Cyber Clash With China (UNSC) — Student

Fictional, set in the present day. Cyberspace is a new domain of conflict that has few accepted standards of behavior. Basic questions about it—including how countries should respond to cyberattacks—are still unresolved. In recent years, China has exerted authority over areas of the South China Sea also claimed by other Asian countries, leading to tension with the United States. Last week, following a near miss when the U.S. Air Force conducted a flight near a shoal claimed by China in the South China Sea, the Nasdaq stock market was hacked, which significantly harmed the U.S. economy. U.S. intelligence agencies believe some in the Chinese government knew about the attack, for which a Chinese hacker collective claimed credit. UN Security Council members need to control the issue before it escalates further. 

The United Nations is the largest and most prominent international organization. The membership of the UN includes nearly all the world’s countries. It was established in 1945, after the end of World War II, by the United States and some four dozen other countries in an effort to build a more peaceful and cooperative postwar world. The United Nations has four main priorities: to keep peace throughout the world, promote fundamental human rights, strengthen international law, and pursue “social progress” and higher standards of living.

One of the most important functions of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security. This is primarily the task of the UN Security Council, a decision-making body that comprises fifteen countries. Five of these countries hold permanent seats and ten are elected on a rotating basis. The five permanent members (known as the P5) are the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The council’s main responsibilities are to evaluate threats to international peace and security and to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. When a peaceful settlement cannot be reached, the Security Council can impose diplomatic or economic sanctions. The Security Council can even authorize using force to resolve conflicts and prevent new ones. The Security Council has addressed a variety of issues, such as civil wars, terrorism, arms control, and natural disasters.

Despite its prominent position the Security Council’s influence is limited. Any action requires the unanimous agreement of the P5. This means that no resolution can be adopted if even one permanent member votes no—or vetoes—the measure. This kind of agreement is often difficult to reach, especially when a permanent member thinks its interests will be jeopardized if the measure passes. Moreover, the United Nations lacks its own military forces and has no enforcement power. In short, the Security Council can only do that to which its member states agree. These factors mean that countries, especially major powers, can bypass the Security Council or ignore its decisions. Nonetheless, the United Nations is the only organization with essentially universal membership, making it an important feature of international affairs.

Resources related to UN:

Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has grown to include 193 member states. The United Nations has several subsidiary bodies, and a network of offices and programs around the world. The nature of the issues on the UN agenda has evolved over time. The Cold War and its associated conflicts dominated for much of the twentieth century. Hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union held up much UN activity. During the Cold War, the Security Council was often deadlocked, given the veto each country held as a permanent member. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this dynamic began to change. In the past twenty years, issues including climate change, terrorism, and international migration have shifted the UN focus away from interstate conflict.  Increasingly, the focus is on problems that transcend national borders.

Organs

The United Nations is divided into six principal organs or parts: the General Assembly, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Security Council.

The General Assembly deliberates on the widest range of issues, spanning all areas of the United Nations’ work. The General Assembly is the only body in which all 193 UN member states are represented, each having one vote. General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding. In other words, they are recommendations.

The Secretariat carries out the institution’s day-to-day work. Led by the secretary-general and comprising tens of thousands of staff members from various countries, it staffs UN offices around the world. The Secretariat administers peacekeeping missions and operates communications, financial, and many other functions. As the organization’s chief administrative officer, the secretary-general attends sessions of UN bodies, consults with world leaders and others, reports on the work of the United Nations, and acts as a spokesperson.

The United Nations also includes the Economic and Social Council. This body is tasked with coordinating and discussing economic, social, and environmental issues. The United Nations also includes the Trusteeship Council, created to provide international supervision for decolonization and now largely inactive. Another organ of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), responsible for settling legal disputes between countries.

