committee on disarmament and international … on disarmament and international security – study...

Committee on Disarmament and

International Security

Committee on Disarmament and International Security – Study Guide Page 1/23 Revision: 11/12/2013

History of the Committee

The General Assembly comprises of thirty committees. The Disarmament and International Security (DISEC) is the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly six ‗main committees.‘ As stated in Article 26 of the UN Charter, DISEC‘s mandate is, “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world‘s human and economic resources”. Topics that are discussed by DISEC are also debated in the UN Security Council although DISEC cannot advise the Security Council on decisions. However, they can refer individual topics to the Security Council to consider and debate. The resolutions that are produced by DISEC from debate are valuable policy guidelines because every member state of the UN is represented.

DISEC deals with a range of topics from illicit small arms trafficking to conflicts around non-proliferation of biological and chemical weapons and terrorism. Numerous documents on international disarmament, which are still important to the world to this day, started out in DISEC. Some of these documents include the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the Biological Weapons Conventions (BWC). Recently, DISEC has been focusing on both nuclear weapons as well as other non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. They have also discussed the disarmament of outer space and prevention of a space arms race, as well as ways to address issues involving regional security.

Although DISEC does not have the power to impose sanctions or to authorize armed interventions, it serves as the first level of discussion for most recent issues in the disarmament and security sphere. Resolutions passed by DISEC function as constitutive basis for General Assembly resolutions or are submitted as recommendations to the Secretariat or Security Council. DISEC is the platform best suited for the discussion and achievement of possible changes in the attitude of the nations that are still producing great amounts of cluster bombs. Due to the fact that all the member states are represented equally in this committee and a simple majority is needed to pass a resolution, it is quite a powerful committee in the United Nations.


Topic A

From soldier to civilian

The end of a war requires more than the introduction of a ceasefire, a peace agreement or the deployment of peacekeeping forces. It is marked by bringing back security and stability to society as a whole. The prerequisites, however, are disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of the people. In other words: an effective peace and security architecture is contingent on the societal transformation from soldier to civilian. But what does constitute a soldier if not his weapon? Would it not be the best to prevent his arming in the first place?

Deplorably, the trade on arms is also business and in fact a highly profitable one even in the era of financial crises. The worldwide turnover of conventional arms transfers in 2012 amounts approximately 8 million dollars1, twice as high as formerly expected.

The corresponding counter value averages a worldwide circulation of 600 million conventional arms.2

The adverse effects these facts and figures have on society are disturbing. Every day thousands of people suffer from armed conflict and violence. They are killed, injured, raped and displaced. Innocent civilians are tortured, livelihoods come in for armed repression and children are deprived of a better future.

Investments in the advancement of humanity are exposed to the constant threat of weaponry. Energy and resources which are of vital importance for the establishment of educational programs, health care, social services and infrastructure become absorbed in arms transfers and poverty is subsequently aggravated.

Serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law add up on the list. It is for a reason why small weaponry can be described as the real weapons of mass destruction. People fall victim to the use of small weapons daily without a great deal of attention. The unregulated trade of small weaponry has plagued humankind for too long.

“The world is overarmed and peace underfunded” and negotiations for a clear framework are long overdue. Ban Ki-moon calls upon the international community to set the historical milestone which will enhance peace building and peace keeping for the purpose of making this world to a better place.

“Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding arms trade treaty. It will take flexibility, good faith and the best from all of us. But we must aim for nothing less.” 3

1 http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/un-studie-umsatz-mit-kleinwaffen-knallt-durch-die-

decke/7062180.html 2 http://www.un.org/disarmament/over-armed/ 3 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sgsm14394.doc.htm


Historical overview of an international arms trade treaty

On the initiative of Óscar Arias Sánchez, the former president of Costa Rica, and in cooperation with fellow Nobel Peace Laureates a code of conduct on international arms transfers was compiled in 1997.

With the objective of making armed violence and “its vestiges a distant memory of the past”4 a road map of stringent principles that ought to bind all future arms transfer decisions universally was drafted.

Imports, exports and military trainings are conditioned to the criteria of respecting human rights, humanitarian law, sustainable development, peaceful coexistence and arms embargoes decreed by the Security Council.

Therefore nations are obligated to incorporate the code in their jurisdiction, to implement mechanism for the effective realization and to provide transparency by giving reports to the Secretary General of the United Nations pertaining the progress. The pioneers of the arms trade treaty further point out that the international commitment to for arms trade regulations is already in existence by referring to article 26 of the United Nations Charter stating that “the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating […] a system for the regulation of armaments.”5

In 2003 the initiative gained fresh impetus by non-governmental organizations joining in. Amnesty International and Oxfam Great Britain among others campaigned for negotiating an arms trade treaty under the auspices of the United Nations and succeeded eventually in December 2006.

