ICJ reaches agreement to protect Brazilian wildlife

            The International Court of Justice, after finding Peru not guilty on charges related to poaching in Brazil, agreed on recommendations to Brazil on necessary improvements in its standards of environmental protection.  This debated stemmed from the notion that Brazil had caused its own poaching problems due to a lack of attention to the environment.

            However, there remained some resistance to the idea of imposing regulations on Brazil; Japan and Portugal believed that the ICJ’s only purpose was to find defendants not guilty or guilty and, if necessary, assign punishments to the guilty. They suggested that, while they acknowledge Brazil’s negligence in its environmental obligations, it was not the function of the court to impose any changes in Brazil. Justice Thornsberry of Portugal summed up this group’s position by saying that the ICJ was not here to give out guidelines and suggestions for environmental improvements.

            As an unmoderated caucus progressed, the justices split into two distinct groups for pending opinion papers. The justices from China, Russia, Japan, Somalia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Germany believed that restrictions on pelts should be implemented. On the other hand, the justices from Slovakia, Portugal, France, Morocco, New Zealand, and Belgium believed that security should be a priority and recommended the allocation of more resources to accomplish this goal.

            While the justice from Russia stated the two groups should find some “common ground” and produce a united decision, the justice from Somalia protested with “…two, four, six, eight we don’t want to integrate!” Surprisingly, these statements did promote further discussion of the two opinion papers. These novel and colorful ways of illustrating this difference in opinion give insight into the heated nature of the deliberation of the ICJ.

            After another unmoderated caucus, the two justices from Brazil diverged over the course of action. One Brazilian justice welcomed whatever suggestions were offered to help reduce poaching, while the other justice disagreed with this interference in Brazil’s domestic affairs.

Justices discuss ways to improve the Portuguese proposals

  

            Portugal motioned to submit a resolution to create stricter security, more funding, and favorable changes for the Pantanal Matogrossense National Park.  Also, it proposed the possibility of seeking help from World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) to achieve these goals. Russia proposed to add an amendment onto said resolution in order to clarify that would impose more standards for funding natural preservation.

            Although there was some minor protest to the resolution’s guidelines by Japan in regards to its plans to restructure the way Brazil allocates funds, the resolution passed by overwhelming popular opinion with only minor changes. After this decision, the delegates from Brazil stated that they remained fully open to the conclusions of the ICJ and would plan to institute the court’s recommendations.

HRC passes resolution on gender preferences

            On Saturday the HRC passed a resolution to improve gender equality and awareness in countries such as India and China, which face issues of cultural gender inequality that is manifested in gender-selective abortions and infanticide.  This issue poses serious threats in terms of future demographic changes in these countries, with men outnumbering women to a large extent among the younger sectors of the population.

            The successful Resolution 2.1, headed by Hungary, Cuba, Belgium, Philippines, Bangladesh, and Cameroon, was passed through a compromise after India voiced a need to combine two similar working papers into one coherent course of action.  The resolution provided for sex education and individual, therapeutic counseling for both genders in these countries in order to foster greater understanding.

            The delegate from Hungry said that this effort would be a “very domestic-based operation,” which was believed to be more effective than any uniform, comprehensive programs put forth at the international level.  However, this resolution only suggested that its measures be implemented in countries that currently experience these specific problems of gender inequality, potentially limiting its effectiveness.

HRC delegates from Saudi Arabia, Hungary, and Cuba form an alliance to create Resolution 2.1.

 

            Saudi Arabia, Peru, Guatemala, and Nigeria formed a working paper in opposition to Resolution 2.1 that sought to ban all abortion and impose severe penalties for its practice. The paper stated that if abortion were outlawed altogether, there could be no issue of sex-selective pregnancy termination.

            Of course this paper faced strong criticism from the body, notably from the delegates from Hungary and Cuba.  Hungary stating that these suggestions were an “infringement on national sovereignty” and an “imposition of culture.” The delegate went further by saying that the HRC could not base its efforts on “bronze age” ideas concerning gender and social norms.

