Disarmament and International Security

Committee

Agenda: Developing International Legal

and Ethical Frameworks for the Use of
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous
Weapons in armed conflict.
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2 A Message from the Dais 3 Basics & Beyond 3
Beginner’s Guide to the UN 4 Basic Structure of the UN 4 The UN General Assembly
Committees 5
The Disarmament and International Security Committee 6 Introduction and Powers 6
Historical Evolution of DISEC (and its Mandate) 6 Jurisprudence on the Mandate
7 4. Core Doctrinal Principles 7 Contemporary Issues and Challenges 8 Why
DISEC is Crucial to the Agenda 8
Procedural Background 9 Mandate of DISEC 9 Role of The Executive Board 9 Foreign
Policy 10 Nature of Sources and Valid Evidence 11
On the Agenda 13 Introduction to the Issue 13 Immediate Challenges Posed 13
Jurisprudence and Legal Frameworks 14 Real-Life Case Examples from Conflicts 14
Current Disputes on the Same 15 Attempts at a Solution 15 Strategic Objectives for
Major Nations 16 Ten Exemplar Sub-Agendas 16

A Message from the Dais

Esteemed Delegates,

A warm welcome is extended to each of you from the dais of the DISEC Committee at
the JBCN Model United Nations Conference, Borivali. It is an honor to have this
opportunity to facilitate an enriching and collaborative experience for all delegates.

This committee has been carefully designed to empower every participant, regardless of
prior MUN experience. A comprehensive Study Guide has been prepared with clarity and
accessibility in mind, ensuring that both beginners and seasoned delegates can engage
meaningfully.

The dais, led by your Chairperson, Shreeya Soni, and Vice Chairperson, Pehel Chitaliya,
is committed to fostering a space where ideas are heard, diplomacy is practiced, and
confidence is built. The focus remains entirely on your development, not just as delegates,
but as future leaders and critical thinkers.

Delegates are encouraged to step forward, engage boldly, and make this experience their
own. The dais is here to support, but this is your moment to shine.

Wishing you all an inspiring and transformative committee session

Sincerely,

Chairperson - Shreeya Soni

Vice Chairperson - Pahel Chitalia

DISEC Committee

Basics & Beyond

Beginner’s Guide to the UN
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization, which was founded in 1945
after the devastation of World War II, with the overarching aim of maintaining
international peace and security, fostering friendly relations among nations, and
promoting social progress, better living standards, and human rights. It replaced the
League of Nations, addressing its shortcomings by creating a more robust structure and
universal membership. Today, the UN has 193 Member States and operates as a central
forum for multilateral diplomacy, allowing countries to discuss global issues and
collaborate on solutions.

The UN’s core purposes, as outlined in Article 1 of the UN Charter, include:

1. Maintaining international peace and security.

2. Developing friendly relations among nations based on equal rights and
self-determination of peoples.
3. Achieving international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and
humanitarian problems, and promoting respect for human rights.
4. Serving as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these
common ends.

The organization is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in Geneva,
Vienna, Nairobi, and elsewhere. It operates through a network of principal organs,
specialized agencies, and programs addressing diverse areas such as health, education,
human rights, development, and humanitarian relief.

Basic Structure of the UN

The UN has six principal organs:

1. The General Assembly (UNGA): The main deliberative body where all Member
States have equal representation. It discusses global issues and adopts non-binding
 resolutions, except on budgetary matters.
2. The Security Council (UNSC): Responsible for maintaining international peace
and security. It has 15 members (5 permanent with veto power: China, France,
Russia, the UK, and the US, and 10 elected non-permanent members).
3. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): Coordinates economic, social,
and related work of the UN and specialized agencies.
4. The International Court of Justice (ICJ): The principal judicial organ of the
UN, settling legal disputes between states.
5. The Secretariat: Headed by the Secretary-General, it carries out the day-to-day
work of the UN.
6. The Trusteeship Council: Initially established to oversee the administration of
trust territories, it has suspended operations since all trust territories have
achieved self-government or independence.

Beyond these, the UN operates specialized agencies like WHO, UNESCO, IMF, ILO,
and programs like UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, each focusing on specific global
challenges.

