IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

Transcription

1 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Cyber Security In Nuclear Facilities Expanding The IAEA Nuclear Security Mandate

2 Delegates and Faculty, I d like to welcome you to UCI s 25 th annual High School Model United Nations Conference. My name is Sarah Ahmad, and I am proud to serve as the Secretary-General for UCIMUN s 25 th anniversary. As per tradition, the conference will be hosted at UCI s Student Center, the hub of our beautiful and eco-friendly campus. Here at UCI, we strive to provide an enriching environment through competitive debate at both the novice and advanced level, with a strong emphasis on the educational gain of the students. UCI is proudly recognized as a research university; one that fosters culturally aware students, both connected to the global community and passionate about the state of global affairs. We hope to capture this drive towards advancement and amity through our conference theme this year, Pursuing peace and security in today s global landscape. All of our topics feature an emphasis on current events, from the ongoing Middle Eastern refugee crisis to the war on terrorism in today s modern scene. Our staff s goal is to not only provide delegates with high quality debate, but also with an opportunity to immerse themselves in intellectual discussion of issues that are relevant to the community around them. The committees will revolve around the attainment of peace and security in areas such as public health, humanitarian crises, as well as large-scale crime. Our theme will allow delegates to research relevant topics that will better their understanding of the current state of world affairs, as well as help them brainstorm fresh, creative solutions that are applicable to these recent issues. My staff has been working tirelessly towards conference preparations and we can t wait to see you all conference weekend! The hard work, dedication, and research that has gone into preparation thus far will only be furthered with the insightful opinions and discourse that is to come from our delegates. I encourage delegates to look beyond these documents, and to approach their topics not just as a mode for comprehensive debate, but as real world issues in need of feasible, pragmatic solutions. Best Regards, Sarah Ahmad Secretary-General UCIMUN U C I M U N

3 Hello Delegates, Let me be one of the first to welcome you to the 25 th Annual University of California, Irvine MUN High School Conference. My name is Krystian Ibanez and I am your USG of Specials for this conference. It has been my job these last few months to organize and prepare the substantive material regarding the specialized committees. My staff and I have worked long and hard to bring you both an educational and competitive environment for this year. I hope that over the two days of our conference, you all can find solutions for some of the world s most pressing and urgent questions. Although this may only be a simulation of the real work being done in the UN, the topics you shall debate are real issues and I would like every delegate to walk away from the conference feeling as if they have helped the world be a better place for us all. I am currently a second year Biological Sciences student hoping to transfer into a Human Biology Major to pursue a carrier in Medicine. Like some of you, I have found that helping others is something that I do quite well. This characteristic of mine combined with my love for sciences lead me down the path of a doctor. Last year, with the UCIMUN Travel team, I travelled to the NMUN National Conference and was able to help my team win third place overall. In addition to my travelling, I was also the director for UNIDO in last year s conference. The level of debate that those delegates showed was well beyond the expectations that I held for them and I hope that you all can bring that same quality of discourse in your committees this year. With that in mind, the specialized committees this year shall focus on the conference them of Peace and Security, with a heavy emphasis on compromise and long term solutions. The committees this year include: Security Council (SC), the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), World Bank, and an Ad Hoc committee on Terror. With each topic and with each committee comes the most important issues that the international community faces. I urge each delegate to think and debate holistically and try to reach agreements that span economic, social and political fields. I have high hopes for this year s conference and I encourage you all to make the most of these two days. Use this experience not as a way to pass a class or as another thing to put on a college application, but rather as a tool to light a spark in our community to bring change to the world. I look forward to seeing you all in April! Regards, Krystian Ibanez Under-Secretary General of Specials Committees UCIMUN U C I M U N

