DISEC

STUDY GUIDE
AGENDA:
Preventing Non-State Actors From Acquiring
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
 INDEX
1. LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD 3

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE 4

3. LIST OF KEY TERMS 5

4. INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA 8

5. HISTORY OF THE AGENDA 9

6. KEY PLAYERS 12

7. LIST OF MILITANT GROUPS AND VIOLENT 18

NON-STATE ACTORS

8. AREAS OF OCCUPANCY 20

9. CASE STUDIES 25

10. BLOC POSITIONS 29

11. PAST ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNITED NATIONS 34

12. PAST RESOLUTIONS 36

13. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 37

14. PAPERWORK FORMATS AND GENERAL GUIDELINES

- RESOLUTION 39
- CRISIS 43
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
The Executive Board, of The Disarmament and International Security Committee
(DISEC), welcomes each one of you to Podar Summit 2024.

For many, it may be the first-ever MUN conference in your educational experience, and
we strongly encourage you to go through the study guide that has been prepared for you
as a part of the conference to get an in-depth understanding of the issues that will be
discussed in committee. However, there is a plethora of content and information
available beyond the study guide.

Delegates are urged to run external research in order to be holistically well versed with
not just the agenda at hand, but also parallel geopolitical issues and individual country
histories and knowledge of provided portfolios. You are expected to research, collate, list
down possible points of discussion, questions, and plausible responses and be prepared
to enjoy the intellectual energy in the room. At the same- time it is not only about
speaking and presenting but also the ability to listen, understand viewpoints and learn
from each one's perspective.

DISEC is a technical committee that requires resilience accompanied by a fierce mind-

set and the ability to address aspects of a larger situation with utmost empathy. The
agenda at hand demands a balance of all traits to ensure the best results. Remember that
you can be a powerful delegate and still be diplomatic and respectful of member nations.
The executive board strongly encourages all delegates to actively participate in the
committee regardless of their prior experience, and engage in debate.

The guide includes an extensive list of key terms, delegates are requested to familiarise
themselves with all the terms listed. The document also contains formats on both
resolution and crisis paperwork, for the purpose of easy access.

We, the executive board, ensure a thrilling experience and wish all our enthusiastic
delegates the very best!
Regards,
The Executive Board of DISEC,

Gia Fernandes - (Chairperson)

Aditya Chaterjee- (Vice Chairperson)
Jay Khanna- (Moderator)
 INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE
Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) is the First Committee of the United
Nations General Assembly. It deals with disarmament, global challenges, and peace threats that impact
the international community, while also attempting to find solutions to the challenges that the
international security regime faces. The mandate of DISEC is highlighted as, “to promote the
establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic resources”. The First Committee works in close
cooperation with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Geneva-based Conference on
Disarmament. It is the only Main Committee of the General Assembly entitled to verbatim records
coverage. It takes into account the general principles of cooperation in maintaining international peace
and security as well as principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments; promotion
of cooperation with agreements and action for cooperation, including international security, under the
Charter, or in relation to the powers and functions of any other UN organ.

Keep in mind that all resolutions passed by this committee are non-binding resolutions and must be
formatted as recommendations to the 193 nations in the committee.

Furthermore, given its direct association with the United Nations General Assembly (being a subsidiary
organ as authorized under Article 22), it retains the powers and responsibilities of the General
Assembly as outlined in Chapter IV of the Charter of the United Nations, including:

Article 10

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present
Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and,
except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or
to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.”

Article 11 [2]

The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace
and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a
state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and,
except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the
state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is
necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after
discussion.

Article 11 [3]

The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to
endanger international peace and security.
 LIST OF KEY TERMS
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Refers to nuclear, chemical, biological, and
radiological weapons that have the potential to cause significant harm to large populations,
infrastructure, and the environment.

Non-Proliferation: The prevention of the spread of WMDs and the technology or materials
associated with their development to states or non-state actors.

Arms Control: Efforts or agreements aimed at regulating or limiting the development,

stockpiling, and deployment of WMDs to reduce global conflict risks.
Disarmament: The process of reducing or eliminating a country’s arsenal of WMDs through
negotiations or treaties to enhance global security.

Verification: Procedures and measures used to monitor compliance with disarmament

agreements and ensure that nations are adhering to international treaties limiting WMDs.

Nuclear Test Ban: A ban on nuclear explosions in all environments, including underground, to
prevent the development and testing of new nuclear weapons.

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): An international treaty that outlaws the

production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and mandates the destruction of existing
chemical weapon stockpiles.

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC): A treaty banning the development, production,

and possession of biological weapons. It aims to prevent the use of pathogens or toxins as
weapons in warfare.

Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) : An international effort aimed at stopping the

trafficking of WMDs and related materials through cooperative measures, including interdiction
and intelligence sharing.

Export Control: National and international regulations that limit the export of sensitive
technology and materials that could be used in the development of WMDs.

Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR): An informal, multilateral partnership that

aims to restrict the proliferation of missiles and missile technology capable of carrying WMDs.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): An independent agency of the United

Nations that promotes peaceful uses of nuclear energy and works to prevent the military use of
nuclear materials, especially for WMDs.
Sanctions: Economic, trade, or diplomatic penalties imposed by the United Nations or individual
states to pressure a country to comply with international non-proliferation agreements.

Dual-Use Technology: Technology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes,
particularly in the development of WMDs.

Diplomatic Efforts: Negotiations and international cooperation aimed at preventing the acquisition
of WMDs by states or non-state actors.

Militant Groups: Non-state armed organizations that engage in violent activities and may seek to
acquire WMDs for coercive purposes or attacks.

Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation, especially by non-state actors or militant groups, to
achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. Some terrorist groups seek WMDs to increase the impact
of their attacks.

Non-State Actors: Entities, such as militant groups or terrorist organizations, that are not formally
associated with any state government but may participate in activities like WMD acquisition and
proliferation.

State-Sponsored Terrorism: When a government supports or funds militant groups or terrorist

organizations, potentially assisting them in acquiring WMDs or related materials.

Rogue States: Nations that are perceived as a threat to global security due to their development of
WMDs, support of terrorism, or non-compliance with international treaties.

Black Market: The illegal trade of goods, including weapons and materials for WMDs, often facilitated
by militant groups and criminal organizations.

Radicalization: The process by which individuals or groups adopt extreme political, religious, or
ideological beliefs, which can lead to the support or use of WMDs.

Insurgency: Armed rebellion by non-state actors or militant groups against a government. Insurgents
may attempt to acquire WMDs to advance their cause or destabilize regions.

Counterterrorism: Efforts and strategies by governments and international organizations to prevent,

deter, and respond to terrorist activities, including the acquisition or use of WMDs.

Illicit Trafficking: The illegal trade of goods, including WMD-related materials and technologies,
which can involve militant groups or criminal networks.

Smuggling Networks: Covert operations run by criminal organizations or militant groups to

transport illegal goods, including WMD components, across borders without detection
Nuclear Terrorism: The potential use of nuclear weapons or radioactive materials by non-
state actors or militant groups to cause large-scale destruction and panic.

Bioterrorism: The use of biological agents like viruses or bacteria by militant groups or
terrorist organizations to cause widespread harm, often targeting civilian populations.

Chemical Terrorism: The use of toxic chemicals by militant groups to harm or kill civilians
or military personnel, a key concern in WMD proliferation.

Extremist Ideology: Political, religious, or social beliefs that advocate radical actions,
sometimes including the use of WMDs by militant groups to further their agenda.

Arms Trafficking: The illegal trade of conventional and unconventional weapons, which
may include WMDs or related materials, often involving militant groups.

Safe Havens: Geographical regions where militant groups can operate without interference,
sometimes facilitating WMD development or acquisition.