The UN General Assembly Committees

Within the UNGA, six main committees deal with specific thematic areas:

1. First Committee (DISEC): Deals with disarmament and international security.

2. Second Committee (ECOFIN): Handles economic and financial matters. 3.
Third Committee (SOCHUM): Focuses on social, humanitarian, and human rights
issues.
4. Fourth Committee (SPECPOL): Deals with special political and decolonization
issues.
5. Fifth Committee: Responsible for administrative and budgetary matters.
6. Sixth Committee (Legal): Focuses on legal questions.

The First Committee, also known as DISEC (Disarmament and International Security
Committee), IS OURS. It addresses threats to global peace by focusing on disarmament,
arms control, and the regulation of emerging military technologies. AND crucially to us,
examines how developments in warfare (like autonomous weapons or AI in combat)
interact with international law and ethics.

DISEC debates are key in shaping global consensus and recommending actions to the
General Assembly (Refer Mandate).
The Disarmament and International Security Committee
Introduction and Powers
The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC), or the First Committee
of the UN General Assembly, addresses global peace and security issues. DISEC primarily
recommends actions to the General Assembly; it does not pass binding resolutions.
It can propose treaties, frameworks, or norms, which are then further negotiated by
specialized bodies or states.
DISEC collaborates closely with UN bodies like the UNODA and external mechanisms
like the CCW and GGE.
Its debates guide global diplomatic positions and catalyze multilateral dialogue on
pressing threats.

Historical Evolution of DISEC (and its Mandate)

Created in 1945 alongside the UN, DISEC aimed to prevent another world war by
regulating arms and strengthening collective security. It was initially focused on:

○ Nuclear non-proliferation
○ Chemical and biological weapons control
○ Outer space demilitarization

During the Cold War period, Deliberations were dominated by superpower tensions,
strategic treaties, and arms race dialogues. Post-Cold War, it’s mandate broadened to
cover: Small arms regulation
Non-state actor threats
Cybersecurity
Emerging technologies like Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS)

The Mandate is primarily based on:

○ UN Charter Articles (esp. Article 11)

○ General Assembly procedural rules
○ Past disarmament resolutions

DISEC remains a consensus-driven platform for shaping responses to global

security risks.
Jurisprudence on the Mandate

DISEC’s work is grounded in its interpretative authority under Article 11 of the UN

Charter. Although it lacks the ability to create legally binding judgments, it plays a vital
quasi-legislative role:
 ● It contributes to the development of customary international law by repeatedly
framing and discussing pressing disarmament topics.
● It often frames ethical and legal positions which influence more specialized legal
bodies.
● DISEC’s resolutions and debates help shape norms around technologies that
challenge existing humanitarian law—such as dual-use AI systems and AWS. ●
Its actions are often coordinated with:
○ The Sixth Committee (Legal)
○ The International Law Commission
○ Human Rights Council and ICRC
● DISEC can bring issues to the Security Council or recommend them for treaty
processes.
● Its jurisprudential strength lies in offering legal foresight where international
treaties lag.

4. Core Doctrinal Principles

DISEC’s role is guided by a set of enduring doctrines that mirror the UN’s foundational
objectives:

● Non-use of force (except under collective security measures in Chapter VII) ●

Multilateral diplomacy and global cooperation
● Protection of civilians and international humanitarian standards ●
Transparency and accountability in arms development and trade

AND, it respects principles such as:

○ The Martens Clause (customary protections even when law is silent) ○

Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions (respect and ensure
respect for IHL)
○ The Precautionary principle in dealing with unknown tech impacts

It supports ethical governance, especially in the face of emerging, ambiguous weapon

technologies. Ultimately, it upholds the idea of disarmament as peacebuilding, not
merely arms reduction.
Contemporary Issues and Challenges

5 major contemporary issues are-

● Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS): Debates include accountability, kill

decisions, and ethical boundaries.
● AI in warfare: Raises risks of unintended escalation, biased targeting, and lack of
 oversight.
● Cyberwarfare: Blurs the line between war and peacetime operations. ●
Weaponization of space and dual-use technologies complicate peaceful
exploration norms.
● Non-state actors gaining access to advanced weapons presents regulatory gaps.

