NationStates Jolt Archive

The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING the use of the term "Terrorist" for this resolution to mean:
- One who engages in deliberate, unprovoked attacks against civilians who does so with deadly intent against non-combatants.
ALSO DEFINING the use of the term "Civilian" for this resolution to mean:
- Any person who is not an active member of the military or police force.
RECOGNISING that this resolution refers only to the use of terror tactics on civilians to coerce a sovereign government against their will,
FIRMLY BELIEVING that no cause, no matter how just, warrants such methods,
UNDERSTANDING that terrorism represents a growing problem for security of nations world wide,

1. Encourages all nations to share intelligence relating to any organisation that uses terror tactics,

2. Bans the use of terror tactics by UN nations on any other nation, where "terror tactics" are defined as attacks and intimidation against civilian populations,

3. Further bans all UN nations from providing support or armaments to groups utilizing terrorist tactics against another nation,

4. Seeks to address the social, economic and political causes of international terrorism by means of humanitarian aid, fair news coverage of international events and discouraging overly-hostile foreign policies of UN nations,

5. Guarantees the rights of any captured terrorist to be equal to that of a captured enemy combatant under the Wolfish Convention on POW.

6. Appreciates the benefits of educating the public about what to do in the event of a terrorist attack,

7. Insists all nations take suitable measures, (such as patrolling uniformed and undercover police officers, comprehensive surveillance of the area involved and contingency plans in the event of terrorist attack) to protect their population from terrorist attack, especially in large-scale public events.

8. Condemns any government harbouring known terrorists,

9. Strongly discourages governments conceding to terrorist demands,

10.
a) Those terrorists who have been captured by authorities shall be given a fair trial, as defined in the resolution "Definition of a Fair Trial," and if found guilty, given the appropriately severe punishment by law in the country tried,

b) If a captured terrorist is a national of a country where capital punishment is outlawed, then capital punishment is prohibited as a punishment for a convicted terrorist. The presiding judge must, therefore, find a suitable substitute punishment.

11. Encourages nations to establish international tribunals for those capture terrorists suspected of participating in international terrorism in the aforementioned nations,

12. Further encourages nations with suspected terrorists in custody, whom have committed acts of terrorism on foreign soil, to in to enact extradition charges in order that the terrorist be tried in the nation he or she committed said acts of terrorism,

13. Takes measures to ensure that all major national and international public airports place strict security measures to prevent any persons who would endanger the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, whether by explosives or any other means, to board the aircraft.

14. Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of organisations which seek to employ terror tactics on civilians, whether direct or indirect, though groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in such illicit activities as drug trafficking or gun running,

15. Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, providing this is within national borders, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other states on a case-by-case basis. In the event of bank secrecy, a warrant may be needed as required by national law.

16. Makes it an offence for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a civilian ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships,

17. Encourages all nations to provide for the needs of injured victims from terrorist attack (both with physical injury and Post Traumatic Stress), and the families of those killed from terrorism in a nation's own borders.


Thoughts, comments?

I've got a couple of quick comments/questions.

Regarding:

9. Opposes the use of violence by civilian nationals in acheiving their aims,

This is the only part of the resolution that I out and out don't like. This takes the resolution beyond terrorism into vigilantism, which I think should be treated solely as a domestic issue.

13. Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other states on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy will no longer be justification for refusing to cooperate,

It's that last sentence that bothers me. This seems ripe for abuse. Will this allow law enforcement agencies free reign over financial records, even if normally they would require a warrant for such information under domestic law?

Hmm, you're right. I'll take out clause 9 and add make sure a warrant is required while thumbing through secret bank accounts; but will leave it up to national law.

9. Those terrorists who have been captured by authorities shall be given a fair trial, as defined in the resolution "Definition of a Fair Trial," and if found guilty, given the highest punishment available by law in the country tried,I'm not a big fan of automated sentencing. There is no discretion given the nation or the judge, regardless of the severity of 'terrorism'. If a nation considers any bomb threat to be 'terrorist', then my threat to "water-bomb the entire quad" at University might result in a life sentence. If you strike the italicized portion and replaced it with appropriately severe punishment, I don't think it would weaken the proposal.

You should include a process of extradition for acts of trans-national terrorism. That gets into a lot of fuzzy areas, but it's worth trying.

I would like more clairification on how the Terrorists would be tried. If they are tried in a state that is sponsoring them, would they get a fair trial?

I believe that terrorism on an international scale is a job for the World Court, which I do not believe exists. It may be a good idea to start a resoution for a World Court, and include international terrorism as one of its jurisdictions.

A few things.

