Hello Delegates!
My name is Melanie Ramey and it is my pleasure to serve as your Committee Director for the
Sixth General Assembly at UGAMUNC XVII. I am a sophomore at the university doublemajoring in Comparative Literature and Anthropology and minoring in Spanish. My hobbies
outside of the classroom include reading, horseback riding, and hiking. This is my second year
on the UGA Model United Nations team.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have Katherine Garcia as my Assistant Director for GA6. Katherine is a freshman at UGA and this is her first year on the Model United Nations team.
Katherine is majoring in Political Science and History. Her hobbies include photography and
ultimate frisbee.
I am very excited to be chairing this year at UGAMUNC and I am optimistic that this year’s
conference will be the best to date. Katherine and I are dedicated to running this committee as
effectively as possible. As always, we encourage our delegates to come prepared to our
conference having acquainted themselves with the background guide in addition to the suggested
readings and to actively participate throughout the committee sessions in order to create dynamic
resolutions.
Sincerely,
Melanie Ramey
Director GA-6
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
Topic I: Human Cloning
The topic of human cloning has been a controversial one since 1997. In Scotland that year,
scientists at the Roslin Institute for Edinburgh produced the first successfully cloned adult
mammal, a sheep named Dolly. In the creation of Dolly, these scientists employed a method
called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) which is the process of removing the nucleus of an
egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell, or a mature body cell such as a skin cell
or mammary gland cell as was the case with Dolly. The product is an embryo genetically
identical to the “parent” that is produced without sexual reproduction. Out of 277 attempted
embryos, Dolly was the only embryo to survive to birth in this extensive experiment.1
Dolly’s birth sparked an uproar of public, media, and government opinion. Now that scientists
actually managed to produce a clone of a mammal, the realization that human cloning was
possible in the future sent shock waves down the spine of society and brought about an
outpouring of ethical, religious, and legal concerns. Worried about the implications of such
advancement and the other potential springboard experiments that might result, the United
Nations sought to immediately debate a global stance on this issue. In the 29th General
Conference of UNESCO held in November of that year, representatives hashed out the Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which passed its vote on November 11,
1997 and the United Nations General Assembly adopted the declaration the next year. This
document was very clear about its intention to protect the human genome, which it refers to as
“the heritage to humanity” and undeniably expresses its distrust of and opposition for human
cloning in its statement that “practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive
cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted.”2
The specification of “reproductive” cloning in this declaration indicates a less general ban on
human cloning as a whole, and rather prohibits just the creation of whole human individuals.
Therapeutic cloning, considered distinct from reproductive cloning, is the production of human
embryos for research and is generally met with less opposition than its counterpart. Delegates at
the UNESCO conference debated banning this form of cloning as well but instead agreed that its
exclusion was necessary to facilitating an immediate decision as extending negotiations to
discuss this less conclusive topic would combat the urgency that all members recognized as of
vital importance.
In 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) made a scientific breakthrough that once again
brought the human cloning crisis to the forefront, and this time it was no longer the potential that
sparked fear, but rather the reality. ACT made history on November 25 of that year by harvesting
the first human cloned embryo.3 They too utilized the SCNT technique that brought Dolly to life,
but also incorporated another process called parthenogenesis. Whereas SCNT involves the
1
United States Congress, Human Cloning. Judith A. Johnson. (Online; RS21096). 19 December 2001. Available:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7943.pdf [7 October 2010]
2
UNESCO, 29th General Conference. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. 11
November 1997. Available: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/humangenome-and-human-rights/ [7 October 2010]
3
United States Congress
1
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
physical swapping of genetic data between somatic cell and egg cell, parthenogenesis leaves the
egg cell untouched and instead exposes it to chemicals that cause it to divide. The egg cells were
harvested from women in their 20’s and 30’s who were compensated $3000 to $5000 dollars for
their donation.4 Though none of the embryos reproduced to create stem cells, the implications of
this study, and the use of human test subjects rather than animals opened yet again an upwelling
of emotions that once more called for national and international recognition.