            Cuba also challenged the idea that these fetuses were human beings, but this statement only sidetracked debate from the key issue. Delegates also criticized that the resolution did not address the problem of infanticide, but Saudi Arabia replied that it was open to any proposals on the issue.  Ultimately, this resolution did not pass due to its strictly conservative ideals as well as its other flaws.

            Mexico presented a working paper that sought to equalize income for men and women, solely focusing on countries where gender inequality occurred in the economic realm.  However, this working paper did not pass, since many delegates thought it did not directly address the topic at hand.

            Indonesia also put forth a paper that was similar to the Resolution 2.1 in that it sought improvements in education.  Instead of sex education, this paper suggested societal education that Indonesia said would cause countries to accept “that the woman is equal to the man.”  Many delegates were confused as to the exact intentions of the paper, ultimately resulting in its failure as well.

SPECPOL debates as countries reach the brink of war

            Anarchy packed the early sessions of the Special Political Committee as the body debated the controversial disputes over the South China Sea.  With resolutions constantly rejected and motions made to table the entire topic, the committee struggled to move forward on a solution to this important issue.

            The South China Sea is a colossal economic resource in the global economy.  In addition to containing several islands that are home to valuable resources like fish, oil, and natural gas, over one-third of the world’s shipping passes through the area.

            After hours of caucusing and frequent attempts by Ecuador to close debate, it seemed that there was finally a chance for a resolution to be passed.  Although the body agreed that the resolution would be beneficial, its proposals had many flaws. As John Reisig, the delegate from Slovakia put it: “It could have been better.” Some delegates believed that SPECPOL did not have the power to force countries to act but could only advise them.

            But immediately before the cessation for lunch, a motion for a final vote on the resolution was heard by the chair. As this resolution, Resolution 1.2, passed in its efforts to resolve trade discussions in the South China Sea, thunderous applause arose from the SPECPOL delegates.

            This merriment, however, was short lived due to the crisis that followed. A group of suited men stormed into the committee, escorting Kyle Kullander, the secretary general of the committee. The room fell silent as Mr. Kullander took the stage. Every delegate was shocked as they heard the news that he brought: Filipino operatives had kidnapped the prime minister of China, to which China had immediately responded with a barrage of biological attacks on the Philippines.

Mr. Kullander informs SPECPOL of the events in Asia.

            As the delegates quickly divided into competing alliances, the crisis was complicated further by news from the World Health Organization.  The honorable chair from WHO informed the committee that the Filipino operatives had assassinated the Chinese prime minister and that Manila had been ravaged by a bout of smallpox engineered by the Chinese.  Debate on the crisis remained tense as delegates tried to lay the blame for these events. Ragaa Kunda, the delegate from Cambodia felt that “the Philippines are at fault because… the Philippines allowed the Chines PM to be assassinated.”

            Although the delegates seemed to be close to a fight on the committee floor, the SPECPOL chair reminded the committee of its need to foster peace and avoid the threat of war at all costs. Despite the clear devastation that had occurred as a result of recent events, SPECPOL remained unable to effectively handle the crisis, instead leaving the issue to the Security Council and those countries directly involved.  With the topic of the crisis tabled by the body, SPECPOL then attempted to compose itself for what would likely be a difficult debate on the plight of the Somali people.

ECOSOC promotes female empowerment in politics

The Economic and Social Council has passed a resolution concerning its second topic, political equality and representation for women. Resolution 2.1 is a “comprehensive” plan sponsored by India, Belarus, Qatar, Iraq, Japan, the U.S., and the U.K. intended to increase women’s political participation.

In its Millennium Development Goals, the U.N. included a focus on achieving gender equality and empowerment for women. To accomplish this purpose, the Commission on the Status of Women was created under the jurisdiction of ECOSOC. Delegates were therefore asked to promote the goals of the Commission; specifically, preventing acts of violence against women and dealing with its aftermath through medical attention or counseling.

