MARYMOUNT SCHOOL BOGOTÁ

MMUN X

INTERPOL

Presidents:
Luisa Barraquer Marymount School

José María Silva - Gimnasio Campestre

Topics:

Topic A:​ Massive surveillance on behalf of State’s secret agencies and police forces and it's
legal and ethical repercussions in a global society.

Topic B: ​Protocol for the prevention and response to mass shootings

 February 2020
1. Welcoming Letter

Dear delegates,
it's a great pleasure for us to have the opportunity of welcoming you to the tenth edition of
the Marymount School Model of United Nations. Beyond every complex legal affair, every
ethical or moral discussion, every resolution of the United Nations, there are humans, just as
you, trying to contribute in making this world a better place for every child, worker, woman,
etc. The present letter, is more than an invitation, is an encouraging message for every
delegate that’s coming to the committee, such as it was for us a very encouraging moment
when we got the invitation of being part of this experience. We believe in your capabilities,
and believe us when we say, we will be there for supporting every idea and solving every
doubt you may have during this great experience.

Sincerely,
José María Silva Abusaid & Luisa Barraquer

Luisa Barraquer
lbarraquer@marymountbogota.edu.co

José María Silva Abusaid

josemaria.silva@campestre.edu.co
 2. Introduction to the committee

The International Criminal Police Organization, also known as INTERPOL, is an

intergovernmental organization, which allows police forces from the 194 member countries
to work together by sharing access data on crimes and criminals, with the goal of making
the world a safer place. INTERPOL provides a communication service for countries to
coordinate networks of police and experts in different crime areas, and provides access to
databases where information of crimes and criminals is stored. This organization also
provides training to police officers, and fulfills investigative support such as forensics,
analysis, and assistance in locating fugitives across the world. All actions taken by the
INTERPOL are politically neutral and taken within the limits of previously existing laws in
each country.
 1. Topic A: ​Massive surveillance on behalf of State’s secret agencies and police forces
and it's legal and ethical repercussions in a global society.

A. Introduction to the topic

For every State, it is fundamental to provide security and protection to its population, and in
the same way is key and comprehensible for this State to constantly think and implement
tools to achieve the national interests.Every State has a set of goals, and for each of them,
the State might e implement a complex group of means. At a first glance, and of particular
interest for this committee the States through secret intelligence agencies, or secret security
organizations implements massive surveillance over (1) it's own population (2) foreign
countries and (3) supranational agencies.

When talking about the real controversy and relevance in this topic, the importance of the
perspective lies on having in mind the security as final end, and the massive surveillance as
a mean for achieving it. But, the great question lies on until which point does the security as
a final end justifies the implementation of a mean such as the massive surveillance (having
in mind it's legal implications and possible clashes with the right to privacy). By one side, is
crucial to ask for the effectiveness of those agencies, but the real question lies on that if the
international community should accept as fare a massive surveillance exercised by those
agencies. At this point, the importance lies on priorities for each delegation of the
committee, does this international or national security agencies effectiveness may have an
influence in the taking of decisions towards the limitation, eradication or supporting of
them.
However, supposing those agencies are really effective and that those organizations really
fulfill the ends of a national government, then it would be necessary to think about if the
ends justify the means, having in mind the several moral and ethical implications present. At
a glance is at stake the concept of freedom, and liberty, specially and existentialism
definition which talks about that your freedom ends at the same point that serves as start off
for the other ́s liberties, what makes us to ask for what right does a State have to violate a
fundamental human right in order to achieve a security? Remarking that surveillance will
not solve at one of the massive problems of insecurity.

What if the agencies at stake has not been effective in crime prevention, and by the natural
selection principle it is eradicated, what would happen? Dissolutions of intelligence
agencies may leave a huge number of people unemployed and with enough knowledge
about a country until the point it can turn against a State, nation, other agencies, and be an
agent of chaos or even more insecurity in the global community.

As a matter of fact, massive surveillance comes from the imperative need of the global
community States to warranty people's security, a security which it's constantly threatened
by certain individuals or minorities that operate under the shadows, for what is necessary for
the States not only to know who the people are, but also what they're doing.

