THE INDIAN HIGH
SCHOOL DUBAI
MODEL UNITED
NATIONS 2017
BACKGROUND
GUIDE
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY 4
(SPECIAL
POLITICAL AND
DECOLONIZATION –
SPECPOL)
INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE - SPECPOL
(GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4)
The Special Political and Decolonization Committee, commonly abbreviated as SPECPOL, is
the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Until the late 1970s, the First Committee of the General Assembly was called the Political
and Security Committee (POLISEC). In the late 1970s, POLISEC was renamed to
Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC), and an unnumbered committee was added to
the GA, the Special Political Committee. It looked into matters that DISEC did not handle,
such as decolonization. Later, in 1993, the Special Political Committee was merged with the
Decolonization Committee, the then Fourth Committee of the GA. This new committee was
called the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL), and was made the
new Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, in accordance with GA resolution 47/233.
SPECPOL looks into issues regarding decolonization, peacekeeping, mine action, Palestinian
refugees and human rights, outer space, public information, atomic radiation and University
for Peace. SPECPOL not only looks into issues that DISEC does not address, but also
explores them in a wider aspect. SPECPOL has passed many resolutions regarding the
aforementioned topics. SPECPOL consists of all 193 members of the United Nations, and
meets at the same time as the rest of the General Assembly. Sessions commence regularly,
just as other GA committees, with the main session beginning in September and lasting till
December. Sometimes, the main session is prolonged till January if all issues have not been
dealt with. Agendas of SPECPOL, just as any other General Assembly committee, are
decided up to seven months in advance of the session. 60 days before the opening session, the
agenda is slightly modified, to be more specific and accurate. It is now called the provisional
agenda. The first committee session is where the final agenda is decided upon. Voting in
SPECPOL is similar compared to other General Assembly Committees. A draft resolution
must attain two-thirds majority of all.
AGENDA 1
THE SITUATION IN KASHMIR
1.1 Introduction
The Kashmir conflict is a dispute over the territory of Kashmir. The dispute is
between India and Pakistan. India claims the entire region that was once a princely state. It
currently controls about 43% of the territory, including most of Jammu, the Kashmir
Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier. India's claims are disputed by Pakistan, which
controls about 37% of Kashmir, including Azad Kashmir and the northern areas
of Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan says there should be a referendum in Kashmir on whether
the people want to join India or Pakistan, or become independent.
1.2 History
The conflict started during the Partition of India (1947–48). The partition of the Indian subcontinent along religious lines led to the formation of India and Pakistan. However, there
remained the crisis of over 650 states, run by princes, existing within the two newly
independent countries. In theory, these princely states had the option of deciding which
country to join, or of remaining sovereign. On October 20, 1947, tribesmen backed by
Pakistan invaded Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir initially fought back but on
27 October appealed for aid to the Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, who agreed on the
condition that the ruler accedes to India. Once the papers of accession to India were signed,
Indian soldiers entered Kashmir with orders to stop any further occupation, but they were not
allowed to expel anyone from the state. India took the matter to the United Nations. The UN
resolution asked Pakistan to vacate the areas it has occupied and asked India to assist the
U.N. Plebiscite Commission to organize a plebiscite to determine the will of the people.
Pakistan refused to vacate the occupied areas.
In 1947-8 India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United
Nations' supervision, they agreed to a ceasefire along a line which left one-third of the state comprising what Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Northern Areas
administered by Pakistan and two-thirds, Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley, controlled
by India. In 1972, under the terms of the Simla agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the
Line of Control. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution
dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was
also to withdraw the bulk of its forces. Although India claims that the entire state is part of
India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with
some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favored turning the Line of
Control into an internationally-recognized frontier. But Pakistan has consistently refused to
accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley
would remain as part of India. Formalizing the status quo also does not take account of the
aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the
whole or part of the state.
1.3 The Water Dispute
Another reason behind the dispute over Kashmir is water. Many rivers start in Kashmir.
Some of them are tributaries of the Indus River basin, such as the Jhelum and Chenab
River. These flow into Pakistan and are used for irrigation there. Other rivers like the Ravi,
Beas River and the Sutlej flow into northern India.
1.4 Violence in Indian Administered Kashmir
Although in recent years violence in Indian-administered Kashmir has abated, the causes of
the insurgency have not gone away. Put simply, many people in the territory - especially in
the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley - do not want it to be governed by India. They would
prefer to be either independent or part of Pakistan. The population of the Indian-administered
state of Jammu and Kashmir is over 60% Muslim, making it the only state within India where
Muslims are in the majority. The sense of alienation from Delhi is especially to be found
among young people in the Kashmir valley, a problem which has been made worse by high
unemployment and what many see as heavy-handed tactics from Indian paramilitary forces in
stifling their protests.
1.5 Recent Changes
For much of the 1990s, separatist militancy and cross-border firing between the Indian and
Pakistani armies left a death toll running into tens of thousands and a population traumatized
by fighting and fear. While relations in general warmed from 2000 onwards, tension again
resurfaced with the Mumbai attacks of November 2008 in which gunmen from Pakistan
killed 165 people. But there have been indications over the past decade, highlighting changes
such as: In 2003, the two countries agreed to a ceasefire across the Line of Control (LoC) that
divides Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir In 2006, Pakistan said it stopped all
funding for militant operations in Kashmir, ignoring protests by some of the more influential
groups. In February 2010 India announced an amnesty for fighters from Indian-administered
Kashmir, saying they could return from Pakistani territory. Early in 2012, Islamabad cut by
half the administrative funds it issues to groups that still maintain offices in Pakistaniadministered Kashmir. At the same time, it offered a cash rehabilitation package to former
fighters to abandon militancy. One thing that has not changed, however, is the Line of
Control (LoC) which divides Kashmir on an almost two-to-one basis: Indian-administered
Kashmir to the east and south (population about nine million), known by India as Jammu and
Kashmir state; and Pakistani-administered Kashmir to the north and west (population about
three million), which is labeled by Pakistan as "Azad" (Free) Kashmir. China also controls a
small portion of Kashmir.
