The IBGMUN Human Rights Council 2024

Establishing International Standards for the Protection of LGBTQ+ Rights

Is freedom of sexuality a human right? Are members of the LGBTQ+ community still at risk today? These and other questions were answered in the IBGMUN Human Rights Council from the perspective of various nations. Since its inception, the Human Rights Council has been concerned with the universal protection of human rights and thus embodies the values of the United Nations.

The debate began with powerful opening speeches and quickly led to the first resolution, which was presented by the main submitter France and the United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark as co-submitters.

France: “The criminalization of individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity violates fundamental human rights.“

After France had called for an international legal framework that ensures full equality and protection for LGBTQ+ members, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Australia made strong speeches in favour of the resolution. Each delegation argued that members of the LGBTQ+ community must be considered equal and should therefore enjoy the same rights with regards to marriage, family foundation and enhanced protections guaranteed by law. However, the resolution was not only met with approval: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the representative of the Catholic Church and Morocco sharply criticized the proposed solution.

Egypt: “Religious laws and the set of beliefs that shape many national identities show us that there is no need for such a framework.“

While the committee was in time against the resolution as a whole, the discussion became heated. Poland, the representative of the Catholic Church and Egypt disagreed with many of the statements made by the submitters of the proposed resolution. The delegations argued that the proposed framework for the protection and equality of LGBTQ+ people was not in line with the religious beliefs and morals of the respective countries. Several amendments were tabled, and initially it looked as if both sides would not be able to agree on a compromise. After some amendments had been passed, they were withdrawn again by second-degree amendments.

Due to the ambivalent positions of some countries, the debate remained fruitful and tense until the end. As the debate drew to a close, the original French resolution was officially adopted. Even though not all sides came to an agreement, the majority decided for the resolution. After the resolution had been debated in the General Assembly on the last day, all proposers were happy when the resolution was also adopted by a simple majority in the General Assembly. The conference thus gave us hope that change is possible even in a world in which there is no common agreement about the words “freedom”, “tolerance” and “human rights”.

Sophie & Mieke, Year 12 (Press Team)

IBGMUN in Ikast 2025: Tackling Tourism and its Effects on Biodiversity

The Economic and Social Council was presided by Pauline Schepke, a former student from Goetheschule. In her function as chair of the Model UN committee, Pauline was faced right from the start with passionate debates on how to mitigate the impact of tourism on biodiversity:

ECOSOC chair Pauline, together with the delegate of Brazil.

Our delegates took part in a heated ECOSOC debate focused on balancing tourism and biodiversity. The session kicked off with Brazil’s strong objection to what they deemed an “unfair vote,” setting a tense tone for the discussion.  

Canada proposed a resolution to regulate tourism in sensitive areas, but it faced immediate criticism from China and Saudi Arabia. Both countries argued the proposal was too vague and financially driven. China, pushing for more practical solutions, accepted the resolution but introduced several amendments to reshape it to their vision, effectively transforming the document into a new plan. 

Key changes included traveler taxes (with exemptions for volunteer work), penalties for high CO2 emitters, and a ban on night flights in tourist-heavy regions. Despite progress, the debate underscored how challenging it is to find common ground on such complex issues. 

Beyond the debates, the conference was a great opportunity to build friendships and work through challenges together, highlighting MUN’s role in fostering both international cooperation and lasting connections.

Pauline Schepke

The Security Council: A Global Debate on Al Weapons 

MUN is about tackling real-world challenges and making tough decisions. The Model United Nations’s Security Council meetings in Ikast, Denmark, were anything but dull, as countries debated the role of Artificial Intelligence (Al) in warfare. Should Al be allowed to make decisions in battle? Can humans trust machines to take over such huge responsibilities? These were the kinds of questions that had to be taken into consideration.

Each delegate had to convincingly represent the political views of the country they were acting as a representative for, regardless of whether their own beliefs aligned with the official political doctrines. Here is a glimpse on how the students worked in the MUN Security Council:

Russia: “The World is More Complicated than ever”

Russia kicked off the MUN debate by stating that due to the introduction of AI systems, modern conflicts are more complicated now than ever. The Russian delegate argued that while Al could be useful in defence systems, humans need to remain in control. Russia emphasized that they were strongly in favour of using Al to protect their country but made it clear that human supervision should be essential. Decisions about life and death should not be left to a machine!

North Korea: “The Future is Al, and We Need to Invest in its Growth”

North Korea’s view was even more radical: They demanded to invest globally in Al-powered autonomous weapons. The delegate argued that Al is faster, better, and more efficient than humans. For them, the future of warfare is Al, and countries that don’t develop AI weapons will be left behind. North Korea even called for weapons that can make decisions on their own —no need for a human to be there constantly monitoring.

But could Al really be trusted to handle offensive operations? Is it safe and ethical?

Germany: “Can AI Really Be Trusted?”

Not every delegation was ready to give that much control to machines. Germany proposed an amendment that would require all Al military systems to have a human operator who could step in at any time and stop an attack if necessary. And what – Germany asked – if an AI system got hacked or malfunctioned?

The United States agreed that humans need to stay in control, especially when lives are at stake. They argued that while Al can be extremely efficient, it lacks the ability to make ethical decisions in conflicts.

However, North Korea strongly opposed human AI supervision as it would slow down progress. To North Korea it is crucial to foster Al development until the algorithms are even better than humans at handling threats.

Tensions Rise: a Russian Veto & a North Korean Proposal

Just when it looked like Germany’s proposal might be accepted as an amendment, Russia stepped in with a veto, which can only be done in the Security Council. They now argued that requiring constant human control would weaken the potential that Al defence systems promise. For Russia, the focus needs to be on using Al to enhance security, not hold it back. This Russian veto caused a lot of dissatisfaction among the delegates.

Next, North Korea proposed another amendment, a suggestion to reject any centralized control over Al research and funding. They argued that no single country or person should have the power to control Al development!

If you think MUN is simply young people talking in circles, think again. This Security Council meeting was a battle of ideas, and the stakes were high. Who knows what decisions might be made tomorrow? But one thing is for sure: MUN is way more exciting and thought-provoking than it might seem from the outside.

Sophie & Mieke, Year 12, Members of the Press Team