The International Organization for Migration (IOM) Assembly officially opened, with delegates from around the world gathering to discuss the agenda item concerning the current situation of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deportation policies, and their humanitarian consequences. Although all Member States were expected to attend, the delegations of the United Kingdom and Venezuela were absent from the session. To ensure representation, the United Kingdom was temporarily represented by guest Sebastian.

The opening speeches revealed strong disagreements regarding immigration enforcement, national sovereignty, and humanitarian obligations. After the agenda was approved, delegates began debating the first topic. Several South American delegations directly challenged the position of the United States. They criticized large‑scale deportations and questioned the humanitarian consequences of returning migrants to countries facing economic hardship, political instability, and security challenges. Additionally, tensions rose between the United States and Mexico, as the U.S. linked irregular migration to drug trafficking and blamed Mexico for the issue, while Mexico argued that the United States must also take responsibility for the migrants affected by its policies.

As the first session concluded, it became clear that finding common ground will be challenging. Nevertheless, delegates expressed their commitment to continuing negotiations in search of practical and balanced solutions to one of the world’s most complex migration issues. The committee will reconvene tomorrow to continue discussions and begin exploring potential resolutions.

The committee opened with a motion proposed by the United States of America to begin the debate, granting delegates 1 minute and 15 seconds for their opening speeches.

The delegation of the Argentine Republic opened the discussion, followed by interventions from Colombia and Brazil, which raised concerns regarding international oversight and long‑term solutions to organized crime. Brazil emphasized that security measures alone are insufficient, arguing that education, vocational training, and social development are essential to prevent crime and reduce violence.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that protecting citizens is a priority, but warned that human rights must not be violated in the process. The French Republic, the United Kingdom, and the Italian Republic advocated for a balanced approach, supporting stronger public security while upholding human rights safeguards and due process.

The Republic of El Salvador defended its policies by highlighting progress in reducing gang‑related violence, stating that national security and public safety remain its highest priorities. The delegations of Honduras and the United Mexican States focused on rehabilitation, social support, and the need to protect vulnerable communities while addressing organized crime. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China reaffirmed the principle of national sovereignty, asserting that security policies should remain primarily under domestic control.

During the second session, the United States of America once again led the discussion, focusing on prison reform, rehabilitation programs, and security strategies. The session concluded with delegates examining the central challenge: how to effectively combat organized crime while maintaining the balance between security, justice, and human rights.

In this edition of Humunited, the International Criminal Court (ICC) reviews the proceedings concerning former Sudanese President Omar al‑Bashir, who stands accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, forced displacement, and sexual violence including rape. On the opening day of the hearings, the process follows the standard structure of opposing parties: the prosecution and the defense, each presenting evidence to support their respective arguments.

The prosecution submitted evidence alleging Omar al‑Bashir’s involvement in acts that inflicted widespread harm on the population of Sudan. It argues that he bore responsibility for failing to address the severe crisis facing civilians amid violations committed by state armed forces — actions that resulted in numerous deaths, mass forced displacement, and sexual abuse against women and children. Additionally, the evidence claims that government authorities provided support to Sudanese militias, such as the Janjaweed, which carried out attacks against civilian communities and caused devastating consequences. Consequently, according to the prosecution, Omar al‑Bashir should be held accountable even if he did not personally carry out the acts: he failed to take steps to protect the population or punish those responsible, and he maintained direct authority and oversight over the military forces identified as key perpetrators of the crimes.

In response, the defense contended that the evidence presented does not clearly and specifically establish Omar al‑Bashir’s role or participation in the alleged offenses, and that responsibility cannot be attributed to a single individual without conclusive proof. It also raised questions regarding the reliability and veracity of witness statements and testimonies, noting that some accounts lack clear corroboration or verified sources, and emphasized the need to properly establish any direct link between the accused and the acts in question. Furthermore, the defense argued that the government may not have exercised effective control over certain regions, and that regional militias and individual soldiers who exceeded their authority should be held accountable separately.

