NationStates Jolt Archive

The Eon Convention on Genocide

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: TilEnca

Description: The UN does hereby state that :-
The genocide is a heinous crime, and should be treated as a crime against all people.
It is a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation.
Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community.

Article 1:Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3:Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.
§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Article 4:Legal Proceedings

§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions.
§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.
§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.
§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Voting will begin shortly. Please use this topic for any discussion on this resolution.

Previous discussions:

Proposed Convetion on Genocide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373309)
Eon Convention On Genocide - First Draft (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=374385)
Submitted : Eon Convention On Genocide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377445)

(bump so that it stays on the page and people don't start using another one)

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

I think that genocide itself *is* self-defense, at least in the minds of those that do it. Obviously anyone who commits genocide must feel pretty threatened by a certain group of people - why else would they be working so hard to wipe those people off the face of the earth?

Also, what is "Pretenema"?

Your race will be a target if it were legal. Even if you are the "big shot" you will be a target.

I think that genocide itself *is* self-defense, at least in the minds of those that do it. Obviously anyone who commits genocide must feel pretty threatened by a certain group of people - why else would they be working so hard to wipe those people off the face of the earth?

Also, what is "Pretenema"?

First - Pretenama translates as "hopeful peace" - mostly it's just a name cause calling it "The Panel" sounds silly or really scary :}

And secondly - you don't need to feel threatened to wipe out a society. You might just hate them, or consider them impure. You can hate a group of people or fear a group of people who are not actually a threat to you. So in that case self-defense would not be a valid arguement.

Third - you can defend your country without wiping out every man, woman and child in the nation attacking you.

Your race will be a target if it were legal. Even if you are the "big shot" you will be a target.

But even if you are a "big shot" there is very little (for that read "no") justification for wiping out an entire society.

I as my regional delegate to the UN vote against this resolution. This proposal simply is not strong enough. I refer to article 4 section 2. Those who commit genocide defined as "the systematic and planned killing of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" should be put to trial and if found guilty executed for crimes against humanity.

Many nations do not agree that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment. That granted, any UN body ought not to mandate the deat penalty for any crime. Please reconsider your opposition.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

But even if you are a "big shot" there is very little (for that read "no") justification for wiping out an entire society.

Fix that link in your signature, please. Quote my post to see how. :)


(Current Proposal : Eon Convention on Genocide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378437))

Fix that link in your signature, please. Quote my post to see how. :)

Heh. I got it. >.>

- "Live to tinker; tinker to live."
UN Gnome in charge of screwing with stuff

I thought I had already. Sorry / Thanks :}

i say everyone vote against this un resolution its not up to the un to tell us :mad: what to do in our own country everyone individual nation has its own way of punishingg people for there crimes genocide may be one of them or not one of them its up to the individual nation not the un do u know in guatimala if your found trying to overthrough the government you would be killed and your whole family too the milkitary would kill all of you :sniper:

i say everyone vote against this un resolution its not up to the un to tell us what to do in our own country everyone individual nation has its own way of punishingg people for there crimes genocide may be one of them or not one of them its up to the individual nation not the un do u know in guatimala if your found trying to overthrough the government you would be killed and your whole family too the milkitary would kill all of you
What do you reckon? Too much sugar?

What do you reckon? Too much sugar? you would be killed and your whole family too the milkitary would kill all of you
Based on his name, I'm thinking side-impact airbag failure.

I would agree with most of what this resolution is trying to achieve, unfortunately I'm not prepared to vote for anything that brings a 'double-jeapardy' style case into any court. The UN should only have one shot at trying any person it suspects of a crime, as should any nation's criminal justice system. We can't accept the possibility of Keralonian citizens having a cloud hung over them for the rest of their lives just on the off chance that the any judicial body feels that they suddenly have enough evidence to re-try them.

this is the probably the best resolution I have seen in my short time at the UN, genocide is a terrible crime and people should not be able to commit genocide with impunity. Look at past genocidal dictators: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and many more. All of those men got away with what they did, but who didnt get away were their minions who also schemed the genocides. Why not add a bit to your resolution (which I fully support) for a UN endorsed GenForce or something that can be dispatched to either take out or capture genocidal leaders before they kill themselves to avoid punishment. This force could also monitor country's that have a 'genocide' factor where that country could recieve a leader that would try to kill a group of the population

what do yall think

I'm not prepared to vote for anything that brings a 'double-jeapardy' style case into any court.
So you're saying that Dick Tater, the leader of your country, should not be held for genocide for 300 million deaths if they somehow failed to pop him the first time? Fine, we'll try him for each of the murders individually.

