INMUN 2016Disarmament and International Security Council

Background Guide

Agenda 1: Disarmament of WMDs from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Introduction from the Director

Dear Delegates,

My name is Rhea Rehani, your Director for the Disarmament and International Security Committee. I welcome you along with my Assistant Directors, Vedhanth Sairam and Aayush Varghese to Inventure Academy’s Model United Nations. I started my MUN career in 8th grade, with DISEC, and it has always since then been favourite committee.

DISEC is a committee that aims for International Security and finds innovative solutions, to achieve that goal. The world for the past 2 years has been experiencing rapid changes due to the great burst of the ISIS rising in the Middle-East, who refuse to stop at any cost. With hundreds of civilians killed each day, and the lives of many more being threatened, there really is no security in this world. On the other hand, we are expected to help stop terrorism around the world when leaders of many countries can hardly handler their own. Amidst this chaos we have countries, such as DPRK, testing and creating nuclear arsenals.  Can we really keep everyone safe from the next World War when we ourselves are fighting against each other, and not the terrorists? Have we realised where the real threat is?

Being an Assistant Chair before, what I look for in delegates, is a creative and innovative solutions. The ability to think out of the box, and not always look at past resolutions, and stand by the country's stance, not differ from the foreign policy. The ability to research well with solid facts, and speak up in committee, to make sure that debate is interesting, and of course diplomacy, without which the UN would not have solved any problems since its establishment.Please go through the background guide below, as it will help you get an understanding of the topic, and what I expect from the committee.I look forward, to interacting with all of you and having an amazing debate, with lots of great points.Prepare well, and most importantly have fun, looking forward to seeing you all soon!

Regards,Rhea RehaniDirector, Disarmament and International Security Committee

The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) is a sub-committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Founded in 1945, under the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly is the United Nation’s prime policymaking body, where all member nations of the UN are represented in this committee and all have an equal vote in the matter being discussed. However, any resolution passed in the General Assembly is non-binding or cannot be enforced on member nations by the International Community and the United Nations. The DISEC committee is the General Assembly’s first committee and exclusively deals with issues related to threats to international peace and security. This may make it appear similar to the United Nations Security Council. In the Security Council, however, not all member nations are represented, and the resolutions passed may be enforced. Moreover, the DISEC committee deals more with long-term threats to international peace, while the Security Council deals more with short-term threats.

Introduction“As the joint military exercises to be staged by the enemies are regarded as the most undisguised nuclear war drills aimed to infringe upon the sovereignty of the DPRK, its military counteraction will be more preemptive and offensive nuclear strike to cope with them.” DPRK has imposed a threat in retaliation to the USA’s “undisguised”  nuclear war drills with their WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction). In response, USA stated,”We urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions and statements that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments. We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula in coordination with our Republic of Korea allies.”The Democratic People’s Republic Korea, currently led by Dictator Kim Jong-Un, one of the most advanced countries in the matter of WMDs, competing with countries such as the United States of America and Russia, have conducted 4 recorded Mass Destruction Bombs tests, the latest one done on 6th January, 2016. The Government of DPRK insists that the Earthquake they caused in the area was the test of an “H” Bomb, however many source believe that this was a Nuclear Bomb Test. After the 4th Bomb tests, a 5th one was feared and immediately, the DPRK Foreign Minister Ri was interviewed by the Press. Defending the right of his nation to contain

nukes and blaming American hostility for forcing the DPRK to create a nuclear deterrent in self-defense, the latest missile test, according to the minister, gives the North Korean Government “one more means for powerful nuclear attack.” Ri, representing DPRK’s intentions, states that for the betterment of the “whole entire world”, the United States of America and North Korea should come together and have an agreement:-

“Stop the Nuclear War exercises in the Korean Peninsula, then we should also cease our Nuclear Tests.”

History of North Korea’s Nuclear Activity

Major Weapons Programs, Policies, and Practices

Biological Weapons:

Pyongyang is believed to maintain a biological weapons capability. The United States intelligence community continues to judge that North Korea has a biotechnology infrastructure to

support such a capability, and has a munitions production capacity that could be used to weaponize biological agents. North Korea maintains the modern Pyongyang Bio-technical

Institute, purportedly a pesticide factory, equipped with dual-use equipment that can be used to maintain a biological weapons capability and is likely intended to produce “military-size”

batches of anthrax.

