Legal Committee:
Topic 1: Terrorism
There are multiple outlets for the definition of terrorism. The most widely used, and known, is the violent action by an extremist militant group against civilians to instill terror and cause a change. However there are many other types of terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the general use of violence or intimidation in order to achieve political goals. In that sense, oppressive governments, violent governments, militant groups, or governments supporting militant groups are all defined terrorist organizations. Countries like the United States and France have spent over $1 trillion on counterterrorism movements abroad and have set the standards for which organizations are deemed terrorist organizations by NATO. Many countries, though, especially in the Middle East, believe that these NATO nations terrorize their countries, whether it is through drone strikes on civilians or extended military occupations. The differing definitions on terrorism have caused a prolonged international war of opinion.
The definition of terrorism is a widely disputed entity, as mentioned, because many countries refuse to accept that their regimes are terroristic. Although there are many international agreements regarding terrorism, the advances in modern technology and weaponry have distanced any previous definition with the modern terrorist. The existing concepts of terrorism are mostly utilized by developed countries, while developing countries are usually accused of terrorist activities. The harboring of terrorists has started wars, as well as the questionable definition of terrorist regimes, wherein the question lies- what should define a terrorist? The dissimilarity of international definitions has become apparent, and it is the job of the United Nations to provide a concrete, well-rounded international view of terror.
With a definition, though, there is still the question of how the international community will respond. The UN opted to minimally intervene during the American invasion of Iraq, the likes of which was justified based on potential terrorist ties.The different views within the general UN allowed the US to carry out its occupation against the wishes of some member nations. A definition will simplify the severity of the approach, but there still needs to be an international outlook on how relations with terrorists will occur. It is the job of the United Nations to maintain general stability throughout the world, so avoiding an escalating conflict will ensure safety. For example, with rising tensions between the United States and North Korea, the United Nations has been worried that the nations will go to war. The US has defined North Korea as a terrorist group, while the North Koreanshave defined the US as imperialistic terrorists. The international community has tried to decide how to approach the situation because, if war ever occurred, other actors such as China could get involved, and an international conflict could start. If the UN, firstly, defines terrorism and, secondly, states the path that should be taken in response, nations such as the US and North Korea will be able to address their diplomatic tensions within the confines of accepted international law.
Terrorism is a vital issue because it affects every nation in the world. From oppressive governments to self-proclaimed terrorist groups, and from international bodies to domestic revolutionaries, terrorist organizations affect every nation. If not occupied, they can be harmful to any nation’s stability. It is important for the international community to define what makes a terrorist organization, not just name them, and to create sufficient action plans for all states that are attacked by internationally defined terrorist group.
Questions:
- What actions or beliefs should internationally define Terrorism?
- Why have pre-existing agreements and protocols not effectively ended international terrorism?
- How should the UN respond to terrorist regimes or private militant extremists?
Resources:
About: Terrorism. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Definition of the 4 widely known types of Terrorism
Europa: Summaries of EU Legislation. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< Site for European countries that details the EU’s agreed upon strategy for counter-acting terrorism
Global Terrorism Database. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < An open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2011
International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < ICT is an independent think tank providing expertise in terrorism, counter-terrorism, homeland security, threat vulnerability and risk assessment, intelligence analysis and national security and defense policy. The site contains helpful information on country specific terrorist activities.
Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Document released by the US Library of Congress that details the countries that are susceptible to terrorism and why they are
National Counter-Terrorism Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Though a US site, it provides an insight into many terrorist groups defined by the Western World and gives information on different types of terrorism
United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < UN Legal Committee resolutions and discussions on terrorism; different articles are located on different tabs
The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and Action Plan. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. <
United Nations Legal Committee. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< Security Council List of Suspected Terrorist groups as of 2004
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< Collection of major recent UN resolutions on terrorism
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Page 98, Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Specific Country views on the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism
Topic 2: Diplomatic Protection and Embassy Safety Sites:
Diplomats, in an international view, are individuals or groups who are sent internationally to represent their home country. Diplomatic protection essentially describes the treatment and laws surrounding a diplomat; diplomatic immunity is the most commonly addressed issue of diplomatic protection. Embassy Safety, though, addresses the physical safety of the embassy or consulate where the diplomats being housed. There are hundreds of embassies and consulates around the world, with hundreds of diplomats working within them, so their safety is of vital importance to international stability. Embassy safety draws upon the conflict in Benghazi, where the American embassy was attacked by militant extremists, while Diplomatic Protection draws upon the concept of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, where Israeli athletes were killed by extremists. Both caused international backlashes that represent the topic.
Diplomats and their rights have been largely publicized through media in modern times. When there is a journalist taken hostage, the home country publicizes it, and when the diplomat of an aggressive nation visits an enemy, the world watches. Historically, countries have refused to let diplomats inside of their borders if they are from belligerent nations or countries that are not allies, which is not a crime, but when nations allow diplomats within their country, and they get hurt, both nations generally have a conflict. It is important to address the role of the host nation in diplomacy; there have been many international laws made on the topic, but it is still important to ensure that there are no loopholes. Punishment, if there should be any, should be decided beforehand so that nations know what might happen if they do not provide extreme protection. The rights of the diplomat, namely diplomatic immunity, are also an international issue. Many citizens have traveled to another country and broken the law, but were not able to be arrested because of their immunity to the law. The question on that front is whether or not it is fair that someone can be sent back to their home country for, what could be an unfair trial. For instance, if a female European goes to a Middle Eastern, largely Islamic nation and does not dress appropriately, they could be arrested or sent back home where they would receive no punishment. Many nations argue the inequality of the concept, while others believe it is only fair. It is up to the United Nations to decide what is, and is not, a permissible offense for international travelers. There are many different routes to the argument of diplomats; should they be able to visit during wartime, should they have certain rights, should their documents be accessible to the host government; many countries have argued every possible angle.
Embassy Safety addresses both the implementation of security, the blame for embassy attacks, and the response to violence. In many countries, a large military protection of an embassy is seen as aggression, while the embassy itself sees it as defense. It is necessary to address whether or not large military presence should be allowed. Also, when an embassy is attacked, as many have been, it is important to have a predetermined plan on how to address the situation. Should the host government be blamed for allowing it, should they help find the perpetrators, should the countries go to war- all are questions that depend on the international policies of a specific country, leading to an unpredictable game of politics. If the international community sets strict guidelines to the response towards embassy attacks, specific to the severity of the attack, spiraling international disputes can be averted. As the United Nations, it is important to address and create laws that will assert blame for certain attacks based off of guidelines, set a plan for the protection of embassies, and set a plan for the response to host aggression .
Diplomatic Protection and Embassy safety are issues that parallel each other greatly; one deals with the individual as the other deals with the official location. It is impossible to address the person without the embassy as well, nor the embassy without the person. All too often situations where a diplomat is killed, or an embassy is attacked, spiral out of control. Though the UN has addressed such topics before, the problem persists and attacks are still prevalent. It is important to rigorously review these concepts so that a large international conflict does not arise over a diplomatic crisis.
Questions
- What is a fair way to create an international law towards diplomatic immunity without infringing upon national sovereignty?
- Should diplomats be allowed to have such leniency internationally?
- What precautions and procedures should diplomats and embassies be required to follow in order to avoid an international incident?
