Strawberry Fields High School

Model United Nations Conference 2019

UNITED NATIONS
SECURITY COUNCIL
Agenda 1 : Militarisation of the Arctic
Agenda 2 : Recognition of Masood Azhar as a global terrorist
Freeze Date : 27 February, 2019

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 INDEX
S. No. Topic Page Number
AGENDA 1

1 Letter from the executive 1

2 Introduction 2-4

3 Military Activity since the 1990s 5-6

4 International Frameworks 7-8

5 Important Terms and Definitions (as per the UNCLOS) 9-10

A Territorial Sea 9

B Contagious Zone 9

C Exclusive Economic Zone 9

D Continental Shelf 9-10

E High Seas 10

6 Territorial Claims 11

7 Bloc Positions 12-13

A Russian Federation 12

B The United States of America 12

C People’s Republic of China 12-13

D Canada 13

E European Union 13

F Denmark 13

G Norway 13

8 Questions to Consider 14

9 References 15
 AGENDA 2

1 Timeline 16-17

2 Previous Attempts to Recognize Masood Azhar as a Global 18

Terrorist

3 Background 19-20

A Masood Azhar 19

B Jaish-E-Mohammed 19

C Pulwama Attack 19-20

4 Questions to Consider 21

5 References 22
 1
Letter from the Executive Board

Greetings to all delegates of the UNSC, it is a pleasure to have you in attendance

and we look forward to working with you. This letter is intended to hint at what we
expect of the debate and what it shall revolve around. We reassure you that the
flow of the debate and direction of the committee shall be influenced directly by
your choices in the committee.

That being said, the committee is expected to deal with the following two agendas
- Militarisation of the Arctic Recognition of Masood Azhar Alvi as a global
terrorist (freeze date : 27th February 2019) and the events that have occurred (how
the events unfold shall be brought to your notice); what action, if any can the
Security Council take, whether it should or not keeping in mind the risks
associated with the dynamics of the Cold War, and whether the Security Council’s
action or inaction reveals cracks in the otherwise “democratic” setup of the United
Nations; the question of the Veto, does it create a hierarchy of power in the world
which not only forces non-veto countries to bend to the will of the veto wielding
countries at some point but also limits the effectiveness of the Security Council and
creates a de facto culture in the world of smaller powers working to please and
gain the allegiance of certain veto powers thereby creating the dynamic of
dependence, while allowing veto powers to effectively “get away” with certain
things.

Therefore, the discussion shall be more along the lines of principles, technicalities,
past events and perhaps even legality. Also, we have not discussed the second
agenda at all in the guide, as we believe that any factual or substantive input on it
would sway the debate in a direction similar to the original turn of events. The
committee, post discussion on the above matters and on the basis of the positions
taken by members as a result of that discussion, is free to make the choice to frame
or not to frame a resolution addressing all or some of the matters mentioned above.
In addition to this, it is advised to be thorough with everything contained in the
background guide. We shall also take time in the beginning of the committee to
clear any doubt regarding the specifics of an emergency special session.

Lastly, given the nature of international politics and the scope of the committee as
the Security Council, the delegates are advised not to restrict the scope of debate
by fixating on the agenda already at hand.

Please feel free to reach out in case of any doubts or queries.

Regards,

Prathmesh Tripathi Chaitanya Gupta

President Vice-President
Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019
 2
AGENDA - 1

Introduction

The Arctic is a region located at the northernmost part, generally known to be

the area around the North Pole that includes the Arctic Ocean as well as parts of
Canada, Russia, the United States, Greenland, as a territory of Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. There are, however, different models
about the region’s boundaries. Since its appearance in the geopolitics arena, it
has been very difficult to determine its borders, and its territory has been, for a
while now, an issue of controversy among many nations.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the global economy went
through a period of changes, which modified the international scenario.
Technologies developed during the Industrial Revolution have enabled the
increase of the production, and, in this sense, the seeking of new markets and
new raw material sources had become essential. These needs resulted in an
imperialist race - marked by the competition among the capitalist countries –
that would lead to World War I.

Under these circumstances, the Arctic exploration was even more important to
control new routes, and thus, reach other markets.

