P a g e 1 | 24

‘Greetings Delegates,

My name is Taimur Ali Khan, and it is a pleasure to be serving you all

once again, this time as the Secretary General of the conference.

MUNIK has been quite a journey for me, starting as a delegate,

progressing through the ranks of Chair, Under Secretary General

and now finally, as Secretary General. It has been a learning process

allowing me to gain exposure from my experiences. Throughout the

years we have tried our best to inculcate certain qualities in

delegates by providing them with a platform through which they can

voice their opinions after engaging in the art of critical thinking.

This year we aim to take MUNIK a step further by incorporating

sustainability within the equation as sustenance and the presence of

a sustainable solution mechanism is key if we wish to eradicate the

problems consuming the world today. “Sustainability through

Synergy” is the chosen theme for MUNIK this year, it promotes the

idea of delegates coming together, bringing in unique perspectives

and engaging in intellectual discourse relevant to social

responsibility.

We hope to capture the true essence of sustainability through

MUNIK and look forward to welcoming you all!'

Taimur Ali Khan

Secretary-General

'Hello everyone!

My name is Khoulah Amna and it is an honor for me to serve as the

Under Secretary General for the General Assembly at MUNIK XI.

They say if it’s meant to happen, it will happen but I believe what's

meant to happen will happen only if YOU make it happen. Model

United Nations are what make people see beyond their initial

perspective. It develops a passion within you to seek the disguised. It

pushes you to work with your companions towards a common goal.

These opportunities and more are what MUNIK XI brings to you. If

you bring your intellect and drive to strive to the table, you can

certainly make sustainability through synergy possible.'

Khoulah Amna Under-Secretary-General General Assembly

P a g e 2 | 24

1. Committee Introduction: The United Nations General Assembly’s Fourth Committee

(also known as the Special Political and Decolonization

Committee or SPECPOL) is one of six main committees of the United Nations General

Assembly.

The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) considers a

broad range of issues covering a cluster of five decolonization-related agenda items, the

effects of atomic radiation, questions relating to information, a comprehensive review of

the question of peacekeeping operations as well as a review of special political missions

and international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. In addition to these

annual items, the Committee also considers the items on assistance in mine action, and

University for peace biennially and triennially respectively. (Nations)

SPECPOL meet annually to adopt or amend any resolutions, votes and decisions relating

to the peace process passed by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. All

193 member nations of the United Nations organization qualify to attend its proceedings.

Differing to other UN and international bodies, the committee does not initiate with a

general debate. The Committee also gives a chance to people who enter petitioners, i.e.

civil society representatives and other stakeholders, to speak. Conclusively, the committee

usually signs 30-35 Draft Resolutions and general drafts annually approved by a

consensus.

Resolutions and vote:

All draft resolutions related to the questions of UNRWA and Israeli practices and some

under the decolonization cluster are adopted by vote. Draft proposals submitted under the

other agenda items are mostly adopted by consensus.

P a g e 3 | 24

Resolutions are usually first negotiated and then tabled. When the subsidiary body’s work

is related to the text of the draft, the chairing Member State usually facilitates the

negotiations of the text.

P a g e 4 | 24

Committee Agenda

“Reforming Political Structures in Disputed Territories”

Introduction

Political structure is a term used in Political Science. Generally, the political structure

refers to political interactions, the foundation of institutions and government, provision of

Law and order and a working system of government. Political structure is portrayal of a

working system in an area, region or territory and defines how a government for the

specific region works.

In context to disputed territories, political structures are often ambiguous. This is a

consequence of several reasons, some of which are conflicts arising on a portion of land

between two countries, insurgency in an area and military mobilization.

Generally, a disputed territory often comes into existence after two nations have claimed

a piece of land as their sovereign territory. To upheld the claim, countries often mobilize

their militaries into the region causing distraught and civil unrest. Ultimately this leads to a

negotiation process between the countries that can take an unspecified amount of time to

resolve, while their military actions stay in pursuit of the disputed area. In most of the

disputed areas around the world, there is a presence of two or more militarized forces

defending their portion of the land from the other.

There have been several wars concerning the territorial disputes among two countries,

which often ends in a suspension of the negotiation process and a bilateral cease-fire

agreement held for an unspecified amount of time.