Chemical Weapons:

North Korea is widely reported to possess a large arsenal of chemical weapons, including mustard, phosgene, and sarin agents. According to U.S. military estimates, North Korea “can deploy missiles with chemical warheads.”3 North Korea is believed to have 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons according to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense.4

Missiles:

Ballistic Missiles: North Korea is actively expanding its ballistic missile arsenal and allegedly working toward developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). With a kickstart from the Soviet Union, North Korea made its way to becoming the chief exporter of ballistic missiles.Since 1998, North Korea has conducted four tests of missiles beyond medium range.

Cruise Missiles: North Korea is believed to possess and continues to develop anti-ship cruise missiles derived from the Chinese designs, and can produce variants of these missiles domestically. North Korea also possesses the Russian KH-35 anti-

ship cruise missile, which they also plan to change slightly for domestic production.

Sea-based Missiles: Since October 2014, activity at the Sinpo South Shipyard indicates that North Kore

a may be using an experimental SINPO-class submarine as a test bed for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In May 2015, North Korea conducted an underwater ejection test of a ballistic missile, likely an experiment, at the Sinpo site. Photos released by the KNCA portrayed the test as a submarine launch, but the missile was likely fired from a submerged barge. Analyses of the developments confirm that North Korea is working to develop an SLBM capability. In November 2015, North Korea again tested the KN-11, a submarine launched ballistic missile. The test failed to launch out of the water.

Nuclear Weapons:

North Korea has estimated 6-8 plutonium-based warheads, based on its known plutonium production. It is unclear if North Korea is enriching uranium to weapons grade. If so, it could have material for an additional 4-8 warheads.  In total, North Korea may have the material for an estimated 10-16 weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered in 1992 that North Korea had diverted plutonium from its civilian program for weapons purposes. The resulting crisis eventually yielded the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework, in which North Korea committed to freezing its plutonium-based weapons program at Pyongyon in exchange for two light-water reactors and other forms of energy assistance. The Agreed Framework collapsed after the United States accused North Korea of cheating on the arrangement. U.S. intelligence increasingly had suspected North Korea of pursuing a uranium-enrichment program as an alternative path to nuclear weapons, thereby violating the agreement’s spirit, as well as that of an earlier Korean peninsula denuclearization agreement.

North Korea’s failed April 2009 satellite launch was met with a United Nations Security Council condemnation and a demand that North Korea not conduct any further launches using ballistic missile technology. The North Korea responded strongly to this condemnation, withdrawing from the six party talks and declaring an intention to restart plutonium production.

North Korea then conducted its second nuclear test on June 25, 2009 with the underground detonation of a nuclear device estimated to have a yield of 2 to 6 kilotons. The UN Security Council responded with Resolution 1874, which intensified sanctions on Pyongyang. This resolution also called for UN Member States to inspect and seize North Korean cargo suspected of being in violation of the sanctions.

In November 2010, North Korea unveiled a large uranium-enrichment plant to former officials and academics from the United States. The plant contained approximately 2,000 gas centrifuges that were claimed to be operating and producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for a light-water reactor (LWR) that North Korea is constructing. This plant is estimated to be capable of producing two metric tons of LEU each year, enough to fuel the LWR reactor under construction, or to produce 40 kg of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) – enough for one to two nuclear weapons.

After the failed April 2012 missile test, which the UN Security Council condemned as a violation of many laws, the North Korean government amended its constitution to formally recognize itself as a "nuclear armed state." However, in a meeting with the foreign minister of Cambodia in July 2012, the North Korean foreign minister stated that the regime was willing to resume six party talks.

On December 12, 2012, North Korea claimed that it successfully launched a satellite into space using an Unha-3 rocket that appeared similar to the rocket used in the April 2012 failed launch.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 2087 on January 22, 2013 in response to North Korea's satellite launch, saying that Pyongyang's actions violated resolutions 1718 and 1874 because the technology required for a satellite launch has applications to ballistic missile development. Resolution 2087 strengthened existing sanctions against North Korea.

Shortly after the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2087, the North Korean Central News Agency indicated that a third nuclear test may be imminent, and that Pyongyang would test long-range rocket systems for military purposes.

On February 12, 2013, the Korean Central News Agency announced that it successfully detonated a nuclear device at its underground test site. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) detected seismic activity, likely from the explosion at the site of North Korea's first two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. radioactive gases on April 9. The CTBTO was able to deduce that there was an “explosive like detonation” that happened, but could not judge what particles were released.

