Dear Delegates,

It is with great excitement that I welcome you to Harvard National Model United Nations 2011! My name is Ricky Hanzich,
and I am humbled by the opportunity to serve as your Secretary-General for the 57th Session of HNMUN. I am currently
a senior at Harvard University, concentrating in Government with a secondary field in Global Health and Health Policy and
a language citation in Spanish. Last year, I had the privilege of serving as the Under-Secretary-General for the Specialized
Agencies. And during HNMUN 2009, I directed the United Nations Security Council. From being a page for an MUN
conference in Southern California, to Chairing the Security Council at WorldMUN 2010 in Taipei, I have committed myself
to exploring international relations and diplomacy through experiential education for over eight years. HNMUN 2011 will be
my thirtieth MUN conference, and I am honored to share this incredible experience with all of you.

This document will provide you with Welcome Letters from your Under-Secretary-General and your Director, the Study
Guide for your committee, and the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure. The entire Secretariat and Senior Staff have committed
countless hours to ensure that the substance and presentation of this document are of the highest quality, and that you are
provided with the most useful tools to succeed at conference. Each Director has worked over the past eight months to provide
you with the foundation necessary to continue your own exploration of the topic areas. We look forward to working with you
to continue HNMUN’s tradition of substantive excellence.

Apart from this document, you will also be able to access a number of additional documents that will aid in your preparations
for conference. Our Guide to Delegate Preparation reviews the substantive side of HNMUN, highlights differences between
our session and other MUN conferences, and explains our policies on substantive matters, such as the award selection process
and position papers. It also includes our updated Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, which are also found at the end of this
document. Our Guide to First Time Delegations provides information regarding substantive and logistical issues for those
new to HNMUN, and includes a timeline for delegate preparation. And the Guide to Starting an MUN Team outlines the
steps necessary to establish and expand a university’s MUN organization. Finally, Update Papers to committee Study Guides
will be posted in mid-November to provide further exploration and/or recent news developments concerning the topic areas.

If you have any questions about this document, the other Guides, or your committee in general, please do not hesitate to contact
your Director or your Under-Secretary-General. They are truly excited to meet you all and are eager to address any concerns
you may have before, during, or after the conference. I hope you enjoy reading the following Study Guide, and I cannot wait
to see your solutions come February!

Sincerely,

Ricky J. Hanzich
Secretary-General
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 1

 General Assembly

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the General Assembly at Harvard National Model United Nations 2011! My name is Dominik Nieszporowski
and I have the honour to serve as your Under-Secretary-General in the largest and most exciting organ at the conference. To
briefly introduce myself, I am a junior at Harvard concentrating in Applied Mathematics and Economics. Originally from
Warsaw, Poland, I have participated in MUN for more than 7 years now, having attended several conferences in Europe, North
America and Asia. Even though my primary areas of interest are focused on business and finance, I have always thoroughly
enjoyed the opportunity to discuss major world issues with people from other countries that MUN offers. My other passions
include international development and public service – I have been particularly involved with programs creating educational
opportunities for children in Africa. Sports also play an important role in my life – having been brought up as a big Chelsea
London supporter, and having tried almost all major disciplines from rowing to fencing, I settled on regularly practicing tennis
and swimming.

Besides me, the General Assembly is formed by an incredibly motivated and knowledgeable team of Directors and Assistant
Directors, who have worked with tremendous dedication to design the seven largest committees at HNMUN 2011. In addition
to the four standing committees of the General Assembly – the Disarmament and International Security Committee, the
Special Political and Decolonization Committee, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee and the Legal Committee,
the conference will also feature three more specialized bodies: the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization
and the Historical General Assembly of 1991. I hope that the broad range of topics offered will provide you with a chance to
engage with issues that fall within your areas of genuine interest.

The delegate experience in the General Assembly is truly unmatched – it is precisely here that you can find the true spirit of
MUN. Delegates in the GA really get into the issues and actively interact with each other, and the resolutions inevitably reflect
both their preparation and their commitment to the principles of international cooperation. MUN is about creating a real
simulation of the world, encouraging ourselves to struggle unabashedly with problems beyond our local scope, and working
together with compromise, cooperation, and consensus for the betterment of all. I am confident that you will be able to find
this in your experience in the GA, and I promise to work tirelessly to fulfill your expectations. In that respect, please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding any committee of the General Assembly; I will
make sure to assist you to the best of my ability.

Let me finish with some wise words by one of the most inspiring statesmen of all times, Sir Winston Churchill: Attitude is a
little thing that makes a big difference. In the General Assembly, we do have the right attitude and we will make a difference.

I am looking forward to seeing you in Boston in February.

Sincerely,

Dominik P. H. Nieszporowski
234 Kirkland House Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 02138
dnieszp@fas.harvard.edu

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 2

 World Health Organization

World Health
Organization

Topic Area A: Fighting Disease Following Natural Disasters

Topic Area B: Ethics in Drug Research and Development

Dear Delegates,

My name is Billy Gorman, your committee’s director, and I’m thrilled to welcome you to what will most definitely become the
most exciting committee of HNMUN 2011, the World Health Organization!

I am currently a sophomore at Harvard, residing in the fabulous Kirkland House, and I can surely say my short time here has
been a whirlwind. Growing up in the ever-so-distant Whitman, MA, I am forced to travel an eternal 35 minutes whenever
I make the trek back home. Despite essentially attending school in my backyard, I can honestly say that I have learned more
about myself and the world during my brief stay here than I ever have before. I’ll likely be concentrating in government and
earning a citation in Spanish, which I can hopefully use to pursue a career that focuses on international development. College
has been my first experience with Model UN, though I’ve definitely made up for lost time, staffing both HNMUN and our high
school conference, HMUN, as well as traveling with our own team, ICMUN. Outside Model UN, my hobbies include running,
following the greatest team on Earth, the Red Sox, and studying marine biology.

I’m thrilled to be directing the World Health Organization, as it truly presents an amazing opportunity for me, as well as you.
As a lover of history and social science, I really want to evolve the discussion of this committee to more than simply talks of
medicine and disease control. As much as we can drill into society’s ears the dangers of H1N1, bird flu, or terrorism, we must
accept that our globe is a fast paced, chaotic mess that we can’t entirely control. Accepting our subordinate position, it is our
duty to prepare ourselves for the worst. What if natural disaster strikes? How do we cope? And as we try to keep pace with
the speed of our planet, how do we best ensure the rights and liberties of all Earth’s people, without sacrificing our abilities to
maintain our development pace? Despite the efforts of great men and women in the past, these questions remain unanswered.
I look forward to discovering if we can outdo our predecessors and really make some headway on these topics.

If you have any questions leading up to conference, please don’t hesitate to ask. I’m already counting down the days and weeks
until conference, and I hope you will become as excited as me for what will certainly turn out to be the best committee of the
weekend.

Sincerely,

William Gorman
William Gorman
298 Kirkland House Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 02138
wgorman@college.harvard.edu

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 3

 World Health Organization
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization is one of the most
important international bodies in existence, with its history
stemming back to the League of Nations - formed following
World War I. Working alongside the United Nations, the
WHO is responsible for addressing all the pertinent issues
regarding health and medicine in today’s global affairs. With
193 member-states, the WHO is a vital organization to every
country in the world, and its actions affect all corners of the
globe.
At HNMUN 2011, the World Health Organization will
discuss two topics that are steadily gaining coverage and
significance in global affairs. The first is something seen on
the news unfortunately far too often. When natural disasters
strike, they understandably leave widespread devastation in all
facets of a community. Though safety is certainly a concern
during the immediate disaster, perhaps equally important
is the health and well being of the survivors of a disaster.
When the human body is stressed, as it may be during a
crisis, it is most susceptible to the dangers of disease. How
exactly can illness, both infectious and chronic, be mediated
in times of chaos? It is not purely a domestic issue, and all
nations need to come to a consensus on how to minimize
the pain that has already begun following such tragedies.
Additionally, though studied and critiqued for years, issues
regarding human research ethics remain major concerns for
many. Ethics regarding both research design and the rights
and responsibilities of researchers and participants have
come into question, and it is time that the globe sits down
once again to address them. When researchers cross borders,
must they provide the best care they possibly can? If not, will
restrictions prevent researchers from fully performing their
duties, forcing them to act as health care providers instead of
what they really are – scientists?
As delegates, it is your duty to engage in these topics
and work with one another to discover an amicable solution.
Solving either issue is not easy, but with diligence, cooperation,
and will, resolutions can be attained.
HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE
The World Health Organization’s roots stretch back to
the early twentieth century. In 1922, the League of Nations,
predecessor to the United Nations, created the League of
Nations Health Committee and Health Section, in hopes of
accomplishing the League’s goal of controlling and preventing
disease.1 During its existence, the Health Committee worked
to battle diseases such as malaria, typhus, leprosy, and yellow
fever. Ultimately, however, the League of Nations, along with
its Health Organization, had fully disbanded and folded by
1946, following the end of World War II.
4 General Assembly
Founded on 24 October 1945, the United Nations
was established as the premier international relations body,
inheriting many of the responsibilities, goals, and ambitions of
the League of Nations. In particular, the United Nations agreed
to combat the issues of world health. Thus, on 7 April 1948,
the charter to the World Health Organization was officially
established. In June of that year, 53 of the original 55 member
states met for the first time, discussing many issues that still
surface today, including, “malaria, women and children’s health,
tuberculosis, venereal disease, nutrition, and environmental
sanitation”2. According to its original constitution, the
WHO’s focus is to work alongside the UN to combat disease,
as well as providing active assistance when called upon. More
broadly, however, it also works to make recommendations
on health procedures, encourage international cooperation
between states, to establish international standards and labels
for diseases, pharmaceuticals, food, and biological products.3
The Health Assembly, consisting of all 193-member states,
meets annually to discuss pertinent health issues of the day.
The Health Assembly of the WHO is an incredibly
influential body in the UN. In addition to meeting annually,
it holds the power to convene whenever necessary to discuss
topics pertinent to the organization’s scope. Requiring two-
thirds majority for any agreement, anything passed directly
affects all states. Any regulations established are requirements
for all member nations.4 The WHO exists under Article 57 of
the United Nations Charter as a specialized agency of the UN,5
making it work closely with the other General Assemblies, as
both have the ability to make recomamendations and present
significant information to one another. The United Nations
also possesses the ability to request periodic reports from
the WHO, and like all specialized agencies, the WHO has an
established agreement outlining their specific relationship, as
outlined in Article 63 of the UN Charter.6 With such a broad
scope and strength, the WHO has not only the respect of its
member nations but also the responsibility for ensuring the
health and safety of all the citizens it works to protect.
Since its creation, the WHO has been instrumental in
many of the medical breakthroughs witnessed in the past half-
century. Accomplishing one of its early objectives, in 1948
the International Classification of Diseases was completed,
establishing international standards across the globe. In 1979,
the WHO was instrumental in the eradication of smallpox.
Other diseases such as polio are well on their way to similarly
being tamed, much to the organization’s credit.7 In more
recent years, the WHO has worked in controlling epidemics
such as SARS and H1N1 and has been a leader in HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria research and development. Today,
The WHO celebrates the anniversary of its founding, 7 April,
as World Health Day and continues to lead in research and
advancement in issues of global health.
 World Health Organization

TOPIC A: FIGHTING DISEASE
FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTERS.
History and Discussion of the Problem
What Constitutes a Natural Disaster
Natural disasters differ primarily from man-made disasters
in that they are not directly caused by mankind’s actions.
Some of the most common natural disasters are avalanches,
earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, lightning, tornados, tsunamis,
volcanic eruptions, and wildfires.8 Manmade disasters,
whether they are plane crashes, oil spills, or wars, share many
of the same problems and concerns as natural disasters, and
preparing for one can simultaneously prepare for the other.
Many of these disasters are expected well in advance. With
today’s technology, for example, forecasters can make accurate
predictions regarding a hurricane’s landfall 24 hours before
it hits land.9 Others are more complicated. Earthquakes, for
instance, can provide some clues when scientists analyze
seismic activity, but it technology is still too primitive for
geologists to accurately predict their locations or severities.10
The events themselves can cause great harm due to injury or
trauma, but disease is also a concern for disaster management.
The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists
insects, carbon monoxide, environmental concerns, food and
water, hygiene, wounds, mental health, and infectious disease
as risks to illness after a disaster.11
The Beginning of an Epidemic
Disease and disaster have naturally been frustrating
mankind for years, but only in the modern era of civilization
has disaster brought forth the epidemics we fear today. Germs
and bacteria have always infected humans, with or without
disaster, but it was not until humans established large, densely
populated settlements that disease became able to spread
rapidly. Cholera, for example, has been known to exist since
the days of Hippocrates, but the first epidemics were not
recorded until much more recently, in the 19th century.12
One early epidemic is the bubonic plague, more
commonly known as the Black Plague or Black Death.
Though outbreaks occurred throughout Europe as early as
588 AD, it was not until the 15th and 16th centuries that the
plague became pandemic.13 Transmitted by rats, the plague

Two young girls attempt to protect themselves from SARS with face masks. An outbreak in China killed nearly 1000 people, proving that despite
today’s increased heathcare capabilities, infectious disease is still a significant threat to modern, highly urbanized areas of the world..

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 5

 World Health Organization
The Black Death rapidly spread across Europe in the fourteenth century, revealing the strength and spreading potential of infectious diseases.
affected developed countries like England, where people lived
in close proximity to one another. Not surprisingly, England
was also dealing with severe famine, poverty, and the hardship
of war, and these added hardships may have been, for many
people, additional risk factors for increased susceptibility
to disease.14 Unfortunately, as medicine was nowhere near
advanced enough to deal with the plague at the time, there
was little to be done as far as tackling the disease. Nations did,
however, begin to quarantine and segregate their populations
6 General Assembly
during outbreaks, taking lessons learned from leprosy cases,
and though certainly not stopping the disease, governments
did significantly slow it down. 15
When People Begin to Move
Upon the discovery of the New World, Europeans began
to interact with North American natives for the first time,
and this meeting brought new diseases to both populations.
Following one of Christopher Columbus’s early trips to the
New World in the late fifteenth century, a new disease, the

French Pox- later to be known as syphilis- surfaced in Italy
and quickly spread throughout Europe.16 Though this case did
not result from a disaster of any kind, it did reveal the dangers
that surface when populations move to places that they have
not been in contact with before. Known as the “Virgin Soil
Epidemic”, these cases can be devastating, because the native
population has built no immunity to the disease, making them
much more susceptible to transmission.17 This has occurred
more recently as well. In the 1940s and 1950s, there were
several cases of workers in malaria-infested areas that traveled
to malaria-free zones and brought the disease to the sitting
communities.18 In today’s society, the chance of a Virgin Soil
Epidemic is certainly diminished. Despite a 6% decrease in
yearly rates, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimated
that there were approximately 880 million tourist arrivals
in 2009.19 That being said, with more people visiting more
places, the chances that individuals encounter diseases that
their bodies have not built immunity for has increased.
The Spread of Disease
In everyday life, the threat of death from infectious disease
has certainly decreased since the times of the plague but that
has not necessarily eliminated the dangers of them. In less
industrialized nations, infectious disease is still responsible
for as much as 70% of ill health, whereas the average rate
is only 10% in industrialized nations.20 Even in industrialized
countries, however, there is still a major threat of disease
due to its ability to spread. In today’s global world, people
move between nations at a much greater rate than ever before,
increasing the risk of disease passing from one population
to another. In the 1990s, the World Tourism Organization
estimated that over 500 million fly over international borders
each year, while 70 million work in a country that is not their
own.21 Thus, when outbreaks do occur, the ability to identify
and quarantine the ill becomes imperative.
Currently, the internationally quarantinable diseases are
cholera, yellow fever, the plague, and smallpox22 (though the
world has been declared free of the disease). Many nations
do quarantine for other diseases, however. In the United
States, for instance, following a global outbreak of Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), President George W.
Bush added the disease to the nation’s list of Quarantinable
Communicable Diseases.23 The WHO and other nations
followed similar actions, and though over 8000 were infected
and over 800 died from the disease, SARS was contained and
a prolonged epidemic was averted.24
One of the lessons learned from the SARS case was that
the world needs to better manage disease control to prevent
an epidemic from the very beginning, because it can spread
rapidly within the first few cases. SARS was originally reported
in two provinces in China as severe influenza cases, with
over 100 cases of an “atypical pneumonia” that withstood
antibiotics. Despite initial efforts, the disease was allowed to
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
spread. It was not until 14 March, one month after the initial
reports in China, that the WHO released a travel advisory
and categorized the disease as SARS.25 The travel warning
proved ineffective, however, and it was then recommended
that travelers coming from infected regions be screened at
airports, though ultimately a travel ban was finally enacted.26
Many believe that the world was lucky to have weathered
the SARS outbreak, because it was spread through droplets
and not through the air like influenza, and the disease never
reached the least developed countries- where its impact could
not be measured.27 SARS revealed glaring weaknesses in our
detection capabilities and early quarantine policies.
Disasters that Foster Disease
Apart from a disaster itself, many of the most difficult
tasks with dealing with a natural disaster are managing the many
health risks that a disaster can cause. Perhaps the most direct
link between a disaster and disease is drought. As it stands
today, there are already many problems with providing clean
water to populations, as over 1.2 billion people live without
safe water.28 Naturally, this increases the risk for malnutrition,
a precursor to many other diseases. For instance, in the
Western United States, a 1930s drought caused malnutrition
to develop in many children, typhoid fever quickly surfaced,
among several other diseases.29 Also devastating is the damage
that can be done to crops. Though the problem was not
water but bacteria in this case, the Ireland Potato Famine in
the 1840s was responsible for over 1 million deaths and 2
million emigrants that left their home country. In countries
that rely heavily on their own crops, a drought can cut off
their nutritional supply and allow the entire population’s heath
to deteriorate.
Earthquakes are similarly notorious for their ability to sap
resources and foster disease. Like droughts, earthquakes are
capable of cutting off water and food supply. Additionally,
earthquakes bring immediate destruction that can send a
community into chaos. In a 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan,
heavy damage was inflicted upon the city, and it took months
for the population to even begin to recover. Over 800,000
homes lost gas for two and one half months, and water and
sanitation systems were inoperable in 1.27 million homes for
up to four months.30 Even worse, an earthquake can easily
hamper relief efforts. If an earthquake destroys local hospitals
and health care facilities, it may be impossible to quarantine
and cure those who succumb to disease. In a densely
populated area, the chance for an epidemic rises greatly. With
the unsafe water and unpredictability of heath care access,
disease management is vital in the case of an earthquake.
Hurricanes introduce added health risks due to the
combination of destruction due to strong winds and floods
that remain after the storm. One concern with hurricanes is
the flaring of mosquito-spread diseases such as West Nile
virus, malaria, and eastern equine encephalitis (EEE). The
7
 World Health Organization
particular diseases that one can catch vary depending on the
actual location of the disaster, but since mosquitoes flourish
in standing water, they can easily cause problems in a disaster
zone.31 Additionally, the floods cause the water supplies to
become contaminated, increasing risks of diarrhea and E.
Coli infections.32 Like earthquakes, communities can suddenly
lose their functionality, and without proper recovery plans,
disease can cripple a population in any number of manners.
Similarly to hurricanes, tsunamis cause major flash flooding,
and coupled with the widespread devastation from the force
of the wave, these waves can be devastating to the health of
a community. The floods are perhaps the most damaging to a
community’s health, because they can spoil the food and water
supply. Due to this, experts warn to be wary of diseases such
as cholera, hepatitis, diarrhea, and leptospirosis.33 Additionally,
as it is the case with hurricanes, floodwaters leave perfect
conditions for mosquito breeding, and thus West Nile Virus
and malaria become immediate risks as well.34
Particular Diseases Posing Risks
Cholera is one of the most threatening diseases following
a natural disaster due to how it infects humans. Generally,
someone develops cholera by drinking infected water or by
living in filthy, unhygienic conditions, and it tends to thrive in
developing countries.35 If left untreated, cholera can be fatal at
nearly a 50% rate, though when treated the rate is under 1%.36
The disease is even preventable, as a vaccine does exist.37 In
crowded areas, as a city may be, the period following a disaster
that forces people from homes becomes dangerous, because
cholera is communicable from person to person.38 Although
not a significant concern for more developed countries,
cholera can cause major problems in poorer nations.
Mosquitoes spread several infectious diseases, including West Nile
Virus, EEE, and malaria. When disaster strikes and mosquito man-
agement halts, such diseases suddenly become major concerns.
8 General Assembly
Tetanus is another disease that, though uncommon in the
developed world, can be extremely dangerous if not cared
for. It can be largely controlled by getting the tetanus vaccine,
which involves a series of shots as a child, followed by booster
shots every 10 years or so.39 This disease does still pose a danger,
however, especially in underdeveloped countries where many
have not been vaccinated. The best way to prevent tetanus
is to vaccinate, however, and the United States Center for
Disease Control recommends that in cases of disaster a series
of vaccination shots be administered to all at risk.40 If left
untreated, tetanus results in lockjaw, the paralyzing of the jaw
muscles, which can make it difficult or even impossible to
breathe. The disease is very dangerous, with an 11% fatality
rate, a total that includes those who have been vaccinated.41
If infected or thought to be infected, a person should have
all of their wounds thoroughly cleaned and administered
a tetanus immune globulin (TIG) shot, which removes the
tetanus. Though it is not communicable, tetanus does thrive in
unhygienic communities, so care must still be taken in densely
populated areas.42 Tetanus is dangerous, but it can easily be
controlled if it is looked for. If proper vaccinations are given
out and health services are sufficient, then it should not
become a recurrent problem in recovery efforts.
Malaria can quickly infiltrate a population that lives in
a mosquito-inhabited area. 36% of the world’s population
lives in areas with potential malaria risk, and 7% of those
have never had any sort of malaria control.43 It is especially
dangerous after a disaster because disasters tend to increase
the risk of getting the disease. Malaria infects most often
in areas with poor or no housing and overcrowding, and
disasters generally induce both. Additionally, a disaster could
very likely force populations to move quickly and as a mass,
possibly to areas with higher risk of malaria than before, such
as areas near water.44 It is also most common in tropical and
sub-tropical regions, areas that are typically more at risk to
certain disasters like floods and hurricanes.45 Malaria can be
fought with antibiotics, but there are also many instances of
antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease, making it even more
complicated to control.46 For instance, in 1999 refugee camps in
Tanzania, patients with malaria were treated with chloroquine,
the drug used under Tanzania’s national guidelines. It turned
out that the malaria that had infected the refugees was resistant
to chloroquine, and a drug called sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine
was instituted for the refugees, though the national population
could still use chloroquine.47 Such an unpredictable disease is
worrisome, and efforts should always be made to minimize its
impact following a disaster.
Heath Dangers of Refugee Camps
Refugee camps vary widely in size, location, and
standards, but all require great attention to prevent the spread
of infectious disease. In many instances, these camps have
very low living conditions. In a camp on the Thai-Cambodian
 World Health Organization

Refugee camps such as this one are often mired by filth and inadequate resources. These poor conditions greatly increase the risk of infectious
disease, and the high population density of the camps allows for rapid transmission of diseases and threatens dangerous epidemics..
border, for example, 70,000 refugees are crowded into a camp
that offers merely 33 meters of space per person, including
outside, public space, while water rations are only 20 liters per
person per day, one fifth of what the WHO recommends.48
This water not only contributes to the undernourishment of
the camp, but also to the filth in it, as less water is available
for bathing. The camp also suffers from malnutrition,
because much of the food provided by the United Nations
World Food Program is bartered away due to the high level
of unemployment.49 With these levels of undernourishment,
poor sanitation, and livable space, disease can spread much
more easily than in a stable community.
When poor conditions in refugee camps exist, sickness
and mortality rates can rise rapidly. In a 1985 refugee camp
in Sudan, for example, it was infectious disease that resulted
in thousands of deaths at the camp. Over the course of one
month at the Wad Kowli camp, an average of 7.3 deaths per day
(per 10,000 people) resulted from malaria, measles, diarrhea/
dysentery, or chest infections. Those who were malnourished
fared even worse, as 72 of the 420 malnourished children in
the camp died within a 15-day period of February 1985.50
In fact, malnourishment was at a level so high in these
camps that it was simply appalling. The Sudanese camps began
with a malnutrition rate (categorized as having less than 80%
of one’s original bodyweight) of 32%. As dangerous as that is,
over the course of a five-week period, the rate in the camps
actually rose to over 50%.51 This lead to much disease and
death in the camps, where the morbidity rate was a staggering
8.9 deaths per day per 10,000 people, with the rate of death
for malnourished children at 115 per 10,000, compared
to 0.5 in normal years.52 This rate is capable of control, as
camps in Thailand lowered the rate from 9.1 to 0.7 over a
one-month period. The Sudanese camps, however, remained
at a rate between 6 and 10 deaths per day for six months. 53
Though these refugees may have survived a disaster or crisis,
they are certainly not out of the danger. These camps can be
incredibly hazardous, and work must be done not simply to

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 9

 World Health Organization

protect those in cities, but also those who have fled to refugee
camps.
What Poses the Greatest Risks
Different disasters naturally pose different risks, and some
disasters are more likely to lead to infectious disease outbreak
than others. According to Paul Shears, deaths in rapid onset
disasters like tornados and earthquakes are much more likely
to be immediate, due to injuries sustained. Conversely, while
slower to onset disasters like droughts do not cause immediate
fatalities, often result in malnutrition, disease, and fatalities
later in the recovery.54 If the disaster forces a population
into refugee camps though, the chance for disease could
very easily rise, as described earlier. An interesting aspect is
the added risk that disasters involving water hold. Though
somewhat rare, tornados and floods can result in not just the
immediate deaths due to injury, but also severe illness, with When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States,
it proved that health concerns must also be addressed in developed
similar timetables to those in droughts. According to some nations. In New Orleans, in particular, hospitals were poorly man-
studies, there have been rises in diarrhea following both, aged, resulting in health dangers for the chronically ill.
which is likely attributed to polluted water.55 Some of the most vulnerable patients that must be
Why do droughts and famines pose such great risks? It accounted for after a disaster are those already in hospitals.
seems to be a combination of both the deterioration that the Whether in for acute or chronic conditions, patients in
malnutrition causes and the effects of living in camps. Famine hospitals are at an elevated danger during a disaster, if simply
leads to both the deterioration of the body and the disruption because their bodies are often weaker than those of healthy
of society. The body deterioration also leads to higher severity people. During Hurricane Katrina, over 7,000 people were
of communicable diseases, and when societies are crowded in in New Orleans hospitals, with 1,749 recorded as patients.60
undernourished, unsanitary communities, these already weak Though in most instances, stable and psychiatric patients were
victims transmit diseases more easily. Over time, a disease can transferred before the storm hit, many others, including those
engulf a society, resulting in an endemic.56 in intensive care and newborns, could not leave the hospital.61
For those left in the hospitals, it was truly horrifying. Hospital
Hurricane Katrina and the Importance of Fighting Existing
rooms’ temperatures sweltered to over 100 degrees, broken
Disease
elevators forced patients to be carried down stairs, and patients
Much attention has been given to preventing infectious
eventually resorted to brushing their teeth with IV fluid, as
diseases resulting from natural disasters, but it is also incredibly
tap water was unusable.62 In one hospital, where generators
important to continue providing care for those with chronic,
broke after being flooded, it still took almost a week for the
existing conditions that need regular attention from health
several hundred patients to be evacuated.63 All of the workers
services. Following Hurricane Katrina, which struck the Gulf
inside may have been doing all that they could to provide care
Coast of the United States on 29 August 2005, efforts from
for the patients, but hospitals hold some of the most fragile
the emergency health providers focused on offering care to
victims of a disaster, and they must receive attention from
the furthest regions of Louisiana and Mississippi. However,
rescuers if they hope to avoid further disaster.
patients with conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and
For those who were evacuated, the patients that were
asthma were left without care. Many victims needed regular
cared for had many similar issues. In a refugee clinic in
medicines or clinical visits, but without transportation, phone
Tarrant County, Texas, family physicians were put in charge
lines, or electricity, these became difficult to access. Besides,
of caring for the 3,700 refugees sent to the nearby shelter.
much of the existing medicine supplies in hospitals and
These physicians have said that while they were able to
pharmacies were lost or destroyed by the storm.57 In mobile
adequately care for all the different patients’ needs, they heard
clinics that were set up across Mississippi following the
of instances in other camps where doctors- who were non-
hurricane, 12.6% of patients that came requested medication
family physicians- struggled to care for patients outside their
or refills on medication.58 It is more likely that patients would
areas of expertise.64 When cared for properly, the physicians
exist in developed countries such as the United States, where
also noted that most of the patients did not actually need
the highest cause of morbidity is not infections, but chronic
to be hospitalized, and the extent of their care was treating
disease.59
for chronic conditions and refilling prescriptions.65 Hurricane
Katrina did occur in the United States, which, despite the large

