Study Guide: United Nations Security Council Imun 2010

STUDY GUIDE: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
IMUN 2010
1
IMUN 2010
United Nations
Security Council
Dear distinguished delegates,
I hereby welcome you to the Security Council of 2008 in the First Indonesia Model
United Nations. it’s a sincere honor to welcome you to the first and largest varsity level
Model United Nations in Indonesia and to the Historical Security Council. The security
council is one of the most intense and exciting committee there is at the Inaugural
Indonesia Model United Nations. My name is Dyah Ayunico Ramadhani and it is a
great pleasure to serve as the Director of the Historical Security Council, 2008, together
with two beautiful assistant director Erika Angelika and Ignes Priscilla. I am currently
enrolled as a third year student majoring International Relations in Universities
Indonesia. I am deeply passionate about international affairs, art (both traditional and
modern art), English language, and also social and environmental issues. I have
previously been a delegate at Harvard National Model United Nations 2010 in the
Historical General Assembly, Asia Pacific Model United Nations Conference 2010 in
the Security Council, and Nanyang Technological University Model United Nations
2009 in the European Union committee. Furthermore, I have too engaged in several
debating related competition and events, and as well as youth based organizations.
In regards of starting of our committee, I would like to remind all of the delegate of the
uniqueness of our very own Security Council. We will be the smallest committee in
IMUN 2010 yet the most powerful in terms of policy towards the whole international
society. Like in any other matter, from big power comes big responsibility. I expect all
member of the council to really take not upon the rules and procedure of the council
especially one with regard to the substantial voting procedure in which some of the
council members has a special right of veto. We will try to find a solution for the matter
of nuclear proliferation that had been vexing the international community for quite a
long time. I emphasize the need for delegates to do in depth research and analysis
regarding the topic and conduct intensive negotiation among themselves during
conference sessions. Had there be any confusion or question regarding the matter of the
council please do not hesitate to contact me via email (dhanny_usher@hotmail.com/
sc@indonesiamun.org) and don’t forget to introduce yourself while doing so. I will try
to help with any of your inquiry involved in the substantive issue of the conduct of the
meeting.
Warmest regard,
Dyah Ayunico Ramadhani
Director of Security Council
Indonesia Model of UN 2010
2
IMUN 2010
HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL

United Nations as a body created after the calamity of two disastrous world war had
several body and subsidiary organ working together to help maintain the international
peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social
progress, better living standards and human rights. Founded in 1945, the Organization
can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 192 Member
States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the
Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.1 The Security Council
is a very special organ within the UN as,under the UN Charter, it was specifically
assigned for the maintenance of international peace and security. To entertain such
function, the security council is also being given more authority to give out binding
resolutions to all member states-enabling them to assign mandate in conducting peace
keeping operations, sanctions, and even recommend admission of members. Thus
decision made in the Security Council are very crucial not only to the UN but
importantly also to the well being of the international society. The Security Council
itself consist of 15 members states, in which five permanent member will be holding
veto rights upon resolutions; the other ten non-permanent members are elected by the
General Assembly for two-year terms and not eligible for immediate re-election.
Under the Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are2 :to maintain
international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the
United Nations;to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international
friction; to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement; to
formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments; to determine
the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action
should be taken; to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures
not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression; to take military action
against an aggressor; to recommend the admission of new Members; to exercise the
trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas"; to recommend to the
General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the
Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
The UNSC also has some subsidiary bodies which includes three standing committees:
The Security Council Committee of Experts, the Security Council Committee on
Admission of New Members, and the Security Council. Committee on Council
Meetings away from Headquarters. Furthermore, there are also a number of ad-hoc
committees, sanctions committees, working groups, peace-keeping operations and
international tribunals to assist the functions of the Security council.
3
IMUN 2010
The view of the Security Council deliberating global security issues
In this particular chance, we are going to take our self back in time precisely on at the
very start of 2008 where international enforcement of nuclear nonproliferation is at
stake. Around the eve of 2008, failures of effective and necessary measures to ensure
adherence to series international nuclear arrangements has reach its tall and until now
remain unresolved. This committee will try to reenact the Security Council meetings at
the time of those events and also see how we could make better approach towards the
issue. Within in it, we will showcase the dynamics of international politics and the art of
creating such momentous resolutions. By playing a part in this council, our intention is
to learn from history’s problems and mistakes and, furthermore, hopefully uncover
strategies and questions that the past has failed to attain.
Topic Area : Nuclear Proliferation

INTRODUCTION:
THE PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
The Case of nuclear proliferation seemed to always be a prevalent issue among
the permanent member of the security council. The complication has never been far
from the compliance issue among countries who declare-whether it’s publicly or not- to
develop or even own nuclear weapons.
4
IMUN 2010
The NPT requires all states to observe international controls on all transfers of
nuclear technology and to seek to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation through a
variety of specific means.3 The treaty attempts to halt and, further, bring to and end the
spread of nuclear weapons and to preserve the status quo between nuclear weapon states
and non–nuclear weapon states. Only four countries-Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan-
have chosen to not be a part of this regime. A non-signatory state has no right to enrich
uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power; All efforts regarding nuclear
development have and must remain under inspection from the IAEA. Among those who
are signatory, the treaty, signed in 1968, recognizes only five nuclear weapon states (the
United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, and China), which had already
tested nuclear weapons by that time while other states are considered to be non–nuclear
weapon states under the treaty.4
IRAN’S CONDITION:
Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is purely for civil energy purposes is
viewed with skepticism by major powers.5 As stated before, only those signatory states
with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the much
higher level needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed
to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power
station fuel. It blames the Security Council resolutions on political pressure from the US
and its allies.
Ali Shirazi, an aide to Supreme

Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
speaks under a picture of the
supreme leader in Tehran in this
November 29, 2005 file photo. Iran
will hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in
the Gulf and American interests
around the world if it is attacked
over its disputed nuclear activities,
Ali Shirazi was quoted as saying on
July 8, 2008. "The first bullet fired
by America at Iran will be followed
by Iran burning down its vital
interests around the globe," the
students news agency ISNA quoted
Ali Shirazi as saying in a speech to
It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to
international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and
the violation of its rights," he has said. The President claims that pressure and
intimidation would not change Iranian policy. If certain countries had pinned their
hopes that repeated resolutions would “dent the resolve of the great Iranian nation”,
they should have no doubt that they had “once again faced catastrophic intelligence and
analytical failure vis-à-vis the Iranian people’s Islamic revolution”. Even the harshest
5
IMUN 2010
political and economic sanctions were too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat
from their legal and legitimate demands.
Determined to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support
of its nuclear and missile programs, the Security Council in 2007 had widened the scope
of its December 2006 sanctions against Iran by banning the country’s arms exports and
freezing the assets and restricting the travel of additional individuals engaged in the
country’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Security Council unanimously
adopted resolution 1747 (2007) which was submitted by France, Germany and the
United Kingdom. Within the resolution, the Council affirmed its decision that Iran
should, without further delay, suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,
including research and development, to be verified by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states are told to
exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Loans are supposed to be
limited to humanitarian and development purposes.
The relevant sanction measures should neither harm the Iranian people nor affect
normal economic, trade and financial exchanges between Iran and other countries. The
Council’s actions should be appropriate, incremental and proportionate, and not
aggravate conflict or lead to confrontation. Resolution 1747 did not introduce any
change to the exemption provisions provided for in resolution 1737. If Iran suspended
its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and complied with the relevant
resolutions of IAEA and the Council, the Council should suspend and even terminate
the sanction measures. Thus, Iran until now is under inspection from the IAEA.
A new resolution about sanctions on Iran will soon be up for discussion at the
United Nations Security Council.
Delegates
from France,
Iran, Russia
and the U.S.
attend a
meeting at the
International
Atomic
Energy
Agency's
headquarters
in Vienna
THE DEBATE:
As only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in
6
IMUN 2010
1968 are allowed to enrich to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon, Iran
says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to
enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel. It blames the Security Council
resolutions on political pressure from the US and its allies. It argues that it needs nuclear
power and wants to control the whole process itself. Currently the six countries trying to
talk Iran out of its dangerous nuclear ambitions—America, Britain, France, Germany,
Russia and China—face an unappetizing choice. Iran continues to produce stocks of
enriched uranium that it claims are intended for a civilian nuclear program (although it
has no nuclear-powered reactor that could use the stuff), but which could make a bomb.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was offered a deal by which Russia and
France would have taken much of his stock of low-enriched uranium and turned it—
safely outside the country—into special higher-enriched fuel for a Tehran-based
research reactor. By diminishing Iran’s stockpile, if only for a few months, the deal
could have opened the door a crack to confidence-building talks with the six. But the
deadline for taking up that offer was the end of 2009, and the hand that Barack Obama
has extended to the regime has therefore been spurned. The question now is there a
feasible form of sanctions that could be effective to create Iran’s compliance?
Five veto-wielding countries are now pushed to sit and negotiate upon what way
shall they riposte to the issue. Some argued that it is time for tougher sanctions on the
Iranian regime. Getting agreement for such sanctions will be hard but we believe that
the price for inaction is higher. Sanctions, depending on the scope of them, can hardly
be supported by Russia and China given that the weakening of US, European hegemony
in the Middle East, if Iran obtains nuclear technology and capability, plays in the hands
of Russia and China in the long run. The deprivation of US power in this strategic
region is one of the main strategic goals of Russia and China.
If Russia now backs tougher Security Council sanctions, China may be reluctant
to be the only permanent member of the council to block new measures. But whether
the two vote yes, or merely abstain, they will work to keep UN sanctions narrowly
targeted on the individuals, companies and banks most directly involved in Iran’s
nuclear and missile programs. This is the challenge that the delegate must face and find
a solution through. Nuclear insecurity is a long living threat for the world and it’s about
time we must put an end to it. The following explanations are full of case studies and
also policies related to the topic that will help the delegates get a picture out of what the
council must encounter during conference and hopefully address and solve.
CASE STUDY
‣ India-Pakistan
In 1999, India and Pakistan fought a short war over disputed territory along the Line
of Control (LoC) that separates their forces in Kashmir.6 The war is challenging the very
popular deterrence principle at the context of cold war since the confrontation that
occurred in South Asia had not deter any of the two parties. Although India and Pakistan
7
IMUN 2010
each conducted nuclear weapon test in May 1998, Pakistan was not determine to keep
running a war with great sacrifices and very small gain. Although they both respond
strongly to attacks from other parties but an attack with nuclear power has never
happened. This supports the opinion of the experts who said that while nuclear
proliferation is dangerous but it can result in regional stability. Although in the
development of the war, each took a step that escalate conflict, both parties (or at least
the government of Pakistan) finally reached a point where they choose to resign rather
than continue to increase the risk (following the principle detterence). However, in
reality the awareness of the possible emergence of a nuclear confrontation between the
two countries still needs to be increased, considering the two countries would never
give in for one and other. Therefore we could conclude that in the Kargil confrontation,
the availability of nuclear weapons on both sides did not prevent war but did increase
the potential for a catastrophic outcome.7 In general, the Pakistan-India tension has
actually decreased to a certain extent after the defeat of Pakistan on the eastern region of
Pakistan against India in 1971. For Pakistan the incident showed an inevitable fact that
India had been more advanced in terms of conventional weapons.
Control Center Under a deal signed in 2006, the United States could sell India fuel for nuclear power
India’s 1974 nuclear weapons test—which received only a mild rebuke from
Washington when the Indian government claimed it was a peaceful demonstration—
showed that India was developing strategic capabilities unmatched by Pakistan. 8
However, in the mid-year 1980, there was indeed a some reports about China's nuclear
and missile assistance to Pakistan; China also helped design a nuclear weapon
capability that provides for Pakistan to make bombs more powerful than the Hiroshima
bomb which was launched in the year 1945. For Pakistan, nuclear weapons can be a
counterweight to its strategic balance with India. President Pervez Musharraf in his
memoirs in 2006 said that Pakistan need to protect themselves against the threat of
India's great ambition is to become a regional power and global. Another interesting fact
is how the Indian nuclear tests at Pokhran on May 11, 1998 startled the world even
including America intelligence; while Pakistan was responding to the incident with
detonating five nuclear weapon in the Baluchistan desert. Pentagon estimated that India
now has 45 to 95 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan has around 30 to 50 nuclear
8
IMUN 2010
warheads.9 This confirms that the two countries in the South Asian rivals such as
respective military already has nuclear power and expanding the center by another rival
at the same time; it also reflects the steps will be rivalry for the success or progress of
other countries in nuclear development.
President Pervez
Musharraf of Pakistan and
President Bush on 2005
assuring each other’s back
India and Pakistan have now agreed with the various framework CBM (confidence-
building measures), such as notification of movements and exercises of the armed
forces and the location of nuclear facilities, regular meetings between ministers, dll.
Indeed this does not mean much if compared to the competition and tension that still
occur but until recently neither had the intention to stop issuing such a framework. But
we need to realize that they too are still undergoing the process of enrichment of nuclear
material and technology in various ways. This includes nuclear pass through to get other
countries like America to India and China to Pakistan. America made a nuclear deal
with India while China keeps on supplying nuclear to Pakistan. Under the deal that
Bush cut with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a March visit to New Delhi,
India is classified only 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors as civilian while the other eight are
considered military and will remain shielded from international scrutiny. And because
the deal will allow India to import nuclear fuel for civilian use, critics estimate that it
could then use its own facilities to produce enough fuel for 40 or 50 nuclear bombs per
year.10 Individual countries monitor each other progress in order to be the benchmark
further nuclear development. Changes in the condition of any party will greatly affect
the steps taken by other countries. Therefore we can conclude that nuclear is essential
for both parties and intervention from a third party can trigger escalating conflict as
happened in previous confrontations.
‣ North Korea
9
IMUN 2010
In 1985, under Soviet pressure, North Korea joins the NPT and agrees to open an
indigenously constructed nuclear research reactor to IAEA inspections once it
completes a formal safeguard agreement with the IAEA.11 However, by the early 1990s,
concern was growing rapidly about North Korea nuclear activities due to a report from
IAEA which stated that there is an irregularity in North Korea’s refueling activities in
Yongbyon. This report also discovered the new sampling data provided evidence that
several illegal refueling had been conducted and that plutonium had been diverted for a
secret weapon program.12 Following six inspections during 1992–1993, the IAEA took
its report to the UN Security Council in early 1993 and demanded special inspections.
North Korea responded by announcing that it planned to withdraw from the Non-
Proliferation Treaty in 1993.
In November 1993, the UN General Assembly approves a resolution calling on
North Korea to reconsider its decision and to cooperate with the IAEA in the full
implementation of its safeguards agreement. 13 The IAEA also rejects North Korea’s
proposal for restricted inspections. After heated negotiations with the IAEA and the
United States, North Korea suspended its withdrawal (one day short of its realization)
but continued to block inspections at several sensitive facilities. This concern drives U.S
to sign a contract with North Korea in 1994. The 1994 Agreed Framework involved a
monitored freeze of North Korean nuclear facilities in exchange for a package including
the provision of oil, help building light-water nuclear reactors (which are believed to be
less useful for producing weapons) and also broader diplomatic engagement.14 From
this agreement, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions appeared to be on hold. The deal
averted a crisis but raised questions about the ability of the NPT to prevent proliferation
within its own structures and processes when a country attempted to subvert treaty
restrictions, refused to comply with special inspections, or threatened to leave the
treaty. 15
Rare images have been released of North Korea's nuclear facility at Yongbyon, which
is in the process of being disabled as part of an denuclearization deal.
Although the 1994 Agreed Framework has been made, there is still a possibility
that North Koreans could cheat. This possibility is supported by the fact that in 1995,
North Korea still denied the IAEA permission to measure the plutonium in the 8,000
spent fuel rods and has provided only minimal access to its Yongbyon nuclear
10
IMUN 2010
facilities.16 In October 1996, the UN General Assembly passes a resolution urging North
Korea to fully comply with the nuclear safeguards agreement it signed with the IAEA.
Yet in June 1997, the IAEA reports that it is still unable to verify North Korea’s initial
declaration of nuclear materials and that North Korea still remains in noncompliance
with its nuclear safeguards agreement required by its NPT membership.
North Korea has

