Special edition C’MUN 2012, the Model United Nations of Barcelona

Barcelona, 2 - 5 may 2012

Pàg. 3 - C’MUN, Tool in Defense of Democratic Values

C’MUN 2012

Pág. 6 - The Responsibility to Protect Security Council

Pág. 10 - The Reform of the United Nations General Assembly

Pág. 13 - The Protection of the Right for Free Association and Expression Human Rights Council

Pág. 16 - C’MUN 2012 Photocall

Pág. 18 - Overcoming the Crisis with a Global Economic Governance Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc)

Pág. 21 - Rio + 20 and the Future of Nuclear Energy Environment Committee

Pág. 25 - War Crimes of NATO in Libya International Criminal Court

Pág. 29 - C’MUN’s “War Room” Press Team

Pág. 30 - Participants of C’MUN 2012

REVISTA C’MUN 2012

Design, layout and coordinationBernat ComesRaül Jiménez

C’MUN 2012 Magazine Contributors

Anne KoskiAlbert Sagarra

Brenda Calafell

Photography Pablo Rodríguez-Aguilera

The UNA Spain magazine’s editorial board

does not necessarily agree with the opinions

expressed by its collaborators.

The magazine’s editorial board reserves its

right to alter the titles, highlights or texts ac-

cording to its professional opinion.

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF SPAIN

Honorary PresidentsFrancesc Casares Potau

Lluís Armet ComaMarina Bru Purón

President Eduard Sagarra i Trias

1st Vice-presidentXavier Pons Ràfols

2nd Vice-presidentJoan Soler Martí

SecretaryPablo Pareja Alcaraz

TreasurerAlbert Barbany i Hurtado

VocalsIldefons Valls i Torné

Rafael Jorba i CastellvíLídia Santos i Arnau

Xavier Fernández PonsRosa Ana Alija Fernández

DirectorÀngels Mataró Pau

Assistant to DirectionXavier Guerrero Fernández

StaffAriadna Quintero Valderrama

Raül Jiménez JiménezTeresa Visa Pérez

Bernat Comes LloveraPablo Rodríguez-Aguilera

edit

o-

3C’MUN 2012

C’MUN, Tool in Defense of Democratic ValuesRaül Jiménez. C’MUN Secretary-General.

The seventh edition of C’MUN was un-doubtedly the most difficult to do, being marked by a grave economic situation that unfortunately seems to have no clear solu-tion. On the contrary, the crisis is aggravat-ing the already evident degradation of our Western democracies. Far from serving the citizens, it benefits some interest of the so-called market and makes our confidence in the system totter - up to a point that makes apparent the need for deep regeneration from corruption, political submission, the unequal application of justice and the in-congruity of leaving the solutions to the cri-sis in the hands of those who have steered towards it. Capitalism has been confused selfishly with democracy, whereas they are not the same. The first is an economic sys-tem in theory serving the people. The latter is a value system that has become the cor-nerstone of our societies.

Few organizations know more about the values on which democracy is founded than ANUE, who has made the defense of these principles the center of fifty years of work, initiated in a country that back then used to live in black and white. Its history is a good example that these democratic values can be abandoned, betrayed or set aside in dark times - as well in the past as in the present - but they will never disappear, because they are backed up by the people. It’s the Char-ter of the United Nations itself referring to our power and our responsibility as a peo-ple. It’s time to defend these values again.

Modestly, we believe that ANUE can stimulate this regeneration by activities like C’MUN. We think that C’MUN is a “school” where the values underpinning democracy are taught “learning by doing”: resolving disputes through dialogue and working

On the left, Raül Jiménez, C’MUN

Secretary-General; Manel Ma-

nonelles, Director of the Culture

of Peace Foundation; Raimond

Blasi, Councilor of trade, con-

sumption and markets; Eduard

Sagarra, President of ANUE; and

Brenda Calafell, C’MUN Deputy

Secretary-General, presiding the

speaker’s table, next to the com-

mittee chairs. On top, the C’MUN

participants filling the Barcelona

City Hall’s Saló de Cent.

4together, having a space to promote uni-versality and plurality, designing an activity that encourages empathy and coexistence. That is C’MUN.

This year we knew that we had to put forward a versatile debate reflecting as ac-curately as possible the “image” of the in-congruous and unbalanced world we live in, in order to establish the need for regen-eration in the fields of economy, environ-ment, security, the extension or limitation of rights, or the renewal of the United Na-tions. The ultimate goal is to establish an “agenda of change”, characterized again by the values and democratic principles, basis of an Organization of United Nations that suffers like no other institution from the impoverishment of values. Now more than ever we have to help to renew it, if we want to give ourselves a truly fair and effec-tive multilateral space.

With this ambition, C’MUN 2012 started off on May 2 in the Auditorium of Cosmo-Caixa with a massive (more than 150 del-egates attended) training session and the obligatory registration day for the simula-tion’s participants. In the afternoon, the C’MUN started officially with the opening ceremony held at the Barcelona City Hall’s Saló de Cent, in presence of Raimond Blasi, Councilor of trade, consumption and mar-

kets, and Manel Manonelles, Director of the Culture of Peace Foundation, along with the presidents of ANUE, the simulation’s di-rectors and the chairpersons of the debate committees.

A “heavy” C’MUN

Despite the heavy loss of participants from Greece and Italy, countries struck heavily by the economic crisis, nearly 300 delegates began the committee sessions on Thursday, May 3 at CosmoCaixa in a very intense morning. Four of the committees welcomed expert guest speakers at their inaugural conferences: Arcadi Oliveres, ac-tivist and President of Justícia i Pau, joined the Human Rights Council; Pablo Pareja, Professor of International Law, the General Assembly; Ana Barreira López, Director of the International Institute of Law and Envi-ronment (IIDMA), the Environmental Com-mission; and once more, Manel Manonelles the Ecosoc.

Having almost no time to immerse them-selves into the debates, the announcement of an international concert of heavy metal/hard-rock music “legends” being attacked in Guatemala City shocked the simulation, especially the Security Council and the Council of Human Rights. Orchestrated by the Mexican criminal group Los Zetas, the

On this page, four images of dif-

ferent C’MUN activities: the ‘trai-

ning session’; the guest speaker at

the General Assembly; the ‘photo-

call’ (see central pages); and the

UN Quiz. On the next page, the

closing ceremony, with Marcelino

Cabanas, Deputy Director General

of foreign policy and multilateral,

global and security affairs, Mi-

nistry of Foreign Affairs.

edit

o-

5

dramatic situation with over 600 dead and thousands wounded highlighted the need to decisively place drug trafficking on the international agenda. The great and very rewarding group work of the model’s team should turn the “C’MUN’s crisis” into a stimulus for further negotiations on is-sues such as implementing the responsi-bility to protect or limits on the right to demonstrate.

With the ongoing crisis and the other committees functioning well, the first day’s session ended with a great vibe. The highlight came at dusk, celebrating a new edition of the UN Quiz, combining the expertise of the delegates of the Interna-tional organization in a more relaxed at-mosphere.

Friday was a calm day for the C’MUN team. With the exception of tensions in the International Criminal Court, unfortu-nately exceeding the field of simulations, we could see from a privileged point of view how the sessions evolved, trying to help the committees like the General As-sembly, which dealt with the reform of United Nations, resolving doubts, giving certain delegates the possibility to partici-pate in other committees and ensuring, in short, to make the debates as enriching as possible. In the afternoon, after checking that the majority of commissions were on track with their working papers and draft resolutions, most of the delegates went to the “cultural evening” enjoying the Pi-casso Museum, the Sagrada Família, the MNAC or the Barça stadium.

Example of democratic values

As usual, Saturday morning was a busy day in the commissions to achieve to complete the final decisions in time. The search for consensus or at least for the broadest ma-jority possible demonstrated the committee chairpersons’ quality, dedication and nego-tiation skills at giving an example of what democracy should be, of what we want and what we need, also in the United Nations.

Once having completed the work in the commissions, and after eating, the closing act of C’MUN 2012 took place in presence of Marcelino Cabanas, Deputy Director of for-eign policy and multilateral, global and secu-rity affairs, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and now Spanish Ambassador in Cameroon, who declared himself dazzled by the work done and by what is represented by the sim-ulation. A work that shows that there is an-other way of doing things, far away from the bundle of embarrassing decisions taken every day in this country, as in many others, where citizens are no longer taken into account - and that there are values behind this work.

