The Newsletter of the Model United Nations of The Hague – 25 April 2015 – The Hague – 8 Pages – Volume 1 | Issue 3

> IMPRESSUM

Editors-in-ChiefNabadip DebAlexandra van Walraven

Layout DesignerIskander Khairoutdinov

PhotographerJip van LeemputIuna Vieira

JournalistsDianto LeeflangChristine NikanderIuna VieiraTanya ZhekovaCamelia VasilovStela Marinova GinevaRachel GreenwaldIlinca BogaciovSakari NuuttilaTamara RaatsShariqa HabibMaria Mois

The second day discussing the humanitarian problems within and around Syria, brought along some heated discussion between different delegations. Firstly, a clash between Qatar and the Syrian Arab Republic took place while discussing amendments to the working paper. Qatar called the Syrian Arab Republic “not competent” to handle humanitarian aid to be provided to Syrian refugees in an adequate manner. The Syrian delegation then complained that the delegate of Qatar had insulted it. The delegation of Qatar was asked by the chairs to bring forth evidence to support its claim.

Qatar supported its claim by stating: “We would like to remind everyone that the Syrian people have revolted against the government, and the government has turned against them.

Many Syrians do not even believe in the legitimacy of the current government.”

The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic responded by stating this was an insult and asked the chair if a formal apology from the delegation of Qatar could be granted. As Qatar’s claim was found not to be based on factual information, the Qatar delegation duly apologized to “any delegation it may have insulted”. Syria thanked Qatar for its apology.

The tension between the two delegations did not stop after this quarrel. Although Qatar formally apologized, the delegation continued to express its critique towards the Syrian government, now on the grounds of the country’s sovereignty. Qatar clearly showed their opposition

Syria is the exception to the rule in Human Rights Council debate> TaMaRa RaaTS

General assemblyclasically divided 7

Witnesses at ICJ 3

/MUNof TheHague/MUNOTHObserver

munoth.orgmunothobserver.wordpress.com

@themunothobserver

HUMan RIGHTS CoUnCIL

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 2

to Syria’s government again when its delegation initiated an amendment to add ‘popular’ in front of “sovereignty” in a clause that stated the recognition of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. This implies that Qatar recognizes and supports the sovereignty of the Syrian people, but not of the current government. Unfortunately for Qatar, this initiation found hardly any support amongst its fellow delegations and the amendment was thus not entertained.

Controversial Discussion: are arbitrary executions of “terrorists” justified? > SakaRI nUUTTILa

The Human Rights Council began discussing its second topic on Saturday afternoon: Summary, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions in the Middle East.Once again, there was ubiquitous condemnation of the human rights violation issues involved in such executions. The question of in which cases human rights are violated, however, was open for debate even during the opening speeches of delegates.

The delegation of Sweden went as far as to state its belief that all executions, both illegal and legal by national jurisdictions, are violations of human rights. “We encourage all Middle Eastern nations to review executions and figure out a way to prevent them.”

Most other countries took less absolute stances on the issue. The statement of several Middle Eastern states and Russia was that while executions of innocent civilians are abhorrent and should be condemned, in certain cases, especially in the fight against terrorism, extrajudicial executions may be acceptable.

Qatar, for instance, beseeched delegates to look at the issue in less black and white terms: “Extrajudicial executions can take in many forms. It can mean government forces shooting their own people, but it can also entail shooting a dangerous criminal and saving thousands of lives in the process. We condemn violations of human rights, but we want you also to see the grey areas, not just the black and white.”

The Syrian delegation expressed its joy in the issue of extrajudicial executions being discussed at an international level. “It is vital to abolish executions without justice.” The delegation expressed its horror regarding executions currently being carried out in Syria and Iraq by ISIS, and was also worried about the organization’s ties to other terrorists in Yemen and to the Boko Haram organization in Nigeria. “Stopping these barbaric, videotaped executions is the first thing on our agenda.” During its opening statement the Syrian delegation did not comment on executions perpetrated by government forces.

Some Western countries took a firmer stance toward executions in the region. The delegation of France opened with a strong statement: “In the Middle East people are executed without a trial, just gunned down. France does not accept

this, and as the HRC we should do everything to restore legal institutions and ethics in Middle East.”

The delegation of the United States said it is against human rights abuses, but emphasized that “terrorists are a threat to us all” and repeated its well-known position that negotiation with terrorists will not be tolerated.

