BISMUN VII

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

PRESIDENTS: DANIELA PADILLA & CAMILA VERA

BACKGROUND GUIDES

BARRANQUILLA, COLOMBIA

British International School Model United Nations

Greetings honorable delegates,

It is a pleasure for me to be the one to give you a warm welcome into BISMUN VII.

My name is Daniela Padilla, and this year I have the immense honor of presiding over the

Security Council Committee alongside my co-president Camila Vera.

Participating in the Security Council Committee is a challenging feat that in this

session of BISMUN you will face. Nevertheless, I am sure that with your adequate

preparation, proper representation of your respective countries, diplomacy and mutual respect

you will conquer the discussions.

We live in a world where our previous mistakes haunt us everyday and we can’t go

back to fix them. However, what we can do is take ahold of our future. A future we build

with every decision we make. This is a very crucial idea that I would like for you to have

present not only during our three days of debate, but during the rest of your lives as this

experience is just a preparation of what you will face on the outside world. Always remember

that more than a debate, MUN is an enriching opportunity for you to show your best version

and demonstrate that you can leave a footprint in this world.

I look forward to hearing your interventions and solutions throughout the whole

committee. I have high expectations regarding the development of this committee, hoping

that all of you contribute to their fulfillment. Do not hesitate to contact me through my

academic email dpadilla@britishschool.edu.co, as I will gladly answer any of your doubts or

concerns regarding the background guide or the committee in general.

Sincerely,

Daniela Padilla

British International School Model United Nations

Distinguished delegates,

It’s a great honor and privilege for me to welcome you to BISMUN VII! My name is

Camila Vera and it is with great enthusiasm and pleasure that I say I’ll be presiding,

alongside my Co-President Daniela Padilla, over the United Nations Security Council

Committee.

As many of you may know, the Security Council is one of the six most important

principal organs of the United Nations charged with the maintenance of international peace

and security, where hope every delegate kindle sparks of hope to reach an excellent future

full of peace and wellness. Because of this, we expect nothing less than very well-prepared

delegates to reach a high-level debate, remember delegates good research is the foundation of

your committee performance.

I can't wait to listen to your interventions and find the best solutions to these issues. If

you have any doubts or questions, don't hesitate to contact me via my email

cvera@britishschool.edu.co, and I will be glad to help you as soon as I can!

Sincerely,

Camila Vera.

British International School Model United Nations

History of the committee

The Security Council is one of the United Nation’s five presently active principal

organs. Chartered in 1945 and inaugurated in 1946, it is tasked with maintaining international

security. The council is comprised of 15 members, each of which is entitled to one vote in

council proceedings. Five of the United

Nations’ member states are permanent

members of the Security council— The United

States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and

France.

These members are endowed with the power to veto any resolution created by the

committee. The remaining 10 members are elected to 2-year terms by the General Assembly,

meaning that the composition of the Security Council is constantly changing. UNSC

meetings can be called at any time, reflecting the body’s mandate to respond to pressing and

immediate issues. In general terms, the Security Council is charged with assessing and

proposing responses to security threats across the globe. While it most frequently offers

advice and mediation to actors affected by violence, it can also intervene in situations directly

through sanctions or, if necessary, the use of peacekeeping forces. Central to the work of the

Security Council is a principle established at the 2005 World Summit Outcome: The

Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The R2P effectively encapsulates the objective of the

security council— to serve as a platform for necessary interventions for the benefit of the

world’s citizens, preferably in concert with their governments.

It is also worth noting that the Security Council is responsible for approving the

admission of new member states into the United Nations and with recommending the

appointment of new Secretary Generals. 6 United Nations Security Council Over the course

of its history, the Security Council has carried out a great number of peacekeeping and

British International School Model United Nations

advisory missions across the world. Its role within the international community has greatly

expanded in the days since its inception. As a body committed to the protection of peace and

order, the Security Council has a responsibility to structure its interventions in a manner that

is both efficacious and conscious of potential unintended consequences. The UN charter and

the Security Council’s founding principles give it unequalled flexibility in tangibly

influencing conditions on the ground, but this immense power must be wielded in an

altruistic and responsible manner if the committee is to fulfill its mandate.

British International School Model United Nations

Topic A: Ukraine: Gas War & President Treason (Kerch Strait Incident)

Summary of the Problem

Several tensions have arisen ever since Russian Gazprom and Ukrainian Naftogaz

Ukraine had disagreements about operation prices being charged, gas supplies and debt

regarding the trade of the natural resource. To makes matters worse, Gazprom officials

accused Ukraine to be holding hostage a certain amount of the supply intended to reach

Europe, which the Ukrainian government explicitly denied.