The Security Council is tasked with identifying and addressing threats to international security. In addition, it makes recommendations to the General Assembly for the appointment of the secretary-general and the admission of new members to the United Nations. Security Council decisions are communicated through resolutions. These are formal texts that outline steps to be taken and the reasoning behind those steps. In the absence of agreement, the body could also issue presidential statements. Presidential statements are similar in content and form to a formal resolution but do not legally bind member states.

Structure

Membership

The United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom make up the permanent members of the council. The remaining ten members are elected by the General Assembly to serve two-year terms. In electing nonpermanent council members, the General Assembly considers two factors. It must consider the “contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization.” This stipulation means that aggressive, norm-defying countries tend not to be elected to the council and that countries that contribute significantly to the United Nations (financially or in the form of personnel and equipment) appear more frequently. Second, nonpermanent members must reflect an equitable geographic distribution, meaning members must be elected from each of the major regions of the world.

Presidency

The Security Council presidency is held on a rotating basis by both permanent and nonpermanent member states. The position rotates in English alphabetical order by country name, each country holding office for one month. The president presides over meetings and serves as the Security Council’s representative before all other UN organizations. However, the UN secretary-general, not the Security Council president, sets the agenda for council meetings. The president simply approves this agenda.

Subsidiary Organs

Various subsidiary organs exist to support the Security Council’s mission and implement its resolutions. These range from committees on sanctions, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation to international criminal tribunals that prosecute those responsible for genocide and war crimes. The council also maintains partnerships or close relationships with a variety of other elements in the UN system, such as the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and the International Court of Justice.

Proceedings

Meetings of the Security Council are typically called when a state—even a nonmember (one of the two observer states at the United Nations or other states whose sovereignty is disputed)—brings a dispute to the Security Council’s attention. Meetings of the Security Council can also be called when the General Assembly refers a question to the council, or when the secretary-general raises a concern about international peace and security. Once the president decides that a meeting is necessary, they call for a session to address the issue.

Both UN members and nonmembers—the latter if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Security Council—are invited to participate, though nonmembers do not have a vote in the council’s discussions. If a Security Council member is party to the dispute being discussed, it must abstain (in other words, formally refrain) from voting.

Both Security Council members and invited participants can introduce a draft of a resolution—a ruling or recommendation made by a UN body—expressing a Security Council decision. After debating proposals, any member can call for a vote. A resolution needs nine votes to pass. A dissenting vote from any of the five permanent Security Council members can defeat a resolution, no matter how many affirmative votes it receives. This powerful dissenting vote is known as the veto. Permanent members can use their veto for any reason. Typically, they do so to stop resolutions that threaten their national interests. Security Council members can also abstain from voting. In any case, a resolution passes as long as it receives nine votes and no permanent member exercises a veto. Permanent members sometimes abstain from a vote if they disagree with a resolution but are not sufficiently opposed to veto it.

Powers, Functions, and Tools

If a resolution passes, the Security Council has several powers that it can use to ensure that resolution’s implementation. Certain Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding on all UN member states. This means that countries are obligated to comply with the terms of the resolution. This power sets the Security Council apart from other UN organs, which are empowered only to issue recommendations.

The United Nations’ founding document, the UN Charter, lays out the tools the Security Council can use to execute its work. These are established in Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the charter. Under Chapter VI, the council can only make recommendations of how parties should resolve a dispute. Under Chapter VII, the council can use more forceful methods. Generally, resolutions under Chapter VII are considered legally binding.

Chapter VI: Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Chapter VI allows the Security Council to seek solutions to disputes by “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means.”

Actions taken under Chapter VI include

The recommendations made under Chapter VI are just that—recommendations. They cannot be imposed on the parties concerned without their consent.

Peacekeeping missions can fall under Chapter VI or Chapter VII. In the case of Chapter VI missions, forces are deployed to help maintain a peace agreement, cease-fire, or other such arrangement that has already taken hold between warring parties. Peacekeeping missions under Chapter VI can include unarmed observers, lightly armed troops, or both. Their goal is to prevent new outbreaks of conflict and peacefully resolve disputes that arise. UN personnel tend to be stationed along a boundary line and their role is usually to report infractions of peace agreements rather than to intervene. Chapter VI peacekeeping missions require the consent (or agreement) of the parties involved in the conflict, are considered impartial, and do not use force except in self-defense.