Experts assess that the 2006 and 2009 tests likely used plutonium, which North Korea was known to have produced at weapons-grade levels. Pyongyang's uranium enrichment capabilities are less clear. Although a gas centrifuge was constructed, it was unclear whether uranium was being produced at weapon-grade level.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2094 on March 7, 2013 in response to the February 12 test. The resolution strengthens existing sanctions against North Korea by adding more restrictions on what they can import and export. In addition, a restraint has been made to decrease the transfer of large amounts of cash. Furthermore, restriction on importing bulk orders of materials that may be used to create weapons have been imposed.

On March 26, 2014 North Korea test-fired two medium-range Rodang missiles into the Sea of Japan, violating UN sanctions. This is the first time in five years that North Korea has tested medium-range projectiles. The next day the UN Security Council unanimously condemned North Korea for launching the midrange missiles, saying the launch violates council resolutions; China joins council in criticizing the launch. On March 30, 2014 North Korea threatened to carry out a 'new form' of nuclear test, one year after its third nuclear test which raised military tensions on the Korean Peninsula and had prompted the UN to tighten sanctions. Pyongyang did not specify what it meant by a 'new form,' but some speculated that it plans to make nuclear devices small enough to fit on ballistic missiles.

Since 2013, North Korea has been making improvements to the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, the site of the Unha rocket launches in 2012, which is ready for a fourth rocket launch.

The Sohae site now features an upgraded launch pad, capable launching rockets larger than the Unha-3. Satellite imagery from August 2014 indicates that North Korea used the site to test the rocket motor for the KN-08, initially meant as a mockup, is under development.

North Korea offered to suspend nuclear testing in January 2015 in exchange for the United States and South Korea calling off annual joint-military exercises slated for spring 2015. The United States rejected the offer. In September 2015, The U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University reported new activity at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. Satellite imagery indicates ongoing work on existing tunnels, which could be used as a bomb test site, completed construction of a new support building, and increased activity at the site’s guardhouse checkpost.

Building on a previous announcement from April 2013 declaring North Korea’s intentions to restart the reactor, Pyongyang reported in September 2015 that all the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, including the uranium enrichment plant and 5 MW graphite-moderated reactor were operating normally.

In December 2015, North Korea claimed to possess a hydrogen bomb capability. On January 6, 2016 Pyongyang announced its fourth nuclear test, declaring that it was a test of the hydrogen bomb design. As of January 6, the CTBTO confirmed that “unusual seismic activity” had been detected but whether it was hydrogen is still unconfirmed.

Proliferation Record

North Korea has been a key supplier of missiles and missile technology to countries in the developing world, particularly in politically unstable regions such as the Middle East and South Asia. Such transfers are believed to be one of Pyongyang’s primary sources of hard currency. In the past, its missile-related exports have gone to countries such as Egypt, Iran, Libya, Pakistan,

Syria, and Yemen. Although clientele for North Korea's missile exports appear to have dwindled in recent years due to U.S. pressure and UN sanctions, Iran and Syria remain customers of North Korean missile assistance, and in recent years, Pyongyang is widely believed to have provided

missile cooperation to Burma. In an Executive Order issued in July 2012, President Obama sanctioned a Burmese entity for collaborating with North Korea on the development of a medium range ballistic missile program for Burma. Such transfers are believed to be one of Pyongyang’s primary sources of hard currency. In the past, its missile-related exports have gone to countries such as Egypt, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen. Although clientele for North Korea's

missile exports appear to have dwindled in recent years due to U.S. pressure and UN sanctions, Iran and Syria remain customers of North Korean missile assistance, and in recent years,

Pyongyang is widely believed to have provided missile cooperation to Burma. In an Executive Order issued in July 2012, President Obama sanctioned a Burmese entity for collaborating with

North Korea on the development of a medium range ballistic missile program for Burma.

North Korea also has been engaged in nuclear proliferation. In April 2008, the U.S. intelligence community revealed that  Syrian facility destroyed in 2007 by an Israeli airstrike was assessed to have been an undeclared nuclear reactor under construction with North Korean assistance. The reactor design is believed to have been based on North Korea’s 5 megawatt reactor at Yongbyon. A May 24, 2011 IAEA report said that the facility “was very likely a nuclear reactor.” Pyongyang is also believed to have shipped uranium hexafluoride to Libya in 2000 for that country’s nuclear weapons program.