stopped the UN
monitoring its
nuclear plant
In 1997, there is a suspicion that Pakistan has given nuclear enrichment

technology to North Korea. Until 1997, the transaction between Pakistan and North
Korea is always about Nodong missile and cash but by 1997, cash was getting harder to
come by for the Pakistani government with foreign reserves nose diving to critically low
levels17. At exactly the same time, transport planes from Islamabad visited North Korea
more frequently.18 Barter was in the interest of both countries, as each had technology
the other desperately wanted and neither had the cash to pay for it. By 1998 there were
nine flights per month, following high-level visits of North Korean officials to Pakistan
and a higher volume of Nodongs and their components was traveling over.19 And at this
same point, there were signs that North Korea’s uranium enrichment program began to
move forward more rapidly.20 Although there’s no direct evidence, this seems to be the
point at which barter began—enrichment technology in exchange for ballistic missile
technology. It was only at 1990s that Washington picked up a signs of a possible North
Korean enrichment program. In November 2001 a classified U.S. intelligence report
stated that North Korea was building a centrifuge plant somewhere in the country 21.
Until today, the North Korea nuclear enrichment program remains unknown.
‣ Israel
Until year 2007, Israel hasn’t confirmed that it has nuclear weapons or develops nuclear
weapons. Israel refused to subscribe to the 1970 nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
(NPT), so Israelis are able to avoid international inspections, and thus maintain
ambiguity about whether it has nuclear weapons. However, the existence of Israeli
nuclear weapons has been a “public secret” due to the declassification of formerly high-
classified US government documents, which show that the United States by 1975 was
convinced that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel is the sixth country in the world to
have developed nuclear weapons and is presumed to have anywhere between 80 and
200 such warheads.
11
IMUN 2010
In 1949, Israel began investigating the nuclear option under the conduct of
HEMED GIMMEL, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Science Corps’ special unit, by
searching for the uranium reserves in the Negev desert. Although no significant sources
of uranium were found, recoverable amounts were located in phosphate deposits. After
that, in 1952, the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) was built and Ernst David
Bergmann, the chief of research at the Ministry of Defense, was honored to be its first
chairman. By 1953, HEMED GIMMED, renamed as Machon 4, developed a new
method of producing heavy water, which provided Israel with an indigenous capability
to produce some of the most important nuclear materials. These two patents were then
sold to the French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA) in order
to increase nuclear cooperation with the French, which is good in reactor design and
construction.
On 5 October 1986, the