The delegation of the Republic of Korea broadened the view of executions to include those perpetrated in the Middle East against people with sexual orientations that are not approved of by their respective states. Along with most other delegations, South Korea called for the collection of more information from impartial organizations working in the area, in an effort to bring a halt to summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions in the region. <<

In the first press conference that involved the delegations from Morocco, The United States, the Syrian Arab Republic, France and the Russian Federation, France expressed its opposition towards the Syrian government as well: they do not want to negotiate with the current administration.

During the press conference, Syria was asked to elaborate on the recent clashes with the delegation of Qatar. The Syrian Arab Republic “could not believe

[their] ears” and called the allegations of incompetence “obnoxious” and “unacceptable.”

Despite the “insults” and criticisms, the Human Rights Council has proved to be productive. The resolution on the issue was passed, as all delegations, except for one, was in favour. It must not be hard to believe that the exemption was the Syrian Arab Republic. <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 3

another day of debates as the Security Council works towards a resolution> RaCHEL GREEnWaLD & ILInCa BoGaCIov

After two days of debates, the Security Council has still not passed a resolution regarding cooperation between the United Nations and other regional organizations. While the tone of the debates have remained amiable, it seems tackling this issue will remain a challenge because of the complexity of the issue.

Nevertheless, the Council has managed to come up with many operative clauses to discuss throughout the day that may prove to be a success if the delegates can manage to find points of compromise.

The Russian Federation has had many objections to clauses proposed, and the country even used its veto power earlier in the day. Since the first day of deliberations, Russia has had issues with the topic, and it would have preferred the Council to focus on the management and prevention of natural resource induced conflicts. In a press conference Russia explained that it still wants an effective resolution regarding the cooperation between the UN and other organizations, but it is more passionate about natural resources.

“Russia has strong views on natural resources and we are looking forward to a passionate debate on the topic, and to

hear the views especially of the United States and the United Kingdom,” the delegate of Russia said.

Even so, the Council has to find a comprehensive solution to the problems raised by cooperation before moving on to the next topic. The main drivers of the resolution, Chile, United Kingdom and Venezuela, seem very determined

to get to the matter resolved in a timely manner. The United Kingdom seems especially concerned with keeping the discussions on topic.

“Something we try to prevent when it comes to time is not just shortening, but merely keeping the topics lean and not taking on unnecessary balance,” the delegate of the United Kingdom said. <<

SECURITy CoUnCIL

InTERnaTIonaL CoURT of JUSTICE

Witnesses noam Chomsky and John Lewis Gaddis grace the ICJ with their presence > STELa MaRInova GInEva

Today two distinguished witnesses, Mr. Noam Chomsky and Mr. John Lewis Gaddis, swore on the UN Charter to say the truth, and nothing but the truth as the witness questioning commenced in

the heated ICJ case between the UK and Marshall Islands.

The Marshall Islands commenced by calling on renowned linguist and

advocate for non-proliferation, Noam Chomsky. Mr. Chomsky’s expertise as a linguist was benefited from in interpreting the wording of the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Questions

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 4

that were posed included the correct interpretation of ‘ordinary meaning’ in Art 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Where Mr. Chomsky insisted that he has no legal expertise, he did propose his interpretation stating that ‘what we mean with ordinary meaning is that the meaning of words is really the standard definition. It is not in the position of the judge to find a new definition or interpretation of the words…’

Then, the much disputed Art. 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is at the core of this case was analyzed by Mr. Chomsky in a linguistic approach. He stated that ‘negotiations in good faith’ referred to the fact that negotiations shouldn’t ‘counter the object or purpose of a treaty.’ Further, that the ‘cessation

of the nuclear arms race’ referred to the fact that ‘no measures should be taken which would continue any improvement of the nuclear arms measures or in any way act as to move the situation of the nuclear arms from the status quo or in any way would compete with other nations to keep their nuclear weapons at their levels.’

After the linguistic expertise of Mr. Chomsky had hopefully cleared up some misunderstandings as to the interpretation of the treaties within the courtroom, and after the advocates returned from lunch, a second witness - Mr. John Lewis Gaddis was called in. Mr. Gaddis, an American Cold War historian specializing in Naval and Military History, was summoned by the United Kingdom to answer some

questions about nuclear weapons and their potential benefits. UK Advocate Daniel Witte asked if Mr. Gaddis believed that nuclear weapons during the Cold War served as a deterrent to escalation of conflict between the USSR and US. Mr. Gaddis responded that ‘having nuclear weapons, as such, can be a negative or a positive thing. In this case it was a positive thing. In this case, the conflicting parties were less likely to be confrontational due to the nuclear threat.’

