Aurelia MUN 2025
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Greetings!
We would like to tell you that it gives us immense pleasure to serve as your Executive
Board for the simulation of the UNSC at Aurelia MUN 2024!
We have made a background guide to help you kick start your research. The background
guide has been written with the thought that it will serve as a map for you to navigate
through the mass of information which you may cross in your preparation for the
conference. It will guide you to understand the different angles to the forthcoming
discussion, a sort of a reflection of what is in store for you. Thus, as the name “map” may
be hinting, it will not provide you with all the information or analysis on the agenda at
hand but a path for you to carry out your research. For doing that, your research has to be
comprehensive and non-exhaustive. More importantly, you have to understand your
research and be able to use it. In other words, your research documents are not your
arguments. You use your research to form your argument; your research cannot be your
only argument. That is where analysis steps in.
It is extremely important for you to listen to everything other delegates talk about in the
committee, so don’t keep yourself too occupied writing your own speeches, but truly listen
to what other delegates speak in the committee. It will help you give direction to the debate
happening in the committee and also some point to elaborate on or rebuttal.
With regards to that, try not to read from documents without really understanding what
they mean and try forming your own arguments based on what you read in those
documents. The trick here is to make sure you make notes of the documents that you have
read and formulate arguments from the same.
To start, you can briefly read about the agenda and break down the agenda in various
subtopics that exist within that agenda, now these topics that you have written are also the
topics that will be discussed in the committee as the moderated caucus topics. All that you
have to do now is to research the subtopics of the agenda that we have written.
Now when you research on particular subtopics, you don't just jot down information that
you have collected through various articles, but rather try to make an argument for that
subtopic while researching or simply provide your countries viewpoint on the given sub
topic. Logic and foreign policy combined with in-depth research and knowledge are
necessary to be a successful delegate. As delegates, you are expected to promote the
interests of your nation and as delegates of representing different nations, you are required
to know your foreign policy on the agenda and the issues related to the same. Try to
highlight the same during the three days of the conference. Having said that, if you have
any questions or doubts pertaining to any matters concerning this committee, please feel
free to contact us. We shall be happy to help!
Best Regards,
Waleed Ahmar, Navya Choudhary
Aurelia MUN 2025
About United Nations
The United Nations was established on October 24, 1945. The United Nations (UN) was
the second multipurpose international organisation established in the 20th century that
was worldwide in scope and membership. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, was
created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and disbanded in 1946. Headquartered in New
York City, the UN also has regional offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. Its official
languages are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. For a list of UN
member countries and secretaries-general. In addition to maintaining peace and security,
other important objectives include developing friendly relations among countries based
on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; achieving
worldwide cooperation to solve international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian
problems; respecting and promoting human rights; and serving as a centre where
countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these various ends.
Changes in the nature of international relations resulted in modifications in the
responsibilities of the UN and its decision-making apparatus. Cold War tensions between
the United States and the Soviet Union deeply affected the UN’s security functions
during its first 45 years. Extensive post-World War II decolonization in Africa, Asia, and
the Middle East increased the volume and nature of political, economic, and social issues
that confronted the organisation. The Cold War’s end in 1991 brought renewed attention
and appeals to the UN. Amid an increasingly volatile geopolitical climate, there were
new challenges to established practices and functions, especially in the areas of conflict
resolution and humanitarian assistance. At the beginning of the 21st century, the UN and
its programs and affiliated agencies struggled to address humanitarian crises and civil
wars.
Aurelia MUN 2025
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE
The Security Council originally consisted of 11 members—five permanent members (the
Republic of China [Taiwan], France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) and six nonpermanent members elected by the UN General Assembly for two-year
terms. An amendment to the UN Charter in 1965 increased council membership to 15,
including the original five permanent members and 10 nonpermanent members. Among the
permanent members, the People’s Republic of China replaced the Republic of China in 1971,
and the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union in 1991. The nonpermanent members
are generally chosen to achieve equitable representation among geographic regions, with five
members coming from Africa or Asia, one from eastern Europe, two from Latin America,
and two from western Europe or other areas.
Each member has one vote. On all “procedural” matters—the definition of which is
sometimes in dispute—decisions by the council are made by an affirmative vote of any nine
of its members. Substantive matters, such as the investigation of a dispute or the application
of sanctions, also require nine affirmative votes, including those of the five permanent
members holding veto power. In practice, however, a permanent member may abstain without
impairing the validity of the decision. A vote on whether a matter is procedural or substantive
is itself a substantive question. Because the Security Council is required to function
continuously, each member is represented at all times at the United Nations headquarters in
New York City.
