Minsk International Model United Nations 2013
Global Security: Motion to stable future
Instructional Guide
Human Rights Council
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
DEAR PARTICIPANTS,
Welcome to the MINTMUN 2013! This year the general topic is devoted to
the Global Security: motion to stable future. We are Hanna Aranovich and
Danuta Lobachenya, chairmen of the Human Rights Council.
My name is Danuta Lobachenya.
I’m a 1-yaer student of The
Academy of Public Administration
under the Aegis of the President of
the Republic of Belarus. I’m sure,
I’ll do everything possible to make
our conference interesting and
valuable, also informative and
remarkable. It’s a good chance for
you to make your voice heard!
My name is Hanna Aranovich.
I’m a student of Belarusian
Economic State University of
marketing faculty. We’ll try to
do our best to create profitable
atmosphere, so that it could be
unforgettable for all of us.
It’s a pleasure you have chosen this Council also we deeply appreciate
your choice! Moreover, our Committee faces with real problems of common
people and could impact on receiving human rights questions and improve
everyday life all over the world. Don’t be an exception of the rule! We have
much power, energy, time to make our own solutions on questions, which are
on the agenda in this deferring, digital, and malty-world.
This year we have two issues:


Human rights and euthanasia dilemma
Conscientious objection to military service
2
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
1. Human rights and euthanasia dilemma
The success or failure of the euthanasia
movement is based on the classification of
feeding tubes as a medical treatment
Bobby Schindler
Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to
relieve pain and suffering. There are different euthanasia laws in each country.
Terminology
The discourse on euthanasia is bedevilled by
notorious problems of shifting and uncertain descriptions
of key concepts. Central to the debate are notions such as
“involuntary”, “nonvoluntary” and “voluntary”. Also
“active” and “passive” are used, particularly in
combination with “voluntary” euthanasia.
In general, the following might be said:
 involuntary euthanasia refers to the termination of
life against the will of the person killed;
 non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the termination of life without the
consent or opposition of the person killed;
 voluntary euthanasia refers to the termination of life at the request of the
person killed;
 active euthanasia refers to a positive contribution to the acceleration of
death;
 passive euthanasia refers to the omission of steps which might otherwise
sustain life.
It is obvious that these “definitions” are not exhaustive. One would need to
flesh out the circumstances in which termination of life is said to be
permissible to conduct an intelligible debate. The definitions are also arbitrary.
For example, it is quite possible to argue that an omission amounts to a
positive act and that the boundaries between active and passive euthanasia are
blurred.
A little bit of history
The origin of the contemporary debate on euthanasia started in 1870.
Nevertheless, euthanasia was debated and practiced long before that date.
Euthanasia
was
practiced
in Ancient
Greece and
Rome:
for
example, hemlock was employed as a means of hastening death on the island
of Kea, a technique also employed in Marseilles and
by Socrates in Athens. Euthanasia, in the sense of the
deliberate hastening of a person's death, was
supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in
the ancient world, although Hippocrates appears to
have spoken against the practice, writing "I will not
prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give
advice that may cause his death" (noting there is
3
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
some debate in the literature about whether or not this was intended to
encompass euthanasia).
Euthanasia was strongly opposed the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus in
1678, the publication of Caspar Questel's De pulvinari morientibus non
subtrahend, ("On the pillow of which the dying should not be deprived"), initiated
debate on the topic. Questel described various customs which were employed
at the time to hasten the death of the dying, (including the sudden removal of a
pillow, which was believed to accelerate death), and argued against their use,
as doing so was "against the laws of God and Nature". In spite of opposition,
euthanasia continued to be practiced, involving techniques such as bleeding,
suffocation and removing people from their beds to be placed on the cold
ground.
Euthanasia debate
Like we already know, euthanasia brings up
numerous debates around the world. Depending
where you are in the world, the politics, morals and
religions define what is euthanasia.
There are different opinions on this fact. For and
against euthanasia.
ORGANIZATIONS AGAINST EUTHANASIA
 First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
http://www.theinterim.com/2008/jan/06worldconference.html
 World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life
http://www.euthanasia.com/belgium.html
 Patients Rights Council
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/
 World Youth Alliance supports the Duke of Luxembourg’s Decision
to Veto Euthanasia Legislation (2008)
http://www.wya.net/i/EuropeanFiles/Download/ENG_Support%20to%20the
%20Grand%20Duc%20of%20Luxembourg_Euthanasia_WYA_PR_20081217.pdf
 Choice is an Illusion
http://www.choiceillusion.org/
 International Euthanasia Symposium Held in Virginia, USA
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/jun/09060204
 Life Tree
http://www.lifetree.org/timeline/index.html?id=1
 Care Not Killing
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/
ORGANIZATIONS FOR EUTHANASIA
 Death with Dignity National Center
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/
 Right To Die Organizations
http://www.finalexit.org/world_right-to-die_organizations_directory.html
 Exit International
http://www.exitinternational.net/
4
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
 Friends at the End
http://www.friends-at-the-end.org.uk/
 World Federation of Right to Die Societies
http://www.worldrtd.net/
The legal position
There are plenty of arguments against
sanctioning euthanasia. For instance, how
can we be sure a person really wants to die
and isn't being taken advantage of (for
financial reasons, for example)?
Ethical problems of euthanasia
Does an individual who has no hope of recovery have the right to decide
how and when to end their life?
Why euthanasia should be allowed
Those in favor of euthanasia argue that a civilized society should allow
people to die in dignity and without pain, and should allow others to help them
do so if they cannot manage it on their own.
Why euthanasia should be forbidden
Religious opponents of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only
God should decide when to end it. More over it is against democracy which is
so popular in West countries. They just take away people’s right to live.
Around the world, different countries, even different states within
countries, have alternate views on assisted suicide. Some countries have
defined laws prohibiting the act, such as Canada, Italy, Russia, Hungary and
Ireland. Others, such as Sweden and Germany have no specific law but a
charge of ‘manslaughter’ may be brought against anyone assisting suicide.
Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Oregon (USA) have laws allowing
certain methods of assisted suicide, in well defined circumstances. These vary
with the illness, condition, mental state and specific requests of the person
seeking help.
With several high profile cases recently, there's increasing awareness of the
issue, and an increasing openness to discuss it. There has also been an
increasing awareness of the need to consider every aspect of a patients' 'end of
life' needs and rights, and is a topic being raised and examined by medical
teams in every aspect of health and social care.
This gradual eroding of the taboos around death, how we die and what it
means to an individual, can only be a good thing.
UN position
For some people, the most important question about euthanasia is "Is it
ever right to kill an innocent human being?" They believe we all need rules to
live by, and everyone recognizes the power behind the rule "Do not kill".
UN resolutions on the topic.
 http://humanrights.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/euthanasia.pdf
 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/e13b/
5
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
2. Conscientious objection to military service
Conscientious people are apt to see their duty
in that which is the most painful course
George Eliot
Generally, conscientious objection (CO) is a sincere conviction, motivated
by conscience, that forbids someone from participation in war. This objection
may apply to all forms or to particular aspects of war.
The Selective Service defines a conscientious objector as “one who is
opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of
moral or religious principles.”
A conscientious objector (CO) is an "individual who has claimed the right
to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought,
conscience, and/or religion. In some countries, conscientious objectors have
special legal status, which augments their conscription duties. For example,
Sweden used to allow conscientious objectors to choose a service in the
"weapons-free" branch, such as
an airport
fireman, nurse or
telecommunications technician. Most refuse such service, as they feel that
such roles are a part of the military complex. The reasons for refusing to serve
are varied.
As of the early 21st century, many states no longer conscript soldiers,
relying instead upon professional militaries with volunteers enlisted to meet the
demand for troops. The ability to rely on such an arrangement, however,
presupposes some degree of predictability with regard to both war-fighting
requirements and the scope of hostilities. Many states that have abolished
conscription therefore still reserve the power to resume it during wartime or
times of crisis.
In general, conscientious objector status is only considered in the context of
military conscription and is not applicable to volunteer military forces.
Some nations require a specific amount of military service from every
citizen (except for special cases, such as physical or mental disorders or
religious beliefs). A nation with a fully volunteer military does not normally
require mandatory military service from its citizens, unless it is faced with a
6
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
recruitment crisis during a time of war. So, there can be different types of
military service:
Countries without mandatory military service:
 Albania had compulsory military service.
 France
 Germany
 Japan's Self Defense Forces have been a volunteer force since their
establishment in the 1950s, following the end of the Allied occupation. As
the Japanese constitution expressly prohibits Japan from maintaining any
offensive military force, conscription will most likely not be an issue in the near
future.
 Netherlands
 Peru
 Sweden Since 1901, Military Service was mandatory in Sweden until 1
July 2010 when conscription was officially suspended during peace time
 United States
 Sri Lanka has never had mandatory military service, either under British
rule or since independence in 1948. It maintains an all volunteer military.
 United Kingdom and others
Countries with mandatory military service:
 Austria has mandatory military service for all able bodied male citizens
up to 35 years of age.
 Egypt
 Finland
 Brazil. Males in are required to serve 12 months of military service upon
their 18th birthday.
 Thailand
 Armenia has compulsory military service for two years for males from 18
to 27 years old.
 Colombia and others
Conscientious objection in Professional forces. Only three European
Union countries - Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom recognize the right to conscientious objection for contract and professional
military personnel. Commonly, once an objector is summoned to a hearing, he
has to explain what experiences drove him to recognize a conflict concerning
his conscience.
How can a CO be in the military?
This is an understandable question. When a person joins the military,
either as an enlisted person or as an officer, he or she is required to check a
box indicating that he or she is not a conscientious objector. So how can a
person in the military claim to be a CO?
The answer is simple: when it comes to a CO in the military, a person must
have become a CO after he or she has signed an enlistment contract. This
means that a military CO, while in the military, must have undergone some
form of conversion about the morality of war. In military regulations, the
7
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
phrase used for this conversion process is “crystallization of conscience.” It is
this “crystallization of conscience” that must have occurred after entering the
military.
But then, once a person undergoes a crystallization of conscience and
becomes opposed to participating in war, what should he or she do? The
answer, according to military regulations, is that he or she should apply for CO
status.
Some conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve the military in any
capacity, while others accept noncombatant roles. While conscientious
objection is usually the refusal to collaborate with military organizations, as a
combatant in war or in any supportive role, some advocate compromising
forms of conscientious objection. One compromising form is to accept noncombatant roles during conscription or military service. Alternatives to military
or civilian service include serving an imprisonment or other punishment for
refusing conscription, falsely claiming unfitness for duty by feigning an allergy
or a heart condition, delaying conscription until the maximum drafting age, or
seeking refuge in a country
which does not extradite
those wanted for military
conscription.
In the countries where
military service is obligatory
there can be people who are
not able to fallow it due to
some reasons. And here is a
deal. What they might do in
such situation?
The role of UN
The United Nations play a big role in monitoring State practice of the right
to conscientious objection to military service. The right to conscientious
objection has been recognized by the United Nations.
Although the right to conscientious objection is not explicit in either of the
key human rights treaties (the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights), it has been recognized as a right by the United Nations. The
Commission on Human Rights recognized the right to conscientious objection
in 1989, and has reaffirmed the right in four resolutions since then. The
Human Rights Committee affirmed the legal basis of the right to conscientious
objection in 1993.
UN resolutions on the topic
 Commission
on
Human
Rights
resolution
1998/77
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/5bc5759a53f36ab3802566
71004b643a?Opendocument
 http://youthforum.org/fr/system/files/yfj_public/strategic_priorities/en
/0945-07_Conscientious_objectionENG.pdf
What really can help you in preparing for this topic is A Conscientious
Objector's Guide to the UN Human Rights System. This is a Handbook which
opens different aspects of the question. http://www.wri-irg.org/books/coguide-un.htm
8
Minsk International Model United Nations University Conference 2013
Human Rights Council
Useful links:
Here are some links, which can help you in the preparing for the debates.
1. Human rights and euthanasia dilemma
 UN HRC
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
 UN resolution
http://humanrights.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/euthanasia.pdf
Other useful links you can find in the information on the topic below.
 Here you can watch some debates on a question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjQtgFnLPc
 And the movies.

One True Thing http://my-hit.ru/film/12095/online.

A Short Stay in Switzerland http://my-hit.ru/film/7977
2. Conscientious objection to military service
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
 Conscientious objection support Group (COSG) http://www.cosg.uk.net/
 Official Military Regulations for COs
http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2017
 A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the UN Human Rights System
http://www.wri-irg.org/books/co-guide-un.htm
 CAT Committee Against Torture
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
9