MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

MUNiSC 2011

General Assembly
1. Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and
Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction
2. Global Efforts for the Total Elimination of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance and the Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Durban Declaration and
Program of Action
3. Creation of Global Culture of Cyber-Security
4. Strengthening the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program

1
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and
Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction

Georgia Park

INTRODUCTION

Antipersonnel mines or APLs, defined as mines buried under the ground to be detonated when
triggered by a person or a vehicle without him or it aware of the existence of underground weapons, have
been addressed as morally problematic weapons. They are even considered as “weapons of mass
destruction,” for their operation over a long period of time produces victims indiscriminately and in
massive numbers

The initial intention of such mines was to maintain the security and claim the possession of
disputed borders, and to protect a country from enemy movement during wars. Production of APLs is
inexpensive compared to that of other armaments and their deployment relatively easy; individual cost of
each mine does not exceed a few dollars, and mines can be transmitted throughout the conflict zones
through aerial seeding from helicopters and planes, conventional missiles, or artillery shells. Considering
these advantages of APLs, armed forces engaged in conflicts have been frequently employed these
weapons over the last century in both international and national levels.

In fact, core problems regarding the use of APLs do not only pertain to their targeting innocent
civilians, but also their prolongation even after hostilities end. Unlike other conventional weapons which
are transferred to the next stage of military action or to storage after the cessation of conflicts,
antipersonnel mines are left in locations where they have been planted unattended and prepared to be
exploded by any stimulus from random passer-by. Tracking, removal, and elimination of these armaments,
however, are complicated, dangerous, and costly especially when the durations of wars have been
extended. A lot of countries are troubled with such weapons‟ elimination.

There are still, however, some

countries maintain to keep their APLs, notably
the USA, Russia, and China. Even among the
countries that have consented to the prohibition
of APL use and destruction, the specific
measures for carrying out these actions and
burdensome costs spent on the weapons‟
elimination still remain unresolved. Therefore,
the issue of antipersonnel mines needs to be
addressed under the full support of the
international community.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Starting from World War I, antipersonnel mines have been integral parts of military conflicts.
Imperial Germany in 1912 employed for the first time the modern automatically fused high explosive

2
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

antipersonnel mines in the battle of Passchendale, and these mines were soon replicated by all powerful
players in the war. United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France were all suspected to have at
least experimented and invented armaments with the idea similar to antipersonnel landmines in times of
war and until 1980s. In fact, the Second World War functioned as the genuine theatre of antipersonnel
mines; more technically developed and effective armaments were invented to substitute antitank mines,
for their engagement in military forces was prohibited between certain nations after World War I. This
trend accelerated the weapon technology rapidly that by the 1960s, APLs that could be transmitted by air
and mechanically operated, so-called as air mines were put into operation. The US troops, during the
Vietnam War towards the end of 1960s, were the first ones to introduce these scatterable mines.

Ever since Canada took initiative, the major number of the nations (144 up to 2004) have
consented to the prohibition of any forms of uses or possessions of APLs by their military forces and
made such actions illegal. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) reported on August
2004 that among 80 countries that declared stockpiles of landmines totaling up to 48 million, 65 countries
have been successful in clearing all of their stockpiles which sum up to 37.5 million. Yet, as mentioned,
there are still some nations that insist on their uses of APLs; the United States and Finland are the only
western democracies that have not yet agreed to the international action on APLs, and China, Russia, and
North Korea also have not renounced their possessions. The states mentioned and others that stick with
their development and stockpiles have two major rationales for their insistence.

First of all, in the1960s and 1970s, a lot of the countries traditionally viewed hundreds or even
thousands of dollars spent on retribution and destruction of APLs upon relocation or end of disputes
uneconomic; the only possible way to deactivate these devices is to remove them individually at a cost of
300 to 1000 dollars per mine. Such immense charge is largely due to lack of precise knowledge on the
devices‟ locations. Even with the records of location of their deployment, the records are usually
inaccurate, and the change of soil and environments over the times of wars often make the records
undetectable. This fact leads to the emergence of the second dilemma: danger involved in the retribution
process. Annually estimated 25,000 individuals suffer as victims of APLs in zones no longer used for
military conflicts, notably in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia. Yet, this number does not only
include random passer-by civilians, but also national troops engaged in APLs removal.

Another justification for continuous use and development of antipersonnel mines is the popular
principle of just war theory, so-called as the doctrine jus in bello – the general-held belief on armed
conflicts that direct the moral conduct of war. Based upon the theory of jus in bello, countries possessing
antipersonnel mines argue their views on APLs as rational defensive weapons; according to their logic, a
combatant may protect himself by preventing enemies from entering his safety zones by deploying APLs,
an effective and justifiable military weapons.

INTERNATIONAL ACTION AND UN INVOLVEMENT ON APLs

Most of the international actions regarding APLs since 1990s have been organized and operated
by the United Nations under full support of most of the countries but, inflicting a great loss, with the
absence of three of the P5 nations (the USA, Russian Federation, and China).

3
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Currently, there are fourteen UN

programs, departments, agencies, and
funds that actively engage themselves in
APL-related service; their service
includes retribution and safe-removal of
landmines and other remaining weapons
of wars, destruction of government-
possessing stockpiles, assistance of
victims especially those in LEDC nations,
instruction on safety-management in
mine-affected zones to civilians, and promotion of international participation on Mine-Ban Convention;
especially United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNOPC) most of the times take a major function in
such activities.

Since the 1980s, the issue of APLs has been addressed in active manner by the United Nations.
From its sponsoring of Inhumane Weapons Convention in 1980, the UN has been pointing out ethically
problematic characteristic of APLs. By 1996, the intensity of the Convention strengthened that it required
prohibition of any kind of landmine use including in national level and to make all APLs detectable.

Even with the active involvement of the UN, a public outcry, along with devoted performance of
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) through the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines
(ICBL), broke out. Such act called for the implementation of a more inclusive and solid international
consensus. The landmark UN Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and
Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction, so called as Second Mine-Ban Convention or
the Ottawa Convention eventually brought bans on APLs use, production, and trade, and has gained
worldwide support. As of September 2008, 156 member-states, yet with the absence of the major world
powers, the United States, China, and Russian Federation, signed and ratified the Convention.

STANCE OF P5 NATIONS

1. United States of America (USA)

One of thirteen states producing landmines and non-signatory nation of the Ottawa Convention,
the US had been remaining uncooperative in the international efforts to ban APLs use. Yet, in February
27, 2004, the US government announced its new policy on APLs that has been assessed as more positive
that it was before. The new policy stated its willingness to destroy all persistent APLs and non-detectable
mines from its arsenals within a year, cease its uses of persistent mines after 201, and to promote
worldwide cessation on the use and production of persistent APLs. The US, however, still has not
renounced their claim on its use and development of non-persistent (self-deactivating and self-destructing)
APLs in order to maintain and enhance its military forces according to the US‟s transformational goals
under the presupposition that such weapons will be free of operation after the cessation of hostilities.