4 Esteemed Delegates, My name is Frida Ayala and I will be serving as Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for UCIMUN s 2017 conference. This is my second year staffing for UCIMUN, I served as Assistant Director of Security Council in last year s conference. It was an enriching and captivating experience then, and I hope and will work to make it as compelling an experience if not more so this year. I am currently a third year working towards a double major in Economics and International Studies. My interests are somewhat expansive, yet specific. History is my favorite subject, particularly the late 19 th and 20 th centuries in Russia, Germany, and the United States. Aside from MUN I perform community service with other on campus organizations. Outside of academics I enjoy reading, especially Russian literature, but frown upon anything that has to do with Young Adult dystopian novels. I am also an avid soccer fan capable of reciting most professional teams squads and performances. I also enjoy hiking and watching movies set during World War II. I fancy myself an avid news and sports junkie, as well as amateur french fry critic. Furthermore, I would like to reaffirm my commitment and belief in the MUN structure and mission. I enjoy being a part of MUN not only because it provides us the platform to demonstrate our extensive knowledge and interest in international affairs, but also because it encourages constructive dialogue and cooperation on the world s most pressing issues. Through this structure we are made aware of our strengths and weaknesses, we become conscious of the difficulty and the constrictions to our ideas, goals and aspirations. And yet we also learn to compromise, cooperate and strategize to move closer to those objectives and ideals. It will be this framework through which you will explore and seek solutions to the challenges countries face in keeping nuclear energy safe and secure in an age of high stakes cyber security and in the IAEA s role in promoting peaceful nuclear energy uses in an age that demands more. I strongly encourage you to look beyond the topic synopsis for information and turn to the vast information available to sharpen your understanding of the issues and their backgrounds. Focus on every conceivable angle no matter how insignificant it may initially seem. It is often what we want to overlook that eventually provides answers and innovative solutions to problems. I encourage you, as delegates representing countries from all over the world, to absorb as much information as you can and to contribute inventive solutions. I can assure you preparation will only enrich your experience, and mine as well. With that being said, I am excited to meet you all at the UCIMUN conference this year and hope to guide you through an intense and engaging committee. I hope to be knocked off my chair through the strength of your arguments and pioneering solutions. Best, Frida Ayala IAEA Director UCIMUN iaeaucimun@gmail.com 4 U C I M U N

5 TOPIC A: CYBER SECURITY IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES Introduction With the increasing prevalence of cyber-attacks directed at governments and other institutions, cyber warfare has become a contentious and widespread problem demanding attention and action. Cyberattacks are an effective means of gathering information and secrets, not only do secretive and rogue entities engage in cyber warfare but so do governments. The recent United States accusations against Russia on hacking the Democratic Party servers and other attempts to influence the presidential election (Shear, Sanger), the Edward Snowden leaks on NSA tools to obtaining information and such, the tensions between the United States and China over cyberattacks, coordinated Anonymous Group hacks, and past events such as Stuxnet are just some recent examples of governments and other entities engaging in what can only be construed as cyber warfare. These cyber-attacks are intended to steal information, disable security or inflict damage. And yet it is important to consider that nuclear facilities are also vulnerable to cyber-attacks as they hold valuable information and can pose a significant risk if compromised. The North Korean hack on a South Korean nuclear operator reactor in December 2014 is just one example especially when considering North Korea s infamous nuclear program, any information North Korea obtains can improve their ambitious program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a responsibility to not only promote safe and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but also to secure nuclear facilities. As such, it is imperative that a framework or agreement be established with preventive measures intended to curb cyber-attacks on nuclear facilities and maintain rigorous security intended to safeguard nuclear data. Because cyber-attacks are increasingly common, guarding against such incursions is incredibly complicated and requires more 5 U C I M U N

6 sophistication and resources (O Neill); detecting and protecting information is a difficult task and more expertise and modern technologies must be employed and made accessible to vulnerable governments that may not count with the resources to maintain such efforts. The IAEA must therefore address the problems posed by cyber-attacks and arrive at solutions to deal with these issues effectively. The IAEA already contributes and assists countries with security in nuclear facilities through programs that train and equip security personnel at said facilities (IAEA). Furthermore, the promotion of nuclear technology and research also means the IAEA has the responsibility of advocating for safe, peaceful, and secure technology, as well as following through with this mandate. The Department of Nuclear Safety and Security within the IAEA therefore must expand its focus to meet today s challenges which includes cyber-attacks. Although most countries with nuclear capabilities have the resources and expertise to meet and counter the challenges cyber-attacks pose, many do not. It is the responsibility of the agency to provide assistance and expertise to every country in need of it. Diminishing risks related to nuclear energy for one state diminishes them for all when it comes to international security. Governments and rogue, obscure organizations may seek to obtain valuable data on nuclear facilities for a variety of purposes. These purposes range from breaking into facilities and disrupting operations to even harboring suspicious nuclear ambitions. It is known that terrorists have entertained the idea of building dirty bombs with plans that may be outrageous and impractical, yet may evolve to become more sophisticated and threatening. This was seen in the December 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, when security agencies revealed terrorists had pondered kidnapping nuclear scientists to obtain information (Lange). It is therefore vital that all measures be taken 6 U C I M U N