I would try responsing to some criticisms of this resolution, but I can't be bothered. I really can't see anything wrong with it. It's not even poorly presented.

At least we can pretty much guarantee it's going to be passed.

i say everyone vote against this un resolution its not up to the un to tell us :mad: what to do in our own country everyone individual nation has its own way of punishingg people for there crimes genocide may be one of them or not one of them its up to the individual nation not the un do u know in guatimala if your found trying to overthrough the government you would be killed and your whole family too the milkitary would kill all of you :sniper:

Actually in my humble opinion Genocide is very much an international issue. The systematic eradication of an entire race should very much be the concern of every member in this body. Apart from the obvious humanitarian reasons there is also the impact it could have on neighbouring states and more globally where members of the race being exterminated may now reside elsewhere.

Here is an OOC example:
In WWII the Nazis chose to systematically exterminate members if a specific faith, by your argument you are suggesting the rest of the international community should have done nothing, because it was an ‘internal’ matter. Are you therefore suggesting that stopping this type of Genocide was not an international concern?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

This is absurd! While we of The Dominion of GoatFeathers agree that genocide is an abomination before God, that does not give this body the right to go hauling the duly appointed rulers of any nation before some world court. For example if the last purple man on earth kills someone and is tried for murder and found guilty, then are we to be charged with genocide? As this resolution is written, anyone in this forum could be brought to trial for carrying out their lawful and God given right of execution of proven and dangerous criminals!

GoatFeathers the Great

... part of the defintion of a genocide should actually be "while the world looks on and does nothing". All genocides are only recognized as such after they have been basically "completed" or stopped because of other, unrelated, factors. This is a simple practice comparable to saying that you have no homicide without a murder. Its a word we use for feeling guilty after the fact.

Sure, we all condemn genocide, just like we all condemn homicide and other "bad things"... but for eternity this will not stop them from happening any more then "thou shall not kill" didn't stop any form of killing since that was put up as a law some millenia ago.

At the Neurenberg trials the rules against genocide were put in place retroactively (meaning basically that the people sentenced weren't breaking the law when they committed these acts), but apparently this only counted for defeated states, and not everyone: or the USA would've been held responsible for the biggest and most sucsessful genocide in history, the UK/Australia for its behaviour (continueing past 1945 even) against the aboriginals of Australia, Scotland and Ireland and most of Europe and Arabia for their involvement in the african-american slave routes. (or more simply: their upport of Germany pre 1939 and their rejection to help german jewish refugees.)

As such I believe this proposal is one more empty threat against those that actually commit genocide. Yes, its a terrible thing... but unless people are actually willing to take a risc and strike pre-emptively against situations that _might_ develop into genocide there's no real solution.

This brings up another ethical problem though: If you had killed Hitler in 1900, wouldn't that just have made you a childkiller? There'd never be any proof that you did something right for humanity.

SCO-Land, you may be correct that this resolution will do little to prevent genocide. What it does do is provide a means of bring those responsible to justice under the international spotlight. Some form of justice is served. It may also act as a small deterrent; time will tell.

this is the probably the best resolution I have seen in my short time at the UN, genocide is a terrible crime and people should not be able to commit genocide with impunity. Look at past genocidal dictators: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and many more. All of those men got away with what they did, but who didnt get away were their minions who also schemed the genocides. Why not add a bit to your resolution (which I fully support) for a UN endorsed GenForce or something that can be dispatched to either take out or capture genocidal leaders before they kill themselves to avoid punishment. This force could also monitor country's that have a 'genocide' factor where that country could recieve a leader that would try to kill a group of the population

what do yall think

The UN can not have a standing military force. So any resolution that would attepmt to do this would be jumped upon by the Moderation Staff.