2. China

China is widely known as the world largest producer of antipersonnel mines. Ironically, China
has actually shown some involvement in the world‟s APLs elimination project through the People‟s

4
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Liberation Army (PLA)‟s cleaning of thousands of landmines in Sino-Vietnamese Border in 1992, 1996,
and 1997. Yet, China still insists on its continuous development of APLs. In fact, China should have
already ceased their production and development of APLs, as it has been agreed upon the amended
Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). According to the report of ICPL,
however, China has since then has estimated 110 million APLs most of them placed along the disputed
borderlines with Russia, Vietnam, and India.

3. Russian Federation

Along with the US and China, Russian Federation

is one of the world powers that have not signed the Mine
Ban Treaty in 1997. Soviet Union was in fact a major
contributor to organizing and advancing the Landmine Ban
Treaty during 1990s. Yet, since the actual introduction of
the treaty, Russia stepped back. Although Russia‟s
willingness and participation in the Mine Ban Treaty Act
were revealed by President Boris Yeltsin and other officials, Russia at some point, up to now, seems to
signify the presence of APLs in its military forces and not willing to step back from their stance; Russia
believes that alternative weapons to replace APLs should be developed before its full support of APLs
elimination. At the same time, Russia considers financial requirement for the destruction of APLs
stockpiles within a four-year span assigned by the treaty to be beyond its financial capacity.

4. France

France has been one of the most active participants in the issue of antipersonnel mines; it stepped
out as the first member of the Security Council to both sign and ratify the Ottawa Convention in 1997. At
national level, France has fulfilled all of its obligations as a signatory-state of the Convention: application
of the Convention measures for domestic situations; establishment of a French National Commission for
the Elimination of Antipersonnel Mines (CNEMA). France‟s active involvement in the expansion and
implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty is also reflected by its large financial contribution to the
European Commission in the field; France‟s contribution alone takes up estimated 17 to 25 percent of the
whole.

5. United Kingdom

Along with France, the United Kingdom also show exemplary attitude toward the ban on APLs.
The UK took initiative in signing the Ottawa Convention as the first member and showed their support by
prohibiting the use of any forms of APLs by the UK troops. In 1998, the UK insisted to continue their use
of APLs only in exceptional circumstances. In 2005, however, the foreign ministry completely banned
any forms of employment of their landmines.

5
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

TIMELINE OF THE APLs

1940s

Starting from the Second World War, antipersonnel mines along with antitank mines were used
worldwide in all war zones large and small. A significant amount of APLs that the world is dealing with
today comes from the weapons of the WWII.

1980s

The "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may
be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects," so-called as the Convention on
Conventional Weapons or "CCW," was established to restrict the employment of any forms of non-
detectable fragments, firebombs, and antipersonnel mines in October 1980. Also, when the immense
stockpiles of landmines in Afghanistan from the Soviet occupation alerted the world, ironically the United
States stepped up to create campaign to eliminate landmines. A lot of the states started to be aware of
what and how the UN was dealing with APLs, yet it was not until 1990s that a majority of the world
started participating on the resolution of the issue.

1990s

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is formed by amalgamated efforts from Non-
government Organizations (NGOs). Also in May 1996, the Amended Mines Protocol (AMP) which was a
significant improvement from the original 1980 Protocol was adopted by the Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons Review Conference. 1990s was when the international community, upon the
knowledge they had during the 1980s, actually took a lot of initiatives to promote elimination and
prohibition of APLs.

2000s

A Memorandum of Understanding establishing the International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP) for
Humanitarian Demining Equipment, Processes and Methods was signed by European Commission,
Belgium, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, and even the United States of America. If
1990s was a decade marked by significant new steps, 2000s was deemed as the times for improving and
solidifying the existing programs and actions regarding the issue of antipersonnel mines.

GLOSSARY

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

Unexploded ordnance (UXO) refers to armaments that were originally made to be used but failed to
operate for some reason; “blinds” or “buds” are another names for undetonated sub munitions.

Abandoned Explosive Ordnance (AEO)

Abandoned Explosive Ordnance (AEO) refers to explosive ordnance designed to be used during the
armed conflicts and left behind or abandoned by the state parties involved in wars; AEO is under no one‟s
ownership and control. It falls under the category of explosive remnants of war.

6
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Anti-vehicle Mine

A mine designed “to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a
person." – Source: Mine Ban Treaty

Explosive Ordnance disposal

The identification, assessment, detection, improvement, and safe removal of explosive ordnance

Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)

A devise improvised during the times of war, and which incorporates chemicals and inflammatory
properties. There are two categories of an improvised explosive device (IED): victim-activated and
command-detonated; the Mine Ban Treaty has banned victim-activated IED but not command-detonated
IED.

International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

Documents created by the international community and expounded by the United Nations in order to
AICMA‟s security, efficiency, and general well-functioning; AICMA is an organ that provides guidelines
for the international standards and requirements for mine ban action. In order to allow the free exchange
of data and information collected, IMAS requires the use of common language and certain formats.

Humanitarian Demining

Programs or activities that aim to eradicate any danger arising from antipersonnel or Unexploded
Ordnance to recover the zones affected for the community use.

Self Deactivating

Mechanically ceasing the operation of munitions by destroying essential component of munitions

inoperable

Self-destructive mechanism

“Incorporated automatically-functioning mechanism which is in addition to the primary initiating

mechanism of the munitions and which secures the destruction of the munitions into which it is
incorporated.” – Source: The Convention on Cluster Munitions

7
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2007, By. "China and Anti-Personnel Landmines (APLs)." Nuclear Threat Initiative: Home Page. 23
May 2003. Web. 18 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nti.org/db/china/aplorg.htm>.

Araujo, Robert John. "ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND PEREMPTORY NORMS OF."

<http://www.gonzagajil.org>/. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.gonzagajil.org/pdf/volume1/Araujo/Araujo.pdf>.

"Deming." Http://www.un.org/. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.

<http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/demining/index.shtml>.

"History of Anti-Landmine Efforts." Http://www.policyalmanac.org/. 29 July 2003. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.

<http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/landmines.shtml>.

"Landmine-definition." Http://www.wordiq.com/. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.

<http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Landmine#History>.

"Landmines:A Global Scourge." Http://www.fas.org/. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.

<http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/landmines/lmhistory.htm>.

Neufold, Angela. "Building a Norm: the Banning of Antipersonnel Landmines." <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/.

2001. Web. 19 Aug. 2010. <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2490/etd1576.pdf>.

Peace Investment Fund. "Anti-Personnel Mines in Colombia." <http://www.derechoshumanos.gov.co/.

Dec. 2001. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.derechoshumanos.gov.co/observatorio_de_DDHH/publicaciones/estu_tematicos/mi
nasingles.pdf>.

