The United Nations Security Council remains the most authoritative body of the United Nations in 2074. The Security Council, as its goal, seeks to identify and resolve threats to peace and security through binding decisions. The ability to impose sanctions or even authorize the use of force via military intervention leaves the Security Council uniquely positioned to tackle the most challenging issues the United Nations faces. Structurally this council is also distinct, having a set of five permanent representatives who wield veto power on resolutions as well as ten other non-permanent state representatives who are elected by the General Assembly.

Note: The Futuristic Security Council will function as a “live” committee, as directives can constantly be proposed by certain countries or blocs of countries, and the dais will respond to these directives and update the current situation accordingly. That is to say that there is no “ending resolution”; the crisis (topic at hand) will be perpetually unfolding.

The recent developments in North Korea have plunged the country into a state of unprecedented crisis following the unexpected deaths of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un and his family in January 2054. This event has resulted in a chaotic power vacuum, sparking intense infighting among military factions and the emergence of a civilian movement advocating for democratic reforms. The potential for widespread violence and regional instability is alarmingly high.

Historically, North Korea's isolationist policies and its pursuit of nuclear capabilities have posed significant challenges to global security. Despite numerous sanctions and diplomatic efforts, the regime has continued to prioritize military development over the welfare of its populace. The famine of 2042 exemplified the severe humanitarian crises that can arise from such priorities. The international community's response to these challenges has often been reactive and fragmented, highlighting the need for a coordinated and proactive approach. With competing interests from both democratic and non-democratic countries alike, a global policy towards the “Hermit Kingdom” has always remained elusive. The current crisis is further complicated by the involvement of major powers with vested interests in the Korean Peninsula. Simultaneously, a nascent workers’ party has emerged, advocating for closer ties with democratic nations such as Japan and South Korea.

Effective resolution of the North Korean crisis requires a balanced and comprehensive approach. On one hand, the international community must prevent the further escalation of violence and ensure the security of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. On the other hand, any intervention must be mindful of the humanitarian needs of the North Korean people and the legitimate aspirations for democratic reform. While military intervention might seem like a viable solution to stabilize the situation, it carries significant risks, including the potential for a broader regional conflict. Alternatively, diplomatic efforts aimed at facilitating dialogue among the conflicting parties could help to de-escalate tensions and pave the way for a peaceful transition of power. Historical examples, such as the peaceful transitions in post-Soviet states, highlight the potential benefits of diplomatic engagement over military intervention.

The United Nations, with its unique capacity for international coordination and peacekeeping, is well-positioned to lead efforts to resolve this crisis. A multifaceted approach, involving immediate ceasefire negotiations, securing nuclear facilities, and the provision of humanitarian aid, is essential. Moreover, support for an inclusive interim government that represents all major factions, including the workers' party, could help to stabilize the country and lay the groundwork for future democratic reforms.

 What is a proper succession plan that could be agreed to by all parties?

 Who will retain control of the country’s nuclear weapons?

What is each great power interested in? What opportunities (land, power, interest, human capital, etc) is each country trying to achieve beyond just “peace”?

 Which political parties are controlling the P5s at this point?

What military capabilities are nation states willing to commit?

Political Succession in North Korea | FSI

North Korea’s Succession Poses New Challenges – Part I | YaleGlobal Online