And - as indicated - the resolution is not to be used as an excuse to invade other nations.

It may also be abused by Imperialists states as an excuse to explain their invading actions: "We had to save the suffering people of that nation!"

Furthermore: most genocides are either flash-bang popular movements (pogroms, Rwanda) or conducted by incredibly powerful states (British Empire, German Third Empire, Ottoman Empire, USSR, USA...) that basically aren't very likely to get invaded at all, let alone getting a slap on the wrist, untill its all over.

In both cases the world is faced with an accomplished fact and can do not much more then hang some scapegoats and have some kind of memorial.

Murder in general is already looked upon with disapproval in all cultures, that should already be deterent enough. When that doesn't help already a piece of paper at the UN HQ is quite meaningless - upbringing/cultural/peer pressure overall being a lot more influential on a person's actions then any administrative frivolity.

Article 1:Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.


This means that extermination of criminals or terrorists would fall under this resolution. And is this really what is desired?
Remember that criminals often have families too, and thus imprisoning criminals would put the goverment in breach of this resolution!!!

/Ulf of Wolfshome

... part of the defintion of a genocide should actually be "while the world looks on and does nothing". All genocides are only recognized as such after they have been basically "completed" or stopped because of other, unrelated, factors. This is a simple practice comparable to saying that you have no homicide without a murder. Its a word we use for feeling guilty after the fact.

Sure, we all condemn genocide, just like we all condemn homicide and other "bad things"... but for eternity this will not stop them from happening any more then "thou shall not kill" didn't stop any form of killing since that was put up as a law some millenia ago.

At the Neurenberg trials the rules against genocide were put in place retroactively (meaning basically that the people sentenced weren't breaking the law when they committed these acts), but apparently this only counted for defeated states, and not everyone: or the USA would've been held responsible for the biggest and most sucsessful genocide in history, the UK/Australia for its behaviour (continueing past 1945 even) against the aboriginals of Australia, Scotland and Ireland and most of Europe and Arabia for their involvement in the african-american slave routes. (or more simply: their upport of Germany pre 1939 and their rejection to help german jewish refugees.)

As such I believe this proposal is one more empty threat against those that actually commit genocide. Yes, its a terrible thing... but unless people are actually willing to take a risc and strike pre-emptively against situations that _might_ develop into genocide there's no real solution.

This brings up another ethical problem though: If you had killed Hitler in 1900, wouldn't that just have made you a childkiller? There'd never be any proof that you did something right for humanity.


Counties don't have laws to stop people committing murder, or rape, or theft, or parking on double yellow lines - they have laws to punish those who do.

I am not arrogant enough to believe that saying "genocide is bad" will stop it - but this will punish those responsbile, instead of letting them get away with it.

This means that extermination of criminals or terrorists would fall under this resolution. And is this really what is desired?
Remember that criminals often have families too, and thus imprisoning criminals would put the goverment in breach of this resolution!!!

/Ulf of Wolfshome

Erm - huh? Terrorists are not terrorists because they were born that way. If someone commits an act of terror that is something they have done, not something they had no control over.
Same with people who commit crimes - they are not being imprisoned cause they are black, or cause they are Elvish - they are being imprisoned cause THEY COMMITTED A CRIME and so probably should be in jail.

Look at past genocidal dictators: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and many more. when did Lenin do genocide?

and also... HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE BE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION?!?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT KIND OF SICK BASTARDS ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I would agree with most of what this resolution is trying to achieve, unfortunately I'm not prepared to vote for anything that brings a 'double-jeapardy' style case into any court. The UN should only have one shot at trying any person it suspects of a crime, as should any nation's criminal justice system. We can't accept the possibility of Keralonian citizens having a cloud hung over them for the rest of their lives just on the off chance that the any judicial body feels that they suddenly have enough evidence to re-try them.

