-

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 2

Contents Committee Directors’ Note ........................................................................................................................... 3

Khadija Furqan .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Syeda Ramsha Wasti ................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction to the Committee .................................................................................................................... 4

Topic A: The Role of Drones in Modern Warfare .......................................................................................... 5

Note for Delegates .................................................................................................................................... 5

History of Drones ...................................................................................................................................... 5

The Morality of Drone Warfare ................................................................................................................ 6

Current Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 7

UN Involvement ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Violation of International Law .................................................................................................................. 8

Advantages and Disadvantages of Drones ................................................................................................ 9

Bloc Positions ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Questions a Resolution Must Answer (QARMA) ..................................................................................... 10

Material for Further Reading .................................................................................................................. 11

End Notes ................................................................................................................................................ 11

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 3

Committee Directors’ Note

Khadija Furqan Greetings Delegates,

My name is Khadija Furqan Shaikh, and with great enthusiasm I

welcome you all to ShoreMUN. I am currently pursuing my

Bachelors in Business Administration at IBA. I started MUNs

back in high school when I developed an interest in key world

issues and was driven by an urge to contribute towards them by

coming up with their solutions. I look forward to intense and

constructive debate. My advice to you all would be to research

extremely well, make sure you are well aware of you country’s

stance and policy on the topic, and know how to maneuver your

way through complicated situations that may arise during the

discussion. Speak eloquently, and stand your ground, move the

debate forward and, most of all, make use of your diplomatic

skills throughout the conference.

Syeda Ramsha Wasti Dear Delegates,

My name is Syeda Ramsha Wasti and I am currently pursuing

my BBA from the Institute of Business Administration (IBA)

Karachi. I am very happy to be chairing at ShoreMUN this year

and am confident that this will be a learning experience for me

as well as the delegates. MUNs are all about how fast and how

well you work under pressure, and I look forward to seeing just

that during committee sessions. Research hard and try to find

innovative solutions to the problems that are presented in the

topic.

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 4

Introduction to the Committee:

The First Committee of the General Assembly

deals with disarmament, global challenges and

threats to peace that affect the international

community and seeks out solutions to the

challenges in the international security regime.

It considers all disarmament and international

security matters within the scope of the UN

Charter or relating to the powers and functions

of any other organ of the United Nations; the

general principles of cooperation in the

maintenance of international peace and

security, as well as principles governing

disarmament and the regulation of armaments;

promotion of cooperative arrangements and

measures aimed at strengthening stability

through lower levels of armaments.

The First Committee of the General Assembly

(GA), or the Disarmament and International

Security Committee, is one of six major

committees in the GA. It meets each year for

UN sessions. The committee addresses a wide

array of subjects including but not limited to,

disarmament and related international security

questions, peacekeeping, mine action, outer

space, and chemical and biological weapons.

Recently, DISEC has been heavily involved in

issues concerning de-weaponization, as well as

the structure and approach of UN Peacekeeping

operations, among other things. Attended by

representatives from all 192 member states as

well as from observer delegations, such as the

Palestinian Authority, DISEC is a particularly

important discussion forum, though notably

observer states cannot vote on substantive

matters.

Additionally, DISEC is remarkable in its wide

breadth and scope of purview. While

resolutions are not legally compulsory or

enforceable, the resolutions passed by DISEC

form the body of a rich legislative and legal

framework that forms the spinal core of

international relations. Courage and audacity is

a required trait in DISEC delegates to be able to

effectively question and refine all the aspects of

the complex mechanisms of international

security and peacemaking processes.

Thus, DISEC resolutions constitute the UN’s

recommendations for member states, be they

in regards to international conflicts or

disarmament.

Furthermore, DISEC, in issues of urgent security

emergencies, also has the power to refer issues

directly to the Security Council.

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 5

Topic A: The Role of Drones in Modern

Warfare

Note for Delegates Before reading the Study Guide, please note

that this study guide is provided to give you

some insight to the topic, and to help direct

your research. It is simply to take you through

the background, history and problems of the

agenda. Please do not limit your research and

understanding to the issues addressed in this

guide. It is mandatory for all delegates, to

research well on all aspects of the topic and be

well aware of their country’s stance on the

topic. It is expected from all the delegates to

discuss all aspects of the topic and come up

with practical and effective solutions for the

topic.

History of Drones The role of drones in modern warfare has been

a very contentious issue due to the multi-

faceted roles these drones play in warfare.

