Click here to read the NHSMUN 2011 Legal Background Guide

The Legal blog is now available

Topic 1: The Legal Uses of Force in Conflict

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” (Article 2.4 UN Charter) This was written within the original United Nations Charter in 1945. Nevertheless, it is considered to be a fundamental part of sovereignty as a state to be able to declare war. Force being an opposition of sovereignty and a necessity for security are both justifiable within international law. The purpose of the Sixth Committee would be to adapt an international code of law that would not only stipulate the circumstances of necessary force, but the process by which to moderate case by case the numerous situations at hand and in the future. The International Court of Justice has been established to review on a case by case basis these situations across the world. However, the Sixth Committee is responsible for creating the legal code that the ICJ will adhere by.

At present four continents are continuously plagued by warfare. Modern warfare has evolved from actions between states into actions between states and non-state groups. From the ongoing War on Terror revolving around the American coalition and Al-Qaeda, which is a state versus terrorist, or non state actor, group to the ongoing war over Palestine, which is a state versus region conflict; war has clearly evolved from its formal origins. This development has left loopholes for those in power to utilize military action citing security as legal reasoning. While in some cases the use of force has been seen as beneficial to free nations from tyrants and the population from crimes against humanity, in others it has been asserted that motives have been less noble. Various situations exist presently that have not yet been solved as there is no formal code to justify one position or the other; in all cases it has boiled down to national sovereignty. A resolution establishing what force is legitimate and what is not is necessary for the facilitation of the case by case reviews of the future.

The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Terrorist Bombings Convention) of the Legal Committee focused on a distinct issue of force, namely explosives. Distinctly outlawing bombings, even in the case of fighting for self determination could be utilized as precedence in relation with other aspects of force. If bombings, an act of force, are illegal in all ways besides formal warfare, could this prohibition extend to then armed insurgencies, suicide bombings and even state sponsored armed attacks?

Topic 2: International Regulation of Cyberspace

Future conflicts both between two states and between one state and a non-state actor will and are becoming increasingly reliant on different capabilities, namely Cyber warfare. The internet serves as an access point for all types of information; ranging from confidential military data to personal emails of citizens. One of if not the most notorious cyber-warfare attacks took place in 2007 in Estonia when over one million individual computers jammed government, business and media websites. The offensive was widely believed to have Russian origins as the attack coincided with a period of bilateral political tension. The damage inflicted from the attack was estimated as tens of millions of Euros of damage. Reported attacks in both such cases have been reported within the last year. In December of 2009 South Korean officials reported that Korea had been victim of a cyber attack that they alleged North Korean hackers may had stolen confidential military documents outlining South Korea’s defense of the Peninsula in the event of war with the North. More recently Google underwent an investigation into cyber attacks allegedly with origins in China targeting human rights activist’s personal emails. In these two separate cases it becomes clear that attacks are not always between two states, but rather between entities. Merging together the security of a nation with the security of its businesses becomes an even larger problem as many telecommunications companies are linked with government involvement and regulation. Because of this it is within the scope of the committee to address the progressive debate on network neutrality.

Network neutrality is the advocating for no restrictions by ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) or government on content and access. Network neutrality links to the issue of cyber warfare because both subjects will address basic rights and responsibilities of ISP’s which involve both topics. When addressing basic jurisdiction of the internet, for example what jurisdiction does a nation have over its internet content? If the internet is limited to restricted access because of a nation’s government policy, the nation would be strongly opposed to net-neutrality. This topic affects both the societies who are accessing the internet, and the government in regards to not only their security, but their economical output. A nation banning on a website, such as Pakistan's recent ban of Facebook and YouTube, includes not only to the injustice of inequality, but more importantly the loss of revenue.

This topic is highly pertinent to the Sixth Committee because there is no current international consensus regarding relatively any aspect of the internet. Nations frequently debate over content limit for both economical and societal principles. It would be a progressive step for the Legal Committee to draft a formal resolution on these highly relevant and seldom discussed issues.