1|Page
Committee Directors
Naadir Mustafa
Hello delegates,
My name is Naadir Ahmad Mustafa and I will be one of your chairs for the First Committee. My
style of chairing is a little different from what you may have experienced in the past. I believe in
a more hands on style of chairing and like pushing my committee, hard. My goal is to not only
ensure that your knowledge of procedure and subject area is augmented but also that you
leave with a greater proficiency in ex tempore debating. Being in my committee will not be
easy, but the hottest fires forge the hardest steel. If you relish a challenge and willing to work
steadfastly I can promise you DISEC will be the best committee at MUNIK!
1|Page
Committee Directors
Umer Irfan
Hello Delegates,
My name is Umer Irfan and I shall be one of your chairs for Disarmament and International
Security at MUNIK VIII. I have been associated with MUNIK since its inception and this is the
reason why this conference holds and extremely important position in shaping my personality
and making me who I am today. My goal for this committee is to make sure that when you walk
out of IBA on 15th January, you genuinely feel that you have learned something, and have
improved for the better. See you in less than a month.
2|Page
Assistant Committee Directors
Noor Fatima
Welcome to the first committee of the United Nations General
Assembly: DISEC, and the largest and most prestigious
committee at MUNIK VIII. It is my honor to be the assistant
committee director of one of the most challenging committees
of MUNIK this year. I hope your experience at MUNIK is an
unforgettable one. If you have any queries, feel free to email
me on: [email protected] See you all in
January!
Danyal Matani
My name is Danyal Matani and I shall be one of the ACDs for
DISEC this year. I am currently a freshman of BS in Economics
and Mathematics in Institute of Business Administration,
Karachi. I started off 4 years ago from ZABMUN-2012 where I
learned how to be a delegate. And you know what? I’m still
learning. So the only bit of advice I can give you is this: before
you step into an MUN, or any debate for that matter, you need
to make sure you’re equipped with facts, arguments and
references; but what stands equivalent to the three is the
ability to voice your thoughts. You have an opinion? Let it be
heard! Passion and the drive for excellence is what you need to
be legendary. Looking forward to meeting you at the
conference!
3|Page
Sakina Azeem
Asalaam alaikum! This is Sakina Azeem Qureashi. I have been
affiliated with the MUN circuit since the past two years and the
experience has been nothing short of amazing. This is exactly
why I'm here, to guide you through these 4 days so that you
may leave with a better speaking aura, tons of memories and a
vast increase in your knowledge bank. Warmest regards!
Rohit Thakur
I am currently sophomore in IBA Karachi. I started Munning
after getting admission into IBA and since that MUNS have
always been remarkable experience of my life. My first MUN as
a beginner was Szabist model united nations which taught me
a lot about team spirit and diplomacy. After that I got selected
to represent IBA at Paris international model united which
proved to be most memorable experience of my life. It’s my
first MUNIK as being part of secretariat and I assure that
MUNIK will add a lot into your personality. Can’t wait for
January to see you all.
4|Page
Natalia Khan
Welcome to the Disarmament and International Security
Committee. My name is Natalia khan and I’m honored to be
serving as the Assistant Committee Director. I’m currently a
student at the Institute of Business Administration. In the past
4 years I’ve had the opportunity to participate in various
MUN’s and have won quite a few awards.
MUNIK is Southeast Asia’s largest conference which is growing
with each passing year. DISEC at MUNIK VIII is going to test
your diplomacy skills and will make you experience challenging
tasks. In order for the debate to be of quality, I urge all of you
to research as much as you can. If you have any queries, don’t
hesitate to ask. Looking forward to meeting you all.
Hussain Hatmi
Hello everyone and welcome to MUNIK VIII! My name is Hussain
Hatimi and I’ll have the privilege to serve as the Assistant
Committee Director for DISEC. Currently studying at IBA, I have
been doing MUNs since high school and this is my fifth year of
being involved with such conferences. So MUNs have been a
huge part of my life, right from when I started as a delegate
during my final year of “O” Levels all the way up to being a
member of the committee dais in the coming edition of MUNIK.
I look forward to seeing you all in January!
5|Page
Introduction to the Committee:
The First Committee in the General Assembly (GA), or the Disarmament and International
Security Committee, is one of six major committees in the GA. It meets each year for UN
sessions, and its last meeting was at the 71st Session in September 2016. The committee
addresses a wide array of subjects including but not limited to, disarmament and related
international security questions, peacekeeping, mine action, outer space, and chemical and
biological weapons. Recently, DISEC has been heavily involved in issues concerning deweaponization, as well as the structure and approach of UN Peacekeeping operations, among
other things. Attended by representatives from all 192 member states as well as from observer
delegations, such as the Palestinian Authority, DISEC is a particularly important discussion
forum, though notably observer states cannot vote on substantive matters.
Additionally, DISEC is remarkable in its wide breadth and scope of purview. While resolutions
are not legally compulsory or enforceable, the resolutions passed by DISEC form the body of a
rich legislative and legal framework that forms the spinal core of international relations. Thus,
DISEC resolutions constitute the UN’s recommendations for member states, be they in regards
to international conflicts or disarmament. Furthermore, DISEC, in issues of urgent security
emergencies, also has the power to refer issues directly to the Security Council.
Courage and audacity is a required trait in DISEC delegates to be able to effectively question
and refine all the aspects of the complex mechanisms of international security and
peacemaking processes.
6|Page
TOPIC A: Is NATO expansion exacerbating the potential for armed
conflict?
Introduction to the topic
After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew by including Greece and
Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955, and then later Spain in 1982. After the Cold War
ended, and Germany reunited in 1990, there was a debate in NATO about continued expansion
eastward. And this just did not end here; new member states kept on adding in the NATO. It is
further pondered by journalists and researchers the fact that this rapid extension of the NATO
is actually worsening the situation for the inherent of armed conflicts, or maybe NATO’s
expansion is just being over-rated by the critiques. The recent armed conflicts, including the
deadly Syrian Civil War (2011), or the War in Donbass, Ukraine (2014). Turkey, a NATO member
whose relations with Syria had been friendly over the previous decade, condemned its
President Bashar Assad over the violent crackdown on protests in 2011 and requested his
departure from office. As NATO is expanding further, its members are sidelining their old allies,
and only focusing their support on current NATO members. So is it actually true that further
NATO expansion can aggravate the potential for armed conflicts?
What is NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military union initially formed in 1949 with
12 member states, including America, Britain and France. Today, NATO has 28 individuals
including the majority of Europe, representing a populace of more than 900 million. Its home
office is in Brussels, Belgium. Its focal reason for existing is set out in Article V of the North
Atlantic Treaty, which says that an "armed attack against one" NATO member "might be viewed
as an assault against them all". 1
The impact of this assertion is to tie America to protect Europe. Any assailant who assaults any
NATO partner realizes that it will likewise need to go to war with the United States. The aim is
to keep Europe safe by deterring attack. America's changeless participation of the NATO
guarantees the continent's security. This pledge is made still more imposing by the way that
America has the second greatest munitions stockpile of atomic weapons on the planet.
Political - NATO advances law based values and energizes discussion and collaboration on
barrier and security issues to construct trust and, over the long haul, anticipate strife.
Military - NATO is focused on the quiet determination of question. On the off chance that
political endeavors fall flat, it has the military limit expected to attempt emergency
1
“What is Nato, what is Article 5 and how does it keep Europe safe?”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/whatis-nato-and-how-does-it-keep-europe-safe/
7|Page
administration operations. These are done under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO's
establishing settlement - or under an UN NATO gives a one-of-a-kind chance to part nations to
counsel and take choices on security issues at all levels and in an assortment of fields. A "NATO
decision" is the declaration of the collective will of each of the 28 pact nations since all choices
are taken by accord.2
Each member country pays a certain amount into NATO budget based on an agreed formula.
NATO requires member states to spend two per cent of their nation's wealth on defense.
All members pitch that participate in the military aspect of the alliance, pitch in with forces and
equipment. They remain under the command of the member country unless they are required
by NATO to deal with a crisis or conflict.
Russia’s reaction to NATO
The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival
alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. A mutual defense organization that put the Soviets in
command of the armed forces of the member states. The Pact included Soviet Union, Albania,
Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria as members. The Pact
functioned similar to NATO’s article V, calling on the member states to come to the defense of
any member attacked by an outside force and it set up a unified military command under
Marshal Ivan S. Konev of the Soviet Union.3
The Warsaw Pact lasted until 1991. Albania was expelled in 1962 because, believing that the
current Russian leader was deviating too much from strict Marxist orthodoxy, the country then
turned to communist China for aid and trade. In 1990, East Germany left the Pact and was
reunited with West Germany; the reunified Germany then became a member of NATO. The rise
of non-communist governments in other eastern bloc nations, such as Poland and
Czechoslovakia, marked the end of the power of the Warsaw Pact. In March 1991, the military
alliance component of the pact was dissolved and in July 1991, the last meeting of the political
consultative body took place.4
Following are the 28 members of the NATO:



Belgium (1949)
Canada (1949)
Denmark (1949)



France (1949)
Iceland (1949)
Italy (1949)
2
http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html
Cold War, “The Warsaw Pact is formed”, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-warsaw-pact-is-formed
4
Ibid
3
8|Page











Luxemburg (1949)
Netherlands (1949)
Norway (1949)
Portugal (1949)
The United Kingdom (1949)
The United States (1949)
Greece (1952)
Turkey (1952)
Germany (1955)
Spain (1982)
Czech Republic (1999)