You do realise that the Keralonian citizen (in this case) would not be accused of killing someone down the pub in a fight, or running over someone's cat by accident. The only way the citizen would be brought to The Panel is for suspicion of genocide, which is a pretty big crime.

This is absurd! While we of The Dominion of GoatFeathers agree that genocide is an abomination before God, that does not give this body the right to go hauling the duly appointed rulers of any nation before some world court. For example if the last purple man on earth kills someone and is tried for murder and found guilty, then are we to be charged with genocide? As this resolution is written, anyone in this forum could be brought to trial for carrying out their lawful and God given right of execution of proven and dangerous criminals!

GoatFeathers the Great

Erm - huh?

If you execute one person for a crime they have committed, it is not genocide. Even if it causes the extinction of a race it is still not genocide, because you did not wipe out the whole species - just one member of it.

If however you set out to hunt down and kill every single purple guy just because you didn't like purple people, that would be a different matter.

I'm voting against it since I find the resolution not to be strong enough.
Also since when is "forced pregnancy" defined as extermination? reproduction means exterminations?

Finally, for a good example of Genocide in terms of self-defense please look at the Bulterian Jihad where a whole society of robots were eliminated because they were putting humans into slavery.

As far as I undestand this proposal, it seems unclear on the matter of human/non-human matters. Clearing up this point is incredibly important. Are nations to be allowed to exterminate the populace of another land if the people of the second nation are not human and therefore not covored under this proposal? Also, if it is re-drafted to include all sentient life we leave ourselves open to the possibility of destruction by alien forces. In short, we must ask whether or not this proposal would protect an antagonistic race of monsters who view the people of Khan Superman as food or playthings. This proposal does nothing more than limit the options of a military campaign (either defensive or offensive) and under no circumstances can I support any attempts to shackle the defenders of my nation in any way.

"In war, all options are viable"

It may also be abused by Imperialists states as an excuse to explain their invading actions: "We had to save the suffering people of that nation!"

Furthermore: most genocides are either flash-bang popular movements (pogroms, Rwanda) or conducted by incredibly powerful states (British Empire, German Third Empire, Ottoman Empire, USSR, USA...) that basically aren't very likely to get invaded at all, let alone getting a slap on the wrist, untill its all over.

In both cases the world is faced with an accomplished fact and can do not much more then hang some scapegoats and have some kind of memorial.

Murder in general is already looked upon with disapproval in all cultures, that should already be deterent enough. When that doesn't help already a piece of paper at the UN HQ is quite meaningless - upbringing/cultural/peer pressure overall being a lot more influential on a person's actions then any administrative frivolity.


But by this arguement there should be no laws at all. If we can't prevent murder, why bother punishing someone for it? If we can't prevent someone parking on double yellow lines, why bother punishing someone for it?

Until every member nation has the ability to plant mind-control chips in to all of it's people, crime is not going away, and will always be dealt with after the fact. And while most crimes have a local influence (even a national influence) the act of genocide (in my view) is serious enough to warrant an international response.

Or - you know - we just scrap all laws and you can never punish anyone for anything ever, ever again.

Counties don't have laws to stop people committing murder, or rape, or theft, or parking on double yellow lines - they have laws to punish those who do.
They have also prevention laws like "attempted murder" and anti-weapons laws etc.

I am not arrogant enough to believe that saying "genocide is bad" will stop it - but this will punish those responsbile, instead of letting them get away with it.
In history only a very few have been actually punished for genocide, and those can basically be called scapegoats (as genocide is commited by masses, not individuals). Also its usually committed by very powerful states, and other states generally value their own people's (and soldiers) lives higher then those of some foreign minority: <sarcasm> why risc your own people and stability over a bunch of guys you'd probably dislike as well if they were within your borders? </sarcasm>

All i see is a vague "don't do that", an excuse for invasion and hanging of scapegoats.

And - as indicated - the resolution is not to be used as an excuse to invade other nations.
And that makes it entirely meaningless. :(

As far as I undestand this proposal, it seems unclear on the matter of human/non-human matters. Clearing up this point is incredibly important. Are nations to be allowed to exterminate the populace of another land if the people of the second nation are not human and therefore not covored under this proposal?

