1
Table of Contents
1. Mandate of United Nations Security Council ..................................................................... 3
2. Key Terms and Terminology .............................................................................................. 4
3. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
4. AGENDA I: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MILITARY
APPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY .......................... 6
5. AGENDA II: ESTABLISHING A GLOBAL ETHICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN UNAUTHORIZED MILITARY
INTERVENTIONS IN ONGOING MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS........................ 10
6. Key Stakeholders and Recent Developments in the Middle East Conflicts ..................... 13
7. References ......................................................................................................................... 16
8. Additional Readings.......................................................................................................... 20
2
Mandate of United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Think of the UN Security Council as the world’s emergency room for international crises. When
a major threat to global peace and security erupts—like war, terrorism, or large-scale
humanitarian disasters—this is the room where world leaders come to find a collective solution
(Hurd, 2018).
The UNSC’s job, as set out in the UN Charter (1945), is to maintain international peace and
security. It’s the only UN body that can make decisions that all member countries are legally
bound to follow. This means it has real power.
Its toolkit includes:
Mediation & Diplomacy: Urging parties to talk and resolve disputes peacefully.
Sanctions: Imposing economic or diplomatic penalties on states or groups to pressure them to
change their behavior.
Peacekeeping: Authorizing the deployment of UN "Blue Helmets" to monitor ceasefires, protect
civilians, and create space for political solutions.
Authorization of Force: In extreme cases, when peace is threatened, it can authorize the use of
military force to restore stability (United Nations, 1945, Chapter VII).
The Council has 15 members. Five are permanent (P5): China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. They hold veto power, meaning any one of them can block a
substantive resolution. The other ten are non-permanent members, elected by the General
Assembly for two-year terms to represent different regions of the world (United Nations, 1945).
For delegates, this means you’re stepping into a room where high-stakes politics, national
interests, and global ethics collide. Your goal is to navigate these pressures to craft solutions that
can actually work in the real world.
3
Key Terms and Terminology
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Computer systems designed to perform tasks that normally
require human intelligence—like learning, reasoning, and decision-making.
2. Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS): Often called "killer robots." These
are weapons that, once activated, can select and attack targets on their own, without a
human making the final "go/no-go" decision.
3. Algorithmic Bias: When an AI system makes unfair or skewed decisions because the
data it was trained on was incomplete or reflected existing prejudices. In a military
context, this could mean misidentifying civilians as combatants.
4. Human-in-the-Loop / Human-on-the-Loop: A key ethical debate. "In-the-loop" means
a human must approve every action. "On-the-loop" means a human can monitor and
intervene if needed, but the system can act independently.
5. Unauthorized Military Intervention: When a country (or group of countries) uses
military force in another country without getting a "yes" vote from the UN Security
Council. This is a major breach of international law unless it's in self-defense.
6. Chapter VII (of the UN Charter): The Council's "teeth." This chapter gives the UNSC
the legal authority to do what's necessary—including sanctions or military force—to stop
threats to peace.
7. Veto Power: The ability of any one of the five permanent members (P5) to strike down a
resolution, even if the other 14 members support it. This is the source of much of the
Council's political gridlock.
8. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): An important but controversial principle. It says that if
a state is failing to protect its own people from genocide or mass atrocities, the
international community has a responsibility to step in—ideally through the UNSC.
9. Sovereignty: The principle that a state has full authority and control over its own
territory and domestic affairs. Unauthorized interventions are seen as a direct challenge to
sovereignty.
4
Introduction
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stands at the very heart of the international
security system. It is the only UN organ with the authority to make legally binding decisions on
all Member States, giving it unparalleled influence over matters of war, peace, and global
stability (United Nations, 1945, Article 25). Through resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of
the UN Charter, the UNSC can impose sanctions, establish peacekeeping missions, and authorize
the use of force when international peace and security are under threat (United Nations, 1945,
Chapter VII).
For delegates, participation in the UNSC requires more than an understanding of legal texts. It
demands awareness of political realities, power dynamics, national interests, and ethical
dilemmas (Hurd, 2018). Decisions taken within this chamber have real-world consequences,
often affecting millions of lives (Security Council Report, 2023). This study guide is designed to
help delegates engage critically, diplomatically, and responsibly with the complex issues on the
agenda.
