Colombo Model United Nations 2023
Committee: Security Council Country: The United States of America
Name: Vyshalini Rajendran Date: 18th February 2023
Delegation: Gateway College Dehiwala
Agenda: Amending the UN Charter
_________________________Foreign Policy Statement___________________________
1. Does my country support this topic?
Recent uprisings that have severely disturbed the international community have brought the
purpose of the United Nations and its leading body- the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC), to question as International Peace and Security has constantly been held at stake. In
numerous conflicts like the Syrian crisis, the inability of the UNSC to take action has resulted
in dire humanitarian crises. Having recognized the urgency of this issue, the United States of
America (U.S.), citing Chapter XVIII, Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations
(UN Charter) [1], will willingly participate in discussions based on the agenda.
2. What has my country done about this topic in accordance with my stance?
The U.S. been at the forefront of expressing concerns over the need to propel reform within
the United Nations starting off with the UNSC. The U.S. had identified and voiced its
concerns over the following structural problems within the UNSC:
a) Minute number of states represented in the UNSC
b) Lack of diversity among permanent and non-permanent members
c) Abuse of the veto power by certain P5 nations
First and foremost, the U.S. believes that the UNSC could accommodate a greater number of
states, specifically nations from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean who have been
under-represented in the Council. Members of the G4 such as India, Brazil, Germany and
Japan also remain as strong candidates for a permanent membership seat in the UNSC [2].
However, the U.S. remains deeply concerned over the misuse of the veto by the Russian
Federation during their invasion of Ukraine in 2022. A very pertinent example remains the
use of their veto power to fail the SC Resolution on Russian Aggression towards Ukraine [3].
Yet, the enaction of the Uniting for Peace Procedure for the 13th time in the history of the
UN was strongly supported by the U.S. following the adoption of the procedural resolution
In God We Trust
2623 by the Council- from which the vote against by the Russian Federation had no effect [4].
The passing of A/RES/ES-11/1 with a vote of 141 to 5, inclusive of 35 abstentions, will
remain a vital moment in international politics as a clear majority was able to express their
views on the unlawful invasion by the Russian Federation [5].
Nevertheless, on the basis that those who exploit the veto need to be held accountable for
their actions, the U.S. co-sponsored the landmark United Nations General Assembly
(UNGA) Resolution (document A/77/L.52) [6] requiring any permanent member who
exercises the veto to convey their sentiments defending the grounds upon which that veto
was legitimate in the UNGA [7][8]. The U.S. believes that this Explanation of Vote system
creates a necessary deterrence for those who wish to misuse the veto in any given
circumstance.
In addition, it must also be noted that the Russian Federation’s excessive use of the veto in
instances such as the Syrian Conflict are only further putting the legitimacy, credibility and
efficacy of the UNSC in question [9]. This also paves the way for discussions regarding the
very legitimacy of the Russian Federation’s permanent membership seat [10]. As pointed out
by Sergiy Kyslytsya, the Permanent Ukrainian Representative to the UN, after the USSR was
dissolved in 1991, the council never voted on the admission of the Russian Federation. This
further extends to the question of the rarity of coercive action within the framework of the
UN. The Korean War in 1950, for instance, was one of the few instances in which joint
action could be taken by the UNSC due to the absence of the USSR from the council as a
protest at the seating of the Nationalist Chinese Representatives. While the U.S. concedes to
the possibility of arguments against this matter- i. e. the largest of smaller states that have
been dissolved to be termed the rightful successor of the dissolved state in accordance with
Customary International Law [11], it must also be acknowledged that the UNSC will continue
to face international condemnation due to the Federation’s biased actions.
Moving on, abiding to the parts of International Law excluding specified reservations is a
strategic tool that will enhance unity among member nations. The U.S. believes that, as a
proactive measure, parties engaged in any form of conflict must adhere to Customary
International Law as specified in the Geneva Conventions; with the exceptions of
Additional Protocol I (API) and Additional Protocol II (APII), and importantly the
Common Article 3[12]. This also extends to The Hague Conventions, more prominently, the
1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction [13].