British newspaper The
Sunday Times ran
Mordechai Vanunu's
nuclear disclosure story
on its front page under
the headline: "Revealed:
the secrets of Israel's
nuclear arsenal."
As far as early 1950s, Israel and France became the two nations that have good
cooperation and in the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt
research reactor. However, the situation changed when Egypt decided to close the Suez
Canal. This condition made France and Britain agreed with Israel that they should later
provoke a war with Egypt to reopen the canal-zone. In the wake of Suez Crisis, the
Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations that enhanced the
Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliable allies
and that France leaders failed to fulfill commitments made to partner. So, as French
Prime Minister, Guy Mollet, felt ashamed because he had abandoned his commitment to
fellow socialists in Israel, on October 3rd 1957, the new deal that called France to build
a 24MWt reactor for peaceful purposes and specified other legal obligations was
finalized. This nuclear cooperation between French and Israel did not end until 1966.
This condition of Israel increases the awareness from United States. US feared
that Israel’s unclear status upon its nuclear programs might threaten the world in case
these weapons were misused. Therefore, during the 1960s, US inspectors visited Israel
seven times but still, were unable to find evidence of weapons related activities in
Israel. CIA was taking this action in 1974 until the early 1986s also. CIA estimated that
Israel had 100 to 200 nuclear devices by that time because there was a report from
Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli former nuclear technician, who revealed details of Israel’s
12
IMUN 2010
nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. Based on Vanunu’s report, it was
clear that Israel has some uranium enrichment capability at Dimona, an Israeli city in
the Negev Island, which is near the site of the Negev Nuclear Research Center and is
suspected of producing atomic bombs.
Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The
actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could
probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.
In 1991, Soviet Union was dissolved and about 20 people of Soviet scientists
immigrated to Israel and in 1992, it was quoted in press that about 40 Soviet nuclear
scientists had immigrated to Israel. Besides, during the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraq
attacked Israel with missiles, it was finally shown that Israel could respond by giving
full-scale nuclear alert and mobile nuclear missile were deployed. Responding to
Israeli’s situation, in 1996 UN passed a resolution, which called for the establishment of
a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of Middle East. However, Israel didn’t really
respond to this resolution Israel never admits that it has nuclear weapon. This situation
remains until 2007 when the confirmation upon Israeli’s nuclear weapons were still
remained ambiguity.
PAST INTERNATIONAL EVENTS

As one of the most destructive weapons in the world, the use of nuclear has
been restricted globally. This restriction consists of the banning of the nuclear weapon
tests on the atmosphere, as well as the restriction to spread the nuclear weapons
throughout the world. The former refers to the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). PTBT
itself is the treaty that bans nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, outer space and
under water. While not banning test underground, the PTBT does prohibit underground
13
IMUN 2010
nuclear explosions that cause “radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial
limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control” the explosions were conducted.22
The Treaty was formally signed at Moscow on 5th August 1963, and entered into force
on 10th March 1963 when the three original signatories (United States, United Kingdom,
and Russian Federation) deposited their instruments of ratification. The PTBT
essentially seeks to limit the testing of nuclear weapons to being underground, so as to
limit the environmental effects of such testing.23 The PTBT is deemed to be an
important first step towards an end to the armaments race, and towards complete
internationally supervised disarmament. The Treaty is of unlimited duration. Until now,
most countries have signed and ratified the Treaty. Countries known to have tested
nuclear weapons but which have not signed the treaty are China, France and North
Korea.
Participation in the Partial Test Ban

Treaty
Signed and ratified
Acceding or succeeding
Only signed
The restriction to spread nuclear weapons throughout the world refers to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT obligates the five
acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United
Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive
devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state.24 This Treaty also
prohibits the non-nuclear-weapon States to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or
nuclear explosive devices. They are also required to accept safeguards to detect
diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities to the production of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices25, which will be done in accordance with
State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these
agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the
state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the
facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. 26 If information is considered not
sufficient, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or
outside declared facilities. This Treaty opened for signature in 1968, and entered into
force on 5th March 197027 . A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the
five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms
14
IMUN 2010
limitation and disarmament agreement 28; only Israel, India, and Pakistan have never
been signatories of the Treaty, and North Korea withdrew from the Treaty in 2003.
Participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty :
Signed and Withdrawn (North

ratified Korea)
Acceded or Non-signatory
succeeded (India, Israel, Pakistan)
State abiding
by treaty
(Taiwan)
However, seems to be not enough with PTBT and NPT, the United Nations’
disarmament body, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, began formal
negotiations on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). With the help of
the Group of Scientific Experts (GSE), the CD was able to reach consensus of the
verification regime relative quickly, even though the point about whether to include a
binding time plan for nuclear disarmament had to be introduced directly to U.N.
General Assembly because the CD wasn’t able to decide29.
Finally adopted on 10th September 1996, the core provisions of the CTBT are to
prohibit all nuclear explosions anywhere, by anyone, and with any purposes, CTBT
will enter into force after it has been signed and ratified by the 44 states listed in
Annex 2 to the treaty (states that had nuclear power or research reactors at the
time), the establishment of a global verification regime30. Besides, after CTBT was
opened for signature on 24th September 1996, a de-facto international norm on
nuclear testing was established.
Until now, from total states (185 states), there have been 182 states which
signed the treaty and 151 states which ratified the treaty with Trinidad and Tobago
being the last one to sign (8th October 2009) and Marshall Islands being the last one
to ratify (28th October 2009) 31. To date, most of the world’s countries have signed
and ratified the CTBT, including the three nuclear weapon States: France, United
Kingdom and Russia. However, from the 44 states listed in Annex 2, 3 countries
15
IMUN 2010
haven’t signed the treaty. Those three countries are India, Pakistan, and Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea.
PARTICIPATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