Asked on his opinion of forcing the nine nuclear states to negotiate and disarm, Mr. Gaddis responded that the key to successful negotiation and disarmament would be openness which doesn’t currently exist. That this lack of openness could actually bring about a security breach.

During the cross-examination, the Marshall Islands advocates questioned Mr. Gaddis on whether the fact that there are secretive negotiations about a mutual defense agreement between the UK and US might be countering the NPT. Mr. Gaddis said that it is a possibility as openness would be key, and the secretive nature of this negotiation is preventing this. The court wrapped up initial discussions on the claims as raised by the Marshall Islands today. Hopefully, the input of the witnesses will contribute to the proceedings in a positive manner. <<

Developing Jus cogens – is ICJ undertaking more than it can handle?> CaMELIa vaSILov

“If an International Oscar were awarded for the category of Best Norm, the winner by acclamation would surely be jus cogens.” These were the words of the legal scholar Anthony D’Amato in a 1990 article in the Connecticut Journal of International Law. Is ICJ in the position to award this Oscar in the field of nuclear weaponry? In other words, can a case ruling in ICJ significantly advance international norms on possession of nuclear weapons?

The debate between UK and the Marshall Islands has now moved to the last two claims in the Marshallese memory: 1. that UK has not performed

its obligations to disarm in good faith and 2. that ownership of nuclear armament is a breach of jus cogens. The chair has requested the Marshallese advocates to clarify the connection and the degree of overlapping between these claims.

Initially, jus cogens or peremptory norms emerged as a limitation to the rights of the states to engage in an bad commitment by way of treaty. The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties explains that “a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.” Such norms

are generally those against genocide, slavery, use of torture etc. Thus, even if all states in the world agreed on a treaty stipulating that torture is admissible, for instance, this provision would still be nule. The application of Jus Cogens is Erga Omnes (applicable and available for all) and the decisions made and enforced because of it are Actio Popularis (by the will of many and for the common good).

What influence does the court have on these supernorms, or high “commandments”? The Court will act as defender of existing jus cogens, but can also help the transition of a rule from the status of general rule to the one of

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 5

CRISIS SECURITy CoUnCIL

In the last few weeks the civil armed conflict in Colombia between the government and the left-wing rebels has escalated tremendously, with the FBRC rebel forces holding about half of the country’s territory. Naturally, the UN Crisis Security Council is

seeking solutions to the situation with all possible means. One might expect that an international organization dedicated to the peace and well-being of the world would resort to negotiation and dialogue first. However, with the refusal to admit a representative of the

rebel forces on the grounds, claiming that this is a “terrorist” organization, the Security Council raises questions on its integrity and impartiality. Listening to and collaborating with only one side of a conflict certainly does not comply with the principles of UN peacekeeping.

When asked about the grounds on which the FBRC has been deemed as a terrorist organization, the Secretary General could not give a definitive answer during the press conference. The Director, Mr. Floris-Rene van Strien, stated that there is no official definition of “terrorist” and it is the Council who decides that a group is not recognized. Without a doubt, FBRC is an insurgent group fighting against a legally elected government and there is evidence that they are involved in criminal activities. However, looking at similar conflicts in Syria and the Western Balkans,

Terrorists, freedom fighters and the Un’s impartiality> Tanya ZHEkova

jus cogens. One example of the court determining if a long term trend in legal matters has become customary – or even jus cogens – can be the Montevideo Convention on Statehood. Intended at first only for the South American states, the Montevideo Convention became THE norm when it comes to statehood on a global level. What is essential is what legal common sense underlies each jus cogens. For instance, in the Montevideo Convention the common sense in in dubio, pro libertate (the most liberal solution should be adopted if there is doubt).

