ad-hoc unsc

STANFORD MODEL UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE 2015

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL 2065:

AD-HOC COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND GUIDE

| 2 P a g e

Stanford Model United Nations Conference 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the Chairs 3

United Nations Security Council Membership, 2065 4

History and Powers of the Security Council Through 2015 5

Security Council Reform, 2015-2065 7

A World of Change and Innovation, 2015-2065 12

A Brief Note on Crisis 16

Key Questions and Concepts 17

Suggested Resources 19

| 3 P a g e


LETTER FROM THE CHAIRS

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to SMUNC 2015! It is our pleasure to have you in this year’s ad-hoc committee, and

we look forward to working with and getting to know all of you.

As your chairs, we wanted first to briefly introduce ourselves – Ken-Ben Chao (Ben) is a junior

from Honolulu, Hawaii, studying Political Science and History, and James Underwood is a

sophomore from Fayetteville, Arkansas, studying Management Science and Engineering. Both of

us were heavily involved in Model United Nations in high school and we both continue to pursue

it here at Stanford. Please feel free to approach either of us with any questions you may have

during the conference.

Now, the reason you are here – the ad-hoc committee! This weekend, we will be simulating a

Security Council fifty years in the future. This committee will be extremely challenging. Not

only will delegates be tested for their traditional Model United Nations skills such as public

speaking, resolution writing, and personal diplomacy, but delegates will also need to apply an

intimate knowledge of international relations theory to a speculative world fifty years in the

future, all of which we have invented. While we will continue to release additional information

on our simulated history of the world between 2015 and 2065, those updates are merely meant to

situate you into the future. Your greatest asset, in addition to your traditional Model United

Nations skills, will be your ability to formulate country policy in the context of theory and the

changing world we have created for you.

This initial guide serves as a very brief introduction to our committee. You will find an overview

of the Security Council, our account of Security Council reform from 2015 to 2065, a quick

exploration of some important technological changes in that same time period, an explanation of

our committee’s approach to crisis, and some suggestions for resources and research as you

prepare for our committee.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns about

committee. We look forward to seeing you all in 2065!

With warmest regards,

Ken-Ben Chao James Underwood

[email protected] [email protected]

| 4 P a g e


UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP, 2065

Please note that following sections will provide more detailed information as to the history

leading to the composition of this body as listed here. Those states that are underlined are

permanent members. No member of the Security Council has veto power.

● Argentina

● Australia

● Brazil

● China

● Democratic Republic of the Congo

● Egypt

● France

● Germany

● India

● Indonesia

● Iran

● Italy

● Japan

● Kazakhstan

● Korea

● Kurdistan

● Mexico

● Nigeria

● Poland

● Russia

● South Africa

● Spain

● Turkey

● United Kingdom

● United States

| 5 P a g e


HISTORY AND POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL THROUGH 2015

The United Nations Security Council was founded in 1945 as an original organ of the United

Nations. Its primary purpose is to provide for international peace and security, although it is also

charged with some administrative functions such as approving new member-states and any

changes to the United Nations Charter prior to consideration by the General Assembly. The

powers, structure, and membership of the Security Council were determined at the U.N.

Conference on International Organization in 1945, at which time the Charter was first written.

The Security Council was created with 11 members, with 5 being permanent, and the other 6

serving on a rotating basis, according to geographic region. However, in 1965, the slate of non-

permanent members was expanded to 10. The General Assembly elects them, replacing 5 each

year and thus allowing for 2-year terms.

The permanent members are comprised of the major powers after World War II--the United

States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. They have maintained some of the

world’s largest militaries ever since. An important factor of the Security Council is the veto

power possessed by these states, meaning that on any substantive issue, a single “no” vote by one

of these members is enough to fail a resolution, regardless of the composition of other votes.

This was a point of contention when drafting the UN Charter, and one which specifically the

Australian delegate at the UN Conference on International Organization sought to limit.

However, due to concerns that anything less than this absolute veto power would result in the

weakening and ultimate failure of this most powerful and influential body, it was ultimately

decided that veto power should persist.

Somewhat ironically, although this veto power was created in the belief that it would strengthen

the Security Council, upon the onset of the Cold War there were significantly fewer actions taken

and resolutions passed since so much of the world was involved in these tensions between two

permanent members, who would, of course, veto any action which might have harmed their key

interests. As a result, nearly all action was taken in areas unaffected by the Cold War, such as the

United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus and the United Nations Operation in the Congo.