By adopting resolution 61/89 the way towards an legally binding agreement was paved. With the utmost majority in favor, 24 abstentions and only the United States of America opposing, the international community decided upon entering negotiations pertaining the establishment of high common standards.

The convention was followed up with the Secretary General requesting the member states to submit their views on feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a legal instrument which were published in 2007. Additionally a group of governmental experts (GGE) was formed as requested in the resolution 61/68 which was later complemented by the creation of an open-ended working group.

In 2009 the General Assembly agreed on convening a conference on the issue of the arms trade treaty headed by four sessions of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom).

4 http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/05/00_nobel-code-conduct.htm 5 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml


The Foreign Office Minister of the United Kingdom designated the importance of the UN conference on the Arms Trade Treaty which took place in New York, July 2012 by saying that “ it is an over-used phrase but this really is a historic moment.”6 Initiated by civil society activists the overdue regulation of international arms transfers eventually receives the world leaders' attention which is indispensable to stem the tide of armed violence globally.

The United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty 2012

Negotiations commenced with high expectations in New York, July 2012. However, within the set four weeks euphoria gave finally way to disillusionment. Key actors such as the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China among others blocked the adoption of the potential treaty in the last minute by claiming more time.

The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded to the failure of reaching agreement by calling the outcome a major “setback”. Nevertheless, he simultaneously acknowledged the achievement of substantial common ground brought forward by the 193 Member States which gives hope of finalizing the establishment of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) within the set time frame of 2012.7

The purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been defined by the United Nations General Assembly as the establishment of “legally binding common standards on the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.8

The cornerstones of equal sovereignty and non-interference as stipulated in the United Nations Charter are not tangent of the treaty and will under no circumstances become intruded.

The treaty's focus solely lies on the international trade which ought to be subjected to common international standards which will curb irresponsible arms transfers. The loopholes of the international law at the interface between commercial and human rights need to be filled to counter the adverse ramifications of unregulated international trade on conventional weaponry. The state's inalienable right of producing, transferring and retaining conventional arms which deem necessary for self-defense, law enforcement and active participation in peacekeeping operations according to article 51 of the United Nations charter will not be a part of the potential ATT.

However, it remains a matter of fact that a global regulation inevitably touches core national interests for instance economic concerns and legal conditions which are in all probability concurrently causative for the halting progress.

During deliberations it is indispensable to universally agree on the scope, parameters and criteria with the objective of passing a treaty which is robust, all inclusive and practicable. 6 http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/arms-control/arms-trade-treaty/ 7 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42585#.UHPtQxUxow8 8 http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/controlling/att


Scope

Types of items:

The scope respectively the types of items expounds what can be regarded as conventional arms and will be covered by future regulations. To serve a strong and robust ATT the list of items under control must be comprehensive and practicable to the same degree. Therefore the scope is under fervently discussions which are characterized by commonalities as well as disparities of the international community of states.

The seven categories represented in the United Nations register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA) lend itself as a potential base. According to the register the following arms can be described as the “most offensive ones”9

1. Battle tanks 2. Armed combat vehicles 3. Large-caliber artillery systems 4. Combat aircraft 5. Attack helicopters 6. Warships 7. Missiles and missile-launchers

However, a majority of states have voiced concerns over the incompleteness of the listed categories and call for the inclusion of small arms and light weapons (SALW) known as the '7+1' formulation.

In this context it is necessary to distinguish the purpose of the UNROCA from the ATT.

UNROCA was tailored with the objective of enhancing transparency via the member states' voluntary disclosure of information in contrast to the ATT which will provide a legal binding framework to guide the future control of conventional arms internationally and to monitor national trade decisions in this respect. For this reason the list of covered items ought to be more holistic in order to avoid loopholes from the outset.

The term '7+1+1' expresses the concept of augmenting the scope with the factor of munition. Member States differ considerably on this category by arguing that the definitions of ammunition and munitions are characterized by a very thin but very important line. Whilst the former can also be defined as “the projectiles with their fuses, propelling charges, or primers fired from guns” the latter may comprise ammunition and can be specified as “armament”.

9 http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/


Furthermore the transfer control of munitions is considered to be difficult to apply and demands for a broad marking and tracing mechanism.

In addition states support the inclusion of parts, components and technology since the international arms trade is also characterized by a global supply chain which is at high risk to become exposed to diversion.

Naturally “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”, however, a comprehensive ATT requires the coverage of all structural items which deem necessary for the production of conventional arms.10

For implementation it is of vital importance to factor that these units can be assigned to civilian purposes also. Hence the distinction needs to be drawn carefully.

Several parties call for the further addition of categories addressing electric-shock guns and tear gas among others.

To encompass the wide array of potential items the alternative concept of establishing a negative list has emerged. The so-called “All conventional Weapons (except)” or “Yes, unless” approach would provide the solution of solely listing the exceptions which will not be subject to the ATT instead of extensively elaborating the positive list.