5
AGENDA I: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE IN MILITARY APPLICATIONS FOR
INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Background and Definition
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems that are capable of performing tasks
normally associated with human intelligence, including learning from experience, recognizing
patterns, analyzing data, and making decisions (Russell & Norvig, 2020). In military settings, AI
is increasingly used to improve efficiency, speed, and accuracy across a wide range of operations
(U.S. Department of Defense, 2023).
From battlefield surveillance to logistics planning, AI promises to reduce human error and
enhance operational effectiveness (Scharre, 2018). However, as militaries become more
dependent on algorithm-driven systems, concerns have emerged regarding reduced human
oversight, ethical accountability, and the potential for unintended escalation in armed conflicts
(Boulanin, 2019; Horowitz, 2018).
Historical Development
The evolution of warfare has always been closely linked to technological progress. The industrial
era introduced mechanized armies and mass production of weapons, while the late twentieth
century marked a digital revolution characterized by satellite systems, cyber capabilities, and
precision-guided weaponry (Black, 2013; Keegan, 1993).
AI represents the next stage in this evolution. Advances in machine learning, autonomous
navigation, and data analytics now allow systems to independently assess threats and recommend
or execute actions. This shift from human judgment to machine-assisted decision-making
represents a fundamental transformation in how wars may be fought in the future (Scharre, 2021;
Work & Brimley, 2014).
6
Current Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Military Operations
Today, AI is actively deployed in several military domains. Autonomous drones and unmanned
vehicles, such as the U.S. Air Force's "Loyal Wingman" program and Israel's "Harpy" loitering
munitions, conduct reconnaissance and surveillance missions with minimal human intervention
(Tucker, 2020). AI-powered intelligence systems, like Project Maven, analyze massive volumes
of data from satellites and drones to identify potential threats more quickly than traditional
methods (U.S. Department of Defense, 2018).
In cyberspace, AI plays a critical role in both defending national infrastructure and launching
cyber operations, with agencies like the U.S. Cyber Command employing AI for network
defense and threat-hunting (Lin & Zegart, 2019). Command-and-control systems increasingly
rely on AI tools to assist military leaders in strategic planning, risk assessment, and resource
allocation, a trend exemplified by the U.S. Army's Project Convergence (Horowitz, 2022). While
these applications enhance efficiency, they also introduce new vulnerabilities and ethical
concerns, such as algorithmic bias and the potential for rapid, automated escalation (Crootof,
2015).
Implications for International Peace and Security
The military use of AI has profound implications for global stability. Faster decision-making
processes may reduce opportunities for diplomacy and increase the risk of accidental conflict,
creating a dangerous "flash war" dynamic (Johnson, 2021). The lack of transparency in
algorithmic systems—often called the "black box" problem—can make it difficult for states to
interpret one another’s intentions, potentially leading to miscalculation and strategic instability
(Boulanin, 2019; Roff & Moyes, 2016).
Accountability is another major challenge. When autonomous systems cause civilian harm or
violate international law, it is often unclear who should be held responsible: the programmer, the
commander, or the manufacturer (International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], 2021). This
uncertainty threatens the foundations of International Humanitarian Law, particularly the
principles of distinction and proportionality, and raises serious moral questions about allowing
machines to make life-and-death decisions (Sparrow, 2007; UNIDIR, 2020).
7
International Legal and Policy Frameworks
At present, there is no comprehensive international treaty regulating the use of AI in military
operations. Nevertheless, existing legal frameworks—including the Geneva Conventions and
customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—apply to all weapons systems, regardless of
their level of autonomy (International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], 2021; Schmitt,
2021). This application is anchored in the fundamental IHL principles of distinction (between
civilians and combatants), proportionality, and precaution in attack, which must be upheld even
in automated decision-making loops (ICRC, 2016).
Discussions under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) have focused on
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), highlighting the growing international concern
surrounding this issue (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs [UNODA], 2023). Since
2014, the CCW's Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) has been the primary multilateral
forum for these debates, though it has yet to produce a binding legal instrument (Borrie &
Randin, 2021). The UNSC plays a crucial role in shaping global norms, promoting dialogue, and
determining whether AI poses a threat to international peace and security. Its authority to discuss
and act on "any matter" affecting international peace and security under Article 24 of the UN
Charter provides a powerful, albeit politically charged, avenue for addressing the security
dimensions of military AI (United Nations Security Council, 2022).
Key Stakeholders
The development, deployment, and regulation of military AI involves a complex web of state
and non-state actors with competing interests.