Annex 2, signed and ratified Not Annex 2, signed and ratified
Annex 2, only signed Not Annex 2, only signed
Annex 2, non-signatory Not Annex 2, non-signatory
ROLE OF IAEA
Answering the request from the President of the United States in 1953, Dwight
D. Eisenhower, to create an international body to regulate and promote the peaceful use
of atomic power or nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was
finally established in 1957. With the purpose of promoting the peaceful use of nuclear
energy and inhibiting nuclear energy also nuclear weapons use for any military purpose,
IAEA has three main pillars or areas of work, which are: Safety and Security, Science
and Technology, and Safeguards and Verification.
IAEA is an autonomous organization that mostly done its work with the United
Nation Security Council although IAEA submits its reports to both the United Nation
General Assembly and Security Council. Programs that were established by IAEA
encourage the development of the peaceful use of nuclear technology, promote nuclear
implementation’s safety and security standards, and provide international safeguards
against the misuse of nuclear technology and materials. IAEA’s headquarters are located
in Vienna, Austria and its two “Regional Safeguards Offices” are located in Toronto,
Canada and in Tokyo, Japan.
16
IMUN 2010
The IAEA itself has three main bodies, which are: the Board of Governors, the
General Conference, and the Secretariat. The Board of Governors is responsible for
making most of the policy of IAEA, as well as making recommendations to the General
Conference on IAEA activities and budget and be responsible for publishing IAEA
standards. The General Conference (GC) meets once a year to approve the actions and
budgets passed from the Board of Governors. GC consists of 151 Member States with
each member receives one vote. To pass certain issues, it requires a simple majority or a
two-third majority. The Secretariat is responsible for enforcement of the actions passed
and is headed by the Director General. The Director General is selected by the Board
and approved by the GC for four years working term. The first Director General of
IAEA (1957-1961) is W. Sterling Cole, the former United States Congressman.
To join IAEA, a state must notify the Director General of IAEA its willingness
to join. After the Director was notified, the Director will then submits the application to
the Board and see if the Board approves it. When the States receives final approval from
the Board, State must then submit its signed acceptance letter. Until now, the IAEA has
151 member states with most of United Nation members are Member States of the
IAEA.
Past International Actions

Resolutions 1540 (2004)
The Resolution 1540 came about because of the growing threat of terrorism and the risk
that non-State actors may acquire, develop, traffic in or use nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons and their means of delivery. UNSCR 1540 requires all states to
implement measures aimed at preventing non-state actors from acquiring nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons (NBC) weapons, related materials, and their means of
delivery. 32 The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is legally
binding on all UN members. The resolution requires states to adopt and enforce
domestic legislation to prevent non-state actors from manufacturing, acquiring, or
transporting NBC weapons within or from their territory. Furthermore, it also
criminalize proliferation activities, including assisting or financing them. A Committee
was also established under the Security Council to monitor implementation of these
national legal measures, and states have been required to submit a report on their
implementation efforts to this Committee immediately as six month after the resolution
had been adopted.33 The resolution marks as momentous basis for future international
efforts non proliferation of NBC weapons.
Resolution 1673 (2006)
On the year 2006, the Council extended, for a period of two years, until 27 April 2008,
the mandate of the Committee established under resolution 1540 (2004), the first
international instrument adopted by the Council dealing with weapons of mass
17
IMUN 2010
destruction, their means of delivery and related materials in an integrated and

comprehensive manner.34 According to the UNSCR 1673 the 1540 Committee shall
intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of resolution 1540
(2004). The Committee's latest program of work states that attention will be focused on
two areas35 which include increasing the Committee's knowledge by examining
information on the status of implementation of resolution 1540 and also outreach,
dialogue, assistance and co-operation to promote the implementation of the resolution.
Although the Committee cannot provide direct assistance to member states to comply
with their reporting obligations, it has then focused on facilitating assistance from donor
states and other actors.

By the year 2006, concern towards Iranian nuclear program has been extremely
enormous. Iran developed a uranium enrichment program by camouflaging it with the
label of “watch factory”. After its centrifuges were manufactured and suspected, Iran
claimed that its nuclear program was intended to generate electricity in order to
overcome the problem of critical shortage of fossil fuels. However, Iran was the one of
the largest countries that oil and gas reserves are heavily stocked. This situation creates
dreads to people by that time, so UNSC expelled Security Council Resolution 1696 in
order to force Iran in ceasing its nuclear enrichment activity by September 1st, 2006.
The resolution was passed under authority of UN Charter, which deals with
threats to world peace. It was defined as a threat because Iran kept on delaying and
refused to give clear explanation on its nuclear enrichment program, whilst it kept on
continuing its program that might be misused to create nuclear weapons. Failure to
comply with this resolution equals to receiving sanctions or even armed intervention by
the Security Council. However, the deadline passed, Iran ignored the deadline and UN
appeared to be powerless because Iran had bargaining position in terms of the export of
oil that might rise the price of world’s commodities.

Under the UNSCR 1718, North Korea was forced to stop conducting nuclear
test, launch any ballistic missile, suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile
programs, and abandon all nuclear weapons and programs. North Korea should also
rejoin the six-party talks and other UN member states should freeze the overseas assets
of individuals and companies that are involved with North Korea’s weapon programs. In
addition, an international travel ban is also placed on programs’ employees and their
families and UN members are banned from exporting luxury goods to North Korea.
However, even though this resolution threatened North Korea, North Korea still rejects
this resolution. North Korea argued that this resolution was unjustifiable because the
pressure from US towards North Korea was still there. Therefore, it’s unfair for UNSC
to adopt such coercive resolution.
18
IMUN 2010
Resolutions 1737 (2006)

