NationStates Jolt Archive

SUBMITTED! The final draft of the proposal has been submitted, and ACCEPTED, for Delegates to approve as contender for quorum. It currently resides on page 7, requiring 115 more votes for quorum and Voting Ends: Tue Jul 27 2004.

...............................................
Meatopiaa offers it's most sincere apologies to one and all for this repost, but this Nation has yet to receive the option to edit posts in the Jolt NS forums.

To save Nations and Delegates some valuable time, and to hopefully entice the Nations, Regional Representatives, and esteemed Regional Delegates who visit this forum to take the time to actually read this recently edited draft proposal, I have reposted the somewhat slimmed down version of the original draft proposal in this new thread. The original draft can be seen in the opening post in this thread here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341667 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341667)

The original thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341667) also includes some important, thoughtful, and much appreciated comments already expressed regarding this proposed resolution as well. Hopefully, for the sake of everyone who are members of the United Nations, especially the delegates, this will make it easier for you to take the time to express your thoughts and comments. (OOC: heheh... frankly, i expected more response to this proposed resolution. At least near as much as a few of the others out there ;) )


**EDITED DRAFT - 07/22/2004 - 2nd edition**

..............................

"International Anti-Terrorism"

Practical measures that fight terrorism and calls for the elimination of international and regional domestic terrorism:

DEEPLY disturbed by the propensity for terrorist acts and the persistence of terrorist acts, which have been carried out worldwide;

MINDFUL of the need to enhance the role of The United Nations in combating and forever globally outlawing acts of international and regional domestic terrorism;

CONVINCED of the importance of the consideration of measures to eliminate international and regional domestic terrorism by the collective members of The United Nations as the universal body having competence to do so;

WHERIN The United Nations should encourage States and/or Regions to review urgently the scope of the existing propensity for international and regional domestic terrorism and should enact provisions on the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, with the aim of ensuring that all peoples of all Nations should be free of harm inflicted at the hands of terrorists;

STRESSING the need to strengthen further the international cooperation between United Nations member States and/or Regions, and other Regional organizations and arrangements, if any, in order to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed, The United Nations and all member States:

1. DECLARES that terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public of any and all Nations, within a group of persons or any particular person(s), for political purposes, are in any and all circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify the terrorist acts;

2. STRONGLY condemns all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whosoever committed;

3. CALLS upon all States and/or Regions to refrain from financing, encouraging, providing training for, or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in any way, shape, or form;

4. CALLS upon all States and/or Regions, with the aim of enhancing the efficient implementation of relevant legal instruments, to intensify, as and where appropriate, the exchange of information on facts related to acts of terrorism, and in so doing, to avoid the dissemination of inaccurate or unverified information;

5. FINDS that international cooperation, as well as actions by individual States and/or Regions, to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations, as well as existing and future relevant resolutions;

6. CALLS upon all States and/or Regions to adopt measures; in accordance with “The Universal Bill of Rights” Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003; to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in combating terrorism, to enact domestic legislation necessary to implement the provisions of this resolution, and other existing or future viable anti-terrorism relevant resolutions, conventions and protocols, so as to ensure that the jurisdiction of their Regions enables them to bring to accountability the perpetrators of terrorist acts, and when possible, to also cooperate with, to provide support, and to assist other States and/or Regions and relevant international and regional organizations, to that end;

7. FURTHER declares, that any State found to be in violation of this anti-terrorism resolution, should be held accountable for perpetrated acts of terror, forthwith, in accordance with domestic legislation, under the jurisdiction of the member State's governing Region, in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations and its duly enacted resolutions;

8. RESPECTFULLY suggests and invites States and/or Regions, that have not yet done so, to submit to The United Nations membership, information on their State and/or Regional laws, guidelines, and regulations regarding the prevention and suppression of acts of international terrorism, via NationStates forums and/or off-site forums, or by whatever means at their disposal;

9. INSISTS that a future without acts of terror, is a future that all people of all Nations require and deserve without question.[/i]

..............................


The Democratic Republic of Meatopiaa offers it's most sincere thanks in advance for your time. Please offer any suggestions that may be helpful.

...

