Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Letter from the Secretary General
Esteemed delegates,
It is my sincere pleasure to welcome you to the 12th annual
United Nations Society Fall conference, CarleMUN 2015. This year, I
have the distinct honour of serving as the Secretary General of
CarleMUN, and I hope to meet all of you throughout the conference.
For those of you who are new to the UNS, CarleMUN will be a new
experience – full of surprises and excitement – and will hopefully
inspire you to continue participating in MUN for years to come.
While the initial research may seem overwhelming, the background
guides may seem immense, the committee room may seem
daunting and large; you will find your feet.
The United Nations Society has always seen Model UN as more
than just a chance to debate contemporary issues in international
affairs; more than simply a chance to take what you have learned in
class and apply it to the real-world. It is an opportunity to engage
with a diverse range of students in an academic and social context
and refine your skills of negotiation, diplomacy, communication,
creativity, collaboration, and quick thinking.
As you navigate the conference weekend, both inside and
outside of the committee room, I would encourage you to consider
the role that your participation will play. As I will repeat throughout
the year, you will only get out of MUN what you are willing to put in.
Though somewhat cliché, it is appropriate for an activity that relies
almost exclusively on delegate participation.
I will leave you with one final thought before you join us on
September 25th for the Opening Ceremonies of CarleMUN. Whether
you have been doing Model United Nations for years, or whether this
is your first, brave venture into the unknown, you will be stepping
into a room of people each with their own passions, perspectives and
philosophies. Embrace the opportunity to meet new people, gain
new experiences and hone your skills as a global citizen.
Sincerely,
Alex Berryman
President, United Nations Society
Secretary General, CarleMUN 2015
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)
A Word from Your Chairs
Hello delegates,
Welcome to the committee. My name is Simon Hunt and I am over
the moon to be your vice-chair for COPUOS at CarleMUN alongside
my good friend, Kiernan McClelland.
For my part, I have been a stalwart member of the UN Society for 4
years, and modestly consider myself a clear sign of the good Model
UN can bring to a delegate. I entered my first In-House - a GA,
representing Kazakhstan, sandwiched between Israel and Korea
DPRK, with Palestine fuming over their shoulder - a stuttering;
incoherent mess and emerged, several conferences later, a
sufficiently cogent mess.
In the last two years I've traveled to 14 conferences in 3 countries -
by the end of the year I plan to have represented Carleton in every
city the Society has ever traveled to - and as your Co-Director of
Training for 2015-2016 I hope to spark the same love of travel,
debate and good cheer that I've been given by my predecessors.
I've known for a long time that I was going to be involved in
academics – at an early point in my life, childhood debates about
superheroes turned into questions about the kind of topics MUN
engenders. I hope that you leave this committee with a similar
passion, and am willing to help your preparation in any way I can.
If you feel lost at any point in the CarleMUN process, please feel free
to get in touch via email ([email protected]) or in
person.
I look forward to meeting you all and getting to know you through
the year, at CarleMUN, at our training sessions and at our external
conferences. If you have any questions – any at all – feel free to get in
touch.
And with that, I quote the best captain of all time – Malcolm
Reynolds – in telling the delegates of COPUOS that “no matter how
long the arm of adversity gets, get a little further”. I have every faith
that you all will.
Thank you,
Simon Hunt
Hello everyone,
I am still saddened to see that although humankind has progressed
so far scientifically as to breach the heavens and land on the barren
surfaces of extraterrestrial planets, we still a have not perfected the
means of telling a funny space pun.
With that out of the way, hello everyone. My name is Kiernan
McClelland. Over the course of the conference I will be acting as the
co-chair for COPUOS. My academic expertise surrounds the
application of space power, space weaponization, and the future
dynamics of modern warfare. As such, I am absolutely thrilled and
honored to help chair this truly exceptional and unique committee.
Before we move on, I would like to quickly express to the delegates
attending COPUOS, as well as those new and returning members
attending the other committees, the importance of the committee
you all are about to embark on. Before I explain the importance,
however, there is one truth that I would like to make known to all of
you right now and right here in this introduction:
Now, this is a truth that may come hard to a few of you but it is a
truth which is grounded in the very reality of your own existence
within this particular era of human history. You will likely never go
into outer space. You will likely never see, with your own eyes, the
blue sphere that we call Earth. Nor will you likely ever walk on the
moon, or on Mars, or on any other planet.
