commission’s topics are ‘shared natural resources, focus ... · ucmun 2015 international law...

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Introductory Letter

Hello delegates! Welcome to the 2015 UCMUN International Law Commission. My name is Jillian Chambers and I will be your Director. I am very excited for this year’s conference and looking forward to working with all of you. Since its creation, the Internal Law Commission has broadened the scope of international law, expanding legal code to cover treaties to human rights to border disputes. But as the world continues to evolve, international law also needs to evolve. The topics I have selected for this conference deal with issues that demand the attention of the 21st century global community. Both topics need solutions that address the social, economic, environmental, and political ramifications that accompany them. However, I believe that with meaningful debate this committee will be able to come up with innovate solutions. This year, the International Law Commission’s topics are ‘Shared Natural Resources, Focus: Artic Oil’ and ‘The Right of Asylum for Whistleblowers.’ I hope that you find these topics interesting and engaging. I am currently a junior double majoring in Political Science and Human Rights. I attended Yale Model UN my senior year of high school, and was the assistant director for the ILC last year at UCMUN. I really enjoy UCMUN because I’m able to apply the things I learn in my political science courses as well as work with an awesome group of people. Outside of UCMUN, I am involved with UNESCO and UConn International Relations Association. When not doing any of that, I drink tea, hang out with friends, and watch an unhealthy amount of Netflix. My goal is that you will have an enjoyable time debating with your fellow delegates, as well as finding creative solutions to complex international problems. If you have any questions about the ILC or UCMUN in general, feel free to contact me through email at any time. I look forward to meeting you all! Jillian Chambers UCMUN 2015 Director of the International Law Commission [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Committee History

Committee History The United Nations General Assembly established the International Law Commission (ILC)

on 21 November 1947 with the desire to have a separate committee whose purpose was to address

the growing complexity of international law. The ILC’s function is to encourage the “progressive

development of international law and its codification” (105). While primarily concerned with public

international law, private international law is also discussed.

The ILC is composed of thirty-four member states, each represented by those who have

worked or are still working in the legal field, which allows the ILC to remain in tune with the current

state of international law. The members are elected by the General Assembly to five-year terms, and

are recognized to have extensive knowledge and experience with international law (106). The ILC

also works closely with other United Nations bodies, national governments, and non-governmental

organizations. The ILC is based at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva.

Since its inception, the ILC has produced many important conventions and treaties that

provide the framework for international law, some of the most important being:

1969: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties grants the power to nations to enter into

treaties.

1978: Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties states that newly

independent nations are not bound to fulfill the obligations of their colonial hosts.

1982: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes guidelines for nations in

reference to sea boundaries and marine natural resources.

2001: Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts defines

an internationally wrongful act as one that is attributable to the state under international law and

breaches an international obligation of the state.

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Committee History

Works Cited

“Established of an International Law Commission.” n.d. UN.org. 19 March 2015.

<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/174(II)>.

International Law Commission. n.d. 19 March 2015. < http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm>.

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Committee Simulation

Committee Simulation

The Role of the Delegates

The role of the delegate is to accurately represent the view of their nation, actively engage in

debate, and negotiate effectively and respectfully with fellow delegates. Both the conference and the

ILC cannot function properly without the participation of delegates. Delegates must put forth the

best effort to make the conference as close to reality as possible, in order to be fully immersed in the

experience of international negotiations. Delegates should work together to find a solution to the

many issues that plague international law, attempting to make a meaningful difference in the

international community. Delegates should work towards passing one resolution as a committee.

To fully participate in debate, delegates should prepare by doing research prior to the

conference. This includes researching the topics that have been presented and the assigned nation’s

stance on each topic. It is also encouraged to have an overall understanding of nation, especially

their laws as it applies to the ILC. To facilitate debate, researching current policies towards the

topics can serve as a foundation to a number of possible solutions. Other areas of interest to

research would be the historical attitudes of the nation towards the topics, in order to understand

the current political climate towards the issues, as well as the economic capabilities of the nation.

Strong delegates will conduct strong research, and will therefore be effective and accurate during

debate.

Delegates are expected to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure during formal and

informal debates, as well as the general conference rules, even while outside debate. Delegates are

expected to be professional, as debate cannot move forward unless communications are respectful.

It is important to keep in mind that delegates are to be respected even if their nation’s viewpoints

are opposing. Creative thinking and a positive attitude are also highly encouraged.

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Committee Simulation

Role of the Dias

The Dias is comprised of the Director and the Assistant Director(s). Their role is to

moderate debate, maintain parliamentary procedure, and encourage delegates to participate. They

will be a resource in case there is an issue or question about the function of the committee, the

overall topic, the ILC, or the conference in general. The Dias will also maintain the speaker’s list as

well as formally set debate, voting procedure, and end debate.

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Topic A: Shared Natural Resources, Focus: Artic Oil

Introduction

The Arctic Circle, at first glance, may not seem as though it is about to become an

international legal battlefield. On the surface, the Arctic Circle is home to many endangered

species, like the polar bear and the arctic fox, as well as indigenous people. Underneath the polar

icecap however, lies an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil that most nations in the world are eager

to get their hands on (EIA 2012). Without the development of renewable energy sources, the

world is dependent on oil to fuel everything from manufacturing to electricity and other utilities.