10 General Assembly

number that remained, was able to evacuate a large portion
of the Louisiana population. Had this been in a nation with
less transportation capabilities or had the disaster been more
sudden, the health care priorities could conceivably differ.
Evacuations and Caring for the Chronic Ill and Special
Needs Patients
Disaster relief teams must be able to support all victims,
and this requires them to accommodate a variety of people. For
the chronically ill, medications are vital, but when populations
are evacuated, many leave their pills, needles, or inhalers in
their homes, placing themselves in potentially worse situations.
Thus, in refugee camps it becomes vital that medicines for
anticipated chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, or any
ailment requiring regular medication be adequately stocked.66
Additionally, it is important to ensure that all evacuees are
equally cared for. When evacuations are ordered, governments
are responsible with ensuring that as many people that can
leave the evacuation area do so. To ensure this, evacuation
notices should be distributed as soon as possible and through
all available media. Additionally, these notices should come in
multiple languages, so that minority groups are not placed at
a disadvantage if they do not speak the dominant language.67
When New Orleans and the surrounding communities were
ordered to evacuate as Hurricane Katrina approached, many
groups of people were stranded. Among the left behind were
those without transportation, who were oftentimes in the
lowest economic brackets.68 Lacking resources, these are the
people who actually need the most help. More coordinated
and efficient evacuations will need to be designed in the future
and they cannot neglect the poorest communities, which often
have the poorest health of all.
Infections from Dead Bodies
As stated previously, the likelihood of a communicable
epidemic breaking out following a disaster varies greatly
depending on the particular type of disaster and its location.
If a disaster leads to a large number of deaths from injury
or trauma, common belief is that the corpses will lead to
diseases spreading. Studies have shown, however, that this is
not the case.69 In fact, the only time that it is recommended to
disinfect a dead body is if the person has died from cholera,
shigellosis, or hemorrhagic fever.70 To minimize the chances
though, experts do recommend that bodies be taken care of
in a specific manner. For example, they suggest that bodies be
buried and not cremated, that mass graves be avoided if at all
possible, and that corpse handlers take sanitation precautions
such as wearing disposable gloves, using body bags, and
avoiding bodily fluids.71
Some do have higher level of concerns regarding bodies,
however. If corpses contaminate a water supply, the disease
gastroenteritis does become a potential risk.72 There are
some concerns for those directly handling corpses.73 The
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
related diseases, however, can largely be avoided with care for
sanitation and are rarely cause for genuine fear. Additionally,
in burial, there is potential for the body to come in contact
with water if it is not buried properly. Many recommend that
there be a sand and clay-mixed soil to minimize pathogen
transmission and a 2.5 meter separation between body
and water.74 As of now, however, no universal standard for
burial practices exists, and these recommendations can vary
depending on other conditions.75 According to most experts,
however, these fears are mostly based on myth, and as long as
adequate precautions are taken, corpses should not become
major health risks, regardless of the death total.
Mental Health
Though oftentimes overlooked, caring for mental
health is just as significant as fighting infectious diseases.
Following a natural disaster, there is an increased risk for
victims to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
depression. That risk is elevated for women, especially those
who are pregnant, as they already have an elevated risk of
developing these disorders.76 During a study of postpartum
women immediately after Hurricane Katrina, women who
had severe hurricane experiences were statistically more likely
to be suffering from symptoms of depression or PTSD.77 In
other studies, gender has not proven to be a predictor as with
United States studies. After a 2006 Vietnam typhoon, the
percentage of at-risk persons increased from 20.7% to 27.1%.
Although health, fear of disaster, and disaster-related injury
all correlated with mental health risks, gender did not.78 This
does not suggest that gender is meaningless, but it does reveal
that when discussing the mental health of a community, the
community must uniquely be evaluated, as there are different
risk factors for all involved. In Vietnam, for instance, one
variable that made a person less likely to suffer depression
or PTSD following the typhoon was religion.79 In both US
and Vietnamese studies, however, fear during the disaster
and injuries caused by it were both among the strongest
predictors.80 Thus, those who experience the worst of a
disaster and those who need treatment from health services
should be watched closely in the months following a disaster,
for they are at a much higher risk to develop post-disaster
health issues.
In providing mental health care, there also exists a wide
range of problems. One is calculating just how much extra
time and effort can be extended to supporting mental health
patients. It is difficult to gauge how long this is needed, for
some forms of depression set in over time, whereas others set
in more quickly.81 Making these estimates can be difficult as
well, due to the wide variety of services in mental healthcare.
Following a disaster, researchers believe that increases are
expected in: “assessments, crisis counseling, psycho education,
psychotherapy, and pharmacotherapy.”82 The availability of
mental health services differs widely from country to country,
11
 World Health Organization
and it is important that in developing nations populations
are not neglected due to the lack of institutionalized mental
healthcare service.
Current Situation
Haiti: The World’s Latest Test
Natural disasters have and will continue to occur on this
planet, and even in the past few years the globe has been
tested on its ability to cope with disease spread after them.
Today, we have more advanced medicine, communication
abilities, and technology than imaginable a half-century ago.
Still, when disaster strikes, disease remains a pertinent issue
that instills fear in many.
In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck the
heart of Haiti, a poverty stricken nation in the Caribbean Sea.
Immediately after the quake, one of the biggest concerns was
the flaring of disease in the population.83 The earthquake was
declared a “perfect storm” for disease. It cut off electricity,
utilities, and clean drinking water from a poor, homeless
population crowded in a warm, tropical country. Even
before the storm, Haiti was well known for its medical care
problems, as the hospitals often provided inadequate care for
their patients.84 In response, the UN sent 12,500 troops for
relief efforts, along with several other nations that sent their
own relief workers. 15 food distribution points were set up,
built to feed roughly 97,000 victims.85 In efforts to minimize
disease, efforts were made in Haiti to focus on providing clean
Disease was among many concerns in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake in the Caribbean nation. In Haiti and other countries today, combined
efforts of local, national, and international forces are necessary to limit damage following natural disasters of any type and scale.
12 General Assembly
drinking water and administer vaccinations to children, which
were given to almost 100,000 Haitians.86 The spread of disease
was somewhat controlled, as the major outbreak of infectious
disease was prevented. Still, there were many cases of disease,
especially infections to wounds, which caused fevers, rashes,
and in some cases required amputations.87 Though these
diseases were in many cases treated, many of the infections
would not have occurred had proper care been administered
earlier. Despite the horrors of the Haiti quake, the UN and
the world’s efforts to control the spread of disease prevented
many more tragedies from occurring. More work can and
should be done, however, and the relief efforts were by no
means a total success in Haiti.
Disease Surveillance
In order to prevent disease from spiraling out of control,
one of the major techniques is to engage in disease surveillance.
The World Health Organization actively takes part in this, as
it operates the Global Alert and Response (GAR) program.
The program’s role is straightforward: to act as, “an integrated
global alert and response system for epidemics and other
public health emergencies based on strong national public
health systems and capacity and an effective international
system for coordinated response.”88 Beginning in 2007, the
WHO has mandated that nations report all public health risks
that are of great concern, even if the cause of the threat
is unknown.89 These new mandates require that countries
specifically report any threatening outbreaks of smallpox,
polio, a new strand of influenza, or SARS. Additionally, many

countries have decided to start surveillance for diarrhea and
dengue fever.90 In cases of a disaster, recognizing an outbreak
is vital, because a disease can spread much more quickly in a
population with depleted energy and resources.
In today’s world, there is highly advanced technology that
nations can now use to survey for disease. For instance, in
Jakarta, the US Naval Medical Research Unit along with the
Indonesian Ministry of Health operate the Early Warning
Outbreak Recognition System, or EWORS. If a patient is
feared of having an acute infection, hospitals require that
he or she fill out a questionnaire providing demographic
information, which is uploaded to a computer to interpret
and look for trends.91 The advantage of this advanced system
is that it can discover potential outbreaks much more quickly
than pure human analysis could. Unfortunately, there are
still significant problems, as it is difficult to coordinate and
standardize different hospitals’ procedures, and it is also a
complex ordeal to manage secondary investigations with local
health bureaus.92
In less developed nations, more simplified syndromic
surveillance is often used to predict epidemics, and its level of
success is somewhat surprising. Oftentimes, these countries
will simply compare the disease rates to the average, setting
a threshold that rates cannot go above. In Uganda, this
method successfully predicted two malaria outbreaks in
2005 and 2006 two full weeks before the disease rates rose
to their highest levels.93 This has proved more difficult with
other diseases, however. Dengue fever, for example, is not
generally confirmed until death, and syndromic surveillance
is feared to be too slow to catch this type of disease.94
Another factor hindering surveillance is how information is
distributed. With increases in technology, however, there are
still more efforts to speed surveillance at all levels to greater
speeds. In 2006, one study showed that the use of cell phones
to transfer patient data significantly sped up surveillance.
In a 2005 Iranian cholera outbreak, cell phone surveillance
(CPS) recorded the peak of the outbreak earlier, and cases
were received by the Center for Disease Control one to ten
days faster than by Iran’s traditional methods.95 Considering
that even since 2005 cell phone and Internet technology has
greatly expanded through the introduction of smart phones
and 3G software,96 these methods could come to great use
in the coming years. Technology will most certainly improve
disease surveillance, but the struggle will be to determine just
how it is most efficiently used in all countries.
Climate Change and Risk
In today’s world, one of the largest environmental
concerns is global warming. Studies have suggested that as
the world’s temperature increases, so does the likelihood of
tropical activity, meaning more hurricanes, typhoons, and
other hydro-meteorological disasters.97 Many researchers
now fear that this change will bring a new pattern of rainfall,
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
where long periods of drought alternate with short bursts of
torrential rain, leading to unmanageable crop seasons, floods,
and famine, all of which contribute to the diseases health
experts tend to fear.98 The other problem that climate change
brings is raising seawaters. In the South Pacific Ocean, there
are many smaller, low lying countries or provinces on small
islands, many of which lie all or mostly below one meter above
sea level.99 If seas continue to rise as predicted, this could
greatly increase the number of environmental refugees for
neighboring countries. Further debilitating in these countries,
however, is the risk of earthquake. Many countries such as
India that would take some of these refugees live in earthquake
prone regions.100 The danger of this is already clear from the
2004 earthquake in the Indian Ocean. On 26 December 2004,
a 9.0-scaled earthquake struck in the Indian Ocean, 150 km
off the coast of Aceh, an Indonesian province. The tsunami
triggered by the earthquake killed over 130,000 in Indonesia
and left another half million homeless.101 In this instance,
other than tetanus, all other major diseases were controlled,
and no major diseases became epidemic.102 However, moving
forward, researchers have suggested focusing more on mental
health and non-communicable disease after disasters, for they
were not sufficiently accomplished in Indonesia after the
tsunami.103 Though healthcare after the tsunami was managed
better than many expected, the likelihood of another disaster
in this region is certainly elevated and it remains a primary
concern for regions needing the most development.
Past International Actions
In 1987 the UN declared the 1990s as the International
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). In doing
so, they emphasized the need to raise awareness about
disasters and disaster prevention and promised to make
efforts to combat the various aspects of natural disasters,
including healthcare.104 Though its goals were admirable, the
IDNDR certainly struggled. Four years into the decade, many
believed that despite the IDNDR title on various conferences
and brochures, “effective actions taken to materialize its
goals [were] few.”105 Thus, the following year, a world
conference on disaster reduction was held in Yokohama,
Japan. The conference produced the Yokohama Strategy,
which emphasized disaster prevention and preparation.106
In the future, leaders at the Yokohama conference agreed
to promote disaster education and awareness and to take
active roles in developing community programs for disaster
reduction.107 Developments were made over the final years
of the decade in early warning systems, but not much effort
appears to have been directly aimed at improving healthcare
following a disaster.108
In 2004, the world was tested when an Indian Ocean
tsunami struck Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and several other
surrounding nations. Early reports out of the nation were
13
 World Health Organization
grim, as some experts predicted death tolls from disease
reaching the tens of thousands. To raise concerns, there
were also serious cases of poor hygiene and unsanitary
conditions, as doctors and rescue workers appeared to
disregard caution due to the overwhelming body count.109
Due to the impressive international response, however, major
diseases were essentially controlled and rebuilding efforts
began quickly after the rescue phase ended.110 Following the
tsunami, the WHO released a Health Action in Crises report
that outlined important lessons learned from the tsunami.
The Organization established that better assessments of at
risk populations needed to be taken, the Red Cross, WHO,
and other involved NGOs had to establish unilateral health
care benchmarks in recovery efforts, donor response and the
aid of NGOs was invaluable and essential for a population to
fully recover.111 In the World Health Assembly that followed,
members affirmed these efforts and stressed the need to put
forth efforts in aiding nations in crisis and developing better
methods of delivering this support.112 After the disaster in the
Indian Ocean, the WHO felt much stronger about how to
prepare for natural disasters and what exactly needed to be
improved.
In 2005, the WHO decided to amend their International
Health Regulations (IHR), which had been last updated in
1969. Previously dealing with the prevention and quarantine
procedures for cholera, yellow fever, and the plague, the
new IHR would work, “to prevent, protect against, control
and provide a public health response to the international
spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and
restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary
interference with international traffic and trade.”113 To combat
the many new diseases that have surfaced in recent years, the
new IHR do not focus on particular diseases, but instead
outline regulations for all health risks. This was done so that
as the world continued to change, the IHR would still be
applicable and sufficient to minimize any disease outbreak.114
The Regulations mandate the implementation of disease
surveillance and stipulate that any health risk must be reported
to the WHO within 24 hours of its discovery.115 Though it
does state that the WHO will help build these surveillance
systems, the IHR are vague when describing the systems, as
they never specify which types of surveillance are preferred.116
Many have, however, declared that surveillance requirements
have been strengthened by the 2005 IHR.117 Fears have been
expressed regarding the Regulations though. One major
concern is that the IHR may interfere with country or region
specific diseases. If a region is susceptible to a disease that is
an internal problem, the WHO could simply be getting in the
way if it mandates specific procedures, allowing the disease
to grow.118 Overall, the 2005 International Health Regulations
do strengthen the world’s ability to track and prevent diseases
that could become global epidemics, but they do not fully
quell most fears.
14 General Assembly
More recently, the WHO began a 5-year program in 2009
to strengthen their humanitarian health assistance. In part,
it evaluated an earlier 3-year program for crisis relief that
focused on developing regional offices in more countries and
increasing emergency staff in these offices.119 When evaluating
the current status, the WHO admitted that they needed
to obtain more reliable, solidly backed data on morbidity,
mortality, and other statistics used to determine health risks.120
Additionally, it expressed the need to improve its humanitarian
efforts, which have been criticized as being nonoperational.121
In the long term, the WHO has dedicated itself to further
developing its Global Health Cluster (GHC), a program that
focuses on providing and developing acute crisis assessment
and relief.122 The Organization truly wants this program to
grow, as it hopes to implement it in all nations it determines
are “priorities.”123 In 2010, The World Health Organization
performed an assessment of the GHC, determining that
though its efforts were well intentioned, more effort had
to be put in implementing the system with governments. It
stressed the need for educating others about the new system,
as they still believe that it could and would save many lives
when the next crisis emerges.124 The GHC has certainly made
great changes in the way nations view disaster relief, but it will
certainly be tested when the next major crisis strikes.
Timeline of Significant Events
1348: Black Plague emerges in Europe. With no
knowledge of the disease, it spreads across almost all
of Europe, with mortality rates well over 90% in many
cases.125
1494: French pox (syphilis) emerges in Europe. Though
unknown at the time, the disease was sexually
transmitted and crossed the Atlantic with sailors
exploring the New World126
1840s: bacterial infection causes the infamous Irish
Potato Famine, killing over 1 million and forcing 2
million to leave the country
1930s: drought causes malnutrition and typhoid fever
breakouts across Western United States
1969: First International Health Regulations are written,
which outline the procedure for controlling six of the
world’s most infectious diseases
1979: At a refugee camp on the Thai/Cambodian border,
malnourishment and illness plague the refugees, as
over 70,000 refugees are held together while receiving
inadequate space, food, or water.
1980: The World Health Assembly, ending a 13-
year battle to end the disease, announces Smallpox
eradication.127
 World Health Organization

1985: Refugee camps in Sudan struggle to control
infectious disease. Malaria, measles, diarrhea/dysentery,
and chest infections cause death rates to soar from .05
per 10,000 people per day to over 7.
1987: United Nations Declares the 1990s as the
International Decade for National Disaster Reduction
1990: The International Decade for National Disaster
Reduction begins.
1994: The Yokohama Strategy is developed to improve
natural disaster reduction efforts.
1995: An earthquake in Kobe, Japan leaves 800,000
homeless and destroys sanitation systems for up to 4
months in 1.27 million homes.
1999: A drug resistant strain of malaria emerges in
Tanzanian refugee camps. Although the national
Tanzanian population had never dealt with this problem
before, international refugees brought along the disease
from their homes.
2001: Early Warning Outbreak Recognition System
(EWORS) begins development in Southeast Asia,
designed to increase the speed and accuracy of disease
surveillance.128
2003: SARS outbreak in China, Taiwan, and Canada.
Over 8,000 people are infected and over 800 die before
the disease is fully controlled.
2004: An earthquake in Indian Ocean triggers a tsunami
that ravages surrounding countries, especially Indonesia
and Sri Lanka. Other than a minor tetanus outbreak
infectious diseases were not an issue, but mental health
care was criticized afterwards.
2004-2005: World Health Organization amends
International Health Regulations to stop the spread of
infectious disease, particularly across borders.
2005: An Iranian cholera outbreak provides opportunity
to test the use of cell phone surveillance, which was
accurately able to report cholera cases 1 to 10 days
ahead of traditional methods.

Many NGOs such as the Red Cross are heavily involved with disaster relief, and it is essential that they work with local and international bodies
to establish the most efficient and successful aid systems of providing the necessary assistance in communities harmed by natural disasters.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 15

 World Health Organization
2005: Hurricane Katrina strikes the Gulf Coast of the
United States. Despite the broad devastation, health
services are able to prevent infectious disease from
becoming endemic. In this instance, chronic disease is
actually the biggest concern for local health officials.
2005-2006: Low-tech, simplified surveillance systems are
tested in Uganda. During two separate outbreaks of
malaria, the low-tech systems predicted the peaks of
the disease rates before the advanced systems.
2006: Typhoon strikes the coast of Vietnam. One of the
major concerns following the storm is mental health,
as rates of depression and PTSD rise from 20.7% to
27.1% in the following months.
2007: IHR take effect, requiring that member nations
report all major health threats to the WHO, even if the
particular cause of the ailments are unknown.
2009: WHO implements a 5-year strategy to improve
crisis relief and dedicates itself to the Global Health
Cluster’s long-term success.
January 2010: A 7.0 magnitude earthquake hits in Haiti.
Infectious disease is controlled, but health officials do
deal with many skin conditions and infections from
wounds, highlighting the health risks that the disaster
can directly cause.
Proposed Solutions
There are countless causes to disease outbreak, making
it impossible to fully assure a population’s safety by simply
addressing one aspect. Thus, it is essential that a solution
addresses both long and short-term goals, aid in both disaster
prevention and reaction, and pertains to both industrialized
and developing countries. To accomplish these goals, experts
have suggested creating a more comprehensive disease
surveillance network, improving evacuation strategies to
minimize those in direct paths of foreseen disasters, better
equipping refugee centers with medicine, doctors, and other
necessities, pursuing further research, and providing more
funds to developing nations to improve local disaster response.
Disease Surveillance
Though many systems are already in place, some have
called to create a carefully planned world disease surveillance
system. When discussing the International Health Regulations
in 2001, officials from the United States General Accounting
Office noted that, “The
Regulations do not provide an international framework
for addressing threatening epidemics at their source—within
countries.”129 In response, many have called for a more active
role at provincial and local levels, giving departments more
funds and freedom to actively survey and battle diseases.
Some argue that disease surveillance with certain diseases is
wasteful, because it does not accomplish the ultimate goal
of disease eradication. In the past, the WHO has focused its
16 General Assembly
efforts on cholera surveillance, but officials later determined
that although surveillance lowered death tolls from the disease,
it did not diminish the number of cases.130 The number of
actual cases is even up for debate. In 1999, when there were
9,200 confirmed cases of cholera fatalities, one WHO expert
estimated that up to 120,000 deaths could have actually been
caused by the disease.131 Though disease surveillance is a
necessary tool that should be developed and perfected as our
technology improves, it must be done so intelligently and
without wasting energies.
Improving Disaster Preparations and Strategies
There are many who believe that the largest cause of
disease and death in disasters results from poor planning
and management. One of their ideas includes developing
evacuation strategies. During Hurricane Katrina, this was
one of the most common complaints critics had of the
disaster plan. As one writer noted, “The movement of traffic
out of the city can be pictured as sand moving through an
hourglass.”132 For regions that are particularly vulnerable to
predictable disasters such as hurricanes and typhoons, it could
be beneficial to develop new evacuation plans for such cities.
If these are thoughtfully created and the public is educated
about the disaster plan for their home, then it could remove
thousands of humans from a disaster area before it the event
occurs. Thus, communities would significantly lower the risk
of disease transmission within their areas, as they will be less
populated once a storm has hit. Simultaneously, however,
improvements can also be made for rescue plans for many
cities. There are still many cases where poor disaster planning
results in additional loss of life. For instance, the 2009 Typhoon
Morakot was one of the worst storms in decades, killing over
a dozen people in neighboring countries. In Taiwan though,
the situation was much worse due to poor rescue planning
and execution. There were cases of victims waiting outside
in the rain for over three days before rescuers made it to
their villages, and those who were evacuated were housed in
crowded public spaces like soccer fields.133 The Taiwanese
government faced much criticism following the storm, as
it surfaced that they originally refused international aid.134
Moving forward, nations should develop more comprehensive
plans for disaster relief ahead of time, avoiding the struggles
that countless governments have made when time becomes
crucial. Over 500 people died during Typhoon Morakot, but
officials should be grateful that their hesitancy and lack of
coordination did not result in many more.135
Improving Refugee Camp Standards
Refugee camps are notorious for their oftentimes-cramped
quarters, lack of resources, and poor health and sanitation
practices. Though the minimum recommended shelter space
in camps is 3.5 square meters in warm climates and 5.5 square
meters in cold climates, emergencies often force officials to

cram refugees into areas.136 Experts have also established
that refugees need at least 2,100 calories per day, as well as
an adequate water supply.137 These values are oftentimes
overlooked though, and it could be beneficial to develop
an enforceable set of standards that camps are expected to
provide. The UNHCR and NGOs such as the Sphere Project
have already done great work in promoting similar ideas,
but many still call for stronger action.138 To directly control
disease and illness, others have called for strengthening
of medical care in camps. These camps worry about the
potential breakout of infectious disease, but they must also
care for chronic illness. In less equipped communities, this
healthcare can be lacking, so it becomes, in part, the WHO’s
responsibility to step in and provide assistance. If regional
stations can be stocked with medicines, for both acute and
chronic conditions, then conditions could drastically improve
in many refugee camps.
Chronic Disease
There are still many who believe that not infectious,
but chronic disease is the biggest threat following a disaster.
Though such diseases are often self managed, many health care
In countries such as the United States, monitoring elderly patients with conditions such as diabetes is crucial during and following disasters.
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
experts note that this becomes impossible following a disaster,
as those held in shelters are often lacking vital medicines.139
When this occurs, it can not only lead to complications with
their conditions, but it can add to their levels of stress and
anxiety, leaving them susceptible to other dangers.140 One
possible solution is for countries to keep more detailed records
of the common chronic diseases that their populations suffer,
from which would allow for them to prepare disaster camps
better by equipping them with the necessary medicines and
prescriptions that patients may need. They may not be able to
cure these diseases, but if they can be managed properly many
camps would run much more smoothly.
Bloc Positions
United States
The United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC)
already has many of the surveillance capabilities and disaster
prevention methods that other nations lack, and it would be
at the forefront of promoting many of these technologies,
especially if it meant that they would be benefiting financially
17
 World Health Organization
from aiding other countries’ developments. Following scares
from diseases such as SARS, the United States would also
support more openness regarding potential disease outbreaks.
SARS was particularly damaging to the United States because
it hurt them financially.141 When diseases escalate to the point
where they interfere with travel and trade, the United States
is hurt significantly, and it hopes to do all it can to prevent
infections from spreading to that level whenever possible.
When concerning preparing for disasters, the United States
again has much experience, as it deals with hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean yearly. Following
Hurricane Katrina, public pressure has risen for the US to
step up these measures at home, as the relentless criticism
forced FEMA head Michael Brown to resign following the
disaster.142Thus, it would not be surprising to see them push
forward efforts to improve preparation on international levels
as well.
European Union
In a 2008 council on disaster strategy, the European Union
stressed a balanced approach to disaster preparation, vowing
to cover all aspects. It stresses the need for solidarity between
its member states and the need for cohesion.143 Provided that
other nations are willing to comply, the EU would support
information sharing and providing assistance to countries in
need. The EU has historically been strict on its policies with
asylum and refugee seekers, however, so it is unsure if how
willing they would be to opening themselves up too much
when it comes to providing assistance to other nations with
camps.144 With surveillance, the EU is historically open when
discussing disease rates and infectious disease, as they make
most of their findings open to the public.145 Considering
their already strong position, they would most likely support
strengthening international agreements on these matters as
well.
People’s Republic of China
The People’s Republic of China tends to keep much more
of its information internal than Western countries. When
the SARS endemic struck in 2003, reports reasoned that the
disease originated in China. Critics claimed that the disease
was allowed to spiral out of control because the government
originally suppressed much of the data and was uncooperative
in providing the WHO with reports.146 China does care about
the health of its people, however, and is willing to enact strong
measures to ensure their safety. Following the H1N1 influenza
outbreak in 2009, China was noted for being extraordinarily
tough on Mexican and Canadian tourists and imports, where
the disease was most prevalent at the time.147 The government
does not ignore the health of other nations either, as they
sent Mexico US$1 million and supplies soon after the H1N1
outbreak.148 Based on its actions, China can be expected to
support preventive measures during disease threats and for
18 General Assembly
strong outside support for countries in need. They still hope
to keep their information close to them, but China cannot
afford to allow another disease break out under their watch,
and they will do all that they can to assure this.
Indonesia
In recent years, Indonesia has become very significant in
the healthcare debate. Though there are significant investments
in the Indonesian hospital system from neighboring countries
such as Singapore and Malaysia, the hospitals are concentrated
in cities, so much that there are only 25.6 beds available per
100,000 citizens in the province of Lampung, compared to
161.2 beds per 100,000 in Jakarta.149 During disaster, Indonesia
will certainly need outside assistance, as the 2004 tsunami
produced many concerns for the government. Despite the
influx of both governmental and NGO help, there was great
disorder in the country, partly due to a lack of coordination.150
Indonesia does not fear a lack of response in time of need,
but it desires coordination between NGOs and governments.
It would support stronger efforts for disaster planning and
would stretch that planning to not just countries looking for
themselves, but for countries reaching to nations that would
be ready to support it. The nation is still struggling with many
diseases communicable in disasters like cholera and diarrhea.151
Providing necessary care to refugee camps will be extremely
important during the next disaster that strikes Indonesia, and
considering how disaster prone the South Pacific and Indian
Oceans can be, Indonesia must make sure that it is better
prepared when the time comes.
Africa
Many of the developing nations in Africa need the
most support in developing disaster and disease prevention
structures, but much must change before most nations will
be capable of making progress. The WHO has estimated that
there is a shortage of up to 800,000 health workers on the
continent, and in some areas there is an average of only 1
doctor per 100,000 people.152 African nations certainly agree
that their infrastructures in disease surveillance and disaster
should be updated, but they simply do not have the resources
now. To make matters worse, many African nations are
struggling to control current epidemics such as AIDS, further
debilitating their health infrastructure.153 If assistance is
provided, these countries will support legislation to toughen
procedures, but without this assurance they can promise little
change. Some of these nations are more at risk than any other
should a disaster ever strike though, so they certainly will
work to better themselves.
Relevant Partners
The most relevant NGOs are those that will work
alongside the UN and governments providing disaster relief.
Organizations such as the Red Cross often set up relief