The Political structures are usually de facto in the disputed regions, as the declaration of

conflicted zone makes it unreachable for the rule of law. However, in various cases,

disputed regions face the implementation of constitution of either countries, which make it

difficult to facilitate the law and order system in the region. The suspension of a particular

system of law usually leads to civil disobedience, freedom movements and insurgencies

to rise in the areas, which shape up to form terrorist organizations in some cases. In order

to prevent such results to rise, there is a constant need to reform the political structure in

a disputed territory.

In this year’s iteration of MUNIK, SPECPOL wishes to debate on the essential reforms

needed to maintain peace and stability in the disputed regions. This area will focus on the

political structures in different regions, causes for a need of reform and possible solutions

to avert any further misbalance in regional violence and/or loss of life.

P a g e 5 | 24

Major Territorial conflicts around the globe

1. The Jammu and Kashmir Dispute

The Jammu and Kashmir Dispute is a territorial dispute between the two countries

Pakistan and India. The issue emerged in 1947 because of the partition of Sub-Continent.

To this day India and Pakistan have been fighting for control of Kashmir. Under the hasty

terms of partition, more than 550 princely states who were previously not directly governed

by Britain had to decide on staying Independent or whether to join one of the newly formed

countries. One of those was the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, the being an

86,000-square mile territory in northern India with a majority-Muslim population.

At the time, Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu, governed the princely state of Jammu and

Kashmir, which had a majority Muslim population. Unlike other princely states who chose

to align with one of the two countries, Singh wanted an independent Kashmir. To avert the

pressure from the two new nations, Singh signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan that

allowed the people of Kashmir to continue trade and travel with the new nation. However,

India did not sign a similar agreement.

Due to the ongoing violence raging across the two new nations due to the partition,

Pakistan’s government at the time pressured Kashmir to join. Pro-Pakistan rebels, funded

by the Pakistani government, took over much of western Kashmir in that time, and in the

September of 1947, Pashtun tribesmen crossed the border in Kashmir. Singh asked for

India’s help in staving off the invaders but India had its conditions, for India to help Kashmir

through military assistance, Kashmir would have to accede to India, thus becoming a part

of the new country,

Singh agreed to India’s conditions and signed the instrument of Accession, the document

aligned Kashmir with the Dominion of India. In October of 1947, Kashmir received special

status in the Indian constitution. The special status promised independence over all

P a g e 6 | 24

matters excluding communications, foreign affairs and defense. The Indian government

revoked this status in August 2019.

There have been two major wars regarding Kashmir, the first in 1948 and the other one in

1965. Apart from wars, there have been numerous cease-fire violations, Military standoffs

and light engagements between the two countries regarding the issue of Kashmir including

a heavy armed conflict emerging in Kargil in 1999.

Solutions suggested so far

1. Dixon Plan

UNCIP appointed Sir Dixon to propose a solution to the Kashmir Dispute. He proposed

his suggestions, named the “Dixon plan”. Jammu and Kashmir in the eyes of Dixon was

not one homogenous entity. Consequently, Dixon proposed that a plebiscite be help in the

valley. Dixon recognized that people Jammu and Ladakh supported India while people of

Azad Kashmir and Northern areas supported Pakistan. That left Kashmir valley and some

regions near Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. Pakistan rejected this proposal as

it believed that India’s commitment to a plebiscite for the whole state should be upheld.

2. Nehru’s Plebiscite offer

India’s PM Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani PM Bogra met twice in Europe in order to

renegotiate a solution to Kashmir issue. The two sides concluded with an agreement to

conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir.

3. UN Resolutions

UNSC Resolution 39

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 39, adopted on 20 January 1948, offered

to assist in the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir Conflict by setting up a commission of

initially three state representatives, one to be chosen by the India, one by Pakistan and

the third by the other two members of the commission members10. The commission was

to write a joint letter advising the Security Council on what course of action would be best

to promote peace in the region. Its name was the United Nations Commission for India

and Pakistan (UNCIP) and it operated until it declared its failure and submitted its final

report to the Security Council on 9 December 1949.