In this order of ideas, the end is security, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's a
commonwell end, however one of the resources from States to achieve consistent in the
oberpassing of the privatelifes from individuals. So is it correct to transgress people's human
rights in order to achieve security?
Below are listed some of the most important treaties, agencies, conventions, parliaments,
among others, that may be relevant or useful in the historical background analysis and the
alternative solution propositions.
 Taken from the Eropean Union on surveillance -
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-surveillance-intelligence-services-vol-2_en.pdf
 B. Historical Context

The phenomenon of secret intelligence agencies practicing massive surveillance over the
collective is not new, and it didn't come with the arisen of the industrial or digital
technologies. This practice has several predecessors, and through time the debate between it,
and the moral and ethical principles of privacy, security, freedom and human dignity have
acquired even more relevance in the international community.

The chinese general Sun Tzu, famous because of his masterpiece “The Art of War”, was
also responsible for arguing in favor of that brilliant leaders and the good general that are
capable of acquiring intelligent agents as spies, assure great achievements. What allows to
ask about the relationship between the massive surveillance and it's incidence on the
development of a war.

From a long time ago the emperor Julius Cesár, had in every inch of the roman empire
presence of a surveillance web which objective was to notice every type of insurrection or
revolutionary intention, in order to inform the elite from Rome every phenomenon that
would require an answer from Rome. However, at some point, the surveillance got out of
the Cesar's hands, until the point he was unable to send a letter without having a messenger
reading it, and after all the effort that massive web was unable to avoid the death of Cesar at
hands from the enemies (BBC; 2015).

Also around the thirteenth century, the catholic church had an extensive surveillance web in
order to accuse, judge and condemn the acts of heresy and conspiration against the divine
majesty of God and it's institution on earth, the Church. Considering the importance and
power of the epoch, and it's similar role to the one of a State, one more time the surveillance
has been part of the State reglementations.

Even the popular French Revolution, which stranded at some point for the freedom of an
oppressed society, did have several committees focused on achieving the task of a
meticulous surveillance. They were known as “the Watchmen from Robespierre”. Their
objective, was to notify any type of conspiration so the forces would act upon it. Around
1793, the revolutionary government created twelve surveillance committees around all the
french territory, they had the power to identify, mange and capture any suspect without
having in mind it's history, origin, or condition. It existed multiple cases in which cruelty
reigned in the process, and also in most of the occasions people was arrested without any
strong evidence that justified the capture, making possible to notice one of the beginning
points for the debate between surveillance and security (Zurcher, 2015)

It's important to highlight, that the Industrial Revolution implied a revolution in terms of the
surveillance techniques and espionage tactics. Surveillance turned in a way of acquiring
data, not only about its own country, but also about some other States, what represented the
increasing of the data value, and possibly a beginning for the premise of that knowledge is
power.

In 1922, the United States of America, organized a conference on naval disarming which
took place in Washington with the presence of the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan.
During the conversations the japanese were spied in company with other members of it's
delegation, through the interpretation of codified messages between the ambassadors and its
origin country. Also, as a consequence of the east germany development and the founding
of the Stass (Intelligence Agency), it was possible for the US to negotiate with data in order
to achieve multiple agreements for taking advantage of the naval weaponry race.
It's remarkable to mention that not only Intelligence agencies were in charge of massive
surveillance networks, also two of the most popular secret police organizations. During the
Nazi Germany, under Hitler's orders, the Gestapo had the legitimate power to do whatever it
takes to assure the surveillance over some individuals, precisely over the Jewish
communities, and was partially that surveillance which allowed the Nazi regime to locate,
capture, torture and kill around six million of Jews. Moreover, inside the Soviet Union, the
Committee for State Security (KGB) played an important role in the identification of
revolutionary tendencies against the soviet regime, which was fundamental for the
eradication of the opposition inside the soviet territory.

However, also inside the US, which tends to be the principal escenario of espionage around
the global community, around 1929 the criptografia office was closed by the State Secretary
Henry Stimson who affirmed that the “Gentleman does not read other mens mails”. After
the second world war, the State necessities drastically changed, and for them was imperative
the establishment of a permanente massive surveillance web. As a matter of fact, during the
cold war surveillance was normal in the common life, remarking it's presence in the
countries of the iron curtain under soviet influence. For example, in Berlin, the Stassi
constantly surveilled it's people, for the oppression of any type of revolutionary movement
or insurgent actions. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the Stassi had around 91’000
employers in charge of the surveillance and espionage (Zurcher; 2015)

This massive surveillance practices entered to be a fundamental part of the US State

policies, and all laid summarized on the implementation of the Shamrock project, which one
of its bases lied on the checking of every telegram that enter or went out of the US. Years
later, with the cooperation of the National Security Agency (NSA) which collaborates with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
reconstructed the Shamrock project but using the technology of the new era. Also inside the
US, through the Minaret project achieved to conform a watchlist from citizens who may
have connection or tendencies to insurgent actions (BBC; 2015).