In order to further save everyone valuable time, here are the responses from the original thread so far, in order posted:


I must admit, I was skeptical upon reading this particular brief. Too often people lash out against terrorism in a way that only encourages violence and extremism, creating a self-sustaining cycle of attacks and counter-attacks. This proposal howevers, seeks to denounce all forms of terrorism, including those propegated by governments against minority peoples, and uses langauge that allows for the prosecution of entities that were formerly not accountable for their actions. Plus, it uses the language that Sophista promoted in its guide to resolution writing.

We offer our enthusiastic support.

I must admit that I am mildly surprised to find anti-terrorism proposal that is well conceived and executed. I suspect my nation may well lend its support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The very fact that this includes a definition of terrorism gets a tick in my book.

This Well Worded document wins the support of the Federation of Ynys

Markus Hill
U.N representative
Federation of Ynys


Thank You!
...

Basically will the NS category look like? Overall, this is easy to read and understand. I'll count this among one of the better resolutions / proposals I've seen.

Basically will the NS category look like? Overall, this is easy to read and understand. I'll count this among one of the better resolutions / proposals I've seen.

Drat! My apologies, I forgot to migrate that part over from the original thread.

..........

"Elimination of International and Regional Domestic Terrorism"

Subject: A resolution for practical measures that fight terrorism and calls for the elimination of international and regional domestic terrorism.

Category: International Security

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Democratic Republic of Meatopiaa

..........


Of course, the strength is subject to any input this proposal may receive. I consider it as at least of "Significant" strength, but depending on input, it may well be "Strong" or "Mild". My personal feeling is it should be "Significant", but this isn't about my opinion, it's about the opinions of everyone :)

...

The Confederacy of South Puyallup enthusiastically supports this proposal and will gladly endorse it.

Terrorism is a growing trend that threatens not both the political and economic framework of an increasing number of nations. To curtail it would mean making the first significant step towards a more peaceful world than the UN has made in quite some time. At the same time, the focus is on a specific type of global instability, with very narrow definitions to limit how it can be used and when.

Too broad to be mild; too narrow to be strong. How could you call it anything but significant?

Significant is what I'd call it too. Something between Mild and Strong. Though I could see a case being made for it being strong, but I'd much *rather* see it listed as significant, which implies that the focus is exactly what it would appear on first glance.

I am impressed by this proposal and delighted to see it tabled by a nation from my own region. I agree with many distinguished colleagues here, it is certainly one of the better terrorism proposals that have reached my desk. Especially noting with a sense of humour the first resolution entitled “Fight the Axis of Evil”.

I have some concerns with article seven however, as it stands I don’t see how this can actually be enforced because various assumptions are being made. Firstly any domestic legislation in nations that are found to be guilty will more than likely have so many loopholes for them to get away with it, I fear you will find yourself either being tied up in red tape or forever skipping through them.

Secondly, you are assuming that all NS regions have a regional government such as our own and then you are assuming that they all do not tolerate terrorism. I am sure you will find that that there are some regions will happily do just that.

I think about the only thing we can do is to fall back on resolutions passed by the General Assembly from a legislative viewpoint and unfortunately there are no resolutions to cover what will happen to nations convicted of this crime and even before we could have a conviction we must have an international court which we don’t.

The only solution I can come to and I have to admit it is not the best solution is to pass the responsibility of enforcement to member states. Encourage member states to withdraw any support, treaties or aid from the nations they consider to be in breach of the resolution.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

OOC:
In this regard your resolution suffer from the limits and differences that exist between the RL world and the NSUN world. The RL UN can pass resolutions against specific states imposing sanctions for example in NS whilst we could certainly do that it would never work because no resolution can effect only one nation. Furthermore in RL there is an international court, but in NS again there is not. It can of course be RP’d I hear you say, however the problem with this is that RP is only effective to those who participate and for an international court to work it will require the ability to actually affect all NS nations.

I am impressed by this proposal and delighted to see it tabled by a nation from my own region. I agree with many distinguished colleagues here, it is certainly one of the better terrorism proposals that have reached my desk. Especially noting with a sense of humour the first resolution entitled “Fight the Axis of Evil”.

I have some concerns with article seven however, as it stands I don’t see how this can actually be enforced because various assumptions are being made. Firstly any domestic legislation in nations that are found to be guilty will more than likely have so many loopholes for them to get away with it, I fear you will find yourself either being tied up in red tape or forever skipping through them.