WMD Proliferation: The spread of WMD technology, knowledge, or materials to

additional states or non-state actors, such as militant groups.

Intelligence Sharing: Cooperation among international agencies to gather and share

information on the activities of militant groups and their attempts to acquire WMDs.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): A treaty aimed at preventing the spread of

nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which some militant groups
seek to undermine.

Al-Qaeda: A prominent terrorist organization known for its global operations and desire
to acquire WMDs to carry out large-scale attacks.
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria): A militant group that has expressed interest in
obtaining WMDs to further its goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate through violent means.

Hezbollah: A militant and political group based in Lebanon, known for its ties to Iran, and
considered capable of acquiring WMDs through state sponsorship.

Cyberterrorism: The use of digital attacks by militant groups to disrupt or gain control
over critical infrastructure, potentially including systems that manage WMDs.

Counter-Proliferation: International efforts to prevent the spread of WMDs, particularly

to non-state actors and militant groups, through military and diplomatic means.

Hostile State Actors: Nations that may indirectly support militant groups in their efforts
to acquire WMDs as a means of destabilizing rival countries or regions.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA

The spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has not only posed a grave
risk to international global peace, but also the delicately balanced equilibrium of
great powers. Traditionally they have been held by nation states but there is a
drastic increase in the supply of WMDs to the non-state actors, like terrorist
groups through the channels like black market and smuggling. These non-state
actors motivated by their religious, political, economic ideologies have greatly
threatened peace and security across regions, armed with WMDs they are further
instigating violence and destabilizing regions.

Militant and rebel functions throughout the globe are flourishing in light of
their host states having penetrable borders, widespread corruption and no
form of government, the biggest example being Somalia. International
measures including Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) have aimed to restrict the spread of WMDs. But this has
been challenged by the non-state actors and have found means to detour state
controls and access black markets while also leveraging technological
advancements that has made the acquisition of WMDs much more facile.

The example of Somalia, illustrates the disastrous aftermath of non-state actors

acquiring lethal weapons. Somalian pirates armed with these weapons have
been a great threat to the maritime security of the Bab el Mandeb strait,
resulting in nations deploying their navies to protect the key trade routes.

To neutralize this rising threat of non state actors, especially the ones armed
with lethal weopens and WMDs, call for compressive and coordinated action of
the international community. Means to implement pre existing treaties and
new ways of curbing this threat has to be discovered by all nations.
 HISTORY OF THE AGENDA

With Respect to Nuclear Weaponry

The genesis of nuclear weaponry can be traced back to the Manhattan Project, a covert
initiative launched by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada in 1942. This
collaborative effort officially began in 1942 and culminated in the successful Trinity test
in Mexico in 1945, a milestone that marked the onset of the nuclear age.

The urgency to gain a strategic edge against Nazi Germany expedited the project,
and the devastating
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki triggered a global race for nuclear dominance.
Various nations, most notably the Soviet Union, acquired nuclear capabilities through
espionage networks. The Quebec Agreement, a confidential pact between the UK and
the US, played a pivotal role in their joint nuclear endeavors. Independently, France
and China developed their nuclear arsenals and conducted their inaugural tests in
1960 and 1964, respectively.
The Middle East saw nuclear proliferation emerge with the interest in nuclear
weapons by Egyptian President Nasser, which eventually led to the construction of
Israel's Dimona reactor, aided by French expertise. Iran's nuclear program had its
beginnings in the 1950s under the Shah, with support from the US's "Atoms for
Peace" initiative. Iraq's aspirations for nuclear capability were thwarted by Israel's
Operation Opera in 1981 when the Osirak reactor was targeted. Syria's covert nuclear
facility faced a similar fate in 2007 when it was destroyed by Israel.
Pakistan's nuclear program had significant regional implications, as A.Q. Khan's
clandestine network secretly provided nuclear technology to countries like North
Korea, Iran, and Libya. North Korea initially had exposure to nuclear technology
through the Soviet Union's Atoms for Peace program and collaboration with China,
eventually becoming a self-reliant nuclear state, initially focusing on plutonium-based
development before transitioning to uranium enrichment and conducting nuclear tests
since 2006, all while simultaneously investing in intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Under the NATO umbrella, the United Nations shared nuclear weapons development
with certain European nations, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and Turkey, where the US maintains nuclear arsenals. Additionally, Kazakhstan,
Ukraine, and Belarus inherited nuclear arsenals from the Soviet Union, both during
the Cold War era and following its dissolution.

Understanding this historical context and the dynamics of nuclear proliferation is

essential for grasping the global landscape of nuclear weapons and their far-reaching
implications.

With respect to other classifications of WMDs

The roots of biological warfare trace back to ancient civilisations , where armies employed
rudimentary methods such as using decaying or infected animal carcasses to poison
water, fields and stocked supplies. However it was only post the advancements in
microbiology seen in the 20th century that led to the development and creation of far
more effective biological weapons.

During the Second World War, both Allied and Axis powers dedicated themselves towards
rigorous research surrounding biological weapons. It was mass hysteria, surrounding
their progress post the commencement of the war, that resulted in the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC), which essentially prohibited their development, usage as
well as stockpiling. However despite preventative and regulatory mechanisms, a select few
continued to pursue research under covert formats. Examples include the Biopreparant
project of the Soviet Union and Iraq's bio weapon research. In present times, concerns
still prevail around the potential use of Biological agents, necessitating continued
vigilance and preparedness.

Chemical Weapons have a long-standing equation with history, with the avid use of sulfur
and arsenic dating back centuries. The atrocities of chemical warfare in the First World
War, birthed the Geneva Protocol in 1925, which prohibited their use. Although their
deployment was significantly less in the Second World War, it did not cease to exist, a
blatant example being the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazi regime, and its inhumane
gas chambers In 1993, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) aimed to eliminate
chemical weapons, this protocol required signatories to obliterate stockpiles and vow to
cease future production. Despite efforts, there have been historically recent uses of such
weaponry as seen in the Iran-Iraq war, the Syrian War as well as the 2018 Sailsbury
poisoning.

While Radioactive weapons using radioactive materials saw a rapidly emerging interest
during the Second World War, they were never intentionally deployed. The familiar
concept of “dirty bombs” was essentially the process of mixing radioactive material with
conventional explosives. The atrocities however, have been displayed to the global
community as a result of accidents like the Chernobyl Disaster 1986. Efforts
under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), aim to prevent the use of illicit
materials and the use of radioactive material for manufacturing weapons.

However despite multiple preventive mechanisms, treaties and conventions, the heated
global political climate and the rise of unrest demands vigilance in preventing its use.
Understanding the historical context and the dynamics of modern day warfare is essential I’m
grasping the global landscape of WMDs and their extensive implications.

With Respect to the Involvement of NSA

Groups

The history of the abuse of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by non-state actors
presents a troubling dimension of modern conflict. While traditionally, the possession and
use of WMDs—nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons—have been under the
purview of nation-states, the rise of non-state actors, particularly terrorist organizations, has
introduced a new set of challenges in the global security landscape. These groups, lacking the
formal structures of states, operate outside of conventional legal and diplomatic frameworks,
often driven by ideological, political, or religious motivations.

The modern era of non-state actor involvement with WMDs can be traced back to the latter
half of the 20th century. A pivotal moment in this history is the Aum Shinrikyo cult's 1995
sarin gas attack in Tokyo’s subway system. The attack killed 13 people and injured over a
thousand, demonstrating that even with limited resources, non-state actors could inflict mass
casualties using chemical weapons. Aum Shinrikyo had been experimenting with various
WMD technologies, including biological agents like anthrax and Ebola, underscoring the
cult's ambitions for large-scale destruction.