Hungary (1999)
Poland (1999)
Bulgaria (2004)
Estonia (2004)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Albania (2009)
Croatia (2009)
Mission Objectives Pre and Post-Soviet Union Dissolution
Was the formation of NATO a defensive move or an aggressive one? The question has not been
yet answered. The formation of NATO with its 15 core members made way for the formation of
the Warsaw pact which comprised of 8 members. Also, after the WorldWarII, the USSR lay in
ruins with almost 70,000 towns, villages and cities completely burned down by the war.
Thousands of factories, farms, hospitals and other such public properties had to be
reconstructed. The Red Army was demobilized to approximately twenty-five percent of its
original size.5
If the reason behind the formation of NATO was the “aggressive” USSR, then it should have
been dissolved after the collapse of the USSR in December 1991, instead, the members of the
NATO chose to continue with the organization. NATO then began to expand eastwards siding
with the neo-fascists in Croatia, Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia and Kosovo and neo-Nazis’ in
Ukraine. The NATO military aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 was a clear signal that anyone
who stood against the United States would be destroyed.6 The alliance is still expanding; many
claims have surfaced stating that US promised that NATO would not move an inch towards the
East. President Dmitry says that Russia remained silent when the Berlin wall came down. Yet
Russia didn’t get what it was promised.
Although US Secretary of State James Baker has continuously denied regarding any such
agreement, but Jack Matlock, the US ambassador to Russia at the time, said that Moscow was
given a clear commitment. After interviewing many of those who were involved and going
5
“Why Didn't Washington Dissolve NATO After Collapse of USSR?”,
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201601061032757937-washington-nato-ussr-collapse/
6
Ibid
1|Page
through several articles, SPIEGEL has concluded that the Soviets were in fact given such an
impression as to indicate that NATO would not expand eastward.
What is Conventional Warfare?
Conventional Warfare is not just about capacities utilized – which includes, modernly produced
and innovatively propelled hardware, deployed by recognizably military forces. Instead, it is
general public's method for battling that envelops the doctrinal considering, the authoritative
structures, the tenets of engagement, and even the appropriate goals of violence. What makes
it "conventional" is only that it sticks to the predominant traditions of the time.
Obviously, this progression is through time as the social orders and traditions required in
producing "conventional" ways to deal with war evolve. Such an advancement in customary
war may incorporate changes in admissible lead – For instance – why were chemical weapons
seen as traditional with regards to WW1, although nowadays they are not given much
importance?7
It might just be that ‘conventional’ warfighting is simply a good way of making a polemical point
in favor of one’s own view of appropriate strategy. Conventional warfare is stale, attritional and
inappropriate to the challenges of the modern era. Or conventional warfare is neglected at our
peril, given skill fade in critical branches, like artillery and armor.
Developments and Transformation
It was not that keen weapons were awful; rather, they were not savvy enough. The innovative
work unrest conceived in World War II had not been misled; it had held back.
Furthermore, believed the Army, the weapons that might have won the Vietnam War would be
just the weapons that could win the most dangerous conventional war facing the U.S., a
confrontation with the Soviet army on the plains of Europe. There, the overwhelming
superiority of Soviet numbers would challenge the qualitative superiority of American
technology. In main battles tanks, heavy artillery and mortars, and armored vehicles, the
Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO more than two to one in the mid-1980s.8
It creates the impression that the expression "revolution in military affairs" has more political
and rhetorical force than illustrative power. On the off chance that informational warfare, or
some other mix of innovative weaponry, has in truth constrained a disjuncture between past
war and contemporary war, it is hard to see precisely when that break occurred or what
recognizes war in 1997 from fighting in, say, 1987.
7
8
SWJ Editors, “What is Conventional Warfare”, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/what-is-conventional-warfare
Laurence Martin, The Changing Face of Nuclear War (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 61.
2|Page
In the twentieth century, it becomes hard to envision the conditions in which superpowers will
use such arsenals in conventional wars with different states likewise equipped. To put it simply,
the spread of technological advanced weapons expands the lethality of war while additionally
bringing down the rate of conventional war among advanced states.
On the off chance that this conventional weaponry has not delivered a "revolution in military
affairs," it has in any case changed both traditional war and civil society. Traditional weapons of
colossal power and dependability can now be conveyed with extraordinary exactness to an
adversary's weakest points. Regardless of the possibility that these weapons have not achieved
the point where they can crush People's warriors, they can in any case correct a significantly
higher toll than the United States inflicted in Vietnam. Against a foe that battles customarily, as
Saddam Hussein did in the Gulf War, the outcomes can be overwhelming.9
First strike capabilities
What should be kept in mind are the new weapon systems being deployed by the relevant
nations as a show of power, strength and an indication for the enemy to think twice before
waging a war. It is the preemptive attack on a country, which possesses nuclear weapons, using
nuclear weapons in a manner that the attacked country is no longer able to retaliate. 10
Russia has recently been successful in adding the Nudol to its arsenal. The Nudol has been
successful in destroying satellites in space and hence poses a threat to the space based
navigation, communications and intelligence gathering tools that are the sinews of U.S military.
(Majumdar, 2016)
Although America has also been successful in developing such weapons and using it to destroy
satellites in decaying orbits, it actively discourages other nations from such activity as the debris
from the shot down satellites can be prove to be harmful for future space missions due to the
high velocities involved.
However, Russia’s not the only one getting their hands dirty. America has also been amongst
the lead players when it comes to weapons and defence. A little more than 60 miles from
Brussels Airport, Kleine Brogel Air Base stands as one of six overseas repositories in the world
where the United States still stores nuclear weapons. The existence of the bombs is officially
neither confirmed nor denied, but it has been well-known for decades.
Yet the presence of these weapons — an estimated 20 American B61 nuclear bombs to be
carried and delivered by the Belgian Air Force's dwindling inventory of F-16 fighter jets — did
9
Alex Roland, “War and Technology”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_4/roland2.html
The Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First-strike+capability
10
3|Page
not come up in the news coverage following the Islamic State (IS) bombings last week in
Brussels, or in the run-up to President Barack Obama's fourth and last Nuclear Security Summit,
being held this week.
The newest ventures of the US are the Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic
nuclear weapons, which are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to
friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.
The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America’s first guided nuclear bomb. It can penetrate
fortified structures several meters underground. Unlike banned weapons of mass destruction,
the B61-12 is designed to be carried by high-speed stealth fighter jets to hit targets precisely
with limited damage to structures and lives nearby. (Chan, 2016)
The US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration announced that the
B61-12 has completed a four-year development and testing phase and was now in production
engineering. Full-scale production was expected to get under way in 2020. Despite the appeals
to reduce spending on nuclear weapons, US President Barack Obama announced that 180 of
the weapons would be deployed in five European countries.
The Kremlin has been cautious about the announcement that the US intends to modernize the
B61 nuclear bomb. “The experts need to give their opinion about this,” said Dmitry Peskov,
President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary.
Meanwhile Senator Viktor Ozerov told RIA that Russia’s nuclear scientists would be assessing
the US plans and would take steps to tackle the proposed threat if it is deemed necessary. "No
doubt, our nuclear weapons specialists will carefully study the level of threat and will take
measures to minimize it, if needed," Ozerov said. (RT, New deterrence: US plans to upgrade its
nuclear bomb, 2016)
New Threats Post-9/11
ISIS and its development
In the midst of the practically nine years (2003 — 2011) the United States armed force was positioned in
Iraq, the Americans neglected to set up viable Iraqi armed force and security strengths to fill
the recently made security vacuum. In Iraq, the Americans supported the foundation of what
should be a vote based national Shi'ite administration headed by Nouri al-Maliki. In any case,
the administration distanced the Sunni populace, which had generally controlled the nation,
despite the fact that they were a minority (around 22% of the Iraqi populace is Sunni Arabs —
nearby the Kurds, who are additionally Sunnis — while around 60% of Iraqis are Shi'ites).
4|Page
The branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, built up in 2004, entered the security vacuum and exploited the
expanding political-societal Sunni estrangement: It turned into an essential performer in the
radical associations battling the American armed force, got to be distinctly more grounded after
the withdrawal of the American troops toward the end of 2001, and spread to Syria after the
common war started in March 2011. The foundation of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq and Syria
happened in four phases:
1. Stage one (2004-2006) — the foundation of the branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq drove by Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi and called "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia:" It pursued a fear monger
guerilla war against the American and coalition powers and against the Shi'ite populace.
The main stage finished when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was executed in an American
focused on assault in June 2006.
2. Stage two (2006-2011) — Establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI): ISI served as an
umbrella system for a few jihadi associations that kept pursuing a psychological
oppressor guerilla crusade against the United States, its coalition partners and the
Shi'ite populace. ISI was debilitated towards the end of the American nearness in Iraq
taking after fruitful American military moves and a shrewd remote approach that
bolstered the Sunni populace and knew how to win their hearts and brains.
3. Stage three (2012-June 2014) — the reinforcing of ISI and the establishing of ISIS: After
the American armed force pulled back from Iraq ISI got to be distinctly more grounded.
Taking after the episode of the Syrian common war ISI set up a branch in Syria called the
Al-Nusra Front ("bolster front"). Discord broke out amongst ISI and its Syrian branch,
prompting to a break amongst ISI and Al-Qaeda and the foundation of the Islamic State
in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).
4. Stage four (as of June 2014) — Dramatic ISIS military accomplishments: The most
unmistakable was the takeover of Mosul, the second biggest city in Iraq. In the
meantime, ISIS set up its control in eastern Syria where it set up an administrative focus
(its "capital city") in Al-Raqqah. In the wake of its prosperity, ISIS announced the
foundation of an "Islamic State" (IS) (or "Islamic Caliphate") headed by an ISIS pioneer
named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In September 2014 the United States pronounced a far
reaching effort against ISIS, which is at present pursuing a wild battle against its
numerous foes both at home and abroad. (ITIC, 2014)
5|Page
Case Studies:
NATO’s Involvement in Syria
Turkey, a NATO part since the mid 1950′s, has all the funds of being liable of the very
wrongdoing Afghanistan was professedly attacked and right uptil the present time still involved
for, harboring Al Qaeda fear based oppressors. A multitude of Al Qaeda is (and has been for
almost 3 years) utilizing southern Turkey as a place of refuge and arranging ground for the
intrusion of Syria – guilefully depicted by the Western media as a "common war."
To top it all off, these psychological oppressors, actually conveying Al Qaeda's flag into fight, are
passing CIA stations, US, British, and French unique operations preparing camps, and through
Western-financed outcast camps, on their approach to confer a wide cluster of monstrosities
along and inside Syria's borders.
This challenges all clarifications aside from one - the "War on Terror" is a fake, and the very fear
mongers a huge number of Western troops have kicked the bucket pursuing over the planet,
have been outfitted, financed, prepared, propped up, and reconstituted by the West itself as an
unending reason to take part in worldwide animosity, occupation, and wars of enormous
benefit in both terms of riches and geopolitical influence. (Cartalucci, 2013)
The Daily Telegraph, in its article, "Al-Qaeda initiates entering Syria from Turkey safe houses,"
has as of late reported:




Hundreds of al-Qaeda volunteers are being guarded in houses in southern Turkey,
before being carried over the outskirt to wage "jihad" in Syria, The Daily Telegraph
has learned.
The system of forts is empowering an unfaltering stream of outside warriors –
including Britons – to join the nation's thoughtful war, as indicated by a portion of
the volunteers included.
These remote jihadists have now to a great extent overshadowed the "direct" wing
of the revolt Free Syrian Army, which is upheld by the West. Al-Qaeda's capacity to
utilize Turkish domain will bring up issues about the part the NATO part is playing in
Syria's respectful war.
Turkey has sponsored the revolutionaries from the earliest starting point – and its
administration has been accepted to share the West's worries about al-Qaeda. Be
that as it may, specialists say there are developing feelings of trepidation about
whether the Turkish powers may have lost control of the development of new alQaeda initiates – or may even be turning a visually impaired eye. (Sherlock, 2013)
6|Page
NATO has shrewdly stayed away from any inclusion in Syria. Turkey's teases with a conceivable
NATO part in Syria (amid the jet crisis) has been evaded by calling for political conferences in
light of the Alliance's Article 4, instead of confining the occasion an Article 5 (collective defense)
circumstance. A NATO-driven military intercession in Syria would be unwelcome for no less
than five reasons.
In the first place, the length of Assad is in power, a United Nations Security Council command
won't be conceded by either Russia or China. Both these nations have taken in their lesson from
Libya, where an order for introducing a no fly zone brought about NATO-driven administrative
change. Secondly, the absence of a legitimate claim to intervene is not just a procedural but
also a military inconvenience. Both Russia and China have geostrategic and monetary
motivations to keep NATO and the West out of Syria. Both the Russian and Chinese naval force
have redesigned their nearness in the eastern Mediterranean. Authoritatively, this has been a
piece of a huge scale sea war game, additionally including Syria and Iran.
The message is however unmistakably clear: don't upset Syria! Third, the present Syrian
imbroglio is significantly untidier and questionable than Libya in 2011. As US Ambassador
Daalder appropriately contended: " Unlike Libya, you don't have pockets of the country that
can be protected by civilian protection zones. You've got security forces intermingled with the
population, and that introduction of greater military intervention from outside or arms to
groups within Syria could further militarize the conflict in a counterproductive way." Fourth,
NATO's contribution in the discomfiture of the Assad administration will give it more duty
regarding the future treatment of the nation than it can manage.
The issue with this appraisal is that the US and NATO have next to zero impact on Syria's future.
As previous universal high illustrative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lord Ashdown
recommended: " The worry for me is not just the tragedy and the bloodshed and the horror
that' s going on in the cities of Syria but also the possibility of a widening Sunni-Shia conflict
which could engulf the whole of the Middle East and would have global consequences." This is
not a contention NATO ought to get itself into. Fifth, NATO association in Syria would secure
the Alliance for quite a long time to come, sapping its political and military vitality. A NATO
nearness in Syria would drag the Alliance into the Sunni-Shia strife anticipated by Lord Ashdown
(Syria is 75% Sunni; Iran is 90% Shia). This would, be that as it may, make it impossible for NATO
to face its primary key test: an atomic Iran. (Ham, 2012)
Russian intervention in Ukraine
The ongoing crises between the two states, Russia and Ukraine, has raised important legal
questions on the international forum. Governments have found themselves in a chaotic
situation in which they have not been able to respond appropriately. The situation can be
7|Page
looked upon from two aspects. Firstly, the violation of international law and whether has Russia
breached territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. Secondly, the legality of
the referendum in Crimea and its outcome.
Article 2(4) of the UN charter states:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”11
It prohibits states from engaging in any threats or uses of force against other states. Although
this clause has engendered untold hours of debate about its meaning, the transfer of one
state’s armed forces into another state in significant numbers without consent almost certainly
falls within Article 2(4)’s prohibition. The use of force is however permitted in a situation
where the UN Security Council has authorized such action to maintain or restore international
peace and security or where a state exercises its inherent right of self-defense as recognized in
Article 51. (Int Policy Digest, 2014)
Apart from Iraq, no member state of the United Nations had the audacity to commit such an act
until now. Iraq’s actions were met by a robust response from the international community. As
states joined Kuwait as a part of collective self-defense pact under the resolution of the Security
Council. The annexation failed and Iraq was expelled. However, this time the scenario is
different as Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. The Russian Federation
since February 2014 has repeatedly reminded the world about its massive arsenal of nuclear
weapons and its capacity and means to deliver them. So, the military response to aggression
has been muted. Hence the Security Council has not been effective. (Lawfare, 2015)
Moreover, it has been argued that Russia is also violating the Helsinki Declaration 1975- the
Final Act of the Conference on Security & Cooperation in Europe. The following articles from
the act are indorsed on the signatories and are in contention with Russia’s recent forays:
I.
II.
III.
Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty
Refraining from the threat or use of force
Territorial integrity of States
These are commitments that were echoed in the 1994 Memorandum on Security Assurances
about Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the NPT (the Budapest Memorandum) and the 1997
Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian
11
Chapter I – United Nations Charter, http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/
8|Page
Federation. Furthermore, Russia is accused by Ukraine for violating the Black Sea Fleet
Agreements and the 1999 agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers on the Use of Airspace
of Ukraine and of Airspace over the Black Sea. These agreements limit Russian troops in Crimea
and requires approval from Ukrainian authorities before making any troop movements.
Russia has acted on humanitarian impulses and therefore its most prominent justification for
sending troops into Crimea is to protect Russian citizens and minorities. International law
generally recognizes a “defense of nationals” concept, under which one state may enter
another state without consent to protect its nationals against an imminent threat, at least
where the territorial state is unwilling or unable to protect those nationals itself. Ukraine-Russia
Friendship Treaty’s article 12 requires the protection of Russian origin ethnic minorities. This
provides Moscow with some legal cover for its action. United States utilized this principle of
protection of citizens to intervene in Panama and Grenada. NATO relied upon the principle of
protecting minorities before it intervened in Kosovo. NATO’s argument against Russian use of
this precedent is that the situation in Kosovo was different and that the many human lives that
were lost before NATO intervention.
Putin discredited this side of the argument because intervention should not take place after
massacre of innocent lives. To what extent the threat to Russians existed however is a matter
of speculation and not law. This is like the question of the Russian violation of the Black Sea
Fleet agreements which Russia claims to have not broken and have respected the troop level
cap. Similarly, Russia has accused the West of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty by actively
encouraging the coup that ousted President Yanukovych.
As for the second aspect. Ukraine’s stance, backed by the United states, is that Russian
annexation of Crimea is not in line with the fundamental principles and norms of international
law as the referendum was unconstitutional and violated the domestic laws of Ukraine. This
claim is flawed on two grounds. Firstly, the Ukrainian president under Article 137 (2) of the
Ukrainian constitution has the power to suspend the legal acts passed by the Crimean
government considering on their inconsistency with Ukrainian laws. This can be done by asking
the Ukrainian Constitutional Court to rule on the law’s constitutionality.
The circumstances leading up to the decision bring into question the validity of a decision
where the judiciary was coerced into adopting this course of action. This is happening in an
environment wherein serious questions have been raised over the independence of the
Ukrainian judiciary. (Int Policy Digest, 2014)
An alternative justification for introducing troops onto another state’s territory is that you have
that state’s consent. Ukraine's ousted leader Viktor Yanukovich sent a letter to Russian
9|Page
President, Vladimir Putin requesting that he use Russia's military to restore law and order in
Ukraine. This is evident by the statement of Moscow’s permanent ambassador to the UN Vitaly
Churkin, “It is clear that the implementation of the right of self-determination in the form of
separation from the existing state is an extraordinary measure. In Crimea, such a case
apparently arose as a result of a legal vacuum, which emerged as a result of unconstitutional,
violent coup d’état carried out in Kiev by radical nationalists, as well as direct threats by the
latter to impose their order on the whole territory of Ukraine.”12
Ukrainian parliament didn’t remove him but they merely voted to accept Yanukovych’s
“voluntary renunciation of duties.” The fact that 328 votes were cast in a 449-member
assembly requiring 337 votes for an impeachment settles this issue beyond doubt.
Henceforward, Article 108 of the Ukrainian Constitutions that specifies that the president may
lose office in only 4 situations, resignation, medical incapacity, impeachment, or death puts the
above-mentioned argument into force. Eventually, irrespective of the West’s statements on any
other point, the fact is that Yanukovych was elected to power via elections declared fair by
Western monitors themselves.
On the other hand, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its introductory findings that
“there exists a sensible or reasonable justification for a belief that a crime falling within the
jurisdiction of the Court ‘has been or is being committed’” within the Crimean and Donbas
territories of Ukraine. On release of this report, Russia announced that it would withdraw from
the organization because it “failed to meet the expectations to become a truly independent,
authoritative international court of law.” (Forbes, 2016)
Moreover, if we consider the stances of the international community like EU, United States and
including NATO have adopted stringent policies of sanctions against Russia. For example, EU on
17 March 2014 imposed the first travel bans and asset freezes against persons involved in
actions against Ukraine's territorial integrity (EU, 2016).
United States has sent a modicum of military assistance to Ukraine and has reaffirmed its NATO
commitment to the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Lastly, NATO condemned the
Russian Federation’s military escalation in Crimea and expressed its serious concern regarding
the authorization by the Russian Parliament to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation
on the territory of Ukraine (NATO, 2014).
12
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin addresses the United Nations Security Council during a
meeting of the Council on the crisis in Ukraine, at U.N. Headquarters in New York, March 13, 2014.
10 | P a g e
Is Russia really a threat to NATO?
It’s really crucial to realize which is more powerful Russia or NATO? Both are extremely power
full in terms to military equipment’s, resources and power. Recent annexation of Crimea has
caused a real problem among both.
Different sources have concluded, that real danger in Russia-NATO war isn’t that NATO would
lose. With immense reserves air, land and sea power NATO would eventually win. NATO might
start winning sooner than anyone can expect. The danger is that if war takes place at Russian
borders and Russia fails to defend itself from NATO counter attacks so it would start using
nuclear weapons which can start up nuclear war. (Mizokami, 2016)
Sources believe that NATO needs to prevent conflict with Russia but it needs to do so out of
strength, not weakness. By this we can analyze who is actually threat to whom. A brief militarily
background of Russia and its comparison of its war against NATO can further us to conclude
who is threat to whom
Russia being the successor of USSR, lived off for decades as the inherited largesse of the former
soviet military. Since, most soviet military units were based on Russian soil, and when the
socialist regime went away in 1991, they became Russian unites with the same personnel and
the equipment.
Due to two decades of economic stagnation, the military units lived on starvation and all the
heavy, expensive equipment was wasted away. In 2014, when the economic conditions were
better, the government planned to update it armed forces. The size of armed forces was to be
reduced by 0.2 million, different divisions of professional officer would be created, and
compensation and conditions would improve in order to attract recruits of higher quality.
Russian military would also receive would also receive modern equipment. Russia launched a
militarization program to go from 10 percent modern military equipment to 70 percent modern
equipment by 2020, at a cost of $720 billion. (Mizokami, 2016)
It is seen that Russian military is not as well trained as NATO forces. Russian forces performed
badly in Chechnya, relying on firepower to grind the enemy into dust. Similarly, when it went to
war with Georgia, its troops performance wasn’t optimal. A major factor was lack of training,
preparation, and modern equipment.
In July 2016, a NATO summit was held Warsaw, Poland where the Baltic nations expressed their
growing concern regarding Russian invasion in Ukraine. And that Russia could intervene to
protect its speaker in the three Baltic states namely Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. As a result, all
these states have urged the NATO community to rework its strategy and bolster defense on the
eastern flank. (Solovjova, 2016)
11 | P a g e
However, to this staging fear the Russian president said the following a year ago. “I think that
only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack
NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to
Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some
supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid,” (RT, 2015)
He also added that the surge in Russian drills was only in response to NATO activity in the
region and questioned why the latter is not seen offensive by the international community.
This generalized comparison of both Russia and NATO can further help us to come on
conclusion that who is threat to whom.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental organization founded in
Shanghai on 15 June 2001. It is a Eurasian political, financial, and military association with the
following members:






People’s Republic of China,
Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyz Republic,
Russia,
Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan.
The main objectives of the SCO are to:
(i) strengthen relations among member states;
(ii) promote cooperation in political affairs, economics and trade, scientific-technical,
cultural, and educational spheres as well as in energy, transportation, tourism, and
environmental protection;
(iii) safeguard regional peace, security, and stability; and
(iv) create a democratic, equitable international political and economic order.
In June 2004 SCO summit, held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, formed the Regional Antiterrorism
Structure (RATS). Similarly, in April 2006, the SCO announced plans to combat cross-border
drug crimes under the counter-terrorism rubric. In October 2007, the SCO consented to an
arrangement with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to expand collaboration
on issues, for example, security, wrongdoing, and medication trafficking. Therefore, it can be
seen that the organization’s mission is centered on its member nations' Central Asian security-
12 | P a g e
related concerns to combat the “three evils” of terrorism, separatism and extremism. (Albert,
2015)
At the 15th Summit meeting, the SCO chose to admit India and Pakistan as full members. India
and Pakistan were acceded to SCO by signing memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at
Tashkent. Thus, beginning the formal procedure of joining the SCO as full members. The
acknowledgment procedure will take a few months; by which they are relied upon to wind up
distinctly full individuals by the following meeting at Astana in 2017.13 With their membership
expected to become active, the SCO is about to expand the vast territory and population under
its membership umbrella as well as the organization's geopolitical heft. (Darling, 2015)
SCO – a counter response to NATO?
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) mainly aims to strengthen bonds between its
member states and safeguard regional peace and security. This is only possible when it reduces
the chances of any wars which may arise.
The SCO leaders have on numerous occasions have denied the idea to transform the
organization into a defense alliance, similar to that of NATO’s. However, the security
component has been increasing exponentially. Three years ago, RATS was set up to exchange
information and conduct joint training of national security services. Two years down the road,
the cooperation was formally institutionalized between Defense Ministries through Defense
Ministers Council. Russia also pushed for a draft agreement for closer military ties between the
member states. In Bishkek, the SCO leaders signed a treaty of “long-term good neighborliness,
friendship and cooperation.” The pact will serve to further thwart the U.S. plan to create a
“Greater Central Asia” that would be off bounds to Russia and China. (Hindu, 2007)
Since, the inclusion of Pakistan and India, there is a temptation to see the SCO as a burgeoning
military bloc that has the potential to become a NATO antagonist one day. The combined
military capabilities and strengths of SCO have produced some startling results.
It is estimated that a combined China and Russia military force would have 3.1 million activeduty field personnel, plus millions more in reserve, financed by a cumulative defense budget
eclipsing $200 billion. Furthermore, these two nations feature some of the world's largest
ballistic missile forces. When adding India and Pakistan to the mix, the SCO would present
NATO with four nuclear-armed opponents, plus millions more manpower reserves and frontline
troops. This all, of course, fails to account for Iran, which remains in observer status – for now.
13
"India, Pakistan edge closer to joining SCO security bloc", http://tribune.com.pk/story/1129533/india-pakistanedge-closer-joining-sco-security-bloc/
13 | P a g e
On the contrary, India and Pakistan have fought three wars in the past and are still seen to be
preparing for another outbreak of conflict with each other over slimmest issue. Their
admittance into the SCO will merely add another complicated internal dimension. Neither
China nor India wants to see the SCO become a militarized puppet of Russia which exists as a
counterbalance NATO's presence and influence in Eastern Europe. This would certainly
sabotage their current healthy relations with the West. Instead, they want the core purpose for
the SCO to promote regional connectivity, energy transshipment, and stability. (Darling, 2015)
The SCO believes in non-alignment, non-confrontation, and non-interference in the affairs of
other countries. It is preferred that all conflicts and disputes are solved through peaceful
means. While, China prefers the organization to function as an economic corridor, Russia, on
the other hand, fears over US military and prefers that SCO should act as a security block which
meets security needs arising out due to NATO military powers. (Javed, 2011)
Thus, with the major key players having different goals for the organization’s operational policy,
the threat of an emerging counterweight to NATO is not readily apparent. However, it is also
argued that SCO and NATO are two different organizations in two different regions, so why in
the first place, would there be any need to counter each other’s military power. There is no SCO
alliance. China has been notably silent on others' grandiose plans and is sticking to the original
purpose of stabilizing Central Asia. Similarly, NATO is chartered only for defending Europe.
There is no overlap.
QARMA
What is sovereignty and when is an intervention into another states justified?
What legal frameworks should be amended or made anew in case of intervention?
Should there be amendments in the Article 2(4) of the UN Charter? If so, how is the UN going to
ensure its implementation?
What is the United Nations responsibility in case of violation of the UN Charter by any member?
Should NATO continue Operation Euphrates’ Shield when there are risks of starting and
exploiting Shia-Sunni rifts in the indigenous populace of the middle east?
Is Russian Hegemony over Ukraine justified? If no, what role should the UN and or the NATO
should play in countering this threat?
What role should the NATO play when faced by the Islamic State?
Is NATO a threat to world peace? If so, are organization like SCO a viable way to keep it in
check?
14 | P a g e
References
(n.d.). Retrieved from UN Charter : http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/
(2014, March 2nd). Retrieved from NATO:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_107681.htm
(2014). Retrieved from Newrepublic : https://newrepublic.com/article/116819/internationallaw-russias-ukraine-intervention
(2014). Retrieved from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26481423
(2015). Retrieved from Lawfare: https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-whatdoes-international-law-have-say
(2016). Retrieved from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/11/20/international-criminal-courtrussias-invasion-of-ukraine-is-a-crime-not-a-civil-war/#4a1bfdc97fec
(2016). Retrieved from EU: https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/specialcoverage/eu_sanctions_en
Albert, E. (2015, October 14). The Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Retrieved from Council
on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/china/shanghai-cooperation-organization/p10883
Cartalucci, T. (2013, November 01). NATO and CIA Support Al Qaeda Terrorists in Syria.
Retrieved from Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-and-cia-support-al-qaedaterrorists-in-syria/5356391
Chan, M. (2016, August 23). United States’ first ‘smart’ nuclear bomb signals new arms race
with China and Russia: analysts. Retrieved from South China Morning Post:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2005491/united-states-firstsmart-nuclear-bomb-signals-new-arms
Darling, D. (2015, August). Is the SCO Emerging as Eastern Counterweight to NATO? Retrieved
from Real Clear Defense:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/31/is_the_sco_emerging_as_eastern_coun
terweight_to_nato_108426.html
Ham, P. V. (2012, August). Why NATO should stay out of Syria. Retrieved from Clingendael:
https://www.clingendael.nl/publication/why-nato-should-stay-out-syria
15 | P a g e
Hindu, T. (2007, September). Setting up SCO as a counter to NATO. Retrieved from Divergences:
http://divergences.be/spip.php?article590
Int Policy Digest. (2014, April). Retrieved from https://intpolicydigest.org/2014/04/21/legalquestions-russia-s-intervention-ukraine/
ITIC. (2014). The Historical Roots and Stages in the Development of ISIS. Retrieved from Crethi
Plethi: http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-historical-roots-and-stages-in-the-development-ofisis/islamic-countries/syria-islamic-countries/2015/
Javed, B. (2011, November). ANALYSIS: SCO a NATO Counterbalance. Retrieved from
Geopolitical Monitor: https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/analysis-sco-a-natocounterbalance-4523/
Majumdar, D. (2016, May). Russia's Next Super Weapon To Crush America in Combat Is...
Retrieved from The National Interest: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-next-superweapon-crush-america-combat-16393
Mizokami, K. (2016, June 16). How a Russia vs. NATO war would really go down. Retrieved from
The Week: http://theweek.com/articles/629092/how-russia-vs-nato-war-really-down
RT. (2015, June). ‘Russia would attack NATO only in mad person’s dream’ – Putin. Retrieved
from Russian Times: https://www.rt.com/news/265399-putin-nato-europe-ukraine-italy/
RT. (2016, August 24). New deterrence: US plans to upgrade its nuclear bomb. Retrieved from