1.6 Current Division of Kashmir
One of the origins of the conflict is that with the
Boundary Award of 1947, many of the Pakistani
irrigation systems can be controlled from India. Pakistan
has been afraid that India could stop the flow of rivers
that start in Indian-controlled Kashmir and flow into
Pakistan. This would harm the agrarian economy of
Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty signed
in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing
of water. The treaty has not been fully followed: India
has since constructed dams which limit the flow of water
to the Pakistani side.
Republic of India controls the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is made of the Jammu
region, the Kashmir valley, and Ladakh. Pakistan refers to this as Indian occupied
Kashmir or Indian controlled Kashmir.
1. The territories known as Northern Areas and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are
administered by Pakistan. Islamabad calls them Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India
refers to this as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
2. The region called Aksai Chin is controlled by China. China also controls a territory it
received from Pakistan, called Trans-Karakoram Tract. The legality of this swap is
disputed by India.
3. The Siachen Glacier is currently a disputed territory; India controls the glacier,
Pakistan the valley below.
4. The Trans-Karakoram Tract is an area Pakistan gave to China in the year 1963.
Pakistan says the area was uninhabited, so there is no question of conflict. India
claims this area as part of its state Jammu and Kashmir.
Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for more than 60 years. Currently
a boundary - the Line of Control - divides the region in two, with one part military occupied
by India and one administered by Pakistan. India would like to formalize this status quo and
make it the accepted international boundary. But Pakistan and Kashmiri activists reject this
plan because they both want greater control over the region.
1.6.1 Trans Karakoram Tract
The Trans-Karakoram Tract is an area of nearly 5,800 km² that, India claims, was transferred
by a border agreement from the Pakistani-administered Northern Areas to China in 1963 with
the stipulation that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan says that it was a no-man's un-demarcated border land; hence no question arises of
its being transferred. The transfer is disputed by India which claims the Tract as part
of Jammu and Kashmir State.
1.6.2 Aksai Chin
Aksai Chin is one of the two main disputed border areas between China and India, the other
being a part of Arunachal Pradesh. It is administered by China as part of Hotan County, but is
also claimed by India as a part of the Ladakh region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In
1962, China and India fought a brief war over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, but in
1993 and 1996, the two countries signed agreements to respect the Line of Actual Control.
1.7 Chinese Interests
China had never accepted the British-negotiated boundary agreements in northeastern
Kashmir. This remained the case following the communist takeover in China in 1949,
although the new government did ask India—without success—to open negotiations
regarding the border. After Chinese authority was established in Tibet and reasserted in
Xinjiang, Chinese forces penetrated into the northeastern parts of Ladakh. This was done
mainly because it allowed them to build a military road through the Aksai Chin plateau area
to provide better communication between Xinjiang and western Tibet; it also gave the
Chinese control of passes in the region between India and Tibet. India’s belated discovery of
this road led to border clashes between the two countries that culminated in the Sino-Indian
war of October 1962. China has occupied the northeastern part of Ladakh since the conflict.
India refused to negotiate with China on the alignment of the Ladakh boundary in this area,
and the incident contributed significantly to a diplomatic rift between the two countries that
began to heal only in the late 1980s. In the following decades, China worked to improve its
relations with India, but there has been no resolution to the disputed Ladakh frontier.
1.7.1 Sino- Indian War
In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by
both. China won a swift victory in the war; resulting in Chinese annexation of the region they
call Aksai Chin and which has continued since then. Trans-Karakoram was demarcated as
the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although some of the territory on the
Chinese side is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from
China in this region is known as the "Line of Actual Control"
1.8 How dangerous is the Kashmir dispute?
From potentially being one of the most dangerous disputes in the world - which in the worstcase scenario, hints that it could trigger a nuclear conflict - the recent warming of relations
between Delhi and Islamabad has led to less threatening behavior over the Kashmir dispute.
In 1998 India and Pakistan both declared themselves to be nuclear powers with a string of
nuclear tests.
In 2002 there was a huge deployment of troops on both sides of the border as India reacted
to an armed attack on the national parliament in Delhi the previous December. India said the
attack was carried out by Pakistani-based militants assisted by the Pakistan government - a
charge always denied by Pakistan.
1.8.1 Religion and Socio-Economic Factors
Ethnicity and religion are critical identity markers in Kashmir. Geographically, the area
commonly referred to as Kashmir actually encompasses five provinces, which are divided by
the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. Demographic variables in each of these
provinces have played into the broader conflict, especially in the three provinces on the
Indian side of the Line of Control: the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh. In the Kashmir
Valley, which includes the regional capital of Srinagar, Muslims predominate, making up 95
percent of the approximately 6 million residents. In contrast, in the Jammu region, Hindus are
in the majority, with 67 percent of the population of about 5 million. Muslims are the second
largest group, with 30 percent of the population. Muslims are divided in terms of ethnicity,
particularly between those living in Jammu and Kashmir. This has resulted in internal
fragmentation that complicates negotiation efforts. The third Indian-controlled region,
Ladakh, is experiencing population shifts but until recently had a slight Tibetan Buddhist
majority (50 percent) and a significant population of Shi’a Muslims (46 percent). This region
is much less densely populated than Jammu and the Kashmir Valley, with only 250,000
residents. Population estimates vary for the two Pakistani provinces: approximately 900,000
people lived in Gilgit-Baltistan at the last census in 1998, whereas Azad Kashmir has
approximately 3.2 million residents according to the Pakistani government. The Pakistani
side of the Line of Control, in contrast to the Indian-controlled territory, is almost exclusively
Muslim (99 percent of residents). However, this apparent homogeneity masks important
religious differences among Muslims, especially within Gilgit-Baltistan. Here, the Shi’a
majority regularly clashes with a Sunni minority that is closely aligned with the Pakistani
military and central government in Islamabad. Kashmir’s economy is still struggling to
recover from the devastating earthquake of late 2005, which struck primarily Pakistanicontrolled Kashmir. This has had an important impact in the realm of education. Educational
infrastructure was already lacking there, and the 2005 earthquake reduced much of it to
rubble. Indian and other international observers have expressed concern that radical Islamists
have stepped into this social service vacuum in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, and that
extremist Madrasas are training the next generation of Islamic militants. Such schools have
been the cause of civil conflict in Gilgit-Baltistan, with local Shi’as rejecting the narrowly
constructed Sunni curricula that are imposed on their children. Such objections touched off
deadly riots on multiple occasions during the past decade. Kashmir’s ethnic and religious
diversity, once the hallmark of its local pluralism, has become the stage for a wider set of
adversarial contests between India and Pakistan. Many locals, regardless of their faith
tradition, have been caught in the middle—victims of national militaries, insurgents, or both.
