Frigid Rules of Engagement:

Militarization of the Arctic

Region
United Nations General Assembly:
Disarmament and International
Security Committee

Diplomacy 2019 Model United Nations

Conference Schedule:
Date : 22-29 November 2019
Time : 09:00-15:00 / 08:00-11.00
Place : TBD (FISIPOL UGM)

Rules of Procedure

I. Delegations:
a. Participants of the UNGA: DISEC consists of 3-4 person(s) per delegation representing member
states. The delegations are all students of the Department of International Relations Universitas
Gadjah Mada batch 2019. Students will work together throughout the 2 weeks-long simulation in
formulating Position Papers, engaging in formal debate, informal negotiation, and are highly
encouraged to create a resolution at the end of the committee sessions.
b. Each member state would be accorded one vote
c. Each delegation are obliged to attend formal sessions, engage with other delegates outside of the
formal sessions, and write a report on the interaction.
d. The format of the report will be at the end of this study guide.
e. Every delegate its obliged to utilize courteous language and respectful tone in addressing chairs
and other delegates

II. Quorum, Attendance, and Roll Call

a. At the beginning of each session, the chairs will conduct a roll call in alphabetical order.
Delegations shall pronounce to the chairs on their presence categorized in two parts:
i. Present: A delegation is present with the right to abstain in substantive vote;
ii. Present and voting: A delegation is present with an obligation to vote for or against in a
substantive vote.
b. Delegations need to have at least two representatives in the room to participate in the roll call.
Failing to comply by the rules will result in the delegation being put as ‘not present’
c. The quorum vote is ⅔ majority of member states present while the simple majority rule is 50% + 1
delegate present.

1
III. Committee Sessions:
The Committee Sessions will be marked by the first formal session on 22 November 2019 with the
opening speeches by delegates of all member states present. Within the formal session, representatives are
allowed and encouraged to discuss upon relevant matters in regards to the topic of Arctic Militarization
including but not limited to Arctic borders, procurement of weaponry, environmental damages to
militarization, indigenous rights with regards to militarization, and all aspects of politics, economy, social,
technology, environment, and legal in the Arctic. By the end of the second formal sessions, the council is
expected to draft a working paper and draft resolution to be reviewed and eventually passed. The formal
sessions will be divided into two meetings with four hours each in length. In the allocated time, the council
is expected to end the debate with the passing of a resolution on 29 November 2019.
There are several forms of speeches that delegations could utilize:
a. General Speech: The general speech traditionally starts the debate within the council with the
purpose of laying out countries’ stance, mission, and proposed solutions with regard to the topic.
Delegates are put into a General Speakers List (GSL) to decide the sequence of delegates to speak.
b. Moderated Caucus: The Moderated Caucus is a form of speech directed by the chairs of the
council. Delegates are obliged to propose a specific motion relevant to the topic of the council along
with the time of the speech. The proposal will be voted upon by the member states of the council
whether to be discussed or rescinded.
c. Unmoderated Caucus: Delegates are allowed to raise motion for an unmoderated discussion
between delegates. For this specific simulations, within the first and formal sessions, delegates are
encouraged to focus on moderated caucus and have the unmoderated caucus outside of the allocated
time within the week between the two formal sessions.
d. Consultation of the Whole: The consultation of the whole is a form of consultation that allows
for delegates to have a designated time to speak on a certain motion without the chairs as the
moderators. Delegates will choose other delegates as a subsequent speaker within the allocated
time.

III. Working Paper and Draft Resolution

a. A working paper is an informal document written by delegates to gather ideas with like-minded
delegations to eventually construct a Draft Resolution. It does not have a specific format to follow.
Distribution of such working paper is allowed under Chair’s approval.
b. A Draft Resolution is a formal document consisting of rationales and proposals on the topic.
Delegations are prohibited from presenting a pre-written draft resolution as working collectively
with other delegates is crucial in the process of problem-solving.

2
 c. The draft will be constructed after the Chair’s approval and should be submitted within the deadline
set by the Chairs. Afterwards, delegates who proposed the draft will be asked to present the draft
resolution

