NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been considering this for sometime, and from comments made by other members of the UN within this forum it is clear other people believe that it would be a good idea.

I am aware there is a proposal on the list already about this, but it does not actually state what it wishes to do to deal with genocide when it happens, and how those who commit it should be punished.

I would like to try to rectify that, but I am not so conceited as to think I can do it all on my own, or on my first attempt.

So I would like to start by suggesting what I think genocide is, how it should be dealt with and how to punish those who commit it.

I would also like to think we can prevent it, but I am pretty sure that is beyond the power of the UN :}

What is Genocide?

I would class Genocide as the systematic destruction of a group of people for a reason that unites those people. For example religion, race (or species), genetics (the murder of all hymophilliacs for example) or ethnicity.

Genocide must be committed, or instigated by the state. The murder of three hundred people by a terrorist group is not genocide, it is simply mass murder. However the murder of three hundred people by the states is genocide.

Genocide must be premeditated. I know it sounds unlikely that you could commit genocide by accident, but I would not like to punish those who actually have done it by accident with no malice aforethought.

There is no statute of limiations on Genocide. Whether it be 1 year or 1000, charges can always be brought against people.

There are more issues to deal with - more things that must be in place to define what genocide is, but at the moment these are the most obvious.

How to deal with Genocide

This is where it gets more complicated, and where I am going to almost certainly start stepping on other nation's toes.

I do not believe that a single nation can try a person or people for genocide. The crime of anihilating an entire race is beyond the realm of national sovereignty, and so can not be dealt with within a nation.

The main reason for this is the resolution that requires a "fair trial". If the state is responsible for the crime, then the state can not try the person or persons who committed it. There would be a severe conflict of interest. And I believe that the other people in the nation will be far too emotionally involved in the case to be capable of taking part in a court case with any degree of rationality and unbaisedness (I know - not the best word. But I could not think of a better one).

Consequently I would suggest an internation panel be set up. I am aware the UN is prohibited (as far as I am aware) from setting up a standing body, however I am not suggesting that. Given the large size of UN membership I believe it should be possible to find enough disinterested nations to form this panel. The panel should not be a standing body, not a fixed group of nations, so that there can be no suggestion or accusastion of bias within the panel's makeup.

This panel would be made up of either diplomats or lawyers from the various nations. In the same manner that grand jurys are made up of laypeople, with some legal expertese to ensure that the rules of the panel and the laws surrounding it are not broken.

The panel would be empowered to call witnesses of relevence, regardless of what nation that witnesses are in. The witnesses can be compelled to testify, and - if they believe their lives are in danger - they can be protected and they can testify under anonymity.

Those accused of genocide are required to be extradited to the location of the court. They will be protected through the proceedings, so that no retribution can be made against them. If the nation they are in refuses to extradite them, I am not entirely sure what can be done. I want to say that the international community will have the power to go in and get them, but that is not such a good idea as it risks war and other such badness.

Once the panel has made it's decision, either side can appeal the decision. And, unlike the general rules of law that somoene can not be tried again for the same crime, if further compelling evidence is found then someone can be brought back to answer more charges of genocide.

Punishment

There will be no death penalty in the convention. There are many reasons for this, of which the most obvious is that I oppose it. But since this is an international convention, and not a national one, I do have other reasons.
If the extradition of the accused is required, then it will be easier if we can assure the nation who's person we are taking that that person will not be executed for their crimes.
Also if we are to show that the murder of any people is not justifiable for any reason, we can not do it by putting the convicted person to death.
Finally - despite the rigourous legal procedure, mistakes happen. And executing someone who is innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of is no less a crime than genocide itself.

The panel will be empowered to hand down whatever sentence it believes is required. The sentencing can only be done within the limits of other nation states resolutions - so you can't torture someone as a punishment for genocide. The panel would have the power to put someone in jail for the rest of their life, without possibility of parole.

Should the sentence be imprisonment then the panel can either suggest a nation for the sentence to take place in, or a nation can volunteer. Again I am running in to problems with this, as it runs in to problems with funding, national sovereignty and so forth. However this is what I was thinking.

The person will be imprisoned in the said nation, and the costs of the imprisonment will be born by the UN, or by all members of the UN. Observers can be sent to the jail to monitor the treatment of the prisoner, to ensure that the person is being treated fairly and humanely.

Once the sentence is discharged, the person is free to go. However in order to prevent them from gaining power and the position to commit such a crime again they will be prevented from serving on any national or international governing body again.

Comments/Notes

This really is just a first pass at my thoughts on this. I know it looks like a lot of thought has gone in to it, and to some degree it has. However I am aware that my knowledge of international and UN law is limited, and that there will be a lot of things I haven't thought of that other UN and non-UN members who frequent this forum will think of.

I will not be offended by any comments made in regard to this, so please feel free to be honest. I have most likely overlooked something serious, but until it's pointed out to me I won't know what it is.

Thanks for your time in reading this :}

Tori.

I haven't read it all yet because the official pizza boy just came but I think 'genetics' would be better expressed by genetic conditions.

And for 'species' I would use sentient species just to clear it up.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Well, I only have two minor points of contention...

1) The limiting of Genocide to states only... I believe that exceeds the scope of genocide... Any attempt to exterminate a group of people on the basis of race, religion, culture, ethnics or politics, is genocide, regardless of who perpetrates it... If a mass murderer is killing all non-christians for being heretics, he is commiting genocide... If he is killing all non-muslims in the name of Alah, he is comitting genocide... If he is killing all capitalists in the name of Socialism, he is commiting genocide.

2) Statute of limitations, should merely be listed as none... There is of course limits to it, namely the lifetime of the accused... You can't try a dead person, and you can't try someone else in their absense (UBR stops that). 1000 years after the fact (given nominal human lifetime) no one involved would be alive.

Convention ... ;)

I've not read through it but will. However, I think a neat way to make this resolution would be to model this on the "Wolfish Convention on POW". My government would even be happy to call this the "TilEnca Convention Against Genocide", or if you have a capital city where we could all go to talk about this ... like Genevea, then that would be a roleplay rich way to make a similar convention.

I find genocide to be a viable tactic when faced against an enemy out to destroy you that just won't stop. Sometimes, you must exterminate to survive. Generally, these creatures are about like the insectoids from the movie Alien when it comes to attitude and intelligence.

There are other cases when genocide is required (see above), but often it is just an unintentional siide-effect of other tactics.

I find genocide to be a viable tactic when faced against an enemy out to destroy you that just won't stop. Sometimes, you must exterminate to survive. Generally, these creatures are about like the insectoids from the movie Alien when it comes to attitude and intelligence.

There are other cases when genocide is required (see above), but often it is just an unintentional siide-effect of other tactics.

Agreed, not that long ago, a coalition of nations had to eradicate a race of non-biologic replicative robotic species, because of the absolute danger they posed to all life in the universe, since their goal was to exterminate everything, and multiply... There are situations where it is valid.