The HUNSC debate on the 1994 Rwandan Genocide began with light-hearted icebreakers, including delegation-guessing games and humorous remarks, before shifting to a serious discussion on one of the greatest failures of the international community. Rwanda strongly emphasized that the events constituted a genocide and condemned the role of hate speech in fueling violence. The delegation argued that responsibility extended beyond the Rwandan government to include international inaction. The United States criticized the weakness of international mechanisms and highlighted the importance of multilateral assistance, although its position on the responsibility of veto powers was challenged. The United Kingdom controversially suggested that Rwanda had failed to resolve the crisis internally, while China stressed territorial integrity alongside international cooperation. Belgium delivered one of the most impactful speeches, condemning the reduction of UN forces and arguing that the international community had failed to act. France expressed willingness to support international efforts financially but appeared uncertain about specific measures. Throughout the debate, delegates focused on three key issues: humanitarian aid, conflict stabilization through intervention, and the strengthening of early warning and accountability mechanisms to prevent future atrocities. In the second session, attention shifted further toward the humanitarian crisis. Belgium called for a fairer distribution of responsibilities, while Tanzania requested greater UN support to manage the growing refugee population. Several African states highlighted the need for financial assistance to address regional instability caused by displacement. Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) was frequently mentioned due to its central role in the refugee crisis and the broader regional impact of the genocide. Overall, the debate demonstrated widespread recognition of past failures but also revealed the difficulty of turning moral condemnation into effective and coordinated action.

Following registration and the opening ceremony, icebreaker activities were held to ease tension and practice English, including a charades game where Team 1 won by finishing in under two minutes. After introductions, the debate opened with statements from each delegation: the Dominican Republic, Germany, Iran, the United Kingdom, and the United States accepted no or only limited points of information, while Brazil, Jamaica, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Mexico, and the U.S. responded to questions covering the effectiveness of protection systems, the normalization of misogyny, gaps between laws and practice, cultural roots of violence, and the link between firearms and crime. Later, Haiti proposed an unmoderated caucus, which was approved unanimously; delegates reviewed the agenda, discussed alliances, and focused on criminalizing gender‑based violence, addressing the spread of misogynistic content from “manosphere” and “incel” groups online, and finding coordinated legal solutions. In the moderated caucus, Guatemala explained that while it has signed the Belém do Pará Convention and adopted anti‑femicide laws, implementation is undermined by corruption, impunity, gangs, and online hostility toward women’s rights. Peru reported having prevention programs and legislation, but faces slow justice, cultural barriers, and growing anti‑feminist opposition. Brazil highlighted its well‑known protection laws and support services, yet noted challenges from online subcultures that fuel hate speech and high crime rates. Jamaica outlined its updated domestic and sexual violence laws, but cited fear, stigma, and cultural norms as obstacles, with local digital groups promoting extreme masculinity and justifying violence. The session concluded after these interventions.

The debate on integrating artificial intelligence into global healthcare systems opened with a unified acknowledgment that while AI can revolutionize diagnosis and accessibility, it also presents unprecedented ethical and security risks. Canada and Germany set the tone by arguing that innovation must be balanced with strict regulatory frameworks — such as the GDPR — to ensure that technology serves as a tool to assist humans rather than a replacement for medical judgment. This sparked a central point of tension with the United States, which advocated for innovation‑friendly standards to prevent rigid regulations from slowing down life‑saving advancements.

As the discussion progressed, the focus shifted toward global equity, with nations including Nigeria, India, and South Africa emphasizing that AI should not be a privilege reserved for wealthy countries but a necessity for the “global majority”. India specifically called for mandatory demographic diversity in AI training data to eliminate algorithmic bias, while France proposed a collaborative “data‑for‑infrastructure” exchange model, under which developed nations would provide funding and technology to the Global South in return for access to diverse medical data.

Questions of accountability were also prominent, as Singapore and South Korea debated whether developers or physicians should be held liable for algorithmic errors. The discussion led to a general consensus that human clinical oversight must remain the final decision‑making authority. Despite differing views on data sovereignty — with China and Russia insisting on domestic control over medical information — the committee concluded that international cooperation and genuine technology transfers are essential to ensure a secure, ethical, and equitable future for global health.

The debate revealed that while nations have varying priorities regarding innovation, regulation, and equity, they share a common recognition that AI in healthcare must be guided by cooperation, trust, and human oversight to truly serve global health needs.