C. Current situation
Several experts may have an opinion on the previously mentioned crisis, however, since the
2014 dor Emmerson alerted the risk of engaging in massive surveillance in the next article:

“States need to squarely confront the fact that mass surveillance programmes effectively do
away with the right to online privacy altogether,” Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on
the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, told the General
Assembly body dealing with cultural, social and humanitarian issues (Third Committee)
during the presentation his latest report.

“Measures that interfere with the right to privacy must be authorized by accessible and
precise domestic law that pursues a legitimate aim, is proportionate and necessary,” he
continued, adding that he refused to “accept the analogy that sending an email is like
sending a post-card” as States’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights also extended to the digital world.

Mr. Emmerson has long emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in
government intelligence gathering operations. In 2012, for instance, he criticized the United
States District Court of Washington, D. C.’s “unjustified maintenance of secrecy” following
its decision to refuse Freedom of Information requests by a British organization on
extraordinary renditions.

In his current report on the protection and promotion of human rights while countering
terrorism, the Special Rapporteur conceded that the fight against terrorism remained a
critical priority and could, in principle, “form the basis of an arguable justification for
mass surveillance of the internet.” But, he stressed, bulk access technology remained
“indiscriminately corrosive” of online privacy and impinged on “the very essence of the
right to privacy.”

Mr. Emmerson called on all Member States involved in mass surveillance to provide a
detailed and evidence-based justification for the systematic interference of their citizens’
privacy and emphasized the need for “strong and independent” oversight bodies that are
“adequate for a review before these programmes are applied.”

“Individuals must have the right to seek an effective remedy for any alleged violation of
their online privacy rights,” he said.

Independent experts or special rapporteurs are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council
to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The
positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work”
(UN News; 2014)

Previously, in the quote, is illustrated the legal discussion around human rights,
transgression, sovereignty , State abuses, and some possible limitations, together with at
some parte the UN work that has been done for caring about this fragile topic without
entering to question internal countries policies about mass surveillance or even legal court
decision about the topic.

It's also relevant to mention that one of the most important implications lie on the clash with
human rights, such as it's presented in the next fragment of an article from the academic
Quirine Eijkman:
“​Furthermore, if people decide to file a complaint, the issue remains whether or not there is
a legal entity that is willing to listen to the complainant and adjudicate the issue in a fair
manner. From a human rights perspective these aforementioned dimensions of access to
justice could be perceived as the right to file a complaint and have an effective remedy
against an alleged infringement by the intelligence and security services. In addition, these
are key components of access to justice in relation to communications interception
However, the use of (indiscriminate) data collection, data mining, data profiling techniques
and hacking makes it challenging for complainants to establish a causal link between the
(secret) surveillance and the personal harm suffered.

This is generally considered to be a precondition for being able to claim one’s right. In
particular, human rights questions relate to the transparency of communications
surveillance programs as well as the efficiency of a remedy in a domestic context. For
instance, even though the Netherlands as an EU Member State is subjected to Union law,
intelligence and security services are exempted from this. However, this does not mean that
EU privacy and data protection principles do not apply or that meaningful enveloping
standards do not play a role Furthermore, Article 13 of the 1950 European Convention on
Human Right protects the right to an effective remedy, which also applies to so-called
(secret) surveillance for national security purposes. As the jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) states, the right to complain in a (secret) surveillance case
is recognised if the claimants, individuals or a group can demonstrate a personal interest
and the possibility of having suffered personal harm. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the
solution is based on the context of the complaint”​ (Eijkman; 2018).
The previous quote illustrates the value of data nowadays, and how does it have a direct
influence on people's life, and in fact, inside the contemporary market data has a value but
in most of the cases nobody does pay for your data.

Apparently for a vast majority of States, massive surveillance means more security,
however, does the massive surveillance really represent more security or instead a deeper
transgression of the right to privacy? Because if the international community decides to see
it, as the second case, then it would only represent an additional motivation for the
jailbreaking and insurgent movements.

In that discussion, would be fundamental to know if the security justifies the transgression
of individual human rights, and how a State through the perception and exercising of
sovereignty have the power to do it. Furthermore, ask for what elements does support a
State sovereignty with looks on legitimating the transgression of individual rights.

Furthermore, there does exist a logic under the State actions when violating the right of
privacy, for the State policies ‘​if you had nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear’.​
However, hidden or not, what right does the State has in order to have access to personal
information? Does the security really justifies the violation of this human right? Then,
where may be the value of freedom if an individual does not have the possibility to choose if
someone can or cannot see through their personal life?