Agreed, not that long ago, a coalition of nations had to eradicate a race of non-biologic replicative robotic species, because of the absolute danger they posed to all life in the universe, since their goal was to exterminate everything, and multiply... There are situations where it is valid.

Interesting, because I wonder if this is the same race of non-biological replicative robots that claimed that some organization named the UN was an absolute danger to all life in the universe with the goal to take over everything. They also said there are situations where it is valid, citing some German dude with a funny hair cut and bad mustache. Something about he was the first image from Earth their planet of robots had seen and they agreed with him and his constant use of: Lebensraum!

My point here is something I'll continue to pursue, because my government does not wish to ignore the leasons of history. In the past geonocide has been excused for "Lebensraum" like concepts, but the reality is one person's / on nation's claim should not always been taken as being completely set in stone, much less should actions be taken that would then justify that claim!

In committing the act of genocide against a people on the justification, "They started it mommy! They were going to kill us if we didn't kill them." Societies have unwittingly actually now justified the vanquished's struggle and who history will record as the aggressor will tend to rest in the hands of whomever survives.

(Think of flame wars ... it is a well established rule that nobody wins a flame war, and the lesson many take away with them is, they are best to be avoided. A convention against genocide is the same thing. It is a set of rules to remind us to not repeat the failings of policies like "Lebensraum".)

Wow.

I believe Tekania had a valid point. What if there is a race trying to eradicate yours and the only way to stop them is to kill them. It is extremely unlikely but it could happen. Especially as nations outside The UN won't be getting these new genocide laws.

Now I'm in favour of this resolution but I would like to see this point being addressed in the proposal. It would have to be extremely tightly worded as not to make such actions a pre-emptive attack and so the nation involved has no other option.

It is potentially dangerous and not something we would like to think about, but I feel it must be addressed.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Thank you for all your suggestions and comments so far. And also for not laughing outloud at the idea that this is doable.

I am still not going to post a draft here yet, as I would still consider this the information gathering phase, and the "trying to get as much comment as possible before actually writing anything formally" part of the procedure.

In regards to the scope of genocide - to some extent I can agree, but there is a problem in allowing single people to be indicted for genocide. A suicide bomber might decide that he wants to blow up The Council because he dislikes the way it has been running TilEnca. The people in the building have nothing in common except that they run the government. Would this make it genocide if he killed them all?
Also you start to get in to the scope of numbers - how many people have to die before it is classed as genocide? Does the murder of three elves class as a genocide against elves, or a hate crime?
I was trying to avoid such a debate, as I don't think you can put numbers on it. Which is why I thought classing it as a crime of the state, rather than the people, was the way to go.

The statute of limitations of 1000 years was just (I admit) hyperbole. Although there might be some races who live that long, I was not intending to actually put that in to the motion. I was just indicating that there would be no limit to the amount of time the crime would stay on the books, and if no one was caught it would still stay on it even if it remains unsolved or unpunished.

I am not convinced that genocide as self-defense is acceptable. However the class of people covered by this resolution would be sentient beings only. So that if you decided (for whatever reason) you wanted to kill all the cows in your country (assuming cows are non-sentient) you would not be convicted of it. Neither would you be if you wipe out a disease.

I can accept that maybe there will be some exceptions to the rule, but I believe that they should be brought before the suggested panel, rather than just dismissed out of hand. So that if someone does wipe out an entire race they are brought to account, but should it be shown there was a justifiable reason (assuming there is one) then they would not be convicted. I do not believe that they should just say "cause we thought we had to" and avoid the panel completely.

Finally with regard to the name of convention (and the spelling of "convention") I will leave that to better minds than I.

So that if someone does wipe out an entire race they are brought to account, but should it be shown there was a justifiable reason (assuming there is one)
OOC: Think of the Borg….

Interesting, because I wonder if this is the same race of non-biological replicative robots that claimed that some organization named the UN was an absolute danger to all life in the universe with the goal to take over everything. They also said there are situations where it is valid, citing some German dude with a funny hair cut and bad mustache. Something about he was the first image from Earth their planet of robots had seen and they agreed with him and his constant use of: Lebensraum!

My point here is something I'll continue to pursue, because my government does not wish to ignore the leasons of history. In the past geonocide has been excused for "Lebensraum" like concepts, but the reality is one person's / on nation's claim should not always been taken as being completely set in stone, much less should actions be taken that would then justify that claim!

In committing the act of genocide against a people on the justification, "They started it mommy! They were going to kill us if we didn't kill them." Societies have unwittingly actually now justified the vanquished's struggle and who history will record as the aggressor will tend to rest in the hands of whomever survives.

(Think of flame wars ... it is a well established rule that nobody wins a flame war, and the lesson many take away with them is, they are best to be avoided. A convention against genocide is the same thing. It is a set of rules to remind us to not repeat the failings of policies like "Lebensraum".)

Actually, no, it was a race of creatures whose soul purpose was destroy everything, consume all resources, replicate and move on... Pretty much a larger and robotic version of a virus... (they did manage to take over three of the coalition vessels, and attempt escape before we eradicated them)... This is of course assuming they have been eradicated, as this was merely one group, and more may be out there... I'm not talking about some petty dictator who wants to conquer...

Thank you for all your suggestions and comments so far. And also for not laughing outloud at the idea that this is doable.

I am still not going to post a draft here yet, as I would still consider this the information gathering phase, and the "trying to get as much comment as possible before actually writing anything formally" part of the procedure.

In regards to the scope of genocide - to some extent I can agree, but there is a problem in allowing single people to be indicted for genocide. A suicide bomber might decide that he wants to blow up The Council because he dislikes the way it has been running TilEnca. The people in the building have nothing in common except that they run the government. Would this make it genocide if he killed them all?
Also you start to get in to the scope of numbers - how many people have to die before it is classed as genocide? Does the murder of three elves class as a genocide against elves, or a hate crime?
I was trying to avoid such a debate, as I don't think you can put numbers on it. Which is why I thought classing it as a crime of the state, rather than the people, was the way to go.

I would say treat it on a case by case basis... With establitory clauses... Obviously, especially in the case of genocide, intentions play a part in whether or not it is genocide... Indeed, if he has a problem with the government and bombs or attacks it, there could be differentiated motivational tennets he is operating on, as opposed to if he was merely slaughtering anyone who subscribed to a particular politio-economic model...


The statute of limitations of 1000 years was just (I admit) hyperbole. Although there might be some races who live that long, I was not intending to actually put that in to the motion. I was just indicating that there would be no limit to the amount of time the crime would stay on the books, and if no one was caught it would still stay on it even if it remains unsolved or unpunished.


I would say merely state that there is no time limit placed upon trying the crime. (The UBR then would handle every other aspect of it).