So then, why are the topics covered in COPUOS so important? Our
generation lives during an era of supreme importance to the future
ventures of those space-faring humans that will be our ancestors.
We are, in fact, the progenitors of space policy that will govern the
activities of humankind for centuries to come. We, at this point of
human history, hold in our hands the ability to both protect and even
destroy the natural destiny of humankind to explore not just our
universe, but those areas of our existence that we can’t even
comprehend. And that, delegates, that’s really exciting.
And with that, I quote the best star fleet captain of all time - Jean-Luc
Piccard - in telling the delegates of COPUOS to “make it so”. I have
every faith that you all will.
Thank you,
Kiernan McClelland
What is Model UN?
Model United Nations (also Model UN or MUN, as it will be
referred to both here in this background guide and elsewhere
throughout the year) is an academic simulation of an international
body, which aims to educate participants about current events,
topics in international relations, and diplomacy. As the name
suggests Model UN started as simulations of bodies of the United
Nations but many conferences will contain non-UN bodies – as
featured at CarleMUN this year, with committees like Canada 1984,
France 1792, and the International Press Forum.
Delegates, as participants of Model UN are called, will
generally represent a country as its ambassador to the committee at
hand. Delegates are tasked with representing their nation's position
through both speeches and resolutions – formal policy documents
that are released on behalf of the entire committee. It is easy in a
committee, particularly one such as COPUOS that deals with a
scientific topic, to become mired in the details and lose sight of the
true purpose of effective policy. That is, to be useful enough to cover
both current issues and those that may arise in the future,
accessible enough that it can be understood by a layperson, and
efficient enough that it can be executed well without too much need
for evaluation or interpretation in terms of meaning. Before we go
any further in this background guide I want to provide a
reassurance that no delegate is required to be an expert in any of the
physics that underpin this committee. While research is incredibly
important, we are not expecting you to have an encyclopedic
knowledge of scientific technobabble. This is a committee about
policy, and policy is rarely specific to technology. A basic
understanding of space and the orbits will be enough for any
delegate.
Ambassadors are not expected to be experts on every matter
assigned to them – for example Cheng Jingye, the current Chinese
ambassador to COPUOS has previously served on the International
Narcotics Control Board, the UN Industrial Development
Organization and just last month made a statement on Iran's nuclear
situation. It would be unreasonable to expect more of you as
delegates than we expect of the people that you represent.
How does COPUOS work?
COPUOS is generally a consensus body, which means that any
decision must be unanimously agreed on by every delegate.
However article XV of the Outer Space Treaty allows for it to be
amended by a simple majority (50%+1 of the States party to the
Treaty). As such the majority of decisions and documents handled by
this committee will be in the form of amendments to the Treaty.
Technology in Committee
Laptop Policy
No laptops are to be used during formal committee discussion.
Laptops may be used during breaks, outside the committee room
and during unmoderated caucuses. Resolutions will be expected to
be submitted electronically. Chairs will provide more information
regarding methods for submitting working papers and resolutions
during the first committee session.
The society (@Carleton_UNS) and International Press Forum
(@UNS_IPF) will be live-tweeting the events of the conference. Both
will be tagging their tweets #CarleMUN, as well as reading and
retweeting other tweets in #CarleMUN throughout the conference.
A live Twitter feed will be featured in committee rooms to allow for
inter-committee interactions and updates. Be sure to follow
@Carleton_UNS and @UNS_IPF for updates throughout the
conference.
Introduction The world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, launched on October 4,
1957 from the wonderfully Soviet-titled No1/5 Site in what is now
Kazakhstan. It was the size of a beach ball, weighed 83kg, cost
around the equivalent of $32 million and could orbit the earth in 98
minutes. Sputnik orbited the earth for exactly 3 months before it's
batteries ran out, it's orbit decayed and it crashed into Earth's
atmosphere at 8.1 km/s, in which time OKB-1, the Russian Space
Agency, had already sent up a second satellite carrying the first
living animal, a dog named Laika. In late January 1958 the
Americans had launched their own satellite, Explorer I, and the
Space Age had truly begun.
