Day 1
The Committee started with a Tour de Table in which every delegate introduced themselves, along with the chairpersons. The atmosphere began to ease with every speech, the delegates beginning to feel more comfortable. Everyone was keen to get to know each other and start debating. At the end of the introductions, the whole Committee entered formal session. After the roll call, the floor was opened for any topics for the mock debate. After 2 failed attempts, the Committee decided upon one of the most debated topics nowadays: “Pineapple on Pizza’'.
South Sudan came with a radical view, considering that pineapple has “no belonging on Pizza”, being highly contradicted by India and China through POI’s. The United States of America, as one of the parents of the pineapple Pizza, gave an inspirational speech, encouraging the use of pineapple not only on Pizza, but also on other types of food, and further recommended other countries to consider it “an enrichment to every state’s food culture”. The debate was set on fire the moment Russia made a comment against Hawaiian and American culture, triggering the US to call for a Right of Reply that was granted by the chairpersons. The apology from the Russian Federation was not very convincing, but it was, after all, an apology.
Both sides have brought well-structured arguments to back up, but a final consensus couldn’t be reached due to cultural and ideological differences between the states.
Day 2
The second day of GalMUN in the Legal Committee started promisingly, with all countries holding impassioned opening speeches. While some countries agreed that changes in the way law is viewed must be considered, others accentuated the positive effect that the Peacekeeping Operation brought to their land. Central African Republic, China, Russia, South Sudan and the USA stood their stance and paved the way to a forceful day of debates.
On the GSL, China started strong, proposing radical solutions when it came to Peacekeeping Troops, including their death if necessary, which the states opposed, with the Central African Republic proposing guidelines to ensure the safety of the Troops. Germany made their point heard that the use of Force is not stated clearly, and they should consider reviewing it and the US considered that there is nothing to do about the sovereignty of states affected by crimes committed by Peacekeeping Troops as it was a consensual agreement in the beginning. The first Moderated Caucus occurred at the best time, giving the delegations present the opportunity to dive into the effects of diminishing immunity of Peacekeeping Troops. After 15 minutes of intense arguments, an agreement was reached that immunity must not be abolished but rather regulated to limit the abusive actions of the soldiers. The first Committee Session ended with a Right of Reply from the US to South Sudan, which was unfortunately not granted.
The second Committee Session started by celebrating Germany and France’s Birthday, a perfect opportunity to tighten the relationships between delegates and chairs. This Session was full of surprises, with no more than 3 Rights of Reply, out of which only one was granted. And there comes the Second Moderated Caucus: Legally addressing the damage done by United Nations Peacekeeping Troops. Lots of solutions were proposed: transparency, investigations, compensation for damages, detention according to International Law, fair treatment and no legal loopholes. On the whole, the Committee agreed to most of these solutions, remaining to be seen actual action regarding them.
Day 3
The Third Committee began with China proposing that Peacekeeping Troops must be judged under National Law, on the land on which they operate. Central African Republic brought into discussion the International Human Law, in response to China’s initiative. A Moderated Caucus about the “Withdrawal of consent by the hosting countries”, proposed by Russia, made the Committee reach a consensus regarding the lack of clarity, regulations and negotiations of the terms of the procedure. This Caucus had seen another successful Right of Reply, this time from Russia to the Central African Republic and ended with a wedding between the US and South Sudan, officiated by the lovely Chairpersons. The Fourth and last Committee Session took the form of a Moderated Caucus, on the topic of “the overlap between international and national laws”. The Committee also agreed that international law is stronger than national law and must be taken into account when judging Troops that have committed crimes against humanity. The Session ended with Russia accusing US of blaming them to save face, which resulted in a Right of Reply that was granted by the Chairpersons. We are thrilled by the events today, and we wait with eager interest for tomorrow’s Sessions.
The third day began promisingly, with the delegates starting to bring more practical solutions to the issue of Peacekeeping Troops. In order for the best ideas to rise, 2 Moderated Caucuses were held, after which the delegations of Russia, the USA, China, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, followed by the whole Legal Committee came to the conclusion that International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law must be combined and rewritten as a new legal base for the guilty Troops to be judged and to modify the terms of the mandates of Peacekeeping Troops to 3-6 months alongside strict monitoring.
The second committee session started with a wholesome session of feedback and gossips, with compliments to both chairpersons and in between delegates as well as solidarity in the quest of writing the resolution. The formal session continued the ongoing Moderated Caucus regarding the Interpretation of Peace Keeping Mandates with speeches from delegations such as Somalia addressing the misinterpretation of mandates, accompanied by an example offered in the speech of South Sudan.
After speeches that addressed the implications of non-state actors and refusal of cooperation with terrorist organizations, a Tour de Table was proposed in order to hear possible solutions from every delegation present, some of which being: judgment according to International Law or lowering immunity of peacekeepers and increased transparency and accountability. Surprisingly, this event was accompanied by a short discussion in which aspects such as Mexican Police, intergalactic jails, or “naughty peacekeepers’’ were snuck in, resulting in laughter from all members of the debate.
As the anticipated Unmoderated Caucus in order to start writing the resolution arrived, the fourth committee session moved the debate forward accompanied by the mesmerizing sound of the Subway Surfers music theme and a brief circus tune. Gathered in a large circle, the delegations tried seeing eye to eye in order to use the Unmoderated Caucus productively and deliver the best resolution they could. The end of the day quickly approached, just as fast as the Legal Committee wrote OCs full of solutions.
Day 4
Welcome back, fellow MUN enjoyers, to the fourth and final day of the XIXth edition of GALMUN. The work that the chairs and the delegates have put into all Committee Sessions is now taking the form of a Resolution, and today is the crucial moment: VOTING. After going over the amendments proposed by the delegations present, it was time for the “in favour” and “against” speeches. Led by the impassioned and inspirational speech of the Main Submitter, the Co-submitters backed up the Resolution with all their heart, encouraging an in favour vote by the entire Committee. To spice up the debate upon the adoption of this document, 2 speeches against were held, trying to convince the delegates that the Resolution put forward was not the most practical one and did not tackle all the points regarding Peacekeeping Troops’ crimes against humanity. The final remarks approaching to an end, it was time for voting. The Draft Resolution passed with an overwhelming majority, being greeted with a grandiose round of applause.
The whole Committee worked their hearts out, and it was the perfect time for bonding and relaxing. And what is the perfect opportunity to do both? You guessed it, Placard Signing Session. All the amazing delegates and the lovely Chairpersons wrote down beautiful messages to one another, creating memories that will surely stand the test of time. Delegates said their goodbyes to the Committee in which they worked, cried, laughed, experienced the unique feeling of debating, and the Chairpersons saw their work materialised in the most magnificent way: seeing the Resolution perfectly done, seeing the smiles of the delegates and the fact that they had a really great time in the Committee they have chaired and the overall experience of being near great people from which they have learnt a lot. With that being said, the LegalCommittee work has come to an end, and the General Assembly awaits us with 5 official documents to be read and voted upon.