"The Problem of Landmines - History." Http://www.clearlandmines.com/. Web. 19 Aug. 2010.

<http://www.clearlandmines.com/landmineProb_History.cfm>.

8
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Global Efforts for the Total Elimination of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance and the Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Durban Declaration
and Program of Action

Georgia Park

INTRODUCTION

Racism is often misunderstood as a feeling of superiority exclusively regarding races. Yet, it is a

combination of terms, racial discrimination and xenophobia which are defined as irrational fear,
animosity, and disdain toward people of different races and ethnicities respectively. Racial and ethnic
discrimination is not a distant issue but an issue of daily lives. Such problem which arises from denial of
individuals‟ equality, the fundamental human rights, has been a core driving force of ethnic hatred and
subsequent genocide, hindering progress and destroying lives of thousands of people around the globe.
Caused by so prevalent technological development and resulting formation of “a global society,” political
and economic frontiers between nations have tumbled. Cultural boundary, however, has gotten severer
largely due to continuous collisions among people with different backgrounds that racial discrimination
and xenophobia, and other related intolerance have become fierce in its damaging of our societies; terrors
such as "ethnic cleansing" is not the story of the past but of the very present, and ideas related to such
horrors have been spread in the most wicked speed through the tool called Internet. South African Ethnic
Cleansing which erupted in May 11, 2008 and lasted for three weeks resulted in 80,000 displaced people
and 670 injuries and casualties which include, of course, unarmed civilians.

Recognizing the unquestionable weight of the issue, the international human rights organizations
and the United Nations major organs have been placing the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination at
their hearts. One of the major outcomes is the 2001 World Conference against Racism, so-called as the
Durban Declaration of Program and Action which is believed to have functioned as the most authoritative
and inclusive program to make related progress, though the validity of the opinion may be questioned.
Subsequently, 2009 Durban Review Conference was held to make sure the well-functioning of the 2001
conference.

Human rights are innate rights to all human beings, and discrimination against different racial and
ethnic groups is cross-cutting principle of such inherent claims. The history of the international efforts to
eradicate racial and ethnic discrimination has been persistent. Yet, so has the history of hostilities toward
racial and ethnic differences that antipathy is so deeply rooted in individuals‟ minds all around the world;
therefore the issue comes as more of a challenge. Despite the attention paid by the UN and other
collaborating organs, the dream of discrimination-free societies is only quarter-filled. Thus, it is not a
consideration but confirmation that the issue of racial discrimination and xenophobia should be addressed
continuously and with more support.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

As it has already been popularly established, the history

of racial discrimination and xenophobia and other related
intolerance traces back to the antiquity. Yet, a major portion of
scientists and socialists claim that the official starting point of
racism is during the 19th century when the term “scientific racism”

9
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

was neologized to provide a classification of humanity. Such ideology developed into racial theories and
was abused by colonists, especially the Europeans, to justify their dissembling and controlling of
colonized populations; The White Man‟s Burden (1899) by Rudyard Kipling which illustrated the belief
in the superiority of Europeans over other people group well shows the abusive intention of racial theories.
Ironically, during the 19th century, West European colonial powers engaged themselves in various actions
to restrict the Arab slave trade in Africa, and the ambassadors were even dispatched to West Africa to
suppress the trade. Likewise, colonialists were able to judge upon themselves as ethically deprived, yet
persisted with their depravity in pursuit of their own advantages. It was also during the late 19th and the
early 20th century when racism prevailed in the “New World.” Whitecapping, an American movement of
traditional values enforcement marked by a notable anti-black characteristic, took its root from Indiana in
the later 19th century to all of North America by the early 20th century; this caused a number of African
working people‟s departure from their lands.

The 20th century could even be called the peak of xenophobia, largely attributed by the work of
the Nazi Germany. Under the reign of Hitler, the Nazi Germany viewed Slavic people such as Ukrainians,
Czechs, and Russians, and Gypsies, Poles, and Jews, and any non-Aryan descendents as “sub-humans.”
Under the absurd faith in their “super human
heritage,” the Nazis believed themselves to be
responsible for eliminating and displacing inferior
humans and purifying their lands. During the
Holocaust, estimated 6 million Jews were
murdered in various inhumane ways Some 6
million Jews were killed by the Nazis. During
World War I and II periods, Japan actively
involved itself in racial-free campaigns; at the
Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Japan presented
the treaty on racial equality. Along with Burma,
China, and India, Japan held the Greater East Asia
Conference in 1943, where the Asian countries
determined to step up for abolition of any forms of racial discrimination. In history, one of the most
notable and condemnable practice of racism is the system of apartheid in South Africa during the mid-
1900s. When South Africa was under the English and Dutch powers, with the adoption of apartheid laws
in 1948, racial discrimination was officially institutionalized. Under the Public Registration Act in 1950,
people were divided into three categories, white, black (African), and colored (of mixed decent primarily
Asians), and were required to act according to their races. Apartheid system interfered with every single
aspect of people‟s lives; marriage between different races was strictly prohibited, sanctioning of “white-
only jobs” existed. Black was also obliged to carry their personal ID card called “pass books” when
accessing non-black places. When there was a public riot started by a group of black men in Sharpeville
resisting to carry their pass books, the emergency was immediately declared by the government; the result
was the deaths of 69 black people and 187 injuries.

10
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

THE DURBAN DECLARATION AND PROGRAM OF ACTION & THE DURBAN REVIEW
CONFERENCE

The 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was held in
Durban, South Africa from August 31st to September 8th of 2001 under the United Nations‟ active support.
The foundational purpose of the conference was to eliminate any forms of racism along with five major
themes;

“Theme 1: Sources, cause, forms and contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and
related intolerance;
Theme 2: Victims of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance;
Theme 3: Measures of prevention, education and protection aimed at the eradication of racism, racial
discrimination and related intolerance at the national, regional and international levels;
Theme 4: Provision for effective remedies, recourses, redress, [compensatory] and other measures at the
national, regional and international levels;
Theme 5: Strategies to achieve full and effective equality, including international cooperation and
enhancement of the United Nations and other international mechanisms in combating racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia.”

The conference also addressed the issue of indemnification of slavery and the actions of Israel
regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When the conference attempted to consider Zionism as racism,
the delegations of the United States and Israel decided to sanction and cease their participation in the
conference, claiming the conference was aiming at the virulent debate surrounding anti-Semitism. The
withdrawal of the US and Israel seemed to harbinger the pulling back of the European states that other
delegates voted against the inclusion of the issue that the withdrawn delegations opposed to; thus the final
Declaration and Program of Action did not contain the text regarding Zionism. Also, the NGO forum of
the conference which was held separately ended in discord with several NGOs‟ withdrawal and criticism
from other organizations including UN High Commissioner of Human Rights (UNHCHR). The language
of the final Declaration and Program of Action produced during the World Conference was and is still
debated on its partiality. Yet, it is considered as a landmark to the progress regarding the issue.