The defining feature of the early Space Age was what is now
known as the Space Race – a continued effort by the USA and USSR
to reach spaceflight milestones faster than the other. Both nations
had an interest in ensuring free access to space, while preventing a
nuclear arms race as was being seen terrestrially.
The United Nations created the Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in December 1959. Since that date,
COPUOS has passed 5 resolutions and has been tasked by the
General Assembly to implement two more. This committee will be
tasked with the discussion and possible amendment of the very first,
the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies, or TPGASEUOSMOCB for short, commonly
referred to as The Outer Space Treaty.
Since its inception, COPUOS has operated as a consensus
body, meaning that for any decision to be accepted it must either
receive the support or abstention of every single delegation – an
incredible task of diplomacy. Article XV of the Outer Space Treaty
allows for the amendment of the Treaty by a simple majority, but if
COPUOS members wish to create new treaties, they will be expected
to follow the correct procedure.
It is worth noting here that delegates to COPUOS do not have
the power to simply rewrite major international treaties with a
majority vote. In order for treaties to become law, they must be
ratified by the parties to it, and the same is true of major
amendments to a treaty. Instead, you will be creating
recommendations to the states party to the treaty on how it should
be amended. In this scenario, the recommendations you make here
would be discussed in a separate summit on the treaty, where they
might be ignored, or where additional diplomacy may have to be
done to convince the major parties to adopt the amendments to the
treaty. Finally, the delegates to the treaty summit bring home their
copy of the signed treaty to be approved, or ratified, by their
governments. This is part of the reason why the United States is not
a party to many international treaties, as their executive branch,
which attends summits on matter such as but not limited to space, is
separate from their legislative branch, who do not necessarily share
their enthusiasm on all issues.
All that notwithstanding, delegates can be fairly confident that
the recommendations they make will be adopted, eventually, into
international law. We must, however, understand some aspects of
international law before continuing for a number of key reasons.
Firstly it must be emphasized that while substantive matters will be
decided by majority vote, individual countries, especially those that
already have expansive space programs, still retain a great deal of
power regarding whether or not to actually agree to these
recommendations as a matter of law. While this fact won’t be built
into the actual committee structure, CarleMUN prides itself on the
creation of a realistic diplomatic simulation and the successful
delegate will keep these intricacies of international diplomacy in
mind while conducting negotiations. Placing the cost or
responsibility for a program in a resolution is – though often
convenient – rarely a valid solution, and will not be looked upon
favourably by the dais.
The UN – much less Model UN – does not mandate or demand.
Instead delegates will be recommending changes to the treaty or
reaffirming the existing clauses. This is because in the United
Nations power flows, slowly and begrudgingly, from its member
states and not the other way around. The United Nations is not a
worldwide legislative body, but is rather a place where
representatives of fully sovereign, independent countries meet to
try and build consensus on important and pressing issues of the day.
The purpose of this committee is to provide a fun, realistic
simulation of international politics. Now on to the topics themselves!
Topic One: The Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty is a rare example of major powers coming together in the spirit of the United Nations to limit their own powers in the common interest of the whole planet. However, the Outer Space Treaty was created in 1966, and is concerned with the issues of the Space Age and of course of the Cold War. COPUOS is the body responsible for reviewing and overseeing international treaties related to outer space. As delegates to COPUOS, you will be tasked with updating the Outer Space Treaty in order to meet the challenges of the modern day, as seen in two separate subtopics of discussion: asteroid exploitation and space colonization.
Subtopic One: Asteroid Mining
By the time the Outer Space Treaty was written two important
spaceflight milestones had been reached – the first week-long
mission and the first docking of two objects in space. While these two
factors pointed to the conceptual possibility of a space station,
national governments would not admit to development of such
technologies for another 13 years, though the USSR had been
developing technologies as far back as 1903. As such, the Treaty's
language requires interpretation to be applied to permanent objects
in space.
Article I of the Outer Space Treaty declares space “the
province of all mankind” and declares space “free for exploration
and use”, with “free access to all areas of celestial bodies” and
“freedom of scientific investigation”, States being obliged to
“facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such
investigation”. Space is “not subject to national appropriation by
claim of sovereignty”, according to Article II and while “A State Party
to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space
is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and
over any personnel thereof” according to Article VIII, Article XII
states “All stations, installations, equipment, and space vehicles on
the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives
of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity”.