Another aspect that impacted international politics and contributed to the

interest in the Arctic was the study of an English geographer, Halford
Mackinder. In 1904, he formulated the Heartland Theory, in which he argues
that the “geographical pivot of history” is located in the north and center of the
Eurasian continent, embracing the Russian territory and extending up to the
Arctic Ocean coasts5. According to Mackinder (1904), this region contained
large quantities of natural resources and the country that controlled it would be
able to, in the first place, develop a powerful terrestrial hegemony and, also,
canalise the region to build a maritime power. It would be the rise of a power
with unique capabilities in the International System (Mello 1994). Since then,
the Arctic dispute gained a new strategic nature and countries increasingly
invested in it.

At the end of World War II, the Arctic region experienced a near total
transformation in strategic and political significance. While the Norwegian Sea
and the Barents Sea were hot zones in the confrontation between Nazi Germany
(via occupied Norway) and the Soviet Union during that war, the areas above
the Arctic Circle were largely unexplored, in a military point of view. Such
isolation would change dramatically with the polarisation of the international
system around its two then-new superpowers, the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019
 3
A main factor that accounts for this surge in strategic importance of the Arctic
was the feature of presenting the shortest distance between these two newly
arisen, antagonistic superpowers. This factor was quickly realised by war
strategists -the Alaska-Siberian route (ALSIB), put in operation in 1942 to
provide US- manufactured aircraft to the Soviet war effort, made use of the
airspace within the Arctic Circle (The Voice of Russia 2008). The utilisation of
this route exemplifies the potential for transcontinental communication between
the Eurasian landmass and the American continent; however, while having been
used for anti-Axis cooperation during the Second World War, such potential
would turn into fuel for competition for strategic dominance in the bipolar
international environment of the Cold War. In other words, the United States
and the Soviet Union were virtual territorial neighbours in the Arctic region,
with the vast Siberian coast facing or bordering Alaska (United States) and
many US political allies (i.e. Canada, Denmark through Greenland, and
Norway).

Another important aspect to consider is the significance of the Arctic to the

Soviet Navy. Although predated by a civilian flotilla, the Soviet Northern Fleet
was founded in 1931 with the goals of supporting the 14th Army, protecting the
Soviet northwestern region and maintaining the sea lines of communication
(SLOC) (Åtland 2008). With its headquarters in Severomorsk, Kola Peninsula,
the fleet soon became vital for the Soviet Union under the light of the
developments of World War II. Therefore, by the end of the war, it was already
a large, powerful branch of the Soviet Navy, unrestricted in its access to high,
warm seas.7 Also, the Northern Fleet could communicate with the Pacific Fleet,
centred in Vladivostok in the Far East, through routes in the Arctic Ocean.
These two fleets received, respectively, two thirds and one third of all Soviet-
build nuclear submarines during the existence of the USSR, which highlights
the importance given to these two arms of the Navy.

From the 1950s on, the Arctic region became a stage for tight military
escalation between the United States and the Soviet Union. Through
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) development and placement,
production of nuclear-powered attack submarines and the threat of cruise
missiles carried by bomber planes, the two countries poured resources into
building up their capabilities in the area vis-à-vis one another. Most
prominently, preventive radar systems were built and installed across the region
by both Americans and their allies and by Soviets.

The Distance Early Warning System (DEW) was developed and built by the
United States and Canada between 1954 and 1957; it was comprised of a line of
anti-bomber aircraft radars called “the DEW line” crossing Alaska, northern
Canada and Greenland (DEW Line History 2011). The Ballistic Missile Early

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 4
Warning System (BMEWS) was built in 1959 and complemented the DEW
line, featuring two anti-missile radars in Thule Air Base (Greenland) and Clear
Air Force Station (Alaska) of the United States, and in RAF Fylingdales station
(United Kingdom) of the United Kingdom Royal Force (Global Security 2013).
A similar system started being built by the Soviet Union in 1963-4, called
Sistema Preduprezhdeniya o Raketnom Napadnii (SPRK) ,which featured anti-
ballistic missile radars spread around the Soviet territory. Among the first radars
to be built, Olenegorsk (located in the Kola peninsula) and Skrunda (in Latvia)
had missile-detecting ranges that together covered the whole Greenland-
Iceland-United Kingdom area - therefore neutralising its boundary states,
coincidentally United States’ strategic partners throughout the Cold War. Both
the Americans and Soviets built underwater detecting posts as well.