Following the Durban 1 Conference, the Durban Review Conference was organized under the
mandate of United Nations General Assembly resolution 61/149 for the purpose of reviewing and
ensuring the implementation of the The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action from the 2001
World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. During
the preparatory process of the review conference, several delegations including Australia, Canada, Israel,
the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States, boycotted the conference.
The Czech Republic and twenty-three European nations refused to show their active involvement and
support by either discontinuing their attendances or dispatching low-level delegations. As the outcomes of
the conference, a point-143 which concerns about the discrimination against minority groups passed and
was ensured for its implementation with the delegates‟ consensus. Reaffirmation of the principles passed
during the Durban I Conference in 2001 was also a part of the Durban Review Conference‟s harvest.

INTERNATIONAL ACTION & UN INVOLVEMENT

For the last sixty years ever since the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1948, the United Nations has put priority on the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination; its
foundation and the prohibition of racial discrimination and xenophobia are enshrined in all core
international human rights instruments. In fact, the international community has made some important
advances in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which

11
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

include the pulling down of apartheid system in South Africa. Today, the UN continues with its efforts to
put peer pressure on states to involve in eradication of discrimination in both public and private spheres.
The UN‟s principle of equality also obliges member states to implement special regulations to get rid of
conditions that are considered to be the primary reason for discrimination‟s persistence in each country.

Under the cooperation of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, varying
mechanisms for monitoring and strengthening equality among different ethnic and racial groups were
established. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights‟ sub-committee,
Committee on the elimination of Racial Discrimination is one of the major organizations that promote
elimination of racism; it is the amalgamation of independent experts that ensures each State Parties‟ the
adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination and provides feedback to any
difficulties involved in the process. Geneva meetings
regarding racism between member states also happen twice,
yet with the absence of several World major powers.

Overall 136 UN resolutions regarding the issue of

eradicating racism and related intolerance have been passed.

THE ISSUE OF RACISM BETWEEN SPECIFIC

PEOPLE GROUPS

1. USA vs. Middle East

The current relationship between the United States

and the Middle Eastern states is probably one of the most
fragile and variable relationship among the world‟s states of
affairs today. Before 1941, the United States minimized its
involvement in the Middle Eastern affairs. Starting from the Second World War and the Cold War, in fact,
did the US threw itself into the region where it previously shunned, when the US realized that its losing of
Middle East actually equalizes with its losing of natural resources, military forces, and means of
communication. Since then, the US kept its interference in the frequent violence happening in Middle
East, and rarely gained positive effects from its involvement: the Iran Hostage Crisis during 1979-1981,
the Persian Gulf War during 1990-1991, and the Iraq War in 2003. Although there are allied relationships
between the US and several Middle Eastern states including Israel, Jordan, and Kuwait, ethnic tension
between people from two countries exists. Americans view Middle Eastern People as terrorists and
Middle Easterners tend to view Americans as imperialists.

2. Israeli vs. Palestinian

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an explosive,

detrimental dispute enduring even until today. The
history of the conflict dates back to the period of the
Ottoman Rule during the early 1900s. The official
conflict started when the British gave the land of
Palestine, where both Jews and Muslims believed to be
the promise land of their gods, and where a significant
Jews were dwelling. It was ongoing ever since, yet no

12
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

solid progress has been made. The remaining key issues include mutual recognition, water rights,
frontiers, control of Jerusalem, freedom of movement and legalities of Palestinian refugees, and Israeli
settlements. For its entire duration, violence never ceased; violence was a regular conduct of paramilitary
groups, regular armies, terrorists, and even individuals. Estimated 8,500 Jews were removed from their
lands, half of them being forcibly moved. Following such violence in government and civilian levels,
ethnic tensions increased.

TIMELINE

1800‟s
Ever since the introduction of “scientific racism” in the mid-1800s, racist ideology was
developed by the colonists to justify their colonial actions, thus became prevalent mostly among white
people. Also, this was the period of racial ideology‟s emergence in America in the form of white capping,
a civilian movement marked by anti-black characteristic.

1950‟s
1950‟s was when practical actions and programs started to emerge. Convention on the Prevention
of the Crime of Genocide, Protocol amending the convention to suppress the slave trade and slavery, and
Convention on the abolition of slavery, the slave trade, and institutions and practices of slavery were
implemented consecutively.

1990‟s
The period 1990‟s was when the UN General Assembly came up with a plan for the World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and all related forms of Intolerance in
Durban, South Africa, and its following Durban Review Conference.

2000‟s
As a result of the September 11 Attacks in the United States in 2002, the Iraq War in 2003, the
break out of the war Gaza Strip, and the period 2000s turned out to be in turmoil with the tension between
groups that have been receiving the world‟s attention: the US, the Middle Easterners, Israelites, and
Palestinians. Yet, it was also the decade when the World Conference on Racism and the Durban Review
Conference was held in 2001 and 2009 respectively.

GLOSSARY

Zionism
Zionism is a political movement primarily promoting the creation of a state in Palestine that is to be
dwelled and controlled exclusively by Jews. This movement started in the 19th century and achieved its
goal when the United Nations, without the consent of the other Middle Eastern states, established a state
of Israel in 1948. After the creation of its own state, the state of Israel doubled its territory by using
illegitimate means to take possession of the West Bank in 1967 and 1973 wars.

Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic Cleansing is the act of compulsorily remove a particular group of people from an area in order to
maintain the area‟s “ethnic unity and purity.” It has been done usually through means of massacre.

Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism refers to the inclination to make judgments on other cultures and related groups based on
standards, norms, and criterions of one‟s own culture.

13
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Indirect (covert) Racial Discrimination

Indirect (covert) Racial Discrimination refers to actions or policies that come out to be impartial and
neutral, for they consider and treat people of different ethnicities and races in the same manner but
adversely influence a higher share of a particular ethnic or racial groups. This may occur unintentionally.

Individual racism
Individual Racism refers to the attitudes and behaviors that indicate racism done by individuals.

Institutional (or systemic) racism

Institutional (Systematic) Racism occurs under institutions such as governments, and educational, legal,
and medical enterprises or organizations, when such institutions discriminate against a group of people of
certain races, ethnicities, or sometimes religions.

Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism refers to hatred toward Jews.

14
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1880, By. "Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli Conflict,
Middle East Conflict)." Middle East: MidEastWeb. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm>.

"Combating Racial Discrimination." Http://www.ohchr.org/. Office of the High Commissioner Human

Rights. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Discrimination/Pages/discrimination_racial.aspx>

"The Durban Declaration of Racism." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 24 Aug. 2010. Web. 27 Aug.
2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Durban#Declaration#of#Racism>

"Durban Review Conference." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference>.

Friends, By. "Historical Dictionary of United States-Middle East Relations (Scarecrow Press, Inc.)."
Historical Dictionary of United States-Middle East Relations. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=
^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0810855496>.