If the Marshall Islands can successfully argue that the Non-Proliferation Treaty enjoyed the real support of the majority of states (thus it was by will of the many and for this common good), this would mean that the Treaty could be itself a source of international customary law. Also, if the Marshall Islands can prove that the there is a legal common sense behind outlawing the nuclear weapons possession, then this outlawing could have a better chance at becoming jus cogens. <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 6

The curious case of the Russian artillery in angola> MaRIa MoIS

The Crisis Security Council has dealt with many matters with regards to the security situation in the South American sub-continent, but not with illegal arm trade. In case of theft or secret agreements, arms can end up anywhere and there is no control over it. The MUNOTH Observer confronted the delegates with the following example: around three months ago a consignment of weapons had been discovered in Angola. At the time of discovery, the arms were considered to be “illegally traded.” The Angolan

government was concerned that this problem could increase the violence level in the region and suspected a regional trade pattern. They found out, however, that the weapons were produced in Russia as part of a legal arms transport link between Damascus and Moscow. “The weapons were offered to us by arm leaders and we have confiscated a part of the armament,” states the delegate of Angola, Julia Mitzinneck. The delegation acknowledges that in case of theft, the danger is that arms end up in the wrong hands and can be distributed

on the black market. Uncontrolled access to arms could, subsequently, affect civilian lives.

Nobody brings up this issue. Russia said that they are not responsible for the stealing of weapons, because “it is just trade and it happens between others powers as well. It was definitely private individuals. We do not know who they are working for”, says the Russian delegate, Cris van Eijk. Citing security reasons, Russia does not even disclose the amount of missing weapons. However, Angola recognizes that there was heavy artillery and the government has limitations in controlling the transport of weapons “We cannot control every gun on our territory. All that I know is that they can be used for the wrong purpose”, thus the delegate of Angola.

The question raised here is how weapons with a purpose to fight against the bad get so easily ‘lost’. The delegate of Russia additionally wants to make clear that “we have already increased the security on arms transports”, but until all guns stolen will be recovered, innocent lives are in danger.

In the light of the escalating crisis in Colombia, the Angolan delegate believes that “the United Nations Crisis Security Council, as a representative of the international community, should not be taking sides.” Issues such as the Russian weapon mystery in Angola are bound to come and have to be duly addressed by the Crisis Security Council. This is in particular relevant with regards to the current Colombian Crisis and the potential of illegal arm trade, which can only further jeopardize adequate resolutions. <<

particularly Kosovo, other insurgent rebel groups fighting against the government and involved in criminal activities have received an almost full unanimous support from various key members of the Security Council such as the United States. The different treatment of very similar rebel groups challenges the criteria used by the SC to determine which side “deserves” aid and collaboration.

In the drafted resolution, the FBRC is clearly identified as a threat, but from the

resolution and the discussions of the SC it does not become evident what sources of information are leading to such a conclusion. The resolution reiterates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nations involved, but the substantial military supplies from the United States to the Colombian government suggest an influence in the country’s internal affairs and in the conflict respectively. At the same time the USA justified their sanctions on Venezuela with the goal to prevent Venezuelan individuals from financing FBRC and supplying them

with weapons. So, if supplying weapons to side A is wrong, why not to side B?

The question remains open: what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? How does the UN distinguish between the oppressors and the oppressed and what criteria is being used? The Crisis Security Council has not yet made that clear. <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 7

Dramatic Day at Crisis Security Council> SHaRIqa HaBIB

The Crisis Security Council experienced the dramatic escalation of the Colombian civil war throughout the session. Following is a summary of events that took place in the CSC today-

The United States Attempts Rescue OperationThe United States performs a successful rescue operation and saves 30 of their citizens.

Human Rights Abuses by FBRCWe received reports on alleged human rights violation by the FBRC. This report also brought to light the involvement of a third party and their support to FBRC.

People from several nationalities stuck in Cali due to the crisisWe received reports from anonymous source indicating that approximately 1000 Jordanian civilians working for international NGOs are being held in Santiago de Cali.

Increased Naval Movement GloballyThe Colombian civil war escalated and we witnessed an increase in naval

movement globally, which involved the United States, Nigeria and Malaysia flexing their naval mussles.

Jordan and New Zealand Citizens Trapped in Santiago de CaliTransparency International (TI) reported that their international staff is trapped in Santiago de Cali, and these international staff included Jordan and New Zealand citizens.

Malaysian Delegation Concerned with Russia’s ApathyAs Malaysia tackled the drug issues on their own coast, Russia’s apathy towards the situation gravely concerned the delegation of Malaysia.

