United Nations Security Council: Ricky Palermo, Nicole Anderson
The Security Council of the United Nations is established under chapter 5 of the UN Charter.
Under this charter, the UNSC has four main tasks: to maintain international peace and security;
to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and
in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations1.
The Council itself is comprised of 15 member states. Five, being the Republic of China, the
United States of America, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and France maintain permanent member status. The five permanent members
also hold veto power within the council, and may block any potential resolution before the body
should they so choose. The other 10 members are elected to two year terms, and may not be
immediately re-elected.
Whilst other bodies within the United Nations make recommendations to member states, the
Security Council has the sole authority to pass binding resolutions, which all member states are
obliged to follow under the UN Charter2. The Security council may use several measures to
accomplish its tasks, including but not limited to: economic sanctions, travel bans, arms
embargoes, peacekeeping missions, issue investigations, sever diplomatic relations, or even take
direct military action.
Stated by the United Nations Security Council, the functions and powers of the security
council are:

to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and
purposes of the United Nations;

to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to
recommend what action should be taken;

to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the
use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

to take military action against an aggressor;

to recommend the admission of new Members;

to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";

to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and,
together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice3.
1
UNSC, What is the Security Council, http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/
ibid
3 UNSC, Functions and Powers, http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml
2
In this session of the Security Council, member states will be tasked with addressing the
current territorial disputes in the South China Sea, as well as the growing security risks within
Burundi. While often the Security Council is presented with ongoing conflicts, such as that in
Syria, both topics provide a unique opportunity to prevent foreseeable threats to international
peace and security, prior to sizable escalation.
Topic 1: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea
History of the Issue
The South China Sea is defined by the International Hydrographic Bureau as the body of
water stretching in a Southwest to Northeast direction, whose southern border is 3 degrees South
latitude between South Sumatra and Kalimantan (Karimata Straits), and whose northern border is
the Strait of Taiwan from the northern tip of Taiwan to the Fukien coast of China4. The region is
the world's second busiest international sea lane, and contains vast sums of oil and gas resources.
The area contains roughly 200 small islands, most comprising Spratly and Paracel chains,
however most are uninhabitable5. Control of these islands is less focused on actual territorial
gains, and more so for the enhanced political position for control of surrounding waters.
Whilst the territorial disputes have escalated rapidly in recent years, the conflict’s origins began
as a product of World War II. Before, the Sea was of little concern to most nations. During
Japan’s rapid conquest of the Pacific, all of the geographic area within the South China Sea was
under their purview. As the war came to an end, and Japan surrendered to the allied powers, the
Islands located within the region became unoccupied. Leading into the 1950’s, China had begun
to occupy a section of the Paracel Islands. Their ensuing Civil War would see China vacate the
islands however, leaving the area unclaimed once again. At this point in time, no other nation
foresaw a great importance in asserting a claim over the region.6
4
Global Security, South China Sea / Spratly Islands,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly.htm
5
ibid
6
Mirski, Sean. "The South China Sea Dispute: A Brief History." Lawfare, 8 June 2015,
In 1952, the San Francisco Treaty came into effect, providing the first case of international
law on the subject. Under the treaty, Japan renounced all territorial claims to islands in the South
China Sea. The issue arises, however, in that no successor state was named.7 As such, the Islands
within the region technically remained under the collective authority of all 48 participating
signatories, two of which (Philippines, Vietnam), laid claims. One important aspect to note, is
that the then victories People’s Republic of China under Mao, was not invited to participate in
the negotiations.8
Whether the treaty itself legally applies to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is disputed.
Japan and the Republic of China (ROC, also known as Taiwan), had signed a separate treaty in
the same year, which included affirming their commitment to the San Francisco Treaty. In 1972,
Japan shifted its recognition of the legal government of China from the ROC to the PRC. As
such, China technically accepted all international responsibilities and obligations of the ROC,
including the San Francisco Treaty. Though not specifically pertinent to the territorial disputes,
the treaties also included Japan’s refusal to recognize Taiwan as a part of China, partially