UNSC Res 47

The United Nations Security Council Resolution number 47, adopted on 21 April 1948,

deals directly with the Kashmiri Dispute Following the debate from both sub-continental

parties and voting on the clauses proposed, a final resolution, which is comprised of two

parts, was drafted and adopted11. The first area of the resolution deterred the commission

members to five states (Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and the United

P a g e 7 | 24

States) and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between

India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security Council recommendations for

restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. The resolution also focused on measures to

be taken for the return of refugees, for the release of political prisoners and for political

freedom. It was ultimately approved.

UNSC Res 122

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 122, adopted on 21 February 1957,

requested the Pakistani and Indian governments to prevent any aggravation to the

situation and maintaining an environment of harmonious negotiation. It also asserted the

democratic right of Kashmiris to give their input regarding the situation in a plebiscite and

urged both nations to move towards a peaceful settlement. UN representatives were also

authorized to visit the sub-continent to evaluate the levels of peace and security in the

conflicted regions.

UNSC Res 209

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 209, adopted on 4 September 1965,

called upon the Pakistani and Indian governments to have an immediate cease-fire and

all armed personnel withdrawn from the cease-fire line13. UN Military Observer Groups in

India and Pakistan were given the task of supervising the observation of cease-fire. A final

report on the situation was submitted to the Secretary General on 20 September 1965.

UNSC Res 307

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 307 was adopted on December 21, 1971.

It called upon a ceasefire and cessation of all hostilities in all areas of conflict alongside

withdrawal of armed personnel back to their respective territories and to positions, which

fully respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir under supervision of the United

Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. It also called upon the observance

of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to apply in full their provisions as regards the

protection of the wounded and sick, prisoners of war and civilian population. It also

requested for international assistance in bringing relief and rehabilitation to refugees.

Musharraf’s 4-point Plan

a. Demilitarization or phased withdrawal of troops

b. There will be no change of borders of Kashmir. However, the people of Jammu &

Kashmir will be allowed to move freely across the Line of Control (LoC).

c. Self-governance without independence

d. A joint supervision mechanism in Jammu and Kashmir involving India, Pakistan and

Kashmir.

Reportedly, due to the objections of Kashmiri Political Leadership, both the countries

backed off from Musharraf’s plan and Kashmir dispute went unresolved again.

P a g e 8 | 24

Recent Disputes and Military Standoffs

a. Burhan Wani case

On 8 July 2016, popular Kashmiri militant leader fighting the interests of India in the

area Burhan Muzaffar Wani was cornered by the Indian military Forces and killed. After

Wani’s death, protests and demonstrations were held in a large part of Kashmir, as a

result 40 civilians died and over 2000 end up wounded. More than 600 had pellet

injuries, which might cause loss of their eyesight. To prevent volatile rumors, cell

phone and internet services were blocked, and newspapers were restricted in many

parts,

b. Indo-Pak Military Standoff and Dogfight (Feb-2019):

After a suicide Attack by a Kashmiri Freedom fighter killed several Army Personnel in

Pulwama, Tensions heightened in the region after India alleged Pakistan for backing

the freedom movements that carry out attacks in Kashmir.

On 26 Feb 2019, Indian Air Force entered the Pakistani territory and claims that it

struck a Terrorist camp in Balakot, Pakistan that killed 350+ militant. Pakistan

repeatedly denied the India claims. The next morning on 27 February, Pakistan

launched a counter-attack inside India, which led to a dogfight between the Pakistani

and Indian Fighter Jets. As a result, Pakistan downed an Indian Mid-21 Aircraft piloted

by the IAF pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, and another aircraft, which

Pakistan claims to have exploded inside Indian Territory. India claims to have downed

a PAF F-16 aircraft in the Aerial fight, after which the aircraft fell inside Pakistan.

However, Pakistan maintains that it did not use any F-16 Fighter in the conflict, but

instead used the locally manufactured JF-17 Thunder Fighters.

c. Abrogation of Article 370

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party

which happens to be the ruling party in India, had criticized Article 370 for a long period

and had planned to revoke it after the polls of 2019. Heir plan was to take back the

article as an attempt to integrate India and Kashmir. After regaining the power in the

general elections, BJP took this step as a stepping stone for their re-elected

government. Kashmiri population believes that BJP’s goal is to disrupt the Muslim

majority region by allowing non-Kashmiris to buy land there. This sparked a nation-

wide outrage in Pakistan who then began to raise the issue on international forums,

calling upon the international community to take notice of the human rights’ violations

in Kashmir by the Indian Government. India however states that the move was

“necessary towards the dispute resolution” and maintains that it is an internal matter

of the Indian state, and thus it should not require outside intervention.

