Skip to content
Committee OverviewIntroduction to the AgendaMajor Aspects of the ProblemLegal and Political ChallengesCase StudiesKey TermsImportant FrameworksRegional PerspectivesQARMASResearch Guidelines
Discuss and make recommendations on matters of international peace and security (Article 10).Consider general principles of cooperation in maintaining international peace (Article 11).Initiate studies and promote the progressive development and codification of international law (Article 13).Encourage international cooperation in economic, social, technological, and humanitarian fields.Developing norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace.Facilitating inclusive dialogue through mechanisms such as the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG).Promoting capacity-building for developing states.Encouraging confidence-building measures (CBMs) to prevent escalation.
Anonymity and difficulties in attribution.Low barriers to entry.Rapid cross-border impact.Ambiguity regarding legal thresholds for “use of force” or “armed attack.”
Escalation based on misattribution.Impunity for malicious actors.Diplomatic instability.
Does disruption of power grids qualify as force?Does economic damage meet the threshold of armed attack?When can a state invoke Article 51 (self-defense) in response to a cyber operation?
Energy gridsWater supply systemsTransportation networksHealthcare facilitiesBanking systems
Recruitment and propagandaEncrypted communicationFinancing through cryptocurrencyDisinformation campaigns
Election interferenceIntellectual property theftDisinformation campaignsLimited system disruptions
Limited technical expertiseInsufficient fundingLack of digital infrastructure resilience
Sovereignty in cyberspaceDue diligence obligationsCountermeasuresProportionality in cyber responses
Freedom of expressionPrivacy rightsProtection against mass surveillance
Led NATO to recognize cyberspace as an operational domain.Influenced Western cyber defense doctrine.Raised questions about collective defense under Article 5.
Demonstrated that cyber operations can produce kinetic, real-world destruction.Raised debate over whether such actions qualify as a “use of force” under Article 2(4).Influences how major cyber powers (U.S., U.K., Germany) interpret lawful cyber operations.
Highlighted vulnerability of energy infrastructure.Demonstrated the economic impact of cyber warfare.Reinforced concerns in the Middle East about state-sponsored cyber sabotage.
One of the first examples of cyber operations occurring simultaneously with kinetic warfare.Raises questions about application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).Relevant to debates on hybrid warfare.
UNGA
Agenda: Addressing the security implications of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism.
Chairperson’s Letter:
Dear Delegates,
We are thrilled to welcome you to the United Nations General Assembly of Schoolhouse MUN 2026. Model UN is about more than just simulating diplomacy, but developing empathy, leadership, and becoming better global citizens. As chairs, we are here to assist you in facilitating a respectful and engaging discourse. We look forward to everything that is in store!
Dylan
Hi everyone! My name is Dylan, and I am a sophomore in High School. I’ve participated in Model UN before, and I am excited to chair the UNGA for the first time along with Aadiv. I enjoy math, playing tennis, videogames, and hanging out with friends in my free time. I’m excited to work with you all, delegates!
Aadiv
Honorable Chair, esteemed delegates, welcome to Schoolhouse MUN 2026! I’m Aadiv, and I’ll be one of your Chairs for the UNGA committee. I’m a freshman in high school, and while I have significant MUN experience, this is my first time chairing, and I’m excited to be chairing alongside Dylan.
We are thrilled to introduce this year’s topic: Addressing the security implications of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. As the world becomes increasingly globalized and more people have access to technology, cyber warfare and terrorism pose large threats to national security, targeting infrastructure, and creating widespread disruption on a large scale. During this session, we will look to explore solutions and ways we can work together, as nations, to mitigate the risks and threats of cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare.
Use the background guide to help you learn important information and help to craft thoughtful and unique position papers about your country’s stance. We are looking for unique and innovative solutions as threats expand into the 21st century. We cannot wait to meet with you all, and good luck!
Best Regards,
Dylan S & Aadiv S UNGA Chairs
Background Guide
Table of Contents
Committee Overview
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is the principal deliberative, policymaking, and representative organ of the United Nations, consisting of all 193 Member States with equal voting power. Although its resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant political authority and often contribute to the formation of customary international law and global norms.
Under the UN Charter, the General Assembly has the authority to:
In the context of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism, the UNGA plays a critical role in:
While the Security Council retains authority over enforcement actions, the General Assembly remains the most legitimate global forum for norm development and inclusive digital governance.