Chapter VII: Maintaining or Enforcing Peace

Chapter VII addresses “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

Actions taken under Chapter VII include

calling for military intervention, either by multinational forces (organized, e.g., by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]) or by regional organizations (such as the African Union).

Unlike Security Council resolutions issued under Chapter VI, those adopted under Chapter VII are binding. Two examples of Chapter VII resolutions are Resolution 1695, which in 2006 imposed sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear program. Likewise, resolution 1973 in 2011 established the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan civil war.

One of the most frequently used tools under Chapter VII is the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are restrictions on a country, organization, or individual, typically limiting the target’s ability to travel, trade, or access financial resources. They can be used to discourage certain future actions, such as building nuclear weapons, to pressure a party to act, or to punish it for violating international rules. Sanctions can target entire sectors of a country’s economy. Generally,  the Security Council pursues targeted sanctions—sometimes called smart sanctions—against certain industries, businesses, or individuals. These can include arms embargoes, travel restrictions, or financial asset freezes.

Sanctions have become a popular tool because they offer a way to intervene in an issue without the risks and costs associated with using military force. However, sanctions have raised some concerns as well. Critics have argued that even highly targeted sanctions can have unintended consequences, especially on already vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the Security Council lacks a concrete method of enforcing its sanctions. Instead, it must rely on individual countries to enact them. If sanctions are weakly enforced, the target could possibly work around them, avoiding their effects and potentially discrediting the value of sanctions in the future.

If nonmilitary options, such as sanctions, fail to resolve a dispute, the Security Council can authorize a peace enforcement mission. Unlike Chapter VI peacekeeping missions, Chapter VII enforcement missions do not require the consent of the parties involved. Chapter VII enforcement missions are authorized to “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The personnel involved can include heavily armed troops and can use force in situations other than self-defense. Chapter VII peace enforcement missions can take different forms. Sometimes they are undertaken by UN peacekeeping forces and operate under UN command. In other instances they can be led by a coalition of member states authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution.

The line between Chapter VI and Chapter VII missions is not always clear. A Security Council resolution does not need to explicitly refer to the chapter it is invoking.  A mission’s mandate—or description of its mission—can change over time to adjust to changing circumstances; a mission established under Chapter VI can be expanded to also fall under Chapter VII if the situation evolves and requires a more robust intervention.

The Security Council was able to greatly expand its activities at the end of the Cold War. Without the United States and the Soviet Union in direct opposition, the number of vetoes declined significantly. The council was able to take action on a greater range of issues, including civil conflicts and humanitarian crises. During the 1990s, the Security Council authorized more peacekeeping missions than it had in the previous forty years combined. It authorized UN-led missions such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council also authorized coalition operations such as the 1990 Gulf War. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, international terrorism also came to the forefront of the council’s agenda.

The Security Council has also broadened its view of international security in recent years, adopting resolutions on issues such as HIV/AIDS, the protection of women and children in humanitarian crises, and climate change. In 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a series of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aiming to promote global economic development, environmental protection, and social well-being. The SDGs emphasize the interconnected nature of global challenges and the need for cooperation across governments and institutions. Accordingly, the Security Council has paid increasing attention to the ways in which social, economic, and environmental factors influence the maintenance of peace and security.

Despite this increased activity, the Security Council continues to face significant challenges. The United Nations greatly expanded its peacekeeping efforts after the Cold War. But peacekeeping missions have faced criticism for being underfunded, for being limited in scope, and for abuses committed by peacekeepers themselves. In some cases, such as in Rwanda in 1994, peacekeepers have been accused of failing to prevent genocide. Those failures led many countries to argue for a new understanding of peacekeeping and foreign intervention. In 2005, UN member countries adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. This doctrine establishes that countries have a responsibility to intervene in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity that a national government cannot or will not stop. This remains a nonbinding norm, and its applicability in specific situations is often disputed. Moreover, conflicting interests among the security council’s veto-wielding permanent members often curtail the possibility of approving a robust intervention.