I am not convinced that genocide as self-defense is acceptable. However the class of people covered by this resolution would be sentient beings only. So that if you decided (for whatever reason) you wanted to kill all the cows in your country (assuming cows are non-sentient) you would not be convicted of it. Neither would you be if you wipe out a disease.

Sentience is a very broad thing... And I would state there would be extenuating circumstances in rare cases (replicators for example)... If the only way you can defend against something is to eradicate it, you really have no other choice... Though, I would say there are differentiated motivational sources between the two... For example, of my previous point... It was never, and has not been the intention to seek out every one and destroy them like its a crusade, but whenever they are found they are eradicated, because it is the only way to ensure the survival of everyone else... (and there is alot of valid evidence that these things were 'sentient')... I'd say that would fall valid and well as not being genocidal in nature... The same if your local state were forced to destroy a group of terrorists who posed a threat, as opposed to rounding up and slaughtering anyone and everyone who adopted their ideals.

I'd say though, that could be handled through a mandated preliminary trial, to guage the evidence before the trial to determine if indeed it is worthy of trying as genocide or not.


I can accept that maybe there will be some exceptions to the rule, but I believe that they should be brought before the suggested panel, rather than just dismissed out of hand. So that if someone does wipe out an entire race they are brought to account, but should it be shown there was a justifiable reason (assuming there is one) then they would not be convicted. I do not believe that they should just say "cause we thought we had to" and avoid the panel completely.

We agree then.

OOC: Think of the Borg….

(OOC) I find fault with your metaphor. The Federation did not need feel the urge to set out to wipe out The Borg. Star Fleet only killed them when they were threatened.

However if you want a suitable example you could site The Klingon Empire's crusade and eventual completion of the erradication of Tribbles.

And that might be - but only might be - one of the situations where genocide as sefl-defence could be applicable. But it could be argued that once the tribbles had been scooped up and moved back to the homeworld, they could be left alone there, and the homeworld did not need obliterating.

But since none of this has happened in NationStates I am not sure it is totally relevent.
(/OOC)

OOC: Think of the Borg….

OOC: Whom redemed themselves in Star Trek Voyager when they teamed up with the Federation to take on the next bad species ... some bug race that only had a number, not a name. And that is exactly the point Star Trek was trying to show with several other Borg episodes, like the one where they found a kid borg and put a virus or something in him and had the chance to send him back and kill the collective but didn't ... instead his "individualism" was uploaded and they later went into a social revolt and Lore came along.

So Star Trek is going to take the "no tolerance" for genocide trek, other SciFi examples might spin the story the other way, but Star Trek ultimately has a liberal baseline.

SciFi tends to focus on the basic lesson that diversity is a strength. Not always, but there is a fair amount of stories that build upon this common theme. I'd much rather we just look at historical examples.

OOC: No, I meant they are the type of species who need there arse kicked. Not that they were. And anyway taking people out of the collective would technically count as killing The Borg. The Borgness wouldn't survive… oh I give up…

Wow.

I believe Tekania had a valid point. What if there is a race trying to eradicate yours and the only way to stop them is to kill them. It is extremely unlikely but it could happen. Especially as nations outside The UN won't be getting these new genocide laws.

Now I'm in favour of this resolution but I would like to see this point being addressed in the proposal. It would have to be extremely tightly worded as not to make such actions a pre-emptive attack and so the nation involved has no other option.


As for nations outside the UN, if your government feels there is a case of Genocide, you can declar war on that nation ... most UN members might back your cause.

As for nations outside the UN, if your government feels there is a case of Genocide, you can declar war on that nation ... most UN members might back your cause.

I disagree. Most UN members will not support war on any basis, as the UN is not a war-mongering body and most level-headed member-nations do not see war as an answer and would not take part in such a cause if presented before it.

Support of UN members doesn’t really matter if there is a law against taking action.

Some members support banning abortion, that does not make such action legal for UN members.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I disagree. Most UN members will not support war on any basis, as the UN is not a war-mongering body and most level-headed member-nations do not see war as an answer and would not take part in such a cause if presented before it.

Would you care to explain why you came to this generalization?

Keep in mind the statements already made here supporting the idea that pre-emptive strikes (*cough* WAR *cough*) "might" be OK. *points to the other posts in this thread*

I can only find the bit were you went on about Lebensraum and where I said 'as not to make such actions a pre-emptive attack'

I can not find any evidence to suggest Tekania or DemonLordEnigma were disusing pre-emptive strikes.

Now members of this forum have often been vocal about not participating in war… I couldn't say on which side the majority was on though.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

OOC: No, I meant they are the type of species who need there arse kicked. Not that they were. And anyway taking people out of the collective would technically count as killing The Borg. The Borgness wouldn't survive… oh I give up…

OOC : I get the idea :}

OOC: Whom redemed themselves in Star Trek Voyager when they teamed up with the Federation to take on the next bad species ... some bug race that only had a number, not a name.

OOC : Not to get in to a big, and quite possibly nerdy, Star Trek discussion but The Borg originally set out to wipe Species 8472 out of existance. They invaded that species' realm in an attempt to kill them all, then - when they failed - went running to Voyager with their tail between their legs, asking for help in finishing a war of agression that they started.

(Kind of back in character now)

And this is where my problem lies with proposing that the convention would be permitting any nation to declare war on non UN member nations to stop or punish the genocide. Because although it sounds a simple matter, it could require a member nation to commit all their military to a war that they either couldn't win, or would lose a great deal of their troops fighting.

How about this -

The convention would not force any nation to go to war against a non-UN member nation, however it would permit a war to do so. But there would be no instructions as to how the war is carried out, and as to whether or not the nation is committed to seeing it through.

This would mean that if (for example) my nation felt it necessary to invade GeminiLand to stop the massacre of vampires that are taking place (what are the odds?) then the convention would not stop me. But if I then realised GeminiLand would pretty much massacre me as well, then I can withdraw with no penalties from the UN or its members for doing so.

Or the convention just could leave it alone and suggest that this only deals with Genocide within UN member nations.

OOC : Not to get in to a big, and quite possibly nerdy, Star Trek discussion but The Borg originally set out to wipe Species 8472 out of existance. They invaded that species' realm in an attempt to kill them all, then - when they failed - went running to Voyager with their tail between their legs, asking for help in finishing a war of agression that they started.


OOC: But didn't the Species 8472 also attack the humans on first sight too? Basically why did Voyager join their enemies, because I though Janeway was kinda big on not starting fights. Finishing them, perhaps, but not starting them. ;)


(Kind of back in character now)

The convention would not force any nation to go to war against a non-UN member nation, however it would permit a war to do so. But there would be no instructions as to how the war is carried out, and as to whether or not the nation is committed to seeing it through.


Or the convention just could leave it alone and suggest that this only deals with Genocide within UN member nations.