The spirit of the Treaty – space as an international realm, not
owned by any single state is a beautiful one, and one that was easy to
adhere to in 1958, as the technology nations were willing to admit
ownership of was concerned with the Space Race, as mentioned in
the introduction. Today's zeitgeist is significantly different. If a
nation – or indeed a company – wants to mine an asteroid should
they be entitled to a location that they scout? The Outer Space Treaty
as written would say no – if one of the three leading corporations in
the race to privately mine space (Planetary Resources, Deep Space
Industries, and Kepler Energy and Space Engineering) were to
spend time and energy scouting the composition of an asteroid, they
would be powerless to stop either of their rivals from simply waiting
until the scouting company sent mining equipment to the asteroid
and simultaneously mining it.
This is assuming that asteroid mining is even allowed under
the treaty – Article IX states that “A State Party to the Treaty which
has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by
another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with
activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space,
including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request
consultation concerning the activity or experiment”, which implies
that any State Party to the Treaty can veto the actions of another,
given that mining an asteroid would prevent it's use by another.
Asteroid mining is an incredibly relevant technology. The
science of asteroids is not fully understood, but many were not
created in the same manner as Earth – a formation in incredible
heat causing a surface that was largely liquid and thus have valuable
heavy metals close to or on their surface, as they sunk below the
Earth's crust. This means that the mining of such asteroids could be
an incredibly lucrative exercise, especially given that there are no
known environmental concerns to be had. However asteroid mining
is incredibly cost-prohibitive, and the long-term impacts are not
fully understood.
Further complicating this issue is the language of Article VI.
“When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon
and other celestial bodies, by an international organization,
responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by
the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty
participating in such organization” is a sentence that would fill
many company shareholders with dread – to ensure compliance it
would not be difficult to argue their company's doings should be
wholly overseen by their government, especially as the government
seeks to enter as a market competitor.
All three previously named companies are American, and the
American National Aeronautics and Space Administration Institute
for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) has announced its' intentions to
launch a Robotic Asteroid Prospector, which would compete for
resources but with the fundamental advantage of complete
oversight of all private companies in the USA. While the committee
is a United Nations one, and as such non-state actors will not be
present at the table, it behooves a delegate to consider how this
treaty effects their nation, future and present. Too much oversight
can lead to a company moving overseas, losing the important
income stream that taxation will bring.
The present state of rights in space is anathema to a Capitalist
worldview of how property rights ought to be. This is not
fundamentally bad, but is a state of affairs that must be considered –
when the final document is considered, will there enough
justification to create and maintain a company that will push the
envelope of technologies in space?
Subtopic Two: Space Colonization
The major hurdle standing in the way of asteroid mining is the
cost – NASA's OSIRIS-REx study showed that it would cost just over
$1bn to return $3600 worth of materials to Earth. Discussion of
asteroid mining tends to predicate on the idea that materials would
not return to Earth – the majority of the aforementioned cost is sunk
into ensure survival upon re-entry – and instead be processed at a
space colony.
There are three hypothetically parts of the Earth-Moon
system which could be colonized, in rough order of feasibility they
are: Earth-Moon Lagrange Points 4/5; the Lunar poles and Sub-
Lunar surface. While the detail of why each area will or will not be
feasible is not relevant to this committee, the important thing to note
is that there will be a distinct first-mover's advantage for the states
that begin a colony. As previously mentioned, a hypothetical space
colony would be difficult to justify as being owned by a single nation
given the Outer Space Treaty as written, delegates should consider if
the current environment is healthy for the development of a truly
international colony, or if it is worth considering single-nation
ownership.
Thus far the rules of the Outer Space Treaty have been
repeatedly referred to, but not the force behind it, and what is a law
without a force behind it? If a nation violates the Outer Space Treaty,
they and the aggrieved party will each appoint an arbitrator to a
commission, and then the nations will collectively appoint a third
arbitrator. This commission will come to a conclusion that will be
presented before COPUOS, and if no decision can be reached the
Secretary General is invited to be presented the facts and come to
his own decision. For example, in 1977 when Kosmos 954, a USSR
satellite, crashed into Canada near Yellowknife a commission was
formed. Canada initially demanded $6m to pay for the clean-up; the
commission agreed to award Canada $4m and the USSR eventually
paid $3m. This highlights one of the major issues in Space Law –
there was and remains no means for Canada to challenge for the
remaining $1m, as there is no backing to the decisions of the
commission – it is not appealable by the ICJ or backed by the threat
of jail or an enforcement of the fine. That said, there are obvious
concerns with giving a Space Law commission the right to an
enforceable sentence.