The 2012 Panel of Experts report to the UN Security Council indicated that between May 2011 and 2012 there had been no reported violations of sanctions concerning dual use technology or systems applicable to nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. While sanctions have seen some success in limiting North Korea's ability to acquire and sell weapons, there were reported violations by North Korea involving arms and other materials.

In November 2012, however, reports surfaced in the media that alleged that North Korea attempted to sell graphite rods to Syria. The material was reported to have been seized by South Koreans during an inspection of the ship carrying the materials in May. Japanese news sources also reported in November 2012 that in August they intercepted proliferation sensitive items bound for Burma from North Korea. In July 2013, Panama seized a ship carrying Soviet-made Cuban weapons hid amidst a shipment of sugar to North Korea. The Cuban Foreign Ministry maintained that the weapons were being transferred for repair, but the action still violated UN Security Council Resolution 1874 (2009) because no advance notification was given to the UN Security Council 1718 Committee, charged with overseeing North Korean sanctions compliance. The incident reinforced concern that North Korea continues to use illicit channels to advance its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities.

The 2013 Panel of Experts report states that sanctions have “considerably delayed” Pyongyang’s timetable and choked of considerable financial funding and access to arms, but has not halted the development of the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. The Panel highlighted shortcomings in implementation of UNSC resolutions, which create proliferation loopholes for North Korea, and recommended that sanctions be imposed on fifteen additional people and entities.

The 2014 report by the Panel of Experts again stressed the need for improved implementation. The Panel did not recommend new nonproliferation measures, but called on states to make better use of the existing tools to stem North Korean proliferation.  

In the most recent report, covering the period dating to Feb. 5, 2015, the Panel wrote that it saw no evidence of North Korea intends to cease prohibited activities, and reported “widespread evidence of resilience and adaptation” in North Korea’s efforts to circumvent sanctions. In the report the Panel recommended that sanctions be imposed on several dozen additional individuals and entities, and also made recommendations to improve enforcement of the sanctions regime.

Types of WMDsWeapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) :

The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Chemical Weapons - The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The full name of the treaty is the Convention on the Prohibition of the

Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, and it is administered by the organisation for the Production of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organization based in The Hague, Netherlands. The treaty was entered into force in 1997.

The parties’ main obligation under the convention is to prohibition use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW.

As of September, 2013, around 82% of the declared stockpile of chemical weapons has been destroyed. The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

As of October, 2013, 190 states have given their consent to be bound by the CWC. Two of the remaining six states, Israel and Myanmar, have signed but not ratified the agreement. Most recently, Syria deposited its instrument of accession top the CWC on 14th September, 2013 and agreed to its provisional application pending entry into force on 14th October, 2013.

Biological Weapons -

The Convention on the prohibition of the Development, Production and stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxic Weapons and on their Destruction (usually referred to as the Biological Weapons Convention), was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the production of an entire category of weapons:

(i) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;(ii) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

The Nonproliferation Treaty

The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. More countries have adhered to the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.  A total of 190 states have joined the Treaty, though North Korea, which acceded to the NPT in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal in 2003. Four UN member states have never joined the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.

The treaty recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). Four other states are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they

possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its nuclear weapons program.

ConclusionWith the current arsenal that DPRK holds, they pose a serious threat to many nations in the Asian peninsula and the USA. Furthermore, the biggest challenge would be locating and quantifying the number of WMDs they hold. As of 2015, North Korea has upwards of 10-16 weapons which may rise to around 100 by the end of the decade. As the tension between both nation rises, we urge this committee to focus towards the disarmament of DPRK’s WMDs.

After being cruel to it’s own citizens, does the committee really expect DPRK to follow up on what their Foreign Minister Ri had said? The DPRK Government is unlikely to ever agree to fully disarm. It has spent too much developing nuclear weapons to suddenly give up . If it was in the interests in the “whole entire world”, then ideally the Government should not have made the Nukes in the beginning. They are the only reason other nations pay attention to the otherwise small, impoverished nation.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

What steps can we take to ensure that circumstances, as seen between USA and DPRK,  do not happen between other countries?

When countries such as DPRK refrain from agreeing to treaties such as NPT, what measures can be taken to ensure the safety of other nations?