centers in the same communities as governments, and it is
essential that these groups work on the same goals. One of the
largest of these organizations is Direct Relief International.
According to their platform, they work to provide, “Medical
assistance to improve the quality of life for people victimized
by poverty, disaster, and civil unrest at home and throughout
the world.”154 The actual number of these organizations
is staggering, however. Over 80 NGOs registered with the
WHO to provide aid in Sumatra following the tsunami, and
there were countless other organizations that went without
officially informing anyone.155 The WHO must work to
make these NGOs help in disaster situations, but remain
coordinated and in control.
In the field of disease surveillance, there are many
organizations whose expertise could be beneficial. The
International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS), for
instance, works to promote and advance this field across
the globe, involving both health care providers working
in communities and statisticians that may develop more
advanced systems that governments can use. Additionally,
there are countless organizations that research infectious
diseases, especially in developing countries. These could
provide invaluable information when determining the level
of concern for certain diseases in particular places and can
be looked into.
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
What efforts can the WHO make to improve disease
surveillance in its member states, and how is this
information best applied, both in countries where
research is done and in the international community?
What can the WHO do to improve preparations for
disasters, in terms of evacuation plans, emergency
transportation, health care preparations, etc.?
What can be done to improve health and sanitation in
refugee camps and shelters, and how is the spread of
disease best minimized in them?
How can countries better manage chronic ailments
during natural disasters, and how can these nations
best accommodate those with specialized needs such as
prescriptions, syringes, and inhalers?
How can the WHO better coordinate the efforts of NGOs
during a disaster to maximize their aid and minimize
wasteful time and spending?
What can be done to help developing nations better
their healthcare systems to minimize the outbreak of
infectious disease, both in times of natural disaster and
everyday life?
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
Suggestions for Further Research
Considering that many of the relevant events for this topic
have occurred in recent years, looking at news websites such
as the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC can be extremely
useful. Also, be sure to visit the WHO’s website, as it has
updates from many of the relevant events discussed in here,
as well as many of the important documents discussed. Take
the time to read the 2005 International Health Regulations,
available from the WHO website. The WHO has drastically
changed the way that the international health system works
since the IHR’s inception, and as many articles you come
across may be had been written before they became effective
in 2007, it will be important to know what has changed. The
US Center for Disease Control and Prevention also has some
useful descriptions of diseases relevant to our topic, as well as
a section on disaster and disease prevention.
One of the most useful databases you can use is PubMed
Central. This website has a plethora of articles relating to
the medical field that you can search, many of which deal
directly with disaster relief. In many of these articles, the
bibliographies contain links to other articles in their database,
making the volume of useful information at your grasp simply
astounding.
TOPIC B: INTERNATIONAL DRUG
RESEARCH ETHICS
History and Discussion of the Problem
The Reality
Though ethical standards have evolved over time, they
often come at the price of research subjects. Many of the
most important moments in the history of ethics were not
monumental pieces of legislation passed, but infamous lapses
in ethical judgment and procedure. Though many of these
events have spawned growth and positive change, the tragedies
cannot be overlooked. So, in discussing the development of
research ethics over the course of history, detailing these
regrettable events is absolutely necessary. They provide
important lessons that teach both researchers and subjects
today and are instrumental tools to modern policymakers and
legislators.
Nazi Experiments and the Nuremberg Code
In 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf
Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.156 With this, the Nazi party,
which had steadily increased its representation in government
over previous elections, suddenly held great power over the
European nation. Hitler morphed Germany into a police state,
forcing enemies such as communists and labor leaders into
concentration camps.157 One particular group singled out by
the Nazi party was the Jewish population. Hitler encouraged
19
 World Health Organization
Nazi researchers victimized prisoners of various ethnic and religious groups during World War II. Experiments included sterilization and euthana-
sia studies, and when the concentration camps were uncovered, several of the leading researchers were brought to trial in Nuremburg.
the boycott of Jewish goods and stores, and the government
classified Jews as a separate race in 1935.158 Though many
understood what was occurring, the Nazis had total control
over the nation by 1933, when Hitler urged Hindenburg to
sign the Decree for the Protection of People and State, which
gave the government the authority to have essentially absolute
power in times of emergency.159 With this power, the Nazi
regime could ignore all ethical codes in place, because there
was no one in the country capable of checking their power.
During the mid-twentieth century in Europe, Nazi
researchers held countless medical experiments, many of
which shocked the world when they were revealed. Upon
taking control of Germany in 1935, the Nazi party initiated
a series of steps meant to “Nazify” the German medical
system. First, the German government passed laws banning
“Aryan” doctors from wedding “non-Aryans”, and the Nazis
quickly intensified their restrictions. By 1938 the government
had rescinded all Jewish doctor licenses in the nation.160
Soon after, a push for sterilization studies emerged, as Nazi
20 General Assembly
doctors wished to use the process to end cases of conditions
such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, severe mental defect, and
alcoholism.161 This applied to different ethnic groups as well,
as Nazi doctors sterilized 385 mixed-race children in 1937. In
all, it has been estimated that the Nazis forcibly sterilized up
to 340,000 people in Austria and Germany.162 Nazi programs
were not limited to sterilization studies. Investigators found
that the Nazis also conducted racial-based immune studies,
euthanasia and brain research, and military wound research
on civilians and captured military, almost all without proper
consent.163 These programs continued until the very end of
World War II, and it was not long after that they were revealed
to the world.
From 1945-1946, the International Military Tribunal
conducted the Nuremberg Medical Trial, placing the most
important Nazi medical officials under global scrutiny. The
tribunal convicted 16 of the 25 defendants for their war crimes,
with 7 being sentenced to death and hanged.164 Following the
trial, the Nuremburg Code was established. Among other

things, the Code mandated that researchers fully inform their
subjects of potential health risks and the rationale behind any
study and stipulated that research participants have the right
to halt any experiment they choose to leave.165 Many of these
particular cases remain relevant today. For instance, many
German research facilities have been criticized for holding
onto information of Holocaust and euthanasia victims in
concentration camps, as critics argue they have not made full
efforts to identify these victims.166 Despite these problems,
the Nuremburg Code is remembered as an instrumental step
forward in bioethics, and the course of the history of the
subject was very much directed by the document.
Streptomycin Research and Ethical Developments
Though rates of tuberculosis had steadily decreased
in the late nineteenth century, the disease was still a major
concern for the globe. Treatments in the early twentieth
century included using the gold compound sanocrysin, bed
rest, and even a procedure that involved collapsing a lung so
it could not function, giving it time to heal without working.167
In the 1940s, however, the drug streptomycin emerged in the
United States as a potential answer to the disease. After studies
involving guinea pigs and small-scale tests in the United States,
the British government obtained a small sample of the drug for
testing.168 When the trial was designed, doctors created a new
strategy of randomly assigning patients to experimental and
control groups.169 In doing so, the randomization prevented
doctors from giving the actual drug to healthier patients in
order to get their drug accepted.170 Some criticized the trial
for withholding the drug from the patients in the control
group, as 26% of the control patients did die.171 According to
the researchers though, this manner was necessary due to the
limited supply of the drug, thus meeting ethical standards.172
Though some questions still remain regarding the ethics
of this study, it was instrumental in developing a drug that
brought many results. In 1952, Selman Waksman won the
Nobel Prize for discovering streptomycin, though its effect
on the world must also be attributed to the British researchers
who studied the drug in its early years of existence.173
More significant than the actual drug, however, were
the effects the Medical Research Committee’s (MCR) study
had on research design. Researchers gave lectures following
its publication, focusing not on the test results, but the new
methods implemented in their study. These radical ideas
included blinding the physicians caring for the patients,
meaning they concealed the patients’ medicine histories in
efforts of hiding the group that each patient belonged to.174
There were still many critics of the design, however. In the
time following the British Medical Journal’s publication of the
study, many worried that the results were still faulty, because
the researchers kept many details of the study secret, causing
many in Britain to fear that streptomycin caused major brain
damage.175 Though research in the United States had already
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
quelled these fears, the level of secrecy caused unnecessary
anxiety in Britain, and after the MCR study researchers surely
have learned how damaging it can be.
Randomly Controlled Trials
Since its first breakthrough in the streptomycin studies,
randomization of trials has quickly become a vital part of an
ethical trial. It is essential to assure an unbiased test, as it literally
places each subject randomly into control and experimental
groups. This ensures that one group is not purposely made
of a certain demographic to skew test results.176 Today, it is
common for tests to also be double blinded, meaning that
both researchers and subjects are unaware of which group
they are placed in.177 This often means that a placebo, a pill
identical in looks but not containing the actual treatment,
will be given to the control group, fooling both doctors and
patients.178 An alternative to placebo-controlled trials called
active-controlled trials exists. For control groups in these
studies, patients are given an already existing drug instead
of an ineffective placebo, and results are compared to what
has already been created and tested rather than to the lack of
treatment.179 The advantage of using active trials is that all
subjects will still receive treatment, but the style’s shortcoming
is that it cannot measure how beneficial a treatment is to
doing nothing, but merely how close the treatment measures
to existing treatment.180 Though one would assume that doing
nothing would have an effect of zero change, it is actually
not the general case. Many studies have shown that placebos
appear to have a mental effect on patients, possibly due to
optimism and attitude changes that study participants have.181
In a fully controlled experiment, all factors must be isolated,
so that the only influences being measured are the drugs and
treatments. Though correlated with receiving treatment, these
attitude changes are clearly distinct, and it is important for
researchers to take them into consideration. Generally, when
planning studies, researchers must decide the danger of using
a placebo and undergoing a particular treatment. If a placebo
poses little health risk or if there are still risks associated with
an existing drug, the using a placebo-controlled trial may be
preferable. Conversely, there are instances where a patient’s
health is quite fragile, and if a placebo will place patients in
positions of unnecessary risk, then groups generally use an
active-controlled trial.182
In randomized tests there are several common ethical
issues that surface. Most critics’ primary concern is that
these types of experiments prevent doctors from performing
their primary service to patients - healthcare. Similarly, many
believe that researchers systematically place subjects in groups
known to provide substandard treatment, according to earlier
research that is usually the basis for most randomized-
controlled tests.183 In response, others argue that such trials are
necessary, because one cannot fully determine which course
of action is preferable until a side by test is completed.184 This
21
 World Health Organization
state of unknowing is based on the idea of equipoise, and it
is the basis for modern ethics in randomization trials. Though
previous trials or personal preference may cause researchers
to believe one treatment is more likely, there is usually
reasonable doubt that there is sufficient rationale behind these
preferences.185 When no reasonable, rational preference exists
for either option, it is said to be in equipoise. There are four
different types of equipoise. In the medical field, there is the
individual researcher’s opinion, individual equipoise, and the
overall medical community’s opinion, clinical equipoise. In the
general population, individual patients hold patient equipoise
while the larger population of subjects possesses community
equipoise.186 Different researchers and experts believe that
each level of equipoise is necessary for randomization,
though the matter remains up for debate. In scientific terms,
randomization makes the most rational plan for achieving
a reliable and valid result, but when combined with human
ethics, it becomes much more difficult to determine exactly
when it should be used on human subjects.
Harmful Treatment and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
One of the biggest ethical issues today is the decision
for researchers to withhold potentially beneficial drugs
from sick patients or to cause pain or suffering that fails to
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study denied African American patients proper syphilis treatment for roughly 40 years, as researchers gave all patients
placebo treatments despite adequate drugs already existing, thus raising significant questions about contemporary ethics of drugs research.
22 General Assembly
benefit the participants. One of the most famous cases of
these is the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in Macon County,
Alabama. Beginning in 1932, the Tuskegee Study was one
of the most infamous instances of ethical failure in the
twentieth century. The test subjects were primarily African
American southerners, among the very poorest of Americans
in the 1930s.187 In a racist, poor society still reeling from the
Great Depression, most of these African Americans never
received adequate medical care in their lives. In Macon County,
Alabama, home of the Tuskegee Institute and where syphilis
rates for blacks swelled to 36% in 1932, the U.S. Public Health
Service (PHS) began a study on untreated syphilis cases.188
Intentionally denying the patients treatment, the researchers
from PHS sought to document just how deadly the disease
was and hopefully draw support for fighting the disease in the
South.189 In order to assure that treatment was not sought out,
researchers told the test subjects that they had “bad blood”,
but did not inform them that they had syphilis of any kind,
thus failing to obtain informed consent from the patients.
Even though several different forms of treatment did exist,
the researchers insisted that the patients not be cured of the
disease.190 The steps taken to assure this were quite drastic.
When several of the men were drafted into the United States

military for World War II, physical examinations revealed the
disease and military officials demanded that the men receive
treatment. Once this was revealed, research leaders fought
to obtain draft deferments, keeping the men out of the war
and in the syphilis study.191 Though only intended to last six
months to a year, the leaders in the PHS division conducting
the study repeatedly extended the deadline, and it was not
until 40 years later that the study finally ended.192 The average
life span for the men in the study declined 20%, and families
were paid a meager US$1 for every year they were in the
study.193 Many more developments over the following years
threatened to end the study, but at nearly every point changes
were made to assure its continuation, officials from the PHS
had every intention on simply continuing the study until the
last patient died.194
Upon the ending of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the
following scrutiny, great changed were made in biomedical
research design and regulations. By the 1960s and 1970s,
officials in the study began to fear the day that the study
became publicized, and they began treating their study as a
ticking bomb. Though reports were annually published earlier
in the study, they suddenly halted in the 1960s, and when
the PHS was pressured to update its regulations on human
experimentation, it was understood that the Tuskegee Study
had little time. After internal protests to the study, PHS began
a review of the study in 1969 with leading officials from the
PHS and associated agencies.195 Though not examining any
of the remaining participants, the committee decided to carry
on with the study, and it was still continuing when AP writer
Jean Heller published an article depicting the study’s horrors
in 1975.196 The fallout was naturally abrupt and harsh. In the
years following, as the story spread, it affected many African
Americans’ approach to dealing with the government. In
several studies, many African Americans have reported that
they distrust medical institutions because of the Tuskegee
Study, though their knowledge of the actual facts of the trial
was somewhat lacking.197 Unfortunately, this proved incredibly
frustrating in the decades following, especially since HIV
surfaced in the United States. It has become increasingly
difficult to get African Americans’ consent in medical studies,
and this lack of willing patients forced federal officials to
suspend a federal HIV study in Washington, DC in 1988.198
Despite efforts to apologize for the incident and regain
African Americans’ trust, the US government still suffers
from the effects that their study caused, and it appears that it
will be years before the public gives it.
Informed Consent
Receiving informed consent is an absolutely necessary
requirement for all studies today, and it must be received
honestly and ethically. Its purpose is to fully detail the planned
experiment to potential subjects, accurately describing the
potential risks and benefits of participating in the study.199
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
Though it is generally a document declaring the patient’s
agreement to participate in the study, it is certainly more
significant than this. Informed consent must fully outline the
purpose, expectations, and plans for the study.200 Important
aspects of the study, including study length, the inclusion of
placebo drugs, and unique aspects must also be fully detailed.201
Also important, a consent form must be written in language
the subject is fluent in, and it must be written in diction simple
enough for the patient to fully understand.202 Often difficult
in resource-poor nations where education often lacks, those
obtaining consent must make sure that scientific and medical
details are not simply explained, but understood.203 Notably,
however, consent forms are not among the pieces of legislation
required by the WHO for available documents in a study.204
Actually understanding the research process is vital, and
at times it is overlooked and seriously hurts the subjects.
Though individuals may be able to comprehend the matter
being studied, many individuals do not actually understand the
rights they have as test subjects or concepts such as placebos.
There have been instances of studies where patients wanted to
leave, but due to the fact that they believed the hospital forced
them to complete the study, many individuals remained.205
Cultural differences can make attaining this especially difficult
in international studies, and researchers must be keen to
notice the subtleties and work around them. In some cultures,
for example, community leaders and officials make major
decisions, and this mindset would translate to their medical
choices. In contrast, the common Western notion is that the
individual has the freedom to make whatever decision best
suits them personally.206 For Western researchers, it then
becomes difficult to work around such barriers to assure that
patients do not feel coerced into a study. To the international
community, language, culture, or education are inadequate
excuses for failing to provide fully informed consent, so it is a
researcher investigator’s responsibility to assure its completion.
Early AIDS Research and Placebo Studies
In 1994, the AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG)
completed testing on the first successful drug to reduce AIDS
transmission in childbirth, AZT. “Plan 076”, as the drug
regimen came to be known, was highly expensive, even for
those United States, initially costing US$1,000.207 Because the
brunt of the AIDS crisis resides in Africa, where economic
levels are even lower – at a meager $10 of medical spending
per year per person on average - a cheaper solution proved
necessary.208 In 16 following studies, most funded by the
United States Centers for Disease control (CDC) or National
Institutes of Health (NIH), alternative methods were tested,
including lower doses of AZT at less frequent intervals.209
Though spurring from a World Health Organization summit,
these studies drew in much controversy, primarily because all
but one of them included placebo groups.210 The intentions
of these studies thus came in to question. Journalists in the
23
 World Health Organization
AZT, an expensive but successful AIDS medication, has existed since
the early 1990s. Despite this, several studies have used placebo
groups instead of control groups as receipients of AZT. Ethicists
today struggle to determine the ethical aspects of such cases.
New England Journal of Medicine criticized that since the sole
purpose of the studies was to discover the most cost-effective
drug therapy, placebos were unnecessary. Opting for groups
to be compared to those on the 076 Regimen instead of
placebos, doctors Peter Lurie and Sidney Wolfe argue, “Such
equivalency studies of alternative antiretroviral regimens will
provide even more useful results than placebo-controlled
trials, without the deaths of hundreds of newborns that are
inevitable if placebo groups are used.”211 Certainly, those
placed under placebo drugs in these trials transmitted HIV to
newborns at significantly higher rates, and these 1990s studies
opened up much debate on the ethics of placebo drugs in
research.
Defining the ethics of placebo use became a primary
concern for many doctors and researchers in the 1990s due to
the HIV/AIDS crisis, and strong opinions surfaced on both
ends of the debate. Arguing against placebo use in the HIV
case, Lurie and Sidney worry that placebos were used under
the condition that neglect is the “standard of care” in many
African countries.212 In response, these authors contend that
this is a false notion, because the standard in Africa is caused
not by the current state of the world, but by the continent’s
plethora of poor nations and incapacitated governments
that cannot provide adequate care.213 Others maintain that
24 General Assembly
placebos are absolutely necessary for the integrity of a study.
As long as, “no permanent adverse consequences” occur, if
there is a risk of “only temporary discomforts” and “they [the
subjects] will not be harmed.”214, then many conclude that
placebos should be included in all cases. Though opponents
of the placebo fear the pain and discomfort control groups
using them may suffer, advocates argue that medical research
is inherently different from care, meaning responsibilities are
shifted.215 To these scientists, their primary objective is to
provide legitimate, unbiased, and scientific research. Though
patient safety and health is certainly cared for deeply, mild
and temporary pain that does not leave permanent damage
is favorable to an illegitimate experiment that lacks a true
control group. Other cases involving placebo have occurred
throughout the years, and it remains a pertinent issue today.
International Research and Ethical Concerns
One of the more relevant topics in recent years has become
the issue of ethics overseas. In international studies, many
raise concerns as to how ethically researchers act. One of the
more common complaints is that studies done internationally
rarely benefit the host communities where the trials are held.216
Associated with the problem of “reasonable availability”,
critics of such studies argue that when communities are
too poor to afford drugs being tested or otherwise will not
benefit from the study being performed, then it is unethical
to host a trial there.217 The International Ethical Guidelines for
Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (1993) states that
agencies conducting research in foreign communities must
make treatments tested “reasonably available to inhabitants
of the host community at the completion of testing.”218 Due
to this declaration, many have argued against trials that do not
explicitly state a plan to assure affordable treatment should
testing prove drugs successful. In the early AZT studies, for
instance, critics note that no plan was made to develop an
economical infrastructure in Africa should the drugs prove
successful.219 Additionally, the AZT manufacturers were
never required to produce the drugs at affordable costs to
the host communities, and no plans were ever developed
to build the nations’ internal capacities in the healthcare
fields, which would be necessary for the manufacturers to
fully distribute the drugs across the continent.220 In today’s
politically conscious world, a study cannot even appear to
infringe upon any rights of test subjects, especially if they are
from a developing nation.
One such international study that drew controversy was
The Havrix Trial in Thailand. Havrix, a hepatitis A vaccine,
gave successful results in small sample trials, so researchers
developed a double blind test involving 40,000 Thai children,
with the control group receiving an existing hepatitis B
vaccine.221 There were several elements heavily scrutinized
in the trial. Firstly, no agreement was formally reached to
distribute Havrix across the country for free or at a reduced

cost, as researchers only agreed to get the drug registered in
the country.222 Despite the community’s participation in the
study, it was quite likely that they would never receive the
long-term benefits of the study, because the drugs would
be too expensive. Even before the trial began, researchers
apparently knew that the drug would serve the developed
world more than the developing world due to its expected
costs.223 There were several benefits the community did
receive from the study, including free hepatitis B vaccinations,
better healthcare centers to store medicine, and close medical
care during the study.224 Unfortunately, these gains were not
enough to satisfy most, as many reminded researchers that
Hepatitis A was not as pertinent a concern in Thailand as
in other populations, such as the United States Army.225
Critics pointed to the lack of Thai recognition in the study’s
publication and as blatant disrespect and chastised researchers
for their failure to teach the Thai research assistants the testing
methods used to maintain hepatitis care once the program
ended.226 This type of exploitation is typically what ethicists
fear most in international research, and the public makes its
best attempts to single out any institutions taking advantage
of underprivileged populations.
Jesse Gelsinger and Gene Research
In 1999, research participant Jesse Gelsinger died in a
University of Pennsylvania gene transfer study, and his case
significantly affected research in that area. Diagnosed with
OTC deficiency, Jesse was the youngest in the Penn’s study
at age 18 and eager to take part in the research.227 Sadly,
complications from the transfer caused Jesse to die less than
100 hours after surgery.228 Reviews of the study revealed that
Gelsinger should not have been allowed in the study due to an
unhealthy liver, and the University was criticized for conflicts
of interest and for devoting and entire department to human
gene therapy, which ceased its human research in 2000.229 The
case increased scrutiny toward independent review boards,
which monitor research studies, and though many initially
called for drastic changes in the review system following
Gelsinger’s death, no major changes were made in the United
States’ official policies.230 Safety measures in studies have been
made in the decade following his death, but many admit that
tragedy is a part of this field. As Robert Steinbrook notes,
“Adverse events are inevitable. Some will continue to be
unexpected, and tragic.”231 He may be correct, but if changes
were made before such tragedies occurred instead of after,
maybe a few could have been avoided.
Current Situation
Transparency and Public Records
One of the international community’s more recent goals
has been to develop a comprehensive registry of clinical
trials. The World Health Organization has already begun
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
this, launching the International Clinical Trials Registry
Platform (ICTRP) in 2006.232 Meant to give the ill a database
to find potential trials with their disease, the ICTRP is a
conglomeration of cooperating databases from different
countries and organizations. The WHO does not directly
control the databases where these trials are recorded, as
it has decided to instead set standards for other registries,
providing guidelines and a system to coordinate rather than
assume total control.233 In the ICTRP, all registries have
specific data they must publish, and the WHO provides them
with 20 specific facts that trials must publish.234 Many agree
that this is an important step in improving transparency in
clinical trials, but others still want more change. David Korn
and Susan Ehringhaus, for example, strongly urged for
stringent regulations enforcing timely, honest, and unbiased
reports and their publications.235 As one author notes, it is the
responsibility of a research team “to maintain trust” with the
public, and this requires them to provide honest results, even
if they are not nearly as glorifying as many had hoped.236 The
more that researchers abuse this trust, the more likely it is that
further international action will become necessary, and it only
takes one major breach of this faith that spurs it.
Research in the Developing World
As multinational research becomes more and more
common, the related ethics have suddenly become a priority
for ethicists. The global community seems to be placing a
larger burden on researchers to focus their efforts on studies
that will benefit the most needy communities. Diseases
such as malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, and infant mortality
constitute a third of the “global disease burden”, but they
are concentrated in the poorest countries of the world, as the
wealthiest nations remain essentially unaffected by them.237 In
response, recent publications have attempted to resolve this
issue, but at times they only raise more questions. In 2002 the
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
(CIOMS) produced the International Ethical Guidelines for
Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, but the phrasing of
several of its articles has caused some confusion. Guideline
3 requires that governments review research plans and make
sure that each study “is responsive to the health needs and
priorities of the host country and meets the requisite ethical
standards.”238 To one expert, “health needs” constitute
conditions and ailments that shorten life expectancy or
disrupt daily life, but this proves contradictory because not all
needs kill as many people as others, causing “health priorities”
to differ.239 Thus, which conditions a research facility is
responsible for treating first becomes confusing. Outside
these discrepancies, however, there are more pertinent issues
with how to best enforce these regulations. To highlight one,
in 2001, the drug Surfaxin was tested in a Latin American trial.
Surfaxin, a new drug for premature births, was tested against
a placebo, even though existing drugs provided sufficient care.
25
 World Health Organization

Many believed that this was unethical, because Surfaxin could
become to be too expensive for the underdeveloped nations
in Latin America, so it did not meet the health needs of the
countries, which was a lower costing drug.240
The largest concern for bioethicists in multinational
studies, however, is exploitation. To many, even when there
is a measureable benefit from participating in a trial and
participation is voluntary, abuse can still occur. These types
of cases result when in agreements between parties the
benefits for each side are uneven.241 In research, this can
often result when patients hesitate to agree to hurtful or
unwanted procedures, but their current conditions leave
them so low that out of desperation and vulnerability they
accept the researcher’s terms of agreement.242 Though a
contract can be agreed to, ethicists argue that if a research
team benefits from a study, they become obligated to provide
fair compensation.243 In one recent case, desperate Indian
women were coerced into participating in a fertility drug
trial, receiving no compensation but the chance for a child.244
Determining whether or not a trial is exploitative, however,
can be difficult. When cases occur that appear exploitive, one
must determine first whether the trial was consensual, and
secondly, whether or not the trial was harmful to subjects.245
Even then, non-harmful studies can be considered exploitive
depending on the particular situation, implying that each case
has to be studied closely to accurately assess its fairness. The
current system allows for these instances to occur more often
than wanted, and something must surely be changed if these
cases of exploitation are ever to be controlled.
Genetic Studies and Technology
With the development of genetic engineering, gene
therapy, and other DNA based medicines, questions on ethics
have quickly risen. In gene therapy studies, one of the more
immediate issues surrounds its potential limitations. In the
1990s both the United States and the United Kingdom agreed
to require additional approval for any studies involving gene
therapy, though still needing a research ethic committee’s

The discovery of the DNA molecule has opened countless doors in medical research, but it has also created quite the dilemma regarding its ethical
aspects. Though both national and international bodies have offered guidance on the issue, the debate continues on its place in society.

