Background & Context

The digital age has transformed how information is created, shared, and consumed. Social media platforms, messaging apps, and online news sources now reach billions of people — but the same infrastructure that democratises information also enables the rapid, unchecked spread of misinformation and disinformation at an unprecedented scale.

From health misinformation during COVID-19 to election interference through coordinated inauthentic behaviour, the consequences of unchecked false information are tangible and severe. Yet any attempt by governments or platforms to regulate online speech risks infringing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of opinion and expression.

Delegates in this committee must grapple with this fundamental tension: how can the international community protect citizens from the demonstrable harms of misinformation, while preserving the open, free internet that underpins democratic participation?

Key Issues for Debate

• Platform accountability: Should social media companies be legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms?
• State-sponsored disinformation: How should the international community respond to governments that weaponise misinformation?
• Content moderation standards: Who decides what constitutes misinformation, and how do we prevent censorship?
• Algorithmic amplification: Do recommendation algorithms have a responsibility to deprioritise unverified content?
• Media literacy: What role should education systems play in building resilience against misinformation?
• Cross-border enforcement: How can international frameworks regulate content that crosses jurisdictions?

Questions to Consider

• How does your country currently regulate online speech, and where does it draw the line?
• What international bodies or treaties currently address freedom of expression online?
• How do developing nations with limited digital infrastructure approach this issue differently?
• What is the difference between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation — and does it matter legally?
• How can platforms be incentivised (rather than mandated) to act against harmful content?

Background & Context

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus — SARS-CoV-2 — was identified in Wuhan, China. Within months, COVID-19 had spread to every corner of the globe, prompting the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in January 2020 and a pandemic in March 2020. The human and economic toll has been staggering: millions of deaths, overwhelmed health systems, and economies brought to their knees.

As vaccines were developed at an unprecedented pace under initiatives like COVAX, a parallel crisis emerged — an "infodemic." The WHO itself coined the term to describe the overwhelming and often contradictory flood of information, misinformation, and disinformation surrounding COVID-19. False claims about vaccine safety, 5G conspiracy theories, and politically motivated narratives spread virally across social media, undermining public health efforts worldwide.

Delegates in this committee will deliberate as of 2021 — a critical moment when vaccines are newly available but vaccine hesitancy is threatening the viability of mass immunisation campaigns. The challenge: how does the international community combat health misinformation while maintaining public trust, protecting civil liberties, and ensuring equitable vaccine access?

Key Issues for Debate

• Vaccine hesitancy drivers: What are the root causes of hesitancy — mistrust of institutions, religious beliefs, misinformation — and how should responses be tailored?
• The infodemic: How can the WHO and member states coordinate to counter health misinformation at scale without becoming arbiters of truth?
• COVAX & vaccine equity: Wealthy nations are vaccinating rapidly while the Global South lags — how does inequity fuel mistrust and hesitancy?
• Platform responsibility: Should social media companies be required to remove health misinformation, and who defines what qualifies?
• Community trust: How can health authorities rebuild trust with communities historically mistreated by medical institutions?
• Emergency powers: Some governments have enacted mandatory vaccination policies — where is the line between public health necessity and individual rights?

Questions to Consider

• What is your country's current vaccination rate and what barriers to uptake exist as of 2021?
• How has your government communicated vaccine safety information to the public, and has it been effective?
• What role should the WHO play in regulating health information versus individual member states?
• How do you balance freedom of speech with the need to suppress demonstrably false health claims?
• What lessons from past vaccine campaigns (polio, measles) can be applied to COVID-19 hesitancy?
• How does your country's media landscape and internet access affect the spread of misinformation?

Background & Context

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically vital chokepoints on earth. Connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, it is the passage through which approximately 20% of the world's total oil supply flows daily — including roughly a third of all liquefied natural gas traded globally. Its disruption, even briefly, would send shockwaves through energy markets and economies worldwide.