It should also be noted that specific natural conditions of the Arctic

environment also provided a cover-up for military attacks via submarine-
launched ballistic missiles, once the Arctic Ocean’s deep waters allowed nuclear
submarines to stay submerged for weeks or months. Moreover, the creaking
noise of the marginal ice zone produced favourable conditions for these
submarines not to be detected by the aforementioned early warning systems . In
light of the Cold War international structure, the production of nuclear
submarines became paramount to regional dominance in the Arctic. Between
1955 and 2004, the Russian Navy built 249 nuclear submarines; still in 1986,
the Northern Fleet alone consisted of 180 nuclear submarines . At the same
time, the United States Navy disposed of 140 submarines in total.

Beyond the military build-up, other factors point to the militarisation of

regional affairs during the Cold War. Under the icy waters, submarines
constantly patrolled the Arctic, engaging in mutual espionage. Moreover,
approximately 265 nuclear tests were conducted by the USSR in the Novaya
Zemlya archipelago (north of Siberia); a few underground nuclear detonations
took place in the American island of Amchitka, off the Alaskan coast and near
the US-USSR maritime border (IAEA, 2004). In sum, throughout the Cold War
era, little space was left in the Arctic region for matters other than strategy, the
flexing of military might and nuclear deterrence.

In 1987, however, the international system saw the first major move toward a
cooperative framework in dealing with the Arctic coming from one of the
superpowers. On October 1st, then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a
speech which came to be known as the “Murmansk Initiative”, outlining
objectives to ease the confrontational nature of Arctic international politics, as
well as to foster cooperation in scientific development, environmental issues,
etc.. In the following years, the Soviet Union also invited observers from
Nordic states to watch its military exercises, a request responded with refusal.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 5
Military activity since the 1990s

With the dismantlement of the Soviet Union in 1991 into its successor republics
and the consequent end of the Cold War confrontation, military activity in the
Arctic region underwent significant changes . Many of the (now Russian)
Northern Fleet submarines were decommissioned; the DEW line sites were
handed back to Canada by the United States in 1990, and in 1993 a formal
deactivation ceremony was held in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwestern Territories,
Canada (Dew Line History 2011). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s,
cooperation initiatives in diverse fields related to the Arctic mushroomed in the
international scene. The most prominent was the foundation of the Arctic
Council in 1996.

In spite of that, a deeper analysis should see that the international system
restructuring provided a new political framework in which other Arctic actors
were able to step up their actions in the region. In other words, with the United
States redirecting its attentions to new security threats and the Soviet Union
broken up in resource-scarce republics, it would be the time not only for
regional cooperation, but also for different kinds of competition. With the
prospects of an increasingly ice-free Arctic region looming large, countries are
now eyeing not only the strategic importance of the North Pole surrounding
areas, but also its economic profitability due to untapped oil and gas resources
and shorter international commercial routes.

Canada has taken some of the stiffest actions toward regional assertion in the
Arctic. Under the “Use it or lose it” motto, the Canadian government has
restructured its foreign policy to focus in its northern territories, a vast landmass
facing the Arctic Ocean. A Canadian Forces Arctic Training Center is planned to
be built in Resolute Bay, well into the Arctic Circle In addition, the numerical
expansion of the Canadian Rangers and the building of a $100 million-worth
deep water docking port has also been announced.