Over time, however, wider trends toward religious nationalism and heavy-handed actions by
the Indian government have driven many members of religious communities to align
themselves with one side or the other, eroding trust and contact across religious lines. In
conclusion, the Kashmir dispute is infused by notions of religious identity, but at its heart is
not a war for or against a faith. Rather, it is a geopolitical contest between national
governments that is rooted in national interests, notions of security, and the regional
dynamics of ethnic and religious nationalism and militancy.
1.8.2 The Humanitarian Crisis and Political Chaos
Kashmir conflict is raked up at regular intervals by international observers, leftist academia
and separatists. Amidst a plethora of voices speaking for their cause, the issue faced by the
residents of valley remains lost somewhere.
Suppressed by ultra-nationalist voices on either sides of the border, the day-to-day atrocities
suffered by Kashmir remains neglected. A hostile border condition resulting from a volatile
relation between the two loggerhead neighbors’, leads to the death of dozens monthly. In the
recent years Indian authorities have claimed more than 125 instances of ceasefire violation
whereas as Pakistan has countered the claim by citing 70 cases of unprovoked firings by
India.
The contentious point of Kashmir infuriates the establishment in New Delhi and Islamabad.
Both sides are quick to highlight the cruelties afflicted by the opposing regimes in their side
of occupation. Pakistan continues to slam India at global forums for imposing the infamous
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the valley since the past 25 years. The
allegations of Pakistan earned some credibility following the 2015 report of Amnesty
International which said “India fails its own constitution, when it comes to Kashmir”.
However, New Delhi has enough material to retaliate the charges by pointing out the adverse
condition prevailing in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). The infamous Sino-Pak boundary
agreement in 1963 passed over hundreds of kilometers of land in PoK to China. Further,
number of people has been tried under the sedition law in PoK as compared to Jammu and
Kashmir. At the 28th Geneva Convention, when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was busy
building up allegations of aggression against India, activists from PoK and Giglit-Baltistan
were protesting at the sidelines of the event. The United Kashmir People’s National Party
(UKPNP) has alleged more than 200 activists from the region being booked under the
stringent provisions of sedition, and around 12 of them have been imprisoned for life. New
Delhi has refrained to crackdown in such a nefarious manner on the leaders of Hurriyat. The
Kashmir conflict has turned into an instrument of political gamble. Unfortunately, both the
parties dealing with situation lack direction, seriousness and impulse to resolve the crisis.
Since 1989, over 50,000 people are claimed to have died during the conflict. Data released in
2011 by Jammu and Kashmir government stated that, in the last 21 years, 43,460 people have
been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed
by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by
militants, according to the Jammu and Kashmir government data.
In its report of September 2006, Human Rights Watch stated that,
“Indian security forces claim they are fighting to protect Kashmiris from militants and
Islamic extremists, while militants claim they are fighting for Kashmiri independence and to
defend Muslim Kashmiris from an abusive Indian army. In reality, both sides have committed
widespread and numerous human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian
law (or the laws of war).”
Human Rights Watch also blamed Pakistan for supporting militants in Kashmir, in same
2006 report it says, "There is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has
provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and sanctuary.” Pakistan
remains accountable for abuses committed by militants that it has armed and trained. The
violence was condemned and labeled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by
the United States Congress. It stated that the Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989
and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir into a Muslim state. According
to the same resolution, since then nearly 400,000 Pandits were either murdered or forced to
leave their ancestral homes. According to a Hindu American Foundation report, the rights
and religious freedom of Kashmiri Hindus have been severely curtailed since 1989, when
there was an organized and systematic campaign by Islamist militants to cleanse Hindus from
Kashmir. Less than 4,000 Kashmiri Hindus remain in the valley, reportedly living with daily
threats of violence and terrorism.
1.8.3 Environmental Destruction
Kashmir once known as "paradise on earth," a home to vast wildlife reserves including some
species so rare that they exist only in Kashmir, are now quickly falling victim to the
desolation which has encompassed much of this piece of land. Rare species like the Snow
Leopard frequently hunted by military officials and poachers for its precious skin and teeth,
has now almost become extinct. Similarly, the world famous Kashmiri Otters are now rarely
seen in the valley. The massive deployment of Indian armies on the borders of Kashmir has
resulted in large scale poaching as the troops living in the border areas indulged in killing
rare species like the Ibex, Blue Sheep, Urian, the Big Horned Sheep, Antelope and Snow
Leopard. At first, the soldiers were killing the animals for to satisfy hunger but when the
poorly paid soldiers realized how valuable the animal furs and skins were in the international
markets, they started to slaughter the Kashmiri animals with a much greater zeal. The
consequence has been that some of the rare species like the Snow Leopard, Flying Squirrel
and Long Tailed Himalayan Marmot have been pushed to being on the verge of extinction.
1.8.4 The Threat of a Nuclear War over Kashmir
The heated conflict between Pakistan and India regarding the Kashmir has recently come to
the attention of the world. The United Nations had always held that Kashmir should be
allowed the right to a plebiscite, but there was no impending reason which would make the
United Nations force India to give the Kashmiris this right. In the past year, however, certain
happenings have given the rest of the world reason to worry over the outcome of the Kashmir
issue. On May 11, 1998, a statement was issued by the Indian government announcing they
had successfully carried out three underground nuclear tests at the Pokhran range. Two days
later, after carrying out two more underground sub-kiloton tests, the Indian government
declared themselves a nuclear state. Days after India tested nuclear weapons, Pakistan
followed suit with its own nuclear tests in order to prove they too possessed nuclear
capability.