In recent years, renewed tension among the United States, China, and Russia has emerged as an obstacle to Security Council action. Observers and Security Council members themselves have sharply criticized the council’s inability to take action on the Syrian civil war. This inability to take action is in spite of multiple reports of war crimes and an estimated death toll of at least five hundred thousand people. Russia, an ally of Syria’s government, has vetoed several resolutions aimed at stabilizing the conflict and alleviating the growing humanitarian crisis, arguing that any such resolution would be a violation of Syria’s sovereignty. Vetoes have increased in the last decade, with Russia and the United States casting the majority of them.

These challenges have led many UN members, including the United States, to call for changes to the Security Council. Many observers argue that the council’s composition, which allots the five permanent seats to the winners of World War II (the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom), does not reflect the power structure of today’s world. They argue instead for extending permanent membership to more countries and adjusting the regional distribution of permanent membership. These reforms could help better represent large and growing populations in Africa and South America. Another source of criticism has been the P5’s veto, which, critics assert, undermines the council’s ability to take action. In recent years, a growing number of UN member states—including France, a permanent member—have supported calls for P5 members to voluntarily refrain from using their veto power in situations involving mass atrocities. Other member states have suggested that the veto power be removed altogether.

Reform is controversial and complicated. Any reform of the Security Council would likely require an amendment to the UN Charter that is approved and ratified by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and then a vote in the Security Council. Permanent members of the Security Council would retain their usual right to veto. Given this, any reform of the UN Security Council that is not supported, or at least tolerated, by the P5 is unachievable, and garnering such support or tolerance will almost certainly prove impossible.

Cyberspace is a new domain of conflict, one guided by few accepted rules or standards of behavior. Policymakers find offensive cyber operations attractive because they are relatively inexpensive, can be designed to be less destructive than attacks against physical targets and can provide a high degree of anonymity to the attacker. Most of these operations include cyber espionage (theft of military and political secrets or intellectual property) and political disruptions (website defacement or distributed denial-of-service [DDoS] attacks, which flood a website with so much data that it can no longer respond). 

Defending against cyber threats is extremely difficult. Defenders need to worry about millions of lines of computer code, hundreds of devices, and scores of networks. Attackers, on the other hand, only need to find one vulnerability. Moreover, determining who is responsible for cyberattacks is difficult and slow. Unlike other kinds of attacks, cyber attackers can hide their tracks more easily. The attacks can happen in minutes, if not seconds. Many countries also rely on proxies such as criminal groups, or patriotic hackers to conduct operations for them. Even if the hackers can be located, anyone anywhere could have authorized the attack. This conundrum also greatly complicates efforts to retaliate and prevent attacks. Experts generally assume that a cyberattack resulting in death or physical destruction would be considered an armed attack. However, the threshold for a military response to other forms of cyberattacks remains uncertain.

Compounding these difficulties is the fact that relatively few international norms exist to govern cyberspace. Without shared standards of acceptable behavior to guide responses to cyberattacks and deter certain types of cyber operations, such as those targeting critical infrastructure, cyber operations pose a considerable risk to international security. Successful attacks could risk escalation beyond the realm of cyberspace or have unintended consequences beyond the initial target. Moreover, if, based on past trends, military leaders fear that their networks or weapons systems could be subjected to cyberattacks—which would limit their ability to order forces in the field or to launch weapons—they would be incentivized to use their weapons systems preemptively. Such a move would escalate and further destabilize a conflict. 

