The

EXPOSITOR
JESUS & MARY COLLEGE MODEL UNITED NATIONS15

NSC Debates on
Negotiations with Terrorists
as IC 814 Crisis Worsens
Sanjana Ahuja reports on the deliberations of the National Security Council
As the National Security Council of
India (NSC) dealt with the ongoing
predicament of the hijacking of IC 814,
several fundamental questions were
raised. The most prominent of these was
based on our very policy as a nation- do
we or do we not negotiate with terrorists?
The argument arose because although
the Indian government professes a nonegotiation policy with terrorists, in
practice it does often partake in the same.
The rhetoric given for the same was that
this approach buttresses the moderates
among the terrorists by promising
legitimate
political
involvement,
and tempts them to eschew violence
and accept democratic principles.

Many members of the Council advocated

dialogue followed by negotiations with
the hijackers, as they believed that it was
the best way to diffuse the crisis. Their
ideology was best understood in the words
of the Minister of Finance who said, Our
first aim is to save the people onboard
and then later think of the implications.
However, this viewpoint faced vociferous
opposition from others who instead
wanted to put up an undaunted faade
for the world to see. We [India] always
accept defeat before even fighting the
battle. We must, this time, put up a strong
front, said the Secretary of Department
of Defense Production and Supplies.

on 24th December 1999, that an Indian

Airlines aircraft with 176 passengers
onboard had been taken hostage by a
group of about ten armed terrorists. The
Council had been convened to formulate
an appropriate plan of action to ensure
the safety of the passengers and also,
that of the nation. The terrorists had not
disclosed their demands, if any, until the
time of the last update from the Council.
In conclusion, it was ascertained
that the government would send
a representative to engage in
cautious dialogue with the terrorists.

The NSC received information at 5:30 pm

JANUARY 23, 2014 | DAY I, ISSUE I

UN COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

The UN Searches for a Prototypical Law

As countries rummage for the utopic solution to trade secret protection, new questions come into
the international purview. Nikita Biswal reports
The UN Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) found itself
employed into a radical discussion
about the hypostasis of trade secret
laws and constellated best practices
in different legal cultures across the
globe. The debate also expanded the
scope of drafting a uniform model law
through a discussion of existing legal
remedies with the rudimentary question
of what exactly trade secrets are.
The Commission established that
defining Trade Secrets objectively is an
unavoidable stepping stone in order
to draft a model law which pursues
their protection. Article 39 of the Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, containing the
existing definition of Trade Secrets and
underlies its most prominent features,

was comprehensively assessed and

critiqued. Contradictions in national
litigations in the context of trade
secrets protections were also discussed.
Thereupon the Ambassador of Russia
made a concrete analogical suggestion
of establishing special courts and
maintaining tabulations of Trade Secrets,
while the delegate of India made a
mention of the injunctive relief available
to harmed parties. Though a platoon of
such concepts spurred up during session,
apprehensions did not cease to exist. In
context, the delegate of Brazil highlighted
that the level of economic development
of different nations shall influence the
effectiveness of their legal enforceability
of the model law. Meanwhile, United
States
highlighted
that
tangibly
outlining the reasonable measures

taken by the proprietor of a trade secret

decisively restricts their freedom to
protect their intellectual properties.
Amidst this rummage for a uniform
international law, certain interesting
theses about forebodings during
international
litigation
obfuscated
discussion and inked the veining
disparity among national legislatures in
terms of whether such jurisprudence is
subject to Civil laws or Criminal Laws.
While the session leaves behind an
incomplete trail with much left to be
addressed, it simultaneously generates
space for a consequential discussion,
one that shall lead to better international
understanding and assertively alter
the global course of commerce.

JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

UN COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

Trade Secret Protection: Of Multifaceted Legalities

and Intricate Risks
Naseer Jafri takes you through the inherently complicated processes that firms undergo post a
trade secret leak
The primary argument over trade
secrets arises over the very definition
of them. As far as firms are concerned,
it might be something very central
to the product differentiations, like a
chemical formula, or even an innovative
method of bookkeeping. A trade secret is
classified by the three basic conditions
which are, that the secret must not be
something commonly known, that it
must be protected as confidential by
the concerned company and also, it
must be of some tangible benefit to
the company. A company must adopt
required steps to protect it, among
which, the primary steps are to regulate
the hiring policy of the company, and
exercising caution when it comes to
dealing with third-party employees.
Complex