How does the use of WMD’s impact the world in the long run in terms of the environment, economic conditions, and the maintenance of international peace?

What international legislature has been violated by DPRK with regarded its WMDs?

Further Reading

http://www.theguardian.com/world/north-korea

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/04/25/north-korea-threatens-fifth-nuclear-test-u-s-should-offer-to-swap-military-exercises-for-nuke-halt/#2f7c9c3568fa

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml

INMUN 2016Disarmament and International Security Council

Agenda 2: Regulations on Air Strikes

IntroductionWhat is an airstrike?An airstrike is defined as an attack made by an aircraft. Aerial Strikes are being carried out by several Nations against extremist organization with the inherent motive to weaken them and break their resolve. The jury is still out on the efficiency and effectiveness of the aerial strikes. Several valid points have been suggested from both ends of the spectrum. Airstrikes affect the citizens as well, as many moe citizens are being killed in them, than the terrorists they are aimed at. Airstrikes occurring each day in Syria, Iraq, and ISIS controlled areas, has forced the United Nations to look for more peaceful ways to resolve the terrorist situation in a way the people of

the world can be safer, and unharmed. Is it really fair that innocent citizens are killed for no wrongdoing of theirs?

Aerial strikes can be broadly classified into two categories:Manned Airstrikes: these airstrikes are conducted by fighter planes and bombers on enemy territory during a war. The planes are operated and manned by military personnel.Unmanned Airstrikes: These airstrikes are done by UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), which are remotely controlled by a unified control command.

What May be Used in an airstrike?The weapons that may be used are governed by the principle of limitation and military necessity laid down in international humanitarian law, which imposes certain constraints on the choice of means of warfare and stipulates that their use must be necessary. The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg provides an example of this; it states that hostile operations must be aimed exclusively at securing a military advantage and prohibits the use of projectiles weighing less than 400 grams which are either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances. There are other prohibitions and regulations relating to the means that may be employed for air warfare, among which the following are the most important. — Causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. In addition to being expressly stated in Article 35, para. 2, of Additional Protocol I, this restriction stems from the application of the principle of humanity, whereby war should cause only the minimum necessary suffering: no more, as that would be inhumane and hardly effective, and no less, as that would be insufficient. — Causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The possible identification of this prohibition with the potential effects of nuclear weapons is perhaps what prevented the countries in possession of such weapons from ratifying Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions. Be that as it may, it should be borne in mind that nuclear weapons have been neither banned nor even condemned by any international treaty. Only the United Nations General Assembly condemned their use in 1953, in resolution 1653 (XVI). — The use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare. These weapons were prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which aimed to update Declaration 3 of The Hague (1899). The issue was further addressed in the 1993 Paris Convention on the total prohibition of chemical weapons. This was perhaps the most ambitious step of all, but the treaty will not enter into force until it is ratified by at least 65 countries, and 28 at the time of writing (April 1997) it had not yet been ratified by such key countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Russian Federation and Iraq. — The use of booby-traps. These are defined in Article 2 of Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. Prime examples are the booby-trapped medicines used by the Vietcong, and the booby-trapped toys used in the war in Afghanistan. — The use of biological and toxin weapons. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (1972) covers not only the agent itself but also the means of delivering the agent. It should be pointed out in that connection that while the Western world considers toxins as biological agents, in the East they are classified as chemical agents, as they are not living organisms.

How can airstrikes be conducted?

Although aerial tactics must be capable of successfully carrying out a course of action decided by the commanding officer, they must also remain within the framework defined by the law of armed conflict and therefore the following points must be taken into account. — Stratagems are legal at all times. Deceiving the enemy by camouflaging air base s, simulating traces with drones or RPVs (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), misleading by electronic means or even using the enemy’s SIF (Selective Identification Feature) or IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) to penetrate its air defense system are perfectly legal aerial tactics or methods. — Perfidy is always illegal. Perfidy is prohibited without any kind of qualification identifying it with any particular type of warfare. In other words, it is prohibited to engage in hostile acts, regardless of the military advantage they may secure, that are designed to betray the enemy’s good will. In the case of air warfare, acts such as the following would obviously be prohibited. — Using the registration of a civil aircraft. Using a commercial flight or an overflight agreement to carry out a hostile operation, such as photographic or electronic reconnaissance, the activation of air defense systems or eve n a direct attack, is prohibited. All these would be carried out over enemy territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities or over neutral territory; once the conflict has started, the normal procedure would be to declare an air exclusion zone, which would preclude any type of overflight. 29 — Using the distinctive signs of humanitarian agencies. Carrying out hostile operations of any kind, even aerial reconnaissance, under cover of aircraft registration numbers or markings belonging to neutral countries, humanitarian agencies, non-governmental organizations and international agencies engaged in eminently humanitarian or neutral functions is prohibited. — Taking advantage of special agreements, for example using medical or search-and-rescue aircraft to carry out any type of mission other than that for which they have been accorded special status. Here it should be recalled that during a conflict such aircraft require special and specific authorization to perform their tasks, within a predetermined area, with an acceptable degree of security.