7 to keep nuclear facilities protected in every way, the agency must not overlook the nuclear facilities vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Topic Description: With cyber security rapidly becoming a central issue for governments and institutions, securing nuclear facilities against cyber-attacks falls under the umbrella of cyber security. As stated in the Background to this topic, governments and other entities face threats from obscure and hostile organizations or governments. Cyber war has the potential to be more than disruptive, it can be damaging, especially if the data compromised is that of nuclear plants (Shalal). There is no framework or agreement dictating cyber war, there must be an updated system that establishes a response to cyber-attacks as well. Furthermore, the issue of resources must be addressed since economic and technological resources are needed to deal with the threat of cyber war. Before delving into the different facets of cyber security, it is important to recognize that there are significant hurdles to establishing a framework or agreement regulating or abolishing cyber-attacks on nuclear power plants. Numerous governments engage in cyber war by coordinating and executing cyberattacks against other entities, including other governments, many may and will be hesitant or resistant to the establishment of a framework that seeks to abolish these practices or that condemns the past use. Therefore it is important to note that when addressing the issue of cyber security and the settlement of a possible foundation, there will be significant opposition. It is therefore important to assure and appease this opposition when engaging in negotiations. This is also why it is important to keep the framework or agreement strictly within the bounds of cyber security and nuclear energy. It is well known that governments themselves engage in acts of cyber espionage and cyber warfare. The 7 U C I M U N

8 Edward Snowden leaks have exposed the United States practices, yet other governments also engage in such actions. There have been accusations against China for its role behind cyber-attacks directed at corporations and other entities with the aim of stealing industrial or business secrets and practices (Pagliery). Russia has been more recently accused of hacking into the United States Democratic Party servers and thus intervening in another country s political process. Russia has additionally been accused for hacking into the German Parliament (Eddy). Furthermore, North Korea has in the past been accused and widely believed to be behind attacks against the South Korean government and corporations including a nuclear plant. The notorious attack on Iran s nuclear facilities should not be overlooked either, with the United States and Israel widely considered to be behind the virus called Stuxnet that reportedly set Iran s nuclear capabilities back a few years. In view of this, governments may be unwilling to sign on to anything that condemns or forbids cyber-attacks. It is important to note that states with nuclear energy are not just developed countries but that many less developed states also count on nuclear energy as an energy source. Since countries that have nuclear capabilities may range in development and income stages, it is important for the IAEA to address the issue of protection against cyber-attacks. Countries with nuclear energy such as France, the United States, Germany, etc., have the resources and ability to protect their nuclear facilities against attacks yet the same cannot be said of other countries with nuclear energy. These countries are more vulnerable to attacks and security breaches as they do not have the resources and capabilities of their counterparts. Countries need human capital in the form of computer scientists and a robust technological sector, resources are needed to maintain security at nuclear power plants. Seeing as the IAEA already provides countries with nuclear energy training and recommendations on how to keep nuclear power plants secure in the form of training 8 U C I M U N

9 security guards and so on (IAEA). Furthermore, because nuclear energy security affects all nations, it is important to avoid externalities and so cooperation is crucial to keeping nuclear power plants safe and secure. Countries without the resources to protect their power plants from cyber-attacks would benefit greatly from the expertise and resources of the IAEA. This is especially the case given that those that engage in hacking and especially attempted hacks against nuclear power plants are often dubious organizations or hostile governments attempting to obtain information. North Korea is widely considered to have been behind the attacks against a South Korean nuclear power plant (Kwaak), and seeing as North Korea is a largely isolated country in international relations with nuclear ambitions for dubious and dangerous purposes, it is important to provide protection to every country with nuclear energy. Yet it is also important to note that there is no present framework or agreement governing or regulating cyber war or cyber-attacks. It would be beneficial for the IAEA to address this and establish a framework that seeks to curb the use of this practice and establishes a robust cyber security apparatus. Bloc Positions: Nuclear energy development continues to be an aspiration for many countries but with nuclear security come considerable questions and issues that countries interpret and respond to differently. European Union and North America: The European Union is a formidable and influential bloc of countries in sync on most foreign policy issues. Nuclear Security is also one of those issues on which there is strong support and intent to protect and understand the cyber security challenges institutions face especially nuclear power plants. The European Union actually passed a law this recently this year, July 2016 that establishes rules when it comes to cyber security. While this law focuses on service operators in a variety of service industries, it does assign cyber 9 U C I M U N