IV. Voting
a. After the Motion to Close the Debate has passed, Voting on the Draft Resolution will take place.
A Delegate can raise any of this Motion:
i. Motion to Divide the Question: Before the voting procedure begins, a Delegate may request
a Motion to Divide the Question to vote individually or in a group of operative clauses,
instead of voting on the Draft Resolution as a whole. Delegate who raises the Motion shall
define in what fashion he/she would like the question to divide. When there is more than
one request for the Motion to Divide the Question, the Chair shall first put to a vote the
least most radical pattern of division. A simple majority is required to pass the motion. If
the motion passes, all other methods to divide the question will be put in dilatory. The vote
will then be carried out according to the motion's pattern of division. Only operative clauses
that pass the vote shall remain, other clauses would be deleted. The Council will then vote
all remaining clauses as a whole. If all the clauses fail, the Draft will fail as a whole and
the other Draft Resolution can enter the voting procedure.
ii. Motion for Reordering Draft Resolutions: Voting on a Draft Resolution is usually based
on the order of their submission, unless a Delegate raises a Motion for Reordering Draft
Resolutions. In this occasion, the Delegate may decide which Draft Resolutions will be
voted earlier and which Drafts will be voted later. This motion only needs a second to pass.
iii. Motion for a Roll Call vote: To pass, the Motion will need a second and does not need to
be put to a vote. When the Motion passes, the Chair shall call upon the Delegates on an
alphabetical order. Each Delegate will then vote 'yes', 'no', 'yes with rights', 'no with rights',
or 'abstain' towards the Draft Resolution. Delegates who identify themselves 'Present and
Voting' cannot abstain. Delegates may also choose 'pass' to delay his/her vote. After all
countries have been called, the Chair will return to the Delegates who pass. A Delegate
cannot pass more than one time. After the completion of the procedure, the Chair will then
call Delegates who answer 'yes with rights' or 'no with rights'. These delegates may express
their reason for voting in contrary of what they might be supposed to vote. In other words,
'yes with rights' or 'no with rights' may only be conveyed by a Delegate who provides a
dissenting opinion from his/her bloc.

3
 b. A Delegate has one vote must demonstrate his/her voting intention by raising his/her placards
unless the voting procedure will be carried out with a Roll Call.
c. A Draft resolution shall be adopted by Fulfilling two-thirds of the member states in each committee,
this applies to every committee except ICJ.
d. No Delegate may vote on behalf of another Delegate. The Council can only produce one Resolution
for each agenda. If there are more than one Draft Resolution on the floor, the earliest Draft
Resolution to pass will be recognized as the Resolution, and all other Drafts will not be put to a
vote and will fail immediately.
e. If there are more than one Draft Resolution on the floor, the earliest Draft Resolution to pass will
be recognized as the Resolution, and all other Drafts will not be put to a vote and will fail
immediately
f. During voting procedure on substantive matters, the Council will be isolated and except Secretariat
staff, no one from outside is allowed to enter the room. No one from inside will be allowed to go
out of the room either.

V. Flow of the Debate

Setting the Agenda → Open General Speaker's List → Open Formal Debate (Moderated Caucus)
(Unmoderated Caucus) (Moderated Caucus) → (Working Papers) (Moderated Caucus) (Unmoderated
Caucus) → (Submission of the Draft Resolution) -> Introduce Draft Resolution 1.1 → Open Speaker's List
for Draft Resolution 1.0 → Close Speaker's List on Draft 1.0 → Introduce Draft Resolution 1.1 → Open
Speaker's List for Draft Resolution 1.1→ Introduce the Amendment of Draft 1.1→Debate on the
Amendment→ Amend the Draft→ Close Speaker's List on Draft 1.1 → Return to the General Speaker's List
→ Close the Debate and move to Voting Depiction of the Course of the Voting Reordering Draft Resolution
-> Division of the Question on Draft 1.1 -> Read Draft 1.1 after dividing and voting -> Vote on Draft 1.1 as
a whole (roll call is allowed) -> If passes, the council moves to the next topic. If fails, the council votes on
the Draft 1.0 and all other Drafts -> Draft 1.4 (hypothetically) passes -> Adjournment of the meeting

4
 STUDY GUIDE
FRIGID RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: MILITARISATION OF THE ARCTIC

Introduction of DISEC
The Disarmament and International Security Committee was established in
1993. As the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the Disarmament and International
Security Committee deals with global security issues and discussions in relation to it. As mandated under
Chapter IV article 11 of the UN Charter, “The General Assembly may consider the general principles of
cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing
disarmament and the regulation of armaments and may make recommendations with regard to such
principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both”. As per this article, the mandate of DISEC
is highlighted as, “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with
the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources”.
As described in Article 9 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN member states have equal voting rights in
the committee. The committee has been undergoing reformation in order to reach consensus to pass a

5
resolution. However, taking into account the vague interests of the member states, the committee will
entertain a ⅔ majority in order to pass a resolution.
Though both DISEC and Security Council focuses on mainly international security, there are a few
key differences on what DISEC can do compared to what the Security Council could do. While the Security
Council has more means at their disposal, the main difference comes in the process in which both operate.
Due to the fact that it is a General Assembly committee, it has a wider range of countries present since it is
not limited to 15 members. Furthermore, there are no vetoes, which means that the resolutions must be
passed with ⅔ majority.
Another way that DISEC and the Security Council differ is in their mandates. DISEC is ordered to
focus purely on security and disarmament issues; and works closely with the above mentioned UNDC and
UNCD, both of which are highly specialized organs, providing them with up to date data and information.
Therefore, while the DISEC cannot instruct peacekeeping missions to be formed, they can coordinate
current peacekeeping missions in regard to security and anti-terror measures. Through discussion and
cooperation, DISEC delegates will take appropriate measures for increasing the capacity for international
response to the militarization in the Arctic.

