UNODC

DAY 1

A mostly calm first day sets up a good start to the debate

​

This was many of the delegates’ first MUN, but even some of the more seasoned folks had trouble getting used to Zoom. Nevertheless, despite microphones having a life of their own at times, the debate sessions went smoothly. After an icebreaker and another look at the Handbook, the delegations worked on an agenda for the committee. This, however, was not without issue: as one delegation put it, a couple delegates were “so excited to talk about treaties” that they seemed to forget they were supposed to be discussing structure of the agenda. Still, the committee managed to reevaluate its objectives and to then finish the agenda swiftly. 

​

After that, the delegates were clear to get to work – which most of them did. While the Chairperson urged some delegations to engage in the discussion, the majority of the council was quite participative. The delegates spent the day debating the first topic on the agenda: treaties and agreements on cybercrime and cyberspace. In a demonstration of its willingness to tackle the issue at hand, the committee decided to call upon the creation of an International Court of Cyberlaw, which is to be controlled by and report to UNODC. Notably, all countries agreed to respect UNODC’s authority in dealing with international cybercrimes, while interestingly at the same time emphasizing the constitutional sovereignty of each state.

​

Furthermore, the delegates established that meddling in electoral affairs as well as state espionage are crimes worthy of penalization in form of economic sanctions to both state and non-state actors. On the matter of data privacy, the committee then urged countries to annually report on the data safety of its population, which should happen alongside the creation of informative awareness campaigns on the dangers of cyberthreats. Lastly, the delegations recommended the instauration of a cybersecurity corporation to act as an international legal framework for states, emphasizing, however, the organization’s pledge not to reveal any country’s information to the public. 

​

And with that the first day at UNODC comes to an end. The debate has been friendly and calm (up to this point) and, as seen above, the committee has been very productive. If the delegates keep up this pace, they should be done with their agenda in no time. 

​

DAY 2

What is that approaching? An iceberg? Oh my, it seems that UNODC’s former calmness has been interrupted!

​

Just like yesterday, UNODC’s committee started in a relative peace with cooperation from all sides. Even though some delegations did not even show up to rollcall, the committee put in a lot of effort into the debate, managing to start their second working paper after submitting their first one. 

On its second working paper, the committee defends the creation of an Internationally Funded Research Basis mediated by UNODC with the goal of preventing future cybercrimes against governments. All countries are advised to contribute with knowledge, specialists, and money to the Research Basis, which will annually produce a report on the state of its research work. In case of breakage of confidentiality, the compliant countries will be put on trial in accordance with the first working paper produced by the delegations. With the submission of their second working paper, the delegates were free to begin the discussion of the third topic on the agenda. The debate, however, had to come to a halt because of the lunch break and afterwards the delegations had other things on their plate…

​

Has someone seen that icebreaker from yesterday? That might be helpful right now… 

Good thing the delegates had a lunch break to rest because UNODC’s smooth sailing was abruptly hit with an iceberg no one awaited. With a loud “CRISIS!” scream, the committee was put in upheaval. The press proceeded to inform the delegates that a South Korean source had hacked the British Royal family by using Israeli technology and that threats of exposing confidential information were made. 

South Korea immediately responded, stating it possessed no information about or correlation to the hackers; the state further affirmed its willingness to cooperate with Israel and the UK. For a second, all delegates seemed focused on collaboration. That apparent peace was, however, very rapidly destroyed and the committee soon turned to a game of pointing fingers at each other: China then accused Israel of being compliant in the crisis since the country’s system was used for the cyberattack. Israel proceeded to defend itself and blamed the UK’s weak cybersecurity for enabling such a breach in the Royal family’s information system. 

Nevertheless, the delegations came to an agreement in form of a resolution, which every country present was in favor of. UK, Israel, and South Korea agreed to work together in order to find the South Korean hackers and possibly other culprits involved in the cybercrime. All suspects are to be judged by the International Criminal Court, considering that the International Court of Cyberlaw, which was proposed in the committee’s first working paper, does not yet exist. 

Having put an end to the crisis, the committee returned to its third working paper. This working paper tackles the creation of help systems for underdeveloped countries and IT industries worldwide. Yet, with little time left on today’s last council session, the rest of the document will be further discussed tomorrow.

Despite a troubling crisis, the delegates managed to submit two working papers and a crisis resolution in single a day. Congratulations, delegates!

​

DAY 3

The last day of POSMUN. After three days of vigorous debating and hard work, the UNODC committee achieved its goal of finishing a resolution.

First, the delegations submitted their third and last working paper. Taking into consideration and disapproving any governmental data leakage, the delegates encouraged countries to cooperate with each other so that cybersecurity systems worldwide can be strengthened. The committee reminded that all communication between countries must remain private. In the event of a leakage, the country responsible shall be penalized. Lastly, a country may share its cybersecurity technology with private companies in close connection to the government, nonetheless assuring the confidentiality of the exchanged information. 

Having finished all three working papers, the committee dedicated itself to the draft resolution. Most of the document was approved in a second. But one of the last operative clauses caused controversy: which private companies may have access to a government’s data. In the end, the delegates agreed that only companies mostly owned by the government should be able to use public official cybersecurity systems. 

In conclusion, UNODC wrote a resolution focused on respecting each country’s sovereignty, condemning the leakage of confidential data and penalizing cybercrimes in accordance with international law, while also assuring cooperation between countries on the topic at hand. This committee was therefore extremely successful in its mission of combating cybersecurity threats to governments.