2018 Legal Committee Background Guide

Transcription

1 2018 Legal Committee Background Guide The University of Notre Dame Model United Nations Conference February 2-4, 2018

2 Dear Delegates, I wish you a warm welcome to the second annual NDMUN. I am absolutely honored to be your chair for this year s General Assembly Legal Committee and am excited to take on the topics chosen for this year s conference with you all. These topics have been chosen because they are incredibly relevant in today s geopolitical landscape, and taking on the legal aspects of these issues are essential to making progress. As for myself, I am a senior Chemical Engineering major with a minor in Catholic Social Teaching, and have been involved in Model UN throughout all of high school to this point. Like many of you, my involvement in Model UN stems from my interest in current events throughout the world and how international relations come into play. I hope you enjoy reading about these topics in anticipation of productive discussion and debate during the conference. There is plenty to be learned about these ongoing events, especially about your country s position on these issues and international law in general. Please know that position papers are mandatory for awards and that this is a no technology conference when we are in session. I look forward to meeting you all and am open to absolutely any questions leading up to the conference, so please, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers, C.J. Pulmano cpulmano@nd.edu

3 Topic A. Maritime Disputes in Southeast Asia Topic Overview: The South China Sea is a highly sought after waterway among southeast Asian countries due to the abundance of its natural resources, marine life, and overall strategic position. Several bordering countries have overlapping claims to parts of the Sea, resulting in tensions in these countries relationships due to these territorial claims. Moreover, China has more recently increased its nautical influence in the region, artificially building islands in the region. High tensions continue to this day, leading to worries of armed military conflict. The dispute over the South China Sea is one with a long history and seven major players- Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Overall, there are several disputes in different areas of the South China Sea involving different groupings among these seven, but they break up into two categories of contention: maritime boundaries and sovereignty over various islands in the region. The main international agreement related to taking on maritime disputes is the Law of the Sea treaty ratified by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The contents of this treaty govern international maritime law as agreed upon by 166 member states (UNCLOS). An essential component in this treaty are the economic exclusive zones (EEZs) afforded to states with territory bordering a large body of water. The EEZ is defined as a sea zone in which the sovereign state has exclusive rights for exploring, using, and conserving the natural resources within the prescribed sea zone. (UNCLOS). The EEZ of a state typically stretches out 200 nautical miles from the coast. Exceptions to this rule are made when EEZs of different states would overlap; in these cases, it is left to the states to determine their actual maritime boundaries

4 (UNCLOS). It is in these cases that problem arise regarding the development of maritime boundaries. Figure 1. A map of the South China Sea with claims and EEZs marked. As seen in the figure above, the close proximity of these countries and their EEZs in the South China Sea have resulted in several disputes over maritime boundaries (BBC). Adding to the complexity of negotiations on maritime boundaries are territorial disputes over islands in the region. Primary to these disputes are two major island chains, the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands, and the Scarborough Shoal near the coast of the Philippines. Several states in the region claim sovereignty over various islands in these island chains. Many states such as China insist on a historical basis toward claiming sovereignty rights over the islands,

5 which are also hotly disputed. China has the most expansive claims of territory in the region with their Nine-Dash line indicating the area they claim sovereignty. Moreover, China has been the most active in the region, developing the islands they occupy and conducting military exercises in the region (Ross). The positions of the countries directly involved in these disputes are relatively straightforward. They take the position that will result in the most advantageous result for their country: control of the area of the sea that they are claiming. For example, China s position on the dispute over its claims is that the sovereignty and territorial issues over the islands in the South China Sea must be resolved before addressing the maritime issues (Mirski). This is essential because if the territorial issues are resolved, those who gain legitimate sovereignty over these islands also have a claim under UNCLOS to an EEZ around these islands, gaining control of a wealth of maritime natural resources. Countries that are not claimants in the region are likely to take positions on the conflict depending on their states attitudes toward maritime law and their own experiences regarding the negotiation of border/territorial disputes. For example, a state that has achieved success in bilateral negotiations regarding a border dispute might favor leaving it to the states to negotiate without U.N. intervention. Countries that are not necessarily claimants may also seek for stability in the region because it benefits them directly. For instance, although not a claimant, the United States maintains an active role in the region and taken a position in support of the freedom of navigation, seeking to maintain free trade and commerce with Southeast Asian countries. As the Legal Committee of the General Assembly, it is our task to consider international maritime law as it is and determine if there are any ways to resolve these disputes with the law as

