Does Security =/= Sovereignty?

Good day prospective SC delegates.


Each week, our blog will be alternating between terrorism and contentious issues relating to the topic. As we've mentioned, we'd prefer it if we didn't spend half of the time debating "what is terrorism". The blog will cover all of those juicy details.

This week, we deal with one of the more contentious issues surrounding cross-border terrorism: sovereignty!!!

The problem with cross-border terrorism is that it crosses borders, thus involving multiple nations. A country may want to pursue terrorists hiding in other countries but they cannot do this if the host country does not approve. The pursuit of cross-border terrorists can harm innocent people in a region not involved in the conflict and strain relations between states. Take the case of Pakistan, a country used by the Taliban as a base for attacks. US attacks on the Pakistani side of the border have caused a great deal of damage and many have been hurt.

I can easily think of a few nations who would support the reduction of state sovereignty in order to pursue terrorist groups. I can just as easily think of a few who vehemently oppose infringement on state sovereignty. Your task: find out whether or not your country places a higher priority on sovereignty or on the pursuit of terrorists. In committee, you'll have to try and strike a balance between respect for sovereignty and the resolution of the issue.

The idea of sovereignty ties in strongly with another contentious issue, unilateral vs multilateral action. TO be discussed at a later date.

Next week: find out more spectacular specifics on what constitutes terrorism

"Terrorism has become the systematic weapon of a war that knows no borders or seldom has a face."
-Jacques Chirac, speech, Sep. 24, 1986