Following this, global attention turned to the potential for non-state actors to access nuclear
materials. Concerns about "loose nukes" arose after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the
early 1990s, with fears that poorly secured nuclear materials could fall into the hands of
terrorist groups. Though there has been no successful nuclear attack by a non-state actor to
date, organizations such as al-Qaeda have explicitly stated their desire to acquire and use
nuclear weapons. The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States further illustrated the
potential for biological weapons to be used by individuals or groups operating outside the
bounds of state control.

The post-9/11 era marked a heightened global awareness of the risk posed by non-state
actors with WMD ambitions. The rise of groups like ISIS has raised concerns about their
ability to acquire chemical, biological, or even radiological weapons. In 2015, reports
emerged of ISIS using chemical weapons, including mustard gas, in Syria and Iraq. These
reports demonstrate the adaptability of such groups in obtaining and utilizing WMDs in
conflict zones where governance is weak, and oversight is minimal.
The challenge posed by non-state actors with WMD capabilities lies not only in their access to
materials but also in the evolving nature of warfare. Non-state actors do not adhere to
traditional military doctrines or international norms governing the use of force, making them
unpredictable and difficult to deter. Furthermore, the decentralized and transnational nature of
many of these groups complicates efforts to track and prevent the proliferation of WMD
materials and [Link] response, international efforts have focused on tightening security
around WMD materials, improving intelligence-sharing among states, and enhancing non-
proliferation treaties. The United Nations Security Council, for instance, has passed several
resolutions aimed at preventing the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors, including
Resolution 1540 in 2004. Yet, as technology continues to advance, and as global political
instability persists, the threat of non-state actors gaining access to WMDs remains a critical
concern for global security.

The history of WMD use by non-state actors is a reminder of the evolving nature of conflict and
the need for continuous vigilance and cooperation among states to prevent catastrophic attacks.

KEY PLAYERS
Islamic State of Iran and Syria (ISIS)

Isis has been known for their history in repeated attempts to experiment and tamper with
weapons that thread the fine line of being weapons of mass destruction sometimes crossing that
line all together. ISIS was originally a faction of the group Al Qaeda in 2004 but split off due to
differences in beliefs. . Al-Qaeda devoted all its efforts towards attacking the United States and
its Western allies, rather than capturing territory and establishing a state, whileISIS envisaged
the establishment of the caliphate.

The Islamic State has had recorded incidents of using chlorine gas in the the battle of Mosul
(2014 - 2017) in Iraq and Syria even using mustard gas in 2015 against Kurdish forces in Iraq
and Syria. When added alongside the years of history that ISIS has had in chemical warfare and
its ties with individuals being former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba’at government and the
heinous acts committed by that body, it sets precedent to what ISIS could potentially do if left as
it [Link] Islamic State's largest source of income is the extraction of oil. The group sold crude oil
pumped from Syrian and Iraqi wells to local truckers and middlemen, netting an estimated $1
million to $3 million per day. By selling drastically below market price, traders were incentivised
to take on the risk of heavy black market deals.

The countries mainly related to ISIS have been Iraq and Syria the former of which has been in
numerous insurgencies through various means including but not limited to chemical warfare in
Syria by none other by ISIL and the Syrian president Baashr Al Assad. A key note about Syria is
its current Chemical weapons program with 5 sites and 1 suspected weapons base Al Safira.
Syria is a member of the CWC and a member state of the OPCW yet still has a chemical weapons
regime. ISIS allegiance to other non-state actors can be used to draw parallels in actions
taken by these non-state actors in conflicts since the Islamic State and its factions
have been the most popular non-state actor with its infamous use of chemical
weaponry.

Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda is a transnational Sunni Islamist terrorist organization with a network of

affiliates. The group rose to global prominence after orchestrating the September 11,
2001, attacks (9/11) in the United States. Since then, sustained counterterrorism (CT)
efforts by the United States and its partners have weakened the group, particularly in
its historic base in Afghanistan. For several years, U.S. officials and international
observers have characterized the Al Qaeda threat as stemming mainly from the group’s
affiliates in Yemen and Africa. Al Qaeda has been on the forefront of global terror
attacks being one of the most widely known such as the attacks of 9/11 and being one
of the factors of the invasion of US troops in Iraq in 2003. Al Qaeda's goal has been the
elimination of western influence in muslim countries while also replacing governments
with more islamic fundamentalist bodies.
The speculative ties that Al Qaeda had with Saddam Hussein and both sharing
common tendencies to use chemical warfare made it easy for the United States of
America to draw a connection. Al Qaeda had operations in Afghanistan since the
1990s which was then dismantled by the United States of America. Both consecutive
presidents at the time (George W bush and Barack Obama )devoted US intelligence
and operations to eradicate Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al
Qaeda has used chemical and radiological warfare each such leading to loss of
thousands of lives except biological weapons however documents from Afghanistan
were seized which showed interest in Al Qaeda wishing to develop agents such as
botulinum toxin and ricin.

At various times from at least as early as 1992, Osama Bin Laden, and others known
and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons. On or about
May 29, 1998, Usama Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of
Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and
the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much
force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God." Previous actions show precedent and
current actions show a continued interest in pursuing weapons of mass destruction
which makes it a cause of concern for global security. Countries that have supported Al-
Qaeda in the past and/or present include, Pakistan and Qatar among others even
showing financial support. States that have been affected by this NSA are The United
States of America, Yemen, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Iraq,
Egypt, Spain, Afghanistan, Jordan, Turkey, Libya, etc.
Houthis (Yemen)

The Ansar Allah or the Houthi Movement is a Shia Islamist political and military group
that originated in the 1990. Currently Yemen is in a state of conflict known around the
region as a Iran-Saudi proxy war or a Civil War with the Houthis having total dominance
over the capital of Sana’a and the majority of northern Yemen. It came to oppose the
government of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and began expanding its
territorial control in 2014 under the leadership of al-Houthi’s brother, Abdul Malik al
Houthi, capturing the Yemeni capital Sana’a in September of that year.

The Houthis have been a constant source of religious oppression as the Houthis have
been frequent in targeting different minorities in Yemen including the Baha’is which
have faced persecution under the Houthi Authority and the Jewish community in
Yemen, which at its height contained 55,000 jews but now has reduced significantly
after the mass displacement of Yemeni Jews in 1948 with an increase in persecution of
jews in the region increasing exponentially since after 1990. The Houthis are the self
declared “axis of resistance” against Israel and the west. There is no verifiable evidence
that the Houthis have ever used weapons of mass destruction however it should be
noted that the majority of the Houthis weapons are distributed by Iran but Iran lacks the
control over the actions of the Houthis creating a risk of what the Houthis could do.

Iran is also currently facing allegations of attempting to take over Syria's Chemical
weapons program. Just like Hamas, the Houthis have many contacts and close allies
with other non-state actors like Hezbollah and other Sunni militias but it should be
noted that ISIS and the Houthis are not allies so any link drawn between the two is null
and void since they are “ideologically opposite”. However it is possible to draw parallels
from its current allies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Supreme political council, etc. Countries
that back the Houthi movement are Iran, DPRK, Syria, Oman, Libya and Russia.

Hamas (Palestine)

Hamas is one of the two principal political parties in the Palestinian territory that
governs over two million people in the Gaza Strip. The group is globally recognised for its
insurgency against Israel. A plethora of nations in the UN have designated the group as a
militant organization, particularly its military wing. Much like Hezbollah, Iran is a key
provider of financial support and raw materials to Hamas, while Turkey serves as a safe
haven for some of its leaders. In contrast, Fatah, which holds dominance in the West
Bank, has renounced violence, highlighting a stark divide in Palestinian leadership.
Hamas is a non-state actor currently active in the region of Palestine being one of the
sole propagators of the Israel-Palestine war. Hamas is a tight-knit NSA with large
connections to other groups having aid from several islamic countries while also having
the backing of the Houthis, Hezbollah, etc. Hamas has already been sending missiles
and has used other conventional warfare like missile launching, suicide bombing,
guerrilla groups among others. Hamas is an unpredictable organization with ties to
several non-state actors that have attempted to procure weapons of mass destruction
(alleged or proven true) with the ties it has with Hezbollah and the allegations that the
former has in attempting to access chemical agents for chemical warfare.