Secondly, you are assuming that all NS regions have a regional government such as our own and then you are assuming that they all do not tolerate terrorism. I am sure you will find that that there are some regions will happily do just that.

I think about the only thing we can do is to fall back on resolutions passed by the General Assembly from a legislative viewpoint and unfortunately there are no resolutions to cover what will happen to nations convicted of this crime and even before we could have a conviction we must have an international court which we don’t.

The only solution I can come to and I have to admit it is not the best solution is to pass the responsibility of enforcement to member states. Encourage member states to withdraw any support, treaties or aid from the nations they consider to be in breach of the resolution.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

OOC:
In this regard your resolution suffer from the limits and differences that exist between the RL world and the NSUN world. The RL UN can pass resolutions against specific states imposing sanctions for example in NS whilst we could certainly do that it would never work because no resolution can effect only one nation. Furthermore in RL there is an international court, but in NS again there is not. It can of course be RP’d I hear you say, however the problem with this is that RP is only effective to those who participate and for an international court to work it will require the ability to actually affect all NS nations.

Telidia, thank you for your well put and thought out concerns and suggestions. I'm going to try to do this on about 7 hours sleep over the last 36 hours, so please forgive me if I sound a little scatter brained. Plus, I still have no edit option if I really screw up :confused: :(

IC & OOC... take your pick :p :
I certainly hear what you are saying. I pondered that very question myself, which later became article #7, to the point that I almost had an aneurysm. But then it hit me out of the blue and it was simple. Check the wording of article #7 carefully. All of the resolutions of the NSUN are basically directed at, and are really only enforceable by, the members of the NSUN anyway. How can ANY, and ALL the rest of the NSUN resolutions apply and become enforceable under your same points, in NS? Failure to abide by this proposed resolution is handled in the same manner any violation of enacted resolutions are handled. By going on the assumption that all the Regions have a delegate, more or less, therefore, they have a government and have domestic legislation, and they enforce the resolutions, or face being sanctioned by whatever means are currently being used already. This proposed resolution is specific, in that enaction and accountability will be a matter of domestic legislation, begging of the regions to abide by this proposed resolution just as they abide by all the rest of the NSUN resolutions that are enacted. And, as it were, nearly all the enacted NSUN resolutions are written and held in "the spirit of the law", not the "letter of the law", to begin with. Much of this resolution is a declaration, such as are nearly all current standing resolutions.

The regions with delegates to the NSUN are most certainly going to have some set of rules, laws, protocols, legislation, etc in regards to conduct of Nations within their region. To reiterate your point, "In this regard your resolution suffer[s] from the limits and differences that exist between the RL world and the NSUN world." That's precisely how article #7 becomes enforceable in this case, in the NSUN, without a world/international court. NONE of the current resolutions are adjudicated by a sitting world/international court. ALL of the current resolutions are subject to your own points, "Firstly any domestic legislation in nations that are found to be guilty will more than likely have so many loopholes for them to get away with it, I fear you will find yourself either being tied up in red tape or forever skipping through them. Secondly, you are assuming that all NS regions have a regional government such as our own and then you are assuming that they all do not tolerate [Pick Any Resolution] terrorism. I am sure you will find that that there are some regions will happily do just that." If a region does tolerate terrorism, then it is "State sponsored terrorism", making this proposed resolution enforceable by the NSUN just as any other resolution would be enforceable if a region violated, "The Universal Bill of Rights", for example.

Since the NSUN resolutions are, basically, only enforeable among NSUN member nation Regions at the very core to begin with, and since all the Regions with a seated government who are even eligible to be active within the NSUN must have a delegate, the region must have more than one member nation in order to qualify as a matter of the endorsement requirement to obtain a delegate. That region's delegates powers to enforce resolutions include the ability to eject Nations from the region, among other powers, or in whatever manner they have enacted domestic legislation to cover NSUN resolutions. The same applies here.

Any region with a Nation that is a member of the NSUN with at least 2 endorsements, which means at least 3 nations in the region are members of the NSUN, most certainly would have a delegate and some sort of domestic legislation, including but not limited to, a Constitution, Rule of Conduct, Protocols, etc. I won't argue that this resolution will be enforceable across the board, come "hell or high water", but none of the resolutions really are, are they? However, in order for any Nation to conduct acts of terrorism, they would have to leave their region, enter your region, and your domestic legislation will do the rest in concert with the spirit of all the other articles, including international cooperation. That even applies in the RL UN.