Russia provides a quarter of the EU gas supply, of which 80 percent passes through

Ukraine. The current crisis affected as many as fifteen countries across central Europe (see

map below). However, the impact on these countries is not equal. It depends on the location

of the receiving country, and its energy consumption profile.

As seen from the map below, some EU countries are severely affected while others

are only partially affected, and some countries are not affected at all. This implies that some

countries could take on the role as alternative provider (from natural source or storage) of gas

in the face of a conflict over Russian gas.

Historical Background:

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, oil

import prices to Ukraine reached world market levels

in 1993. However, gas import prices and transit fees

remained below European levels for Russian exports

to Europe through pipelines in Ukraine; these were

set in bilateral negotiations. At the same time Ukraine

remained the main transit corridor for Russia's gas

British International School Model United Nations

export. In 2004–2005, 80% of Russian gas exports to the European Union were made

through Ukrainian territory. Two-thirds of Gazprom's revenue comes from the sale of gas that

crosses Ukraine.

Ukraine's own annual gas consumption in 2004–2005 was around 80 billion cubic

meters (2.8 trillion cubic feet), of which around 20 billion cubic meters (710 billion cubic

feet) were produced domestically, 36 billion cubic meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) were bought

from Turkmenistan, and 17 billion cubic meters (600 billion cubic feet) were received from

Russia in exchange for transport of Russian natural gas. The remaining 8 billion cubic meters

(280 billion cubic feet) were purchased from Russia. The gas trading system differed

substantially from the gas sale to the European Union and caused problems in the form of

large-scale deliveries of relatively cheap Russian gas causing an increase of energy-intensive

industries and supporting Ukraine's status as one of the world's least energy-efficient

countries and largest gas importers, the accumulation of Ukrainian debts and non-payment of

same, unsanctioned diversion of gas and alleged theft from the transit system, and Russian

pressure on Ukraine to hand over infrastructure in return for relief of debts accumulated over

natural gas transactions.

Gas trading was conducted under a framework of bilateral intergovernmental

agreements which provided for sales, transit volumes, gas prices, gas storage, and other

issues such as the establishment of production joint ventures. Commercial agreements were

negotiated between the relevant companies within the guidelines and dictates of that

framework and supplemented by annual agreements specifying exact prices and volumes for

the following year. Gas sales prices and transit tariffs were determined in relationship to each

other. Commercial agreements and trade relations have been non-transparent, and trade has

been conducted via intermediaries such as Itera, Eurail TransGaz, and RosUkrEnergo.

RosUkrEnergo ’s involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian gas trade has been controversial.

British International School Model United Nations

There are allegations that the company is controlled by Semion Mogilevich and its

beneficiaries include strategically placed officials in the Russian and Ukrainian gas industries

and governmental structures related to the energy sector. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir

Putin has made accusations that RosUkrEnergo is owned by a business ally of Ukraine's ex-

president, Viktor Yushchenko. The Ukrainian investigation into RosUkrEnergo, during Yulia

Tymoshenko's first term as Prime Minister, was closed after she was fired by Yushchenko in

September 2005.

According to a contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz signed on 21 June 2002,

payment for the transfer of Russian natural gas through the Ukrainian pipeline system had

been made in exchange for no more than 15% of the gas pumped through Ukrainian territory

to be taken in lieu of cash. This contract was supposed to be valid until the end of 2013. On 9

August 2004, the two companies signed an addendum to the contract, according to which the

amount of gas given as a payment was calculated based on a tariff of US$1.09 for the

transportation of 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas over a distance of 100 kilometers (62 mi);

the addendum further stated the price of the natural gas supplied to Ukraine was to be $50 per

1,000 cubic meters (approximately $1.40 per million Btu). This price was constant

notwithstanding the gas prices in the European markets. According to the addendum the price

was not subject to change until the end of 2009. Gazprom argued that this addendum was

only applicable provided that the two countries sign an annual intergovernmental protocol

that has higher legal status for specifying the terms of gas transit. According to Gazprom, the

addendum becomes void as the annual protocol had not been signed for 2006 under the

required terms. Russia claimed that Gazprom's subsidies to the Ukrainian economy amounted

to billions of dollars.

British International School Model United Nations

Past Actions from the International Community

A top UN official said the negotiations aimed at implementing the 2015 Minsk

accords and ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine have lost momentum.

Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca made the comment in a speech before the

UN Security Council on February 12 (2019), at an event marking the fourth anniversary of

the accords. Jenca said negotiations "appear to have lost momentum" and that neither Russia

nor Ukraine appear to be willing to agree on key steps forward.

The conflict, which erupted in 2014 at around the same time that Russia annexed

Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula, has killed more than 10,000 people and displaced more than 1

million. The fighting pits Ukrainian government troops and allied militias against fighters

that Western officials say have been funded and equipped by Russian military units. Signed

roughly a year after full-scale fighting erupted, the Minsk accords laid out a blueprint of

political steps, including elections, that would end the conflict.

Both Russia and Ukraine have blamed each other for the failure to implement the

agreement.

Current Crisis:

The tension between these two countries has increased. Some 13,000 people have

been killed, a quarter of them civilians, and as many as 30,000 wounded in the war in eastern

Ukraine since it broke out in April 2014, the United Nations says.

The estimated toll includes more than 3,300 civilian deaths, the UN Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said in a document dated February 25 and

provided to RFE/RL the same day.

It comes as the simmering conflict between Russia-backed separatists and government

forces approaches its sixth year, with little progress toward the implementation of a Western-

British International School Model United Nations

brokered ceasefire and political-settlement deal known as the Minsk Accords.

In the past, OHCHR released updated casualty figures from the conflict several times

a year. But the new document said that the "previous conservative estimate of total conflict-

related casualties was as of 15 November 2017." That report said that the OHCHR had

recorded 35,081 conflict-related casualties – 10,303 people killed and 24,778 wounded – and

said the real toll could be higher.

Russia has provided military, economic, and political support to separatist militants

who control parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the corner of southeastern Ukraine

known as the Donbas. The International Criminal Court (ICC) ruled in November 2016 that

the war in eastern Ukraine is "an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the

Russian Federation."

Guiding Questions:

1. What is the priority in this issue? Is gas a need?

2. How is the Security Council going to solve the issue? Does a country need to sacrifice

its own needs? Or is it possible to get to an accord?

3. How is your country involved in the Ukraine-Russia gas dispute?

4. What actions must be taken into consideration to solve this issue?

British International School Model United Nations

Topic B: Adjudicating Territorial Claims in the Antarctic

Summary of the Problem:

The Antarctic is a polar region located at the

Earth's South Pole, opposite to the region around the

North Pole known as the Arctic. The Antarctic is

conformed by the continent of Antarctica, the Kerguelen

Plateau and other island territories located on the

Antarctic Plate or south of the Antarctic Convergence.

The Antarctic region includes the ice shelves, waters,

and all the island territories in the Southern Ocean situated south of the Antarctic

Convergence, a zone approximately 32 to 48 km wide. It has been labeled as the most

naturally inhospitable place on Earth based on 98% of its surface being completely covered

by miles-thick ice and its limited resources. Yet, all this territory occupies 10% of the land on

Earth which is a number far too big for it to be left ignored. Here is where the issue begins.

Most countries aren’t willing to leave unclaimed territories unclaimed; the Antarctic being no

exception. This raises the most important question of our committee which has been tried to

solve before to no official avail: who “owns” the Antarctic? As a short answer we could say it

belongs to no one and to everyone at the same time. However, as we seek the complex

answer, we get the idea that it is not as simple as that.

Historical Background and Past Actions from the International Community

Going back in time to the colonizing epochs, there were three implicit conditions for a

land to be claimed: to be an aboriginal inhabitant, a powerful occupying force or the first

exploring party to discover it. Due to the harsh conditions in the Antarctic territory there were

British International School Model United Nations

no aboriginal inhabitants or settlements of strong occupying forces, leading to the third

option of claiming portions of the land as the official parties reached them. This chaotic

claiming method started with the arrival of United Kingdom, which attempted to claim most

of the continent. This sudden possession of land worried the rest of the international powers,

who did not hesitate to send their own expeditions to place their flags on the areas they

explored. Ultimately this conducted France to claim coastal explorations to the pole, followed

by Norway, Nazi Germany (whose claim would be revoked later), New Zealand, Chile and

Argentina. The last two countries of the list made claims over territories overlapping those of

the United Kingdom giving as a result a map dividing between 7 nations overlapping portions

of land as shown on the image.