Energy security is quickly becoming an international and domestic priority for nations; the 90

billion barrels of oil lying in the Arctic seabed could ensure many years of energy independence

for any nation that is able to tap into that resource.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), there are only

five nations with legitimate territorial claims to the Arctic Circle: the United States, Russia,

Norway, Canada, and Denmark through its jurisdiction of Greenland, also known as the Arctic

Five. Each of these countries are able to legally claim anything that lies within their territory, as

long is it lies within their economic exclusive zones, which extend 200 nautical miles from their

shores (UNCLOS). However, these territorial claims do not stop other countries and

independent companies from sending in exploratory ships into the region. This is especially

irksome to the Arctic Five, because the sending in of exploratory ships infringes upon their

sovereignty.

Although there is an economic benefit to drilling for oil in the Arctic, there are also heavy

environmental consequences that must also be considered. Climate change is already causing the

destruction of the homes of the indigenous people and the wildlife that reside there, and drilling

for oil would only serve to accelerate those effects. Even though the Arctic Five (United States,


Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway) and other interested parties have mostly refrained from

drilling or even doing intensive research in the area, the deterioration of the icecap has begun to

open more accessible paths into the region.

This year, the ILC will explore the implications of allowing countries to drill for oil in the

Arctic Circle, taking special consideration both the economic benefits and the environmental

consequences. The delegates will consider the precedence of economic need over decline of the

polar ice cap. Delegates shall also focus on the sovereignty that the Arctic Five has over the

region, contemplating if the Arctic Five should be the only countries allowed to drill for oil or to

divide the resources up between all the countries of the world.

History and Description

Although the race to claim the resources that lie in the Arctic really began when Russia

sent a submarine to plant a Russian flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole in 2007, the

International Law Commission (ILC) had already begun codifying international law having to do

with the sea (McCormick 2014). Before the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ILC had developed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in 1982. It

was established to address the growing number of issues that were related to the law of the sea,

from overfishing to the navigation of non-peaceful vessels in international waters. LOST gave

nations specific territorial boundaries that extended 12 nautical miles from their shores, as well

as 200 nautical miles for exclusive economic zones (The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty

1982). However, many countries refused to ratify this treaty because it did not clarify what a

country can do outside of economic exclusive zones. The solution to this lies within the

UNCLOS, which establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA has the ability to

regulate how and where a country can mine or drill for resources outside of their jurisdiction.


This agency also gives permission to countries to allow the exploration of seabed. Therefore the

UNCLOS and the ISA are especially important when discussing the situation in the Arctic,

because countries that have no legal jurisdiction in the area can also obtain permission from the

ISA in order to explore the Arctic seabed.

Figure 1: Resource basins in the Arctic Circle. Source: Energy Information Administration

The Arctic is extremely valuable in terms of what lies within its seabed. According to the

United States Geological Survey, the Arctic contains 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered

natural gas and 13 percent of oil, with 80 percent of these resources thought to be offshore

(USGS 2008). The fact that the majority of these resources are located offshore and underneath

thick layers of ice and seabed is what makes countries and independent companies hesitant to

drill, or even explore, in the Arctic. In order to do research in the Arctic, a special ship called an

icebreaker is required. These ships can cost upwards of $1 billion USD and take over a decade to

build, but are the only ships that can safely travel through the Arctic without their hulls being


torn apart by the ice (Council on Foreign Relations 2015). Oil companies such as Exxon and

Shell have abandoned several drilling projects in the Arctic because of the astronomical

production costs. The reason for the high production costs is that technology is still too outdated

to be able to drill effectively and safely in the Arctic. However, accessing this resource is vital to

the energy industry, as global oil and gas demand is predicted to grow 35 percent by 2035 (IEA

2015).

The world may not need to wait for technology to advance enough to start drilling in the

Arctic, because a UN panel on climate change reported in 2013 that “a nearly ice-free Arctic

Ocean in September before mid-century is likely” (International Panel on Climate Change 2013).

The thawing of the Arctic is the result of the effects of climate change. Without a significant

change in environmental policy in the region, the trend in deterioration will continue. While this

can allow countries and companies easier access to the resources that remain in the Arctic, the

environmental implications of a thawed Arctic Circle are huge. According to the UNEP, entire

ecosystems could be wiped out as well as “1,700 gigatonnes of carbon and methane, twice that

currently in the atmosphere,” could be released into the atmosphere (UNEP 2013). Non-

governmental organizations such as Greenpeace are especially concerned, because the Arctic is

home to a large population of indigenous people and ecosystems that are not found anywhere

else in the world. Land animals such as “polar bears, caribou, reindeer, muskoxen, arctic foxes,

puffins, snowy owls, seals, and walruses” and marine wildlife like “blue whales, killer whales,

crabs, shrimp, and many varieties of fish” are all in danger should the Arctic continue to thaw at

the rate that it currently is (National Geographic 2015). While many countries are calling for

regulations that allow for safer exploration of the region, Greenpeace advocates for the outright


ban of any activity that may accelerate the effects of climate change in the Arctic, including

drilling for oil.