The position of national security and survival is present in the Indian and Pakistani
viewpoints on nuclear weapons. A potent force propelling the Indian and Pakistani weapons
programs is nationalism. This is evident from the national consensus in each country on
nuclear
1.8.5 Youth Tribulations in the Conflicted Kashmir Region
Youth are uniquely affected by violence and threats to their security. They are vulnerable as
both victims and perpetrators of violence. It is often remarked that war would not be possible
without youth in any part of the world. However, there is the lack of attention to, and
thorough documentation of, the positive contributions of youth in society (Rodgers, 1999).
Kashmiri youth reported that the poor governance and political institutions especially
dominancy of one community in governance and administration, weak and four hurried
political negotiations and transitions, restrictions on social and cultural practices, rigging of
elections, widespread and escalating corruption have also been responsible for violent
conflict. The deteriorating links between government and citizens, lack of accountability of
political leaders and institutions, and increasingly disregarding certain groups in the political
sphere, excluding them in consultations, and dismissing their opinions in decision-making
have initiated conflict and over the period it sustained and becomes more violent. The media
has increasingly politicized on ethnic/political lines (pro or anti government), which
reinforced negative attitudes towards other groups. They opined that with the passage of time,
there has been decline in status of human rights, particularly along ethnic/political lines. The
development programs in the past (inadvertently) favor one community, and ignored the rural
poor, which has created a sense of hate and revenge among them and when they noticed an
opportunity they joined the armed groups, which has resulted in escalation of violence
conflict.
Deciding whether to test a nuclear weapon was the promise it had made to the people during
the last election process. The majority of Indians wanted to deter not only Pakistan but China
as well and thought that a test would help this deterrence. The rapid technological advances
by Pakistan in recent years are a symbol of nationalistic pride in a country which has
overcome major political, technical, and industrial challenges, to mount a program with a
team of dedicated scientists. Pakistan and India are showing the world, as China did in the
sixties, how a country with limited technical resources and a narrow industrial base can
acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities by riding the wave of nationalism.
India refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty because the five nuclear superpowers are
unwilling to commit to any timetable for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In voicing its
own opinion, the Kashmir issue could at least end with a result that would appease all three
parties. As people continue to suffer through the death and heartache caused by the last fifty
years, a peaceful resolution is long overdue and waits to be put into place.
1.9 Involvement of the United Nations
In January 1948, the Security Council adopted resolution 39 (1948), establishing the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the
dispute. In April 1948, by its resolution 47 (1948), the Council decided to enlarge the
membership of UNCIP and to recommend various measures including the use of observers to
stop the fighting. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement
establishing a ceasefire line to be supervised by the military observers. These observers,
under the command of the Military Adviser, formed the nucleus of the United Nations
Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). On 30 March 1951,
following the termination of UNCIP, the Security Council, by its resolution 91 (1951)
decided that UNMOGIP should continue to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir. UNMOGIP's
functions were to observe and report, investigate complaints of ceasefire violations and
submit its finding to each party and to the Secretary-General.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 was passed by United Nations Security
Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter
are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to
the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.
On January 24, 1957 the UN Security Council reaffirmed the 1948 resolution. The Security
Council, reaffirming its previous resolution to the effect, "that the final disposition of the
state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people
expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted
under the auspices of United Nations," further declared that any action taken by the
Constituent Assembly formed in Kashmir " would not constitute disposition of the state in
accordance with the above principles.”
In March 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit
to India and Pakistan, remarked that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations
and comparing with those on East Timor and Iraq was like comparing apples and oranges,
since those resolutions were passed under chapter VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC.
In 2003, then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to consider
alternative bilateral options to resolve the dispute other than solely UN resolutions.
In 2010, United States Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer said that Kashmir is an
'internal' issue of India and not to be discussed on international level rather it should be
solved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan. He said, "The (US) President (Barack
Obama), I think was very articulate on this issue of Kashmir. This is an internal issue for
India." India alleges that Pakistan failed to fulfill the pre-conditions by withdrawing its troops
from the Kashmir region as was required under the same U.N. resolution of 13 August 1948
which discussed the plebiscite.
1.10 Topics to focus on
Having revised all the problems and the situation at hand the Executive Board urges
delegates to frame a resolution which would provide solutions for:
1. Suggestions for a gradual and peaceful ceasefire between the rival parties and to reach
an agreement upon the division of Kashmir;
2. Whether the region of Kashmir should be registered and run under the government of
either rival parties, or the territory be declared as an independent state;
3. The question of the citizenship of the residents of the Kashmir region;
4. Immediate actions for the safety of the civilian life and soldiers present in the
conflicted region;
5. Reduction of the use of nuclear weapons by both parties;
6. And, to reduce the environmental effects of the war
1.11 Bibliography and Additional Links
1. Anon, (2016). [online] Available at:
http://mrsleaversclass.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/2/22927178/kashmir_case_study.pdf
[Accessed 1 Sep. 2016]. - Case Study
2. Anon, (2016). [online] Available at:
http://www.icyrnet.net/UserFiles/File/Publication%20Resources/Research%20Report
s/Youth_Case_Study_Paper_FKSUDAN.pdf [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016]. - Case Study
3. BBC News. (2016). Kashmir militants give up fight and head home - BBC News.
[online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18270058 [Accessed 1
Sep. 2016].
4. BBC News. (2016). Q&A: Kashmir dispute - BBC News. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.com/news/10537286 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
5. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Kashmir | region, Indian subcontinent. [online]
Available at: https://global.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indiansubcontinent#ref673547 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
6. In.news.yahoo.com. (2016). China's won't take sides on Kashmir: Chinese media.
[online] Available at: https://in.news.yahoo.com/chinas-wont-sides-kashmir-chinesemedia-080004620.html [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
7. India.com. (2015). Kashmir: The irresolvable point of contention between India and
Pakistan. [online] Available at: http://www.india.com/news/india/kashmir-theirresolvable-point-of-contention-between-india-and-pakistan-513515/ [Accessed 1
Sep. 2016].