The events in the Israel-Palestine conflict shows the sheer determination of this group,
making it unpredictable to what this NSA could resort to next. Most notably having
connections with the Ansar Beit Al Maqdis, a faction of ISIL, whose relations involve
unspecified weapon smuggling.

As of today's date, Hamas has no allegations or history of having used weapons of

massdestruction but whether this is because they have not been able to acquire it
remains a mystery. The countries affiliated with Hamas have been Iran, Qatar, Turkey
and notably Syria (not currently). The main country affected in this conflict is Israel
with the west taking a strong stance in support of Israel against Hamas.

Hezbollah (Lebanon)

Hezbollah emerged during Lebanon's fifteen year civil war, which broke out in 1975,
when long simmering discontent over the vast, armed Palestinian presence in the country
reached a boiling point. The various sectarian communities in Lebanon at the time held
different views and positions pertaining to the nature of the challenge posed by the
Palestinian presence. Seeing an opportunity to expand its influence in Arab States, Iran
and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided funds and training to the
budding militia, which adopted the name “Hezbollah”, meaning “The Party of God”.

Hezbollah's mission has been the “elimination of the state of Israel” with a large majority
of its being the use of missile launches. A key link can be drawn from past events and the
attacks
current actions of a state. Hezbollah is backed financially by Iran and politically by Syria.
With a predicted spending of $100 million to $200 million annually.

With Iran working to take over the chemical weapons program of Syria and the financial
backing of Iran, It is possible to draw parallels with the situation of the Houthis in Yemen
with Iran
already distributing weapons as the Houthis sink ships in the red sea. So how unlikely is it that
Iran would distribute these to Hezbollah seeing as how Iran continues to financially support
Hezbollah while Hezbollah sends missiles into densely populated civilian areas.

However so far to this date, Hezbollah has no history of involvement with chemical weapons.
The group however has been seen to rely mostly on covert operations and terrorist activities.
Current states in support of Hezbollah include Syria, Iran, Democratic People's Republic of
North Korea and the Russian Federation.

COMPRESSED TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS

Nuclear Warfare:

YEAR EVENT

1945 Trinity Test in the U.S and bimbings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed

India’s first nuclear test “Smiling Buddha”
1974

1991 START 1 Signed by the U.S and USSR

1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) adopted

1998 India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests

2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) signed between U.S and Russia

2006 North Korea conducts its first nuclear test

2010 New START treaty signed between U.S and Russia

2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran Nuclear Deal, signed

2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) adopted

2021 New START extended until 2026

Chemical Warfare:

YEAR
1915 First large scale use of chemical weapons in WWI EVENT

1925 Geneva Protocol signed

1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War sees extensive use of chemical weapons

1988 Halabja chemical attack

1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) signed

1997 CWC enters into force

2003 Libya announces the dismantling of its chemical weapons program

2013 Ghouta chemical attack in Syria

2014 OPCW announces removal of Syria's declared chemical weapons

2017 Khan Shiekhoun chemical attack in Syria

2018 Salisbury poisoning incident in the UK

Biological Warfare:

YEAR EVENT

1925 Geneva Protocol bans chemical and biological weapons

1969 U.S ends its Biological weapons program

1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) signed

1975 BWC enters into force

1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war sees Iraq's use of mycotoxins

1999-1991 Iran-Iraq accused of weaponizing anthrax, botulinum toxins, and afloxation during the Gulf War period

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in the U.S

2001 Anthrax attacks in the U.S

2011-2023 Accusations against Syrian Government for usage of Chemical Weapons

Explosive Warfare :

YEARS EVENTS

1949 Geneva Convention adopted

1977 Additional Protocols added to the Geneva Convention

1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti personnel Landmines

2003 Cluster Munitions used in the Iraq War

2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions adopted

2010 First meeting of State Parties to convention on cluster munitions.

2015 Saudi led coalition uses cluster munitions in Yemen

2016 UNSC adopts Resolution 2286 condemning attacks against medical rascalities in conflict zones

2019 Drone strikes against Saudi oil facilities

2021 Azerbaijan uses drone warfare effectively in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

LIST OF MILITANT GROUPS

AND VIOLENT NSA’s

MILITANT GROUP AFFILIATED COUNTRY

ISIS (Islamic State) Syria ; Iraq
Taliban Afghanistan
Boko Haram Nigeria
Al-Shabaab Somalia
Hezbollah Lebanon
Houthis (Ansar Allah) Yemen
Hamas Palestine
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Pakistan
Al- Qaeda Afghanistan
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Turkey ; Iraq
Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) Mali ; Niger
Jemaah Islamiyah Indonesia
Haqqani Network Afghanistan ; Pakistan
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Palestine

Ansar al-Sharia Libya

Jaish-e-Mohammed Pakistan

Lashkar-e-Taiba Pakistan

National Liberation Army (ELN) Columbia

Ansar Dine Philippines

Al-Nusra Front Syria

Abu Sayyaf Philippines
Jund Al-Aqsa Syria
AREAS OF OCCUPATION -
MILITANT GROUPS
 CASE STUDIES

Israel v. Palestine

Hamas is the political and military organization of the Palestinian Sunni Islamists,
which was founded in the Gaza Strip, taken over by the Palestinian territories back
in 2007. As a non-state actor, Hamas has engaged in air and ground strikes and is
likely to have a stockpile that comprises firearms, rockets, and mortar bombs
among other things. In the Israel Palestine conflict, it has been alleged that Hamas
has received military assistance from countries like Iran, Egypt and Libya and
utilized illegal tunnels and false exports to achieve such shipments.
Hezbollah as a political and military organization is being operated further in the
regions of Asia since 1992 by its native Lebanese Shi’ite dominated Islamic group.
Hezbollah, it is believed, also possesses artillery in the form of guns and rocket
missiles including drones which they have deployed in previous wars, the current
still on going Israeli Palestinian war included.
Although involved in the arms trafficking and black markets, Hezbollah’s largest
sources of military assistance are reported to be Iran and Syria, as arms are
purportedly smuggled into these countries through those networks located in
Lebanon.

Boko Haram

Book Haram is an orthodox islamic sectarian organisation operating Nigeria and

neighbouring countries founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002. The aim of this
Salafi jihadist group is to replace the Nigerian government with an administration
complacent with the islamic laws and adherence to Sharia.

It gained popularity post the mass killings and kidnappings along with widespread
violence since 2009. They have sourced their arms and ammunitions from the
black markets and their infamous cross border smuggling routes in Chad and
Cameroon. In 2020, Boko Haram attacked a military base in Chad and acquired
massive quantities of weapons from this encounter.
Boko Haram has been known for its innovative and deadly use of IEDs (improvised
explosion devices). The use of such unconvetnioanl means of warfare has mad e
Boko Haram a significant to security in the region.
26/11 attacks

The degree of the attacks in Mumbai on the 26 of November 2008 was so drastic and
unexpected that its impact can be still felt. This wave of terrorist attacks was orchestrated
by the militants of the Pakistani based terror organization Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The culprits chose to launch their attacks on soft targets like hotels, railways stations,
hospital and places of worship of the Jews, thereby killing a lot of people and instilling
fear in the nation. They entered various strategic buildings heavily armed with automatic
weapons and explosives managed through illegal means and other smuggling operations,
showcasing how dangerous non-state actors with guns are.