Hmmm, my government will support either option, but with the first, instead of permitting war, how about that if you choose to include that, that you put language to make that a means of last resort. It will still upset some nations, but I think the nations that are using the idea of the genocide in the case of a last resort might like that. I just don't know, and only have the remarks in this thread as well as the traditional votes on military like issues to help suggest how this might run.

Would you care to explain why you came to this generalization?

TBNW has done just that in my absence.

Keep in mind the statements already made here supporting the idea that pre-emptive strikes (*cough* WAR *cough*) "might" be OK. *points to the other posts in this thread*

Then, don't "generalize" yourself and please list those statements, because so far, I see none.

A convention on any subject isn't suppose to be about pre-emptiveness. If the only nations involved are going support pre-emptive strikes in this case, then, this is not a convention but merely a get together a nations with big red buttons under their thumb's pulse, and I for one, won't support that type of bias during an event as important as discussing genocide.

I can only find the bit were you went on about Lebensraum and where I said 'as not to make such actions a pre-emptive attack'

I can not find any evidence to suggest Tekania or DemonLordEnigma were disusing pre-emptive strikes.


The following post suggests that sometimes it is necessary to completely put out a threat out before it comes after you ...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7468670&postcount=5

If that isn't saying genocide is sometimes OK, then I don't know what it is saying. To the credit of DemonLordEnigma, that nation did seem to indicate that it is not a prefered alternative.


The question isn't about first-strikes as much as an objection to Tuesday making a gross generalization about everybody's adversion to genocide and war, when in this same thread nations have basically said they feel sometimes it is necessary.

The talk about the "Borg" also support the idea that some nations feel that sometimes a complete war or even a genocide is necessary.


Now members of this forum have often been vocal about not participating in war… I couldn't say on which side the majority was on though.


Yup, I've seen that posted here. But I've also seen members of this forum "often vocal" about the ability to protect and enforce UN actions too. My ability to read minds and the wills of others apparently isn't as comprehensive as others, so I'm try to refrain from speaking for the "majority" of UN members on this without first pointing to something.

The voting records of the Global Disarmament resolutions have suggested that nations are opposed to being viewed as weak on defense. In fact, the debates during the "Fight the Axis of Evil" and then the Powerhungry Chipmunk's "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" also suggested that nations favour having large "defense" industries. We spent days talking about Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Is that a rational policy? Is that "war-mongering"?

That said, I think it is a poor assumption to label some nations as being war-mongers or even as non-rational or whatever her intended barb was, based on the fact that many UN members have voted for support in defense and security issues.

Defense is not the same as war-mongering, but at the same time, I think it is misleading to claim that nations are outright opposed to war too. I've honestly not seen any sort of conclusive evidence one way or the other.

My point is, if nations who argue that they want to intervene and stop genocide have a problem with a "toothless" resolution (and believe me, I can point to numerous in forum discussions where nations have complained about the UN's inability to enforce its own will), the reply is, you may declare war on a nation to prevent a genocide.

Let's now look at some real world examples ... in 1994 the United Nations did *not* go to war in Rwanada.

For starters, I'd suggest that the following site will certainly present the UN's case about Rwanada:

http://www.un.org/events/rwanda/

What I found interesting is the following, from the mouth of Kofi Annan:


First, we must all acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide.

The UN Secretary-General, whom is one of the last people I would call a war-monger or not level-headed continued ....


When we recall such events and ask "why did no one intervene?", we should address the question not only to the United Nations, or even to its Member States. No one can claim ignorance. All who were playing any part in world affairs at that time should ask, “what more could I have done? How would I react next time – and what am I doing now to make it less likely there will be a next time?”

He later talked about what he thought the UN should do:


Genocide almost always occurs during war. Even apparently tolerant individuals, once they engage in war, have categorized some of their fellow human beings as enemies, suspending the taboo which forbids the deliberate taking of human life. And in almost all cases they accept that civilians may also be killed or hurt, whatever efforts are made to limit so-called “collateral damage”.

Unless we are very careful, this can be the beginning of a swift descent into a different moral universe, where whole communities are designated as the enemy, and their lives held to be of no account. And from there, it is only one more step to the actual and deliberate elimination of these communities: one more step, in other words, to genocide.

So far that sounds pretty logical, level-headed and peaceful ...


Wherever we fail to prevent conflict, one of our highest priorities must be to protect civilians. The parties to conflict – not only states but also non-state actors – need to be constantly reminded of their responsibility, under international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from violence.

How does Kofi want to do this?

*gasp*

That is why many of our United Nations peacekeepers, today, are no longer restricted to using force only in self-defence. They are also empowered to do so in defence of their mandate, and that mandate often explicitly includes the protection of local civilians threatened with imminent violence.

A current example is the Congolese province of Ituri, where ethnic conflicts clearly have the potential to escalate into genocide. Last year the situation was stabilised by the timely intervention of the European Union, authorised by the Security Council, and today UN peacekeeping forces are holding the local militias in check.

People can call me sick again, a poor UN member, or whatever the hell else they want, fine ... continue to play the personal attack / flame game. My nation hasn't gone to war in some time and that is a record we take pride in. It does agree with the UN members that have made statements that defense is important, and that sometimes actions must be taken to make the UN's will meaningful. In Feb. 2004, my government joined others in economic sanctions against Joccia and its genocide. It doesn't annoy me to see the focus of an interesting topic turn into another chance to flamebait as it makes me sad, that that much anger and hostile can overpower something that is in fact a serious issue like genocide.

But the idea that peaceful nations and leaders sometimes recognize that intervention is a viable option is a very legitimate real-world view that I feel applies just as equally here in NationStates.

I'd hate to see a good resolution condemning genocide go down because of a personal issue a few nations have with me, when a very legitimate point has been raised ...

That point was the simple question:

Are there situations when genocide might be necessary?

Are there???

Even if you don't agree with the question, I foresee that as this is a draft proposal, that the question is going to be asked again and again. I think it is a fair question ... and that is why I've suggested that a reply is to encourage nations to feel to intervene when they see genocide occuring. Intervention isn't something real war-mongers fancy. It is something that peaceful nations sometimes accept must be undertaken as well, as I've provided proof of (not just a gross generalization).

In respect to "genocide in self defence" I am not convinced it is legitimate if you go out and kill people to protect your nation. An example of this would be if I thought that the people of GeminiLand were going to kill me, and they would not stop until all of them were dead, and I were then to declare all out war, invade their nation and kill them all. This I would class as genocide, and I would expect to be held responsible for it.

However if GeminiLand sent every person in the nation against me, and I killed them all in self defence (because they were attacking me) then I would not class it as genocide, because it was they who were attacking me.

I know - it's a fine line. But that can be said about almost anything.

I would consider it a failure if the convention were used to justify pre-emptive strikes, but I am only one voice, and a very small voice at that.

