top of page

Security Council


Session 1
By: Nicolás Montoya idárraga

Opening speeches:

  • French Republic: The IHRL and the IHL are equally important but should be adjusted 

  • Republic of China: States that the IHRL should be the priority at all times when a conflict is discussed. 

  • Republic of South Africa: The delegation seeks for world peace and the discussion of important security matters. 

  • Delegation of USA: The delegation considers that the law is impossible to be obeyed and that the warfare

  • Federal republic of Nigeria: Is pleased to be here and considers it difficult to stop their groups and wants to find a solution for this problem. 

  • Republic of Cameroon: Firmly beliefs that the IHL needs to be brought into question. 


Moderated caucus:

  • Republic of China: The delegation considers it important to do a review of the IHL (International Humanitarian Law) which has to do with the armed conflict, and the IHRL which is the human rights law which applies all times. The delegation brings an invitation to the other delegates to stop finding someone to blame and find a solution instead. States that theIHRL must be above IHL. 

  • United Kingdom: Emphasizes the order and difference between the types of laws and international treaties. The delegation thinks that understanding these differences would help to understand as well the different scenarios in which one has to be prioritized upon the other.

  • Swiss Confederation: This delegation, different to the others, highlights the similarities between the purposes of both programmes, suggesting that they work together. 

  • Republic of Cameroon: Doubts if those laws are really being applied in conflicts. 

  • United States of America: Highlights the importance to take into account that conflicts will always exist. 

  • United Kingdom: The delegation considers that the committee is out of context. The delegation proposes to center on just one topic. The delegation considers that it is important that the IHL and IHRL are different and they must continue to be that way, that is why the delegation was explaining the difference between the types of laws and treaties. Highlights again that the IHL and IHRL each must be used in different conflicts but not at the same time. 

  • Republic of Nigeria: The delegation states that it is not right to separate the IHL from the IHRL and brings the example of the conflict of Nigeria. France affirms that the IHL must be modified. 

  • Republic of China: Is concerned about the discussion. The delegation emphasizes again that the IHRL must be the priority because it applies at all times and states that the IHL justifies the killing of people. 

  • Republic of Cameroon: Wants to make clear that the Humanitarian Law is better than the IHRL. Even though the delegation questions both laws, now given the solutions that are being proposed, the IHL should be above the other.

  • United Kingdom: Brings up article 1 to the 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention and IHL is above constitutions. States that, contrary to what China said, defending the IHL would defend the lives of people. The delegate states that the committee must agree that the IHL should be prioritized in order to adjust the IHL so that the committee can come up with a solution to the current conflicts. 

  • Republic of South Africa: The delegation considers that both IHL and IHRL are important however, they are applied in different conditions each. 

  • French Republic: France brings up a question. This delegation affirms that both of them are important but asks the committee again to find a solution in how they relate to each other and how they are going to be improved. 

Session 2

Moderated caucus:

  • United kingdom: The delegation proposes to have IHL as the priority and take the definitions that are in the IA into the NIAC in order to fix the problem of the definition. The delegation also proposes to eradicate preventive legitimate defense and continue with the responsive legitimate defense which lets the people that use it continue to be normal citizens.

  • Republic of Cameroon: The delegation brings up the Ius Cogens, which prohibits the force, genocide, racism, apartheid and the unuse of the IHL 

  • Republic of Chad. The delegation brings up the difficulties that its nation is going through. Therefore, they ask the delegation to find a solution for the problem. 

  • Republic of France: States to be in favor with the delegation of the UK with defining the concepts because, in that way, it is easier for nations to apply the IHR and keep safe civilians which, according to the delegation, are the most important part. 

Session 3

Moderated Caucus

  • United Kingdom: The delegation starts the session by presenting the solutions to the problem.  First, the delegation starts by affirming that the IHL must be prioritized. Having this said, different definitions such as: Civilians, civilians participating in hostilities, foreign civilians participating in hostilities that are important for the solutions are set. After that, the delegation proposes: Several adjustments to the IHL along with the implementation of Ius Cogens for common citizens and judgments for  insurgent groups.

  • Republic of China: The delegation does a brief explanation of cultural relativism and affirms that the delegation of UNited Kinf¿gdom is not taking into account its importance when making decisions on international laws. China considers that is the reason why the IHRL must not be left behind. 

  • Swiss confederation: The delegation agrees with China because according to it, the IHRL covers and provides more security than the IHL does. 

  • Republic of Cameroon: The delegation states that the solutions proposed by the uNited KIngdom were pretty complete and the delegation does not understand why China does not accept the solutions previously mentioned.


State of crisis: 

There was an indiscriminate attack made by a mercenary group hired by Myanmar and happened in the territory of Cameroon. There was an use of non conventional weapons such as flamethrowers with the intention of causing damages and deaths to the Rohingyas (muslim minority). The mercenary group responded with 2000 civilian deathsuiñp. 


“Yes, Jus Ad Bellum would be irrelevant when talking about IHL” France.

“IHRL is not the priority during armed countries” United Kingdom.


“The Geneva conventions have ambiguities so the Delegation of China will not follow aspects that go against their beliefs” China.

bottom of page