Figure 2: Decline of Arctic ice cap from 1984 to 2012. Source: NASA

Case Study: Shell’s Oil Rig Accident

The difficulties that accompany drilling for oil in the Arctic is best illustrated by the oil

company Shell. In 2012, Shell began its first attempt at drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean, off of

the coast of Alaska in the United States. The rig, named the Kulluk, contained almost 150,000

gallons of fuel on board. In order to avoid tax liabilities, Shell ordered the rig to be towed 1,700

nautical miles to sea so that it would be outside the jurisdiction of the United States. However,

due to a combination of “how its fuel tanks were improperly configured” along with rough


winter seas, the Kulluk broke free from the tow ship (Lavelle 2014). No fuel was split due to the

central location of the tanks.

The United States Coast Guard concluded in its final report that the fault lay with Shell,

due to an “inadequate assessment and management of risks” (Lavelle 2014). However, Shell’s

website claims “contrary to the numerous warnings by scientists, environmental activists, and

people indigenous to the region, we take this recent occurrence as a sign that Shell is in the right

place, doing the right thing” and plans to begin drilling again in the summer of 2015 (Shell).

This exemplifies the debate between the economic benefits and environmental risks that

come with drilling in the Arctic. Shell attempted and is still attempting to satisfy the global

demand for oil, because the economic benefit outweighs the environmental risk for them.

Figure 3: Shell’s oilrig Kulluk. Source: Jim Paulin, Associated Press.

Current Status


While many countries have not taken concrete steps towards securing the Arctic and its

resources, examining the history of this issue will give a better understanding of what could happen

in the future.

Each country that has an interest in the Arctic has a goal. With the steady decline of the

polar ice cap that covers most of the Arctic, it is not long until it will be safe to drill for oil.

Ultimately, whether it is sooner rather than later, countries will want to have access to the huge

stores of oil and natural gas that lie in the seabed. However, some countries, like those in the Arctic

Five, want to make their legal claim to the resources so that they are able to exclusively drill for oil.

The UNCLOS stipulates that a state submit a legal claim to extend their EEZ within 10 years of

ratifying the treaty, which Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have all done (Mikkelsen 2015).

The United States has yet to ratify UNCLOS, so the deadline to submit a legal claim is

undetermined. Other countries, like those that make up the European Union (EU) and members of

the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are eager to halt further progress

into the Artic. OPEC members do not want to have to compete with another oil market, especially

with the rapidly declining price of oil, while the EU cites environmental concerns.

When considering the oil that is contained in the Arctic Circle, analyzing the current state of

the oil market allows a look into what influences each country’s position. According to the oil

market report done by the International Energy Agency in March 2015, the United States has defied

all expectations by producing oil at “an all-time record” (IEA 2015). This is despite a reduced

number of rigs and operating refineries, and a huge demand for oil for heating purposes during the

frigid weather. Oil producers in Europe have also experienced a “strong growth of 3.2% in

December and 0.9% in January,” after years of steady decline (IEA 2015). This growth in oil

production is important for the United States as they push for energy independence from the Middle


East; access to oil in the Arctic could help them achieve this goal earlier than they had previously

hoped.

The report done by the IEA also spelled out bad news for Arab oil producers. Political

upheaval in the region makes it extremely difficult to safely drill in oil fields, as well being harder to

access traditional waterways to transport the oil. “OPEC crude oil production slipped” in February,

due to Islamic terrorists attacking Libyan oil fields and pipelines. Also, several oil producing Arab

countries decided to drop the price of oil to supplement the growing market demand, which is

causing Iraq to fall short of their expected output to oil companies like Exxon Mobil and BP (IEA

2015). In addition, civil war in Yemen makes it dangerous for ships to cross through Bab el-

Mandeb, the waters in between Yemen and Djibouti where all ships must pass through to get the

Suez Canal (Krishnan 2015). Their slip on oil market domination, in addition to the idea that Arctic

oil could soon become the main source of oil for the world, has made OPEC and Arab country oil

producers anxious.

In response to the melting of the Arctic polar ice cap, many countries have recently been

conducting various shows of dominance in the region. While Canada has been holding military

exercises in the Arctic since 2007, a report by the United States in 2013 stated that venturing into the

Arctic was a security interest and plans to ratify UNCLOS. Also in 2013, China gained observer

status on the Arctic Council, and sent in an icebreaker to do research. (McCormick 2014). Finally,

Russian President Vladimir Putin said to his Defense Ministry Board to “pay special attention to the

deployment of infrastructure and military units in the Arctic” (McCormick 2014). All of this shows

that the race for the Arctic is heating up and is becoming a major international issue.

Bloc Positions


The major divide in this issue is between the countries that have sovereignty in the Arctic,

the countries that do not have sovereignty but have a large store of oil, and countries that have

neither sovereignty nor oil.