I have also been thinking about the matter of single people and numbers in relation to what is and what isn't covered by the proposal. I would still say that crimes not committed by the state would be covered by either existing legislation about mass murder or new legislation about hate crimes (which is outside the scope of this thread, in my view at least). However if the prosecutor wants to take it to the panel (note - there has to be a better name for it than that, but I can't think of one at the moment) to see if the person should be tried for the greater crime of genoicde, rather than the "lesser" one of mass murder. The panel would then make the decision about whether they should take the indictment or not.
However crimes committed by the state would always be brought to the panel .

(OOC)
The only reason Species 8472 came to our realm was because they were fighting in self defence, and it turned in to a campaign of attack. And I know this will take it even further off course, but it is the same way that Xena started off by defending her home town, and - in the course of trying to make sure her home town was safe - she ended up murdering half the known world.
(Back in character)

My point about the out of character stuff is that sometimes wars of agression go way out of control, and in to wars of offence and slaughter. And genocide in war is still genocide, regardless of the motive of the war, and what has happened before.

(Side note - this is also potentially covering war crimes, but I would say that war crimes should be outside the purview of the convention, if that is okay with everyone?)

Finally - I figure that if I start putting the first rough draft together by Wednesday, I can post it on Thursday for more comments. I figure most people who want to comment and throw ideas in can probably have done that by then.

First, what is a generalization: The act or process of generalizing.

So what is generalizing? To infer or form (a principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from meager or insufficient facts, information, or the like.

I think saying:

Most UN members will not support war on any basis, as the UN is not a war-mongering body and most level-headed member-nations do not see war as an answer and would not take part in such a cause if presented before it.

Is a text book case of a generalization.

It assumes that you in fact know what most UN members are thinking. And I’ve yet to see any support, via other opinions or conclusions to support this.

I think saying:

Keep in mind the statements already made here supporting the idea that pre-emptive strikes (*cough* WAR *cough*) "might" be OK. *points to the other posts in this thread*

Is not a generalization, as the opinion actually suggests that there are other opinions (in the same thread) to support this opinion.

But you know what … I’m a bit tired of this, but I’ll still explain why I formed this opinion and why I think your generalization is unsupported by the posts in this thread.

First, I stand corrected gasp. I should not have said pre-emptive strikes, but rather intervention. But guess what, intervention can still include military / war, and I think it is wrong to just assume that nations wouldn’t support this.

Second, you’ve implied that most nations do not see war as an answer, I think we’ve heard valid opinions view it as a possible action:


I find genocide to be a viable tactic when faced against an enemy out to destroy you that just won't stop. Sometimes, you must exterminate to survive. Generally, these creatures are about like the insectoids from the movie Alien when it comes to attitude and intelligence.

There are other cases when genocide is required (see above), but often it is just an unintentional siide-effect of other tactics.

This doesn’t sound like war-mongering, but rather is suggests to me suggests that sometimes even genocide might be necessary. I don’t believe in this, but I’m not going to label this anti-level headed or war-mongering. It is a valid concern and one we need to address if we wish for a convention against genocide to pass.

Now in response to that post we immediately saw:


Agreed, not that long ago, a coalition of nations had to eradicate a race of non-biologic replicative robotic species, because of the absolute danger they posed to all life in the universe, since their goal was to exterminate everything, and multiply... There are situations where it is valid.

This is where I inferred a pre-emptive strike might also come to in play because the above implied action based on another nation / species “goal”. Not its actions, but rather the goal, which is something that can be used to justify pre-action.

(Despite what you might think, I just don’t pull this stuff out of thin air. I actually do appreciate and read the comments in other people’s posts, as I think by responding to them now, we can better head them off via revisions.)

The third point of view:


What if there is a race trying to eradicate yours and the only way to stop them is to kill them. It is extremely unlikely but it could happen. Especially as nations outside The UN won't be getting these new genocide laws.

Now I'm in favour of this resolution but I would like to see this point being addressed in the proposal. It would have to be extremely tightly worded as not to make such actions a pre-emptive attack and so the nation involved has no other option.

It is potentially dangerous and not something we would like to think about, but I feel it must be addressed.

The interesting thing here, is the opinion, which I share, that pre-emptive strikes should be avoided. While The Black New World later said this is in response to my discussing Lebensraum (which I think should be talked about more … it bothers me to no end, and is part of the justification for banning genocide, as genocide was among one of the real reasons the real UN was founded), my use of Lebensraum was in reality a response to the second comments idea that just a “goal of genocide” may be a credible threat and one that might need to be responded to.

I think the above also again support the opinion that sometimes war is necessary, even total destruction in order to stop a threat. Now I do not agree with that, but it certainly points to a trend in UN members and their military relations with other nations.

From this point on the talk moved into the example of the Borg. I really don’t feel the need to quote every post here, but I can and will if asked (even if I’m not happy about somebody basically claiming that the idea of UN nations possibly supporting war is not supported, when in a matter of seconds I’ve pointed to three nations that have admitted that they do see some situations where war is called for, and one of those suggestions implied that war could even be called for in the case of a goal, not an action, but a goal).

I’d like to point people to the popular film “Minority Report”. In that film (fiction) the police would arrest people before they committed murder and called it pre-crime. The idea that an entire civilization or race poses so much a threat that every last one, even those not currently trying to kill you should be killed (genocide to be sure) falls along the same pre-emptive idea. It suggests that there is no alternative. None-whatsoever, and that even if the capacity for war is removed, that the desire or goal remains and needs to be addressed.

Even though my government is opposed to this opinion, at this point it is a valid opinion, and in at least the “Borg” example discussed by many, it is clear to me that based on what we’ve seen in this thread, that some nations may actually support intervention in order to prevent genocide, just as much as nations have suggested that genocide itself might (though with regret) be necessary for preservation.

I think any generalization about the opinion of most UN members that tries to claim that UN members are not interested in war, is ignoring the comments of this thread and prior resolution votes. That is why I called it a generalization, and I think if you carefully re-read all the posts, you’ll see that all of the authors in this discussion are honestly interested in preventing genocide, but trying to provide a few problems that need to be addressed in order to draft a good resolution.

I appreciate their comments and especially TilEnca’s, who I think needs our support more than anything else here. Talking about the Borg and Rwanda are certainly interesting, and relevant.

The question isn't about first-strikes as much as an objection to Tuesday making a gross generalization about everybody's adversion to genocide and war, when in this same thread nations have basically said they feel sometimes it is necessary.

Yep, that's right, Tuesday Heights does make gross generalizations, because that is what the United Nations in NS and in RL is all about. We cannot sit here and say genocide is okay in this situation and not okay in this situation, because the UN's stance on this issue should remain neutal in all aspects in order not to isolate potential members or current members.

Gross generalizations are also commonly known as compromises. That's what diplomacy within the United Nations requires.

Please stop your condescending attitude of trying to define every word that comes about, most recently generalizations, because it's not only an insult to posters' intelligence but it's also moot when we have bigger fish to fry in these halls like trying to help draft a proper resolution to the best of our abilities.