Though they had released a general statement in regard to human cloning previously, the United
Nations, in light of this new information, needed to step back and take a more comprehensive
look at the issue. An Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the
Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings met in early 2002 to address the recent concerns that
this, and similar discoveries had raised. The report of this committee established an agenda for
ongoing discussions, proposing a list of legal issues that are as follows: a) considerations and
purposes, b) definitions, c) prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings, d) national
implementation, which was subdivided further into i) sanctions and ii) material gains, e)
preventative measures, f) reporting and monitoring mechanism, g) assistance for implementation,
and h) final clauses.5
Despite the ostensible generalized opposition to all forms of human cloning, the Cuban
delegation submitted an annexed document to be circulated amongst the committee that
highlighted possible benefits of cloning. The article focused on therapeutic cloning and cited
research that already proved the potential benefits of the use of embryonic cells in the treatment
of diseases and disorders. In fact, just one year after the birth of Dolly, scientists at the
University of Wisconsin in the United States and at the National Medical Centre, Haifa in Israel
converted the first human embryo stem cells into blood cells, a break through that proved the
possibility to transform stem cells into differentiated human tissue. The Cuban representative
expressed his support of such research, and even his excitement when he stated that “the
opportunities presented by cultivating stem or totipotent cells are very promising and will
perhaps remain one of the greatest advances in medicine for some time to come.”6
Committee members reached no consensus in the next few meetings, leaving 2003 and 2004 as a
veritable wash for definitive international legislation, though several working papers were
submitted and discussed. By 2005, however, delegates made a final declaration that asserted the
following:7
(a) Member States are called upon to adopt all measures necessary to protect
adequately human life in the application of life sciences;
(b) Member States are called upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning
4
United States Congress
U.N. General Assembly, 57th Session. Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against Reproductive
Human Cloning of Human Beings. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against
Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, (A/57/51). Official Record. New York, 2002.
6
U.N. General Assembly, 58th Session. Sixth Committee. Note verbale dated 17 October 2003 from the Permanent
Mission of Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat,
(A/C.6/58/L.15)
7
U.N. General Assembly, 59th Session. “Resolution 58/280 (2005) [United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning]
(A/RES/59/280). Official Record.
5
2
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human
life;
(c) Member States are further called upon to adopt the measures necessary to
prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to
human dignity;
(d) Member States are called upon to take measures to prevent the
exploitation of women in the application of life sciences;
(e) Member States are also called upon to adopt and implement without
delay national legislation to bring into effect paragraphs (a) to (d);
(f) Member States are further called upon, in their financing of medical
research, including of life sciences, to take into account the pressing global issues
such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which affect in particular the
developing countries.
This decision proposed a more generic list of statements than posed by any of the other
suggested draft resolutions. It also employed more broad sweeping bans than those included in
any of the previous passed resolutions. The declaration broadened the message to include all
forms of human cloning, rather than just reproductive, as well as potential prohibition of genetic
engineering as a whole. Statement (f) then calls for a reshift in focus within the scientific
community to more ostensibly pertinent issues, an ironic proclamation considering the document
the that the Cuban delegate submitted categorizing the benefits to these sorts of disease that
human cloning could assist remedying.
The overriding theme throughout all the documents, however, is the concept of “human dignity”
and its preservation. Repeated consistently are prohibitions of actions that are “contrary to
human dignity” and the importance of human dignity. But though the concept is noble, nowhere
in any of these resolutions is the concept defined so as to give the articles any concrete meaning.
They are just as open to interpretation as any previously standing ethical guidelines for scientific
discovery. The European Union, in their 2000 Resolution on Human Cloning, defines human
cloning as “the creation of embryos having the same genetic make-up as another human being,
dead or alive, and any stage of their development, without any possible distinction as regard the
methods used.”8 This too leaves a logistic gap in construal as the definition of a human being is
not clear. In their previous definition, the EU included the phrase “from the moment of
fertilization,” but the stripping of this aspect implies that this is no longer the interpretation
which they wish to project. Is a human being then defined as the mere egg cell? That would
mean that lack of fertilization of each and every egg, and therefore menstruation itself could be
viewed as a violation of human dignity, as that being’s right to life was denied. The ambiguity of
these doctrines leaves too much on the table for negotiation of connotation and meaning.
Clarification is needed for proper consideration and execution of the decree.
In Dr. John Kilner’s article on “Human Cloning,” he cites three main justifications used in
arguments for and against human cloning.9 The first, called the Utility Justification, he describes
8
U.N. General Assembly, 2002. Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against Reproductive Cloning
on Human Beings. Information document prepared by the Secretariat, 25 February – 1 March 2002.
9
Kilner, John F. "Human Cloning." The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. Web. 7 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.cbhd.org/content/human-cloning>.