litigation

processes

In the case where a trade secret is leaked

by a rouge employee, the company can
sue for a breach of contract, but the
primary problem with proving the leak of
a trade secret is something fundamentally
inherent to the very idea of a trade secret,
that it happens to be a secret, and it is very
difficult to prove in a court of law about
the existence of the same. Any party can
claim to have reached the idea on the
basis of their own research and studies
or they can claim to have arrived on the
trade secret by reverse engineering of
the said product, in which case, unlike

patents, the law offers no protection to

the original innovators of trade secrets.
Another problem, which the victims
of secret espionage face, is the fact that
any verdict in their favour will only be
considered within the jurisdiction of the
court which awarded the said verdict. If
the secrets leaks out of the borders of that
jurisdiction, the firm will be forced to let
go of their secrets or litigate in several
other places, where the laws might not be
favourable to their interests. This causes
many observers to call for a common
law which will be enforceable across all
countries. Many capitalist firms have also
encouraged a common law to save them
from the troubles of litigating in different
courts. But, many countries, where local
ethics do not allow for the provisions
for any form of intellectual property, it
might be considered a breach upon their
national sovereignty, which allows them
a choice when it comes to trade secrets
and other intellectual property laws.
A criminal or civil offense?
There are serious disagreements
among different parties as to whether
a trade secret should be considered a
criminal offense or a civil offense, if it is
considered simply a breach of contract by
an employee, or if it is case of espionage
by rival firms, then, logically, it should be
simply categorised as a civil offense, but,

if the loss of profits, and the damage to the

very force of production to a company is
considered, it must be categorised as a
criminal offense similar to theft. Morally,
it can be considered an attack on the very
source of livelihood of all the employees
of the company. Apart from the fact that
it is very difficult to prove that the breach
of contract or an espionage has occurred,
which discourages firms from litigating
over the same, another factor which
further discourages them is that, the
trade secrets will be further disseminated
because the proceedings of the court are
supposed to be in the public domain, and
a drawn out litigation also gives the secret
unnecessary publicity which causes even
more damage to the firm by reducing
the monopoly of the firm. While there
is no way of protection against reverse
engineering of a product which will lead
a rival firm to discover the trade secret,
or if another innovator discovers the
secret on the basis of their own research.
Taking efficient measures therefore
is the prerogative of the firms. These
include not opening up to third party
employees, methods against espionage,
or careful profiling and scrutiny
of potential employees, which will
reduce chances of breach of contract
by them, these measures will go a long
way in protecting the firms from the
lengthy litigations which follow a leak.

JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Proper awareness,
factual education
solution to prejudices
against Islam
- Argentina
Naina Kataria reports on the discussions in the
United Nations Human Rights Council

The delegate of Argentina elaborated

on the prejudices faced by Muslims in
western countries, as an effect of terrorist
activities carried out in the name of Islam.
This being carried out by Islamic terrorist
organizations in various parts of the
world. This severe stigmatization of the
general Muslim population in the West,
informally known as Islamophobia, was
emphasized on by the delegate during the
proceedings of the Human Rights Council.
In response to a question posed by
journalists, Argentina stated that in

order to understand Islam appropriately,

a final and strong solution can only
come through education and legislation.
In order to combat the Islamophobic
prejudices on a broader front, the
education systems of countries should
teach more factual knowledge about
Islam, as reiterated by the delegate.

Ireland, on the other hand, spoke

extensively on the exploited loopholes
in Islam that have led to such violent
activities. Almost all delegates in council
however agreed on the fundamental
principle that terrorism had no religion
or tribe and without this realization, it
would be impossible to combat prejudice.

Adding to this discussion was the delegate

of Montenegro, stating the essentiality
of decisively distinguishing between
Islam and Terrorism to eradicate the
prejudiced notions against the religion.

Conclusively, it is extremely difficult

to fight and uproot the preconceived
notions that exist between communities
but the UN Human Rights Council
aims to make strides in that direction.
JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Is No Negotiation An Option?

As the National Security Council deliberates upon the hijack of the IC 814, Rukma Singh
attempts to analyze the policy of no negotiation in light of recent global developments

While there seems to be no end to

the angles that can be brought to
consideration while attempting to
reach a conclusion to hijacking or most
terrorist activities for that matter, we
tend to find that the more instantly
accepted idea of no negotiation comes
into play. The obvious reasoning that
the supporters tend to substantiate their
argument with is that, since all terrorists
have ulterior motives behind their
activities, employing such a policy will
deter the terrorists because they know
that no matter what, the nations will not
be willing to give in to their demands.
Is it that simple, however? Can we easily
assume that terrorists will not resort
to violent activities simply because
a country refuses negotiation? The

answer is a clear no, and heres why.

