LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Greetings Delegates!

It is our pleasure to welcome you to the simulation of the General Assembly- DISEC of the
United Nation’s at the GEHU MUN 2018.

In this committee we shall be discussing a very challenging and common subject in today’s
time- DELIBERATION ON CYBER SECURITY AND CYBER TERRORISM. The increase in number of
these activities is the major concern at present for the international community.

This background guide will provide you a brief overview of the committee and the agenda.

Please note that this background guide is in no way meant to be an exhaustive guide on the
subject, but merely a stepping stone for the rest of your research, which you are, expected to
undertake yourself.

Delegates are supposed to accumulate all the basic knowledge about their own countries as
well as, be aware about the basic international policies. Large emphasis should be upon their
country’s foreign policies and its government’s stand on the issue at hand.

Finally, we on the executive board are at your disposal if you are to have any questions.

We look forward to seeing you and having a constructive conference.

Thanks and Best Regards!

Mohit Charan (Chairperson)

Ambika Kapoor (Vice-Chairperson)

RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. LANGUAGE
English will be the official and working language of the conference.
2. STATEMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
At any time any member of the executive board may make an oral or written
statement or announcement to the committee regarding an update of their topic.
Such an announcement is not questionable.
3. GENERAL POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
The Chairperson will declare the opening and closing of each meeting and may
propose the adoption of any procedural motion at his or her discretion. During debate
or moderated caucus the Chairperson has absolute control over the proceedings. The
Chairperson will direct the flow of formal debate, accord the right to speak, put
questions before the committee, announce decisions, rule on points of order and
ensure and enforce the observance of these rules. The other members of executive
board may advice individual delegates or the committee on the possible course of
debate.
4. APPEAL
Delegates are free to appeal any decision made by the Chairperson. However, it is the
Chairperson’s prerogative to accept or reject any appeals.
5. ON DEBATE
Once the agenda has been set, debate begins, and we start debate with the Speaker’s
List. Now the way committee works is that you put your name on the Speaker’s List
(usually, the Chairperson asks the delegates to raise their placards in the beginning).
In the Speaker’s List each member nation gets control of the mike for a full one minute
(the tie can be changed for motioning for the same) which is followed by either a yield
(explained in rules governing speeches) or the floor is thrown open to two comments
(from other member nations) which refers directly to the points made in that
speaker’s time. Therefore, those whose names are on the speaker’s list control the
flow of debate. To counter this, delegates may motion for a Moderated Caucus on
specific parts of the topic area.
6. DEBATE
In terms of conventional committee, after the agenda has been determined, one
continuously opened speaker’s list will be established for the purpose of the general
debate. The speaker’s list will be followed for all debate on the topic area except for
procedural motions, amendments or the introduction of the resolution or amendment
in the event of an international crisis suspend the list.
 Debate may be carried out through:
a) General Speaker’s List (Formal Consultation)
b) Moderated Caucus (Informal Consultation)
c) Unmoderated Caucus (Informal Consultation)
7. GENERAL SPEAKER’S LIST
The General Speaker’s List which is a part of the formal consultation is open
throughout the discussion of the topic area. Motions to open any other medium of
debate will not close the General Speaker’s List, but will only overlap or suspend it for
the required time. Hence, if your country is in queue to speak on it and another
medium of debate is opened, your country will remain in that position once the
General Speaker’s List is returned to. General Speaker’s List is ordered on a first come
and fist serve basis provided that their name is not already on the list. Anything within
the scope of the topic area may be discussed. The General Speaker’s List may never be
closed along the whole duration of the conference.
8. MODERATED CAUCUS
The purpose of moderated caucus is to facilitate substantive debate at critical
junctures in the discussion. The approval of such a motion rests entirely in the hands
of the Committee and is not subject to appeal. During a moderated caucus, the
Chairperson will suspend the General Speaker’s List and may recognize on delegates
to speak at his/her discretion. A moderated caucus is opened for a specific sub-topic
and a specified time. During a moderated caucus, try to precise and on point. As far as
possible, refrain from going to the immediate, specific sub-topic.
9. UNMODERATED CAUCUS
This is essentially an informal discussion amongst delegates, has no procedural rules
and dialogue is not moderated by the executive board. Delegates generally use it to
formulate working papers or resolution. It must be motioned for and it does not
require a purpose but it does require a specific time.
10. SUSPENSION OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SESSION
When the floor is open, a delegate may move to suspend or adjourn the meeting, shall
only be in order once three quarters of the time allotted for the last meeting of the
committee has lapsed.
11. CLOSURE OF DEBATE
When the floor is open a delegate may move to close a debate on a substantive or the
procedural matter under discussion. The discretion of the Executive Board shall apply
in order to decide said procedure for the closure of the debate.
12. RIGHT TO REPLY
A delegate whose personal or national integrity has been affronted by that of another
delegate, within the scope of formal debate, may request the Chairperson or the
similar equivalent for the right to reply. If approved by the Chairperson or the
equivalent the respective delegate could be severely reprimanded and may possibly
excluded for a limited time from further committee proceedings. Delegates are
requested to employ the right to reply with the utmost discretion.
13. PROOF/ EVIDENCE ACCEPTED IN THE COMMITTEE
A. NEWS SOURCES
REUTERS- any reuter’s article which clearly makes a mention of the fact stated or is
contradiction of the fact being stated by another delegate in council can be used to
substantive arguments in the committee.