The IAEI delegates began the first session with opening speeches, in which they stated their countries’ clear positions on the topic. Nations including France, Turkey, Egypt, and Belgium expressed the view that nuclear energy should not pose a threat to humanity, that nuclear‑weapon‑free zones should be established, and that nuclear technology and knowledge must never fall into the hands of terrorist groups. Israel accused neighboring countries of potentially using nuclear capabilities not only against Israel but also against the rest of the world. The United States agreed with this assessment, stating that Iran represents a threat. The United Arab Emirates emphasized that the development and use of nuclear energy is essential to counter regional risks, even as Iran asserts that it does not possess nuclear weapons. Syria noted that nuclear science and technology are vital for its national reconstruction and recovery.Delegates then proceeded to finalize the agenda and draft documents, defining the issues to be discussed. The central priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons in conflict zones. Belgium also raised concerns regarding Iran’s compliance with its safeguards and its obligations under the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The United Nations Security Council opened debate today on the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, a conflict threatening freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and broader Middle East stability. The session started with opening speeches, setting a tense tone for the negotiations ahead.

During the speeches it was clear: even though the conflict between the United States and Iran is one of the main issues in this council, the session showed that the Security Council is not just a two-sided fight. A key group of neutral countries, led by India, refused to pick a side. Instead, these delegations focused on global impact, asking a critical question: who will be responsible if this crisis escalates?

During the second session, the committee finished the opening speeches, highlighted by a powerful and intense speech from the delegation of the United States. Following these speeches, the council officially established its agenda and voted to begin discussing Topic 1.  The first Topic consisted of the measures to be taken about the Hormuz Strait blockade, including the freedom of navigation, mechanism to reopen the commercial shipping and measures regarding the future of the strait. The first speeches discussing the topic were delivered, but due to limited time, the council could not make significant progress before the session adjourned.

All Member States are present and entitled to vote in this Assembly. Following the opening remarks and icebreaker activities, the speaking order for opening statements is as follows: first, the delegation of Brazil, followed by Chile, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Guyana, India, Iran, Maldives, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, Sweden, the United States of America, and finally Venezuela.

The delegation of Sweden acknowledges the importance of oil in the global economy, while also emphasizing its limited long‑term sustainability. The delegation of the United States of America states that oil extraction can drive economic transformation and create employment opportunities within a country. It further highlights the principle that national sovereignty must be respected — a position later supported by the delegation of Venezuela.

The delegation of Cameroon raises a question regarding how Saudi Arabia intends to address and remedy the environmental and social impacts associated with its oil extraction activities.

The delegation of Norway notes that oil extraction carries significant responsibility, and argues that the most viable and sustainable path forward is a gradual transition toward renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on petroleum. Following the statement by Iran, the delegation of Norway asks whether Iran supports the adoption of strict regulations governing oil production. Iran responds that robust and clear rules for oil extraction are indeed essential.

The official agenda is adopted, covering three main areas: the protection of national sovereignty, the establishment of limits on areas open for oil extraction, and the development of a coordinated program for energy transition.

The speakers’ list is then opened. The delegation of Norway delivers the first statement, followed by Chile, Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, and Guyana — each addressing the importance of upholding national sovereignty for all nations.

The first day of ECOSOC featured intense debate on the future of SWIFT and the evolving global financial system. Delegations quickly split into two camps. The United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Japan, Panama, and the UAE defended SWIFT as a stable and reliable foundation for international trade, while supporting moderate reforms to improve inclusiveness. In contrast, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, and South Africa highlighted the risks of excessive dependence on SWIFT and the U.S. dollar. They argued for greater financial autonomy and the development of alternative systems. China promoted a more multipolar financial order, while Russia and Iran criticized the political use of financial infrastructure and sanctions. Debate intensified around sanctions, sovereignty, and control of global financial networks. The United States defended sanctions as legitimate responses to violations of international norms, while several countries questioned whether SWIFT can remain neutral when states can be excluded from it. Belgium also raised concerns about the fairness and representativeness of existing mechanisms. One of the most memorable moments came when delegates used the metaphor of a river to describe global finance. Brazil compared SWIFT to a bridge connecting countries, while Russia argued that the real issue is ensuring equal access to the river itself, rather than simply building more bridges. Despite significant disagreements, delegates broadly agreed that the current financial system faces important challenges. The central question moving forward is whether these challenges will be addressed through reforms to SWIFT or through the development of alternative financial frameworks.