The start of every genocide is deciding that the victims are not human. :mad:

I know you mean this in a RP fashion though: one of my neighbouring nations is filled with Ewoks for example, but I think one should always assume that with "humans" in an UN proposal is always meant: "the dominant itelligent species" :)

I'm voting against it since I find the resolution not to be strong enough.
Also since when is "forced pregnancy" defined as extermination? reproduction means exterminations?

Finally, for a good example of Genocide in terms of self-defense please look at the Bulterian Jihad where a whole society of robots were eliminated because they were putting humans into slavery.

Ok.

Firstly - why is it not strong enough?
Secondly - Nation B invades Nation A and forces all the women of Nation A to have the children of men in Nation B, and not any children of men in Nation A. This would effectively destroy the future of Nation A because they would only be allowed and would be forced to have children that are not their own (so to speak). This can wipe out a society.

Thirdly - this is why genocide is brought before the panel. So that it can be determined if it was the only way, or if it was a criminal act.

In the spirit in which this was written, it is a noble sentiment indeed. However, the power is in the wording; It should not pass in its present form.

They have also prevention laws like "attempted murder" and anti-weapons laws etc.


Yet people still attempt to commit murder.


In history only a very few have been actually punished for genocide, and those can basically be called scapegoats (as genocide is commited by masses, not individuals).


But directed by the few, not the many.


Also its usually committed by very powerful states, and other states generally value their own people's (and soldiers) lives higher then those of some foreign minority: <sarcasm> why risc your own people and stability over a bunch of guys you'd probably dislike as well if they were within your borders? </sarcasm>


So because we can't do anything about it we should just accept it and let people die? What kind of attitude is that?

And that makes it entirely meaningless. :(

Two things.

1) If it was written to allow the invasion of other nations, it would be objected to on the grounds that you could use it as a pre-emptive strike mandate to walk in and take over any other nation in the world, just by claiming there might be a genocide going on.

2) It doesn't say you can't. But the UN is not empowered to send people to war at it's bidding.

Come now, surely you see that if a certain group of people decide to incite a revolt in my nation, i should have the right to kill them all and dump them in unmarked graves? I think the wording should be changed to "unjustified genocide". Of course now i will be called a monster and you're all gonna say that it's never justified... and you can do that, but even if it does pass, people can simply avoid being prosecuted by leaving the UN... tis utterly useless any way you look at it.

My nation shall also be voting against this resolution. Indeed, genocide is definitely not something to scoff at, and the intention of this resolution is good, but as we all know: good intentions pave the road to Hell.

If anything, this resolution is indicative of the problems with the current real-world UN, all bluster and no muster. They sit around discussing things in committees for weeks on end, which is all well and good when it prevents a massive war between two nations, but is no good when a nation is cruelly destroying its own people(s) as the world plugs its ears and whistles a jolly tune. I read this resolution and am reminded of the trouble in Darfur, and how it took the USA (of all people) to get the UN Security Council to simply TALK about Darfur, and even then they could do no more than pass a fiercely worded verbal objection. And despite the fact that thousands upon thousands had died in the time it took the UN to even acknowledge a problem, and even more had died in the time it took to simply agree on this memorandum of dispproval, the UN did not, and has still not, done anything to prevent any more deaths from occurring. I would be surprised if the UN does anything about Darfur now, and if it does I would be surprised if there are any people left to save when it gets there. This is indicative of what will happen if we heap the layer of bureaucracy this resolution is proposing onto the NSUN member nations.

When genocide is in question, the time is not for debate. Sovereign nation or not, human lives are more valuable than borders, and if my nation had to take the heat for invading another country at the first word of genocide while circumventing this new international after-the-fact court if it meant saving thousands of lives, it is heat I would gladly take.

I fear that if this resolution passes, my nation will resign from its position within the hallowed walls of the NSUN, something I would be sad to see happen. I encourage all to vote against this resolution.