In closing, to reiterate, while it's true the RL UN has a world court and sanctions to fall back on when they see fit to use those tools, this proposed resolution is written for the NSUN so that it may be enacted and enforced in the same way ALL the other NSUN resolutions are.

OOC:
In this regard your resolution suffer from the limits and differences that exist between the RL world and the NSUN world. The RL UN can pass resolutions against specific states imposing sanctions for example in NS whilst we could certainly do that it would never work because no resolution can effect only one nation. Furthermore in RL there is an international court, but in NS again there is not. It can of course be RP’d I hear you say, however the problem with this is that RP is only effective to those who participate and for an international court to work it will require the ability to actually affect all NS nations.

OOC: Roleplaying here is hard to do. I would love to see a Security Council taken off site, where nations would basically sign an agreement that they'd honor its decisions and failure to do so would be viewed as Godmodding and grounds for being banned from that forum. A world court could adopt a similar approach, but I don't see what evidence could really be brought before such a court, other than text copies of posts here. Thankfully many players feel the need to announce to the world when they start gassing their own populations, so the court could be wored in a way that really evidence from these forums can be at least considered.

Ummm ... great. I tried to submit the proposal and got this error message:

Uh-oh

Your proposal exceeds the maximum length by 902 characters.

If possible, use your browser's BACK button to return and fix this.

argh! With an issue such as this, it's hard to put it into just a couple of lines. Well, back to drawing board I guess. I'll give it a shot.

I wonder what the "character limit" is, and if that includes line breaks and spaces... anyone know?

.........

Probably the best antiterrorist bill we've seen. However, although a definition is suggested, this is as far as it goes:

terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public of any and all Nations, within a group of persons or any particular person(s), for political purposes

This would include much propaganda, Shock-and-Awe-type tactics, and so on, I take it. 'Calculated' is difficult to divide from 'forseen'.

If the Rehochipean military decided to assassinate the president of our less-than-innocent neighbour Arcnow, we would predict that action to cause a state of terror in the population. That wouldn't be our intent, but we would know it was going to happen before we carried out the action. The same would apply if we declared war on Arcnow - or indeed if anybody declared war on anybody.

Fear and terror are deeply predictable side-effects of any military action - or even preparation. The very act of building up and maintaining a nuclear arsenal inspires fear and terror, for instance. In many cases, this terror is the principal aim of building up such an arsenal - you may build up nukes without any intent of ever firing them, simply because you know the fear they inspire will give you more political clout.

One could interpret the meaning something like: when terror is the primary intent of an action - but this is a pretty difficult thing to interpret, and there will be an awful lot of borderline cases. Terror may be the major consequence of an action even when terror is not its intent.

I wonder what the "character limit" is, and if that includes line breaks and spaces... anyone know?

I cut out a single citation.

Where you have:

"WHERIN The United Nations should encourage" make it read "ENCOURAGES".

Any time you have "all States and/or Regions", just change it to "all members". This string appears frequently in your text.

Now you only have some 800 characters left to target. :)

I think this probably knocked around a few hundred of those 900 characters, but you probably have a ways to go.


International Anti-Terrorism

Practical measures that fight terrorism and calls for the elimination of international and regional domestic terrorism:

DEEPLY disturbed by the propensity for terrorist acts and the persistence of terrorist acts, which have been carried out worldwide;

MINDFUL of the need to enhance the role of The United Nations in combating and forever globally outlawing acts of international and regional domestic terrorism;

CONVINCED of the importance of the consideration of measures to eliminate international and regional domestic terrorism by the collective members of The United Nations as the universal body having competence to do so;

ENCOURAGES members to review the scope of the existing propensity for international and regional domestic terrorism and enact provisions on the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, with the aim of ensuring that all peoples should be free of harm inflicted at the hands of terrorists;

STRESSING the need to strengthen further the international cooperation between the United Nations and other Regional organizations and arrangements, in order to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

1. DECLARES that terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public of any and all Nations, within a group of persons or any particular person(s), for political purposes, are in any and all circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify the terrorist acts;

