Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 2
Contents Committee Directors’ Note ........................................................................................................................... 3
Khadija Furqan .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Syeda Ramsha Wasti ................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction to the Committee .................................................................................................................... 4
Topic A: The Role of Drones in Modern Warfare .......................................................................................... 5
Note for Delegates .................................................................................................................................... 5
History of Drones ...................................................................................................................................... 5
The Morality of Drone Warfare ................................................................................................................ 6
Current Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 7
UN Involvement ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Violation of International Law .................................................................................................................. 8
Advantages and Disadvantages of Drones ................................................................................................ 9
Bloc Positions ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Questions a Resolution Must Answer (QARMA) ..................................................................................... 10
Material for Further Reading .................................................................................................................. 11
End Notes ................................................................................................................................................ 11
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 3
Committee Directors’ Note
Khadija Furqan Greetings Delegates,
My name is Khadija Furqan Shaikh, and with great enthusiasm I
welcome you all to ShoreMUN. I am currently pursuing my
Bachelors in Business Administration at IBA. I started MUNs
back in high school when I developed an interest in key world
issues and was driven by an urge to contribute towards them by
coming up with their solutions. I look forward to intense and
constructive debate. My advice to you all would be to research
extremely well, make sure you are well aware of you country’s
stance and policy on the topic, and know how to maneuver your
way through complicated situations that may arise during the
discussion. Speak eloquently, and stand your ground, move the
debate forward and, most of all, make use of your diplomatic
skills throughout the conference.
Syeda Ramsha Wasti Dear Delegates,
My name is Syeda Ramsha Wasti and I am currently pursuing
my BBA from the Institute of Business Administration (IBA)
Karachi. I am very happy to be chairing at ShoreMUN this year
and am confident that this will be a learning experience for me
as well as the delegates. MUNs are all about how fast and how
well you work under pressure, and I look forward to seeing just
that during committee sessions. Research hard and try to find
innovative solutions to the problems that are presented in the
topic.
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 4
Introduction to the Committee:
The First Committee of the General Assembly
deals with disarmament, global challenges and
threats to peace that affect the international
community and seeks out solutions to the
challenges in the international security regime.
It considers all disarmament and international
security matters within the scope of the UN
Charter or relating to the powers and functions
of any other organ of the United Nations; the
general principles of cooperation in the
maintenance of international peace and
security, as well as principles governing
disarmament and the regulation of armaments;
promotion of cooperative arrangements and
measures aimed at strengthening stability
through lower levels of armaments.
The First Committee of the General Assembly
(GA), or the Disarmament and International
Security Committee, is one of six major
committees in the GA. It meets each year for
UN sessions. The committee addresses a wide
array of subjects including but not limited to,
disarmament and related international security
questions, peacekeeping, mine action, outer
space, and chemical and biological weapons.
Recently, DISEC has been heavily involved in
issues concerning de-weaponization, as well as
the structure and approach of UN Peacekeeping
operations, among other things. Attended by
representatives from all 192 member states as
well as from observer delegations, such as the
Palestinian Authority, DISEC is a particularly
important discussion forum, though notably
observer states cannot vote on substantive
matters.
Additionally, DISEC is remarkable in its wide
breadth and scope of purview. While
resolutions are not legally compulsory or
enforceable, the resolutions passed by DISEC
form the body of a rich legislative and legal
framework that forms the spinal core of
international relations. Courage and audacity is
a required trait in DISEC delegates to be able to
effectively question and refine all the aspects of
the complex mechanisms of international
security and peacemaking processes.
Thus, DISEC resolutions constitute the UN’s
recommendations for member states, be they
in regards to international conflicts or
disarmament.
Furthermore, DISEC, in issues of urgent security
emergencies, also has the power to refer issues
directly to the Security Council.
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 5
Topic A: The Role of Drones in Modern
Warfare
Note for Delegates Before reading the Study Guide, please note
that this study guide is provided to give you
some insight to the topic, and to help direct
your research. It is simply to take you through
the background, history and problems of the
agenda. Please do not limit your research and
understanding to the issues addressed in this
guide. It is mandatory for all delegates, to
research well on all aspects of the topic and be
well aware of their country’s stance on the
topic. It is expected from all the delegates to
discuss all aspects of the topic and come up
with practical and effective solutions for the
topic.
History of Drones The role of drones in modern warfare has been
a very contentious issue due to the multi-
faceted roles these drones play in warfare.