Conclusion (Kashmir Conflict):

P a g e 9 | 24

Over the 72-year course in which Kashmir issue has stayed unresolved, countless

third parties have offered to mediate or play a role in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

However, both India and Pakistan have refused to a negotiation effort either bilateral

or multilateral.

The biggest threat to international peace by Kashmir conflict is the fact that this issue

is shared between two nuclear-armed countries and a conflict that has often led to

military standoff. Political reformation is thus necessary in the region.

2. The Israel-Palestine Territorial Dispute

P a g e 10 | 24

The territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine is the most difficult and complex

conflicts faced by any two countries in the 20th- 21st century. Monetary and demographic

of many western powers are related to the countries involved in the conflict, which has

repeatedly resulted in competing nationalisms tracing back to the dispute’s origin. The

area of concern which is now recognized as Israeli lands, were ruled by the Ottoman

Empire, which was responsible to manage and maintain peace. On the other hand in

Europe, the patriotic essence of nationalism was growing and regions needed an

autonomous entity, like jews needed a state called “Israel”. After the disintegration of

Ottoman Empire, a considerable number of Jews left Europe to relocate in colonial

Palestine. Although some moves were made in order to facilitate Jewish immigration

under certain terms, the different laws established for each ethnic group residing in

Palestine and the belief that Jewish populace was funded by the European colonial

movement obstructed the prospects of a peaceful settlement. Consequently, as the

British failed in maintain peace in the area, in 1947 they left with relocating the

responsibility of the area to United Nations.

The UN gave a two-state solution of Jewish one and an Arabic one in efforts to preserve

the idea of granting the wishes of both the communities. The aforementioned plan was

not accepted by the Palestinians, which led to the Arab-Israeli war (1948-1949). Israeli

forces were able to secure a defining victory as well as an armistice which stated that

Israel would possess 77% of the country, leaving Palestinians’ demands for an

independent state nothing more than a desire. After the Six day war broke out in 1967

which resulted in Israel’s victory, the territorial borders of the state were expanded.

Additionally, after two rebellions by the Palestine’s population, named “Intifadas” were

held. The first one occurred in the late 1980s and the other in early 2000s. These

movements sparked an aggression in Israeli-Palestinian bilateral relation and killed over

a thousand civilians. Countries and western powers like USA have involved themselves

as arbitrators in order to find negotiable solutions from both sides but to no avail yet. For

measures to be found in order to satisfy the visions of Palestinians and Israelis, more

specifically through a number of proposed tactics and plans, it encouraged that both

sides find the willingness to recognize each other as key global nations and realize that

the issue has to resolved through a common solution acceptable to the benefit for

resolution of conflict. The international community however should continue its urgency

to resolve the dispute.

Between 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council has voted and adopted

131 resolutions directly concerning the Arab–Israeli conflict, with many

addressing the Palestinians; after 2012, a number of resolutions have been issued

calling directly for a modern resolved Palestinian State.”

Timeline of Events - The Israel-Palestine Conflict

P a g e 11 | 24

(https://ifamericansknew.org/history/)

The below timeline of events is mostly based on the BBC “Israel profile – Timeline”

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668)

1917 British Empire gains Palestine from Ottomans and endorses the "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (Balfour Declaration).

1920 San Remo Allied Powers conference grants Palestine to Britain to prepare it for self-rule. Jewish migration into Europe continues.

1939 British government seeks to set a boundary to Jewish migration to Palestine to 10,000 per year, apart from emergencies.

1940s Holocaust stimulates a mass migration to Palestine. Jewish armed groups in pursuit of independent Jewish state fight British authorities.

1947 UN Partition Plan according to which, Palestine would be divided into separate Jewish and Arab states, with international control over Jerusalem.

1948 Israel declares independence as British mandate ends

1948-49 First Arab-Israeli war. Israel conquers more territory than envisioned under the Partition Plan, including western Jerusalem. Jordan seizes West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, Egypt occupies Gaza.

1967 Israel attacks Egypt; Jordan and Syria join the war. The war lasts six days and leaves Israel in control of east Jerusalem, all of West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai.