As the heir state of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation maintained most
of the Soviet firepower capabilities under its belt, but lost naval unanimity in
the Caspian, Black and Baltic seas with the birth of smaller republics.
Therefore, Russia is even more a “northern country” than the Soviet Union was,
highlighting Arctic’s historical importance for its political calculations. Moscow
has created a Federal Security Service Coastal Border Guard and is investing on
new double-acting tankers and cargo vessels, while still operating the largest
icebreaker fleet in the world . In 2007, Russia also restarted patrolling the Arctic
Russia has military links with Norway (a NATO member), holding their Pomor
joint naval exercises every year since 2010. The two countries settled a 40-year

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 6
dispute over the border of the Barents Sea in April 27 of the same year, thus
beginning to cooperate toward a common goal . Oslo moved the headquarters of
the Norwegian Armed Forces from Jåttå in the south to Reitan, near Bodø, just
north of the Arctic Circle, in August 2009. In 2010 the coastguard’s
headquarters were also moved north .Another Arctic player, Denmark, has
created a unified Arctic Command and an Arctic Response Force, besides
investing $117 million in military upgrades.

Presently, the United States seems to be the only Arctic country whose
defensive goals do not include a manifested priority toward the protection of
national interests in the High North. Nevertheless, in April 2011, two US
nuclear attack submarines participated in the Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2011,
operating in the Arctic, and a camp was established 150 nautical miles (278
kilometres) north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

In sum, the recent military developments in the region shed some light on the
importance of its underlying causes. In other words, issues such as political
prominence and territorial sovereignty in the Arctic have become in dissociable
from the economic prospects to which global warming and the progressive
melting ice cap signal, both in terms of resource exploitation and of commercial
routes.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 7
International Frameworks

Territory is a crucial element to create and maintain a State. In order for a State
to practice its sovereignty, it must have a territory where its authority is the
strongest. However, this State’s sovereignty is in theory limited to the territory
it owns. The acquisition of territories by States throughout history followed
different patterns of occupation, such as settlement, territorial wars, domination
of other peoples (and, therefore, their territories), and, in some cases, purchase.
However, some territorial questions persist throughout history and are still
object of discussion in international forums.

The disputes over sea territories have led to a series of international conventions
to define how far the sovereignty of coastal States extends, and the conditions
under which other countries may use foreign waters to navigate and develop
economic and scientific activities. The first breakthrough in this International
Law branch was made in the 1st United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS I), at Geneva in 1956. During UNCLOS I, four important
conventions were discussed: the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone; the Convention on the Continental Shelf; the Convention on
the High Seas and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living
Resources of the High Seas (Santos 2007, 73). These conventions were
concluded in 1958 and, afterwards, signed by many countries.

The discussions on this topic continued and a second Conference on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS II) was held in 1960 at Geneva, having no similar results to
the first’s ones. The matter became once more subject of an international
meeting in 1973, when the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea was held
(UNCLOS III), in New York. This conference was responsible for the creation
of the main international law treaty on the area, the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also known as the Montego Bay
Convention, a major step to a future international consensual framework that
would guide international relations under common rules. UNCLOS III did not
reach such an important achievement easily, having lasted for another nine
years in order to create the document, which has not yet been approved and/or
ratified by many countries.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea maintained the validity of the other
conventions on the matter, signed in UNCLOS I, commonly known as the
Geneva Convention. It established a common set of terms used to refer to the
coastal parts that comprise a State’s territory or are under a State’s sovereignty,
as well as the rules used to define the ownership of these areas, and the
conditions under which other States are allowed to make use of these areas for
various purposes.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 8
The convention also sets the mechanisms that shall be used to define territorial
disputes that concern water bodies (UNCLOS, 1982). The agreement has been
signed and ratified by 164 countries and the European Union. Some 15 others
have signed it another 17 widely recognised countries have not yet signed it (ten
of which are landlocked). The only Arctic State who has not yet signed nor
ratified the convention is the United States (UN 2013).

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 9

Important Terms and Definitions (as per the UNCLOS)

(A) Territorial Sea

Territorial Sea is the part over which a coastal State’s sovereignty is fully extended.
The country enjoys full rights of navigation, conduction of economic activities and
occupation over this area. A country’s territorial sea shall be defined by the same
country to which it belongs through an official document. However, the extension
of a territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles10, measured from baselines
determined in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and
cannot interfere in the right of other coastal States to their own territorial sea and to
their access to higher seas.

