Committee History

"The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of
peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and
never abandoned."

Intro
Article 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations (1945) states that the first purpose of the United Nations
(UN) is "[to] maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats...." The UN Security Council (SC) is the central body
tasked with fulfilling this responsibility. As such, the SC meets continuously year-round, with each
member of the SC maintaining a representative at the UN at all times. After the devastating effects of two
world wars, the international community decided to establish the United Nations (UN) as an
intergovernmental organization with the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and
security and creating the conditions conducive to economic and social development while advancing
universal respect to human rights. The Security Council (SC) was established as one of its six principal
organs and was given the primary responsibility to preserve international peace and security.
More than half a century after the Councils creation, the international community confronts a rather
diverse range of global threats, including nuclear terrorism, upsurge of violent non-state actors, organized
crime, spread of infectious diseases, and states collapses. The new challenges call upon Security Council
Member States to engage in collaborate, preventative efforts in order to tackle them.

Mandate
The Charter of the United Nations (1945) established the main functions for the SC: maintain
international peace and security; develop friendly relations among states; cooperate to solve international
problems and promote human rights; and be a center for harmonizing action among Member States. The
SC is given a multitude of options to fulfill these duties, including economic sanctions, arms embargoes,
financial sanctions, travel bans, and collective military actions. Among its administrative roles, the SC
recommends the admission of new members to the UN General Assembly (GA); advises the UN General
Assembly on the appointment of the Secretary-General; and elects judges to the International Court of
Justice in conjunction with the GA.
In addition to its distinctive mandate and powers, the SC is the only UN body that may pass legally
binding resolutions, under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations which states that " Members of
the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." While the other
bodies of the UN pass non-binding resolutions that provide recommendations and sources of global
consensus, the SCs power to impose the binding resolutions allow it to act as a force of collective
security.

Governance, Structure and Membership

The SC consists of 15 seats: ten non-permanent seats and five permanent seats. The five permanent seats,
known as the P5, are held by the leaders of the following nations: the People's Republic of China; the
French Republic; the Russian Federation; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and

the United States of America. The 10 nonpermanent seats are held by other Member States for two-year
terms and are selected by a majority vote by the GA; five seats are voted upon each year. As a means to
provide equitable representation, 5 of the 10 are selected from Africa and Asia, 1 from Eastern Europe, 2
from Latin America, and 2 from Western Europe and other states that do not fall under the other regional
designations.
For any procedural change or resolution to pass in the SC, it must garner at least nine votes. For any
substantive action, no permanent member may vote against the action. This veto power is a unique
privilege given to the permanent members in the Charter of the United Nations, which enables them to
singularly deny any resolution from adoption by casting a negative vote. The use of the veto is rarely
evoked, as consensus is the primary goal of the SC. Of the 1,859 draft resolutions voted upon between
1945 and 2008, the veto power was used only 261 times; only 18 draft resolutions have been vetoed since
1996. It must be considered, however, that the use of the veto is only ultimately unnecessary because its
mere existence, and the threat of its use are sufficient. Of note, a permanent member may abstain on a
substantive vote without denying the substantive issue to be approved, thereby allowing the member to
maintain its national position of disagreement or indifference without hindering the work of the SC as a
whole.

Functions and Powers

The Charter of the United Nations (1945) provides the Security Council with a number of powers in order
to guarantee international security.
Sanctions: Pursuant to Article 41 in the Charter, the Council can call its members to apply economic
sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or end violence. These include
economic sanctions, financial penalties and restrictions, travel bans, severance of diplomatic relations,
blockades, among others.45 It may further mandate arms embargos, enforce disarmament, or call upon
international criminal mechanisms to become active.4 For instance, in the last decade, the Council has
adopted several political and economic sanctions against extremist organizations such as Al-Qaida,
including travel restrictions, financial measures, arms embargos and increased military presence.
Diplomatic Tools: The Council has a mandate to investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to
aggressions between states or other non-state groups or within states national territories. In order to do
so, it may recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement; formulate plans for
the establishment of a system to regulate armaments; determine the existence of a threat to the peace or
act of aggression and recommend what action should be taken. More recently, the Security Council
determined the existence of a threat to peace when it demanded the immediate cease of military activities
in Ukraine.
Military Action: Besides the above-mentioned diplomatic instruments, the Council may also take
military action against a state or other entity threatening international peace and security and may further
decide on the deployment of troops or observers. The Security Council may also decide upon the
deployment of new UN peacekeeping operations to be led by DPKO, as well as the extensions of its
mandate and subsequent modification or drawdown of any troops. In 2014, for example, the Council
continued to modify the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), first established in
2003 by Security Council resolution 1509 (2003), as the mission prepares to drawdown and complete its
work.
Partnerships: The Council also cooperates with a number of international and regional organizations as
well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to implement its decisions. Cooperation between the SC
and UN-related organizations, as for example, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