Countries that have sovereignty in the Arctic are the United States, Russia, Canada,

Denmark and Norway. All of them, except the United States, have ratified the UNCLOS. The

United States refused to ratify the treaty as to not “erode U.S. sovereignty by ceding power to

international bodies” (Johnson 2011). Ratifying the UNCLOS allows a country ten years to make a

claim that they have a right to the resources on or below the seabed of their sea shelf. If these five

countries can make a valid claim to the resources, they will have exclusive rights. This causes ire for

countries with no claim to the Arctic, because they feel as though the Arctic Ocean is considered

high seas and therefore should be able to drill there if they want. China, India, Italy, Japan,

Singapore and South Korea have all been granted observer status on the Arctic Council, a forum

that discusses issues faced by Arctic governments (Myers 2013). Observer status grants them the

ability to influence decisions made by the council, as they hope to be able to take advantage of the

trade routes and resources in the region. Members of OPEC, who currently dominate the oil market,

do not want the extra competition.

While the United States wants to access the oil, they are hesitant to drill before doing more

research into potential oil sites and developing safer ways to drill. The EU is also against drilling in

the oil, citing environmental concerns. Russia, Denmark, Canada, and Norway have begun to send

in research ships and icebreakers in order to begin drilling. However, all of these nations have

restrained from making major moves into the region. Currently, it is unsafe or too difficult to drill

successfully for oil. Drilling for Arctic oil is considered the most difficult in world, because it is

nearly impossible to get far enough into the ice to drill and there is a huge risk of an oil spill.

Committee Mission


When considering shared natural resources, especially oil in the Arctic oil, delegates must

find a balance between economic need and environmental consequences of drilling. Sovereignty of

the sea and of its resources is a complex issue that has not been delved into the international

community. With the melting of the polar ice caps, opportunities to explore and travel have opened

up that have never been available before in history. Cooperation and effort is needed from all

countries to solve this issue.

The mission of the ILC is to produce a solution that is effective and plausible. It will need to

address potential environmental concerns like oil spills and displaced indigenous people. Delegates

will also be required to consider economic concerns and the ever-changing oil market. Above all, the

ILC desires to create new protocol or amend new protocol through diplomatic debate.

Questions to Consider

1. How dependent is your country on oil as an energy resource? Are oil and natural gas integral

to the industrial sector as well supplying the population?

2. What is your country’s stance on the environment? Consider past and present environmental

policies that have been enacted. Does your country view the environment as important and

taken steps to preserve to it?

3. Has your country generally respected another country’s sovereign sea borders in the past?

Has your country used trade routes without permission, or fished in another country’s

economic exclusive zone?

4. Should the Arctic Circle be considered high seas and open to the international community,

or should the countries with legal claims be the only bodies allowed?

5. Consider the Arctic Council. Should that be open to more countries looking to utilize the

resources in the Arctic, or should it be closed to those countries that have arctic borders?


Could it be revised to serve your country’s goal, or should a new international governing

body be developed?

6. Should resources and energy be invested in developing safer ways to drill in the oil, or

should it be invested in protecting the existing environment?

Works Cited

Allen, Jesse. "Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Comparison." NASA. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79256>.

NASA, a United States agency dedicated to their civilian space program and aerospace

research, developed this figure. This figure depicts the decrease in the Arctic ice cap from

1984 to 2012. It also contains information as to how much the ice cap as decreased in

terms of kilometers, as well as how this data was obtained and an explanation on why the

ice is melting. It contains no bias.

"Arctic." National Geographic Education. National Geographic, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

<http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/arctic/?ar_a=1>.

This is an encyclopedic entry written by National Geographic. It provides general facts

about the Arctic ecosystem and the wildlife that resides there. While it is a reputable

source, it has a slight bias against developing offshore drilling there, for it would disrupt

the habitats that are there.

Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic

Circle. Rep. United States Geological Survey, 23 July 2008. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/>.

This is a purely informational assessment of gas and oil resources that are contained in

the Arctic Circle area done by the United States Geological Survey. Using geology

methodology, the USGS estimates the amount of natural resources that may be found in


the Arctic. These figures are often cited in other reports and articles, as most people

concur that this is the most recent and accurate estimation of Arctic resources.

Climate Change 2013. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d. Web. 19 Mar.

2015. <http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf>.

This is a document developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that

concludes that human activity is 95 percent at fault for the warming of the climate system

and climate change since the mid 20th century. It gives past, present and future

predictions of climate change from studies and analyses done by both governments and

independent scientific bodies. It has tables, charts and models that show various changes

in the climate over time, including sea level change and greenhouse gasses in the

atmosphere.

Johnson, Keith. "To Parry China, U.S. Looks to Sea Treaty It Hasn't Signed." The Wall Street

Journal. N.p., 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204517204577044473905113442>.

While this article isn’t specific to the Arctic, it shows other ways the UNCLOS has

inhibited the United States from being assertive in international seas. It also explains why

the United States hasn’t ratified the treaty.

Krishnan, Barani. "Oil Leaps 5 Percent, Most in a Month, on Air Strikes in Yemen." Reuters.

N.p., 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

This Reuters article reports on the state of Yemen’s oil production as of March 2015. It

cites the growing civil war and international tension in the country for the rise in oil

prices. According to this article, air strikes and the difficulty of transporting oil past

Yemen’s Gulf of Aden accounts for the rise in price.