First we'd prefer that in defining the word terrorism the term civilian is replaced with non-military or even non-combat forces to make the term more inclusive and to avoid arguments over who exactly is a civilian. Unless they are shooting at soldiers whose job it is to shoot at them, they should be considered a terrorist.

Second we'd prefer the ban on "terror tactics" to be narrower. In war there is a certain amount of intimidation and smaller powers may have to resort to assymetrical reponses to the threats of larger powers. That said we have great miscomfort in governments prying their fingers in the internal affairs of other governments including the support of terroristic rebel groups. We'd suggest replacing the second proviso with the following.

"2. Bans all nations from providing support or armaments to rebel groups utilizing terroristic tactics against another nation."

We'd go as far as banning all support to any anti-government rebels but that is beyond the scope of where you'd probably want to take the resolution.

Third. They should not have the same rights as "felons." At the very least they are guilty of treason and should be eligible for military justice. We regret the rights already granted to them in other resolutions without them being treated like a mere pickpocket. We'd be willing to concede to language that guarentees them the rights entitled to them in previous resolutions.

Fourth. We disagree with section 9. They shouldnt be given a trial just anywhere but in the (or one of the) countries they were targetting. A nation that potentially harbors a terrorist should not be given the privelege of deciding whether or not someone is a terrorist or not.


We applaud this resolution and hope in the future a similar resolution can expand on some of the concerns we have on paramilitary movements in general. The events in Chechnaya clearly shows the fight is wider than the tactic of terrorism but rather includes those who don't respect government authority. It is where governments are unable to impose order due to the interference of others (whether it is other nations or wealthy benefactors such as an osama bin laden) where such tactics arise. Respecting and supporting each other is the key towards the survival of all of us.

DEFINING the use of the term "Terrorist" for this resolution to mean:
- One who engages in deliberate, unprovoked attacks against civilians.

Ah, and here's the problem - all terrorism is provoked in some way. The IRA was provoked by religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Al-Qaeda was provoked by Israeli and American actions. Terrorism does not start because a group of people suddenly decide they'd like to kill people for fun. I think the rest of the definition is okay, however.

I also don't agree with "FIRMLY BELIEVING that no cause, no matter how just, warrants such methods," but I wouldn't oppose it. If you're also taking out article 9, I'm fine with the rest of it.

The events in Chechnaya clearly shows the fight is wider than the tactic of terrorism but rather includes those who don't respect government authority. It is where governments are unable to impose order due to the interference of others (whether it is other nations or wealthy benefactors such as an osama bin laden)

I don't think you understand the situation in Chechnya. They are fighting for independence from Russia and have been met with deadly military force. The Russian army has also committed atrocities of their own, shooting civillians and what have you. The Russian government is unable to impose their authority because the Chechens don't want to be part of Russia, and not because of any "interference".

As I just said, all terrorism is provoked. It's definitely wrong, but often it is the only form of protest that they have. Or should I say, effective form of protest. Let's face it, when the Americans talk about withdrawing troops from Iraq, they're thinking about the fact that rebels are constantly shooting and blowing up their troops, and not about the millions of peaceful protestors who were marching all over the world in March 2003. You get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

... great miscomfort in governments prying their fingers in the internal affairs of other governments ...

... banning all support to any anti-government rebels ...

... At the very least they are guilty of treason ...

... includes those who don't respect government authority. It is where governments are unable to impose order.
The problem we have with all these statements is that we don't always agree that the government of any given nation is correct. Take the recent atrocities by Communist Mississippi (here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=355162), here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354914), and here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=353854), for example). We are completely supportive of whatever faction managed to take down Czar Roger Fabus, and have been supportive in the following refugee flood. Had Czar Roger joined the UN, we as UN members would have been obligated to treat his oppressed citizens who fought his regime as terrorists under this law.

Sweeping definitions and broad categorizations don't belong in international law. There are frequently mitigating factors that need to be considered. Given the current climate, I find it likely that a well written anti-terrorist law will pass this body ... but Frisbeeteria will decide for herself when and where to break that law ... and will be willing to accept the consequences of that action.