Challenges include:

○ Absence of agreed definitions

○ Tensions between state sovereignty and global security needs
○ Strategic divides between major powers over regulation

Why DISEC is Crucial to the Agenda

The agenda of developing legal and ethical frameworks for AI and AWS directly engages
DISEC’s strengths, since it:

● Provides a multilateral forum for all states, not just technologically advanced
ones, to voice opinions.
● Serves as a norm-setting body even when no treaty exists.
● Can drive momentum for legal instruments by:
○ Recommending frameworks to the General Assembly
○ Proposing expert groups or treaty negotiation platforms
○ Referring ethical and legal matters to bodies like the Sixth Committee or
ICRC
● Balances the needs of security, innovation, and civilian protection. ●
Encourages early-stage governance before weaponization races escalate. ●
Empowers the international community to assert control over how emerging
military technologies evolve.
● In a fragmented legal landscape, DISEC builds consensus where none yet exists.

Procedural Background
Mandate of DISEC
Ahh DISEC, expanded to the “Disarmament and International Security Committee”, is the
First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Which means its OLD ASH,
standing ever since the UN does!). As delegates, you are stepping into the shoes of
diplomats who debate some of the most pressing global challenges here, primarily
revolving around disarmament, international peace, emerging military technologies, and
threats to security. It’s all quite fitting actually, since the Committee, formed in the
aftermath of the Second World War, meant to tackle the threat of nuclear annihilation AND
also all future technologies of war that were to come.

The Nature of DISEC is that of a plenary committee (i.e it Requests/Recommends

actions), which means every UN member stateALSO has an equal voice. While DISEC
cannot pass binding laws, it plays a powerful role in shaping global policy through
recommendations and resolutions. These can:

● Urge countries to reduce or control certain weapons

● Recommend that expert panels be created
● Call on other UN bodies (like the Security Council or CCW) to take specific
action
● Propose international cooperation, transparency, or codes of conduct ●
Suggest moratoriums or negotiations on dangerous technologies

Your task in DISEC is to think critically, debate responsibly, and build consensus. The
ideas and resolutions you pass here reflect what the international community could do to
address real-world threats. You are helping lead the conversation on how peace and
security can be protected in a rapidly changing world.

So get this: In DISEC, your words may not be law—but they can move the world in a
direction you wish!

Role of The Executive Board

SO you might feel daunted by the idea that there’s this bench of people who are going to
JUDGE you, my oh my! Thoughts like — “Who are these Judgemental Freaks of Nature
and what is their Job?” OR “ I could never speak freely in class, how on earth must I
manage when confronted by the gazes of these Strangers?” must plague you.

Rest assured, we are nothing like you expect (in a good way, I swear).
Let’s go at this question by question, or rather; Fear by Fear.
Who are We? — The Dais, The Executive Board, The Panel, and a dozen more names we
are called by. To You, We’ll be the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.

What’s our Job? — To Guide you. Yes, I would love to make this clear, that DELEGATES,
our job isn’t to merely Moderate, Mark and Monitor you. Our Primary goal? Guiding you
to better partake, help grind your mental gears, help you strategize, learn and then conquer
this intellectual exercise. Speak your hearts out, according to your portfolios, agendas and
policies, and we’ll keep correcting your course.

Foreign Policy
For this agenda, it’s crucial that you understand your country's history with
international disarmament, emerging technologies, and its stance on the use of AI
and autonomous weapons in warfare. Dive into past statements at the UN General
Assembly, CCW meetings, and national defence or foreign policy documents. Look into
how your nation has voted on resolutions related to lethal autonomous weapons, military
AI ethics, or disarmament protocols. Countries that often stand shoulder-to-shoulder may
strongly diverge on issues like “meaningful human control” or a pre-emptive ban.

In DISEC, even long-standing allies can become opponents—and vice versa—depending

on how security, ethics, and sovereignty intersect. So don’t assume loyalty. Know where
your country draws red lines, and where others might cross them. And also, where it’s
most desperate interests lie, for which it would go to any extent and negotiation.

Heed these words: grow eyes on the back of your head if you must—in this room,
politics may move quietly, but positions can strike hard. Be prepared, be principled, and
above all, be precise.

Here’s important links -

[Link]
und-on-laws-in-the-ccw

[Link]
overnmental-experts-on-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems-2025

[Link]
Nature of Sources and Valid Evidence
In even a simulation of DISEC, the nature of valid sources and evidence should
theoretically, mirror what real diplomats use at the United Nations: credible and official
sources made in the UN framework. However, since this is a school level MUN, a little
procedural clarification and relaxation is mandatory. Hence, here’s 5 Categories you can
refer to!