Lavelle, Marianne. "Coast Guard Blames Shell Risk-Taking in Kulluk Rig Accident." National

Geographic News. National Geographic, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140404-coast-guard-blames-

shell-in-kulluk-rig-accident/>.

This article in National Geographic, while having a significant bias towards protecting

the Arctic Circle environment from drilling, provides an analysis of the United States

Coast Guard’s report of the Shell’s Kulluk rig accident in Alaska. It puts Shell

completely at fault for the accident, subtly painting the company as greedy for pulling the

rig farther out to sea in order to evade paying taxes.

Myers, Steven. "Arctic Council Adds 6 Nations as Observer Status, Including China." The New

York Times. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/world/europe/arctic-council-adds-six-members-

including-china.html?_r=1>.

This article by the New York Times reports in 2013 that the Arctic Council granted

several countries observer status. This allows them some sway in the council’s decisions,

but they are still not allowed to be permanent members. It also shows the growing

international interest in the region.

Oil Market Report. International Energy Agency. International Energy Agency, 10 Feb. 2015.

Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

This source gives regular, monthly updates on the status of the oil market. It goes in

depth into where oil production and demand increases or decreases, and by how much.

The International Energy Agency also provides some explanation as to why production or

prices may change, depending on the region or country where applicable.


Opportunities and Challenges for Arctic Oil and Gas Development. Eurasia Group. The Wilson

Center, N.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

<http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf>.

This is a report written by the Eurasia Group, the world’s largest political risk

consultancy. It analyzes various countries in terms of supply and demand of oil,

infrastructure and transportation to the Arctic region, potential opposition to drilling and

environmental considerations. The report also provides potential solutions to the

situation. Excellent resource in to determine where other countries stand in the region.

McCormick, Ty. "Arctic Sovereignty: A Short History." Foreign Policy. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web.

26 Feb. 2015.

This article gives a brief timeline of important events and actions by the international

community in the Arctic.

Paulin, Jim. 2013. Associated Press, Alaska. National Geographic. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140404-coast-guard-blames-

shell-in-kulluk-rig-accident/>.

This article provides the picture of the Shell oil rig Kulluk that ran aground in Alaska.

"Resource Basins in the Arctic Circle Region." U.S. Energy Information Administration. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015. <http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4650>.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides a figure that depicts where various

natural resources are contained in the Arctic Circle.

"Shell's Let's Go! Arctic Campaign." Arctic Ready. Shell, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://arcticready.com/classic-kulluk>.


This is the page dedicated to Shell’s campaign to drilling in the Arctic. While is has a

clear, significant bias towards the exploration and development of the region, it provides

insight into an oil company’s perspective. It gives various justifications as to why drilling

in the Arctic is beneficial.

"The Emerging Arctic." The Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

< http://www.cfr.org/arctic/emerging-arctic/p32620#!/ >.

This article done by the Council on Foreign Relations is a good starting point in

understanding the intricacies of the situation in the Arctic. It gives a history of

sovereignty and governance of the region, economic prospects, diplomatic and security

measures taken there, and public policy options for countries.

United Nations Environmental Programme. New Awareness of and Opportunities for UNEP to

Address Climate Change in Arctic. Rep. UNEP, Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

<http://www.unep.org/gc/gc27/Docs/se/What%20Future%20for%20the%20Arctic.pdf>

The United Nations Environmental Programme is the foremost, unbiased resource for

international environmental matters. This report addresses specifically the climate change

in the Arctic. It also outlines steps and goals that the UNEP would like to take in the

region.

United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. International Law Commission. International Law

Commission, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm>.

This is the official treaty developed by the International Law Commission that dictates

the rights and responsibilities of nations with their use of the ocean. It provides guidelines

for countries and businesses in respect to the environment and natural resources.


UNCLOS also establishes the International Seabed Authority, which regulates how and

where a country can mine or drill for resources outside of their jurisdiction.

UCMUN 2015 International Law Commission Topic B: The Right of Asylum for Whistleblowers

Introduction

Whistleblowers and the act of whistleblowing have recently risen to prominence in

international media, through the actions of people such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

Whistleblowing is the disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or

corporation, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some

other wrongdoing. For Edward Snowden, this included leaking classified United States National

Security Agency documents to Wikileaks, a journalistic organization that publishes secret

information and classified media from anonymous sources. Snowden and Julian Assange, the

founder, director and editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, now face extradition to the United States and

Sweden, respectively. While corporate whistleblowers are praised and even met with reward,

government whistleblowers are often persecuted with the fullest extent of the law.

Both Snowden and Assange were granted asylum, which allows them to halt extradition

efforts. The right of asylum, where a person persecuted for various reasons may flee to another

sovereign nation to be protected, is a right granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, the International Law Commission (ILC) has not discussed or debated asylum since 1975

(ILC 1975). While the ILC has acknowledged that this is a topic worth serious consideration, the

international legality of seeking asylum is still lacking. For whistleblowers, this is especially

dangerous, for their applications to seek asylum can be denied.