Such a disaster brought about unheard of inadequacies with security systems and also
showed the difficult task countries have in preventing terrorist groups from getting
weapons. The 26/11 incident simply proved that the scope of hybrid warfare is such that
there is no single country which can intimidate a terrorist group and not suffer retaliation
targeting weapons black marketing.

Syria

Al-Qaeda’s history demonstrates that it has evolved both externally and internally with
Islam claiming it’s a necessary evil for modern politics. Just as the Viet Minh believed that
communism was the only way to get rid of an outsider’s threat on Vietnam, Al-Qaeda
turned the pending threats of United States or any other super powers that were at a
geographical area for a limited time.
After Osama bin Laden’s demise and state structure collapse in Syria, structures like Al-
Qaeda
heightened militant operations with its factions over the last two decades. A number
of these transnational activities entail engaging persons who support the networks for
non-criminal reasons.

The organization’s tactics and evolution of its phases are rooted in worldwide, local,
political transformations, cultural revolutions and other processes and phenomena. It
was proposed that the political meetings should constitute the top apparatus who may
utilize, ‘people’s philosophy’ devoid of being conceited towards all.

Countries such as Pakistan have initiated both internal and external counter-terrorism
operations. There are credible concerns about breaches in security and some individuals
on the other hand do
not believe that there is a single breach and that those of them that exist, notch
the highest political offices and the military establishment at times with the
aid of the [Link]-Qaeda, particularly under Osama bin Laden, extensively
utilized internet resources to disseminate propaganda rapidly.

Despite the massive intelligence apparatus built against terrorism, attempts

have been made to censor statements related to cross-cutting issues of
terrorism and organized crime. The internal dynamics of Al-Qaeda and ISIS
generate peripheral ideologies that attract fringe elements, amplifying
fanaticism and sectarianism.

They use grievances as civic virtues imposed by the state, which are then
employed in state-sponsored violence. Recent radicalization trends in Salafi
jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are particularly troubling.

Afghanistan
The Afghan Mujahideen was an orthodox Islamist group that fought against the
Soviet invasion and sought to safeguard Afghanistan from Communism and
other forms of oppression resulting in the Soviet-Afghan War period between
1979 to 1989.

They resorted to guerrilla warfare tactics sand received support from the
CIA’s Operation
Cyclone. They were given military assistance in order to counter Soviet expansion
in the region, with arms being smuggled into Afghanistan through Pakistan's ISI.

Initially, as a cover, the U.S. used arms taken from the Soviet and Vietnamese
conflicts such as those from the Yom Kippur and Vietnam wars. The United
States supported the Mujahideen by providing arms through ISI, which aimed
to curtail the Soviet Union in Asia. As the fighting escalated, arms were also
shipped to the Mujahideen, including Stinger missiles and various types of guns
and drones.

Taliban was established by Mullah Omar, a sunni militant organisation, earlier

known as the Mujahideen. It ruled Afghanistan the late 1990s till 2001. Taliban
regained power in Afghanistan in 2021, removing the government led by Ashraf
Ghani.
9/11 attacks

On September 11, 2001, the American populace witnessed the most shocking incident when
the radical extremist Al-Qaeda Unit Capital undertook several coordinated assaults on the
American soil. There were four commercial airplanes that were commandeered by nineteen
militants, of which two were crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center located
in New York City, and one was buried into the Pentagon, outside Washington D.C.

The first of the militants September 2001 attacks against the US Greyhound bus center
was
aimed at another target in Washington that did not success: Zaken Borovik 2001. The
circumstances were great and have forever changed the relationships between countries
along with the popular culture.

The terrorists on September 11th were able to slip into the US and carry out their scheme by
exploiting the many weaknesses in the aviation security system, made use of techniques that
even sub-national entities are able to facilitate limitless damage using conventional methods.
As a result, nearly all countries instituted new rules PAS issued in 2011 US CIS headed by
Janet Napolitano Department of Homeland Security. All such Actions underlined moreover,
the beginning of the global campaign against terrorism which recognized that such dreadful
events will not improve unless the nations collaborate effectively against terrorist
organisation.
 BLOC POSITIONS

The United States

The United States has a strong stance against non-state actors acquiring weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) and has been at the forefront of global efforts to prevent such
proliferation. This position is reflected in U.S. participation in treaties like the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC).

The U.S. government considers the acquisition of WMDs by terrorist organizations to be one of
the gravest threats to national and global security, particularly after the September 11, 2001,
attacks, which prompted the passage of the Patriot Act. The U.S. also launched the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in 2003 to enhance global cooperation in preventing the
spread of WMDs.

A notable past instance includes the 2001 anthrax attacks where letters containing anthrax
spores were
sent to U.S. senators and media outlets, resulting in five deaths. Though not a large-scale WMD
attack, it highlighted the potential for biological agents to be used by non-state actors within
U.S. borders. The U.S. also conducted military actions in Iraq in 2003, justified partially by
concerns that Saddam Hussein's regime was harboring WMDs, which could fall into the hands
of non-state actors. This aligns with its overarching policy of preemptive strikes against threats
of WMD acquisition by rogue states or terrorist groups.

China
China maintains a strict stance against the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors, aligning
its policies with international treaties like the NPT, BWC, and CWC. China has long supported
the UN's role in WMD non-proliferation and has advocated for global disarmament. However,
China emphasizes a multilateral, diplomatic approach rather than unilateral or preemptive
military action. It is also a party to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), aimed at
restricting the spread of missile technology.

China's experiences with non-state actors have been limited compared to other nations,
though it has expressed concerns about terrorist organizations, particularly in Xinjiang,
where there have been allegations of separatist groups receiving international support.

China is particularly wary of WMD proliferation through technological leaks and cyber
warfare, and it has taken steps to increase security measures related to its nuclear and
biological research facilities.
Russia
Russia, a nuclear power and member of the NPT, is also a signatory to the CWC and BWC. It has
taken a hardline stance against the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors, emphasizing the
importance of international cooperation in dealing with these threats. Russia’s approach focuses
on both preventing WMD acquisition by terrorist organizations and securing its own stockpiles, as
it inherited a massive arsenal from the Soviet Union.

Russia is involved in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), a U.S.-Russia co-
founded initiative aimed at strengthening global capabilities to prevent nuclear [Link],
Russia has been accused of facilitating, rather than preventing, the spread of WMDs, particularly in
Syria, where it has supported the Assad regime, accused of using chemical weapons against rebel
groups. There are also concerns about the security of Russian WMDs in light of the Chechen
insurgency, which has included threats of radiological attacks.

The European Union (EU)

The European Union, while not a singular state, has adopted a collective stance on preventing the
spread of WMDs to non-state actors, as outlined in its Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons
of Mass Destruction (2003). EU members are parties to the NPT, CWC, and BWC and strongly
support international norms that prevent the spread of WMDs. The EU also focuses on diplomatic
efforts, export control regimes, and compliance with international law, including the United
Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540, which obligates all states to prevent non-
state actors from acquiring WMDs.

A catastrophic incident that spearheaded the EU’s approach was the 2004 Madrid train bombings,
orchestrated by an Islamist terrorist cell. Though not involving WMDs, the attack heightened the
EU’s awareness of the potential threat posed by non-state actors. The attacks in Paris further
created a sense of urgency to strengthen pre existing barriers to ensure safety and security of
[Link] EU has since ramped up efforts to counter chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear (CBRN) threats.

India
India, though not a signatory to the NPT, adheres to a strict non-proliferation policy and is a
signatory to the CWC and BWC. India has taken significant measures to prevent the acquisition of
WMDs by non-state actors, particularly in light of its regional security concerns, including
terrorism emanating from Pakistan and non-state actors in Kashmir. India's Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Their Delivery Systems Act (2005) outlines its domestic legal framework to
prevent the proliferation of WMDs.