Hypothetical Decision Point

China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam have competing territorial claims in the South China Sea. In recent years, China has exerted authority over the area by increasing the size of existing islands or creating new ones. China has also constructed new ports, military installations, and airstrips. The United States has promoted the right of military vessels to operate in China’s claimed two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also rejected China’s claim to a twelve-mile territorial zone around the artificial islands it has built. Since 2015, the United States has signaled its opposition by flying military aircraft and sending U.S. Navy ships near certain islands.

Last week, the U.S. Air Force conducted a flight near a shoal claimed by China in the South China Sea. Three days later, the Nasdaq Stock Market suffered a hack that damaged computers and forced the suspension of trading for two days. This imposed significant costs on several major multinational companies and dented confidence in the U.S. financial system. An underground hacker collective based in China known as the Zheng He Squadron has claimed responsibility for the hack. The group has known ties to the People’s Liberation Army, China’s military. U.S. intelligence agencies assess with 90 percent certainty that the hack occurred with the knowledge or support of parts of the Chinese government. Beijing claims no knowledge of the attack. 

The U.S. secretary of state has declared that the attack represents a grave threat to U.S. national security and that Washington is considering all options, including military action, in response. In an effort to manage the dispute and avoid escalation, the UN secretary-general has convened a meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss and take possible action on the cyber conflict between two of the Security Council’s permanent members, the United States and China. 

The rapid diffusion of information technology has remade economics, culture, and politics. It has transformed commerce. It has made global supply chains possible and generated enormous wealth. It has created social and cultural networks that span the globe. It has enabled people to overcome distance and share knowledge and ideas. It has provided powerful tools for political organization and protest.

Yet the digital revolution has also created new sources of vulnerability. Countries, terrorists, and criminals can shut down power, communication, transportation, and financial networks with the click of a mouse. Cyberattacks can inflict not just massive economic losses but also death and physical destruction. Approximately forty countries have acquired cyberweapons (that is, malware) for use in offensive combat operations. Many more have purchased tools from private cybersecurity firms. Individuals and nonstate groups have begun to use cyberweapons too. Sometimes, they act under the direction of their home governments. In other cases, they operate entirely on their own. Furthermore, the responsibility for a cyberattack can be masked. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine who should be punished. This, in turn, makes it harder to deter an attack in the first place. The global and interconnected nature of the internet also means cyberattacks can cause collateral damage to other networks and computer systems.

Countries have yet to figure out how to limit competition in cyberspace. Malware is impossible to count or control. Agreements like those that limit nuclear competition do not exist for digital weapons. Although acceptance of international law in cyberspace is growing, great uncertainty remains about how it should be applied. Standards determining how cyberweapons are used, what targets are acceptable, and whether a country is justified in responding to cyberattacks with conventional military force remain up for debate.  

Major powers, including the United States and China, have signaled a willingness to discuss the nature of cyber threats in recent decades. However, they have been slow to develop a concrete policy framework. Since 2005, a small group of governmental experts has gathered at the United Nations to discuss cyber threats. The group, which includes government representatives from the United States, China, and Russia, signed a nonbinding report [PDF] in 2013. This report showed agreement that international law applies in cyberspace. This means that cyberattacks can be considered a use of force, a country can exercise the right to self-defense if it is the victim of a cyberattack, and the laws of armed conflict apply to cyberwar. The 2013 report also asserted that countries are responsible for cyberattacks that originate within their territories, regardless of who directs them. In 2015, the same group agreed to a set of peacetime norms [PDF] promoted by the United States. Those norms include the idea that countries should not attack each other’s critical infrastructure or target each other’s computer emergency response teams—national agencies that defend against and help recover from cyberattacks. The norms also hold that countries should assist other nations investigating cyberattacks and cybercrime. 