What initially started off as an innocent

initiative to reduce human casualties during

aerial missions has evolved into an endless

expedition to search for lethal applications of

drone technology.

A drone, classified as an Unmanned Aerial V

ehicle (UAV), can be controlled and operated

from the ground by a pilot or autonomously

based on a predetermined mission, and can

carry either lethal or nonlethal cargo. There

exist many types of drones which are mainly

utilized for either surveillance purposes or are

equipped with bombs and missiles.

There are numerous types of drones from

which the most common are:

1. MQ-1B Predator: Used for what the military

calls “medium-altitude, long endurance”

missions and for intelligence gathering.

2. MQ-9 Reaper: Used primarily in a

“hunter/killer role”, and secondarily for

intelligence.

3. RQ-7 Shadow: Used for reconnaissance,

surveillance, target acquisition and battle

damage assessment.

When a strike or investigation is ordered, the

drone base nearest to the area of interest is

contacted to carry out the orders. It is the job of

one operator to steer the drone towards the

supposed location of the target while a sensor

operator manages the drone’s sensing

technology to search the area. From this

isolated base, speed, direction, and altitude

levels of the drone can all be manipulated.

The roots of UAVs trace back to 19th century in

the form of unmanned and armed hot air

balloons launched by Austrians targeting

Venice. These hot air balloons took months of

planning and even then only few of them

managed to hit their targets.

Couple of decades later, near the end of the

First World War, an electrical engineer named

Charles F. Kettering developed the first modern

drone called the “kettering bug”. The bug was a

simple and small biplane equipped with a

bomb. Even though 50 were produced, none of

them actually made flight as the war had ended

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 6

by that time. By the time the Second World War

started, Aviation had leaped years forward. The

Allies had developed the ‘GB-1’. The GB-1 was

dropped from the B-17 and guided after. Later

in the War, the GB-4 (or the ‘Robin’) was

introduced as the first ‘television-guided’ bomb.

With this the British, endeavored into ‘Project

Aphrodite’. On the other hand Nazi Germany

had created the V1 and V2 missiles which would

take UAV technology years ahead.

Near the end of the 1960’s, around the time of

the Vietnam War, UAVs had begun to resemble

modern day drones in more than one aspect.

They had started to look like modern day

fighters and for the first time Drones could be

remotely controlled from the ground and could

remain in the sky for up to 2 hours. In a

simulated dogfight conducted by the US Air

force, the ‘Firebee’ (the UAV) had crushed the

F-4 phantom having scored numerous hits on it.

During the Vietnam War itself, the Firebee was

used for reconnaissance missions all over North

Vietnam and Laos. The Air force stated that

over 3000 missions were conducted in the

South East Asian region.

Post-Vietnam, Israel had begun to take large

amount of interest in drone technology and had

begun developing its own drones. By the end of

1980’s, Israel was the world’s largest producer

as well as exporter of drones.

After 9/11, the US had started funding all drone

programs within the country. The first drone

strike by the US during the war on terror was

conducted during the end of September 2002. It

resulted in the death of three civilians

presumed to be from Bin Laden’s family. Ever

since the US has killed more than 3500

individuals through drone strikes in the Pakistan

and Afghanistan Region. Drones have become

the new factor in determining air superiority,

slowing replacing all kinds manned air vehicles.

The Morality of Drone Warfare In the debate on the morality of drone warfare,

there have been a number of articles published

that suggest that grave concerns stemming

from the use of drones are either wrong,

confused, or just plain misguided. Writing in

The Observer, Peter Beaumont posed the

question ‘Are drones any more immoral than

other weapons of war?i After suggesting that

“much of what has been written on both sides

of the debate on the surrounding moral and

legal issues has been ill-informed and confused”

he then goes on to give a rather unhelpful

summary of the international law arguments

surrounding the use of force against non-state

actors based on the recent paper ‘The Strategic

Context of Lethal Drones’ii published by the

American Security Project.

With regard to morality, Peter Beumont he

suggests that:

“[the] compelling question to be asked over the

future of drone warfare… is the one posed by

Foust and Boyle [of the American Security

Project] who demanded whether, as a military

tool, drone warfare is actually effective;

whether its use is justified when set against the

political fallout that the drone campaign has

produced and whether drones have actually

reduced the threat posed by militants.” iii

The question, in other words, is do the ends

justify the means? Hardly the most moral

position. However, at least Peter Beaumont

engaged with the argument.

