BISMUN VII

SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE UNITED NATIONS REFORMS

PRESIDENT: ALEJANDRA LLINAS & JORGE STEPHANELL

BACKGROUND GUIDE

BARRANQUILLA, COLOMBIA

British International School Model of United Nations

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the 2019 British International School Model of the United Nations

(BISMUN), my name is Alejandra Llinás, and I will be accompanying and guiding each one

of you through the Special Commission of UN Reforms next to my Co-president Jorge

Stefanell. I am honored to be presiding you, and I am expecting your uttermost performance

during this experience, for it to be the most insightful and enriching experience it can be.

Ever since the establishment of the UN in 1946, there have been many proposals,

studies, debates, and discussions about questions of reforms to the organization. From how it

works, to how it approaches conflicts and gets to resolutions; in this commission, we will be

discussing two of the most controversial and outspoken problematics in the UN’s curriculum.

Within this guide, you will find helpful content to start your investigations, but please

do not only rely on this as you will need to do your own research in order for the commission

to have an academic and very dynamic debate. Moreover, you all need to realize that the

quest of this commission is not only to debate but for each one of you to have an amazing and

indulging experience that will help you develop and grow as delegates. All the skills and

knowledge gained through the debates will hopefully help you in your future career in MUN

and in life, so please enjoy this experience to the fullest and take advantage of every second

of it.

If you have any doubts, you can reach me through the following email

llinasp@britishschool.edu.co

Sincerely,

Alejandra Llinas.

British International School Model of United Nations

Topic A: Revision of the Veto Power and Permanent Members of the Security Council

When the United Nations was established in 1946, the Charter of the United Nations

was also put in place. This document was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the

conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into

force on 24 October 1945. This contract between all of the fifty original nations established

the jurisdiction of the UN as well as the first set of mandates the organization would be

running under.

One of the most important and controversial rulings dictated by the Charter was that

of the right of each of the "Big Five" to exercise a "veto" on action by the Security Council.

The “Big Five” is the group of the five winning nations of the Second World War, their

members are The United States of America, The United Kingdom, France, China, and the

Russian Federation. these are the nations who instigated the initiative for the creation of the

UN in order for a catastrophe such as World War II to never occur again. The right to veto is

the most important distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the

Security Council; Article 27 (3) of the UN’s Charter, establishes the following,

“Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote

of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in

decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall

abstain from voting.”

Therefore the “Big Five” can exercise their right to veto and to not pledge in favor of any

resolutions that they seem unfit.

As expected this right has created major discussions and controversy ever since its

establishment; smaller nations debated that when one of the Permanent five menaced the

British International School Model of United Nations

peace, the Security Council would be powerless to act, or that these could be used

arbitrarily by these nations in order to favor their own national interests. Regardless of these

inquiries, the Veto power was put in place, as well as the position of the Five Permanent

members (P5), and it still holds place today.

There are many issues attached to this Article, from lack of representation of

continents and nations to the misuse of the veto power and obstruction of justice from the

Permanent members. In today’s reality, the complexity and interconnection of issues create a

globalized world which is in need of a modernized United Nations in order to keep achieving

the goal of a peaceful architecture. Attributable to this, one of the main issues concerning the

Security Council is the addition of new members to the P5. The P5 members belong mainly

to European nations, one North American nation, and one Asian. The incredible lack of

representation of the African and South American continents creates a polarized council with

a lack of legitimization and of international perspectives which affect their decision making

competence.

A discussion about this issue initiated during the Seventy-third session of the General

Assembly Plenary on November 20, 2018; during this session, the African group presented

its concerns about the lack of the African continent representation in the Security Council

through the representative of Sierra Leona. He argued that most of the issues discussed in the

15-member organ were related to the 54 nation continent of Africa, therefore he demanded at

least 2 seats as Permanent members, including the veto power, and 5 seats in the council;

following this statement he concluded with the following “[It's time to] redress the historical

injustice of not being represented in the permanent category”. Despite having the most

numbers of members in the Security Council, Africa keeps being undermined on the decision

making as they are immensely underrepresented at the core of the council, the Permanent

members.

British International School Model of United Nations

At the same discussion, the representative of Guyana came forward for the

Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Latin America, as these territories are also

underrepresented in the organ. They came to the conclusion that multilateralism and

inclusiveness will only bring legitimacy and strengthen the work of the organization.

On the other hand, the Pakistani delegate argued that although the nation agreed with

expanding the members of the Security Council, they believe that expanding the Permanent

seat will only make the decision making progress more arduous member Council cannot

reconcile the interests of its five permanent members, how will it cope with the interests of a

bigger membership?