STATE OPERATED NEWS AGENCIES- these reports can be used in the support of or
against the state that owns the news agency. These reports if credible or
substantial enough, can be used in support of or not as any country as such but in
that situation, they can be denied by any other country in the council. Some
examples are:
RIA Novosti (Russia) http://en.rian.ru/
IRNA (Iran) http://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htm
B. GOVERNMENT REPORTS
These reports can be used in a similar way as the state operated news agencies
reports can in all circumstances be denied by another country. However a nuance
is that a report that is being denied by a certain country can still be accepted by
the executive board as a credible information.
POINTS
1. POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Whenever a delegate experiences personal physical discomfort, which impairs
him/her from taking part in the proceeding, he/she may rise to a point of personal
privilege, so that the discomfort may be corrected. Such a point may interrupt a
speaker and so should be used with the utmost discretion.
2. POINT OF ORDER
During the discussion of any matter a delegate may rise to a point of order to point
out any statement by any other delegate which may be out of order or improper in
terms of factual representation. It is not applicable on opinions and beliefs and must
be backed by requisite proof. This point may be raised only when the executive board
allows and is completely suspended within informal consultation.
3. POINT OF ORDER TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
If at any point of time the executive board commits any inaccuracy in the rules of
procedure or commits a factual inaccuracy in any statement, a point of order can be
raised against the executive board to correct the inaccuracy.
4. POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY
When the floor is open, a delegate may rise to a point of parliamentary enquiry to ask
the chairperson a question regarding the rules of procedure. This however may never
interrupt a speaker.
 AGENDA: DELIBERATION ON CYBER SECURITY AND CYBER
TERRORISM
A. COMMITTEE BACKGROUND
The Disarmament and International Security Committee deals with global
challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks
out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime. It considers all
disarmament and international security matters within the scope of the Charter or
relating to the powers and functions of any other organ of the United Nations; the
general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and
security, as well as principles governing disarmament and the regulation of arms;
promotion of cooperative arrangements and measures aimed at strengthening
stability through lower levels of armaments. Founded in 1945, DISEC has been
involved with security threats, nuclear weapons, and arms deals for over 70 years.
Today, it continues to make the world safer, in spite of the growing security
concerns in the modern age.
B. TOPIC OVERVIEW: RISE OF INTERNATIONAL CYBER WARFARE
There is some debate as to the validity of the term cyber warfare. An act of cyber
war would, according to some, have to be lethal, political, and instrumental to be
considered war. Currently, what we refer to as cyber warfare could be classified as
spying, subversion, and sabotage. For the purposes of this committee, it is
recommended that delegates include spying, subversion, and sabotage within the
admittedly loose definition of cyber war.