Introduction to the Topic

According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), the arctic region both in regions of
the north pole with no claims by state authority and states within the arctic circle will experience an
unprecedented change to the integrity of ice no later than 2030. What was once permanently frozen parts
of the world might experience a degree of thawing, a condition similar to great lakes near these regions.
This would have several implications towards the environment of the arctic including food supplies,
survival of arctic and marine animals, and increasingly more important the opening up of new trade
passages that would be accessible all year long. The deterioration of the Arctic permafrost becomes a
concern not only for the countries within and bordering the Arctic Circle namely Canada, the Kingdom of
Denmark, Kingdom of Norway, Russian Federation, and the United States of America, but also the whole
world. Through various instruments of the United Nations, the international community are urged to take
responsibility over the governance of the Arctic as the damages towards the climate are caused by centuries
of human activities. Moreover, countries with rights over the natural resources of the Arctic region --more
accessible than ever-- should be put in check over its responsible and sustainable use. The Arctic region
make up 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves (US Geographical Survey, 2013). Under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, each country holds the right to an Exclusive Economic
Zone upwards to 200 nautical miles from the coast. However, countries are also entitled the right to submit

6
claims of a continental shelf that extends beyond the EEZ. These claims would then be submitted to the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) where a group of scientists would accept or
reject the scientific validity of each claim. The Russian Federation have submitted their claims of the arctic
in 2015, while Canada has only submitted their claims in May 2019. These claims often times overlap as
claims would only be applicable in subject to a delimitation process by bordering countries. The continental
shelf claims would allow for countries to have sovereign rights over exploitation and management over the
natural resources of the seabase.
With the stakes increasingly high, Arctic States are exploring new ways to broaden their reach over
trade routes and natural resources while also strengthening defense and security over their territories. The
United States and Russia have never fully left a cold war posterizing of military capabilities through military
exercises that includes bombers and fighter jets circling the border between Alaska and Siberia (WSJ,
2019). NATO has recently conducted military drills in the Canadian region of Nanook-Nunalivut to match
Russia’s increased military presence through additional forces and modernization of weapons and
equipments in the Arctic (NY Times, 2019). More concerningly, the presence of nuclear warheads and
nuclear capable vehicles in Russian and American Arctic arsenal have alerted the indigenous communities.
Civil societies have pushed for an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) alike that of Antarctica but
the agenda have not been pursued by states. Despite Mikhail Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in 1987 on
the “Zone of Peace” in the Arctic, acts of demilitarization and disarmament have only gone the other
direction. Even with several resolutions in hand such as the Ilulissat Declaration and the Barents Sea
agreement, continuous militarization through strengthening Arctic stronghold by state parties of said
agreements indicate that the Arctic is far from free of conflict.
The Disarmament and International Security committee could be the place where the voices of such
concerns be heard and strategically put as an agenda to push for by the international committee. As member
states of DISEC, delegates are expected to utilize the instruments of the United Nations both past and
present into realizing the agenda of peaceful cooperation in the Arctic. The Arctic Council could also be an
option that delegates could utilize in strengthening Arctic Governance. Currently, the Arctic Council holds
firm that both states within and without the Arctic Circle and other stakeholders such as the indigenous
people are to be heard in a creation of a conflict free Arctic. The objectives are set; creation of a conflict-
free zone of Arctic, peaceful governance of Arctic trade routes, and a sustainable exploitation and
management of the resources in the Arctic seabed.

7
Key Definitions

Key Terms Definition

Arctic Borders Refers to the borders both on and offshore that concerns the claimed and
unclaimed parts of the arctic regions. Each country bordering the arctic,
notwithstanding several consensus, have different interpretation of said borders
with each different claims based on history, nautical borders, etc.

Arctic Council The Arctic Council is an Intergovernmental forum consisting of countries that
borders the Arctic region, indigenous people representation serving as permanent
participants along, and several non arctic states acting as observers. It focuses on
the promotion of cooperation, coordination, and interaction on issues of
sustainable development and environmental protection under the Ottawa
Declaration.

Arctic Countries Refers to the countries that borders the arctic region (Canada, the Kingdom of
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the
United States). The countries are the main stakeholders of the issue. However,
other member states’ stance on the issue should also be taken into account.