By a 15–0 vote, the UN Security Council adopts resolution 1737, calling on Iran to halt
activities related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing, and a heavy-water reactor and
imposes a ban on the export and import of materials and technology that could
contribute to these activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery
systems.36 The Resolution follows Iran’s failure to
comply with resolution 1696 of July 31, calling on
it to halt its centrifuge enrichment and
reprocessing activities by August 31.37 Resolution
1737’s sanctions froze the foreign financial assets
of 12 Iranians and 10 organizations involved in
Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, with
the exception of equipment and fuel for light-
water nuclear power plants, namely the Russian-
built Bushehr reactor, which was excluded.38
Originally, a mandatory travel ban was considered,
but that was replaced by a notification to be made
whenever sanctioned individuals and agency
representatives crossed state boundaries. The
IAEA director general is to report back within
sixty days.
The director general of the United Nation's
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Japanese Yukiya Amano.
United Nations Security Council—Resolution 1747 (2007)
Iran ignored UN Security Council Resolution 1737, passed on December 23, 2007,
which gave it a sixty-day period to halt heavy-water-related activities as well as
enrichment and reprocessing.39 But, as the IAEA reported in February 2007, satellite
imagery showed that all the construction and operation activities were continuing.40
Under strong pressure from the United States, Britain and France, the UN Security
Council voted unanimously on March 24, 2007 to adopt resolution 1747, imposing new
and toughened sanctions on Iran for failure to suspend its uranium enrichment activities
and the construction of the Arak heavy-water moderated reactor.41
The resolution also called on Iran to resolve outstanding questions about possible
nuclear activities (at the Physics Research Center/PHRC) and materials (Highly
Enriched Uranium particle contamination, Uranium enriched to 20 percent or greater)
posed by the IAEA.42 The sanctions prohibit arms sales and transfers by Iran to any
19
IMUN 2010
nation or organization; call on nations to voluntarily exercise vigilance and restraint in

exporting heavy weapons to Iran; call on nations and organizations voluntarily not to
enter into new commitments for export credit, grants, or loans to Iran except for
humanitarian purposes; and extend resolution 1737 by freezing assets of an additional
15 individuals and 13 organizations who are involved with the nuclear and missile
programs or are key persons in Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.43 In particular, it
freezes the assets abroad of Bank Sepah, Iran’s fourth largest bank, which was already
sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department, to isolate it from international financing of
Iran’s programs, particularly related to nuclear weapon development. The IAEA is to
report back within sixty days.
TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

1939 The start of World War II in Europe, the U.S., British, and German governments
separately begin to explore the possibility of building an atomic bomb.
1943 The United States and Britain sign the Combined Development Trust, obligating
them to search out and acquire existing world sup- plies of uranium.
1945 August, the Manhattan Project has cost $2 billion (about $20 billion in 2002 dollars).
U.S. B–29 bomber drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki
1954 January, the UN General Assembly establishes the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) and calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
1957 July, the United Nations officially establishes the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)
1963 August 5th, the United States, Soviet Union, and Britain sign the Limited Test Ban
Treaty which allows only underground nuclear tests by the three countries beginning
on October 10 and is of unlimited duration.
1964 Several countries including France, US, China, Soviet, British, conducted nuclear
testing
1968 June 12, the UN General Assembly approves the final text of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). July 1, countries sign the NPT.
1970 NPT enters into force
1974 May 18, India explodes a 12-kiloton plutonium bomb underground
1976 South Africa, a nuclear explosive test shaft is completed at the Vastrap testing range
in the Kalahari Desert
1983 March 23, President Reagan calls for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which the
press refers to the expensive military plan as “Star Wars”
1985 Pakistan develops the capability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade while the
Reagan administration continues aid to Pakistan despite concerns.
North Korea joins the NPT
20
IMUN 2010
1986 Pakistan takes further steps toward attaining nuclear weapon capability with the
assitance of China.
On April 26, The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine causes sudden
overheating and an explosion that releases a highly radioactive cloud.
1991 The IAEA and the newly formed UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) begin
inspections of Iraq’s undeclared weapon-related facilities
September, Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto states that Pakistan could quickly
produce a nuclear weapon in the event of a serious threat. China, reportedly, has
aided Pakistan’s quest for a nuclear bomb by providing a nuclear weapon design and
assisting construction of a plutonium reprocessing facility and a research reactor.
1992 January, a meeting of heads of state at the UN Security Council declares that nuclear
proliferation constitutes a threat to international peace and security.
March, China joins the NPT as a nuclear weapon state in but two months later
conducts its largest nuclear test ever: a 1-megaton device.
April, France decides to ratify the NPT.
South and North Korea sign the Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean
Peninsula
1993 November, the UN General Assembly approves a resolution calling on North Korea
to reconsider its decision and to cooperate with the IAEA in the full implementation
of its safeguards agreement.
1994 North Korean President Kim Il-sung agrees to halt its suspect nuclear program and
allow IAEA inspectors to return in exchange for foreign assistance in building two
light- water reactor nuclear power plants and for improved relations with the United
States. The United States responds by ceasing to pursue UN sanctions and agreeing to
high-level talks with North Korea.
In August, North Korea and the United States agree in principle to end the nuclear
stalemate.
1996 October, the UN General As- sembly passes a resolution urging North Korea to fully
comply with the nuclear safeguards agreement it signed with the IAEA.
September 24, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is opened for
signature; 71 states sign, including all five nuclear weapon states.
1998 The United Nations adopts a resolution condemning Iraq’s actions and refuses to
conduct a review of sanctions until Iraq again cooperates with UNSCOM.
June, the UN Security Council condemns the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests and
urges the countries to become members of the NPT
2000 The NPT now has 187 members. Only Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan remain
outside the treaty.
2001 The 80 countries that have ratified the CTBT (including France, Russia, and the
United Kingdom but not China, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United
States) continue working on the organization that will verify treaty compliance.
2002 China and Iran begin balking at full cooperation with a UN organization monitoring
the international nuclear test-ban treaty, raising fears that this could further
undermine the embattled pact.
21
IMUN 2010
2003 January, North Korea announces it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
August, UN inspectors have found traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium
at an Iranian nuclear facility
2004 February, Six-party talks aimed at ending the standoff over North Korea's suspected
nuclear weapons program take place in China.
June, India and Pakistan set up a nuclear 'hotline
2005 January, North Korea announces it is a nuclear weapons state.