"Racism." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 24 Aug. 2010. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#In_history>

"What Is Human Rights." Http://www.ohchr.org/. Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights. Web.
27 Aug. 2010. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx>

"World Conference Against Racism." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Durban Review
Conference. Web. 27 Aug. 2010. <http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-
kit/backgrounder1.htm>.

15
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Creation of Global Culture of Cyber-Security

Hanneke Schreur

INTRODUCTION
Cyber security is a vital issue – as the world relies more and more on technology and
technological developments, it becomes more susceptible to technological attacks. It is important
to remember that cyber security cannot be dealt with like physical disputes or treated with long-
term solutions – the internet has redefined the term „fast-paced‟, and the threats that the
technological world faces morph and grow every day.
Cyber security itself involves protecting the private information and data of nations
through prevention, detection, and response to attacks. These three areas are the key ways to
promote cyber security and set up a system through which technology and data may be protected.
Thus far, progress has been slow – recommendations have been brought forth but no
conclusive actions have been taken.

RISKS
Why is cyber security important? What would be the consequences of ignoring this issue
or treating it lightly? Take a look at the recent Wikileaks fiasco – the information here was not
crucial government secrets, not by any means, but when released to the public at large, it caused
chaos and disorder on a scale that dramatically surpasses any violation of physical security.
Governments of developing countries especially, need to keep the information that they have
safe from predators and those who seek to harm them.
Breaches in cyber security pose dramatic threats to a government‟s stability. When
information is released to the public, panic and mayhem could easily ensue. Information put into
a hostile nation‟s hands is just as dangerous, and can compromise a government‟s ability to
function properly.

RECENT UN DEVELOPMENTS
A recent UN report submitted by the
United States, China, Russia and several
other nations highlights key areas where
cyber security measures must be taken.
The three key areas discussed comprise
of the following: trust mechanisms and
risk-reducing measures – prevention of
attacks and a cooperative groundwork to
be laid between nations as well as
international standards regarding cyber security and punishment for cyber crime; information

16
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

exchange in national legislative and security strategy sectors – exchanging information regarding
individual cyber security laws, for example; and identifying measures to support the growth of
cyber management capabilities in nations with a lower development level.

INTERNATIONAL ACTION
Cyber security is not like other issues where countries have a definite stand for or against
it. Every country uses cyber attacks – primarily as a means for espionage. While countries do
want their own cyber security they are often unwilling to halt their own cyber attacks as they are
crucial to their international policies. China and the US have proposed measures to the United
Nations to increase cyber security but they also belong to the countries who carry out the most
cyber attacks.

DEALING WITH CYBER-SECURITY

Facing the threat of an unstable cyber security system should be treated with regards to
the following five areas:
Legal Measures
Current cyber security laws in place in certain MEDCs include measures taken for regular
maintenance of security programs, the maintenance of a cyber security incident center, to be on
call when crises arise, security systems in place to safeguard technology and information, and a
well-established communications system (crucial to the strength and stability of a strong cyber
security system), among others. However, these laws are in place only in more developed
countries with a strong technological infrastructure. In less developed nations, it is difficult to
enforce cyber security without the infrastructure laid down, and alternate measures must be taken.
Laws dictating the parameters of cyber crime and the punishments for a cybercriminal are
absolutely necessary in all forms of cyber security. The enforcement of cyber security laws must
be upheld, and the governments must be committed to carrying out these measures in order to
fully utilize the cyber security systems presented. Laws passed should, again, be formed with
regard to prevention, detection and response to cyber security attacks.
Technical and Procedural Measures
Technical and procedural measures deal with the lack of technological structure in nations and
measures that must be taken to deal with this, as well as physical systems and steps (aside from
legislature) that may be carried out to ensure maximum benefit from cyber security laws and
programs. These include regular risk assessment campaigns to help companies and governments
highlight the areas where they have weaknesses and treat the issues that may allow cyber
criminals to slip through, partnerships between countries and companies – a groundwork of trust
so that organizations can rely on each other for support and awareness campaigns so that the
threat of cyber crime is fully appreciated.
Organizational Structures
Organizational structures are national or regional structures that deal with carrying out or
supporting cyber security laws and systems. It is imperative, then, that these structures be free

17
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

from corruption and decay – the formation and design of said structures should be carefully
considered with that in mind.
Include: Government hierarchies – bureaucracy – emergency systems to deal with cyber security
issues – people to assess issues of cyber security – panels who help improve the cyber security of
areas
Capacity Building
To help lesser developed nations and less technologically advanced countries move forwards in
regards to cyber security is just as key an issue as legislature or organization. Countries currently
without a strong technological system will be unable to go very far for cyber security. In order to
further the system of cyber security, nations must develop their technological capacity and
strengthen their internal technological infrastructure, so that this infrastructure can support cyber
security measures and laws which will then be put in place.
Ways to do it: help a nation slowly develop a stronger computer/internet system, nationwide –
nations should attend conferences (?) or learn how to slowly advance, technologically speaking –
a good communications system should be set up and supported regularly – government and local
workers should be trained to operate said systems – the students/young people in the nation
should be made technologically literate, with the future operation of said systems in mind
International Cooperation
Finally, international cooperation is a cornerstone in the strengthening of cyber security. Without
the groundwork of trust and teamwork between nations, it will be impossible to fully develop a
cyber security system that is truly effective. Nations need communicate and collaborate in order
to devise laws and systems that are most efficient and least offensive. It may be noted that the
trust itself is a cyber security measure as well.
Ways to do this: share laws about cyber security – work together to devise a system that will
please everyone – support financially in regards to technological advancement – give support
when dealing with cyber criminals in another country – communicate with regard to cyber
criminals and those
There is a need to develop universal specialized terminology and definitions, which was also
prescribed by the UN General Assembly in the cyber security resolution approved on 02.12.2009.

18
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

TIMELINE OF RECENT CYBER-SECURITY INCIDENTS (TAKEN DIRECTLY

FROM SCPR.ORG1
April-June 2007
A series of cyberattacks on U.S. government agencies and departments results in the loss of 10
terabytes to 20 terabytes of data. That's more data than what's stored in the Library of Congress.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' unclassified e-mail account is hacked.

May 2007
Estonia's Parliament, banks, ministries and news media face "distributed denial of service," or
DDoS, attacks. In DDoS attacks, Web sites are inundated with traffic, causing them to collapse.
The attacks come as Estonia is in a heated dispute with Russia over the relocation of a Soviet-era
war memorial. Estonian officials blame the Kremlin for the attacks.

October 2007
An e-mail sent to 1,000 staff members at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Labs
contains an attachment that accesses the lab's nonclassified databases.

August 2008
Hackers insert pictures of Adolf Hitler into the country of Georgia's Foreign Ministry Web site,
while other government Web sites are disabled by DDoS attacks. The cyberattacks come as
Russian forces engage in combat with Georgian troops. U.S. intelligence officials conclude that
the Russian government was behind the attacks, perhaps acting through organized crime
channels.