8. Jong, K., Kam, S., Ford, N., Lokuge, K., Fromm, S., Galen, R., Reilley, B. and
Kleber, R. (2008). Conflict in the Indian Kashmir Valley II: psychosocial impact.
Conflict and Health, [online] 2(1), p.11. Available at:
http://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1505-2-11
[Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
9. NDTV.com. (2016). Kashmir Situation: Latest News, Photos, Videos on Kashmir
Situation - NDTV.COM. [online] Available at: http://www.ndtv.com/topic/kashmirsituation [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
10. Peacenews.info. (2016). Nuclear war over Kashmir: a real threat | Peace News.
[online] Available at: http://peacenews.info/node/5573/nuclear-war-over-kashmirreal-threat [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
11. Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. [online] Available
at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmirconflict.html [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
12. The Huffington Post. (2010). [online] Available at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/kashmir-could-start-anuc_b_731607.html [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
13. Un.org. (2016). UNITED NATIONS INDIA-PAKISTAN OBSERVATION
MISSION (UNIPOM) - Background. [online] Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unipombackgr.html [Accessed 1
Sep. 2016].
14. Web.stanford.edu. (2016). Nuclear Tension Over the Kashmir. [online] Available at:
http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/confrontation/htension.html [Accessed
1 Sep. 2016].
15. Www1.american.edu. (2016). Case Study. [online] Available at:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/kashmiri.htm [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
AGENDA 2
THE VALIDITY OF REFERENDUMS IN AREAS OF DISPUTE
2.1 Introduction
“The power of the people is so much stronger than the people in power.”- Wael Ghonim
The Oxford dictionary defines ‘Referendum’ as “a general vote by the electorate on a single
political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.” It is synonymous
with ‘Plebiscite’ or a ‘vote on Ballot Question’ in some countries. However, there are several
differences in the way countries define this particular term. For instance, Australia defines
'referendum' as a vote to change the constitution, and 'plebiscite' as a vote that does not affect
the constitution. While few countries suggest that ‘plebiscite’ is a type of vote to change the
constitution or government of a country. Therefore, the term ‘Referendum’ will be used in
the Background Guide hereinafter.
Referendums can be divided into two categories based on how legally binding they are:


Mandatory or Obligatory referendum: A mandatory or obligatory referendum is a vote
of the electorate which is called automatically under circumstances defined in the
constitution or in the legislation. The consequences of the vote are usually binding.
Therefore, if a proposal passes, the government or appropriate authority is compelled
to implement it.
Optional or Facultative Referendum: These are votes of the electorate which are
called by a formal demand, which may emanate from the executive, from a number of
members of the legislature, from a number of citizens or from some other defined
agent. The consequences of the vote may or may not be binding.
When the validity of referendums is being questioned, the right to self-determination arises.
The UN charter gives people the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right they
are free to determine their political status. Whereas, this clashes with sovereignty provided to
countries that they have the authority to decide the proceedings of the country. It is usually
the right given to people versus the right given to the State.
Referendums also induce ethnic conflict. Most countries in the world have large disparities in
the ethnic distribution of their populations. In the case of most referendums, the majority
group tends to dominate and get the result of the referendum in its favor. This has and can in
the future as well result into widespread conflicts which leads to several deaths.
Referendums also avoid to a certain extent the involvement of the international community in
areas of territorial dispute. However, this sometimes results in domination by the more
powerful country. Countries argue that if the United Nations takes actions then it would
affect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
Another frequently asked question is how to restore peace and stability in a region where a
referendum fails in whichever way. How to solve an end state issue? What should be given
more power: sovereignty or self determination in case a referendum fails?
2.2 Responsibility to Protect
The paragraphs 138 and 139 of the outcome document of the 2005 world summit introduced
the world to Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which reconceptualized Sovereignty. The text of
R2P has been provided below:
“138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the
prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary
means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international
community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility
and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to
use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with
Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take
collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in
accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be
inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for
the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its
implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also
intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to
protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.”
Even though R2P prevented to a certain extent ethnic conflicts, it was considered very
ambiguous and not legally binding. Larger countries argue that if R2P was made legally
binding, the loopholes present in it would lead to rendering it completely useless. However,
smaller countries argue that making R2P legally binding is an instrument against the more
powerful countries to not allow them to exercise their will on the smaller countries.
How are referendums related to R2P? Referendums reflect the conflict between sovereignty
and self determination and R2P is probably the only link between these two concepts.
2.2.1 Issues with Responsibility to Protect
2.2.1.1 Legal Status of R2P
The R2P is difficult to place under any of the constituents of international law, namely treaty
law, customary international law and norms. It can be argued that R2P falls under treaty law
as it is well founded in various documents. At the same time, with no definitive treaty or
framework, the R2P would appear to most countries as a norm rather than law. To which the
committee will also have to ask if it is time to create a definitive framework or treaty
governing the R2P.
2.2.1.2 The Problem of Actors
With the vague reference to the international community, the R2P does not name who bears
the responsibility to protect. One perception would be that it is the UNSC’s job to protect, but
as has been seen in many occasions, the UNSC is unable to act due to lack of consensus in
theP-5s. Also, there are many instances when other international bodies such as NATO and
AU have taken upon them the responsibility to protect. Thus it becomes an important
question as to what are the relevant international actors who have the authority to intervene.
It is an important question when taken in the context of the sovereignty and self
determination debate. Another aspect to this question is that of mixed motives as the actors
must not enter with vested interests and must be acting with the appropriate intentions.
2.3 Past, Present and Future of a Hypothetical Referendum
Any referendum could be divided into three stages: Past, Present and Future. The Past would
include the beginning and escalation of an issue, by whichever means it happens, to an extent
to which it becomes imperative to conduct a referendum to solve it. The Present would
include the way the referendum is conducted and its verdict. It could also include the disputes
that arise while conducting the referendum. The Future would be what happens after a
Referendum. If a referendum is successful, there is no need to deliberate on the future aspect.