“We’re trying to take a very all-encompassing approach to better represent women in local, regional, an national legislatures,” said Indian delegate Caroline Osborn. “We want to empower [women] to take more opportunities to be involved in politics an address issues in education, economics, violence and other laws that affect them.”

Delegates from Mexico, Brazil, and Germany discuss a friendly amendment to Resolution 2.1.

The resolution, which passed by a vote of 27-2-2, advocated more involvement of women in politics through efforts such as granting women the right to vote and educating women to give them the opportunity to run for public office. “[We] believe that to involve more women in politics, women must have equal rights,” said Turkish delegate C. J. Cole.

The resolution further encouraged governments to pass laws that “reserve a substantial percentage of seats in local, regional, and national legislature for women.” The delegate from India proposed a model that worked in her nation. “Our Parliament recently passed a law that allows local governments to reserve 30 percent of its seas for women and that has recently been raised to 50 percent,” said Caroline Osborn.

Resolution 2.1 also suggested the economic empowerment of women through “gender budgeting” in the allocation of funds by individual nations. The council considered expanding forms of micro-financing, which would initiate business ventures taken by women, and increasing the number of women in the workforce internationally.

Education was another key point. Resolution 2.1 proposed public awareness campaigns to promote female education and recommended that women be given increased access to early childhood, primary, and secondary education. “I would like to emphasize that that a good foundation for women in politics is education,” stated the delegate from Nicaragua, Paulo Claudio.

Another aspect of the resolution dealt with reducing violence and harassment toward women through measures such as accommodation for female members of national law enforcement bodies, the worldwide criminalization of rape and domestic violence, and the creation of help centers that “encourage women to speak up against violence.” But, adds Farhan Rawsar, the delegate from Belarus: “[This resolution] will only be as successful as national governments want it to be successful.”

The IRA: "a Tea Party with guns?"

Delegates work to resolve the issue of the IRA in the Security and Terrorism Council.

On Saturday, the Security and Terrorism Council session concerning the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland reached a resolution condemning their recent acts of violence. The rise of this political party has caused much tension due to its role during “The Troubles”, the sporadic ethno-political violence that shook much of Ireland. All delegates judged the actions of the IRA as criminal; however, all delegates agreed to the proposition to leave the responsibility of convicting or controlling the IRA to Ireland and the UK.

The debate began with Ireland insisting that no aid was needed, emphasizing the necessity of keeping their sovereignty. “Sending peacekeepers won’t help,” said China as he agreed with Ireland’s stance.  Iran also agreed, stating that the issue was “internal and requires no interference from an international agency such as the UN.” Germany stated that “the UK and Ireland must work together to eradicate public support” for the IRA.

On the other hand, Israel claimed that the IRA posed “a threat to other countries worldwide.” The delegate argued that the IRA works in other countries, is interconnected with terrorist groups in the Middle East, and helps to train terrorists stationed in other countries. The IRA even carried out an assassination plot against Israeli officials, and so the delegate from Israel felt strongly about his position.

However, Guatemala described the IRA as a “tea party with guns,” not a terrorist group but still an extremist political party, which in this case conducts organized crime for self-enrichment and political progress. Ireland disagreed by saying that the “Real IRA’s actions cannot be considered terrorism because it doesn’t have political goals.” The IRA, as Ireland noted, has in fact broken up into two parts: a political party and a group that carries out acts of violence for its own purposes.

In conclusion, Ethiopia put forth the proposition that, instead of direct intervention, the UN stop arms shipments to the IRA in order to stifle its international support. This way, Irish sovereignty would not be threatened by an outside force. Ireland agreed along with the other delegates that freezing all domestic and overseas assets would be a logical plan of action.

The Council also came to an agreement on the conditions of possible intervention by the international community. If the UK and Ireland asked for UN intervention or the Security Council voted and passed a resolution with 2/3 majority, the UN would gladly aid the countries.