India has also expressed concern over the potential for terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)
or other extremist organizations to acquire nuclear materials. While no major WMD attacks have
occurred in India, the 2008 Mumbai attacks by LeT underscored the vulnerability to sophisticated,
well-coordinated terrorist operations, prompting India to bolster its security measures against
potential WMD-related threats.
Pakistan
Pakistan, a nuclear power, is a signatory to the CWC and BWC but not the NPT. Pakistan’s
stance against WMD acquisition by non-state actors is complicated by its internal security
challenges, including the presence of terrorist groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
and Al-Qaeda. Pakistan has faced intense international scrutiny, especially after the
revelations of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, which illegally supplied nuclear
technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

The Pakistani government has repeatedly stressed that its nuclear arsenal is secure and
safeguarded against terrorist infiltration. However, the 2011 assassination of Osama bin
Laden on Pakistani soil, coupled with ongoing insurgent activity, raises concerns about the
security of Pakistan’s WMD stockpiles. Pakistan cooperates with the U.S. and other countries
on counter-terrorism measures aimed at preventing the spread of WMDs to non-state actors.

Afghanistan
Afghanistan, despite not possessing WMDs, has been a hotspot for concerns about non-
state actors, particularly during the Taliban’s rule and its relationship with Al-Qaeda. The
U.S.-led invasion in 2001 was partly justified by fears that Al-Qaeda could acquire WMDs.
Afghanistan is a party to the CWC and BWC and has expressed commitment to preventing
non-state actors from acquiring WMDs. However, given the lack of central authority and
the resurgence of the Taliban after 2021, there is significant concern about the country
becoming a haven for groups seeking to acquire chemical or biological weapons.

There have been no confirmed instances of WMD use in Afghanistan, but the potential
for groups like ISIS-K or remnants of Al-Qaeda to acquire chemical or biological weapons
remains a concern for the international community.

Iran and Iraq

Iran, a signatory to the NPT, CWC, and BWC, has long denied allegations of seeking WMDs
while accusing other states of allowing non-state actors to acquire such weapons. The Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, though its
status remains contentious after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. Iran is also accused of
supporting non-state actors like Hezbollah and Houthi rebels, who could potentially acquire
advanced weaponry with Iranian backing. Iran has condemned WMD proliferation to
terrorist groups but faces accusations of double standards due to its regional activities.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was accused of possessing WMDs, leading to the 2003 U.S.
invasion, though no significant WMDs were found. During the 1980s, Iraq used chemical
weapons against Iran and Kurdish civilians, setting a precedent for non-state actors like
ISIS, which later attempted to develop chemical weapons. After the fall of ISIS’s territorial
control, concerns about the remnants of its WMD program persist.
Syria
Syria’s use of chemical weapons during its civil war, particularly in attacks on civilian
populations, has been widely condemned. Despite being a signatory to the CWC, Syria has been
accused of repeatedly using chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians since 2013.
Non-state actors, including ISIS and Al-Nusra Front, have also attempted to acquire chemical
weapons during the conflict, with some reports of their limited use. Syria’s civil war has
highlighted the difficulty of controlling WMDs in failed states, where various non-state actors
compete for power and resources, increasing the risk of WMD [Link]
intervention, such as U.S. airstrikes in response to chemical attacks, and the UN-OPCW mission
to dismantle Syria’s chemical stockpiles, have been the primary international responses to these
developments.

Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso, though not a possessor of WMDs, has been significantly affected by the threat
posed by non-state actors, particularly in the form of terrorism. The country is a member of the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and it has
committed to international treaties aimed at preventing the proliferation of WMDs. The
government’s ability to enforce these commitments, however, has been severely hampered by
the rise of extremist groups such as Ansarul Islam, Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM),
and offshoots of Al-Qaeda and ISIS that operate within the country.

Burkina Faso has not experienced any documented WMD attacks, but the increasing presence of
extremist groups raises concerns about the potential acquisition of chemical or biological
weapons. The government, with the support of international actors like the United Nations and
regional organizations, has been focused on strengthening counter-terrorism measures to
prevent non-state actors from accessing advanced weaponry, including WMDs.

Somalia
Somalia, a failed state for much of the past three decades, has struggled with non-state actors
like Al-Shabaab, which has established itself as one of the most formidable terrorist
organizations in Africa. Somalia is a signatory to the CWC and BWC, but its prolonged instability
has rendered the enforcement of these treaties weak. The absence of a strong central government
has created an environment conducive to terrorist activities, including smuggling and potentially
acquiring materials for WMDs.

Although Somalia has not experienced an attack involving WMDs, Al-Shabaab’s growing
influence and ties to global terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda raise concerns about the
group’s ability to access chemical or biological agents. The international community, through
efforts like the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) and the United Nations, has been
focused on stabilizing the country and reducing the influence of non-state actors to prevent the
proliferation of dangerous weapons.
Nigeria
Nigeria has faced significant challenges with non-state actors, particularly Boko Haram and its
offshoot, Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP). Nigeria is a signatory to the CWC and
BWC and has pledged to prevent the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors. The Nigerian
government has made efforts to enhance security around critical infrastructure to ensure that
terrorist organizations cannot acquire advanced weaponry, including WMDs.

Though Boko Haram and ISWAP have not been documented using WMDs, their activities,
including kidnappings, bombings, and attacks on military and civilian targets, pose a significant
threat. Given Boko Haram’s connections to global terrorist organizations and the instability in
the region, there are growing concerns about the possibility of these groups acquiring chemical or
biological weapons. In response, Nigeria has been working with international partners like the
United States and the United Nations to improve its counter-terrorism capabilities and safeguard
against the proliferation of WMDs.

Sudan
Sudan, once a state sponsor of terrorism, has shifted its stance in recent years, especially after the
removal of Omar al-Bashir from power in 2019. Sudan is a party to the NPT, CWC, and BWC, and
it has made efforts to re-engage with the international community to ensure compliance with
non-proliferation norms. However, Sudan remains vulnerable to non-state actors, including
remnants of Al-Qaeda and local militant groups operating in the volatile Darfur region and
border areas.

While Sudan has not experienced WMD attacks, its history as a safe haven for terrorist
organizations in the 1990s, including hosting Osama bin Laden, has raised concerns about the
possibility of non-state actors acquiring WMD-related materials. The country’s fragile political
situation and internal conflicts, particularly in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains, make it
susceptible to the influence of extremist groups. Sudan’s government, with international support,
is working to strengthen its security apparatus to prevent any potential proliferation of WMDs to
non-state actors.
 PAST ACTION TAKEN BY THE UN

The acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) by Non-State Actorshas been a persistent and
growing threat to international security. In response, the United Nations has undertaken various measures
to prevent NSAs from obtaining and using these catastrophic weapons. The international community,
through the UN, has addressed this issue through a combination of legally binding treaties, resolutions,
and cooperative initiatives designed to limit access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons by
non-state entities.

One of the most prominent international legal frameworks aimed at preventing the proliferation of WMDs
is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970. While the NPT
primarily targets state actors, its broader goal of non-proliferation has influenced subsequent initiatives
aimed at curbing the illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons by NSAs. The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), a key player in ensuring compliance with the NPT, has also taken on the responsibility of
monitoring nuclear materials globally, thereby limiting access to these materials by NSAs.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has played a pivotal role in addressing the threat of WMDs
falling into the hands of NSAs. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the UNSC adopted
Resolution 1373, which called for all member states to enhance their domestic legal and institutional
capacity to combat terrorism, including efforts to prevent the financing and trafficking of materials that
could be used in WMD production.