Many thanks to all the institutions that have supported the C’MUN 2012, especially to the C’MUN/ANUE team. Working with you has been and is a pleasure and a privilege. You have made this simulation possible. And finally, a big thank you to all the delegates. You have defended the democratic values with your commitment and you have shown that young people refuse to be part of a new “lost generation”. We want to be part of the generation that will transform the world.

6Security Council

The Responsibility to Protect

Aleksandra Semeriak. Chair of C’MUN 2012 Security Council. Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Once again, the Security Council met for the C’MUN 2012 to address one of the most current and controversial issues: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The con-cept was adopted at the UN World Summit 2005, to increase the effectiveness of Unit-ed Nations in situations where war crimes and similar atrocities afflicted the civil soci-ety. Best known for its application in Libya, the Responsibility to Protect is not limited to this case and its extrapolation to other contexts is possible, but, as we have seen and will see, unlikely.

From the first day of sessions on, the delegates have not lacked for motivation nor desire to discuss such a polemic issues as the implementation of R2P in the case of Syria, which was also the main issue dis-cussed at recent meetings of the real Se-curity Council. Therefore, an agenda that began with the case of Syria in the Arab Spring, continuing with the status of the “Horn of Africa” and ending with the issue of organized crime in Central America and Mexico, was established.

By midmorning, however, delegations were surprised by an urgent message from Secretary-General of the United Nations, which reported a bomb attack by the crimi-nal organization Los Zetas during an inter-

national concert in Ciudad de Guatemala. Although some countries insisted that the issue of Syria was still more important, the amount of victims due to the attack put aside the adopted agenda in order to deal urgently with the crisis in Guatemala. Not without contradictions on which way to pursue the resolution, and with the strong involvement of the Latin American and smaller countries of the Security Council, the different delegation managed to pass at the end of the afternoon a resolution. The answer to the crisis is based on the full consent of the Guatemalan govern-ment for any action, in cooperation with regional organizations, such as CARSI and CICIG, and bilateral negotiations of Mem-ber States with the government of Guate-mala to provide humanitarian aid with the help of local and international NGOs. Fur-thermore, it also encourages the Secretary-General to inspect, along with a council of experts, the region to develop a report on the type and amount of assistance and to establish the time frame for action.

Affected by the crisis, the next day del-egations decided to alter the order of the agenda, setting the theme of organ-ized crime on the second place, after the Arab Spring and Syria. In their eagerness to move forward with a resolution, all del-

The Security Council on the se-

cond day of sessions.

edit

o-

7egations worked against the clock, aware of the need to prevent the spread of a large-scale civil war. Following the results of previous decisions of the Security Coun-cil, the resolution, led by the delegations of France, Portugal, United Kingdom and the United States was not free of criticism, es-pecially regarding the reference to Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, in the case of not complying with the cease-fire by both sides in the period of 90 days under the supervision of the observers from UN-SMIS. Not even the intervention of the rep-resentative of the League of Arab States was able to route all delegations towards consensus. Limited by time, the session was suspended to continue the next day.

Pressured by the issue’s importance and responsibility for the civilian population, that continues suffering from constant at-tacks and bombings despite the established cease-fire, the different Member States tried by all means to create a document that insist on humanitarian aid and future measures, maintaining hope in the dia-logue and the positive development of the problem, while it intended to please every delegate present in the committee. Unfor-tunately, during the voting procedure, the abstention of China and Russia’s veto frus-trated the wishes of the other delegations. However, this result, so close to reality, has proved to each of us the difficulty of an in-ternational decision and the disputes over shared responsibility.

By mid-morning on Saturday, when it seemed that the Security Council meeting

was coming to an end, a document submit-ted by the delegations of Azerbaijan, Co-lombia, Guatemala and Portugal surprised the committee with reference to the sec-ond item on the agenda. Certain modifi-cations and discussions in the last minute made it possible to start with the voting and approve it as a second resolution. This paper attempts to innovate the fight against organized crime in Central America through the creation of a “Transit Country Committee” for the representation of so-cial interests and to combat drug use and trafficking, as an answer to the insufficient traditional policies.

It was not easy to discuss the “Responsi-bility to Protect” from completely opposite points of view and in entirely different con-texts. What in one case may seem logical, in another can be considered inadmissible. Always opposed to the principles of nation-al sovereignty and non-intervention, the suffering of the citizens of other countries makes us question what arguments should prevail. As some say, it’s easy to evade our responsibilities, but it is impossible to avoid the consequences of doing so. Especially when it comes to human lives.

Finally, I would like to thank again the ANUE and each of its members who have made this experience possible. And of course my co-chair, Alessandra, and my all of my delegates: dear representatives of Azerbaijan, China, Colombia, France, Ger-many, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Togo, United Kingdom and United States, THANK YOU.

The delegates of the Security

Council.

8C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona S/RES/1/ 2012

Security Council

The humanitarian crisis in Central America

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1st meeting, on 3rd May 2012

The Security Council,

Taking into account the statement of the Secretary General condemning the bombing attack that recently took place in Guatemala,

Declaring its deep condolences to the more than 1.000 victims and injured people of the intolerable bombing attack organized by the international criminal organization Los Zetas

Recognizing the crucial role played by regional organizations such as CARSI (Central American Regional Security Initiative), and international organizations such as the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) providing law enforcement in offering constructive alternatives to members of the local civil society,

Condemning any actions by criminal organizations, whose main activity is the promotion of drug-traffi cking, human traffi cking, kidnapping, homicide and extortion,

Reaffi rming its mandate to provide peace and security:

1. Invites the Guatemalan Government to provide full coordination of regional and national policies with their full consent;

2. Supports the work of the CICIG, which was created in 2006 by the UNSC and which aims to alert the violation of the rights of Guatemalans by illegal groups, collaborate with state criminal prosecution and re-commend reforms and public policies to the State in order to eradicate these actors;

3. Encourages all Member States to engage in bilateral negotiations with Guatemala in order to provide fun-ding and assistance to CARSI and CICIG to assist the Guatemalan government to confront its current crisis; and further encourages local and international Non-Governmental Organizations to provide humanitarian aid to the Guatemala Government;

4. Urges the Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, to survey the region, accompanied by a council in order to evaluate the situation and to provide an insight before further actions are taken. Within a week, this council should deliver a full report concerning the matter of the bombing, including the possible paths to solve the situation, which will include:

a) The types of supplies that are required for the rehabilitation phase in Guatemala;

b) The quantity of the mentioned supplies;

c) The state of security of the Guatemalan government, and its capabilities to provide a secure environment for the NGOs and civilians that will be present in Guatemala;

d) The time frame that is required for the NGOs and local humanitarian institutions to carry out the support they provide in Guatemala;

e) The amount of necessary funding that will be needed in order to launch the humanitarian aid in Guatemala;

f) The consent of the Guatemalan government;

5. Decides that the NGO’s concerned with the matter of humanitarian aid, namely World Food Program (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the local humanitarian institutions in Guatemala take necessary action to provide assistance to those in need with compliance of the evaluation provided by the council mentioned in operative clause 2;

6. Calls upon the Organization of the American States to develop a report on the situation in Guatemala and to issue it to the Inter-American Court so that it can investigate the condition of the current situation;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter and calls upon all Member States to engage in further negotiations about Organized Crime in Central America as set in the Agenda.