Arctic trade routes 1. Northeast Passage: A route closer to Russian territorial waters named the
most practical route as of late.
2. Northwest Passage: Route closer to Canadian waters with claims of
international waters from USA and European Countries.
3. Transpolar Route: A route outside of territorial claims (international
waters) predicted to be the most practical route due to ice melting.

Commission on the The Commission is an apparatus of the UNCLOS made up of 21 scientists

Limits of Continental nominated by member states that determines on the validity of claims
Shelf made by states on the continental shelf. The claims made are those
(CLCS) beyond the 200 nautical miles limit of the EEZ.

Exclusive Economic A specific legal regime of an Exclusive Economic Zone executed under
Zone UNCLOS art. 55-75. It is an “area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea” of
(EEZ) a state spanning 200 nautical miles from the coast. It allows for exploration,

8
 exploitation, and management of natural resources within the zone while also
gives responsibilities to manage the environment of the zone.

Militarization A maneuver from states military to move its military capabilities both personnel
and defense equipment to a specific zone usually done to increase the security of
the region from threats or strengthen the border of the state.

NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a political and military transatlantic
alliance focusing on collective defence of its (currently) 29 member states
including 5 Arctic countries; the US, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland.

UNCLOS The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that governs issues
including but not limited to; territorial limits, dispute settlements, rights and
responsibilities to natural resources, the high seas, and environmental protection
of the sea. The UNCLOS is ratified 167 states excluding the US.

Current Conditions

Given the rapid thaw of the Arctic ice cap, multiple countries have justified their ever growing
military presence in the region to secure claims over natural resources and sea-lanes; but none as ambitious
as Russia. This becomes particularly apparent given that one-tenth of all of Russia’s economic investments
are located in the Arctic region.
Russia’s strive to assert dominance in the region is manifested in its billion dollar investments made
to build or upgrade military bases along the route. Advanced missile and radar systems are deployed to
tighten their grip on the Northern Sea Route (NSR), placing every vessel crossing through the Arctic under
strict oversight (Financial Times, 2019). Additionally, regulative measures had also been taken to further
secure Russia’s control over traffic through the passage.
After having released regulations to control commercial traffic, Russia has also developed new
rules to regulate military ships and vessels navigating the NSR. Based on these new regulations, any foreign
military vessel and their auxiliaries are required to provide a notice for Russian officials 45 days in advance
in order to obtain permission to cross the passage, which they are allowed to reject without any explanation.
Furthermore, any foreign military vessel is also required to take on board Russian pilots (Financial Times
2019). Failure to meet the requirements set by the Russian government is punishable by arrest and even
destroying of vessel.

9
 Russia’s decision to regulate access to the passage had been met by harsh rejection from other
countries. Their regulation is said to be out of sync with the Law of Sea treaty. While a large portion of the
NSR is still regarded as Russia’s exclusive economic zone in accordance to 200 nautical miles rule, an
equally large part of the passage is exempt from the exclusive economic zone or too narrow for the high
sea to apply; making them subject to fully guaranteed access for any international vessel. Washington has
responded by declaring that the regulations made by Russia are inconsistent with international law. Russia’s
claim that they are protecting commercial shipping and environment in lieu of article 234 of the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea is false, given that military ships are regarded as sovereign immune
vessels and thus exempt from article 234 (Polygraph.info, 2019).
In 1996, a special international body was founded to protect the interests and rights in The Arctic
region under the name Arctic Council, composed by eight countries namely Russia, Norway, Denmark,
Canada, United States, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. While the council had served as means of cooperation
among countries residing within the region, any form of military upgrade had resulted in potential friction.
Russia’s bold move has sent signal of high alert to its rivaling countries forcing them to react through
corresponding deterrence measures. The advanced strategy adapted by Russia had left other countries
scrambling to keep up. Canada, Denmark, and Norway individually had ramped up their military
infrastructure through increase in security related expenditure.
The United States however, seems to fail to adopt a coherent move. Not only had it been a latecomer
to the party, its access to the region is also significantly hindered by the fact that the United States is among
the countries that did not ratify the UNCLOS, the main juridical body applied to the region which prevents
it from establishing the outer limits of its continental shelf. Furthermore, compared to Russia and even
China, the US is still behind in terms of technology required to navigate the Arctic region, further
undermining its grip on the Arctic passage. Currently, Washington owns one icebreaker that also happens
to be 40 year old. For comparison, Russia owns 40, while China owns two icebreakers (Raconteur, 2019).
At current, five out of eight Arctic Council members are included in NATO, binding them to a
commitment of mutual military assistance between members. This appears to preclude the possibility of
fair and balanced deliberations on the territorial disagreements in the region. For instance, despite Canada’s
sovereignty disputes with the United States (over the Beaufort Sea) and with Denmark (over the Hans
Island), the three NATO partners have been coordinating their military strategies in the Arctic. Their
collective participation in this year’s Nanook exercises, gives Moscow a sense that NATO countries are
ganging up against Russia. To further complicate matters, the Arctic Council is formally prohibited from
discussing military security in the Arctic. Members consequently discuss security issues in informal
meetings, like the one that took place on a Canadian military base in early 2012. Needless to say, the existing