6 it is. If it is found that there are deficiencies in the law, it will be our task to address these issues and develop more comprehensive international maritime law that can be applied to the situation in the South China Sea. Question to Consider: 1. Are the maritime features in this region sufficient to truly be considered islands? How does artificial island building affect how these features are defined? What are the implications to sovereignty rights? 2. Are there (if any) legitimate claims to sovereignty to the islands in this region? If so, whose and for what reasons are they legitimate? 3. What is the United Nations place in handling issues of sovereignty? 4. Is UNCLOS III sufficient in terms of defining EEZs and holding states accountable to the agreement? Does the treaty need to be reworked in any way or supported with new international law? 5. Should we as a body take a position on the ruling in Philippines v. China? What position do we take? If so, what further actions must be taken to bolster the decisions made by this tribunal?

7 Helpful Resources: CIA World Factbook - Profiles on states around the world Reuters Article - Useful summary of the conflict in the South China Sea CSIS - Extensive overview of overlapping claims and classifications of maritime features outhchinasea_web.pdf Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative - The conflict today in Position Paper of China - State opinion on the arbitration case with the Philippines

8 Topic B. International Drug Policy Reform Topic Overview: The international drug trade is one that has burdened countries throughout the world for decades. Illicit drug trafficking is closely linked with organized crime, the funding of terrorism activities, and the cause of drug epidemics such as the rising opioid overdose deaths in the United States. With the drug trade s many social effects such as the increase in violence in communities and the continuation of the cycle of poverty, international cooperation is a necessity to form an effective strategy in stymying drug trafficking and its effects. Over the past few decades, the United Nations has attempted to address the many issues throughout the world that have come about due to illicit drug trafficking and the abuse of drugs. There have been several approaches to the matter in the history of the UN, such as the establishment of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the ratification and passage of various treaties on tackling the world s drug problem. There are three major treaties that guide the United Nations several drug related programs. These include the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (UNODC). The Single Convention of 1961 was the most widespread codification of international drug control of its time, replacing previous international agreements on the matter. The objectives of the Convention were to completely limit the distribution, use, and manufacture of the drugs covered by the treaty to medical and scientific use. These objectives were achieved by expanding control measures over the production of illicit drugs, such as developing measures to

9 control the use and distribution of precursors (e.g. plants) to narcotics (TNI). Furthermore, the Single Convention categorizes four Schedules of controlled substances in the following order from most restrictive to least restrictive: Schedule IV, Schedule I, Schedule II, and Schedule III. The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances builds on the framework put into place in the Single Convention, but with the development of control measures for synthetic psychotropics such as amphetamines and psychedelics. Furthermore, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides more detailed policies on the enforcement of the previous treaties and the illicit drug trade (UNODC). These treaties have been the guidelines for member states national laws on the production, trade, and use of illicit drugs for decades. To this day, these three treaties are the framework for UNODC operations. There have been various criticisms regarding these treaties; in particular, critics have questioned the treaties effectiveness in limiting drug trafficking and also scrutinized their punitive nature toward personal use and possession (TNI). Because of these criticisms and rising dissatisfaction in the international approach toward drug control, there have recently been stronger pushes for reform. In 2016, the General Assembly hosted a Special Session (UNGASS) reviewing the world s drug priorities. The outcomes of this special session resulted in a document with a more positive tone toward approaches involving decriminalization and harm reduction policies (OSF). Overall, the special session was a step in the right direction, but was not met without criticism and disappointment from organizations such as the Transnational Institute and the Global Commission on Drug Policy. In response to the outcome document of the 2016 UNGASS, the Transnational Institute writes, The outcome document