Historically, DISEC has been committed to removing stockpiles of weapons of mass

destruction, preventing states from developing said weapons of mass destruction,
and ensuring that those who possess these weapons slowly shrink their stockpiles.
While cyber warfare is nowhere near as destructive, this threat is a unique and
difficult one to diffuse. States do not need a facility full of centrifuges to create
electronic attacks; a country’s stockpile can fit in someone’s pocket, and once a
weapon is made, there is no way to be sure a state has truly destroyed the last
copy.

Some feel cyber warfare shows promise, as it is a method countries can use to
attack each other with significantly fewer casualties. In response to this, others
feel that the lives lost will primarily be citizens who are not engaged in conflict,
while casualties of traditional wars include soldiers. An example of how electronic
 warfare may affect citizens more is remote interference with modern cars’
computers, transferring control of the vehicle

Other uses for cyber warfare are more intriguing. If, for example, a foreign power
were to shut down interact in Canada, many people will not have the ability to buy
food, gasoline, and other necessities. This will not only displease citizens and
create dissent for the government, but will also stunt the economic growth needed
to keep a war functioning. Citizens are not the only ones at risk: a breach in
security may reveal troop placements in traditional war, and may result in
immense casualties. A similar breach in a military’ s logistics and finance may
prevent them from purchasing more vital supplies, such as ammunition or food,
and could also disrupt delivery, resulting in supplies being dumped in the middle of
a desert instead of a military base.’
C. BLOC POSITIONS
1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America is the largest military superpower in the world, and
will take any measure necessary to ensure that their dominance is uncontested in
any field. In addition to this, America, as a developed country, some reports have
stated the power grid may be vulnerable to an attack, and while many methods to
attack other nations have been created, attempts to fix any vulnerability are
extremely common, as evidenced by unending patches and versions released on
operating systems and programs. These established pieces of infrastructure are
not invincible, as there is almost always another way to exploit a system. One
notable policy the United States has adopted is the five pillars, which outlines how
America should prepare itself for internet-based attacks. The main points are
recognition, active defense, defense of critical infrastructure, collective defense,
and maintenance of advantage.

2. RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Russia’s program for espionage and cyber warfare is developed, but larger attacks
have remained out of the public’s attention. Allegations against Russia include
internet surveillance, denial of service attacks, spreading propaganda and
disinformation, and distribution of harmful malware. Russia is third in the world in
total military spending, and clearly has not overlooked or underfunded computer-
based conflict.
 3. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Cyber warfare in China is a controversial topic. Officials in the United States, India
and other countries have reported numerous occasions when Chinese hackers
have allegedly attacked other countries, but the Chinese government denies this
vehemently. The issue is complicated by private organizations in China, which are
dedicated to international espionage. Overall, China’s main cyber warfare target is
the United States of America, with a reported 61,000 cyber-attacks carried out
between the two countries since 2009. This conflict is nearly unavoidable, as both
countries desperately wish to showcase their technological might on the world
stage. Ultimately, although China continues to deny its use of cyber warfare, it is
abundantly clear that various forms of online espionage are being utilized by the
country’s government and its private organizations on a daily basis.

D. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS

War is a state of armed conflict, intended to drain, destroy or harm a group or
state’s resources. Cyberwarfare is fascinating, as often the end goal is not to
directly harm or destroy something of value, but rather to gain an advantage from
it. In this sense, many acts we would categorize as cyber war are often not war, as
they are not direct attacks. There are exceptions to this, and they are few in
proportion to the other acts in this category, and are likely to grow in proportion
over time. For these reasons, electronic conflict should be seriously taken into
consideration. A valid point often made is that computer based warfare benefits
developed states. This is due in part to their integration of the internet into their
society and culture. As a result of this, more sophisticated systems have more
sophisticated countermeasures against attacks. This means that, in terms of cyber
warfare, developed states are both the ones attacking and being attacked.
QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1. Should cyber warfare be embraced as a part of war or should it be

discouraged?
2. How are cyber-attacks to be handled by the international community?
3. How should states act towards private organizations engaging in cyber warfare
abroad?
4. Should DISEC prevent countries from developing their cyber warfare
programs?
5. How can DISEC prevent countries from developing their cyber warfare
programs?
6. Can an attack of this nature be considered an act of aggression?
7. How this act be handled if its anonymous?
8. Should cyber warfare be accepted as a component of modern conflict or is it to
be discouraged?