26 General Assembly

approval, as any study on humans does.246 Eventually many
of these restrictions were lifted or lightened, but there are
still issues involving gene therapy today. One limit that many
have called for is a restriction on gene therapy for purely
the sake of biological enhancement. Fears of this seem
to stem from eugenics movements in the mid-twentieth
century.247 Eugenics sought to improve the basic human and
its capabilities, creating “socially desirable people.”248 With
these fears, the 1988 European Medical Research Council, the
1996 Council of Europe’s convention on Human Rights, and
the 1993 Health Sciences Council of Japan all spurned gene
therapy for genetic enhancement.249 Though seemingly clear,
this issue becomes much more muddled when considering
the line between genetic enhancement and suffering. Brody
notes that there is a murky line between the two, asking
whether antisocial behavior would be ethical to treat should
technology permit it.250 In 2005, the Legal Assembly of the
United Nations passed a non-binding Declaration on Human
Cloning, in which it declared, “Member States are called
upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as
they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection
of human life.”251 Despite the declaration’s passing, however,
much debate remains on the issue. The Declaration has
been criticized on some fronts, saying it is “misguided and
unnecessarily restricts scientific exploration.”252 George Annas
worries that because this declaration is non-binding, many
corporations will simply take their research to the nations
with the lowest restrictions and resources, and the only thing
that will truly change is the quality of the research.253 The
debate clearly has not been finished on this issue yet, and as
technology advances further, it will only create more pressure
for the international community to make a decision.
Past International Actions
Nuremburg Code
The Nuremburg Code was among the first declarations
on human research ethics in the modern world, and its
repercussions are still felt today. Written following the Nazi
medical trials after World War II, the Code was outlined in
August 1947 in a simple 10-point statement.254 Based off
universal human rights principles, the Nuremburg Code
outlines in detail informed consent as a requirement for
legal and ethical experimentation.255 Additionally, the Code
allows for patients to withdraw from experiments at any time
and ensures that all experiments will exist for the benefit of
mankind.256 The majority of the provisions relate to researcher
responsibility towards subjects, requiring that all efforts be
made to protect their long term well being and safety.257 There
have been some critics of the Nuremburg Code, however. The
most significant one was not with the document itself, but with
how it was originally used. Because the Code originated from
the Nazi Trials, many doctors and researchers largely ignored
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
its requirements, because they believed the Nazi’s actions were
so out of the ordinary that, “The Nuremburg Code itself is a
good code for barbarians, but not for civilized physicians.”258
Other critics have suggested the Code’s insistence on informed
consent is actually too stringent, and other cite its failure to
directly address research involving children, women, or the
mentally impaired.259 Today, it is respected as a major step in
research ethics, though most understand it is not far-reaching
enough to be sufficient. Markman and Markman suggest that
the Code should be updated and broadened today, because
after 60 years, its shortcomings have become clear enough
to single out and strengthen.260 Though not perfect, the
Nuremburg Code has an enduring legacy that will continue to
shape research ethics for years to come.
Declaration of Helsinki
Originally published in 1964 and updated several times
after, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki
has become the most important document in research ethics
today. The declaration shifts from the Nuremburg Code in
that it focuses on balancing the importance of clinical research
and the health and well being of participating patients.261
One important feature is that the Declaration introduces
“proportionality.” According to the Declaration, research
should only be done when there the benefits and importance
of the research are proportional to the risks and dangers put
on research participants.262 Additionally, Helsinki places more
emphasis on the responsibilities of physicians and researchers,
whereas the Nuremburg Code focuses much more on the
rights of individual subjects.263 The Declaration of Helsinki
also differs from the Nuremburg Code on its approach to
consent. Though the Code declares, “The voluntary consent
of the human subject is absolutely essential”, the Declaration
of Helsinki allows for others to give consent.264 The
Declaration allows, unlike the Nuremburg Code, for “legal
guardians” to give consent in case of “legal” or “physical
incapacity.”265 The specific language of this section has
sparked much debate, as some consider the Declaration
a “weakening” of the Nuremburg Code, whereas others
believe it is more of a “humanization of legalistic code.266”
The specifics of the Declaration are at times contradictory.
In Section III, for instance, one point requires that patients
must have full mental functions and abilities to participate
in a study, but the point directly preceding it allows for legal
guardians to give consent if a subject is not fully functional
mentally.267 In response to changing times and criticism, the
Declaration has been revised on several occasions. The 1975
version added details to issues regarding privacy, consent,
and risk management, as well as removed doctor discretion
on whether to include informed consent or not, requiring
doctors to obtain approval from an independent body. Other
smaller updates occurred throughout the years, adding details
much like the 1975 version.268
27
 World Health Organization
The 1947 Nuremburg War Trials resulted in the Nuremburg Codes, a 10-point document outlying the ethics of informed consent in medical
research, among some other requirements. It was the first of many influential documents on the issue and is still largely relevant today.
The Belmont Report
Published in 1978 by the United States’ National
Commission, the Belmont Report established many principles
that are still respected today. The Belmont Principles, as they
came to be known, created a connection between many of
the abstract ethical views already established and concrete
areas where they apply.269 Regarding informed consent, many
credit the Belmont Report for establishing that consent
should be documented in not purely the facts, but also that
it is comprehended by the individual and that independent
investigators should be held responsible for assuring that such
requirements are met.270 One of the principles stipulates that
research should be done on those in positions to benefit from
the research and to sufficiently withstand the inconveniences
and troubles the research may cause. In effect, this required
that researchers perform more research on healthy adults
and less on children and the mentally retarded.271 Like other
actions, the Belmont Report has received pointed criticism.
Overall, many believe that the Report overly protects subjects,
28 General Assembly
though others even contend that the system of principles
gives the research community less responsibility in its actions
than it deserves.272 The Report even admits one of its own
faults, stating that its principles “cannot always be applied so
as to resolve beyond dispute particular ethical problems. The
objective is to provide an analytical framework that will guide the
resolution of ethical problems arising from research involving
human subjects.”273 Over time, however, it is still credited for
its success at affecting nearly all aspects of bioethics, and its
moral principles drew many commendations.274 Though many
of these morals must be reevaluated again today, its effect at
the time of its writing is unquestioned.
2000 Declaration of Helsinki Revisions
By the end of the twentieth century, calls for further
strengthening the Declaration of Helsinki had surfaced.
Many demanded the banning of placebo usage in cases
where treatment exists and called the entire document too
weak.275 After much pressure, the Declaration was strongly

revised in 2000. Internally, the WMA struggled to decide
how much authority it possessed to regulate world matters,
considering many of the doctors working on the Declaration
were not actively participating in clinical research.276 When the
document was finally complete, there were many significant
changes. First, the rules of ethics were extended to included
research on human tissue that could be identified as a specific
person.277 When it explains the rights of subjects, the new
Declaration adds that hardships brought on by research can
be both economic and medical, and that populations as a
whole must be accounted for.278 One controversial addition is
that research must in some way benefit the population where
the trial is being conducted. Critics claim that this places
pressure on researchers and sponsors to provide medical
care to communities instead of governments, which is unfair
to these groups that often lack the capacity to do so.279
Overall, however, most accept the Declaration of Helsinki
as the most respected guideline in clinical trial ethics, and
its revisions have addressed the modern changes in research,
such as the emergence of multinational and corporation
research.280 Regardless of the controversy, the Declaration of
Helsinki remains and will remain among the most important
documents in bioethics, and any further action will be very
much based off its contents.
Timeline of Significant Events
1932: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment begins in Macon
County, Alabama. The subjects, all African American,
are denied treatment in order to study the full effects of
the disease. Meant initially to only last for 5 years, the
study continues for 40.
1938: The Nazi government in Germany revokes
medical licenses from all Jewish physicians. During
this period, eugenics movements intensify and Nazi
experimentation on Jews begins.
1939: Euthanasia studies begin in Germany. Between this
year and the end of the war, historians estimate over a
quarter million are killed in these studies.281
1946: The Nuremburg Medical Trials begin. 16 of the 23
Nazi scientists are convicted, and the panel releases the
Nuremburg Code, containing 10 points of duties and
responsibilities for researchers, focusing on the rights
of patients.
1946: The Streptomycin Clinical Trials Committee is
formed in Great Britain. The drug trial they perform
on tuberculosis patients is credited with being the first
major study to utilize randomization in experimental
and control groups.
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
1964: The first Declaration of Helsinki is released. The
Declaration attempts to balance both scientific curiosity
and human rights, and places more responsibility on
the researcher than in the Nuremburg Codes. Some,
however, call the Declaration weak because of its
informed consent rules.
1972: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment ends soon after
reporter Jean Heller publicizes the study. Its lasting
affect is unquestioned, as many argue that current
African American reluctances to participate in clinical
trials stems from this case.
1978: The Belmont Report is released in the United
States. The “Belmont Principles”, respect for persons,
benefice, and justice were very influential in the years
following its publication.
1988: Researchers in Washington DC are required
to suspend an HIV study. Though the disease was
spreading quickly among the African American
population, difficulties in finding enough willing
participants forced the study’s postponement.
1990: Havrix Drug Trial is conducted in Thailand.
Controversy emerged following the trial because few
in Thailand would either need the drug or be able to
afford it and no promise was ever made to give the Thai
population reduced prices for it following the trial.
1993: International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research
Involving Human Subjects (1993) is released. The guidelines
help interpret the Declaration of Helsinki and place it
in perspective of international research in developing
countries.282
1994: ACTG 076 Trial is completed. The trial provides
the world with AZT, which, in studies, lowered HIV
transmission between mother and child during birth
from 25% to 7%.
1997: New England Journal of Medicine article criticizes US
government and researchers for HIV trials in Africa.
The studies, meant to test lower dosage plans of AZT,
used placebos as controls instead of full AZT regimens.
2000: The largest revision of the Declaration of
Helsinki is completed. It places more responsibility on
researchers to ensure the well being of communities
being studied, though it still contains most of the
original principles from the 1968 Declaration.
2002: International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research
Involving Human Subjects is updated. Confusion again
erupted due to the ambiguous wording in several
parts, but it did take steps to further define regulations
involving international research.
2005: The Legal Assembly of the United Nations passes
a non-binding Declaration on Human Cloning. The
Declaration explicitly prohibits gene studies that are not
necessary to protect someone’s life. Much debate still
continues about the topic, however.
29
 World Health Organization
2006: The World Health Organization creates
international Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
A conglomerate of international research trials, the
ICTRP also requires that all trials provide 20 points
of specific information, increasing uniformity and
reliability.
Proposed Solutions
Limit Placebo-Controlled Trials to prevent Exploitation
Despite its scientific rigidness, many believe that placebo-
controlled trials are unethical and dangerous to patients and
should therefore be banned. The Declaration of Helsinki
requires that “in any medical study, every patient- including
those of a control group, if any- should be assured of the
best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method.”283 Currently,
many researchers will go overseas to developing nations,
because in wealthier nations patients will generally not consent
to placebo-controlled trials.284 By banning these tests, some
bioethicists believe that it would ensure that patients do not
receive substandard care. Others, however, believe that fully
barring placebos is overly harsh. Supporters of placebo tests
note that there are many tests in which placebos do not pose any
serious health risks, such as studies for hair loss treatments.285
Many note that there are limitations to the common alternative
to placebos, active-controlled trials. Actively controlled trials
require proven, existing treatment to work, and they also have
the potential to minimize errors in research, for a therapy
already exists.286 To these critics, it is impractical to remove
The debate over the ethics of placebo trials continues, partially due
to the specific wording of several documents, including the Dec-
laration of Helsinki. The question seems to be: Should all patients
receive the best treatment available, or does this make proper
research impossible by over-restricting scientists?
30 General Assembly
placebos, because without them legitimate studies could
not be conducted. There could certainly be a compromise
between the two extremes, however. If limits are placed on
placebo trials and they are more carefully monitored, then the
fears of exploitation could be quelled.
Strengthen Requirements for Informed Consent
Though previously requiring simply that a researcher
obtained the signature of someone agreeing to a study, many
now believe that consent must be documented more clearly.
Generally, consent must be documented by an IRB, but in
some instances the boards have the power to waive it. For
example, in the United States, consent can be waived if
“research involves no more than minimal risk”, and “research
could not be practicably carried out without the waiver.”287
This law, however, leaves the types of cases that can be waived
quite broad, and boards must be extremely cautious and
careful when authorizing this.288 Additionally, in the United
States, consent is not required in cases that use existing data,
drug research in the armed services, cases of possible benefit
such as emergencies, and cases for public benefit done or
approved by the government.289 Strengthening international
requirements for informed consent could minimize risks, for
as it stands, there is only a small scope left where consent is
actually required. Another current danger in obtaining consent
is the likelihood that patients do not understand the procedure,
even when consent is acquired. It is relatively common for
less than 75% of participants to fully grasp a study’s intended
goals and procedures.290 In one instance in Uganda, 19%
of parents did not understand that the malaria study they
offered consent for actually involved children being assigned
to different treatments.291 The most common belief is that
this problem is associated with culture, but it is not limited to
just this. It has been shown that both education and age have
drastic effects on patients’ abilities to understand research
plans.292 When comparative studies looked at countries with
lower education levels, however, it revealed that other nations
do not have inherently lower understanding rates, even if
education is lower. It has been hypothesized that this was due
to increased monitoring of the informed consent process,
however, because the studies were international.293 Thus, if
regulations mandated stronger supervision during the consent
process, it is very conceivable that understanding would rise
in all countries, even in developed nations. Explaining the
process of research can be a difficult task when interacting
with those without any prior knowledge of the subject, but it
is not an excuse for laziness or exploitation. 80% is far too low
a number for subjects that understand a trial they are in, and
steps should immediately be taken to battle this issue.

Remove Research Responsibilities in Community
Healthcare
Though the most publicized issues in ethics revolve
around the rights of patients, many today note that sponsors
and researchers have rights as well. According to the 2002
International Ethical Guidelines, sponsors should make any
treatment studied “reasonably available to the inhabitants
of the host community” following a study.294 This conflicts
with other documents however, which suggest that sponsors
and host communities consider such agreements, but do not
explicitly require them.295 Furthermore, many argue that it
should not be the responsibility of the sponsor, but rather
the host country or international organizations designed to do
so.296 And if they are required, others question exactly what
“reasonably available” constitutes.297 Though the intentions of
the requirement are understood - to minimize unfair usage
of host communities- many contend that the rule should
be revised. One critic argues that depending on the case,
“reasonable availability” could give the community inadequate
compensation to justify the trial, whereas others may involve
such minimal risk that the sponsors are required to compensate
excessively.298 In response, Emanuel suggests that a system of
“fair benefits” be established.299 Specifically, Emanuel calls for
treatments to be available to the population, training of local
personnel in treatment preparation and development, and a
long-term collaboration between the sponsor and community,
including sharing any financial rewards the treatment brings
the sponsor.300 Seemingly, a strategy such as this would ensure
the fair treatment of host communities and countries, but it
would also create a more explicit and balanced relationship by
removing the ambiguity of “reasonable availability.”
Bloc Positions
The United States
As one of the most developed nations in the world, the
United States holds much of the pharmaceutical companies,
research corporations, and the sponsors that concern this
topic, and it would make good business sense for the nation to
support them. Drug companies fuel the American economy.
The median profit margin for the top 10 pharmaceutical
companies in 2002 was 17%, while the other 490 companies
in the Fortune 500 had only 3.3%.301 When considering
the recent recession and the troubles of the auto and oil
industries in the United States, the government would hope
to protect one of its remaining mega-markets, and restricting
its operations would be an economic mistake. When the U.S.
released the Belmont Report, three criteria- information,
comprehension, and voluntariness- were required for proper
informed consent.302 When giving consent though, the nation
is reluctant to provide the same privileges to all. It does not give
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
prisoners, for instance, the right to give their own consent, but
rather entrusts it in a review board where only one member is
guaranteed to be or have been a prisoner.303 The United States
would be expected to follow similar standards should informed
consent be reexamined. Considering genetic research, the
U.S. has historically opposed unrestricted gene therapy and
cloning. It voted for the 2006 Declaration of Human Cloning,
which banned cloning or genetic engineering in research and
practice.304 President Barack Obama has supported stem cell
research in the past, but his administration would have to pass
legislation on the view before one could consider the United
States’ policy to have changed.305
The European Union
One major difference between U.S. and European policy
is that more European nations favor gene therapy. In the final
Declaration on Human Cloning vote, the only major Western
European nations to vote in favor of it were Italy, Ireland,
and Portugal, which are more Catholic than many others in
the EU.306 Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, Germany, France,
Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway
all voted against it, and over half of all opposing nations
were European.307 That being said, these countries are also
among the nations that benefit most from the current drug
industry, as they can actually afford many of the newer and
more expensive drugs tested overseas. On two recently passed
European Community Clinical Trials Directives, the body was
criticized for narrowing their codes to products for human
use, and for generously smoothing over the research approval
process and failing to adequately protect patients.308 This
position is not as steadfast as in the United States, however, as
critics admit that depending on case law the interpretation of
the Directive could change.309 Thus, it would not be surprising
to see European nations attempt to balance both sponsor and
community rights, and their ultimate support could heavily
influence the outcome of many of these issues.
Africa
Holding the some of the poorest countries in the world,
the nations in Africa must decide how best to stimulate
economic growth and healthcare development, while
avoiding the exploitation by research companies. Though
countries may already have regulations for research ethics in
place, a major concern is to properly enforce these laws. In
Tanzania, for instance, they have passed several different acts
to strengthen their ethics regulations, but their main concern
is still strengthening their systems of surveillance.310 Nations
in predicaments such as Tanzania will most likely support
regulation protecting their communities during research,
as they stand little to lose should this occur. The best-case
scenario for these countries would involve policies that place
the greatest responsibilities on the research sponsors and
not the host governments. Unfortunately, these nations must
31
 World Health Organization
Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was the product of gene
research. The European Union has restricted gene research on
humans, but a final decision has not been unanimously reached.
improve their internal capacities before any changes in policy
can have their full effects. Africa absolutely needs research
to continue in their nations, however. AIDS, malaria, and
malnutrition continue to plague the continent. These countries
should hope to maintain the current level of research in the
nation, but instead of it serving American and European
interests, Africa could use more research helping its ongoing
problems. These nations understand where exactly they stand
in the economic and medical landscape, and they hope to do
all in their powers to improve them.
South America
Like Africa, South American nations have been home
to many exploitive and unethical medical trials over the
years. The 2000 Surfaxin Study, for instance, took place in
Bolivia.311 The study, which drew criticism from several arenas,
was placebo controlled and offered no direct benefits for
the host communities.312 In response, these nations would
support measures to strengthen the rights of patients and
host countries and placing more responsibilities on research
sponsors. Furthermore, these nations would be strong
32 General Assembly
supporters of treatment availability following trials. In the
Surfaxin Study, some argued that the trial was ethical because
the drug was not made explicitly for developing countries, and
therefore it could permissibly serve the community’s needs.313
If this were the case here, or in any trial for that matter, these
countries want assurance that they will actually receive the
treatment if successful. Whether the drug is free, discounted,
or if host researchers are involved with research so they can
provide similar treatment can be negotiated, but developing
countries such as these cannot waste time and effort only to
be used by wealthy drug companies. When discussing the
potential use of genetic information and researching gene
therapy and cloning, most Latin American countries would
oppose it. Many of these nations retain a Catholic ideology.
Falling in line with the Holy See’s views, only three of the
12 South American nations voted against the Declaration
of Human Cloning, with seven voting in favor and two
abstaining.314
Relevant Partners
Perhaps the most relevant non-state actors in this debate
will be the research facilities and drug companies that are
most involved with clinical trials. Johnson & Johnson and
Pfizer, both based in the United States, and Roche, based in
Switzerland, are among the largest pharmaceutical companies
today. The top 11 companies all took in over US$5 billion
each in 2009, making their influence on the world’s economy
clear.315 Many of these companies do work to fight the diseases
in developing nations that they are often criticized for ignoring.
For instance, Pfizer has individual programs that work to
research and fight malaria, HIV, and infectious diseases.316 In
addition to for-profit companies, colleges and universities are
also extremely involved in clinical and health research. The
Harvard School of Public Health, for example, conducts
research in AIDS, malaria, and nutrition, among countless
other initiatives.317 These institutions may not explicitly do
these studies for profit, but they do their best to make sure
they continually produce new studies and research findings,
and they are just as affected by ethics regulations as drug
companies are. The final non-state actors in research are the
Independent Review Boards. Committee members from these
organizations are tasked with judging the ethics and legality of
different studies and approving them. Understanding exactly
how one works could be helpful in determining just how to
use them should changes in policy be made.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer
Considering the Declaration on Human Cloning passed
by the Legal Assembly of the United Nations, should
any changes be made to the existing system? Should
regulations specify exactly what the meaning of “human
dignity” is, or does the Declaration, though non-binding,
sufficiently cover the world’s stance on the issue?
What changes, if any, should be made to the legal process
of obtaining informed consent? Do review boards need
to take stronger precautions to ensure that consent is not
simply asked for and received, but also fully understood
by the subjects?
How can host countries and research teams ensure that
neither side is expending more energy in their relationship
than the other? What rights do host countries and
communities have in regards to receiving treatments
and technologies following trials, and who exactly is
responsible for providing them?
Do placebo-controlled-trials need to be restricted, limited,
or monitored in any further ways? How can host
communities be further assured that placebos will not in
any way hurt their overall health?
Should anything be done to promote research in the most
vital and necessary areas of global health such as HIV
and malaria? Is it companies’ responsibility to research
particular diseases, or as private companies do they have
the right to study whatever they wish?
Should any measures be taken to further ensure balanced
relationships and minimize exploitation of host
communities? What exactly does “reasonable availability”
mean in practice, and what needs to be done to ensure
its use?
Suggestions for Further Research
Perhaps the most comprehensive book on the topic is The
Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. It covers everything
from major case studies, important legislation, to modern
dilemmas that we are facing today. To truly get acquainted
with the issues of international research ethics, I would also
urge you to read Exploitation and Developing Countries: The
Ethics of Clinical Research. Though mentioned in part here, it
would also be beneficial to closely go through some of the
major documents passed by international and state bodies,
including the Nuremburg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, The
Belmont Report, and the International Ethical Guidelines for
Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. In particular,
you should read the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki
in 2000 and the reissue of the Ethical Guides for Biomedical
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
World Health Organization
Research in 2002 and compare them to the original versions,
because it will show you firsthand some of the trends that
have developed since their original publications in 1968 and
1993. After exhausting these resources, you should also utilize
the NCBI PubMed website, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed. The database has thousands of free articles that you
can search, and if it does not have the article directly, it will
give you the citation to the publication where it appears, and
many of these journals are available through your school or
city’s libraries. The New England Journal of Medicine is contains
some especially relevant articles, many of which you can find
in the bibliography.
POSITION PAPERS
Though not necessarily the highlight of preparing for a
Model UN conference, position papers are vital to preparing
oneself for debate. In your paper, you should outline your
country’s positions regarding committee topics, which you
will ultimately be pursuing when committee commences.
Be sure to fully address both topic areas, and take into
consideration everything from history and culture to modern
economic statuses and pertinent issues. Do your best to be
clear and concise, stating succinctly what the nation you
represent believes. This will not only help us, but also help
you formulate concrete positions you can take and implement
at conference.
Be sure to address the specific issues that will be arising
in each topic area. For disease following natural disasters, be
sure to include your country’s stances on disease surveillance,
beliefs on fighting both infectious and chronic disease,
changing disaster planning and preparation, and hygiene and
resources in refugee camps. Make sure not to simply state
the country’s domestic beliefs, but also how the government
stands on these issues in international crises. This same
principle applies for research ethics. For this topic, be sure to
detail your nation’s positions regarding placebo trials, genetics
research, and informed consent. Do not forget to include your
country’s stand on international research, both in the rights
and responsibilities of research bodies and of host nations,
communities, and research participants. If your country has
taken action in the past, be sure to explain just what was done.
If your country has not taken significant action in the past, do
not feel like you cannot take a hard stance on issues, as long
as you stay on policy.
Please try to remain brief, keeping the paper to two single-
spaced pages total for both topic areas, using Times New Roman
with 12-point font. Position papers will be due February 1, 2011.
COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS
As much as we can learn in one weekend at a Model UN
conference, there is much more that you can do to broaden our
knowledge and make an impact on the world, even while you
33
 World Health Organization
are in school. Here, you may debate the best way to manage
the countless NGOs working across the globe, but at home,
especially after you have researched so much on disaster relief,
you can be a part of helping some of those NGOs that travel
to disaster areas, set up camp, and care for thousands of the
ill and the needy. As stated earlier, there are countless NGOs
around the world that focus their efforts on promoting
healthcare across the globe. Red Cross International, CARE
USA, Catholic Relief Services, and Partners in Health are just
some of the many organizations that focus their efforts on
helping those in need. In times of need, you can certainly
donate money or supplies to these organizations, and if you
want to learn more about how disaster relief operates they are
certainly great resources to look into.
Oftentimes overlooked, however, is the rebuilding process.
Communities hurt by natural disasters take years or even
decades to rebuild, but the world all too often moves on within
a few months. There are great organizations that specialize
in keeping the recovery process moving that can really use
help. Rebuilding Together New Orleans, for example, works
on the recovery of the New Orleans community following
Hurricane Katrina. Donating to organizations such as this, or
even spending some of your summer volunteering for one,
can really make a huge difference in people’s lives.
CLOSING REMARKS
Well, that’s about as much information as I can give you at
once. This is obviously only a brief overview to the topics at
hand, as there is more information out there on these topics
than I could fit in a library of books. Treat this guide as merely
an introduction. That being said, I strongly encourage you
to research as much as you can before conference and really
immerse yourself in the issues. The deeper you dive into
these matters, the more complex and intricate they become,
but that’s what makes them so fascinating! Make use of the
Suggestions for Further Research, but don’t be afraid to scour
the Internet yourself or even visit the library. There is an
endless amount of information and you can use it all to truly
be a star in committee.
If I could start this committee next week I probably
would, as I am thrilled for meet you in Boston. Please, don’t
hesitate to ask me anything you need about conference, as I’ll
be thrilled to help you all. Study hard, get excited, and come
ready to have a great weekend in the WHO!
34 General Assembly
ENDNOTES
1 World Health Organization. Archives of the League of Nations: Health Section Files. Site of the Library and
Archives of the United Nations Office at Geneva, September 14 2006. Online. 17 May 2010. <http://www.
who.int/archives/fonds_collections/bytitle/fonds_3/en/index.html>.
2 World Health Organization. Working for Health: An Introduction to the World Health Organization. WHO Press,
2007. Online. 17 May 2010. <http://www.who.int/about/brochure_en.pdf>. 2.
3 World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. October 2006. Online 17 May 2010.
<http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf>. 2-4.
4 Ibid. 7.
5 Ibid. 16.
6 United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 2010. Online. 17 May 2010, http://www.un.org/en/
documents/charter/index.shtml.
7 Working for Heath. 4-5.
8 National Geographic, “Natural Disasters”, National Geographic Online, 12 June 2010, <http://
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/>.
9 National Geographic, “Hurricanes: Engines of Destruction”, National Geographic Online, 12 June 2010,
<http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/hurricane-profile>.
10 Matthew d’Alessio, “When Will the Next One Hit?” Earthquake Science Explained (United States Geological
Survey: Reston, Virginia, 2006) 5.
11 USCDC, “Prevent Illness After a Disaster”, bt.CDC.gov, 12 June 2010, <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/
disease/>.
12 Kenneth Todar, “Vibrio cholerae and Asiatic Cholera”, Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology, 2009, 1 June 2010,
<http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/cholera.html>.
13 Charles F. Mullet, The Bubonic Plague and England: an Essay in the History of Preventive Medicine (Lexington,
University of Kentucky Press) 12.
14 Mullet 13.
15 Mullet 17.
16 David Morens et al., “Emerging Infections: A Perpetual Challenge”, Lancet Infectious Diseases, 8 November
2008, 13 June 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599922/pdf/nihms76094.
pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>, 4.
17 Morens et al. 7.
18 Lisbeth Hall and Pim Martens, “Malaria on the Move: Human Population
Movement and Malaria Transmission”, Emerging Infectious Diseases, March-April 2000, 13 June 2010, <http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/pdf/10756143.pdf>, 103.
19 United Nations World Tourism Organization, UNWTO World Tourism Barometer January 2010, 14 June 2010,
<http://unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom10_1_en_excerpt.pdf>, 1.
20 Mary E. Wilson, “Infectious Disease, an Ecological Perspective”, Medicine and Global Survival Jan. 1996, 10
June 2010, <http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V3Wilson.html>.
21 Ibid.
22 Charles Joyce, “Modern Trends in Public Health Quarantine”, Hawaiian Entomological Society Vol. 18 No. 1
1962, <http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/10844/1/18_27-34.pdf>, 29-30.
23 George W. Bush, “Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases”, Executive Order 13295 of 4
April 2003, 10 June 2010, <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/executiveorder040403.htm>.
 World Health Organization
24 World Health Organization, “SARS Outbreak Contained Worldwide”, Geneva, 5 July 2003, 13 June 2010,
<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr56/en/>. 50 Paul Shears et al., “Epidemiological Assessment of the Health and Nutrition of Ethiopian Refugees in
Emergency Camps in Sudan, 1985”, British Medical Journal 1 August 1985, 13 June 2010, <http://www.ncbi.
25 David Heymann, “The International response to the outbreak of SARS, 2003”, SARS: A Case Study in nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247152/pdf/bmjcred00031-0034.pdf>, 315.
Emerging Infections (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 93.
51 Shears et al. 316.
26 Heymann 94.
52 Shears et al. 317.
27 Heymann 95.
53 Ibid.
28 World Health Organization, Should Disaster Strike: Health in the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991) 5. 54 Paul Shears, Epidemiology and Infection in Famine and Disasters”, Epidemiol Infect October 1991, <http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2272069/pdf/epidinfect00029-0005.pdf>, 242.
29 Ed. Mazyc P. Ravenel, “Drought and Malnutrition”, American Journal of Public Health March 1931, 11 June
2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1556193/pdf/amjphnation00607-0045.pdf>, 55 Shears 244.
279-280.
56 Shears 246.
30 “1995 Kobe Earthquake 10-Year Retrospective”, Risk Management Solutions Inc., Jan. 2005, 11 June 2010,
<http://www.rms.com/Publications/KobeRetro.pdf>. 57 David Krol et al., “A Mobile Medical Care Approach Targeting Underserved Populations in Post-Hurricane
Katrina Mississippi”, Natural Disasters and Public Health ed. Virginia Brennan (Baltimore: John Hopkins
31 American Society for Microbiology, “Hurricane Aftermath: Infectious Disease Threats From Common, University Press, 2007), 117.
Not Exotic, Diseases”, ScienceDaily 13 September 2005. 11 June 2010 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /
releases/2005/09/050913124923.htm>. 58 Krol et al. 122.

32 Ibid. 59 Krol et al. 124.

33 United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention, General Information on Tsunami-Related 60 Bradford Gray and Kathy Hebert, “Hospitals in Hurricane Katrina: Challenges Facing Custodial Institutions
Diseases and Health Concerns”, Bt.cdc.gov, 13 June 2010, <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/tsunamis/ in a Disaster, “Natural Disasters and Public Health ed. Virginia Brennan (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
healthconcerns.asp>. Press, 2007), 71.

34 Ibid. 61 Gray and Hebert 72.

35 Washington State Department of Heath, “Cholera”, Ed. James Chin, DOH.wa.gov Jan. 2008, 13 June 2010, 62 Gray and Hebert 74.
<http://www.doh.wa.gov/notify/guidelines/pdf/cholera.pdf>, 1.
63 Ibid.
36 “Cholera” 2.
64 Thomas Edwards et al., “Caring for a Surge of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Primary Care Clinics”, Annals
37 “Cholera” 5. of Family Medicine 5 March 2007, Online, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1838682/
pdf/0050170.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>, 172.
38 “Cholera” 2.
65 Edwards et al. 173.
39 Mayo Clinic Staff, “Tetanus: Prevention”, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research 20 Sep.
2008, 13 June 2010, <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/tetanus/ds00227/dsection=prevention>. 66 Janet Baggett, “Florida Disasters and Disease Conditions [Letter to the Editor]”, Preventing Chronic Disease
April 2006, 14 June 2010, <http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/05_230.htm>.
40 United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Tetanus Prevention After a Disaster”, Bt.cdc.gov,
9 Sep. 2005, 13 June 2010, <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/disease/tetanus.asp>. 67 Ibid.

41 United States Center for Disease Control, “Tetanus”, Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
(Atlanta: CDC, 2009), 13 June 2010, <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm>, 275.
42 Ibid 276.
43 Peter Bloland and Holly Williams, Malaria Control During Mass Population Movements and Natural Disasters
(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003), 3.
68 David Wagman, “Exit Strategy: Lessons Learned Hurricanes Katrina and Rita”, Homeland-1 15 November
2005, 14 June 2010, <http://www.homeland1.com/evacuation/articles/390294-Exit-Strategy-Evacuation-
lessons-learned-from-Hurricanes-Katrina-and-Rita/>.
69 Maire Connolly, Michelle Gayer, and John Watson, “Epidemics after Natural Disasters”, Emergency Infectious
Diseases 13 January 2007, World Health Organization, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2725828/>.