Additionally to this, one of the principal academics claims lies on how States suppose the
surveillance is the solution for the massive belligerent groups conformation. From the
unfortunate attack on the World Trade Center, the war on terror turned into a major concern
for the international security, and multiple States of the international community believe that
a massive surveillance network will eradicate the implementation of terror around the world,
as a matter of fact, one of the direct consequences of 9/11 was the active participation of the
CIA in the surveillance of the migration outside and inside the US. That's why surveillance
may be considered useful, but not an exclusive alternative for the control of the masses and
the prevention of terrorist responses.

Two years ago, the main scandal concerning the mass surveillance was in the fact that
INTERPOL was victim of espionage from the german intelligence, which represents a new
perspective in the relationship not only between States, but also between, States and
international organization, and opens the door of a new terrorist or insurgent strategy which
allows the criminal transnational organizations to spy on the most stable and fundamental
entities of the world. What levase an immense space for the delegates to not only use this
topic as a case of study, but also to be capable of understanding that massive surveillance
may be a knife with a double edge.

However, there does exist a specific case which may bring to discussion several
implications about the topic, it consists in the FBI-Apple encryption dispute. About three
years ago was revealed on of the most polemical cybersecurity cases, and it had to do with
the revealing of FBI´s intentions of installing a “backdoor” on every iphone for surveillance
and content checking. Apple denounce the FBI's intentions, and refused to collaborate in the
unlocking of iPhones appealing to defend civil liberties, however months after that the FBI
without Apple's help achieved to unlock an iPhone without losing the information, and they
even got remote access to them. This means international security agencies and some State
organizations have the possibility of breaking inside your intimate life, see with who you
talk and what you say to them, being this situation only the tip of the iceberg

Suggested:
https://www.csis.org/programs/technology-policy-program/significant-cyber-incidents
 D. International and United Nations response

Beyond multiple law revisions, and technological investigations, ‘till the moment the most
relevant agreements and treaties supported by the United Nations and a major part of the
international community are listed below:

Convention on Cybercrime (2001)

Also known as the Budapest Convention, this is the first international agreement aimed at
reducing computer-related crime by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative
techniques, and increasing international cooperation.
Citation: E.T.S. 185
Status Information (summary; ratifications and accessions; declarations and reservations)
Full Text in English

Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime Concerning the Criminalisation of

Acts of a Racist or Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems (2003)
State parties which have ratified this protocol to the Budapest Convention are obligated to
enact laws to criminalize racist or xenophobic acts that are expressed or otherwise
communicated online.
Citation: E.T.S. 189
Status Information (summary; ratifications and accessions; declarations and reservations)
Full Text in English

Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
(2007)
This treaty expressly prohibits the use of "information and computer technology (ICT)" to
access child pornography (Article 21(1)(f)), to distribute child pornography (Article 30(5))
or to solicit children for sexual purposes (Article 23).
Citation: C.E.T.S. 201
Status Information (summary; ratifications and accessions; declarations and reservations)
Full Text in English

Most of the agreements done, are commonly focused on how the surveillance through the
digital systems are affecting the child rights, but what about the rest of the global
population? Also, it is reasonable to think that the treaties are in order to limitate the
massive surveillance, but in fact some may exist in benefit of the cooperation of multiple
intelligence agencies such as the next one:

The Lustre Treaty consisted in the secret signing of a mutual cooperation agreement which
established the sharing of data between the main “eyes” of the world, it was signed by the
US, New Zealand, UK, Australia and Canada. It was a consequence of the Edward Snowden
disclosure during 2013.

In conclusion, one of the answers with a great value may come from the awaited discussion
in this version of MMUN X, in the committee of the INTERPOL.
E. Relevant actors

For this section, it would be not too pertinent to think the only relevant actors on this topic
are the intelligence agencies, as a matter of fact, every State does have a responsibility in the
matter of legislation and regulation of surveillance, and on a global scale, the discussion
must be extrapolated to multiple United Nations organism (such as the Security Council) or
linked faction as the INTERPOL.

