VIBGYOR

MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2024

DISARMAMENT & INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

COMMITTEE

AGENDAS:

1. Examining the trade of arms with special reference to the Israel-Palestine

Conflict.

2. Preventing the Proliferation of Autonomous Weapons

 Table of contents

Sr. No. Content Page No.

1. Letter from the Executive Board 2

2. Introduction to Committee 3

3. Beginners’ Guide to Model UN 4

4. How to prepare for the Model United Nations 5

5. Start from Knowing 6

6. Know your Agenda 6

AGENDA 1: Examining the Trade of Arms with special

7. 7
reference to the Israel Palestine conflict

QARMA- Questions a Resolution Must Answer-

8. 15
Agenda 1

AGENDA 2: Preventing the Proliferation of

9. 16
Autonomous Weapons

QARMA- Questions a Resolution Must Answer -

10. 23
Agenda 2

1
 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Dear Delegates,

It gives us incredible delight to invite you all to the academic simulation of the Disarmament &
International Security Committee at the 14th edition of Vibgyor MUN (2024).

We trust this experience improves your public speaking abilities and that you find out about a
squeezing world issue that convolutes the existence of numerous individuals in our nation just as
abroad. Please consider that the following guide, as the name suggests, is merely to provide you with
the background of the agenda and cannot serve as a credible source of information. Your real research
lies beyond this guide, and we hope to see some strong content and debate come our way. The agenda
at hand is vast and complex and a successful discussion on it would entail the collective participation
of all of you. It shall be your prerogative to decide the direction in which you want to take this
committee. The background guide is designed to help everyone to understand the basic things about
the agenda, and we strongly recommend that you research various things on your own. We also
suggest understanding how various rights get affected (legally). Do not feel taken aback on the
research, foreign policy, and other details of the allotted country. That said, we also want you to
understand that a Model UN is more about collaboration and coming together to solve global issues
than a competition and we sincerely hope that the entire committee comes with the right spirit in this
conference. Take the initiative to research properly. PLEASE DO READ THE GUIDE. While the
agendas are clear, it is still open to interpretation and there shall be no direction of debate that shall
be provided by the Executive Board. Delegates are required to direct the council at all stages, unless
stagnation occurs. We hope to see a great level of effort and enthusiasm from you all, so that we all
can take back a great experience.

Best Regards,
Vanshika Thacker – Chair
Mithun C – Co-Chair
Radha Khade– Co-Chair

INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE

2
The United Nations Organisation was founded on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the
United Nations Charter. The UN Charter, which established the organisation, was adopted on June
25, 1945, following the drafting process that began on April 25, 1945, when 50 nations met in San
Francisco, California for a conference. The UN's mission and work have been guided by the purposes
and principles contained in its founding Charter.
The UN Charter established 6 principal organs (mentioned in Article 7 of the Charter):
1) The General Assembly
2) The Security Council
3) The Economic and Social Council
4) The Trusteeship Council* (Not functional currently)
5) The International Court
6) The Secretariat

The Disarmament and Security Committee of the UN is the first of the six general assemblies under
the United Nations. It deals with all matters concerning disarmament, Security and general principles
governing international co-operation, in primary reference to regulation of armaments. It is the only
committee of the UN that is entitled to Verbatim Records Coverage. There are two main bodies in
DISEC: the Disarmament Commission (UNDC) and the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The CD
is not formally a part of the United Nations, yet it still reports to the GA every year and works in close
co-operation of the DISEC.

DISEC consists of all 193 member states of the United Nations. Unlike some of the other committees,
every country has equal voting power in this committee. Because DISEC is part of the GA, it does
not have the power to enforce any rule or guideline of the established resolution on any country.
DISEC centres around topics of discussion such as nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass
destruction, outer space, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, other
disarmament measures and international security, and disarmament machinery.

Beginner’s guide to Model UN

What is the United Nations?

3
 The United Nations is an international organisation founded in 1945 to maintain international peace
and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living
standards and human rights by 51 countries. The United Nations has 6 principle organs.
The UN has 4 main purposes:

1. To keep peace throughout the world;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations;
3. To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease
and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;

4. To be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations to achieve these goals.

How to prepare for the Model United Nations?

General Research and Preparation guidelines

4
There are three consistently significant parts of representative planning. They are: useful; meaningful;
and positional planning. Practical readiness outfits the representatives with essential apparatuses,
including a comprehension of the guidelines important to act in board of trustees. The meaningful
component gives preparation of explicit data on the subject regions. At long last, positional planning
requires the understudies to embrace viewpoints that are not their own. In the light of this, the EB
gives three instruments to help you: this Guide to Delegate Preparation, Background Guides, and
position papers. Together, these will guarantee you will be prepared for the gathering. Past perusing
and understanding the material we have given, the more pragmatic experience you can gain through
banter, goal composing, making introductions, and so forth, the more ready you will be.

Meaningful Preparation

The Background Guides are a consequence of broad exploration and exertion with respect to the
Executive Board and are the establishment of considerable groundwork for every advisory group. We
recommend that you read them, talk about them, and read them once more. On the off chance that an
agent has not perused and ingested the data in the Background Guide, the person won't contribute
adequately to the board. An ambitious beginning on the Background Guides will empower you to
completely comprehend the subjects and start to tissue out your own thoughts. Advise yourself that
you should go about as policymakers, dissecting and shaping the data you have gotten into
arrangements and goals. Conversations with different representatives will likewise assist you with
fostering your thoughts. While the Background Guide will give a large portion of your meaningful
readiness, autonomous exploration is valuable, fulfilling, and important for a fruitful gathering.

Positional Preparation

We expect representatives to receive the situation of a particular country all through the UN
reproduction. This is a vital component of the "global" experience of a model UN as it powers
representatives to analyse the points of view, issues, and arrangements of one more country at an
exceptionally major level. It is additionally quite possibly the most troublesome parts of MUN on the
grounds that understudies should go up against natural inclinations of their own public viewpoints
and authentic data. The position papers are the focal point of positional planning before the meeting.
Albeit generally short, we request that you invest energy and exertion on investigating and keeping
in touch with them. Materials arranged by the EB are not intended to fill in for your individual
exploration. All things being equal, they ought to give a beginning stage, motivating you to ask
yourself inquiries about the current issues. The best-arranged agents are those that accept the gave
materials as the start of their exploration and dig further into the theme regions. Past these materials
are a large group of data administrations, starting with United Nations sources. UN's assets regularly
have ordered measurements, outlines, and charts which you may discover supportive in understanding
the issues. Most UN report communities convey records of UN gatherings; maybe the most ideal
approach to comprehend your nation's position is to see it iterated by its diplomat.
Explicit assets to research include:

1. The Yearbook of the UN: The Yearbook is a decent beginning stage for your examination. The
Yearbook will furnish you with general data on what has been done on your theme during a
specific year. It likewise gives exceptionally accommodating references to past articles and goals.
2. UN Chronicle: This magazine gives you general data on the procedures of the UN. Watch out
for exceptional reports on your theme region, which will advise you about the point and countries'
situations on it.
5
 3. UN Document Index: This record for all UN reports comes in three distinct renditions: UNDI
(1950-1973), UNDEX (1970-1978), and UNODC (1979-present). Contingent upon which of the
three you are utilizing, you will track down a subject record, a nation file, and an alphanumeri c
rundown of all reports distributed (this is helpful in light of the fact that each panel has its own
novel alphanumeric prefix and accordingly you can track down every one of the records put out
by a board of trustees during a specific year paying little heed to the particular theme.

4. UN Resolutions: This arrangement is both significant and extremely simple to utilise. The record
is aggregate from 1946, which implies that you need just check the most current list to track down
every one of the goals on your point that the UN has at any point passed. 5. Other UN sources:
Depending on the subject, there may be extra pertinent UN sources. Check for books and exceptional
reports put out by the WHO. Past United Nations sources, notwithstanding, are general wellsprings
of data. Explore your school and nearby libraries. Look at diaries, periodicals, and papers for more
current sources. Remember to ask the curators for help.

Research AID

-START FROM KNOWING

a. United Nations
b. Your committee
c. Mandate (powers and functions)
d. Bodies it works with
e. Funding channels

-KNOW YOUR AGENDA

a. History
b. Current trend
c. Future aims
d. International legal instruments
And finally research to come up with solutions for the agenda.

6
 AGENDA 1: EXAMINING THE TRADE OF ARMS WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT

INTRODUCTION
The trade of weapons is a crucial and divisive topic with broad ramifications for regional stability,
humanitarian issues, and peace possibilities, especially in the light of the Israel Palestine conflict. The
proliferation of weapons and military hardware in the region has had a significant impact on the
conflict between Israel and Palestine, which has been marked by decades-long territorial disputes,
political tensions, and violent cycles.

The Israel-Palestine conflict's arms trade is complicated by geopolitical interests, historical

grievances, and ideological agendas, making it more than just an issue of national security. In addition
to prolonging the conflict, the procurement and use of weapons by Palestinian militant groups and
Israeli security forces have exacerbated humanitarian problems and thwarted attempts at a peaceful
settlement.

TRADE OF ARMS AND RELATED TREATIES

What is the trade of arms?
Arms trade refers to the buying, selling, and transfer of military weapons and equipment between
countries, governments, or non-state actors. This trade can involve various types of weaponry,
including small arms and light weapons (such as rifles and handguns), artillery, armoured vehicles,
aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, and other military hardware.
The arms trade can occur through government-to-government contracts, private sales facilitated by
arms dealers or brokers, or through international arms agreements. It plays a significant role in global
geopolitics, military strategies, and conflicts around the world.
Arms trade can have both positive and negative implications. On one hand, it can contribute to
national security, defence cooperation between allies, and economic benefits for arms producing
countries. On the other hand, it can fuel armed conflicts, contribute to human rights abuses, undermine
peace and stability, and perpetuate cycles of violence in conflict affected regions.
For several decades, the trade in weapons has been among the most lucrative businesses in the world
with predictable increases year after year. The ready availability of weapons and ammunition leads to
human suffering, political repression, crime, and terror among civilian populations. Irresponsible
arms transfers can destabilize an entire region, enable violations of arms embargoes, and contribute
to human rights abuses. Investment is discouraged, and development is disrupted in countries
experiencing conflict and high levels of violence. Countries affected by conflict or pervasive crime
have the most difficulty attaining internationally agreed development goals.

Treaties on small arms and light weapons

Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and
Light Weapons (UNPoA) This programme was agreed to in July 2001. It seeks to encourage
countries to create stricter national laws to stop the sale of illegal guns. Countries should control the
export and import of weapons as well as the transport and re-selling of weapons. Countries should
also work to stop people involved in the illegal sale of small arms and weapons. They should be
arrested and brought to court. Every weapon should have an identifying mark so that law enforcement
can tell where a weapon came from.
International Tracing Instrument (ITI) This agreement was accepted in 2005. It is part of the
Programme of Action. States promised to make sure weapons are marked and that records are kept
about the weapons. This helps control the flow of weapons. Also, if weapons are used in a crime the
police can find out where the weapon came from. In 2015, tracing weapons became one of the targets
of Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

7
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) The Arms Trade Treaty was adopted on the 2nd of April 2013 and came
into force on the 24th of December 2014. 91 states are parties to the treaty and 130 countries are
signatories. It asks countries not to send weapons to countries that the Security Council has
determined has committed human rights abuses. It also asks countries to be open about their weapon
sales and to report on their import and export of weapons. This treaty covers all weapons including
tanks, missiles, warships, small arms, and light weapons. Setting global norms: Adoption of the
Arms Trade Treaty
Virtually all areas of world trade, from banana to petroleum, timber to minerals, are covered by
regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. Before the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT) in April 2013 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, there was no global set of rules
governing the trade in conventional weapons. The ATT sets robust international standards to help
guide governments in deciding whether to authorize arms transfers. It provides for cooperation and
assistance to help countries develop adequate regulatory systems and safe weapons stockpiles. The
adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty marked a turning point in the international community’s efforts to
regulate the global trade in conventional arms and to promote peace and security.
The Treaty contributes to:
• Reducing armed conflict and violence, which impact millions of civilians every year;
• Helping create a more conducive environment for the UN to carry out its mandates in peacekeeping,
peace-making and post-conflict peacebuilding and in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and of the New Agenda for Peace;
• Fostering a safer environment for humanitarian actors operating in volatile areas across the globe
such as those delivering food aid, protecting refugees, working on gender equality and empowering
women.
Essential elements of the ATT
• Scope: All important weapons systems: battle tanks, armed personnel carriers, artillery, fighter jets,
attack helicopters, warships, missiles, and small arms and light weapons.
• Ammunition as well as parts and components are covered.

• Prohibitions on transfers: Any transfer that could violate Security Council arms embargoes or be
used to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
• Criteria for assessment of exports: States will deny an export if there is an “overriding risk” that
weapons may be used to negatively impact peace and security, undermine international
humanitarian/human rights law, facilitate terrorism, organized crime, and gender-based violence.
• Commitment to regulate: Countries commit to develop an export and import control system.
Furthermore, they are also encouraged to regulate transit of weapons through their territories and
arms brokers.
• Commitment to report: Transparency is paramount. States commit to report on their present
regulatory system, and their actual imports and exports of weapons.
• International cooperation/assistance: The ATT includes provisions on institutional capacity-
building and establishes a voluntary trust fund to help States implement the treaty.
• Prevention of diversion: A Diversion Information Exchange Forum (DIEF) was established by the
Sixth Conference of the States Parties in 2020. Thanks to the DIEF, States Parties and signatory
States can have informal voluntary exchanges concerning concrete cases of detected or suspected
diversion. Furthermore, they can share concrete, operational diversion-related information, which
can help States to improve their national legislations and procedures.
BACKGROUND OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT
History of the Conflict
The dispute over ownership and control of the land now recognized as Israel and/or Palestine has been
a source of contention among communities since ancient times. This conflict, centred on the "Holy
8
Land," encompasses religious sentiments as well as various aspects of international law. Spanning
over a century, it has evolved into one of the most complex and divisive conflicts in modern history,
representing a pivotal chapter in the Near East's historical narrative.
Historical accounts of the region and its conflicts predominantly stem from the 24 books of the
Tanakh, also known as the Hebrew Bible, dating back to around 1000 B.C. during the reign of King
David, the first ruler of a unified Kingdom of Israel. Following the demise of King Solomon in 931
B.C., the region experienced disunity, leading to the split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and
the southern Kingdom of Judah. These kingdoms faced significant opposition from the formidable
Egyptian and Assyrian Empires to their south and north, respectively.
In subsequent centuries, the region witnessed a series of conquests and power shifts, with empires
such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks exerting control over the land. The Hellenic
rule, marked by oppression and desecration of Jewish heritage, sparked a revolt by the Maccabees in
160 B.C., culminating in a brief period of Jewish autonomy under the Hasmonean dynasty.
Roman intervention in the region, beginning with Pompey's conquest of Judea in 63 B.C., ultimately
led to the establishment of Roman client states and, later, direct rule over the area. The Roman
occupation triggered numerous Jewish revolts, including the famous siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.,
resulting in the destruction of the Second Temple and the dispersion of Jews across the Roman
Empire, known as the "Jewish diaspora."
The Byzantine Empire's control of the region was challenged by the rise of Islam in the 7th century,
culminating in the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 637 A.D. under the Rashidun Caliphate.
Subsequent centuries saw the dominance of various Muslim caliphates, followed by Crusader rule
after the First Crusade in 1099, which lasted for nearly two centuries amid intermittent conflicts with
Muslim sultanates.
The Mamluk Sultanate replaced the Ayyubid dynasty in 1250, ruling over Palestine and the Levant
until the Ottoman Turks defeated them in 1516. Ottoman rule endured for three centuries, witnessing
significant developments such as the reconstruction of Jerusalem's city walls and the promulgation of
the Status Quo to preserve the holy sites.
The modern era of conflict in the region traces back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which
expressed support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This
declaration laid the foundation for subsequent agreements and treaties, setting the stage for the
ongoing disputes and armed engagements among the parties involved.

What was the Balfour Declaration?

More than 100 years ago, on November 2, 1917, Britain’s then-foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour,
wrote a letter addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a figurehead of the British Jewish community.
The letter was short – just 67 words – but its contents had a seismic effect on Palestine that is still felt
to this day. It committed the British government to “the establishment in Palestine of a national home
for the Jewish people” and to facilitate “the achievement of this object”. The letter is known as the
Balfour Declaration.
In essence, a European power promised the Zionist movement a country where Palestinian Arab
natives made up more than 90 per cent of the population. A British Mandate was created in 1923 and
lasted until 1948. During that period, the British facilitated mass Jewish immigration – many of the
new residents were fleeing Nazism in Europe – and they also faced protests and strikes. Palestinians
were alarmed by their country’s changing demographics and British confiscation of their lands to be
handed over to Jewish settlers. Timeline
What happened during the 1930s?
• Escalating tensions eventually led to the Arab Revolt, which lasted from 1936 to 1939.

9
 • In April 1936, the newly formed Arab National Committee called on Palestinians to launch a
general strike, withhold tax payments and boycott Jewish products to protest British colonialism
and growing Jewish immigration.

• The six-month strike was brutally repressed by the British, who launched a mass arrest campaign
and carried out punitive home demolitions, a practice that Israel continues to implement against
Palestinians today.

• The second phase of the revolt began in late 1937 and was led by the Palestinian peasant
resistance movement, which targeted British forces and colonialism.

• By the second half of 1939, Britain had massed 30,000 troops in Palestine. Villages were bombed
by air, curfews imposed, homes demolished, and administrative detentions and summary killings
were widespread.

• In tandem, the British collaborated with the Jewish settler community and formed armed groups
and a British-led “counterinsurgency force” of Jewish fighters named the Special Night Squads.

• Within the Yishuv, the pre-state settler community, arms were secretly imported, and weapons
factories were established to expand the Haganah, the Jewish paramilitary that later became the
core of the Israeli army.

• In those three years of revolt, 5000 Palestinians were killed, 15,000 to 20,000 were wounded
and 5,600 were imprisoned.

What was the UN partition plan?

• By 1947, the Jewish population had ballooned to 33 percent of Palestine, but they owned only 6
percent of the land.

• The United Nations adopted Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab
and Jewish states.

• The Palestinians rejected the plan because it allotted about 55% of Palestine to the Jewish state,
including most of the fertile coastal region.

• At the time, the Palestinians owned 94 percent of historic Palestine and comprised 67 percent of
its population.

The Naksa, or the Six-Day War and the settlements

• On June 5, 1967, Israel occupied the rest of historic Palestine, including the Gaza Strip, the West
Bank, East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights, and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula during the
Six-Day War against a coalition of Arab armies.

• For some Palestinians, this led to a second forced displacement, or Naksa, which means
“setback” in Arabic.

• In December 1967, the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was
formed. Over the next decade, a series of attacks and plane hijackings by leftist groups drew the
world’s attention to the plight of the Palestinians.

10
 • Settlement construction began in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. A two-tier system was
created with Jewish settlers afforded all the rights and privileges of being Israeli citizens whereas
Palestinians had to live under a military occupation that discriminated against them and barred
any form of political or civic expression.

The first Intifada 1987-1993

• The first Palestinian Intifada erupted in the Gaza Strip in December 1987 after four Palestinians
were killed when an Israeli truck collided with two vans carrying Palestinian workers.

• Protests spread rapidly to the West Bank with young Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli army
tanks and soldiers.

• It also led to the establishment of the Hamas movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood
that engaged in armed resistance against the Israeli occupation.

• The Israeli army’s heavy-handed response was encapsulated by the “Break their Bones” policy
advocated by then-Defence Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It included summary killings, closures of
universities, deportations of activists and destruction of homes.

• The Intifada was primarily carried out by young people and was directed by the Unified National
Leadership of the Uprising, a coalition of Palestinian political factions committed to ending the
Israeli occupation and establishing Palestinian independence.

• In 1988, the Arab League recognised the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

• The Intifada was characterised by popular mobilisations, mass protests, civil disobedience, well-
organised strikes, and communal cooperatives.

• According to the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, 1,070 Palestinians were killed by
Israeli forces during the Intifada, including 237 children. More than 175,000 Palestinians were
arrested.

• The Intifada also prompted the international community to search for a solution to the conflict.

The Oslo years and the Palestinian Authority

• The Intifada ended with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the formation of the
Palestinian Authority (PA), an interim government that was granted limited self-rule in pockets
of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• The PLO recognised Israel based on a two-state solution and effectively signed agreements that
gave Israel control of 60 percent of the West Bank, and much of the territory’s land and water
resources.

• The PA was supposed to make way for the first elected Palestinian government running an
independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with its capital in East Jerusalem, but that has
never happened.

• Critics of the PA view it as a corrupt subcontractor to the Israeli occupation that collaborates
closely with the Israeli military in clamping down on dissent and political activism against Israel.

• In 1995, Israel built an electronic fence and concrete wall around the Gaza Strip, snapping
interactions between the split Palestinian territories.

11
The second Intifada
• The second Intifada began on September 28, 2000, when Likud opposition leader Ariel Sharon
made a provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound with thousands of security forces
deployed in and around the Old City of Jerusalem.

• Clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli forces killed five Palestinians and injured 200
over two days.

• The incident sparked a widespread armed uprising. During the Intifada, Israel caused
unprecedented damage to the Palestinian economy and infrastructure.

• Israel reoccupied areas governed by the Palestinian Authority and began construction of a
separation wall that along with rampant settlement construction, destroyed Palestinian
livelihoods and communities.

• Settlements are illegal under international law, but over the years, hundreds of thousands of
Jewish settlers have moved to colonies built on stolen Palestinian land. The space

for Palestinians is shrinking as settler-only roads and infrastructure slice up the occupied West
Bank, forcing Palestinian cities and towns into Bantustans, the isolated enclaves for Black
South Africans that the country’s former apartheid regime created.

• At the time the Oslo Accords were signed, just over 110,000 Jewish settlers lived in the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem. Today, the figure is more than 700,000 living on more than
100,000 hectares (390sq miles) of land expropriated from the Palestinians.

The Palestinian division and the Gaza blockade

• PLO leader Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and a year later, the second Intifada ended, Israeli
settlements in the Gaza Strip were dismantled, and Israeli soldiers and 9,000 settlers left the
enclave.

• A year later, Palestinians voted in a general election for the first time.

• Hamas won a majority. However, a Fatah-Hamas civil war broke out, lasting for months,
resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians.

• Hamas expelled Fatah from the Gaza Strip, and Fatah – the main party of the Palestinian
Authority – resumed control of parts of the West Bank.

• In June 2007, Israel imposed a land, air and naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, accusing Hamas
of “terrorism”.

The wars on the Gaza Strip

• Israel has launched four protracted military assaults on Gaza: in 2008, 2012, 2014 and
2021. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, including many children, and tens of
thousands of homes, schools and office buildings have been destroyed.

• Rebuilding has been next to impossible because the siege prevents construction materials, such
as steel and cement, from reaching Gaza.

• The 2008 assault involved the use of internationally banned weaponry, such as phosphorus gas.

12
 • In 2014, over a span of 50 days, Israel killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, including 1,462
civilians and close to 500 children.

• During the assault, called Operation Protective Edge by the Israelis, about 11,000 Palestinians
were wounded, 20,000 homes were destroyed, and half a million people were displaced.

ARMS TRADE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT

The arms trade plays a significant and contentious role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, contributing to
the perpetuation of hostilities and exacerbation of tensions between the two sides. Here's an overview
of the arms trade dynamics in the context of this conflict:

1. Arms Suppliers: Both Israel and Palestine rely on external sources for arms and
military equipment. Israel, with a robust defence industry, produces a significant portion
of its weapons domestically but also imports advanced weaponry from countries like
the United States. On the other hand, various sources, including black markets and
clandestine channels, supply arms to Palestinian factions such as Hamas and Islamic
Jihad. These sources often include state actors sympathetic to the Palestinian cause,
illicit arms dealers, and smuggling networks.
2. Military Aid: Israel receives substantial military aid from the United States, making it
one of the largest recipients of such assistance globally. This aid includes advanced
weaponry, military technology, and financial support, which bolsters Israel's military
capabilities significantly. In contrast, Palestinians receive military and financial aid from
various Arab states, non-governmental organizations, and sympathetic nations, albeit on
a smaller scale compared to Israel.
3. Arms Embargo: The international community has imposed restrictions on arms sales
to both Israel and Palestine at different times. While Israel faces occasional diplomatic
pressures and arms embargoes due to its actions in the occupied territories, the
Palestinian Authority often struggles to acquire arms legally due to restrictions and
regulations imposed by Israel and its allies. Consequently, Palestinians often resort to
illicit means to acquire weapons, including smuggling and clandestine procurement.
4. Arms Proliferation: The proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) is a
significant concern in the Israel-Palestine conflict. SALW, including rifles, machine
guns, and explosives, are readily available in the region, exacerbating violence and
insecurity. These weapons flow through various channels, including illicit arms markets,
smuggling routes, and transfers from state actors sympathetic to either side of the
conflict.
5. Impact on Conflict Dynamics: The influx of arms into the region contributes to the
militarization of the conflict, escalating violence, and prolonging hostilities. Both Israeli
security forces and Palestinian militant groups regularly engage in armed
confrontations, resulting in casualties and civilian suffering. The availability of
advanced weaponry enables Israel to maintain its military superiority over Palestinian
factions, while Palestinians employ guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare to
challenge Israeli dominance.
6. Humanitarian Concerns: The proliferation of arms in the region exacerbates
humanitarian crises, leading to civilian casualties, displacement, and human rights
abuses. The indiscriminate use of weapons, including airstrikes, artillery shelling, and
rocket attacks, poses grave risks to civilian populations and violates international
humanitarian law.

13
PAST TREATIES AND EFFORTS

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT): The NPT is a cornerstone international
treaty that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, and facilitate the
peaceful use of nuclear energy. Israel is not a party to the NPT, while Palestine signed the treaty in
2014. Encouraging Israel's accession to the NPT and supporting the commitment of both parties to its
objectives can contribute to regional stability.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT): The CTBT prohibits all nuclear explosions,
including those for military and civilian purposes. Ratifying and implementing the CTBT would
strengthen the global norm against nuclear testing and contribute to disarmament efforts. Israel signed
the CTBT but has not ratified it, while Palestine is a non-signatory. Encouraging both parties to ratify
and fully implement the treaty would be beneficial for regional peace.
United Nations Security Council Resolutions: The United Nations Security Council has adopted
several resolutions relevant to non-proliferation and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Resolution 487
(1981) calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards, and Resolution 1887 (2009) emphasizes the need for a Middle East free of
weapons of mass destruction. These resolutions provide a framework for diplomatic efforts and serve
as important reference points for addressing the nuclear issue.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): The IAEA plays a crucial role in promoting nuclear
safeguards, verifying compliance with non-proliferation commitments, and providing technical
assistance. Cooperation with the IAEA can enhance transparency, build confidence, and address the
concerns related to nuclear activities in the region.

QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER (QARMA)-Agenda 1

1. What measures can be implemented to regulate and monitor the arms trade in the Israel-
Palestine conflict region effectively?
2. How can the international community ensure accountability and compliance with existing
arms control mechanisms and agreements in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
3. What steps can be taken to prevent the diversion of arms and military equipment to non-state
actors and extremist groups operating in the Israel-Palestine conflict region?
4. How can arms transfers to Israel and Palestine be scrutinized to ensure they do not contribute
to human rights abuses, violations of international humanitarian law, or exacerbate conflict
dynamics?
14
5. What role can regional organizations, such as the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, play in promoting transparency and cooperation in arms trade regulations within
the Israel-Palestine conflict context?
6. How can efforts to promote peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and dialogue be integrated into
arms trade discussions to address the underlying causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
7. What strategies can be employed to facilitate the disarmament and demilitarization of non-
state actors and militant groups operating in the Israel-Palestine conflict region?
8. How can the arms trade be leveraged as a tool for confidence-building measures and trust-
building initiatives between Israeli and Palestinian authorities?

9. What role can the United Nations Security Council play in addressing arms proliferation and
illicit trafficking in the Israel-Palestine conflict region, considering its mandate for
international peace and security?
10. How can comprehensive arms control measures contribute to fostering a conducive
environment for sustainable peace, stability, and development in Israel and Palestine, while
addressing the security concerns of both parties?

15
AGENDA 2: PREVENTING THE PROLIFERATION OF AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS
Introduction

The debate on the ethical and legal implications of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) dates back
to the early 2000s, with some proponents defending the use of these systems and others calling for a
ban of these systems. The debate has become much more active since 2012, when the US Department
of Defence published an executive order on AWS which, along with the report from Human Rights
Watch, revamped the international debate on the ethical and legal problems posed by AWS. Since
then, the debate has grown with contributions from scholars, military and policy experts, and the
involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the UN Institute for
Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and the UN Convention on Certain Weapons (CCW), which
established a Governmental Group of Experts (GGE) to discuss emerging technologies in areas like
lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS). While the debate remains deeply polarised as to whether
the use of AWS is ethically acceptable and legally sound, there is at least consensus as to what ethical
and legal aspects are to be considered in making this call: International Humanitarian Law (IHL),
respect of human dignity, and international stability. IHL is central to this debate, as there is consensus
that AWS can be deployed insofar as they abide by the IHL principles of necessity, proportionality,
and distinction. For example, respecting the principle of distinction for AWS is problematic insofar
as, at least in its current state of development, autonomous artificial agents are unable to analyse the
context in which they operate with the necessary precision to distinguish what/who is a legitimate
target.
What is the position of the United Nations on LAWS?

Since 2018, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has maintained that lethal
autonomous weapons systems are politically unacceptable and morally repugnant and has called for
their prohibition under international law. In his 2023 New Agenda for Peace, the Secretary-General
reiterated this call, recommending that States conclude, by 2026, a legally binding instrument to
prohibit lethal autonomous weapon systems that function without human control or oversight, and
which cannot be used in compliance with international humanitarian law, and to regulate all other
types of autonomous weapons’ systems. He noted that, in the absence of specific multilateral
regulations, the design, development and use of these systems raise humanitarian, legal, security and
ethical concerns and pose a direct threat to human rights and fundamental freedoms. United Nations
independent experts have also expressed concerns regarding lethal autonomous weapons systems. UN
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, was the first
to raise the alarm about lethal autonomous weapons systems, in a report to the Human Rights Council
in 2013. UN special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, Fionnuala Ni Aolian, joined
the Secretary-General’s call for a global prohibition on LAWS in a report to the Human Rights
Council in 2023.

What are Lethal Autonomous Weapon systems (LAWS)?

Various weapon systems, such as land and naval mines, have incorporated a degree of autonomy in
their operation, a concept that is not entirely new. Naval mines, for instance, have been utilised in
warfare since the 16th century, with the earliest known use of floating explosive torpedoes dating
back to 1777 during the American Revolutionary War. Presently, several countries employ weapon
systems with varying levels of autonomy, including the US Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS),
the Israeli HARPY loitering munition (LM) and Iron Dome, Russian Arena, and the German AMAP
Active Defence System (ADS).

16
While autonomy in weapon systems is a prevalent concept, confusion persists regarding the technical
and legal definition of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). This is primarily due to the
absence of a universally accepted definition, with only a few explanations provided by different
organisations to elucidate their stance on LAWS. The International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) defines LAWS as “any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions—that is, a
weapon system that can select (i.e. search for or detect, identify, track, select) and attack (i.e. use force
against, neutralise, damage or destroy) targets without human intervention.”

These definitions provide insight into the modern manifestations of LAWS, which have transitioned
from the realm of science fiction to the tangible reality of today. The Aegis Combat System, the first
instance of a semi-autonomous weapon system, infamously shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in March
1988, mistaking it for an Iranian F-15 fighter plane. While initially attributed to human error in
misinterpreting signals from the machine, this incident remains relevant today, underscoring the
potential consequences of machine-driven decision-making processes rather than human
involvement.

Similarly, military drones have long been employed for remote surveillance and strike operations.
Contemporary drones, armed with explosives and equipped with target identification technology,
possess the ability to detect and engage targets without relying on human controllers. Recent reports
indicate the first documented use of autonomous drones occurred in Libya in March 2020. According
to a UN report documenting the incident, the Turkish-made Kargu-2 drone autonomously hunted
down members of the Libyan National Army.8 These weapons were programmed with a “fire, forget,
and find” capability, functioning independently without requiring continuous data connectivity
between the operator and the munition. While the specifics of the Turkish drones’ fully autonomous
utilisation in this operation remain unclear, the fact remains that the Kargu-2 drone demonstrates the
potential for complete autonomous operation through machine learning. They have proven to be a
force multiplier and a game changer, positioning themselves as potential weapons of choice in future
operations.

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a notable LAWS incident came to light. Opensource
analysts reported the presence of the Russian KUB-BLA loitering munition system, a collaborative
production of Kalashnikov and ZALA Aero group, in the Podil neighbourhood of Kyiv in March
2022.9 Although there is yet to be confirmed evidence of the drone being deployed in its fully
autonomous mode, capable of selecting and killing targets, it is evident that this technology has made
its way onto the battlefield and is here to stay.

HISTORY

The history of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) dates back to the emergence of self-guided
weapons from World War I to the present. The development of "smart" weapons, which are precursors
to truly autonomous weapons, was first undertaken in the past century. The concept of high technology
fighting in place of human beings led to the early use of these weapons in conflict. However, with
increasing development, concerns have grown regarding the ethical and philosophical implications of
autonomous weapons, particularly the idea that "autonomous" implies that a weapon bears
responsibility for its own actions, which could lead to a denial of responsibility in warfare. The
responsibility for using autonomous weapons must remain with the commanding officer and be
acknowledged by the weapon designers.
States have been increasingly developing and deploying weapons with autonomous functions, and
certain systems with rudimentary autonomous functions have been in existence for decades. The
United Nations and independent experts have expressed concerns about the ethical and security

17
implications of lethal autonomous weapons, highlighting the direct threat they pose to human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
While the specific historical instances of the use of fully autonomous weapons are not widely
documented, the development and deployment of LAWS have been the subject of increasing
international attention and concern, leading to discussions and calls for regulation at the international
level.

Ethical and humanitarian concerns with proliferation of autonomous weapons

Fully autonomous weapons are one of the most alarming military technologies under development
today. As such there is an urgent need for states, experts, and the general public to examine these
weapons closely under the Martens Clause, the unique provision of international humanitarian law
that establishes a baseline of protection for civilians and combatants when no specific treaty law on a
topic exists. This report shows how fully autonomous weapons, which would be able to select and
engage targets without meaningful human control, would contravene both prongs of the Martens
Clause: the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. To comply with the Martens
Clause, states should adopt a pre-emptive ban on the weapons’ development, production, and use. The
rapid development of autonomous technology and artificial intelligence (AI) means that fully
autonomous weapons could become a reality in the foreseeable future. Also known as “killer robots”
and lethal autonomous weapons systems, they raise a host of moral, legal, accountability, operational,
technical, and security concerns. These weapons have been the subject of international debate since
2013. In that year, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a civil society coalition, was launched and
began pushing states to discuss the weapons. After holding three informal meetings of experts, states
parties to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) began formal talks on the topic in 2017.
In August 2018, approximately 80 states will convene again for the next meeting of the CCW Group
of Governmental Experts. As CCW states parties assess fully autonomous weapons and the way
forward, the Martens Clause should be a central element of the discussions. The clause, which is a
common feature of international humanitarian law and disarmament treaties, declares that in the
absence of an international agreement, established custom, the principles of humanity, and the dictates
of public conscience should provide protection for civilians and combatants. The clause applies to
fully autonomous weapons because they are not specifically addressed by international law. Experts
differ on the precise legal significance of the Martens Clause, that is, whether it reiterates customary
law, amounts to an independent source of law, or serves as an interpretive tool. At a minimum,
however, the Martens Clause provides key factors for states to consider as they evaluate emerging
weapons technology, including fully autonomous weapons. It creates a moral standard against which
to judge these weapons.

The Principles of Humanity

Due to their lack of emotion and legal and ethical judgement, fully autonomous weapons would face
significant obstacles in complying with the principles of humanity. Those principles require the
humane treatment of others and respect for human life and human dignity. Humans are motivated to
treat each other humanely because they feel compassion and empathy for their fellow humans. Legal
and ethical judgement gives people the means to minimise harm; it enables them to make considered
decisions based on an understanding of a particular context. As machines, fully autonomous weapons
would not be sentient beings capable of feeling compassion. Rather than exercising judgement, such
weapons systems would base their actions on pre-programmed algorithms, which do not work well
in complex and unpredictable situations.
Showing respect for human life entails minimising killing. Legal and ethical judgement helps humans
weigh different factors to prevent arbitrary and unjustified loss of life in armed conflict and beyond.
It would be difficult to recreate such judgement, developed over both human history and an individual
life, in fully autonomous weapons, and they could not be pre-programmed to deal with every possible
scenario in accordance with accepted legal and ethical norms. Furthermore, most humans possess an

18
innate resistance to killing that is based on their understanding of the impact of loss of life, which
fully autonomous weapons, as inanimate machines, could not share.
Even if fully autonomous weapons could adequately protect human life, they would be incapable of
respecting human dignity. Unlike humans, these robots would be unable to appreciate fully the value
of a human life and the significance of its loss. They would make life-and-death decisions based on
algorithms, reducing their human targets to objects. Fully autonomous weapons would thus violate
the principles of humanity on all fronts.

The Dictates of Public Conscience

Increasing outrage at the prospect of fully autonomous weapons suggests that this new technology
also runs counter to the second prong of the Martens Clause, the dictates of public conscience. These
dictates consist of moral guidelines based on a knowledge of what is right and wrong. They can be
ascertained through the opinions of the public and of governments. Many individuals, experts, and
governments have objected strongly to the development of fully autonomous weapons. The majority
of respondents in multiple public opinion surveys have registered opposition to these weapons.
Experts, who have considered the issue in more depth, have issued open letters and statements that
reflect conscience even better than surveys do. International organizations and nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs), along with leaders in disarmament and human rights, peace and religion,
science and technology, and industry, have felt compelled, particularly on moral grounds, to call for
a ban on fully autonomous weapons. They have condemned these weapons as “unconscionable,”
“abhorrent ... to the sacredness of life,” “unwise,” and “unethical.”
Governments have cited compliance with the Martens Clause and moral shortcomings among their
major concerns with fully autonomous weapons. As of July 2018, 26 states supported a pre-emptive
ban, and more than 100 states had called for a legally binding instrument to address concerns raised
by lethal autonomous weapons systems. Almost every CCW state party that spoke at their last meeting
in April 2018 stressed the need to maintain human control over the use of force. The emerging
consensus for preserving meaningful human control, which is effectively equivalent to a ban on
weapons that lack such control, shows that the public conscience is strongly against fully autonomous
weapons.

The Need for a Pre-emptive Ban Treaty

An assessment of fully autonomous weapons under the Martens Clause underscores the need for new
law that is both specific and strong. Regulations that allowed for the existence of fully autonomous
weapons would not suffice. For example, limiting use to certain locations would neither prevent the
risk of proliferation to actors with little regard for humane treatment or human life, nor ensure respect
for the dignity of civilians or combatants. Furthermore, the public conscience reveals widespread
support for a ban on fully autonomous weapons, or its equivalent, a requirement for meaningful
human control. To ensure compliance with both the principles of humanity and the dictates of public
conscience, states should therefore pre-emptively prohibit the development, production, and use of
fully autonomous weapons.

Stakeholders Involved in the Development of Autonomous Weapon Systems

The development of autonomous weapon systems involves a diverse range of stakeholders, each
playing a crucial role in shaping the landscape of these technologies.
1. Military
- Direct Stakeholders: The military branches, such as the Air Force, Navy, and Army, are key
users of autonomous weapons like drones, unmanned ships, submarines, robots, and automated
missile systems.

19
- Involvement: They are directly involved in decision-making regarding research funding,
deployment in armed conflicts, and strategic planning related to autonomous weapon systems
2. Government and Department of Defence
- Direct Stakeholders: Government entities and the Department of Defence play a crucial role
in policy-making, funding allocation, regulatory frameworks, and strategic decisions concerning
autonomous weapon systems.
- Responsibilities: They decide on funding research, deployment of military personnel in
conflicts, and overall governance of these technologies.
3. Defense Contractors and Technology Companies
- Key Players: Companies like BAE Systems plc, Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd., Lockheed
Martin Corporation are actively involved in the development and production of autonomous weapon
systems.
- Influence: These companies drive innovation, research, and development in the field of
autonomous weapons, contributing significantly to advancements in this technology.
4. Research Institutions and Academia
- Indirect Stakeholders: Research institutions and academic organizations contribute to the
advancement of autonomous weapon systems through research, development of algorithms, ethical
considerations, and policy recommendations.
- Influence: Their work shapes the discourse around the ethical implications, safety concerns,
and legal frameworks related to autonomous weapons.
5. General Public and Civil Society Organizations
- Indirect Stakeholders: The general public and civil society organizations play a role in
advocating for ethical use, transparency, accountability, and regulation of autonomous weapon
systems.
- Influence: Their engagement influences public opinion, policy decisions, and debates
surrounding the ethical implications of deploying such technologies.
These stakeholders collectively contribute to the development, deployment, regulation, and ethical
considerations surrounding autonomous weapon systems. Their interactions shape the trajectory of
this technology within military contexts and broader societal discussions.

Autonomous weapons systems: Profound implications for the future of warfare

In April 2016, head of ICRC arms unit Kathleen Lawand was invited to London to give the keynote
address at the annual meeting of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC)
Summit, held at Goldsmith University. In her presentation, Lawand presented the ICRC's views on
autonomous weapon systems, i.e. weapons that can select and fire upon targets on their own, without
any human intervention.
She reminded the meeting that there is broad agreement among States that human control over weapon
systems and the use of force must be retained, whether for legal, ethical, or military-operational
reasons.
The ICRC has called on States to set limits on autonomy in weapon systems to ensure they can be
used in compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) and within the bounds of what is
acceptable under the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. Over the past
decade, the rapid development of new warfare technology, notably robotic weapons including drones
and autonomous weapons systems (AWS) has presented complex challenges and debates for States,
militaries, and humanitarian organisations. "The development of autonomous weapon systems has
profound implications for the future of warfare," Lawand told participants. "The central issue remains
the potential absence of human control over the critical functions of identifying and attacking targets,
including human targets. There is a sense of deep discomfort with the idea of allowing machines to
make life-and-death decisions on the battlefield with little or no human involvement."
The 2016 ICRAC summit provided a forum for global experts to discuss the ongoing and future status
of AWS and their use by States in conflicts around the world. It came just one week after States party
20
to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) met in Geneva to discuss the technical,
military, legal, ethical and security implications of "lethal autonomous weapon systems". The United
Kingdom actively participated in the CCW meeting, in which it highlighted the importance of the
obligation of States to carry out thorough legal reviews of any new weapon that they produce or
purchase, to ensure the new weapons can be used in accordance with IHL. "The very positive spin-
off of the discussions on AWS in the CCW is that today States are showing unprecedented levels of
attention to their obligation to review new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the
Geneva Conventions, which has been under-implemented", said Lawand. The ICRC has consistently
reminded States of this obligation, especially in relation to new technologies of warfare such as AWS.
"The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, of which ICRAC is a founding member, has been very effective
in raising awareness amongst governments and the public about the issues surrounding autonomous
weapon systems," said Lawand.
However, in her address, Lawand emphasised that the ICRC, for its part, is not calling for a ban or
moratorium on AWS at this time. "We are not calling for an outright ban on AWS, but we are calling
for more transparency from States about their new weapons technologies," said Lawand. "Information
sharing is critical if we are to gain a better understanding of the lessons learned from the use of
existing weapon systems with autonomy in their critical functions."
"UK military doctrine states that fully autonomous weapons should never be used and that there
should always be a degree of human involvement in decision making," explained Lawand. "The UK
government is a key voice in global efforts to promote the implementation of Article 36," said added,
referring to a provision under Additional Protocol 1 which requires States to determine whether new
weapons, means or methods of warfare maybe employed lawfully under International Law.
Over the past few years, autonomous weapons systems have become an issue of growing concern for
the ICRC. In 2011, the ICRC for the first time publicly expressed concern about the legal and ethical
challenges of autonomous weapon systems.

International Legal Framework

1. International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the
effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not, or are no longer, directly, or actively
participating in hostilities, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare. IHL is also
known as "the law of war" or "the law of armed conflict". IHL is part of public international law,
which is made up primarily of treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law (see
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice). A distinction must be made between
IHL, which regulates the conduct of parties engaged in an armed conflict (jus in bello), and public
international law, as set out in the Charter of the United Nations, which regulates whether a state may
lawfully resort to armed force against another state (jus ad bellum). The Charter prohibits such use of
force with two exceptions: cases of self-defence against an armed attack, and when the use of armed
force is authorised by the United Nations Security Council. IHL does not stipulate whether the
commencement of an armed conflict was legitimate or not, but rather seeks to regulate the behaviour
of parties once it has started.

2. Convention on Certain Convention Weapons (CCW)

At the forefront of international efforts is the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

(CCW), which includes discussions on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). The CCW
provides a platform for states to deliberate and negotiate protocols that aim to ensure human control

21
remains a critical aspect of weapons systems. These discussions are essential for shaping norms and
principles that prevent the unregulated use of autonomous weapons systems.

3. Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS:

The Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS, established by the United Nations, is another
crucial initiative. Comprising representatives from member states, the GGE serves as a forum for in-
depth discussions on the technical, legal, and ethical aspects of autonomous weapons systems. This
initiative underscores the commitment of the international community to address the challenges posed
by these technologies.
In 2013, the Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of
certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or have
indiscriminate effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons – CCW) agreed on a mandate
on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). It mandated its chairperson to
convene an informal Meeting of Experts ‘to discuss the questions related to emerging technologies in
the areas of lethal autonomous weapons systems in the context of the objectives and purposes of the
Convention’. Such meetings of experts were convened three times, in 2014, 2015, and 2016, and
produced reports which fed into meetings of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention.
In 2016, at the Fifth CCW Review Conference, High Contracting Parties decided to establish an open-
ended Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of Laws (GGE on
LAWS), to build on the work of the previous meetings of experts. Since then, the group has been re-
convened yearly.

Q.A.R.M.A (Questions a Resolution must answer)

1. Define Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.
2. What is the potential economic and military implications of a global ban on LAWS?
3. How can the development and use of Lethal autonomous weapons systems be balanced with
ethical and moral concerns?
4. What are the measures necessary to mitigate the dangers and risks associated with LAWS?
5. How would a global ban on LAWS be enforced, and what are the potential challenges for
the enforcement of the global ban?
6. Discuss the importance of international cooperation in achieving a global ban on LAWS.

*****

22
23