Letter from the Executive Board
Greetings Delegates,
Welcome to the simulation of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Human
Rights Council serves as the principal intergovernmental body within the United Nations system
responsible for promoting and protecting human rights worldwide. The Council addresses
situations involving human rights violations and develops international norms.
The agenda before this committee Strengthening the Integration of International Human Rights
Law (IHRL) Standards into Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in Hybrid
Warfare, with Special Emphasis on Accountability and Rights Protection in Digital Surveillance
Practices." addresses one of the most complex legal and ethical challenges of the twenty-first
century.
Modern conflicts increasingly occur across both physical and digital domains. Cyber operations,
artificial intelligence, satellite surveillance, biometric identification systems, spyware, and
data-driven military intelligence have transformed the nature of warfare. While states possess
legitimate security interests, the expansion of digital surveillance during armed conflict raises
profound concerns regarding privacy, freedom of expression, due process, civilian protection,
and accountability.
This Background Guide is intended to provide delegates with a foundational understanding of
the agenda, relevant concepts, and existing international discussions. It is not exhaustive, nor
should it limit your research. As representatives of sovereign states, you must balance national
security imperatives with collective international responsibility. The discussions and outcomes of
this committee mirror real-world dilemmas faced by policymakers, military planners, and
international organizations today.
Lastly, please note that this guide cannot be used as proof to substantiate your claim during the
course of the debate.
We wish you rigorous debate, innovative diplomacy, and a meaningful learning experience.
Best regards,
Chairperson- Mr. Shivam Gupta
Vice Chairperson- Ms. Chesta Choubey
About the Committee
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an intergovernmental body composed
of 47 Member States elected by the UN General Assembly. Established in 2006, the Council
replaced the former Commission on Human Rights with the objective of strengthening the
international system for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Council serves as the primary UN forum for discussing human rights concerns worldwide. It
investigates violations, adopts resolutions, mandates fact-finding missions, facilitates
international cooperation on emerging human rights issues. In recent years, UNHRC discussions
have increasingly focused on the human rights implications of emerging technologies, including
artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, online censorship, biometric identification systems,
cybersecurity, automated decision-making, and cross-border data governance.
Key thematic areas under UNHRC include:
1. Civil and Political Rights
2. Right to Privacy
3. Freedom of Expression
4. Digital Rights and Emerging Technologies
5. Human Rights During Armed Conflict
6. Protection of Civilians
7. Accountability and Access to Justice
8. International Cooperation
9. Business and Human Rights
10.Cyber Governance and Digital Security
The growing integration of technology into governance has significantly expanded the Council's
work, particularly regarding balancing technological innovation with the preservation of
internationally recognized human rights.
Points to Remember
1. Procedure
The committee will follow UNA-USA Rules of Procedure. While procedure ensures
discipline, the Executive Board prioritizes substantive debate on the agenda. Delegates
should not hesitate to speak due to technicalities.
2. Foreign Policy
Adherence to your country’s foreign policy is essential in MUN. Statements inconsistent
with national positions weaken debate. Delegates must balance creativity with realism.
3. Role of the Executive Board
The EB will facilitate debate, pose questions, and ensure direction, but the committee
belongs to the delegates. Speak confidently and substantively.
Nature of Sources/Evidence
This Background Guide is for research and framing only. In committee, evidence must come
from:
[Link] Nations reports and documents
[Link] organizations (AU, EU, ASEAN, etc.)
[Link] reports and state-operated news agencies, recognized NGOs affiliated with the
UN (e.g., Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, IOM)
Valid Evidence in the Committee
• State-Operated News Agencies - These reports can be used in support of or against the state
that owns the news agency. These reports, if credible or substantial enough, can be used in
support of or against any country as such, but in that situation, they can be denied by any other
country in the council.