10 security obligations and requires firms to report cyber-attacks (Stearns). It is a notable piece of legislation since it also requires that governments to cooperate on matters of network security (Stearns). Another important thing to note is that the legislation includes the energy sector. This legislation reflects the growing concern with cyber-attacks as they become more sophisticated, threatening and damaging. Furthermore, the European Union clearly believes a united response based on cooperation is a significant and effective response. The European Union also recently met with NATO, November 26, 2016, to apparently discuss future cooperation of EU-NATO on cyber security. NATO and the EU already have a framework in place that seeks to tackle cyber security with cooperation and information exchange (NATO). All of these recent initiatives by NATO and the EU show Europe is concerned with cyber security and is moving fast to respond to this threat effectively. Working on cyber security regarding nuclear security is something, judging by their focus and dedication to cyber security, Europe takes the issue seriously and is ready to cooperate on. Outside the European Union Countries working outside the European Union with nuclear energy may have interests in strengthening their security apparatus yet more self-sufficient states such as the Russian Federation may be more reluctant. Special attention may be paid to the potential consequences of a framework and its implications for the future. Asia Asia is a very diverse continent with various interests, often not aligned. Now it is also important to note that countries like Japan will largely be in favor of increased nuclear security. Their experiences and leading status in the nuclear energy industry position them to take the lead on these issues. Other countries may have more reservations on certain aspects of establishing a potential framework for a variety of reasons. 10 U C I M U N

11 South America South America s various countries may also be interested in establishing a framework that ensures security instruction when it comes to cyber security. Many Latin American countries have nuclear power plants and are poised to benefit from any negotiations on this area. Furthermore, many may not have the resources to sharpen and update their cyber security systems. Committee Goals: This committee is expected to engage in spirited and informed debate, the interests of the countries being represented should be respected and pursued faithfully. Furthermore, the committee should be able to arrive at a solution that reflects the ever increasing concern with respect to cyber-attacks. Cyber-attacks are a complex and a sophisticated relatively new weapon; the concepts of aggression and warfare are expanding into new, perhaps unchartered territory which should be kept in mind when negotiating and proposing solutions. It is especially because of the complicated and rapid rise of cyber-attacks that there is an opportunity to set a precedent by this committee governing cyber-attacks and by extension cyber warfare. It is therefore strongly recommended that research be done diligently as pertains to this topic and any related topic--do not only work within the area of cyber-attacks but venture into related fields to look for possible similarities in situations as this one. This committee should be able to address the significant problems and dangers cyber-attacks pose and ideally work to establish the first framework or foundation regulating cyber-attacks in the international community directed at nuclear energy plants and infrastructure. 11 U C I M U N

12 Research Questions: 1. What experiences has your country had with cyber-attacks as both a target and an actor behind attacks? What purpose have these served? 2. What methods has your country pursued when fighting back against cyber-attacks and what methods have been pursued to have a robust cyber security apparatus? 3. What is your country s stance on cyber warfare? 4. How is your country poised to contribute to the debate over cyber security and what concrete solutions does your country advocate? 5. What would your country not accept when it comes to establishing a framework designed to combat and protect against cyber warfare? 6. When formulating your country s policy, what may be your country s reservations on any cyber security framework and any precedents that may set? 12 U C I M U N