The United Nations was created in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War,
with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN
accomplishes this by working to prevent conflict, helping parties in conflict make peace,
deploying peacekeepers, and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish.
These activities often overlap and should reinforce one another, to be effective.
The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security.
The General Assembly and the Secretary-General play major, important, and complementary
roles, along with other UN offices and bodies.
Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
● To maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and
purposes of the United Nations;
● to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
● to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
● to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
● to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to
recommend what action should be taken;
● to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the
use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
● to take military action against an aggressor;
Aurelia MUN 2025
Introduction to the the Agenda
The Militarization of Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Legal Implications
of Autonomous Weapons in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Beyond.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict & Militarization:
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has reached a high level of tension between
Moscow and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); a situation that affects not only
the region, but also the United States and the entire world. Full control of Ukraine is critical
to Russia's stability and strategic objectives. The ever-increasing approach, through
successive NATO enlargements, to Russia's borders by the U.S.-led NATO military force has
created a very tense scenario. This scenario is unacceptable for Russia, as it would have its
former Cold War enemy on the borders of its territory. The main problem - the underlying
problem - is not only the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but the conflict between
Russia and NATO-USA. The possible use of Ukraine as a territory that could bring closer a
threat to Russia's security alters the geopolitical and strategic situation in the region.
By seizing Crimea in 2014, Russia solidified its control of a strategic foothold on the Black
Sea. With a larger and more sophisticated military presence there, Russia can project power
deeper into the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa, where it has traditionally had
limited influence. Some analysts argue that Western powers failed to impose meaningful
costs on Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea, which they say only increased
Putin’s willingness to use military force in pursuit of his foreign policy objectives. Until its
invasion in 2022, Russia’s strategic gains in the Donbas were more fragile. Supporting the
separatists had, at least temporarily, increased its bargaining power vis-à-vis Ukraine.
In July 2021, Putin authored what many Western foreign policy experts viewed as an
ominous article explaining his controversial views of the shared history between Russia and
Ukraine. Among other remarks, Putin described Russians and Ukrainians as “one people”
who effectively occupy “the same historical and spiritual space.”
Throughout that year, Russia amassed tens of thousands of troops along the border with
Ukraine and later into allied Belarus under the auspices of military exercises. In February
2022, Putin ordered a full-scale invasion, crossing a force of some two hundred thousand
troops into Ukrainian territory from the south (Crimea), east (Russia), and north (Belarus), in
an attempt to seize major cities, including the capital Kyiv, and depose the government. Putin
said the broad goals were to “deNazify” and “demilitarise” Ukraine.
However, in the early weeks of the invasion, Ukrainian forces marshaled a stalwart resistance
that succeeded in bogging down the Russian military in many areas, including in Kyiv. Many
defense analysts say that Russian forces have suffered from low morale, poor logistics, and
an ill-conceived military strategy that assumed Ukraine would fall quickly and easily.
In August 2022, Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive against Russian forces,
recapturing thousands of square miles of territory in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. The
campaigns marked a stunning setback for Russia. Amid the Russian retreat, Putin ordered the
mobilization of some three hundred thousand more troops, illegally annexed four more
Aurelia MUN 2025
Ukrainian regions, and threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia’s “territorial
integrity.”
Fighting in the subsequent months focused along various fronts in the Donbas, and Russia
adopted a new tactic of targeting civilian infrastructure in several distant Ukrainian cities,
including Kyiv, with missile and drone strikes. At the first-year mark of the war, Western
officials estimated that more than one hundred thousand Ukrainians had been killed or
wounded, while Russian losses were likely even higher, possibly double that figure.
Meanwhile, some eight million refugees had fled Ukraine, and millions more were internally
displaced. Ahead of the spring thaw, Ukraine’s Western allies pledged to send
more-sophisticated military aid, including tanks. Most security analysts see little chance for
diplomacy in the months ahead, as both sides have strong motives to continue the fight.
There has been reported use of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) by the Russian military.