This year the ILC will consider the multiple issues that surround the right of asylum for

whistleblowers. Delegates will debate the act of whistleblowing itself, weighing public transparency

over maintaining domestic or international security. Many may consider people like Snowden and

Assange as ‘patriots’ or heroes,’ but in the eyes of others, they are traitors. Delegates will also

consider creating solutions for asylum seekers, where many have only been met with application

rejections. This will include discussing nation sovereignty, as several nations that have previous


granted asylum to whistleblowers in their embassies abroad, along with possibly developing an

agreement that allows the safe passage of whistleblowers to embassies or other nations.

History and Description

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is a treaty adopted in

1951, primarily in response to the people fleeing various European countries during World War II.

This treaty defines who is a refugee, and sets outs the rights of individuals who are granted asylum

and the responsibilities of nations who grant refugees asylum (CRSR 1951). In this treaty, a refugee

is any person who “owing to the well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his

nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that

country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual

residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”

(CRSR 1951). Most whistleblowers flee their home countries in fear, but are technically not

considered refugees when they have “committed a serious non-political crime” (CRSR 1951).

There are two distinct groups of people who commit acts of whistleblowing: corporate and

government. Corporate whistleblowers tend to reveal acts of financial fraud, like Enron vice

president of corporate develop Sherron Watkins did in 2002, which eventually led to the collapse

and bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation. Other corporate whistleblowers bring light to

malpractices done by the company to laborers and the environment, among other things. These

whistleblowers are often met with both public and government praise, as most nations even have

comprehensive laws that reward these acts of whistleblowing. Under the False Claims Act in the

United States, Cheryl Eckard was rewarded 96 million USD for revealing faults in one of drug maker

Glaxo Smith Kline’s factories (Farnham 2012). These whistleblowers are also frequently protected

against retaliation from their employer, whether it is legal attacks or having their contract terminated.


While corporate whistleblowers are generally viewed upon in a positive manner and are for

the majority contained within one nation, government whistleblowers have received international

attention. Because government whistleblowers flee the country because they have broken the law

and fear being jailed, it becomes an international legal battle when they try and apply for asylum in

other countries. Diplomatic embassies can also extend offers of asylum, as they are considered

extensions of a sovereign state. They are particularly strong options for whistleblowers that cannot

leave the country they are currently in, as a host country is forbidden from entering an embassy

without permission of the represented country. Governments may request a nation to turn down

asylum requests, especially if those nations are connected by strong diplomatic or trade relationships.

Case Study: Edward Snowden

Figure 1: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Source: The Guardian

Edward Snowden was an employee of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton at the

United States National Security Agency (NSA), and in May 2013, leaked classified government

secrets to the Guardian journalists in Hong Kong. The first of these documents, published by the

Guardian, contained “a secret court order showing that the US government had forced the telecoms

giant Verizon to hand over the phone records of millions of Americans” (Gidda 2013). Other


documents revealed the existence of a program called Prism that gave the NSA direct access to data

held by various websites including Google, Facebook, and Apple, along with the NSA gaining access

to the network of cables that carry the world’s phone calls and Internet traffic. This included the

interception of communications between foreign politicians at the 2009 G20 summit in London

(MacAskill 2013).

In June 2013, Snowden left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow, despite having his passport

revoked by the US. In a statement, the Hong Kong government stated that “the US did not fully

comply with legal requirements” and therefore had no reason to detain him (Gidda 2013). Snowden,

despite applying to over 20 countries for asylum, still remains in Russia after Russian President

Vladimir Putin refused to extradite him to the US (Elder 2013). After voicing support for Snowden,

Bolivian president Evo Morales’ plane was forced to land in Vienna after being denied European

airspace when there were suspicions that Snowden was aboard. The US and Europe was met with

protests by several South American countries such as Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador and Uruguay,

who called it a “kidnap” operations and violated Bolivia’s national sovereignty (Watts 2013).

Case Study: Julian Assange


Figure 2: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Source: Facundo Arrizabalage.

Julian Assange is the founder, editor-in-chief, and director of Wikileaks. This organization

publishes secret information, news leaks and other classified documents from anonymous sources.

Among the most famous include documents about the Afghanistan war not made available to the

public, a corruption investigation in Kenya, and a video of US helicopters firing upon a group of

civilians in Baghdad. Much of the information about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq came from

US army soldier Chelsea Manning, who is now serving a 35-year prison sentence for her actions

(Lewis 2013).

Assange, similar to Snowden, is also facing extradition. Sweden has had warrants out for

Assange’s arrest since 2010 amid allegations of sexual assault. Fleeing arrest, Assange was granted

asylum in Ecuador’s embassy in London in 2012 and has remained there ever since (Lai 2012).

Assange’s lawyers continue to fight the extradition warrant for fears of Assange being handed over

to the US after leaking classified US information (Jones 2010).

Case Study: Ramin Pourandarjani

Ramin Pourandarjani was a doctor at the Tehran detention center Kahrizak before he

revealed to a parliamentary committee that several jailers were “torturing and raping protestors” who

were imprisoned during Iran’s civil unrest in 2009 (Fassihi 2009). Pourandarjani also refused to sign

death certificates at the prison, which he claimed were falsified to cover up murder.

In several reports, Pourandarjani described prisoners whose cause of death were physical

stress from traumatic blows to the head and chest, where the government claimed they had died

from meningitis (Fassihi 2009). After a series of protests, the Supreme Leader ordered the prison

closed.

