top of page


African Union

The African Union (AU) was established in 2002 as a successor to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which spanned from 1963 to 1999. Established to promote the unity and solidarity of African countries within the continent, the African Union stands strongly for independence; aimed to protect the rights of the African people and to foster international cooperation and coordination among its member states to overcome the diversity of challenges in the present day.


Since its humble beginnings as the OAU in the 1960s, the AU has experienced substantial growth in both its membership and influence, positioning the AU as a prospective economic powerhouse and a powerful player in the regional and global stage. 


However, amidst its ascent, the AU faces escalating regional challenges, such as heightened political stability, delineated by persistent civil wars and military coups. The collapse of several states and overhauling of democratic institutions have undermined the AU’s pursuit of democracy within the region. The predicament in Africa has been further exacerbated with issues such as poverty, famine, and insufficient access to clean water, bringing about concern for the African standard of living. This raises crucial questions about the AU’s ability to effectively deal with the problems faced by countries in the continent, and fulfilment of its mandate as a regional body.


Will the African Union shape a brighter future for its members within the continent? Only time will tell.



The Question of Burkina Faso's Internal Situation

Burkina Faso lies in a state of abject instability. It remains plagued by persistent violent extremism – an issue successive military juntas have failed to address, delaying the restoration of a constitutional order. Considering the potentially deleterious effects a state collapse would have on regional peace and stability, it is crucial for the African Union to step in. Beyond strengthening Burkina Faso’s internal response and capacities, the AU must enhance regional cooperation to create the foundations of a sustained peace. 


Whether the AU is able to strike an equilibrium between its proposed doctrine of non-indifference and state sovereignty will serve as a barometer of its effectiveness, and a reminder of its potential as the continent grapples with further political upheaval.

The Question of Foreign Intervention in Regional Security Issues

The rise in extra-continental intervention and activism by sub-regional organisations has exposed the insufficiencies of Africa’s security architecture in addressing pertinent security issues within the AU. The lack of proper frameworks augments the potential for such foreign involvement to further divide the region and undermine Pan-African solidarity. 


While it is crucial for the AU to establish key principles regarding foreign intervention, growing external security dependencies and the privatisation of foreign intervention have further complicated this endeavour. Ultimately, debate must consider notions of state sovereignty and the patterns of interaction set with external powers in order to truly enhance collective security.


United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)

Established in 2012 by the United Nations General Assembly, UNEA serves as a testament to our commitment towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. For more than a decade, the assembly convenes biennially to address pressing environmental challenges. Amassing 193 member states, UNEA stands as the highest-level decision-making body for all concerns related to the environment. 


The rapid transition towards renewable energy has increased the demand for mineral resources. The ocean possesses tremendous potential in resolving the climate crisis with its sizable amount of mineral resources below its surfaces. However, exploitation of such products may cause irreversible harm to the ecosystem and marine environment. On one side of the spectrum is a renewable, low-carbon future. Whereas on the other end is the preservation of marine biodiversity, a Common Heritage of Mankind. 


Besides that, as we combat the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, it is urged for a cross-sectoral approach to build a sustainable future. The highly interlinked nature of these three crises depicts the issue at hand: Ecosystem-based adaptations, the use of ecosystems and biodiversity to help communities adapt to the impacts of climate change. As ecological threats rarely happen within the administrative boundaries of a state, it is crucial to consider how states can cooperate in a way which mirrors the urgency of an imminent climate breakdown.


Climate crises, economic impacts, social implications, political disruptions, there has to be a trade-off made. Join UNEA as a Delegate, and our future is in your hands.


The Question of Managing Marine Mineral Resources

The accelerated global transition towards renewable energy has resulted in a significant increase in projected mineral usage, which is essential in supporting this pivot.

Given recent discoveries of seabed deposits, as well as the increasingly apparent limitations of terrestrial mining, the deep sea and its vast resources offer immense potential to resolve our climate crisis. Yet, the scramble for minerals under the sea may lead to unprecedented impacts on marine biodiversity, the effects of which we can yet measure.

