NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a proposal that had at one point in time collected between 80 and 100 endorsements IIRC. It was very close to reaching the UN floor as a resolution, but its author, Sydia, experienced some technical problems, as their nation was effectively cut off from the rest of the world.

They have asked that I bring their proposal to your attention:


Convention Against Terrorism
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sydia

Description: 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. 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;

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

3. 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.


Approvals: 13 (Sydia, Similitudia, The Magdalen Islands, Treden, Coolet, Entropisburg, Yelda, Templarin, Lygonia, Pineapple Joe-bot, Slowness, Slyvian, Republican-Democracy)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 124 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Fri Oct 22 2004


For those of you in favour of the Axis of Evil because you fear that removing that resolution will encourage terrorism, I'd ask that you review this proposal and help us, by asking your UN Delegate to endorse this proposal.

Thank you,
10kMichael

A very solid proposal, complete with definitions. I'd vote for it. but alas I am not my region's delegate... yet ;). I will prevail apon our current delegate to aprove this resolution.

(on a purely comical note)

Terrorism & Response, in smiles

:eek: :mp5: :sniper:
Civilian Terrorist Government

A very solid proposal, complete with definitions. I'd vote for it. but alas I am not my region's delegate... yet ;). I will prevail apon our current delegate to aprove this resolution.


Thanks! Tonight my government and hopefully other nations from the North Pacific will start a telegramming campaign. Every endorsement helps.

I haven't time to offer my help or praise tonight (I'm a wittle bit wushed) but this is my bump, my support, my :thumbsup:

Despite our initial scepticism when we heard of an anti-terrorism proposal, this resolution has everything we expect. Clearly and well written, a good balance between international cooperation and national sovereignity, and well thought out.

We will support this proposal as soon as possible and hope it will reach quorum. It is a more than excellent replacement of the current Resolution #1.

a fantastic proposal...

I will urge my delegate to endorse.

Yes, and a far better way to deal with the problem than just label random countries as 'Evil'. I will suggest to my regional delegate to support it, and will vote for it if it reaches quorum.

I think your proposal is very good, but needs some more work.

1: I would suggest the addition of a clause that requires all UN Nations to offer aid to other UN Nations, in the event of a terrorist attack. For example, there are many countires with huge rates of crime, due to the ineffectiveness of their security forces. The Hand of the Light security forces of BOttaH, for one, would be of great assistance to those countries in the event of a major terrorist action, that the government was unable to deal with, due to the low levels of security forces. Such aid can take the form of military forces.
(I do understand that the clause to "take suitable counter-measures in large-scale public events to protect their population from terrorist attack" and to "Take(s) 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" () my own, should go some way towards improving the situation, but many countries will still be overstretched).

2: I would also say that any member of the UN, when asked for assistance with security at aforementioned public events by any other UN member, must comply, within reason, where reasonable requests exclude MILITARY assistance and excessive levels of police aid. Any disputes on reasonable requests will be taken to the UN for approval.

3: Have a seperate clause that deals with unprovoked and planned attacks on police. They are essentially civilians with positions of authority.

Otherwise, a most excellent proposal, and one which will have the support of the Lands of Unbalanced Personas, if I am the delegate.

Imperator Meatloaf, first among many of BOttaH

Friends!

Melbin wholly supports this preamble to the introduction of a vote for a previously almost tabled piece of legislation!

The Grand Duke of Melbin

i approve

A lot better resolution than "Fight the Axis of Evil" was. I will endorse it without delay.

One question though:

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.

Presumably it is already an offense to seize a civilian aircraft...?

A lot better resolution than "Fight the Axis of Evil" was. I will endorse it without delay.

Presumably it is already an offense to seize a civilian aircraft...?

I'll ask Sydia about this, who is reading the North Pacific forums when possible, but my guess would be to raise this to being an international crime. Obviously the UN should in our combined opinion, focus on issues that threaten the international community. Airplanes and boats are often used to travel from country to country.

FYI for those of you that are wondering, I'll be summarizing all the comments and compliaments to pass them along to the North Pacific nations (and Sydia would be coming here if their internet connection were more stable).

Repropose this, it's a good resolution. I think it will have a good chance of passing the second go round.

<bump>

"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"

Wouldn't this also include governments who use WMDs? Not paramilitaries, or people with suitcase bombs, but actual legitimate governments?

Would they be included under this resolution?

This resolution will reluctantly be approved by Arturistania. I am a bit concerned with the provision encouraging nations to share intelligence with other nations, there are no checks and balances in this resolution to prevent shared intelligence from being abused and thus violating the rights of a person or organization. Intelligence is secretive and since much of it can never be revealled in a public court, it can cause a potentially dangerous loophole allowing nations to use shared intelligence to prosecute organizations and people. Despite the demand for a fair trial, because intelligence can not be made available for national security purposes usually, the fairness of the trial can be in serious question. Sharing intelligence means that intelligence obtained from other nations can be kept confidential and used against people and organizations. The fact the evidence came from another nation also provides problems of verification and legitimacy, in otherwords, are nations trustworthy enough to supply accurate intelligence on terrorists and terrorist organizations or do they have other motives in supplying this information which may or may not be valid.