Distr.: General

4 May 2012

edit

o-

9C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona S/RES/2/ 2012

Security Council

The humanitarian crisis in Central America

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1st meeting, on 5th May 2012

The Security Council,

Upholding the general principles of sovereignty and self-determination of each nation,

Cognizant of the institutional and resource limitations of “drug transit” nations confronting the sizeable threat of drug traffi cking organizations, particularly Central American,

Acknowledging the threat to stability and growth presented by organized crime globally, and the accentuated threat posed to transit countries by these criminal groups,

Recognizing the urgency of adjusting and updating international drug policy accordingly to changing political realities of nations battling powerful actors of organized crime,

Considering the escalating and global extent of this threat deserving of a need for action in addressing the roots of this issue,

Deeply concerned with the increase in corruption and deterioration in security of “transit nations” in particular,

Acknowledging the efforts set forth by counter-drug initiatives such as, but not limited to, Merida Initiative,

Recognizing that drug traffi c represents a vital source of funds for organized crime or terrorist groups,

Affi rming its responsibility and commitment to support and protect nations and institutions whose security has been compromised by this menace:

1. Calls upon the member states of the U.N. General Assembly to open the debate on drug policy reform with the aim of adjusting resolution goals to the current situation;

2. Considers that the traditional policies of drug enforcement have been insuffi cient in dealing with the threat of organized crime;

3. Recommends the revision of the following conventions: 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 UN Convention against the Illicit Traffi c of Nar-cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances so as to provide further fl exibility of action to counter the infl uence of organized crime;

4. Emphasizes its continued support to all UN members in fi ghting drug consumption through global preven-tion programs;

5. Endorses the formation of a UN Transit Country Committee to represent the special interests of “drug tran-sit countries” in the UN system and assist in countering the spread of organized crime and prescribing policy to address related issues arising specifi cally in these countries;

6. Urges all relevant UN bodies, such as UNODC or CICIG, to focus on strengthening judiciary institutions of countries battling impunity caused by drug traffi cking organizations and organized crime;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Distr.: General

5 May 2012

10General Assembly

The Reform of The United NationsPau Petit. Chair of C’MUN 2012 General Assembly. Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

During C’MUN 2012, a High-Level Mee-ting on UN Reform was held with Pau Pe-tit Iglesias, Ksenia Severinova and Mary Michelle Connellan as moderators. Uni-versity students from all around the world participated in the sessions, held at Cos-moCaixa on 2-5 May 2012, to reach an agreement on reforming the structure of the United Nations and, in this way, adapt it to the challenges of the XXI century. Professor Pablo Pareja, an expert in Pub-lic International Law, inaugurated the ses-sion presenting a historic overview of the United Nations Reform.

The conference dealt with two main is-sues: firstly, the participation of new ac-tors in the United Nations framework, giving more emphasis to civil society, non-governmental actors and private sector; and, secondly, the admission and expul-sion of members of the Unites Nations.

Some civil society movements, such as the Indignados of 15-M and Occupy Wall

Street, have given rise to a debate about civil society’s importance in the world. Dur-ing the conference, a proposal was made concerning the creation of a Seventh Com-

mittee of the United Nations focusing on the representation of non-governmental actors, including the civil society as well as representatives of the private sector, transnational companies and regions with common characteristics and interests to be able to channel the claims and concerns of all these non-state actors worldwide. The possibility of creating a civil society work group comprising NGOs, young peo-ple, social movements and any other key representative of the civil society was also considered, especially using new informa-tion and communication technologies. We ought to highlight the importance of the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Global Compact, and emphasize the cru-cial role that supranational organizations such as the European Union and the Arab League play in the international commu-nity. Also, aninitiative of creating a Parlia-mentary Assembly of the United Nations was discussed; however, it did not receive enough support from the Member States.

The second item on the agenda was the admission and expulsion of members of the United Nations. Several non-state ac-tors such as Western Sahara, Palestina,

The General Assembly during the

speech of Professor Pablo Pareja,

on the first day of sessions.

edit

o-

11

Tibet, Scotland, Catalonia-Euskadi-Gali-cia and others present in the negotia-tions worked hard suggesting ambitious amendments to the States. The second resolution project did not go forward due to the resistance of more powerful states, especially the permanent members of the Security Council.

We ought to mention that the issue of “Thinking about New United Nations” was already discussed during the C’MUN Special Meeting 2011, which served as an inspiration for the first resolution.

The moderators consider C’MUN 2012 a positive experience. Given that the del-egates were asked to prepare a position paper, they participated actively in the sessions and managed to pass a satisfac-

tory resolution about confronting the in-ternational institutional deficits that have amounted during the XX century and fac-ing the current challenges, proving one more time that United Nations is part of the solution.

Finally, we rely on the Members of the United Nations to consider the outcome of C’MUN 2012 to hopefully build a bet-ter future, because today’s youth are to-morrow’s leaders and their voice is asking for a reform of the UN. At the end of the day, we know that it is not going to be easy and that it will take a long time to accomplish what we are proposing. There-fore, we shall imagine the type of world that we would like for our grandchildren and future generations; we have a great responsibility.

On top, the representative of

Occupy Wall Street addressing

the General Assembly. On the

bottom, group photo of the

delegates.

12C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona A/RES/1/ 2012

General Assembly

Under the Chapter IV, Article 22 of the United Nations Charter,

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the primary responsibility of the General Assembly for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations,

Solemnly affi rms the intrinsic principle of state soveregnty of UN member states,

Noting with regret the concern risen by the absence of effective representation and responsibility within the General Assembly,

Proclaims valid, peace-seeking attempts of participatory democratic movements to be accordingly repre-sented in the UN system,

Fully aware of the further action needed in order to ensure that representation is extended from the its pre-sent status to as many parts of the world as possible,

Bearing in mind that the current structure does not comprise the totality of social actors,

Noting with deep concern the limitations of restricted number of such actors in certain regions of the world,

1. Endorses the implementation of a permanent Seventh Committee of Non States Actors, under the survei-llance and auspices of the General Assembly, which:

a) Within a non-state framework, including members of civil society, and private actors from the business sector, as well as the existing observers in the General Assembly, having irregular meetings on upon request by members or the General Assembly;

2. Urges the UN Secretariat to create a working group of civil society representatives and experts with a limited mission time wise, with the following purposes:

a) Considering the defi nition agreed upon of the civil-society as any representative NGO, IO, Youth and Social movements and non-state actors of peaceful agenda profi t or non-profi t the like, to any business company there is. In other words any organisation or company that is not owned or vastly subsidized or own by any state/governmental institution, to provide extensive evidence as to these organisations civic compe-tences, human rights records and fi eld of expertise.

b) The correspondent criteria would be similar to the criteria available for the inclusion of observers in the session of the General Assembly, criteria that is in place in ECOSOC for NGO consultative status.

c) The proposed Commission would meet as designated by the General Assembly or in light of a demanding crisis. Otherwise, the group would meet once a year to maintain communication.

3. Authorises the General Assembly to have a general overview over this Assembly,

4. Endorses the possibility for particular petitions and observations to be considered by this body. By parti-cular petitions, in situations raised by particular crises, social associations, refers to:

i. Particular Petitions or social groups willing to participate and bring their contribution, which could pro-pose their inclusion in the meeting for particular topics or in answer to specifi c events related to their fi eld of expertise.

ii. The participation in meetings will be possible by a prior application.

5. Draws the attention that the Seventh Committee will be entitled with the right to present the General Assembly with working papers on sensitive issues and will not hold an equal membership as the member states in the GA.

6. Declares accordingly that this Committee will lead and be administrated by a Secretary General appo-inted by the Secretary General of the UN, with the mission of presenting decisions agreed upon by this Committee in the formal sessions of the General Assembly.

i. The election system for the Secretariat, will be conducted by the General Assembly with a 2/3 majority needed for approval.

7. Endorses that this Assembly will be self-suffi cient budget wise, with further debate needed in order to decide the consequent procedures,

8. Reaffi rms that the present status of observer actors in the General Assembly will not be altered,

9. Emphasises that observers already existing within the GA, can maintain their status in the GA, and still be part of the Committee. The supranational and regional organisations such as EU and AU should also stay in the GA,

10. Suggests an increased participation of social actors and representatives of civil society in both the GA and the other specialised bodies of the UN. By increased participation is meant:

iii. More active participation in the preliminary stages of debate with a consultative stance and in the elabo-ration of consequent resolutions.

Distr.: General

5 May 2012

edit

o-

13Human Rights Council

The Protection of the Right for Free Association and Expression

Lamprini Basdeki. Chair of C’MUN 2012 Human Rights Council . University of Macedonia.

The 7th annual edition of the Cataloni-an Model United Nations was successfully completed after the discussion of two very important topics: the right to free associa-tion and expression, as well as the regula-tion of private military and private security companies (PMSC). The first topic was the one that was voted upon discussion first by the delegates and was the one that was mostly debated upon, especially when a crisis came up during the first minutes of the first session. The constantly developing crisis begun with a bomb attack from ter-rorist Mexican groups, possibly connected with drug cartels in Guatemala during an international concert. The Council was in-formed through the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Bren-da Calafell on the escalating crisis. Appar-ently, a great number of losses and injuries was noted and the Guatemalan people expressed their desire to protest. Howev-er, the Guatemalan government felt that such a protest could possibly create sta-bility problems in the country, and that it

could extend the level of being peaceful. For that reason, the Human Rights Council of C’MUN 2012, along with discussing the right to free association and expression, was called upon discussing the right of free assembly of the Guatemalan people in or-der to express their protest in public. The discussions and the debates were extreme-ly heated, while the delegates were trying to keep themselves as diplomatic as possi-ble, in order to achieve the best outcome, and of course to allow the United Nations to take part in such a crisis.