2. STRONGLY CONDEMNS all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whosoever committed;

3. CALLS upon all Members to refrain from financing, encouraging, providing training for, or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in any way, shape, or form;

4. CALLS upon all Members, with the aim of enhancing the efficient implementation of relevant legal instruments, to intensify, as and where appropriate, the exchange of information on facts related to acts of terrorism, and in so doing, to avoid the dissemination of inaccurate or unverified information;

5. FINDS that international cooperation, as well as actions by individual Members, to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations, as well as existing and future relevant resolutions;

6. CALLS upon all Members to adopt measures; in accordance with “The Universal Bill of Rights” Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003; to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in combating terrorism, to enact domestic legislation necessary to implement the provisions of this resolution, and other existing or future viable anti-terrorism relevant resolutions, conventions and protocols, so as to ensure that the jurisdiction of their Regions enables them to bring to accountability the perpetrators of terrorist acts, and when possible, to also cooperate with, to provide support, and to assist other Members and relevant international and regional organizations, to that end;

7. FURTHER declares, that any State found to be in violation of this anti-terrorism resolution, should be held accountable for perpetrated acts of terror, forthwith, in accordance with domestic legislation, under the jurisdiction of the member State's governing Region, in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations and its duly enacted resolutions;

8. RESPECTFULLY suggests and invites States, that have not yet done so, to submit to the United Nations membership, information on their State and/or Regional laws, guidelines, and regulations regarding the prevention and suppression of acts of international terrorism, via NationStates forums and/or off-site forums, or by whatever means at their disposal;

9. INSISTS that a future without acts of terror, is a future that all people of all Nations require and deserve without question.

SUBMITTED! This final draft of the proposal has been submitted, and ACCEPTED, for Delegates to approve as contender for quorum. It currently resides at the bottom of the heap, requiring 136 votes for quorum and Voting Ends: Tue Jul 27 2004.


"Elimination of International and Regional Domestic Terrorism"

Subject: A resolution for practical measures that fight terrorism and calls for the elimination of international and regional domestic terrorism.

Category: International Security

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Democratic Republic of Meatopiaa

..............................

"International Anti-Terrorism"

CONVINCED of the importance of measures to eliminate terrorism by the collective members of The United Nations as the universal body having competence to do so;

WHERIN The United Nations should encourage States and/or Regions to enact provisions on the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, with the aim of ensuring that all peoples of all Nations should be free of harm inflicted at the hands of terrorists;

STRESSING the need to strengthen further the international cooperation between United Nations member States and/or Regions, and other Regional organizations and arrangements, if any, in order to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, The United Nations and all member States:

1.DECLARES that terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in any and all Nations, for political purposes, are in any and all circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify the terrorist acts;

2.STRONGLY condemns all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whosoever committed;

3.CALLS upon all States and/or Regions to refrain from financing, encouraging, providing training for, or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in any way, shape, or form;

4.CALLS upon all States and/or Regions, with the aim of enhancing the efficient implementation of relevant legal instruments, to intensify, as and where appropriate, the exchange of information on facts related to acts of terrorism, and in so doing, to avoid the dissemination of inaccurate or unverified information;

5.FINDS that international cooperation, as well as actions by individual States and/or Regions, to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations;

6.CALLS upon all States and/or Regions to adopt measures to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in combating terrorism, to enact domestic legislation necessary to implement the provisions of this resolution, and other existing or future viable anti-terrorism relevant resolutions, so as to ensure that the jurisdiction of their Regions enables them to bring to accountability the perpetrators of terrorist acts, and when possible, to also cooperate with, to provide support, and to assist other States and/or Regions and relevant international and regional organizations, to that end;

7.FURTHER declares, that any State found to be in violation of this, and other anti-terrorism relevant resolutions, should be held accountable for perpetrated acts of terrorism, forthwith, in accordance with domestic legislation, under the jurisdiction of the member State's governing Region, in conformity with the principles of the Charter of The United Nations, its duly enacted resolutions, and future relevant resolutions, if any;

8.RESPECTFULLY suggests and invites States and/or Regions, that have not yet done so, to submit and display, information on their State and/or Regional laws, guidelines, and regulations regarding the prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism, via NationStates forums, off-site forums, or by whatever means at their disposal;

9.INSISTS that a future without acts of terror, is a future that all people of all Nations require and deserve, without question.
..............................
..............................