One key exception exists in which a resolution was passed authorizing the United States to lead a

coalition to stop the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Although the Soviet Union would

have vetoed this, the Soviet delegate happened to be boycotting the Security Council during

voting procedure and thus did not get to vote.

After the end of the Cold War, output from the Security Council expanded enormously, in terms

of both resolutions passed and peacekeeping missions begun.

| 6 P a g e


A key distinguishing factor of the Security Council is its ability to enforce its resolutions, a

power granted due to the burdens of peace and security, and the valuable lessons learned from

the failure of the League of Nations. Whereas other bodies are only able to recommend or call

upon member-states to abide by their resolutions, the Security Council is given full ability to

direct its member-states to pursue certain courses of action – and if any state refuses to do so, the

Security Council may enforce its decisions via diplomatic, economic, and even military

sanctions.

Peacekeeping operations are the United Nations’ military arm, authorized only by the Security

Council and born out of an interpretation of the Charter. These forces are sent around the world

to support the Security Council’s resolutions as well as uphold the general goals of peace and

security.

Though the issue of vetoes causing stagnation became less relevant after the end of the Cold

War, questions still persisted in 2015 regarding the merits of allowing five states to have such

power, particularly as that power was mainly derived from their victory in a war seventy years

prior. In fact, some even challenged the validity of having any permanent members.

Furthermore, reports about the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations were rather varied. The

pressure was sufficient that it seemed that some sort of change was due, although no one was

quite sure what that may entail or how it might take shape.

| 7 P a g e


SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM, 2015-2065

THE FAILURE OF FIVE

As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s second term came to a close, the United Nations began the

process of electing its next Secretary-General in 2016. Although convention and precedent

suggested that a candidate from Eastern Europe should be elected, tensions between Western

countries and Russia opened up the possibility of candidates from other regions to stand as

serious options. The lack of a female Secretary-General in the organization’s history also led to

increased calls for women to be elected to the prestigious post.

In the 2016 election, Western countries predominantly favored New Zealand’s Helen Clark, who

was then serving as the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme.

Meanwhile, Russia supported Vuk Jeremic, a former President of the General Assembly and

former Foreign Affairs Minister of Serbia. Latin American countries proposed Mexico’s Alicia

Barcena Ibarra, the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the

Caribbean, as an alternative. After some preliminary discussions and strawpolls, it became clear

that Russia would veto Clark’s candidacy, while the United States, France, and the United

Kingdom would veto Jeremic’s candidacy. Eventually, the P5 were left with a choice between

Alicia Barcena Ibarra and Bulgaria’s Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO. Although

the P5 preferred Barcena Ibarra’s unchallenging and diplomatic style, Bokova’s supporters

campaigned on her history of cooperation with the P5 countries, especially with Washington and

Moscow. Eventually, after a series of discussions and strawpolls, the P5 settled on Bokova.

Shortly thereafter, the Security Council recommended her to the General Assembly, who then

elected her the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations. She also became the first Eastern

European and the first woman to lead the organization.

Bokova began her term focused on revitalizing the outdated bureaucracy of the United Nations

Secretariat. In the succeeding reshuffle of top management positions, Bokova dramatically

increased the number of important positions held by women. She also convened a panel of

leading experts and policymakers to examine ways the United Nations could accelerate the

implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted in September 2015 and the Paris

Protocol adopted at the Twenty-First Conference of the Parties (COP21) in December 2015. In

February 2017, just over one year she took office, Bokova issued These Common Ends, a report

that focused on U.N. reform and restructuring in light of new challenges faced by the

organization in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century. These Common Ends

also included a number of proposals as to how the Security Council might be reformed in the

coming future.

| 8 P a g e


By the end of her first term, Bokova was celebrated as one of the best and most influential

Secretary-Generals in the history of the United Nations. Supporters compared her to Dag

Hammarskjold and Kofi Annan. She easily won a second term.

