Disarmament and International Security Committee

The Disarmament and International Security (DISEC) Committee is a General Assembly committee within the United Nations. DISEC aims to deal with threats to international peace and security, security issues on the international scale, and disarmament. Maintaining global security is DISEC’s primary goal, and as such, the promotion of nuclear, biological, and chemical disarmament, the limitation and regulation of conventional weapons, and the elimination of illicit arms trades are pillars of DISEC’s approach to global security. As DISEC is a General Assembly Committee, its resolutions are not legally binding, though the committee may make recommendations to member states or call upon the UN Security Council to take further action where appropriate. 

Outlined in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the United Nations’ World Summit Document, heads of state affirm their responsibility to protect their population from war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. If they fail to uphold their responsibilities, the international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to intervene through peaceful mechanisms as outlined in Chapter VI and VIII of the United Nations Charter. Non-state actors (NSAs), such as armed militias, insurgent groups, private military companies, and transnational terrorist organizations, often play a direct role in initiating and perpetuating crimes against humanity. The nature of NSAs can create complications for the international community as they seek to uphold the responsibility to protect, given the lack of clear distinction between civilians and NSA militants. 

While the responsibility to protect has provided vulnerable populations with safety and security, such as in the case of Bosnia in 1992, it often faces resistance from states that believe it undermines sovereignty and enables overreach of foreign states. Critics of international intervention under the responsibility to protect often point to the incidents that occurred in Libya in 2011, which laid the groundwork for significant disagreement between Security Council members regarding interventions in the Syrian Civil War. China and Russia often oppose Responsibility to Protect motions citing concerns that it can serve as a pretext for regime changes rather than genuine humanitarian efforts. 

DISEC must overcome political disagreement and collaborate to establish a unified understanding of the Responsibility to Protect and its relevance regarding protection from NSAs in order to protect innocent civilians from human rights violations and mass atrocities. 

1. How can the international community balance the principle of state sovereignty with the Responsibility to Protect when mass atrocities are committed primarily by non-state actors rather than governments?

2. What mechanisms should be established to hold non-state actors accountable under international law, given that they cannot formally accede to treaties or be prosecuted as states in international courts?

3. To what extent should foreign intervention, whether military, humanitarian, or diplomatic, be considered legitimate under R2P when engaging with territories controlled by non-state actors.

4.  How can foreign actors ensure that intervention measures do not unintentionally strengthen non-state actors committing human rights abuses?

The Responsibility to Protect | United Nations

International Law and the Responsibility to Protect

The Responsibility to Protect: How the World Failed in Syria

In the 21st century, natural resources have not only become economic assets but they are also tools used for geopolitical influence as well as instruments for conflict. The increasing scarcity of important resources such as water, rarer earth minerals and energy resources has lead to growing concerns about their deliberate militarization by state and non-state actors. Places that are resource rich have become bargaining chips, and the control or access to these resources has become the primary form of power projection.

From disputes over water access in the Nile Basin to mineral supply chains in Central Asia and gas and oil exports as political leverage in Europe; states are increasingly integrating resource dominance into their foreign and military policies. Beyond direct control, some nations have used infrastructure projects, trade agreements and threats of resource embargoes to exert political influence. This is extremely dangerous when resource competition intersects with already existing territory disputes or other problems which risks the escalation of regional instability into open conflict.

The militarization of resources also extends to emerging areas such as arctic sea routes. As climate change opens new areas of exploration, the intertwining of resource security along with defense strategies raises questions to the legality and morality of these practices.

The committee will have to grapple with defining what constitutes the militarization of resources and determine acceptable limits on strategic behavior links to resources. They should also decide if there are measures, if any, should be in place to prevent such actions and make sure they don’t escalate into something bigger.

1. Which resources are most vulnerable to militarization in the short and long term, and how should they be prioritized in discussions?

2. To what extent can states be restricted in leveraging their own natural resources as tools of foreign policy without infringing on sovereignty?

3. How can international agreements prevent the use of resource access or denial as a form of coercion?

4. What role should the United Nations play in meditating disputes over resource militarization, and what enforcement powers should it have?

5. How can emerging areas of competition, such as the Arctic and deep-sea mining, be governed to prevent escalation into militarized conflicts?

(PDF) Sustaining Peace and Security: The Role of Natural Resources in Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Programmes

A possible legal framework for the exploitation of natural resources by non-State armed groups | International Review of the Red Cross

(PDF) Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC?

Climate Change makes the Weaponization of Resources more effective than ever before?

Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation

Militarization and Water: A Cross-National Analysis of Militarism and Freshwater Withdrawals