Leading State Developers :A small group of technologically advanced nations is driving
innovation. This group is predominantly led by the United States and China, who are engaged in
a strategic race for AI supremacy. Other significant players include Russia, which has
emphasized AI in its military modernization, and key European actors like the United
Kingdom, France, and the collective research efforts of the European Union. Israel is also a
notable innovator and exporter of AI-enabled defense technology.
8
Rising and Regional Powers: Countries like India, Japan, South Korea, Australia,
and Turkey are making significant investments to develop their own military AI capacities to
ensure strategic autonomy and regional influence.
The Global Majority & Non-P5 UNSC Members: Many developing
countries across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia lack the capacity to develop these
technologies but are deeply concerned about their impacts. They often advocate for preventive,
binding regulations through the UN. As current or recent elected members of the Security
Council (e.g., Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Ghana, Mozambique), their voices are crucial in
shaping the Council's debate and any potential resolutions.
Private Sector & Tech Giants: Innovation is increasingly concentrated in commercial
firms. American companies like Palantir, Anduril, Microsoft, and Google (despite internal
controversy) and Chinese firms like Baidu, DJI, and Sense Time have deep ties to their national
defense establishments. Their algorithms, data, and computing power are critical military assets.
Civil Society & Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and Human Rights Watch play a vital role in
raising ethical concerns, advocating for international law, and pushing for transparency and
human control.
International Organizations & Forums: Bodies like the UN Convention on Certain Conventional
Weapons (CCW) Group of Governmental Experts are the primary multilateral forum discussing
LAWS. The UNSC itself, through both the P5 and elected members, holds the unique power to
determine if AI applications constitute a threat to international peace and security and to enact
binding measures.
Key Questions for Delegates
1. How can the UNSC ensure that human judgment remains central in decisions involving
the use of force?
2. Should the international community establish binding regulations on military AI?
3. How can innovation be balanced with accountability and ethical responsibility?
9
AGENDA II: ESTABLISHING A GLOBAL ETHICAL
FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
UNAUTHORIZED MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN ONGOING
MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS
Background and Definition
Territorial, religious, and cultural disputes have long existed between Israel and the Arab
populations over contested areas claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians. These disputes
originated from settlement claims dating back centuries. In the 1800s, waves of Jewish migration
to Jerusalem, then part of the historic Land of Israel, sought to establish a Jewish homeland
(World Jewish Congress, 2024). The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British Foreign
Secretary, formally supported the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people in
Palestine” (Question of Palestine, 2019). Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain
assumed control over the territory under a League of Nations mandate.
The rise of antisemitism and fascism in Europe during the 1930s, culminating in the Holocaust,
caused significant migration to the region (Asprey, 1999; US Army, 1999). Tensions escalated
between Jewish settlers and the Arab population, prompting Britain to withdraw and leave the
matter to the United Nations. UNSC Resolution 181 (1947) proposed a two-state solution,
granting Jerusalem a special international regime. Israel accepted the resolution and declared
independence on May 14, 1948, whereas Arab states rejected it, leading to the First Arab-Israeli
War (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024a; Yale Law School, 1948).
Subsequent conflicts, including the Six-Day War (1967) and Yom Kippur War (1973), led to
Israel gaining control over the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024b, 2024c). Proxy warfare emerged as regional powers, such as the
USSR and the USA, supplied combatants during these conflicts.
10
Efforts and Political Developments
The First and Second Intifadas (1987–1993 and 2000–2005) reflected persistent Palestinian
protests against Israeli occupation, resulting in civilian casualties and escalating tensions (Brym
& Araj, 2024). The Oslo Accords (1993) marked the first official negotiations, granting
Palestinians self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, while Hamas opposed the
agreement through violence targeting Israeli civilians (Question of Palestine, 2019; Freedland,
2020).
The 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza further intensified political fragmentation. Hamas
gained control of Gaza, while Fatah maintained influence in the West Bank (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 2023). Armed clashes, rocket attacks, and military operations continued to exacerbate
humanitarian crises.
The Abraham Accords (2020) represented a step toward regional normalization between Israel
and several Arab states; however, these agreements did not resolve the ongoing Israeli-
Palestinian conflict (US Department of State, 2021).
Recent Escalations (2023–2025)
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale attack on southern Israel, killing over 1,200
civilians and taking hostages in Gaza. In response, Israel imposed a blockade, launched
airstrikes, and conducted ground operations (Drummond, 2024; Al Jazeera, 2023). International
reactions were divided: the United States supported Israel’s right to self-defense, whereas Iran
condemned Israeli actions and backed Hamas (The Washington Institute, 2023).