What initially started off as an innocent
initiative to reduce human casualties during
aerial missions has evolved into an endless
expedition to search for lethal applications of
drone technology.
A drone, classified as an Unmanned Aerial V
ehicle (UAV), can be controlled and operated
from the ground by a pilot or autonomously
based on a predetermined mission, and can
carry either lethal or nonlethal cargo. There
exist many types of drones which are mainly
utilized for either surveillance purposes or are
equipped with bombs and missiles.
There are numerous types of drones from
which the most common are:
1. MQ-1B Predator: Used for what the military
calls “medium-altitude, long endurance”
missions and for intelligence gathering.
2. MQ-9 Reaper: Used primarily in a
“hunter/killer role”, and secondarily for
intelligence.
3. RQ-7 Shadow: Used for reconnaissance,
surveillance, target acquisition and battle
damage assessment.
When a strike or investigation is ordered, the
drone base nearest to the area of interest is
contacted to carry out the orders. It is the job of
one operator to steer the drone towards the
supposed location of the target while a sensor
operator manages the drone’s sensing
technology to search the area. From this
isolated base, speed, direction, and altitude
levels of the drone can all be manipulated.
The roots of UAVs trace back to 19th century in
the form of unmanned and armed hot air
balloons launched by Austrians targeting
Venice. These hot air balloons took months of
planning and even then only few of them
managed to hit their targets.
Couple of decades later, near the end of the
First World War, an electrical engineer named
Charles F. Kettering developed the first modern
drone called the “kettering bug”. The bug was a
simple and small biplane equipped with a
bomb. Even though 50 were produced, none of
them actually made flight as the war had ended
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 6
by that time. By the time the Second World War
started, Aviation had leaped years forward. The
Allies had developed the ‘GB-1’. The GB-1 was
dropped from the B-17 and guided after. Later
in the War, the GB-4 (or the ‘Robin’) was
introduced as the first ‘television-guided’ bomb.
With this the British, endeavored into ‘Project
Aphrodite’. On the other hand Nazi Germany
had created the V1 and V2 missiles which would
take UAV technology years ahead.
Near the end of the 1960’s, around the time of
the Vietnam War, UAVs had begun to resemble
modern day drones in more than one aspect.
They had started to look like modern day
fighters and for the first time Drones could be
remotely controlled from the ground and could
remain in the sky for up to 2 hours. In a
simulated dogfight conducted by the US Air
force, the ‘Firebee’ (the UAV) had crushed the
F-4 phantom having scored numerous hits on it.
During the Vietnam War itself, the Firebee was
used for reconnaissance missions all over North
Vietnam and Laos. The Air force stated that
over 3000 missions were conducted in the
South East Asian region.
Post-Vietnam, Israel had begun to take large
amount of interest in drone technology and had
begun developing its own drones. By the end of
1980’s, Israel was the world’s largest producer
as well as exporter of drones.
After 9/11, the US had started funding all drone
programs within the country. The first drone
strike by the US during the war on terror was
conducted during the end of September 2002. It
resulted in the death of three civilians
presumed to be from Bin Laden’s family. Ever
since the US has killed more than 3500
individuals through drone strikes in the Pakistan
and Afghanistan Region. Drones have become
the new factor in determining air superiority,
slowing replacing all kinds manned air vehicles.
The Morality of Drone Warfare In the debate on the morality of drone warfare,
there have been a number of articles published
that suggest that grave concerns stemming
from the use of drones are either wrong,
confused, or just plain misguided. Writing in
The Observer, Peter Beaumont posed the
question ‘Are drones any more immoral than
other weapons of war?i After suggesting that
“much of what has been written on both sides
of the debate on the surrounding moral and
legal issues has been ill-informed and confused”
he then goes on to give a rather unhelpful
summary of the international law arguments
surrounding the use of force against non-state
actors based on the recent paper ‘The Strategic
Context of Lethal Drones’ii published by the
American Security Project.
With regard to morality, Peter Beumont he
suggests that:
“[the] compelling question to be asked over the
future of drone warfare… is the one posed by
Foust and Boyle [of the American Security
Project] who demanded whether, as a military
tool, drone warfare is actually effective;
whether its use is justified when set against the
political fallout that the drone campaign has
produced and whether drones have actually
reduced the threat posed by militants.” iii
The question, in other words, is do the ends
justify the means? Hardly the most moral
position. However, at least Peter Beaumont
engaged with the argument.