In this context, UNSC Resolution 1540 (2004) became a landmark measure in establishing legal
frameworks to prevent NSAs from acquiring, developing, or transporting WMDs. The resolution obligates
all UN member states to enact and enforce domestic laws that criminalize the proliferation of WMDs to
NSAs, thereby strengthening global non-proliferation efforts.

Another significant action taken by the UN was the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), launched in
2003 by the United States and supported by over 100 nations. Though not a formal UN mechanism, the
PSI operates within the international legal framework endorsed by the UN to disrupt the illicit trafficking
of WMDs, particularly through maritime, air, and land interdictions. The PSI is aimed specifically at
stopping non-state actors and states that may collaborate with them from acquiring WMD-related
materials.

The UN has also strengthened international cooperation through its support for multilateral treaties like
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Both
conventions prohibit the development, production, and use of chemical and biological weapons and
contain provisions that oblige states to ensure that these weapons do not fall into the hands of NSAs.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees the implementation
of the CWC, works closely with the UN in this capacity. It has been instrumental in identifying and
dismantling illicit chemical weapon programs that pose a threat of being transferred to NSAs.
In addition to these legal instruments, the UN has recognized the role of sanctions and other enforcement
measures in curbing the spread of WMDs. For instance, sanctions imposed on North Korea and Iran have
included stringent measures aimed at preventing their collaboration with NSAs in developing or
distributing WMD technology. The UN Panel of Experts, established under UNSC resolutions related to
these sanctions, investigates and reports on potential violations, including any transfers of WMD
materials to NSAs.

Despite these efforts, the threat posed by NSAs acquiring WMDs remains a significant challenge. The
complexity of detecting and preventing the illicit transfer of WMD-related materials, especially through
black market networks and via state-sponsored terrorism, requires constant vigilance and robust
international cooperation.

The UN, in conjunction with its member states and specialized agencies, continues to adapt its strategies
to counter this evolving threat. Through its combination of legal frameworks, multilateral initiatives, and
enforcement mechanisms, the UN has made significant strides in addressing the proliferation of WMDs to
non-state actors, though much work remains to be done to ensure global security.

Treaties Implemented by The United Nations

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention (Ottawa Treaty)

Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCWC)

Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT)
 PAST RESOLUTIONS
Termination of WMDs, missiles and civil related
nuclear measures

UNSCR 707 (1991)

On Iraqi violation of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) with regard to
inspection of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities

UNSCR 1441 (2002) On decision to set up an enhanced inspection regime to ensure Iraq’s
compliance of its disarmament obligations

UNSCR 1456 (2003) Termination of WMDs, missiles and civil related nuclear measures

On non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and

UNSCR 1540 (2004) biological weapons
On measures against the Democratic People's
UNSCR 1718 (2006) Republic of Korea (DPRK) in connection with its
nuclear weapon tests

On termination of the mandates of UN Monitoring,

UNSCR 1762 (2007)
Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) and the IAEA's Iraq Nuclear
Verification Office (INVO)

UNSCR 1887 (2009 On nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament

UNSCR 1957 (2010) Termination of WMDs, missiles and civil related nuclear measures
Non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
UNSCR 1977 (2011) and extension of the security council committee
mandate
Increase of the size of the Group of Experts of the Security Council
UNSCR 2055 (2012) Committee Established pursuant to Resolution 1540 (2004)
concerning Non-Proliferation of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons

UNSCR 2118 (2013) On the use of chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria

UNSCR 2325 (2016) On non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and

biological weapons
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United Nations has taken significant steps to address the threat of Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMDs) being acquired by Non-State Actors (NSAs), such as
terrorist organizations and militant groups. This threat has grown in prominence as
non-state entities increasingly seek to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons for use in asymmetric warfare and acts of terrorism. The UN has approached
this issue through a combination of legal frameworks, international treaties, and
enforcement mechanisms.
Key actions include the implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
subsequent monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency), which aims to
prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to NSAs. The UN Security Council has
played a central role by adopting resolutions such as 1373 and 1540, which obligate
member states to criminalize the proliferation of WMDs to NSAs and strengthen
national security measures against such threats. Additionally, the Proliferation
Security Initiative has focused on intercepting illegal transfers of WMD-related
materials, while multilateral treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) provide frameworks to prevent the
spread of chemical and biological weapons to NSAs.
The UN also utilizes sanctions and enforcement mechanisms to curb WMD
proliferation, particularly in regions such as North Korea and Iran, where there are
concerns about state actors potentially collaborating with NSAs. Cases like the rising
instability in Pakistan acting as a catalyst for militant group motives is a rising
question among most diplomatic circles. The access to WMD’s in war prone countries
may yet again serve as a breeding ground for militant organizations to reignite their
once extinguished motives. The UN and other member nations have adopted drastic
measures to prevent these catastrophic weapons from landing in the hands of Non-
state actors.
Despite these initiatives, the challenge of preventing WMD acquisition by NSAs
remains complex, requiring ongoing international collaboration, legal enforcement,
and proactive measures However The United Nations Through its legal instruments,
global initiatives, and sanctions, the UN continues to adapt its strategies to mitigate
the threat posed by NSAs acquiring WMDs.

END OF STUDY GUIDE

 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST
ANSWER (QARMA)
For first time MUNNERS, these questions essentially serve as fundamental
pointers regarding the points your resolution could address, in order to make it
comprehensive and relevant. Delegates may however, come up with other angles
and viewpoints to construct solutions with.

-What specific measures should be implemented to prevent NSAs from acquiring

WMDs?
-What mechanisms should be established to ensure effective enforcement and
compliance?
-Should all member states and non-signatories be compelled to maintain complete
transparency with the United Nations surrounding possession of WMDs?

-What accountability measures will be in place for NSAs and state actors that aid or
enable the acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction by NSAs?

IMPORTANT LINKS

-DISEC
Mandate [Link]

-UN
charter [Link]

VALID SOURCES OF INFORMATION

- Reuters
- UN Articles
- UN Libraries
- Amnesty International
- Britannica
- Times of India
- Official Country Websites (and) Statements (or) Speeches made by Heads of
State.
 RESOLUTION GUIDELINES
Resolutions:
Use 12 point Times New Roman and 1.0 spacing throughout
Do not exceed four pages in length, for committee convenience
The heading at the top of the resolution, must include three main components, in the
following order: COMMITTEE; QUESTION OF; MAIN AUTHOR + 2 CO AUTHORS
After the title of the resolution, a single line spacing is places, followed by the full
name of the committee written in capital letters with a comma at the end
Acronyms and a abbreviations are spelled out the first time they are mentioned, in
the following manner: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
Use formal, 3rd person, diplomatic language at all times

Perambulatory Clauses:
The introductory word/phrase of each perambulatory clause is
italicized
Only a selected set of phrases can be used as introductory
words/phrases
The first letter of the introductory word/phrase is capitalized
No introductory word/phrase can be repeated in a resolution
Commas separate the preambulatory clauses from each other

Preambulatory Phrases:

Acknowledging Expressing its appreciation Noting with appreciation

Affirming Expressing its satisfaction Noting with approval
Alarmed by Fulfilling Noting with deep concern
Approving Fully alarmed Noting with regret
Aware of Fully aware Noting with satisfaction
Believing Fully believing Observing
Bearing in mind Further deploring Pointing out
Confident Further recalling Reaffirming
Congratulating Guided by Realizing
Contemplating Having adopted Recalling
Convinced Having considered Recognizing
Declaring Having considered further Referring
Deeply concerned Having devoted attention Reminding
Deeply conscious Having examined Seeking
Deeply convinced Having heard Taking into account
Deeply disturbed Having received Taking into consideration
Deeply regretting Having studied Taking note
Deploring Desiring Keeping in mind Viewing with appreciation
Emphasizing Expecting Noting further Welcoming
 Operative Clauses:

Each operative clause is numbered: 1, 2, 3, 4, ……

All operative clause and sub clauses are indented
The introductory word/phrase of each operative clause is underlined
The first letter of the introductory word/phrase is capitalized
Only a selected set of phrases can be used as introductory words/phrases
The following starters are only applicable to UNSC; ‘condemns’ , ‘demands’
This is because DISEC is a suggestive body and cannot take action
No introductory word/phase can be repeated in a resolution (but may be re-
used with the addition of "strongly" or "further" as in: "Further requests...")
Semicolons separate operative clauses from each other
Sub clauses are lettered: a, b, c, d, …… Sub sub clauses are numbered with
Roman numerals: i, ii, iii, iv, …….
Sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses are indented by using tabs, NOT by using
individual spaces (sub-clauses are tabbed once and sub-sub-clauses are tabbed
twice)
First letters of sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses are not capitalized
Single sub-clauses are not allowed
A period is used at the end of the final word of the operative clause

Operative Phrases:

Accepts Encourages Recommends

Affirms Endorses Regrets
Approves Expresses its appreciation Requests
Asks Expresses its hope Resolves
Authorizes Further invites
Seeks
Calls for Further proclaims
Calls upon Further recommends
Strongly affirms
Condemns Further requests Strongly
Congratulates Further resolves condemns
Confirms Hopes Strongly urges
Deplores Proclaims Suggests Trusts
Designates Proposes Transmits Urges
For grammar aficionados:

The resolution is one very long sentence. It begins with the committee (the
subject of the sentence), e.g. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
After the subject, come the perambulatory clauses. These are participle (or
adjectival phrases modifying the subject (modifying by describing the
committee's intent, motivation, and frame of mind in writing the resolution).
The operative clauses make the predicate of the sentence (i.e. describe the
action of the resolution); thus operative clause starters should be present tense
verbs in the third person singular.
The last operative clause should be completed with a period to mark the end of
the very long sentence.

General Points to note:

A GSL speech lasts 90 seconds, it may address any aspect of the agenda
The delegate may even use their GSL as an extended way to respond to
comments made prior in committee
Delegates are to speak in 3rd person by addressing their country as the core
voice; The delegate of the United States of America believes xyz………
One does not use personal pronouns in committee for the simple reason that
you are not a representative of your own views and personal biases, but the
views of the government that represents your country
Foul language is not permitted in committee and will lead to suspension
(baring)
It is important to enjoy the conference.
The EB will always be at your disposal for any assistance you may require.
 CRISIS EXPLANATION
Crisis is a fast paced, responsive simulation of countries and groups of individuals that must react
in the moment to pressing situations.

No matter the gravity of the crisis, whether the outbreak of a new epidemic or fighting over the
construction of a pipeline, a crisis simulation is meant to force delegates to think on their feet
and take quick and decisive, yet nuanced and informed actions.

Rather than a typical committee setting in which delegates must debate and work to pass a
resolution, in a crisis, actions are taken through directives and notes. It is important that delegates
take smart and well-reasoned actions as often as possible. Moreover, parliamentary procedure is
quite different as well. No more will the room be guided by a speaker’s list, but instead delegates
will be in a continuous moderated caucus or an unmoderated caucus.

A continuous moderated caucus means that whenever anyone would like to make a comment or a
speech, they must simply raise their placards and be recognized by the chair.

Directives and Notes

Directives-

These are mini-resolutions that address an immediate issue that is in the committee room on which
the majority of the members want to take action. These should not be as long or as complicated as
resolutions. In fact, the best directives consist of only short, operative-phrase-like clauses.
Directives must be submitted to the chair and then passed by a majority vote.

Directives can take the form of a simple directive, a press release or a request for information.
Press releases are used to impact the committee by revealing information to the public, perhaps
in an effort to calm them in times of crisis. Directives work to take specific, collective actions.

Requests for information are passed in order to have a speaker enter the room to present more
information on a specific problem linked to the crisis at hand. For example, the committee could
pass a request for information directive that asks for a doctor to elaborate on the transmission
mechanism and vectors of a disease.

Directives are usually given pithy names using puns or a play-on-words so that they can
easily be remembered, rather than being known as Directive A-1.
Example of a directive- Orders
for NATO Allied Command:

Destroy all Russian spy satellites using ICBMs from France, the United States
and United Kingdom; Increase troop numbers, and place them on high-alert
in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

--
OR–

Press
Release:
The Ad-Hoc committee sends a press release that
states:
o The disease outbreak in France is not linked to bioterrorism or a weaponized
biological weapon; o This committee is working to stop the spread of the contagion;

Crisis Notes- Crisis notes are the main line of communication between the crisis room, the people
who write the crisis updates, and individual delegates. Crisis notes can be simple questions regarding
information about the crisis update, information regarding the resources or abilities you have, or
information about some other subject.

However, crisis notes are more importantly used to take actions. Unlike directives, which are passed
by committees and therefore public knowledge, crisis notes are secret, unless you choose to tell
another delegate about what you wrote. The success of an action formulated in a crisis note depends
on how well it is written. Crisis notes should be folded up, have “crisis note” written on the back and
handed to the dais so they can be picked up and sent to the crisis room.

Content- Crisis notes should cover what action a delegate wants to take, when it should be taken, why it
is being taken, and how it should be taken. Notes can be addressed just to the crisis room; or if a specific
character has been introduced or given an update (such as a reporter, scientist, or business person) then
you can address a note to this person, provided that they could realistically accomplish the action that is
laid out. You should be VERY specific as leaving details ambiguous could cause the action to fail, to be
completedincorrectly,orworse,theactionbeleakedtootherdelegates.

Many actions may require a series of notes back-and-forth to the crisis room to be effective. Writing
notes is very helpful to the crisis room as it gives them materials to work with. However, make it clear
that your actions are important so as to not waste their time.

Typical Response Note-

The crisis room will work to quickly respond to each note, whether it is a question for more
information or details, a note simply stating your plans were enacted, or a note detailing the
consequences of your
actions. There are an infinite number of potential responses that could arrive: the plan
could be accepted and be successful, it could be rejected, or it could be accepted but have
unexpected consequences.

Example of a Crisis
Note-

To Crisis
Room:

I am Gary Peters, the Senator of Michigan, and I would like to immediately start a
congressional investigation into the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline between the Lower and
Upper Peninsula because Enbridge is at serious risk to cause an oil spill in the Straits of
Mackinaw, potentially endangering hundreds of miles of pristine Great Lakes coast,
and because Governor Rick Snyder has refused to force Enbridge to replace the
pipeline, despite earlier Oil spills that seriously damaged the Kalamazoo River. I
believe that Governor Snyder is in violation of several laws and must be held
accountable before his inaction causes a crisis that will affect the Great Lakes States
and Canada.

--
OR–

To Amy Duckworth, Special Reporter for the

Warsaw Daily

I, the delegate from Poland, would like you to leak an intelligence brief that determined
that the Russians were responsible for the recent hack of our nuclear power plant
because I believe that the Russians are the only country with motive and ability to
attack our infrastructure. Moreover, I want to leak this intelligence report from the
Polish government so as to force my allies to take actions against Russia, this is in line
with my government policy under the current government, which is quite anti-Russian.

Outline of a Crisis
Note-

I wish to do A at (insert time) because of B, C and D, so that I can accomplish E. When

should I use a directive and when should I use a note? You should use a directive for
an action which requires the cooperation of many delegates and that you want to be
public knowledge. Whereas, if you wish to keep your actions secretive you should use
a note instead.