February, Iran, Russia sign nuclear fuel agreement that is key to bringing Tehran's
first reactor online by mid-2006
August, India and Pakistan announce the establishment of an emergency nuclear
hotline and notification of future missile tests
2006 January, Iran rejects a Russian offer to produce nuclear fuel in its plants for Iran, the
latest effort to resolve a diplomatic impasse over Tehran's nuclear program.
March, India and the United States seal a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation pact.
April, IAEA reports that Iran has enriched uranium.
October, North Korea tests a nuclear device, its yield was quite low (about 1 kiloton).
2007 May, Iran Turns Away IAEA Inspectors, continuing the ongoing questions about
Iran's nuclear program
RECENT SITUATION: IRAN

In the midst of dispute upon nuclear proliferation, the UN wrestled with various
approaches to contain the spread of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are threat to the
global peace and security and serve as a door towards another world war. Therefore, it
must be eradicated and safeguarded for the future of the international community.
Much of the international community shares that goal, reflected in the establishment of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which today plays an important role in
monitoring nuclear proliferation activities. Various international legal instruments have
been negotiated, adopted, and abided by dozens of nations, including the
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), establishment of the Zangger Committee, and the
Nuclear Suppliers Group. The U.N. Security Council and various nations have used
applied sanctions as a means to modify or compel changes in states pursuing the
acquisition of nuclear weapons.44 Although compliance is still fairly disputed, the
efforts has never stop.
22
IMUN 2010
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

second right, gestures, as he visits Iran's
Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP), a new
facility producing uranium fuel for a planned
heavy-water nuclear reactor, just outside the
city of Isfahan, 255 miles (410 kilometers),
south of Tehran, Iran, Thursday, April 9,
2009. The West fears the reactor could
eventually be used for producing a nuclear
weapon. The plant will produce pellets of
uranium oxide to fuel the heavy-water
research reactor, which is scheduled to be
completed in 2009 or 2010. (AP Photo/Vahid
What ensued over the next several years, and continues largely unabated to the present,
was a deadly cat-and-mouse game in which nations such as Pakistan and later North
Korea, Libya, and Iran would seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Concurrently, various
nations, acting unilaterally as well as in concert with the international community
through such mechanisms as the Non- proliferation Treaty (NPT) that was agreed to in
1968 and entered into force in 1970 obligating its nuclear signatories to refrain from
transferring nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices to non weapons states, worked to
impede those programs.45 As such endeavor undergone, all eyes could tell that every
clause is much easier to be said than done.
Until the dawn of 2008, the conditions of nuclear proliferation is still not far from what
we have reached since a decade ago. Compliance is still the main issue. Iran has not
established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing
activities and heavy water-related projects as set out in resolution; nor resumed its
cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps
required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security
Council resolution (in UNSCR 1803) -1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747. Not only
that, report that must be taken by all countries and bound by the 1540 resolutions still
far from perfect concurrence. As tension arise by countries from the middle east, be it
Israel or Iran, the UNSC must act swiftly to place order from the threat of nuclear
uproar and a potential world war staged at the middle east. A resolution must be passed
before further hazardous action taken unilaterally by countries becomes reality.
BLOC POSITIONS
Western Countries
The Western bloc consists of the EU countries and the US. This bloc has taken direct
measures to aid the crisis in Iran. The Western bloc has also been at the vanguard of the
nuclear crisis in Iran by proposing a wide array of solutions to the problem and by
actively preventing Iran from using its nuclear program. Additionally, the Western bloc
has been at an ‘extremist’ position to prevent Iran’s nuclear program at all costs.
23
IMUN 2010
Asian Countries
The Asian bloc is split upon this issue by having nations on different sides. There are
countries who feel that Iran has no right to establish a nuclear program and therefore,
they will follow the EU and the US to take action against Iran if need be. However,
there are also nations who feel that Iran has the right to develop a nuclear program, as
long as Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons. Also there is country who would feel that
all nations have the right to develop nuclear weapons to protect their sovereignty. The
wide variety of opinions in the Asian bloc makes the discussion on this topic remains to
be stalled.
Middle Eastern Countries

Similarly to Asian bloc, the Middle Eastern bloc has split opinions within the bloc. Few
nations who are opposed to Iran’s nuclear program feel that if Iran really developed its
nuclear weapon, Iran would be their biggest threat. They also believe that Iran’s nuclear
program will threaten their sovereignty. Therefore, these countries are likely to take any
action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. On the other hand, other countries
simply would not argue with Iran gaining nuclear weapons since it would augment their
situations and give them protection. In this bloc, all nations take a variety of policies,
but most feel that Iran getting a nuclear program is tolerable as long as it does not
advance its nuclear weapons.
Latin American Countries

The Latin American bloc is against Iran’s nuclear program, but until now, it has not
taken any assertive stance on the situation. This bloc recognizes that Iran accomplishing
nuclear weapons is a threat to the international community, but they feel that it is out of
their jurisdiction to take an aggressive stance against Iran. The Latin American
countries’ ultimate goal is to achieve peace and to get a solution that would satisfy all
nations involved in the conflict.
African Countries
The African bloc is much like the Latin American bloc. They understand that Iran
developing nuclear weapons is a threat to the international community but they do not
have the proper recourses to deal with the situation. Lacking in technological
information and having much domestic problems to deal with, the African bloc has not
been able to utterly follow the crisis and provide direct action. They feel that peace
needs to be achieved while preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
24
IMUN 2010
QARMAs
1.How the UNSC could create international compliance of nuclear proliferation in the
most effective manner? Should there be more sanctions? Is there another viable
means?
2.What treatment shall be given to countries that haven’t signed nor ratified the NPT
regime?
3.How should UNSC response to the existence of nuclear power states that have not yet
fully disarm their nukes? How can UNSC ensure the disarmament process?
4.What feasible efforts could be done to enhance the effectiveness of IAEA’s function/
role? Should there be any enlargement of authority of IAEA? If so, in what limits
shall IAEA operate?
5. How can the UNSC balance out the right of countries to develop peaceful nuclear use
and the global concern for nuclear proliferation?
Suggestions for Further Research