August-October 2008
Hackers gain access to e-mails and computer files at the presidential campaign headquarters for
John McCain and Barack Obama. Investigators reportedly trace the penetrations to computers in
China.

November-December 2008
Several thousand military computers at the Tampa, Fla.-based U.S. Central Command, the
headquarters for military operations between east Africa and central Asia, are infected with
malicious software. Investigators conclude that the malware was introduced via thumb drives
that had been scattered in a parking lot.

March 2009

1
Gjelten, Tom. "Timeline: Major Cybersecurity Incidents Since 2007 | 89.3 KPCC." Home | 89.3

KPCC. Southern California Public Radio, 5 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www

.scpr.org/news/2010/04/05/timeline-major-cybersecurity-incidents-since-2007/>.

19
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Researchers at the University of Toronto announce that they have discovered an extensive cyber
espionage network, which they call "GhostNet." The GhostNet operators are said to have
infected 1,295 host computers in 103 countries around the world. The researchers cannot
conclusively identify the GhostNet operators but suspect Chinese involvement.

July 2009
Cyber attacks are launched against government, financial and media Web sites in South Korea
and the U.S. Among those targeted is washingtonpost.com, the newspaper site. South Korea
blames North Korea for the attacks, but the origin of the attacks is not determined.

December 2009
Google and more than 30 other U.S. companies in China are subject to significant computer
attacks, resulting in the loss of technological secrets.”

GLOSSARY (TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM America.gov)2

Authentication
A security measure designed to verify an individual‟s authorization to access computer or
security information.

Botnet (also zombies)

A collection of computers subject to centralized remote control by an outside party, usually
without the knowledge of the owners, using surreptitiously installed software robots. The robots
are spread by trojan horses and viruses. The botnets can be used to launch denial-of-service
attacks and transmit spam.

Cracking (also Crackers)

Discovering passwords by various methods; more generally gaining unauthorized access to
secured computers or data. Crackers specialize in gaining unauthorized access.

Cyber crime
Criminal activities that make use of computers or networks.

Cyberspace
An environment in which digitized information is distributed
on networks of computers.

2
"Glossary of Key Cybersecurity Terms." Engaging the World. America.gov, 18 Sept. 2009.

Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.america.gov/st/peacesecenglish/2009/September/2009

0917175715sjhtrop0.2718012.html>.

20
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Cybersecurity
Measures taken to protect computers or critical infrastructure, although some experts suggest that
it is about protecting everything of value.

Cyber warfare
Using computers and the Internet to attack others via their computer systems. Targets may
include military computer networks, power grids, banks, and government and media web sites.
Most often the goal is to disrupt the functioning of the target system.

Cyber warriors
Military specialists, law enforcement officials, computer forensics experts and civil engineers
who defend national and economic security assets.

Denial-of-service attack
Flooding the networks or servers of individuals or organizations with false data requests so they
are unable to respond to requests from legitimate users.

Encryption
A method of protecting information by transforming it using a cipher so only those who have the
key can read it.

Hacker
A person with special expertise in computer systems and software. A hacker who attempts to
gain unauthorized access to computer systems is a “cracker.”

Hacktivist
An individual who breaches Web sites or secured communications systems to deliver political
messages, including those related to foreign policy, or propaganda. It has been described by
Naval Postgraduate School Professor Dorothy Denning as “the marriage of hacking and
activism.”

Identity management
A method of validating a person‟s identity when he/she tries to access a network.

Incident management
Executing a defensive response when a network‟s security is threatened.

Malicious code (also malware)

Any code that can be used to attack a computer by spreading viruses, crashing networks,
gathering intelligence, corrupting data, distributing misinformation and interfering with military
or civilian operations including navigation, transportation, logistics, communications and
command and control functions.

21
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Pharming
A method of capturing sensitive information (such as Social Security numbers and passwords)
by fooling a user into entering such information on a fake Web site that masks as a legitimate
one.

Phishing
Using fake e-mail to trick individuals into revealing personal information, such as Social
Security numbers, debit and credit card account numbers and passwords, for nefarious uses.
Risk Management
Identifying vulnerabilities in a network and developing a strategy to protect against attack.

Script kiddie
An unsophisticated cracker who uses cracking tools found on the Internet to gain access to
poorly protected computer systems.

Server
A computer set up to provide information on request via a network.

Spam
Unsolicited bulk e-mail that may contain malicious software. Spam is now said to account for
around 81 percent of all e-mail traffic.

Spoofing
Making a message or transaction appear to come from a source other than the originator.

Spyware
Software that collects information without a user‟s knowledge and transfers it to a third party.

Trojan horse
Code masking as a useful program that when activated performs malicious activity such as
locating protected passwords or damaging data on a computer‟s hard disk.

Virus
A program designed to degrade service, cause inexplicable symptoms or damage networks.”

22
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Cyber Threat Is Nation's Biggest Economic Risk." The National Terror Alert. Homeland

Security News, 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.nationalterroralert.com

/2010/03/02/cyber-threat-is-nations-biggest- economic-risk/>.

"Experts at UN-backed Meeting Lay Foundation for Global Cybersecurity Roadmap." Welcome

to the United Nations: It's Your World. UN News Centre, 8 Oct. 2007. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24221&Cr=cyber&Cr1=>.

Gjelten, Tom. "Timeline: Major Cybersecurity Incidents Since 2007 | 89.3 KPCC." Home | 89.3

KPCC. Southern California Public Radio, 5 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www

.scpr.org/news/2010/04/05/timeline-major-cybersecurity-incidents-since-2007/>.

"Global Security Agenda." Corporate Strategy Division. International Telecommunications

Union, 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity

/gca/>.

"Glossary of Key Cybersecurity Terms." Engaging the World. America.gov, 18 Sept. 2009.

Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/September/2009091717

5715sjhtrop0.2718012.html>.

Iyer, Ramon. "Lethal “electronic Pearl Harbour” Cyber-attack Could Cripple US in 15 Minutes."

TopNews | Only Top Stories of the Day. 8 May 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.top

news.in/law/lethal-electronic-pearl-harbour-cyberattack-could-cripple-us-15-minutes-

experts-216735>.

"Massive Cyber Attacks Uncovered." Security Technology. Dark Government, 19 Feb. 2010.

Web. 2 Dec. 2010. <http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/massive-cyber-attacks-

uncovered/>.

23
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Ragan, Steve. "Cyber Attacks in Georgia Evident." Security. Tech Herald, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 6

Dec. 2010. <http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200934/4270/Cyberattacks-in-

Georgia-dissected>.

"Understanding Cybercrime - A Guide for Developing Countries." Cybercrime Legislation

Resources. International Telecommunications Union, Apr. 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-understanding-cybercrime-

guide.pdf>.

