| DAYMUNC |
| Background Guide |
| General Assembly |
Greetings Delegates, My name is J. Scott Runyan, and as Director of the General Assembly Plenary I would like to take this opportunity to welcome each of you to DAYMUNC 2003. As this year’s conference promises to be an incredible experience, I eagerly await to meet you, work with you on these topics, and engage in constructive debate during our three days together in February. To let you know a little about myself, I am a graduate student at Wright State University majoring in Applied Behavioral Studies in International Relations in Comparative Politics. I am working on my thesis examining white-supremacy skinheads as a form of terrorism and predicting violent behavior based upon religious cult models and research. I graduated as an undergraduate in 2001 from Wright State, thus during my last year of undergraduate studies and my first year of graduate studies I served as a delegate for Wright State University’s Model United Nations Team. Having learned and gained so much as a team member for the past two years, it is an honor to serve in the capacity of Director of GA Plenary. Although I have prepared this background guide for your use, please do not feel as though you will offend me by using other sources. On the contrary, it is intended that this guide should simply serve as a foundation for your research as the information and links provided are not the only sources of research and publications that exist on these topics. The advent of the Internet has increased the access to- and sharing of- information and ideas, so explore the vast wealth of knowledge that exists and expand your understanding of the world in which we live while expanding your research. If I can be of any assistance to you please feel free to e-mail me at dayton_moose@yahoo.com. Have a safe and wonderful holiday season. All the Best, J. Scott Runyan The topics:
Social Responsibility of the Private Sector in Sustainable DevelopmentInternationally, the origins of the notion of social responsibility of the organization/firm/business/private sector can be traced to the corporative and mutualist movements of the 19th century. In the United States this concept emerged during the late-1960s as the general populace became increasingly concerned about the “social usefulness of products manufactured”, pollution risks, safety measures, “minority promotion” in the workplace, and employment stability. Recently, however, the renewed interest has come from various companies’ concerns, such as the protection of the physical and social environment, as well as a sense of responsibility for the future and strength of their respective communities. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) notes the proliferation of self-imposed corporate codes of conduct during the 1990s. Such voluntary measures began in the U.S. and the practice was soon adopted by European corporations. These measures adopted by transnational corporations (TNCs) have focused primarily upon social conditions and environmental issues, but it should be noted that such polices can range from “vague declarations of business principles applicable to internal operations, to more substantive efforts at self-regulation.” Furthermore, TNCs have worked collaboratively with a range of stakeholders, such as NGO’s and international trade unions, to expand such codes of conduct for international business. As it relates to those stakeholders directly affected by corporate actions, it has been suggested that a broader conceptualization of “corporate social responsibility” should include local communities and governments, suppliers, and employees (to name a few) as acknowledged stakeholders, given the direct impact often endured as a result of corporate actions. Certainly in the era of modern corporations and conglomerates such entities wield great amounts of influence, yet not all respond to the call for social responsibility equally. Factors such as awareness, capability, and impact on the issue play a significant determiner as to the level of response. Furthermore, to identify the levels of private sector involvement as well as to ascertain the impact of the AIDS virus upon Transnational Corporations (TNCs), UNRISD and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have begun collaborative research (data gathering to be completed by 30 November, 2002). Considering sustainable development, research indicates that the levels social cohesion itself plays a pivotal role in such development. Although social cohesion varies among different regions and cultures, the common threat to social cohesion is social exclusion. Sources of social exclusion include complications rising from economic systems in transition, ethnic conflicts, the spread of HIV/AIDS, unemployment, widespread poverty, drug abuse and illicit trafficking, organized crime, etc. Alone or combined, these factors serve as major impediments to business endeavors locally and internationally, thus it stands to reason that TNCs should take an interest in ensuring social cohesion. Moreover, the “corporate facility is an integral part of the community in which it operates”, as the relationship proves mutually beneficial given that TNCs gain from social cohesion, such as the improved health and education of community members. However, the notion of social responsibility does not grant TNCs an entitlement to impose political and social preferences upon the society or exploit self-regulation policies. Rather, it calls for heightened awareness of the ability to impact a state’s economic productivity and social conditions, as well as the need for collaborative efforts between itself, governments, and other stakeholders to determine appropriate responses to a society’s needs. Research links:
Relevant Documents:
Ensuring Civil Rights in Non-Conventional ConflictWhen considering the notion of ensuring civil rights during non-conventional conflict, it is perhaps best to begin with the attributes incorporated within this concept. Although such aspects are numerous and multifaceted, some of the more prominent components are revolutions, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. Within said components, infringements upon civil rights become frequent and complicated by numerous intricacies. One such infringement of civil rights is the enforced or involuntary disappearance of individuals under the specified direction of governments. Very often those committing the arrest are armed, will force entry into private homes, produce no reasons for arrest or an official arrest warrant, will seldom identify under whose authority they are committing the arrest, and use violence if deemed necessary to seize or capture individuals. On December 18, 1992 the General Assembly set forth the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, contained within A/RES/47/133 in which enforced disappearance is identified the time "persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups, or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law." Often under the guise of anti- or counter-terrorism, atrocities and rights violations occur. The notion of ensuring civil liberties while simultaneously combating terrorism has received international scrutiny. Does a state have the legitimate authority to eradicate civil liberties in the pursuit of terrorists? In some states the rights to due process and restricted access to private records have been eliminated in order for governmental agencies to arrest and investigate individuals deemed potential terrorists. Given that large numbers of innocent individuals are injured and killed annually at the hands of terrorists, some argue that such measures are acts of good governance. Opponents of such policies have labeled these tactics as “state-sponsored terrorism”. Another violation of human and civil rights is the occurrence of torture during conflict. Not only has the international community condemned the use of torture and other forms of intimidation, but has also recognized the importance of fair and adequate compensation as well as the physical and social rehabilitation of those enduring torture. A/RES/47/133 is one such resolution created by the United Nations to address the question of torture. Although this is one of many endeavors by the UN at addressing the issue, the Annex of said document offers compelling arguments for thoroughly investigating and documenting such atrocities. Such measures aid the assurance for preventing reoccurrences and well as protecting the legal rights of the victim. Although such atrocities against human and civil rights have been identified within this background guide, they are but the tip of a tremendously large iceberg. For the International Community the question has divided into several. Beginning with governmental actions taken towards its citizens, how are civil and human rights protected and how does the International Community ensure accountability, enforcement and prevention? Yet, non-state, organized systems of violence also impact human and civil rights, specifically the rights of the child. Much-needed focus to the rights of the child during armed conflict has been given by various bodies within the United Nations. As human and civil rights are examined within the context of children, “crimes such as ‘warlordism’, rebel movements, terrorism, and licit/illicit commercial operations that move diamonds, gold, timber, ivory, drugs and people are directly connected to the involvement of children in armed conflict.” Yet, regardless of the form of the crime or upon whom it is perpetrated, such crimes ultimately work to impede the right to self-determination. Therefore, when considering the notion of ensuring civil rights during non-conventional conflict, such multifaceted components necessitate an integrated approach of data and perspectives. Research links:
Relevant Documents:
Crimes Against The EnvironmentWhen examining the notion of crimes against the environment within context of the International Community, perhaps the analogy noting how “poor ecological practices recognize no state boundaries and thus what affects one state affects all states” is suitable given that said notion is a concern impacting various bodies within the United Nations. The environment is a concern relevant to UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), Earth Action, Sustainable Development, Human Settlements, Public Administration, and other components of ECOSOC as well as the General Assembly Plenary. Crimes against the environment can include animal poaching, the abuse of animals, and negligent environmental practices such as hazardous waste dumping. Additionally, this notion incorporates the impact of conservation, sanitation, waste management, various forms of pollution, deforestation and desertification, and the management of mineral, water, and land resources. This naturally leads to the examination of policies held by individual states, in regards to both successful and unsuccessful policies, but it also produces questions concerning international cooperation and multi-national organizations committing crimes against the environment. In Cairo, Egypt, of May 1995 the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) presented to the UN’s Ninth World Crime Congress its findings of a two-year study regarding crimes committed against the environment at the. The research noted a crucial element in deterring crimes of this magnitude rests in criminal sanctions given to corporations accused of criminal activity. Although numerous methods towards this notion exist, currently the International Community leans towards indicting the enterprise, especially when considering “deliberate and knowing acts, such as [the] dumping of hazardous waste”. Correlations between the stigma of criminal sanctions and corporate reputations have been proven to serve as a deterrent. Yet, sanctions alone do not guarantee complete compliance. Various sources suggest a far more expansive range of judgments including “the exclusion from government contracts” to “closure of the enterprise” itself. It follows logically, then, that bilateral and multilateral coalitions in the form of treaties, conventions, and dispute-settlement resolutions have proven the most effective combating cross-border pollution. Yet given the variances among national criminal-law structures, the enforcement and application of criminal law has been problematic. Moreover, some within the International Community have called for international intervention for what has been labeled as environmental terrorism, such as nuclear and/or toxic waste deliberate dumped into oceans, contending that such acts are international crimes. Research links:
Relevant Documents:
|