1975 UN General Assembly adopts a resolution describing Zionism as a form of racism but withdraw it in 1991

1985 Israel departs from the majority of Lebanon; continues to occupy narrow "security zone" along border.

1987 First Intifada in Occupied Territories. Creation of Hamas movement

1993 Israeli PM and PLO leader sign Oslo Declaration to plot Palestinian self- government and end First Intifada

1994 Israel withdraws from most of Gaza and the West Bank. PLO leader moves administration from Tunis; sets up Palestinian National Authority. Jordan and Israel sign peace treaty.

2000 Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon. First Intifada.

2004 ICJ issues advisory opinion that West Bank barrier is illegal.

P a g e 12 | 24

2005 Israel withdraws all Jewish settlers and military personnel from Gaza, while preserving control over airspace, coastal waters and border crossings. First Intifada ends.

2006 2006 Hamas Islamist group wins Palestinian parliamentary elections

2008 Israel launches invasion of Gaza to prevent Hamas and other groups from launching rockets.

2010 Direct talks resume between Israel and Palestine only to vacillate over the question of settlements.

2016 Israel and Turkey reach agreement over 2010 Gaza flotilla attack and normalize relations. US offers military aid package worth $38bn over next 10 years for Israel (largest such deal in US history). Israel interrupts working ties with 12 countries that voted for a Security Council resolution condemning settlement building, with the US for the first time abstaining rather than vetoing the resolution.

2017 Parliament passes a law, which retroactively legalizes dozens of Jewish settlements built on private Palestinian land in the West Bank. Work begins on the first new Jewish settlement in the West Bank for 25 years, which UNESCO votes to declare the Old City of Hebron a Palestinian World Heritage site, a move that Israel complains ignores the city's Jewish heritage. US President Donald Trump recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, upsetting the Arab world and some Western allies

2018 UN and Egypt attempt to broker a long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas amid an upsurge in violence on the Gaza border from March.

2019 Two sets of parliamentary elections pit Netanyahu against a centrist alliance led by former armed forces chief of staff Benny Gantz, but neither produce a clear majority.

Hamas and Palestinian Armed Groups’ Actions in Gaza:

In this year’s November, Hamas’ attacks using rockets led to an injury of just over 40

civilians in Israel. Hamas has issued no information or statement regarding Mangistu

and Hisham al-Sayed, the Israeli citizens captured by Hamas for several years. Other

than the regular detentions of dissidents and torture of those held in custody, Hamas

leadership has authorized 25 executions since they came to power in Gaza. Courts

in Gaza have had issued a verdict of 125 people, sentencing them to death in this

period, according to a Palestenian Human Rights Organization.

Israeli Actions in Gaza in 2018 – 2019

OCHA has reported that the force used by Israeli military has caused the deaths of

252 and injuries of 25,522 Palestinians in Gaza. Many injuries were life altering,

including hundreds of cases of severe soft tissue damage, some causing the need of

vital amputation of limbs. Most of the causalities took place as a result of protests,

where Israelis used live ammunition and bullets against people who approached with

a motive to disturb fences between Gaza and Israel. Israeli governments however

continues to reject the international human rights law that restricts the use of lethal

force except as a last resort to prevent an imminent danger to life or property. They

P a g e 13 | 24

have debated that live ammunition vital to stop the crossing of the fences, which they

insist was a Hamas motive to enable insurgents to kill or capture Israelis.

Settlements, Discriminatory Policies, Home Demolitions

Israel continued to provide security, administrative services, housing, education, and

medical care for more than 628,000 settlers residing in unlawful settlements in the

West Bank, including East Jerusalem. International humanitarian law bars an

occupying power’s transfer of its civilians to occupied territory. Palestinians in much of

the West Bank have access to water, electricity, and other state services that are either

more limited or costlier than the same services that the state makes available to Jewish

settlers there. The difficulty in obtaining Israeli-issued building permits has driven

Palestinians to construct housing and business structures that are at constant risk of

demolition or confiscation by Israel on the grounds of being unauthorized. The UN

considers 46 Palestinian communities at “high risk of forcible transfer,” including Khan

al-Ahmar, a village of 180 residents east of Jerusalem with a school serving 160

children from the community and five surrounding villages, whose demolition Israel’s

High Court authorized in May. International law prohibits an occupying power from

destroying property unless “absolutely necessary” for “military operations.”