To formulate the ethical choice on this issue as

either accepting (and thereby legitimizing)

drone targeted killings on the one hand or

accepting a future of continuing insecurity on

the other is simplistic nonsense. There are of

course other (and we would argue) much better

ways to pursue security, peace and justice.

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 7

US Academic and Philosopher, Bradley

Strawser, in his interview with the Guardianiv

names and then dismisses three objections to

drone warfare. Firstly, while he says he shares

“the gut feeling that there’s something odd”

about the “lopsided asymmetry” of drone killing

he says that it’s like police officers having bullet-

proof vests in a shootout with bank robbers.

The second objection that he names and then

rejects is “the suggestion that risk-free remote

killing degrades traditional conceptions of

valor”. Whilst this argument I have very

occasionally heard, the objection to risk free

remote killing that most people make is not

because it undermines concepts of valor but

that it makes it easier to undertake attacks both

within theatres of conflict and in the wider

sense. The third objection he cites is that there

exist cases wherein we should go to war, such

as the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda, and we do

not. The argument to be understood here is

that drones “can be a morally preferable

weapon of war if they are capable of being

more discriminate than other weapons that are

less precise and expose their operators to

greater risk.”

Current Situation In recent times, drone use has increased, as

they are cheaper than military aircrafts. In

November 2013, Pakistan released a statement

condemning an American assassination drone

strike, which led to the death of five people.

These attacks not only violate Pakistan’s

sovereignty and territorial integrity but also

cause chaos in the country and damage the

inhibit peace. In June 2012, at a Geneva

conference, the UN Special Rapporteur Christof

Heyns stated his fear that President Obama’s

attacks on Middle Eastern nations would in the

end encourage other countries to neglect

established human rights standards. Around the

same time, China and Russia also jointly issued

a statement to the United Nations Human rights

council, which condemned drone attacks.

According to the data from the International

Institute for Strategic Studies, 11 different

countries use drone technology, which include

China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Iran,

Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the

United States. A large amount of success for the

American military in Afghanistan was due to

technology of drones available to them as a

source of surveillance and attack. Even

currently the drones are being used to protect

the American embassy in Iraq as a surveillance

device or a precaution. The Iraqi governments

seem to currently disagree with the situation,

but the United States has rights over that

airspace. Just like the United States, Britain

entered into drone attacks during Afghan wars.

In 2012, it was reported that four Afghan

civilians were killed in a British drone strike. In

addition to that there have been 363 strikes

carried out by Britain in Pakistan, and

approximately 450 drones have been fired in

Iraq and Afghanistan over the last five years. In

2013, there were drones in Mali by France who

were using drones, which were provided by

Israeli.

UN Involvement Discussion on drone strikes in the UN has been

very limited, partly because of the fact that

Security Council action is prevented by the

United States’ veto.

However representatives from the UNHRC have

spoken out against the use of military UAVs, as

they may have been critiqued and targeted for

violating international human rights law in the

targeted assassinations of many people,

predominantly in the Middle East and Pakistan.

Accusations also state that the use of targeted

assassinations is inhumane and is in itself, a

concept that Kofi Annan, the past Secretary

General of the UN, stated that “Anyone who

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 8

performs a targeted assassination takes on the

role of accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury”.

In accordance with the UN Charter, nations are

only to use drones under the rights granted by

the military force clause, which states that a

nation can only pursue military force if there is

a reasonable chance of success in completing

the mission itself, and if no other options are

open.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi

Pillay also condemned the use of UCAVs during

her opening statement for the 20th Human

Rights Council. Special rapporteur on extra-

judicial, summary or arbitrary executions,

Christof Heyns stressed in a report in 2013 that

the use of armed drones in countries is highly

problematic if there is not a recognized armed

conflict. This is to say that strikes outside a

combat zone constitute a war crime. He added:

"Armed drones may fall into the hands of non-

state actors and may also be hacked by enemies

or other entities”

The first step was taken by UN Human Rights

Council in March 2014 passing the resolution

A/HRC/25/L.32 entitled “Ensuring use of

remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in

counter-terrorism and military operations in

accordance with international law, including

international human rights and humanitarian

law.” Moreover the most important

substantive element in the Resolution is the

provision of transparency and investigations,

which “calls upon States to ensure transparency

in their records on the use of remotely piloted

aircraft or armed drones and to conduct

prompt, independent and impartial

investigations whenever there are indications of

a violation to international law caused by their

use”