(OPCW), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), and the African Union (AU) are of paramount importance for addressing a broad range of
menaces such as terrorism, disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, extreme violence from non-state
actors, beyond others. Furthermore, collaboration between the SC and local actors as well as partnerships
with NGOs are especially important for the deployment of peacekeeping operations. In recognition of the
importance of partnerships, in July 2014, the Security Council adopted resolution 2164 (2014),
emphasizing the importance of regional partnerships in peacekeeping activities.

Conclusion
As the international community faces increasing asymmetrical threats from non-state actors and
transnational organized crime, the Security Council has tried to adapt to new working methods. This
lacking capacity can be partially explained by the Councils controversial decision- making process,
specifically the veto power of the five permanent members. However, as the Security Council represents
the only body within the UN that has the power to adopt binding resolutions, it is still of utmost
importance for the maintenance of international peace and security. The linkages between issues
previously addressed in silos is an important one to recognize and address as the world grows more
complex, so too, must the Security Councils understanding of the world and actions taken to maintain
peace and security. The Council must use all of the tools in its toolbox - peacekeeping and peacebuilding
activities, conflict prevention efforts and diplomatic and coercive enforcing instruments as part of a
comprehensive approach, are key for addressing traditional and emerging global threats and therefore
assuring a secure world.

Issue: Combating Ecological Terrorism

Terrorism hurts all nations large and small, rich and poor. It takes its toll on human beings of every
age and income, culture and religion. It strikes against everything the United Nations (UN) stands for.
The fight against terrorism is our common mission. Yet in the face of United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moons words, terrorism endures, indiscriminately affecting the lives of innocent people. In
recognition of its gravity, the elimination of international terrorism is a topic that has appeared on the
UNs agenda for decades.

International Threat that Terrorism Poses

Despite terrorisms recent recognition as a political hot word used frequently by the international media,
terrorism has a far-reaching history. Through its evolution, terrorism has also broken off into several
different types, ranging from those with varying degrees of military affiliation (whether civilian or
military), those driven by financial motivation, those driven by political ideology, to those driven by
spiritual motivation. As a result, the distinction between different types of violence can be blurred. While
some forms of collective violence meet the requirements for designation as state terrorism, the delineation
between state and sub-state terrorism can be fuzzy, and one may not be formally recognized as terrorist
activity. Terrorism and the threats that it poses have gradually changed as a result of three ongoing trends:
(1) the globalization of commerce, travel, and information transfer; the ascent of religious
fundamentalism and extremism as competitors with the economic, democratic, and secular trends of
modernity; and (3) the privatization of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which allows individuals
easier access to weaponry capable of incomprehensible damage.94 Extensive difficulty in constructing a

universal definition of terrorism has been exacerbated by differentiation between classifications of

terrorism.
Part of why combating terrorism remains a daunting challenge is the lack of consensus around what
constitutes terrorist activity and the lack of one universal definition shared by all Member States:
Differences in opinion concerning the use of violence in the context of liberation and self-determination
precluded Member States from agreeing on a definition of terrorism in the 1980s. Terrorism has been
defined by some academics as self-help by organized civilians who covertly inflict mass violence on
other civilians. An additional definition includes the systematic employment of violence and
intimidation to coerce a government or community into acceding to specific political demands. Now, the
UN has taken a less definitive approach to defining terrorism: Rather than offering a universal definition,
in 2007 Ban Ki-moon outlined a series of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including the
continuity of unresolved conflict, a lack of respect for human rights, a lack of the rule of law and its
enforcement, discrimination (ethnic, national, and religious), political exclusion, social and economic
marginalization, and shortcomings in good governance. As some of these conditions are vague and
debatable, this ambiguity is a case in-point of why defining (and combating) terrorism is in part so
difficult for the international community. The difficulty of defining terrorism has led to the clich that
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Yet, despite the fact that no internationally-recognized definition of terrorism has been established,
terrorist activity is evident in several forms, from direct attacks (utilizing tools like chemical, biological,
and conventional weapons) to indirect psychological attacks (in the form of evoking fear or a sense of
danger in a population). As a reaction to these generally agreed-upon concepts, the UN has responded to
the changing face of terrorism and has developed a series of mechanisms to combat terrorism.