To formulate the ethical choice on this issue as
either accepting (and thereby legitimizing)
drone targeted killings on the one hand or
accepting a future of continuing insecurity on
the other is simplistic nonsense. There are of
course other (and we would argue) much better
ways to pursue security, peace and justice.
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 7
US Academic and Philosopher, Bradley
Strawser, in his interview with the Guardianiv
names and then dismisses three objections to
drone warfare. Firstly, while he says he shares
“the gut feeling that there’s something odd”
about the “lopsided asymmetry” of drone killing
he says that it’s like police officers having bullet-
proof vests in a shootout with bank robbers.
The second objection that he names and then
rejects is “the suggestion that risk-free remote
killing degrades traditional conceptions of
valor”. Whilst this argument I have very
occasionally heard, the objection to risk free
remote killing that most people make is not
because it undermines concepts of valor but
that it makes it easier to undertake attacks both
within theatres of conflict and in the wider
sense. The third objection he cites is that there
exist cases wherein we should go to war, such
as the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda, and we do
not. The argument to be understood here is
that drones “can be a morally preferable
weapon of war if they are capable of being
more discriminate than other weapons that are
less precise and expose their operators to
greater risk.”
Current Situation In recent times, drone use has increased, as
they are cheaper than military aircrafts. In
November 2013, Pakistan released a statement
condemning an American assassination drone
strike, which led to the death of five people.
These attacks not only violate Pakistan’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity but also
cause chaos in the country and damage the
inhibit peace. In June 2012, at a Geneva
conference, the UN Special Rapporteur Christof
Heyns stated his fear that President Obama’s
attacks on Middle Eastern nations would in the
end encourage other countries to neglect
established human rights standards. Around the
same time, China and Russia also jointly issued
a statement to the United Nations Human rights
council, which condemned drone attacks.
According to the data from the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, 11 different
countries use drone technology, which include
China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Iran,
Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the
United States. A large amount of success for the
American military in Afghanistan was due to
technology of drones available to them as a
source of surveillance and attack. Even
currently the drones are being used to protect
the American embassy in Iraq as a surveillance
device or a precaution. The Iraqi governments
seem to currently disagree with the situation,
but the United States has rights over that
airspace. Just like the United States, Britain
entered into drone attacks during Afghan wars.
In 2012, it was reported that four Afghan
civilians were killed in a British drone strike. In
addition to that there have been 363 strikes
carried out by Britain in Pakistan, and
approximately 450 drones have been fired in
Iraq and Afghanistan over the last five years. In
2013, there were drones in Mali by France who
were using drones, which were provided by
Israeli.
UN Involvement Discussion on drone strikes in the UN has been
very limited, partly because of the fact that
Security Council action is prevented by the
United States’ veto.
However representatives from the UNHRC have
spoken out against the use of military UAVs, as
they may have been critiqued and targeted for
violating international human rights law in the
targeted assassinations of many people,
predominantly in the Middle East and Pakistan.
Accusations also state that the use of targeted
assassinations is inhumane and is in itself, a
concept that Kofi Annan, the past Secretary
General of the UN, stated that “Anyone who
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 8
performs a targeted assassination takes on the
role of accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury”.
In accordance with the UN Charter, nations are
only to use drones under the rights granted by
the military force clause, which states that a
nation can only pursue military force if there is
a reasonable chance of success in completing
the mission itself, and if no other options are
open.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi
Pillay also condemned the use of UCAVs during
her opening statement for the 20th Human
Rights Council. Special rapporteur on extra-
judicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
Christof Heyns stressed in a report in 2013 that
the use of armed drones in countries is highly
problematic if there is not a recognized armed
conflict. This is to say that strikes outside a
combat zone constitute a war crime. He added:
"Armed drones may fall into the hands of non-
state actors and may also be hacked by enemies
or other entities”
The first step was taken by UN Human Rights
Council in March 2014 passing the resolution
A/HRC/25/L.32 entitled “Ensuring use of
remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in
counter-terrorism and military operations in
accordance with international law, including
international human rights and humanitarian
law.” Moreover the most important
substantive element in the Resolution is the
provision of transparency and investigations,
which “calls upon States to ensure transparency
in their records on the use of remotely piloted
aircraft or armed drones and to conduct
prompt, independent and impartial
investigations whenever there are indications of
a violation to international law caused by their
use”
As that (lengthy) title suggests, the resolution
concerns only one weapons platform: remotely
piloted aircraft. It passed with 27 in favor, 6
against, and 14 abstentions. Important players
such as the United States or United Kingdom
and France, objected to this resolution. One of
the main criticisms was that the Human Rights
Council would not have enough expertise to
tackle the issue of drones, or/and it was out of
the mandate of the committee. In Resolution
A/RES/68/178 from December 2013, the
General Assembly already stated that measures,
including the use of drones, have to “comply
with their obligations under international law,
including the Charter of the United Nations,
human rights law and international
humanitarian law, in particular the principles of
distinction and proportionality”.