44 Bloland and Williams 16-17. 70 Ibid.

45 Bloland and Williams 50. 71 Ibid.

46 Bloland and Williams 48-49. 72 Oliver Morgan, “Infectious Disease Risks from Dead Bodies Following Natural Disasters”, Revista
Panamericana de Salud Pública May 2004, 13 June 2010, <http://publications.paho.org/pdf/dead_bodies.pdf>,
47 Bloland and Williams 68. 308.

48 Christopher Elias et al., “Infectious Disease Control in a Long-Term Refugee Camp: The Role of 73 Morgan 309.
Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation”, American Journal of Public Heath July 1990, 13 June 2010,
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404980/pdf/amjph00220-0040.pdf>, 824. 74 Morgan 310.

49 Elias et al. 824. 75 Ibid.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 35

 World Health Organization
76 Emily Harville et al., “Postpartum Mental Health After Hurricane Katrina: A Cohort Study”, BMC Pregnancy
and Childbirth 8 June 2009, 15 June 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702337/
pdf/1471%2D2393%2D9%2D21.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
77 Ibid.
78 Ron Acierno et al., “A Pre-/Post-Disaster Epidemiological Study of Mental Health Functioning in Vietnam’s
Da Nang Province Following Typhoon Xangsane”, International Perspectives in Victimology March 2009, 14 June
2010, <http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63012/1/Acierno_Disaster%20Vietnam_2009.
pdf>, 80.
79 Ibid.
80 Acierno et al. 84.
81 Carole Siegel et al., “Estimating Capacity Requirements or Mental Health Services After a Disaster has
Occurred: A Call for New Data”, American Journal of Public Health April 2004, PubMed Central, 15 June 2010,
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448302/pdf/0940582.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>, 582.
82 Siegel et al. 583.
83 Madison Park, “Haiti Earthquake Could Trigger Possible Medical ‘Perfect Storm,’” CNN, 13 January 2010,
13 June 2010, <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/13/haiti.earthquake.medical.risks/index.
html>.
84 Ibid.
85 Mark Tran, “UN to Boost Haiti Quake Relief Force”, The Guardian, 19 January 2010, 13 June 2010, <http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/19/haiti-earthquake-survivors-disease-threat>.
86 Melissa Gasca, “Local Doctors Treat Haiti Quake Victims”, The Santa Clarita Valley Signal, 25 May 2010, 13
June 2010, <http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/29101/>.
87 Ibid.
88 World Health Organization, “Global Alert and Response (GAR)”, WHO.int, 14 June 2010, <http://www.
who.int/csr/en/>.
89 Jean-Paul Chretien, Larissa May, and Julie Pavlin, “Beyond Traditional Surveillance: Applying Syndromic
Surveillance to Developing Settings- Opportunities and Challenges”, BMC Public Health 16 July 2009, 13 June
2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2718884/pdf/1471%2D2458%2D9%2D242.
pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>, 2.
90 May et al. 3.
91 May et al. 4.
92 Ibid.
93 May et al. 5.
94 Ibid.
95 Mohammad Mehdi Goya, Ronald E. LaPorte, Seyed Mohsen Mousavi, Afshin Safaie, and Mohsen
Zahraie, “Introducing a Model for Communicable Diseases Surveillance: Cell Phone Surveillance (CPS)”
European Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 20 Num. 8 (2006), JSTOR, 14 June 2010, <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20445736>, 629.
96 CNET, “Smart phone buying guide: CNET’s quick guide to 3G cell phone services”, CNET Asia, 15 June
2010, <http://asia.cnet.com/buyingguides/smartphones/0,39061031,61953931-5,00.htm>.
97 P.C. Kesavan and M.S. Swaminathan, “Managing Natural Disasters in Coastal Areas”, Philosophical Transactions
of Royal Society A 27 June 2006, Online, JSTOR, 15 June 2010, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25190322>,
2192.
98 Kesavan and Swaminathan 2193.
36 General Assembly
99 Kesavan and Swaminathan 2194.
100 Ibid.
101 Josef Lietmann, “Cities and Calamities: Learning from Post-Disaster Response in Indonesia”, Journal of
Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine May 2007, Online, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC1891651/pdf/11524_2007_Article_9182.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>, i144.
102 Lietmann i146.
103 Lietmann i147.
104 United Nations, “Resolution 44/ 236: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction”, General
Assembly: Forty-Fourth Session, United Nations: 1989, 16 June 2010, <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/
RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/549/95/IMG/NR054995.pdf ?OpenElement>, 162.
105 Tsuneo Katayama, “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction: Working Against Time”, UN
University Lectures, United Nations University: 13 October 1993, 15 June 2010, <http://www.unu.edu/
unupress/lecture8.html>.
106 “Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World”, United Nations/International Strategy for
Natural Disaster Reduction: 27 May 1994, UN/ISNDR, 15 June 2010, <http://www.unisdr.org/eng/
about_isdr/bd-yokohama-strat-eng.htm>.
107 Ibid.
108 UN/ISDR Secretariat, “Timeline of developments of relevance to the Early Warning Conference II”,
United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: July 2002, 15 June 2010, <http://www.unisdr.
org/ppew/policy-arena/policy-ewcii/Policy-timeline-for-EWC-II.pdf>.
109 Associated Press, “Disease May Double Tsunami Toll”, Fox News, 29 December 2004, 15 June 2010,
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142759,00.html>.
110 Lietmann i145.
111 World Health Organization Tsunami Health Conference, “Putting it together: Stronger Public Health
Capacity Within Disaster Management Systems”, WHO 6 May 2005, 15 June 2010, <http://www.who.int/
hac/events/tsunamiconf/final_presentation/en/index.html>.
112 World Health Assembly, WHA58.1: Health Action in Relation to Crises and Disasters, with Particular
Emphasis on the Earthquakes and Tsunamis of 26 December 2004”, WHO, 20 May 2005, 15 June 2010,
<http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58/WHA58_1-en.pdf>.
113 World Health Organization, International Health Regulations (2005) (Geneva: WHO, 2008) 1.
114 Ibid 2.
115 Ibid 11.
116 Ibid 10-11.
117 Regional Office for South-East Asia, “Report of the Second Regional Consultation on the Revised
International Health Regulations”, World Health Organization May 2004, 15 June 2010, <http://www.searo.
who.int/linkfiles/communicable_diseases_surveillance_and_response_cd-135.pdf>, 9.
118 Ibid 10.
119 World Health Organization, “Strengthening WHO’s Institutional Capacity for Humanitarian Health Action”,
2009, 16 June 2010, <http://www.who.int/hac/about/hac_5year_plan_2009_2013.pdf>, 8.
120 Ibid.
121 Ibid.
122 Ibid 7.
123 Ibid 10.

124 World Health Organization, “Global Health Cluster Making Gains in Responding to Health Needs in
Disasters and Crises, but Challenges Persist”, ReliefWeb 11 June 2010, 16 June 2010, <http://www.reliefweb.
int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/ADGO-86BPZN?OpenDocument>.
125 R. Kayne, “What is the Black Plague?” Wisegeek.com, 2003, 17 June 2010, <http://www.wisegeek.com/
what-is-the-black-plague.htm>.
126 Morens et al. 4.
127 Special to the New York Times, “Eradication of Smallpox to be Announced Today”, The New York Times
8 May 1980, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2006), 17 June 2010, <http://
ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pqdweb?did=111240784
&sid=2&Fmt=10&clientId=11201&RQT=309&VName=HNP>.
128 James Robert Campbell, “Early Warning Outbreak Recognition System (EWORS) for Southeast
Asia”, Lancet Infectious Diseases 22 October 2001, 17 June 2010, <http://apha.confex.com/apha/129am/
techprogram/paper_24448.htm>.
129 United States General Accounting Office, “Challenged in Improving Infectious Disease Surveillance
Systems”, GAO.gov August 2001, <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01722.pdf>, 6.
130 Ibid 14.
World Health Organization
146 Shanthi Kalathil, “Battling SARS: China’s Silence Costs Lives”, Carnegie International Herald Tribune 3 April
2003, 17 June 2010, <http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1227>.
147 Wenran Jiang “Hard Lessons of SARS Crisis Explain China’s Tough Action”, The Star 6 May 2009, 17 June
2010, <http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/629568>.
148 Ibid.
149 Dono Widiatmoko and Ascobat Gani, “International Relations within Indonesia’s Hospital Sector”, World
Health Organization, 17 June 2010, <http://www.who.int/trade/en/THpart3chap9.pdf>, 109.
150 Richard Zoraster, “Barriers to Disaster Coordination: Health Sector Coordination in Banda Aceh following
the South Asia Tsunami”, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Jan.-Feb. 2006, 17 June 2010, <http://know.brr.
go.id/dc/unsorted/20060206_Barriers_Health_Sector_Aceh_South_Asia_Tsunami.pdf>, S14.
151 Widiatmoko and Gani 108.
152 Pete Witzler, “Strengthening Africa’s Health Systems”, Physicians for Human Rights, 17 June 2010, <http://
physiciansforhumanrights.org/students/hiv-aids/strengthening-african-health-systems.html>.
153 The Washington Post, “Death Watch: AIDS, Drugs, and Africa”, WashingtonPost.com, 17 June 2010, <http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/issues/aidsinafrica/>.

131 Ibid 14. 154 Direct Relief International, directrelief.org, 2010,17 June 2010, <http://www.directrelief.org/Index.aspx>.

132 Brian Wolshon, “Evacuation Planning and Engineering for Hurricane Katrina”, The Bridge Vol. 6 Num. 1 March
2006, The National Academies of Engineering, 16 June 2010, <http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/
Archives/V-36-1TheAftermathofKatrina/EvacuationPlanningandEngineeringforHurricaneKatrina.aspx>.
133 Andrew Jacobs, “Taiwan President is Target of Anger After Typhoon”, The New York Times 12 August 2009,
17 June 2010, <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13taiwan.html?_r=2>.
155 Zoraster S15.
156 “The Nazification of Germany”, A Teacher’s Guide to the Holocaust, Florida Center for Instructional
Technology, 2005, Online, 22 August 2010, <http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/timeline/nazifica.htm>.
157 Ibid.

134 Ibid. 158 Ibid.

135 Tania Branigan, “More than 500 Dead in Typhoon Morakot”, The Guardian 14 August 2009, 17 June 2010, 159 Ibid.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/typhoon-morakot-taiwan-deaths>.
160 Paul Weindling, “The Nazi Medical Experiments”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York:
136 CBC News, “The Anatomy of a Refugee Camp”, CBC.ca 19 June 2007, 17 June 2010, <http://www.cbc.ca/ The Oxford University Press, 2008), 20.
news/background/refugeecamp/>.
161 Weindling 20.
137 Ibid.
162 Weindling 21.
138 The Sphere Project, “About Us”, Sphereproject.org, 17 June 2010, <http://www.sphereproject.org/content/
view/91/58/lang,English/>. 163 Weindling 24.

139 Maryanne  Kridner, “Chronic Disease Management During Disasters: Reaction, Planning and 164 Weindling 26.
Implementation”, American Meteorological Society, 17 June 2010, <http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/
documents/Maryanne_Kridner_HxIke_Diabetes.pdf>. 165 Weindling 26.

140 Ibid. 166 Weindling 28.

141 Richard Smith, “Responding to Global Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on the Role of 167 Alan Yoshioka, “The Randomized Controlled Trial of Streptomycin”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research
Risk Perception, Communication and Management”, Social Science and Medicine 15 September 2006, 17 June Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 46-7.
2010, <http://crun.crassh.cam.ac.uk/uploads/documents/Smith%20infectious%20outbreaks.pdf>, 3114.
168 Yoshioka 50.
142 Matthew Davis, “FEMA ‘Knew of New Orleans Danger,’” BBC News 11 October 2005, 17 June 2010,
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4331330.stm>. 169 Yoshioka 51.

143 EU Council, “EU Council Conclusions on Disaster Response”, Europa-eu-un.org, 16 June 2008, 17 June 2010, 170 Yoshioka 52.
<http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_7949_en.htm>.
171 Medical Research Council, “Streptomycin Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis”, British Medical Journal
144 European Council on Refugees and Exiles, “Refugees Ignored in EU Integration Policies”, European 30 October 1948, 10 July 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2091872/pdf/
Council on Refugees and Exiles 10 May 2007, 17 June 2010, <http://www.ecre.org/files/100507%20 brmedj03701-0007.pdf>, 782.
Refugees%20ignored%20in%20EU%20integration%20policies.pdf>.
172 Ibid.
145 Health-EU, “Other Infectious Diseases”, The Public Health Portal of the European Union, 17 June 2010,
<http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/health_problems/other_infectious_diseases/index_en.htm>. 173 Yoshioka 56.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 37

 World Health Organization
174 Yoshioka 58. 203 Patricia A. Marshall, Ethical Challenges in Study Design and Informed Consent for Health Research, World Health
Organization, 2007, 12 July 2010, <http://apps.who.int/tdr/publications/tdr-research-publications/ethical-
175 Yoshioka 57. challenges-study-design/pdf/ethical_challenges.pdf>, 23.
in resource-poor settings
176 Jennifer Hawkins, “Research Ethics, Developing Countries, and Exploitation: A Primer”, Exploitation and
Developing Countries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 29. 204 Yazici 129.

177 Ibid. 205 Marshall 24.

178 Ibid. 206 Marshall 27.

179 Hawkins 30. 207 Jennifer S. Hawkins and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “Introduction: Why Exploitation?” Exploitation and Developing
Countries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 1.
180 Ibid.
208 Ibid.
181 Hawkins 31.
209 Hawkins and Emanuel 2.
182 Hawkins 31-32.
210 Peter Lurie and Sidney Wolfe, “Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of
183 Steven Joffe and Robert D. Truog, “Equipoise and Randomization”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries”, New England Journal of Medicine September
Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 245. 1997, Online, HOLLIS, 13 July 2010, <http://content.nejm.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi/content/
full/337/12/853>.
184 Joffe and Truog 247.
211 Ibid.
185 Richard Lilford, “Equipoise and the Ethics of Randomization”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
October 1995, Web, PubMed, 13 July 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1295354/ 212 Ibid.
pdf/jrsocmed00065-0012.pdf>, 552.
213 Ibid.
186 Joffe and Truong 247.
214 Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Franklin G. Miller, “The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials- A Middle Ground”,
187 James H. Jones, “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New New England Journal of Medicine 20 September 2001, Online, HOLLIS, 13 July 2010, <http://content.nejm.
York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 87. org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi/reprint/345/12/915.pdf>, 915.

188 Jones 88. 215 Emanuel and Miller 916.

189 Ibid. 216 Hawkins and Emanuel 8.

190 Jones 90. 217 Hawkins and Emanuel 9.

191 Jones 93. 218 Ibid.

192 Ibid. 219 Ibid.

193 Jones 91. 220 Hawkins and Emanuel 10.

194 Ibid. 221 “Case Studies: The Havrix Trial and the Surfaxin Trial”, Exploitation and Developing Countries, ed. Jennifer
Hawkins and Ezekiel Emanuel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 55-6.
195 Jones 94.
222 “Case Studies” 56.
196 Jones 95.
223 Ibid.
197 Jan McCallum et al, “Awareness and Knowledge of the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at
Tuskegee: Implications for Biomedical Research”, Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved November 224 “Case Studies” 57.
2006, PubMed, 14 July 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828138/pdf/nihms17193.
pdf>, 4. 225 “Case Studies” 58.

198 Jones 95. 226 Ibid.

199 Yusuf Yazici, “Informed Consent: Practical Considerations”, Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Disease July 227 Robert Steinbrook, “The Gelsinger Case”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The
2010, PubMed, <http://www.nyuhjdbulletin.org/Mod/Bulletin/V68N2/Docs/V68N2_10.pdf>, 127. Oxford University Press, 2008), 113.

200 Yazici 128. 228 Ibid.

201 Ibid. 229 Steinbrook 114-115

202 Yazici 127. 230 Steinbrook 117.

231 Steinbrook 118.

38 General Assembly
 World Health Organization
258 Ibid.
232 World Health Organization, Bulletin of the World Health Organization January 2006, Online, Scielosp.org, 14 July
2010, <http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862006000100007>. 259 Annas and Grodin 139-140.

233 Ibid.
234 World Health Organization, “WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.2)”, WHO.int, 15 July 2010,
<http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/trds/en/index.html>.
235 David Korn and Susan Ehringhaus, “Principles for Strengthening the Integrity of Clinical Research”, PLoS
Clinical Trials 21 April 2006, 15 July 2010, <http://clinicaltrials.ploshubs.org/article/fetchArticle.action?artic
leURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010001>.
260 Jonathan Markman and Maurie Markman, “Running an Ethical Trial 60 Years After the Nuremburg Code”,
Lancet Oncology December 2007, ScienceDirect, 14 July 2010, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/B6W85-4R8H5MD-17/2/4aa434396bb9c92f7d0e2c4526dc1b9f>, 1146.
261 Richard Ashcroft, “The Declaration of Helsinki”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York:
The Oxford University Press, 2008), 142.
262 Ashcroft 143.

236 Drummond Rennie, “The Obligation to Publish and Disseminate Results”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical 263 Ibid.
Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 796.
264 Annas and Grodin 139.
237 Alex John London, “Responsiveness to Host Community Health Needs, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical
Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 737, 265 Ashcroft 143.

238 London 738. 266 Ibid.

239 Ibid. 267 Ibid.

240 London 739. 268 Ashcroft 144.

241 Alisa L. Carse and Margaret Olivia Little, “Exploitation and the Enterprise of Medical Research”, Exploitation 269 Tom Beauchamp, “The Belmont Report”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The
and Developing Countries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 208. Oxford University Press, 2008), 150.

242 Carse and Little 210. 270 Beauchamp 151.

243 Alan Wertheimer, “Exploitation in Clinical Research”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New 271 Ibid.
York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 206.
272 Beauchamp 152.
244 Vera Hassner Sharav, “Fast-Growing Business: Unethical Clinical Trials in India” Asia Times 27 July 2004,
ahrp.org, 14 July 2010, <http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/27.php>. 273 Beauchamp 153.

245 Wertheimer 202. 274 Beauchamp 154.

246 Baruch Brody, The Ethics of Biomedical Research (New York: The Oxford University Press, 1998), 83. 275 Ashcroft 145.

247 Brody 85. 276 Ibid.

248 Ibid. 277 Ibid.

249 Ibid. 278 Ibid.

250 Brody 86. 279 Ashcroft 146.

251 United Nations, “International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning 280 Ashcroft 147.
of Human Being: Report of the Sixth Committee”, C-fam.org, 24 February 2005, 15 July 2010, <http://www.c-fam.
org/docLib/20080625_Declaration_on_Human_Cloning.pdf>. 281 Weindling 21.

252 George Annas, “Human Rights and American Bioethics: Resistance is Futile”, Cambridge Quarterly of
Healthcare Ethics January 2010, 14 July 2010, <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?from
Page=online&aid=6899940&fulltextType=XX&fileId=S0963180109990338>, 137.
253 Annas 138.
254 George Annas and Michael Grodin, “The Nuremburg Code”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics
(New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 138.
255 Ibid.
282 Robert Levine, “New International Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects”, Annals of
Internal Medicine 15 August 1993, 16 July 2010, <http://www.annals.org/content/119/4/339.full>.
283 Wertheimer 87.
284 Ibid.
285 Robert Temple, “Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments.
Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues”, Annals of Internal Medicine 19 September 2000, 16 July 2010, <http://
www.annals.org/content/133/6/455.full>.

256 Annas and Grodin 139. 286 Ibid.

257 Ibid. 287 Alexander Capron, “Legal and Regulatory Standards of Informed Consent in Research”, The Oxford Textbook
of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 620.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 39

 World Health Organization

316 “Pfizer Investments in Health”, Pfizer.com, 17 July 2010, <http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/global_

288 Ibid. health/global_health.jsp>.

289 Capron 629. 317 Harvard School of Public Health, “Research”, hsph.harvard.edu, 17 July 2010, <http://www.hsph.harvard.
edu/research>.
290 James Flory, David Wendler, and Ezekiel Emanuel, “Empirical Issues in Informed Consent for Research”,
Alexander Capron, Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008),
646.

291 Ibid.

292 Flory, Wendler, and Emanuel 652.

293 Ibid.

294 Ezekiel Emanuel et al, “Addressing Exploitation: Reasonable Availability versus Fair Benefits”, Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008), 287.

295 Ibid.

296 Emanuel et al. 290

297 Ibid.

298 Emanuel et al. 295.

299 Emanuel et al. 299.

300 Emanuel et al. 300-301.

301 Marcia Angell, “Over and Above: Excess in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, Canadian Medical Association Journal
7 December 2004, 16 July 2010, <http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451>.

302 UNLV, “History of Research Ethics”, research.UNLV.edu, 17 July 2010, <http://research.unlv.edu/ORI-

HSR/history-ethics.htm>.

303 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Code of Regulations: Part 46: Protection of
Human Subjects, hhs.gov, 16 July 2010, <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm>.

304 “Declaration on Human Cloning”

305 “Barack Obama on Abortion”, Ontheissues.org, 17 July 2010, <http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/barack_

obama.htm>.

306 Ibid.

307 Ibid.

308 Deryck Beyleveld and Sebastian Seythe, “The European Community Directives on Data Protection and
Clinical Trials”, The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008),
185.

309 Ibid.

310 Harvard School of Public Health, “Global Research Ethics Map: Tanzania”, hsph.harvard.edu, 17 July 2010,
<https://webapps.sph.harvard.edu/live/gremap/view.cfm>.

311 “Case Studies” 58.

312 “Case Studies” 60.

313 London 739.

314 “Declaration on Human Cloning”

315 CNN Money, “Global 500 Industries: Pharmaceuticals”, Money.cnn.com, 17 July 2010, <http://money.cnn.
com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/industries/21/index.html>.

40 General Assembly
 World Health Organization

BIBLIOGRAPHY
“1995 Kobe Earthquake 10-Year Retrospective.” Risk Management Solutions Inc. Jan.
2005. Web. 11 June 2010. <http://www.rms.com/Publications/KobeRetro.pdf>.
Acierno, Ron et al. “A Pre-/Post-Disaster Epidemiological Study of Mental Health
Functioning in Vietnam’s Da Nang Province Following Typhoon Xangsane.” International Perspectives in Victimology
March 2009: 78-85. Web. 14 June 2010. <http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63012/1/Acierno_Disas-
ter%20Vietnam_2009.pdf>.
American Society for Microbiology. “Hurricane Aftermath: Infectious Disease Threats
From Common, Not Exotic, Diseases,” ScienceDaily 13 September 2005. Web. 11 June 2010 <http://www.sciencedaily.
com /releases/2005/09/050913124923.htm>.
Angell, Marcia. “Over and Above: Excess in the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Canadian
Medical Association Journal 7 December 2004. Web. 16 July 2010. <http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/
full/171/12/1451>.
Annas, George. “Human Rights and American Bioethics: Resistance is Futile.”
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics January 2010. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/display
Abstract?fromPage=online&aid=6899940&fulltextType=XX&fileId=S0963180109990338>.
Annas, George and Michael Grodin. “The Nuremburg Code.” The Oxford Textbook of
Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Ashcroft, Richard. “The Declaration of Helsinki.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical
Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Associated Press. “Disease May Double Tsunami Toll.” Fox News 29 December 2004.
Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142759,00.html>.
Baggett, Janet. “Florida Disasters and Disease Conditions [Letter to the Editor].”
Preventing Chronic Disease April 2006. Web. 14 June 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/05_230.htm>.
Beauchamp, Tom. “The Belmont Report.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research
Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
CNN Money. “Global 500 Industries: Pharmaceuticals.” Money.cnn.com. Web. 17 July
2010. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/industries/21 /index.html>.
Deryck and Sebastian Seythe. “The European Community Directives on Data Protection
and Clinical Trials.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
“Barack Obama on Abortion.” Ontheissues.org. Web. 17 July 2010.
<http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/barack_obama.htm>.
Bloland, Peter and Holly Williams. Malaria Control During Mass Population Movements
and Natural Disasters. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. Print.
Branigan, Tania. “More than 500 Dead in Typhoon Morakot.” The Guardian 14 August
2009. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/typhoon-morakot-taiwan-deaths>.
Brody, Baruch. The Ethics of Biomedical Research. New York: The Oxford University
Press, 1998. Print.
Bush, George W. “Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases.” Executive
Order 13295 of 4 April 2003. Web. 10 June 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/executiveorder040403.htm>.
Campbell, James Robert. “Early Warning Outbreak Recognition System (EWORS) for
Southeast Asia.” Lancet Infectious Diseases 22 October 2001. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://apha.confex.com/
apha/129am/techprogram/paper_24448.htm>.
Capron, Alexander. “Legal and Regulatory Standards of Informed Consent in Research.”
The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008.
Carse, Alisa L. and Margaret Olivia Little. “Exploitation and the Enterprise of Medical
Research.” Exploitation and Developing Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print.
“Case Studies: The Havrix Trial and the Surfaxin Trial.” Exploitation and Developing
Countries. ed. Hawkins, Jennifer and Ezekiel Emanuel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
CBC News. “The Anatomy of a Refugee Camp,” CBC.ca 19 June 2007. Web. 17 June
2010. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/refugeecamp/>.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 41

 World Health Organization

CNET Asia. “Smart phone buying guide: CNET’s quick guide to 3G cell phone services.”
CNET Asia 15 June 2010. Web. <http://asia.cnet.com/buyingguides/smartphones/0,39061031,61953931-5,00.htm>.
Connolly, Maire, Michelle Gayer, and John Watson. “Epidemics after Natural Disasters.”
Emergency Infectious Diseases 13 January 2007. World Health Organization. Web. 14 June 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725828/>.
d’Alessio, Matthew. “When Will the Next One Hit?” Earthquake Science Explained.
United States Geological Survey: Reston, Virginia, 2006. 5. Print.
Davis, Matthew. “FEMA ‘Knew of New Orleans Danger.’” BBC News 11 October 2005.
Web. 17 June 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4331330.stm>.
Direct Relief International. directrelief.org. 2010. Web.17 June 2010.
<http://www.directrelief.org/Index.aspx>.
Edwards, Thomas et al. “Caring for a Surge of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Primary
Care Clinics.” Annals of Family Medicine. Web. 5 March 2007: 170-174. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1838682/pdf/0050170.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Elias, Christopher et al. “Infectious Disease Control in a Long-Term Refugee Camp: The
Role of Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation” American Journal of Public Heath July 1990: 824-828. Web. 13
June 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404980/pdf/amjph00220-0040.pdf>.
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. and Franklin G. Miller. “The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials- A
Middle Ground.” New England Journal of Medicine 20 September 2001. Online. HOLLIS. 13 July 2010. <http://content.
nejm.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi/reprint/345/12/915.pdf>.
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. et al. “Addressing Exploitation: Reasonable Availability versus Fair
Benefits.” Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008.
EU Council. “EU Council Conclusions on Disaster Response.” Europa-eu-un.org. 16
June 2008. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_7949_en.htm>.
European Council on Refugees and Exiles. “Refugees Ignored in EU Integration
Policies.” European Council on Refugees and Exiles. 10 May 2007. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.ecre.org/
files/100507%20Refugees%20ignored%20in%20EU%20integration%20policies.pdf>.
Flory, James, David Wendler, and Ezekiel Emanuel. “Empirical Issues in Informed
Consent for Research.” Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gasca, Melissa. “Local Doctors Treat Haiti Quake Victims.” The Santa Clarita Valley
Signal 25 May 2010. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/29101/>.
Gray, Bradford and Kathy Hebert. “Hospitals in Hurricane Katrina: Challenges Facing
Custodial Institutions in a Disaster.” Natural Disasters and Public Health ed. Virginia Brennan: 71-76. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press, 2007. Print.
Goya, Mohammad Mehdi, Ronald E. LaPorte, Seyed Mohsen Mousavi, Afshin Safaie,
and Mohsen Zahraie. “Introducing a Model for Communicable Diseases Surveillance: Cell Phone Surveillance
(CPS)” European Journal of Epidemiology 20.8 (2006): 627-640. JSTOR. Web. 14 June 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20445736>.
Hall, Lisbeth and Pim Martens. “Malaria on the Move: Human Population
Movement and Malaria Transmission.” Emerging Infectious Diseases March-April 2000: 103-109. Web. 13 June 2010.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640853/pdf/10756143.pdf>.
Harvard School of Public Health. “Global Research Ethics Map: Tanzania,”
hsph.harvard.edu. Web. 17 July 2010. <https://webapps.sph.harvard.edu/live/gremap/view.cfm>.
Harvard School of Public Health. “Research.” hsph.harvard.edu. Web. 17 July 2010.
<http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research>.
Harville, Emily et al. “Postpartum Mental Health After Hurricane Katrina: A Cohort
Study.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 8 June 2009. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2702337/pdf/1471%2D2393%2D9%2D21.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Hawkins, Jenifer. “Research Ethics, Developing Countries, and Exploitation: A Primer.”
Exploitation and Developing Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print.
Hawkins, Jennifer S. and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. “Introduction: Why Exploitation?”
Exploitation and Developing Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Print.