In any case the ATT must be able to be updated and modified to be on a par with the constantly evolving weaponry.

Type of transactions

Secondly the activities need to be defined which will fall within the scope of the ATT.

States have mostly concerted agreement pertaining to the categories transfer, import and export of conventional arms. In this respect it has been under discussion to exclude Sate party's delivery of conventional arms to their outside forces. Only when the ownership changes or the weaponry remain abroad, they will be brought under control.

A further component of negotiations is the issue of brokering and closely related operations. Brokers identify markets and monitor deals in correspondence to the buyers’ requirements. Although several nations have already incorporated mechanisms in their legal systems to guard brokering activities it is of utmost importance to form parameters which are universally binding to ensure that these deals solely serve the purpose of self-defense and law enforcement and do not bolster illicit commerce.

10 http://www.unidir.org/pdf/activites/pdf19-act537.pdf


Carrying out transactions often requires stopovers and transhipment as well as the inclusion of third actors. The involvement of multiple players and the chain like transfers contain a risk to facilitate criminal activities. Transhipment is therefore another possible category for the scope of the ATT.

The aspect of manufacture under foreign license which is defined as “a direct commercial arrangement between a company in one country and a foreign government, international organization, or foreign company, providing for the transfer of production information which enables the foreign government, international organization, or commercial producer to manufacture, in whole or in part, an item of defense equipment.”11 up on the list of activities. The inclusion equips the ATT with the mechanism of assessing these arrangements before granting licenses.

Divergences have emerged among the international community regarding the expansion of transfers in technology. Several states have argued that constraining the free technology flow will compromise development and intensify disparities in the level of technical progress. The reverse conception considers unregulated transfer of technology as a possible cause to bolster illicit practices.

The inclusions of financing as well as research and development (R&D) applying to conventional weaponry have been debated controversially. States questions whether such detailed aspects which are hardly controllable serve the provision of a comprehensive but also practicable ATT.

Parameters and criteria

To complement the scope of the ATT, States have to agree upon a binding framework of parameters to clearly determine under which circumstances transfers of conventional arms ought to be prohibited. These parameters are defined as objective and non-discriminatory conditions which are universally applicable to the listed transactions. While the close relationship between human rights law and irresponsible arms transfer is de facto clearly recognizable, the act of legal transposition comprises practical difficulties. The language of criteria and parameters needs to be worded unequivocally to avoid varying degrees of application of the set provisions.

Hence the transfer of conventional weaponry must be denied if there exists a substantial risk of facilitating serious violations of human rights. Prior to the authorization of the proposed transfer, state actors have to ensure on a case-by-case basis that the end-user in question respectively the specific recipient state will not utilize the armed supply to cause serious contraventions of human rights.

Crimes of humanity, war crimes and genocide are blatant breaches of multiple international agreements and fundamentally violate the United Nations Charter. 11 Wood, Background Paper: Scope, 2010, p. 8-9


The peremptory status of these norms already legally bind the international community to deny all sort of activities to a state which commits crimes of humanity, war crimes and genocide. To signalize how easily armed violence can facilitate these crimes and to raise awareness, a comprehensive ATT need to entail these criteria.

In addition there have been proposals for including the criteria of gender-based violence. Some may argue that the enforcement of female rights is already covered by the inclusion of human rights as a whole. However, it is undeniable that women and children are most vulnerable in confrontation with an unregulated arms trade. Consequently, they require specific protection which can be achieved by adding a parameter particular addressing gender differences.

Due to the fact that the unregulated arms trade is considered to be among the main causes aggravating poverty and paralyzing social-economic development, these categories are imperative for a holistic set of criteria.

Government expenditures on weaponry deplete financial resources and divert limited funds away from public services. Investments in education infrastructure and health care sectors are neglected.

Any advancement of humanity is decisively undermined by the widespread availability of weapons. People are deprived from building a better future due to the constant threat of armed violence. Irresponsible transfers of weaponry exacerbate the vicious circle of poverty, despair and violence and causes major setbacks in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Moreover, there has been mutual understanding to place special attention on trading arms with non-state actors in view of the facts that these operations contain a high risk to be conducive to transnational organized crime, terrorism, corruption.

Illegal and terrorist activities in particular take high advantages from the loopholes generated by the unregulated trade. To free the world from constant fear and insecurities, a responsible trade can only be generated in consideration of these aspects.

Transparency mechanisms

Once the ATT will have been brought into force by international consensus, Member States are obligated to incorporate the treaty into their jurisdiction. The process of enforcement in common with the full implementation requires transparency instruments at both national and international levels for the establishment of mutual confidence.

