- Home
- Leadership Team
- Forums
- Conference Information
- Contact Us
- Media
- About Dubai
-
Previous Conferences
- ASDMUN 2022 >
- ASDMUN 2021 >
- ASDMUN 2020 >
- ASDMUN 2019 >
-
ASDMUN 2018
>
-
Forums
>
- General Assembly >
- Arab Council >
-
Human Rights Commission
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Addressing the human rights violation surrounding the Rohingya refugee crisis in Myanmar
- Developing a detailed framework for the regulation of genetic manipulation within the human genome
- Developing an established framework for the right to practice religious freedom in Western European nations
- Economic and Social Council >
- International Court of Justice >
-
Environmental Commission
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Adressing the safety and security of Nuclear Power Plants and Waste, specifically with dealing with the dangers of increased natural disasters.
- Mitigating the detrimental effects of factory farming on climate change
- Promoting the transition from fossil fuel dependancy to the use of renewable energy
- Security Council >
- Conference Details
- Leadership Team >
-
Forums
>
-
ASDMUN 2017
>
- Home
- Leadership Team
- Director's Note
-
Forums
>
- General Assembly >
-
Security Council
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Addressing recent nuclear escalation in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea
- Measures to stop the growth of terrorist networks in Africa, namely Boko Haram and Al Shabaab
- Preventing the spread of terrorism through lone wolf informants and sleeper cells, with special regard to the Islamic State
-
Human Rights Commission
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Creating a framework for the protection of international whistleblowers
- Creating a unified response,in accordance with the Responsibility to Protect, to the persecution and killing of suspected drug traffickers in Southeast Asia.
- Examining corporations’ obligations to preserve human rights in regards to child labour
-
Arab Council
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Addressing the basic needs of Syrian Refugees in Lebanese Refugee Camps
- Taking preventative measures to undermine the economic network of the Islamic State and the distribution of arms to the Islamic State
- Negotiating a peaceful solution to the conflict between Saudi Arabia and a post nuclear deal Iran.
- Economic and Social Council >
-
Environment Commission
>
- Meet the Executive Team
- Finding feasible fresh-water alternatives to desalination in the Middle East in order to restore peace to marine ecosystems
- Strengthening efforts pertaining to the preservation of the Amazonian rainforest to protect indigenous wildlife
- General Assembly >
- Tackling the effects of ocean acidification as a result of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
-
ASDMUN 2016
>
Nuclear development in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has significantly escalated in recent months, with tests in April and September of 2016, as well as those earlier this year displaying the country’s ability to miniaturise a nuclear warhead and develop a full scale hydrogen bomb capable of destroying an entire American city.
At this time, the DPRK has been able to achieve weapons-grade Uranium, and in some cases, Plutonium. These are key components of the large scale mass-production of nuclear weapons. As the nuclear program works towards the replicable, sustainable miniaturisation of these weaponised nuclear devices, international rhetoric increases in intensity. US President Donald Trump has promised to use military force against the DPRK if needed, while the DPRK has continuously retorted with equal, if not more aggression. The graphic below (courtesy of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies) illustrates the development of weapons in the DPRK.
Both the P5 nations and the global community at large have condemned North Korean tests and the nation’s bellicose rhetoric, but the DPRK continues to develop its nuclear arsenal. The most powerful of the North Korean missiles have a range of over 6000 km, reaching as far as Australia and the West Coast of the United States. This long-range nuclear capability combined with negative propaganda within the DPRK has resulted in both an increase in belligerent sentiment in the country itself and a significant heightening of tensions in the international community as a whole. In one instance, the DPRK actually fired missiles over Japanese territory in an unsolicited display of force. While some nations make clear that their willingness to remain uninvolved in discussions is solidified, others have taken on more prominent roles in negotiations with the DPRK. What is clear now is that economic and social sanctions against the DPRK are not as effective as the Security Council would have hoped.
As delegates in the Security Council, your role will be to find a solution to quell global tension regarding this nuclear escalation through a direct solution that restores peace and security within the Asia-Pacific Region.
At this time, the DPRK has been able to achieve weapons-grade Uranium, and in some cases, Plutonium. These are key components of the large scale mass-production of nuclear weapons. As the nuclear program works towards the replicable, sustainable miniaturisation of these weaponised nuclear devices, international rhetoric increases in intensity. US President Donald Trump has promised to use military force against the DPRK if needed, while the DPRK has continuously retorted with equal, if not more aggression. The graphic below (courtesy of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies) illustrates the development of weapons in the DPRK.
Both the P5 nations and the global community at large have condemned North Korean tests and the nation’s bellicose rhetoric, but the DPRK continues to develop its nuclear arsenal. The most powerful of the North Korean missiles have a range of over 6000 km, reaching as far as Australia and the West Coast of the United States. This long-range nuclear capability combined with negative propaganda within the DPRK has resulted in both an increase in belligerent sentiment in the country itself and a significant heightening of tensions in the international community as a whole. In one instance, the DPRK actually fired missiles over Japanese territory in an unsolicited display of force. While some nations make clear that their willingness to remain uninvolved in discussions is solidified, others have taken on more prominent roles in negotiations with the DPRK. What is clear now is that economic and social sanctions against the DPRK are not as effective as the Security Council would have hoped.
As delegates in the Security Council, your role will be to find a solution to quell global tension regarding this nuclear escalation through a direct solution that restores peace and security within the Asia-Pacific Region.
Guiding Questions
- How have recent nuclear developments in the DPRK affected prospects for long term security in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond?
- What standard nuclear guidelines do participating state parties in the Security Council adhere to and how do these apply to the situation in North Korea?
- What specific technological advancements have already been discovered/procured with regards to the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities?
- Have any of the aforementioned technological advancements had a direct impact on other states?
- What sanctions has the Security Council already placed on the DPRK as a result of their nuclear escalation?
- What international parties are able to establish effective long term communication with the DPRK?
- What are the possible consequences of a fully nuclear-capable DPRK?
- What steps are necessary to improve relations between the DPRK and member states?
- What historical events provide grounds for this issue to be addressed?
- What are the positions of Security Council Member States on the issue as a whole?