42 General Assembly
 World Health Organization

Health-EU. “Other Infectious Diseases.” The Public Health Portal of the European
Union. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/health_problems/other_infectious_diseases/index_
en.htm>.
Heymann, David. “The International response to the outbreak of SARS, 2003.” SARS: A
Case Study in Emerging Infections. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.
Jacobs, Andrew. “Taiwan President is Target of Anger After Typhoon.” The New York
Times 12 August 2009. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13taiwan.html?_r=2>.
Evacuation-lessons-learned-from-Hurricanes-Katrina-and-Rita/>.
Jiang, Wenran. “Hard Lessons of SARS Crisis Explain China’s Tough Action.” The Star
6 May 2009. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/629568>.
Joffe, Steven and Robert D. Truog. “Equipoise and Randomization.” The Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Jones, James H. “The Randomized Controlled Trial of Streptomycin.” The Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Joyce, Charles. “Modern Trends in Public Health Quarantine.” Hawaiian Entomological
Society 18.1 (1962): 27-34. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bit-
stream/10125/10844/1/18_27-34.pdf>.
Kayne, R. “What is the Black Plague?” Wisegeek.com. 2003. Web. 17 June 2010.
<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-black-plague.htm>.
Kalathil, Shanthi. “Battling SARS: China’s Silence Costs Lives.” Carnegie International
Herald Tribune 3 April 2003. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.
cfm?fa=view&id=1227.
Katayama, Tsuneo. “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction: Working
Against Time.” UN University Lectures. United Nations University 13 October 1993. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.
unu.edu/unupress/lecture8.html>.
Kesavan, P.C. and M.S. Swaminathan. “Managing Natural Disasters in Coastal Areas,”
Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society A 27 June 2006: 2191-2197. JSTOR. Web. 15 June 2010, <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/25190322>, 2192.
Korn, David and Susan Ehringhaus. “Principles for Strengthening the Integrity of
Clinical Research.” PLoS Clinical Trials 21 April 2006. Web. 15 July 2010.<http://clinicaltrials.ploshubs.org/article/
fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010001>.
Kridner, Maryanne. “Chronic Disease Management During Disasters: Reaction, Planning
and Implementation.” American Meteorological Society. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/
documents/Maryanne_Kridner_HxIke_Diabetes.pdf>.
Krol, David et al., “A Mobile Medical Care Approach Targeting Underserved
Populations in Post-Hurricane Katrina Mississippi,” Natural Disasters and Public Health ed. Virginia Brennan. 116-125.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2007. Print.
Levine, Robert. “New International Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Human
Subjects.” Annals of Internal Medicine 15 August 1993. Web. 16 July 2010. <http://www.annals.org/content/119/4/339.
full>.
Lietmann, Josef. “Cities and Calamities: Learning from Post-Disaster Response in
Indonesia,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine May 2007: i142-i148. Web. <http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1891651/pdf/11524_2007_Article_9182.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Lilford, Richard. “Equipoise and the Ethics of Randomization.” Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine October 1995. Web. PubMed. 13 July 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1295354/pdf/jrsocmed00065-0012.pdf>.
London, Alex John. “Responsiveness to Host Community Health Needs.” The Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008.
Lurie, Peter and Sidney Wolfe. “Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal
Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries.” New England Journal of Medicine
September 1997. Web. HOLLIS. 13 July 2010. <http://content.nejm.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/cgi/content/
full/337/12/853>.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 43

 World Health Organization

Markman, Jonathan and Maurie Markman. “Running an Ethical Trial 60 Years After the
Nuremburg Code.” Lancet Oncology December 2007. Web. ScienceDirect. 14 June 2010. <http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/B6W85-4R8H5MD-17/2/4aa434396bb9c92f7d0e2c4526dc1b9f>.
Marshall, Patricia A. Ethical Challenges in Study Design and Informed Consent for
Health Research. World Health Organization, 2007. Web. 12 June 2010. <http://apps.who.int/tdr/publications/tdr-
research-publications/ethical-challenges-study-design/pdf/ethical_challenges.pdf>.
May, Larissa et al. “Beyond Traditional Surveillance: Applying Syndromic Surveillance
to Developing Settings- Opportunities and Challenges.” BMC Public Health 16 July 2009: 1-11. Web. 13 June
2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2718884/pdf/1471%2D2458%2D9%2D242.
pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Mayo Clinic Staff. “Tetanus: Prevention.” Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and
Research 20 Sep. 2008. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/tetanus/ds00227/
dsection=prevention>.
McCallum, Jan et al. “Awareness and Knowledge of the U.S. Public Health Service
Syphilis Study at Tuskegee: Implications for Biomedical Research.” Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved
November 2006. PubMed. Web. 14 July 2010, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828138/pdf/ni-
hms17193.pdf>.
Medical Research Council. “Streptomycin Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis,”
British Medical Journal 30 October 1948. Web. 10 July 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2091872/pdf/brmedj03701-0007.pdf>. 769-82.
Morens, David et al. “Emerging Infections: A Perpetual Challenge,” Lancet Infectious
Diseases 8 November 2008: 710-717. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599922/
pdf/nihms76094.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Morgan, Oliver. “Infectious Disease Risks from Dead Bodies Following Natural
Disasters.” Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública May 2004: 307-312. Web. 13 June 2010, <http://publications.paho.org/
pdf/dead_bodies.pdf>.
Mullet, Charles F. The Bubonic Plague and England: an Essay in the History of
Preventive Medicine. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1956. Print.
National Geographic. “Natural Disasters.” National Geographic Online. Web. 12 June
2010. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/>.
National Geographic. “Hurricanes: Engines of Destruction.” National Geographic
Online. Web. 12 June 2010, <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/hurricane-
profile>.
“The Nazification of Germany.” A Teacher’s Guide to the Holocaust. Florida Center for
Instructional Technology. 2005. Web. 22 August 2010. <http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/timeline/nazifica.htm>.
Park, Madison. “Haiti Earthquake Could Trigger Possible Medical ‘Perfect Storm.’”
CNN 13 January 2010. Web.13 June 2010. <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/13/haiti.earthquake.medical.
risks/index.html>.
“Pfizer Investments in Health.” Pfizer.com. Web. 17 July 2010.
<http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/global_health/global_health.jsp>.
Ravenel, Mazyc P. “Drought and Malnutrition,” American Journal of Public Health
March 1931. 279-280. Web. 11 June 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1556193/pdf/amjphna-
tion00607-0045.pdf>.
Regional Office for South-East Asia. Report of the Second Regional Consultation on the
Revised International Health Regulations. World Health Organization. May 2004. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.searo.
who.int/linkfiles/communicable_diseases_surveillance_and_response_cd-135.pdf>.
Rennie, Drummond. “The Obligation to Publish and Disseminate Results.” The Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Shears, Paul. Epidemiology and Infection in Famine and Disasters.” Epidemiol Infect
October 1991: 241-251. Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2272069/pdf/epidinfect00029-0005.
pdf>.
Shears, Paul et al. “Epidemiological Assessment of the Health and Nutrition of Ethiopian

44 General Assembly
 World Health Organization

Refugees in Emergency Camps in Sudan, 1985.” British Medical Journal 1 August 1985: 314-318. Web. 13 June 2010.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247152/pdf/bmjcred00031-0034.pdf>.
Siegel, Carole et al. “Estimating Capacity Requirements or Mental Health Services After
a Disaster has Occurred: A Call for New Data,” American Journal of Public Health April 2004: 582-585. Web. 15 June
2010 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448302/pdf/0940582.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez>.
Sharav, Vera Hassner, “Fast-Growing Business: Unethical Clinical Trials in India” Asia
Times 27 July 2004, ahrp.org, 14 July 2010, <http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/27.php>.
Smith, Richard. “Responding to Global Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Lessons from
SARS on the Role of Risk Perception, Communication and Management.” Social Science and Medicine 15 September
2006: 3112-3123. Web. 17 June 2010, <http://crun.crassh.cam.ac.uk/uploads/documents/Smith%20infectious%20
outbreaks.pdf>.
Special to the New York Times.“Eradication of Smallpox to be Announced Today.” The
New York Times 8 May 1980, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2006). Web. 17 June 2010.
<http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pqdweb?did=111240784&
sid=2&Fmt=10&clientId=11201&RQT=309&VName=HNP>.
The Sphere Project. “About Us.” Sphereproject.org. Web. 17 June 2010,
<http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/91/58/lang,English/>.
Steinbrook, Robert. “The Gelsinger Case.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research
Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Temple, Robert. “Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation
of New Treatments. Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues.” Annals of Internal Medicine 19 September 2000. Web. 16 July
2010. <http://www.annals.org/content/133/6/455.full>.
Todar, Kenneth “Vibrio cholerae and Asiatic Cholera.” Todar’s Online Textbook of
Bacteriology, 2009. Web. 12 June 2010. <http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/cholera.html>.
Tran, Mark. “UN to Boost Haiti Quake Relief Force” The Guardian 19 January 2010.
Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/19/haiti-earthquake-survivors-disease-threat>.
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 2010. Web. 17 May 2010.
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml>.
United Nations. “International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human
Being: Report of the Sixth Committee.” C-fam.org. 24 February 2005. Web. 15 July 2010. <http://www.c-fam.org/
docLib/20080625_Declaration_on_Human_Cloning.pdf>.
United Nations, “Resolution 44/ 236: International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction,” General Assembly: Forty-Fourth Session. United Nations. 1989. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://daccess-dds ny.un.
org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/549/95/IMG/NR054995.pdf ?OpenElement>.
UN/ISDR Secretariat. “Timeline of developments of relevance to the Early Warning
Conference II.” United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. July 2002. Web. 15 June 2010,
<http://www.unisdr.org/ppew/policy-arena/policy-ewcii/Policy-timeline-for-EWC-II.pdf>.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer.
UNWTO January 2010. Web. 14 June 2010, <http://unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom10_1_
en_excerpt.pdf>, 1.
United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “General Information on
Tsunami-Related Diseases and Health Concerns.” bt.cdc.gov. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/
tsunamis/healthconcerns.asp>.
United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “Prevent Illness After a
Disaster.” bt.cdc.gov. Web. 12 June 2010. <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/disease/>.
United States Center for Disease Control. “Tetanus.” Epidemiology and Prevention of
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Atlanta: CDC, 2009: 275-278. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/
pinkbook/default.htm>.
United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “Tetanus Prevention After a
Disaster.” Bt.cdc.gov. 9 Sep. 2005. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/disease/tetanus.asp>.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Federal Code of Regulations:
Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects.” HHS.gov. Web. 16 July 2010. <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 45

 World Health Organization

guidance/45cfr46.htm>.
United States General Accounting Office. “Challenged in Improving Infectious Disease
Surveillance Systems.” GAO.gov. August 2001. Web. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01722.pdf>.
UNLV. “History of Research Ethics.” research.UNLV.edu. Web. 17 July 2010.
<http://research.unlv.edu/ORI-HSR/history-ethics.htm>.
Wagman, David. “Exit Strategy: Lessons Learned Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.”
Homeland-1 15 November 2005,. Web. 14 June 2010.
<http://www.homeland1.com/evacuation/articles/390294-Exit-Strategy-Evacuation-lessons-learned-from-Hurri-
canes-Katrina-and-Rita/>.
The Washington Post. “Death Watch: AIDS, Drugs, and Africa.” WashingtonPost.com,
17 June 2010. Web. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/issues/aidsinafrica/>.
Washington State Department of Heath. “Cholera.” Ed. James Chin. DOH.wa.gov
Jan. 2008: 6. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.doh.wa.gov/notify/guidelines/pdf/cholera.pdf>.
Weindling, Paul. “The Nazi Medical Experiments.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical
Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Wertheimer, Alan. “Exploitation in Clinical Research.” The Oxford Textbook of Clinical
Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008.
Widiatmoko, Dono and Ascobat Gani. “International Relations within Indonesia’s
Hospital Sector.” World Health Organization. 17 June 2010. Web. <http://www.who.int/trade/en/THpart3chap9.
pdf>.
Witzler, Peter. “Strengthening Africa’s Health Systems.” Physicians for Human Rights,
17 June 2010. Web. <http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/students/hiv-aids/strengthening-african-health-systems.
html>.
Wilson, Mary E. “Infectious Disease, an Ecological Perspective,” Medicine and Global
Survival Jan. 1996: NP. Web. 10 June 2010, <http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V3Wilson.html>.
Wolshon, Brian. “Evacuation Planning and Engineering for Hurricane Katrina.” The
Bridge 6.1 March 2006. The National Academies of Engineering. Web. 16 June
2010. <http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V-36-1TheAftermathofKatrina/EvacuationPlannin-
gandEngineeringforHurricaneKatrina.aspx>.
World Health Assembly. “WHA58.1: Health Action in Relation to Crises and Disasters,
with Particular Emphasis on the Earthquakes and Tsunamis of 26 December 2004.” World Health Organization. 20
May 2005. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58/WHA58_1-en.pdf>.
World Health Organization. Archives of the League of Nations: Health Section Files.
Site of the Library and Archives of the United Nations Office at Geneva, September 14 2006. Web. 17 May 2010.
<http://www.who.int/archives/fonds_collections/bytitle/fonds_3/en/index.html>.
World Health Organization, Bulletin of the World Health Organization January 2006,
Web, Scielosp.org, 14 July 2010, <http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid
=S0042-96862006000100007>.
World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. October
2006. Web. 17 May 2010. <http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf>.
World Health Organization. “Global Alert and Response (GAR).” WHO.int. Web. 14 J
une 2010. <http://www.who.int/csr/en/>.
World Health Organization. “Global Health Cluster Making Gains in Responding to
Health Needs in Disasters and Crises, but Challenges Persist.” ReliefWeb.int 11 June 2010. Web. 16 June 2010. <http://
www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/ADGO-86BPZN?OpenDocument>.
World Health Organization. International Health Regulations (2005). Geneva: WHO,
2008. Print.
World Health Organization. “SARS Outbreak Contained Worldwide.” WHO.int 5 July
2003. Web. 13 June 2010. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr56/en/>.
World Health Organization. Should Disaster Strike: Health in the International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991. Print.
World Health Organization. “Strengthening WHO’s Institutional Capacity for

46 General Assembly
 World Health Organization

Humanitarian Health Action.” WHO, 2009. Web. 16 June 2010, <http://www.who.int/hac/about/hac_5year_

plan_2009_2013.pdf>.
World Health Organization. “WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.2).” WHO.int.
Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/trds/en/index.html>.
World Health Organization. Working for Health: An Introduction to the World Health
Organization. WHO Press, 2007. Web. 17 May 2010. <http://www.who.int/about/brochure_en.pdf>.
World Health Organization Tsunami Health Conference. “Putting it together: Stronger
Public Health Capacity Within Disaster Management Systems.” WHO. 6 May 2005. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.
who.int/hac/events/tsunamiconf/final_presentation/en/index.html>.
Yazici, Yusaf. “Informed Consent: Practical Considerations.” Bulletin of the NYU
Hospital for Joint Disease June 2010. PubMed. Online. 12 July 2010. <http://www.nyuhjdbulletin.org/Mod/Bulletin/
V68N2/Docs/V68N2_10.pdf>.
“Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World.” United
Nations/International Strategy for Natural Disaster Reduction 27 May 1994. UN/ISNDR. Web. 15 June 2010. <http://www.
unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-yokohama-strat-eng.htm>.
Yoshioka, Alan. “The Randomized Controlled Trial of Streptomycin.” The Oxford
Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: The Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Zoraster, Richard. “Barriers to Disaster Coordination: Health Sector Coordination in
Banda Aceh following the South Asia Tsunami.” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Jan.-Feb. 2006: S13-S19. Web. 17 June
2010. <http://know.brr.go.id/dc/unsorted/20060206_Barriers_Health_Sector_Aceh_South_Asia_Tsunami.pdf>.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 47

 Guide to Delegate Preparation
and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
Dear Delegates and Faculty Advisors,

The HNMUN 2011 Secretariat is pleased to present you with the Guide to Delegate Preparation. In this guide, you will find
an overview of substantive activities at conference, a list of differences between HNMUN and other MUN conferences in the
world, an explanation of the characteristics of our various committees, a listing of the powers of the committee staff, and the
updated Rules of Procedure. While this guide contains virtually all information regarding the substantive side of HNMUN, I
invite you to consult the following documents as well in your preparation:

Guide to Starting an MUN Team: This guide features a step-by-step guide to starting a Model United Nations Team at any
college or university.

Guide to First Time Delegations: This guide is aimed at familiarizing delegates who are new to MUN, and particularly those
new to HNMUN, with the events at conference.

Committee Study Guides: Our committees are directed by Harvard undergraduates, who dedicated their summer to researching
and writing the most well-informed and comprehensive study guides on the issues of their committee agenda. Study guides
contain not only a history and discussion of the problem at hand, but also sections detailing suggestions for further research,
questions a resolution must answer, and ways to contribute to solutions in the real world community. Updates to the study guides,
covering the latest developments and exploring nuanced aspects of the topic areas will be available online in mid-November.

All of these documents and more are available under the “Resources” tab of www.hnmun.org. Additional resources on our
website to assist you in your substantive preparations include links to the UN documents, country policies, and premier news
sources.

Please do not hesitate to contact any of the HNMUN Secretariat and staff with your questions. Best of luck with your preparation
for HNMUN 2011 and we look forward to meeting you in February!

Sincerely,

Ricky J. Hanzich
Secretary-General
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
info@hnmun.org

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 48

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
INTRODUCTION
General Comments
Welcome to Harvard National Model United Nations
(HNMUN) 2011, the world’s largest and most prestigious
conference of its kind. We are happy to have you with us.
Throughout the conference weekend, you will be working
with other highly motivated college students toward the
common goals of international awareness and consensus-
building. This document strives to explain both the
philosophy of HNMUN and the substantive details of the
conference. Without understanding both the overall goal of
HNMUN and how the conference operates, delegates may
feel overwhelmed and lost. It is our hope that this document
will guide delegates throughout the weekend.
Philosophy: The United Nations as an
International Forum
Our primary goal is to provide students interested in
exploring the difficulties and complexities of international
relations with the best possible simulation of diplomacy and
negotiation. Our committees are designed to enable delegates
to arrive at a comprehensive and pragmatic solution to each
of the topics while realistically simulating the dynamics of
a true United Nations (UN) session. For solutions to be
reached in committee, we assume both that compromise
is possible and that consensus is a necessary condition for
successful negotiation. With these assumptions, we hope
that the process of formulating the solutions embodied in a
document called a resolution will reveal to the delegates the
difficulties and complexities of international relations that
our conference hopes to help delegates better understand.
One could argue that the process of constructing a solution to
international problems in itself does not offer much beyond
a simple classroom experience. HNMUN allows delegates to
examine current global problems through a wholly different
lens. The solutions that any individual proposes to a world
problem may technically seem correct, but these solutions
are biased by the individual’s own political inclinations.
Representing a nation’s interest in the global community
complicates the issues and forces delegates to question
their prior beliefs and arrive at innovative conclusions on
problems in international relations today. It is this process
of simulation that ultimately advances our goal of teaching
the power and complexity of international relations.
It is important to clarify why we have selected the United
Nations as the primary organ through which HNMUN
operates. The UN is not a world government. The principle
of national sovereignty has been consistently upheld, and
nations do not relinquish their sovereignty in joining the UN.
Through resolutions, the UN can offer solutions to world
problems, but it has limited enforcement powers beyond the
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
force of international opinion that its decisions represent.
The decisions must represent a single unified world voice
to be effective and must be constructed through a series
of compromises by nations with competing ends. Without
solidarity, the decisions made by the UN would lack any
credibility and, therefore, any force. For the UN, finding
a consensus is no easy task. No other body involves 192
countries debating international issues in unison. Each state
wants its own voice heard and its own interests represented
as solutions are reached on any given issue. Compromise
is therefore necessary for anything to be accomplished.
Thus, the need to find a consensus is certainly a hurdle to
be overcome for both the real UN and for HNMUN, but
it is this challenge of using international negotiation and
compromise to solve world problems (and sometimes its
failure) that makes us believe that the UN is the best body
through which to advance the goals of the conference.
Structure
For both logistical and substantive reasons, HNMUN
simulates only certain parts of the real UN. A given college
or university attending the conference represents one or
more countries, and each country is represented by one
or two delegates in each committee. In this way, HNMUN
emulates the practices of the UN. Delegates must align
themselves with the policy of the represented country to
advance the country’s interests in the world community.
However, HNMUN extends beyond just the UN itself.
The conference incorporates simulations of regional bodies
outside of the UN system, such as the African Union, the
European Union, and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Debate
in these non-UN bodies focuses on two issues of primary
importance to the region, as members try to advance the
interests of their own countries within the larger context
of the regional body. It is important to understand that
the central goal of our conference is not only to provide
a simulation of the UN, but rather to help delegates
understand the complexities of international diplomacy. We
do not believe that the UN alone is the ultimate method
for learning the nuances of international diplomacy. Rather,
the UN in conjunction with other bodies offers delegates a
comprehensive simulation of international diplomacy and
negotiation.
HNMUN also gives delegates the opportunity to
further their education in global diplomacy by representing
non-state actors in our Non-Governmental Organizations
program and our continual crisis committees. Whether
they are representing Amnesty International or serving as
an Indian rebel leader alongside Mughal Emperor Behadur
Shah II Zafar against the British Imperial army, these
delegates have the chance to experience the ways in which
negotiation and compromise operate in settings that depart
from the standard state-centric model of the UN and other
international organizations.
49
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
Purpose of this Guide
The main purpose of this guide is to prepare delegates for
Model United Nations (MUN) conferences in general and for
HNMUN 2011 in particular. Delegates who have experience
with MUN should look at the “Differences between HNMUN
and other Model United Nations conferences” section below.
For those who have not, here is the general structure of the
guide and the purpose of each part:
Procedural Preparation
In order to perform in committee, delegates must have
an understanding of the basic structural elements of MUN.
HNMUN emphasizes the useful application of rules to
promote the smooth functioning of the committee rather
than as the focus of delegate performance. This Guide
to Delegate Preparation contains most of this functional
information, including details on the rules of debate at
HNMUN and the UN system. It is important for delegates
to understand the rules, because they enhance the workings
of the committee and the learning experience of the delegate.
To prevent misunderstandings and delays, a comprehensive
understanding of the rules and their use is vital. Additionally,
delegates can use an understanding of the rules to advance
their own policies in committee. For example, in large General
Assembly committees, the speakers’ list can become quite long,
and a delegate may have to wait for an hour or more before
it is his or her turn to speak. However, by using the rules
governing yielded time, questions, and comments from the
floor, a delegate can speak far more frequently. Knowledge of
the rules is an important tool to allow you to air your views
productively and efficiently. At conference, please do not
hesitate to clarify issues of procedure and debate with the
committee staff through points of parliamentary inquiry.
Substantive Preparation
Once delegates understand the rules of committee, they
should learn how to contribute substantively to the debate.
Substantive preparation, the process by which delegates learn
how their ideas can make a difference in the committee, is
a three step process. First, delegates should research their
committee and its place in the UN system or in the international
framework. By knowing the powers and duties of their
committee, delegates can get a sense of what types of solution
will and will not be possible. Delegates should then master the
topics that their committee will discuss. Although the study
guide provides a strong foundation of information on the
topics, it is essential that delegates build on this foundation
with their own research. Each study guide contains a section
detailing suggestions for further research to aid with this
process. Lastly, delegates should learn their country’s policy
on the topics being addressed, so that they can represent
their country strongly and accurately. This Guide to Delegate
Preparation will walk you through the research you should
50 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
do to be prepared in committee. Delegates with a solid grasp
of the topics, their country’s positions, and the committee’s
mandate will be leaders in the attempts to find solutions to the
problems being addressed and to write resolutions that carry
out those solutions.
Committee Information
This section contains other details about HNMUN that
will enable you to better understand how the conference as
a whole will run. It will first help delegates understand the
different organs at HNMUN and how debate functions in
each. It will then introduce the dais staff that will run each
committee and describe the roles of each staff member. Lastly,
it will discuss our expectations of delegates, both substantively
(the criteria used for deciding awards) and sartorially (the dress
code at HNMUN).
Differences between HNMUN and other
Model United Nations conferences
For the most part, this Guide to Delegate Preparation is
written for the delegate who has not been part of a Model
United Nations conference before. It provides an introduction
to MUN as well as information about HNMUN. Therefore,
experienced delegates need not read it all the way through.
However, these delegates should be aware that HNMUN
is not alike in every respect to other MUN conferences in
which you may have participated. In particular, please note
the following:
• Committees at HNMUN, with the exception of
the continual crisis committees, may pass only one
resolution on each topic area. Because only one
resolution can be passed, there is a much greater
emphasis on compromise and cooperation at HNMUN
than at other MUN conferences.
• Many procedural rules at HNMUN may differ from
those to which you are accustomed. You may want
to skim the rules, located at the back of the Guide to
Delegate Preparation, to look for such variances so that
you are prepared for them in committee.
• No prewritten working papers or draft resolutions
will be permitted at HNMUN. All written material
introduced in a committee must be the product of work
done at the conference itself.
• Resolutions at HNMUN do not have sponsors. Instead,
draft resolutions require a certain number of signatories
to be shown to the Director and listed alphabetically at
the top of the document before they are brought onto
the floor for debate. Following the Director’s approval,
any delegate (whether or not that delegate is a signatory
of the draft resolution) may move to introduce the
draft resolution. Signing a draft resolution does not
mean that you wrote it or that you support it; it means
only that you believe it should be debated.
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
• Because there are no sponsors, all amendments are
considered unfriendly, requiring the majority vote of
the committee to be integrated into the draft resolution
on the floor. Only non-substantive typographical
amendments may be made without a vote, at the
Moderator’s discretion.
• Amendments at HNMUN are substantive, not
procedural motions. For detailed amendment
procedures, please consult the Rules of Parliamentary
Procedure at the end of this guide.
• There are no Chairs at HNMUN. Instead, a Moderator
and a Director jointly run each committee; the
Moderator oversees debate and is the enforcer of
procedure, while the Director prepares the study guide
and is the substantive expert.
• Debate at HNMUN adheres more closely to the
study guide than it does at some other conferences.
In particular, all draft resolutions must address the
issues mentioned in the “Questions a Resolution Must
Answer” section of each study guide.
• Following a speech in formal debate, if no yields are
made, two comments are automatically in order. The
possible yields are to questions, to another delegate,
or to the chair. If a yield is made, no comments
are in order. Comments are never in order during a
moderated caucus.
THE PATH TO A RESOLUTION
Before we can discuss the specifics of the debate structure,
it is important to note that the purpose of the debate, as
stated in our philosophy, is to produce a comprehensive and
pragmatic solution to the topic embodied in a document
called a resolution. If we are to understand the nuances of the
debate, we must first grasp the path towards the resolution.
The process for producing a resolution in a committee at
HNMUN consists of two main written stages: the working
paper and the draft resolution.
Working Paper
Working papers mainly serve as a point of reference
for discussion in committee by putting abstract ideas into a
concrete, written form (please see the sample provided later in
this guide). Working papers are usually short proposals on one
or more aspects of the problem under discussion and serve as
a way of breaking down an issue into manageable units. They
may contain signatories, listed alphabetically at the top of the
document. With the approval of the Director, working papers
are copied and distributed so that the committee’s delegates
can learn about the positions and interests of other delegates.
As the committee’s work progresses, new points and ideas
should be compiled into new working papers. Amendments
cannot be made to working papers. Subsequent working
papers must contain ideas that do not appear on any previous
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
or concurrent working papers. Working papers should help
advance the committee’s work, not duplicate it. This means that
once a variety of proposals and viewpoints are introduced, the
committee should begin to formulate the working papers into
comprehensive draft resolutions. Delegates should be aware
that working papers are not “mini-resolutions” in that they
do not need to be in any specific format and do not need to
cover all the issues raised in the “Questions a Resolution Must
Answer” portion of the study guide. For instance, a working
paper may consist of bullet points with compelling ideas that
the delegates wish for the committee to debate. Please note
that no prewritten working papers are allowed at HNMUN.
Additionally, ideas do not have to appear in working papers
before they can become draft resolutions. That said, working
papers do provide a very useful tool for getting the entire
committee’s feedback on specific ideas before presenting
them as formal draft resolutions.
Draft Resolutions
As in the real UN, the main vehicle of action at HNMUN
is the resolution, a formal document in which a committee
spells out the action to be taken in order to solve a particular
problem (please see the sample resolution included in this
guide). Each draft resolution should deal specifically with the
topic area currently under discussion by the committee. The
following criteria must be met before a draft resolution can be
introduced to the committee:
• It must adequately address the points set out in the
“Questions a Resolution Must Answer” section of the
study guide, as well as any other points that have been
raised in the course of debate.
• It must be well-written, concise, and free of grammatical
and typographical errors.
• It must have the minimum number of signatories
as stipulated in the Rules of Procedure. HNMUN
documents do not have sponsors; instead, they have
signatories.
• It must be typed (for photocopying purposes).
• It must receive the approval and signature of the
Director. Directors have the discretion of suggesting
changes to a working paper or draft resolution, or
redirecting the submitters to cooperating with delegates
with similar papers, prior to approving any documents.
• It must be completely original work done at the
conference; no prewritten draft resolutions will be
allowed, and plagiarism will not be tolerated.
Because the committee can pass only one resolution on
each topic at HNMUN, delegates should expect to be asked
to revise draft resolutions several times before they meet the
Director’s standards. While the Director will not advocate a
particular solution, it is his or her responsibility to ensure that
the committee has fulfilled its responsibilities and adequately
addressed the entire topic before it can be introduced as a
51
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
draft resolution. Our Directors are trained to be very selective
in accepting draft resolutions, and delegates should not be
surprised or offended if the dais staff sends a proposal for a
draft resolution back for revision before approving it. It is the
committee’s responsibility to construct an effective resolution
to handle the situation at hand. When a draft resolution is
introduced, it is usually not ready for an immediate vote.
Much debate, compromise, and revision are involved in the
formulation of a resolution that can be agreed upon by the
committee.
Amendments
The amendment process is used to improve draft
resolutions as the course of debate evolves to reflect concerns
that may not have been addressed in the original document.
Amendments can greatly enhance the work of a committee.
A clear understanding of the rules of procedure is very
important to the process of proposing, debating, and voting
on an amendment. At HNMUN, all amendments must be
put to a substantive vote of the entire committee. There are
no friendly amendments, and all amendments are treated in
the same way regardless of the effect they have on the draft
resolution in question. To introduce an amendment, delegates
will need a number of signatories, as well as the approval of
the Director. If an amendment is passed by the body, it is
immediately incorporated into the text of the draft resolution
for the purposes of debate and voting. Please consult the
Rules of Parliamentary Procedure at the end of this document
for detailed directions on the introduction and debating of
amendments.
Voting
The final act in the discussion of a topic area is voting on
the draft resolution(s) on the floor, as amended throughout
the course of debate. A resolution is passed when a majority
of the committee votes in its favor, and only one resolution
may be passed for a topic area. By adopting a resolution,
the committee has agreed, by a majority, that this is the best
possible solution to the problem at hand. Discussion of the
topic area is completed upon passage of a resolution. The
process is then repeated for the second topic area, time
permitting.
SUBSTANTIVE PREPARATION
This section addresses the preparation delegates can make
prior to arriving at the conference. Delegates who are new to
MUN or HNMUN are encouraged to consult the Guide to
First Time Delegations, which provides an introduction to
MUN and the events of the conference. The preparation tips
outlined below will be most useful when combined with a
thorough examination of committee study guides and rules of
parliamentary procedure, as well as conduct of independent
research.
52 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
Understanding the Mandate of the
Committee
The first place to look for information is the committee
study guide. Each study guide includes a “History of the
Committee” section that gives background on the committee,
its responsibilities, and some of its major achievements in the
past. However, this section should be only the beginning of
one’s research.
The next step should be to investigate the official mandate
of the committee. For most committees within the UN system,
this is easy: simply look at the UN Charter. The founding
document of the United Nations gives detailed descriptions
of the powers and responsibilities of the General Assembly,
the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council.
The websites of the committees of the General Assembly
and the commissions of the Economic and Social Council
give more specific descriptions of the mandates assigned to
them. Similarly, most non-UN international bodies have some
sort of charter or treaty that describes how much power the
body has.
Once delegates are aware of the committee’s mandate,
the next step is to understand what resources it has available
and how it will carry out decisions it makes; this will inform
the type of resolutions that can be written.
One of the best ways of getting a sense of one’s
committee is to look at some of its past actions. Looking at
some resolutions a committee has passed is indicative of the
types of solutions it employs. What strategies and formats
are generally used by the committee to address international
problems? Past resolutions can be accessed on the UN website
as reference to the work that the committee has previously
done.
Researching the Topic Areas
The committee study guides can serve as an excellent
starting point for delegate research. The study guides are
a result of extensive research and effort on the part of the
Directors and are the foundation of substantive preparation
for each of the committees. While reading the study guide,
delegates should be conscious of the fact that they must act
as policy makers, analyzing and molding the information they
have received into solutions and resolutions. The study guide
updates will add supplementary information and new angles.
Updates will be available on the website in early December.
While the study guide and updates will provide a
beginning for substantive preparation, it will be necessary
and rewarding for delegates to do additional research.
Directors have included in their study guides a list of the
most useful sources in learning about particular topic areas.
It is crucial that participants use these sources and more to
focus their preparation and increase the breadth and depth of
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
their knowledge about the topics. Faculty advisors and head
delegates should introduce their students to any resources
available in their academic communities to help them learn as
much as they can about the topics.
Delegates are encouraged to focus particularly on what
new action they feel the committee can or should take. The
section of the study guide entitled “Past UN Action” describes
some of the attempts taken by the international community
in the past to solve the problem being discussed. Participants
can use this and their own research as a starting point for
possible solutions, but should remember that the reason this
topic is still being discussed is that the past solutions have
not been entirely successful. As research proceeds, delegates
are encouraged to consider why solutions have not been
successful and ponder ways of correcting the errors of past
attempts that are in line with the mandate of the committee.
Coming into the committee with a solid grasp of what has and
has not worked in the past will allow the committee members
to propose innovative ideas to address the problem.
Researching Country Policy
It is crucial that delegates research their country’s policy
on the two topic areas of each committee as well as the state’s
political situation in a larger context. While it is understood
that some flexibility in positions is necessary to compromise
and negotiate with other countries during debate, participants
must maintain the assigned country’s policy as much as
possible. Directors will be enforcing this aspect of debate,
as it is crucial to the simulation and the overall international
education.
HNMUN requires delegates to adopt the position of
a specific country or character throughout the course of
the simulation. This is a key element of the “international”
experience of MUN, as it forces delegates to examine the
perspectives, problems, and policies of another country at a
very fundamental level. It is also one of the most difficult
aspects of MUN because delegates must confront the inherent
biases of their own national perspectives and historical
understanding. While it may be difficult to find a published
account of a country’s position on a particular issue, it may be
possible to contact the country’s delegation at the real UN to
continue research. Developing a better general understanding
of the country - cultural and religious beliefs, political systems,
UN voting history, and so forth - will allow committee
members to construct a plausible position for each country
on each of the topic areas when they are unable to find an
explicit, published position by the country’s government.
In addition to a country’s policies and cultural traits, it
is useful to research traditional allies of a country, other
countries that affect the balance of power in the region, and
states with which a delegate’s assigned country has been in
conflict in the past. Furthermore, delegates should consider
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
the actions and intentions of non-state actors that have been
involved in the issue. In combination with the “Bloc Positions”
and “Relevant Partners” sections of the study guide, this type
of research will inform delegates of potential allies at the
conference, with whom they could discuss solutions to the
problems posed by the topic areas.
Position Papers
The position papers are the focus of the substantive
preparation before the conference. The main purpose
of the position paper is to help delegates to express their
country’s policy clearly and concisely. A strong position paper
will contribute to delegate performance in committee at
conference.
Each study guide has a section entitled “Position Papers”
that provides guidelines on how to write these papers.
Conventionally, position papers begin with a brief history
of how a country has been affected by the topic. They then
discuss any policies that the country has used to deal with
the topic in the past and describe the success or failure of
those policies. Lastly, they state what the country believes the
best solution to the problem would be, within the limits of
what the particular committee can do. Position papers do not
typically exceed two double-spaced pages and should address
both topic areas. Specific guidelines can be found in the study
guide, as format and substantive content may differ depending
on the committee structure. Guidelines for submission are
emailed to Head Delegates and Faculty Advisors in January.
Position papers are due on 1 February 2011. A binder with a
copy of each position paper submitted will be available at the
dais during the conference.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
This section explains the differences between the various
types of committees offered at HNMUN and describes the
staff that will be present in each committee.
Types of Committees at HNMUN 2011
The differences between committees are not limited to
differences in mandates or responsibilities. A large committee,
like a General Assembly committee, has different features than
a small committee like the Security Council. Understanding the
idiosyncracies of the organ will enable delegates to contribute
more effectively to the debate in their committee.
General Assembly (GA)
Four of the standard committees of the General Assembly
(the Disarmament and International Security Committee, the
Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, the Special
Political and Decolonization Committee, and the Legal
Committee), together with the World Health Organization,
the World Trade Organization, and the Historical General
53
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
Assembly: 1992 comprise the General Assembly at HNMUN
2011. All members of the United Nations will be represented
in these committees, with the exception of the World Trade
Organization and the Historical General Assembly.
General Assembly committees range in size between 200-
300 delegates. The Disarmament and International Security
Committee, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee,
the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, the Legal
Committee, and the World Health Organization will consist of
double delegations, which means that two participants from
the same university will represent each country. The World
Trade Organization and the Historical General Assembly:
1992 will consist of single delegations.
The Historical General Assembly differs from standard
GA committees more in goals than in procedure; the study
guide for this committee explains in detail how it will be run,
and how it will differ from a regular GA committee.
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
The committees of the Economic and Social Council
consist of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN
Educational, Scientific, and Culture Organization, the UN
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the UN High Commission
on Refugees, and the International Monetary Fund. These
committees range in size from 24 to over 50 member states,
depending on their membership. The UN Human Rights
Council and the UN High Commission Refugees will consist
of double delegations, while the UN Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization, the UN Commission on Narcotic
Drugs, and the International Monetary Fund will consist of
single delegations.
Economic and Social Council committees specialize in
a wide range of international issues, from humanitarian to
economic in nature. Economic and Social Council committees
will call on delegates to occasionally respond to crises as they
emerge, in addition to resolving the topics on their respective
agendas.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)
Program
The NGO Program at HNMUN is an innovative
arrangement, under the Economic and Social Council,
that provides its delegates with the opportunity to debate
multiple topic areas in various committees, while greatly
enriching those committees’ discussions. Each delegate
in the NGO Program will represent an assigned NGO at
the conference, and will have the freedom to travel and
represent their organization in one or more committees
whose debate directly relates to the mission of their
respective NGO. The Amnesty International delegate in
the NGO Program, for example, may present or debate
issues in committees as diverse as the UN Human Rights
54 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
Council in the ECOSOC and the Special Political and
Decolonization Committee in the GA.
After other committees at the conference have chosen
their topic areas, NGO delegates will choose the committees
in which they would like to work. They are then introduced
to their committee of choice, at which time they become
analogous to any other delegate in committee. They are
subject to the same rules and courtesies, except for rules
governing voting power. Though NGO delegates cannot vote
on draft resolutions, they may caucus, negotiate, support draft
resolutions, and write their own working papers in committees.
In this sense, the NGO program is extraordinarily dynamic
and flexible—both in the way that delegates interact and in the
topics that delegates choose to undertake at the conference.
Delegates involved in the NGO program will have the unique
opportunity to see a wide range of committees at HNMUN,
and delegates in other committees should take advantage of
the resources and insights offered by the NGO delegates
participating in their debates.
Regional Bodies
The Regional Bodies are the African Union, the European
Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These committees will
have a delegate size ranging from 25-55 member states. The
European Union will consist of double delegations, while the
remaining Regional Bodies will consist of single delegations.
While most committees at HNMUN include countries
from every region of the world, each Regional Body only
includes the countries of its region, and thus focuses on issues
important to that particular region. The Regional Bodies are
often not part of the United Nations system; nevertheless,
they are procedurally identical to other HNMUN committees.
They are similar to the Economic and Social Council
committees in the style of debate and the way in which they
address the topics. Like the Economic and Social Council
committees, all Regional Bodies may have crises at some point
during committee sessions.
Specialized Agencies (SA)
Besides the Continual Crisis simulations, the Specialized
Agencies comprise the Security Council, the Historical
Security Council: 1967, the Futuristic Security Council: 2030,
and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The present
and historical Security Council simulations will follow a
modified version of the rules of procedure that gives the five
permanent members (China, France, the United Kingdom,
the United States, and the Russian Federation or USSR) a
veto in substantive voting. The Truth and Reconciliation
Commission will follow special rules of procedure particular
to their committee format.
The small size of these committees means that debate
will be much more informal; there will be a much greater
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure

emphasis on intimate negotiations between delegates to as political maneuvers. The possibilities are virtually endless;
hammer out the details of resolutions, in both moderated and continual crisis leaves the delegates free reign to steer the
unmoderated caucuses. All Security Council simulations will course of history. In these committees, the Directors play a
have a crisis break at some point during the weekend. role similar to those of the delegates, embodying the leader
of the cabinet.
Continual Crisis Committees
Unlike traditional committees, continual crises do not
The Continual Crisis committees span a wide array of
operate by the Rules of Procedure. Instead of a speakers’
forums, time periods, and topics, including: the Ad-Hoc
list, most of debate will be conducted through modified
Committee, the KGB Committee for State Security, the Taipei
caucuses, allowing for a free flow of ideas and efficient
Convention of 2025, the South African State Security Council,
progress. Voting on decisions and other actions taken by
and the Mexican-American War of 1844. The Ad-Hoc
the committee is conducted by the Director, but he or
committee’s nature will remain strictly confidential in nature
she will be granted greater discretion than in a traditional
until conference and will require delegates to improvise quickly
committee; although the Director entrusts his or her
and effectively. The Committee for State Security will discuss
cabinet with making decisions in his or her name, he or
the Soviet War in Afghanistan and the expansion of socialism
she holds ultimate veto power over all actions of the
abroad. The Taipei Convention of 2025 will examine the issue
committee. Specific rules are stated in each study guide
of Taiwanese independence. The South African State Security
and are at the discretion of the Director.
Council will discuss matters regarding apartheid and regional
Perhaps the most important divergence of continual
crises. The Junta Extraordinaria del Gabinete Mexicano will
crisis committees from their traditional counterparts is the
be run entirely in Spanish. Finally, the Mexican-American War
role of the crisis staff. In addition to voicing concerns verbally
of 1844 will pit the Mexican Cabinet (to be run entirely in
in the committee room, individual delegates can also conduct
Spanish) and the American Cabinet against each other in a
private affairs through liaisons in the crisis room, generating
struggle over Texan sovereignty.
a new and exciting dimension of the crisis. Each delegate has
Instead of debating two distinct topic areas laid out in
a great deal of agency, and each is responsible for exercising
advance in the study guide, these committees will focus on
this power through communication with the crisis staff and
a particular political, social, or military crisis, reacting to its
with the other delegates.
twists and turns throughout the committee session. Each
continual crisis committee has a crisis staff in addition to its Committees set in a different time period
dais staff, coordinating events to respond to the decisions The Historical Security Council: 1967, the Futuristic
delegates make and constantly throwing twists and turns at Security Council: 2030, the KGB Committee for State Security,
the committee. the Taipei Convention of 2025, and the Joint Cabinet Crisis:
Delegates in continual crisis committees represent Mexican-American War of 1844 (consisting of the Mexican
characters instead of countries, by taking on the personas Cabinet and the American Cabinet) are set at the time period
of historical figures, military heroes, or cabinet members. given in the study guide and on the first day of committee.
Representing an individual differs greatly from representing a Delegates will not be allowed to use or to reference any events
delegate to the United Nations; for instance, if one’s character that happened or information that was gathered after the date
is a real person, it is crucial to research his or her perspective in which the committee is set. Anachronistic references will
on the conflict as one would research a state’s policy. Our destroy the historical accuracy of the simulation and detract
continual crisis staff will provide delegates with a preliminary from the enjoyment and overall experience of all delegates.
biography outlining the character’s role in the cabinet and
Committees set in a language other than
his or her views and tendencies, but participants will greatly
English
benefit from gathering as many personal details as they can.
For the second year, HNMUN is proud to offer a
This information will not only guide delegates through their
committee set in a language other than English. The Mexican
debate but also add personality and flair to the experience. If
Cabinet of the JCC: Mexican-American War of 1844 will be
the assigned character is fictional or only loosely based on a
conducted entirely in Spanish as a continual crisis committee.
real figure, delegates have the unique and fun opportunity to
Delegates in this committee should maintain a high level of
develop their own personality within the guidelines provided
proficiency in the language.
by their biography.
Continual crisis committees do not pass resolutions;
depending on the committee, they can issue communiqués,
press releases, statements, decisions, and military commands,
to name only a few. In a militarily-oriented committee, for
example, delegates will discuss tactical and strategic as well