Below are listed the top 10 most powerful organizations in the world for further
investigation by the delegates:
● The MOSSAD from Israel
● The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) commonly known as MI6 from the United
Kingdom
● The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) of the Russian Federation
● The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States
● The Bundesnachrichtendienst or the Federal Intelligence Service is the foreign
intelligence agency of Germany
● The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of India
● Operating under the French Ministry of Defence, the Directorate-General for
External Security (DGSE) from France
● The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
● The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)
● The Ministry of State Security (MSS) is the security agency and intelligence agency
of China
Moreover, several States have been accused of committing cyber crimes and violating the
right to privacy, being part of the “Big Brother” surveillance phenomenon, and nowadays
they are present at the eye of the discussion, such as:
● The United States of America
● The Russian Federation
● Germany
● The United Kingdom
● Canadá
● Iram
● The French Republic
● The People's Republic of China

F​. ​QARMAS
1. At which point does privacy turns into a risk for a State stability and wellbeing of a
society?
2. How should the massive surveillance tools be limited?
3. Which is the importance of surveillance?
4. Does the security justifies the transgression of the rights such as the one of privacy?
5. Are necessary mechanisms to regulate surveillance? Which (legal, conceptual,
theoretical and practical?
6. Until which point is massive surveillance effective?
7. Hos is it possible to find a balance between surveillance and individual freedom?
8. Isn't massive surveillance associated with totalitarian governments? How to avoid it)
9. Which powers should the INTERPOL receive in concordance with the ethical, moral
and practical discussion around the topic?
G. Support Links

- State of Surveillance: Police, Privacy and Technology;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VkKeM-OK6g
- Safe and Sorry – Terrorism & Mass Surveillance;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9_PjdU3Mpo
- Main International Intelligence Agencies;
https://improb.com/best-intelligence-agencies-in-the-world/
- Surveillance by intelligence services:fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in
the EU;
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-surveillance-intelligence
-services-vol-2_en.pdf
- Criminal Intelligence;
https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Law-Enforcement/Criminal_Inte
lligence_for_Analysts.pdf

Bibliography:
● BBC, Zurcher, A (2015) Del Imperio Romano a la NSA: La historia del
espionaje internacional. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2019. Tomado de:
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2013/11/131101_finde_historia_del_espion
aje_amv
● Interpol (2019) About the INTERPOL. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2019.
Tomado de: ​https://www.interpol.int/es
● Improb (2019) The Top 10 International Intelligence Agencies around the
world. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2019. Tomado de:
https://improb.com/best-intelligence-agencies-in-the-world/
● FRA (2019) Surveillance by intelligence services:fundamental rights safeguards
and remedies in the EU. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2019. Tomado de:
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-surveillance-intellig
ence-services-vol-2_en.pdf
● UN (2014) Right to online privacy at risk as governments engage in mass
surveillance – UN expert. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2019. Tomado de:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/10/481822-right-online-privacy-risk-governme
nts-engage-mass-surveillance-un-expert
● UNODC (2019) Criminal Intelligence. Visto el 18 de noviembre del 2018.
Tomado de:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Law-Enforcement/Criminal
_Intelligence_for_Analysts.pdf
● Eijkman, Q. (2018) Revisión Legal de Utrecht. Access to Justice for
Communications Surveillance and Interception: Scrutinising
Intelligence-Gathering Reform Legislation. Visto el 18 de noviembre. Tomado
de: ​https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ulr.419/
4. Topic B: ​Protocol for the prevention and response to mass shootings

A. Introduction to the topic

Guns have existed for more than 650 years, and have been used in several different
purposes, but recently the amount of mass shootings around the world has increased. A
mass shooting, according to the organization RAND, is “​someone who kills four or more
people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (RAND,
2018). Around the world, there has been an increase in the amount of mass shootings per
year, which brings concern to the international community as it wishes to ensure the safety
of populations worldwide.

The reason for this increase in mass shooting is unknown, as there are many factors that
could cause this, but the international community, through Interpol, must take action to
avoid harmful consequences to populations around the world. This topic must be handled
with care, but it must be resolved as soon as possible to be able to ensure the safety of
humanity. Therefore, not only a response and prevention must be established, but to
understand the causes of this issue so they can be regulated to avoid any repetition of this
situation.

Mass shootings have three main variables that must be taken into consideration when
discussing them: the shooter, the people killed or hurt, and the weapons used. These three
categories affect and mark the outcome of the shooting. For example, in cases such as the
Las Vegas Shooting of October 1, 2017, where the shooter used 24 guns, all of them legally
obtained. This committee will be focused on two main things: first, the prevention of mass
shootings and what the international police force can do to ensure this, and second, the
creation of an international protocol for handling mass shootings, where civilians will be
protected.