(B) Contiguous Zone

It is the zone that is contiguous to a coastal State’s territorial sea. The coastal State
has the right to control this area in order to prevent and/or punish activities that
may infringe its customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws and regulations
within its territory or territorial sea. The country does not possess the right of
ownership over this area, which shall not extend 24 nautical miles12 from the
baselines used to define the country’s territorial sea (UNCLOS 1982, Part II,
Section 4)

(C) Exclusive Economic Zone

It is an area beyond a coastal State’s territorial sea over which some of the State’s
rights are extended. Therefore, the country has sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether
living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and
its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and
exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents
and winds (UNCLOS1982, Part V, Article 56) over its Exclusive Economic Zone.

This zone can be extended up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines used to
define the country’s territorial sea. Special conditions of exploitation, in order to
create joint exploration regimes, might apply if countries in the region are
landlocked or geographically disadvantaged14 (UNCLOS 1982, Part II, Section 5).

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 10

(D) Continental Shelf

It is the area that comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land
territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured
where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance
(UNCLOS 1982, Part VI, Article 76, paragraph 1).

(E) High Seas

All parts of the sea which do not correspond to a coastal State’s internal waters,
archipelagic waters (applicable only to archipelagic States), territorial sea or
Exclusive Economic Zone shall remain free to all States, whether coastal or
landlocked. This part of the seas and oceans is called high seas, where a special set
of rights and duties is applicable to all state aiming to ensure the maintenance of
the area’s freedom and its conservation (UNCLOS 1982, Article VII).

The ownership of Arctic territories (either land or ice) and, therefore, the resources
there available became a matter of discussion in the beginning of the 20th century,
when the form and rights of occupation were an issue treated in both the political
and the academic spheres. By then, the common interpretation of the Arctic status
was of a ‘res nullius’ region, where no sovereignty was yet applied and, therefore it
was available for occupation16. The discussion went on to state that the principle
of ‘uti possidetis juris’ should be used to determine the ownership of some of the
territories and that other methods should be used to define the status of unoccupied
regions .


Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 11
Territorial Claims

A common theory used to define the division of the Arctic region among the Arctic
States was the sectors’ theory. This theory states that a country has the ownership
rights over a spherical triangular region above its territory (this triangle has as
vertex the pole, as sides meridians and as base either a parallel or a natural
geographical line) (Costa 1951, Santos 2007, 46). The theory is based on principles
such as the intention to develop the region’s occupation, the possibility of
extending it in the same patterns of security, integrity and defence of the occupied
part, and the control over the adjacent territories (Santos 2007, 46). The sectors’
theory was first discussed in the 1906 Naval Club’s meeting in New York. It was
first rejected by Canada, but later accepted and applied implicitly by the Canadian
and Russian governments. It was commonly accepted by a long time, even though
other countries did not apply it. However, its original formulation did not address
matters such as the annexation of frozen waters. It was later hardly criticised and it
ceased to be used to justify the occupation of territories.

As approaches stating that the Arctic was 'res nullius’ and, therefore, available for
occupation became less popular, the concept of ‘res communis’ gained
importance18. According to this principle the Arctic region could not be occupied,
remaining an international common territory. The rise of this categorisation
occurred in a moment when the Antarctic region’s status was also debated,
resulting in the Antarctic Treaty, which gave the region an international status,
where only pacific activities can be conducted, by the signatory countries (even
though it allows other countries to sign it and gain the same rights) (The Antarctic
Treaty 1959).

If the principle of ‘res communis’ is applied to the Arctic, the UN Convention on

the Law of the Sea becomes the main juridical body applied to the region. This
approach would then imply that no matter what physical state the water is in, either
solid or liquid, the same set of rules shall apply. Even though no special treaty has
been created to define the Arctic region’s status (like the Antarctic Treaty), the
discussion on the region has been taken to international forums. In 1996, a special
international body was created in order to defend the Arctic States interests and
rights. This body is the Arctic Council, composed by eight countries, namely
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and
the United States. Its main objective is to promote the sustainable development of
the region, through environmental, economic and social regulations.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 12
Bloc Positions

(A) Russian Federation

The Russian Federation wishes to utilise the Arctic’s natural resources, protect its
ecosystems, use the seas as a transportation system in Russia’s interest, and ensure
that it remains a zone of peace and cooperation. The Russian Federation has been
taking major military advances to increase their presence in the Arctic Region. It
also has plans to strengthen it.