Opening is definitely a must do in order to attain info regarding the UNSC which all of
the delegate required to comprehend. Next, I suggest that you look into past UNSC
action on the issue (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc). Please do also try to open the official
website of IAEA and related institutions to the efforts of proliferating nuclear this may
include and not limited to the agreements that have been stated in the study guide.
Finally, I recommend looking into recent and past news articles by a news agency such
as the Foreign Affairs, the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/), New York Times (http://
www.nytimes.com/), or newspaper from the country you are representing. Finally,
please look at the books and other sources outlined in the bibliographic essay at the end
of this study guide.
25
IMUN 2010
1 http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml
2 http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html
3 Sarah J. Diehl and James Clay Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: a Reference Book,
(California: ABC-CLIO, nIc, 2002), pg. 226
4 Sarah J. Diehl and James Clay Moltz, Ibid
5 “How Close is it?” in Nuclear Iran – Volume 13, Issue 7 – September 2007 accessed through
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13-2007/volume-13-issue-7/
nuclear-iran/
6Neil Jock, “The Kargil War & Nuclear Deterrence”, Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: Crisis
Behavior and the Bomb, Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur (ed), (New York: Routledge,2009) hal 117
7 Ibid, p. 117
8 Jack Caravelli, Nuclear insecurity : understanding the threat from rogue nations and
Terrorists, (Connecticut: Praeger Security International, 2008), p. 74

9 _____, accessed from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp 30
March 2010 20.58

10 Peter Barker, “Bush Signs India Nuclear Law: Critics Say Deal to Share Civilian Technology
Could Spark Arms Race”, accessed from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/

2006/12/18/AR2006121800233.html
11
Sarah J. Diehl and James Clay Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation, A Reference
Handbook. (California: Contemporary World Issues, ABC-CLIO, 2002), p. 111.
12 Ibid, p. 19.
13 Ibid, p. 127.
14 Gordon Corera, Shopping For Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise
and Fall of the A. Q. Khan Network. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 91.
15 Diehl and Moltz, op. cit., p. 20.
16 Ibid, p. 135.
17 Gordon Corera, op. cit., p. 90.
18 Ibid, p. 92.
19 Sharon A. Squassoni, “Weapons of Mass Destruction: Trade Between North Korea and
Pakistan,” Congressional Research Service, March 11, 2004. Available at http://www.nti.org/e_research/

official_docs/other_us/crs03112004_DPRK_Pakistan.pdf, and Pinkston, “When Did WMD Deals
Between Pyongyang and Islamabad Begin?”
20 Gordon Corera, op. cit., p. 92.
21 Jeffrey T. Richelson, Spying on the Bomb. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), p. 530.
22 Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Partial Test Ban Treaty”, accessed from http://
www.nti.org/db/ China/ptbtorg.htm, on 18th March 2010, 11.07 PM.

23 The Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament, “Partial Test Ban Treaty—
Summary”, accessed from http://www.cicd.org.au/?category=treaties&page=PTBT-summary, on 18th

March 2010, 11.09 PM.
26
IMUN 2010
24 Alicia Godsberg, “Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”, accessed from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/, on 18th March 2010, 11.00 PM.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27UN Department of Disarmament Affairs, “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon
(NPT)”, accessed from http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/, on 18th March 2010, 10.52 PM.
28 Ibid.
29 CTBTO Preparatory Comission, “History: The Summary”, accessed from http://www.ctbto.org/
the-treaty/history-summary/ , on 19th March 2010, 01: 32 A.M.

30 Ibid.
31 CBTO Preparatory Comission, “Status of Signature and Ratification” accessed from http://
www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification/ , on 19th March 2010, 01: 35 A.M.

32 To access more facts on UNSCR 1540 http://www.nti.org/db/1540/index.html
33 summarized from UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004).
34 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8708.doc.htm
35UPDATE REPORT ON TERRORISM AND WMDS: RESOLUTIONS 1540 AND 1673 http://
www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.2514395/k.705F/
Update_Report_on_Terrorism_and_WMDs_Resolutions_1540_and_1673_BR_20_February_2007.htm
36 Yonah Alexander and Milton Hoenig, The New Iranian Leadership: Ahmadinejad, Terrorism,
Nuclear Ambition, and the Middle East. (London: Praeger Security International, 2008), p. 241.
37 Elissa Gootman, “Security Council Approves Sanctions Against Iran over Nuclear Program.”
New York Times, December 23, 2006

38 United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1737, Adopted on December 23, 2006, S/Res/1737
(2006), December 27, 2006.
39 Yonah Alexander and Milton Hoenig, op. cit., p. 147.
40 IAEA, Implementation. GOV/2005/67, September 2, 2005, paragraph 34.
42 Helene Cooper, “Russia and China, in Shift, Inch toward Iran Sanctions”. New York Times, July
13, 2006.
44 Jack Caravelli, Nuclear Insecurity, pg 133
45 Jack Caravelli, Nuclear Insecurity, pg 77
27

Study Guide: United Nations Security Council Imun 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Study Guide: United Nations Security Council Imun 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STUDY GUIDE: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL

The view of the Security Council deliberating global security issues

Topic Area : Nuclear Proliferation

Ali Shirazi, an aide to Supreme

North Korea has

In 1997, there is a suspicion that Pakistan has given nuclear enrichment

On 5 October 1986, the

PAST INTERNATIONAL EVENTS

Participation in the Partial Test Ban

Participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty :

Signed and Withdrawn (North

PARTICIPATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

Past International Actions

Resolution 1673 (2006)

destruction, their means of delivery and related materials in an integrated and

Resolution 1696 (2006)

Resolution 1718 (2006)

Resolutions 1737 (2006)

United Nations Security Council—Resolution 1747 (2007)

nation or organization; call on nations to voluntarily exercise vigilance and restraint in

TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

1970 NPT enters into force

1974 May 18, India explodes a 12-kiloton plutonium bomb underground

2005 January, North Korea announces it is a nuclear weapons state.

RECENT SITUATION: IRAN

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

Middle Eastern Countries

Latin American Countries

Suggestions for Further Research

Terrorists, (Connecticut: Praeger Security International, 2008), p. 74

March 2010 20.58

Could Spark Arms Race”, accessed from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/

Pakistan,” Congressional Research Service, March 11, 2004. Available at http://www.nti.org/e_research/

www.nti.org/db/ China/ptbtorg.htm, on 18th March 2010, 11.07 PM.

Summary”, accessed from http://www.cicd.org.au/?category=treaties&page=PTBT-summary, on 18th

the-treaty/history-summary/ , on 19th March 2010, 01: 32 A.M.

www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification/ , on 19th March 2010, 01: 35 A.M.

New York Times, December 23, 2006

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen