Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL)© London International Model United Nations...

Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL)

Study Guide

© London International Model United Nations 2015 LIMUN | Charity No. 1096197 www.limun.org.uk

Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2

Welcome Letter ............................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction to SPECPOL ............................................................................................................... 4

Topic A: Ensuring the safe removal of remaining Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in former Conflict Zones ............................................................................................................................................ 5

History of the Topic ....................................................................................................................... 5 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Wars and Former Conflict Zones ............................................................................................................ 5

Current Situation .......................................................................................................................... 7

Case Study: Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos) .................................................................... 8

Previous UN Resolutions ............................................................................................................... 8

Actions Taken ............................................................................................................................... 9

Questions a Resolution Should Answer ......................................................................................... 9

Topic B: Resolving the Status of the Temaining Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories ........................... 11

History of the Topic ..................................................................................................................... 11

The Current Situation .................................................................................................................. 13

Case Study: Western Sahara ........................................................................................................ 14

Previous UN Resolutions ............................................................................................................. 16

Actions Taken ............................................................................................................................. 17

Questions a Resolution Should Answer ....................................................................................... 18


3

Welcome Letter Dear Delegates,

It’s with great pleasure that I welcome you, on behalf of the SPECPOL chairing team and the LIMUN

Secretariat, to LIMUN 2015. It would of course be impolite to continue without introducing myself

and my co-‐chairs, so I’ll get right to it. I’m Jack Smith, and although I originally come from Canada,

my family now lives in Denmark and I study at Cambridge (I’m midway through my second year of

studying Human, Social and Political Sciences). Having first experienced MUN almost a decade ago

when living in Malaysia, it’s incredible to think of all of the twists and turns along the way which

have brought me to chairing at LIMUN, undoubtedly the highlight of my MUN career so far.

My co-‐chairs are Samar Rizvi and Jonathan ‘Jono’ Hasson. Samar is a first-‐year undergraduate

reading History at LSE. Born in Singapore Indian and British-‐Pakistani origin, he has also lived in

India and London. This will be his twelfth conference and fourth time chairing, having won awards

at Durham and Oxford too. He also enjoys playing guitar, studying language and taking about Indian

politics and once, so I’m told, turned up uninvited to someone’s 100th birthday party. Jono is a

somewhat more enigmatic character than Samar or myself. Having ‘retired’ from Model UN about

five years ago, he is back (for a limited time only!) to chair at LIMUN.

If you have any questions or concerns before the conference, please do not hesitate to contact any

of us. In the meantime, Jono, Samar and myself all look forward to meeting you at the end of

February, and trust that we will all work together extremely well and, most importantly, have

plenty of fun while doing so!

Many thanks,

Jack Smith -‐ Director of SPECPOL


4

Introduction to SPECPOL

The Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, referred to hereafter as the Special Political

and Decolonization Committee or SPECPOL for short, has a somewhat more fragmented mandate

than other committees of the General Assembly, such as DISEC, ECOFIN, or SOCHUM. The UN itself

describes the committee as concerning itself “with a variety of subjects which include those related

to decolonization, Palestinian refugees and human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer space,

public information, atomic radiation and [the] University for Peace [sic]”. In short, SPECPOL covers

both the issue of decolonisation, as suggested by its full name, as well as any other political issues

not directly dealt with by the mandates of any other UN General Assembly committee.

It should also be noted that, as this is a General Assembly committee, all resolutions are non-‐

binding. What this means is that operative clause language which is more indicative of a Security

Council resolution (e.g. ‘Demands’) should not be used, with non-‐binding language (e.g. ‘Urges’,

‘Recommends’) being used instead. This also means that any peacekeeping operations or punitive

measures (such as economic sanctions) cannot directly be authorised by this committee, although

it is within the committee’s power to suggest or recommend that the Security Council take these

actions in a manner stipulated by the committee. It is still acceptable, however, to refer to

resolutions passed previously by non-‐General Assembly committees (including the Security Council)

in the perambulatory clauses of a resolution.


5

Topic A: Ensuring the safe removal of remaining Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in former Conflict Zones

History of the Topic

Definitions UXO is a general term used by the United Nations (UN), Non-‐Governmental Organisations (NGOs),

nation-‐states, and individuals to describe any form of ordnance, mine, or bomb that did not

explode, is active, and has remained in a former conflict-‐zone. As defined by the International Mine

Action Standard (IMAS), UXO is described as “[Explosive Ordinance] that has been primed, fused,

armed or otherwise prepared for use or used. It may have been fired, dropped, launched or

projected yet remains unexploded either through malfunction or design or for any other reason”.

Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) is an umbrella term to denote UXO and Abandoned Explosive

Ordinance (AEO). For the purposes of this discussion and any reference made in any literature

produced, UXO is the prevailing term to describe the topic’s scope. Explosive Ordinance Disposal

(EOD) is defined as “the detection, identification, evaluation, render safe, recovery and disposal of

UXO”. For all further discussion relating to the disposal of UXO, refer to the definition above.

Wars and Former Conflict Zones Since the 1930s UXO have played an increasingly prevalent part of many wars, despite the growing

disapproval of their use due to indiscriminate killing of civilians. “Since the 1960s as many as 110

million mines have been spread throughout the world into an estimated 70 countries. In addition to

antipersonnel mines, submunitions such as bomblets delivered by air or artillery, multipurpose

weapons, and unexploded ordnance should be regarded.”1 Listed below are the major wars and

conflicts that indiscriminately scattered UXO and former conflict zones where UXO are a major

concern:

World War II

Despite having concluded over 70 years ago, remnants of the Second World War in the form of

UXO and munitions can still be found scattered in the fields of the “Western Front” in France and


6

Belgium from Allied and Axis forces. There is an annual Iron Harvest of UXO by French and Belgian

farmers. The German Blitz campaign in the United Kingdom was indiscriminate in its dropping of

bombs, and subsequently UXO can still be found in the UK in modern day, with one being found as

recently as this year in Manchester.2 In the final year of the war, the US dropped 200,000 tons of

ordnance on the islands of Japan. Despite significant bomb disposal operations, these UXO still

provide significant risk, exacerbated by the country’s susceptibility to natural disasters, e.g.

earthquakes.

Vietnam War (Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambodia)

Over the course of the US involvement in the Vietnam War (1955-‐75), the US dropped a variety of

munitions on the territories of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. In addition to the ground offensive in

which the US was involved in Vietnam, they also engaged in certain operations actively bombing

territories within Cambodia and Laos with the aim of disrupting trade routes to their enemy.

“Between the years 1964 and 1973, the United States flew more than half a million bombing

missions, delivering more than two million tons of explosive ordnance, in an attempt to block the

flow of North Vietnamese arms and troops through Laotian territory.”3 Lao PDR is, per capita, the

most heavily bombed country in history.

1990s: Gulf War, Algerian Civil War, Yugoslav Wars (Iraq, Algeria, Former Yugoslavia)

Iraq suffers from UXO from the First Gulf War, the Iran-‐Iraq War, decades of internal conflict, the

US-‐led intervention in the 21st Century, and most recently from the Islamic State, which has claimed

swathes of Iraq and Syria as a sovereign state. Little is known as to the full extent of the damage or

number of UXO and mines present.4

Algeria was heavily contaminated, and still is to this day, with UXO as a consequence from the

Second World War, the War of Independence from French colonial rule, the Civil War, and

insurgency and sectarian violence in the last two decades. Algeria has made some progress towards

decontamination and eradication of UXO through various treaties, notably the Mine Ban Treaty

that it hosted implementation talks on in Algiers in 2005.

The fall of communism and subsequent melee of wars that broke out in Eastern Europe and the

territory that was formerly known as Yugoslavia was infamous as being Europe’s bloodiest war


7

since WWII. Atrocities were committed on all sides, including the laying of anti-‐personnel

landmines, and the dropping of ordinance on conflict and civilian areas. The repercussions of the

conflict are still felt to this day.

21st Century (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine)

The US-‐led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent conflict; the NATO-‐led invasion of Afghanistan,

formally ending this year; the 2006 Israel-‐Lebanon war which left UXO scattered along Lebanon’s

southern border; various skirmishes and wars involving Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The

Palestinian territories still suffer consequences as a result of the indiscriminate nature of UXO and

their impediment of socio-‐economic development.

Current Situation As it stands, there are approximately 11 million mines, and an unknown number of UXO in the

world today. These munitions pose a significant threat to human life, both military and civilian, and

hamper socio-‐economic development. Even UXO that were dropped or placed decades ago can still

be active, increasing their danger and likelihood to inflict pain on civilians. These munitions are

significantly dangerous to children, as their minute size and colourful outer appearance dupe

children into believing them toys, and increases their likelihood of picking them up and playing with

them. “Remote delivery methods, such as dropping them by aircraft or artillery, has increased the

random, unmapped dissemination of antipersonnel mines, primarily into rural areas where

unsuspecting victims have no idea they are there.”5 UXO obey no ceasefires and no treaties, they

are indiscriminate, and cause unnecessary suffering.

Land believed to be contaminated with UXO poses significant dangers to any persons who may

wish to develop the land for agricultural purposes or commercial uses. “UXO is an identified cause

of poverty. The National Socio-‐Economic Development Plan (NSEDP) in 2003 states that there

appears to be a significant correlation between the presence of UXO and the prevalence of

poverty.”6 Land contaminated with UXO limit villagers’ ability to farm the land and achieve

sustainable livelihoods for themselves. In addition, it causes food shortages for both the household

and the community as a whole. Many of these villagers risk their physical safety simply living in


8

these areas, and any kind of development programme (infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc.) taking

place in UXO affect areas are at risk and require additional and sometimes unaffordable extra

resources committed to clearing UXO. UXO hamper socio-‐economic development and villagers’

livelihoods, pose a threat to civilian life and food security, and retard the development of the

community as a whole.

Case Study: Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos) Over the course of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, there were approximately 580,000

bombing missions conducted in Laos. Put into real terms, this was one bombing mission every eight

minutes, every day during the conflict. It is estimated that 30% of the 270 million cluster munitions

dropped on Laos did not explode on impact, meaning approximately 80 million UXO remained live

on the ground until the end of the war. Since 1964, roughly 29,000 people have died from contact

with UXO, typically through poverty-‐prone professions, such as scrap-‐metal collecting. A large

number of Laotian civilians still carry out their livelihoods on land known to be contaminated with

UXO, often without any other alternative, facing perils every day they step out onto this land. All 17

provinces of Laos are considered heavily contaminated with UXO. Children accidentally playing with

UXO pose massive concerns to communities, both domestic and international.

Since the early 1990s, international NGOs such as Mines Advisory Group (MAG), UXO Lao, and

others have conducted humanitarian disposal and detonation of these UXO. Organisations such as

UNDP, UNICEF, and national governments have supported these NGOs in their effort to rid Laos

from the scourge of these remnants of war.

Previous UN Resolutions Below is a list of the most notable Resolutions debated and/or passed by the United Nations:

• Resolution 2026.7 Passed by the UN Security Council in December 2011, the Resolution

focuses on the issue of Cyprus. It containes reference to the minefields still plaguing Cyprus.

• Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-‐Personnel

Mines and on their Destruction.8 Also known as the Ottawa Treaty, or simply the Mine Ban Treaty, it

currently has 162 States Parties. It is seen as one of the principal resolutions combatting UXO.


9

• Resolution 62/99.9 A UN General Assembly resolution on Assistance in Mine Action. It was

passed in December 2007 and is a key piece of literature in the discussion of UXO.

In addition, MineAction have compiled a list of laws, treaties, and resolutions they see as acting

positively towards tackling the issue of UXO in former conflict zones. The list can be found at:

http://www.mineaction.org/resources/lawstreaties

Actions Taken The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-‐

Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, more commonly known as the Mine Ban Treaty, is a

comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating anti-‐personnel mines, mines specifically designed for

use against humans, as oppose to vehicles, drafted and signed in 1997. The treaty is regarded as a

highly successful example of a grassroots movement that garnered support of many politicians,

diplomats, and statesmen. The organisation the International Campaign to Ban Landmines jointly

received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 alongside its founder, Jody Williams. In addition, many

notable figures have actively taken action towards UXO eradication. Celebrities include Diana

Princess of Wales, who is famously known for her philanthropic work in Angola and Bosnia,

highlighting the risk of UXO and humanising the situation for the international community. Her

work is often citied as hugely beneficial towards the global ban of landmines.

The UN has also produced a five-‐year plan on how they plan to tackle mines, UXO, and other ERW.

More can be found at:

http://www.mineaction.org/sites/default/files/publications/mine_action_strategy_mar15.pdf

Questions a Resolution Should Answer The situation as it stands is to tackle both the general perceptions and knowledge surrounding

UXO; their disposal; and their continued use. Education of communities contaminated with UXO;

capacity building of communities, councils, and countries in safest and most cost-‐effective means of

disposing of UXO; and commitment to the end of their use, stockpiling, and production should all

be addressed in any resolution.


10

Suggestions include:

1. Commitment by member-‐states to destroying any existing stockpiles of UXO, including the

production or transfer of such material;

2. Pledge by member-‐states to contribute to the eradication of live UXO in contaminated areas,

with goals set in place for decontamination by area or by quantity;

3. Contribution by member-‐states to supporting Research & Development projects into finding

more effective and cost-‐efficient means of disposing of UXO;

4. Active deterrent against member-‐states who use UXO;

5. Enthusiasm to remain actively seized on the matter.

1 United Nations. 2008. Landmine Monitor Report 2008, Excerpt. http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/demining. Accessed 03/01/2015. 2 Davis, M. 2014. “Controlled explosion carried out after World War Two bomb found in outside toilet in Reddish”, Manchester Evening News, May 7th 2014. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-‐news/stockport-‐world-‐war-‐two-‐bomb-‐7082178. Accessed 03/01/2015. 3 UXOLAO. 2014. http://uxolao.org/index.php/en/the-‐uxo-‐problem/uxo-‐impact. Accessed 04/01/2015. 4 Human Rights Watch. 2012. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/iraq/iraqmines1212.htm. Accessed 04/01/2015. 5 Strada, G. 1996. The Horror of Land Mines. Scientific American 1996:40-‐5 in Walsh, N. and Walsh, S. 2003. Rehabilitation of Landmine Victims -‐ The Ultimate Challenge. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 2003:81-‐9. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/9/Walsh.pdf. Accessed 05/01/2015. 6 UXOLAO. 2014. http://uxolao.org/index.php/en/the-‐uxo-‐problem/uxo-‐impact. Accessed 04/01/2015. 7 http://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce528c,50ffbce52ce,4f1570412,0,,RESOLUTION,.html. 8 http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3ad0.html. 9 http://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce528c,50ffbce52ce,479469d32,0,,RESOLUTION,.html.


11

Topic B: Resolving the Status of the Remaining Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories

History of the Topic The concept of the Non-‐Self-‐governing territory is as old as the UN itself, with the nature of what a

‘Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territory’ constitutes under International Law having been addressed by

Articles 73 and 74 of the UN Charter, with Article 73 in particular stipulating the duties of UN

member states administering recognised Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories, which are:

a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic,

social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

b. to develop self–government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to

assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the

particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

c. to further international peace and security;

d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co–operate

with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a

view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this

Article; and

e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary–General for information purposes, subject to such

limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other

information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the

territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters

XII and XIII apply.

It would be fair to say, however, that at that time the issue of non-‐self-‐governing territories and

what should be done with them was a much more pressing one than it is now, with the US State

Department noting that, “Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa


12

achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers,”10 with many of

these countries having been on the initial list of 74 UN Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories as set out in

General Assembly Resolution 66 (1).11 Former non-‐self-‐governing territories can be seen displayed

at Figure 1, below. The means by which these territories were removed from the list varied widely,

from relatively peaceful transitions to independence, as was the case with the British and Malaysia,

to transitions to semi-‐autonomy, as was the case with Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark,

to violent struggles, as was the case in Vietnam and Laos with respect to France, and with Goa (now

part of India) in relation to Portugal.

Figure 1 -‐ A map displaying Former UN Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories in Blue12

In addition to states which were recognised as non-‐self-‐governing, there have been twelve states

which have been recognised as administrating Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories – these states are

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa,

Spain, the UK and the USA,13 with the UK, France, Portugal and the Netherlands administering the

lion’s share of Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories historically (although it can be seen that Portugal and

the Netherlands no longer administer Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories).

The extent to which the UN instituting the list of Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories actually increased

the rate of decolonisation is, however, debatable to say the least. As is apparent from the fact that

violent wars of independence still needed to be fought in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) and

in several of the former Portuguese colonies (e.g. Angola and Mozambique), in many cases


13

attempts to pressure colonising powers to begin ‘transitioning’ their colonies towards

independence was unsuccessful.

The Current Situation Regardless of how it happened, however, it is undeniable that decolonisation has changed the

nature of the list of Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories dramatically. Although new territories were

added at various points after Resolution 66 (1), most notably when South-‐West Africa (now

Namibia) was added in the 1960s after its ‘mandatory’ status (where it was, under International

Law, administered by South Africa) was withdrawn by the General Assembly14 and when New

Caledonia was added to the list again (having been taken off previously at the insistence of France)

in 2013 at the insistence of the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru and several other countries,15 the

overall trend has been towards a reduction in the size of the list. The current number of Non-‐Self-‐

Governing territories stands at fifteen, with the remaining administering powers being the USA, the

UK, France, Spain, and New Zealand, as seen at Figure 2, below.

Figure 2 -‐ A map displaying current (as of 2012) Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories16

As can be seen from Figure 2, most of the remaining Non-‐Self-‐Governing territories are relatively

small islands (or collections of islands), with the notable exception in this regard being Western

Sahara. The political statuses of the Non-‐Self-‐Governing territories also differ substantially, with


14

there being political disputes over the Falkland Islands between the UK and Argentina and over

Western Sahara. Gibraltar is also a disputed territory, with both the UK (who currently administers

Gibraltar) and Spain (who administered the territory before the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht came into

force) claiming it.

Case Study: Western Sahara Western Sahara is unique among the Non-‐Self-‐Governed territories for various reasons. The first of

these, and perhaps the most obvious, is the fact that it is larger both in terms of land area and in

terms of population than any other territory on the list, with the CIA World Factbook listing its

population as 538,811.17 The second, and the most important for SPECPOL, is that Western Sahara

is currently a disputed territory, with the dispute having political ramifications not only for Western

Sahara itself, but for the entirety of North Africa.

Technically speaking, the territory is still a province of Spain, having initially come under Spanish

rule in 1884 and having become a province in 1934, but the reality of who controls and lays claim to

Western Sahara is far more complicated than that, with a pro-‐independence group, the Popular

Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-‐Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario), having been established in

1973 and having declared independence as the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) from

Spain in 1976.18

Before Polisario had the opportunity to become established as a political force, however, Morocco

rapidly colonised the region in November of 1975. In an historical event referred to as ‘The Green

March’, approximately 350,000 Moroccans moved into the territory, effectively solidifying

Moroccan control over the territory19 and in the process sparking a long insurgency on the part of

Polisario, which only ended in 1991 with a UN-‐brokered ceasefire.20 The result of the conflict has

been a protracted refugee crisis, with Javier Blas claiming that, “about half the population of

Western Sahara lives in camps, some still housed in tents 40 years after the conflict started.”21


15

Figure 3 -‐ A map of Western Sahara, with the red line representing the Buffer Zone established by the 1991 ceasefire between Moroccan-‐controlled territory (to the Western side of the line) and Polisario-‐controlled territory (to the Eastern side of the line).22

Beyond Morocco’s internal affairs (or Spain’s, for that matter), the armed conflict in Western

Sahara has had serious political ramifications, with Morocco having left the African Union in 1984

due to the AU’s recognition of the SADR as the legitimate governing authority of Western Sahara

and its admittance of the SADR as a member. Since this point, the Moroccan foreign ministry has

issued scathing press releases whenever the AU has in any way sought to improve ties and/or

cooperate with the SADR.23 The issue has been further complicated by the fact that there are

extensive oil and gas reserves in the territory.24

Immediately after the ceasefire, there was, however, an attempt to resolve Morocco’s territorial

status, with the 1991 ceasefire stipulating that a referendum was to take place. This referendum is

yet to take place, however, as the result of a disagreement between Morocco and Polisario over

voter registration, with the former wanting to allow those who moved to the region in ‘The Green

March’ to register and the latter, understandably, not wanting to do so.25 A 2001 ‘Framework

Agreement’ proposed by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, which would have allowed for

a referendum after five years of Moroccan administration (and de facto autonomy) was rejected by

Polisario.26 To date, there is no resolution of the issue in sight, with Polisario unwilling to consider

any kind of settlement of the region’s disputed status outside of a referendum, and Morocco

unwilling to give into Polisario’s demands concerning how a referendum should be held.


16

Whilst the case of Western Sahara is unusual in terms of the region’s size (particularly in terms of

population affected), the complexity of the dispute concerned (there have been five claimants to

the region over the course of the past forty years if one includes Mauritania, who dropped their

claim to Western Sahara in 1978) and the scale of destruction wrought by the dispute (in the form

of the refugee crisis), in other respects Western Sahara’s situation mirrors the situation of other

Non-‐Self-‐Governing countries. The attempted ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ of Western Sahara, in the

form of a referendum, is not surprising in the context of how such disputes have been resolved in

the past, and as will be seen in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, the circumstances

under which such a referendum is held quickly become subjects of dispute themselves. If anything,

the dispute over Western Sahara should demonstrate that, in resolutions attempting to tackle the

issue of Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories, simply proposing to hold referendums won’t be sufficient if

the nature of those referendums is liable to be up for dispute.

Previous UN Resolutions Over the history of the UN, a plethora of resolutions have been passed which concern Non-‐Self-‐

Governing territories in some way, shape or form -‐ one could write an entire book on the

resolutions concerning Western Sahara alone. There are several resolutions which it would be more

pertinent to know about, however, which include the aforementioned 66 (1) as well as:

• The Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (Resolution

1514 (XV), 1960), which acted as an affirmation of the UN’s favourability towards the process of

decolonisation.

• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) which aimed to

ensure that a decent standard of living was maintained for those in Non-‐Self-‐Governing

territories.

• Resolution 43/47 (1990) which referred to the 1990s as the ‘International Decade for the

Eradication of Colonialism’.

It is also worth noting that, since The Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial

countries and peoples was passed in 1960, there have been numerous resolutions which have in

some way reaffirmed or updated the content of this one, including Resolutions 65/117, 65/118, and


17

65/119. The ‘International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism’ was also extended to a

second decade by Resolutions 55/146 and 65/119.

Actions Taken Outside of the action taken by previous UN resolutions on the subject, various forms of action have

also been taken by the parties concerned in several of the current Non-‐Self-‐Governing territories.

The most popular option is holding some sort of referendum on independence, or at the very least

a change in status, of the Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territory in question. France is set to hold a

referendum in New Caledonia in 2018 on its status, for instance. 27 The UK has also held

referendums to determine the status of Gibraltar in 2002 and of the Falkland Islands in 2013 – both

of these referendums were marked by a high turnout and in both cases the residents of each

territory voted overwhelmingly to remain British subjects.28 29

Fully resolving a Non-‐Self-‐Governing-‐Territory’s status in the form of a referendum to the

satisfaction of all parties is easier said than done, however. Spain did not recognise the results of

the 2002 referendum as valid, as signified by its stated desire in 2014 to seek UN intervention on

the issue30 whilst in the case of the Falklands, Argentina has claimed that the results of any

referendum are unimportant as they consider the current population of the Falklands (referred to

in Argentina as Las Malvinas) as “an implanted population” and insist that “there is no legal

framework” for a referendum which would resolve the status of the islands once and for all.31

Complicating the issue of who has sovereignty over Gibraltar is the presence of UN General

Assembly resolution 2353 (XII), passed in 1968, which nullified a previous referendum (held in

1967), declaring it in contravention of Resolution 2231 (XXI), which asserted that the Gibraltar

dispute could and would only be resolved with an agreement between the UK and Spain.32

Attempts to resolve the status of Non-‐Self-‐Governing territories have failed elsewhere as well. In

the case of Tokelau, for instance, a referendum held in 2007 in order to determine the status of

the territory, held by New Zealand, resulted in the number of votes being, “16 short of the 462

needed for self-‐government,” in spite of the fact that the majority of islanders voted in favour of

independence, failing, like a similar referendum in 2006, due to the fact that a 2/3 majority was

required in order to actually secede from New Zealand.33


18

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

1. To what extent should referenda, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights’ position on self-‐determination, be considered essential for the resolution of Non-‐Self-‐

Governing Territory status? How should such referenda be monitored and what standards

should be set?

2. Should any other territories be added to the list of Non-‐Self-‐Governing territories, or do any

other territories meet the criteria?

3. Should any kind of action be taken against administrating powers which make no attempt to

resolve the status of any Non Self-‐Governing territories under administration, and if so, what

kind of action should be suggested?

10 The United States Department of State. 2015. Decolonization of Africa and Asia, 1945-‐1960. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-‐1952/asia-‐and-‐africa. Accessed 19/01/2015. 11 United Nations. 1946. General Assembly Resolution 66 (1). http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66%28I%29&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION. Accessed 19/01/2015. 12 Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Non-‐Self-‐Governing_Territories.png#mediaviewer/File:UN_Non-‐Self-‐Governing_Territories.png. 13 United Nations. 1999. The United Nations and Decolonization -‐ Trust and Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories (1945-‐1999). http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml#i. Accessed 19/01/2015. 14 United Nations. 1999. The United Nations and Decolonization -‐ Trust and Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territories (1945-‐1999). http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml#i. Accessed 19/01/2015. 15 Maclellan, N. 2014. Francois Hollande says France wants to remain a Pacfic power. It is wishful thinking? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/francois-‐hollande-‐says-‐france-‐wants-‐to-‐remain-‐a-‐pacific-‐power-‐is-‐it-‐wishful-‐thinking. Accessed 03/02/2015. 16 Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UN-‐Non-‐Self-‐Governing_Territories.svg#mediaviewer/File:UN-‐Non-‐Self-‐Governing_Territories.svg. 17CIA World Factbook. 2013. Western Sahara. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/geos/countrytemplate_wi.html. Accessed 19/01/2015. 18 The BBC. 2014. Western Sahara Profile. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐africa-‐14115273. Accessed 19/01/2015. 19 Ness, I. 2009. The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Blackwell Reference Online. 20 The BBC. 2014. Western Sahara Profile. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐africa-‐14115273. Accessed 19/01/2015.


19

21 Blas, J. 2014. Battle for oil fuels Africa's lengthy conflict. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/458a9ea6-‐3cc3-‐11e4-‐871d-‐00144feabdc0.html#axzz3PJG3fbzw. Accessed 19/01/2015. 22 Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Westernsaharamap.png/300px-‐Westernsaharamap.png 23 Reuters. 2014. Morocco rejects African Union special envoy for Western Sahara. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/uk-‐morocco-‐african-‐union-‐wes-‐idUKKBN0F64Z520140701. Accessed 19/01/2015. 24 Blas, J. 2014. Battle for oil fuels Africa's lengthy conflict. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/458a9ea6-‐3cc3-‐11e4-‐871d-‐00144feabdc0.html#axzz3PJG3fbzw. Accessed 19/01/2015. 25 The BBC. 2014. Western Sahara Profile. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐africa-‐14115273. Accessed 19/01/2015. 26 Global Policy Forum. 2015. Western Sahara. https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-‐council/index-‐of-‐countries-‐on-‐the-‐security-‐council-‐agenda/western-‐sahara.html. Accessed 19/01/2015. 27 Maclellan, N. 2014. Francois Hollande says France wants to remain a Pacfic power. It is wishful thinking? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/francois-‐hollande-‐says-‐france-‐wants-‐to-‐remain-‐a-‐pacific-‐power-‐is-‐it-‐wishful-‐thinking. Accessed 03/02/2015. 28 The BBC. 2002. Q & A: Gibraltar's Referendum. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2400673.stm. Accessed 19/01/2015. 29 Watts, J. 2013. Falkland Islands: Respect overwhelming 'yes' vote, Cameron tells Argentina. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/12/falkland-‐islands-‐referendum-‐votes-‐yes. Accessed 19/01/2015. 30 Diaz, A and Hughes, D. 2014. Spain may seek UN intervention over Gibraltar dispute. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-‐may-‐seek-‐un-‐intervention-‐over-‐gibraltar-‐dispute-‐8756494.html. Accessed 19/01/2015. 31 Watts, J. 2013. Falkland Islands: Respect overwhelming 'yes' vote, Cameron tells Argentina. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/12/falkland-‐islands-‐referendum-‐votes-‐yes. Accessed 19/01/2015. 32 United Nations. 1968. UN General Assembly Resolution 2353 (XII). http://daccess-‐ods.un.org/TMP/4037014.24598694.html. Accessed 19/01/2015. 33 The New Zealand Herald. 2008. Tokelau decolonisation high on agenda. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10510595. Accessed 19/01/2015.

Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL)© London International Model United Nations...

Documents

Transcript of Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL)© London International Model United Nations...