However, the 2017 round of negotiations ended with the participants unable to identify new norms or agree how to apply international law to cyberspace. Consequently, the norms discussion at the United Nations split into two parallel paths. In addition to the group of government experts, Russia led the formation of an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on international cybersecurity in 2018. The OEWG was formed around the goal of creating a “more democratic, inclusive, and transparent” forum for discussing cyber norms. This group involves all UN member countries. Some analysts have suggested Moscow’s formation of a larger group was in part a deliberate effort to make consensus more difficult. However, the OEWG has seen widespread participation by countries and nongovernmental organizations. This makes it a potential tool to build confidence, transparency, and communication among countries in their pursuit of cyber norms. 

In March 2021, the OEWG reached a consensus on a nonbinding report [PDF]. The report reaffirmed the 2015 recommendations on cyber norms and international law and acknowledged the need for further progress on other emerging issues that have so far seen little international discussion. These other issues include  protecting health-care systems and other critical infrastructure and using cyberspace to interfere with other countries’ electoral processes. Although the report does not offer recommendations on how to address these topics, their inclusion could lay the groundwork for future cooperation on international cyber norms.

Subsequent meetings of the OEWG have had less success. Discussions have frequently ended in stalemate. Russia and China have blocked access to critical nongovernmental groups such as technology and cybersecurity firms. This is due, in part, to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The United States and China have significant disagreements over cyber espionage, cyberattacks, and internet governance. These differences have intensified in recent years as cyber issues have become more significant on the bilateral and global agenda. The two countries have a history of clashes in cyberspace. According to a 2013 Washington Post report, Chinese hackers have stolen information relating to more than two dozen U.S. weapons programs. This stolen information includes the Patriot missile system, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the U.S. Navy’s new littoral combat ship. The White House, the State Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and NASA have all been breached. Attacks on several companies, including Disney, General Electric, Google, Sony, Symantec, and Yahoo, have also been publicly reported. In addition, Chinese hackers have reportedly targeted negotiation strategies and financial information in energy, banking, law, and other sectors.

In response to U.S. claims of Chinese hacking, China has noted that it is also a victim of cybercrime. China has claimed that the majority of attacks against it originate from internet protocol (IP) addresses in the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Chinese media were quick to echo claims by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the United States hacks targets on the Chinese mainland and in Hong Kong. 

Indeed, though initially silent on its cyber operations, the U.S. government has itself gradually become more transparent about developing and using cyberattacks. Experts widely believe the United States and Israel were behind Stuxnet. Stuxnet was the malware designed to slow Iran’s nuclear program by damaging centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility in 2009. However, both countries have denied any involvement. U.S. Defense Department strategy explicitly recognized offensive cyber missions in 2015. Furthermore,  the Pentagon began to develop cyber capabilities that can support military operations. Since 2018, U.S. Defense Department Cyber Strategy embraced a new, more offensive posture, aimed at observing, countering, and disrupting adversary operations before they affect U.S. networks. 

Meanwhile, tensions between the United States and China have remained high. The two nations have made repeated attempts to enter into dialogue about each country’s cyber practices. At a 2015 summit, they reached a breakthrough agreement under which both sides pledged not to conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property. Washington and Beijing also agreed to identify and endorse norms of behavior in cyberspace. They also established  two high-level working groups and a hotline between them. However, further negotiations on cyberspace yielded little progress since 2015. Little evidence exists that either country has lessened its operations in cyberspace. Relations between the United States and China continue to deteriorate and a shared set of international cyber norms continues to be elusive. Likewise, the risk of a cyber clash escalating between the two countries remains significant.

The United Nations has sought to define the rules of behavior for cyberspace for nearly two decades. As cyberweapons become more sophisticated and widespread and their use increasingly risks escalation or unintended global consequences, this task has grown more urgent. However, the UN Security Council has yet to specifically address the issue of cybersecurity in a formal setting, though it has addressed the issue in informal discussions and as it relates to broader subjects. As the threat cyberwarfare poses grows more apparent, council members will need to consider what role they can play to prevent or respond to cyber clashes to maintain international peace and security.