During her second term, Bokova focused increasingly on Security Council reform. While the

Uniting for Consensus movement’s call for an expansion of non-permanent seats proved to be a

desirable proposal for the majority of U.N. member-states that believed additional permanent

seats would merely increase the disparity in influence, each of the G4 countries (Brazil,

Germany, India, and Japan) lobbied extensively to secure the support of their fellow member-

states. However, member-states from Africa and the Muslim world expressed their concern that

no African or Muslim country would be represented in the proposed expansion of permanent

membership. To gain the support of the larger African bloc, the G4 countries agreed to allow an

African country to join their ranks, leading to a mad scramble by African countries to secure that

last seat. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Senegal, and Rwanda were

quickly eliminated as serious contenders, leaving Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa as the top

candidates for the position. In the ensuing campaign, representatives from each of the three

governments launched vicious diplomatic attacks on each other, but it soon became apparent that

Nigeria, with the largest economy in Africa and consistent commitments to U.N. peacekeeping,

would win the support of the rest of Africa. To avoid public humiliation, Egypt withdrew and

gave its support to Nigeria, but South Africa continued to challenge Nigeria. At the African

Union Cairo Summit of 2024, Nigeria decisively won the support of its fellow African countries,

with the South African delegation storming out of the meeting in protest. The debacle of the

Cairo Summit contributed to the growing rivalry and cold war between Nigeria and South

Africa.

With Nigeria joining Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan to form the Group of Five (G5), Bokova

publicly endorsed their campaign for permanent seats, earning her the ire of the Uniting for

Consensus movement. However, the United States, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom all

publicly issued statements in support for expanded permanent membership. Private diplomatic

negotiations assured the P5 countries that their veto power would not be threatened or extended

to new permanent members. At first, China seemed to be amenable to permanent membership

expansion, with President Hu Chunhua publicly supporting Brazil and Germany at joint press

conferences. However, it was soon reported that Japanese and Indian diplomats had privately

justified their bids for permanent membership as a means of countering Chinese influence across

the world, prompting outrage from both the Chinese government and public. The diplomatic

situation continued to deteriorate after this incident, culminating in a public promise by President

Hu to veto any expansion of permanent membership that included Japan or India. Further

discussions proved to be fruitless and the G5 members withdrew their proposed draft resolution

from Security Council debate.

| 9 P a g e


Although she continued her effective campaign at U.N. reform with vigor and dynamism, the

final years of Secretary-General Bokova’s second term remained marred by the diplomatic defeat

of the G5.

LEGAL LOOPHOLE OR COUNCIL CORRUPTION?

In 2026, the Security Council and General Assembly elected Portugal’s Miguel de Serpa Soares,

who had previously served as Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, to succeed Irina

Bokova as Secretary-General of the United Nations. Serpa Soares was supposed to be a

competent administrator capable of applying his knowledge of international law to achieve

greater U.N. objectives, and by nearly all accounts, he was – however, one particular event in

2034, nearly at the end of his second term, permanently discredited his reputation to many.

At a rather typical session of the Security Council, a man by the name of Shripati Naveen

represented the Indian delegation. His elder brother, Vasant, had been groomed for several years

to take on the role. In fact, he had been pivotal in the movement to gain permanent membership

for the G5 countries, both in befriending Bokova and in lobbying other member-states to approve

of the plan. However, when it ultimately failed, Vasant was publicly disgraced in India and

overcome by a deep depression, feeling as if his years of efforts to secure permanent membership

for India had been fruitless.

Shripati had since then felt an obligation to his brother to avenge this notion of worthlessness, to

prove that Vasant’s work was instrumental, yet unfinished. In the name of diplomacy, of course,

he never mentioned such an idea to anyone though he continued to brood on it as he rose through

the ranks and eventually was named the delegate to represent India in the Security Council

during its 2034-2036 term as a non-permanent member.

On Monday, October 16, 2034--exactly nine years after the draft resolution of the G5 was

officially withdrawn – in a most extraordinary feat of diplomacy, delegates from the Permanent

Five were mysteriously absent from Council proceedings. The delegate from Spain, the Security

Council’s President for the month of October, was utterly bewildered but nonetheless declared

that the session ought to go on as originally planned after delaying for nearly an hour and a half

waiting for the P5’s arrivals and calling to no avail.