This has been quite the learning experience for me. I am going to impart one piece of wisdom here for the benefit of everyone so you don't have to learn the hard way.

You are limited to what appears to be 3,460 characters (with spaces) only! Not one comma, space, dash, or dot more. Use a text editor with Word Count to count the characters (MS Word has it in the "Tools" drop menu). This at times will probably be hard to adhere to with any proposal that addresses any complex or provocative issue, such as this subject.

I tried very hard to keep this as intact as possible, but it had to be butchered, especially after following some suggestions I received here and did some pre-submission editing. Well, it really got edited after the first attempt to submit it. I hope it will still be of use and benefit to everyone here and makes it past muster and into quorum.

Please don't stop debating it. If it doesn't make it this time, I can make it my bastard step-child and try again.

Thank you for your help and suggestions, especially Mikitivity who went above and beyond to help. That was very kind of you.

...

You are limited to what appears to be 3,460 characters (with spaces) ONLY! Not one comma, space, dash, or dot more. Use a text editor with Word Count to count the characters (MS Word has it in the "Tools" drop menu). This is especially hard to adhere to with any proposal that addresses any complex or provocative issue, such as this subject.


First thank you.

I think 3500 is a good ball park. I found that though people will complain about loopholes in smaller documents, especially with complex issues like the one you are tackling, that things get really long after that.

I was guessing that you were using a wordprocessor in the first place, because when I checked it on my end, there weren't any grammatical errors. :)

It looks like your version is true to your earlier drafts, and I wish you the best.

On another note, I was looking over the prior resolutions, and there were not nearly as many "Save the Forests" resolutions that have passed than a few of us might have led others to believe.

heheheh... you betcha I use a wordprocessor. I think we two are a little alike when it comes to grammar, spelling, formatting, and all that other nonsense that makes the english language such a pain in the arse for non-natives. I considered becoming a school teacher once, but I opted for Jet Fighter Test Pilot and Astronaut instead :p

thank you for the good wishes

heheheh... you betcha I use a wordprocessor. I think we two are a little alike when it comes to grammar, spelling, formatting, and all that other nonsense that makes the english language such a pain in the arse for non-natives. I considered becoming a school teacher once, but I opted for Jet Fighter Test Pilot and Astronaut instead :p


:)

Well, I like how in your proposal you've created a one-liner at the top. I *should* have done that.

Probably the best antiterrorist bill we've seen. However, although a definition is suggested, this is as far as it goes:



This would include much propaganda, Shock-and-Awe-type tactics, and so on, I take it. 'Calculated' is difficult to divide from 'forseen'.

If the Rehochipean military decided to assassinate the president of our less-than-innocent neighbour Arcnow, we would predict that action to cause a state of terror in the population. That wouldn't be our intent, but we would know it was going to happen before we carried out the action. The same would apply if we declared war on Arcnow - or indeed if anybody declared war on anybody.

Fear and terror are deeply predictable side-effects of any military action - or even preparation. The very act of building up and maintaining a nuclear arsenal inspires fear and terror, for instance. In many cases, this terror is the principal aim of building up such an arsenal - you may build up nukes without any intent of ever firing them, simply because you know the fear they inspire will give you more political clout.

One could interpret the meaning something like: when terror is the primary intent of an action - but this is a pretty difficult thing to interpret, and there will be an awful lot of borderline cases. Terror may be the major consequence of an action even when terror is not its intent.

Thank you for taking to time to offer your well thought input. I'll try to clarify for you. The "definition" in the resolution is given as follows:

"...that terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in any and all Nations, for political purposes, are in any and all circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify the terrorist acts..."

The generally accepted definition of Terrorism, depending on which dictionary is used, defines Terrorism as:
1: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments into accepting demands, often for ideological or political reasons.
2 : violence <as bombing> committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

The generally accepted definition of Terror, depending on which dictionary is used, defines Terror as:
1: fear; a SCOURGE <the AIDS epidemic> : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> : a cause of anxiety; WORRY d : an appalling person or thing.
2: an annoying or intolerable pest: <that little terror of a child or a rabid dog roaming the neighborhood>

Now, your question of the definition issue may very well be a matter of semantics, the difference between "terror" and "terrorism", as you have analogized it.