3
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
as in defense of “a practice based on its usefulness, or benefit. As long as it will produce a net
increase in human well-being, it is warranted.” This outlook is associated with the weighing of
pros and cons and whichever measure wins out, that determines the usefulness or worth of the
item or service or action. The second justification is the idea of autonomy and Kilner explains it
as the idea that “we ought to respect people’s autonomy as a matter of principle. People’s beliefs
and values are too diverse to adopt any particular set of them as normative for everyone.” As
with any issue affecting the international community, acknowledgement must be given to the
vast differences in background, religion, society, and culture of each nation and locality
represented. His final rationalization is that of Destiny. This perspective holds that “it is part of
our God-given destiny to exercise complete control over our reproductive process.” This, of
course, is the combatant justification to the argument that “we can’t play God.”
Questions for Consideration:
1) If it can be proven that human cloning or genetic engineering could produce great
medical advances and benefits, should the issue be reconsidered, or would it still be
morally repugnant?
2) How can these terms be better defined and clarified so that less ambiguity exists and the
intent of the United Nations is made apparent?
3) Is this an issue of international concern or should it be handled at the state level?
4) Societal “ethics” have a history of finding scientific discoveries morally repugnant. Is this
just another case of society being scared of charge, or are these hesitations well-founded?
Suggested Research:
 http://www.un.org/law/cloning/ (Ad Hoc Committee website. Provides documentation on
all of the activities of the committee including links to resolutions and working papers)
 http://www.cbhd.org/content/human-cloning (The Center for Bioethics & Human
Dignity. Explores the justifications behind human cloning)
 http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml (Human
Genome Project Information. Provides a general overview of cloning)
Topic II: A World Government
Introduction
With the power and global influence of many nations growing quite rapidly, we must consider
the ever so slight possibility that one nation or group may decide that their current governing
body just isn’t good enough. The development of a world government is the philosophy that one
single political authority for all of humanity will emerge at some time in the future. What would
come of this situation? The impacts of sovereignty violations will certainly have some ground to
stand on, but what body will stand behind those concerns? If at some time one leader is ready,
willing and able to wild such power, what will the 6th General Assembly of the United Nations
have to say?
Background
4
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
The current idea of a world government traces back to European history and is oftentimes found
through the writings and ideas of ancient philosophers. In the development of world history, it
was not uncommon for one leader to hold political, and sometimes even religious, authority over
people far beyond the physical boundaries of one nation. This strategy may and very well should
bring about thoughts of the ancient empires that dominated the world for at times thousands of
years. Many scholars refer to the individuals behind many of these great empires as some of the
world’s greatest minds that made some of the longest-lasting impressions on the development of
modern civilization in history.
While no single global government existed in history, throughout the course of human existence,
many empires and autocracies developed and exerted control over many parts of the known
world of their times. In tracing the term “empire” back to its Latin origins, it is apparent that its
literal meaning is one of power and authority. For much of the debate of this topic, we will
continuously refer to the political usage of the term “empire” which refers to a powerful,
centrally-controlled government which holds direct influence throughout a geographically
extensive region.
There are two generally accepted forms of empires, coercive and
territorial. Coercive empires come to be through indirect
conquest and the conquered lands are controlled via power and
the use of fear to deter from dissent. This form of an empire
promotes great potential for territorial expansion as there are less
military force requirements. Territorial empires are built through
direct physical conquest and controlled through force to comply
with emperors desires. This form of empires provides
opportunities for greater direct control and enforces tribute to the
empire, but does not offer nearly as much opportunity for
territorial expansion as many resources are significantly
occupied.
Mongol Empire in 1279
Perhaps one of the most studied and well known empires is the Mongol empire. This empire
existed during the 13th and 14th centuries throughout Eastern Europe and Asia and by consensus
is the largest territorial empire encompassing nearly 13 million square miles at its strongest
point. The empire emerged through the joining of two tribes, the Mongols and the Turks, in
1206 in the land known today as Mongolia. Through a proclamation to become the ruler of the
entire empire, Genghis Khan began the expansion and development of what was to become the
largest contiguous empire in history. Given the expansive conquests of the Mongols the empire
left many legacies for the future including ancient technology, language development and the
death of tens of millions. Many of the deaths are attributed to an unstoppable desire to expand
the boundaries of the empire, regardless of the potential consequences. The expansion of the
empire however, also brought about significant positive changes politically and economically
throughout the regions. The development of the Mongol culture brought economic stability to
much of the Asian continent that was nonexistent before the empire’s expansion. A major factor
of this stability was the “re-opening” of the Silk Road from many centuries before that creating
an economy of trade for the empire to deliver goods to the west as few Europeans ever traversed
across the Silk Road. After nearly a century of unprecedented expansion and many successes,
5
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
the Mongol empire began to crumble in 1264 after a succession war but remained in power in
some form until around 1370. The fall of the Empire destroyed many of the advancements it had
made, including the end of the political unity across the Silk Road.
In addition to the Mongol empire, many other cultures have been under-rule of or developed as a
result of the creation and expansion of empires. Perhaps one of the most well-known empires in
modern history is the British Empire. The British Empire grew through the 16th and 17th
centuries to encompass a quarter of the world’s surface land area and a third of the world’s
population at its extreme. In addition to the Mongol and British Empires other large empires
include: The Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Macedonia under Alexander the Great and many
more. All of these empires expanded extensively throughout their history and brought about
countless changes in all aspects of cultures. In fact, at its strongest point, the British Empire was
the closest the world has ever been to total political unification.
Current Situation
Today, the global community plays host to a number of multi-national organizations
encompassing many different factors of government (economic, political, etc.) as well as cultural
development and preservation. Many of these bodies are referred to as Inter-Governmental
Organizations or IGO’s which are composed primarily of a group of sovereign states (referred to
as member states occasionally).10 Inter-Governmental Organizations are typically classified into
four groups with some occasional overlap. The first category of these is “Worldwide or Global
Organizations” which includes bodies such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization
that are open to nations worldwide given that pre-set criteria are met. The second is “Regional
Organizations” that are open to accept member states from certain geographical areas of the
world and include the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Arab League
among others. The third encompasses bodies that are more focused on social and cultural issues
such as the Commonwealth of Nations and the Latin Union to name two. The final distinct
category is those focused on economic issues, be it free trade or international economic
development, and include the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the IMF and
WTO (note the overlap from the first category with the latter two). Currently, there are well over
200 IGOs and rising. Many have attributed this rise to the increase of globalization which
oftentimes encourages interstate cooperation and also results in increased international relations.
In addition to the rise in IGOs worldwide, there has also been an increase in the formation of
military alliances as well as encouragement of autocracies to form into democracies for effective
governing.11 In addition to Inter-Governmental Organizations is the concept of Supranational
Unions which is a new form of a political entity. For example, the European Union has begun to
promote international popular elections for its member states. This is far surpassing the
traditional role of simply being party to an international treaty and effectively placing some
control of individual states with a regional body.12 This is highlighted to show that there is
10
http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/IGOs.htm
Shannon, Megan. "The Expansion of International Organizations" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton,
Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26
12
Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Centre for European Policy Studies.
pp. 21–26
11
6
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
somewhat of a movement towards a global government, even if isolated to one particular region
at the current time.
Conclusion
In discussion of a global government as a committee of the United Nations, one must be sure to
acknowledge the sovereignty of individual states. Sovereignty is the freedom of a state to act
independently and to protect and promote its own cultures and beliefs without international
influence. While this is a substantially hypothetical situation in its current state, the 6th
Committee must discuss and develop a legal stance on the issue. Will state’s rights be violated if
there was a move to one singluar political authority? It would be hard to believe that every
nation would decide it was in the best interest of its people to adapt one political system. Would
a global government allow for individual groups to practice how they wish, as is with
democracies such as the United States of America and others, or would there be more coercion to
follow one belief and cultural system as is the case with a number of nations?
Topic III: Piracy & International Courts
Piracy is not only a threat to international security, but also a difficult problem to address from a
legal perspective. Not only is piracy a threat to individuals, but it is a threat to maritime industry,
the trade and transport of goods, and the security of the countries bordering the bodies of water.
Recent issues in East Africa, the Middle East, South America, and the Pacific sparked media
attention solutions on how to legally handle the matters have been few and far between.
As defined by the United Nations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
Piracy consists of (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation,
committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft,
and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property
on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside
the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of
an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of
intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).13 This definition which was
completed in December of 1982 covers most damages that could occur on the high seas. Over
fourteen years of work went into the entirety of the document and today it is recognized as the
law over the seas.14
Great documents, however, do not solve great debates or problems. From 2007 to 2009, piracy in
the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia increased by over 200%.15 Doubling in merely two
years is unprecedented in any other sort of international crime. During the crisis of the Somali
pirates in 2008, the United Nations Security Council passed five resolutions which were more
than on any other topic within that year. Under Resolution 1816, nations may take action against
13
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
15
http://www.asil.org/insights090206.cfm
14
7
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
the pirates even in sovereign waters16 which was then extended for another year. In addition,
Resolution 1851 allowed for “all necessary measures” appropriate in order to suppress piracy.