Furthermore, although the dispute at hand is primarily between the United States and China, its roots in the ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea give it far-reaching implications. Several other countries involved in maritime disputes with China—including Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam—will have an interest in how the Security Council can manage or resolve the dispute and the broader issue of cyber behavior. Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam have also been targets of Chinese cyberattacks. Moreover, the United Nations has yet to successfully deescalate disputes in the South China Sea. This impacts  countries’ access to fishing rights, oil exploration, and shipping lanes. To date, the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration has primarily addressed territorial claims. The court has dismissed China’s claims of its “historic title” in the South China Sea in a case brought by the Philippines and other countries in 2016. However, China has so far ignored its rulings. The Security Council could offer an avenue to more robust action or more fruitful negotiations.

Securing any council action in the dispute is likely to be difficult. Given that both parties to this dispute, the United States and China, are veto-bearing permanent members of the Security Council, the council’s influence in this matter is likely to be modest. Both countries will be able to block any action they perceive as against their interests. Therefore, policy options that criticize or impose penalties on either party, including sanctions, are likely to be exceedingly difficult for the council to approve. A country could still propose such resolutions in an attempt to embarrass the other side and force it to use its veto. Security Council members will need to explore what action is possible given the likelihood of a U.S. or Chinese veto and how to negotiate the support of permanent members. Members could explore actions that could prevent the crisis from escalating, even if the Security Council cannot impose a comprehensive resolution. Some members could also use this occasion to advance broader norms of behavior in cyberspace. In general, member states will need to weigh the desire for a timely response to a crisis against the need to secure support from as many council members as possible, especially permanent members. 

The principal policy options available in this case are discussed below. These responses are available individually, in combination, or all together. 

Call on the United States and China to negotiate

Council members could adopt a resolution calling on the United States and China to enter negotiations over their behavior in the South China Sea and in cyberspace. Negotiations could occur through the offices of the secretary-general or another respected authority. This option would be the easiest to implement. It bears the least risk of drawing a U.S. or Chinese veto. Negotiations could steer the current clash away from escalation. They could also facilitate a broader discussion of both countries’ practices in cyberspace. However, it is also the least likely to have lasting effects. The United States and China could be reluctant to accept the outcome of any international arbitration. Indeed, Beijing has ignored prior rulings by the International Court of Justice regarding the South China Sea. In addition, this option does nothing to address the establishment of broader norms in cyberspace.

Manage the dispute within the UN Security Council

The Security Council could attempt to address the dispute using its own powers. This option could include several actions. The council could commission a report on how the dispute has been managed with recommendations for how to manage the dispute without escalation. Council members could further adopt a resolution prohibiting certain actions, such as military responses or cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, in an attempt to prevent escalation. Finally, Security Council members could propose sanctions on one or both parties as punishment for their actions and as a deterrent to escalation.

Defining what actions are appropriate in the current conflict could prevent escalation and also set a precedent for the negotiation of future cyber norms. However, commissioning a report and recommendations would take significant time. Securing the consent of both the United States and China to place limitations on either country’s actions would be difficult. Imposing any form of sanctions is likely impossible. Council members pursuing this option will need to consider what actions are most likely to allow consensus and whether proposing actions that will force a veto is worthwhile as a tactic to shame one or both parties. 

Use the dispute to establish broader cyber norms

The Security Council could use this dispute as an opportunity to debate norms of conduct in cyberspace more broadly. This could include questions regarding what types of targets are appropriate and whether and when kinetic military measures (i.e., those against physical targets) are justified in response to cyberattacks. Given the binding nature of UN Security Council resolutions, a resolution that establishes a strong standard of conduct in cyberspace provides the council with an avenue to deter or punish future attacks. Such a resolution could also establish a committee within the Security Council to address cybersecurity issues as they arise, similar to its counterterrorism committee. 
However, reaching consensus on an issue as broad as cyber practices will take time. This could allow the current dispute at hand to potentially escalate unaddressed. Moreover, given that other UN forums on cyber practices have failed to reach consensus, often largely because of the United States, China, and Russia, the Security Council is not guaranteed to prove more effective. 