Resources:
About: Geography. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Purpose of an Embassy/Consulate
EDiplomat. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Rights of Diplomats
Embassy World. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < List of the Embassies and Consulates in the world
United Nations Legal Committee. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Sessions of the Legal Committee with resolutions and discussions of diplomatic rights; different articles are in different sessions
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Document from 1979 that has specific country views on the taking of hostages and the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Page 49: participants of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< International Convention against the Taking of Hostages
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents
United Nations Treaties. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Topic 3: Law of the Seaand Oceanic Disputes
A major aspect of international trade, the Law of Seas defines the world view towards international waters and maritime law. The United Nations has defined the Law of the Seas as the right and responsibility of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Law of the Seas, while addressing the preservation of the environmental aspects of the ocean, more importantly focuses on the legality of trade practices in international waters. Within that trade aspect is the idea of what international waters means for traders, the rights to certain goods only found in the ocean, and the desire of expansion to national claims. Resources found in the sea, like minerals or oil, the argument over territorial claims, and the importance of the protection over the sea are all concepts of the Law of the Sea.
The United Nations has addressed numerous aspects of the Law of the Sea explicitly in the multiple Conventions on the Law of the Sea. Also known as UNCLOS III, the Treaty on the Law of the Sea addresses the importance of different zones of water (Internal, Territorial, Archipelagic, Contiguous, Exclusive economic, Continental) and the rights that countries have to each territory. The issues that follow the Law of the Seas, though, are both its uncertain codification of customary international law and its implementation. Though there are groups in place that monitor the Convention, there is still a lack of enforcement in its statements. Many countries have changed their national oceanic rights, some by 12 nautical miles, some by 200, but it is still common to see dispute over territorial claims to the ocean. The major dilemma in this situation would be how to create a unified territorial ideology about the ocean that could provide sovereignty but also avoid conflicts.
Beyond territorial conflicts, there are other issues that arise from the Law of the Sea, such as oil drilling, conservation, ocean use during wartime (mine laying), maritime safety, pirating, and scientific studies. Many countries have territorial disputes for the sole reason that they want something outside of the jurisdiction of UNCLOS, such as drilling rights. While UNCLOS does address territorial expansion for oceanic countries, it does not fully address economic or political issues over the sea, nor does it explicitly define how land-locked countries will be addressed. The weakness in UNCLOS, besides its lack of enforcement, is its vagueness in those regions of international law. It is vital for the UN to address offshore drilling and the appropriate use of the ocean in order to avoid disputes over the mass that makes up 70% of the planet.
Embodying the issues with the Law of the Sea, the Arctic Ocean has been problematic to oceanic expansion. In 2007, Russia planted a titanium flag 4 km from the North Pole, stating that its continental shelf gave it claims to that area, and half of the Arctic Ocean, but several other countries, such as Canada, Denmark, Greenland, and Norway, expressed an equal interest, and claim, to the area. All of the countries placed a military presence in the region to try and protect their claims to offshore drilling sites, and the UN has had to monitor the area to ensure stability and peace. The leaders of all of the countries involved with territorial claims in the Arctic epitomize the international outlook on oceanic entitlements; each nation believes its claims are valid over other nations.
Essentially, the largest aspects of the Law of Seas that must be addressed by the UN areits lack of implementation and its silence on important modern issues. Many countries have signed the UNCLOS III and have ratified it in their home countries, but the issue of oceanic disputes over territory still prevails. The lack of explicit actions towards economic and political claims over the ocean, as well as the rights of land-locked countries leaves room for different interpretations and arising conflicts. The true struggle within the Law of the Seas is its enforcement throughout the world with respect to economic desires and the territorial acquisitions of certain countries.
Questions:
- How can the UN address the Law of the Seas while still respecting national sovereignty?
- How may land-locked countries be affected by resolutions towards oceanic trade?
- How can the UN ensure the most appropriate and efficient enforcement of international oceanic agreements if not every country has ratified or signed international agreements?
Resources:
Academia. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013. < with valid arguments and examples of recent conflicts and escalations over offshore drilling
Britannica Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< General overview of the concept of the Law of the Sea
The International Seabed Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2013.
< The International Seabed Authority is an “autonomous international organization established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Authority is the organization through which States Parties to the Convention shall, in accordance with the regime for the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area) established in Part XI and the Agreement, organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area”