Many States are already in funds of domestic structures aiming at greater transparency concerning arms transfer decisions. Successful international measurements need to be conceived in coordination with these preexisting programs which may serve as a suitable


baseline for concepts on a global scale. Hereby international transparency can be achieved without needlessly duplicating, or even worse, contradicting nationwide systems.

Prior to the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Member States exchanged views on how international mechanism of transparency have to work under the ATT.

Majority approval had been voiced concerning the component of national regular reporting systems. Most commonly regarded as the primary tool to advance transparency, States will be requested to submit reports over a specific time period on two different categories. Firstly, reports have to be given on national implementation efforts and secondly on all types of transactions and items falling under the contractual scope of the ATT.

Since the Treaty's successful functioning stands and falls in line with the performance of the international community, it is indispensable to provide mechanism which will disclose whether States actually comply with the legal requirements. Furthermore, thorough knowledge of good practices as well as emerging difficulties will not only strengthen interstate capacity building but also serve the implementation of the Treaty as a whole.

The second category determines Nations to disclose information on transactions and items which fall under the auspices of the ATT. It is under heavily discussion on how to report best on the wide array of related aspects. At a minimum States are urged to submit data on licenses granted, on quality and quantity of transactions and types as well as on the recipient's identity and on the designated end use. In addition greater transparency may further require the exchange of information concerning transfers which had been denied. However, it is precisely for the reason of full transparency that concerns have been voiced regarding internal security reasons.

In particular the disclosure of data on import is considered to expose to much information on national defense capabilities. To resolve the tension caused by the contradictory terms of public transparency on the one side, and national security and commercial concerns on the other, a compromise could be offered by systematically reporting on the contractual requirements.

Furthermore, States have to frame the periodicity of submitting reports. While national reporting on transactions should be done annually, implementation reports can be claimed less regularly via a case by case approach.


International assistance and cooperation

The future treaty will impose various obligations upon states which performance will present difficulties for certain members due to low social-economic status, insufficiently strong legal and regulatory systems and weak border controls.12

Developing nations are characteristically hampered by these shortcomings which are concurrently causative for the unregulated circulation of conventional arms. Poor governmental controls and rebel organizations contribute to the ongoing armed violence which can be identified as a leading cause of poverty. To escape the vicious circle they are reliant on external support coming from the international community inter alia the United Nations. Once the treaty is in place cooperation and assistance should be about capacity building to bring forth the domestic implementation. Focus need to be placed upon strengthening legislative and administrative frameworks as well as on improving licensing and enforcement capabilities to enable states in exercising greater controls. Moreover, preexisting implementation strategies have to be adapted combined to the establishment of new approaches designed to the conditions of the ATT.

During negotiations the terms of international assistance and international cooperation have been differentiated in two distinct categories which are defined as followed.

International assistance generally implies the provision of resources not limited to financial and technical support but also to appropriate expertise, knowledge and training with the aim of supporting the state in question to meet its arms control commitments. The concept of assistance can either be of a temporary nature in conjunction with designated outcomes or linked to the long term objective of enabling nations to eventually assume the contractual responsibilities on their own. Successful international assistance relies in either instance on cooperative partnerships between the providing and receiving entity.

International cooperation determines cross-border participation and joint operation which are indispensable to address the transnational nature of the arms trade. Furthermore, the concept is concerned with the regular exchange of information on best practices and implementation strategies among others. Successful cooperation rely on mutual efforts and presuppose high degrees of transparency. The United Nations as well as regional organizations can undertake the function of coordinating cooperative actions. Naturally nations can also enter bilateral cooperation which are, however, bond by already existing international conventions and commitments. To ensure that the ATT reaches its full potential it is of utmost importance that all Member States invariably adhere to the contractual provisions. Incorporating the components of international assistance and international cooperation in the ATT enhances the chances of universal application by addressing national differences and acting in greater conjunction with the international community.

12 Acheson Consideration of Cooperation and Assistance, 2011.


Already existing mechanism of controlling conventional arms transfer13

United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA)

When in 1990 Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi forces which imported their armed equipment almost exclusively from the five permanent members of the Security Council, conventional arms transfer were brought to international discussions.

As a corollary of the global community realizing that their exports had caused the conflict, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was established by the General Assembly in 1991. Member states are asked to publish their data on exports and imports of conventional arms according to seven categories ranging from battle tanks to missile-launchers. Small arms and light weapons were recently added to the list at the countries urgent. The register aims at increasing transparency which will contribute to trust building and eventually curb armed violence. Approximately 170 states comply with the request and submit information on arms transfer annually.

United Nations Program of action of Small Arms (PoA)

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent reduction of armed stock by the NATO and Warsaw Pact large quantities of small arms and light weapons (SALW) became surplus.

Despite precautionary measures SALW were diverted to illicit circuits and ended up in the wrong hands of criminal non-state armed forces and terrorist organizations.