A number of 3 working papers were formed by the Council for the purpose of further discussions and negotiations, and in the end, a draft resolution was present-ed by the delegates, as a result of their hard work. Still, the main differences be-tween the delegates were the intervention or non-intervention of the United Nations, as well as the competence of the Human Rights Council to intervene in a such sensi-tive matter. For that reason, there was a

The Human Rights Council on

the second day of sessions.

14continuing debate among the participants as to whether the issue was a regional or an international one. The Council decided that it is at its’ hand to give more empha-sis to the fight against illicit trafficking, as well as it has to do its’ best efforts to promote the right to free expression and assembly. Additionally, concerning the cri-sis, the HRC urges both states to maintain their initial borders in accordance with the resolution A/50/365 adopted by the Gen-eral Assembly to respect the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. The UN-ODC is also one of the UN Organs that shall be present in the situation with the observer status, with a composure decided by the HRC of C’MUN 2012 as following: it will include Mexican strategic counselors, it will contain UN and Guatemalan assist-ants and shall reassure that the non-inter-ference processes, as well as the basic hu-man rights, will be protected.

This result was the outcome of an out-standing and collective effort, by many different delegations, sometimes opposed delegations, that according to the United Nations spirit, came along together and put a great effort into the paper that is visible to everyone today. This spirit was that gave the courage to the delegates to move on to the second topic, the one of the regulation and supervision of private military and private security companies.

This topic seemed also of extreme in-terest to the delegates, however the dis-

cussions did not lead to the adoption of a draft resolution due to lack of time. In a very short period of two hours though, a working paper was discussed with the purpose of reinforcing the 2005 Working Group, which among all others, shall be sending an annual report concerning the regions that are affected. This Working Group should be the one to monitor and to suggest regulation proposals concern-ing human rights, military as well as juridi-cal aspects to be presented to the SC and the General Assembly. As a suggestion to all member states, comes the proposal of having all PMSCs under the power of the military jurisdiction of each government.

Unfortunately, the HRC of C’MUN 2012 did not manage to draft two resolutions and to officially declare solutions to both of the topics. Our young leaders though, achieved an impeccable draft resolution as to the freedom of expression, solved a crisis and even passionately discussed the second topic. From my own perspective, C’MUN was a fantastic exprerience. This could not be a reality though, without the assistance of my co-chair Carla Calvo and of our staff assistant Marina Pastor, whom I can only thank for their support and for their cooperation. Last but not least, I thank each and every one of the delegates of this year’s Human Rights Council, for making it so unique. I only hope that your Chairs stood up to your expectations and by leaving the room of the HRC, went back home full of experi-ence and knowledge!

The delegates of the Human

Rights Council.

edit

o-

15C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona HRC/RES/1/ 2012

Human Rights Council

The right to free association and expression

The Human Rights Council,

Recalling the freedom of expression and assembly;

Recognizing the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to better promote and pro-tect the right to freedom of opinion and expression as mandated by the Human Rights Council resolution 7/36;

Acknowledges the important role of international cooperation for, and the valuable work of individuals, groups and associations in contributing to, the effective elimination of all violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of peoples and individuals;

Noting with grave concern the current situation as it is designated in Guatemala;

Recalling the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under Articles 19, 21 and 22, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) under Articles 13 and 15 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) under Article 19;

Recognizing the relationship between international peace and security and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and mindful that the absence of international peace and security does not excuse non-compliance;

Declaring our aim to support the freedom of expression;

Noting with concern that according to the UNDHR everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers;

Reaffi rming the principle of shared responsibility as the basis for a comprehensive, broad, balanced and sus-tainable approach to combating illicit drugs and drug cartels;

Underlining the importance of the protection of the freedom of demonstration and association;

Emphasizing the need to consider this crisis as an international issue, as stated by the appeal of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

Having examined this case with a global scope;

Decides upon the following immediate actions:

1. Decides to strengthen the cooperation amongst HRC, ICC, UNODC, HRW in terms of ameliorating the regulation of drug traffi cking and fi ghting the drug cartels, as well as the promotion of the right to the freedom of expression;

2. Encourages the cooperation of UN States for the protection of national sovereignty especially regarding the threats posed by international drug related criminal organization;

3. Emphasizes that the borders between Guatemala and Mexico shall be equally respected both on a regional and international level, in accordance with the resolution A/50/365 adopted by the General Assembly to res-pect the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States,

4. Invites all UN members to cooperate in the long-term on the fi ght against drug traffi cking,

5. Recommends the UN Security Council to decide upon taking long term action on the current drug traffi c-king situation and the subsequent crisis including but not limited to:

1) Give special attention to the close Mexican-Guatemalan relationship and their agreement to allow limited Mexican logistical cooperation with Guatemala.

2) Decide upon taking immediate action on the current crisis including but not limited to:

a) sending international observers from the UNODC with special emphasis on the Mexican- Guatemalan border.

b) UN-led Security Assistance that:

i) Will include Mexican strategic counselors to help with the crisis at hand

ii) Will consist of 70% Guatemalan, 30% UN assistants.

iii) Will work for a trial period in accordance with the native Guatemalan forces throughout this crisis; if the process is successful than this system will be used for the fi ght against drug traffi cking in that respective region.

iv) Will ensure that the basic human rights such as the freedom of demonstration, freedom of information, freedom of press are protected, if the national security is threatened.

Distr.: General

5 May 2012

edit

o-

Photos by

CRISPYPHOTO

18Ecosoc

Overcoming the Crisis with a Global Economic GovernanceGuillermo Serra. Chair of C’MUN 2012 Ecosoc. University of Essex.

In this edition of C’MUN the Ecosoc made a strong emphasis on the ongoing global economic crisis and its social effects. The topics of discussion for the Ecosoc were, the protection of economic and social rights, the protection of vulnerable groups – es-pecially women, youth, migrants- from the consequences of economic recession, and corruption and accountability. During the first session of the first day, the committee chose the protection of economic and social rights as the discussion topic with an over-whelming majority after most delegations expressed intentions to discuss the topic in their opening speeches.

After setting the agenda, we had an special guest, Manel Manonelles, Director of the Culture of Peace Foundation, who spoke about the current economic crisis, the necessity of transaction taxes in the bank-ing sector, the effect of the economic crisis in cooperation, corruption and accountabil-ity to prevent future economic crisis, among other things. Manonelles’ intervention was useful for the delegates to understand the social effects of the current economic crisis, but also to consider some suggestions of previous documents written on the topic and the position of some various countries on the topic. After lunch the committee started writing the first working papers, with a clear leadership from the delega-tions of Germany, Turkey, and the United

States of America on sponsoring a common working paper while the African and Latin American delegations working together on an alternative working paper.

The second day of sessions started with moderated caucuses on the essential claus-es a draft resolution should address. Del-egates suggested various measures such as taxing the financial system -which was later amended into, “voluntary invest-ments from the private sector”-, collabora-tion between developed and developing countries in cooperative projects, and the protection of UNDP programs in the least developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Throughout the day, Chi-na gained more supporters with Canada, Cuba, Ethiopia, Japan, among others, on their side, and with a working paper com-pletely different than that proposed by the bloc led by the United States. The working paper discussed by the latter delegations included recognition of emerging and var-ied economies, clauses on protecting less developed countries, and the restructuring of financial aid programs. The two work-ing papers had about the same number of supporters, which seemed unlikely for any of the two working papers to turn into resolutions by the end of the simulation, nevertheless, delegates made considerably changes to both papers in attempt to have countries bandwagoning to their blocs.