DEFINING the use of the term "Terrorist" for this resolution to mean:Here I have a problem, in that by specifically defining it for this proposal, it implies terrorist can be re-defined in the future ... which brings in the risky "repeal" issues ...- One who engages in deliberate, unprovoked attacks against civilians.Like wackko people. Muggers ... house-breakers ... hit-and-runners .. bank robbers ... people letting their dog poop on your lawn.- Does so with deadly intent against non-combatants.I think these two points should be merged thus.RECOGNISING that this resolution refers only to the use of terror tactics on civilians to coerce a sovereign government against their will,Ummm, if its coercion then its of course against there will, and maybe a claer definition of terrorism should be included.FIRMLY BELIEVING that no cause, no matter how just, warrants such methods,Well ... its all perception of individuals based I guess. Some one thought it important enough to fill a hall full of kids and bombs in RL recently ...UNDERSTANDING that terrorism represents a growing problem for security of nations world wide,Da, I agree. Of course, one governments terrorist is another populations freedom-fighter ...REALISING that terrorism is a deplorable tactic,I feel this had been covered already ...DEEPLY CONCERNED that terrorists are turning to more brutal and barbaric acts to achieve thier aims;Ummm, apart from still killing people? I think this is a bit of point-less rhetoric, terrorism is terrorism. Its always going to be brutal and barbaric in some way to some-one.1. Encourages all nations to share intelligence relating to any organisation that uses terror tactics,I like the sound of this one.2. Bans the use of terror tactics by UN nations on any other nation, where "terror tactics" are defined as attacks and intimidation against civilian populations,This I disagree with, as it asumes the U.N. is a coherent body that acts as one.3. Seeks to address the social, economic and political causes of international terrorism by means of humanitarian aid, fair news coverage of international events and discouraging overly-hostile foreign policies of UN nations,Ummm ... I agree with the first one, think the second is already covered, and think again the last one is not applicable, as the U.N. imposes what it will. A-la the rules of the game ...4. Guarantees the rights of any captured terrorist to be equal to that of an arrested felon,I'm not sure, but the current at vote proposal-come-resolution might cover that.5. Appreciates the benefits of educating the public about what to do in the event of a terrorist attack,I agree with this one.6. Insists all nations take suitable measures to protect their population from terrorist attack, especially in large-scale public events,This I think is questionable, as exactly what are "suitable measures" ? Eh ? Mandatory pre-game anthrax vaccine injections for spectators all major league games ? Complusory personal bullet proof body armor at every public rally ?7. Condemns any government harbouring known terrorists,Hmmm, one nations terrorist is another nations refugee, remember, yeah, yeah, Osama Bin-what-ever and the Taliban (skipping momentarily to RL again there), but remember, not all initially "harmed" governments are always the protectors of true truth and justice, shiny swords and shields and all that.8. Strongly discourages governments conceding to terrorist demands,Yep, I can agree with that, though, I think ultimately its the choice of the government to decide how it reacts in such situations, not every-body has the ability to declare " We will not negociate with terrorists/hostages takers/rogue tax collectors "9. Those terrorists who have been captured by authorities shall be given a fair trial, as defined in the resolution "Definition of a Fair Trial," and if found guilty, given the highest punishment available by law in the country tried,Aain, check the current at open vote proposal-come-resolution to see if it actually covers this or not.10. Takes measures to ensure that all national and international airports place strict security measures to prevent any persons who would endanger the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, whether by explosives or any other means, to board the aircraft,Private or public air-fields ? Every-single one ? Even private little few hundred foot strip and hangar for crop-dusters ? And what kind of security measures are appropriate ? I think this would need some kind of tightening ... if it is to be effective.11. Requires partiesParties probably bad word to use here. U.N. Meber Naions more likely. Parties always bring to mind for me green-foil hats and pink tassels, and lots and lots of booze.to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of organisations which seek to employ terror tactics on civilians, whether direct or indirect,Provided this is within their own national borders I think this is okay.though groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in such illicit activities as drug trafficking or gun running,Hmmm, yea, I can agree to that.12. Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other states on a case-by-case basis. In the event of bank secrecy, a warrant may be needed as required by national law.Hmmm, provided its only in national borders of country enacting it, or borders of another country who agrees to it, and that the nations doing so or being affected are U.N. members only, I can't see us being able to enforce such actions or laws on non-U.N.-members.13. Makes it an offence for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a civilian ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships,No piracy, no acts of piracy, no sabotage of vessels at sea or in port.14. Encourages all nations to provide for the needs of injured victims from terrorist attack (both with physical injury and Post Traumatic Stress), and the families of those killed.But only if it occus in their borders or they are their own citizens. I'm not paying for some tin-pot dictators civies being shot to shit by their seperatist movement half the world away. If you know what I mean. I might have sympathy, I might send aid. But I will not stand for mandatory picking up the bill, if you see my point.

Hope all that is of some help. :)

First of all, thankyou for all your responses and suggestions on how to improve the resolution. Originally this resolution included attacks on government installations, but I decided the "terrorist/freedom fighter" lines would be too blurred in this case, so I want to focus soley on attacks on civilians.