Hence, as the highest-level decision-making body on matters relating to the environment, whether the UNEA can develop effective frameworks to safeguard the common heritage of mankind (CHM) will be pivotal in determining whether we can respond to the climate crisis in a just, sustainable and equitable manner.


The Question of Ecosystem-based Adaptation

The triple planetary crisis characterised by climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution underscores the interlinked nature of the most pressing environmental issues faced by humanity, necessitating a holistic approach to build a liveable future. Consequently, ecosystem-based adaptation – utilising nature and ecosystems – is a vital solution to alleviate the impacts of climate change on communities, while safeguarding the biosphere we depend on.

Given the disastrous impacts climate change has had on human wellbeing, it is critical for the UNEA to build upon the momentum created by the landmark 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and extend its discussion into how biodiversity and nature-centric solutions can be implemented to protect both people and our planet, enhancing states’ adaptive capacities and transboundary cooperation to address cross-border ecological threats.


Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)

Established in 2011 as a response to long-standing American hegemony in the Americas through the Declaration of Caracas, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) is a regional bloc comprising 33 Member States seeking to improve regional integration and cooperation. Despite criticisms and roadblocks, such as in the Bolsonaro administration’s withdrawal of Brazil from CELAC in 2020, citing ‘overly leftist’ and ‘anti-democratic’ sentiment before rejoining under the Lula administration in 2022, CELAC has nevertheless served an important role in establishing Latin American and Caribbean states as a region open to dialogue through the facilitation of interactions between Member States and extra-regional governments.


CELAC’s six organs include the Summit of Heads of State and Government, which sets the general direction of the Community’s work, while the Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopts resolutions to implement and act upon the goals set out by the Summit. At this convening of CELAC’s Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, despite differing stances on these contentious topics, Ministers will be tasked with reaching a consensus for vital action, whether through cooperation, compromise, or coercion. CELAC has reached a consensus before, but whether it will once more lie in Ministers’ hands.



The Question of Regional Economic Recovery

Average economic growth in Latin America this decade is projected at 0.8% – less than half that of the 1980s, in the aftermath of the Debt Crisis. The current economic slowdown may be attributed to a multitude of reasons, including slow job recovery from the pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war’s effect on commodity markets, and the tightening of monetary policy among wealthier nations to curb inflation. 

At present, recovery strategies among Latin American states remain fragmented, and priorities vary between states with different economic situations, necessitating agenda-setting at a regional level for a unified way forward. It remains to be seen, therefore, if CELAC can harness and integrate the vast under-utilised economic potential of the region without magnifying divisions further.

The Question of Safeguarding Indigenous Rights

Natural features in Latin America such as the Yucatan Peninsula and the Andes have long been the cradles of civilisation, giving rise to the Mayans and Norte Chico. Today, they remain home to countless indigenous communities and tribes, though this status quo is more threatened than ever. The pursuit of economic development in the region has encroached upon indigenous interests increasingly often, yet indigenous communities are often powerless to resist.


A lack of transparent and substantive consultation and consent mechanisms abets abject disregard for indigenous interests; meanwhile, seeking legal redress remains unviable to most indigenous people, owing to low levels of literacy and the absence of formal protections for these communities. States should endeavour to uphold CELAC’s principles of human rights and the rule of law where individual governments have failed indigenous communities, and foster intergovernmental cooperation in advancing their social interests.


Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)

*Double-Delegate Council

“Haggling over anodyne communiqués”. That is the sentiment of analysts and observers towards the Pacific Islands Forum. Yet, the Pacific Islands Forum serves as the only medium for Oceania-based countries to enhance cooperation among themselves to facilitate the economic and social well-being of their people by combating the pressing issues its littoral island states face. 

With their vast exclusive economic zones, spanning large parts of the Pacific Ocean, the Pacific Islands could become critical partners as countries look to the oceans for deep-sea minerals. Yet, this potential is not realised due to little to no industrial, consumer or investment activity among member states. With the United States and China looking for a region free of influence, what better time to grow potential into possibility than the present?