The Ecosoc on the first day of

sessions.

edit

o-

19After the lunch break the session followed

with intense debate during the moderated and unmoderated caucuses. The two groups, led by the United States and China decided to present their working papers as draft resolutions, and the paper presented by the United States became draft resolution 1.1, and the paper presented by the delegation of China became draft resolution 1.2. With two draft resolutions on the table, it was easier for delegates to discuss the clauses they deemed necessary for the resolution. By the end of the second day of sessions delegates rushed to discussed each other’s operative clauses during the moderated and unmoderated caucuses so that all doubts on the changes made by both blocs throughout the day would be clear.

On the third day of sessions, and after multiple friendly amendments to both pa-pers, the delegates gave preference to the paper written by the United States and its allies, which had more operative clauses than that of the China’s bloc. Thus China withdrew its draft resolution 1.2 in an at-tempt to amend draft resolution 1.1 to fit its interest and that of the great majority of developing countries. China, Cuba, Ethio-pia, Japan, among other were the leaders of the opposition to draft resolution 1.1, nevertheless after further friendly amend-ments some delegations gave clear prefer-ence to draft resolution 1.1, thus some of the clauses proposed by China and Cuba were ignored by the sponsors of draft resolution 1.1. The bloc led by China tried to introduce a new draft resolution with significant amendments from its previous working paper, but this failed because draft resolution 1.1 included some points which were in the interest of some of the coun-tries previously aligned with China.

With only one draft resolution on the table by the last session of the committee further friendly amendments were presented by the sponsors after negotiations with China and the other sponsors of defunct draft resolu-tion 1.2. Short-after draft resolution 1.1 be-came a resolution, just half an hour before the end of the last session. The voting results were 18 in favour, abstentions from Japan and the Russian Federation, and one vote against from the delegation of Canada. Af-ter the voting procedure, the committee re-opened the agenda, and decided to set the topic to the protection of vulnerable groups. Because the committee was short in time, delegates only had the chance to state the position of their country on the topics. After all delegations gave their opening speech on the issue of vulnerable groups, the simula-tion was adjourned for one year until the next C’MUN edition.

As a chair I felt really glad to see the progress of delegates from their opening speech on the first day, to stating their po-sition on the new topic on the last day of the simulation. I am sure I was not the only one who saw progress, but the participants themselves who improved their public speaking, negotiation, resolution writing, and diplomatic skills. Considering that the vast majority of the participants were rook-ies, the level of improvement during the simulation was extraordinary, and I am sure the participants will remember C’MUN 2012 as an unforgettable experience in the aca-demic, and social aspects. On behalf of your chairs, Jonathan Jona, and me, we would like to restate our deep gratitude towards the delegates and the organizing team for making C’MUN 2012 a true success. As Henry Wadsworth wrote, “youth comes but

once in a lifetime”. Thank you.

The delegates of the Ecosoc.

20C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona ECOSOC/RES/1/ 2012

ECOSOC

The Economic and Social Council

Protection of economic and social rights

The Economic and Social Council,

Recognizing that in 2009 an economic crisis emerged in the United States and in Europe, leading to a global economic crisis affecting third countries, causing several social, political and economic impacts, particularly in developing countries,

Expressing deep concern about the ongoing global fi nancial and economic crisis, and its effect particularly on development,

Acknowledging that unemployment and underemployment is very high in some countries due to the global eco-nomic crisis and recession,

Guided by the principles of The Economic and Social Council as the central forum for discussion on international economic and social issues addressed to Member States and the United Nations and acknowledging the need for global governance in solving the problems of the global economic crisis,

Considering that the high levels of unemployment and underemployment severely affect younger generations, and vulnerable groups,

Understanding that the budget of the United Nations is generally decreasing, we recommend to reinforce the outcome of the already existing programmes,

Conscious of the need to promote sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth that generates employ-ment, leads to poverty eradication, fosters sustainable development and strengthens social cohesion,

Recalling the Outcome of the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development,

Recalling also the Global Jobs Pact, adopted by the International Labour Conference on 19 June 2009, which is intended to promote a job-intensive recovery from the crisis and to promote sustainable growth,

Recalling further its resolutions entitled “Recovering from the crisis: a Global Jobs Pact” adopted in 2009 and 2010,

Recalling of the outcome of the Conference (I7 2009/SA.34) about strengthening of the coordination of emergen-cy of humanitarian assistance of the United Nations of 2009,

Recalling its decision that the theme of the 2012 annual ministerial review should be “Promoting productive capacity, employment and decent work to eradicate poverty in the context of inclusive, sustainable and equitable economic growth at all levels for achieving the Millennium Development Goals”,

Welcoming the collaboration of all states in effectively approaching the concerns and needs of developing countries,

Urging developed states to recognize the emergence of growing economies and their contribution in development,

1. Encourages to take the necessary measures in order to increase competitiveness according to each country´s particular characteristics;

2. Recommend international private sector to voluntarily invest in development programs by spending 0.5% of the annual profi t tax;

3. Further recommends taking into consideration UNDP reports and consider imitating more successful pro-grams already implemented in the regions;

4. Suggests promoting stimulus program packs for international agents which reduce tax alleviation;

5. Calls for maintaining the economic compromise and the fi nancial contribution to international development funds and UN institutions;

6. Further invites to extend the period of already implemented programmes according to the immediate needs of each region in this economic crisis;

7. Calls for the inclusion of all state actors, regardless of their distinctive economic systems in a process of colla-boration to solve the problems of the global economic crisis;

8. Requests equal economic opportunity and gradually open markets to ensure a free international trading sphere and to avoid any economic discrimination and exclusion;

9. Suggesting to the UNDP to give priority to regions with high levels of malnutrition such as Africa, Asia and Latin America, based on the information of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);

10. Reaffi rms the need to acknowledge the signifi cance of emerging and varied economies;

11. Expresses the need to recognize the sovereignty of the developing countries and actively participate in the process of resolving problems within their own region;

12. Suggest the need for fi nancial aid that is not solely dependent on government contributions;

13. Calls upon the involvement of non-state actors in the management of the global economic crisis;

14. Urges the promotion of collaboration between developed and developing countries to promote better infras-tructure for more effi cient trade competitiveness;

15. Encourages the promotion of collaborative programs to develop entrepreneurship skills and independence among the populations of developing countries;

Calls for the immediate discussion of this resolution at the United Nations Security Council.

Distr.: General

5 May 2012

edit

o-

21Environment Committee

Rio + 20 and the Future of Nuclear Energy

Tatjana Mönch. Chair of C’MUN 2012 Environment Committee. Freie Universität, Berlin.

The two agenda topics to be treated in the Environment Committee’s sessions at the C’MUN 2012 were „Sustainable Devel-opment: 20 years of Rio“ and “The future of nuclear energy”. The debate on agenda setting turned out to be a fierce start into the conference: About two thirds of the committee considered the topic of Rio +20 as the by far more relevant one, since it discussed our humankind’s foundation of life: our earth. If our generations keep de-grading and overusing our planet and its resources, the basis of all our existence will be eliminated, which would make any talks on energy superfluous, some argued. As-sessing the insufficient or even non-existent achievements since the first Rio Conference in 1992 clearly reveals that resolute action and progress is required.

The supporters of the agenda topic on the future of nuclear energy argued, that within the short time frame the conference provided, the multifaceted issue of Rio +20 would not lead to any productive results; the more precisely to be worked with topic of nuclear energy should thus be started with, also taking into account the immense importance of nuclear energy for present and future generations. In the end, a ma-jority voted for the Rio +20 topic.

As expected, the first hurdle to overcome was finding a starting point: given the broad range of possible focuses such as the assess-

ment of the Rio +20 process (indicators), im-plementation and compliance mechanisms, the reform of the institutional framework, or defining the concept of Green Economy, it took some time of serious orientation debate until real work was commenced on the two latter focuses. Whilst a coalition around countries such as Kenya, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Germany, Colombia, and Brazil formed to work on reforming the institu-tional framework, the delegations of the Russian Federation and the USA pushed to-wards a universally valid definition of the concept of Green Economy.

The debate on the institutional frame-work highlighted the need to reform glo-bal governance institutions on sustainable development by creating a new agency on sustainable development and environment issues that would have the same status as for example the World Trade Organiza-tion, thus giving sustainable development/environment the same weight as trade/commerce/economy. Proposals included merging existent institutions such as the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) into a new Organization, to upgrade its work and strengthen its competencies on implementing programs and monitoring or even enforcing their compliance. Espe-cially the delegations of the Russian Fed-eration and the USA were decidedly against those proposals, arguing that already exist-

The Environment Committee on

the first day of sessions.