Without an international framework to govern
the use of drone attacks, drone use creates a
precedent for remote and unrestrained
warfare. The United Nations need to formulate
a resolution which is legally binding to the
major drone possessing countries.
Violation of International Law One of the most severe and pinching issues
involving drones is the flagrant disregard of
international law that occurs as a direct result
of their use in combat zones. Drones almost
always cross into another state’s airspace,
which compromises the sovereignty of that
state. The Montevideo Convention, signed by
the United States, states that the fundamental
rights of states, such as sovereignty, are not to
be violated, and that “no state has the right to
intervene in any internal or external affairs of
another.” The United Nations recognizes this
convention as customary international law. v
Unwanted drones in a state’s airspace clearly
violate this convention, but the states using the
drones have evaded mainstream persecution
because drone technology, until now, remained
an unprecedented and ambiguous form of
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 9
warfare. The United State justifies the use of
drones in Pakistani airspace by stating that
drone strikes are targeted at terrorist groups in
tribal areas. Pakistan’s government officials
have clarified the government of Pakistan
openly opposes these drone strikes and have
called upon the US and the global community to
immediately end their entire drone program.
Considering, under international law, states do
not have a right to intervene in the affairs of
another, the continued campaign of the United
States in Pakistan’s territory is in direct violation
of international law.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Drones The use of drones for military purposes,
whether advanced aircraft like the MQ-9
Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawks deployed by the
United States, or smaller, tactical systems,
theoretically offer several potential capabilities
for the military. While some serve the same
purpose as that of a manned aircraft, many are
unique in their functions. Yet controversy and
skepticism surrounds the usage of drones in
modern warfare, however, many countries have
chosen to ignore the downside of drones for
several benefits such as:
The use of drones on surveillance missions
or attack allows countries to avoid the risks
involved with putting “boots on grounds.
• Drones offer operators the ability to loiter
over a target for hours or even days,
providing real time awareness unmatched
by manned aircraft and the ability to strike
targets with (theoretically) great
precision(Zephyr a British drone under
development has broken the world record
by flying for over 82 hours nonstop)
• Drones have endurance that generally far
outstrips the alternative platforms that a
country would use for collecting the same
type of information with a manned system.
Drones have the potential for greater
accuracy hence precision strikes from
drones, even using some of the same
munitions used by manned fighters or
bombers.
There is the potential that drones can lower
the costs associated with generating
airpower, and allows for a perfect weapon
for a war- weary nation on a tight budget.
To many, drones are a modern marvel. The
Economist declared in 2011 that ‘the future
belongs to drones’. Despite the fact that the use
of armed drones is already undermining the
laws of war, infringing upon the sovereignty of
targeted nations, and eroding human rights
protections put in place to safeguard both
combatants and civilians alike, while at the
same time bringing autonomy towards the
usage of drones and accountability into
question.
There is also a real fear that the ‘risk free’
nature of these weapons is lowering the
threshold for using lethal force, meaning that
we are likely to see more warfare in the future.
The growing use of armed drones and the
concept of remote, risk free war is a serious
military escalation. In short, armed drones are
simply making the world a more dangerous
place.
Bloc Positions Countries with the largest drone programs are
generally in North America and the European
Union. With stronger economic resources,
these states can invest in this technology and
build up their programs.
The Western Block:
The United States is the foremost owner and
operator of drones in the world, using them to
patrol its own territory as well as its border with
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 10
Mexico. Data from the International Institute
for Strategic Studies identifies the US as having
at least 678 drones in active service. viApart
from the US, seven different European
countries, among them France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, and the United Kingdom have entered
into a pact with the European Defense Agency
to expand drone programs in each country and
throughout the European Union. viiIn addition
to this exclusive list of countries that have a
fully developed drone program, Israel is a
noteworthy country due to it being the current
global leader in foreign sales of drones, having
recently expanded its program to South Korea.