Members of the existing Permanent seats also came forward expression their own

positions. China, backing up the African states, also agreed on the expansion of both the

permanent and non-permanent seats, as well as increasing the participation of developing

nations. The United States delegate stated his support for a “modest expansion” of the

council, considering entering member should have the capacity to support and contribute to

the maintenance of international security. Additionally the US stated his opposition to the

overruling of the right to veto. The representative of the Russian Federation, continued with

America’s stand supporting the right to veto, calling attention to the multiple times it has

applied it.

This discussion not only lies on the expansion of the Security Council and its

permanent members but additionally it touches on the legitimacy and practicality of the Right

to Veto. The right to veto was established in Article 27 (3), where it was decided that

decisions on all but procedural matters “...shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine

members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.” The only condition put

in place was that members of the permanent seat may not utilize their veto prerogatives in

situations where their party is considered to be the focus of a draft resolution, “…in decisions

British International School Model of United Nations

under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain

from voting.” Throughout the practice of the SC, the members of the P5 have loosely adhered

to this restriction. This has been violated by Russia on two occasions; the USSR’s 12

September 1983 veto of a UN’s resolution condemning the USSR's shooting down of Korean

Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983, as well as Russia’s 15 March 2014 veto of a draft resolution

regarding Russia’s annexation of Crimea. And these are only two examples of many.

The discussion regarding this specific article has been increasingly controversial and

polarizing inside the organization, due to the nations that possess this power constantly using

it to defend their own national interests; this has been especially problematic when discussing

issues about human rights and genocide due to the fact that most countries advocate from this

right to not be used when discussing these two topics. Resolutions have been passed to try to

overrule it or, at the minimum apply certain restrictions, but none of these have actually been

approved.

Currently, the veto power has been used not only as a political weapon but also as an

obstructing mechanism, which in some cases can be very harmful to the international

spectrum. Even though this responsibility is not entirely harmful, as its bases were intended

to be of good will, in today’s globalized and polarized world this has become an obstruction

for the UN to undertake some of the greatest issues disputed today.

The veto affects the work of the Council in ways that transcend its actual use during

voting. It is not unusual for a draft resolution not to be formally tabled because of the threat

of a veto by one or more permanent members. This is difficult to document: a paper trail

exists only if a draft is circulated as a Council document, which in most cases occurs only

when there is a reasonable expectation of adoption. On some occasions, however, the sponsor

of a draft resolution may put it to the vote in the full knowledge that it will be vetoed to

demonstrate symbolic support for an issue and to create a historical record of positions within

British International School Model of United Nations

the Council. Nowadays, this power has a tremendous effect on the passing of resolutions,

and the actual actions of the uN regarding matters that may be a product of a polarized world.

This is why it should be revised and discussed by all the countries in this commission and

furthermore by the General Assembly.

It is worth noting the existence of the United Nations 377 Resolution, also known as

the Uniting for Peace Mechanism or the Uniting for Peace Protocol, which is the primary

measurement the UN can take in order to override the Veto power of one of the SC

permanent members by calling to an Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly

and with vote of a two thirds majority, the General Assembly can - in the nature of

recommendations - act in behalf of the preservation of international peace when it is being

threatened due to lack of unanimity from part of the SC’s permanent members. However, in

order for this mechanism to be conveyed, the Emergency Special Session of the General

Assembly must be invoked either through a procedural vote in the SC - meaning nine

approving votes with the Veto vote not being taken as such - or through a majority vote from

the General Assembly. We can recall the implementation of this Resolution during the

Korean War when the International Community opted to override Russia’s Veto on regards

of military intervention in Korean territories.

Guiding Questions:

1. Does the veto power hamper with the objectives of the United Nations regarding the

solutions of Humanitarian Crises?

2. Are the Permanent members of the UN’s council taking advantage of their

responsibility?

3. Have the circumstances of today's world panorama changed the effectiveness and

necessity of the veto power?

British International School Model of United Nations

4. Should more countries be added to the permanent seats of the Security Council?

And if so, on what basis?