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 55

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMITTEE STAFF
The staff of Harvard National Model United Nations
have distinct roles and responsibilities at conference. Delegates
may find that the substantive staff at HNMUN takes on a
more active role than what they have been accustomed to at
other Model United Nations conferences. The primary job
of the staff is to work with the delegates in achieving the
goals of the committee in particular and the conference as
a whole. The staff of each committee includes a Director,
a Moderator, and Assistant Directors. At HNMUN, the
Director is the substantive expert, and the Moderator is the
procedural expert; together, they share the duties of running
the committee, rather than being coordinated by only one
committee “chair.”
Directors
The committee Director is the substantive expert of
the committee. At HNMUN, the Directors choose their
committees’ topic areas, prepare the study guides, and do
extensive amounts of other pre-conference substantive
preparation. The Director oversees submission of all
documents to be discussed. All draft resolutions and
amendments in committee must be approved and signed by
the Director to be presented to the committee as a whole.
Before accepting working papers and draft resolutions, the
Director is allowed to suggest changes if he or she feels
that the “Questions a Resolution Must Answer” (QARMAs)
are not sufficiently addressed or if it is similar in content
to other submissions. Please note that the Director may
not approve of all written submissions and may suggest
appropriate changes before accepting any draft documents.
Another important role of the Director is to oversee debate.
As the substantive leader of the committee, the Director also
has the discretion to rule on all points and motions brought
before the committee. The Director may periodically comment
on the direction of debate and suggest alternative courses of
action. Committees sometimes overlook important issues
within a topic area, and Directors are encouraged to bring
these to the attention of the delegates. As for committees
with crises, the direction of crises is determined entirely
by the course of debate. Statements made by Directors are
not meant to steer debate along a predetermined crisis plan,
although Directors are encouraged to guide delegates when
debate appears to have strayed from the topic at hand. Any
questions about substantive issues should be raised with the
Director.
Moderators
The Moderator performs the procedural role for which
the traditional “chair” at other MUN conferences would be
responsible. While the Director is the substantive expert, the
Moderator is the procedural expert who runs the committee
when it is in formal session. The Moderator has a full
56 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
understanding of the rules of procedure, and it is his or her
responsibility to facilitate the committee’s work by ensuring
that the sessions run smoothly. However, the Director retains
the ultimate power to rule any motions dilatory. In some
smaller committees, the moderator may also field some of
the substantive issues that Directors typically handle. Under
certain extreme situations, the Moderator is allowed to
suspend certain rules of procedure to streamline debate. Any
questions about procedural issues should be raised with the
Moderator.
Assistant Directors
Before the conference, the Assistant Directors prepare the
updates to the committee study guide. During the simulation,
their job is to aid the Director by answering delegates’
questions, monitoring blocs during caucus, and by providing
‘sounding boards for delegate ideas, solutions, and concerns.
If the committee is producing a large amount of paperwork
at some point in the course of debate, Directors will rely
on the Assistant Directors to work directly with delegates
on preparing and suggesting revisions to draft resolutions.
The Assistant Directors also help keep track of the Speakers’
List, votes, and other procedural matters. Delegates should
feel free to approach the Assistant Directors at any time
with questions about the substance or procedure of the
committee.
AWARDS
The ultimate goal of being a delegate at HNMUN is
to come away with a better understanding of the problems
facing the world today and how these problems can be solved.
Though awards are certainly not the focus of the simulation,
we do feel that certain delegates deserve to be singled out
for exceptional diplomatic work in committee. Committee
awards will be given at HNMUN 2011 in recognition of
superior performances by country delegations; should two
delegates jointly represent a specific country in a given
committee, the awards will be given to both delegates, based
on an evaluation of their overall, combined performance.
Keep in mind that awards are not given based on a point
system, or based on which delegates write the resolution
that gets the most votes; rather, awards are decided by
the committee staff based on a holistic view of delegates’
performance in all aspects throughout the course of the
weekend. The following are some of the criteria that are
used in evaluating delegates:
•Attendance at all committee sessions and adherence to
the official conference and hotel policies;
• Quality of position papers;
• Active participation in the process of working paper,
resolution, and amendment writing;
• Contribution of innovative and pragmatic ideas to
substantive debate, both orally and in written form;
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
• Exhibition of a desire to compromise, while adhering to
a country’s policies and interests;
• Demonstration of co-operation with other delegates
in the process of working paper, draft resolution and
amendment writing, merging, and substantive debate;
• Ability to work with and get along with other delegates;
• Exhibition of an in-depth understanding and research
of the intricacies of the topic area.
• Skill and effectiveness in caucusing, amendment and
resolution writing, and debate.
Awards will also be given to the schools whose delegates
best exemplify the above qualities. In determining these
delegation awards, we will take into account both the sheer
number of individual awards won by a delegation as well as
the ratio of awards won to the size of the delegation.
RULES OF PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURE
Introduction
HNMUN strives to simulate the actual procedural process
of the United Nations and has thus adopted a series of rules
with which to conduct debate. The Rules of Parliamentary
Procedure that we use at HNMUN are a synthesis of
parliamentary rules from a variety of sources. Do not be
discouraged by their length or complexity. Learning the rules
is like mastering a new language – at first it is a bit confusing,
but after a little practice you learn how to function in the new
environment.
The rules found in the Conference Handbook supersede
all previous versions, including those provided to you in the
Study Guides and Guide to Delegate Preparation before
conference. In reading over and studying the rules, your
goal should be to know the rules so well that you can focus
on substantive issues and not be distracted or confused by
the procedural aspects of the committee sessions. Often,
parliamentary procedure can be employed as a means of
diplomatic maneuvering. After you become sufficiently adept
at parliamentary procedure, you can use the Rules to your
advantage.
Some aspects of parliamentary procedure are often
misunderstood. They include:
Precedece: Precedence is the hierarchy established
between different motions. Thus, after a Moderator recognizes
a motion from the floor, he or she may ask if there are any
other motions on the floor. If, for example, another delegate
makes a different motion, the Moderator will act on the
motion of higher precedence first.
Quorum: A quorum is the minimum number of delegates
who must be present for the committee to conduct business.
Unless challenged and shown to be absent, a director may
permit debate when he or she feels that at least one-quarter
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
of the members are present. To conduct substantive votes,
such as those on resolutions or amendments, a majority of
the members must be present.
Points: There are three types of points at HNMUN. A
delegate may rise to a Point of Personal Privilege. Although
they are in order at any time (a delegate may rise to this
point even during a speech), delegates should use caution
when employing this point; it should only be used when
a delegate experiences extreme discomfort which may
prevent him or her from engaging in worthwhile debate
(for example, if the delegate can not hear the speech being
given). A delegate may also rise to a Point of Order. Used
to call attention to an instance of improper parliamentary
procedure, this point is in order only when the floor is
open, unless it interrupts a speech that is itself out of order.
Finally, a delegate may rise to a Point of Parliamentary
Inquiry. This point is used when a delegate is unclear about
a specific aspect of parliamentary procedure and is usually
phrased as a question. It is not, however, used to obtain
substantive information about a topic and may only be
raised when the floor is open.
Procedural versus Substantive Motions: A motion is
procedural when it concerns the application of these Rules
of Parliamentary Procedure. No abstentions are allowed
when voting on such motions; all members of the committee
must vote, including accredited observers and non-member
states. A motion is substantive if it concerns the passage of
the content of a draft resolution or amendment. Abstentions
are allowed and only members with voting power are allowed
to vote.
The Rules of Parliamentary Procedure are divided into
several sections, described below:
“General Rules” includes rules that govern who is entitled
to participate in committees, how delegates will interact with
the staff of the conference, and under what circumstances
and in what ways committee sessions may be held.
“Rules Governing Debate” includes rules that establish
how formal debate runs, how the agenda is set, how debate is
closed, and how caucuses work.
“Rules Governing Speeches” includes rules on the
speakers’ list, speeches, yields, comments, and rights of reply.
“Rules Governing Points” describes the points that can be
made during committee session.
“Rules Governing the Path to a Resolution” includes rules
on working papers, resolutions, and amendments.
“Rules Governing Voting” describe how procedural votes
will be taken and how voting procedure will be conducted.
If you are still unclear about the Rules of Procedure, the
committee staff will be able to explain any ambiguities or
answer any questions.
57
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
General Rules
RULE #1 - SCOPE: These rules for the General
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Regional
Bodies, and the Security Council simulations are self-
sufficient, except for modifications provided by the
Secretariat, and will be considered adopted in advance of
session. No other rules of procedure are applicable. If the
Director provides alternate rules based on the nature of
the committee, those rules will always take precedence over
these in the event of a conflict.
RULE #2 - LANGUAGE: English will be the official and
working language of the conference. The only exception to
this rule are explicitly designated special language committees.
The Director’s decision on this matter will not be subject to
appeal.
RULE #3 - DELEGATIONS: Each member will be
represented by one or two delegates and one vote on each
committee. Observer states are considered non-members (see
Rule #5).
RULE #4 - CREDENTIALS: The credentials of
all delegations have been accepted upon registration.
A credential is defined as the permission granted to a
delegate or delegates to represent a particular country in a
particular committee. Actions relating to the modification
of rights, privileges, or credentials of any member may not
be initiated without the consent of the Secretary-General.
Any representative to whose admission a member objects
will provisionally be seated with the same rights as other
representatives, pending a decision from the committee
staff.
RULE #5 - PARTICIPATION OF NON-MEMBERS:
Representatives of Accredited Observers and of Non-
Member States will have the same rights as those of full
members, except that they may not vote on any substantive
issues. Representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations
will also have the same rights as those of full members, except
that they may not vote on any issues, both procedural and
substantive.
RULE #6 - STATEMENTS BY THE SECRETARIAT:
The Secretary-General or a member of the Secretariat or
Executive staff may at any time make either written or oral
statements to the committee.
RULE #7 - POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE
STAFF: The Moderator of the committee will declare the
opening and closing of each meeting. The Moderator will
accord the right to speak, announce decisions, rule on
58 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
procedural points, and ensure and enforce the observance
of these rules. The Moderator may temporarily transfer
his or her duties to another member of the committee
staff. If the committee does not have an appointed
Moderator, the Director will assume the responsibilities
of the Moderator. Committee staff members may also
advise delegates on the possible course of debate. The
Director may interrupt committee proceedings to allow
for a presentation, guest speaker, or expert witness.
Additionally, the Director or Moderator may allow an
NGO delegate to speak upon being introducted to
the committee. Ruling on all motions is subject to the
discretion of the committee staff. In the exercise of these
functions, the committee staff will be at all times subject
to these rules and responsible to the Secretary-General.
RULE #8 - APPEAL: Any decision of the Moderator
or Director, with the exception of those matters that are
explicitly stated to be unappealable, may be appealed by
a delegate. Appeals only refer to procedural motions, not
substantive decisions. A motion to appeal must be made
immediately after the decision of the committee staff is
made. The delegate will be recognized for thirty seconds
to explain his motion and there will be no further debate
on this matter. The Moderator or Director may speak
briefly in defense of the ruling. The appeal will then
be put to a vote, and the decision of the dais will stand
unless overruled by two-thirds of the total membership.
A “No” vote on the appeal indicates support of the dais’
ruling; a “Yes” vote indicates opposition to that ruling.
The following rules may never be appealed by a delegate:
a. Director’s approval of a draft resolution or amendment
(Rule #30 and #32).
b. Moderator’s decision to rule a moderated or
unmoderated caucus out of order (Rule #14 and #15).
c. Moderator’s decision to end an unmoderated caucus
early (Rule #14).
d. Moderator’s decision to rule a motion for suspension
or adjournment out of order (Rule #17).
e. Moderator’s decision to refuse a right of reply (Rule
#24).
f. Moderator’s decision to refuse Clarificatory Points on a
draft resolution (Rule #31).
g. Moderator’s decision to rule a motion for a roll call
vote out of order (Rule #37).
RULE #9 - QUORUM: The Director may declare a
committee open and permit debate to proceed when at
least one-quarter of the members of the committee are
present. A member of the committee is a representative
who is officially registered with the United Nations in
that committee or with the given body. The presence
of a majority of the members will be required for any
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
substantive vote. A quorum will be assumed to be present
unless specifically challenged and shown to be absent. A
roll call is never required to determine the presence of a
quorum.
RULE #10 - COURTESY: Delegates will show courtesy
and respect to the committee staff and to other delegates. No
talking is allowed in the committee room, except during an
unmoderated caucus or when recognized by the dais staff.
The Moderator will immediately call to order any delegate
who fails to comply with this rule.
RULE #11 - ELECTRONICS: No use of electronic
devices by delegates is allowed in the committee room
during formal debate or moderated caucusing. These
devices include, but are not limited to: laptops, tablets,
and smartphones. Electronics may be used outside the
committee room, while caucusing, or in the Computer
Labs. Only laptops may be used in the committee room
during unmoderated caucusing.
Rules Governing Debate
RULE #12 - AGENDA: The first order of business for
the Committee will be the consideration of the agenda.
• A motion should be made once the committee has come
to order to put a topic area first on the agenda.
• The only topic areas that may be proposed for the
agenda are those listed in the preparation materials.
The Director may modify these topic areas at his or her
discretion. If a committee only has one topic area, the
agenda is automatically set to this topic area.
• A “for-against” Speakers’ List with no comments will
be established to debate the motion. Speakers “for”
will speak in support of the topic area suggested;
speakers “against” will speak in favor of the
other topic area. During this time, no motions for
moderated or unmoderated caucuses will be in order.
• A motion to close debate on setting the agenda will
be in order after the committee has heard at least two
speakers for the motion and at least two against the
motion. In accordance with the normal procedure
described in Rule #16, the Moderator will recognize two
speakers against the motion to close debate, and a vote
of two-thirds is required for closure of debate on the
agenda. If the Speakers’ List on setting the agenda is
exhausted, debate will automatically be closed even if a
motion to close debate would not normally be in order.
• When debate is closed, the committee will move
to an immediate vote on the motion. A simple
majority is required for passage. If the motion fails,
the other topic area will automatically be placed
first on the agenda.
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
• After debate is closed and voting procedures on the
first topic area are concluded, debate will automatically
begin on the second topic area; no motion is necessary.
• The Secretary-General or a representative may call
upon a committee to table debate on the current topic
area so that a more urgent matter may be attended
to immediately. A delegate may then motion to table
debate for a more urgent matter. After a resolution
has been passed on the new topic, the committee will
return to debate on the tabled topic. If all resolutions
on the new topic fail, the committee may return to
debate on the tabled topic area only at the discretion of
the committee Director.
RULE #13 - DEBATE: After the agenda has been
determined, one continuously open Speakers’ List will be
established for the purpose of general debate. This Speakers’
List will be followed for all debate on the topic area, except
when interrupted by procedural motions, discussion of
amendments, or the introduction of a draft resolution.
Speakers may speak generally on the topic area being
considered and may address any working paper or draft
resolution currently on the floor. Delegates may not refer
to any working paper, draft resolution, or amendment that
has not yet been introduced to the committee. An open floor
denotes that the committee is in formal debate.
RULE #14 - UNMODERATED CAUCUS: A motion for
an unmoderated caucus is in order at any time when the floor
is open, prior to closure of debate. Unmoderated caucuses are
not allowed during setting the agenda. The delegate making
the motion must specify a time limit for the caucus, but is not
required to specify a purpose for the caucus. A majority of
members is required for passage. The Moderator may rule the
motion dilatory and may end the unmoderated caucus early,
and these decisions are not subject to appeal.
RULE #15 - MODERATED CAUCUS: The purpose
of the moderated caucus is to facilitate substantive debate at
critical junctures in the discussion. Moderated caucuses are not
allowed during setting the agenda. In a moderated caucus, the
Moderator will temporarily depart from the Speakers’ List and
call on delegates to speak at his or her discretion. A motion
for a moderated caucus is in order at any time when the floor
is open, prior to closure of debate. The delegate making the
motion must briefly explain its purpose and specify a time
limit for the caucus as well as the time limit per speech. A
majority of members is required for passage. No motions are
in order during a moderated caucus. If no delegate wishes to
speak during a moderated caucus, the caucus shall immediately
end. The Moderator may end a moderated caucus early at his
or her discretion. The Moderator may also rule the motion
dilatory, and this decision is subject to appeal.
59
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
RULE #16 - CLOSURE OF DEBATE: When the
floor is open, a delegate may move to close debate on the
substantive or procedural matter under discussion. Delegates
may move to close debate on the general topic, debate on
the agenda, or debate on an amendment. The Moderator
may rule such a motion dilatory. When closure of debate is
moved, the Moderator may recognize two speakers against the
motion. No speaker in favor of the motion will be recognized.
Closure of debate requires the support of two-thirds of
the committee. If the committee is in favor of closure of
debate, the Moderator will declare the closure of the debate
and move the committee to immediate voting procedure. If
a given Speakers’ List is exhausted, debate will automatically
be closed.
RULE #17 - SUSPENSION OR ADJOURNMENT
OF THE MEETING: Whenever the floor is open, a delegate
may move for the suspension of the meeting (suspending
all committee functions until the next meeting), or for the
adjournment of the meeting (suspending all committee
functions for the duration of the conference). The Moderator
may rule such motions out of order; these decisions will not
be subject to appeal. When in order, these motions are not
debatable, but will be immediately put to a vote barring any
motions taking precedence and they require a majority to pass.
A motion to adjourn will be out of order prior to the lapse of
three-quarters of the time allotted for the last meeting of the
committee.
RULE #18 - POSTPONEMENT AND RESUMPTION
OF DEBATE (TABLING): Whenever the floor is open, a
delegate may move for the postponement of debate on a draft
resolution or amendment currently on the floor. The motion,
otherwise known as “tabling,” will require a two-thirds vote
to pass and will be debatable to the extent of two speakers
in favor and two opposed. No debate or action, including
voting, will be allowed on any draft resolution or amendment
on which debate has been postponed. A motion to resume
debate on a draft resolution or amendment on which debate
has been postponed will require a majority to pass and will
be debatable to the extent of two speakers in favor and two
opposed. Resumption of debate will cancel the effects of
postponement of debate.
Rules Governing Speeches
RULE #19 - SPEAKERS’ LISTS: The Committee will
have an open Speakers’ List for the topic area being discussed
(see Rule #13). The Moderator will either set a speaker’s time
or entertain motions to set a speaking time. Motions to change
the speaking time will be entertained in the order in which they
are introduced. Separate Speakers’ Lists will be established as
60 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
needed for procedural motions and debate on amendments.
A country may add its name to a Speakers’ List by submitting
a request in writing to the dais, provided that the nation is
not already on the Speakers’ List, and may remove its name
from the Speakers’ List by submitting a request in writing to
the dais. At any time, a Moderator may call for members that
wish to be added to the Speakers’ List. The names of the next
several countries to speak will always be posted or announced
for the convenience of the committee. A Speakers’ List for
the second topic area will not be opened until the committee
has proceeded to that topic. A motion to close any Speakers’
List is never in order. If the Speakers’ List is exhausted and
there are no more points or motions, debate is automatically
closed.
RULE #20 - SPEECHES: No delegate may address a
session without having previously obtained the permission of
the Moderator. The dais may call a speaker to order if his or
her remarks are not relevant to the subject under discussion
or are offensive to committee members or staff. Speeches
must be made in the third person and no delegate may directly
address another delegation. When a delegate exceeds the
allotted time decided for speeches as described in Rule 19, the
Moderator may call the speaker to order.
RULE #21 - ABSENCE: Delegates who are absent from
committee when recognized by the dais forfeit their time. The
Moderator shall continue with debate.
RULE #22 - YIELDS: After being recognized from the
Speakers’ List, a delegate may yield any or all of his or her time
in one of three ways: to another delegate, to questions, or to the
dais. Please note that only one yield is allowed. A delegate must
declare any yield at the conclusion of his or her speech.
• Yield to another delegate: The speaker’s remaining time
will be offered to that delegate. If the delegate accepts the
yield, the Moderator shall recognize the delegate for the
remaining time. The delegate may not make any further
yields. To turn the floor over to a co-delegate of the same
member state is not considered a yield.
• Yield to questions: Questioners will be selected by the
Moderator and limited to one question each, which will
be limited to thirty seconds. Follow-up questions will not
be allowed. The Moderator will have the right to call to
order any delegate whose question is, in the opinion of
the Moderator, rhetorical, leading, or not designed to elicit
information. Only the speaker’s answers to questions will
be deducted from the speaker’s remaining time.
• Yield to the dais: Such a yield should be made if the
delegate does not wish his or her speech to be subject to
comments (Rule 23). The Moderator will then move to the
next speaker.
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
RULE #23 - COMMENTS: If a speech from a Speakers’
List ends with no yields, the Moderator may recognize delegates,
other than the initial speaker, to comment for thirty seconds
each on the specific content of the speech just completed. The
Moderator may rule a comment out of order if it is irrelevant or
does not pertain directly to the preceding speech. Commenters
may not yield. No comments will be in order during debate on
procedural motions, amendment discussion, or in moderated
caucuses. A maximum of two comments will be taken on any
speech.
RULE #24 - RIGHT OF REPLY: A delegate whose
personal or national integrity has been impugned by another
delegate may submit a request for a Right of Reply only in writing
to the committee staff. The Moderator’s decision whether to
grant the Right of Reply is unappealable, and a delegate granted
a Right of Reply will address the committee at the request of the
Moderator for thirty seconds.
Rules Governing Points
RULE #25 - POINTS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE:
Whenever a delegate experiences personal discomfort which
impairs his or her ability to participate in the proceedings, he or
she may rise to a Point of Personal Privilege. A Point of Personal
Privilege may interrupt a speaker only if the speaker is inaudible
and delegates should use this power with the utmost discretion.
RULE #26 - POINTS OF ORDER: During the discussion
of any matter, a delegate may rise to a Point of Order to indicate
an instance of improper parliamentary procedure. The Point of
Order will be immediately decided by the Moderator in accordance
with these rules of procedure. The Moderator may rule out of
order those points which are improper. A representative rising to
a Point of Order may not speak on the substance of the matter
under discussion. A Point of Order may not interrupt a speaker.
RULE #27 - POINTS OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY:
When the floor is open, a delegate may rise to a Point of
Parliamentary Inquiry to ask the Moderator a question regarding
the rules of procedure. A Point of Parliamentary Inquiry may
never interrupt a speaker. Delegates with substantive questions
should not rise to this point, but should rather approach the
committee staff during caucus or send a note to the dais.
Rules Governing the Path to a
Resolution
RULE #28 - WORKING PAPERS: Delegates may
propose working papers for committee consideration.
Working papers aid discussion of draft resolutions
through formalizing (in written form) ideas expressed
in the committee. Working papers need not be in draft
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
resolution format. Working papers require the approval
of the Director to be copied and distributed, and may
contain signatories of contributors. Once distributed,
delegates may begin to refer to that working paper by
its designated number, but otherwise, debate proceeds
normally on the topic. There is no formal introduction
of working papers; they are considered introduced as
soon as they are distributed. There are no votes for the
approval of working papers.
RULE #29 - SIGNATORIES FOR DRAFT
RESOLUTIONS: A motion to introduce a draft
resolution (see rule #30) will be in order when it receives
the approval of the Director and is signed by 25 members
in the General Assembly, 15 members in the Economic
and Social Council and the Regional Bodies committees
with greater than 40 member states, 8 members in the
Economic and Social Council and the Regional Bodies
committees with less than or equal to 40 member states,
or 4 members in Security Council simulations. The final
number of signatories required for each committee will
be publicized at the beginning of the conference, as it is
contingent on the eventual size of the committee. Signing
a draft resolution need not indicate support of the draft
resolution. Signing a draft resolution only indicates a desire
for the draft resolution to be discussed in committee. The
signatory has no further obligations. A delegate may be
a signatory on more than one resolution. There are no
official sponsors or authors of draft resolutions.
RULE #30 - INTRODUCTION OF DRAFT
RESOLUTIONS: Once a draft resolution has the
requisite number of signatories, has been approved by
the Director, and has been distributed, a delegate may
move to introduce the draft resolution. A procedural vote
is then taken to determine whether the resolution shall
be introduced. Should the motion receive the simple
majority required to pass, the draft resolution shall be
considered introduced and on the floor. More than one
draft resolution may be on the floor at any one time, but
at most one draft resolution may be passed per topic area.
A draft resolution will remain on the floor until debate
on that specific draft resolution is postponed or a draft
resolution on that topic area has been passed. Debate
on draft resolutions proceeds according to the general
Speakers’ List on the topic area, and delegates may then
begin to refer to that draft resolution by its designated
number. No delegate may refer to a draft resolution until
it is formally introduced.
RULE #31 - CLARIFICATORY POINTS ON
RESOLUTIONS: At the Moderator’s discretion, he or
she may recognize a delegate or group of delegates rising
61
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
to answer clarificatory points on an introduced draft
resolution, or the Moderator may answer these points
him or herself. These points are non-substantive and
typically refer to typographical errors or mistakes in the
punctuation and spelling of the document in question.
The Moderator’s decision on this matter is not subject
to appeal. Any substantive points will be ruled out of
order during this period, and the Moderator may end this
“clarificatory question-answer period” for any reason,
including time constraints.
RULE #32 - AMENDMENTS: Delegates may amend
any draft resolution which has been introduced. Only
one amendment may be introduced at any given time.
The motion to introduce an amendment is considered a
procedural motion, and the final vote on the amendment
is a substantive vote. An amendment must have the
approval of the Director and be signed by 12 members in
the General Assembly, 10 members in the Economic and
Social Council and the Regional Bodies committees with
greater than 40 member states, 6 members in the Economic
and Social Council and the Regional Bodies committees
with less than or equal to 40 member states, or 3 members
in Security Council simulations. The final numbers for
required signatures will be posted at the beginning of the
conference, as they are contingent on the eventual size of
the committee. Amendments are numbered in the order
in which they are introduced. Since there are no friendly
amendments, all amendments must be voted on by the
entire committee to be included in the draft resolution.
Amendments to amendments are out of order; however,
an amended part of a resolution may be further amended
at a later time. Like draft resolutions, there are no official
sponsors of amendments. Preambulatory phrases may
also be amended.
• A motion to introduce an approved amendment may
be made when the floor is open. Amendments do
not need to be introduced in the order in which
they are received. If the motion receives the simple
majority required to pass, the Moderator will read
the amendment aloud, time permitting. General
debate on the topic area will be suspended, and a
Speakers’ List will be established for and against the
amendment.
• A motion to close debate will be in order after
the committee has heard at least two speakers
for the amendment and at least two against or if
the Speaker’s List has been exhausted. Otherwise,
following the normal procedure of Rule 15, the
Moderator will recognize at most two speakers
against the motion to close debate on the
amendment, and a vote of two-thirds is required for
closure.
62 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
• When debate is closed on the amendment, the
committee will move to an immediate substantive
vote on whether or not to adopt the amendment.
Votes on amendments are substantive. If this
vote receives the simple majority required, the
amendment will be considered part of the draft
resolution. After the vote, debate will resume
according to the general Speakers’ List on the topic.
Rules Governing Voting
RULE #33 - PROCEDURAL VOTING: All voting
is considered procedural with the exception of voting
on draft resolutions and amendments. Delegates must
vote on all procedural motions, and no abstentions are
allowed. A motion that requires a simple majority needs
more affirmative than negative votes to pass. A motion
that requires two-thirds to pass requires exactly or more
than two-thirds of the votes to be affirmative. In Security
Council simulations, a procedural motion requires nine
votes to pass. If there is an insufficient number of speakers
for/against a motion, the motion will automatically fail/
pass.
RULE #34 - SUBSTANTIVE VOTING: The only
substantive voting will be voting on draft resolutions and
amendments. All other votes will be procedural votes.
After debate has been closed on the general topic area,
the committee will move into final voting procedures
and the chambers are then sealed. At that point, only the
following points and motions will be entertained: Division
of the Question, Reordering Draft Resolutions, Motion
for a Roll Call Vote, Point of Personal Privilege, Point
of Parliamentary Inquiry, and Point of Order. If there
are no such motions, the committee will vote on all draft
resolutions. For substantive voting, each country will have
one vote. Each vote may be a “Yes,” “No,” or “Abstain.”
Members who abstain from voting are considered as not
voting. All matters will be voted upon using placards by
default, except if a motion for a roll call vote is accepted.
A simple majority requires “Yes” votes from more than
half the members voting, as in more affirmative votes
than negative votes. Once any resolution has been passed,
the voting procedure is closed, as only one resolution may
be passed on a topic area. In Security Council simulations,
a substantive vote requires nine votes to pass, and the
five permanent members of the United Nations have the
power to veto any substantive vote. In the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, any member has the power to veto
any substantive vote.
RULE #35 - DIVISION OF THE QUESTION: After
debate on any topic has been closed, a delegate may move
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
that the operative parts of a draft resolution be voted
on separately. Preambulatory clauses and sub-operative
clauses may not be removed by division of the question.
• The motion can be debated to the extent of at most
two speakers for and two against, to be followed by
an immediate procedural vote on that motion.
• If the motion receives the simple majority required
to pass, the Moderator will take motions on how to
divide the question and prioritize them from most
severe to least severe.
• The committee will then vote on the motions in
the order set by the Moderator. If no division
passes, the resolution remains intact. Once a
division, requiring a simple majority, has been
passed, the resolution will be divided accordingly,
and a separate substantive vote will be taken on
each divided part to determine whether or not it is
included in the final draft. If all of the operative
parts of the substantive proposal are rejected, the
draft resolution will be considered to have been
rejected as a whole.
• Parts of the draft resolution that are subsequently
passed will be recombined into a final document.
The final document will be put to a substantive vote
as a whole, requiring a simple majority of those
voting “yes” to pass.
RULE #36 - REORDERING DRAFT
RESOLUTIONS: After debate is closed, a motion to
change the order of voting on draft resolutions currently
on the floor will be in order. This motion takes precedence
over a motion to divide the question on a resolution. The
delegate raising this motion will indicate the desired
ordering of draft resolutions. The default order will be
the order in which the draft resolutions were introduced.
There will be no debate on this motion, and it will require
a simple majority to pass. Only one such motion can
pass in each round of voting procedures. The reordering
proposals will be voted on in the order that they were
received; there is no precedence of one over the other.
Hence, the Moderator will first take all proposals for
reordering, and then proceed to call for votes on each
one, until one of them passes.
RULE #37 - ROLL CALL VOTING: After debate is
closed on any topic area, any delegate may request a roll
call vote on any draft resolution being considered. Such
a motion may be made from the floor and agreed on by
a third of the committee. A motion for a roll call vote
is in order only for the final substantive vote on a draft
resolution.
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011
• In a roll call vote, the Moderator will call countries
in alphabetical order starting with a selected
member.
• In the first sequence, delegates may vote “Yes,”
“No,” “Abstain,” or “Pass.” A delegate may request
the right to explain his/her vote only when the
delegate is voting against the policy of his/her
country; such a vote is termed “with Rights.” The
delegate may only explain an affirmative or negative
vote, not an abstention from voting.
• A delegate who passes during the first sequence of
the roll call must vote either “Yes” or “No” during
the second sequence. The same delegate may not
request the right to explain his/her vote. The
Moderator will then call for changes of votes.
• All delegates who had requested the right of
explanation will be granted time to explain their
votes, not to exceed thirty seconds.
• The Moderator will then announce the outcome of
the vote.
Precedence of Motions
PRECEDENCE: Motions will be considered in the following
order of precedence:
1. Point of Personal Privilege (Rule 25)
2. Point of Order (Rule 26)
3. Point of Parliamentary Inquiry (Rule 27)
4. Adjournment of the Meeting (Rule 17)
5. Suspension of the Meeting (Rule 17)
6. Unmoderated Caucus (Rule 14)
7. Moderated Caucus (Rule 15)
8. Motion to Change Speaking Time (Rule 19)
9. Introduction of a Draft Resolution (Rule 30)
10. Introduction of an Amendment (Rule 32)
11. Postponement of Debate (Rule 18)
12. Resumption of Debate (Rule 18)
13. Closure of Debate (Rule 16)
At the start of final voting procedure, only the following points
and motions are in order, in the following order of precedence:
1. Point of Personal Privilege (Rule 25)
2. Point of Order (Rule 26)
3. Point of Parliamentary Inquiry (Rule 27)
4. Reordering Draft Resolutions (Rule 36)
5. Division of the Question (Rule 35)
6. Motion for a Roll Call Vote (Rule 37)
63
 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure

SAMPLE POSITION PAPER

Delegation: The Russian Federation
Committee: Disarmament and International Security Committee
Topic A: Separatism

The Russian Federation considers separatism to be one of the gravest dangers facing the world today. Separatist groups
threaten peace and security around the world. From developing countries like the Philippines to developed countries like Spain,
the stability of both the internal structure of states and of the international world order is under attack. The danger of separatism
has grown even greater in recent years, as separatist groups in many countries have become increasingly linked both with religious
extremism and with international terrorist networks. Though separatism once could be considered an internal affair, it now must
be seen within the context of international security. An attack on one country by a separatist group is frequently an attack on
the international system itself, as separatist groups increasingly use terrorist tactics designed to destabilize an entire region. Thus,
it is essential that the Disarmament and International Security Committee consider ways to address the destabilizing impact of
separatism. In particular, Russia believes that the committee, while reiterating the UN’s condemnation of separatism in general,
must work to provide aid to states victimized by separatist groups and must facilitate the means by which the international
connections of separatists groups can be analyzed.

As a country particularly victimized by separatist movements, Russia strongly opposes any attempt to give legitimacy to any
group that uses terrorist tactics and any move by the UN to recognize a so-called “right to secession.” The Russian Federation
has contended with separatist terrorists in Chechnya and the North Caucasus for over a decade, and it believes that its experience
in this region gives ample reasons for why the UN should never recognize separatist groups, except as agreed to by the victimized
state. As Russia has learned over the course of the conflict in Chechnya, “separatists” are frequently aided by international
terrorist networks, including those preaching religious extremism. For example, the perpetrators of the atrocity at Beslan in
2004 included two Arabs. It is believed that a great deal of the funding that goes to Chechen separatists comes from religious
extremists in the Islamic world. Furthermore, Chechnya provides numerous examples of the vile tactics used by many separatist
groups; whether by setting bombs in Moscow apartments, murdering children in Beslan, invading civilian neighborhoods in
Nalchik, or raiding homes in Chechnya itself, Chechen separatists seem to stop at nothing to further their end. These are not
“freedom fighters.” These are terrorists.

The Russian Federation accepts that UN mediation can be extremely useful in ending wars, including wars of separatism;
however, it insists that any UN presence can only come with the consent of the UN member state involved, and there should
never be an assumption that the end-point of negotiations will be secession. Russia sees the Sudanese experience as the one
that should be the framework for any future UN involvement in secessionist conflicts. UN mediation was largely responsible for
ending the Sudanese Civil War, but only because the UN’s presence at the negotiating table came as a result of a request from
the Sudanese government, because the SPLA was seen to be the legitimate voice of the South Sudanese people, and because the
SPLA was not a terrorist organization. The negotiations were successful, ended the war, and created a framework of autonomy
for South Sudan; however, if any of these factors had been absent, peace would have been impossible. Therefore, Russia believes
that while it is possible for the UN to establish a framework for dealing with separatist groups, it must also work to determine
the legitimacy of those groups, the legitimacy of their demands, and any links between those groups and international terrorism;
furthermore, it must remember that, from a political rather than military perspective, separatism is an internal issue, and must
be treated as such.

64 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure

SAMPLE WORKING PAPER

The purpose of the Working Paper is to clearly communicate the interests of one or more countries. Please note that there
is no set format for working papers; the following is just one example of a possible working paper. To facilitate the process,
working papers should include the name and topic of the committee and should list the countries which wrote the paper.
Pending the approval of the Director, working papers may be copied and distributed to the committee.

Committee: UN Conference on Trade and Development

Topic A: Generalized System of Preferences
Submitted by Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador

Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador believe that a GSP should be set up so that Lesser-Developed Countries (LDCs) receive preferential
treatment from Developed Countries (DCs). To that end we propose:

1. Each DC reduce their tariffs to the lowest level possible. This level will be determined by the below created
subcommittee,

2. Bilateral trade agreements should be pursued for further reductions in tariffs.

3. Trade preferences should be granted in the following areas:

Agriculture
Manufactures
Semi-manufactures
Raw materials

4. Decisions on product coverage by preference giving nations be made in consultation with the affected LDC. Annual re-
evaluation of coverage shall take place with the LDC with disputed going to the below-created subcommittee.

5. A subcommittee of UNCTAD should be created with equal membership of developed and developing countries. This
subcommittee would have the following powers:
a. To mediate disputes between preference givers and receivers
b. Make recommendations which all countries should follow
c. Serve as a forum for airing grievances relating to the GSP
d. Report regularly to the Secretary-General
Membership should be as follows:
a. Five permanent nations from the DCs
b. Five permanent nations from the LDCs and LLDCs
c. Ten members elected annually by UNCTAD

Voting rights will have to be worked out, but the UN format for subcommittees seems best. Of course, we are amenable to
change.

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 65

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure

RESOLUTION FORMAT GUIDE

Heading
The title should be in capital letters, above the main body of the resolution. The title consists of a number (signifying the
first or second topic area being discussed), followed by another number (identifying the individual resolution). For example, the
first draft resolution on the first topic area discussed would be titled “Draft Resolution 1.1” accordingly. The committee Director
will assign the number once the resolution has been approved.
On the left margin and two lines below the title should be:
(1) the committee name
(2) the topic addressed by the resolution, and
(3) the signatories of the resolution.
NOTE: There are no sponsors of a resolution.
Body
The resolution is written in the format of a long sentence. Just as grammatical rules make a language more uniform in its
usage, so is the resolution in its format.
The resolution begins with “The General Assembly,” for all GA committees and with “The Economic and Social Council,”
for all ECOSOC committees. The Regional Bodies and the Security Council use their own names as the introductory line. The
rest of the resolution consists of phrases and clauses with the first word of each phrase/clause underlined.
The next section, consisting of Preambulatory Phrases, describes the problem being addressed, recalls past actions taken,
explains the purpose of the resolution, and offers support for the operative clauses that follow. Each clause in the preamble
begins with an underlined word and ends with a comma.
Operative Clauses are numbered and state the action to be taken by the body. These clauses all begin with present tense
active verbs, which are generally stronger words than those used in the Preamble. Each operative clause is followed by a semi-
colon except the last, which ends with a period. Any sub-operative clauses (or sub-sub-clauses, etc,) also should end with a semi-
colon. There should be no periods in the body of the resolution.
Content
Of course, the most important characteristic of the final resolution is the content, which will be carefully scrutinized by the
Director before approval. A well-written resolution demonstrates:
• Familiarity with the problem. Relevant background information and previous United Nations actions are included.
• Recognition of the issues. Arguments on the topic are specified early. At a minimum, the resolution should address in
some form all the issues listed in the “Questions a Resolution Must Answer” section of the Study guide.
• A clear and concise style. Every clause and phrase should have a purpose.
• Good form. Each phrase and clause should follow the exact format described above.

66 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
Preambulatory Phrases
Affirming Guided by
Alarmed by Having adopted
Approving Having considered
Aware of Having considered further
Believing Having devoted attention
Bearing in mind Having examined
Cognizant of Having heard
Confident Having received
Contemplating Having studied
Convinced Keeping in mind
Declaring Noting further
Deeply concerned Noting with regret
Deeply conscious Noting with satisfaction
Deeply convinced Noting with deep concern
Deeply disturbed Noting further
Deeply regretting Noting with approval
Desiring Observing
Emphasizing Realizing
Expecting Reaffirming
Expressing its appreciation Recalling
Expressing its satisfaction Recognizing
Fulfilling Referring
Fully aware Seeking
Fully alarmed Taking into account
Fully believing Taking note
Further deploring Viewing with appreciation
Further recalling Welcoming

Operative Clauses
Accepts Further reminds
Affirms Further recommends
Approves Further requests
Authorizes Further resolves
Calls for Has resolved
Calls upon Notes
Confirms Proclaims
Considers Reaffirms
Declares accordingly Recommends
Deplores Reminds
Draws attention Regrets
Designates Requests
Emphasizes Resolves
Encourages Solemnly affirms
Endorses Strongly condemns
Expresses its appreciation Supports
Expresses its hope Takes note of
Further invites Trusts
Further proclaims Urges

Harvard National Model United Nations 2011 67

 Guide to Delegate Preparation and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure

SAMPLE RESOLUTION
DRAFT RESOLUTION 1.1

Committee: Commission on Information Regulation

Topic: International Newsflow Imbalance

The Economic and Social Council,

Recalling its Resolution A/36/89 of 16 December 1981, “The Declaration on Fundamental Principles Concerning the
Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding,”
Further recalling Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to...receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,”
Recognizing that the problem of newsflow imbalance is that two-way information among countries of a region is either
nonexistent or insufficient and information exchanged between regions of the world is inadequate,
Realizing the need for all sovereign nations to maintain their integrity and still play an active role in the international system,

1. Recommends that a three-level information interchange system be established on the national, regional, and international
levels to ameliorate the current problems of newsflow imbalance, to operate as follows:
a. Each regions’ member nations will report their national information and receive the information of other nations in
their region from the regional level of this interchange system;
b. Nations will decide the character of the newsflow media best suited to the need of their sovereign territory, be this
printed, audio, or audio-visual;
c. Regional News Gathering Agencies will serve to gather information from the nations in their region, and these
boards will have no editorial discretion and will serve to forward all information to the International Board;
d. Each regional agency will be composed of representatives from every member nation of the nation of the region;
e. The primary function of the International Board will be to translate information accumulated from the regional
news gathering agencies;
f. The secondary purpose will be to transmit all information gathered back to the member nations via the regional news
gathering agencies;
g. In order to expedite the transfer of information from the international to regional level the international board will
utilize a UN frequency on a European Economic Community satellite;

2. Urges the establishment of the University of International Communications, which will be based in Geneva, Switzerland,
with the following aims:
a. The University and branches will be established with the express purpose of bringing together world views and
facilitating the transfer of technology;
b. All member nations of the United Nations will be equally represented at the University;
c. Incentives will be offered to students of journalism and communications at the University to return to their countries
to teach upon completion of instruction;
d. The instructors of the regional education centers will be comprised of a multi-partisan coalition of educators from
throughout the world;

3. Calls for the continued use of funds from the International Program for the Development of Communications, Special
Account, The United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Development
Programme, and other sources of funding including national governments and private donors;

4. Recommends that the distribution of funds be decided by the International Programme for the Development of
Communication (IPDC).

68 Harvard National Model United Nations 2011