Complicating the matter, United States

and the Soviet Union gave themselves the right of

claiming a portion of land at any suitable

moment. These assertions intensified the tensions

already existing between the nations, especially

during the Cold War when large territorial disputes weren’t welcomed. To ease these

tensions, the 7 original nations including United States, the Soviet Union and three more

countries made a treaty regarding the territory. This is what we now know as the The

Antarctic Treaty. The treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 by the twelve

countries whose scientists had been active in and around Antarctica during the International

Geophysical Year of 1957-58. It entered into force in 1961 and has since been acceded to by

many other nations. The total number of Parties to the Treaty is now 53.

British International School Model United Nations

Some of the most important provisions of the Treaty are:

❖ Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. (Art. I)

❖ Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end …

shall continue. (Art. II)

❖ Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made

freely available. (Art. III)

❖ All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment within those

areas … shall be open always to inspection. (Art. VII)

❖ Addressing the territorial claims, all positions are explicitly protected in Article IV,

which preserves the status quo:

“Article IV

1. Nothing contained on this Treaty shall be interpreted as:

a. A renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or

claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

[...]

2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a

basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or

create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing

claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in

force.”

Thanks to the treaty what predominates in Antarctica today is scientific investigation.

Most of the signatory countries have established their research bases inside their claimed

territories, following the ambiguous clause in the Treaty that neither denies or confirms their

ownership of the land. However, other countries such as China have taken advantage of this

British International School Model United Nations

vague organization of the land by building research bases all over the continent. After all,

they consider Antarctica the common heritage of humankind meaning it doesn’t belong to

anyone but to everyone at the same time. On the following image we can find the current

bases located over the Antarctic region.

Current Crisis

The actual problem resurfaces as governments’ interest peak regarding what is under

all those thick layers of ice. The most common guess: oil and gas. Some investigations have

even predicted that the amount of oil in Antarctica could be 200 billion barrels. To put it into

context, that would be far more than the oil found in Kuwait or Abu Dhabi. Yet, Antarctic oil

is extremely difficult and expensive to extract, not to mention completely prohibited by the

Antarctic treaty on the Environmental Protocol. Then why are all these countries so pressed

over the topic?

On regards of the Environmental Protocol, it was also agreed that in 2048 the articles

banning Antarctic exploration for economic gain should be revisited. It is impossible to

predict what the global economy will look like in 29 years, but following the patterns we can

find in our current world, we might face an energy-hungry world desperate for those last

drops of fossil fuels. Even though the treaty has left all the territorial claims into abeyance,

British International School Model United Nations

the issue was never concluded resulting in all nations acting as if they were certified owners

of the place. It is also worth noting that although the Environmental Protocol is set to be

opened for revision, the entirety of the Antarctic Treaty and its complexity has no set date for

revision, meaning, that once the Environmental Protocol is re-opened, the countries who

possess a legal claim to the Antarctic are bound to argue over which portions of land are

property of which country. It is of the benefit of all to find a solution to ratify or deauthorize

these past claims before a decision regarding the exploit of resources is made.

Guiding Questions:

1. Has your country made any claims over a portion of the Antarctic territory? Is your

country a signatory member of the Antarctic Treaty?

2. A similar situation is happening in the other pole of the Earth. How is the situation

being handled over the Arctic?

3. In case the territories are handed over to the nations claiming them:

a. How would the overlapping territories be distributed?

b. What would happen to the scientific bases with nationalities different to the

owners of the land portion?

c. What process should be followed with US and Russia with their right to

claim?

4. In case the ownership claims are denied:

a. How would the claiming countries be persuaded to follow the decision?

b. What should be done with the possible 200 billion barrels of oil underneath

the Antarctic ice?

British International School Model United Nations

References

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm

Antarctic territorial claims. (2016, April 14). Retrieved from

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/law-and-treaty/history/antarctic-territorial-claims

Deutsche Welle. (n.d.). Russia-Ukraine gas dispute: Is Europe under threat? | DW |

09.03.2018. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-gas-dispute-is-

europe-under-threat/a-42912675

Grey, C. (2015, December 31). Who Owns Antarctica? (Bizarre Borders Part 3). Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c

Teller, M. (2014, June 20). Why do so many nations want a piece of Antarctica? Retrieved

from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27910375

Who owns Antarctica? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ed.ted.com/featured/ARtLBL6P#watch

Writer, G. (2016, August 11). Politics in Antarctica - Territorial Claims. Retrieved from

https://www.chimuadventures.com/blog/2016/08/territorial-claims-politics-antarctica/

https://www.rferl.org/amp/un-ukraine-conflict-minsk-accord/29767153.html

https://www.unian.info/m/war/10461771-rfe-rl-death-toll-up-to-13-000-in-ukraine-

conflict-says-un-rights-office.html