Digitising the Pacific Regions seems to be a dream, for the low internet penetration and digital literacy levels mandating specialised approaches to digitisation across the Pacific Islands. Looking ahead, to maintain public trust and security, it is crucial for states to implement robust protections against cyber threats and personal data breaches, thereby preventing digital systems from becoming vulnerable targets for malicious actors. With digitalisation and economic growth going hand-in-hand, digitisation is crucial for the Pacific Islands, but doing so in a way that minimises foreign political influence serves as an insurmountable barrier. 

Delegates are expected to balance compromising and negotiating as a bloc along with pushing for their own national interests. Carpe diem delegates- will you harbour an era of peace and prosperity to the Pacific Islands, or will they succumb to the depths of the Pacific Ocean at SMUN 2024? Acta, non verba!



The Question of Promoting Economic Development

Across the Pacific islands, economic activity primarily revolves around a select few trades including fishing and tourism. The absence of high-quality, diversified economic opportunity precludes the positive feedback loop driven by economic growth, leaving governments unable to fund social and infrastructure spending. Economic stimulus, if any, is often provided by wealthier neighbours.


Economic dependence on foreign partners does not only restrict States’ autonomy in setting out economic policies – States’ defence and foreign policy alignments can also be swayed by creditors’ whims. It is thus imperative that states utilise the PIF as a platform for collective decision-making regarding the economic future of the region, and stage a united front in negotiations with external partners amidst mounting diplomatic pressure.

The Question of Digitising Public Communication and Services

Faced with rising sea levels, Pacific island leaders have looked to digitise their government and consular services, which would pave the way for administrative functions to be maintained without a physical presence. Notably, however, disparate internet penetration and digital literacy levels necessitate differentiated approaches to digitisation across the region, while the linguistic and cultural diversity of Pacific islanders must be accommodated thoughtfully to ensure inclusivity. 

Moving forward, states must also implement adequate safeguards against threats such as cyberattacks and the leakage of sensitive personal data in order to maintain public trust, and prevent digital systems from becoming a known single point of vulnerability to malicious actors. Given these considerations, the PIF must prove its value as a regional platform, consolidating current efforts while charting a long-term collective vision for the Blue Pacific Continent.



*Double-Delegate Council


Introducing delegates to the BRICS+ council, one where you shall take on the task of defining the alliance’s true role in the international arena.

A supranational governmental organisation? A group of states brought together, characterised by contested multilateralism? A catalyst for global South-South cooperation? A showdown with the US? 


With the ascent of a multipolar world, traditional international organisations have become less fit-for-purpose, hence facing diminishing relevance. In response, BRICS+ has emerged as an informal alliance to champion advancement for emerging economies and developing nations. Originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the alliance’s influential members offer compelling benefits, drawing many countries to seek membership as a strategic lever for deeper entrenchment into the global economy.  


Notwithstanding, challenges loom large. The 2008 financial crisis, alongside unstable economic performance following the onset of the pandemic, and general pessimism regarding the impartiality of Bretton Woods Institutions from the global South, all call into question the viability of the US dollar retaining its status as the most prominent reserve currency in international transactions. Evident through the rise of regional development banks and regional financing agreements among the members in the alliance, the establishment of a common currency to challenge the US dollar’s hegemony remains a quintessential question. 


From Arria Formula meetings to other specialised debate procedures, delegates can expect to engage themselves in robust discourse, and tread across the murky waters of geopolitics and macroeconomics. That being said, while understanding the theoretical nuances within this complex topic is critical, the true test lies in debating about them in a real-life setting, at SMUN 2024.  