Short-term ceasefires mediated by Qatar in November 2023 temporarily paused hostilities, but
fighting resumed in December 2023, causing widespread civilian casualties and worsening
humanitarian conditions (CBS News, 2023; Al Jazeera, 2023). By early 2024, UN warnings
highlighted the risk of famine in Northern Gaza (Sky News, 2024).
After months of negotiation, a three-stage ceasefire agreement was finalized on January 15,
2025, facilitated by international mediators including the United States, Egypt, and Qatar (BBC
11
News, 2025). The agreement included cessation of hostilities, prisoner exchanges, return of
displaced persons, and reconstruction of Gaza.
International Law and UN Response
The UN Charter (1945) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of states (Article 2(4)) except in self-defense (Article 51) or with UNSC
authorization (UN, 1945). Non-interference in internal affairs is emphasized under Article 2(7).
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951) defines acts
of genocide including killing or harming groups based on nationality, ethnicity, or religion (UN,
1951).
Relevant UNSC resolutions include:
• Resolution 1701 (2006): Ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, expanding UNIFIL and
disarming militias (UNSC, 2006).
• Resolution 2334 (2016): Condemned Israeli settlements in occupied territories,
reaffirming the two-state solution and pre-1967 borders (UNSC, 2016).
• Resolution 2712 (2022) & 2735 (2024): Condemn acts of violence, support humanitarian
aid, and emphasize adherence to international law, especially in Gaza (UNSC, 2022;
2024).
• UN General Assembly resolutions include:
• Resolution 242 (1967): Calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and
recognition of all states’ sovereignty (UNGA, 1967).
• Resolution 67/19 (2012): Upgraded Palestine’s status to a non-member observer state,
recognizing Palestinian self-determination (UNGA, 2012).
• Resolution 10/15 (2004) & ES-10/13/14: Addressed the construction of the separation
wall and affirmed compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention (UNGA, 2004).
• Resolution 75/24 (2020): Condemned Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights as illegal
under international law (UNGA, 2020).
12
Key Stakeholders and Recent Developments in the Middle East Conflicts
The Middle East has become a complex arena of proxy wars, with a multitude of state and non-
state actors pursuing strategic interests through indirect involvement. In Syria, the Astana
Process, established in 2017 by Russia, Iran, and Turkey, aimed to reduce violence and facilitate
humanitarian access, though it has faced operational challenges (Faysal Abbas Mohamad, 2023).
Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have provided extensive support to the Bashar Al-Assad regime,
while countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United States, and reportedly Israel
have backed anti-regime groups. The Kurdish coalition has largely aligned with the US and
Western allies, particularly in opposition to the Islamic Authority (NEW AMERICA). In Yemen,
the Houthi rebels act as proxies for Iran, launching attacks against Israel and commercial
shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait (Aljazeera, 2023).
Hezbollah, as Iran’s primary proxy, plays a significant role in regional conflicts. The group was
formed during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon to resist Western and Israeli influence,
receiving financial, logistical, and military support from Iran, including an estimated USD 700
million annually, weapons, missiles, UAVs, and training from the Quds Force of the IRGC
(Jagannath, 2024; United States Institute of Peace, 2024; Kalian, 2016). Hezbollah’s military
involvement has included fighting against Israel, training Iraqi Shiite resistance fighters during
the US occupation, and deploying approximately 9,000 troops to support the Assad regime in
Syria (Matamis, 2024; Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique, 2017). Hezbollah also supports
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, thereby strengthening
Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” which includes militant groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Syria,
and Iraq (Zeidan, 2024; Rubin et al., 2024).
Lebanon, as the host state for Hezbollah, experiences significant internal and external pressure.
Its government is weak and cash-strapped, relying on external actors such as the United States to
fund the Lebanese Armed Forces against Hezbollah (Jonathan Masters, 2024). The Lebanese
army acts defensively in cooperation with UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force established in
1978 and adjusted over time to monitor hostilities, facilitate humanitarian aid, and maintain
stability in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL, 2023; Sergio Cantone; Euronews, 2024). In recent
developments, renewed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has been fueled by the Hamas-
13
Israel conflict beginning October 7, 2023, with Hezbollah launching rockets into Sheeba Farms
and Israel responding with airstrikes and artillery fire in southern Lebanon. These escalations led
to large-scale internal displacement, with 96,000 Lebanese and 60,000 Israelis forced to leave
their homes, targeted killings of Hezbollah commanders by the IDF, and the assassination of
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, signaling heightened regional
tensions (Wimmen et al., 2024; Al Jazeera, 2024; Heiko et al., 2024).