Less than an hour into the day, Shripati brought forward a draft resolution remarkably similar to

the one disposed of nine years earlier. However, this was even more revolutionary – in addition

to adding the original G5 countries (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, and Nigeria) to the slate of

permanent member states, the proposal would add five more slots for non-permanent members,

thus significantly raising the number of seats on the Council. But most dramatically of all, the

| 10 P a g e


draft resolution sought to remove veto power entirely – with the caveat that 19 of 25 members

would need to pass any substantive matter, thus strengthening a no vote from any member.

This immediately caused uproar in the room – a new proposal to include the G5 as permanent

members could have potentially been passed with China absent from the room, as they were

originally the state with the most serious reservations. However, the mere prospect of removing

veto power would have been immediately shut down if even one permanent member state had

been present. At that moment, none of them were.

In the ensuing chaos, delegates discussed numerous points: the fact that it was the nine-year

anniversary of the initial proposal’s failure, the need to act quickly if this was actually going to

happen, as who knew when the other delegates were going to return, questions of the legality of

such a measure, reservations that, even if legal, the moral problems associated with such a drastic

change without the consent of the P5. Nevertheless, the ten members present established a

consensus that such a change had been necessary and long awaited. They suspected the

possibility of inappropriate actions by Shripati Naveen in arranging such a situation, but agreed

that on a purely technical level, those actions were independent of the present situation.

Finally, the President of the Security Council brought in Serpa Soares to determine whether or

not they could legally proceed with the matter. Secretary-General Serpa Soares cited precedent

and the legality of the vote when the Soviet Union was absent for a substantial vote during the

Cold War, claiming he knew of nothing that could technically nullify any matter passed with

those states absent. After all, the P5 would merely be considered abstaining and there was no

procedural rule that required the presence of the P5 to establish quorum. He did strongly caution

delegates, however, reminding them of the likely backlash they would face and the worldwide

uproar that would ensue (though a portion would likely be positive), as well as criminal action

that could be taken against individual delegates if foul play was assumed.

The resolution passed, with nine members voting yes and Spain abstaining (as the delegate felt

that was his duty as the President of the Council in such uncertain circumstances). The new

provisions were to be adopted two years thereafter, in 2036.

The delegates from the P5 returned the next day. When they were notified, they were so

distraught and caused such chaos that the Security Council did nothing substantial for the rest of

the session. Over the next several years, investigations by United Nations legal specialists

pushed the adoptive date back time after time. None of the fifteen delegates returned to the

United Nations after that year, with most opting to live private lives in their home countries and

stay far removed from the debacle. The majority felt that the decision made in the heat of the

moment would prove to be successful long-term, though they felt enormous guilt over the

circumstances. Of course, Shripati was not afforded this luxury, as he was tried on five counts of

| 11 P a g e


assault through poison (chemical tests had confirmed that a new drug which knocks its users out

for around 36 hours, often compared to but stronger than traditional sedatives, had been

identified in all five delegates) and one count of interference with diplomacy. Though all knew

that foul play of some sort had occurred, there was never sufficient proof that Shripati was

directly involved. He returned to India a hero.

In 2038, it was at last ruled that although the circumstances surrounding the historic vote were

definitely uncertain and potentially criminal, that was not sufficient cause to lawfully overturn

the decision. The International Court of Justice refused to review the case and the General

Assembly gleefully passed annual resolutions reaffirming the Security Council vote of 2034,

much to the dismay of the P5. Thus, the new regulations would go in place in 2040, after a delay

of four years. By this time, although the P5 were continuing to fight the case, the states had

begun coming to terms with the inevitability of the situation. Thus, although the change in 2040

was bitterly spoken of by some, it was not disputed and the change went smoothly.

Though eventually allowed, the lack of action by Serpa Soares to dissuade delegates from voting,

even though it was within their bounds, cost him his reputation among several prominent leaders.

Secretaries-General since have largely avoided the issue of Security Council reform, and now,

twenty-five years later, the world accepts it as a much more excellent system than it had been

before.

| 12 P a g e


A WORLD OF CHANGE AND INNOVATION, 2015-2065

SPACE EXPLORATION

Upon the success of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto in July 2015, a newly sparked

interest in space and its exploration arose in the general public. Private companies such as Elon

Musk’s SpaceX and Mars One became more and more involved in the industry, although

national organizations continued to receive ample funding. These two distinct types soon

diverged in their intent; while governmental agencies operated to conduct general research and

set up high tech defense systems, others focused on developing the potential for massive future

profit through mining and tourism. The two groups are often at odds with one another.