Erm - huh? Terrorists are not terrorists because they were born that way. If someone commits an act of terror that is something they have done, not something they had no control over.
Same with people who commit crimes - they are not being imprisoned cause they are black, or cause they are Elvish - they are being imprisoned cause THEY COMMITTED A CRIME and so probably should be in jail.

Where does "being born that way" have anything to do with anything?
Are you born a christian?

I was not refering to what the thought behind the resolution was, only what it actually says!

And it speaks of a society (or a part of a society selected for a set of arbitary factors. Like skin colour, religion and sexual orientation.)

So... 'forced pregnancy' means diluting their racial heritage by forcing them to only have the children of another group? That's bad, I suppose, but I've certainly never heard of it.
I thought for a second it meant denying them abortion, which is pretty much the opposite of genocide. ^^'

OOC: Sacer, this isn't the RL UN. The organisations are very different.

IC:

When genocide is in question, the time is not for debate. Sovereign nation or not, human lives are more valuable than borders, and if my nation had to take the heat for invading another country at the first word of genocide while circumventing this new international after-the-fact court if it meant saving thousands of lives, it is heat I would gladly take.
You misunderstand. This is about bringing the perpetrators to justice if genocide has taken place. Your nation's actions in the above scenario would not be in contravention of this resolution. Maybe this is bureaucracy, but not all bureaucracy is bad.

In the spirit in which this was written, it is a noble sentiment indeed. However, the power is in the wording; It should not pass in its present form.
OK, but please explain your position.

So... 'forced pregnancy' means diluting their racial heritage by forcing them to only have the children of another group? That's bad, I suppose, but I've certainly never heard of it.
It has been successfully conducted against the natives of Australia and probably also Tibet. China has actually used it as a defence against barabarian hordes in the past (sure they may have conquered China, but within no-time they ended up being Chinese as well.)
Delute a society long enough and it won't exist anymore.

Maybe this is bureaucracy, but not all bureaucracy is bad.
By its definition, it is. The regular form would be called "Administration":
Bureaucracy relates to Administration as Cancer does to Mitosis.

Its just spread out so badly across the organs of society that most people don't realize the difference anymore and the only cure would actually be very heavy treatment.

I wonder if killing all bureaucrats would be recognized as genocide or just common sense... (and in the same fashion: Was killing all aristocrats in the French and Russian Revolutions genocide?)

... (and in the same fashion: Was killing all aristocrats in the French and Russian Revolutions genocide?)

By the definition presented in this resolution, yes.

Two things.

1) If it was written to allow the invasion of other nations, it would be objected to on the grounds that you could use it as a pre-emptive strike mandate to walk in and take over any other nation in the world, just by claiming there might be a genocide going on.

2) It doesn't say you can't. But the UN is not empowered to send people to war at it's bidding.

So all in all we can consider ourselves to be lucky to even get a "bad boy, don't do that again!" reaction from the UN after a genocide? That's usually simple to do: after you've killed a people entirely, you cannot do that again - cause they're gone already.

Again: the biggest problem with genocide is that its not a genocide until it has been basically completed. Up to then its just "trouble" or "misunderstandments" or at most "Apartheid". Sure genocide is plain evil but because of its nature we cannot really stop it.

Come now, surely you see that if a certain group of people decide to incite a revolt in my nation, i should have the right to kill them all and dump them in unmarked graves? I think the wording should be changed to "unjustified genocide". Of course now i will be called a monster and you're all gonna say that it's never justified... and you can do that, but even if it does pass, people can simply avoid being prosecuted by leaving the UN... tis utterly useless any way you look at it.

Erm - huh? You can not just decide to murder people - especially not an entire race, just because you don't like them, or they don't like you. Sorry :}

My nation shall also be voting against this resolution. Indeed, genocide is definitely not something to scoff at, and the intention of this resolution is good, but as we all know: good intentions pave the road to Hell.