One final thought on Topic One: only 30 countries have
astronaut programs, and only 13 have launch capability (though
France extends its launch facilities to the rest of the European Space
Agency), with 5 more planning to follow (a Pan-Arab League group
based in the UAE, an African Union group based in South Africa, a
united South American agency based in Brazil, the Philippines and
Sri Lanka). The Outer Space Treaty has 103 signatories, and any
language that loosens regulation and allows a sudden expansion of
programs will benefit those 13 above the other 90, particularly the
73 without astronaut programs.
Topic Two: Space Weaponization Subtopic One: Space to Earth Weapons
Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the placement in
orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installation of such
weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing of such weapons in outer
space in any other manner. The concept of space weaponization was
far from science fiction during the Cold War – Boeing had been
developing kinetic energy space-to-earth weapons since the 1950s
and in 1961 Nikita Khrushchev, then leader of the Soviet Union had
said "You do not have 50- or 100-megaton bombs, we have bombs
more powerful than 100 megatons. We placed Gagarin and Titov in
space, and we can replace them with other loads that can be directed
to any place on Earth."
The SALT II treaty represents the only attempt to clarify the
language of the article, with the USA and USSR bilaterally agreeing
that “weapons of mass destruction” means include chemical,
biological, nuclear and radiological weapons. However, the treaty
expired in 1985 and no attempt has been made since to clarify the
language. There are many indicators that a space arms race is
imminent – some suggesting that it could come as soon as 2020.
COPUOS will be expected to find a reaction to this: prevention of an
arms race, tempering of its technologies or allowance. Bear in mind
that choosing to do nothing is still a choice.
Space is asserted by certain governments to be a medium in
which a state can gain and exert influence, not unlike land, air, and
sea. By gathering influence in the space environment through the
acquisition of space-power, a state could validate to its population
and the world its technological aptitude and its ability to influence
international affairs through the strategic medium of outer space.
The tactical rationale behind the deployment of space weapons is
clear – the speed that a weapon could traverse the earth in space is
phenomenal, as a threat could go from assessment to destruction in
well under 150 minutes.
Conversely, COPUOS must consider the effect that the
allowance of arms in outer space could have on global peace. No
more than 4 countries – China, Russia, Switzerland and the USA –
have the technology to be involved in space armament, and such
weapons are incredibly destructive. Delegates must consider the
threat that a belligerent or non-state actor gaining access to a space-
to-earth weapon might be, given metrics of destruction previously
stated.
Subtopic Two: Anti-Satellite Technology
Anti-satellite technology actually predates the first launched
satellite – OKB-1 began work on the concept in 1956, the year before
launching Sputnik. The first systems consisted of a missile, deployed
from an airplane, launched upwards in an intercept course with a
target and all three successful satellite destructions have used
similar concepts.
There are considerations for the proliferation of anti-satellite
technologies aside from the obvious military ones. The Kessler
syndrome describes a theoretical situation where too many objects
are launched into space, and space debris becomes so dense that a
single piece colliding with another might set off a chain reaction,
cascade – each collision generating space debris that increases the
likelihood of further collisions. One implication is that the
distribution of debris in orbit could render space exploration, and
even the use of satellites, unfeasible for many generations. On the
other hand, space programs are expensive, particularly inimitable
assets like astronauts. A COPUOS resolution calling for the
proliferation of anti-satellite technologies could slow down the
development of human spaceflight, as governments take a cautious
approach to exploration and research in a world where assets could
be destroyed easily.
A Final Note
Space law is complicated, and difficult to begin researching. While
we have the utmost confidence that all delegates will be ready to
debate by CarleMUN, if any of you have trouble figuring out any of
the details of the committee, we will be here to support you. When
assignments are finalized we will be emailing a personalized guide
regarding where to begin research to each of you, and we are happy
to chat about the concepts, in person or via any description of
communication.
Once again, we look forward to meeting all of you, and sharing an
amazing CarleMUN.