10
mistrust has prevented any substantive discussion on addressing security concerns in the region (The
Diplomat, 2019).
After having been granted observer status in the Arctic Council, China’s presence in the region
has grown considerably. With its newly granted title, China has exerted all necessary resources to plant
their influence in the NSR. Diplomatic visits to Finland, Denmark, and Sweden are aimed at deepening
trade and cooperation. Furthermore, China had also expanded their research institute to collaborate with
Nordic institutions as part of their plan to study the impacts of climate change in the region. However, the
most ambitious cooperation is that between China and Russia; with China supplying the money while
Russia sorts out the logistics. In a joint venture, the two countries come together in an ambitious plan to
explore the Arctic fields for oil and gas. Harmonious as the two may seem, China’s increasing assertiveness
also puts Moscow on alert. As quoted from one of their officials: while China is considered a strategic
partner, it is the Arctic states that decide the rules to the game (The Diplomat, 2013).

Past Resolutions
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A/RES 68/71)
Historically, there was legal uncertainty as to whether the icy Arctic region should be classified as
ocean, and thus beyond the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. In response to this uncertainty, the
international community has endorsed the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
which represents its attempt “to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean.
UNCLOS was opened for signature at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on 10 December 1982 and entered into force
on 16 November 1994. Currently, the five members of the Arctic Council except United States have ratified
and committed themselves to the treaty.
The regime for oceans and seas established by UNCLOS deals with a wide range of issues on ocean
affairs and recognized that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered
as a whole. One of the key provisions under this Convention which related to the issue of militarization of
the arctic is dispute settlement. Under this Convention, the procedure requires States to settle any disputes
between them concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by peaceful means. If parties
to a dispute cannot resolve their dispute through bilateral means, the Convention gives them a choice among
four procedures: submission of the dispute to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, adjudication
by the International Court of Justice, submission to binding international arbitration procedures or
submission to special arbitration tribunals with expertise in specific types of disputes. There are three
institutional bodies established under UNCLOS which are, the International Seabed Authority, the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

11
The Ilulissat Declaration
The Ilulissat Declaration was adopted by the five Arctic nations with borders on the Arctic Ocean
(Denmark, Norway, Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States) in 2008. This Declaration was
a Danish (and Greenlandic) initiative to affirm the support of the Arctic States to the principles of the
declaration and to discuss the joint efforts for a peaceful and productive cooperation. By signing the
declaration, the Arctic Nations committed themselves to peaceful cooperation and dialogue regarding the
development in the Arctic Ocean and to settle possible overlapping territorial claims or other discrepancies
within the framework of international law and the Law of the Sea. Aside dispute settlement, the Arctic
Nations also emphasized regional cooperation within science and technology and search and rescue is
desirable and mutually beneficial. As a result, the nations signed the Agreement on Enhancing International
Arctic Scientific Cooperation in 2017 and the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement in 2011.

Barents Sea Agreement

Barents Sea Agreement is a maritime delimitation agreement between Norway and Russia
regarding the Barents Sea. This agreement ends almost 40 years of territorial conflict and treaty negotiations
between the two Arctic nations. The treaty ensures continuation of the parties’ close cooperation in the
sphere of fisheries and contains provisions on cooperation regarding exploration of transboundary
hydrocarbon (oil and gas) deposits. According to the treaty, Norway and Russia got approximately equal
parts of the disputed territory and a compromise between the median line and sector approach was reached.
This agreement certainly demonstrated cooperation between the Arctic states and the commitment to follow
the rules of the UNCLOS. In addition, it proved to be efficient in solving outstanding maritime issues
through bilateral agreements with regards to geographical factors without resorting to dispute settlement
bodies which rely on geological and geomorphologic factors.

UN-Habitat Resolution Sustainable Development of Arctic Human Settlements (HSP/GC/21/L5)

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-Habitat, is the United Nations agency for
human settlements. It is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and environmentally
sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all. This UN-Habitat Resolution
recognizes the need in the provision of adequate housing for the population of Arctic Region and sustainable
development of human settlements in this region and requests the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT to
render the necessary assistance in the promotion of international cooperation with the aim to solve the
problems of sustainable development of cities and other human settlements. To provide improved housing

12
and infrastructure in the circumpolar zone of the globe and to create favorable living conditions for the
indigenous population.