Firstly, in a scenario that requires
immediacy, the notion of not negotiating
might seem like a sensible proposition.
But, when one chooses to reward violence
with surrender and acceptance, it is
reasonable to expect that these heinous
acts of violence will be continued,
knowing that there might as well be
another reward in store. Secondly, in a
situation of no negotiation, terrorists are
forced to a do-or-die situation, which
could be a reason why they choose to take
extreme measures. Looking back, we can
find several examples of such cases, one
of them being the Lockerbie incident
in Scotland, where the State refused to
negotiate and it resulted in terrorists
blowing up the airplane. Finally, nations

have a duty to safeguard their people.

When such an incident happens, it
means that the nation has failed at the
primary level to ensure the safety of
its citizens. In such a case, by choosing
the no negotiation policy, the nation is
further downgrading the value of its duty
to secure the life of its citizens. It is letting
go of a chance to rectify a security lapse
that can be done by using negotiation as a
policy to ensure the safety of individuals.
As the National Security Council
moves forward to discuss solutions,
the choice between negotiation and no
negotiation becomes a very important
point of discussion. It is only when
theres clarity about the repercussions
of both, can an ultimate stand be taken.

JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Etes-vous Charlie?

In wake of the attack in Paris, millions have shown their support for the satirical newspaper. But
what are they really supporting? Opines Abhishek Bhan
People love freedom of speech. We
love being able to say exactly what we
feel without fear of consequence. We
journalists cant settle with the idea that
our thoughts need to be restricted. But
where do we draw the line? Where do
you stop and say this is wrong, and I
need to shut up? Most of us have enough
common sense to know when to stay
silent. Some of us arent so lucky. But
there are those who go out of their way to
express themselves - the ones who dont
care about the line. When such people
dabble with race and religion without
concern of who they offend, what matters
more? The sentiments of the masses or
the thoughts of one individual?
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo staff
was a terrible act of violence. No one
can justify the actions of the al-Qaeda
fighters. The victims and their families
have our deepest condolences, obviously,
but why should we ignore why it all
happened? The motive behind murder
is just as important as murder itself. The

newspapers issue released just after the

attack sold millions of copies. Some of
you may rejoice at the news, but what
is Charlie Hebdo? In the past, they have
released several cartoons depicting a
stereotypical Prophet Muhammad in
various acts, majority of them causing
controversy and angering the Muslim
population both in France and abroad.
Some interpretations of Islam do not allow
depictions of Muhammad, but Hebdo
takes it one step further. In the name of
free speech, it depicts the prophet kissing
another man in one issue, and naked
in another. Despite the government
advising the newspaper to refrain from
sensitive topics, and the continued protest
of the Muslim minority in France, Charlie
Hebdo refuses to change their ways even
now. Islam isnt the only target of this
anti-religious body; Hebdo frequently
mocks Catholicism and Judaism. The lack
of respect they have for the sentiments
of entire peoples is appalling, but what
is truly disturbing is the massive support
they have gained. Social media is

rampant with the phrase I am Charlie,

and leaders of several countries, some
with histories of oppression against free
speech, rallied for peace.
Have we fallen as low as to so strongly
embrace such an establishment? If we
cannot understand and respect the
beliefs of others, are we truly deserving of
freedom of speech? Learned individuals
knowingly and happily attack sacred
principles of those they consider beneath
them, while the world hopes to achieve
equality for all. Charlie Hebdo is only one
publication that openly makes mockery
of religion; the world is full of people
who abuse, hurt, and murder based on
race, religion, and gender. How can we
even begin to move towards equality
when we unknowingly support these
people? Think along these lines, and ask
yourself.
Are you Charlie?

JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

Interview
Journalist Naina Kataria interviews various
delegates from the United Nations Human
Rights Council on the deeply problematic and
divisive prejudices and possible solutions for
the same
Journalist: Given that each country has its own way
of handling its political and social issues, to what
extent do you think the international agencies can
effectively help the cause of prejudice?
United Kingdom: An international watchdog
is required to address separatist movements in
countries. Only when the international community
feels that the steps taken by the country are
inadequate, will the international community take
action.
Journalist: How effective do you think is the idea
of providing reservation in the parliament to the
oppressed sections of your society?
Montenegro: While reservation is important to
uplift the minorities, it has a large number of pros
and cons. Therefore, reservation should only be used
as a short term resolution for uplifting of minorities
and then it should gradually be phased out.
Journalist: In your opinion, how far have the
international agencies gone to uproot the problem
of prejudice? Is it enough? If not, where do they
lack?
Republic of Japan: The United Nations has not done
enough to combat religious intolerance. There is
no legal binding international convention. The
countries are not bound legally to check religious
intolerance.
Journalist: Do you think it is possible for countries
to combat prejudices without violence?