• Government Reports - These reports can be used in a similar way as the state-operated news
agencies’ reports and can, in all circumstances, be denied by another country. However, a nuance
is that a report that is being denied by a certain country can still be accepted by the Executive
Board as credible information.
• United Nations Reports - All UN reports are considered credible information or evidence.
Introduction to the Agenda
The character of armed conflict has undergone a profound transformation in the twenty-first
century, driven by rapid technological advancements and the increasing convergence of military,
cyber, informational, economic, and political instruments of power. Contemporary conflicts are
no longer confined to conventional kinetic engagements between identifiable state armed forces.
Instead, they are increasingly characterized by hybrid warfare, a multidimensional operational
framework that combines conventional military force with cyber operations, artificial
intelligence (AI), digital surveillance, disinformation campaigns, economic coercion, proxy
actors, and information warfare to achieve strategic objectives while remaining below the
threshold of formally declared armed conflict.
Hybrid warfare fundamentally challenges traditional legal paradigms governing the use of force.
The deliberate integration of civilian and military infrastructures, the growing reliance on
dual-use technologies, and the increasing participation of private technology companies and
non-state actors have blurred long-established distinctions between combatants and civilians,
battlefield and cyberspace, wartime and peacetime. Consequently, military operations are no
longer limited to territorial engagements but increasingly extend into digital ecosystems where
critical infrastructure, financial systems, communication networks, healthcare services, and
civilian data repositories become strategic targets.
Within this evolving operational environment, digital surveillance has emerged as one of the
most consequential instruments of state power. Advances in artificial intelligence, biometric
identification, facial recognition systems, predictive analytics, bulk metadata collection, spyware,
and cross-border intelligence gathering have significantly enhanced the capacity of both state and
non-state actors to collect, process, and exploit vast quantities of personal information. While
these capabilities strengthen military intelligence, counter-terrorism operations, and national
security, they simultaneously create unprecedented risks of arbitrary interference with privacy,
suppression of freedom of expression, discriminatory profiling, mass population monitoring, and
restrictions on civic participation. The extensive integration of digital surveillance into military
planning and intelligence operations therefore raises critical questions concerning the continued
applicability of internationally recognized human rights protections during armed conflict.
These developments expose significant normative and operational gaps within the existing
international legal framework. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) regulates the conduct of
hostilities through principles such as distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and
precaution, primarily focusing on minimizing civilian harm during armed conflict. International
Human Rights Law (IHRL), by contrast, establishes a broader and continuous framework
protecting inherent rights and freedoms including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression,
due process, equality before the law, and effective remedy which remain applicable at all times,
subject only to narrowly defined derogations under exceptional circumstances. Although
international jurisprudence increasingly recognizes the concurrent application of IHL and IHRL
during armed conflict under the doctrine of lex specialis, the precise relationship between these
legal regimes remains contested, particularly with respect to cyber operations, algorithmic
decision-making, AI-enabled targeting systems, transnational digital surveillance, and other
emerging technologies that were not contemplated during the development of existing treaty law.
The absence of comprehensive international regulation governing hybrid warfare has further
complicated efforts to ensure legal accountability. Unlike conventional military operations, cyber
activities often involve anonymous attribution, decentralized actors, outsourced technological
capabilities, and private corporations whose products and services directly influence military
decision-making. Existing accountability mechanisms including state responsibility, individual
criminal responsibility, command responsibility, and international criminal justice struggle to
adequately address violations occurring within digitally mediated conflicts, particularly where
surveillance technologies facilitate unlawful targeting, arbitrary detention, enforced
disappearances, suppression of humanitarian activities, or systematic violations of fundamental
rights.
Accordingly, this agenda invites delegates to critically examine whether the existing legal
architecture governing armed conflict remains adequate in an era of technologically mediated
warfare. It further encourages consideration of how international law can reconcile legitimate
national security interests with the protection of fundamental human rights, strengthen
accountability for digital rights violations committed during armed conflict, and develop
coherent normative standards capable of regulating emerging technologies while preserving the
humanitarian objectives that underpin both International Humanitarian Law and International
Human Rights Law.