As that (lengthy) title suggests, the resolution

concerns only one weapons platform: remotely

piloted aircraft. It passed with 27 in favor, 6

against, and 14 abstentions. Important players

such as the United States or United Kingdom

and France, objected to this resolution. One of

the main criticisms was that the Human Rights

Council would not have enough expertise to

tackle the issue of drones, or/and it was out of

the mandate of the committee. In Resolution

A/RES/68/178 from December 2013, the

General Assembly already stated that measures,

including the use of drones, have to “comply

with their obligations under international law,

including the Charter of the United Nations,

human rights law and international

humanitarian law, in particular the principles of

distinction and proportionality”.

Without an international framework to govern

the use of drone attacks, drone use creates a

precedent for remote and unrestrained

warfare. The United Nations need to formulate

a resolution which is legally binding to the

major drone possessing countries.

Violation of International Law One of the most severe and pinching issues

involving drones is the flagrant disregard of

international law that occurs as a direct result

of their use in combat zones. Drones almost

always cross into another state’s airspace,

which compromises the sovereignty of that

state. The Montevideo Convention, signed by

the United States, states that the fundamental

rights of states, such as sovereignty, are not to

be violated, and that “no state has the right to

intervene in any internal or external affairs of

another.” The United Nations recognizes this

convention as customary international law. v

Unwanted drones in a state’s airspace clearly

violate this convention, but the states using the

drones have evaded mainstream persecution

because drone technology, until now, remained

an unprecedented and ambiguous form of

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 9

warfare. The United State justifies the use of

drones in Pakistani airspace by stating that

drone strikes are targeted at terrorist groups in

tribal areas. Pakistan’s government officials

have clarified the government of Pakistan

openly opposes these drone strikes and have

called upon the US and the global community to

immediately end their entire drone program.

Considering, under international law, states do

not have a right to intervene in the affairs of

another, the continued campaign of the United

States in Pakistan’s territory is in direct violation

of international law.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Drones The use of drones for military purposes,

whether advanced aircraft like the MQ-9

Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawks deployed by the

United States, or smaller, tactical systems,

theoretically offer several potential capabilities

for the military. While some serve the same

purpose as that of a manned aircraft, many are

unique in their functions. Yet controversy and

skepticism surrounds the usage of drones in

modern warfare, however, many countries have

chosen to ignore the downside of drones for

several benefits such as:

The use of drones on surveillance missions

or attack allows countries to avoid the risks

involved with putting “boots on grounds.

• Drones offer operators the ability to loiter

over a target for hours or even days,

providing real time awareness unmatched

by manned aircraft and the ability to strike

targets with (theoretically) great

precision(Zephyr a British drone under

development has broken the world record

by flying for over 82 hours nonstop)

• Drones have endurance that generally far

outstrips the alternative platforms that a

country would use for collecting the same

type of information with a manned system.

Drones have the potential for greater

accuracy hence precision strikes from

drones, even using some of the same

munitions used by manned fighters or

bombers.

There is the potential that drones can lower

the costs associated with generating

airpower, and allows for a perfect weapon

for a war- weary nation on a tight budget.

To many, drones are a modern marvel. The

Economist declared in 2011 that ‘the future

belongs to drones’. Despite the fact that the use

of armed drones is already undermining the

laws of war, infringing upon the sovereignty of

targeted nations, and eroding human rights

protections put in place to safeguard both

combatants and civilians alike, while at the

same time bringing autonomy towards the

usage of drones and accountability into

question.

There is also a real fear that the ‘risk free’

nature of these weapons is lowering the

threshold for using lethal force, meaning that

we are likely to see more warfare in the future.

The growing use of armed drones and the

concept of remote, risk free war is a serious

military escalation. In short, armed drones are

simply making the world a more dangerous

place.

Bloc Positions Countries with the largest drone programs are

generally in North America and the European

Union. With stronger economic resources,

these states can invest in this technology and

build up their programs.

The Western Block:

The United States is the foremost owner and

operator of drones in the world, using them to

patrol its own territory as well as its border with

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 10

Mexico. Data from the International Institute

for Strategic Studies identifies the US as having

at least 678 drones in active service. viApart

from the US, seven different European

countries, among them France, Germany, Italy,

Spain, and the United Kingdom have entered

into a pact with the European Defense Agency

to expand drone programs in each country and

throughout the European Union. viiIn addition

to this exclusive list of countries that have a

fully developed drone program, Israel is a

noteworthy country due to it being the current

global leader in foreign sales of drones, having

recently expanded its program to South Korea.