INTERNATIONAL PRESS EXCLUSIVE

Fighting Anothers War

Sanjana Ahuja cries out to the young
individuals who are radicalized by terrorist
organizations into fighting a war that isnt
their own.

You are now positioned to kill, perhaps to

die,
To execute the ultimate offense,
To plead, perhaps, the warriors defense:
The crime is reciprocal; not mine the why.
You want, of all times, this time not to lie,
Or be enthralled by righteous innocence,
Or find in such a nightmare common
sense,
Or give to grief some soothing reply.
You know that warfare is evil, yet you
must
Engage in acts appalling and cruel
To serve some very miscalculated end.
And though the cause be immoral or just,
You need not be a criminal or a fool
To yield to ferocities you need not defend.

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea: I think that

prejudices can only be dealt with in a non-violent
manner. Violence will only aggravate the issue
further. Moreover if we tell people to change their
viewpoints, they will probably become egoistic and
not do it. But if we keep the facts in front of them
and ask them to introspect, they will realize their
mistake, and a change will surely happen.

JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR

UN COMMISSION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

Why International Peace is Hypothetical

Nikita Biswal attempts to shatter one of the most commonly held myths, achieving international peace

Have you ever played with a Comeback

Kid? As I child, I have spent hours
tending to the mysterious character of
this popular toy. The roly-poly, no matter
how hard you push it, would tumble and
lope and stand upright again, much like
the self-righting turtle, which almost
effortlessly returns to its original posture
when flipped over in battle. Even with
much more intricate and critical subjects
at hand today, my mind incessantly
wanders back to the roly-poly.
But it was only after much thought that
I became cognizant of the subtle vein
which thematically connects the object of
my attention to the subject of my writing.
International peace and security
is a hypothetical idea. Allow me to
substantiate my thesis while I spare the
crucial fact that international peace
stands undefined and is nothing but
an aggregate of ideas which are only
apparently mutually inclusive. Although,
unlike the Comeback Kid peace is not
visual equilibrium, it too has one and only

one point of symmetry - only one set plain

where it can attain stability - one which
is todays world remains uncharted.

a normative global equilibrium we have

reordered existent concord. This reduces
peace, as we know it, to nothing but a
capricious wormhole, one which pulls us
further and further away from harmony
while promising a journey towards it.

Realistically, this plain is a gamut

of paradoxes. In this day and age,
the expression of sovereignty of one
nation is often the breach of another.
While, in contemporary times, peace
for a superpower is often euphemism
for greater dominance and more
control, it largely symbolises freedom
from such dominance for relatively
smaller and less powerful nations.
Monopolies have become a necessity
for growing states; simultaneously
they have impeded the autonomy
of other elusive commonwealths.

Peace is a two way door. Unfortunately,

there are significantly diverse groups
with assorted, and often, conflicting,
interests on both ends. While peace as an
ideology or concept is not wrong, its global
attainment is oxymoronic in nature.
Deduced to a hypothesis, our pursuit gets
irrevocably complicated, yet it continues
deft, parched and unrewardingly
for such is the nature of paradox. In
geometric lines, peace swings on the
back of my toy; it fluctuates continually
as it rummages for a plain which suits
international requirements. It searches
for equilibrium which transcends
national boundaries, genre and time an equilibrium which does not exist.

While peace signifies a search for global

independence, wars, and battles have
become complementary to its equations.
In establishing standards that guarantee
tranquillity and steadiness, we have made
unsettled debates and broiling hostilities
binding manifests. Gradually, in search of

The International Press

Chief Editor
Anushka Kaushik
Creative Head
Anushree Malik
Journalists
Naina Kataria
Abhishek Bhan
Rukma Singh
Nitika Biswal
Sanjana Ahuja
Shaina Ahluwalia
Naseer Hussain Jafri
Havisha Khurana
Photographers
Ankit Kumar Srivastava
Tushar Pasrija
Yatharth Buddhiraja
Raunaq Singh Ahluwalia
Pranil Gupta
JANUARY 23, 2014 | THE EXPOSITOR