Please stop your condescending attitude of trying to define every word that comes about, most recently generalizations, because it's not only an insult to posters' intelligence but it's also moot when we have bigger fish to fry in these halls like trying to help draft a proper resolution to the best of our abilities.

Keep in mind that you asked me to defend my "generalizations":


Then, don't "generalize" yourself and please list those statements, because so far, I see none.

I did. I explained why I felt my statements were not a generalization and then pointed to several direct quotes in this very thread supporting various opinions on the relationship between genocide and war, which I feel are key to drafting a solid proposal.

You should not ask somebody to respond defending their justification for something and then FLAME them for responding to your comment!

While I know that it is frowned upon by some forum regulars to copy and paste existing real laws into resolutions, I still think they can be helpful.

I thought the following UN Genocide Convention was short enough that it might have a few ideas that we could use in our NS Convention:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/UN_GenocideConven.html

The preamble is short:


Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and

Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international cooperation is required:

But I think effective in stating why we are interested in this. Anyways, I'd encourage those of you interested in this subject in looking at this and/or similar sites.

Thanks,
10kMichael

Re-reading the first post and looking at the linked convention, while I like the idea of the panel mentioned by TilEnca, I wonder just how extensive others would like to see this idea? A definition? A definition with a panel?

I'm starting to agree with TilEnca that this actually will be a challenging task, and I'm looking forward to seeing the first draft.

Wow. That is a surprisingly short document for the power that it has.

Seriously - I have never seen something that short cover so much, and pretty comprehensively too.

I am going to re read it, and may co-opt some parts, but there are some bits that might not be suitable (for what I was planning, which doesn't mean they are bad!) and some bits that just won't apply due to real world stuff.

But I am still pretty impressed with it. (And it kind of buggers up my plan to write a proposal seven thousand pages long. I figured if I make it long enough, people will only read the first paragraph and go "wow - that sounds cool!" and vote for it!)

(I should add that the last part of that - about the seven thousand pages - was actually a joke. Just not a very funny one I guess!)

We feel that genocide is an example of extremely poor taste ...

Whilst wholeheartedly supporting the concept that individuals may feel the need to kill others, it seems rude to kill someone without knowing more about him or her than some single factor which is shared with others.

Our secret police keep extensive personal files on all enemies of the state, which allows us to deliver a caring, compassionate and individual service when it comes to execution.

Should we come to face a mass of enemies, we will of course take time to get to know them as individuals.

Genocide is out of the question -- homicide is a different matter ...

Wow. That is a surprisingly short document for the power that it has.

I tossed that up there as a starting point, one of many. Frankly I actually like your discussion better! But I do like the very brief preamble (which is why that is what I actually posted). ;)



The real UN convention did not stop the death of nearly 1 million people in 1994! :(

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040404/137/2cdu3.html

I've long maintained that 1994 was the United Nation's most recent failure. I've also heard many UN critics talk about the lack of the UN to stablize many other regions, but the Rwanda Genocide death toll is frankly staggering.

So it goes without say that I personally like Kofi's earlier speach ... the full text of which is located here:

http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/sg04003e.htm

Some of the things he has talked about are in fact covered in existing NationStates resolutions. I am wondering if the Joccian Crisis is on the Jolt server, because it would have some cool roleplay examples we could build and use.

You should not ask somebody to respond defending their justification for something and then FLAME them for responding to your comment!

* sigh *

I never flamed, and you know it; if I did, report it. So, I'm done here, because arguing with people like you does nothing but drive members like me, and many others I'm in contact with, away from this rational body.

Sigh.
Star Trek was an interesting parallel, but it's gone a little off topic. Besides, the only Bugs that don't suck are the ones in Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie, you heathens).

Mik, TH, please... take it down a notch. This whole "broad generalization" stuff is off topic. It's not secret that you don't much care for each other, but keep it civil.

Other than that, not much for me to say until a draft pops up.

Or someone argues that there are better Bugs out there, heh

Well in some defense, the action involving the replicative species, was not pre-emtive... For the benefit of background, the species was found upon a presumed lost, experimental vessel, the TRSS Kraskinov BSGX-5, infesting the vessel, with evidence of their eradication of the crew and researchers on board, and also their attack of parties in initial investigation of the issue... So I was not merely indicating intention, but intention+action, in the insuing battles they invaded and took over three other vessels, including a coalition vessel, the Juggernaught (and out of its 600 crew, the TRSS Titan, BSG-6, on station there, managed to save 12 members of the Juggernaughts crew)... and made an attempt to escapte to a populated world...

However, from the event we learned about the species, and they literally operate under the order to replicate themselves, and spread, and all other priorities are secondary... Like I said, they are like a giant virus...

So I am not advocating a pre-emptive strike to eradicate a species, at least not initially... However, at present, standing orders dictate the eradication of any of the creatures found, regardless if they are striking or not... But this is after an existing encounter and knowledge of them...

Well in some defense, the action involving the replicative species, was not pre-emtive... For the benefit of background, the species was found upon a presumed lost, experimental vessel, the TRSS Kraskinov BSGX-5, infesting the vessel, with evidence of their eradication of the crew and researchers on board, and also their attack of parties in initial investigation of the issue... So I was not merely indicating intention, but intention+action, in the insuing battles they invaded and took over three other vessels, including a coalition vessel, the Juggernaught (and out of its 600 crew, the TRSS Titan, BSG-6, on station there, managed to save 12 members of the Juggernaughts crew)... and made an attempt to escapte to a populated world...

However, from the event we learned about the species, and they literally operate under the order to replicate themselves, and spread, and all other priorities are secondary... Like I said, they are like a giant virus...

So I am not advocating a pre-emptive strike to eradicate a species, at least not initially... However, at present, standing orders dictate the eradication of any of the creatures found, regardless if they are striking or not... But this is after an existing encounter and knowledge of them...


IF they soley exist to replicate and spread, then could it be argued they don't meet the criteria for sentience?

IF they soley exist to replicate and spread, then could it be argued they don't meet the criteria for sentience?

What is the definition of sentience? Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought? How is this applied? How do you catagorize a lifeform as sentient?

They are capable of adapting and reacting to their enviroment, and intellegent cooperation... I would classify them as sentient.

However, from the event we learned about the species, and they literally operate under the order to replicate themselves, and spread, and all other priorities are secondary... Like I said, they are like a giant virus...

So I am not advocating a pre-emptive strike to eradicate a species, at least not initially... However, at present, standing orders dictate the eradication of any of the creatures found, regardless if they are striking or not... But this is after an existing encounter and knowledge of them...

That sounds like a noteworthy encounter. If your government trusts my government, we'd appreciate full details on the event. We'll consider the information classified, meaning we won't forward it on to others, but might forward their requests to your government.