Russian Times: https://www.rt.com/usa/354364-bomb-nuclear-upgrade-pentagon/
Sherlock, R. (2013, October). Al-Qaeda recruits entering Syria from Turkey safehouses.
Retrieved from The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10415935/Al-Qaeda-recruitsentering-Syria-from-Turkey-safehouses.html
Solovjova, J. (2016, July 8). Is Russia really a threat to the Baltic states? Retrieved from AL
JAZEERA: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/07/russia-threat-baltic-states160707054916449.html
16 | P a g e
TOPIC B: The preemptive resolution of the potential conflict in the
Arctic?
Introduction to the topic:
The Arctic and the Antarctic regions with significant geo-economic and geopolitical aspects
have now become prone to disputes. From territorial disagreements to the severe weather
conditions, these areas have survived the threats possessed by the external sources since the
past century. After the Mid-20th century, many new tactics such as the formation of Arctic
Council and Antarctic Treaty System were also taken into consideration to resolve these issues.
There exist different approaches to dividing the region’s boundaries and economic resources.
This has proven to be a major point of contention between coastal States, resulting in massive
militarization, especially Arctic. However, recent developments have halted the peaceful
advancement of these efforts and have increased the tensions to a point where the
international community must cooperate.
Why have the Antarctic and Artic regions not been claimed as of this
conference?
Antarctic Region:
One of the main reasons behind is the protection of the Antarctic region by the Antarctic Treaty
System, that states the following:
“Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims;
no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;”
Countries that take part in the ATS participate in
Antarctica, with a scientific approach and peaceful intent.
Having said that, the original 12 countries, that signed the
treaty, have claimed territory, that is not disputed, and
can be said to be unrecognized; in the sense that countries
in other continents are given recognition. The same can be
said for further claims after the treaty is signed.
Moreover, the treaty’s mandate includes that the region
can only be used for scientific, peaceful purposes and to
avoid military activities while preserving it. This will lead to
a cooperation between countries which will accomplish
free availability of scientific research to all parties. The whole continent is under a shield of 53
states, solely for humanitarian and environmental interests.
17 | P a g e
However, before the treaty was signed, seven nations had claims over the region which are not
universally recognized. The Seven countries are Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New
Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom who maintain territorial claims in Antarctica. Many
other countries like Russia, Brazil and United States involved in the treaty have maintained a
basis of territorial interest in Antarctica, but the mandate of the treaty has frozen their claims
to do so.
Another reason is the severity of the environment, for example Marie Byrd Land is a portion of
West Antarctica lying east of the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Seas and South of the Pacific
Ocean. Because of its remoteness, even by the Antarctic standards, it has not been claimed by
any sovereign nation. It is by far the largest single unclaimed territory on Earth, with an area of
1,610,000 km². An attempt to colonize will require massive support. As the Continent, does not
have the potential in the form of resources to support large scale communities without external
support.
Arctic Region:
Control of the Arctic is an extremely valuable price as approximately 13 percent of the world’s
undiscovered oil deposits and 30 percent of its natural gas reserves are present there, per the
United States Geological Survey.14Before the implementation of the UNs “Law of the Sea”,
nations rights and authority were limited to the narrow area of sea along the its coastline. The
doctrine, freedom of the seas, applied this and made the rest of the ocean a common property.
This was when nobody had the capacity to exploit offshore resources. In later years, desire to
increase fish stocks led some countries to increase their span of control on coastal waters. Then
oil companies developed potential of drilling in deep water to mine out manganese nodules,
diamonds etc. Claiming of offshore area meant valuable seafloor resources.
In 1945, United States became the first nation to assume its authority of all natural resources
out to the edge of its continental shelf. Other nations soon followed and began making
unilateral claims to seafloor resources, fishing ground and exclusive navigable zones. To this,
United Nations worked towards setting up a framework which neutralize the diversified claims
made by nations. In 1982, a UN treaty knows as “The Law of the Sea” was presented. It
addressed navigational rights, territorial water limits, exclusive economic zones, fishing,
pollution, mining, conservation, and many other ranges of maritime active. Over 150 nations
contributed towards making it a first formal agreement on how the seas will be used. It also
proposes logical allocation of ocean resources. 15
14
T. Klare,2013: Rushing for the Arctic’s Riches (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/rushingfor-the-arctics-riches.html)
15
King; Who Owns the Arctic Ocean? (http://geology.com/articles/who-owns-the-arctic.shtml)
18 | P a g e
Canada, United States, Russia, Norway, and Denmark are granted undersea portions of the
Arctic by UNCLOS. These countries are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In which up
to 200 miles from their shoreline, they can claim the natural resources on, above and beneath
the ocean floor. This treaty has contributed towards a significant increase in the natural gas and
oil resources of these countries. Though, United states has not ratified the treaty.
However, claiming the region and exploiting Arctic’s resources is not an easy task. It has a
unique geographical location as the Sea ice covers much of the area in winter, and storms pose
a constant danger. Due to ongoing global warming the extent of sea ice is reducing in the
summer and fall, making exploitation and drilling operations feasible. There also exists a
potential to decrease the length of international shipping routes by as much as 40%.
Nevertheless, even with such economic prospects the risk still exists as tensions may rise
between east and western nations again. With no fully set boundaries in the Arctic, the chances
of disarmament are high. Various Arctic powers have threated to use military force if one or
another intrudes on their claimed sovereign territory. The quasi- military conflict in Ukraine and
Syria endangers Arctic as Russian has been observed to significantly increase its military
presence in the area.
Arctic Council:
The Arctic Council is a high-level forum for political examinations on common issues to the
legislatures of the Arctic States and its tenants. The Arctic Council is the main circumpolar
forum for political discourses on Arctic issues, including all the Arctic states, and with the
dynamic support of its Indigenous Peoples. It has eight member countries: Canada, Kingdom of
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
It is crucial to define what the Arctic is. The Arctic had been studied for centuries, yet there is
no clear geographical or juridical definition describing it. Each Arctic country prefers to have its
own definition of the Arctic.
In 1989, due to Finland’s initiative, 8 Artic region countries met in Finland, to ponder upon
helpful measures of protecting the diminishing Artic environment. This initiative led to a
number of reports and write-ups by different scientists and other concerned officials. This
further led to the formation of Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in June 1991.
The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) is a multilateral agreement, among the
states near the Arctic region, on environmental protection in the Arctic. Discussions began in
1989. The AEPS manages checking, evaluation, insurance, crisis readiness/reaction, and
protection of the Arctic zone. Through this cooperation the Arctic Council formed with the
signing of the Ottawa Declaration on 19 September 1996 in Ottawa, Canada.
19 | P a g e
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)
Signed on June 14,1991 by Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the USSR, and
the United States-Fives years before Arctic Council was formed-the AEPS is a non-binding legal
statement which aims the following:
"Preserving environmental quality and natural resources, accommodating environmental
protection principals with the needs and traditions of Arctic Native peoples, monitoring
environmental conditions, and reducing and eventually eliminating pollution in the Arctic
Environment."16
The SAAMI Council, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, and the Association of Indigenous
Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation are the permanent
partakers of AEPS.17 These three organizations from the Indigenous peoples’ secretariat
represent the elements of Native participation of the Arctic and as the policy of AEPS
recommends, it also promotes incorporation and acceptance of “indigenous knowledge” into
the understanding of science. Moreover, attention is also paid to the economic effects of their
goals.
The Arctic Council aimed to create coordination and interaction between the Arctic states and
the Natives on crucial issues such as environmental and sustainable development. The council
includes two programs and four working groups18:

Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP): operates as a steering committee to
eliminate pollution in the Arctic with a mandate to increase efforts to limit and reduce
emissions of pollutants into the environment and promote international cooperation.
The target ACAP is to avoid adverse impacts and ultimately wipe out contamination
from the Arctic environment. ACAP addresses Arctic contamination sources and goes
about as a reinforcing and supporting component to urge national activities to lessen
emanations and different arrivals of poisons that are important in the Arctic. The ACAP
meets twice a year, and renews its mandate over the Arctic issues, as well as discusses
the projects approved in their work-plan. ACAP also contributes to cross-cutting
initiatives of the Arctic Council.
16
Herdman; Nuclear wastes in the Arctic: An analysis of Arctic and other regional impacts from Soviet Union
contamination
17
http://www.carc.org/pubs/v21no4/protect.htm
18
Stone; The Role of the Working Groups in the Work of the Arctic Council (http://www.uarctic.org/sharedvoices/shared-voices-magazine-2016-special-issue/the-role-of-the-working-groups-in-the-work-of-the-arcticcouncil/)
20 | P a g e
19
20

The Arctic and Assessment Program(AMAP): monitors the Arctic environment,
ecosystems and human populations, and provides scientific advice to support
governments as they tackle pollution and adverse effects of climate change. Its current
utmost objective is to provide reliable and adequate data on the status of, and dangers
to, the Arctic environment, and giving logical exhortation on moves to be made to
bolster Arctic governments in their endeavors to take remedial and preventive activities
identifying with contaminants. The United Nations treaties on POPs and heavy metals
use AMAP environmental and human health assessments for effectiveness evaluation
and to identify new substances to be included in the POPs agreements. AMAP health
assessments are also used by health authorities when planning dietary intervention
strategies for POPs, mercury, and radioactivity. Furthermore, the climate change reports
produced by them exposed the accelerating pace of Arctic climate change. Much utilized
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they also identified immediate
mitigation opportunities for SLCFs. Since its foundation in 1991, AMAP has created a
progression of top notch reports and related correspondence items that detail the
status of the Arctic concerning atmosphere and contamination issues and that
incorporate approach important science-based counsel to the Arctic Council and
governments. 19

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF): It has issued many reports related to
biodiversity monitoring and species trends assessments, preservation and management
strategies, protected areas, and educational material such as a series of postcards
summarizing the results of the 2013 biodiversity assessment. They are widely used by
wildlife, natural resource, and habitat managers throughout the Arctic. It also serves as
a vehicle to collaborate on species and environment administration and utilization, to
share data on administration systems, and to facilitate more learned basic leadership. It
gives a component to create common reactions on issues of significance for the Arctic
environment, for example, advancement and financial weights, protection openings and
political duties.20

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME): It has produced frameworks like
the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan 2015-2025, which guide the Arctic Council’s actions to
protect Arctic marine and coastal ecosystem development and to promote sustainable
development. PAME's mandate is to address policy and non-crisis contamination
anticipation and control measures identified with the assurance of the Arctic marine
Welcome to AMAP, (http://www.amap.no/about)
About CAFF, (http://www.caff.is/about-caff)
21 | P a g e
environment from both land and ocean based exercises. These incorporate facilitated
activity projects and rules supplementing existing legitimate courses of action.

Emergency, Prevention, preparedness, and Response (EPPRF): works on protecting the
Arctic Environment from the threat, or even an impact from accidental release of
pollutants. Some of it tasks have been to update and report upon the operational
guidelines of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness, and
Response in the Arctic (2013) in which Arctic States have committed to cooperate and
assist each other when dealing with Arctic oil spills. EPPR works with Arctic Council
Working Groups and other organizations to ensure that the emergencies are
appropriately addressed in Council products and work. EPPR also maintains liaison with
the oil industry and other relevant organizations with the aim of enhancing oil spill
prevention and preparedness in the Arctic. 21

Sustainable development and Utilization (SDU): It has advanced sustainable
development through working towards human health problems, socio economic
matters, adaptation to climate change, Arctic cultures and languages, gender equality in
the Arctic and management of natural resources. The controlling fundamental running
all through the work of the SDWG is to seek after activities that give viable learning and
add to building the limit of indigenous people groups and Arctic people group to react to
the difficulties and event from the open doors in the Arctic district.
Arctic Council assessments and recommendations are the result of analysis and efforts
undertaken by the Working Groups. Decisions of the Arctic Council are taken by consensus
among the eight Arctic Council States, with full consultation and involvement of the Permanent
Participants. APES carry out activities (except research) through funds from international
forums like United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and International Maritime
Organization (IMO) or through multilateral/ bilateral agreements. It is funded on ad hoc basis
and has no enforcement powers
Challenges in the status-quo:
Arctic Resources:
The climatic change issue influences both objectives of the Artic Council, thus, the Arctic
Council regarded this environmental change issue as its top fundamental plan in two years of its
commencement, which now overwhelms the main work of the Arctic Committee. The Arctic
Council has created critical atmosphere science and supplies applicable data to the
arrangement creators and overall population. Although, the Council does not appear to be
21
EPPR, (http://arctic-council.org/eppr/)
22 | P a g e
totally fruitful in tending to challenges brought on from the outcomes of environmental change
in the district on one hand.
The Arctic is especially delicate to a dangerous atmospheric deviation and is experiencing
probably the fastest changes on the planet. Among the fast changes being observed, air
temperatures in the Arctic have been ascending at double the worldwide average; Arctic Ocean
ice degree and thickness has declined drastically and the procedure is quickening; and the
surface of the Arctic Ocean is warming. Ashore, permafrost, which contains vast stores of
carbon, is warming and defrosting at the edges of its dispersion. (Arctic Environmental
Protection Strategy, 1991)
In 2004 and 2005 the Arctic Council presented the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
Observations since then have confirmed the basic findings of the assessment, although some
changes, such as loss of summer sea ice cover, are happening faster and are more significant
than foreseen only 5 years ago. This leads to the increased attention to the region’s natural
resources and their accessibility. On the other hand, the EPRR sub-council of the Arctic Council
considers combating climate change as an urgent common challenge for itself, as well as the
international community and urges immediate global action.
In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a leading governmental scientific research agency,
released the first publicly available natural resource estimate for the entire Arctic Circle.22 The
Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA) included assessments of oil, gas, and natural gas
liquids in the region. According to CARA, the Arctic region is estimated to contain 90 billion
barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil, 50 trillion cubic meters of recoverable gas, and 44
billion barrels of recoverable natural gas liquids.23 This is equivalent to around 13 percent of
world’s total undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas and 20 percent of
word’s undiscovered natural gas liquids.
Another very promising source of energy that is found in Arctic waters is gas hydrates. Even
though, due to lack of technology they are not being extracted but they are considered to be an
important source of energy in the future.24 The region is also enriched with numerous other
22
USGS World Assessment Team, “Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North
of the Arctic Circle,” USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3049, 2008, accessed March 27, 2011,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf.
23
However, USGS indicates that the data reveals only probalistic estimates. Moreover, economic considerations
are excluded from the assessment, suggesting that the cost of exploration and development are not considered in
these estimates.
24
Huebert, 13
23 | P a g e
natural resources such as coal, gold, diamond, platinum, and other precious stones. Right to
fish stocks is also point of contention among coastal states.
Transportation:
The Arctic is not a very well-defined area as it concerns its southern boundaries and its
transport and communication aspects. By one definition, the marine boundary of the Arctic is
formed as the cool and diluted water of the Arctic Ocean meets the saltier and warmer waters
of the southern oceans.
Diminishing ocean ice and the defrosting of permafrost is changing transport opportunities in
the Arctic. At sea, environmental change is taking into consideration longer dispatching seasons
and new route courses. Ashore, in any case, there are negative ramifications for access to
remote groups and inland industry. Defrosting conditions may extremely restrain or potentially
abbreviate the times of access through ice streets amid winter. Also, excepting a few major
natural resource haulages, practically all volumes of transported people and goods are very
modest, hardly providing economic justification for new investments. Public transportation
development, and even maintaining existing services, must frequently be based on
considerations which are political in nature.
Moreover, melting ice caps may change the current transport system by creating new sea
routes such as Northwest Passage(NWP) and Russia’s Northern Sea Route(NSR). These passages
are crucial for freight shipping and adventure cruise tourism. Using these routes may
significantly decrease the distance travelled and the shipping time compared to shipping routes
through the Suez and Panama Canal. Therefore, transportation cost is likely to go down. Even
though, Russia has sovereignty over NSR, its use of NWP is questionable. Similarly, Canada
claims that NWP is within its internal waters but USA objects it and regards the passage as
international waters. (Petkunaite, 2011)
24 | P a g e
Figure 1 Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage compared with currently used shipping
routes.25
There is a solid need to communicate best practices and norms for transport and modern
industrial activities, and in addition engaging individuals through the usage of counteractive
action and relief forms, keeping in mind the end goal to guarantee a supportable improvement
of the district which specifically benefits the occupants of the Arctic.
25
UNEP/GRID-Ardenal Maps and Graphics Library. (http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/northern-sea-route-and-thenorthwest-passage-compared-withcurrently-used-shipping-routes)
25 | P a g e
Boundaries:
There are a number of jurisdictional boundary issues in the Arctic that remain unresolved. They
fall into three categories:
1. the bilateral issues between countries,
2. the issues pertaining to the central Arctic Ocean concerning the expansion of the
continental shelf,
3. and the question of straits: The Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.
S.No.
Disputes
Resolved/
Unresolved
Delimitation line
1
Unites States – Canada: Beaufort
Sea
Unresolved
2
Russia – United States: Bering
Sea
Unresolved*
Compromise between median line
and sector line
3
Canada – Denmark: Davis Strait
1973 (minor dispute
remains over Hans
Island)
Median line
4
Denmark – Iceland: Farm Strait
1997
Median line
5
Denmark – Norway: Jan Mayen
1993 (decision by
ICJ), 1995 (bilateral
agreement)
Median line, but takes geographical
circumstances into account.
6
Denmark – Norway: Svalbard
2006
Median line
7
Iceland – Norway: Jan Mayen
1980, 1981
Iceland gets a full EEZ and defined
seabed area is subject to joint
development and sharing of
benefits.
8
Norway – Russia: Barents Sea
2010
Compromise between median line
and sector line
* The United States and Russia agreed on delimitation line in 1990. However, Russia still has to
ratify the treaty. Thus, the treaty has not yet entered into force.
26 | P a g e
United Nations Convention On Law of Sea
The United nations conventions on law of sea (UNCLOS), also called as law of sea convention or
law of treaty is an agreement that outlines rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to
their use of worlds ocean by establishing comprehensive set of standards. Furthermore, it
clearly defines limits countries can put on are of ocean such as 12-mile territorial sea and a 200mile exclusive economic zone limit.26 Since a potential conflict in the Arctic region may be
caused by a territorial conflict, the role of the UNCLOS is crucial.
The treaty was concluded in 1982 and came into force after being ratified by 60 th country
(Guyana). Till now 158 countries have ratified the convention except USA which further makes
the artic issue indeterminable on territorial conflict. UNCLOS plays a very important role in
justifying claims on Artic ocean by different counties.
UNCLOS I: In 1956, the United Nations hold its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
I) in Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:




Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10 September
1964
Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964
Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry into
force: 20 March 1966
Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of
territorial waters. This was followed by UNCLOS II and UNCLOS III.
UNCLOS II: In 1960 second conference was held which badly failed because most of countries
seemed to be dependent on United states Russia with no voice of their own
UNCLOS III: This convention set up limits of various areas, measured from clearly defined
baseline. The areas are as follows



Internal Waters
Territorial Waters
Archipelagic Waters



Contiguous Zone
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)
Continental Shelf
All countries justify their territorial claims on basis of UNCLOS except the USA which hasn’t
ratified it yet (Petkunaite, 2011)
26
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
27 | P a g e
Key Terms:
THE ARTIC/THE ARCTIC OCEAN: The area surrounded by Russia, Denmark, USA, Denmark and
Norway. Every country claims to own major part of it.
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES: Exclusive economic zones are defined as “A maritime zone
adjacent to the territorial sea that may not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of territorial sea is measured”. Basically water lies within area
of country on which country has exclusive rights to exploit natural resources.27
TERRITORIAL WATERS: Water which lie in the territory of the ocean basically 12-mile band from
the coast on which country has its own rules and regulations and can exploit resources.
CONTINENTAL SHELF: According to UNCLOS continental shelf is defined as “stretch of the sea
bed adjacent to the shores of particular country to which it belongs”.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE: A maritime zone adjacent to the territorial sea that may not extend
beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured.
27
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=884
28 | P a g e
ARTIC SECTOR: Area defined by straight border lines from the land border to the North Pole.
NORTHWEST PASSAGE: Seaway from north Atlantic to north pacific through arctic ocean,
shortest way between Europe and Asia. This seaway wasn’t in much use before but increasing
global warming and rapid increase in temperature has opened up the way. Thus economic
activity by this route are increasing
GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE: Global warming has high impact artic sector. Every year
rising temperature has caused ice to melt and diverted the world’s attention to explore most of
the resources prevailing in arctic ocean. New technologies have further eased the way.
NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION: Nuclear nonproliferation is a treaty signed between different
countries to disarmament arms and ammunition. Artic is known as nuclear weapon free zone.
In recent years’ active militarization is being taken at artic region.
NATURAL RESOURCES: Artic holds about one eighth of the world’s resources mainly reserves of
oil and gas. Scarcity of natural resources in the world has put up the attention of different
countries to exploit the resources of artic region
Active militarization
In the past decade or so, the Arctic has risen in status from an area that initially attracted only
scientific interest to one which plays host to complex international politics. The melting of ice
caps due to global warming has increased the region’s accessibility by opening up previously
blocked naval routes. Having identified the geo-political and economic significance of the
region, a number of countries have turned their attention towards it - and one of the ways this
attention has manifested itself has been through active militarization.
Following the end of the Cold War and the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union into the
Russian Federation and other smaller states, the region saw a dramatic change in military
activity28. During the Cold War, the Arctic region witnessed heavy espionage within its waters.
Submarines, especially, were heavily used owing to favorable natural conditions. In 1986, the
Russian Northern Fleet consisted of 180 nuclear submarines29 compared to the United States’
disposal of 14030. The end of the Cold War saw the dismantling of the Northern Fleet and an
emergence of cooperation initiatives in the international community.
28
Spohr et al, 2013; The Militarization of the Arctic: Political, Economic and Climate Challenges.
(https://www.ufrgs.br/ufrgsmun/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Militarization-of-the-Arctic-PoliticalEconomic-and-Climate-Changes.pdf)
29
Atland, 2008; The Militarization of the Barents Region (http://bar-enc.didaktekon.se/Editor/Sample-articles/ExMilitarization-L-Atland-2011-09.pdf)
30
Naval History and Heritage Command, 2011; U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1886-present.
29 | P a g e
As of late however, international attention has once more turned to heavy-muscle
militarization. Countries such as the United States and Russia have invested in creating defense
policies that are Arctic specific31. While such policies are meant to be non-confrontational and
aim to only provide a strategic military presence in the area, tensions between the Arctic 5, or
the A-5, will only become more strained. More and more attention is now being paid to the
Arctic as a zone of conflict for Russia and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO).
According to Russia Direct, the Russian Federation has renewed its interest in the Arctic region
significantly. The country has reopened a Soviet-era base on Kotelny Island as the first of many
such airbases on its northern coast in an effort to provide safeguard their Arctic shipping
interests. Russia is also reported to be building 10 radar stations, 13 airfields and an Arctic
combat training center, amidst others32. In addition to the construction of these, the Russian
government has also carried out power-projection initiatives. A notable one of these was in
2012 and it involved more than 7000 personnel and 20 naval units. Another was held in 2013 in
the Far East Russian area and included more than 160,000 servicemen, 1000 tanks, 130 planes
and 70 ships. The timing was not lost on the international community; the exercise occurred
after a month of Russia submitting a claim to the United Nations for the extension of its
Exclusive Economic Zone33.
In response to the increased militarization and show of strength by Russia, NATO countries
have also increased their claims to the territory. Countries such as Canada have again started
prioritizing the Arctic region. As part of their approach to the region, Canada has started
reasserting its sovereignty in the Arctic continental shelf by increasing military presence
through newly acquired patrol vessels and the construction of a new port34. Furthermore, it is
now working in collaboration with the United States to monitor and control North American
Airspace under the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Such alliances are significant
power-projections, effectively serving to set up NATO against the Russian Federation for the
dominance of the Arctic.
Owing to the lack of a unified NATO Arctic policy, member nations have started developing
their own Arctic policies. Denmark has possessed a special Arctic military command since 2012,
31
MacDonald; The Militarization of the Arctic: Emerging Reality, Exaggeration, and Distraction.
(http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no3/eng/PDF/CMJ153Ep18.pdf)
32
Trainor, 2014; Why Russia's Arctic strategy is starting to worry NATO (http://www.russia-direct.org/why-russiasarctic-strategy-starting-worry-nato)
33
Singh, 2013; The Creeping Militarization of the Arctic (http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/the-creepingmilitarization-of-the-arctic/)
34
Dufour, 2010; The Militarization of the Arctic and its Strategic Resources (http://www.globalresearch.ca/themilitarization-of-the-arctic-and-its-strategic-resources/22146)
30 | P a g e
Canada is constructing a series of Operation Hubs and the United States has more than 22,000
soldiers stationed in Alaska. Norway has continued to advocate for a direct military presence in
the region, following the provocation by Russian presence there and the threat to its economic
interests35.
Given the fact that there already exist strained relations between the Russian Federation and
NATO, it is interesting to see what will become of the Arctic Region. Heavy militarization on
grounds of claims to sovereignty, economic interests and geo-strategic naval routes will not
only open up militaristic debates but also economical and legal in the sense that there needs to
be a proper categorization and assessment of resources and the validity of claims to territorial
integrity within the complicated geographies of the region.
Environmental Consequences of Exploitation
Artic region, an area covered with ice where rarely economic activities used to take place. Now
it has been home to major economic activities. Fisheries, production of hydrocarbons, natural
gas, oil, shipping, and increase in trips are major economic activities. These activities pose
number of problems such as Accident at the time of shipping. Varying ice covers. Lack of sea
charts, light conditions in water and remoteness in area has mainly have many accidents at the
time of shipping and cruising. As artic plays a very important role in world’s climate system and
energy balance. Increase in Melting of ice and snow has caused rapid increase in Artic warming
or black carbon dioxide in ocean and land area. This has very badly affected sea dependent
species and ocean acidification.
The increase in average temperature in artic has been twice as compare to rest of the work
which contributes a global sea-level rise. This over the next century will leave coastal areas at
risk with regards to people, economic assets and coastal ecosystems, including in Europe. The
region is home to a number of sensitive marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Arctic species and
ecosystems are also affected by pollution and marine litter from long-range transport and local
sources. Climate change is serious threat in artic region this is quicker and severe in artic as
compare to rest of the world. The Arctic is warming at an alarming rate which is at least twice
the global average. Liquefying of ice, rising temperature has expanded the odds of an unnatural
weather change which has put world in a very troublesome situation
Oil Pollution:
The Arctic is one of the regions which is under a serious threat and is extremely endangered
against unfriendly effects from interminable and intense oil contamination. This is because of
physical ecological conditions, for example, low temperature, periods with little or no light, ice
35
Trainor, 2014; Why Russia's Arctic strategy is starting to worry NATO (http://www.russia-direct.org/why-russiasarctic-strategy-starting-worry-nato)
31 | P a g e
cover and so on. Oil in iced areas will be trapped between ice floes or under the ice, and only
partly transported to the ice surface. Various endeavors by different nations to get oil from
arctic ocean has further increased the pollution.
Noise:
The waters of the Arctic region are a unique noise environment mainly due to the presence of
ice. The surrounding clamor is unequivocally affected by the dynamic procedures of ice
arrangement, melt, deformation and movement. There have been various advances towards
liquefying the ice and exploit the natural resources which in turn has caused a big noise
pollution problem to the indigenous people and the environment.