1. United Nations Sources (most credible)

● UN Resolutions (especially GA First Committee and Security Council) ● Speeches

or statements at the UN (e.g., from CCW, GGE meetings, or General Assembly
debates)
● UNODA documents ([Link])
● Reports by the UN Secretary-General or expert panels
● Geneva Conventions, CCW protocols, and other treaties housed under the UN
system
These are gold-standard sources. Cite them directly or paraphrase them in your
speeches and papers.

2. Official Government Statements

● Defense or Foreign Ministry websites (e.g., U.S. Department of State, India’s

MEA, Russia’s MoD)
● National statements at multilateral conferences (e.g., CCW meetings) ●
Military doctrine papers or strategy whitepapers (i.e Domestic Policies) ●
Press releases or official social media (if used with caution)

3. Academic and Research Institutions

● Think tanks like SIPRI, Chatham House, Carnegie Endowment, Brookings

Institution
● University research papers (preferably peer-reviewed or published by a research
centre)
● Policy briefs on AI in warfare or autonomous weapons

4. Multilateral and Legal Framework Resources

● ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) positions on Autonomous

Weapons Systems (AWS) and International Humanitarian Law ( IHL). ●
International Law Commission documents
● Tallinn Manual (on cyberwarfare but often referenced for AI/information
warfare ethics)
● Wassenaar Arrangement documents (on dual-use technology export controls)
5. Media Sources (with limits)

● Major global newspapers (e.g., The Guardian, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, NYT) ●
Specialised media (e.g., Just Security, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy) ● Use them
to support timelines, current positions, or developments—not as legal authority.

Sources to Avoid

● Wikipedia (for citations, though useful for leads)

● Blogs or unofficial commentary without citation
● AI-generated content (unless clearly supported by sourced material) ●
Satirical or partisan news sources

On the Agenda
Introduction to the Issue
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are
reshaping the conduct of warfare. These technologies can operate with minimal or no
human intervention, potentially making split-second decisions on targeting and
engagement. While they promise operational efficiency and reduced human risk, they also
raise profound legal, ethical, and humanitarian concerns. The challenge lies in ensuring that
the integration of AI into armed conflict remains consistent with International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, such as distinction, proportionality, and necessity,
while addressing accountability gaps. This agenda aims to guide the creation of a coherent
international framework to regulate such technologies before their widespread deployment
becomes irreversible.

Immediate Challenges Posed

● Lack of Universal Definitions: Nations lack consensus on what constitutes a
LAWS or "meaningful human control." This ambiguity hinders effective
regulation.
● Accountability Gaps: Determining responsibility when autonomous systems
commit violations—whether with programmers, manufacturers, or
commanders—remains unresolved.
● Compliance with IHL: Ensuring LAWS follow principles like distinction
between combatants and civilians, and proportionality in attacks, is technically
challenging.
● Ethical Concerns: AI-driven warfare risks dehumanizing conflict, reducing
empathy, and making lethal decisions purely data-driven.
● Cyber Vulnerabilities: AI-enabled LAWS are susceptible to hacking, spoofing,
and data poisoning, potentially turning weapons against their own operators. ●
Escalation Risks: Rapid, automated decision-making could lead to unintentional
escalation in volatile scenarios.
● Unequal Technological Access: A tech divide may empower certain nations
while leaving others defenseless, destabilizing global security.
Jurisprudence and Legal Frameworks
Current legal discourse on AI and LAWS draws from established international law and
past tribunal experiences:

● International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Found in the Geneva Conventions

