UNGA

Background Guide

Letter from the Executive Board

Dear Participants

It is our pleasure to preside over this session of the

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) at AIMUN
2024. This year’s committee will tackle two dynamic
and critical agendas: The Role of Social Media in
Fueling Conflicts and Nuclear Disarmament. These
topics reflect the pressing challenges that shape our
modern world, and their relevance cannot be
understated. As delegates, your participation in this
committee represents not only a chance to engage in
meaningful debate but also an opportunity to
contribute solutions to issues that have far-reaching
consequences on global peace and security.

We understand that many of you may be wondering

about our expectations as Moderators for this
committee. At the very least, we expect all delegates
to approach these issues with seriousness and respect
for their importance. While we encourage you to
enjoy the process of researching and deliberating
upon these complex subjects, it is crucial that the
significance of these agendas is not diminished. These
are not just abstract topics; they are real-world
challenges that affect you as global citizens. Whether
it’s understanding the nuances of social media’s role
in exacerbating conflicts or exploring the intricate
diplomacy involved in nuclear disarmament, your
contributions to this committee can have a
meaningful impact. 1
UNGA
Background Guide

Letter from the Executive Board

This background guide has been carefully crafted to
provide you with a thorough introduction to the
issues at hand. However, it is essential that you see
this guide as merely a starting point for your
preparation. The depth of these agendas requires you
to go beyond what is provided here to fully grasp the
intricacies involved. Delegates who engage in
independent research, seek diverse perspectives, and
bring forward innovative ideas will not only enrich the
debate but will also stand out in their performance.
We urge you to take the initiative, explore various
sources, and come prepared to discuss these issues
with insight and conviction.
Good luck to each of you as you prepare for this
committee. We are looking forward to seeing you all
soon and to witnessing thoughtful, passionate
debates on these critical global issues

Regards,
Tanush Mittal (Chairperson)
Aashman Madan (Co-Vice Chairperson)
Samara Chauhan (Co-Vice Chairperson)
Chhavi Sharma (Rapportuer)

2
UNGA
Background Guide
Evidence or proof will be accepted as credible in
the committee from the following sources:

1. News Sources
REUTERS: Any Reuters’ article which clearly
makes mention of the fact stated or is in
contradiction of the fact being stated by
anotherdelegate in council can be used to
substantiate arguments in the committee.
([Link]

State Operated News Agencies: These

reportscan be used in the support of or against
the State that owns the News Agency. These
reports, if credible or substantial enough, can
be used in support of or against any country as
such but in that situation, they can be denied
by any other country in the council. Some
examples are, RIA Novosti(Russia)
([Link]
IRNA (Iran) ([Link]
Xinhua News Agency and CCTV ([Link]
([Link]
3
UNGA
Background Guide
2. Government Reports
These reports can be used in a similar way as the State
Operated News Agencies reports and can, in all
circumstances, be denied by another country.
However, a nuance is that a report that is being
denied by a certain country can still be accepted by
the Executive Board as credible information. Some
examples are:
Government Websites like the State Department
of the United States of America
[Link] orthe Ministry of
Defense of the Russian Federation
[Link]
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of various nationslike
India ([Link] orPeople’s Republic
of China ([Link]
Permanent Representatives to the United
Nations Reports [Link]
(Click on any countryto get the website of the
Office of its Permanent Representative.)
Multilateral Organizations like the NATO
([Link] t/cps/en/natolive/[Link]),
ASEAN ([Link] OPEC
([Link] etc. 4
UNGA
Background Guide
3. UN Reports
All UN Reportsare considered are credible information or
evidence for the Executive Board of the UNSC.

4. UN Bodies
Like the UNSC ([Link] or
UNGA ([Link]

5. UN Affiliated Bodies
Like the International Atomic Energy Agency
([Link] ), World Bank
([Link] International Monetary Fund
([Link] ), International
Committee of the Red Cross
([Link] ), etc.

6. Treaty Based Bodies

Like the Antarctic Treaty System
([Link] the International Criminal
Court ([Link]

7. Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia

([Link] Amnesty International
([Link] Times of India
([Link] are accepted in
the Assembly 5
UNGA
Background Guide
About General Assembly DISEC
The United Nations GeneralAssembly is a prominent
and paramount forum of the international
community, comprising all 193 Member States of the
United Nations. Established under the UN Charter,
this deliberative body convenes annually in New York
City to deliberate on and decide upon a broad
spectrum of global issues.

As one of the six principal organs of the United

Nations, the General Assembly is granted immense
authority to review and coordinate the world's
political, economic, and social concerns. With its
unique role as the world's most representative and
democratic forum, the General Assembly serves as the
platform for Member States to voice their
opinions,debate on issues,and form a consensus on
significant international issues.

The UN General Assembly is the only universally

representative body of the United Nations. The other
major bodies are the Security Council, the Economic
and Social Council, the Secretariat, and the
International Court of Justice. As delineated in the
Charterof the United Nations, the function of the
General Assembly is to discuss, debate, and make
recommendations on subjects about international
peace and security, including development,
disarmament, human rights, international law, and
the peaceful arbitration of disputes between nations.

It elects the non-permanent members of the Security

Council and other UN bodies, such as the Human
Rights Council (HRC), and appoints the secretary-
general based on the Security Council’s
recommendation. It considers reports from the other
four organs of the United Nations,assesses the
financial situations of member states, and approves
the UN budget, its most concrete role. 6
UNGA
Background Guide
The General Assembly's decision-making process
is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all
Member States. Each Member State, irrespective
of its size or power, is entitled to one vote, and
decisions on most issues require a two-thirds
majority. However, some issues, such as budgetary
matters and the election of non-permanent
members of the Security Council, require only a
simple majority.

Over the years, the General Assembly has tackled a

broad range of global challenges, from conflict
resolution to sustainable development to climate
change. It has played an instrumental role in
shaping the global agenda and advancing the
principles of peace, justice, and equality.

Functions and Powers of The GA

According to Chapter IV Article 10 of the UN
Charter, committees of the General Assembly have
the power and responsibility to make
recommendations to the Security Counciland
Member States of the UN, after thorough
discussions of issues that fit into the mandate of
their specific committee. It is important to
remember that the committee will be responsible
for making recommendations for action: DISEC, as
part of the General Assembly, is never authorised
to declare sanctions, make war, or impose other
regulations on nations.

According to Section 3 of ChapterIV Article 11: "The

GeneralAssembly may call the attention of the
Security Council to situations which are likely to
endanger international peace and security."
7
UNGA
Background Guide
In general, a majority vote is necessary to pass a
resolution in the General Assembly; unless it is a
decision on an important question that then
requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Any
resolution that the General Assembly passes,
either through majority vote or through
consensus, is non-binding to the Member States.
This is because the United Nations is “...not an
independent, homogeneous organisation; it is
made up of states, so actions by the UN depend on
the will of member states, to accept, fund or carry
them out.”

Furthermore, even though a simple majority can

pass agreements that have been formed in the
General Assembly, Member States work strongly to
build consensus. The President of the General
Assembly will even request that the body adopt a
potential resolution by acclamation to
demonstrate strong support.

For detailed functions of UNGA refer to:-

[Link]
charter/chapter-4
8
UNGA
Background Guide
Role of social media in fuelling
conflicts
Introduction
Social media has become an integral part of modern
life, shaping how people communicate, share
information, and interact with their communities and
the world at large. With platforms like Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok facilitating the
instantaneous exchange of thoughts, news, and
emotions, social media has dramatically transformed
global connectivity. The power of social media lies in
its ability to reach millions of people within seconds,
influencing perceptions, behaviours, and even the
outcomes of social, political, and economic events.
This unprecedented access to information has given
rise to both positive and negative consequences. On
the one hand, social media can foster inclusive
conversations, empower marginalized voices, and
spread awareness on pressing issues like climate
change, human rights, and social justice. On the other
hand, it has become increasingly evident that social
media can also act as a catalyst for conflicts.

The viral nature of social media content can

exacerbate existing social, political, and ethnic
tensions. Through the unregulated spread of
misinformation, fake news, and hate speech, social
media platforms have the potential to amplify
divisions and inflame conflicts on a global scale. What
starts as a rumor, misunderstanding, or intentional
disinformation campaign can quickly spiral into real-
world violence or civil unrest. The algorithms that
govern social media platforms are designed to
prioritize engaging, emotional, and often sensational
content, which tends to perpetuate polarized
viewpoints and deepen societal divides. This trend has
been observed in various parts of the world, where
social media has been directly linked to the escalation
of conflicts, from ethnic clashes in Myanmar to
political unrest in the United States, and communal
violence in India. 9
UNGA
Background Guide
In conflict-prone regions or politically unstable societies,
the role of social media can be particularly volatile. When
users, whether individuals or organized groups, leverage
these platforms to promote hate speech, incite violence,
or disseminate inflammatory content, the consequences
can be devastating. Extremist groups, for instance, have
been known to use social media to radicalize followers,
coordinate attacks, and spread propaganda. Meanwhile,
disinformation campaigns orchestrated by state or non-
state actors can manipulate public opinion, sow discord,
and disrupt the social fabric of a nation. Social media’s role
in spreading conflict is further complicated by the
difficulty of regulating content on a global scale. Although
platforms have taken steps to moderate content and
reduce harmful posts, the sheer volume of information
shared daily makes it nearly impossible to catch every
piece of malicious content before it causes damage.
Moreover, the anonymity provided by social media allows
individuals to engage in harmful behavior without
accountability. Anonymity encourages trolling,
cyberbullying, and the spread of hateful rhetoric without
fear of reprisal. This has led to the emergence of echo
chambers—online spaces where individuals are exposed
only to views that reinforce their own beliefs. In such
environments, dialogue becomes polarized, making it
easier for misinformation to take root and spread, while
decreasing the likelihood of finding common ground
between opposing viewpoints. Over time, these dynamics
contribute to an environment in which social media not
only reflects societal tensions but actively fuels and
magnifies them.
At its core, the relationship between social media and
conflict is complex and multifaceted. While it can be a tool
for positive change and awareness-building, its potential
to amplify and escalate conflict is significant.
Governments, tech companies, civil society organizations,
and individuals all face the challenge of mitigating the
negative impacts of social media while preserving the
freedoms and benefits that these platforms offer.
Understanding the underlying causes of how social media
fuels conflicts and examining potential solutions is crucial
in today’s increasingly interconnected and digital world.
This investigation requires looking at the historical
context, current problems, and potential future directions
to minimize harm while fostering a healthier online
discourse
10
UNGA
Background Guide
Background and History
The role of communication technology in shaping
conflicts is not new, but social media represents a
unique evolution in the speed and scale at which
information spreads. Historically, radio, newspapers,
and television played central roles in disseminating
propaganda and mobilizing public opinion. For
instance, in Rwanda, the 1994 genocide was heavily
influenced by hate radio, which broadcast messages
encouraging violence against the Tutsi population.
Similarly, print media was instrumental in spreading
disinformation during World War II, fueling ideological
divides across Europe. The rise of social media,
however, has marked a dramatic shift from these
traditional forms of media.
With the advent of the internet in the late 20th
century, the proliferation of user-generated content
emerged. Social media platforms like MySpace,
Facebook (launched in 2004), and Twitter (2006)
introduced a new era of communication. Initially seen
as platforms for personal networking and
entertainment, they soon evolved into spaces for
political activism, social movements, and in some
cases, the spread of extremist ideologies. The Arab
Spring (2010-2012) is often cited as one of the earliest
examples of how social media could be used to ignite
both positive and negative social change. On the one
hand, social media empowered protesters to organize
and raise awareness of their cause. On the other hand,
it facilitated the rapid dissemination of inflammatory
content that escalated violence in certain regions.
As platforms grew in size, their algorithms became
more sophisticated, recommending content that
would maximize user engagement. This,
unfortunately, meant that divisive or sensational
content often took precedence, intensifying
ideological polarization. Social media became not only
a battleground for ideas but a tool for disinformation
campaigns, hate speech, and coordinated attacks,
especially during elections and other politically
sensitive periods.
11
UNGA
Background Guide
Analysis of Current Problems
Today, the role of social media in fueling conflicts has
become more apparent as several issues have
emerged. One of the most pressing problems is the
spread of misinformation and disinformation.
Whether due to state-sponsored actors, extremist
groups, or individuals seeking attention, false
information spreads faster on social media than fact-
based news. During periods of political unrest or social
tension, rumors, conspiracy theories, and fake news
can incite fear and resentment, often leading to
violent confrontations. For instance, in Myanmar,
social media was used to spread anti-Rohingya
rhetoric, contributing to the genocide against the
Rohingya Muslim minority.

Hate speech is another critical issue on social media.

Despite efforts by platforms to moderate content,
hate speech often finds its way into public discourse,
especially in regions experiencing ethnic or religious
tensions. In countries like India, social media has been
criticized for amplifying communal violence, where
misinformation and inflammatory content have
sparked riots or mob attacks. These platforms often
fail to respond quickly or adequately to remove
harmful content, allowing dangerous narratives to
spread unchecked.

Additionally, polarization and the creation of echo

chambers are central to the conflict-fueling nature of
social media. Platforms rely on algorithms that curate
content tailored to individual preferences, meaning
users are often exposed only to views they already
agree with. This reinforces existing biases, reduces
exposure to opposing viewpoints, and intensifies
divisions. Political actors and organizations exploit
these echo chambers to disseminate propaganda or
rally support for divisive causes. 12
UNGA
Background Guide
Another factor is the lack of regulation or
inconsistent enforcement of rules across different
regions. In some cases, governments may
manipulate social media for their own purposes,
promoting propaganda or silencing dissent, while
in other regions, authorities struggle to control the
online spread of harmful content. International
platforms like Facebook or YouTube must navigate
the complex legal landscapes of different
countries, leading to uneven enforcement of
policies designed to reduce hate speech or
misinformation.

Finally, digital anonymity enables users to engage

in harmful behavior without fear of real-world
consequences. Troll farms, bots, and anonymous
accounts contribute to the spread of harmful
content and escalate online conflicts. These actors
can organize targeted harassment campaigns,
manipulate narratives, and fuel mistrust between
different communities, all while hiding behind fake
identities.

In conclusion, social media, while offering

opportunities for positive change, plays a
significant role in fueling modern conflicts. As its
influence continues to grow, addressing these
issues through better regulation, more robust
content moderation, and greater digital literacy
will be key to mitigating its harmful impact on
global peace and security.
13
UNGA
Background Guide
Nuclear Disarmament
Nuclear disarmament or denuclearisation is the act of
reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. Such acts,
treaties or conventions are targeted towards
achieving a ‘nuclear arms-free’ world.
Nuclear Arms
Nuclear arms are weaponsof mass destruction
capable of erasing anythingin dozens of kilometers.
They’re made by extracting uranium from the earth
and using it to perform the scientific process of
‘nuclear fission’, which triggers the blast. These
weaponsare capable of eliminating cities and
killingmillions. The explosion they cause surpasses the
impact of several thousand TNTs detonated at once.
Moreover, the radiation released by the fission makes
the surroundings poisonous, and its effects can lead
to serious diseases like cancer. Such are the dangers
of this radiation that they can even have an impact on
the upcoming generations of the country.

As of now, only 9 nationspossess nuclear [Link]

nations are: United States, Russia, China, United
Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North
Korea. These states possessa combined total of an
estimated 12,100 nuclear weapons, which are enough
to destroy the world multiple times.

There are 2 typesof Nuclear Weapons,namely ;

1. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS: These are arms
used to neutralise territories which are mostly in
the interior of the enemy nations. They are highly
destructive and can travel thousands of kilometres.
[Link] NUCLEAR WEAPONS: These are arms
that are designedto use in the battlefield. They are
less destructive than Strategic ones and travel
lesser distances, usually some 100 kilometres
14
UNGA
Background Guide
History of the Weapons

15
UNGA
Background Guide
The Difference Theory
The use of military threat as a means to deter
international crises and war has been used for over
2000 years. The Deterrence theory refers to use of
threats in limited force to convince or pressurise
another party from initiating some action of course.

Fearing the losses and cost of the action, the targeted

group refrains from carrying out the intendedaction.
The criticsof Denuclearization use this theory to justify
the existence of nuclear arms and weapons.

In the book of Arms and Influence (1966), the

authorThomas Schelling states that deterrence is
used “to prevent action by fear of consequences. This
means that deterrence is used to generate ‘fear’
among the targeted party in order to prevent them
from performing certain actions. Nuclear arms are,
therefore, a factor that affect deterrence crucially. A
nuclear- armed state can easily deter a non- nuclear
state or a state with fewer nuclear stockpiles.

As outlined by P.K Huth in his Deterrence and

International Conflict:Empirical Findings and
Theoretical Debates (1999), the act of deterrence can
fit into certain categories, namely:

DIRECT DETERRENCE: preventing an armed

attack against a State’s own territory. This situation
can arise to resolve a territorial conflict between 2
or more neighbouring states.

EXTENDED DETERRENCE: preventing an armed

attack against another state. This situation arises
when a greater power gets involved into the
conflict.
16
UNGA
Background Guide
The Cuban Missle Crisis (16-29 Oct 1962)
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13-day conflict between
the Governments of the United States and Soviet
Russia, which was the result of the Cold War between
the 2 countries. The tensions were so high that many
believe that the world was closest to a Third World
War, placing the world on the brink of a full-fledged
nuclear war and ultimately throwing humanity into
chaos and destruction.

In 1962, the United States established their Jupiter

Nuclear Missiles (the first Medium-range Ballistic
Missiles) in Italy and Turkey. Moreover, the Central
Investigative Agency (CIA) of the US trained a
paramilitary force of Cubans living in exile. This force
was made to overthrow the government of Cuba,
which was a small island country very near to the US
mainland. Driven by the objective of invading the
country, the USA, under its “Cuban Project”, engaged
into violent terrorist activities, which continued
throughout the first half of the 1960’s.

The Soviets, on the other hand, were having tense

relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
This occurred due to differences in the interpretations
of the applications of Marxism-Leninism, i.e.,
Communist principles. The geopolitics of the Cold War
added fuel to the fire. Hence, the Soviets feared a
Cuban drift to China. A meeting was organised
between the Soviets and the Cubans in July 1962,at
the end of which the USSR agreed to position their
nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter a future invasion.
Thus began the construction of launch pads and
shipment of missiles to the island of Cuba. On 15th
October 1962, a U.S spy plane captured and recorded
evidence of these constructions, which alarmed the
US government.
17
UNGA
Background Guide
The missiles could wipe out millions of Americans
in a couple of minutes, and they were very close to
the mainland. The U.S National Security Council
formed the Executive Committee of the National
Security Council (EXCOMM). The committee
advised the then U.S President John F. Kennedy to
conduct airstrikes, followed by an invasion on
Cuban land. President Kennedy chose a less
aggressive tactic and on 22nd October, he ordered
a naval blockade to prevent further transport of
the Soviet nuclear warheads.

The growing tensions then subsided after the

agreement between the heads of the states of
both the countries -John F. Kennedy of USA and
Nikita Krushchev of USSR- in which both the
countries negotiated with each other. The public
declaration included the terms wherein the
Soviets agreed to dismantle their nuclear
equipment, including warheads, launch pads and
bombers, while the Americans agreed not to
invade the Cuban island. The Secret part of these
negotiations included the US removing the
nuclear weapons from Turkey. The status of the
weapons in Italy remained unknown, igniting
debates among the researchers.

While the Soviets dismantled their launch pads

and Ballistic Missiles from Cuba, some of the Soviet
bombers remained on the island, which led the US
to continue their blockade. The blockade formally
ended on 20th November 1962 after all the
weapons and the bombers had been deported
back to the Soviet Union. 18
UNGA
Background Guide
Anti-Nuclear Movements
Throughout the century, many social, environmental
and political groups have protested against
production of nuclear weapons. Some of the major
groups that support and promote nuclear
disarmament are:
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Friends of Earth
Greenpeace
International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Peace Action
Global Initiative to Combat NuclearTerrorism
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs
The UnitedNations

Major nuclear disarmament initiatives came after the

bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many scientists,
like Albert Einstein, were horrified by the destruction
too, and enteredpolitics to persuadecountries to ban
production of nuclear weapons. The masses became
concerned about nuclear weapon testing from 1954,
following the extensive nuclear testing in the
PacificOcean, which produced a global fallout that
took the lives of 2.4 million people by 2020.

Even after decades of protests, treaties and

functioning of the international bodies, the world is far
away from achieving complete nuclear disarmament.
Countries like India, China, North Korea and Pakistan
still produce new nuclear weapons every year.
Countries of Israel and Russia have threatened their
counterparts with nuclear strikes in the ongoing
conflicts. Thus, this committee is expected to work out
arrangements and solutions to the Nuclear
Disarmament Program. 19
UNGA
Background Guide
Anti-Nuclear Movements
Throughout the century, many social, environmental
and political groups have protested against
production of nuclear weapons. Some of the major
groups that support and promote nuclear
disarmament are:
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Friends of Earth
Greenpeace
International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Peace Action
Global Initiative to Combat NuclearTerrorism
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs
The UnitedNations

Major nuclear disarmament initiatives came after the

bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many scientists,
like Albert Einstein, were horrified by the destruction
too, and enteredpolitics to persuadecountries to ban
production of nuclear weapons. The masses became
concerned about nuclear weapon testing from 1954,
following the extensive nuclear testing in the
PacificOcean, which produced a global fallout that
took the lives of 2.4 million people by 2020.

Even after decades of protests, treaties and

functioning of the international bodies, the world is far
away from achieving complete nuclear disarmament.
Countries like India, China, North Korea and Pakistan
still produce new nuclear weapons every year.
Countries of Israel and Russia have threatened their
counterparts with nuclear strikes in the ongoing
conflicts. Thus, this committee is expected to work out
arrangements and solutions to the Nuclear
Disarmament Program. 20
UNGA
Background Guide
Case Study 1: Social Media
Fuelling Conflict — Myanmar and
the Rohingya Crisis
Background
In recent years, Myanmar has experienced one of
the world’s most acute humanitarian crises, where
social media played a significant role in escalating
violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority.
The Rohingya, a stateless ethnic group, have faced
systemic discrimination in Myanmar for decades.
Tensions reached a breaking point in 2017 when a
brutal military crackdown, framed as a counter-
terrorism operation, led to mass displacement and
violence. By the end of the campaign, over
700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring
Bangladesh, escaping what many international
observers called ethnic cleansing.

Role of Social Media

Facebook, the dominant social media platform in
Myanmar, became a key vector for spreading hate
speech, misinformation, and incitement to
violence against the Rohingya. Although initially
intended as a platform for communication,
Facebook quickly became a breeding ground for
extremist content. Disinformation campaigns,
often orchestrated by nationalist groups and even
elements within the military, portrayed the
Rohingya as "terrorists" or an existential threat to
the nation. This rhetoric fanned the flames of long-
standing ethnic tensions.
21
UNGA
Background Guide
One major issue was the unregulated spread of hate
speech, including posts calling for violence and
extermination of the Rohingya. A United Nations
report later concluded that social media had played a
"determining role" in fueling the atrocities. This was
exacerbated by Facebook’s slow response in
moderating content. Despite numerous reports, the
platform failed to remove harmful posts in a timely
manner, allowing hate speech to proliferate
unchecked. Facebook’s algorithms, designed to
promote engaging content, often prioritized
sensational, inflammatory posts, pushing divisive
narratives to more users and escalating tensions.

Consequences
The consequences were devastating. Social media,
instead of being a platform for dialogue, became a
catalyst for violence. Misinformation campaigns
dehumanized the Rohingya, justifying violent actions
by military and nationalist groups. As tensions
escalated, social media fueled further violence,
leading to widespread displacement and loss of life.
The international community, including human rights
organizations, criticized Facebook’s role in the crisis. In
response, Facebook acknowledged its failure and took
steps to improve content moderation in Myanmar,
but by then the damage had been done.

Lessons Learned
The Rohingya crisis serves as a stark reminder of the
potential for social media to fuel ethnic and religious
conflicts. This case highlights the responsibility of tech
companies to monitor and regulate harmful content,
particularly in conflict-prone regions. Furthermore, it
underscores the need for governments and civil
society to address the root causes of ethnic tensions
while ensuring that social media platforms are not
used as tools for incitement and violence.
22
UNGA
Background Guide
Case Study 2: Nuclear Disarmament
— The Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action)
Background
Nuclear disarmament has long been a focus of
international diplomacy, as countries seek to
prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
reduce the risks associated with their use. One of
the most significant diplomatic achievements in
recent history was the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal,
formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, negotiated
between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and
Germany), sought to limit Iran’s ability to develop
nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of
economic sanctions.

The Iran Nuclear Deal came after years of

diplomatic tension and concerns over Iran’s
nuclear program. The international community,
particularly Western nations, feared that Iran was
using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to
develop nuclear weapons. In response, sanctions
were imposed to pressure Iran into compliance
with international nuclear regulations. 23
UNGA
Background Guide
Terms of the Deal
The JCPOA was aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear
program remained exclusively peaceful. The deal
imposed strict limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment
activities, including reducing its stockpile of enriched
uranium and dismantling a significant portion of its
nuclear infrastructure. In exchange, Iran was promised
relief from crippling economic sanctions that had
severely impacted its economy.

The deal established an intensive inspection regime

under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
designed to verify Iran’s compliance. The agreement
was hailed as a diplomatic victory, as it successfully
postponed Iran’s nuclear weapons capability by more
than a decade, giving the international community
time to work on longer-term disarmament efforts.

Challenges and Withdrawals

However, the Iran Nuclear Deal faced significant
opposition, particularly from countries like Israel and
certain factions within the United States, who argued
that the deal was too lenient and did not permanently
eliminate the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear
weapons. In 2018, the U.S. under President Donald
Trump withdrew from the deal, reinstating sanctions
and sparking a new phase of tension between Iran
and the international community. The withdrawal led
to Iran gradually breaching the terms of the
agreement, including increasing uranium
enrichment, raising fears that the deal might collapse
altogether.

The other signatories of the deal, particularly

European countries, continued to support the JCPOA,
but struggled to counterbalance the impact of U.S.
sanctions on Iran. Diplomatic efforts to salvage the
agreement have been ongoing, but trust between
Iran and the West has been significantly eroded. 24
UNGA
Background Guide
Impact on Nuclear Disarmament
The Iran Nuclear Deal, despite its setbacks,
remains a critical case study in nuclear
disarmament. It demonstrated that diplomacy can
achieve tangible results in slowing the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, even in regions with high
geopolitical tension. The deal also showed the
importance of multilateral negotiations and
international cooperation in addressing nuclear
risks. However, the subsequent challenges
highlight the fragility of such agreements,
particularly when key players withdraw or fail to
uphold their commitments.

Lessons for Future Disarmament Efforts

The Iran Nuclear Deal teaches us that trust,
verification, and sustained diplomatic
engagement are essential components of any
successful nuclear disarmament strategy. While
disarmament may not be permanent, agreements
like the JCPOA can provide valuable time and
reduce immediate risks, allowing for longer-term
solutions to be pursued. Moving forward, future
disarmament efforts must learn from the
successes and failures of the JCPOA, emphasizing
the importance of international unity, enforceable
commitments, and flexible diplomatic approaches
to managing nuclear risks.
25
UNGA
Background Guide
Questions to Consider for Agenda 1:
The Role of Social Media in Fueling
Conflicts
[Link] can governments and tech companies
collaborate to prevent the spread of hate speech
and misinformation on social media platforms,
particularly in conflict-prone regions?

[Link] measures can be implemented to balance

the need for free speech with the responsibility of
preventing incitement to violence and hate
speech on social media?

[Link] effective are existing social media content

moderation strategies in regions experiencing
ethnic, religious, or political tensions, and what
improvements could be made?

[Link] what ways can social media be used as a tool

for peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and
promoting dialogue between opposing groups?

[Link] can international organizations like the

United Nations develop frameworks to hold social
media companies accountable for their platforms
being used to incite violence? 26
UNGA
Background Guide
Questions to Consider for Agenda 2:
Nuclear Disarmament
[Link] steps can the international community
take to achieve global nuclear disarmament, and
what role should nuclear-armed states play in
leading by example?

[Link] can the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT) be strengthened to
ensure progress toward complete nuclear
disarmament?

[Link] are the key obstacles preventing nuclear-

armed states from fully committing to
disarmament, and how can these challenges be
addressed diplomatically?

[Link] can international organizations and civil

society be involved in pushing for nuclear
disarmament, and what role should the United
Nations play in this process?

[Link] strategies can be implemented to prevent

the development of new nuclear weapons
technologies and avoid a renewed arms race?

27
UNGA
Background Guide
Research Links
1.[Link]
know/item-
[Link]#:~:text=The%20negative%20effects%
20of%20social,including%20the%20Israel%2DGaza%20
situation.
2.[Link]
8-2018-005636_EN.html
3.[Link]
backgrounder/2021/social-media-tool-peace-or-
conflict
4.[Link]
-social-media-is-being-blamed-for-fueling-riots-in-
france/articleshow/[Link]
5.[Link]
conflicts
6.[Link]
weapon
7.[Link]
8.[Link]
9.[Link]
10. [Link]
11.[Link]
Nations/Arms- control-and-disarmament
12. [Link]
[Link] 28