Efforts for the resolution of the conflict so far

Beginning in 1993 with the Oslo peace process, Israel recognizes "the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people", though Israel does not recognize the State of Palestine. In return, it was agreed that Palestinians would promote peaceful co-existence, renounce violence and promote recognition of Israel among their own people. Despite Yasser Arafat's official renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel, some Palestinian groups continue to practice and advocate violence against civilians and do not recognize Israel as a legitimate political entity. Palestinians state that their ability to spread acceptance of Israel was greatly hampered by Israeli restrictions on Palestinian political freedoms, economic freedoms, civil liberties, and quality of life.

It is widely felt among Israelis that Palestinians did not in fact promote acceptance of Israel's right to exist. One of Israel's major reservations in regards to recognizing Palestinian sovereignty is its concern that there is not genuine public support by Palestinians for co-existence and elimination of insurgency and incitement. Some Palestinian groups, notably Fatah, the political party founded by PLO leaders, state they are willing to foster co-existence depending on the Palestinians being steadily given more political rights and autonomy.

President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, has in recent years refused to recognize Israel as Jewish state citing concerns for Israeli Arabs and a possible future right to return for Palestinian refugees, though Palestine continues to recognize Israel as a state. The leader of Al Aqsa Martyrs’ brigade which is Fatah's official military wing, has stated that any peace agreement must include the right of return of Palestinian refugees into lands now part of Israel, which some Israelis view as "destroying the Jewish state". In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. Hamas' charter openly states they seek Israel's

P a g e 14 | 24

destruction, though Hamas leaders have spoken of long-term truces with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory.

P a g e 15 | 24

3. The Crimean Conflict

The country or region known as the “Republic of Crimea”, part of Ukraine, is located on a peninsula starting from the south of Ukraine in the middle of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The narrow Kerch Strait separates it from Russia to the east. In early 2014, Crimea became the most dangerous region involving the Russian presence since the Soviet-Afghan war, after Ukraine's president Viktor Yanukovychwas ousted because of armed rebellion in Kiev. After the event broke out, forces commanded by the Russian Federation moved and secured parameter in the Crimean peninsula. The territory having a pro-Russian majority, voted to join Russia in a referendum that was later deemed illegal by Ukraine and the western nations.

History Crimea became a part the Russian Empire during the reign of Catherine The Great in 1783 and it remained under the Russian flags until 1954, when it was handed over to Ukraine by the USSR leader Nikita Khrushchev. The major ethnic groups in Crimea are Russians, but with significant amount of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar minorities.

After being under the government of Greek and Roman empires, in 1443 Crimea transformed into a focus of a Tatar Khanate, which later came under the Ottoman command.

Opposing imperial desires in the mid 19th century resulted Crimean War when Great Britain and France, doubting Russian ambitions after the fall of Ottomans, sent forces. Given the self-government status Bolshevik revolution, the Nazis took Crimea in 1940s.

After Ukrainian independence, political figures from the local Russian community sought to assert sovereignty and strengthen ties with Russia through a series of moves declared unconstitutional by the Ukrainian government.

The 1996 Ukrainian constitution stipulated that Crimea would have autonomous republic status, but insisted that Crimean legislation must be in keeping with that of Ukraine.Crimea has its own parliament and government with powers over agriculture, public infrastructure and tourism. The Tatars in Crimea are an ethnic group which were deported by Joseph Stalin, however they returned to Crimea after the dissolution of Soviet Union and since then, are protesting over land rights and space allocation. The Crimean Tatars have their own unofficial parliament, the Mejlis, which states its purpose as being to promote the rights and interests of the Crimean Tatars.

(BBC World News)

P a g e 16 | 24

Ukraine-Russia Tensions

The port of Sevastopol is a key naval location and has been the fort of the Black Sea Fleet since 1783. Following the of the United Soviet Socialists’ Republic, the fleet was separated and handed over to Russia and Ukraine.

The ongoing presence of the Russia in Sevastopol is the centre tension between Russia and Ukraine. In 2008, governed by a pro-western leader, President Viktor Yushchenko - demanded that Moscow should not Black Sea Fleet against a dispute with Georgia.