5. Are countries under-represented on the Security Council?

6. Should there be a restraint on what subjects the veto power should apply to?

7. Are there any existing resolutions that may obliviate the veto power?

British International School Model of United Nations

Topic B Revision of the UN reaffirmed Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

In the 1990s the Balkans and the Rwandans suffered the worst genocides registered in

the last 20 years, and while the international community knew about these horrible events

happening, none of the nations or the UN could do anything. The UN was going through

mayor discussions as they were discussing whether States have unconditional sovereignty

over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene in a

country for humanitarian purposes. In his Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary-General

Kofi Annan, sent a direct message to all nations by stating the following, “ “If humanitarian

intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a

Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every

precept of our common humanity?” Following these atrocities, messages, and furthermore

answering this question, the UN decided to establish a summit in order to organize,

systematize, and cooperate ideas in order to avoid further cases as such. Therefore, the

concept of Responsibility to Protect was established.

Although the UN had decided on the matter of “Humanitarian Intervention” the actual

concept of responsibility to Protect came much after. It was first presented in the report of

the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the

Canadian Government in December 2001. In order to answer to the message by then

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the commission was created; it touched on the topics of State

sovereignty when gross violations of human rights are being committed, and finally

concluded their position in a report called “The Responsibility to Protect”. Its report found

that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the

State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that

when a State fails to protect its people – either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness

British International School Model of United Nations

– the responsibility shifts to the broader international community. The UN defines this

concept as the following;

“The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was

endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit in order to

address its four key concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes

against humanity.”

In other words, all nations agreed on intervening on any case in any nation where gross

violations of human rights were being carried on.

In 2004, there was a summit made by The United Nations' High-level Panel on

Threats, Challenges, and Change. This panel was created in 2003 to analyze threats and

challenges to international peace and security, and to recommend action based on this

analysis. In December 2004, it produced a report on threats to peace and security. The panel

proposed basic criteria that would legitimize the authorization of the use of force by the UN

Security Council, including the seriousness of the threat, the fact that it must be a last resort,

and the proportionality of the response. In September 2005, all Member States of the United

Nations agreed on following the responsibility of each State to prevent any violations of

Human rights regardless of where they are happening. At the Summit, world leaders also

agreed that when any State fails to meet that responsibility, all States are responsible for

helping to protect people threatened with such crimes.

In this summit, the three pillars by which the Responsibility to Protect was to abide by

were established:

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide,

war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;

2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in

fulfilling this responsibility;

British International School Model of United Nations

3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic,

humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is

manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be

prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the UN

Charter.

The first time the R2P has been referred to in practice was in April 2006, in resolution

1674 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Security Council implemented it

while passing a resolution authorizing the deployment of UN peacekeeping troops to Darfur,

Sudan. After this event, the R2P has been referenced in multiple cases, in a number of

resolutions adopted by the security council.

On 8 July 2011, the Security Council, in resolution 1996, established a UN

peacekeeping mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), to advise and assist the government in

fulfilling its responsibility to protect civilians. South Sudan officially became an independent

country on 9 July 2011, the climax of a process made possible by a 2005 peace deal that

ended a long civil war. On 21 October 2011, resolution 2014 condemned human rights

violations by the Yemeni authorities and encouraged an inclusive Yemeni-led political

process of transition of power, including the holding of early Presidential elections. This

resolution explicitly recalled the Yemeni Government’s “primary responsibility to protect its

population.” In Syria in 2002, the Security Council discussed about intervening on a conflict

that has taken over 100,000 live, and it is constantly harming the well-being of its citizens, as

well as violating their human rights. “The Government of Syria is manifestly failing to

protect its populations,” the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of

Genocide, Adama Dieng, said in a statement in December 2012. “The international

community must act on the commitment made by all Heads of State and Government at the

British International School Model of United Nations

2005 World Summit to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and

crimes against humanity, including their incitement,” said Mr. Dieng.

Guiding questions:

1. How does R2P affect your own nation?

2. Has R2P proven to be useful in past situations?

3. Does the international community violate sovereignty laws when applying armed

forces in foreign nations and using R2P to justify themselves?

4. Nowadays how can we use R2P in conflicts such as Siria and the DPRK?

5. At what time can a country determine whether it should act or not based on the R2P?

6. Does the R2P violate the sovereignty of a country?

British International School Model of United Nations

References

1945: The San Francisco Conference. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/1945-san-francisco-

conference/index.html

Chapter V. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-

v/index.html

United Nations General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.un-

documents.net/a5r377.htm

The Veto : UN Security Council Working Methods. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-

veto.php

World, N. (2018, September 30). The Problem With the UN Veto Power | NowThis World.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPAONq36HKg

The responsibly to protect – on a case by case basis. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.unric.org/en/responsibility-to-protect/26988-the-responsibly-to-protect-

on-a-case-by-case-basis