But if the referendum fails in whichever way, it can harm peace and stability in a region,
which can also be a grave potential threat to international security.
A failed referendum can result to various harmful effects, the two most dangerous of them
being end state issue and ethnic conflict.
2.4 End State Issue: Is the Country even capable of conducting a
Referendum?
Perhaps the most important question in the quest for reconciling sovereignty with the
responsibility to protect is the question of the end-state. A military intervention against the
state, as is often the case, leaves the government non-existent. In such a scenario, how do the
intervening parties create a legitimate state. The end state is important so as to ensure that an
intervention does not result in an occupation.
In a scenario where an end state occurs, the people of the region neither have the resources
nor the knowledge of administrating the State. In such a scenario, is a referendum a viable
solution to solve the administration issues? Does the right to self-determination solve the end
state?
Delegates must address the following questions:

Should the intervening State have any role in the stabilizing the end state?



How would the end State find its economic resources for its administration until it is
stable?
How will the internal conflicts that arise in the State after the end state occurs be
prevented?
Should the end-state issue be addressed by the responsibility to protect?
2.5 Case Studies
2.5.1 Case Study: The situation in Ukraine
The Republic of Crimea, officially part of Ukraine,
lies on a peninsula stretching out from the south of
Ukraine between the Black Sea and the Sea of
Azov. It is separated from Russia to the east by the
narrow Kerch Strait.
Crimea has been ruled over by a multitude of
countries and the issue of territorial disputes is not a new one for the Peninsula. Crimea was
under the reign of the Ottoman Empire before it was annexed by Russia in 1783. Crimea was
a source of tourism and energy resources for the Russian federation for almost two centuries
before declaring itself autonomous and changing its name to the Crimean Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic in 1921. The region saw autonomous rule for almost 25 years before
Joseph Stalin abolished the autonomy of the state post the conclusion of the Second World
War. Stalin justified this abolition as a result of the large Russian population residing in
Crimea which wished to be ‘reconciled with Russia’. This situation is very similar to the one
at hand, with President Vladimir Putin playing a role analogous to that of Stalin in 1945. It
wasn’t until 1994 that Russia finally recognized Crimea and even pledged to uphold the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine at the Budapest Memorandum Treaty summit
the same year. The following year saw the Ukrainian parliament play a rather tyrannous rule
by abolishing the Crimean Constitution which allowed Crimea considerable autonomy while
it was still a part of Ukraine. Ukraine also ousted its then-President Yuri Meshkov and
deported him from Ukraine in 2011 when he tried to restore the 1992 version of the Crimean
Constitution. The referendum conducted by the Russian Federation recently gave voters a
choice to restore the same constitution, however, this referendum was denounced by the
international community and not recognized by the Ukrainian Parliament, as discussed
below. Hence, Crimea has a long history of territorial conflicts and constitutional breaches
and recent events can be compared to Crimea’s long-disputed past.
In early 2014 Crimea became the focus of the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War,
after Ukraine's pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovych was driven from power by violent
protests in Kiev.
Russian-backed forces seized control of the Crimean Peninsula, and the territory, which has a
Russian-speaking majority, voted to join Russia in a referendum that Ukraine and the UNGA
have deemed illegal.
The Republic of Crimea addressed the UN seeking recognition as a sovereign state and called
on Russia to integrate it into the Russian Federation. 96.77 percent of the Crimean population
voted ‘for’ the integration in a referendum.
Crimea was declared an independent sovereign state, the Republic of Crimea, on Monday,
the autonomous Ukrainian regional parliament's website stated. The Supreme Council of
Crimea unanimously voted to integrate of the region into Russia.
Russia has argued that the Crimean independence is legitimate as the unilateral declaration of
independence by Kosovo provides legal precedent for such a scenario.
The Obama administration and most European governments argue that the referendum
violates both the Ukrainian constitution and international law. The Ukrainian constitution
requires that any changes to the territory of Ukraine be approved by a referendum of all of the
Ukrainian people. The requirement is consistent with general principles of international law,
which respects the territorial integrity of states and does not recognize a right of secession by
a group or region in a country unless the group or region has been denied a right to "internal
self-determination" (i.e., its right to pursue its own political, economic, social, and cultural
development) by the central government or has been subject to grave human rights violations
by the central government. These factors, which could give rise to a right of remedial
secession under international law, are not present in Crimea.
Up to now, the UN has come up with two "major" moves on Ukraine: First, there was a vote
in the UN Security Council, convened in March at the request of the interim government in
Kiev, on the draft resolution condemning the referendum in Crimea that saw it leaving
Ukraine and joining Russia. The resolution was - surprise, surprise - vetoed by Russia, with
China abstaining and the rest, including Chad, supporting it wholeheartedly. And secondly,
the UN General Assembly resolution on March 27 which called on nations not to accept the
Crimean referendum and was approved by 100 countries, rejected by 11, with 58 abstaining.
2.5.2 Case Study: Possible Referendum in Kashmir
The conflict in Kashmir begins with the partition of India and Pakistan. Kashmir, a princely
state with an overwhelming Muslim population, was ruled by a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari
Singh. He chose to remain neutral and did not join either Pakistan or India. In October 1948,
due to Pakistani tribesmen posing a threat, Maharaja Hari Singh asked the Indian army for
assistance and signed the instrument of accession. India referred the case to the UN, which
asked for a ‘free and fair’ plebiscite in Kashmir after the removal of Pakistani militant forces
and the Indian military. However, the plebiscite has not happened as Pakistan claims that part
of Kashmir is militarily occupied by India, whereas India claims that the military presence is
necessary to prevent militancy. Ever since, India has always claimed Kashmir to be a
bilateral issue and refused foreign intervention.