The Question of Expanding BRICS+

For the past few decades, the United States has been the undisputed global superpower, utilising its power to push its own agenda around the world. To mitigate the effects of the United State’s influence in these regions, the foremost regional powers in said regions met together for the first time in Yekaterinburg, Russia in 2009. 15 years and 14 summits later, the initial BRIC coalition expanded by seven member states, resulting in the name BRICS+. However, with a group as opinionated and divergent on foreign policy matters, the quest to expand its ranks becomes a daunting task. This is especially apparent when considering issues, like membership criteria, newcomer incentives, among others. Thus,  the BRICS+ alliance will have to decide how the organisation will be shaped in the coming years and how it will achieve its long-stated goal of creating a sustainable multi-polar world order.

The Question of deDollarisation in the Global Economy

Since the end of the second World War, the US dollar has been the default global currency, used in many nation’s reserves and most international transactions. However, in an era of unprecedented instability, many countries agree on one thing: their reliance on the US dollar has to end. As the most significant diplomatic bloc representing such countries, BRICS+ faces an uphill challenge of decoupling the global economy from the US dollar, be it through a common currency, non-US dollar denominated trade deals or other means. Will they be able to successfully accomplish their goal, or would they wreck their economies and the bloc’s tenuous unity by trying?

World Health Assembly

Why are there existing gaps in global healthcare systems? What do inequities look like on the ground? Where should global policies and frameworks come into place? When will the next healthcare crisis strike? Who should join the World Health Organisation (WHO) in making key decisions? How does progress towards UN Sustainable Development Goals affect individual welfare? These are questions that, for the past 76 years, countries have convened at the WHA to discuss each year.


Being the frontier of international policy making in healthcare, the WHO acts as a compass for healthcare institutions in a fast-changing global ecosystem. Hence, as the supreme decision-making body of the WHO, the WHA seeks to provide yardsticks for global actors in responding to pressing questions of today. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare systems, the WHA is faced increasingly with the mammoth task of addressing the uncertainties — and assets — brought about by the usage of AI. The WHA thus treads a fine line in steering international action towards regulatory policies while crafting roadmaps for further development.


While we look toward issues of the future, the WHA continues to tackle the after-effects of past events as deep-rooted issues surfaced during the pandemic still plague our society today. Anti-vaccine movements founded then continue to gain traction worldwide, presenting communities polarised for a multitude of factors. To that end, the WHA acts as a node in rallying global actors, seeking to build a future-ready, undivided international community in the face of prospective healthcare crises.

As we pore over these issues at SMUN 2024, delegates should look forward to slightly more than just conventional Model UN discourse, and towards unwrapping layers of nuance and dynamics in the WHA at SMUN 2024.



The Question of AI Regulation in Healthcare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the new frontier for technological innovations. Vaccine development, data administration and disease diagnosis are only the tip of the iceberg of the massive improvements to productivity in the healthcare sector that AI yields. While this massive boost will indubitably improve healthcare, there are fears that the nascence of AI, a lack of understanding of its shortcomings and threatening patient’s privacy may result in decreased safety and confidence in healthcare systems. There are also concerns that it may widen the inequities found in healthcare systems between developing and developed countries and potentially undermine efforts to improve the environment. To that extent, regulation that governs the use of AI and its development is key to unlocking its potential while negating its pitfalls. As the world’s foremost coordinator of public health policy, it is up to the WHA to deliberate on this issue.


The Question of Combating Increased Vaccine Scepticism

In 2024, the world may have recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic, but the anti-vaccination movements remain. With increased global migration and global warming, the likelihood of a future pandemic has never been higher. With a politically powerful anti-vaccination movement, the threat of a botched vaccination operation against a future pandemic has never been more apparent, and the re-emergence of once-extinct diseases has never been more dangerous. As such, it is up to the WHA, which once brought together nations on the brink of starting another world war to vaccinate the world, to formulate a public policy framework that addresses the messaging presented by the groups, the lack of international cooperation and the lack of trust in key government institutions.