These UGVs are equipped with AI-powered systems that allow them to detect and engage
targets without human intervention. The UGVs can be used for a variety of tasks, including
reconnaissance, surveillance, and combat. They are equipped with sensors and cameras that
allow them to detect and identify targets, and they can be armed with machine guns and other
weapons. In Ukraine, the military has also been developing and deploying autonomous
weapons. One example is the Phantom automated turret system, which is used to defend
Ukrainian military positions. The turret system uses AI-powered cameras and sensors to
detect and engage targets, and it can operate autonomously without human intervention. The
system can be programmed to identify and engage specific types of targets, such as vehicles
or personnel.
Another example of autonomous weapons being used in the conflict is the Russian military's
use of drone swarms. These swarms consist of large numbers of drones that are equipped
with AI- powered systems that allow them to operate autonomously. They are equipped with
sensors and cameras that allow them to detect and identify targets, and they can be armed
with explosives or other weapons. There have also been further reports of both Russia and
Ukraine using AI-powered artillery systems that can operate autonomously. These are using
AI algorithms to calculate firing solutions and adjust for factors such as wind and target
movement. They can fire autonomously without human intervention, and they can be
programmed to target specific types of targets.
AI & Its implications:
AI should be understood broadly in this context to capture a diverse range of technologies
used in PA-LTC. Indeed, a broad definitional approach has been adopted by the European
Union (EU) in the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which is the first major law in the
world regulating AI. That law defines an “AI system” as “a machine-based system designed
to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after
deployment and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how
to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can
influence physical or virtual environments.”This definition aligns with the work of
international organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development. The AI Act definition (or variations of it) is likely to be adopted by regulations
in the future, much in the same manner that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Aurelia MUN 2025
has influenced data regimes globally. Conceptualizing AI broadly in this paper is congruent
with those leading approaches and ensures that all relevant AI technologies to PA-LTC are
captured in the analysis that follows.
The use of facial recognition technology, notably from Clearview AI, in the war has been
transformative but also raises serious ethical concerns. While it aids in identifying Russian
soldiers and missing persons, it also has potential for mass surveillance, misidentification,
and privacy violations. Its unregulated use threatens fundamental rights, and Clearview AI
has faced legal actions in different countries for breaching data-protection laws. These
concerns are heightened by the technology’s possible continued use after the war.
Russia’s use of AI in information warfare has intensified the conflict, with AI-generated
disinformation, deep fakes, and voice cloning spreading false narratives and destabilizing
Ukrainian society. Deep Fake videos, such as those depicting Ukrainian leaders surrendering,
are used to erode trust in media and pose significant threats to social cohesion and
democracy.
As Ukraine increasingly relies on these technologies in the war, the needs to withhold
sensitive information and to maintain public trust conflict. Striking a balance between
national security and human rights is essential. International law allows for limited
derogations from human rights during emergencies, but these must adhere to the principles of
necessity and proportionality.
These crucial technologies require stringent safeguards to protect democratic values and
human rights in Ukraine. Key recommendations to do so include regulating remote-sensing
technologies; harmonizing the country’s AI and data-protection laws with EU standards;
adopting impact assessment frameworks; creating “regulatory sandboxes” for the safe
development, testing, and adaptation of AI innovations; and enhancing media literacy
programs to counter AI-generated disinformation. Through these measures, Ukraine can
harness advanced technologies for defense and reconstruction while ensuring that wartime
measures do not undermine its democratic future.
Impact of AI on the future of warfare:
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into warfare has ushered in a new era
characterized by both opportunities and challenges for nations globally. In the context of the
ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the utilization of AI-driven technologies by both Russia and
Ukraine has seen a significant uptick, reshaping the dynamics of modern warfare. AI presents
vast potential for enhancing military capabilities, particularly in critical areas such as
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target identification. Notably, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) equipped with AI-powered image recognition technology have been deployed by
both sides to conduct aerial surveillance and gather intelligence, enabling more efficient
monitoring of enemy movements and identification of potential targets. Furthermore, the
deployment of autonomous weapons systems, including unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs)
and unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), highlights the growing reliance on AI for
autonomous decision-making in combat scenarios. These systems have demonstrated the
ability to identify and engage targets based on predefined criteria without direct human
intervention, showcasing the evolution of AI-enabled warfare tactics. However, the
widespread adoption of AI in warfare also presents significant challenges and risks. Foremost
among these is the potential for AI-driven cyber-attacks to disrupt critical infrastructure and
communication networks. Both Russia and Ukraine have faced allegations of employing
AI-enabled cyber-attacks to target each other's military and civilian infrastructure,
underscoring the dual-edged nature of AI in modern conflicts . Moreover, there is growing
Aurelia MUN 2025
concern regarding the use of AI in propaganda and disinformation campaigns, leveraging
algorithms to spread false narratives and manipulate public opinion. The ethical implications
of AI-driven warfare are also a subject of debate, particularly concerning accountability for
the actions of autonomous weapons systems and the potential for unintended harm to
civilians and infrastructure. Despite these challenges, the integration of AI into warfare is
poised to become increasingly prevalent in the future. As AI technologies continue to
advance, nations worldwide will need to develop comprehensive strategies to navigate the
complex ethical and operational considerations associated with AI-enabled warfare. In
Ukraine, this will necessitate a careful balance between leveraging AI for military objectives
while upholding principles of humanitarian law and protecting civilian populations.