Where or from where can airstrikes be conducted?Naturally, the answer is from airspace. Two dimensions must be determined in order to define airspace: projection over land and altitude. There are two theories relating to projection. The first is based on orthogonal projection over the airspace of the territory of the different States, including their territorial waters. This theory has not gained wide acceptance as it allows for airspace that falls outside the jurisdiction of any State. The second, although involving an identical projection area, is calculated by polar projection, whereby the pole is the center of the earth and the plane of projection is the surrounding airspace. This theory is currently the more widely accepted as it leaves no airspace without jurisdiction. A further requirement that must be met by the aforementioned areas if air warfare is to be legal is that they must not belong to neutral countries or be within their territorial waters, and they must not include zones accorded special status. However, as long as there is no danger to persons and property in the areas described above, defensive air operations can be carried out. The altitude relating to the areas within these airspaces will depend on the theory adopted. Indeed, acceptable altitudes have been changing with advances in aerial policing systems for detecting and intercepting aerial objectives. This responsibility inevitably rests with the authority of the country concerned, which may even resort to force in order to safeguard its neutrality. 30

Who can engage in air warfare?

The qualifications required of all the protagonists in this type of warfare, and despite the fact that in theory it may be waged by all those persons mentioned in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 43 of Protocol I, in real and historical terms combatants will most likely belong to what are known as the regular armed forces. However, there have been some anecdotal incidents involving Bosnian Serbs in the Yugoslav conflict and cases where fighter planes of the Albanian air force were seized by dissidents in Valona in 1997. In any event it may be stated as a general rule that any pilot who enters enemy territory with an aircraft bearing the prescribed distinctive markings will never lose his status as a combatant and can therefore in no way be considered as a spy. Another point should be made in regard to pilots, should they be forced down and placed hors de combat. When Additional Protocol I was being drawn up, a proposal was tabled, but not accepted, that pilots who have ejected from their aircraft in an emergency should be treated as shipwrecked persons. That would mean that they would have to be sought, recovered and cared for. This approach ran counter to the policy followed by Germany during the Second World War, whereby enemy pilots who had parachuted from their planes and were likely to land on enemy territory were shot down, while those likely to land on German territory were captured for interrogation. Ultimately it was Article 42 of Protocol I that dealt expressly with the matter of the hors de combat status of a pilot parachuting from an aircraft in distress.

HistoryOn November 1, 1911, Italian aviator Second Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti dropped four bombs on two Turkish-held oases in Libya, carrying out the world's first air strike as part of the ItaloTurkish War. Use of air strikes were extended in World War I. For example, at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle in 1915, the British Royal Flying Corps dropped bombs on German rail communications. However, it was not until World War II that the Oxford English Dictionary first records usage of the term "air strike," which remained two separate words for some time thereafter. The Second World War also saw the first development of precisionguided munitions, which were fielded successfully by the Germans, and contributed to the modern sense of air "strike," a precision targeted attack as opposed to a strafing run or area bombing. The importance of precision targeting cannot be overstated: by some statistics, over a hundred raids were necessary to destroy a point target in World War 2; by the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. Air Force was able to release to media precise footage of television- or radarguided bombs directly hitting the target without significant collateral damage (using, for example, the LANTIRN pod). On August 5, 2009, two Hellfire missiles fired from an American Predator drone crashed through the roof of a house in northwest Pakistan. Lying on the roof of his father-in-law’s house was Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. Along with Mehsud, the explosion killed his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, his wife, his uncle, a lieutenant and seven bodyguards.It took three days for mainstream news sources to confirm rumors of the Taliban leader’s death as the Taliban moved to prevent the news from leaking out. While the Pakistani newspaper Dawn ran the headline “Good Riddance, Killer Baitullah” in celebration of the death of the man believed responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistanis typically condemn similar drone strikes due to the civilian casualties they cause. In Mehsud’s case, it took sixteen strikes, fourteen months and between 207 and 321 additional deaths to finally kill him. In contrast, the American government views the drone program as one of its most effective weapons against al Qaeda and the Taliban, described by CIA director Leon Panetta as “the only game in town.”