Both nations shook hands to allow the Russian fleet’s stay until 2017, but after pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych came to power as president in 2010, Ukraine made a deal to extend the stay for 25 years beyond 2017 if they get a cheaper Russian gas.

The Ukrainian Revolution The Ukrainian revolution of took place in Ukraine in February 2014. Violent events involving protesters, riot police, and unknown shooters in the capital, Kiev, broke out which had overthrown the elected government and President Viktor Yanukovych. Russia termed the oust of Yanukovych as an “illegal coup”, and refused to accept the new interim government that was placed by th rebels. Widespread protests broke out in favor of the ousted government and against the revolution in the eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovich gathered a huge majority in 2010 polls. The series protests and tensions resulted 2014 Crimean status referendum, Russian military intervention, and the establishment of de facto independent states in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Annexation of Crimea The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation between February and March 2014. After 2014, it has been observed as two Russian subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The annexation was followed by a Russian military intervention in Crimea that took place after the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and accounted to wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine. On February 23, 2014, pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On February 27, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea. They captured strategic sites across Crimea, which led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government. The new Government was responsible for conducting the Crimean status referendum and the declaration of Crimea's independence on 16 March 2014. Russian government formally recognized Crimea as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation beginning in March 2014. Ukraine and many world nations condemned the annexation considering it a

objectionable to the international law and treaties signed by Rusia in which it agreed

to safeguarding the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The UNGA has also rejected the

referendum and annexation of Crimea, thus declaring a non-binding resolution

affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized

borders". The UN resolution also highlights the invalidity of referendum that caused

P a g e 17 | 24

damage to the sovereignty of Ukraine and Crimea. It also called upon all countries

and international organizations to reject the annexation by Russia in 2014. In 2016,

United Nations again expressed no concern over the 2014 referendum and Russian

steps

Crimean Public Opinion to the Annexation and referendum (Polls)

A joint poll by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and surveying firm Gallup was taken during April 2014. It surveyed 500 inhabitants of Crimea. The review found that 82.8% of those surveyed accepted that the aftereffects of the Crimean status choice mirrored the wishes of most inhabitants of Crimea, though 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those surveyed said that they imagined that the extension would positively affect their lives, while 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% occupants said that they were unsure.

An elaborate survey took place on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Center reviewed nearby suppositions on the transfer of region. Regardless of global analysis of 16 March, referendum on Crimean status, 91% of the Crimeans who polled favored that the vote was free and independent of any illicit means, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government ought to accept the outcomes.

In another survey that took place in 2019 by a Russian based company, FOM, 72% of surveyed Crimean citizens claimed that their lives have been better after they got under the Russian control. On the other hand, the acceptance rate dropped from 67% in 2015 to 39% in the mainland Russians who believed that the referendum and the transfer was beneficial for the region.

P a g e 18 | 24

4. Senkaku Islands Dispute

The Senkaku Islands are located in the East China Sea between Japan, the People's

Republic of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The archipelago contains five

uninhabited islands and three barren rocks, ranging in size from 800 m2 to 4.32 km2.

The Senkaku Islands dispute is a territorial dispute involving three major regions, the

Senkaku Islands in Japan, the Diaoyu Islands in the People's Republic of China (PRC),

and Tiaoyutai Islands in the Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan). The majority of the

islands have been under the Japanese control since 1895. People's Republic of China

(PRC) started questioning the sovereignty over the islands in the latter half of 1970

when reports of oil reserves present in the islands surfaced. .The PRC and the ROC

have debated repeatedly that multiple evidence suggests that the islands belonged to

China before the first Sino-Japanese war and it should be returned to the Chinese

governments and Chinese returned the conquests and possessions of Imperial Japan

in 1945.

Militarization

China moved to declare an "Air Defense Identification Zone" in area near to the islands

and claimed the suspicious move as "guard against potential air threats," according to

the defense ministry. Japan reacted to the news by calling the move "very dangerous."

On 23 November 2013, China then sent air force jets, including fighter planes, to carry

out a patrol mission. On 26 November 2013, declaring the territory “international

waters and airspace”, the United States Air Force sent two B-52 bomber aircrafts

through the zone.

To assist in the intruders’ detection in Senkaku Islands region, Japan from 28 March

2016 has opened a radar station at Yonaguni Island, resulting in a furious Chinese

response.

P a g e 19 | 24