Do Nothing

The Security Council could decide it is unable to take meaningful action on the dispute in light of conflicting interests among council members. In this case, Security Council members could issue a presidential statement expressing concern about the situation but ultimately leave action up to individual countries. If the situation worsens, however, council members could revisit the matter.

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

Your assignment prior to the role-play is to prepare a set of prepared clauses for a potential Security Council resolution. These clauses, along with those of other students, will form the basis of the discussion in the role-play.

You should bring

Each operative clause should present a complete proposal. Make sure that your proposed solutions are within the powers of the Security Council and are practical. Your operative clauses might be designed to work in concert (perhaps economic sanctions, mediation, and a peacekeeping force) or might be a set of alternatives from which you hope one will be adopted (perhaps three peacekeeping proposals that differ in their details).

In writing each of your operative clauses, consider the following points:

If your operative clauses start to get long and messy, use subsidiary clauses!

The goal should be to create clauses that include all the information necessary for putting the plan into action. It can be helpful to imagine an official tasked with carrying out the resolution and asking whether they have all the information they need to implement it.

If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the UN Security Council’s final vote.  

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the UN Security Council vote.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of multilateral negotiations. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, the policy review memo.  

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your written reflection: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the UN Security Council meeting and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the subsequent discussion. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the UN Security Council’s decision where appropriate.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all that you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see if and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Country Resources:

Essential facts about your country

Information about your country’s foreign policy

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

What is a UN resolution?

A UN resolution is a formal expression of the opinion or will of a UN body. Resolutions follow a common, relatively strict format and are published online once approved. They are written and approved (or rejected) in a complex process. They typically go through several drafts, and multiple countries are typically involved, though a single country may write a draft resolution on its own and seek a direct vote. You will navigate an abbreviated version of this collaborative process in your role-play.

A Security Council resolution has three sections:

The entire resolution is one long sentence; individual items are separated by semicolons and commas. The header gives the date, an alphabetical list of countries that have contributed to the document (sponsors), and the name of the issuing body (in this case, the Security Council). This body serves as the subject of the sentence.

Preambular clauses provide a framework through which to view the issue by outlining past action on the subject (usually in treaties, conventions, and previous resolutions) and explaining the purpose of or need for a resolution. Preambular clauses are unnumbered, begin with adjectives or verbs, and end with commas. Common preambular words include

An example of an existing preambular clause is

Operative clauses state the opinion of the organ and the actions to be taken. Unlike preambular clauses, operative clauses are sequentially numbered and follow a logical progression, each clause calling for a specific action. Operative clauses begin with italicized verbs, sometimes modified by adverbs, and end with semicolons (with the exception of the last clause). Common operative words include

The last operative clause in a Security Council resolution is almost always “Decides to remain seized of the matter.” In line with Article 12 of the UN Charter, this language keeps the issue under the Security Council’s authority and prevents the General Assembly from taking its own action. An example existing operative clause is

Click here to see a full example of a UN Security Council resolution.

If the Security Council is unable to come to agreement on a resolution, another option is to issue a presidential statement.

What is a presidential statement?

A presidential statement is made by the president of the Security Council on behalf of the council. It is adopted at a formal council meeting, issued as an official document, and published. No formal vote is taken on a presidential statement; instead, it is adopted by consensus (the agreement of all members, though some may abstain). Member states have the option of voicing opposition to the statement, which is then recorded in the document. Often released when the council cannot reach consensus on a resolution or is prevented from passing one by a permanent member’s veto, presidential statements are similar in content and tone to resolutions but tend to be less specific. They are not legally binding.

All presidential statements generally follow the same loose structure, which is more flexible and relaxed than that of a UN resolution:

Click here to see a full example of a UN Security Council presidential statement.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.