Among the most notable developments:

● In 2016, SpaceX, founded by the billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, launches the first

manned flight of its Dragon V2 spacecraft, taking seven astronauts to the International

Space Station.

● The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Space Systems launches the first manned flight of

its Dream Chaser, designed to provide orbital taxi services, in 2017.

● NASA sends four people – two men and two women – to the moon in 2019, on the

fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. The purpose of the mission is publicly

declared to be research, but it is widely rumored that they are setting up surveillance and

intelligence systems.

● China, Germany, Russia, and Japan all send their first men to the moon between 2020

and 2023. The cost plays a major role in the 2021 recession in China. It is confirmed that

NASA set up defense technology, and these four countries do the same after a U.N.

ruling that states are free to do so as long as they do not interfere with already existing

infrastructure set up by other states. This raises concerns over space colonization and the

militarization of space.

● Deep Space Industries begins mining asteroids in 2024. Investors are flourishing.

● Mars One sends its team of four astronauts to the Red Planet in 2028, two years behind

schedule. They arrive in 2029 with the mission of setting up infrastructure for a future

permanent colony. However, they die suddenly in 2030, supposedly of a freak infection.

The public is outraged, and Mars One is immediately disbanded. Research and

development of Mars colonization is briefly postponed.

● In 2036, NASA opens the first space elevator. China, Germany, Russia, and Japan are

allowed limited use. It reaches up about 24 miles and is designed to remove the need for

massive rockets to get spacecraft out of orbit. Manned moon missions become common.

● Space Entertainment Corporation (SEC) opens a tourism space elevator in 2039.

| 13 P a g e


● In 2046, Deep Space Industries has a mining mission go incredibly wrong, and

mistakenly sends an asteroid hurtling toward the SEC elevator. NASA steps in to destroy

it, but the emergency mission costs millions. Though DSI pays back the damages, there is

growing concern about the dangers of profit as a sole motive for space companies when

such a risky environment is at hand.

● In 2052, SEC begins offering tourists a moon shuttle from its elevator. It features a close

look at the Chinese defense systems from within a contained area.

● In 2056, a tourist leaves the allowed observation area on the moon, approaches the

defense systems, and destroys China’s infrastructure. He then takes off his suit, killing

himself. This is the first death on the moon. Billions of dollars in damage are done. The

SEC halts all operations to devise more stringent requirements and checks for those

travelling to space.

● China rebuilds its defense systems by 2058, and all states incorporate advanced security,

which was unnecessary before moon tourism but an absolute must after the recent event.

● In 2060, a joint effort by the United States and the European Union establishes the first

permanent human colony on Mars.

● The SEC never reopens as an independent company. However, it is acquired in 2061 by

the Walt Disney Company, which opens DisneyUniverse on the moon in 2064.

ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY

Large strides have been made in innumerable areas, including medicine, biotech, and artificial

intelligence. Many changes are perceived as welcome by all, others are hotly contested, and a

few bring out fear and anger in the vast majority of people. A summary is below.

● In 2015, a new method of in-vitro fertilization is developed that allows for three-person

babies. This method allows for DNA from both parents to be combined with donor DNA

for mitochondria, preventing a rare, potentially fatal disease that causes muscle weakness,

a severe lack of energy, and heart failure. The process is highly controversial but is

proven to be safe.

● In 2017, the i5K Project, designed to sequence the genomes of five thousand insects and

related arthropod species, is completed. The project is expected to allow pesticides to

target weak areas of insect DNA and dramatically improve the quality of pesticides in

targeting specific pests while reducing damage to beneficial insects.

● In 2020, there is a measles epidemic originating in the United States, leading to the repeal

of any and all religious exemptions permitted for vaccinations.

● In 2024, Apple Technologies begins hiring en masse top-level artificial intelligence

experts. Google quickly follows suit.

| 14 P a g e


● In 2030, Biogen, Inc. announces they have discovered how to efficiently weaponize HIV.

Scientists marvel, the public is outraged, and governments largely remain silent, leading

many to suspect some states have invested in this new technology.

● In 2037, Apple Technologies and Google announce a partnership for the sole purpose of

AI, publicly stating that competition between the two had yet to cause any breakthroughs

for either.