FBRC Representation is the Next StepThe press urged the CSC to consider a representation from the FBRC in order to hear both sides of the story.

Angola raises concerns about the handling of weapons intended to solve military conflictsAngola’s concerns were raised in the military conflicts and handling of arms.

Breaking News: Santiago de Cali falls in hand of the FBRCThe city of Santiago de Cali falls in the hands of the FBRC and FBRC gains support from the Colombian population.

Russia unhappy with United States’ misuse of veto powerRussia seriously criticizes the United States’ misuse of veto power.

Illegal arms trade in Russia?Angola accuses Russia of illegal arms trading.

US sanctions against Venezuela – the “apple of conflict” in the Crisis Security CouncilHeated debate takes place regarding the economic sanctions against Venezuela.

FBRC troops are on the route to CaliReports are received on the FBRC’s aggressive approach towards Santiago de Cali. <<

GEnERaL aSSEMBLy

Consensus is broken, classic divides are welling up> DIanTo LEEfLanG &CHRISTInE nIkanDER

Through the progress of the committee over the last two days, many developed countries have dominated over the progress of the committee. While on the first day, the two working groups made a unified effort to tackle the problem, now they are divided over the differences in policy suggestions which have developed over night.

Nigeria expressed concern over the developing nations not having a real say in the UNGA proceedings. Nigeria clubbed with India, Brazil, China and

The MUNOTH Observer – 25 April 2015 8

“It is no longer feasible to pollute now and cleanup later.” The delegate of India highlighted that economic development and sustainable need to occur simultaneously. Furthermore, the delegate specified that she would prefer the sharing of technology over monetary aid. The delegate of Sweden spoke of the cooperate responsibility of multinational agricultural companies from developed nations to the developing counties that host them, whereas the delegate of the UK expressed his desires for an avoidance of coercion in regard to agricultural land usage.

This issue could be seen as the main point of contention within the international community, which has to be addressed on global scale in the General Assembly. Whichever decisions may be taken over contentious issues, the committee’s chairs are very positive about how the committee has progressed over the past day. The chairs are on the edge of their seats about the divides which recently came about. They told the correspondent, now that the resolutions develop to more concrete forms and clauses on the issue, many countries realize that their national policies are not in full sync with suggested multinational policies. The political blocs we now see forming are “relevant divides”. They take a optimistic position on these divides. “The level of active participation, fruitful debate and creative solutions is mindblowing.” <<

action problem of regulating prices. An increasing amount of global grain and food production is used to satisfy developed nations’ consumption of meat and biofuels. The increasing meat and energy demands of developed nations has led to an increase in global grain prices – therewith making grains less affordable to developing nations. Grains such as rice and oatmeal constitute a key source of nutrition to the poorest. Increasing the grain yield of agricultural land or creating more agricultural land through deforestation may lead to land degradation. The delegates of Canada, Brazil, India, Sweden and UK were asked to comment the concept of “the obligation of developed nations to assure that developing nations do not degrade their lands, through deforestation and mass agriculture.”

The delegate of Canada spoke of “notions on thinking whether we should give privilege to economic growth or we should give privilege to sustainability”. She asserted the “priority of economic development in developing nations, as they cannot always afford sustainable development” and highlighted the role of Canada as a donor to the World Food Program and International Monetary Fund. The delegate of Brazil stated that developing agreed that developing nations do not always have the means to place sustainability before economic interests. In response of the delegate of Brazil, the delegate of India stated:

South Africa to discuss on making a separate resolution to be introduced into the debate. When asked on what kind of support the group thinks it needs from the international community and what it thinks about the consent of developed countries, the delegate said that it recognizes the need for the support of at least one member of the security council in order to have a strong impact.

The correspondent asked the United States on how it felt about the division which is building up in the committee to which the delegate answered, “Well, we are moving to establish and re-establish cooperative relations within the committee.” The USA will engage with the BRICS countries and the opposition. We have a common goal, we are involved in the same fight.”

In the press conference the MUNOTH Observer asked the delegations of Brazil, India, Canada, Sweden and the UK about global solutions found through the United Nations versus possible regional and bilateral solutions to agricultural problems. From their reactions it seemed that the delegates feel that regional and bilateral treaties will be more concise on specific small scale problems.

On the other hand, the issue of food security also concerns a problem of distribution of produced food. The global market is dealing with a collective