Legislative Assembly of Singapore

On 2 June 1955, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore (LAS) became Singapore’s unicameral legislature, moving the country further towards independence. Moreover, reforms in 1958 granted Singaporeans universal suffrage and full self-governance, with the LAS now governing most internal affairs. In 1959, amid political violence and industrial disputes, the PAP’s Lee Kuan Yew led his anti-colonial coalition to a landslide election victory, successfully courting both Chinese and English-educated voters. However, tensions eventually arose as Lee’s moderates and trade unionist Lim Chin Siong’s leftists clashed over ideology and direction. Eventually, Lee called a motion of confidence in his premiership, forcing lawmakers to take sides in the PAP’s intra-party conflict. 


On 20 July 1961, Lee’s gambit failed. In SMUN 2024’s version of Singapore’s history, an untimely series of lawmakers’ deaths, along with Lim’s early release from prison and victory in Bukit Timah, toppled the incumbent PAP in an upset. With public confidence in the PAP damaged, Lee was forced to work with the newly formed Barisan Sosialis (BS) to prevent snap elections. 


Now at a crossroads, the LAS faces several issues: First, with the BS demanding the resignation of British-appointed Speaker Sir George Oehlers, the LAS must elect a new Speaker to resume its functions. Next, the question of merger is still pending before the LAS, which must simultaneously quell British and Malayan concerns, decide the status of the Internal Security Council and craft a palatable arrangement that determines Singapore’s future in a unified Malaysia. Lastly, Singapore’s industrial conflicts have recently escalated, with the erstwhile Singapore Trades Union Congress also dividing into moderate and leftist factions. To avert another spate of mass strikes, the LAS must rapidly secure industrial peace.


Can you steer Singapore through these turbulent times? Join us at the LAS, and the fate of this unborn nation will be yours to decide.



The Question of Merger with Malaya

Independence, but at what price?

After the shocking ouster of the People’s Action Party government at the height of the independence debate, the political scene has rearranged into a state of tenuous stability. The debate rages on yet. There is no doubt in anyone’s minds about the necessity of merger, but there is still so much more to be argued out.

For instance, what is the future of the Internal Security Act? How should Singapore be represented in the federal government? What areas can Singapore retain autonomy over? And, most crucially, who will be in charge of whatever new order asserts itself? 

The question of merger is the future of a nation… and the fate of every political faction in Singapore.

The Question of Trade Unions and Worker Strikes

In Singapore, every political faction has a stake, one way or another. For businesses, strikes are a threat. For workers, unions are their only hope. And stuck in between are the politicians. 


Following the split of the Singapore Trades Union Congress, two new organisations have arrived, each unashamedly leaning one way politically. Since the Bus Riots, none would underestimate the necessity of regulating the unions in one way or another; but what could satisfy everyone?


There are political difficulties in siding directly with either the National Trade Union Congress or the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, and reunification is almost a pipe dream. Cracking down on strikes will be unpopular with the people, but not doing so would draw the ire of businesses. 


Sometimes, perfect cannot be the enemy of good, especially with a more important merger question on the table.


European Council

“I love Europe, but I loathe the European Union.”

~ Nigel Farage, British Eurosceptic 


Europe is under attack. To its East, a brutal war of attrition pits an autocratic state set on swallowing its smaller, weaker neighbour against the political unity of Europe. To its South, those who seek out the shores of the Old Continent in search of new livelihoods are met with border patrols, fences of iron, and an unyielding populace. And in its very heart, a tsunami of Euroscepticism, nativism and xenophobia threatens the very foundational pillars of the EU.


Standing between this tsunami and the EU is the European Council, its “supreme political authority”, where 27 national leaders vociferously defend their interests, set the very agenda through which the EU ameliorates its principal predicaments, and decide the very future of Europe.


The Question of Reasserting European Unity

National identity is a touchy subject in Europe. Euroscepticism is on the rise, as has been for many years, with many casting doubt on the legitimacy of the EU and the benefits of European integration. Unfortunately, the EU depends on the faith of its population to continue its frameworks, its policies and plans and standards which have brought the region a fair amount of economic success. 