As the principle Judiciary body of the UN, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is
flawed in its miscalculated accusatory decisions. The Court had ruled that the U.S. had failed
to fulfil its duties under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 2005 following the
ruling against the U.S. on Nicaragua war reparations in 1968. The U.S. still stands strong on
its disagreement to the Court’s rulings and believes that a more inclusive judicial system is to
be implemented for the court to have a stronger foothold on judicial matters governed by the
UN [14]. While the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statue and recognizing that the
International Criminal Court (ICC) is independent from the UN, the U.S. would strongly
In God We Trust
assert the need for this body to ensure that its jurisdiction does not overlap with the domestic
jurisdiction provided by any state. The same principle would also apply to the ICJ and
facilitating reform in both of these bodies would set a more credible precedent of
international rulings to the whole community.
With regard to issues concerning territorial waters and naval forces, the U.S. has recognized
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a codification of
Customary International Law but has not ratified it [16]. The UNCLOS was ineffective in
solving the territorial dispute within the Arctic Circle in a just manner, as countries like the
U.S. was not entitled to utilize the respective resources under their lawful territory. The U.S.
also remains deeply concerned by the Russian militarization of the Arctic Circle- more
prominently the rebuilding of run down Cold War bases [17]. Moreover, rising tensions within
the East China Sea (ESC) and South China Sea (SCS) have been alarming. Under the
Senkaku dispute, the U.S. has pledged its support to the nation of Japan through its
commitments to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the
U.S., where under Article V, the U.S. will not hesitate to defend its long standing ally [18].
In addition, unregulated nuclear programs across the global community housed by countries
like the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
against the will of numerous international powers are extremely concerning and need to be
addressed by the UN Charter. The passing of the UNSC Resolution 2231 (S/RES/2231) in
2015 [19] brought the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), out of which the U.S.
withdrew when the council failed the U.S. resolution to extend the embargo on Iranian Arms
Trade [20].
3. What does my country plan to do regarding this topic in accordance with my
stance?
Keeping in mind the multitude of problems that remain unsolved to this day in the
International Arena, the U.S. proposes that several amendments need to be made to the UN
Charter, the founding principles of the UN, to reform the entire body in time to come.
First and foremost, the U.S. believes that the UNSC should adopt resolutions to expand the
member nations within the council by proposing an amendment to Chapter 5, Article 23, sub
clause 2 of the UN Charter. This includes a preference for the G4 countries obtaining
permanent membership seats in light of their contributions towards the body. Moreover, the
U.S. calls for Liechtenstein's Veto Initiative to be mentioned in Chapter 5 of the UN Charter
as a procedural amendment within the UNSC. While the legitimacy of the Russian
Federation’s permanent membership seat is still up for debate, the U.S. hopes that extended
discussion on this matter would serve as a deterrent to the Federation’s abuse of the veto
power.
In God We Trust
While many countries have reservations to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the UN
Charter must specify the very grounds upon which violating the very core principles of it will
lead a state to be held accountable. This also extends to Conventions under Customary
International Law like the Geneva, Hague and Montevideo Conventions.
Furthermore, the Statute of the ICJ must be reformed to provide inclusive rulings and/or
referred to another body such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) (assuming that
the PCA has jurisdiction for that matter) to be a mediator between both parties in a dispute
[21]
. While this court simply bears observer status in the UN, its mandate could be expanded
to become a more inclusive decision making body that takes up unresolved disputes from the
ICJ.