explaining why China is reluctant to accept the San Francisco Treaty as legally binding9.
By the mid 1950’s, both South Vietnam and the PRC had settled parts of the Paracels. The
60’s saw a stalemate between both countries, neither fully willing to commit towards the eviction
of the other. This would change during the 70’s, as both countries began to utilize the region for
its untapped energy resources. As both countries began increasing their claims over the small
islands, South Vietnam began to send warships into the region, asserting their control, and
harassing Chinese fishing boats. The PRC responded in kind, sending submarines into the sea.
On January 19’th, 1974, ground skirmishes between south Vietnam and the PRC took place,
resulting in the death of a Vietnamese soldier. This was then followed by a naval battle between
the two parties, of which South Vietnam was forced to retreat. China then reinforced its position,
solidifying its control over the island chain10.
Both parties would once again find themselves at odds in 1988. As China began claiming
more islands, Vietnam also occupied more for themselves. These power plays eventually resulted
in a clash, of which both sides blame the other for starting11. Chinese Naval Frigates would sink
two Vietnamese ships, killing roughly 70 sailors. China then expanded into the Spratlys, taking
control of 6 more islands12.
7
Matsumura, Masahiro. "From San Francisco to the South China Sea." Project Syndicate, 08 Oct. 2013.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/masahiro-matsumuraapplying-the-san-francisco-peacetreaty-to-territorial-disputes-in-the-south-china-sea?barrier=accessreg.
8
Matsumara, Masahiro. "San Francisco Treaty and the South China Sea." The Japan Times. 13 Oct.
2013.
9
Ibid
10
Yoshihara, Toshi. "1974 Paracels Sea Battle." U.S Naval War College. Spring 2016.
11
Global Security, Spratly Skitmish – 1988, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly1988.htm
12
Torde, Greg. "Spratly Islands Dispute Defines China-Vietnam Relations 25 Years after Naval
Clash." South China Morning Post. 16 Mar. 2013.
The next major treaty to provide legal standing for these disputes came with the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The treaty would take nine years, from 1973 to 1982,
to debate before being ratified by 60 members in 1994. When negotiations began in 1973, the
PRC had only recently joined the United Nations (Taiwan held their respective seat until 1971).
Seeing themselves aligned more with developing nations, rather than superpowers such as the
USA and USSR, China supported the larger Economic Exclusion Zones, which would later be
set at 200 nm in the final version of the treaty13. One major aspect of this treaty, is that it created
international tribunals to settle disputes between nations14.
Modern Developments
In 1947, China published their maps including the U Shaped Line (see image above),
extending 1400 miles southward from the Southern Chinese Coast15. While this was largely
ignored by Mao’s government, it has recently been revived, having been mandated to be
included in all future maps, and all Chinese Passports. It is this line that causes most modern
claims of sovereignty within the South China Sea16.
As seen in the image above, six nations contest the region, mainly the Spratly Islands. Only
recently, the area has begun to become militarized, with the United States performing military
drills, and China beginning to construct military installations. China has also engaged in
13
Wang, Zheng. "China and UNCLOS: An Inconvenient History." The Diplomat. 11 July 2016.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, https://pcacpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/
15
"Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?" BBC News. BBC, 12 July 2016.
16
Steve Rolf & John Agnew (2016) Sovereignty regimes in the South China Sea:
assessing contemporary Sino-US relations, Eurasian Geography, and Economics, 57:2, 249-273
14
artificially constructing islands, dumping sand onto reefs, creating land masses large enough for
outposts17. These advances had caused a great deal of tension within the region.
In 2015, the Philippines challenged China’s claim over the region under the UNCLOS. Ruling
in 2016, the United Nations ruled in favor of the Philippines, and struck China’s U shaped line
claim, ruling it incompatible with international law. Whilst China has largely ignored the verdict,
it should be noted that by ratifying the treaty, they are technically bound to the decision 18.
Conclusion
While at face value the cluster of islands off the coast of several nations may seem trivial,
control over these waterways chains has become one of the most contested issues in international
diplomacy. In seeking to prevent further conflict and violence within the region, the Security
Council is tasked to address the political ambiguity that seems to plague negotiations, and come
to a resolution on the matter. While not all member states are directly affected by the South
China Sea disputes, the political, economic, and militaristic ramifications of any treaty or
agreement would be profound in the Global Community.
Questions to Consider
● How can issues of overlapping sovereignty be addressed by the council?
● How will the council address the militarization of the region, especially in regard to
preventing future conflict?
● How will resources be allocated within the region?
● What role will other parties, such as the United States, and ASEAN have?
● How will the council address China’s increased aggression within the region?
17
18
ibid
ibid
Recourses