● In 2042, the United States and India announce that they have jointly developed a nuclear

fusion power plant, capable of producing significantly more energy than all previous

nuclear fission facilities. The technology is expensive, but plans for widespread

implementation are drawn.

● In 2044, GeneTech Operations (GTO) announces all large mammals on the endangered

list have had their genomes sequenced.

● By 2046, advances in nanotechnology and genetics have allowed sophisticated

technologies to be implemented into the human body, allowing people to combat disease

in more effective ways and achieve full immersion virtual reality.

● In 2049, GTO claims it has successfully sequenced the genomes of the tyrannosaurus rex,

the triceratops, and the brontosaurus.

● In 2051, French doctor Leone Saucier discovers a breakthrough in cancer treatment. The

Saucier procedure earns her the Nobel Prize in Medicine and is believed to be three times

as effective as chemotherapy, with a process that takes approximately half that time.

● By 2055, the growing power of AI has allowed it to play significant roles in business and

government decision making, generating great public concern over the widespread

“infiltration” of AI into society.

● In 2062, the ever-silent Apple/Google partnership announces a machine they have created

which appears to be completely conscious--through extensive testing, they say, they have

shown that it looks and acts like a regular human. The caveat is that they are unsure

whether these feelings are genuine, developed by the AI itself, or if they are perfectly

simulated. There is public concern about the secrecy of these operations.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

● Though the cost of solar power has been lowered, it has not yet been enough to cause

widespread change, although further research is ongoing.

● The 2020s are marked by increasing competition for resources, particularly crude oil and

natural gas. Climate change is leaving a dramatic effect on world food and water

supplies, sparking local and regional conflicts.

● The 2030s see the beginning of mass human migration away from areas heavily affected

by climate change, creating widespread social unrest. Natural disasters, with destructive

power significantly augmented by climate change, leave devastation across the world.

Countries begin to implement clean and renewable energy on a mass scale, which

| 15 P a g e


coupled with the development of nuclear fusion energy, allows countries to dramatically

reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

● The world’s population leveled off at around 10 billion in 2060, but even then, this has

put a lot of pressure on agriculture. Nearly all food is now genetically modified, a

necessity to ensure production keeps up with demand. However, many have raised

concerns over this and maintain that the inherent problem is the logistics of food supply

given how much global waste there is, and that a more efficient mechanism would largely

remove the need for GMOs.

● By 2060, entire countries and ecosystems have been devastated by climate change. Many

famous species, including polar bears, Bengal tigers, and rhinoceroses are now extinct

outside of captivity, primarily due to habitat loss. They are also projected to go extinct in

captivity due to low mating rates within the next 50 years. There is discussion about

using new genetic technology to recreate herds and herds of these animals and get them

flourishing again. Biological diversity has been severely reduced by climate change, and

scientists are considering new ways to reverse this damage.

| 16 P a g e


A BRIEF NOTE ON CRISIS

As you have probably noticed, this committee is going to be different, in many ways, than those

to which you are most accustomed. Therefore, we want to clear up any confusion over the style

of committee that we will be running, particularly regarding “GA” and “Crisis.” This committee

will combine elements of the classic “GA” and the “crisis” committee. As in a GA, you are

representing your country as a delegate, or in the case of our committee, the Permanent

Representative of your member-state to the United Nations. This means you should base your

arguments and writings on the agenda of your state, rather than any personal agenda.

However, to keep things entertaining, we will allow very limited crisis notes. Each of you will be

assigned the personal character of a Permanent Representative to the United Nations, which

means you will bring with you the political resources and connections of your personal character.

While you may not be able to tap the economic or military power of your country at will, you

will certainly be able to communicate with your respective governments and other outside forces.

However, there will be crises throughout the weekend! It will be up to you all, as delegates, to

find fast but thorough solutions to a handful of problems that will spring up throughout the world

During crisis situations, directives are acceptable; however, outside of these time periods, we do

ask for full resolutions.

| 17 P a g e


KEY QUESTIONS AND CONCEPTS

The following questions are designed to give you a sense of direction to your research and

preparation for committee. As stated before in this initial guide, this committee will test for your

ability to apply international relations theory to the world we will gradually unveil to you over

the next few weeks. Key concepts and terms are provided for you in bold. Please be aware that

this is not an exhaustive list of concepts and questions in international relations theory, but

rather, a list of suggested concepts that you familiarize yourself with prior to our committee.