The Great Recession of 2008-2009 was the trigger for the rise in nationalism among European countries. The collapse of the Euro and the sovereign debt crisis led to a rise in anti-EU views and the strengthening of Eurosceptic parties.


In a post-Brexit world, the EU’s influence seems to be waning. The conception of Europe as a single entity is challenged by politicians who want to appeal to their populations, who need a convenient scapegoat, or who earnestly believe it. It is up to the European Council to decide how to deal with this… if anything should be done in the first place.

The Question of a Coordinated Response to the Migrant Crisis

Europe lives in the shadow of the 2015 migrant crisis, where fears over value and economic displacement bubbled over in the wake of 1.3 million migrants. More than a few negative incidents ended up souring the European public’s perception of migrants in general.


Now, irregular border crossings are yet again on the rise, and politicians are stirring up old fears. The EU has tried to cut deals with migrant producing countries to hold back the tide of migrants. But Tunisia has already denied these deals, and other countries may well follow suit.


EU countries face very different issues in connection to this crisis. Some countries are mere transitory stops, illegal migrants leaving just as quickly as they enter. Some countries are barely affected at all. And some countries take the brunt of the impact.


The European Council needs to deliver a coordinated response that satisfies everyone… lest history repeat itself.


United Nations Security Council

*Double-Delegate Council

Well-known for making history, the 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC) needs no introduction. Empowered with the ability to enact legally binding resolutions, the UNSC is behind some of the most momentous decisions of our time. Yet, the UNSC has also become infamous for inaction in times of crisis. Too often, the notorious veto kept it gridlocked when decisiveness was needed most, and the most powerful council on earth was left powerless to protect the innocent.


Over Christmas in 1963, carnage erupted across the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, as enmity between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities came to a head. Ever since a Turkish invasion in 1973 and the subsequent birth of the de facto state known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the island has been divided. Tensions between the ethnic groups continue to simmer, and previous reunification talks have universally fallen through. Amidst these troubling circumstances, all eyes are on the UNSC to navigate the fraught geopolitical situation and ensure peace and security.


Article 1 of the UN Charter stresses the importance of the principle of self-determination, which enshrines the right of people to choose their government and chart their destiny. This is an important right to uphold, in the name of liberty and human rights. Unfortunately, what follows all too often in the wake of independence movements is violence and destruction, as seen in the formation of states like South Sudan, Kosovo, and Eritrea. The UNSC must resolve the risks that these developments pose to global security. The council’s action could just be all that stands between vulnerable communities worldwide and untold bloodshed and strife.


The challenge is great, but the task is of utmost importance. If the world is to be spared from the horrors of war, the UNSC must not fail. Delegates venturing into this geopolitical arena will learn that with great power comes great responsibility indeed.



The Question of the Cyprus Issue

On 20th December 1963, the world saw a bloody Christmas in the European states of Turkey and Cyprus. Ever since the following coup d'etat and subsequent occupation in the Northern region of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots have held de facto control, renaming it the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’.

This country is yet to be recognised internationally. As a result of the border disputes, the UNFICYP (UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) was formed, to mediate and diffuse tensions, as well as maintain a buffer zone between the countries. Due to contrasting opinions on land borders, there are ongoing disputes with respect to the EEZs of the countries, and also the neutrality of the UNFICYP, as it is partially funded by the Cyprus government. As such, a reevaluation of the mandate may be necessary, alongside possible expansion to cover points such as equitable distribution of the resources, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Question of the Right to Self-determination


The principle of self-determination states that a group of people with similar views can seek to create their state, and we have seen many examples of independence movements that gave this principle credence such as the formation of Eritrea, Kosovo, Bangladesh and notably Ukraine.  The key point is international recognition and respect of a people’s common right to determine their sovereignty.


In recent years, the right to self-determination has been invoked in many notable cases such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Due to contrasting definitions of what constitutes self-determination, many of these cases have yet to obtain international recognition. For example, what constitutes a group of people having a legitimate claim (whether on the basis of race, religion, or simply common belief) is still a political issue. Additionally, whether they are to be given a minority status or completely secede from the parent state, is another question to be considered.


Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (SPECPOL)

Space, the final frontier. So many questions to answer, yet so little time. In today's global order, the legacy of big-power rivalry has remained and even expanded to new horizons of competition, including outer space. The advancement of science and technology has drawn new claims for untapped outer space resources. Yet, exploring new and underregulated grounds poses questions of ethics and legality. To what extent can space exploration and mining of resources be condoned? What kinds of regulations should be put in place? With the rise of private actors, how can countries ensure a fair share of space exploration? Addressing this question becomes crucial as ambiguous wording and a lack of foresight plague the current outer space treaties, giving rise to a myriad of misinterpretations by bad actors. 


“You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of nuclear weapon.” ~Frank Zappa


It seems that everyone wants to be a country now? This security dilemma between major powers has yet to be resolved, and the question of a nuclear armageddon still weighs heavily on the world. To what extent should countries comply with treaties, given their national interests? How should the committee woo new countries into signing a moratorium on testing? What changes can be made to ensure that the treaties are truly future-proof? These questions still loom heavily, and it's anyone's game.


Whether it be about space mining or nuclear weapons, it's a game of time. The Special Political and Decolonisation Committee emerged to focus on forwarding cooperation in specific areas, including special political missions, atomic-related reviews, and the peaceful uses of outer space. Will you be able to race the clock and come to a decision? Or will the world be heralded into a new age, unprepared?


The Question of the Legality of Outer Space Mining


The Outer Space Treaty was created and subsequently ratified by the international community in 1961. This agreement laid down the fundamental principles governing the peaceful usage of outer space.


However, in recent years, due to the ineffectiveness of treaties concerning specific bodies such as the Moon and asteroids, countries have seen this as an avenue to begin planning harvesting the potential resources that come on these celestial bodies. It may be necessary to reconsider existing treaties and look to find a solution that creates an equitable distribution of the aforementioned resources.

The Question of Reviewing Treaties on Nuclear Proliferation 


On 2nd November 2023, the Russian Federation enacted laws that withdrew its ratification of the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). This move was stated to be mirroring the United States’ stance on nuclear weapons, as the United States has yet to ratify the treaty even though they are signatories on the matter. 


The withdrawal, coupled with the tensions in Russia and Ukraine, is expected to amplify nuclear testing in the surrounding regions. It will hence be necessary to navigate existing agreements and examine whether it is possible to establish a pause on the currently alarming development of nuclear power.



Joint Cabinet Crisis
(La Violencia)



No one can really trace back the origins of La Violencia. Some say that it was rooted in the Thousand Days’ War, where war first broke out between the two parties; others say that the 1930 elections, with the liberals breaking the conservatives’ hegemony, paved the way for a breeding ground of violence by 1948. Regardless, bipartisan tensions had been said to reach its highest point on 9 April 1948, when the popular liberal presidential candidate, Jorge Gaitán, was assassinated, kickstarting a decade of anarchical violence.


In the Joint Cabinet Crisis (JCC) of SMUN 2024, delegates will have a chance to not just step into the shoes of party officials, but also in various paramilitary groups, crime syndicates and peasant bandits. Delegates will have to tread the deep waters of guerilla warfare while protecting their country from organised crime both within and beyond Colombia. The JCC is for any advanced delegates who are up for a challenge, or for anyone who is interested in post-WWII Latin American history.


The year is 1948, and the Cold War has just begun, along with questions of post-war recovery and wars of independence. Colombia, however, has been shielded from these events, fighting its own battle of bipartisan tensions between the conservatives and the liberals. All hell broke loose on 9 April, when Jorge Gaitán, the leader of the Liberal Party, was assassinated in Bogotá. From here onwards, the fight for peasantry support, plantation monopoly and political dominance will only ramp up.


Welcome to La Violencia.

bottom of page