Bloc Positions
USA
The Arctic policy of the United States is a combination of their foreign policy as well as domestic
policy in regards to the Alaskan territory. Since 1867 the United States of America has been one of the
eight Arctic nations and one of the five Arctic Ocean littoral countries. The United States has been a member
of the Arctic Council since its inception in 1996 and assumed the Chairmanship (from Canada) in April
2015. 4 of the Arctic Council's 6 Permanent Participant indigenous organizations have representatives in
Alaska. The United States is also an observer of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.
The interests of the United States in the Arctic consists of meeting national security and homeland
security needs relevant to the Arctic region; Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological
resources; Ensure that natural resource management and economic development in the region are
environmentally sustainable; Strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations;
Involve the Arctic's indigenous communities in decisions that affect them; and Enhance scientific
monitoring and research into local, regional, and global environmental issues.
Canada is the United States' closest partner in Arctic affairs, due to their geographic proximity and
similar Arctic policy directives. The countries work together on scientific research, including mapping the
Arctic sea floor. Two significant disagreements are the border dispute in the Beaufort Sea and the legal
designation of the Northwest Passage.

Russia
Russia is one of five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean. In 2011, out of 4 million inhabitants of
the Arctic, roughly 2 million lived in arctic Russia, making it the largest arctic country by population.
However, in recent years Russia's Arctic population has been declining. The main goals of Russia in its
Arctic policy are to utilize its natural resources, protect its ecosystems, use the seas as a transportation
system in Russia's interests, and ensure that it remains a zone of peace and cooperation.
Having great interest in the Arctic region, Russia has one of the most assertive military policies as
a security measure in the area. Russia unveiled a new Arctic command, four new Arctic brigade combat
teams, 14 new operational airfields, 16 deepwater ports, and 40 icebreakers with an additional 11 in
development. On top of that, Russia has conducted military exercises including the Vostok exercise in 2018
and Zapad in 2017. The rift between Russia and the West, especially in light of Russia’s Ukrainian
intervention 2014, highlights the tension that affects Russia-West Arctic relations. With this, Russia’s

13
movement in the Arctic could be seen as a threat by other Arctic states, even though Russia’s main aim in
the Arctic is largely non-military and focus on the exploitation of natural resources.

China
China is one of the thirteen non-Arctic that has been approved as the observers Arctic Council.
China’s interests in the Arctic can be narrowed down to two categories. First, China is closely involved in
activities in the area like scientific research, resource exploration and exploitation, shipping and security.
Second is climate change and its potential consequences on the region are expected to affect much of the
world. Moreover, China wants to tie the Arctic to its “Belt and Road Initiative” encouraging joint efforts to
construct a “Polar Silk Road” that would link China and Europe through the Arctic Ocean.
China is the largest consumer and importer of energy resources in the world but its vast
geographical distance from the Arctic limits Beijing’s opportunity to set the agenda and form a strategy for
taking advantage of new Arctic opportunities. Nevertheless, China was the first Asian state to show interest
and it has begun efforts to become a full member of the Arctic Council. Beijing argues that under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the Arctic Ocean is a shipping commons, and that climate change
has negative consequences for Chinese food security, particularly with the flooding of its coastal regions.

Canada
As a member of NATO with the most to claim from the Arctic due to sheer size, Canada has
facilitated Arctic military training done by both its national military and in cooperation with NATO. In
2013, Canadian Forces have set up shop in theResolute Bay Arctic Training Center. However, as a state
party to the UNCLOS, Canada has made legitimate efforts to expand its reach in the Arctic resources.
Canada submitted continental shelf claims to the CLCS in May 2019. Canada has several disputes over its
territorial claims, including the Hans Island with Denmark and the Lomonosov Ridge continental shelf
which was also claimed by Russia and Denmark. Canada has exerted that it is a national priority to secure
the Arctic region of Canada with aims of exploiting and managing its rich natural resources.

Denmark
With sovereignty over Greenland, Denmark had asserted that the territories surrounding the island
is crucial to the integrity of Danish borders. Past conflicts including Hans Island and Lomonosov Ridge
have not stopped Denmark in advancing its interests and also submitting their claims. Extension of
Greenland’s continental shelf would guarantee sovereign rights over natural resources underneath the
seabed of the North Pole. However, in terms of military activities, Denmark seeks for a NATO strategy

14
instead of a national one since it would be aligned to their interests. Internally, Denmark has made minimal
efforts in fortifying its Greenland territory.

Norway
Norway’s biggest issue towards the Arctic territorial dispute remains the Loophole in between the
Barents Sea, the Western Nansen Basin and the Banana Hole. Continuous overlapping claims between
Russia and Norway have yet to be resolved. After submitting claims of the issue to the CLCS, Norway was
recommended to set up bilateral agreements with Russia over delimitation of territories. Both parties agreed
upon the Treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean in
2010. However, with the political stature of Russian Federation, Norway have expressed the need for a
mediation process for future conflicts.