The Middle Eastern and Eastern Bloc:

Countries that are particularly hit by drone

strikes such as Pakistan and Yemen have several

times called upon the UN to take action.

Pakistan for instance has become a leading

international critic of drone warfare in its

country and urges the international community

to establish an internationally binding legal

framework on drone use. The United States has

been known to carry out assassination strikes in

several Muslim nations including Afghanistan

and Yemen. Moreover, the Middle East has

been the center for conflict and military

engagement, making it a hotspot for UAV

activity. Therefore this bloc is of vital

importance to the discussion in the committee.

The African Bloc:

With the exception of South Africa, most

African Nations are against the use of Drones.

Due to financial constraints, many countries are

from even acquiring the technology. Egypt

most noticeably condemned the Israeli drone

attacks on Palestine.

The East Asian Bloc:

East Asian nations are currently entering the

realm of drone warfare. China, notably, is trying

to break into drone manufacture and export,

while Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and

Singapore will most probably want to purchase

drones.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

(QARMA) 1. When, if ever, is it acceptable to use drones

to attack specific targets in another nation

outside the time of war?

2. How might the manufacture and sale of

drones be regulated and if so, does it need

to be regulated?

3. If a member state is found guilty of violating

the regulations regarding drone usage then

what implications or sanctions should they

face?

4. How can states address technical faults of

drones that may see them placed in the

hands of enemy combatants?

5. Are drone strikes a violation of international

laws that govern the conduct of war and

international laws governing human rights?

6. What standards should countries use for

deciding what targets (human,

environmental or infrastructural) to strike

with drones?

7. Which regulations need to be put in place in

order to prevent the infringement of

national sovereignty when a host nation is

harboring a target?

8. Which legal framework needs to be

implemented to address complains and to

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 11

ensure that regulations and restrictions are

enforced?

9. What should be the UN’s role towards the

restriction on the use of UAVs? May they

only be employed during UN mandated

operations?

10. How can the peaceful use of drones be

protected while prohibiting the unlawful

use of drones?

Material for Further Reading 1. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and

Duties of States.

http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevide

o-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

2. UNGA HRC Resolution A/HRC/25L.32 (25th

Session) http://wilpf.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/04/resolution.pdf

3. Document on Human Rights Implications of

the usage of Drones and Unmanned Robots

in Warfare by the European parliament.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e

tudes/etudes/join/2013/410220/EXPO-

DROI_ET(2013)410220_EN.pdf

4. Covert Drone War by the Bureau of

Investigative Journalism.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/ca

tegory/projects/drones/

5. Drone Factsheet.

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resourc

es/fact-sheets/critical-issues/6737-drones

6. Ethical, Strategic and Legal Implications of

Drone Warfare by the Kroc Institute for

International Peace Studies.

http://kroc.nd.edu/news-events/peace-

policy/ethical-strategic-legal-implications-

drone-warfare-1507

7. Moral and Legal Challenges of Drone

Warfare by David Cortright of the Peace

Policy Institute.

http://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2013/03/28/mor

al-legal-challenges-of-drone-warfare/

8. Ethics of Drone Warfare.

http://2014.neutralmagazine.com/article/t

he-ethics-of-drone-warfare/

9. Droning On: Explaining the Proliferation of

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Horowitz and

Fuhrmann.

http://www.gspia.pitt.edu/Portals/26/PDF/

HF%20Drone%20Proliferation%209%2012%

2014%20-%20Pitt.pdf

10. Drone Wars Briefing: Examining the

Growing Threat of Unmanned Warfare by

Chris Cole.

https://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2

012/01/drone-wars-briefing-final2.pdf

End Notes i Are Drones any Immoral than other weapons of

war?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/

aug/19/peter-beaumont-drone-warfare-debate

ii The Strategic Context of Lethal Drones.

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/

iii Drones and Morality by Peter Beumont.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-morality-of-

drone-warfare/32412

DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 12

iv Bradley Strawser on the Morality of Drone Usage

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/p

hilosopher-moral-case-drones

v Montevideo Convention

http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-

convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

vi IISS Report on Drones Serviced by Countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/

aug/03/drone-stocks-by-country

vii European Defense Agency.

http://www.eda.europa.eu/