22ing institutions should be made more effi-cient instead. Creating a new organization where several others already existed would require intolerable dimensions of bureauc-racy and extra financing, which in times of crisis none of the present countries could afford. USA and Russia would not contrib-ute any funding to such a new organization and additionally withdraw development aid funding from other programs, in case that a resolution on a new organization should pass. The Russian Federation’s delegation also pointed out that deciding such salient matters when important delegations such as the Indian or Chinese one were absent, would be foolish. On the other hand, the German delegation missed the French del-egation for support, with which it tradition-ally formed a strong alliance in favor of a new organization on Sustainable Develop-ment and Environment. Greenpeace as the only NGO present in the committee’s ses-sions lobbied strongly to found such a new organization and emphasized the need to decarbonise production patterns of today’s industries.

Finally, diplomatic skills sufficed to gather enough delegations supporting a resolution renewing political commitment to the ur-gent addressing of sustainable development and environment problematiques, institu-tionalizing the inclusion of major groups such as NGO’s, indigenous populations, women, local authorities and the private sector, and creating a new organization, the

UN Organization on Sustainable Develop-ment and the Environment (UNOSDE), based on the social, economic and environmental principles, and equipped with the competen-cy on consulting international, national and regional institutions on how to set up and comply with Sustainable Development Pro-grams, and ensuring the transfer and shar-ing of technology, know-how and informa-tion. The Russian and US delegations voted against the resolution. With a majority of 19 votes it passed nevertheless, but the lack of commitment of such big states might ques-tion the new organizations effectiveness of work. Still- the resolution was a strong sign to the international society.

In the meantime, the Russian Delega-tion with the support from the Turkish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and US delegations worked hard on elaborating a concept of Green Economy, based on the already existing definition of the UNEP. Included were aspects of awareness-rising, setting-up of national programs to realize Green Economy, preserving the natural capital especially of developing countries, and as-suring the inclusion of major groups into the green economy approaches. The reso-lution passed.

In summary, the committee worked hard and didn’t shy from controversial and harsh debates to reach resolutions that do set signs towards a better future of existing and coming generations.

The delegates of the Environ-

ment Committee.

edit

o-

23C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona A/ENV/RES/1/ 2012

General Assembly

Environment Committee

Rio +20: Reforming the institutional framework of global sustainability governance

The General Assembly,

Reaffi rming and renewing the political commitment to the preservation of the environment and the concept of sustainable development as stated in the Rio Declaration and especially in Agenda 21,

Highlighting the economic benefi ts of an environmentally sustainable strategy for economic growth and its importance for poverty alleviation and eradication,

Recognizing the importance of a green economy incorporating the three pillars of sustainable development,

Acknowledging the current decentralization of environmental and sustainable development agencies within the UN system and the inconsistent funding inherent in UN programs,

1. Reaffi rms the importance of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility as expressed in Prin-ciple 7 of the Rio Declaration;

2. Encourages the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development drawing on the expertise of ECOSOC, UNEP and UNDP;

3. Calls for a strengthening of the institutional framework by upgrading and consolidating the CSD and UNEP to formulate a specialized agency within the UN system that will enjoy consistent and reliable funding and be considered the primary authority on environmental and sustainability issues;

4. Proclaims the values of this agency to be education, cooperation, gender equality, and environmental, economic and social sustainability;

5. Recommends including in the responsibilities of this agency the consultative competency on how to imple-ment international commitments and how to ensure the transparency and accountability associated with this implementation;

6. Further recommends that its responsibilities include the management of two-way sharing of technology and traditional knowledge, and governance over the implementation of a green economy according to natio-nally determined yet internationally regulated goals based on the principle of differentiated responsibilities through the three groupings: developing countries, recently industrialized countries and developed countries;

7. Urges the establishment of incentives towards win-win-solutions within the new agency;

8. Encourages that the headquarters for this agency continue be located in the South Building within the network previously established by UNEP;

9. Proposes the concept of Green Economy as a commitment to shifting towards a new growth path of re-source effi ciency, low carbon and pro-employment development, including, but not limited to, the indicators presented in green economy toolkits of national strategies;

10. Calls for the incorporation of state and non-state stakeholders, including civil society representatives from indigenous groups, women, local authorities, NGOs as well as the private sector, in a consultative committee to be established;

11. Proposes that this new agency be named United Nations Organization on Sustainable Development and the Environment (UNOSDE);

12. Decides to stay seized on the matter.

Distr.: General

4 May 2012

24C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona A/ENV/RES/2/ 2012

General assembly

Environment Committee

Rio +20: Defi ning the Concept of Green Economy

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the current defi nition of the UNEP for Green Economy as the basis of this document,

Determined to recognize a universally valid defi nition of Green Economy,

Recognizing the importance of a Green Economy as people-centered, incorporating the three pillars of sustai-nable development – economic, social and environmental – and the necessity to improve the current situation,

Highlighting the economic benefi ts of an environmentally sustainable strategy for economic growth, and its importance in poverty alleviation,

Recalling resolution 66/204 and all resolutions concerning the Rio process,

1. Recommends using national public spending to harness sustainable awareness and methods which provide urgently needed public goods and services, such as through education and cultural exchange society, sharing of green technologies, and leverage private sector investments on social and environmental projects and en-courages nations to work towards the decarbonisation of their industries;

2. Reaffi rms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as outlined in Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration, in terms of the three categories: developing countries, recently industrialised countries, and de-veloped countries;

3. Requests the preservation and protection of existing natural capital that are vulnerable in developing coun-tries, such as biodiversity, marine life, and forestry and recognizes the need for developed nations to provide fi nancial incentives and reimbursement to developing countries which prioritise protecting these forms of natural capital over the pursuit of ‘traditional’ economic growth;

4. Fully supports international, national and regional projects with direction from relevant UN-backed ini-tiatives targeting green infrastructure and research development to spur green technologies and innovation that can reduce carbon footprints, greenhouse gas emissions, and enable social, infrastructural, and economic development;

5. Requests Member States to recognize that the environment and ecosystems are stakeholders in the pursuit of Green Economy, and be given priority in implementing and constructing national social and economic policies;

6. Affi rms that a Green Economy relies on the inclusive approach for better coordination of all UN develop-ment programmes and their effi cient implementation at the international, national and regional level, inclu-ding governmental and intergovernmental institutions, civil society and the private sector;

7. Strongly recommends the use of bilateral and cluster engagement, considered necessary to achieve sustai-nable development and poverty eradication, when global governance is stagnate and ineffective;

8. Decides to stay seized on the matter.

Distr.: General

5 May 2012

edit

o-

25International Criminal Court

War Crimes of NATO in Libya

Albert Sagarra. Staff C’MUN 2012. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

The conflict in Libya was one of the most significant situations causing international commotion in 2011. It involved the inter-national community by two United Nations resolutions as well as the participation of NATO forces, and consequently resulted in fierce debates about the concept of Respon-sibility to Protect. Some international actors questioned the legality of a military inter-vention on Libyan territory arguing that the implementation of Resolution 1973 relied too heavily on political interests.

What would have happened if some of these actors, such as the African Union or ALBA, who were clearly against the inter-vention, had submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court a request for an investigation into possible abuses committed by NATO in the interpretation of Resolution 1973 and in the application of the Responsibility to Protect? Is it possible that there was an unduly appli-cation of the United Nations mandate? The objective of the judges of the Court was, therefore, to determine if there was enough evidence to initiate a case against main NATO representatives for “war crimes”.

To solve these questions, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court of C’MUN 2012 decided to claim the presence of the following actors: the Office of the Prosecutor, the Counsel for the De-fense consisting of the Secretary-General of NATO, the representatives of the Republic of France, the Prime Minister of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the President of the United States of America, as well as the legal represen-tatives of the victims, the League of Arab States, the African Union, ALBA, the Nati-onal Transitional Council of Libya, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security, and the United Nations Secretary-General as observers.