B. Historical Context

Mass shootings have been happening all around the world for decades, but recently the time
span between them has decreased, causing a surge in mass shootings all around the world,
for example in the United States of America, where mass shootings often take place, the
surge was in the end of 2015, and shootings have been taken place more frequently since
then. There have also been shootings in countries such as Norway, Finland, France, Russia,
Germany and Canada, among others in both recent and past years. There have been some
important mass shootings in past years, such as the Las Vegas shooting of 2017 in which
more than 850 people were injured, which brought attention to the damage that shootings
can bring. Others like this include the mass shootings in New Zealand in 2019, where a man
killed over 40 people in a mosque. This type of incidents have gotten the attention of the
news, which have brought attention to civilians about how many people are affected by
shootings, furthermore pushing the international community to take action. Following is a
list of some mass shootings internationally, ranging from 1996 to 2017

February 2, 1996: Washington, United States of America. 3 killed, 1 wounded.

March 13, 1996: Dunblane, Scotland. 17 killed, 10 wounded.

April 28-29, 1996: Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. 35 killed, 23 wounded.

March, 1997: Sanaa, Yemen. 8 killed.

March 24, 1998: Arkansas, United States of America. 5 killed, 10 wounded.

April 20, 1999: Colorado, United States of America. 15 killed, 23 wounded.

April 26, 2002: Erfurt, Germany. 16 killed, 10 wounded.

March 21, 2005: Minnesota, United States of America. 7 dead.

April 16, 2007: Vancouver, United States of America. 30 dead, 15 wounded.

November 7, 2007: Tuusula, Finland. 8 dead, 10 injured.

February 14, 2008: Illinois, United States of America. 5 dead, 17 wounded.

September 23, 2008: Kauhajoki, Finland. 9 killed.

March 11, 2009: Winnenden, Germany. 15 killed.

April 30, 2009: Azerbaijan, Baku. 12 killed, unknown wounded.

November 5, 2009: Texas, United States of America. 13 killed, 29 injured.

April 7, 2011: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 12 dead, 12 wounded.

July 22, 2011: Buskerud, Norway. 68 dead.

April 2, 2012: California, United States of America. 7 killed, unknown wounded.

July 20, 2012: Colorado, United States of America. 12 killed, 38 wounded.

August 5, 2012: Wisconsin, United States of America. 6 killed, 3 wounded.

December 14, 2012: Newtown, Connecticut. 26 killed.

September 16, 2013: Washington, United States of America. 12 killed.

June 17, 2015: South Carolina, ​Charleston, S. C.,​ United States of America. 9 killed.

July 16, 2015: Tennessee, United States of America. 4 killed, 3 wounded.

October 1, 2015: Oregon, United States of America. 9 killed, 7 wounded.

February 25, 2016: Kansas, United States of America. 3 killed, 14 wounded.

June 12, 2016: Florida, United States of America. 49 killed, over 50 wounded

July 7, 2016: Texas, United States of America. 5 killed, 7 wounded.

January 29, 2017: Quebec, Canada. 6 killed, 19 wounded.

October 1, 2017: Nevada, United States of America. 58 killed, over 800 wounded.

November 5, 2017: Texas, United States of America. 26 killed, 20 wounded.

This are some examples, but the number of mass shootings internationally is a lot higher
than what has been listed before.

C. Current situation

Recently, countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United
States of America, have updated their gun control policies to avoid the repetition of this
situations, with varying degrees of success, but around the world there are still more than
857 million civilian owned guns.
 Taken from the Council on Foreign Relations -
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

Different governments around the world have different response protocols to mass shootings
that accommodate the needs of the nation in question, for example, in the 1990’s Australia
spent $500 million to buy back almost 600,000 guns, and in the seven following years gun
homicide dropped by 42%. Or the United Kingdom, which after the Hungerford massacre
Britain introduced the Firearms Amendment Act, which expanded the list of banned
weapons. Finally, another example is Japan, which has highly restrictive gun regulations,
which can be reflected in the countries low homicide rate, which is one of the lowest in the
world with just 3 deaths in 2015 due to firearms. Unfortunately, some protocols such as the
regulation of firearms of Norway, which require those who want to buy a weapon to be over
18 years old and to specify a “valid reason” for gun ownership, are proven ineffective, as in
Norway in 2011 extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people.

Despite this, the committee is seeking to create an international agreement for the
appropriate response and prevention for this type of situation, in which previously working
protocols may be included. The amount of people hurt or killed by incidents of this problem
are too great to be ignored, and the police force must take action to avoid deaths of civilians
or officers. Despite all actions taken, the amount of mass shootings continues to rise
throughout the years, for example, in the United States, in 2019 over 370 mass shootings
took place, while in 2018 there were 340, and in 2017, 346.

