CVHS MUN XIX

All position papers must be sent to our committee email:

capomunsc26@[Link]

Position papers will be due on January 2nd, 2026. Feel free to contact us with any questions

or concerns!

Introductions

Hey Delegates! My name is Shiloh Huang and I will be your head chair for the UNICEF

committee this year! I am currently a junior at Capo and this will be my 4th year in the Model

UN program! I have had a really amazing experience, being able to meet new friends and learn

how to be a better leader through this program. Outside of MUN, I love spending time with my

friends, going to the beach, and going to concerts. Some of my favorite artists include Frank

Ocean, Dominic Fike, Gracie Abrams, and Sabrina Carpenter. I also love watching movies in my

free time, La La Land being one of my all-time favorites. I can’t wait to meet you all to hear your

ideas. Don’t be afraid to reach out through our committee email for any questions or concerns. I

am looking forward to a great conference and best of luck!

Hey Delegates! My name is Ian Malesardi, and I’m so excited to be your co-chair for the

Security Council committee this year! I’m currently a junior at Capo and have been involved in

Model UN for 3 years. Outside of MUN, you can probably find me tiktoking on the football field

or leading epic dance battles at ASB. My flip flops let the dogs run free every single flip flop

Friday rain or shine. My favorite book is Overcoming by Michelle Obama, my favorite song is

the Star Spangled Banner and my favorite drink is Strawberry Rainbow Cloud Matcha. I am so

excited to meet all of you!

I.​ Background:

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the nature of armed conflict and

international security. Specifically, AI technologies are now being developed and used for

military purposes—ranging from autonomous weapons systems to cyber operations and

decision-making. While AI can enhance military efficiency and reduce human casualties, its

integration into armed conflict also raises ethical, legal, and strategic concerns. Autonomous

drones capable of identifying and engaging targets without human input, algorithmic

decision-making in command systems, and AI-driven campaigns illustrate how the line between

human judgment and machine autonomy is becoming increasingly blurred. These developments

risk escalating conflicts and lowering the threshold for the use of force. Furthermore, the global

competition for military AI supremacy, particularly among major military and political powers,

creates instability and undermines existing frameworks of international law and humanitarian

[Link] nature of AI technologies further complicates regulation, as tools designed for

civilian use can easily be repurposed for military advantage. The challenge at hand is how to

balance the potential benefits of AI with the imperative to prevent misuse, ensure accountability,

and preserve human control over life-and-death decisions in warfare.

II.​ UN Involvement:

The United Nations has increasingly recognized the need to address the implications of

artificial intelligence in military and security contexts. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs
 CVHS MUN XIX
(UNODA) and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) have hosted

discussions on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), emphasizing the necessity of

maintaining a level of human control over the use of force. While consensus has not yet been

reached on legally binding restrictions, these conversations represent critical steps toward

establishing international regulations. UNESCO and the Office of the High Commissioner for

Human Rights (OHCHR) have both emphasized the importance of aligning AI use with human

rights and ethical standards. The UN has called for a global framework on digital governance,

including mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and oversight of AI in warfare.

Furthermore, the UN has encouraged member states to increase information-sharing, promote

responsible innovation, and develop confidence-building measures to reduce mistrust

surrounding AI-driven military capabilities. Despite these initiatives, there are still many gaps in

defining and regulating AI applications.

III.​ Bloc Positions

A.​ African Bloc:

Many African nations are still in the early stages of adopting artificial intelligence

technologies, but they are increasingly aware of the risks and opportunities AI

presents for national and regional security. Due to limited infrastructure, funding,

and technical expertise, several African states rely on foreign powers and private

companies for AI-related defense technologies, which raises concerns over digital

sovereignty and potential exploitation. African Union (AU) member states have

expressed interest in developing continental frameworks for ethical AI use,

focusing on maintaining human control over autonomous systems and preventing

weak governance structures and ongoing internal conflicts make regulation

difficult. African nations generally support stronger international oversight to

prevent AI militarization and ensure equitable access to AI for development and

peacekeeping rather than warfare.