As for the species are they sentient? Is there another means to protect your people from them? What specifically would be important is documenting the failed alternative attempts to prevent them from killing your people.

As for the convention, I'm sure that acting in self-defense under life threatening situations is not the same thing.

OOC: I sort of felt that the bugs from the aliens series may have been sentient. In Alien Reserecution, one of the critters allowed itself to be killed so that its acid blood would allow the rest of the brood to escape through a hole in the floor or wall. That certainly seemed like they were self-aware and willing to self sacrafice.

That sounds like a noteworthy encounter. If your government trusts my government, we'd appreciate full details on the event. We'll consider the information classified, meaning we won't forward it on to others, but might forward their requests to your government.

As for the species are they sentient? Is there another means to protect your people from them? What specifically would be important is documenting the failed alternative attempts to prevent them from killing your people.

As for the convention, I'm sure that acting in self-defense under life threatening situations is not the same thing.

OOC: I sort of felt that the bugs from the aliens series may have been sentient. In Alien Reserecution, one of the critters allowed itself to be killed so that its acid blood would allow the rest of the brood to escape through a hole in the floor or wall. That certainly seemed like they were self-aware and willing to self sacrafice.

First, details...

More than a year ago, the TRSS Kraskinov, BSGX-5... Experimental vessel leading the Orion-II Class, in tests of the first operational MarkX Kraskinov Generator was lost in trials.... More than a year later it was found by a few allied nations, the first ships on station were the ECF Prometheus under the flag of the United Federation of East Coast Federation, the DSS Ubernoggin of Dictator Enigma, the XNV Corvus of Xessmithia, the Juggernaught of Neoma, and the TRSS Titan, BSG-6 of the Tekanian Stellar Navy (most of these nations are presently members of GEDRA now...)

The first scouting foray of the the Kraskinov, was performed by East Coast Federation... with massive loses, followed by a joint effort from Dictator Enigma's forces and Tekanian marines... We managed to get the rest of ECF out, and retrieve some materials from the vessel... Needless to say, the retrieved data didn't look much better... The vessel has been slowly and secretly overrun by "bugs"... small 500cm-1m long robotic creatures... They were eating the ship slowly and replicating...

In further attempts the creatures managed to use several assault shuttles in an attempt to escape... The result, was near disasterous. Though ECF, Tekania and Dictator Enigma managed to destroy the vessels, in the ensuing battle, creatures left to float in space from the explosions, actually began to board and take over the Prometheus and Juggernaught... Xessmithian troops managed to hold their crew, but with massive damage to the XNV Corvus propulsion systems... and the Juggernaught of Neoma was lost, of her 600+ crew, only 12 were rescued by the TRSS Titan of Tekania... At this point the TRSS Zues was dispatched to the area from Eagle One fleet operations base...

In the end, with the remaining forces from Dictator Enigma, the Prometheus, the Titan and the Zeus, the hulk TRSS Kraskinov and the Juggernaught had to be completely destroyed, and all debries tracked and destroyed to eliminate the menace of these "bugs"... The XNV Corvus and then the remaining crew of the Juggernaught were escourted back to Xessmithian Station "New Dawn" and all parties were in agreement to the threat potential that these creatures had to known civilization... as such, we were all in agreement that should they be seen, all attempts shall be made to eradicate them at all costs... all other principles are secondary...

As such, these creatures could figure out how to use differentiating forms of technology, they could build ships, and adapt drive systems, desipher encrypted data and communications, react to threats, adapt to changing tactics.... and operated on the basic principle to consume, adapt, and replicate, at the expense of any other life around them.... the closest thing I could relate them to, would be an intelligent macro-virus.

We consider them sentient, single willed, and an absolute threat to all other life. And given that all attempts at containment failed, even of captured units... there was really no other alternative...

It is still unknown as to their origin, and creators/makers, or if any are lurking in any known territorials regions...

Second, you’ve implied that most nations do not see war as an answer, I think we’ve heard valid opinions view it as a possible action:



This doesn’t sound like war-mongering, but rather is suggests to me suggests that sometimes even genocide might be necessary. I don’t believe in this, but I’m not going to label this anti-level headed or war-mongering. It is a valid concern and one we need to address if we wish for a convention against genocide to pass.

That is the only reason I bring the concern up frequently. I do not wish to practice genocide myself and try to avoid it. But I also face the reality that, someday, a people or race may come along who I will have to exterminate in order to survive. I just hope that, if that day comes along, I will be able to somehow develop a way to isolate them instead. But, I do not fool myself into thinking I will never practice it.

You want a movie where it was practiced? Independence Day. That is an example of what I fear may happen to my nation.

That is the only reason I bring the concern up frequently. I do not wish to practice genocide myself and try to avoid it. But I also face the reality that, someday, a people or race may come along who I will have to exterminate in order to survive. I just hope that, if that day comes along, I will be able to somehow develop a way to isolate them instead. But, I do not fool myself into thinking I will never practice it.

You want a movie where it was practiced? Independence Day. That is an example of what I fear may happen to my nation.

While I tend to believe that tehre is no excuse for wiping out another race, I will accept that it might, on occasion, be unavoidable.

However in such an instance I would prefer for this convention, and the panel (if it ever gets formed) to be the ones who decide if it is unavoidable or not, rather than the people who are committing genocide. Cause I am pretty sure they would not be the most objective people to make the decision :}

While I tend to believe that tehre is no excuse for wiping out another race, I will accept that it might, on occasion, be unavoidable.

However in such an instance I would prefer for this convention, and the panel (if it ever gets formed) to be the ones who decide if it is unavoidable or not, rather than the people who are committing genocide. Cause I am pretty sure they would not be the most objective people to make the decision :}

Agreed. I would rather have someone tell me a method I had not considered and be forced to pay retribution than to wipe out a people or species unnecessarily.

While I tend to believe that tehre is no excuse for wiping out another race, I will accept that it might, on occasion, be unavoidable.

However in such an instance I would prefer for this convention, and the panel (if it ever gets formed) to be the ones who decide if it is unavoidable or not, rather than the people who are committing genocide. Cause I am pretty sure they would not be the most objective people to make the decision :}

I think this is a good big-step in the right direction.

I have been giving a lot of thought to the *most* important aspect of the proposal - the name of the convention :}

The ones I have come up with are

The Catriana Convention (the capital city of TilEnca)
The EON Convention (one of the most revered resistance groups in TilEnca's history)
The Kath-Lacana Convention (no direct translation from Aslan, but reads as the "against the holocaust")
The N-SUN Convention (short for Nation States United Nations)
The Tekania-Mikitivity Convention (I admit - I just want to see their names together on something!)
The Pre-ten-ama Convention (translates from "Aslan" as "hopeful peace")
and
The Convetion Convention (for comedy value)


If anyone else has any comments or suggestions on the name, please feel free to comment/disagree/argue etc :}

How about The Tekania-Mikitivity-DLE Convention?