The disastrous effects of SALW must not be underestimated. Due to the small size and the cheap price they can be easily traded without causing big sensation. Especially in accumulation they are regarded as the main factor for raising interstate insecurities, regional destabilization, facilitating a vast spectrum of human rights contraventions and fostering a culture of violence.

In 2001 the United Nations General Assembly enforced the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, in All Its Aspects. On a national, regional and global level States are committed to counter the trafficking and proliferation of illegal SALW provided with a wide array of measures.

Nationally states are urged to incorporate coordination agencies for the supervision of the SALW manufactures and markets and to criminalize the illicit production and trading.

For the improvement of monitoring the SALW movements cross borders, regional organizations are ought to be tied more closely and to bolster national implementation efforts.

13 http://www.un.org/disarmament/


On the global scale States are urged to stringent comply with arms embargoes decreed by the United Nations Security Council.

Additionally PoA aims at greater connections of the state community in order to share best practices and to render assistance in curbing illicit trade.

United Nations Security Council arms embargoes

For the maintenance of peace and security Article 41 of the United Nations Charter enables the Security Council to impose mandatory embargoes which are legally binding for the global community and are referred to as sanctions.

Arms embargoes apply to states, regions within states and particular end users and prohibit any form of weaponry transfers. The enforcement is overseen by sanction monitors but also relies to the same degree on the reports of national actors. Past embargoes have unfortunately revealed that they can easily be bypassed and the intention of applying pressure to the respective state or entity becomes obsolete. The reasons lie above all in lacking commitment of Member States for effective implementation, resolutions which leave loopholes and inefficient enforcement mechanism.

Country positions

European Union

The countries under the European Union jointly advocate a strong and robust ATT. For this purpose they promote an all embracing list of items and activities. Internationally binding and nationally enforced, the Treaty has to cover all types of conventional arms ranging from small and light weapons to ammunition. For the preservation of peace, security and stability, the European actors consider it indispensable to establish high common standards including human rights criteria which will guide national transfer decisions in the future. Once in force the Treaty's success lies in the hand of the individual Member States. To ensure that the contractual requirements will be meet, the European Union votes for the stringent national obligation to report on the implementation. These reports have to be open for public for the achievement of maximal transparency.

Saudi Arabia

Despite arguing for a comprehensive scope of activities, Saudi Arabia dissent the inclusion of ammunition on the list of covered items. In taking the view that the Treaty operates at the interface between curbing illicit trade and the legitimate right for self defense, Saudi Arabia apprehends possible interference in internal affairs.


Therefore they favor a need-based set of categories which provides sufficient means to regulate the international trade on conventional arms but simultaneously safeguards national ownerships and domestic transfers which deem necessary for self-protection in accordance to article 51 of United Nations Charter.

United States of America

Under the Obama administration the United States of America overturned their opposition to the establishment of an Arms Trade Treaty. On the grounds of giving priority to national controls, the Bush government blocked any legal binding instrument on the international scale. As one of the major arms exporters, the United States of America adhere to the exclusion of ammunition to the listed categories. It will neither be feasible nor serve the Treaty's purpose. Moreover, great emphasis has been placed upon the national responsibility to coordinate the implementation process. Contractual provisions must not impose conditions on how to evaluate decisions of transactions but define criteria which need to be considered prior licensing. The United States of America acknowledge the importance of the ATT, however, strongly driven by sovereignty concerns they do not expect the Treaty to eventually harmonize the international trade as a whole.

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation firmly believes that the human rights criteria are already covered by preexisting international regulations and the inclusion would only mean needless duplication. The Russian claim to renounce any related human rights aspect and to limit the contractual restrictions weakens the Treaty right at the outset. Hence, weaponry deliveries performed by the Russian Federation to countries which are obviously involved in human rights contraventions would continue to be legitimate. By prioritizing commercial concerns over humanitarian standards the Russian government serves chiefly themselves as the second largest arms exporters.

Peoples Republic of China

In tradition of the Chinese policy of non-interference the government wants to factor norms to impede interventions into internal affairs. They object specific references to humanitarian criteria and social development aspects which are considered to be the expression of a conscious political position. Due to the close affiliation of national security concerns and international transparency, the latter ought to be minimized. Moreover, the Peoples Republic of China proposes the exclusion of small and light weapons (SALW) based on the opinion that including too many debatable items will run counter the Treaty's purpose.


India

As a country deeply affected by the illicit proliferation of conventional arms, India outlines the importance to stem these markets. Therefore the Indian government is supportive of a comprehensive scope but allies to the American opposition to include ammunition. Reservations have been expressed concerning the list of criteria which entails 'subjective' or 'discriminatory' conditions. As a consequence to their own exports, India fears that stringent regulations jeopardize the national right to self-defense of countries which rely on weaponry imports.