Introduction to the Agenda
The 21st century has witnessed the emergence of cyberspace as a new operational domain of warfare alongside land, sea, air, and outer space. States increasingly rely on digital infrastructure for governance, finance, defense, healthcare, and communication. As dependence on interconnected systems grows, so too does vulnerability.
Cyber warfare refers to state-sponsored cyber operations intended to disrupt, degrade, manipulate, or destroy digital systems of another state. These operations may target critical infrastructure, military command systems, financial institutions, or democratic processes. Cyber terrorism involves non-state actors using cyber tools to cause fear, instability, or coercion for political, ideological, or religious purposes.
Unlike traditional warfare, cyber operations are characterized by:
The central question before this committee is not merely technological, but legal and geopolitical: How should international law apply in cyberspace, and what mechanisms can the international community establish to prevent escalation while protecting sovereignty and civilian populations?
Major Aspects of the Problem
1. Attribution and State Responsibility
Attribution remains one of the most complex aspects of cyber conflict. Cyber attacks can be routed through multiple jurisdictions, masked through proxy servers, or conducted via non-state intermediaries. Without reliable attribution, invoking state responsibility under international law becomes difficult.
This uncertainty risks:
The question of whether states are responsible for cyber operations conducted by proxy actors within their territory is a major legal debate.
2. The Threshold of Use of Force
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. However, whether a cyber attack constitutes a “use of force” depends on scale and effects.
Key debates include:
There is currently no universally agreed definition of these thresholds in cyberspace.
3. Targeting of Critical Infrastructure
Modern societies depend on digital infrastructure controlling:
Cyber attacks on hospitals or water systems can endanger civilian lives without a single missile being launched. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), civilian objects must not be targeted during armed conflict. However, when cyber operations occur outside declared wars, legal classification becomes unclear.
4. Cyber Terrorism and Non-State Actors
Terrorist organizations exploit cyberspace for:
In addition to propaganda, concerns persist that terrorist groups may attempt to launch destructive cyber attacks against critical infrastructure. The transnational nature of cyberspace complicates law enforcement cooperation and jurisdictional authority.
5. Grey Zone Operations
Cyber activities often fall below the threshold of armed conflict. These “grey zone” tactics include:
Such operations undermine political stability while avoiding traditional military retaliation.
6. Cyber Arms Race
Many states have established military cyber commands and invested in offensive cyber capabilities. The absence of binding international regulation risks escalation and a digital arms race comparable to nuclear or conventional weapons proliferation.
7. Inequality and Capacity Gaps
Developing states face significant cybersecurity challenges, including:
Cyber instability disproportionately affects vulnerable states, raising concerns about digital inequality and global security imbalances.
Legal and Political Challenges
Applicability of International Law
The UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) has affirmed that international law applies to cyberspace. However, interpretation remains contested regarding:
Enforcement Gaps
Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, there is no comprehensive binding treaty regulating offensive cyber capabilities.
Balancing Security and Human Rights
Cybersecurity policies must balance national security with:
Overly broad cybersecurity measures may infringe on civil liberties.
Case Studies
Estonia (2007) – NATO and Collective Cyber Defense
Although Estonia is not represented in this committee, this case is highly relevant to NATO members present (U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Iceland).
In 2007, Estonia experienced large-scale Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks targeting government institutions, banks, and media outlets. The attacks followed political tensions with Russia. While attribution remained politically contested, the incident marked one of the first major cyber campaigns against a highly digitized state.
Significance for this Committee:
Countries such as the U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, and Poland may reference this case when arguing that severe cyber attacks can threaten national security and justify collective responses.
Stuxnet (2010) – Cyber Operations Causing Physical Damage
The Stuxnet malware targeted Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, reportedly causing physical destruction to infrastructure. Though not officially claimed, it is widely attributed to state actors.
Relevance:
For countries concerned with sovereignty (Belarus, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman), this case reinforces fears of cyber tools being used for covert intervention.
Cyber Attacks on Saudi Aramco (2012 & 2017)
Saudi Arabia, represented in this committee, experienced major cyber attacks targeting Saudi Aramco, the national oil company. The “Shamoon” malware wiped data from tens of thousands of computers, disrupting operations.
Significance:
This case is directly relevant to Saudi Arabia and Oman, particularly regarding protection of critical infrastructure.
Georgia (2008) – Cyber Operations During Armed Conflict
Georgia, represented in this committee, experienced coordinated cyber attacks alongside conventional military conflict in 2008. Government websites and communication systems were disrupted.
Importance:
Georgia may emphasize the need for stronger international norms to prevent cyber aggression.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.