Perhaps the provision that the resolution encourages nations to share intelligence but that intelligence can not be submitted as evidence for prosecution of a terrorist or terrorist organization might solve this problem.

I'll talk to Sydia, who is still having connectivity problems, and see about resubmitting it.

OOC: The problem is actually made a bit worse, in that I'll be unable to telegram campaign for this starting Thursday. Between the US elections, which I work and Halloween, I'll be spending every night running around like crazy. The last week of October is always a super busy time for me, often with me wanting to be in about a dozen places at once. :)

All that said, now is the perfect time for amendments to be discussed and fleshed out. For example, the WMD issue is a good point. I'm not sure if Sydia has addressed this before, but maybe the point could be clarified and an amendment proposed. I also happen to like the suggestion that intelligence should be shared, but also kept confidential too!

I'm sure that once I'm back in swing and Sydia has a better connection that you'll see the two of us moving to finally bring this proposal to the floor, as there has been considerable interest in this.

Thanks!

I think it's an awesome resolution. It's better thaan axis of evil, because that made countries have bigger armies that could be used against each other. This is nothing like that. I'll talk to my delagate about voting for it.

I realise I might be the only a nation in the world voting against this, but I can not see how I can support it.

If my nation was invaded and occupied by GeminiLand, and my people decided to start using any means necessary to free their country from this opression, would I be forced to turn them over after we are free because they are classed as terrorists under this proposal?


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,


It's this part I have a problem with. Because I don't think that the phrase "no cause, not matter how just, warrants such methods" is true.


Also it should be the right of the nation in question to define what is a terrorist and what isn't.

First of all I'd like to thank Mikitivity for his tireless work on plugging my proposal.

Secondly, I'll try and address some of the issues raised.
I realise I might be the only a nation in the world voting against this, but I can not see how I can support it.

If my nation was invaded and occupied by GeminiLand, and my people decided to start using any means necessary to free their country from this opression, would I be forced to turn them over after we are free because they are classed as terrorists under this proposal?



It's this part I have a problem with. Because I don't think that the phrase "no cause, not matter how just, warrants such methods" is true.


Also it should be the right of the nation in question to define what is a terrorist and what isn't.
If your nation was occcupied, said civilians would be fighting a military presence and thus be exempt.

The WMD issue is an interesting one. I'm considering adding 'non-government organisation' in to the definition, but it's open to abuse. What about the disclaimer "unlawful"? This would disclude declared states of hostility and the like, as we all know civilian casualties are unfortunately inevitable in war.

I think I'll re-word the last article so there is no confusion in regards to hi-jacked aircraft.

The resolution now reads:

Description: ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE

DEFINING the use of the term Terrorist for this resolution to mean:
- One who unlawfully engages in deliberate attacks against civilians and 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. 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;

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

3. 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 any civilian ship or aircraft by force, threat, or intimidation; and harm either the crew or the craft itself.

If your nation was occcupied, said civilians would be fighting a military presence and thus be exempt.


But what if the occupying army brought it's familys along? Would it be permissible to attack the families of the occupying army, even though they have nothing to do with the occupation (or nothing militarily to do with it)?

And installed a civilian government that was not part of the occupying army, but of the government?

Further - if this occupying army are suffering military casulaties on their bases - what if they start stationing civilians there to stop the attacks under this proposal?

And - to go out on a limb for a moment - what about this :-

My nation has lived under GeminiLand rule for thirty years. All natural born TilEncans (of any species) are treated as second class citizens. They can be executed, beaten and generally treated like crap. So after thirty years we get a bit pissed off and start to attack. But we have no weapons to speak of - we are not permitted to posses them. So we start making pipe bombs and petrol bombs. These would prove useless against the army (what with their armoured personnel carriers and all) so - because the occupying power has been abusing our people - our civilians - for three decades, we decide the best way to get rid of them is target them where they are weak - their civilian areas.
I can not imagine how that could be justified under your resolution, but quite honestly I can see why people could be driven to it under the right conditions (or the wrong ones, depending on your perspective I guess).

I would not turn anyone over who engaged in these tactics to free their country. I would oppose the tactics when used to try to influence the governments of other nations, but if you are trying to free your country from occupation and opression I think that you should be given a broad discretion as to what that entails.

But what if the occupying army brought it's familys along? Would it be permissible to attack the families of the occupying army, even though they have nothing to do with the occupation (or nothing militarily to do with it)?

Clearly not. But the resolution works here, I don't see a problem.

And installed a civilian government that was not part of the occupying army, but of the government?

You mean a puppet governement? This is covered under the police force/military clause in the definitions.

As for the last part; one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, but under all practical definitions of the word you would be classified as a terrorist for the deliberate (that's a key word, it means the loophole of putting civvies on a military base purely to catagorise the opposition as terrorists is closed) attack on a civilian population.