The attack on Baitullah Mehsud highlights several questions about the effect of armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on how the United States wages war. Are these strikes an effective counterterrorism tactic, even though they may cause significant civilian casualties? Furthermore, what is the effect of factors such as the lack of media coverage on the willingness of the United States to adopt these strikes as an effective strategy? This study seeks to address these questions and evaluate changes that armed UAVs bring to modern warfare. It will begin by offering a brief background of UAVs, their development into weaponized aircraft and their use in theater. The following section will evaluate the effect of UAVs on strategic capabilities and combat doctrine, focusing both on their use in early combat operations, counterinsurgency operations and hunter-killer missions. The next section will be devoted to problems and unanswered questions about their use, including their effect on public opinion both at home and abroad, international legal issues, and limitations. This study finds that, while armed UAVs increase the capacity of the United States military to fight insurgency and irregular warfare, their use in “hunter-killer” missions will not emerge as a dominant trend in the near future.

The Evolution of Drone Warfare The idea of using a remotely-controlled, pilotless aerial vehicle emerged more than fifty years ago. However, the operational concept behind weaponized drones changed significantly over the years. The following section will provide a brief background of the evolution of weaponized UAVs, including their early use in reconnaissance missions and their expanded role by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism.The use of a remotely controlled aerial vehicle as a weapon first emerged in World War II. The first remotely piloted drone used as a weapon was the German FX-1400 or “Fritz”, which consisted of a 2,300 pound bomb, dropped from an airplane and steered by a pilot in the “mothership.” After the war, little development occurred in drone technology and most remotely piloted vehicles were used for target practice. The U.S. military’s first major expenditures on UAVs began after the Vietnam War, when the Air Force used small, long range, experimental drones called Fireflies in conducting reconnaissance over Southeast Asia. However, ensuing programs quickly ran over budget and the government deemed small propeller-powered drones too expensive to pursue on a larger scale.The Israeli Air Force’s use of their weaponized drone, the Pioneer, in the 1982 war in Lebanon reinvigorated American interest in armed UAVs. Impressed with the Pioneer, the Navy purchased several and the Reagan Administration began increasing UAV procurement and research in 1987. Powered by a 26-horsepower snowmobile engine and equipped with 16-inch guns, the Pioneer made its American debut during the Persian Gulf War. Iraqi soldiers grew to fear the ominous buzzing of the Pioneer and in one widely reported incident, a group of Republican guards became the first humans to surrender to a drone. The success of the Pioneer in Desert Storm led to the Department of Defense spending over $3 billion on UAV programs during the 1990s.Extensive use of armed UAVs began with the Global War on Terror (GWOT), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Up to this point, UAV missions were mostly those of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance purposes.

While the U.S. military employs a wide variety of UAVs, there are only three currently in use with offensive capabilities: the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-1C Sky Warrior, and the MQ-9 Reaper, all three built by General Atomics. The Predator, the most commonly used drone in the

American arsenal, can loiter at 25,000 feet for nearly 40 hours, and is equipped with two Hellfire missiles and two cameras—one infrared and one regular—that can read a license plate from two miles up. The Obama Administration had dramatically increased the number of CIA drone attacks since taking office. Under Bush, the CIA carried out only 2 strikes in 2006 and 3 in 2007. In July 2008, Bush increased the number of drone strikes, totaling 34 attacks in 2008. Most of the key CIA personnel from the Bush Administration’s drone program remain, but the Obama Administration has far outpaced its predecessor in the frequency of drone strikes. By October 19th, 2009, the CIA had conducted 41 strikes under Obama, compared with the same number over three years under former President Bush. CIA drone strikes under the Obama Administration show no signs of abating. The agency has conducted 11 strikes in Pakistan during the first month of 2010.The Effect of Armed UAVs on Military Capabilities The development of UAVs’ offensive capabilities has led to three broad operational concepts regarding the use of UAVs in combat. These concepts include the use of UAVs to: 1) suppress enemy air defense, 2) support counterinsurgency operations, and 3) find and eliminate enemy targets.