Ecological Terrorist Ideology

Ecological terrorism differs from other ideological and political terrorist groups because the terrorist act is
committed for the purpose of deterring actions against or in revenge for actions taken by companies,
institutions, organizations or governments that alters or damages the natural environment. This
encompasses any actions of force or violence that is used to terminate, prevent, or minimize human
alteration to any part of an environment or its inhabitants. Eco-terrorism has become a growing trend
since the 1980s and the movement towards the use of radical methods to preserve natural environments is
only increasing as the environment continues to degrade at the hands of societies continued development.
Like other extremist groups, eco-terrorists seek approval for the crimes within an organized group that
shares similar ideologies.
The movement to grant greater rights to animals and non-human inhabitants to the earth has added
another sub-group within the eco-terrorist group. The fair treatment of animals has becoming an
increasing movement in developed nations. The animal advocacy movement faces the issue that in most
countries around the world, animal rights are a budding idea and few nations support or have obtained
legislation that would grant rights or protections to animals. Because of the lack of recourse supporters
have in the legal system, many groups haven take to more extreme methods to find justice and protection
for the animal populations.
In response to this tactic becoming increasingly more popular among animal activist groups, some
nations, such as the United States, have passed legislation to combat and prosecute the use of these
extreme actions. For example, the United States passed the federal law titled the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act that prohibits any person from damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal
enterprise. These laws were created as a response to ideological groups seeking revenge against

companies and institutions they have deemed to be exploiting animals to further business, consumerism
and capitalism. These groups often feel and attest to the ideas that traditional political means such as
lobbying government and civil demonstrations have failed therefore leaving them with no option but to
use extremist militant methods.
The extremist groups reviewed here, should not in any way be attributed to other NGOs and institutions
that advocate for environmental preservation, such as Greenpeace. Many organizations aim to protect
their local and national environments and use methods that are legal and legitimate. It is only when the
methods prove extreme and costly that actions must be taken to combat these practices. Groups who take
a militant stand in order to achieve their goals, or advocate for violent and destructive methods, are doing
a considerable disservice to their nation, fellow citizens, and ideology. With the use of social media and
technological advances, these groups who originally were based regionally and were combatting local
governments have now expanded passed national borders and have entered the international sphere.
Eco-terrorist behavior, like other forms of terrorism, results from strong emotional belief and the desire to
act upon feelings of enraged resentment towards those who differ in position or are hindering ones
ultimate goal. Experts have noted that terrorism differs from other criminal activity because perpetrators
are highly loyal and extremely motivated by an ideology or symbol while as most criminal behavior is
opportunistic and self-serving. By the use of groups or organizations to affirm perpetrators ideology,
group members receive recognition, reinforcement and social acceptance making it less likely members
will abandon their cause. And eco-terrorism, like other terrorist groups, seeks to publicize their extremist
actions which organizers believe further legitimizes their organization and justifies their actions.
This type of terrorism has been extremely difficult for national and local governments to define and
further perplexing to combat and prosecute. Legislation to combat this form of terrorism is often based on
applying increasingly harsher sentences on perpetrators. However, relying on the classic deterrence theory
of punishment as a response is difficult with terrorism crimes because as previously stated there are not
self-serving. So the ideology that one would be deterred by the self-serving motivation of avoiding
punishment has often proven to be erroneous. Greater and more creative deterrents will need to be put in
place to combat both current members and organizations but also future creation and recruitment of
militant groups. Proactive methods and prevention must also be established to ensure all necessary steps
are taken to defeat the use of extremist to further political ideology.