Kashmir enjoys a special autonomous status under article 370 of the Indian constitution
within the national border of India. Therefore, the election of government officials, political
party leaders, and local reformatory measures all occur under the jurisdiction of the
semiautonomous state. In addition, the Parliament requires the state government’s
concurrence for applying all laws, excluding the ones pertaining to defense, foreign affairs,
finance and communications.
Being located in the heart of much territorial dispute, it is needless to say that the Kashmiri
populous is torn between several different national and psychological fronts, as well as
religious identities. Despite Kashmir being a territory of the Indian government, territorial
disputes throughout the centuries have resulted in a three-way division of Jammu/Kashmir.
The southern-most territory of the region, generally known as Jammu/Kashmir continues to
belong to India under legal frames. The eastern territory known as Aksai Chin has belonged
to China since 1962. Finally, the northern and western-most territories known as Azad
Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have belonged to Pakistan since 1947.
Despite Jammu/Kashmir being a legal territory of India, internal division has been occurring
for the past decades, characterized by polarized political and religious standpoints of the
people within. Violence and unrest is occurring, mainly within the Kashmir valley.
The Indian army has been accused of human rights violations in the region, which have often
led to violent clashes in the valley. Along with that, both the UN resolutions and the Shimla
agreement fail to give the option for an independent Kashmir, whereas upon independence
from British colonization, Princely States had full authority to remain independent. Thus the
question of international intervention is pressing when it comes to the conflict in Kashmir.
The only safe way to truly determine the will of the entirety of Jammu/Kashmir and to have
hard facts to move the issue further would be to hold a UN regulated referendum. Through
UN monitoring of this process, a safe, fair, and true result could be determined. At this point,
the result could be utilized for negotiations between India and Pakistan, determining the next
course of action.
2.5.3 Case Study: Cyprus Dispute
The Cyprus dispute or Cyprus issue is the ongoing issue of
military invasion and continuing Turkish occupation
(since 1974) of the northern third of the island, a situation
described and deplored in multiple UN reports and
resolutions. Although the Republic of Cyprus is
recognized as the sole legitimate state, sovereign over all
the island, the north is de facto under the administration of
the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
which is under Turkish Cypriots and Turkish Armed Forces control.
Under the final proposals, the Republic of Cyprus would become the United Cyprus
Republic. It would be a loose federation composed of two component states. The northern
Turkish Cypriot constituent state would encompass about 28.5% of the island, the southern
Greek Cypriot constituent state would be made up of the remaining 71.5%. Each part would
have had its own parliament. There would also be a bicameral parliament on the federal level.
In the Chamber of Deputies, the Turkish Cypriots would have 25% of the seats. (While no
accurate figures are currently available, the split between the two communities at
independence in 1960 was approximately 80:20 in favour of the Greek Cypriots.) The Senate
would consist of equal parts of members of each ethnic group. Executive power would be
vested in a presidential council. The chairmanship of this council would rotate between the
communities. Each community would also have the right to veto all legislation.
One of the most controversial elements of the plan concerned property. During Turkey's
military intervention/invasion in 1974, many Greek Cypriots (who owned 90% of the land
and property in the north) were forced to abandon their homes. (A large number of Turkish
Cypriots also left their homes.) Since then, the question of restitution of their property has
been a central demand of the Greek Cypriot side. However, the Turkish Cypriots argue that
the complete return of all Greek Cypriot properties to their original owners would be
incompatible with the functioning of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal settlement. To this
extent, they have argued compensation should be offered. The Annan Plan attempted to
bridge this divide. In certain areas, such as Morphou (Güzelyurt) and Famagusta
(Gazimağusa), which would be returned to Greek Cypriot control, Greek Cypriot refugees
would have received back all of their property according to a phased timetable. In other areas,
such as Kyrenia (Girne) and the Karpass Peninsula, which would remain under Turkish
Cypriot control, they would be given back a proportion of their land (usually one third
assuming that it had not been extensively developed) and would receive compensation for the
rest. All land and property (that was not used for worship) belonging to businesses and
institutions, including the Church the largest property owner on the island, would have been
expropriated. While many Greek Cypriots found these provisions unacceptable in
themselves, many others resented the fact that the Plan envisaged all compensation claims by
a particular community to be met by their own side. This was seen as unfair as Turkey would
not be required to contribute any funds towards the compensation.
Apart from the property issue, there were many other parts of the plan that sparked
controversy. For example, the agreement envisaged the gradual reduction in the number of
Greek and Turkish troops on the island. After six years, the number of soldiers from each
country would be limited to 6,000. This would fall to 600 after 19 years. Thereafter, the aim
would be to try to achieve full demilitarisation, a process that many hoped would be made
possible by Turkish accession to the European Union. The agreement also kept in place the
Treaty of Guarantee – an integral part of the 1960 constitution that gave Britain, Greece and
Turkey a right to intervene militarily in the island's affairs. Many Greek Cypriots were
concerned that the continuation of the right of intervention would give Turkey too large a say
in the future of the island. However, most Turkish Cypriots felt that a continued Turkish
military presence was necessary to ensure their security. Another element of the plan the
Greek Cypriots objected to was that it allowed many Turkish citizens who had been brought
to the island to remain. (The exact number of these Turkish 'settlers' is highly disputed. Some
argue that the figure is as high as 150,000 or as low as 40,000. They are seen as settlers
illegally brought to the island in contravention of international law. However, while many
accepted Greek Cypriot concerns on this matter, there was a widespread feeling that it would
be unrealistic – and legally and morally problematic – to forcibly remove every one of these
settlers, especially as many of them had been born and raised on the island.)