Ethical considerations and potential consequences of AI
weaponization
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into weapons systems has sparked both
anticipation and apprehension regarding its ethical implications and potential consequences.
A primary ethical concern revolves around the issue of accountability, as the autonomy of AI
systems complicate the attribution of responsibility for their actions and any resulting harm.
This poses a challenge in upholding accountability and adhering to international humanitarian
law, particularly in scenarios where AI-powered systems are deployed in operations involving
civilian populations.
Additionally, the notion of human control over AI-driven weapons is pivotal in addressing
ethical dilemmas. There exists a looming risk that AI systems may make decisions contrary
to human values and interests, potentially leading to unintended outcomes and loss of human
lives. Ensuring human oversight throughout the development and utilization of AI in
weapons systems is imperative to uphold ethical standards and prevent scenarios of
unchecked autonomous decision-making. Furthermore, the proliferation of AI in warfare
raises concerns regarding the escalation of violence and the potential disregard for restraint in
the use of force. This could have far-reaching implications, including destabilization of global
security dynamics and heightened conflict risks. It is imperative to meticulously evaluate the
repercussions of AI-enabled warfare and ensure that any utilization of such technologies
adheres to principles of proportionality and compliance with international legal frameworks.
Beyond ethical considerations, the weaponization of AI carries broader implications that
warrant careful examination. These encompass the risk of triggering a global arms race and
the potential economic disruptions stemming from widespread job displacement due to
automation.
Aurelia MUN 2025
Addressing these concerns necessitates proactive measures aimed at mitigating risks and
exploring alternative approaches to technological advancement in the realm of weaponry. In
essence, the weaponization of AI presents a myriad of ethical challenges and potential
consequences that demand thorough deliberation and proactive measures. Upholding
principles of accountability, human oversight, and proportionality is paramount to navigate
the ethical complexities and minimize the adverse impacts of AI-enabled warfare on both
military operations and civilian populations.
Regulations on AI
Regulations on AI are an evolving and complex area, as governments and international
bodies work to create frameworks to address the rapid advancements in AI technology. These
regulations aim to balance fostering innovation with ensuring safety, privacy, and fairness.
Here are some of the key themes and regulations related to AI:
1. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - European Union (EU)
● Scope: GDPR has been a significant regulation for AI in Europe, particularly
regarding data privacy and AI applications that process personal data.
● Implications for AI:
○ AI systems that involve processing personal data must comply with data
protection principles.
○ The GDPR mandates transparency, giving individuals the right to understand
how AI systems process their data and the ability to opt-out of automated
decision-making.
○ AI systems must ensure data is used fairly and for its intended purpose, and
individuals must be informed of any automated decision-making processes.
2. AI Act - European Union (EU)
● Scope: The EU is in the process of introducing the AI Act, which aims to regulate the
use of AI across various sectors and applications.
Aurelia MUN 2025
● Risk-based approach: It categorizes AI systems based on their risk to individuals
and society:
○ Unacceptable risk: AI systems with significant risks (e.g., social scoring or
biometric surveillance) will be banned.
○ High-risk: Includes AI applications in critical sectors like healthcare, finance,
and transportation, requiring stringent compliance (e.g., transparency, human
oversight, documentation).
○ Low-risk: Less stringent requirements for AI systems that pose minimal risks.
● Key Requirements: AI systems must be transparent, explainable, and traceable, and
they must ensure human oversight in high-risk use cases.
3. Algorithmic Accountability Act - United States
● Scope: The Algorithmic Accountability Act in the U.S. was introduced to ensure
that companies conduct regular assessments of the impact of AI and automated
systems on privacy, fairness, and accountability.
● Key Features:
○ Companies are required to perform impact assessments for high-risk
algorithms.