The Russian Federation has territorial claims to the Arctic since April 15, 1926. On
March 12, 1997, Russia ratified the UNCLOS, which allowed countries to make
claims to extended continental shelves. In August 2007, a Russian expedition
named Arktika 2007, led by Artur Chilingarov, planted a Russian flag on the
seabed at the North Pole. Concerning this action, the Foreign Minister of Russia
Sergey Lavro stated that “The aim of this expedition is not to stake Russia’s claim,
but to show that our shelf reaches to the North Pole.”

Currently, Russia has ongoing construction and development of several permanent

bases in the region. Two bases - one of Alexandra Island and another on Kotelny
Island, reflect Russian’s intentions of looking to establish a monitoring outpost and
stake a symbolic territorial claim. However, it has yet to be built up into a full-
blown combat presence. The bases are symbolically painted white, blue and red,
which are the colours of the Russian flag. The Russian Federation has now finished
equipping six new military bases throughout the Arctic in an attempt to recreate the
country’s military presence in the Arctic Region.

(B) The United States of America

The USA is entering the scientific and military race for sovereignty over parts of
the Arctic as it recognises the economic advantages that the Arctic region may
provide for the nation. However, the USA is supporting the need for freedom of
navigation in the Arctic Ocean.


The USA has failed to resolve its longstanding dispute on the Beaufort Sea with its
close ally and neighbour Canada.

(C) People’s Republic of China

China has achieved a permanent observer of the Arctic Council since May 2013.
Even though it is not a bordering nation of the Arctic Ocean or the North Pole,
China is trying to position itself not to be excluded from access to the Arctic. There
is an increased number of Chinese researchers in the Arctic Region.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 13
In March 2010, Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo stated that “The Arctic belongs to
all the people around the world, as no nation has sovereignty over it. . . . China
must plan an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the
world’s population.” However, China is unlikely to achieve the status of an EEZ.

In 1996, China joined the International Arctic Science Committee that aids in
Arctic Research. It is documented that China spends much more time than the
United States on Arctic research. Two Chinese vessels have traversed the Northeast
Passage in 2012 and 2014.

(D) Canada

The creation of two military bases in the Canadian Arctic has been announced by
the Prime Minister, also in an attempt to strengthen Canada’s presence in the
Arctic. Canada believes that the passage of water in the Arctic Region is part of its
internal waters, and therefore, should be regulated by the Canadian National Laws.

(E) European Union

The European Union’s main interest in the Arctic region is to keep the balance
between the preservation of Arctic environment and the need for sustainable use of
potential resources. Three nations of the European Union- Sweden, Finland, and
Denmark- are Arctic States. Therefore, the EU claims for a permanent observer
status in the Arctic Council.

(F) Denmark

Denmark is currently engaged in a territorial dispute with Canada over the Hans
Island in the Kennedy Channel. It ratified UNCLOS on 16 November, 2004 to file
a claim to an extended continental shelf. Greenland, which is owned by the
Kingdom of Denmark, has the nearest coastline to the North Pole.

(G) Norway

Norway is the only Scandinavian country with direct access to the Arctic Ocean. It
focuses on the issues of resource management, environmental impact, and
maritime transport, while expressing concern for Russia’s increasing military
presence in the region. Norway and Russia have ratified an agreement of the
Barents Sea, which ended a 40-year long dispute.


Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 14
Questions to Consider

• What international regime shall be employed to define the countries’ right to use
Arctic resources and routes?

• What opportunities and challenges will rise with the creation of Arctic routes?
How should this process be conducted in order to promote the most beneficial
results to humankind?

• What role can non-Arctic countries play in the Arctic issue and how can their
actions interfere in the Arctic countries’ sovereignty?

• Considering the International Law and territorial controversies among Arctic

countries, what sort of collective actions should be taken to avoid increasing
militarisation?