From the beginning of the sessions, and despite of the delay caused by the lack of punctuality of the judges of the Court, it was clear that the debates would revolve around the subject of admissibility of the case before the ICC. The disparity of the different positions and the marked judici-al character of the commission were also apparent. Instead of debating the signifi-cance of the Responsibility to Protect, the commission was more inclined to defining the concept of “war crimes”. The court de-cided, by majority of votes, that the first agenda item would be the “admissibility” of the case before the International Crimi-nal Court. Although the judges’ way to pro-ceed occasionally caused some confusion among the delegates, as procedures were used that were specific to the Court and dif-ferent from those of C’MUN 2012, the par-ticipants’ broad knowledge and talent, as well as their excellent preparation allowed for the debates to run correctly.

On the second day of sessions, the gap be-tween those in favor and those against the admission of the case before the ICC grew

The International Criminal Court

on the second day of sessions.

26wider and, in spite of the tensions, most of them favored a game of alliances that facili-tated the debate. According to those against the intervention, the no-fly zone established in Resolution 1973 of the Security Council did not contemplate a breach of the Libyan air space and, therefore, there was a violation of the State’s sovereignty and incompliance of the Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

On the other hand, the President of the United States considered that the case lac-ked legal basis, whereas NATO defended itself arguing that its attacks complied with the principle of Responsibility to Protect and the necessity to guarantee the no-fly zone. During the second half of the ses-sions, the members of the Court had the chance to interview the representatives of the People’s Republic of China and the Rus-sian Federation about their abstention in the voting of Resolution 1973 and, in this way, evaluate their own opinions about the admissibility of the case.

The third day’s sessions consisted of pre-paring the final statements of the Prosecu-tor and Secretary General of NATO, as well as the deliberation of the judges to issue a final resolution. On its behalf, the Prose-cutor considered that there were enough proof and evidence for the case to be ad-mitted before the International Criminal Court. Consequently, a possible future in-vestigation could determine the violation of the International Humanitarian Law established by the Geneva Convention of

1949 and confirm the existence of “war crimes” (Art. 8 of the Rome Statute) perpe-trated by NATO.

On the contrary, NATO considered that the existence of “war crimes” during the inter-national intervention in the Libya conflict could not be proven. It also considered that the Court had no jurisdiction over the case as the case did not fit the definition of a “war crime” established by the Rome Statute. Even under these circumstances, NATO offe-red to collaborate and cooperate with those states that were willing to provide compen-sations for the victims of the conflict.

Finally, after three days of heated debate and enthusiastic and dynamic interventions by both the judges and the delegates, the three judges of the Court issued their final decision stating that there was sufficient proof for the case to be admitted before the Court under the accusation of “war cri-mes” in the conflict of Libya.

The members of the Court completed the difficult task of simulating a Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court on such a controversial case as the in-tervention of NATO in the Libyan civil war of 2011. C’MUN 2012 was a truly enriching experience for each and every member of the Court as it constituted a great opportu-nity for learning about legal, political and diplomatic matters but, above all, it provi-ded an example of teamwork and of resol-ving professional differences.

The delegates of the Interna-

tional Criminal Court.

edit

o-

27C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona International Criminal Court, 5 May 2012

International Criminal Court

PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before: Judge Zafeiris Tsiftzis, Judge Kelly Angelaki and Judge Brenda Calafell

The case of possible War Crimes of NATO in Libya

THE PROSECUTOR v. NATO Representatives

Public Document

Decision on the admissibility of the case

I) Procedural History

The statements by the Prosecutor Team,

1. Air strikes carried out by NATO have caused the death of 102 civilians:

a) According to the Amnesty International Report (Page 6, Paragraph 2): “Amnesty International has documented a total of 55 named civilians, including 16 children and 14 women, who were killed in air strikes in Tripoli (5), Zlitan (3), Majer (34) Sirte (9) and Brega (4) 8. Twenty other civilians were reportedly killed in NATO strikes in Brega (2), Surman (13) and Bani Walid (5) according to UN experts, international NGOs and journalists who also carried out on-site inves-tigations.”

2. Report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-Finding Mission to Libya (Page 45, Paragraph 205): “The witnesses reported that these strikes killed 57-59 persons, including 10 combatants in the trucks and approximately 47 civilians.”

3. NATO has attacked units and civilian buildings without being completely certain on whether or not there were only military units in the attacked targets.

4. Amnesty International Report (Page 7, Paragraph 1) on the bombing of Majer: “NATO claimed that the site was deliberately struck as a legitimate target, but failed to provide evidence that the site was being used for any military purpose at the time it was targeted, in an attack that cost the lives of 34 civilians”

5. UN Human Rights Council Commission Report (Page 17, Paragraph 88): “Of the fi ve targets where the Commission identifi ed civilian casualties, four were termed command and control (C2) nodes or troop staging areas by NATO. The Commission saw no physical evidence of this during its site visits. Witnesses also denied that the sites had military utility.”

6. According to International Humanitarian Law: “In cases of doubt of the state of civilians in an area, international humanitarian law explicitly requires that possible civilian objects must be presumed civilian.”

7. Which means that NATO had no international authorization to attack targets whose civilian status of they could not confi rm.

28C’MUN, The Model United Nations of Barcelona International Criminal Court, 5 May 2012

The Statements of the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,

In order for a case to be admitted to the International Criminal Court, there should not be any si-multanous national investigation taking place. However, in all member states the issue is currently being investigated.

There is another element regarding the admissibility of a case before the court, and that is the se-riousness of the case. “The jurisdiction of the court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” (Art. 5 of the Rome Statute).

Even if it were admissible, the court would not have jurisdiction over the case because it does not fi t the defi nition of a war crime (Art. 5,8 of the Rome Statute):

1. Intentionality or the undoubtable evidence that the actors did not avoid civilian casualties with a fl agrant lack of precaution. The prosecution team, despite being invited to, did not provide adequate evidence that the actors did not take necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties.

The no-fl y zone did allow arial activities for humanatarian reasons. Only military bases were targe-ted. When NATO troops gathered information on civilian presence, the operations were suspended.

NATO is open to international collaboration and cooperation with those member states that are willing to offer a compensation for the unintended victims as suggested by Libya and the members of the court. However, NATO believes that any compensation should be offered based upon the conclusion of an internal investigation, outside the ICC.

I. Analysis and conclusions

PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I of the International Criminal Court having held the confi rmation hea-ring in the case of The Prosecutor v. NATO Representatives

Noting that the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of the International Organisations for interna-tionally Wrongful Acts entails the international responsibility of those Organisations,

Noting that the Article 5 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations utilises the ‘effective control’ test to evaluate the conduct of state organs placed at the disposal of international organisations,

Noting that internationally wrongful acts are governed by international law,

Noting that the prohibition of the war crimes constitutes a fundamental principle in international law, especially in international humanitarian law, according the Article 8 of the Rome Statute and the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocols of 1977,

Noting that the Responsibility to Protect asserts that the primary responsibility of the protection of civilians from war crimes and ethnic cleansing within their borders lies with the state, only when the state is unwilling or unable to fulfi ll this responsibility does it yield to the international community,

Noting that the ‘’Operation Unifi ed Protector’’, which is functioning under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including an arms embargo and a no-fl y zone, is in accordance with the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty,

Noting that the Secretary General of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has the complete respon-sibility of the actions committed by the above operation or its’ members,

Considering Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute, which states that, ‘’the Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute”,

Taking into consideration the above evidences,

FOR THESE REASONS, THE THREE JUDGES HEREBY

Characterise the Case of The Prosecutor vs. NATO Representatives ADMISSIBLE.

edit

o-

29Press Team

C’MUN’s “War Room”Bernat Comes. Staff C’MUN. Responsible for the press team.

The Press Team is not only the students that participate as reporters or editors of The Cla-

rion, but rather a structure constituting an in-tegral part of the very core of C’MUN of staff members, managers, interns, chairs and volun-teers. Like The War Room that Pennebaker por-trays in his documentary film about Clinton’s election campaign, the team is a heteroge-neous group that performs its at times frenetic activity apparently oblivious to what is happe-ning outside but which is actually the center of almost all information flow of C’MUN.

The staff’s work begins right after comple-ting the prior edition of C’MUN by following international news in general, and those of the UN in particular, with the objective of finding and developing issues of debate for the next C’MUN. It is not just about choosing among the items of the international agen-da, but also being the “watchdog” and gi-ving importance back to those agreements that have not been fulfilled or which have been set aside or ignored.