D. International response

The international community in response to this issue has taken no action yet, as only some
countries affected by this issue hare resorted to changing their gun control policies, such as
New Zealand, that after the mass shootings in 2019 reformed it’s gun policies to avoid
repetitions of the situation, and other countries have followed similar techniques. Other
countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have also taken action, such as
previously stated. protocols such as the Firearm and Sword Law in Japan, the Firearms
Amendment Act in United Kingdom, and the National Agreement of Firearms in Australia
are all examples of this, but the committee wishes to create one protocol for the
international community. Additionally, countries such as the United States of America have
given statements about their opinions and different solution to this issue, for example, in
August 5 of 2019 president Donald Trump gave a speech announcing his view on mass
shootings, which gow as follows:

“​First, we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs. I am
directing the Department of Justice to work in partisan — partnership with local, state, and
federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass
shooters before they strike.
As an example, the monster in the Parkland high school in Florida had many red flags
against him, and yet nobody took decisive action. Nobody did anything. Why not?

Second, we must stop the glorification of violence in our society. This includes the
gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for
troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop
or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately. Cultural change is hard, but
each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of
every human life. That’s what we have to do.

Third, we must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed
individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get
treatment, but, when necessary, involuntary confinement. Mental illness and hatred pulls
the trigger, not the gun.

Fourth, we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not
have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due
process. That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection
orders.

Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that
those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this
capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.​”
(Trump, 2019)

In this speech, the President states different solutions to the issue of mass shootings, this
lead to the creation of the Firearms Restraining Order Act, which consists in a system to
take guns from individuals deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But, it can be seen
that despite this law, mass shootings continue to increase across the world.

E. Response of the UN
The United Nations in response to this issue have discussed the importance of the topic, and
on the impact that hate speech has on this matter, but no action has been taken by this
organization yet. Apart from this, the United Nations has ​reviewed the progress of
organizations such as UNSCAR (United Nations Trust Facility Supporting
Cooperation on Arms ​Regulation) and UNODA (United Nations Office for
Disarmament Affairs) which handle procedures including the disarmament and
regulation of weapons, which specify specially on the disarmament of small arms from
society and on other types of disarmament on communities. UNSCAR is a United
Nations - managed fund supporting arms regulation, which aims to
​ obilize resources to support the ratification/accession and implementation of relevant
“m
international instruments on arms regulations; improve effectiveness of assistance through
coordination, monitoring and matching of resources; promote increased sustainability
through more predictable sources of funding.​” (UNSCAR, n.d.).
Second, UNODA is an organization that
“​provides substantive and organizational support for norm-setting in the area of
disarmament through the work of the General Assembly and its First Committee, the
Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament and other bodies. It fosters
disarmament measures through dialogue, transparency and confidence-building on military
matters, and encourages regional disarmament efforts; these include the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and regional forums.”​ (UNODA, n.d.)
 F. Relevant actors

In this situation, countries such as the United States and Canada are important since they
support the idea that automatic and semiautomatic guns should be available to civilians,
mainly for self-defense. This can be a controversial standpoint to other countries, as it allow
citizens an easier access to firearms, which some believe it directly increases the amount of
crimes with guns, and therefore an increase on mass shootings. Other relevant actors are
countries such as China, the United Kingdom, and France, which support more restrictive
gun policies, where only some types of guns are allowed under a special license and under
specific reasons, such as hunting. Additionally, countries like Russia which base parts of
their economy on the manufacturing and selling of guns, therefore rely on the exportation of
firearms, some of which are sold to civilians, to other countries for their sustainability.
Finally, other relevant actors are Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and other
countries which have implemented reforms and protocols for the prevention of mass
shootings, which must be taken into account during the debate.

Other important actors are organizations such as the UNSCAR, the UNODA, that work for
safer ownership of guns. Or associations such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) and
other similar groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of
America (GOA), and Constitutional Rights PAC, which believe in the rights of the people
of having guns for self-defense.
 G. QARMAS
1. What regulations does your country have against civilian gun ownership?
2. How has your country been affected by mass shootings?
3. What is the procedure your country has for handling active mass shooters?
4. Is your country involved in the production of guns? If yes, how much does it affect
your countries economy?
5. If it has, what reforms has your country done to its gun control policies?
6. Are there any organizations in your country that support civilian gun ownership?
What impact do they have?
7. Does your country believe that a reform on firearm policies will increase or decrease
the quantity of mass shootings?
8. What restrictions does the INTERPOL have when handling this matter?
9. What protocols does the police force in your country have to follow? What are its
restrictions?