Radioactivity:
Active militarization in artic has additionally extended the odds of radiation in the area. It was
mostly brought on because of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing amid the 1950s and 1960s
and the mishap at the Chernobyl atomic power plant in 1986. Development of military in the
area to get some hold on the resources has just worsened the situation.
Acidification:
The most vital acidifying substances are Sulfur and nitrogen compounds emitted chiefly by
vehicles, industrial activities and coal and oil based power plants. New and improved
technology and heavy investments towards research and development to extract these
resources has further increased the amounts of these acids which has worsened and disturbed
the environmental situation. Other environmental causes are heavy metal, Persistent Organic
Contaminants etc.
International efforts have been made in Arctic observation and monitoring, such as the ongoing
Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program and the Trends and Effects Monitoring Program,
along with the associated pollution assessments under the Arctic Council and the recent
International Polar Year. However, there are still many unknowns when it comes to growth in
economic activities, forecasting the rate of change, assessing ecosystem responses or
understanding the interactions between various drivers of change and their cumulative impacts
Antarctic Treaty:
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington DC, USA on 1st December 1959 and entered into
force on 23 June 1961. The treaty was signed by a total of 12 nations who were working in or
around the Antarctic Region during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Although
seizure of the continent is now difficult, ongoing geopolitics might disable the Antarctic Treaty
System (ATS) after it expires in 2048, or even before that date. If Antarctica is annexed, either
by force or deception, this can lead to a global conflict. Among the signatories of the Treaty
32 | P a g e
were seven countries - Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United
Kingdom - with territorial claims, sometimes overlapping. Other countries do not recognize any
claims.
The Article1 of the treaty clearly states the fact that Antarctica should be only be used for
peaceful purposes. It further also prohibits any military measures in the territory, however,
does not deny the use of any sort of equipment for the purpose of scientific researches or any
other peaceful performance.
The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) is now held annually. During each of the
meeting, there is also a meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP). The
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is an Observer at ATCMs and CEPs, and
provides independent and objective scientific advice in a variety of fields, particularly on
environmental and conservation matters.
Concluded in Washington, DC, on 1 December 1959, the Antarctic Treaty has since been ratified
by 45 nations, with the goal of ensuring that Antarctica shall not become the objective of
international discord at any means. Since then, the Treaty has been strengthened by
recommendations adopted at Consultative Meetings, which are attended by representatives
from the signatory states and supported by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR).
Why is The Antarctic Treaty important?
The Antarctic Treaty is an uncommon event in the domain of international relations. It is a
treaty that does not sight or comment any prevalent country's claim on any part of the
Antarctic boundary. Besides, this treaty likewise accentuates on the fact that the purpose
behind the Antarctic continent is devoted to peace and science only. Likewise, the Antarctic
Treaty,1959, was utilized as a disarmament instrument for the land. The treaty has been and
keeps on being utilized for instance for other demobilization settlements. The demilitarization
treaty that have utilized The Antarctic Treaty as a blueprint are the settlements that bar atomic
weapons from space and additionally the barring atomic weapons from the seabed.
This treaty likewise holds unique significance with setting to the researchers, as not just does
this settlement permits every single logical errand to be completed, but also, this arrangement
additionally empowers to advance further logical inquiries about in its Annual Meetings.
Likewise, the ban of any Nuclear action close or inside the locale of Antarctica additionally turns
out to be a positive stride towards air.
33 | P a g e
Loopholes in The Antarctic Treaty:
Climatic changes are exposing Antarctica’s natural resources to potentially irreversible
degradation. Several nations are making new claims in Antarctica by exploiting loopholes in the
Treaty. The international community must now choose between letting the Treaty crumble in
the face of these challenges or mobilizing to protect Antarctica’s largely pristine ecosystems on
a permanent basis.
Moreover, environmental threats, including a burgeoning tourist industry, are increasingly a
concern. The international community expects the ship operators to ensure proper waste
management, and also to avoid the introduction of invasive species by way of ship hulls, ballast
water, and clothing/footwear which will further destroy it.
There are three major loopholes that must be addressed in order to protect the future of
Antarctica. First, a state regulating its own activities by deciding which categorical impact the
activity falls into a very biased approach in itself for sure. If a state decides, using its own
domestic definitional standards, that its activity has less than a minor or transitory impact, it
can begin as long as self-regulated procedures are put into place. This set-up will fail unless its
structure is altered to allow for the Contracting Parties to review the activities of others,
regardless of its self-assessed impact level.
Second, the lack of clear guidelines regarding the weight that each individual factor shall
receive when performing an Environmental Impact Assessment leads to an inconsistent and
unpredictable system. Third, all activities should be subject to an Environmental Evaluation.
This would ensure that every proposed activity would be subject to review and thus lead to a
more accurate and consistent system, one which could protect the Antarctic environment. This
three-part approach will close the gaps in the Protocol and serve to protect Antarctica.
QARMA
What does it mean by sovereignty of the Arctic and what role should the UN play with regards
to its militarization?
What framework shall be used to outline the rights of nations over the Arctic resources and
routes?
Considering the dangers of Climate change, should the natural resources of the Arctic be
exploited? And if so, who shall have the access to such sites?
Does the UNCLOS (UN Convention of Law on Sea) apply to Arctic and to what extent?
Keeping the International Law in regard, what will the UN’s role be to slow down the
militarization in the arctic?
34 | P a g e
References
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. (1991, June). Retrieved from Arctic Envrionment:
http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf
Petkunaite, D. (2011, June). Cooperation or Conflict in the Arctic? UNCLOS and the Barents and
Beaufort Sea Disputes. Retrieved from
http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=cc_etds_th
eses
"The Antarctic Treaty." British Antarctic Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/>.
"Arctic Region." Arctic Region — European Environment Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries/arctic>.
"CARC - Northern Perspectives (Volume 21, Number 4, Winter 1993-94)." CARC - Northern
Perspectives (Volume 21, Number 4, Winter 1993-94). N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.carc.org/pubs/v21no4/protect.htm>.
Directorate, OECD Statistics. "OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) Definition." OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Definition.
N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. <https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=884>.
"- EPPR - Website of the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working
Group." EPPR. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<http://arctic-council.org/eppr/>.
"Overview - Convention & Related Agreements." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 11
Dec. 2016
<http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
>.
Price, Courtney. "Home." CAFF - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.caff.is/about-caff>.
"Welcome to AMAP." About | Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme | AMAP. N.p., n.d.
Web. 11 Dec. 2016. <http://www.amap.no/about>.
"Why Antarctica Matters." British Antarctic Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
<https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/why-antarctica-matters/>.
Huebert, Rob. “Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security in a Transforming
35 | P a g e
Circumpolar World.” Foreign Policy for Canada’s Tomorrow 4 (2009): 1-51.
Trainor, 2014; Why Russia's Arctic strategy is starting to worry NATO
(http://www.russia-direct.org/why-russias-arctic-strategy-starting-worry-nato)
Atland, 2008; The Militarization of the Barents Region
(http://bar-enc.didaktekon.se/Editor/Sample-articles/Ex-Militarization-L-Atland-201109.pdf)
Naval History and Heritage Command, 2011; U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1886-present.
MacDonald; The Militarization of the Arctic: Emerging Reality, Exaggeration, and Distraction.
(http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no3/eng/PDF/CMJ153Ep18.pdf)
Singh, 2013; The Creeping Militarization of the Arctic
(http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/the-creeping-militarization-of-the-arctic/)
Dufour, 2010; The Militarization of the Arctic and its Strategic Resources
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-militarization-of-the-arctic-and-its-strategicresources/22146)
Ebinger & Zambetakis, The Geopolitics of Arctic Melt.
(https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/11_arctic_melt_ebinger_zambetakis.pdf)
Spohr et al, 2013; The Militarization of the Arctic: Political, Economic and Climate Challenges.
(https://www.ufrgs.br/ufrgsmun/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TheMilitarization-of-the-Arctic-Political-Economic-and-Climate-Changes.pdf)
UNEP/GRID-Ardenal Maps and Graphics Library.
(http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/northern-sea-route-and-the-northwest-passagecompared-withcurrently-used-shipping-routes.)
USGS World Assessment Team, “Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered
Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle,” USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3049, 2008, accessed March 27,
2011, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf
Stone; The Role of the Working Groups in the Work of the Arctic Council
(http://www.uarctic.org/shared-voices/shared-voices-magazine-2016-specialissue/the-role-of-the-working-groups-in-the-work-of-the-arctic-council/)
36 | P a g e
Herdman; Nuclear wastes in the Arctic: An analysis of Arctic and other regional impacts from
Soviet Union contamination,
(https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=JLFX6EMPqBkC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=aeps%20fi
nland&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aeps%20finland&f=false)
T. Klare,2013: Rushing for the Arctic’s Riches
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/rushing-for-the-arcticsriches.html)
King; Who Owns the Arctic Ocean?
(http://geology.com/articles/who-owns-the-arctic.shtml)
37 | P a g e