The Middle Eastern and Eastern Bloc:
Countries that are particularly hit by drone
strikes such as Pakistan and Yemen have several
times called upon the UN to take action.
Pakistan for instance has become a leading
international critic of drone warfare in its
country and urges the international community
to establish an internationally binding legal
framework on drone use. The United States has
been known to carry out assassination strikes in
several Muslim nations including Afghanistan
and Yemen. Moreover, the Middle East has
been the center for conflict and military
engagement, making it a hotspot for UAV
activity. Therefore this bloc is of vital
importance to the discussion in the committee.
The African Bloc:
With the exception of South Africa, most
African Nations are against the use of Drones.
Due to financial constraints, many countries are
from even acquiring the technology. Egypt
most noticeably condemned the Israeli drone
attacks on Palestine.
The East Asian Bloc:
East Asian nations are currently entering the
realm of drone warfare. China, notably, is trying
to break into drone manufacture and export,
while Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and
Singapore will most probably want to purchase
drones.
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
(QARMA) 1. When, if ever, is it acceptable to use drones
to attack specific targets in another nation
outside the time of war?
2. How might the manufacture and sale of
drones be regulated and if so, does it need
to be regulated?
3. If a member state is found guilty of violating
the regulations regarding drone usage then
what implications or sanctions should they
face?
4. How can states address technical faults of
drones that may see them placed in the
hands of enemy combatants?
5. Are drone strikes a violation of international
laws that govern the conduct of war and
international laws governing human rights?
6. What standards should countries use for
deciding what targets (human,
environmental or infrastructural) to strike
with drones?
7. Which regulations need to be put in place in
order to prevent the infringement of
national sovereignty when a host nation is
harboring a target?
8. Which legal framework needs to be
implemented to address complains and to
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 11
ensure that regulations and restrictions are
enforced?
9. What should be the UN’s role towards the
restriction on the use of UAVs? May they
only be employed during UN mandated
operations?
10. How can the peaceful use of drones be
protected while prohibiting the unlawful
use of drones?
Material for Further Reading 1. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States.
http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevide
o-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897
2. UNGA HRC Resolution A/HRC/25L.32 (25th
Session) http://wilpf.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/resolution.pdf
3. Document on Human Rights Implications of
the usage of Drones and Unmanned Robots
in Warfare by the European parliament.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e
tudes/etudes/join/2013/410220/EXPO-
DROI_ET(2013)410220_EN.pdf
4. Covert Drone War by the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/ca
tegory/projects/drones/
5. Drone Factsheet.
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resourc
es/fact-sheets/critical-issues/6737-drones
6. Ethical, Strategic and Legal Implications of
Drone Warfare by the Kroc Institute for
International Peace Studies.
http://kroc.nd.edu/news-events/peace-
policy/ethical-strategic-legal-implications-
drone-warfare-1507
7. Moral and Legal Challenges of Drone
Warfare by David Cortright of the Peace
Policy Institute.
http://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2013/03/28/mor
al-legal-challenges-of-drone-warfare/
8. Ethics of Drone Warfare.
http://2014.neutralmagazine.com/article/t
he-ethics-of-drone-warfare/
9. Droning On: Explaining the Proliferation of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Horowitz and
Fuhrmann.
http://www.gspia.pitt.edu/Portals/26/PDF/
HF%20Drone%20Proliferation%209%2012%
2014%20-%20Pitt.pdf
10. Drone Wars Briefing: Examining the
Growing Threat of Unmanned Warfare by
Chris Cole.
https://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2
012/01/drone-wars-briefing-final2.pdf
End Notes i Are Drones any Immoral than other weapons of
war?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/
aug/19/peter-beaumont-drone-warfare-debate
ii The Strategic Context of Lethal Drones.
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/
iii Drones and Morality by Peter Beumont.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-morality-of-
drone-warfare/32412
DISEC Study Guide – ShoreMUN 2015 Page 12
iv Bradley Strawser on the Morality of Drone Usage
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/p
hilosopher-moral-case-drones
v Montevideo Convention
http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-
convention-rights-duties-states/p15897
vi IISS Report on Drones Serviced by Countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/
aug/03/drone-stocks-by-country
vii European Defense Agency.
http://www.eda.europa.eu/