First Session Oct 20
By: Juanita Laverde
This committee starts seccion with the topic of extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. The delegate of the People Republic of China made a point in which he is in favor of the extraterritorial force as long as it is use only inside of the country, force in this context might take too many forms, ranging from target murder and abductions of individuals, to large-scale military operations amounting to armed conflict. Actions of this type have in occured in what has been known as “the war on terror”, but are not limited to this context, and the analysis of this book covers a more suitable profit: unilateral, extraterritorial, and forcible measures against non-state actors.
This is most likely to be part of something challenging because of the concept of sovereign as mentioned, which is under continued pressure due to globalization, the question of what legal rights a State has been attacked by non-state actors based in another State is difficult to assess. The delegate of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia wanted to remind the committee that the United Nations has a purpose to maintain international peace and security and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of other breaches of the peace.
The delegates of this commission are being based on the article 51: Self defense and its limits in the UN charter, this article is quite limited in its authority, it allows the use of military force by a nation that has been attacked only until the Security Council has taken measures necessary. The delegate of the United States of America claims that the concept of “preemptive” self defense is not a concept within the UN charter or international law. Such a claim may indeed apply to collaborative law enforcement operations to prevent future crimes, especially crimes against humanity.
Second Session Oct 20
By: Juanita Laverde
This second session started and the delegates already knew their point of purpose which is the article 51: self defense and its limits in the UN charter.
Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. This series shows that article 51 reflects an exception to the authority of the Security Council to take collective measures involving the use of force in order to suppress acts of aggression and maintain international peace and security.
The delegates made an unmoderated caucus in order to fix up some topics that were being misled and monotonous, so when it ended they started to talk about the issues between delegations such as the United States and Afghanistan. The last U.S military forces departed Afghanistan, leaving it under Taliban rule. According to the delegate of the United States, President Biden says they should learn from their mistakes and that the withdrawal marks the end of an era of major military operations to remake other countries. Thousands of Afghans who assisted the United States and its allies, as well as up two hundred Americans remain in Afghanistan.
The delegate of the United States answer a question affirming that in the US, the government is always focus at most of the time in its own country, which means that its priority is to ensure their citizens health, wealthbeing and the necessary to live, but also the delegate said that if a country needed help, the US would offer to help and talk. It has become fashionable to characterize recent events in Afghanistan as a loss for the United States but a win for China. This zero zoom of interpretation is framed in the narrow context of the United States relations. The Afghan attorney General’s Office investigates and prosecutes violations of the law prohibiting membership in terrorism or insurgent groups, violent acts commited against the state, hostage taking, muder, and the use of explosives against military sources and states infrastructure.
Third Session Oct 20
By: Juanita Laverde
During this period of time there were no debates about the statements that the right of self defense, which is embodied in the article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, is the temporary right until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The other criterion which requires an examination is the principle of immediacy, this criterion is also like a controversial issue. There is a point of view that the action in self defense must immediately follow the start of an attack, at the same time, they agree that the principle of immediacy cannot be explained directly, because of different bureaucratic procedures the state faces with the beginning of hostilities by the adversary.
The honorable chair made an intervention clarifying that a self defense attack or response, could only be done if the defense is being done because of personality, believes, preferences, but otherwise this self defense might not be a 100% reliable because if it treats topics that are more political or concretes and out of order, they are not correct to attack.
First Session Oct 21
By: Juanita Laverde
This session begins with the delegation of the State of Eritrea, the delegate claims that they aren’t in favor of the use of self defense taking into account that these acts most of the time don’t end well for the nation. The right of self defense was codified in the Charter of the United Nations. Scholars and government officials almost immediately began to parse its terms for exceptions and arguments expanding the right to use force.
The delegate of the United Kingdom and Northern Irland has made an intervention in which he remind the committee that in several times other countries have said and made clear that most of the times they can’t even control their own people and citizens, then how would they be able to keep organized international facts while they are being too busy dealing with their own problems. There was added to the register of the committee a quote from the delegate of the United States of America “ The host state may be affected but they have the responsibility to respond to these actors besides of the damage that could be made”. The situation on the ground remains complex, it is technically a fight that even though it is not as aggressive as it might look like it is obviously affecting the other nations. The delegates made a list of three concepts that are going to be taken into consideration that are:
-
Harbouring or supporting state
-
Unwilling or unable
-
Ungoverned spaces
Second Session Oct 21
By: Juanita Laverde
The delegates started to do their press release in order to finish the first topic of the committee, there were made three press releases in which they were divided into main blocks: the Russian Federation with People Republic of China, the second block: the State of Eritrea, with the Federative Republic of Brazil, also with the State of Israel, and the third and final block by the United States of America.
The delegates are debating about how they will use the three types of forces in the State. At this session the delegates also started the second topic which is the civil war in Ethiopia so they started the session also with their opening speeches in which they were giving a brief report about the main information of their representing country.
Third Session Oct 21
By: Juanita Laverde
This session started and the second topic did too, the United Kingdom relies on a stable Ethiopia that is supportive for our foreign policy priorities in the Horn of Africa. The delegate of the United Kingdom gave the committee a brief talk, he marked up a new sanctions regime that in the coming weeks could be applied to a wide set of warring parties in Ethiopia. Its design and the diplomacy surrounding it are examples of a constructive United States engagement amidst an intensifying war and also awful humanitarian situations.
Yet there should be no more high hopes that the sanction regime will dissuade the warring parties from persisting in their dangerous course. Averting an escalating civil war and its regional spillovers and reversing the humanitarian situation crisis in the Tigray region have been crucial priorities of the Biden administration of the United States diplomats have spent over the last months probing and prodding both Abiy and the TPLF in proximity talks toward a negotiated ceasefire. The priceworth design of the sanctions regime avoids these typical pitfalls. In the first place, it gives legal recognition for humanitarian relief delivery.
This important provision learns from the mistakes made in the past administration of the country itself, whose preoccupation with depriving terrorists groups of material and financial support from delivering food and services. Thus the Biden administration should at least privately communicate a complete deadline to the sanctions grace period. It also should stress that sanctions should be applied subsequently if the negotiations are purposefully stalled by any party, even under the best circumstances, negotiations would not be easy or fast enough to be made.
The Ethiopian government currently feels alienated from the United States and is eager to find new external sponsors. If the belliferency does de-escalate, a broader civil war is averted, and conflict resolution mechanisms are adopted, the United States and Ethiopia should be able to return to strong cooperation. True democracy and accountability in Ethiopia could mean a review and revocation of many of those shady deals, and China might prefer to cultivate political clients instead of neutrally seeking to escalate the conflict.
.