The Future of Drone Warfare It is clear that the United States military sees drone warfare as the wave of the future. The Department of Defense continues to increase its budget for unmanned systems and will purchase 24 additional Reapers and 36 additional Sky Warriors in fiscal year 2010. The UAV fleet will also continue to modernize. By the end of 2010, the Air Force’s Boeing X-45 Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) will make its first flight and the Navy’s X-47 UCAV will soon follow. UCAVs differ from armed UAVs in that UCAVs can perform similar tasks as modern manned fighter aircraft, namely defending themselves against enemy aircraft and flying at fast enough speeds to avoid surface-to-air defenses. While weaponized UAVs are currently more suitable to low-intensity conflicts like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, UCAVs will be able to participate in high- and medium-intensity conflict and could be used to suppress enemy air defenses in advance of a ground mission. Unmanned blimps, bombers, attack helicopters and surveillance and detection UAVs that resemble grasshoppers, flies, bees and spiders are all in the military’s playbook..As current trends demonstrate, weaponized UAVs will increase the capability to fight lowintensity and insurgency warfare. Armed UAVs provide troops fighting in counterinsurgency operations with several advantages. First, they provide both the surveillance and attack capabilities to carry out precise counterterrorism missions without actually deploying troops to the specific area. Removing a pilot’s life from the equation also allows UAVs to provide more accurate intelligence in pursuit of avoiding civilian casualties. Armed UAVs also shorten the kill chain to just one link, allowing ground commanders to make snap decisions and exert more control over the battlespace.The effect that UAVs will have on future warfare will depend largely on technological capabilities of the next generation of drones. In the near future, armed drones will continue to serve as a compliment to manned systems, rather than a replacement. Current ScenarioCurrently aerial strikes are being done to weaken the extremist organizations all over the globe. United States of America and its western allies are on the forefront when it comes to using air strikes as an effective weapon against extremists in the war on terror.

Data from the United States of America defense department states as follows:

Cases regarding AirstrikesIraq:September 2, 2015 Update - Coalition military forces conducted 16 airstrikes coordinated with the government of Iraq using attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL targets. Near Al Huwayjah, one airstrike struck an ISIL light machine gun firing position. Near Bayji, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL excavators. Near Fallujah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle. Near Habbaniyah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL boat and an ISIL vehicle. Near Haditha, one airstrike destroyed three ISIL VBIEDs and an ISIL excavator. Near Kirkuk, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL mortar tubes. Near Kisik, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL bunkers. Near Mosul, four airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and an ISIL observation tower and destroyed two ISIL checkpoints, two ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL excavator and an ISIL vehicle. Near Ramadi, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL buildings and an ISIL tank. Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL artillery piece, an ISIL light machine gun and an ISIL vehicle. Near Tuz, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

Syria:September 2, 2015 update - Coalition military forces conducted seven airstrikes using attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft. Near Al Hawl, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL bunker. Near Ar Raqqah, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units. Near Dayr Az Zawr, one airstrike struck an ISIL bridge. Near Kobani, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL bunker entrances. Near Mar’a, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL staging area and an ISIL vehicle.As of 4:59 p.m. EDT September 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 6,550 airstrikes (4,085 Iraq / 2,465 Syria).U.S. has 5,128 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (2,782 Iraq / 2,346 Syria)Coalition has 1,422 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (1,303 Iraq /119 Syria)

ConclusionIn conclusion, the legality and ethicality of airstrikes is still a very much disputed idea. Most countries agree that airstrikes are a violation of international law, are a breach of sovereignty, and endanger the lives of innocent people. Yet, there is a silent and mutual agreement between nations which suggests otherwise. We urge this committee to create a framework to work around these conditions and make suitable repercussions if not followed.

Questions a Resolution Must AnswerAre there any other methods other than air strikes to attack terrorist bases?

Can a system be started to regulate airstrikes Can countries conduct airstrikes on  country concerned without their consent? If so, in what

situations? How can the defense and offence nature of an airstrike be decided?

How can transparency regarding drone use improve?  

How might the global community persuade countries proliferating drones in foreign countries to halt their unregulated and unapproved actions?

In what ways can civilians be educated to improve their safety if an air strike occurs? How can an agreement be reached to draft an International Convention for air strikes?