I'll try and include your suggestions so far.

EDIT: I've added a few more clauses and added to/removed bits of existing ones. The preamble is also altered

I'm not a big fan of automated sentencing. There is no discretion given the nation or the judge, regardless of the severity of 'terrorism'. If a nation considers any bomb threat to be 'terrorist', then my threat to "water-bomb the entire quad" at University might result in a life sentence. If you strike the italicized portion and replaced it with appropriately severe punishment, I don't think it would weaken the proposal.
This was my major concern, though I agree with other points raised elsewhere in this thread. With regards to this, I think even Frisbeeteria's proposed amendment goes too far. I would suggest appropriate punishment. If a nation does not wish to punish its citizens for what ever reasons and causes no harm to other nation through this, then we have no grounds to penalise them. Admonish, perhaps, but that is all.

Frankly, it's my belief that this is one of those topics that has to be treated with the utmost care. I recall that one of my predecessors at the UN was involved in a lengthy discussion with other delegates on this issue, largely concerning the definition of terrorism and especially the UN's approach to aiding 'terrorists'.

I am grateful to the honourable delegates of Sydia for bringing up this subject with a thoughtful first draft but I fear the consequences of allowing legislation that does not meet the most exacting of standards.

Many of our nations' histories are shrouded in violence, confusion and guilt. We must consider whether or not the pain and suffering of the past has been worthwhile when poised to judge and possibly condemn those who use violence in the present and the future.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Thanks for the comments, Ecopoeia, I appreciate it.

Are there any more suggestion regarding the resolution as it stands now? I'm hoping to submit this one soon.

I've also just realised the typo in the topic title, sorry about that.

EDIT: I didn't submit it, and have instead re-formatted into a convention and re-named the resolution "Convention Against Terrorism". Or, if you like, "Convention of Anti-Terrorism.

Please tell me which format you prefer:

The NationStates United Nations,

ARTICLE I - DEFINING THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION

DEFINING the use of the term "Terrorist" for this resolution to mean:
- One who engages in deliberate, unprovoked attacks against civilians who does so with deadly intent against non-combatants.
ALSO DEFINING the use of the term "Civilian" for this resolution to mean:
- Any person who is not an active member of the military or police force.
RECOGNISING that this resolution refers only to the use of terror tactics on civilians to coerce a sovereign government against their will,
FIRMLY BELIEVING that no cause, no matter how just, warrants such methods,
UNDERSTANDING that terrorism represents a growing problem for security of nations world wide;

ARTICLE II - DOMESTIC RESPONSE

1. Bans the use of terror tactics by UN nations on any other nation, where "terror tactics" are defined as attacks and intimidation against civilian populations;

2. Condemns any government harbouring or providing support and / or armaments to groups utilizing terrorist tactics against another nation;

3. Guarantees the rights of any captured terrorist to be equal to that of a captured enemy combatant under the Wolfish Convention on POW;

4. Appreciates the benefits of educating the public about what to do in the event of a terrorist attack;

5. Insists all nations take suitable measures, (such as patrolling uniformed and undercover police officers, comprehensive surveillance of the area involved and contingency plans in the event of terrorist attack) to protect their population from terrorist attack, especially in large-scale public events;

6. Strongly discourages governments conceding to terrorist demands;

7. Encourages all nations to provide for the needs of injured victims from terrorist attack (both with physical injury and Post Traumatic Stress), and the families of those killed from terrorist in a nation's own borders.

ARTICLE III - INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

1. Encourages all nations to share intelligence relating to any organisation that uses terror tactics;

2.
a) Those terrorists who have been captured by authorities shall be given a fair trial, as defined in the resolution "Definition of a Fair Trial," and if found guilty, given the appropriately severe punishment by law in the country tried;

b) If a captured terrorist is of a national of a country where capital punishment is outlawed, then capital punishment is prohibited as a punishment for a convicted terrorist. The presiding judge must, therefore, find a suitable substitute punishment;

3. Encourages nations to establish international tribunals for those capture terrorists suspected of participating in international terrorism in the aforementioned nations;

4. Further encourages nations with suspected terrorists in custody, whom have committed acts of terrorism on foreign soil, to in to enact extradition charges in order that the terrorist be tried in the nation he or she committed said acts of terrorism;

ARTICLE IV - PREVENTING TERRORISM

1. Takes measures to ensure that all major national and international public airports place strict security measures to prevent any persons who would endanger the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, whether by explosives or any other means to board the aircraft;

2. Seeks to address the social, economic and political causes of international terrorism by means of humanitarian aid, fair news coverage of international events and discouraging overly-hostile foreign policies of UN nations;

3. Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of organisations which seek to employ terror tactics on civilians, whether direct or indirect, though groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in such illicit activities as drug trafficking or gun running;

4. Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, providing this is within national borders, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other states on a case-by-case basis. In the event of bank secrecy, a warrant may be needed as required by national law;

5. Makes it an offence for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a civilian ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships.