Ethical considerations
These conflicts are multifaceted. Proxy warfare raises questions regarding the responsibility of
states for human rights violations committed by allied non-state actors. The deliberate targeting
of civilians, use of child soldiers, and attacks on humanitarian infrastructure violate international
humanitarian law (United Nations, 1973; Baugh, 2024). Moreover, the clandestine transfer of
arms and military training, often in violation of UN sanctions (e.g., UNSC Resolution 2231,
2015), complicates the accountability of both states and militias (United Nations Security
Council, 2015; US Institute of Peace, 2024). Non-military interventions, including propaganda
campaigns and social service provision, can further blur the line between governance and
coercion, raising ethical dilemmas about the manipulation of public perception and political
legitimacy (Clarke, 2017; Levitt, 2024).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Middle East conflicts involve a dense web of state and non-state stakeholders,
with Iran and Hezbollah serving as central actors in the Axis of Resistance, and other regional
and global powers engaging indirectly through proxy support. Recent escalations in Israel-
Lebanon hostilities, ongoing Syrian and Yemeni conflicts, and the humanitarian crises resulting
from these engagements underscore the complexity of these wars. Ethical concerns, particularly
regarding civilian protection, accountability for proxy actors, and compliance with international
law, remain pressing issues that must inform future diplomatic and peacekeeping strategies. The
involvement of international organizations such as the UN and UNIFIL demonstrates the need
for multilateral cooperation, yet highlights the challenges of mediating conflicts driven by
intertwined political, religious, and military objectives.
14
Key Questions for Delegates
1. How can the international community ensure compliance with international humanitarian
law when state and non-state actors engage in proxy warfare?
2. What measures can be taken to hold countries accountable for providing military,
financial, or logistical support to militant groups?
3. How should the UN and regional organizations like UNIFIL respond to escalating
violence between Hezbollah and Israel to protect civilians and maintain stability?
4. What strategies can be adopted to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers and the use of
civilians as shields in conflict zones?
5. How can diplomatic negotiations address the influence of Iran and the “Axis of
Resistance” while respecting Lebanese sovereignty?
6. In what ways can humanitarian aid be effectively delivered to conflict-affected areas like
southern Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Yemen without empowering armed factions?
7. How can the international community support Lebanon’s political and security
institutions to reduce the influence of Hezbollah?
8. Should there be sanctions or other international measures targeting the transfer of arms to
non-state actors, and how can they be enforced effectively?
15
References
1. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. (Especially Chapter I: Purposes
and Principles, and Chapter VII: Action with respect to Threats to the Peace). UN
Charter: Full Text: [Link]
2. International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Conventions and their
Additional Protocols. (The foundation of International Humanitarian Law). Geneva
Conventions: ICRC Summary & Treaties: [Link]
customary-law/geneva-conventions
3. United Nations General Assembly. (2005). World Summit Outcome Document
(A/RES/60/1).* (Contains the formal adoption of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine).
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) - World Summit Outcome Document:UN Document
[Link]
balcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf (See Paragraphs 138-139)
4. Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.
(2023). Report of the GGE on LAWS. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
(UNODA). Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) Reports: UN Office for
Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) Page: [Link]
certain-conventional-weapons/background-on-laws-in-the-ccw/ Latest GGE Report
(Search for "2023"): [Link]
laws-2023
5. Al Jazeera Staff. (2023, October 9). Israel announces ‘total’ blockade on Gaza.
[Link]
6. Asprey, R. B. (1999, July 26). Guerrilla warfare | Facts, definition, and examples.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. [Link]
7. BBC News. (2025, February 2). What we know about the Gaza ceasefire deal.
[Link]
8. Brym, R. J., & Araj, B. (2024). Intifada | History, meaning, cause, & significance.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. [Link]
16
9. CBS News. (2023, December 2). Israel-Hamas war: Combat resumes in Gaza as Israelis
accuse Palestinian group of violating cease-fire terms.