I have been giving a lot of thought to the *most* important aspect of the proposal - the name of the convention :}

The ones I have come up with are

The Catriana Convention (the capital city of TilEnca)
The EON Convention (one of the most revered resistance groups in TilEnca's history)
The Kath-Lacana Convention (no direct translation from Aslan, but reads as the "against the holocaust")
The N-SUN Convention (short for Nation States United Nations)
The Tekania-Mikitivity Convention (I admit - I just want to see their names together on something!)
The Pre-ten-ama Convention (translates from "Aslan" as "hopeful peace")
and
The Convetion Convention (for comedy value)


If anyone else has any comments or suggestions on the name, please feel free to comment/disagree/argue etc :}

OOC: And for a compromise the Catriana-EON-Kath-Lacana-NSUN-Tekania-Mikitivity-Pre-ten-ama Covetion Convention against the use of Genocide...

Or how about

The International Guard Nullifying Outrageous, Rude and Egotistical Genocide?

OOC: And for a compromise the Catriana-EON-Kath-Lacana-NSUN-Tekania-Mikitivity-Pre-ten-ama Covetion Convention against the use of Genocide...

Bah, these discussions should be hosted in your nation, and if you are going to give it a fun name, name it after the location of its drafting.

However, the reality is "Country Named" proposals get less endorsements. I'm basing this assumption on when I was campaigning for the Miervatian Alcohol Accord. It had very modest support, but when I changed its name to something along the lines of "Alcohol Tarriff Reductions", I found I won a few more endorsements. This was with very little telegramming, because at the time I was testing to see if a good proposal could make it to the floor with zero telegramming.

The closest proposal to reach the floor was the "Global Disaster Assistance" proposal and it got pulled by the UN Secretariat (aka Mods).

I have been giving a lot of thought to the *most* important aspect of the proposal - the name of the convention :}

The ones I have come up with are

The Catriana Convention (the capital city of TilEnca)

The Kath-Lacana Convention (no direct translation from Aslan, but reads as the "against the holocaust")


The Catriana Convention is my personal favorite. (Think Geneva or Stockholm or Kyoto.)

OOC: Aslan? What is that a reference to? The reason I ask is there is a British band named Aslan Faction, distributed on NoiTekk ... highly recommended, er on second thought, no it is not highly recommended unless you have an interest in the industrial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_music) subgenre some folks call "Terror EBM" (as in Terror Electronic Body Music).

Bah, these discussions should be hosted in your nation, and if you are going to give it a fun name, name it after the location of its drafting.

However, the reality is "Country Named" proposals get less endorsements. I'm basing this assumption on when I was campaigning for the Miervatian Alcohol Accord. It had very modest support, but when I changed its name to something along the lines of "Alcohol Tarriff Reductions", I found I won a few more endorsements. This was with very little telegramming, because at the time I was testing to see if a good proposal could make it to the floor with zero telegramming.

The closest proposal to reach the floor was the "Global Disaster Assistance" proposal and it got pulled by the UN Secretariat (aka Mods).



The Catriana Convention is my personal favorite. (Think Geneva or Stockholm or Kyoto.)

OOC: Aslan? What is that a reference to? The reason I ask is there is a British band named Aslan Faction, distributed on NoiTekk ... highly recommended, er on second thought, no it is not highly recommended unless you have an interest in the industrial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_music) subgenre some folks call "Terror EBM" (as in Terror Electronic Body Music).


The EON Convention on Genocide it is then :}

OOC : Aslan was a language I created. It was originally supposed to be a code that would be a bugger to decrypt, but then it turned in to an almost useful verbal/written language. I used it extensively in a story I wrote a while back, and (after a somewhat traumatic computer incident) am starting to get it back together at the moment. I could go in to more detail, but this is not the place :} (I might try adding it to the world fact book, since it is the "classic" language of TilEnca, in the same way Latin is the classic language of most of Europe)

Edit

(Back in character)

Sorry! I only read half of your post because I didn't realise the other half was there. And then when I replied to it I only saw the bottom bit about Aslan.

My comment "The Eon Convention" was based on your comment about naming things after places. I swear I did not pick it cause you picked something else as your favourite.

I am still going to stick with it, but I did not want you thinking I was being rude or dismissive of your ideas.

Sorry again :}

Like the name. I was just being a smartass with my name suggestion, though. Just to let you know.

How about the proposal one person came up with on here? The revised form I saw I like and think it may help in this.

Like the name. I was just being a smartass with my name suggestion, though. Just to let you know.

How about the proposal one person came up with on here? The revised form I saw I like and think it may help in this.

I figured about the name :}

And I have looked at the other one, and was considering approaching the author to see if we could work together.

Or making this proposal sole about punishment and so forth, rather than the intervention side of things.

My comment "The Eon Convention" was based on your comment about naming things after places. I swear I did not pick it cause you picked something else as your favourite.

I am still going to stick with it, but I did not want you thinking I was being rude or dismissive of your ideas.


Don't worry! I think you've been extremely understanding! :)

Though you'll want to maybe drop the "The" for character length issues if you want "EON Convention on Genocide". In fact, that alone could be too long, but I hope not.

Don't worry! I think you've been extremely understanding! :)

Though you'll want to maybe drop the "The" for character length issues if you want "EON Convention on Genocide". In fact, that alone could be too long, but I hope not.

"E-Cog"?

Also - on a WAY more serious note - what category? I was reading through the deleted proposals list, and there are a fair few proposals kicked out for being in the wrong category.

Human Rights?
International Security?

I can't make it fit in to moral decency or social justice in my head (well - nations are going to forgoe the right to kill people they don't like, and they can't punish those that do kill them so that could be moral decency I guess) and the others - gun control, drug use, gambling etc are just not right.

So I was thinking Human Rights?

This is a pre-emptive strike to (hopefully) avoid the Moderators getting annoyed with me.

I can't figure out how to edit the title of this thread, so instead I am going to post the first draft of the convention in a new post.

If someone wants to edit the thread title to reflect this, and move the new thread back in to this one, please do :}

Also - on a WAY more serious note - what category? I was reading through the deleted proposals list, and there are a fair few proposals kicked out for being in the wrong category.

So I was thinking Human Rights?

There are, and different moderators will have different opinions. So it always helps to ask and point back to what was posted before.

I also think that the basic idea is a Human Rights issue.

There are, and different moderators will have different opinions. So it always helps to ask and point back to what was posted before.

I also think that the basic idea is a Human Rights issue.

Human rights or Social justice would be the most valid catagories... Given the documents construction, I'd say it would fit either... since it defines a system of justice imposed in the process.

Human rights or Social justice would be the most valid catagories... Given the documents construction, I'd say it would fit either... since it defines a system of justice imposed in the process.

Looking at the prior resolutions, I'd still lean towards Human Rights.