Under the terms of the plan, the Annan plan would only come into force if accepted by the
two communities in simultaneous referendums. These were set for 24 April 2004. In the
weeks that followed there was intense campaigning in both communities. However, and in
spite of opposition from Rauf Denktaş, who had boycotted the talks in Switzerland, it soon
became clear that the Turkish Cypriots would vote in favour of the agreement. Among Greek
Cypriots opinion was heavily weighted against the plan. Tassos Papadopoulos, the president
of Cyprus, in a speech delivered on 7 April called on Greek Cypriots to reject the plan. His
position was supported by the centrist Diko party and the socialists of EDEK as well as other
smaller parties. His major coalition partner AKEL, one of the largest parties on the island,
chose to reject the plan bowing to the wishes of the majority of the party base. Support for the
plan was voiced by Democratic Rally (DISY) leadership, the main right-wing party, despite
opposition to the plan from the majority of party followers, and the United Democrats, a
small centre-left party led by George Vasiliou, a former president. Glafcos Clerides, now
retired from politics, also supported the plan. Prominent members of DISY who did not
support the Annan plan split from the party and openly campaigned against it. The Greek
Cypriot Church also opposed the plan in line with the views of the majority of public opinion.
The United Kingdom (a Guarantor Power) and the United States came out in favour of the
plan. Turkey signalled its support for the plan. The Greek Government decided to remain
neutral. However, Russia was troubled by an attempt by Britain and the US to introduce a
resolution in the UN Security Council supporting the plan and used its veto to block the
move. This was done because they believed that the resolution would provide external
influence to the internal debate, which they did not view as fair.
In the 24 April referendum the Turkish Cypriots endorsed the plan by a margin of almost two
to one. However, the Greek Cypriots resoundingly voted against the plan, by a margin of
about three to one. This referendum result was very disputable as one-fourth of the
population of Cyprus did not receive a result in their favor, which is a large number.
2.6 Topics to focus on
1. Sovereignty and Self-Determination
2. R2P
3. End-State Issue
4. Past, Present and Future of a Referendum
5. Referendums and Ethnic Conflicts
6. Quorum requirements for a valid referendum
7. Intervention of the United Nations when a referendum fails
8. Wars and Referendums
9. Role and stance of your country in the issue
10. Past actions of your country on the issue
11. Long term solutions to the existing issue
2.7 Bibliography and Additional Links
1. BBC News. (2016). Kashmir territories profile - BBC News. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11693674 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
2. Csis.org. (2016). The Ukraine Crisis Timeline. [online] Available at:
http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
3. Cyprus Mail. (2014). Joint Declaration: final version as agreed between the two
leaders - Cyprus Mail. [online] Available at: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/02/11/jointdeclaration-final-version-as-agreed-between-the-two-leaders/ [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
4. euronews. (2014). NATO concern over Russian planes in Crimea. [online] Available
at: http://www.euronews.com/2014/11/26/nato-concern-over-russian-planes-incrimea/ [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
5. Global Research. (2016). Crimea vs. Quebec: The Legal Right to a Referendum on
Self-Determination. [online] Available at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimea-vsquebec-the-legal-right-to-a-referendum-on-self-determination/5373029 [Accessed 16
Aug. 2016].
6. Hri.org. (2016). THE TEXT OF THE PLAN. [online] Available at:
http://www.hri.org/docs/annan/Annan_Plan_Text.html [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
7. Idea.int. (2016). Quorum requirements for a referendum to be valid (Field view) |
Global Database on Elections and Democracy | International IDEA. [online]
Available at: http://www.idea.int/db/fieldview.cfm?field=327 [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
8. Indiatoday.intoday.in. (2016). Article 370: 10 facts that you need to know :
Highlights, News - India Today. [online] Available at:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/article-370-issue-omar-abdullah-jammu-andkashmir-jawaharlal-nehru/1/364053.html [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
9. Jammu-kashmir.com. (2016). Legal and Constitutional position of Kashmir. [online]
Available at: http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/shabir/shabir4.html [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
10. Library, C. (2016). Kashmir Fast Facts - CNN.com. [online] CNN. Available at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/08/world/kashmir-fast-facts/ [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
11. Loc.gov. (2016). United Nations: Resolution Declares Crimea Referendum Invalid |
Global Legal Monitor. [online] Available at: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreignnews/article/united-nations-resolution-declares-crimea-referendum-invalid/ [Accessed
16 Aug. 2016].
12. Nekrassov, A. (2016). Ukraine crisis: What's the UN doing about it?. [online]
Aljazeera.com. Available at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/ukraine-crisis-what-un-doing-ab201441761310213603.html [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
13. Osce.org. (2016). Press statement by the Trilateral Contact Group | OSCE. [online]
Available at: http://www.osce.org/home/121390 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
14. Oxfordscholarship.com. (2007). Statehood and Recognition - Oxford Scholarship.
[online] Available at:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.000
1/acprof-9780199228423-chapter-1 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
15. Qvortrup, M. (n.d.). Referendums and ethnic conflict.
16. Research.un.org. (2016). Quick Guide - The Situation in Ukraine - Research Guides
at United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library. [online] Available at:
http://research.un.org/en/ukraine [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
17. Researchgate.net. (2016). Legitimacy of referendums. [online] Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Legitimacy_of_referendums12 [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
18. Reuters. (2016). FACTBOX: Key issues in Cyprus dispute. [online] Available at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/10/us-cyprus-conflict-factboxidUSTRE5A94EV20091110 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
19. RT International. (2016). Crimea declares independence, seeks UN recognition.
[online] Available at: http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-results-official-250/
[Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
20. the Guardian. (2014). Ban Ki-moon: no military solution to Ukraine crisis. [online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/ban-ki-moon-nomilitary-solution-ukraine [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
21. Trend.Az. (2011). Turkish FM hopes for Cyprus reunification referendum in early
2012. [online] Available at: http://en.trend.az/regions/met/turkey/1903256.html
[Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
22. UN News Centre. (2016). United Nations News Centre. [online] Available at:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=4735 5#.VNdGe1WUePU
[Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
23. Upenn.edu. (2016). Referendums and Ethnic Conflict | Matt Qvortrup. [online]
Available at: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15197.html [Accessed 16 Aug.
2016].
24. Wikipedia. (2016). Cyprus dispute. [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
25. Wikipedia. (2016). Referendum. [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].
26. Oxfordscholarship.com. (2007). Statehood and Recognition - Oxford Scholarship.
[online] Available at:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.000
1/acprof-9780199228423-chapter-1 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016].