○ Assessments must address issues such as bias, discrimination, and privacy
concerns.
○ The act aims to increase transparency and accountability in AI systems.
4. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI - European Commission
● Scope: In addition to the AI Act, the European Commission has set out guidelines for
creating trustworthy AI.
● Key Principles:
○ Human Agency and Oversight: AI systems should augment human
decision-making, not replace it entirely.
○ Technical Robustness and Safety: AI systems must be robust and secure
against adversarial attacks.
○ Privacy and Data Governance: AI must be used responsibly regarding
Aurelia MUN 2025
personal data, ensuring privacy and data protection.
○ Transparency: AI systems must be transparent in their decision-making and
offer explanations when needed.
○ Fairness: AI must be designed to avoid bias and discrimination, ensuring
fairness in outcomes.
5. The National AI Initiative Act - United States
● Scope: Signed into law in 2020, the National AI Initiative Act creates a framework
for coordinating AI research, development, and policy in the U.S.
● Key Features:
○ Establishes a national strategy for AI development.
○ Encourages collaboration between federal agencies, industry, and academia.
○ Focuses on ensuring AI advances are safe, ethical, and transparent.
○ Promotes the development of AI in ways that align with American values,
including respect for privacy and avoiding harmful bias.
Aurelia MUN 2025
Role of international regulations and governance in preventing AI
weaponization
The escalating pace of AI technology advancement has brought about heightened concerns
regarding its potential exploitation in weapon systems and the ensuing ramifications. It is
increasingly evident that the ethical implications surrounding the utilization of AI in
weaponry demand meticulous attention to ensure that its evolution and deployment adhere to
ethical norms and are conducted responsibly. In this context, the role of international
regulations and governance mechanisms in averting the weaponization of AI assumes
paramount significance. At present, existing international legal frameworks do not explicitly
address the incorporation of AI into weaponry, although they regulate certain categories of
arms such as chemical and biological weapons. Consequently, there arises a pressing need to
either adapt existing regulations or formulate new ones tailored to encompass the distinctive
attributes of AI-infused weapons systems. International entities such as the United Nations
(UN) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have underscored the
imperative of instituting international regulations governing AI weapons. The UN convened
its inaugural meeting on lethal autonomous weapons systems in 2018, deliberating on the
necessity of ethical and legal tenets to govern their development and utilization (United
Nations, 2018). Similarly, the ICRC has advocated for the incorporation of ethical
considerations and advocated for a global prohibition on fully autonomous weapons.
While some nations like the United States and Russia have opposed the proposition of a
universal ban on fully autonomous weapons, citing their potential to heighten accuracy and
mitigate risks to human soldiers, others such as Germany and the Netherlands have voiced
support for delineating ethical principles to guide AI weapons deployment. To effectively
thwart the weaponization of AI, international regulations must be meticulously crafted,
enforceable, and formulated through a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process encompassing
civil society, industry, academia, and governmental entities. Such regulations should also be
adaptable to accommodate future technological advancements and necessitate ongoing
scrutiny and updates to remain efficacious. Furthermore, complementing regulations,
international governance mechanisms assume a pivotal role in averting the weaponization of
AI. The collaborative development and utilization of AI in weaponry mandates global
cooperation and coordination. Esteemed international organizations like the UN and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) possess invaluable experience in governing
intricate technologies posing significant global security risks, offering a potential blueprint
for formulating international governance structures for AI weapons. In conclusion, the
Aurelia MUN 2025
weaponization of AI presents profound ethical and security challenges, compelling the
establishment of comprehensive international regulations and governance frameworks. It is
incumbent upon the international community to collectively devise ethical and legal
principles guiding the development and deployment of AI weapons, cognizant of
technological advancements and the imperative for continuous evaluation and refinement.
Sources for Research
1. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en
2. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/03/06/temporary-ukraine-ceasefire-unac
ceptable-russian-mfa-spokeswoman-says-a88277
3. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/governing-military-ai-amid-a-g
eopolitical-minefield?lang=en
NOTE: Kindly note that this Background Guide is not exhaustive in nature and is merely a
vessel to guide your research procedures by hinting at a few of many key focus areas and the
degree of the technicality and analysis that is expected out of every one of you. Research
should not be limited to the background guide and the links provided here, delegates are
encouraged to go beyond and research about all relevant topics.
With this, we wish you all the best and anticipate two days of exemplary academic
deliberations!