The strait is flanked by Iran to the north and Oman and the UAE to the south. For decades, it has been a flashpoint — Iran has repeatedly threatened to close it in response to Western sanctions, while the United States and its allies maintain a significant naval presence to guarantee freedom of navigation. Incidents of tanker seizures, drone attacks on shipping vessels, and GPS spoofing have become increasingly common, blurring the line between conventional maritime conflict and information warfare.

Delegates must navigate this volatile environment as the IMO — a body focused on maritime safety and regulation, not military force — and craft multilateral frameworks that protect shipping, de-escalate tensions, and prevent information warfare from triggering wider conflict.

Key Issues for Debate

• Freedom of navigation: How can the international community uphold UNCLOS provisions guaranteeing innocent passage through international straits against state interference?
• Energy security: What mechanisms can reduce global dependence on the Strait of Hormuz as a single point of failure for energy supply chains?
• Tanker attacks & vessel seizures: How should the IMO respond when commercial vessels are attacked or seized for geopolitical leverage?
• GPS spoofing & cyber warfare: State actors are increasingly using electronic warfare to disorient vessels — how can maritime navigation be hardened against this?
• Naval escorts & militarisation: Does the presence of military escorts protect or further inflame tensions in the strait?
• Iran & sanctions: How do Western sanctions regimes affect Iran's behaviour in the strait, and what role does the IMO play in this political dynamic?

Questions to Consider

• What is your country's energy relationship with the Persian Gulf, and how exposed are you to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz?
• Does your country have a naval presence in the region, and what is its stated mandate?
• How does international maritime law (UNCLOS) apply to the specific geography and political circumstances of the strait?
• What precedents exist for international bodies managing access to strategic waterways — the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal — and what lessons apply here?
• How do you distinguish between legitimate security operations and acts of aggression at sea in an era of information warfare?
• What confidence-building measures could reduce the risk of accidental escalation between naval forces in the strait?

Background & Context

The Israel–Palestine conflict is among the most reported — and most contested — conflicts in modern history. Decades of competing historical narratives, deeply entrenched political positions, and immense international stakes have made it a crucible for misinformation, propaganda, and media bias. Every military operation, diplomatic development, and humanitarian crisis is filtered through layers of ideology, nationalism, and geopolitical interest before reaching global audiences.

The rise of social media has dramatically accelerated and complicated this dynamic. Unverified footage, out-of-context images, and algorithmically amplified narratives spread instantaneously across platforms, shaping public opinion and policy debates in real time. Journalists operating in conflict zones face threats to their safety, restrictions on access, and accusations of bias from all sides. Meanwhile, both state and non-state actors invest heavily in information operations designed to shape the global narrative in their favour.

The UNDP, while primarily a development body, has a mandate that encompasses human rights, institutional resilience, and the rule of law — all of which are undermined when conflict reporting is saturated with misinformation. Delegates in this committee will design frameworks to strengthen information integrity, protect journalists, and build public resilience to manipulation, without taking a political stance on the conflict itself.

Key Issues for Debate

• Media access in conflict zones: How can the international community ensure journalists have safe and unimpeded access to conflict areas to report accurately?
• Verification & fact-checking: What international standards and infrastructure exist for verifying conflict reporting, and how can they be strengthened?
• Social media amplification: How do platforms' content policies and algorithms affect the spread of misinformation about the conflict, and what responsibilities do they bear?
• State information operations: Both state and non-state actors in the conflict conduct organised information campaigns — how should the international community respond?
• Humanitarian reporting: How can international humanitarian law be better integrated into conflict journalism standards to protect civilian narratives?
• Journalist safety: Reporters covering the conflict face extraordinary risks — what mechanisms exist to protect them and hold perpetrators of attacks on press freedom accountable?