H. Support Links
1. https://www.gunpolicy.org/
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-ame
rica/
3. https://www.kettering.org/wp-content/uploads/Issue-Advisory_Mass-Shootings.
pdf
4. https://www.un.org/disarmament/
5. https://www.un.org/disarmament/UNSCAR/
6. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
Bibliography

● Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to
secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and
effective policy advocacy. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://www.csgv.org/​.
● United Nations. (n.d.). UNSCAR: UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on
Arms Regulation – UNODA. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://www.un.org/disarmament/UNSCAR/​.
● Fox, K. (2019, August 6). America's gun culture vs. the world. Retrieved
November 17, 2019, from
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html​.
● United Nations. (n.d.). UNODA – United Nations Office for Disarmament
Affairs. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from​ ​https://www.un.org/disarmament/​.
● Berkowitz, B., Alcantara, C., & Lu, D. (2019, November 1). Analysis | More than
50 years of U.S. mass shootings: The victims, sites, killers and weapons.
Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-ame
rica/​.
● Cameron, D., & Granados, S. (2017, October 4). Mass shootings: How U.S. gun
culture compares with the rest of the world. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/​.
● Follman, M., Aronsen, G., & Pan, D. (2019, September 1). US mass shootings,
1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones' investigation. Retrieved November 17,
2019, from
 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full
-data/​.
● (2019, October 10). Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/​.
● Miltimore, J. (2019, February 25). The Myth That the US Leads the World in
Mass Shootings: Jon Miltimore. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/​.
● More, B. (2018, February 23). Mass Shooting Statistics - List By Year. Retrieved
November 17, 2019, from​ ​https://gunsources.com/mass-shooting-statistics-list/​.
● Mass Shootings: Definitions and Trends. (2018, March 2). Retrieved November
17, 2019, from
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html​.
● The 10 countries that export the most major weapons. (2017, February 22).
Retrieved November 17, 2019, from
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/02/10-countries-export-maj
or-weapons-170220170539801.html​.
● Fisher, M., & Keller, J. (2017). ​What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?
International Comparisons Suggest an Answer​. The Interpreter. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ab5336270e802ff969f9c0f/t/5d680b878fc0
7e0001713cc0/1567099784409/Webpage - FAQ's - Link The Interpreter - What
Causes Americas Mass Shootings....pdf
● Alpers, Philip and Marcus Wilson. 2013. ​Gun Control and the United Nations:
Small arms policy, firearm injury and gun law.​ Sydney School of Public Health,
The University of Sydney. GunPolicy.org, 4 April. Accessed 17 November 2019.
at:​ ​https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-nations
● https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/02/10-countries-export-maj
or-weapons-170220170539801.html​.
●
● Fisher, M., & Keller, J. (2017). What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?
International Comparisons Suggest an Answer. The Interpreter. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ab5336270e802ff969f9c0f/t/5d680b878fc0
7e0001713cc0/1567099784409/Webpage - FAQ's - Link The Interpreter - What
Causes Americas Mass Shootings....pdf
●
● Alpers, Philip and Marcus Wilson. 2013. Gun Control and the United Nations:
Small arms policy, firearm injury and gun law. Sydney School of Public Health,
The University of Sydney. GunPolicy.org, 4 April. Accessed 17 November 2019.
at: ​https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-nations
●
● Follman, M., Aronsen, G., & Pan, D. (2019, December 6). A Guide to Mass
Shootings in America. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/​.
● Gebelhoff, R. (2018, March 23). This is how we save lives from gun violence.
Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/gun-control-that-work
s/​.
● Infoplease. (n.d.). Timeline of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings. Retrieved
December 10, 2019, from
https://www.infoplease.com/history/world/timeline-of-worldwide-school-and-ma
ss-shootings​.
● Leaf, C. (2018, February 22). How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence.
Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/​.
● Masters, J., & Chatzky, A. (2019, August 6). U.S. Gun Policy: Global
Comparisons. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons​.
● Silverstein, J. (2019, January 2). What are the new gun laws in 2019? Retrieved
December 10, 2019, from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-the-new-gun-laws-in-2019/​.
● The White House. (2019, August 5). Remarks by President Trump on the Mass
Shootings in Texas and Ohio. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mas
s-shootings-texas-ohio/​.
● Wilson, C. (2019, August 7). Mass Shootings in the US: See 37 Years in One
Chart. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from
https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/​.