Using one of your analogies; a person assassinates the President and causes a state of terror in the population. In my opinion, I think it's safe to say that type of "terror" is "fear" or "anxiety", fear from the shock of that action, anxiety of what happens next? Further, "The very act of building up and maintaining a nuclear arsenal inspires fear and terror". Again, it's a "fear factor", the anxiety of potential for impending doom (I will spare everyone the "Peace through Nuclear Proliferation and Superior Firepower analogy ;) )

In the case of Terrorism; flying a jumbo jet liner into office buildings, or perhaps blowing up commuter trains, killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people in one fell swoop, to further a political cause. The motive is to "terrorize" an entire population to rise up against their government in order to unseat that government, or perhaps, to force government capitulation to a terrorist groups demands.

In the case of this proposed resolution, I believe it is clear what the intent of the resolutions definition and goal towards "terrorism" is. It can't be worded at any great length due to a word character cap when trying to submit proposals for vote to the NSUN.

(OOC: I would have loved to have been able to write this the way it should have been written, at the cost of being of great length. I know people do not want to read long dissertations of a proposed resolution, but this issue isn't as easy as writing a proposal that says, "plant a tree!". Dealing with writing this proposal (especially after hitting the word character limit brick wall at the NSUN submission page), which appeared to be a unique issue at the time, caused me a lot of consternation. How would I write it short as possible, yet clearly with all the bases covered? I just hope the Delegates find it thorough enough and see it for the worthwhile proposal that it is. I believe it to be a worthwhile hot bed issue yet to be covered by a specific resolution)

...

*bump*

As this proposal is already in the NSUN queue gathering support for quorum, with only 2 more days to reach the minimum required votes to achieve quorum, and since this thread is dropping to the 2nd page in this forum, I am bumping it back up to the first page for the sake of the Delegates who may want to examine the this draft proposal thread without having to dig for it.

Thank You and apologies in advance to anyone already at the top of the forum who may be offended

I have read the issue in hand and I have to say it is a very good proposal, of course I had to agree to it as I would like to see this motion pass.. And as I am an Anti-Terrorist nation anyway I wouldn't like this Issue to flop..

Thanks..
L.Psychosis...

I have read the issue in hand and I have to say it is a very good proposal, of course I had to agree to it as I would like to see this motion pass.. And as I am an Anti-Terrorist nation anyway I wouldn't like this Issue to flop..

Thanks..
L.Psychosis...

Thank you for your comments and compliment Honorable Delegate and Vice President of United Arabia, L.Psychosis. I hope all the honorable delegates, on behalf of their glorious regions, will share in this vision of hopefully one day eliminating the scourge of Terrorism.

As this proposal is already in the NSUN queue gathering support for quorum, with only 1 more day to reach the minimum required votes to achieve quorum, and since this thread is dropping to the 2nd page in this forum, I am bumping it back up to the first page for the sake of the Delegates who may want to examine the this draft proposal thread without having to dig for it.

The proposal can be found on page 2 of the proposal queue in NSUN.

Thank You and apologies in advance to anyone already at the top of the forum who may be offended

OOC: My proposal, which was still in the queue on page 2, not more than a couple of hours ago, is gone. The vote wasn't set to expire until Tues July 27. Well, it's Tuesday, and my proposal is gone, but all the other ones set to expire for Tues July 27 are still there. It was still lacking some votes, but so are the ones still in the queue that are also set to expire today.

Since I'm still a newbie, does anyone know if these submitted proposals seeking 1/6 affirmative votes to make quorum go by "clock" expiration? Like, if it was submitted at 07:00am, it expires in the proposal queue at 07:00am on the expiration date?

I thought I had until the end of Tuesday (12:00:01am Wednesday) to get the last remaining votes.... :confused:

I just want to know for future reference/timing issues, if anyone who knows can answer... thank you.

OOC:

I thought I had until the end of Tuesday (12:00:01am Wednesday) to get the last remaining votes.... :confused:

I just want to know for future reference/timing issues, if anyone who knows can answer... thank you.


First please resubmit it.