However, according to his family, Pourandarjani feared for his life after testifying and

refusing to cover up what happened in Kahrizak. In November, his family was called to Tehran


because Pourandarjani had died in a car accident. When they got there, they were told that he had

died from a heart attack. They were prohibited from viewing the body and were refused an autopsy.

After a month of public outcry, the autoposy found that his last meal had contained a high dosage of

the blood-pressure medication propranolol, which can cause cardiac arrest at high doses (Fassihi

2009). The government cited evidence of possible suicide in their report.

Current Status

Whistleblowing is the most effective way of exposing corruption and was recognized in 2010

by the group of twenty (G-20), an international forum for twenty major economies, as a major

priority for their anti-corruption plan. However, despite the attention that whistleblowers have

gotten in recent years, much of the world lacks comprehensive whistleblower protection laws and

avenues in which they can avoid wrongful prosecution. In addition, there is the absence of any

international standard of when to offer asylum to a whistleblower. Currently, most countries have

some kind of whistleblower protection laws, but fall significantly behind international standards.

The ILC has a unique chance to make a significant difference in this topic. The United

Nations (UN) has appointed a rapporteur to deal specifically with privacy issues in light of the

Snowden revelations, with the UN expressing it’s deep concern “at the negative impact that

surveillance and/or interception of communications, including extraterritorial surveillance and/or

interception of communications, as well as the collection of personal data, in particular when carried

out on a mass scale, may have on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights” (MacAskill 2015).

However, codification of the law surrounding both the right of asylum and the act of whistleblowing

has not yet been attempted.

Granting asylum continues to be a hit or miss for those seeking it. There are no international

standards besides the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but even


countries that have ratified it do not follow it exactly in every case. A country may choose to deny a

person asylum even if they meet the definition of a refugee.

For the most part, action has not been taken due to the ethics that coincide when discussing

whistleblowers. The freedom of expression is a universally acknowledged human right, but many

argue that whistleblowing does not fall under this category, especially when it endangers national

security or classified intelligence is leaked to the public. As a committee, the ILC must strike a

balance between the two in order to find a solution.

Bloc Positions

Many South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, are extremely limited in

their scope and power. Their laws lack protections for whistleblowers, or have no way for

whistleblowers to disclose information anonymously (Wolfe 2014). However, both Venezuela and

Nicaragua had offered to grant Snowden asylum before he fled to Russia, and Ecuador is currently

housing Assange in their embassy in London. Several South American countries expressed outrage

after the Bolivian president was forced to land in Europe over suspicions that Snowden was on

board.

Most of the European Union (EU) has some sort of whistleblower protection laws put in

place. Some are less comprehensive than others, such as Germany, which leaves the decision to

protect a whistleblower up to their labor courts. In Italy, whistleblower rights have been limited by

the law, for example if their actions cause un-due damage to others who are protected under the law.

On the other hand, France has some of the most comprehensive laws in place in the world

(Blueprint for Free Speech 2014). However, the EU has repeatedly refused to grant asylum for

prominent whistleblowers, including forcing the Bolivian president to land his plane because of

suspicions that Snowden was on board, as stated previously.


Canada, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) have many

measures to protect whistleblowers. However, they all exclude some type of whistleblower, whether

it be a government official or in the private sector. Most do not protect people who disclose

intelligence that are a matter of national security (Wolfe 2014).

China has some laws put into place, but it is unclear how to disclose wrongdoing or if

retaliation will be prevented by either the government or the employer. In India, laws fail to protect

whistleblowers, as 12 people were killed and over 40 beaten for trying to expose government

wrongdoing (Srivastava 2011). Like France, Japan has some of the most comprehensive laws in the

world to protect whistleblowers, except those who leak classified information (Wolfe 2014).

Committee Mission

As with discussing any complex international issue, there are many factors to consider.

When delving into the right of asylum for whistleblowers, the ILC will keep in mind the differing

opinions of other delegates. As a committee, the ILC will attempt through diplomacy and

cooperation to find a solution that suite the needs of the international community.

The mission of the ILC is to strike a balance with this issue. Delegates will determine extent

to which upholding national security should play into protecting whistleblowers, when and where

asylum should be granted, and the true definition of a whistleblower. Developing new protocols to

address this issue should be a priority of the ILC.

Questions to Consider

1. How comprehensive are your country’s whistleblower protection laws? This is often an

indicator of whether your country would offer someone asylum.

2. Does your country traditionally punish or exclude certain subsets of whistleblowers, such as

those who expose classified information or corporation malpractices?


3. Research your country’s stance on immigration in general, not just granting asylum. Is it

hard to immigrate into your country, or easy?

4. If Edward Snowden applied for asylum in your country, did your country deny him or

accept him? What was the rationale behind the decision?

5. Consider the freedom of expression. Should that be a right upheld in cases of

whistleblowing, or does a country’s national security hold precedence?


Works Cited

Elder, Miriam. "Putin: NSA Whistleblower Snowden Is in Moscow Airport." The Guardian. N.p., 26

June 2013. Web. 27 May 2015.