Actions of this nature, allowing for armed action within a sovereign state, erode at national
sovereignty. These actions can also be deemed as necessary in order to maintain national
security.
This conflict also brought into question how this solution was to be tried in a court of law.
Would nations be able to try the pirates under their jurisdiction, or would it be under universal
jurisdiction – especially because piracy was the original universal jurisdiction crime17. Universal
jurisdiction is “the principle that every country has an interest in bringing to justice the
perpetrators of grave crimes, no matter where the crime was committed, and regardless of the
nationality of the perpetrators or their victims”18. Crimes of this degree are extremely serious to
the point where they impact a whole of humanity. Additionally, more than three-fifths of nations
have universal jurisdiction laws19. This ensures that national courts have the ability to prosecute
those who may have committed such crimes and to ensure that the particular nation is not
utilized as a safe-nation to avoid crimes and punishments. It appears to be least effective to
return the pirates to the nations of which are plagued by the problems due to the nations’
unstable governments, like that of Somalia. Additionally, the treatment and trial of the pirates
could be potentially cruel and unfair trials. Nations have been requesting for a new, neutral
venue to host such trials.
Current solutions pioneered by the British and United States consist of capturing the pirates and
then returning them to the nation of which the crimes were occurring. Utilizing this method, the
British captured the pirates outside of Kenya and these pirates would be handed over to the
Kenyan court system. The United States also used this method in 2006, but this sort of action has
not turned into a regular occurrence20. Other solutions include hosting trials in a domestic court,
a neighboring country, or in international tribunals. This sort of body has yet to be established or
universally accepted by any sort of universal power, other than the International Criminal Court
which is rarely utilized and can only be used when called upon by the United Nations Security
Council.
As made evident, most nations are willing to intervene with finding a solution to the problem of
piracy and its impact on international security. However, such nations are not willing to accept
the judicial burden of punishing the pirates. Due to expenses and the issues of sovereignty, the
issue of judicial action regarding the pirates is a very sensitive subject. While it appears that the
pirates could be tried in the nation that they are infringing upon, many nations disagree as these
particular nations could be viewed as volatile. But, would creating more bureaucracy be effective
to solving these delicate problems of international security? Could a body that is already in
existence be tailored to solve the problems of piracy? The International Criminal Court is able to
16
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9344.doc.htm
17
The Piracy Analogy: Modern Universal Jurisdiction’s Hollow Foundation, 45 Harv. J. Int’l. L. 183 (2004).
18
http://www.amnestyusa.org/international_justice/pdf/UniversalJurisdiction.pdf
http://www.amnestyusa.org/international_justice/pdf/UniversalJurisdiction.pdf
20
http://www.asil.org/insights090206.cfm
19
8
UGAMUNC 2011
General Assembly VI
“prosecute crimes when national authorities are unable or unwilling”21 and appears to have the
capabilities to handle the cases. At the same time, the ICC is “not a replacement for national
prosecutions”22. This body was intended to complement the national court systems and will not
investigate or prosecute unless nations are unable or unwilling, as state before. The body is also
unable to act without at United Nations Security Council referral, thus slowing down the process.
Ultimately, piracy is a problem plaguing nations at a vastly increased rate that not only impacts
one nation, but impacts commerce and maritime activities amongst numerous nations. It appears
that, as universal jurisdiction has been utilized by national courts in the case of war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and torture, universal justice could be best served combating piracy23 –
its original intention. At the same time, many nations, like that of Kenya, have the capabilities to
conduct their own trials and some nations view the international court system as impeding on
their sovereignty because the nation could host the trial themselves.
Additional Resources:
American Society of International Law:
http://www.asil.org/
Amnesty International:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/international-justice/page.do?id=1011008
International Criminal Court:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC?lan=en-GB
United Nations:
http://www.un.org/
United Nations Documents:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/index.shtml
21
http://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice/issues/international-criminal-court
http://www.amnestyusa.org/international_justice/pdf/UniversalJurisdiction.pdf
23
http://www.asil.org/insights090206.cfm
22
9