The European Union

Several countries, including France and the United Kingdom, have raised concerns over the
governance of the Arctic region going so far as joining the Arctic Council with an observer status. Officiated
by the European Parliament, the member states of the EU have enacted the integrated policy for the Arctic.
The policy includes the urge towards Arctic countries -- important allies for the EU-- for sustainable use of
resources, protection of civilians including indigenous inuit of the Arctic region, and to ensure a condition
of low tension within the arctic. The EU seeks for a leading role in international negotiations on the Arctic
with an arsenal of environmental policies at their disposal with the threat of natural deterioration and
irreversible consequences. In the past, the EU has made a joint-policy between Russia, Norway, and Iceland
and the Eu in promoting sustainable development in the Arctic. The EU also continuously push for the
respect over the rule of law including existing mechanism from the UN and related international
organization. UNCLOS remains the forefront of EU’s advocacy for Arctic governance.

Asian Members of the Arctic Council

Despite gains for several countries on the establishment of a faster and shorter trade routes, other
countries might beg to differ. Specifically countries with immense economic input from conventional trade
routes that spans from Europe, through the Suez canal, all the way to East Asia. Since gaining observer
status in the Arctic Council, countries such as India, Singapore, and South Korea have indicated concerns
over the militarization of the Arctic. Hiding behind these concerns is another issue that the trade routes
would then be monopolized by the biggest player in the Arctic, Russia. Trade routes through the Northern

15
Passage would cut the distance by one-third in comparison to conventional routes. These routes would
theoretically jeopardize economic input towards aforementioned countries.

Others
Other countries outside of Asia that are included in the Suez Canal routes and Several Pacific island
countries would also have a less favorable view upon the militarization pushed by continuous development
in the Arctic region. For several sub-saharan African countries on the coast of the Red Sea, the shorter
distance provided by the transpolar route would be a much favorable path taken by shipping lanes. On the
other hand, Pacific Islands and countries most vulnerable to climate change, the development of the
transpolar route and the exploitation of natural resources in the Arctic would speak volumes to the global
attention to climate change. The reason for the opening of trade routes is the development of the natural
resources industry in the Arctic resulting in melting sea ice. The most vulnerable countries would be more
than justified to forcibly object against said developments.

Recommended Reading

Heininen, Lassi, and Heather Exner-Pirot. Climate Change and Arctic Security: Searching for a
Paradigm Shift. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.Heininen, Lassi, and Heather Exner-Pirot. Climate
Change and Arctic Security: Searching for a Paradigm Shift. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

An Easy guide to writing draft resolution. https://bestdelegate.com/model-un-made-easy-how-to-write-a-

resolution/

An in-depth introduction to the disputed region

https://www.ufrgs.br/ufrgsmun/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Militarization-of-the-Arctic-
Political-Economic-and-Climate-Changes.pdf

Countries and their respective strategy in brief

https://thediplomat.com/2013/10/the-creeping-militarization-of-the-arctic

16
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
1. Is there a cause for concern for the Disarmament and International Security Committee with regards
to new arctic trade routes, undiscovered Arctic natural resources, and unprecedented claims of new
states territories in the Arctic?
2. How should members of the United Nations address the increase in states’ military capabilities and
presence in the arctic circle?
3. To what extent can and should the Disarmament and International Security Committee intervene
in the modernization and strengthening of states’ military capabilities with regards to state
sovereignty?
4. The UNCLOS remains the only international regime to govern the Arctic. Is the United Nations
well equipped in ensuring international security and ensuring a conflict free Arctic Region? If not,
what sort of instruments should be revised, reconstructed, and or added?
5. How can member states of UNGA strengthen cooperation between the UN and the Arctic Council
in creating a peaceful Arctic Region?

17
References

Book:
Heininen, Lassi, and Heather Exner-Pirot. Climate Change and Arctic Security: Searching for a
Paradigm Shift. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.Heininen, Lassi, and Heather Exner-Pirot. Climate
Change and Arctic Security: Searching for a Paradigm Shift. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Government Publishing(s):
Russian Federation. “Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation to the Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf in Respect of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation in the
Arctic Ocean” 2015.
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2015_08_03_Exec_Summary
_English.pdf

Kingdom of Norway. “Executive Summary of Continental Shelf Submission of Norway”. 2006.

https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor06/nor_exec_sum.pdf

Kingdom of Denmark. “Partial Submission of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together
with the Government of Greenland to the Commision on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: The
Northern Continental Shelf of Greenland”, 2014.

Government of Canada. “Partial Submission of Canada to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf regarding its continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean”. 2019.