In previous editions we dug up agreements such as the Cairo Plan of Action on the right to reproductive and sexual Health and the Mc-Bride Report on a new world information and communication order. This year we wanted to put more emphasis, among other issues, on the Responsibility to Protect and recall the Interna-tional Covenants on Civil, Political, Economic and Social Rights in the framework of the cu-rrent crisis. The disappearance of our charac-teristic Ad Hoc committee of the Alliance of Civilizations has left many pending issues in the

pipeline like, for example, the reconciliation processes under international standards that make it mandatory to investigate all human rights violations –and even revoke amnesty laws– in order to put an end to impunity.

However, the nickname “war room” acqui-red its full meaning with the preparation of the crisis in the last two editions of C’MUN: last year it was a fieldworkers’ revolution in Myanmar and this year a massacre at an inter-national concert in Guatemala by a Mexican drug cartel. Despite the fact that both crises are fictitious, they entail a great deal of re-search to ensure that all the facts are as close to reality as possible. This work was carried out over the weeks prior to the conference while finalizing the last details.

We would like to thank Alba Borja, Marina Ferrari and Marina Pastor for their work with the crisis, and Anne Koski for the interviews, as well as those that in one way or the other have collaborated with the team. I would like express my special gratitude to the reporters team, with Mido El Garhy covering two com-mittees; Théo Gavaliatsis and Eva Tsampoula being always late but also the first ones to finish their articles; and Clara Roig and Emi-lio Cáceres, who passed their first MUN with flying colors. But above all, I would like to thank the great work of Maria Renée Juárez as the co-editor of The Clarion and the author of the videos, and Pablo Rodríguez-Aguilera as the photographer in each and every one of the seven editions of C’MUN that we have organized so far.

C’MUN 2012 Press Team 2012.

30

Nationalities and universitiesAENU, UPF, BarcelonaAmerican College of Thessaloniki, GreeceAmerican Graduate School in ParisAnatolia College of Thessaloniki, GreeceBilkent University, AnkaraBristol University, United KingdomCass Business School, LondonCol·legi Major Bonaigua, BacelonaCopenhagen Business SchoolESADE Business School, BarcelonaEscuela Diplomática, MadridFar Eastern Federal University, RussiaFreie Universität BerlinGhent MUN Association, BelgiumGymnasieskolan Spyken, Lund, SwedenHankuk University of Foreign Studies, South KoreaHumboldt University of BerlinIEP Strasbourg, FranceInstituto Europeo de Diseño BarcelonaIvanovo State University, RussiaKings College LondonLeuphana University, GermanyMaster Immigration Management, UPF, BarcelonaNational an Kapodistrian University of AthensPlekhanov’s Russian Economic University, MoscowSaint-Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, RussiaSchool of Oriental & African Studies, University of LondonSciences Po Lyon, FranceTashkent State Institute of LawTurku University, FinlandUNANIMUN, UAB, BarcelonaUnited Nations Association of SwedenUniversidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid

Universidad Complutense de MadridUniversidad de Alcala de HenaresUniversidad de Deusto, BilbaoUniversidad de La RiojaUniversidad de San Jorge, ZaragozaUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)Università degli Studi di BolognaUniversità degli Studi di Trieste, ItalyUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaUniversitat de BarcelonaUniversitat de LleidaUniversitat de ValènciaUniversitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC)Universitat Jaume I ValènciaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, BarcelonaUniversitat Ramon Llull, BarcelonaUniversity of Adelaideuniversity of Bonn, GermanyUniversity of BucharestUniversity of CairoUniversity of Essex, United KingdomUniversity of Macedonia, GreeceUniversity of Munich, GermanyUniversity of PiraeusUniversity of Posts and Telecommunications of Beijing University of Potsdam, GermanyUniversity of Puerto RicoUniversity of SarajevoUniversity of Tampere, FinlandUniversity of Thessaloniki, GreeceUniversity of Warwick, United KingdomUniversity of ZagrebVrije Universiteit AmsterdamWest University of Timisoara, Romania

ANUE StaffÀngels MataróRaül JiménezXavier GuerreroBernat ComesAriadna QuinteroPablo Rodríguez-AguileraTeresa VisaBrenda CalafellMaria Renée JuárezAlbert SagarraMarina FerrariAlba BorjaMarina PastorMario MármolAnne Koski

Contributors(photos on central pages)

Aleksandra SemeriakPau PetitCarla RebésMary Michele ConnellanMaarja MeiternConcepción ParejaEsther Gregorio-RocasolanoStela Zarija

Participants of C’MUN 2012

AfghanAmericanArmenianBelarusianBelgianBengaliBhutaneseBosnianBritishBulgarianChineseColombianCroatianDutchEgyptianFinnishFrenchGeorgianGermanGreekIndonesianIrishIsraeliItalianIvoirianKoreanLatvianLebaneseMauritanianMexicanPolishRomanianRussianSlovakSpanishSwedishTurkishUkrainianUzbek

C’MUN 2012 Staff

THE UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF SPAIN

The United Nations Association of Spain (UNA Spain), founded in 1962 with its headquarters in Barcelona, is an NGO in consultative status to the UN ECOSOC and has been declared organisation of public use. We are re-cognized by the United Nations as its main connection to civil society. As such, we act as a focal point of the regional Center of Information of the United Nations in Brussels (UNRIC).

Our fundamental aims are:

- To spread the principles and goals of the United Nations and their spe-cialized agencies.

- To proclaim, to promote and to defend human rights and the fundamen-tal freedoms.

- To guard over the fulfillment of the commitments governments made in the framework of the United Nations towards the achievement of peace, justice and development.

ACTIVITIES

UNA Spain is engaged in the following activities:

- To organize educational and sensibility campaigns about humans rights as well as trainings, seminars, conferences, etc.

- To publish books about international relations, conflicts, human rights as well as didactic material for schools, magazines, yearbooks, etc.

- To give the voice to the young people through the Catalonia Model Uni-ted Nations (C’MUN); a simulation of the General Assembly and the main bodies of the United Nations where they can practice the skills of dialog and mediation among young people from all around the world.

- To promote social responsibility; both of the private sector towards socie-ty and of the public sector and the NGO’s.

PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL, SPANISH AND CATALAN ORGANIZATIONS

UNA Spain was admitted to the World Federation of United Nations Asso-ciations (WFUNA) in 1963 and is currently a member of its Executive Com-mittee. The WFUNA is the only international NGO committed to support the principles and goals of the United Nations Charter, as well as to promote the activities of the organization and its specialized agencies.

UNA Spain is a member of the Federation of Associations for the Defence and the Promotion of Human Rights on a national level.

UNA Spain is part of four Federations in Catalonia: the Catalan Federation of NGO’s for Human Rights, the Catalan Federation of NGO’s for Develop-ment, the Catalan Federation of NGO’s for Peace, and the Catalan Federa-tion of Social Volunteering.

UNA Spain is part of the Council of Social Welfare of the Barcelona City Council.

PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTIONS

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, Generalitat of Cata-lonia, County Council of Barcelona, City Council of Barcelona.

CITY COUNCILS

Badalona, Barberà del Vallès, Barcelona, Castelldefels, Cornellà de Llo-bregat, Esplugues de Llobregat, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Girona, Lleida, Martorell, Mataró, Mollet del Vallès, Rubí, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Terrassa, Viladecans, Vilafranca del Penedès.

COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS WITH UNIVERSITIES

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Universi-tat Pompeu Fabra, Universitat Jaume I, and ESADE.

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF SPAIN

Via Laietana, 51, entlo. 3ª08003 BarcelonaTel. 93 301 31 98Fax: 93 317 57 68

e-mail: info@anue.orgwww.anue.org

We also are at:

MADRIDC/ Alcalde Sáenz de Baranda,

bajo A. 25001 Madride-mail: info@anue.org

LLEIDAUniversitat de Lleida

C/ Jaume II, 73. 25001 LleidaTel. 9733238658

Responsable: Antoni Blanc, president

ARAGÓNJunta Municipal Actur - Rey Fernando

C.C. Río EbroMaría Zambrano, 56

50018 ZaragozaTel. 638 04 18 92/893

e-mail: anuesport@anuesport.comwww.anuesport.org

Responsibles: Jesús Arroyo SalvadorFernando López Sierra

GALICIAIGADI (Instituto Galego de Anàlise e Documentación Internacional)

Illa de San Simón 36693.Cesantes Redondela, Pontevedra.

Responsible: Xulio Ríos, director