UIS Simulation:

UIS MUN Tentative Schedule

8:00am - 8:30am             Sign-in, country assignment

8:30am – 9:00am             Opening Speech

9:00am – 10:00am           Procedural Overview

10:00am – noon               Session

Noon – 1:00pm                Lunch

1:00pm – 4:30pm             Session

4:30pm – 5:00pm             Voting Procedure

5:00pm – 5:30pm             Closing

 Details

-lunch is not provided:  available at own cost on and off campus

-Dress code:  western business attire

-countries will be assigned at sign-in

-no previous MUN experience needed

-open to all interested students

Topic Guide

The following guide has been prepared to provide a brief overview of the nature of the topics that will be addressed at the UIS Spring 2001 MUN Simulation.  While this guide does not address all aspects of the topics, it will provide the basic elements of substantive debate, along with historical examples and country position samples.  No research beyond that which is needed for basic knowledge of the topics is considered necessary.  In addition, no country-specific research is necessary, as country assignments will be given to individual delegates upon registration.

Please remember that this simulation is primarily intended to provide delegates an opportunity to practice and refine their procedural skills within the context of a committee simulation.  Therefore, while participants are encouraged to approach the substantive aspects of the simulation with a high level of realism, the emphasis will be placed on familiarization with decorum and procedural rules.    

The topics before the committee are:

1. The Role of Regional Security Organizations
2. Nuclear Test Bans

I.  The Role of Regional Security Organizations

Since the end of the Cold War, regional security organizations have moved away form their previous roles as providers of regional defense and have begun working at times in conjunction with and at times independent of the United Nations in peacekeeping affairs.  Peacekeeping efforts by regional security organizations, such as NATO, are seen by some as a quick and effective means of providing military force when and where it is deemed necessary, while others contend that peacekeeping actions should be international in nature and therefore left to the United Nations.

One example of this argument centers around NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia.  In the Spring of 1999, having seen no compliance from the Serbian government regarding numerous political agreements (including UN Security Council resolutions) to cease ethnically-directed human and political rights violations within the Kosovo region, NATO forces began a campaign of air strikes on military targets, eventually coercing Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw troops from the contested area, after which a United Nations “stabilizing force” was deployed to implement a cease-fire and troop withdrawal agreement.

Advocates of regional security organizations as peace keepers, such as the United States and the United Kingdom saw the actions taken in Kosovo as a great success, as the objective of forcing Serbian troops out of Kosovo was completed with relative speed and zero NATO casualties.

 Not all states, however, viewed NATO’s actions in Serbia with enthusiasm.  Russia and China in particular, were vocal in their disapproval that NATO had acted without the expressed approval of the UN Security Council, raising questions as to the legitimacy of peacekeeping actions taken outside the United Nations, as well as the potential for erosion of state sovereignty.

In addition, some claim that regional security organizations lack the necessary objectivity to act as a peacekeeping force within their part of the world.  This can be seen within the African continent, where the peacekeeping division of the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS), the Economic Community Cease-fire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), was accused of human rights violations and instigating regional conflicts during efforts in Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau. 

II.  Nuclear Test Bans

Of all weapons and disarmament topics, few generate responses as dramatic and varied as those related to nuclear test bans.  Recent testing of nuclear devices in Southern Asia has led to a renewed debate on attempts to limit the spread and development of weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to 1998, only five states were acknowledged as nuclear weapon states (NWS):  United States, China, France, Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom.  However, in 1998, after reporting successful detonation of nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan declared themselves as nuclear weapon states as well.  While their exact capacities are unknown at this time, Israel, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Korea are believed to possibly possess nuclear weapons.

Within previous sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, resolutions regarding action towards a nuclear weapon free world have been met with criticism from many of the above states, claiming that nuclear weapons are necessary for national security purposes.  However, many states, including Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, and South Africa, have been vocal in their support for global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

One historical example of a successful ban on nuclear weapons can be seen in the adoption of the 1963 Treaty of Tlatelolco, under which Latin American states agreed not to develop, test, or import nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, states which possessed nuclear weapons at the time agreed not to deploy nuclear weapons in those states, or target or use nuclear weapons against Latin American states.

home | advisor's letter | constitution | preparation guide | position paper | resolutions | links | uis simulation | awards | contact