The conditions you described are perfect 'breeding brounds', if you'll excuse the term, for terrorists - hence the clasue about attempting to stop the root causes of terrorism through humanitarian aid. No doubt such a government would already be breaking multiple UN resolutions through such actions anyway.

Clearly not. But the resolution works here, I don't see a problem.


So it would be okay to attack military officers while they are at work, but not while they are at home (because we might hurt their families). And if they have an office at home? And if this military officer is in charge of the executions of my people?


You mean a puppet governement? This is covered under the police force/military clause in the definitions.


That's okay then :}


As for the last part; one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, but under all practical definitions of the word you would be classified as a terrorist for the deliberate (that's a key word, it means the loophole of putting civvies on a military base purely to catagorise the opposition as terrorists is closed) attack on a civilian population.


Just to open up the loophole again - what if we knew there were civilians on the base, and attacked it knowing FULL WELL we would kill them as well as the military personnel?


The conditions you described are perfect 'breeding brounds', if you'll excuse the term, for terrorists - hence the clasue about attempting to stop the root causes of terrorism through humanitarian aid. No doubt such a government would already be breaking multiple UN resolutions through such actions anyway.

First - I am guessing you meant "breeding grounds" :}

Secondly - what if they are not a government who are in the UN? But TilEnca still wants to be, even though it doesn't have a government who is in charge? We would be in violation of the resolution, but they wouldn't cause it wouldn't apply to them.


I don't condone violance to affect political change, but to deny that it works in the light of the history of my own nation is just foolish, and I do honestly believe that "any means necessary" is sometimes a valid option.

My main point is this - if you could leave defintion of "terrorist" in the hands of the national governments I would have no problem with this. (The Nuclear Terrorism act is an example of this). It's just if my people are going to have to be punished by me for doing something I fully support them doing, how is that going to look to them?

Yes, please excuse my sloppy typing there.

Anyway, I think leaving the definition up to national governments again opens the resolution to abuse; a police force may deem a teen street gang 'terrorists' and bang them up for life, etc etc. A military officer is always (unless he gets discharged) in the military, never 'off-duty' and to be regarded as a civilian. Even on leave military personel are under full jurisdiction of the military.

I could have applied the resolution to the military, but that's where you get blurry on the 'freedom fighters/terrorists'. So I decided to stick with something concrete; that murdering civilians for whatever aim is wholly unacceptable and the UN should do anything in it's power to stop it. As for the civvies on a military base, I suppose it's the risk they take - the military would know full well that anyone on the base could be a target for mortar/rocket attacks simply by their presence there. Likewise any military man who for some reason wants to take his family into a combat zone. I can't outlaw civilians working on military bases; though (think of the thousands of orderlies doing odd-jobs for armies around the world, and protests I would get). I'm afraid this is one such circumstance where freedom fighter/terrorist lines blur too much to be dealt with in a concrete manner as civilian casualties are, sadly, a part of war no matter how careful one is to avoid them.

I'd have to grant that the definition of a Terrorist is a tough one, though I think this proposal does a pretty good job.

My objection is to Article II, section 4, which treats Terrorists as Prisoners of War and subjects them to a Civil Trial, which is not acceptable to Maubachia. Terrorists here are subject to military tribunals, which allow the court to use classified evidence in a closed courtroom. Terrorists, who do not belong to any nation's standing army, are thus not considered Prisoners of War, and do not retain the rights offered them by the Wolfish Convention.

Otherwise a great proposal.

Yes, please excuse my sloppy typing there.

Anyway, I think leaving the definition up to national governments again opens the resolution to abuse; a police force may deem a teen street gang 'terrorists' and bang them up for life, etc etc. A military officer is always (unless he gets discharged) in the military, never 'off-duty' and to be regarded as a civilian. Even on leave military personel are under full jurisdiction of the military.

I could have applied the resolution to the military, but that's where you get blurry on the 'freedom fighters/terrorists'. So I decided to stick with something concrete; that murdering civilians for whatever aim is wholly unacceptable and the UN should do anything in it's power to stop it. As for the civvies on a military base, I suppose it's the risk they take - the military would know full well that anyone on the base could be a target for mortar/rocket attacks simply by their presence there. Likewise any military man who for some reason wants to take his family into a combat zone. I can't outlaw civilians working on military bases; though (think of the thousands of orderlies doing odd-jobs for armies around the world, and protests I would get). I'm afraid this is one such circumstance where freedom fighter/terrorist lines blur too much to be dealt with in a concrete manner as civilian casualties are, sadly, a part of war no matter how careful one is to avoid them.

I did think of an "out" so to speak - if my nation is occupied then technically we no longer have a government. So even if my people resort to terrorist tactics (as defined here) then my government would not be capable of punishing them, until said government is restored. And once it is restored the terror will stop so we would not need to punish them.

But besides the point I understand your expalantion and have really only one other question before I can support it completely.

Does the punishment for the terrorist acts stay with the nation the terrorists come from, or the nation they are attacking? (You might have answered this already, but if you have could you repeat the answer so I can be sure! - thanks!)