Conclusion

The establishment of a universally binding legal instrument to eventually regulate the international trade on conventional arms is indeed a noble goal.

Although Member States are aware of their responsibilities to set the historical milestone, the conference's outcome contravenes the stakeholders’ commitment.

The situation in Syria demonstrates in the truest sense of the word the danger of trading weaponry irresponsibly. Every day Syrian citizen fall victim to the force of arms made available by external supply. For the core reason of the people's protection not limited to Syria but to all places of the world, an Arms Trade Treaty must not remain a distant vision.

Due to the fact that the definition of the scope constitutes the definition of the purpose, any limitation to the credit of national interests should be strongly avoided.

Furthermore, the mission cannot be called accomplished by the sole adoption of the Treaty but need to be pursued by the actual implementation. Since the United Nations Member States decided on adopting the contractual text by consensus, every single nation has to remind the obligation towards humanity which should outweigh all forms of concerns hindering the process.

“Who said that killing thousands in a single instant is worse than killing thousands, one by one, every day?”14 The perfect momentum for an Arms Trade Treaty is no later than now.

14 http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/arms-trade-treaty-negotiations-when-concede-and-when-hold-firm


Important aspect and questions which need to be considered

• The Treaty pursues multiple objectives by regulating the international trade on conventional weaponry. Is there a core reason why your country supports/opposes the negotiations?

• The international community is especially divided on whether a limited scope or the global coverage of all possible items and activities is most qualified to serve the Treaty's purpose. Which position is represented by your country and how is it justified?

• Reservations have been expressed concerning the inclusion of human rights criteria. What does your country want to see in the Treaty for the establishment of high common standards?

• Once into force the Treaty relies on the Member States' commitment. How can the process of implementation be monitored and coordinated internationally without infringing on national sovereignty?

• Features have been made on the right to stockpile weaponry for self-defense and national security. Member States unable to manufacture arms themselves fear that imports may stay out. What does your country propose to strictly separate trading restrictions from the legal market?

• The less developed world is in particular troubled by armed violence. How can the international community render support and assistance to those who will face difficulties in implementing the Treaty's provisions?


Links for further research

− General information and documents about the campaign, the Treaty and the conference

http://www.controlarms.org/home

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10079

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

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

http://www.unidir.org/bdd/fiche-activite.php?ref_activite=537

http://www.saferworld.org.uk/what/arms-trade-treaty-

http://attmonitor.blogspot.de/

http://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/att

http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/arms-trade-treaty-negotiations-when-concede-and-when-hold-firm

http://www.un.org/disarmament/over-armed/

http://www.un.org/News/

− Information concerning individual country positions http://armstreaty.org/index.php

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/188002.htm

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/130893.pdf

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/arms-control/arms-trade-treaty/


Topic B

A new Threat: Cyber-Terrorism

Think of how you received this study guide. Sending letters to contact a friend seems like an ancient habit today. Thanks to the Internet sharing and accessing Information becomes easier and quicker by day. Over 2 billion people worldwide use the Internet. This number has almost doubled since the year 2000. As more and more people own computers, laptops, smart phones and tablets, the Internet has become a natural way of communication. However, the domestic and commercial use of internet is not the only fast developing technology. Many different technologies and methods are developed daily: CCTV images, and governmental data, the fast stream of images and data that can be sent from Amsterdam to Tokyo within minutes. Store doors and bank locks are all managed by the Internet. But what if the Internet would stop working? ‘Hactivists’ in 2012 threatened to shut down the Internet for a day. As a way of protest they hacked into Interpol. In a world which has become increasingly dependent on cyberspace, in which everybody is able to download, communicate and interact over the same platform that is the Internet, we became consciously or unconsciously vulnerable.

International and national terrorism issues a challenge to society, authority, and peace services. Terrorism, in all its manifestations, affects us all. Conventional terroristic actions claimed many lives and caused fear all over the world but it does not stop there. Terrorism has already reached the internet for propaganda, recruitment, and other communications but it has also become a way to directly commit offenses. Terrorists, in many cases, use the internet for strategic and practical purposes.

Besides the vulnerability other points like the possibility to carry out an attack from anywhere in the world, the anonymity in cyber crimes and the abuse of young people‘s ability to commit cyber terrorism, make this topic crucial and essential to the international community. A cyber-attack or the information obtained through an attack could be used to disrupt a state's security or even world peace. Just imagine a terrorist hacker acquiring the atomic codes of a country and displaying this information on the internet, or selling it to a possible buyer; the consequence would result in a world wide security threat, even a possible war. As one can quickly infer, it is in the interest of humanity to find a rapid and adequate solution for the topic at hand.