[Link]
violating-cease-fire-terms/
10. Drummond, M. (2024, December 12). Israel-Hamas war: A timeline of events since the 7
October attacks. Sky News. [Link]
events-in-the-year-since-7-october-amid-fears-of-wider-middle-east-conflict-13132910
11. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024a, December 19). United Nations Resolution 181 |
Palestine, history, partition, summary, & map. [Link]
Nations-Resolution-181
12. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024b, December 17). Six-Day War | Definition, causes,
history, summary, outcomes, & facts. [Link]
13. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024c, November 14). Yom Kippur War | Summary, causes,
combatants, & facts. [Link]
14. Freedland, J. (2020, October). The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The Guardian.
[Link]
knew-his-people-shot-him-in-back
15. Question of Palestine. (2019, March 12). Balfour Declaration – UK/non-UN document.
[Link]
16. US Army. (1999). Guerrilla warfare. Combined Arms Research Gallery.
[Link]
17. US Department of State. (2021, January 13). The Abraham Accords.
[Link]
18. World Jewish Congress. (2024, December 19). Community in Israel.
[Link]
19. Yale Law School. (1948, May 14). Declaration of Israel’s independence.
[Link]
20. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI.
[Link]
21. United Nations. (1951, January 12). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
17
[Link]
%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%2
[Link]
22. UN Security Council. (2006, August 11). Resolution 1701.
[Link]
23. UN Security Council. (2016, December 23). Resolution 2334.
[Link]
24. UN Security Council. (2022, December 22). Resolution 2712.
[Link]
25. UN Security Council. (2024, June 10). Resolution 2735.
[Link]
26. UN General Assembly. (1967, November 22). Resolution 242.
[Link]
CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/IP%20S%20RES%[Link]
27. UN General Assembly. (2012, December 14). Resolution 67/19.
[Link]
28. • Faysal Abbas Mohamad. (2023). The Astana Process Six Years On: Peace or
Deadlock in Syria? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
[Link]
deadlock-in-syria
29. • NEW AMERICA. Twenty-First Century Proxy Warfare: Confronting Strategic
Innovation in a Multipolar World. [Link]
security/reports/twenty-first-century-proxywarfare-confronting-strategic-innovation-
multipolar-world/executive-summary-key-findings
30. • Aljazeera. (2023). Yemen’s Houthis ‘will not stop’ Red Sea attacks until Israel ends
Gaza war. [Link]
stop-red-sea-attacks-until-israel-stops-gaza-war
31. • Jagannath, P. (2024). Iran and Hezbollah: Proxy Power Play. Institute for Security and
Development Policy. [Link]
32. • United States Institute of Peace. (2024). Hezbollah’s Iranian Arms.
[Link]
18
33. • Kalian, Y. (2016). Iran’s Hezbollah Franchise in Iraq: Lessons From Lebanon’s Shiite
Militias. The Washington Institute. [Link]
analysis/irans-hezbollah-franchise-iraq-lessons-lebanons-shiite-militias
34. • Zeidan, A. (2024). Axis of Resistance. Encyclopedia Britannica.
[Link]
35. • Rubin, A.J., Hubbard, B., & Gamio, L. (2024). What to Know About the Axis of
Resistance, the Iran-backed Militia Network. New York Times.
[Link]
36. • Levitt, M. (2024). Hezbollah Shadow Governance in Lebanon. The Washington
Institute. [Link]
governance-lebanon
37. • Clarke, C. (2017). How Hezbollah Came to Dominate Information Warfare. RAND
Corporation. [Link]
[Link]
38. • UN Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2231 (2015).
[Link]
39. • UN Peacekeeping. (2023). UNIFIL, Mandate. [Link]
lebanon
40. Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations. (2025). Study guide: The
situation in the Middle East (UN Security Council). University of Macedonia.
[Link]
content/uploads/2025/03/UNSC_2025_Study_Guide_ThessISMUN.pdf
19
Additional Readings
1. SIPRI Report on AI and Strategic Stability:
a. [Link]
intelligence-strategic-stability-and-nuclear-risk
2. "Artificial Intelligence, International Competition, and the Balance of Power":
a. [Link]
b. [Link]
3. On Intervention & International Law:
4. "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer:
a. [Link]
5. 2003 Iraq War Legality Analysis (International Court of Justice):
a. [Link]
b. [Link]
6. On the UNSC & Global Politics:
7. "How to Be a UN Security Council Member" by Ian Hurd:
a. [Link]
member/9780991399316
8. UN Security Council Meeting Records (for Syria/Yemen):
a. [Link]
9. General Research Tips:
10. [Link]
11. [Link]
20