10 includes multiple general references to full respect for human rights in implementing drug control, which is of course positive, but it fails to spell out what that really means With the recent revisiting of the United Nations strategy on drug trafficking and the abuse of controlled substances, there are two clear diverging philosophies. There is the strategy of prohibition, which has guided the international community for decades, and then the strategy of harm reduction and government regulation, which is starting to be seriously considered in various countries. There are some countries that want to maintain the strategy of strong prohibition such as Russia, various states in the Middle East, and even the United States (although many states in the U.S. have undermined this position with the decriminalization of cannabis.) Meanwhile, other states such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are looking to re-evaluate their drug laws, considering decriminalization or less punitive regulation (Sengupta). As the Legal Committee of the General Assembly, it will be our objective to take into consideration the current international framework for drug control and assess its efficacy in today s global landscape. While UNGASS was considered a hopeful step in the right direction, many were disappointed by its outcomes. The problem that remained unaddressed in UNGASS is treaty noncompliance due to changes in member states attitudes toward cannabis regulation. By the Single Convention, cannabis is a Schedule IV substance and requires strong control measures as outlined in the treaty. Member states have moved toward regulation over prohibition as outlined in the three treaties developed in the 20th century. Several states in the United States have passed legislation regulating cannabis use and other nations have expressed intentions to do the same. As such, the United Nations must respond more strongly, reworking the treaties, because otherwise, it is a massive failure in international cooperation and treaty compliance.

11 There must be consensus on how the drug problem is approached: whether it is upholding the standards of prohibition that currently guide the international community today, or find new policies that focus on harm reduction and/or other potentially more effective methods. Questions to Consider: 1. What actions should be taken regarding the noncompliance of states to the current treaties in place? 2. How should cannabis regulation be addressed in light of a seemingly changing global landscape regarding the substance? 3. What aspects, if any, of the current treaties in place must be modified? Should prohibition remain the collective strategy in international drug control? 4. How can different states approaches to drug control be reconciled in a multilateral agreement or treaty?

12 Helpful Resources: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 Transnational Institute - A publication criticizing the effectiveness of the Single Convention and the necessity for reform single-convention-on-narcotic-drugs-a-reinterpretation Transnational Institute - Commentary on the changing regulation of cannabis across the world and how it stands against current UN treaties. Transnational Institute - A primer on UN Drug Control Conventions Coalition Urges Nations to Decriminalize Drugs and Drug Use rugs-and-drug-use.html?_r=0 UNODC - Outcomes of the 2016 UNGASS Transnational Institute - Criticisms of the outcomes of the 2016 UNGASS Global Commission on Drug Policy - More criticisms of the outcomes of the 2016 UNGASS -outcome-that-strains-the-credibility-of-international-law/ Impasse or turning point for the war on drugs?

13 Works Cited Mirski, Sean. "The South China Sea Dispute: A Brief History." Lawfare. N.p., 10 June Web. 15 May Pham, Tuan N. "South China Sea: A Legal Analysis of China's Maritime Claims." The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 20 June Web. 15 May Ross, Eleanor. "How China Is Building Its New Territory in the South China Sea." Newsweek. N.p., 03 Apr Web. 15 May Sengupta, Somini. Coalition Urges Nations to Decriminalize Drugs and Drug Use. The New York Times. New York Times, 8 Sept Web. 15 May "The UN Drug Control Conventions." Transnational Institute. N.p., 11 Jan Web. 16 May "UNCLOS." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 15 May "UNGASS 2016: Watershed Event or Wasted Opportunity?" Transnational Institute. N.p., 15 Apr Web. 16 May "Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?" BBC News. BBC, 12 July Web. 15 May "The World's Biggest Meeting About Drugs." Open Society Foundations. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2017.