The proposal was too long by more than 1000 characters, I've had to change vocab and delete certain details to reduce the legnth to this:

ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE

DEFINING the use of the term Terrorist for this resolution to mean:
- One who engages in deliberate attacks against civilians who does so with deadly intent against non-combatants.
ALSO DEFINING the use of the term Civilian for this resolution to mean:
- Any person who is not an active member of the military or police force.
RECOGNISING that this resolution refers only to the use of terror tactics on civilians to coerce a sovereign government,
FIRMLY BELIEVING that no cause, no matter how just, warrants such methods,

ARTICLE 2 - DOMESTIC RESPONSE

1. Encourages all nations to share intelligence relating to any organisation that uses terror tactics;

2. Bans the use of terror tactics by UN nations on any other nation, where "terror tactics" are defined as attacks and intimidation against civilian populations;

3. Condemns any government harbouring or providing support and / or armaments to groups utilizing terrorist tactics against another nation;

4. Declares the rights of any captured terrorist to be equal to that of a captured enemy combatant under the Wolfish Convention on POW;

5. Appreciates the value of educating the public about what to do in the event of a terrorist attack;

6. Insists all nations take suitable counter-measures in large-scale public events to protect their population from terrorist attack;

7. Strongly discourages governments conceding to terrorist demands;

8. Encourages all nations to provide for the needs of injured victims from terrorist attack, (with physical and psychological injury) and the families of those killed from terrorism in a nation's own borders.

ARTICLE 3 - INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

1.
a) Terrorists captured by authorities shall be given a fair trial, as defined in the resolution "Definition of a Fair Trial," and if found guilty, given the aptly severe punishment by law in the country tried;

b) If a captured terrorist is of a national of a nation where capital punishment is outlawed, then capital punishment is prohibited as a punishment and the presiding judge must find a fitting surrogate punishment;

3. Asks nations to establish international tribunals for those capture terrorists suspected of participating in international terrorism both abroad and in the nation captured;

4. Encourages nations with suspected international terrorists in custody, to enact extradition charges in order that the terrorist be tried in the nation he or she committed acts of terrorism;

ARTICLE 4 - PREVENTING TERRORISM

1. Takes measures to ensure that all major national and international public airports place strict security measures to prevent any persons to board who would endanger the safety of the aircraft and its passengers;

2. Seeks to address the social, economic and political roots of international terrorism by means of humanitarian aid;

3. Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of organisations which seek to employ terror tactics on civilians, whether direct or indirect, despite groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals;

4. Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, providing this is within national borders. In the event of bank secrecy, a warrant may be needed as required by national law;

5. Makes it an offence for a person to seize a civilian ship by force, threat, or intimidation; and harm either the crew or ship itself.


The proposal as posted above has been submitted for delegate approval.

Technically under the terms as now defined, a citizen of a nation who becomes angry with his/her government and goes on a shooting rampage as a result, would have to be tried according to the Wolfish Convention as a prisoner of war. This type of situation, with a citizen of a nation engaging in domestic terrorism against citizens of his/her own nation, should be dealt with internally according to the laws of the host nation.

The laws of the Free Land of Elveshia permit summary capital punishment for any Elveshian citizen convicted of the deliberate murder of two or more people during the commission of a felony. Elveshia will not support, and we will recommend that our delegate also oppose, any resolution which attempts to undermine the rights of free nations to punish their own citizens in accordance with their own code of laws.

It is recommended that this proposal be amended to strictly deal with acts perpetrated by terrorists foreign to the target nation, or terrorism against civilians perpetrated during the course of an internationally recognized internal war or revolt.

2. Bans the use of terror tactics by UN nations on any other nation, where "terror tactics" are defined as attacks and intimidation against civilian populations,

how is collateral damage to non combatants during conflics classed?

10b is an internal issue for nations to decide not the UN

16. Makes it an offence for a person unlawfully and intentionally to seize or exercise control over a civilian ship by force, threat, or intimidation; to perform an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship; to place a destructive device or substance aboard a ship; and other acts against the safety of ships,

how is unelaterial action effected by this eg. boarding merchant ships that belong to a belidergent