Understanding Key Concepts
1. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
The body of international law that protects inherent human dignity and fundamental freedoms,
universally applying to all individuals at all times, including during peacetime. IHRL continues
to operate alongside International Humanitarian Law (IHL) during situations of armed conflict,
ensuring the protection of rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, due process, and
equality before the law.
2. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
IHL governs the conduct of hostilities and seeks to limit the humanitarian consequences of
armed conflict. It establishes rules regulating the means and methods of warfare while providing
protection to civilians, prisoners of war, and other persons not participating directly in hostilities.
3. Lex Specialis Principle
A legal doctrine whereby a more specific legal regime prevails over a more general one in
regulating a particular subject matter. Historically, IHL has been regarded as the lex specialis
during armed conflict; however, contemporary international jurisprudence recognizes the
concurrent application of both IHL and IHRL, particularly concerning non-derogable rights such
as the prohibition of torture and arbitrary deprivation of life.
4. Customary International Humanitarian Law (Customary IHL)
Customary IHL comprises unwritten rules of armed conflict derived from general and consistent
state practice accepted as law. It is particularly significant in regulating non-international armed
conflicts and addressing normative gaps where treaty law remains underdeveloped, including
emerging issues relating to cyber operations and hybrid warfare. Delegates may consult the
ICRC Customary IHL Database for a comprehensive compilation of these rules.
5. Hybrid Warfare
Hybrid warfare refers to a multidimensional strategy that integrates conventional military
operations with irregular warfare, cyber warfare, information operations, economic coercion,
proxy actors, and disinformation campaigns to achieve strategic objectives while blurring the
traditional boundaries between peace and armed conflict.
6. Digital Surveillance Practices
Within hybrid warfare, states increasingly employ Artificial Intelligence (AI), commercial
spyware (such as Pegasus), biometric identification systems, predictive analytics, and big data
technologies to monitor populations, intercept civilian communications, and map civilian as well
as military infrastructure. While these technologies enhance intelligence capabilities, they also
raise significant concerns regarding privacy, freedom of expression, and civilian protection.
7. The IHL-IHRL Nexus and Accountability
While IHL regulates lawful targeting and the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict, IHRL
safeguards fundamental rights including privacy and freedom of expression. The integration of
these legal regimes requires that digital surveillance practices even when justified on grounds of
military necessity must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality
under IHRL. Furthermore, states bear the obligation to Respect, Protect, and Fulfill human
rights, requiring both governments and private technology companies to undertake rigorous
Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) before deploying, transferring, or utilizing
surveillance technologies.
8. Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
An increasingly significant concept in international law, extra-territorial jurisdiction examines
whether a state's human rights obligations particularly under instruments such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) extend beyond its territorial
borders when conducting digital surveillance operations or cyber activities affecting individuals
located in another state. This remains a central issue in debates concerning accountability and the
cross-border application of international human rights obligations.
Key Challenges
1. Blurry Legal Thresholds and the Peacetime- Wartime Divide
Lex Specialis Dilemma: There is ongoing debate over whether IHL (the law of armed conflict)
or IHRL (peacetime human rights) applies during "grey zone" hybrid conflicts. IHRL includes
strong privacy protections, whereas IHL permits broader surveillance measures under military
necessity.
Hybrid Warfare Ambiguity: Hybrid and proxy warfare often fall short of the formal legal
threshold for an "armed conflict," leaving a regulatory void where human rights abuses occur
without triggering the enforcement mechanisms of IHL.
2. The Attribution and Accountability Gap
Proxy and Non-State Actors: States frequently utilize proxy groups, independent hacktivist
networks, and private technology contractors for digital surveillance. This deliberate obfuscation
makes it incredibly difficult to legally attribute espionage and data breaches to a specific state
under traditional state responsibility frameworks.