Questions to Consider

• What is your country's official position on the Israel–Palestine conflict, and how does that shape your approach to information integrity in this context?
• How does your country's domestic media cover the conflict, and what biases or gaps have been identified?
• What existing international frameworks — UN resolutions, Geneva Conventions, press freedom treaties — apply to conflict reporting, and are they adequate?
• How do you define the line between legitimate political messaging and deliberate disinformation in a conflict context?
• What role should the UNDP specifically — as opposed to bodies like the HRC or UNSC — play in addressing information integrity in conflicts?
• How can frameworks developed for this conflict be made applicable to other protracted conflicts around the world?

About Ad Hoc

The Ad Hoc committee is unlike anything else at SISMUN 2026. Where every other committee gives delegates weeks to research, prepare position papers, and refine their arguments — Ad Hoc gives you nothing. No agenda. No assigned country. No background guide. Just you, the room, and whatever the dais reveals when the gavel drops on day one.

This format is deliberately designed to strip away the safety net of preparation and test the qualities that define truly exceptional delegates: the ability to think critically under pressure, construct arguments on the fly, read a room, and pivot strategy in real time. It is the closest simulation to the unpredictable nature of real-world diplomacy that a Model UN conference can offer.

Past Ad Hoc committees at MUN conferences have covered everything from historical crisis scenarios to fictional geopolitical settings to real-world events frozen at a specific moment in time. The only guarantee at SISMUN 2026 is that it will challenge you in ways you didn't expect.

What We Can Tell You

• Topic: Classified. Revealed at the first session.
• Setting: Classified. Could be historical, contemporary, or fictional.
• Character assignments: Classified. You will not know your role until day one.
• Format: Fast-paced, character-driven debate with a crisis element.
• Position paper: Not required — and not possible.
• What to bring: Sharp instincts, an open mind, and the ability to argue any position convincingly.

How to Prepare

You cannot prepare for the topic — but you can prepare yourself. The best Ad Hoc delegates are those with broad general knowledge and strong procedural instincts. Here's what we recommend:

• Brush up on general MUN rules of procedure — fast decisions about motions matter in Ad Hoc
• Read widely across international relations, history, and current affairs
• Practice constructing arguments for positions you don't personally hold
• Get comfortable with ambiguity — the ability to project confidence without certainty is key
• Study past crisis committee formats from other MUN conferences for a sense of what's possible

Overview

The Durandhar Intelligence Council is a high-intensity crisis simulation committee that places delegates at the centre of a rapidly escalating national security emergency in India. Inspired by the Durandhar film universe, the committee blends fiction and reality in a way unlike any standard MUN committee.

Coordinated terror attacks are unfolding across major Indian cities. Simultaneously, a parallel wave of misinformation, media manipulation, and intelligence failures is threatening to destabilise public order and institutional trust. Delegates must navigate incomplete, conflicting, and often deliberately false information — all while making decisions that carry real consequences for national stability.

This is not a committee where the best-researched position paper wins. It is a committee where strategy, alliances, information control, and the ability to act decisively under pressure determine who prevails.

How the Committee Works

The DCC is a continuous crisis committee — meaning there is no fixed agenda progression. The situation evolves in real time through crisis updates released by the dais. Delegates respond not with speeches alone, but with directives, covert operations, and backroom deals.

• Crisis updates: Released frequently with new developments — some true, some not
• Directives: Delegates issue individual or joint responses to unfolding events
• Backroom interaction: Negotiations, secret alliances, and covert planning happen outside the main chamber
• Information control: Not all updates are guaranteed to be accurate — discernment is a skill
• Press & media system: A separate press team releases news updates that can amplify or distort information and directly influence committee dynamics

Character Structure

This committee features a unique hybrid character structure — a deliberate mix of fictional characters inspired by the Durandhar films and real-world institutional roles. Information asymmetry is intentional: not all delegates will have access to the same truth.

Core Themes

• Information Integrity vs Misinformation — who controls the narrative controls the crisis
• National Security vs Civil Liberties — how far is too far in the name of safety?
• Media Influence & Narrative Control — the press is a weapon as much as a watchdog
• Trust in Institutions — when intelligence fails, who do you believe?
• Ethical Decision-Making under Pressure — the right call is rarely the easy one