Despite increasing international recognition of the threat posed by terrorists’ use of the Internet in recent years, there is currently no universal framework specifically addressing this pervasive facet of terrorist activity. The efforts to prevent cyber-terrorism are still based on a national level and preeminently aimed to protect the acting governments’ interests. In the past these single-handed approaches were not only inefficient but also lead to human right violations.


The Disarmament and International Security Committee therefore needs to define what is essential to prevent cyber-terrorism. Moreover, delegates will broach the matter of aligning international efforts with national counter-terrorism strategies while guaranteeing the compliance with the rule of law and human right standards.

When the first new computer was built in 1969 and later when the World Wide Web was created in 1971, the digital era began and the Internet soon became more and more present in all areas. The huge progress of modern media and technical possibilities opened up new ways and enabled us to interact fast. However, the internet can easily be misused for cyber terrorism. The various reasons that distinguish the topic at hand from conventional terrorism are that cyber terrorism can be waged without a large amount of hardware or any amount of soldiers An attack can be launched without own casualties, that being physically presence would bring along. Terrorist groups with limited amounts of resources and lack of opportunity for conventional terrorism can easily lean to cyber terrorism. In this case all a terrorist group or organization would need is a hacker. This hacker, in many circumstances, could also work by himself in order to extract information and then sell it later on. Furthermore, the terrorist groups use the internet as a way for internal communication as well as propaganda or recruitment. This is a very dangerous fact, but against the backdrop of privacy and personal liberty, a preventive surveillance is debated controversially. On one side, a state has to confer rights also for its enemies, but on the other hand it has to ensure safety for its citizens.

The current solutions are as follows; invest in the safety of Systems connected to the internet, cyber surveillance of terrorist groups and the recruiting young talented people who are capable of creating the solutions above. As one can deduce, new approaches solutions need to be found rapidly in order to ensure the safety of many lives.

History

There is no clear answer to when was the first time information technology was used as a weapon to hurt a system or country. Information and Telecommunications (ICT’s) have evolved into a system that can be used to further a nations well being economically and politically, while at the same time damage these areas. Member States have recognised the importance of working together, to certain extents, while at the same time maintaining their own agendas.

Russia was the first Member State to bring up to the first committee, the issue of information and communications in relation to international security. Although this first move was not fruitful in 1998 it was the first time it was brought up in a UN context.


Timeline

1971 Invention of the Internet

1996 Terrorist attacks on a Massachusetts ISP ending with the threat, "you have yet to see true electronic terrorism. This is a promise."

1998 Sri Lankan embassies suffer a cyber attack by ethnic Tamil guerrillas. Intelligence authorities characterized this as the first known attack by terrorists against a country's computer systems.

1998 Russia first brings the issue of information technology to the UN in relation to international security.

1999 Attack on NATO computers by activists protesting against the NATO bombings. In addition, businesses, public organizations, and academic institutes have been targeted.

2001 Russia proposes the creation of a special group of government experts (GGE) to examine possible threats and solutions relating to information security, on an international level.

The Convention on Cybercrime8, Budapest Convention on Cybercrime,

2004 The first GGE was held with experts appointed by the SG. The group consisted of 15 Member States9 which clearly showed a divide, between states wanting to establish a new international order, and those rejecting any suggestion towards disarmament

2006 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime comes into force.

2007 Estonia’s national security suffers a cyber incident

2009 The 2nd GCE, including 15 states decided on some norms in the use of ICT

2010 Stuxnet attacks – where hackers had designed a program which was able to perform a targeted attack. Attacking a nuclear power plant in Iran.

2011 China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan submit a proposal for an International Code of Conduct for Information Security


2012 Operation Unmask, Anonymous a ‘Hacktivist’ group targets Interpol.

3rd GCE

International cooperation

The implementation of previous resolutions and treaties has only touched the surface of what is at the core of the issue. Coming to an agreement is made difficult by differing understandings and consensus in what the international law can do to ensure cyber security. Add in the variety of attacks and the lacking of a worldwide solution center and then you have the problem of lacking solution approach for an issue that is not even defined enough.

The DISEC committee has to examine the international cooperation between states and has to establish a guideline aimed at the prevention of cyber warfare and the establishment of a certain line of control. Coming up with solutions to attacks and sharing information amongst states. Because a criminal commits a crime that creates a victim or a group of victims, however this is a cyber crime often originating in one country, aided in another and felt in a third or even many other countries. There is an importance in establishing a global reach; the more terrorists distance themselves from law enforcement, which is fixed within a physical space, governments should allow law enforcement to enter into this realm instead of staying far away from these technologies.

The Budapest convention on cyber crime the first international treaty examining computer and internet crimes; through the means of national laws, improving investigation techniques and increase the level of cooperation, made by the Council of Europe. The convention and its report were adopted by the committee of ministers of the council of Europe. Opened in November 2001, went into force July 2004 and as of May of this year 39 states have ratified the convention, plus 12 more states have signed it. Is the first sign that member states are willing to cooperate and are willing to share as more and more realize the damage uncontrolled ICT´s can bring to their own infrastructures? Walking towards a new global infrastructure with a 2.0 agenda requires the blueprint of economic models like a multi stakeholder model.