3. Civilian Privacy vs. National Security
Dual-Use Infrastructure: In a digital landscape, civilian cyber infrastructure (e.g., civilian
telecommunications, servers, and cloud networks) is heavily militarized and utilized for
surveillance in hybrid conflicts. This blurs the principle of distinction, making it challenging to
protect civilian data from military cyber operations.
Mass Surveillance and Human Rights: Governments frequently deploy sophisticated spyware
(such as Pegasus) under the guise of "national security." UNHRC delegates often struggle to find
consensus on regulating these invasive digital surveillance tools without violating state
sovereignty.
Existing International Frameworks and UN Efforts
1. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)- Governs state human rights obligations both offline
and online, emphasizing fundamental protections such as the right to privacy, freedom of
expression, and freedom of assembly. The landmark UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights establish the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and encourage
businesses to conduct human rights due diligence.
2. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)- Recognized as the lex specialis during armed
conflicts, IHL limits the means and methods of warfare while protecting civilians from the
dangers arising from hostilities. The integration of IHRL and IHL prevents legal "grey zones"
where combatants exploit gaps in technology-driven conflicts.
3. Customary International Law- Because the digital domain evolves faster than formal treaties
can be drafted, Customary IHL particularly the principles of distinction, proportionality, and
precaution serves as the primary mechanism to govern cyber operations and indiscriminate data
monitoring.
4. Global IHL Initiatives- Championed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
and supported by a broad coalition of Member States, these ongoing efforts seek to preserve
civilian dignity in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) environments and outline
how IHL practically applies to modern digital operations.
5. Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs)- The Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) actively recommends that states implement stringent
human rights due diligence and precautionary risk approaches before deploying AI systems or
surveillance tools in humanitarian crises.
Key Questions for Debate
1. How can the legal framework of lex specialis (where specific laws of armed conflict
override general human rights laws) be redefined in hybrid warfare, where the
"battlefield" regularly extends into civilian digital ecosystems?
2. To what extent can the right to privacy (enshrined in treaties such as the ICCPR) be
universally applied as customary international law during non-international armed
conflicts (NIACs)?
3. How should Member States establish universal legal thresholds for distinguishing
between unlawful cyber espionage and legitimate, proportional military cyber operations
during active hostilities?
4. As civilian participation and hacktivist networks expand in modern cyber warfare, how
can Member States legally attribute state responsibility for digital surveillance and data
exploitation conducted by unofficial proxies?
5. In scenarios where non-state actors deploy spyware, how can the United Nations enforce
accountability frameworks when these actors fall outside the traditional state-centric
jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions?
6. What mechanisms are required to ensure transparency and legal consequences when
states use private technology corporations to facilitate offensive digital surveillance and
data gathering?
7. How can the United Nations establish enforceable Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD)
mandates for private surveillance and technology companies operating in conflict zones
to prevent the exploitation of humanitarian data?
8. What are the legal implications of utilizing AI-driven facial recognition and predictive
mass surveillance by occupying powers, and how do these practices violate the principle
of precaution in International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?
9. How can the international community penalize states that execute internet shutdowns or
implement targeted remote digital attacks to suppress freedom of expression and peaceful
assembly during times of conflict?
Conclusion
Hybrid warfare has fundamentally altered the relationship between security, technology, and
human rights. Digital surveillance tools can assist legitimate security operations, yet they also
create unprecedented risks of privacy violations, discrimination, censorship, and abuse of power.
The challenge before the international community is to ensure that technological innovation does
not erode the protections that international law was designed to safeguard. Strengthening the
integration of IHRL standards into customary IHL offers an opportunity to clarify legal
obligations, enhance accountability, and better protect civilians in increasingly digital conflicts.
Possible Sources for Better Understanding
[Link]
[Link]
ights-report-special-rapporteur
[Link]
ans-cyber-operations-digital-activities-conflict