European Parliament. “An integrated EU Policy for the Arctic”. European Parliament Resolution of
16 March 2017 on an integrated European Union policy for the Arctic (2016/2228(INI))

UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/1

Journal Article(s):

18
Carlson, Jon D., Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, and Shane Young. "Scramble for
the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial Claims." SAIS
Review of International Affairs. Vol. 33, No. 2 (Summer-Fall 2013): 21-43.

Ernie Regehr (2019) Cooperative Security and Denuclearizing the Arctic,

Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2:1, 274-296, DOI: 10.1080/25751654.2019.1631696

Heather Exner-Pirot. 2020. Between Militarization and Disarmament: Challenges for Arctic
Security in the Twenty-First Century. Climate Change and Arctic Security, pages 91-106.

Simon, Mary. “Toward an Arctic Zone of Peace: an Inuit Perspective.” The Canadian Journal of
Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, Nov. 1989, pp. 27–30. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23609829.

Online Article(s):

Aliyev, Nurlan. “Russia's Military Capabilities in the Arctic.” ICDS, 25 June 2019,
https://icds.ee/russias-military-capabilities-in-the-arctic/

“AMAP SLCF Expert Group Meeting.” Arctic Council, 20 May 2015, https://arctic-
council.org/index.php/en/about-us.

Astrasheuskaya, Nastassia. “Polar powers: Russia’s bid for supremacy in the Arctic Ocean.”
Financial Times, 28 April 2019, https://ft.com/content/2fa82760-5c4a-11e9-939a-
341f5ada9d40

Assenova, Margarita. “Russia’s New Rules for Northern Sea Route Violate International
Law.” Polygraph.info, 12 March 2019, https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-
claim-arctic/29817535.html

Blank, Stephen. “China's Arctic Strategy.” – The Diplomat, For The Diplomat, 20 June 2013,
https://thediplomat.com/2013/06/chinas-arctic-strategy/.

19
Buchanan, Elizabeth, and Boulègue Mathieu. “Russia's Military Exercises in the Arctic Have
More Bark Than Bite.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 20 May 2019,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/20/russias-military-exercises-in-the-arctic-have-more-
bark-than-bite/.

“Climate Change and Arctic Security: Five Key Questions Impacting the Future of Arctic
Governance.” Just Security, 14 Dec. 2017, https://www.justsecurity.org/45004/climate-
change-arctic-security-key-questions-impacting-future-arctic-governance/.

Cooper, Helene. “Military Drills in Arctic Aim to Counter Russia, but the First Mission Is to
Battle the Cold.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/europe/global-warming-russia-arctic-usa.html

Gramer, Robbie. “Vanguards of the Thawing Arctic.” Foreign Policy, 4 May 2019,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/04/bracing-in-cold-for-arctic-thaw-canada-soldiers-
military-exercise-nunavut-polar-geopolitics-china-russia/.

Gordon, James. “Is America losing out on the Northern Sea Route?.” Raconteur, 10
September 2019, https://www.raconteur.net/finance/northern-sea-route

Kfc. “Model UN Made Easy: How to Write a Resolution.” Best Delegate Model United
Nations, 25 Oct. 2019, https://bestdelegate.com/model-un-made-easy-how-to-write-a-
resolution/.

Meredith, Sam. “NATO Is Carefully Monitoring the 'Security Implications' of China's

Increased Presence in the Arctic.” CNBC, CNBC, 7 Aug. 2019,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/07/china-nato-is-monitoring-beijings-increased-presence-
in-the-arctic-circle.html.

Rempfer, Kyle. “NORTHCOM: Arctic Now America's 'First Line of Defense'.” Defense
News, Defense News, 6 May 2019, https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-
military/2019/05/06/northcom-arctic-now-americas-first-line-of-defense/.

20
Shea, Neil, and Louie Palu. “A New Cold War Brews as Arctic Ice Melts.” As Arctic Ice
Melts, a New Cold War Brews, 9 May 2019,
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/new-cold-war-brews-as-arctic-
ice-melts/.

Singh, Abhijit. “The Creeping Militarization of the Arctic.” – The Diplomat, For The
Diplomat, 16 Oct. 2013, https://thediplomat.com/2013/10/the-creeping-militarization-of-
the-arctic/.

“The Arctic Council: Building a Region of Peaceful Cooperation.” WWF, World Wildlife
Fund, https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/the-arctic-council-building-a-region-of-
peaceful-cooperation.

Watts, Jonathan. “Military Buildup in Arctic as Melting Ice Reopens Northern Borders.” The
Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Jan. 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/military-buildup-in-arctic-as-melting-
ice-reopens-northern-borders.

21
 Negotiator’s Log Format
Name:
NIM:
Country:

Date and Time Country/Delegate Point of Negotiation Result of Negotiation

22