(1949) and Additional Protocols, it forms the core framework for regulating
armed conflict and ensuring civilian protection.
● International Court of Justice (ICJ): Issues advisory opinions and judgments
on the legality of weapon use, guiding state conduct.
● International Criminal Court (ICC): Prosecutes individuals for war crimes,
 crimes against humanity, and genocide, potentially applicable to misuse of
LAWS.
● International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Provided
precedents on command responsibility and targeting decisions that can inform
LAWS accountability.
● Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW): Seeks to restrict or ban
weapons deemed excessively injurious or indiscriminate; ongoing talks include
LAWS.
● Customary International Law: Longstanding principles such as distinction and
proportionality apply regardless of technology.
● Human Rights Law: Especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to life, may influence LAWS regulation
in peacetime and wartime.
● National Legislation: Countries like the United States, Russia, and China have
varying domestic policies on autonomous weapon development.
● Emerging Soft Law: Non-binding resolutions and codes of conduct, such as
those proposed by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
(UNIDIR).
Real-Life Case Examples from Conflicts
While fully autonomous weapons are not yet widely deployed, semi-autonomous systems
offer cautionary lessons:

● Loitering Munitions in Libya (2020): UN reports suggest that Turkish-made

Kargu-2 drones may have autonomously targeted combatants, raising
accountability questions.
● Israel’s Harpy Drone: Designed for autonomous targeting of radar emitters,
operating without real-time human oversight.
● US Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System): Capable of autonomous
operation to intercept incoming missiles; while defensive, it sets precedent for
offensive autonomy.
● Russia’s Uran-9: Deployed in Syria, faced operational failures including loss of
communication links—highlighting reliability risks.
● Autonomous Border Defense Systems: South Korea’s SGR-A1 robot sentry is
semi-autonomous but capable of autonomous lethal fire.

Current Disputes on the Same

The debate on AI and LAWS regulation is deeply polarized. Some states, including
Austria and Costa Rica, advocate for a preemptive ban, arguing that machines should
never have life-and-death power. Others, such as the United States, Russia, and Israel,
resist binding restrictions, favoring national discretion and innovation freedom. China
supports regulation but opposes an outright ban, emphasizing the dual-use nature of AI.
Non-governmental organizations like the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots push for a
legally binding treaty under the CCW. Disagreements persist on “meaningful human
control,” with some arguing it requires real-time human decision-making, while others
accept pre-programmed constraints as sufficient. The lack of consensus risks a
fragmented global approach, potentially enabling an arms race in autonomous weapon
development.
Attempts at a Solution
● CCW Group of Governmental Experts (GGE): Ongoing discussions to define
LAWS and explore regulation or prohibition.
● Regional Initiatives: African Union calling for precautionary approaches to AI in
warfare; European Parliament pushing for bans on fully autonomous weapons. ●
UNIDIR Research & Recommendations: Developing soft-law principles like
accountability, transparency, and risk assessment.
● National Policies: The US Department of Defense’s Directive 3000.09 sets
guidelines for autonomy in weapon systems, requiring senior-level review. ● Track
1.5 Diplomacy: Combining official state talks with expert workshops to bridge
positions between opposing blocs.
● Ethical Codes by Tech Companies: Firms like Google have withdrawn from
certain defense AI projects after ethical pushback.

Strategic Objectives for Major Nations

● United States: Maintaining technological superiority, ensuring preserving
operational flexibility, and preventing adversaries from gaining an edge. ●
Russia: Expanding preserving deterrence capabilities, projecting power, and
integrating LAWS into hybrid warfare strategies.
● China: Protecting national security, promoting AI development leadership, and
preserving influence in international rule-making.
● European Union: Upholding protecting human rights standards, promoting
multilateral agreements, and ensuring AI use aligns with humanitarian law. ● Israel:
Preserving qualitative military edge in a volatile region while defending its
innovation-driven defense sector.
● India: Balancing protecting security needs with non-alignment diplomacy,
ensuring safeguards against misuse.
 ● Middle Eastern States: Preserving internal stability through surveillance AI
while seeking parity with regional rivals.

Ten Exemplar Sub-Agendas

1. Establishing a binding definition of LAWS under the CCW.
2. Creating mandatory “meaningful human control” standards for AI in warfare.
3. Mandating AI system audits to ensure compliance with IHL. 4. Banning fully
autonomous weapons incapable of distinguishing civilians. 5. Instituting an
international licensing regime for LAWS export and development. 6. Establishing
rapid-response mechanisms for LAWS malfunctions in conflict zones.
7. Developing international AI ethics training for armed forces. 8. Creating a UN-
supervised incident reporting system for LAWS engagements. 9. Enforcing
liability rules on states and corporations for LAWS misuse. 10. Drafting
transitional “moratorium” measures until consensus is reached.