UN Security Council: http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/
UNCLOS Key Features:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
Examination of China’s Historic Claim: http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/chinas-historicrights-in-the-south-china-sea-made-in-america/
P5 regarding international Law: http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/international-law-isunder-siege-in-the-south-china-sea/
Topic II: The Ongoing Security Situation in Burundi
In April 2015 Burundi’s incumbent President Pierre Nkurunziza announced that he would
seek a controversial third term in office. This announcement was met with widespread public
protest, as his right to seek a third term was not believed to be allowed under the constitution.
Police fought protestors with excessive force and shot them indiscriminately, resulting in at least
two dozen deaths, and many others arrested or wounded in the skirmish19. Alongside the police
were national intelligence services (SNR) who detained, tortured, and mistreated several
protestors 20. Within a month of the announcement, a military coup d’état attempted to oust
Nkurunziza and failed. Seeking retribution, the government reaffirmed their control by
instigating harsh crackdowns of those suspected in the plot or opposition to the president21.
There have been numerous cases of unlawful killings of the President’s opponents22.
Burundi’s Constitutional Court approved of extending the president’s term, under supposedly
adverse conditions and intimidation. Elections were held in June and Nkurunziza was deemed
victorious, as the opposition boycotted elections and the voting was not free or credible23. With
Nkurunziza’s return to power the violence escalated and became more widespread. Government
forces, armed opposition groups, and unknown assailants killed hundreds of people. The
authorities arrested hundreds of suspected opponents, often arbitrarily. Further crackdowns and
harsh measures were taken especially against civil society activists and journalists24, as well as
the suppression of basic freedoms. It was reported that:
“Freedoms of expression, association, and assembly were severely restricted throughout the
year as the government moved to silence dissent. The authorities cracked down on private
media outlets; suspended 10 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including several
working on human rights issues; and closed the national university in Bujumbura. Reports of
torture, forced confessions, and extrajudicial executions by security forces increased.”25
Neither citizens nor prominent figures in Burundi are safe from the violence. It is not just the
state’s security forces inflicting the violence, but also members of the opposition/rebels. These
rebels fight by way of assassination attempts, tossing grenades at government property, and
“Country Report: Burundi.” Freedom House. Freedom House, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/burundi>.
20
“Annual Report: Burundi 2015/2016.” Amnesty International. Amnesty International, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/burundi/report-burundi/>.
21
“Country report: Burundi.”
22
“Annual Report: Burundi 2015/2016.”
23
“Country report: Burundi.”
24
“Burundi.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.hrw.org/africa/burundi>.
25
“Country report: Burundi.”
19
random shootings26. The situation in Burundi has also extended into further violence and ethnic
tensions 27 By the end of 2016 at least 400 people were killed28 and over 300,000 people fled the
country; producing a refugee crisis in neighboring states29.
Brief History
Two major ethnic factions exist in Burundi, the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Hutu are 85% of the
population whereas the Tutsi are 14%. Since the country’s independence in 1962 there have been
two incidents of genocide. The first was in 1972 with the mass killings of Hutus by the Tutsicontrolled army. And the second was in 1993 with the mass killings of the Tutsis by the majority
Hutu populace30.
The Hutu majority and Tutsi minority have been at odds with one another for decades, that
has resulted in many large-scale ethnic massacres in both Burundi and Rwanda (both exhibiting
Hutu majorities and Tutsi minorities). Violence to this degree was incited by those in power,
wishing to elevate tribal tensions and divisions, to keep themselves in power. The infamous
Rwanda genocide of 1994, in which approximately half a million Tutsis were murdered, was
planned by the Hutu army officers and politicians so as not to share power with the Tutsi rebels
after the peace accords to end the civil war31.
Burundi’s violent past illustrates how integral international intervention can be in such
situations. Their first democratically elected president in 1993 was assassinated after only 100
days in office, which then prompted widespread ethnic violence between the Hutu and Tutsi
factions. Over 200,000 Burundians were killed in the conflict that lasted more than a decade.
Hundreds of thousands were displaced or became refugees. In 2003 an internationally facilitated
power-sharing agreement between the Tutsi-controlled government and the Hutu rebels helped
usher the country into a transition process. By 2005 the country established a new constitution
and elected a majority Hutu government. Pierre Nkurunziza was the new President of Burundi.
He was reelected in 2010, and once again in 2015 (despite public sentiment that running for a
third term violates the peace accords)32.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “With Burundi’s President Sticking to Power, Violence Is on the Rise.” The New York Times.
The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/world/africa/withburundis-president-sticking-to-power-violence-is-on-the-rise.html?_r=0>.
27
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “With Burundi’s President Sticking to Power, Violence Is on the Rise.”
28
“Country report: Burundi.”
29
“Briefing on Burundi: What’s In Blue.” What’s In Blue. What’s In Blue, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<http://www.whatsinblue.org/2016/10/briefing-on-burundi-1.php>.
30
“The World Factbook: BURUNDI.” Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, 12 Jan. 2017.
Web. 17 Jan. 2017< https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/by.html>.
31
“Burundian Time-bomb.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 23 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21697222-killing-rebels-burundi-has-ominous-echoes-rwanda-1994burundian-time-bomb>.
32
“The World Factbook: BURUNDI.”
26
UN and International Community’s Actions
The international community is hard at work, trying to prevent a potentially volatile war in
Africa. The African Union is working on increasing the number of human rights observers (32
observers) and military experts (15 experts) in the area to 100. An inclusive inter-Burundian
dialogue is being led by the East African Community with the support of the African Union. All
of these solutions are to be considered with respect to the Burundian constitution and the Ashura
Agreement33.
The Human Rights Council (HRC) has mandated a UN Independent Investigation on Burundi
(UNIIB) to investigate the human rights violations and abuses from 15 April 2015 and 30 June
2016. UNIIB has shown systematic human rights violations in Burundi are occurring with
impunity and primarily committed by the government. Further work by the HRC has inquired
into the human rights violations in the context of international crime34. In October 2016
Burundi’s Parliament voted to withdraw from the International Criminal Court. Regardless of
their attempt to circumvent international justice proceedings; withdrawing now does not spare
the country from the current preliminary investigation35. In December 2016, a new rebel group
announced its establishment. The cause of concern for the international community is that
Burundi’s peace may dissolve in favor of another civil war36.
Small steps were made in early 2016 when Burundi withdrew some media and civil society
bans, cancelled some arrest warrants and released several detainees. Furthermore, on January 24,
2016 a letter from the President of Burundi to the United Nations stated that the government
intended to cooperate with the UN in finding a peaceful resolution to the situation. This letter
also expressed the President’s support in forming an inclusive dialogue process and making
efforts in the areas of disarmament, security, and human rights37.
Resolution 2303 passed by the UNSC in July 2016, stated their intent to increase the number
of political officers in Burundi in order to engage with all stakeholders in this dispute, provided
substantive support for the inter-Burundian dialogue, and to work with all Burundian parties to
develop confidence-building measures to improve human rights and security as well as create an
environment conducive to political dialogue. The resolution also covers regional dimensions, for
neighboring countries to contribute to the solution and not to intervene. Contingency planning is
“United Nations Official Document.” United Nations. United Nations, 29 July 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2303(2016)>.
34
“Briefing on Burundi: What’s In Blue.”
35
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “Raising Fears of a Flight from International Criminal Court, Burundi heads for Exit.” The
New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/africa/burundi-moves-to-quit-international-criminal-court-raisingfears-of-an-exodus.html>.
36
“Country report: Burundi.”
37
“United Nations Official Document.”
33
mentioned in the context that the international community is to respond to any further
deterioration of the situation. In addition, a police component is introduced in this resolution. For
one year no more than 228 UN police officers are to monitor the security situation in Burundi
and support the OHCHR in its monitoring of human rights violations. This is to be done in
consultation and with the cooperation of the Government in Burundi. And these police officers
should be allowed to have free movement for themselves and their supplies in their mission to
monitor Burundi. The size, composition, and mandate of this police component in Burundi is
subject to change at the will of the UN should the security situation worsen38.
Questions to Consider
1. How has the international community approached similar issues of political instability in
the past? In what areas were they successful, and how have they been lacking?
2. What are the most prevalent concerns of the UNSC, and what actions have they already
taken on this matter?
3. Are there any IGO’s or NGO’s involved in this situation, and if so to what extent?
4. How effective has Resolution 2302 (2016) been at addressing the issue, and what further
action needs to be taken?
5. How will the committee address the concerns of refugees and political prisoners in
Burundi amidst the security situation?
Recourses
UNSC November 2016 Monthly Forecast: Burundi 
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2016-11/burundi_7.php
UNHR Operational Portal: Refugee Situations  https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/burundi
Adopting Resolution 2303 92016), Security Council Requests Secretary-General Establish Police
Component in Burundi to Monitor security Situation 
http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12469.doc.htm
Resolution 2303  http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2303(2016)
38
“United Nations Official Document.”
Works Cited
“Annual Report: Burundi 2015/2016.” Amnesty International. Amnesty International, 2017.
Web. 17 Jan. 2017. <https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/burundi/reportburundi/>.
Briefing on Burundi: What’s In Blue.” What’s In Blue. What’s In Blue, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 17
Jan. 2017. <http://www.whatsinblue.org/2016/10/briefing-on-burundi-1.php>.
Burundi.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.hrw.org/africa/burundi>.
Burundian Time-bomb.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 23 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Jan.
2017. <http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21697222-killing-rebels-burundi-hasominous-echoes-rwanda-1994-burundian-time-bomb>.
“Country Report: Burundi.” Freedom House. Freedom House, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/burundi>.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “Raising Fears of a Flight from International Criminal Court, Burundi heads
for Exit.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/africa/burundi-moves-to-quit-internationalcriminal-court-raising-fears-of-an-exodus.html>.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “With Burundi’s President Sticking to Power, Violence Is on the Rise.” The
New York Times. The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/world/africa/with-burundis-president-sticking-topower-violence-is-on-the-rise.html?_r=0>.
“The World Factbook: BURUNDI.” Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency,
12 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017< https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/by.html>.
“United Nations Official Document.” United Nations. United Nations, 29 July 2016. Web. 17
Jan. 2017. <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2303(2016)>.