For much of its history, Sudan has been ravaged by civil war. These conflicts have had an adverse effect on the country’s development and its population; despite its wealth of resources, the nation remains extremely poor and underdeveloped. The issues that the nation faces today can be traced back to colonial times, when Sudan’s rulers, Britain and Egypt, segregated North and South Sudan in an attempt to stop the Islamic North from influencing the South, and to allow the underdeveloped South to progress “naturally.” However, thanks to a series of poor decisions by Britain, when Sudan became independent in 1956, the North Sudanese were able to exploit the South Sudanese. This oppression led many Southerners to feel the need to assert their presence, resulting in prolonged conflict. Not only were the lives of many civilians disrupted throughout the wars, foreign humanitarian agencies were chronically unable to reach large areas of the country, resulting in widespread poverty and human rights issues that still exist today. The most recent large-scale conflict, the Second Sudanese Civil War, ended in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and since then, the nation has taken significant steps forward. Recently, South Sudan seceded and became an independent nation, thus precluding a third civil war. In addition, significant international assistance, including a prominent UN presence in the country, has helped with the implementation of the CPA. While there is certainly reason to be optimistic, there also remains much work to be done; for example, the border between the two Sudans is still disputed and the two nations have not yet agreed on how oil revenues should be split. Indeed, even a small controversy could re-ignite the conflict.

The current focus is on ensuring that the two states become successful and viable. For this to happen, though, it is not enough for the world to simply leave Sudan to sort itself out. The new South Sudanese government faces a plethora of issues, including the possibility of further internal violence (potentially incited by the North) and the proliferation of small arms, which also increases the risk of violence. The North, meanwhile, is dealing with South Sudanese groups seeking revenge and the potential future secession of the Darfur region.

Worrying developments in recent weeks indicate that the disagreements between the two nations have escalated to the brink of armed conflict; already, numerous humanitarian crimes have been committed, including state-sponsored murder, and rumours of a coup are being more widespread. (- Oct 1 2011)

It is therefore essential that the SC work out a comprehensive and long-term plan to ensure that both states will thrive in the future.

Recently, there has been a worrying amount of tension in the world’s seas. Such maritime conflicts have the effect of disrupting global stability and pose a major threat to international peaces. These developments are of great concern to the Security Council, especially considering that many of the world’s most powerful countries, including China and the US, are currently embroiled in disputes.

The current international document (ratified by 162 nations) governing the sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is at the heart of the issue. Consider, for example, the South China Sea, a region with a significant amount of natural resources and that has been claimed by seven bordering nations, including China. Tensions have escalated to the point of competing nations operating live-fire “drills” in the region and the militarization of the area; international influence, particularly by the US, which wants to see “freedom of navigation,” has only exacerbated affairs. Furthermore, a resolution decided internally amongst the disputants (between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) has already failed. The importance of a swift, effective, but mutually-acceptable solution in the South China Sea is clear: the status quo indicates that conflict is a very real possibility, and any disruption in the region is bound to have far-reaching effects, as the South China Sea contains very important and frequently-used shipping routes. Conflicts currently also exist in the Yellow Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.

Ultimately, these conflicts cannot be sufficiently resolved under UNCLOS because of some key deficiencies. The convention assumes that all nations are willing to cooperate and compromise, a rather idealistic view; therefore, it does not sufficiently address maritime conflicts and territorial disputes. In addition, the vagueness of the convention has led to stalemates, as different nations have each interpreted certain key phrases to their advantage; for example, the ambiguity of what should be classified under military activities (versus innocuous research activity, for example) has led to much inconclusive international debate. Clearly, clarifications of the convention need to be made. It is important to note that as UNCLOS has served the basis of modern maritime law, any action by the Security Council on this topic will likely have significant impacts and will probably serve as a precedent going forward; therefore, it is important for delegates to consider both current issues and potential future developments.