Moreover, to address the UN Charter’s need to incorporate specifications relating to the use
of nuclear weaponry, the U.S. recommends that an amendment to the UN Charter is made so
that all willing nations are able to formulate a protocol with the standards set by the
International Atomic Agency (IAEA) similar to the Protocol to the Agreement Between
The United States of America and The International Atomic Energy Agency for the
Application of Safeguards in the United States to keep nuclear programs regulated [22]. The
U.S. would also like to emphasize its incompliance towards a No First Use Policy as this
renders as a threat to one’s national security. As an alternative, a First Strike Policy would
serve as a good deterrent to countries like the DPRK who refuse to comply with international
standards with regard to their nuclear programs and fail to maintain transparency. Yet, the
U.S. strongly reaffirms its commitments to ensuring to the best of its potential that a similar
chain of events to the First Cold War does not take place.
“[After all], A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought [23]
.”
Furthermore, with regards to the Arctic Circle Crisis, the U.S. calls for an amendment to Part
VI of the UNCLOS, Article 76 to alter the definition of the continental shelf so that it now
also takes into account resources that need to be allocated on a preferential basis beyond the
200 nautical miles from the baselines at which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured
[24]
. In addition, the U.S. hopes to amend the UN Charter to authorize the use of FNOPs in
the SCS and ECS disputes to monitor the construction of islands that serve as military based
for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The U.S. sees it to be the role of the UN and its
member states to shield Japan and Taiwan from Chinese aggression. More specifically, this
extends to all countries who have laid claims on the SCS as well.
Moreover, as the largest funder of the Department of Peace Operations which oversees UN
peacekeeping, the U.S. recognizes its role in reviving and characterizing the purpose of these
forces to be vital [25]. To do so, the nation would be willing to propose an amendment to the
UN Charter which includes adopting a standardized definition for “the United Nations
Peacekeeping Organization” (UNPKO) after it passes in the 6th United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA6). Furthermore, the U.S. also pledges to provide a set of standardizations
In God We Trust
that all International Peacekeeping Organizations must follow which would include the
primary rules of:
a) Impartiality
b) Consent of the host country
c) Use of force as a last resort
This may also include mechanisms to cooperate and maximize output when the mandate of
two Peacekeeping Forces overlap to avoid the diffusion of responsibility. All of these
standardizations would be reviewed by the UNGA6 before being brought to the UNSC for
voting.
Last but not least, it must be taken into account that the UN Charter has thus far been a
valuable tool that has and will continue to shape the premises upon which International Law
evolves. It is the very existence of the Charter that has brought us to question the efficacy of
itself and the body governed by it. For that reason, it is truly remarkable. Yet, it is a tool like
any other and henceforth needs to change with its time. As a container for the founding
principles of the UN itself, amending the UN Charter is a task that requires great precision
and dedication collectively. The U.S. will by all means remain supportive of altering this
prestigious document for the betterment of the International Community.
“
[After all], We chose liberty. We chose sovereignty. We chose principles to which every party to
the United Nations Charter is beholding.
PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR [ 26]
In God We Trust
Citations
[1]- [Link]
[2]- [Link]
commitment-or-tokenism/
[3]- [Link]
[4]- [Link]
[5]- [Link]
[Link]/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/293/36/PDF/[Link]?OpenElement
[6]- [Link]
[Link]/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N18/141/07/PDF/[Link]?OpenElement
[7]- [Link]
[8]- [Link]
power-united-nations
[9]- [Link]
council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us
[10]- [Link]
war-biden-helsinki-commission/
[11]- [Link]
council
[12]- [Link]
[13]- [Link]
children/hague-convention-civil-aspects-international-child-abduction
[14]- [Link]
[15]- [Link]
[16]- [Link]
freedom-of-navigation-operations/
[17]- [Link]
[18]- [Link]
[19]- [Link]
[Link]/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/225/27/PDF/[Link]?OpenElement
[20]- [Link]
In God We Trust
[21]- [Link]
[22]- [Link]
[23]-
[Link]
Weapons&text=The%20NPR%20reiterates%20a%20January,aggression%2C%20and%20preven
t%20war.%E2%80%9D
[24]- [Link]
[25]- [Link]
[26]- [Link]
president-biden-before-the-77th-session-of-the-united-nations-general-assembly/
In God We Trust