Balancing security and Privacy

The fear of terrorist attacks has led to the collection, storage and trading of personal data on an unprecedented scale, which are largely imperceptible to people around the world. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and the United Nations must treat this issue with the upmost importance.


In many countries around the world, national intelligence services require no judicial authorization to investigate national and international communications of any person or body that threatens the existence or security of the State. However, there is no clear definition of the ‘reasonable cause” to deem a person a risk to national security. This leads to a potential misuse. While focusing on the international security the global community needs to balance the proposed actions with the right to privacy.

Outlining the Problem

How do we know what will work and what will fail? Without previous experience on the topic as it came to rise to the top of the issues list ever since the start of this decade. There is a need to examine what the role is for a country´s government and how that affects its relation with other countries. This problem is at a stage where it is not an issue of disarmament but rather an issue of how to manage and deal with this new way of warfare. Given that state actors have long stepped back private experts governments should employ the best hackers to come up with the best security systems to protect their own data. At the same time it needs to be examined how they can utilize the Internet to their own advantage. To consider are international laws versus national and domestic laws, so instead of coming with harsh measurement certain member states might be more lenient towards softer laws, or codes of protocol.

The world will have to come to a consensus on where on the spectrum of freedom of the internet they want to be, either a completely free open internet space, a completely censored internet or somewhere in the middle, but where that middle is, is something that should be decided in the future.

Countries need to stop being such separate realms but rather come together and start sharing like individuals are already doing. But governments themselves need to come together and work on a solution to this global problem. Because the truth of the matter is that with insufficient protection of vital systems and resources this does not only pose a threat to national but also to international security. There must be an appropriate establishment of warfare measures against a cyber attack and an exploration of the extend of self defense allowed for victim countries.


Country and bloc positions

Even though the majority of all nations worldwide recognizes the thread from terroristic attacks, the approaches protection and counter terrorism strategies.

The two major groups can be recognized as firstly the United States as a leader of the liberal democracies, often including most European states and Australia. They feel that the First Committee holds a very limited role on the ICT in the scope of its use in military and terroristic attacks. These states also believe that governments should not have the power to control information and its infrastructure. However on the contrary these states invest a great amount of resources to protect themselves from cyber crimes and terrorism and explore the use of ICTs as part of their military strategy.

While on the other side the Shanghai cooperation Organization (SCO) including countries such as China, Russia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Turkey and Belarus. Believe that DISEC is the only committee, which will hold a certain authority within this issue. Countries such as Russia and China are also concerned that information has the potential to be used in such a way that can destabilized a government and thus, needs to be treated akin to a weapon. There were talks of ‘disarmament’ effort (highly opposed by USA-led alliance) and also a more power to the state to handle their own information security issues – which also opposed by USA on the ground of freedom to access information.

Important aspect and questions which need to be considered

• The resolutions should focus on criminal, terrorist and military uses of ICT, drawing focus to the different uses of IT by different Member States.

• A distinction needs to be made between national and international measures.

• Member states need to come up with creative solutions to establish a new security framework,

• Legal issues such as the applicability of the law governing the use of force, the law of armed conflict, implementation and interpreting of the legal concepts of sovereignty and state responsibility.

• The balance between the right to privacy and the need for security • Disagreement between the US-lead wing and other countries on the Internet

governance model


Links for further research

• “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunication in the context of international security: Work of the UN first Committee 1998-2012” Eneken Tikk-Rengas, ICT for peace foundation, 2012.

• “The International Information Security: The Diplomacy of Peace. Compilation of Publications and Documents” (2009)

• Convention on International Information Security (concept), <http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-osndoc.nsf/1e5f0de28fe77fdcc32575d900298676/7b17ead7244e2064c3257925003bcbcc!OpenDocument>

• ICT for peace foundation, <http://ict4peace.org/> • Europol – Interpol cybercrime conference sept 24-25 sept 2013

Resolutions and Conferences

• A/C.1/53/3

• A/C.1/53/L.17 • A/C.1/53/L.17/Rev.1. Page 25

• A/RES/53/55/63/70 GA adopted • US A/59/116/Add.1

• GA/DIS/3442 • World Summit on the Information Society • Dubai Conference

Bibliography

Ballestrazzi, Mme Mireille, La Presidente d´INTERPOL´, INTERPOL 2 day conference, 10/07/2013

Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, CETS No.: 185´, Budapest,

´Cyber Security Financial Services and Technology Forum. 10th of July

Dr. Lotrionte, Catherine. Hon. Noble, Ron K, Secretary General of INTERPOL, Hon.