• What actions could be taken to improve governance within the Arctic Council
and/or to eventually lead to the constitution of an “international regime” for the
Arctic?

• Looking into the prospects of developing new model based on guiding principles
of the Antarctic Treaty or the principle of demilitarisation of the global
commons?

• Looking at various similar issues across the globe (South China Sea, Falkland
Islands, Preah Vihear Temple dispute between Cambodia and Thailand) and
taking pointers from them towards formulating a policy for the Arctic.

• Presence of ice breakers and floating nuclear reactors in the Arctic.


Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 15
References

• https://byers.typepad.com/arctic/beaufort-sea/

• https://www.international.gc.ca/arctic-arctique/council-conseil.aspx?lang=eng

• https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/law-of-the-sea/limits-to-the-law-of-the-
sea/

• https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/SCIENCE-COMMUNICATIONS/Arctic-region

• https://geology.com/articles/arctic-oil-and-gas/

• https://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/

• https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/mohammed-masood-azhar-alvi


Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 16
AGENDA - 2

TIMELINE

2001
Jaish-e-Mohammed carried out a string of deadly attacks against Indian targets,
including the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001 that brought India
and Pakistan to the brink of a full-scale war. The terrorist attack on the Parliament
of India in New Delhi happened on 13 December 2001. The perpetrators belonged
to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), both Pakistan-based
terrorist organisations.

The attack led to the deaths of five terrorists, six Delhi Police personnel, two
Parliament Security Service personnel and a gardener – in total 14 – and to
increased tensions between India and Pakistan, resulting in the 2001–02 India–
Pakistan standoff.

Soon after the Indian parliament attack, on 29 December 2001, Masood Azhar was
detained for a year by Pakistani authorities, after diplomatic pressure by India and
International community, in connection with the attack but was never formally
charged. The Lahore High Court ordered an end to the house arrest on 14
December 2002, much to the fury of India. Azhar was never arrested after that.

2008
On 7 December 2008, it was claimed that he was among several arrested by the
Pakistani government after a military raid on a camp located on the outskirts
of Muzaffarabad in connection with the 2008 Mumbai attacks. He continued to live
in Bhawalpur. Pakistan's government denied it had arrested Masood Azhar and said
it was unaware of his whereabouts On 26 January 2014, Masood Azhar reappeared
after a seclusion of six years. He addressed a rally in Muzaffarabad, calling for the
resumption of jihad in Kashmir. His group, Jaish-e-Muhammad, claims he is
currently in Srinagar, India.

2009
India moves a proposal by itself to designate Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, a
listing that will subject him to global travel ban, asset freeze and arms embargo.
China blocks the move.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 17

2016
The 2016 Pathankot attack on Indian air base is said to be masterminded by
Masood Azhar and his brother. They were in direct touch with terrorists even after
the attack had begun. Indian investigative agencies have given dossiers containing
proofs of Azhar's complicity in the terror attack and also sought a second ʽred
corner noticeʼ from ʽInterpolʼ.

India again moves the proposal with the backing of the P3 - the United States, the
United Kingdom and France in the UN's 1267 Sanctions Committee to ban
Masood Azhar.

2017
The P3 nations move a similar proposal again. China, a veto-wielding permanent
member of the Security Council, blocks the proposal from being adopted.

2019
On 14 February 2019, a convoy of vehicles carrying security personnel on the
Jammu Srinagar National Highway was attacked by a vehicle-bound suicide
bomber in Lethpora near Awantipora, Pulwama district, Jammu and Kashmir,
India. The attack resulted in the death of 44 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
personnel and the attacker. The responsibility for the attack was claimed by the
Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. He approved the
attacks from the Pakistani Army Hospital where he is under protective custody.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 18
Previous Attempts to Recognise Masood Azhar as a Global
Terrorist

2009

India moves a proposal by itself to designate Azhar as a global terrorist, a listing

that will subject him to global travel ban, asset freeze and arms embargo. China
blocks the move.

2016

India again moves the proposal with the backing of the P3 - the United States, the
United Kingdom and France in the UN's 1267 Sanctions Committee to ban Azhar.

2017

The P3 nations move a similar proposal again. China, a veto-wielding permanent

member of the Security Council, blocks the proposal from being adopted.