<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/25/edward-snowden-moscow-vladimir-

putin>.

This source reported the announcement by President Vladimir Putin that Edward Snowden

was currently in the Moscow airport. While the article itself is unbiased, Putin could be seen

as siding with Snowden over the United States, as he allowed Snowden into the country and

refused to extradite him.

Farnham, Alan. "7 Richest Snitches: Time to Rat Out Your Boss?" ABC News. N.p., 17 Sept. 2012.

Web. 27 May 2015. <http://abcnews.go.com/Business/biggest-whistleblower-

rewards/story?id=17222028>.

This article by ABC News gives a general overview of corporate whistleblowing in the

United States, and some of the most prominent cases that have occurred there.

Fassihi, Farnaz. "The Doctor Who Defied Tehran." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 21 Dec. 2009.

Web. 27 May 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126118381849697953>.

The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, but this article has a clear bias against the actions

taken by the Iranian government in regards to this case. However, it gives a detailed account

and timeline of what happened before and after Pourandarjani’s death.

Gidda, Mirren. "Edward Snowden and the NSA Files – Timeline." The Guardian. N.p., 21 Aug.

2013. Web. 27 May 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-

snowden-nsa-files-timeline>.

The Guardian was responsible for analyzing and reporting on the information that Edward

Snowden leaked to them. Therefore, there will be a bias favoring whistleblowers and against


mass surveillance programs, but will contain the most detailed information as to what the

specific programs were. This article is good starting point to understanding how Snowden

escaped the United States and sought asylum.

Lai, Alexis. "Timeline: Julian Assange's Extradition Battle." CNN. N.p., 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 28 May

2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/europe/assange-extradition-timeline/>.

Similar to the timeline for Edward Snowden, this is a good starting point to understanding

the current legal battle that surrounds Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Lewis, Paul. "Bradley Manning given 35-year Prison Term for Passing Files to WikiLeaks." The

Guardian. N.p., 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 June 2015.

<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-35-years-prison-

wikileaks-sentence>.

In addition to Snowden, The Guardian tends to praise Chelsea Manning and her actions.

While this article reports on the sentencing of Manning, it only has comments from groups

that celebrate her actions, like the ACLU and other famous whistleblowers.

MacAskill, Ewen. "GCHQ Intercepted Foreign Politicians' Communications at G20 Summits." The

Guardian. N.p., 17 June 2013. Web. 27 May 2015.

<http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-

summits>.

Ewen MacAskill was the journalist from The Guardian that met with Snowden in Hong

Kong to hand over the information he had. His articles will have distinct biases favoring

Snowden, but he broke down the information in a way that is easy for people to understand.

Jones, Sam. "Julian Assange's Lawyers Say They Are Being Watched." The Guardian. N.p., 5 Dec.

2010. Web. 28 May 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/05/julian-

assange-lawyers-being-watched>.


As stated before, The Guardian has a clear bias and so does this article. It depicts the actions

allegedly taken by the US State Department to intimidate Assange’s lawyers.

United Nations Human Rights Council. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of

Refugees. UNHCR, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

This is a document developed by the United Nations Human Rights Council that sets out

the rights accorded to refugees. It defines who is a refugee and the responsibilities of nations

that grant asylum. Important document to consider when figuring out a solution to the

problem of granting asylum to whistleblowers.

Watts, Jonathan. "Bolivian President's Treatment Stirs up Fury in Latin America." The Guardian.

N.p., 3 July 2013. Web. 27 May 2015.

<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/bolivian-president-morales-latin-

america>.

This article gives the perspective of South American countries when it comes to

whistleblowers, especially actions taken in wake of the Snowden leaks by other countries.

Good article to read to see a point of view other than the US or European countries when it

comes to whistleblowers.

MacAskill, Ewen. "UN Sets up Privacy Rapporteur Role in Wake of Snowden Leaks." The

Guardian. N.p., 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 1 June 2015.

<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/27/un-sets-up-privacy-rapporteur-role-

snowden-leaks>.

This article reports on the actions taken by the United Nations after the Snowden leaks. It is

a good source to read to find out how the UN views whistleblowers.

Srivastava, Mehul. "In India, Whistle-Blowers Pay with Their Lives." Bloomberg Business. N.p.,


20 Oct. 2011. Web. 1 June 2015. <http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/in-india-

whistleblowers-pay-with-their-lives-10202011.html>.

This article, written with help by Ewen MacAskill from The Guardian who broke down the

information from Edward Snowden, details how whistleblowers are treated in India. It

details the failings of the Indian government to protect whistleblowers, and has a bias against

the Indian government.

Wolfe, Simon. Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries. Rep. N.p.: Blueprint for Free

Speech, 2014. Web. 1 June 2015. <https://blueprintforfreespeech.net/wp-

content/uploads/2014/09/Whistleblower-Protection-Laws-in-G20-Countries-Priorities-for-

Action.pdf>.

This is a great source that breaks down all of the whistleblower protection laws in G20

countries. It rates each one by how comprehensive and effective the laws are. Good for

determining how a specific country views whistleblowers.

commission’s topics are ‘shared natural resources, focus ... · ucmun 2015 international law...

Documents