OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

Topic A: The Legal Responsibility of States for Supporting Non-State Armed Groups

Throughout modern history, proxy wars have been fought by superpowers looking to avoid direct confrontation. The highest concentration of these wars occurred during the Cold War, in the years 1946-1991, where experts estimate anywhere from 40-80 proxy wars occurred, depending on one’s definition. In conventional warfare, both sides, though usually in practice only the losing side, can be held accountable legally for a war and any crimes that occurred during it. Proxy wars, however, fall into a legal grey zone. Under international law, states cannot use force against another state or intervene in another country’s internal affairs (Article 2(4), Article 2(7)). In proxy wars though, the powers funding the fighting parties can argue that they are not fighting, the local actors are, creating confusion and uncertainty in the legal process. Currently, the conflict between Russia-Ukraine is widely described as involving proxy dynamics. Powers such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France are supporting Ukraine through the donation of advanced weapon systems, intelligence sharing, military training, financial aid, and logistical support. On the other side, Iran and North Korea are supporting Russia through the donations of drones, technology, ammunition, and artillery supplies. The Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the legal community, is in charge of developing and codifying international law. It is important to have a legal framework that can be used to develop mechanisms to address accountability for supporting war and interfering in foreign affairs.

Topic B: International disputes about intellectual theft of property and franchises

Throughout modern economic history, disputes over intellectual property have intensified as globalization has allowed brands, technology, and creative works to circulate rapidly across borders. Unlike traditional physical resources, intellectual property depends entirely on legal recognition and enforcement, which varies significantly from state to state. Under international law, protections are primarily governed by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights under the World Trade Organization, which sets minimum standards for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In practice, however, enforcement remains domestic, creating legal grey zones when foreign companies allege infringement abroad. A commonly cited example involves Chinese knock-offs of foreign consumer goods and franchises, where companies have reported nearly identical replicas of electronics, fashion brands, and restaurant chains operating without authorization. Although Chinese law formally recognizes intellectual property protections, critics argue that enforcement has historically been inconsistent, leading to accusations of trademark infringement, forced technology transfer, and weak penalties for violators. In response, China often maintains that it has strengthened its legal framework and that companies must properly register their trademarks within its jurisdiction to receive protection. These disputes frequently escalate beyond private lawsuits and become matters of state level trade negotiations, particularly between the United States and China, where intellectual property concerns have played a central role in tariff disputes and broader economic tensions. The Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, as the legal community responsible for developing and codifying international law, must consider how clearer standards of state responsibility and enforcement cooperation can reduce conflict while balancing innovation protection with national sovereignty and economic development.

Meet your Dias!