Second, when campaigning for a proposal, I print out a hard copy when I know there are between 24 and 12 hours left, i.e. the day before it is set to expire. If it fails, I politely telegram the people who endorsed it once and tell them how far it got and ask for them to consider re-endorsing it. The vast majority of the time you'll get an extremely positive and friendly response. :)

As for when the clock rolls over, I don't know. :(

Please resubmit it!

It'd be nice when proposals failed, if they could just have a place for the dead proposals to go. A place where you can view them, rather than just let them disappear into nothingness. At least then we could see by how many votes they failed, if for no other reason. I wasn't able to keep close track and thought I'd have all day today to track it anyway.

I suppose I could resubmit it. Last I checked it was only down 20 votes, and then about 2 1/2 hours later in the middle of the night *poof* ... and I thought I had all day today, like all the other ones set to expire TODAY as well, to get the remaining votes. There are soooo many proposals in there right now too.

bleh ... I'll resubmit it at a later date I guess. ;)

I suppose I could resubmit it. Last I checked it was only down 20 votes, and then about 2 1/2 hours later in the middle of the night *poof* ... and I thought I had all day today, like all the other ones set to expire TODAY as well, to get the remaining votes. There are soooo many proposals in there right now too.

bleh ... I'll resubmit it at a later date I guess. ;)

Don't worry about it ... in those last 2.5 hours many of the potential delegates you would have telegrammed would not have been online for another 12 hours or so. Those last votes are hard to "get", but are easily "gifted" by generous UN Delegates. If that makes sense ...

I'd advise resubmitting it now. With no current UN resolution around, the UN Delegates are more liberal with their endorsements. Also, if you were telegramming, chances are some of the people you contacted haven't been online yet.

My first resolution was in the queue twice. My second one *barely* made it to the floor.

Getting any proposal to the floor is a serious undertaking.

Thank you to all who supported the Anti-Terrorism Proposal, but alas, on its maiden voyage it failed with a shortfall of about 20 votes to achieve quorum. Thank You for your support Mikitivity, and for your encouragement.

Since Mikitivity is far more experienced than I at this sort of thing, I have taken his advice and resubmitted the proposal for another proposal vote. Hopefully, we can make those last 20 votes. Please consider offering your support once again and maybe this proposal will make it through to a global vote this time around.

At this time, it's on the last page of the proposal queue. Voting ends Friday July 30

Thank you!

The Federation of Jessicia believes that you, and others, do not take into consideration terrorism in its fullness.

As we will not interfere in the wars of others, we will not interfere in many kinds of terrorism as, like NationVSNation wars, these are groups of people with causes often fighting the only way which they know how or have the ability.

We will not interfere in the wars of others simply because we do not agree with their tactics as there are other things to take into consideration on each specific case. For example, a people want freedom yet they have no way of getting huge military numbers so they resort to what we refer to as "terrorism", something which they believe may achieve their goals.

The Federation of Jessicia does, though, take issue with anyone who does not first delcare war.

-The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

The Federation of Jessicia believes that you, and others, do not take into consideration terrorism in its fullness.

As we will not interfere in the wars of others, we will not interfere in many kinds of terrorism as, like NationVSNation wars, these are groups of people with causes often fighting the only way which they know how or have the ability.

We will not interfere in the wars of others simply because we do not agree with their tactics as there are other things to take into consideration on each specific case. For example, a people want freedom yet they have no way of getting huge military numbers so they resort to what we refer to as "terrorism", something which they believe may achieve their goals.

The Federation of Jessicia does, though, take issue with anyone who does not first delcare war.

-The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

Meatopiaa recognizes Jessicia's position, and respects the opinions of all.

Only as a matter of fact... genocide and mass murder... the ultimate terror that can be inflicted on innocent men, women, and children, who are not the Government nor the Military, being the intended goals and targets of operations and sorties undertaken by organized groups "who want freedom", is so deeply vile and of such low moral terpitude, that it can only be described as inhuman and most certainly not in the interest of "Freedom".

I encourage every Delegate of every Region to be heard if they endorse that terrorist acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in any and all Nations, for political purposes, are in any and all circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify the terrorist acts... please vote for the International Anti-Terrorism proposal in the proposal queue and help bring it to quorum.

Thank You.