"United Nations Making Slow Progress on Cyber Security." Networking Nuggets and Security

Snippets: United Nations Making Slow Progress on Cybersecurity. Network World, 19

July 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/united-

nations-making-slow-progress-cybersecu>.

24
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Strengthening the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program

Jin Hoon Jung

INTRODUCTION

According to the Oxford University‟s research study report Global Report on Crime and Justice,
no matter where on the globe, two out of three people who live in big cities are victimized by crime at
least once in a five-year period. Also, of the victims who went to report their cases to the police, less than
half were satisfied with the response they received. The report stated that in order to stop crime, “strong
and binding agreements among countries are needed.”

The issue of crime prevention and criminal justice is at the heart of the work of the United
Nations (UN) – the charter of the UN states that one of its objectives is "to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained." Therefore, one of the key goals of the UN is to carry out justice and make sure
prosecutors of international law take the consequences of their actions.

As the UN was not created as a master organization made to enforce any and all actions upon
member nations, it is important to note that any actions that
should be taken against crime are the responsibilities of
individual states. The UN can, however, provide those nations
that do not have a well-functioning or stable system of crime
prevention or criminal justice with guidelines and information
to help getting such systems started and running. The UN can
also provide help and technical support to institutions in action
against crime.

However, crime still rages on in the world; headlines

on the news are always filled with crime happening somewhere around the world and even more crimes
are committed in the dark and never uncover themselves to the public. Also, just as systems of crime
justice and crime prevention become more effective, organized crime also evolves to elude and defy these
programs. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Program, so that potential victims can be saved, that victims can be satisfied with the response they
receive when they report their cases to the police.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

There are many key bodies of the UN that work towards ensuring crime prevention and criminal
justice, such as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and the Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice. However, there currently is no body of the UN that can actually prosecute individuals
for committing crimes; the International Criminal Court, the first and only permanent international court
that indicts and prosecutes individuals, is not a body of the UN, although it does have a relationship with
the UN.

25
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

One of the key factors in both crime prevention and criminal justice is the cooperation of member
states and state parties – the UN can make conventions and treaties and create international standards of
law on crime prevention and criminal justice, but if individual states refuse to follow the said treaties or
standards, the UN‟s efforts would be in vain. The Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, stresses
that “states must comply with their responsibilities to enforce all outstanding arrest warrants.”

HISTORY

Even before the beginning of the 20th century, efforts were made to combat crime through
international cooperation. In 1872, the International Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime
was held in London. After the two World Wars, with the Formation of the United Nations, efforts at
drafting a statute that would create an international court began, but were cut short by the Cold War.
However, efforts within the UN continued, and in 1955, the first UN Congress on crime prevention and
criminal justice was held. In 1971, the committee on crime prevention and control was formed, and in
1986, the United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network (UNCJIN) was formed. The committee
was formed to increase international cooperation in the fight against crime, while the aim of the UNCJIN
was to collect information that would be helpful in the fight.

In 1989, the idea of an international court was revived by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and
Tobago, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was finally adopted by the General
Assembly in 1998 – it legally came into force with its 60th ratification in 2002, setting up the International
Criminal Court. Meanwhile, in 1992, the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control became
overwhelmed with things to handle, and was replaced by the Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice (CCPCJ). In 1997, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and its
subsidiary body Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP; renamed UNODC Crime Prevention
Program in 2002) was formed. With the formation of specific bodies of the UN that targeted the problem
of crime prevention and criminal justice, the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Program started.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Criminal Justice refers to the

systems of governments aiming to
maintain peace in society, discourage and
prevent crime from being committed, and
punish and rehabilitate those who have
perpetrated crimes. Criminal justice is the
basis of all actions against crime; the three
basic parts of criminal justice are the
police, the court, and the prison. The
police enforce the law, the court decides
the judgment, and the prisons serve both
as a punishment and a chance for the
individual criminals to repent, reform
themselves, and be rehabilitated.

26
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Currently the only way any individual can be prosecuted except by a state‟s own criminal justice
system is through the ICC. Therefore, as the ICC has limited resources and time to deal with criminals,
not to mention the issue with the ICC‟s jurisdictions, the UN highly encourages all member states to set
up and use effective criminal justice systems of their own. The Rome Statute clearly states the principle
of complementarity, which means that the ICC can only step in when a state‟s own criminal justice
system cannot or will not handle a crime; states will have the primary responsibility to prosecute
perpetrators of crime and prevent such crime from happening inside their own territories. The office of
the prosecutor of the ICC “complements national efforts” and believes that “national measures against
offenders should be encouraged.”

CRIME PREVENTION

When looking at statistical data of the costs necessary for both Criminal Justice and Crime
Prevention and compare the effectiveness of the two systems at reducing the crime rate, experts say that
crime prevention is not only the cheaper of the two, it is actually potentially more effective than criminal
justice at lowering the crime rate in any situation. However, currently methods of crime prevention are
not being physically implemented within many countries, but instead remain mostly as rhetoric.

Criminologists around the world agree that there are three basic elements that are necessary for
crime to happen: desire or motivation on the part of the perpetrator of the crime; the tools, skills, or
methods that lets the perpetrator carry out the crime; the opportunity for the crime to be done. If any one
of these three reasons can be removed, then the crime will not happen. Since it is much easier and cheaper
in terms of both time and cost to try to remove one of these three elements of crime than to deal with the
consequences of a crime that has already been committed, crime prevention, if used effectively, will be
the key to stopping much of the crime worldwide.

MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED

United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Network Institutes (PNI)

The PNI includes the UNODC, other inter-regional and regional institutes worldwide, and
specialized centers. This network‟s main goal is to assist in strengthening cooperation in the field of crime
prevention and criminal justice; it provides services such as exchange of information, training, research,
and public education.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

The UNODC seeks to make the world a safer place by

removing crime, drugs, and terrorism from the world; its Justice
Section in the Division of Operations deal particularly with the
issue of crime prevention and criminal justice. the justice section
of the UNODC both provides support for and performs operation
work in assisting nations in creating crime prevention and criminal justice policies and programs and
delivering relevant technical assistance where needed. The UNODC builds the foundation of its responses
to these crimes on fair and effective criminal justice systems, which adhere to the United Nations
standards in the issue. The UNODC areas of work range from overall criminal justice reform strategies

27
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

and people's access to justice, to prison reform and any alternatives to imprisonment, violence against and
justice for women and children, and more.

The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ)

The CCPCJ, a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, is an advisory committee that was established in
1992 to operate as a functioning body in the fields of crime prevention and criminal justice. It oversees
the implementation of the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program, and is the governing body
of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Fund, which provides the resources for the UN
Office on Drugs and Crime to carry out its crime prevention and criminal justice activities.

United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

The Congress is quinquennial, meaning that it meets every five years. It aims to tackle specific
problems relating to crime prevention and criminal justice – each congress that has met since the creation
of the congress itself has made significant strides in the field; for instance, the 2000 congress had set the
basis for the Convention against Corruption.

The Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch

The Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch if a branch of the United Nations Secretariat,
and it is the center of information regarding technical expertise in the fields of criminal law, criminal
justice, and crime prevention. It prepares reports both for the UN Congresses on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice and for the CCPCJ.

United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)

The UNICRI, established in 1967, is a United Nations entity that assists the formulation and
implementation of policies in the field of criminal prevention and criminal justice by and through
intergovernmental, governmental, and non-governmental organizations. It aims to promote states‟ self-
reliance and capacity to develop institutes to regulate crime.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

First adopted on 17 July 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002, the Rome Statute is the
treaty that set up the International Criminal Court. It establishes the functions, jurisdictions, and structures
of the court. By January 2011, 114 states will have signed onto and ratified the treaty.

The International Criminal Court (ICC)

A body independent from the United Nations, the International Criminal Court was created on 1
July 2002, as a permanent court to prosecute individuals that have been accused of serious crimes. The
office of the prosecutor of the ICC has the authority to indict and prosecute criminals accused of such
charges; however, it does not have the authority to arrest them. Furthermore, the ICC has limits to its
jurisdictions, the most significant of which is listed in the principle of complementarity. Also, it can only
prosecute individuals if the crime committed is one of these crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity,
or war crimes. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon views the ICC as “the centerpiece of the world‟s system

28
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

of international criminal justice”, and stated that “if we are serious about combating impunity, we must
support the ICC‟s work.”

TIMELINE

1872 – International Congress on Prevention and Repression of Crime held in London

1945 – Establishment of the United Nations

1955 – First UN Congress on Crime prevention and Criminal Justice

1971 – committee on crime prevention and control formed

1986 – UNCJIN formed

1992 – commission on crime prevention and criminal justice

1994 – ECOSOC resolution "Strengthening the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice
program"

1997 – The UNODC and its Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP) is formed.

1998 – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in the General

Assembly.

2000 – GA adopts UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

2002 – Rome Statute legally comes into force; International Criminal Court formed

2003 – UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime entered into force

29
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

A chart showing total number of crimes committed per capita in each state listed.

30
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

GLOSSARY

Crime:

“An action that is deemed injurious to the public welfare and is legally prohibited.”

Crime Prevention:

The attempt to reduce victimization and to deter crime and criminals; particularly applied to governmental
efforts to reduce crime, enforce law, and maintain criminal justice.

Criminal Justice:

Governmental practices and institutions aiming to uphold social control, stop crime, and sanction the
perpetrators with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts.

Civil Law:

The system of law concerned with private relations between members of a community rather than
criminal, military, or religious affairs; Civil law forms the basis of most legal systems around the world.

Social Development:

Reducing the social factors that pre-dispose young persons to become persistent offenders - often focuses
on potential offenders.

Opportunity Reduction:

Making crime more difficult, more risky, or less rewarding to potential offenders - often focusing on
potential victims.

Transnational Crime:

“Crimes that have potential effects across national borders or crimes committed inside national borders
but offend the fundamental values of the international community.” Transnational crimes, usually, by
their nature alone involve the crossing of borders as a necessary part of their activity; it can also occur
inside one country‟s borders but significantly affect another nation. Examples include trafficking (both of
humans and goods), terrorism, and torture.

Organized Crime:

Also referred to as criminal organizations, organized crime consists of “groupings of highly centralized
enterprises” that are run by criminals, usually for money.

Complementarity:

In law, complementarity is the principle that jurisdictions of two or more courts will and should not
overlap in their legislation, administration, and prosecution of crimes.

31
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Perpetrate:

“To carry out, enact, or commit (especially a harmful, illegal, or immoral action).”

Prosecute:

“To conduct legal proceedings against; to seek to enforce by legal process; to institute and carry on a legal
prosecution.”

32
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"1994/16. Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme." UN.org.

Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1994/eres1994-16.htm>.

"About UNODC." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 23 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/index.html?ref=menutop>.

"The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CCPCJ/index.html>.

"Crime Prevention and Community Relations." Administration and Finance Division. Web. 30 Dec. 2010.

<http://www-admn.csun.edu/police/crime/>.

"Crime Prevention." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention>.

"Criminal Justice « Criminal Justice Career Research Center | How to Get Into Criminal Justice School |

Criminal Justice Admissions & Financial Aid Info." Criminal Justice Career Research Center |

How to Get Into Criminal Justice School | Criminal Justice Admissions & Financial Aid Info.

Web. 30 Dec. 2010. <http://criminaljustice.careeredublogs.com/tag/criminal-justice/>.

"Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/Criminal-Justice-

Toolkit.html?ref=menuside>.

"Criminal Justice Careers." Articles and Blogs on Criminal Justice Degrees and Careers. Web. 30 Dec.

2010. <http://www.criminal-justice-education.com/articles/career-in-criminal-justice/index.php>.

"Criminal Justice, Prison Reform and Crime Prevention." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-

33
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

reform/index.html?ref=menuside>.

"Criminal Justice." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice>.

"Frequently Asked Questions." ICC. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure of

the Court/Office of the Prosecutor/FAQ/FAQ.htm>.

"Global Report." UNCJIN CICP Home. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.uncjin.org/Special/GlobalReport.html>.

"Institutes." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CCPCJ/institutes.html>.

"International Criminal Court." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Dec. 2010.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court>.

"Organized Crime." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 28 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/index.html>.

"Organized Crime." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime>.

"Programme Network Institutes Workshop; Criminal Justice Reform: Lessons Learned Community

Involvement and Restorative Justice." UNIS. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2002/cp408.html>.

"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Dec.

2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court>.

"Strengthen Fight against Impunity through ICC, Ban Tells States Parties." UN News Centre. Web. 28

34
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

Dec. 2010. <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36971&Cr=international criminal

court&Cr1=>.

This Chart Shows Global | Electronic News. Web. 30 Dec. 2010. <http://electronic.districsides.com/this-

chart-shows-global>.

"Transnational Crime." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_crime>.

UNCJIN CICP Home. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.uncjin.org/>.

"United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Opens in Brazil with Calls for

Stronger Legal Tools." UNIS. Web. 29 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2010/uniscp603.html>.

"United Nations Crime and Justice Research Inst. - The Institute." UNICRI :: United Nations

Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.unicri.it/institute/>.

"United Nations Crime and Justice Research Inst. - The Network." UNICRI :: United Nations

Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.unicri.it/documentation_centre/pni/>.

"The United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme." Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/crime/dpi1642e.htm>.

"United Nations Global Issues." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 28 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/internationallaw/>.

"United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems Reference

Publications." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

35
MUNiSC 2011 Chair Reports

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-

and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems-Reference-Publications.html>.

"United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems." United

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-

and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-

Systems.html>.

"UNODC Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Web. 30

Nov. 2010. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/crimedata.html>.

36