2019
On February 27, The US, the UK and France move a fresh proposal to the UN
Security Council to Designate Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.


Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 19
BACKGROUND

(A) MASOOD AZHAR

Masood Azhar (Mohammed Masood Azhar Alvi) founded Jaish-e-Mohammed

(JEM) upon his release from prison in India in 1999. Azhar was released from
prison in exchange for 155 hostages held on an Indian Airlines flight that had been
hijacked to Kandahar, Afghanistan. Azhar has also financially supported JEM since
its founding.

The UN Security Council listed JEM on October 17, 2001, as being associated
with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden, and the Taliban for “participating in the
financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in
conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of”, “supplying,
selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” or “otherwise supporting acts
or activities of” Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Azhar is also a former leader of the terrorist group Harakat ul-Mujahidin/

HUM, aka Harakat ul-Ansar; most of these groups' members subsequently joined
JEM under Azhar's leadership. In 2008, JEM recruitment posters contained a call
from Azhar for volunteers to join the fight in Afghanistan against Western forces.

(B) JAISH-E-MOHAMMED

Jaish-e-Mohammad literally means the Army of Mohammad. He reportedly

received assistance from Pakistan's spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and multiple Sunni sectarian
organisations based in Pakistan. JeM is run by Azhar's family like a family
enterprise. Jamia Binoria madarsa linked JeM with the Afghan Taliban.

(C) PULWAMA ATTACK

On 14 February 2019, a convoy of 78 vehicles transporting 2,500 Central Reserve

Police Force (CRPF) personnel from Jammu to Srinagar was travelling on National
Highway 44.

The convoy had left Jammu around 03:30 IST and was carrying a large number of
personnel due to the highway having been shut down for two days prior. The
convoy was scheduled to reach its destination before sunset.

At Lethpora near Awantipora, around 15:15 IST, a bus carrying security personnel
was rammed by a car carrying explosives. It caused a blast which killed 40 CRPF
personnel of the 76th Battalion and injured many others.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 20
Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the
attack. They also released a video of the assailant Adil Ahmad Dar, a 22-year old
from Kakapora who had joined the group a year earlier. Dar's family had last seen
him in March 2018, when he left his house on a bicycle one day and never
returned. Pakistan denied any involvement, though Jaish-e-Mohammed's
leader, Masood Azhar, is known to operate in the country.

It is the deadliest terror attack on India's state security personnel in Kashmir since
1989.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 21
Questions to Consider

Before we give you a rough idea of what the debate on this agendum be in the
committee, you must come to terms with the fact that this committee has a freeze
date. It is the reference point from which the debate will begin. For further
understanding, any events which have taken place after the aforementioned date
have not occurred and any such information will be provided to the delegates by
the Executive Board.

The following are the lines on which the delegates should model their debate.

• Should Masood Azhar be declared a global terrorist, why, and its urgent need?

• What measures should the Security Council take to ensure that the activities of
Masood Azhar and/or Jaish-e-Mohammed should be curbed or brought to a
standstill? For example, assets ban, travel ban, arms embargo, and/or further
sanctions.

• The purpose and role of the Security Council Committee formed pursuant to
resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh)
Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities.

• The question of, if a resolution is moved to circumvent to the United Nations

Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) in an attempt to recognise Azhar as a
global terrorist.

• The relevance of the Uighur Muslims in the recognition of Masood Azhar as a

global terrorist.

• The importance of the overwhelming pressure of foreign relations and personal

interests of several nation states in the passage of this agendum, and how to
overcome them.

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019

 22
REFERENCES

• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/4-faultlines-masood-azhar-un-terrorist-
listing-50454/

• https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/mohammed-masood-azhar-alvi

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/masood-azhar-desiganted-global-terrorist-
jaish-jem-pulwama-china-1514687-2019-05-01

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48124693

• https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sc13754.doc.htm

• https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/masood-azhar-is-proven-
threat-why-would-china-give-him-terror-pass-wsj/articleshow/68442584.cms?
from=mdr

Strawberry Fields High School Model United Nations Conference 2019