13 Works Cited 1. Eddy, Melissa. "After a Cyberattack, Germany Fears Election Disruption." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 8 Dec Web. 2. Howell O'Neill, Patrick. "Hackers Can Take over Networks at Vulnerable Industrial Facilities and Nuclear Power Plants." The Daily Dot. N.p., 29 July Web. 20 Jan "International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." Education and Training in Nuclear Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Jan < 4. Kwaak, Jeyup S. "North Korea Blamed for Nuclear-Power Plant Hack." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 17 Mar Web. 20 Jan Lange, Jeva. "Brussels Bombers May Have Plotted to Kidnap a Nuclear Scientist to Build a 'dirty Bomb'." The Week - All You Need to Know about Everything That Matters. N.p., 24 Mar Web. 20 Jan < 6. "NATO and EU Press Ahead with Cooperation on Cyber Defence." NATO. N.p., 25 Nov Web. 20 Jan Shalal, Andrea. "IAEA Chief: Nuclear Power Plant Was Disrupted by Cyber Attack." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 10 Oct Web. 20 Jan Shear, Michael D., and David E. Sanger. "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 6 Jan Web. 9. Stearns, Jonathan. "European Union's First Cybersecurity Law Gets Green Light." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 06 July Web. 20 Jan U C I M U N

14 TOPIC B: EXPANDING THE IAEA NUCLEAR SECURITY MANDATE Introduction The International Atomic Energy Agency is a very important organ within the United Nations. It is tasked with promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy, preventing and discouraging the military use of nuclear energy, among other security threats. Due to the nature of its work, the IAEA should then be an indispensable and important international actor when it comes to nuclear safety and international nuclear issues, yet this is not always the case. The IAEA, despite being tasked with a critical mandate, is often not at the forefront of international nuclear affairs and has been criticized for being too lenient when it comes to important issues regarding nuclear developments. Although some of the criticism has targeted individuals within the agency, part of this criticism and the IAEA s often slow and timid role is due to its own structurally weak mandate and charter. It is important to note that describing the mandate as structurally weak does not diminish the agency s importance. Before delving into this, significant criticisms of the past must be addressed first. The IAEA was criticized in the 1990s for failing to detect Iraq s secret nuclear weapons program, and again in 2011 with the nuclear disaster in the Fukushima plant in Japan, the IAEA was criticized for how it handled the situation. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran Deal, was another event in which the IAEA incurred criticism. Detractors of the deal criticized the agency over its handling past reports on Iran s nuclear program and questioned its ability to oversee Iranian nuclear facilities and report on them. Furthermore, there are also common criticisms of the IAEA calling for greater transparency in its workings, especially with respect to its archives. 14 U C I M U N

15 The IAEA is tasked with a complicated nuclear mandate. It is an agency assigned with the promotion of peaceful nuclear energy use while also being responsible for the supervision of nuclear programs. It can be said that it engages in two tasks inherently at odds with each other; promote nuclear energy on the one hand but ensure it is internationally compliant. These responsibilities are controversial with some states and the concept of sovereignty arises. The IAEA must then straddle a delicate and complicated international arena. Listening and working with states with competing interests and states that nurture suspicious or potentially offensive nuclear ambitions. The nuclear mandate the IAEA is tasked with allows for the IAEA to supervise the nuclear programs of states, facilitate cooperation on nuclear research, and when something arises inform, by submitting reports to the responsible organs of the United Nations charged with overseeing potential conflicts, namely the Security Council (IAEA). So while the IAEA is tasked with critical responsibilities, it is not given much room to maneuver or mount an effective response to potential conflicts. Meaning that despite the IAEA being the body in charge of overseeing nuclear programs and erecting safeguards, they are not sufficiently equipped with regulations or avenues that allow for the execution of a more ambitious response to conflicts or violations and consequently a more prominent role when it comes to issues regarding nuclear programs and intentions. Topic Description The IAEA, in promoting safe and peaceful nuclear programs, must also ensure that the programs are in no way potentially meant for military uses. The tools the IAEA has been given to meet its responsibilities mainly lie in its ability to suspend members, discontinue any agency support for ongoing projects, submitting reports to the concerned UN organs, and not much else (IAEA). This can be said to be 15 U C I M U N