B.​ Asia-Pacific Bloc:

The Asia-Pacific region is one of the most divided when it comes to the military

application of AI. Countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India are

investing heavily in AI defense capabilities, including autonomous drones,

surveillance systems, and cyber defense operations. This rapid militarization of AI

has raised regional security tensions, particularly concerning the South China Sea,

Taiwan, and the Korean. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian and Pacific Island nations

tend to emphasize restraint and ethical regulation, fearing that AI-driven weapons

could destabilize already fragile peace conditions. Many regional players call for

international cooperation and transparency to prevent an AI arms race, while

balancing national security priorities with humanitarian obligations.

C.​ Eastern European Bloc:

Eastern Europe includes both NATO-aligned states and countries with close ties

to Russia, creating a complex geopolitical environment for AI use in warfare.

Nations like Poland and Estonia advocate for AI innovation in defense for

deterrence and cybersecurity, while simultaneously calling for NATO-wide ethical

standards. Conversely, Russia and its allies have been accused of advancing
 CVHS MUN XIX
disinformation, cyberattacks, and autonomous weapon systems, contributing to

regional instability. This bloc remains divided between states pushing for AI as a

tool of strategic defense and others urging for international treaties limiting its

use. The region’s ongoing conflicts highlight the urgent need for AI governance to

prevent escalation and ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.

D.​ Latin American and Caribbean Bloc:

Latin American and Caribbean countries generally focus on the peaceful use of

artificial intelligence and oppose its militarization. Most nations in this bloc lack

the resources to develop AI-based weapons but are increasingly concerned about

the global implications of AI warfare, such as cyber threats, misinformation

campaigns, and unequal access to emerging technologies. Organizations like the

Organization of American States (OAS) have encouraged dialogue on digital

ethics and security cooperation, advocating for the integration of AI in

peacekeeping, disaster response, and sustainable development instead of armed

conflict. This bloc tends to favor international regulation that restricts the military

use of AI and ensures that all nations benefit equitably from AI innovation.

E.​ Western European and Other States Bloc:

Western European countries, along with allies such as the United States, Canada,

and Australia, are at the forefront of AI research and defense integration. Many of

these states, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have invested

in developing AI-based defense systems but also advocate for strict ethical

standards and legal frameworks governing their use. The European Union has
 CVHS MUN XIX
called for global norms ensuring meaningful human control over AI in warfare,

while NATO continues to explore ways to maintain deterrence without

compromising humanitarian law. However, this bloc faces challenges balancing

innovation with moral responsibility, as well as managing growing public concern

about the risks of autonomous weapons and digital surveillance.

IV.​ Questions to Consider:

A.​ How is AI currently used in your country’s defense or security systems?

B.​ What stance does your country take on the use of autonomous weapons and AI in

warfare?

C.​ Does your country support international regulation or prefer national sovereignty

in AI military policy?

D.​ How can your country balance technological advancement with ethical

responsibility?

E.​ What role should private technology companies in your country play in ensuring

responsible AI development?

F.​ How can international collaboration prevent an AI arms race and promote

transparency in AI military applications?

G.​ What safeguards can be implemented to ensure “meaningful human control” over

AI systems in combat?

V.​ Works Cited:

increasing autonomy in the critical functions of weapons.

[Link]

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of

disarmament: Challenges and opportunities. [Link]

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2022). The human rights

implications of artificial intelligence in military applications. [Link]

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence.

[Link]

Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). How AI can be a force for good in international security.

Journal of Global Ethics, 16(2), 180–195. [Link]

Zeng, Y., Lu, E., & Huangfu, C. (2021). China’s approach to artificial intelligence governance.

AI & Society, 36(1), 59–77. [Link]

World Economic Forum. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of conflict: Global risk

analysis. [Link]