What is anarchy in international relations? How does international anarchy affect

international politics?

What does sovereignty mean? How have definitions of sovereignty evolved over the past

century, and how might those definitions change in the future?

What is realism in the context of international relations? What are the differences

between classical realism, neorealism, defensive realism, and offensive realism?

What is liberalism in the context of international relations? What role do international

institutions play in maintaining peace and security across the world?

What is constructivism in the context of international relations? What norms and values

drive state action on the international level?

What is the balance of power and does balance of power politics create a stable or

peaceful international environment? Why or why not?

What are the core national interests? What are the tools of national policy which may be

used to achieve those national interests?

What is the security dilemma, and how is it affected by the offense-defense balance?

How have previous innovations in military technology affected the security dilemma and

the offense-defense balance?

How can an arms control regime be effective and enforceable? Do arms control and

disarmament regimes actually contribute to a more peaceful international environment?

What is collective security and how does it affect war and peace between states?

| 18 P a g e


What do democratic peace theory and commercial peace theory predict about

international relations? What is the evidence in favor of and against these theories? What

policy implications do these theories have, if they are correct?

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) suggests that the world is more stable when there is a

single dominant world power. What is the evidence in favor of and against HST? What is

the relationship between the declining and rising hegemon? What factors contribute to the

power of a hegemon?

What is just war theory and what are the considerations behind the theory? How do

preemptive and preventive wars factor into just war theory?

What is the polarity of the international system? Is it unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, or

nonpolar? How does this polarity affect the security environment of the world?

How will new technologies affect hard power and soft power? Is power becoming more

diffuse in the future? Why or why not? How do these shifts in power affect the security

environment?

What factors drive cooperation between states? What are the various forms that

cooperation can take? How can game theory be applied for a rational analysis?

What is deterrence and how do new technologies affect deterrence strategies?

How do states achieve political, economic, and social development? What is

modernization theory and is it an accurate model for how states develop?

What factors drive social unrest and political instability, and what steps can be taken by

the Security Council to address these problems? How can peacekeeping be adapted to

better suit the needs of maintaining international peace and security?

| 19 P a g e


SUGGESTED RESOURCES

The following resources are listed for your convenience and research. Please note that we are not

asking you to read every single title listed below. A good understanding of the many concepts

and ideas covered by the following resources will leave you more than adequately prepared for

committee. If there is a particular title that interests you, perhaps you may choose to explore that

resource further. Otherwise, reading a synopsis or summary can prove more than adequate. We

hope that this list of resources will prove useful to you not only in your preparation for our

committee, but also in your future academic and educational pursuits.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, by Robert

Keohane

Arms and Influence, by Thomas C. Schelling

Man, the State, and War, by Kenneth Waltz

Neorealism and Its Critics, by Robert Keohane

Perception and Misperception in International Politics, by Robert Jervis

Politics Among Nations, by Hans Morgenthau

“Rationalist Explanations for War,” by James D. Fearon

Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation, by

Charles L. Glaser

Social Theory of International Politics, by Alexander Wendt

The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, by Hedley Bull

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, by Samuel P.

Huntington

The Future of Power, by Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

The Post-American World: Release 2.0, by Fareed Zakaria

Theory of International Politics, by Kenneth Waltz

The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the

Battle Against Fate, by Robert D. Kaplan

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, by John J. Mearsheimer

World Order, by Henry Kissinger

| 20 P a g e


HISTORY AND CURRENT EVENTS

“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, by Samantha Power

Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger

From Beirut to Jerusalem, by Thomas L. Friedman

No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, by Reza Aslan

The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides

The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations, by Paul

Kennedy

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from

1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy

The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International

Relations, by E. H. Carr

United Nations: A History, by Stanley Meisler

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Civilization: The West and the Rest, by Niall Ferguson

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond

Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization

of Democracy, by Francis Fukuyama

Political Order in Changing Societies, by Samuel P. Huntington

The Age of Sustainable Development, by Jeffrey D. Sachs

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution, by

Francis Fukuyama

The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas L. Friedman

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, by Naomi Klein

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, by Daron Acemoglu

and James. A. Robinson

ad-hoc unsc

Documents

committee background

years ad

kenben chao ben

simulated history

speculative world

changing world

world of change

chairs dear delegates