16 an insufficient array of tools for an agency expected to do more, especially on a topic which is of concern to the world and its safety. It is necessary that the IAEA pursue more avenues to satisfy its mandate and meet its responsibilities, to do this it must also expand its nuclear mandate. In recent years, the international community has come to expect more from the IAEA, assigning it more tasks and expecting it to have a more active role around the globe yet its budget remains significantly strained as it has seen little increase in funding and more demands (Goldberg). Furthermore, while the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) includes the IAEA as a mechanism through which to supervise Iran s nuclear program, it is telling that the deal was brokered by the P5+1 (permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) and the EU--the IAEA in being the international agency concerned with these issues should have had a more prominent role. For the IAEA to effectively comply with its mandate that it prohibit nuclear programs with military purposes, it must have a broader and more assertive role in international diplomacy. The IAEA is to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State s activities in the field of atomic energy according to the IAEA statute. While the agency is able to apply safeguards, it can only do so at the request of parties or a State, this effectively leaves the IAEA only able to act until a state takes initiative. Given that the agency has the potential to be more involved in these matters, it would be interesting to see the tools and approaches (think along the lines of diplomacy, programs, safeguards) the IAEA can adopt to coax or pressure States when they find themselves in violation of the statute. Although the IAEA was structured to be a bureaucratic body (Weichselbraun), it can still take on a more prominent role in international politics regarding nuclear issues. The answer in this would lie in 16 U C I M U N

17 expanding the IAEA s nuclear mandate to allow for the IAEA to act more independently and assertively. What this may mean is the transformation from a largely bureaucratic body to a more diplomatic and regulatory one. Instead of just submitting reports to the committees of interest such as the Security Council, ECOSOC, and others it may act as a diplomatic force. The agency s expansive knowledge of nuclear science and technology would only aid in its being able to actually rein in some rogue nuclear programs. The IAEA can be said to be uniquely qualified to maneuver between the energy needs and ambitions of countries; its aid and energy programs may give it a unique insight. In expanding the IAEA nuclear mandate, a revitalized and assertive agency would be able to effectively maneuver and have more independence to pursue its role as the world s chief agency governing nuclear use. This may take many forms--through a dedicated diplomatic strategy, continued bureaucratic protocol development and setting standards. In fact, a more assertive IAEA may be in critical need in the coming years in light of the recent developments in international politics. With recent political developments, we see states foreign policies are susceptible to marked changes and inconsistencies. It is because of this that the IAEA may also need to heighten its profile since it may not always be able to count on the leadership of states. Although the Cold War is over, since the events in Ukraine in 2014, the diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States have deteriorated significantly. Leaving aside current allegations, what concerns the IAEA is the recent withdrawal of Russia from the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) which committed both countries to the disposal of significant amounts of plutonium. That the IAEA has not actively stepped in to resolve the situation which may be resolved through an expansion in its nuclear mandate. The PMDA and related nuclear arms reduction treaties have 17 U C I M U N

18 historically been negotiated by the concerned parties, Russia and the United States, but seeing as this agreement has not been resumed, the IAEA should step in. When states do not take the initiative, the IAEA would perhaps do better to intervene rather than wait. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iran Deal, has so far been a success and counts with the support of world leaders yet its negotiation and implementation is due to the initiatives of the countries that engaged in its negotiation. While the IAEA is playing a critical role in overseeing the deal s implementation and Iran s compliance, it is important to note that the IAEA could have played a broader role. The deal was complicated and took effort from both sides to come to fruition however the IAEA had no significant role in pushing for its creation, a role it should have had considering it is an agency dedicated to ensuring nuclear programs from having military purposes; a task that may be interpreted as keeping nuclear weapons out of reach. In 2011, the IAEA was also criticized for its handling of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While the IAEA was competent and aided Japan, it also incurred criticism for its confusing use of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale and for initially using only information approved by Japan (Borger). One can interpret this event as having brought tensions and concerns about sovereignty, especially since the IAEA is to cooperate and advise states yet nuclear safety remains under the purview and responsibility of the state. Although it is also important to recall that the IAEA is the agency at the forefront of nuclear governance. The expansion of the IAEA mandate, one allowing for more autonomy when it comes to determining or assisting in the formulation of a response to a state s violation, may face resistance among states that have a robust commitment to sovereignty. The IAEA, in short, should serve as the counterweight to the rash actions of states. As one of the 18 U C I M U N

