of casualties.

Barack Obama presented the view that it is far more damaging to foreign relations if terrorist groups are targeted by ground troops. A major example of this is the attack on Pakistani soil in order to apprehend Osama Bin Laden. Indeed ‘the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.’ As such, many states who are involved in the use of drones argue that the use of drones is more effective and will not hinder the foreign relations with the host country as much as ground action would.

However, on the other hand, nations such as Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Palestine argue that the drone strikes constitute an invasion and violation of their national sovereignty as permission was not given to use drones on their soil. Thus, these nations want to see more UN intervention to prevent what they view as unwanted intrusion of drones within their borders.

The usage of drones during peacetime is a particular contentious issues which brings up serious legal implications. In particular, the United States government has been extremely secretive about their usage of drones in the past, making it very difficult to analyze and comprehend the usage of drones. As such, researching the involvement of your country in either the production or use of drones may be difficult. However, you should get a good idea of your country’s stance by looking at their voting history (in particular on the resolutions mentioned above). Your country’s foreign policy will likely depend on your relations with the United States, Great Britain, Israel, China or any other nation which is involved in the production or use of drones.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer1. When, if ever, is it acceptable to use drones to attack specific targets in another nation outside the time of war?

2. How might the manufacture and sale of drones be regulated and if so, does it need to be regulated?

3. If a member state is found guilty of violating the regulations regarding drone usage then what implications or sanctions should they face?

4. Which regulations need to be put in place in order to prevent the infringement of national sovereignty when a host nation is harboring a target?

5. Which legal framework needs to be implemented to address complains and to ensure that regulations and restrictions are enforced?

For Further Queries:s.asadrahim@gmail.com