19 most important and critical organs of the United Nations, the IAEA cannot remain on the sidelines, waiting for other states to take initiatives and invite the agency into the fold. The IAEA should be able and allowed to take initiative in matters related to nuclear safety in international politics. In doing so, it would attempt and perhaps be better equipped to succeed in forming nuclear reduction deals which have been and continue to be of the utmost importance. This would certainly be beneficial when states lose interest or diplomatic efforts begin to slow as happened with the plutonium deal between Russia and the United States. In this case, the IAEA would bridge communications between the two countries and perhaps arrive at a deal to resume the agreement. The nature of the international system may be tumultuous and uncertain; there is no system expressly governing relations between states. Although the United Nations is an attempt or the closest body resembling a supranational government, it is not equipped with the tools to effectively enforce norms or international laws. This however should not mean that agencies such as the IAEA should not have the ability to pursue policies and diplomacy benefitting the world. Even during the Cold War, in a time of global tensions, nuclear agreements came to symbolize common ground and highlight the awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons which is why the IAEA should be reformed and its mandate expanded. This reform would then mean that even when there are diplomatic setbacks, the IAEA would continue to work to keep the world safe and nuclear programs peaceful. This would be perhaps especially beneficial since it could represent itself as a bureaucratic third party. The IAEA s role could be more than just oversight--an advisory role would be ideal. It is of the utmost importance that delegates review the role of the IAEA, in what ways it has had its role limited and how this can be remedied. A significant concern among states will be the important issue 19 U C I M U N

20 of sovereignty; a stronger and more ambitious IAEA may be concerning for states. It is important to keep these concerns in mind as the possibility of expanding the IAEA s nuclear mandate is addressed. Bloc Positions: Europe European countries may be more agreeable to the idea of expanding the IAEA s nuclear mandate. Many of these countries, if not most, had an active role in the eventual creation of the Iran Deal. It can then be said that they favor a diplomatic resolution to these situations and would favor the IAEA having a more prominent role as well. Asia As the Asian continent continues its ascendancy in global politics, some of these countries start or continue to expand their nuclear energy sectors, sometimes aggressively. Some may be hesitant to significantly expanding the IAEA nuclear mandate in view of this especially since sovereignty is a very serious value in the region. Middle East This region of Asia is perhaps the more contentious since nuclear programs have been the cause of sanctions and wars in recent years. It will be important to demonstrate that the mandate expansion is in their best interest. South America This region may be more receptive to an expanded role for the IAEA, South America is one of the few Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ). This means nuclear weapons are banned from use and development in areas governed by this agreement. As a region, South America may then be supportive of 20 U C I M U N

21 an expanded nuclear mandate to deal with these issues. Africa Africa as a continent is also governed by the Nuclear-weapon-free-zone agreement. This would then could possibly also make it a supporter with an important role to play in the reform to the agency s nuclear mandate. Committee Goals: This committee is expected to arrive armed with information and initiative. Lively and animated debate is expected; the issue may be deemed controversial by some therefore we expect no less. Delegates are expected to explore the idea of expanding the nuclear mandate of the IAEA which would entail giving it a more prominent role in areas relating to nuclear energy and weapons. This means delegates will be dealing with the potential conflicts arising from concerns over sovereignty and usual politics to states individual interests. The work tasked to this committee is especially important given the recent unpredictability of governments thus lending more weight to this debate. Research Questions: 1. Does your country have a nuclear program? Explore its history from its foundation to its current state. 2. Have there been controversies surrounding your country s nuclear program or nuclear ambitions in the past? 3. What is your country s stance on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? 4. What role has your country had in regional and global organizations? Focus on its participation. 21 U C I M U N

22 5. What are your state s concerns on sovereignty and a robust international bureaucracy? 6. Is your country threatened by erratic and unpredictable neighbors? How may this affect your country s position? 7. What role does your state have within the IAEA and how would an expansion impact said role within the agency? 8. How has the role of the IAEA expanded or regressed since its creation, what reaction did your state have to this? 22 U C I M U N

23 Works Cited 1. Borger, Julian. "UN's Nuclear Watchdog IAEA under Fire over Response to Japanese Disaster." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 15 Mar Web. 25 Jan < 2. Goldberg, Mark Leon. "The Cash-Strapped Agency at the Heart of the Iran Deal." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 18 July Web. 25 Jan < 3. Findlay, Trevor. Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA. 4. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Report for Centre for International Governance Innovation, June "Statute." Statute IAEA. IAEA, n.d. Web. 25 Jan < 6. "A Watchdog with Bite." Nature.com. Macmillan Publishers, 27 Apr Web. 25 Jan < 7. Weichselbraun, Anna. "The IAEA: A Nuclear Bureaucracy." Division of the Social Sciences. The University of Chicago, 22 Sept Web. 25 Jan < 23 U C I M U N