If anything, this resolution is indicative of the problems with the current real-world UN, all bluster and no muster. They sit around discussing things in committees for weeks on end, which is all well and good when it prevents a massive war between two nations, but is no good when a nation is cruelly destroying its own people(s) as the world plugs its ears and whistles a jolly tune. I read this resolution and am reminded of the trouble in Darfur, and how it took the USA (of all people) to get the UN Security Council to simply TALK about Darfur, and even then they could do no more than pass a fiercely worded verbal objection. And despite the fact that thousands upon thousands had died in the time it took the UN to even acknowledge a problem, and even more had died in the time it took to simply agree on this memorandum of dispproval, the UN did not, and has still not, done anything to prevent any more deaths from occurring. I would be surprised if the UN does anything about Darfur now, and if it does I would be surprised if there are any people left to save when it gets there. This is indicative of what will happen if we heap the layer of bureaucracy this resolution is proposing onto the NSUN member nations.

When genocide is in question, the time is not for debate. Sovereign nation or not, human lives are more valuable than borders, and if my nation had to take the heat for invading another country at the first word of genocide while circumventing this new international after-the-fact court if it meant saving thousands of lives, it is heat I would gladly take.

I fear that if this resolution passes, my nation will resign from its position within the hallowed walls of the NSUN, something I would be sad to see happen. I encourage all to vote against this resolution.


I am sorry, but you have totally confused me. If this proposal passes you are going to resign? Why?

Where does "being born that way" have anything to do with anything?
Are you born a christian?

I was not refering to what the thought behind the resolution was, only what it actually says!

And it speaks of a society (or a part of a society selected for a set of arbitary factors. Like skin colour, religion and sexual orientation.)

Okay, maybe being born that way was not the right way to put it.

Where do you get that being a terrorist is an "arbitrary" factor? If you are a terrorist you have committed crimes and (most likely) killed people. So you, as a single person, have set yourself apart from the rest of your people by that action.

If you are a Christian (for example) then you have not commited crimes (religious tolerance is a UN law) and not set your self apart.

This proposal would not stop you punishing wrong doers - but (for example) if you captured five Christians who were terrorists, you would not be able to kill all the Christians in your country, because then you are not basing the death on the action, but on the religious belief. Which makes it genocide.

So... 'forced pregnancy' means diluting their racial heritage by forcing them to only have the children of another group? That's bad, I suppose, but I've certainly never heard of it.
I thought for a second it meant denying them abortion, which is pretty much the opposite of genocide. ^^'

To be honest I can't quote you an example of it happening, but still - it would be grounds to try some one for it (in my view at least).

I think that genocide itself *is* self-defense, at least in the minds of those that do it. Obviously anyone who commits genocide must feel pretty threatened by a certain group of people - why else would they be working so hard to wipe those people off the face of the earth?

Simple answer: hate and fear.


As for the idea that genocide is self-defense, that is absurd. The killing of combatants is motivated because there is a clear and present danger to another set of combatants or to a civilian population being protected by this other set of combatants.

Genocide is the systematic and government sanctioned killing of an entire ethnic or cultural group not based on physical self-defense, but rather ethnic and cultural differences. It is simply a hate crime measured on a gross scale.

In any event, the entire point of the panel is to on a case by case basis determine what is:

"Look, those Arabs we killed had suit case nukes and were physically on their way to destroying our capital. We killed them because they were trying to kill us, not because they were Arabs."

from ....

"I hate Arabs! They are a threat to democracy world wide because they dress their women in abays (sp?) and don't allow them to vote. Therefore we have decided that any male Arab child will be put to death."

The ECG is arbitrary and the power is left to the whims of bureaucrats. The powers of the ECG are too strong and Orwellian. We don't need a world police state.

I to am against this crime against humanity, but I must vote against ECG.

So all in all we can consider ourselves to be lucky to even get a "bad boy, don't do that again!" reaction from the UN after a genocide? That's usually simple to do: after you've killed a people entirely, you cannot do that again - cause they're gone already.

Again: the biggest problem with genocide is that its not a genocide until it has been basically completed. Up to then its just "trouble" or "misunderstandments" or at most "Apartheid". Sure genocide is plain evil but because of its nature we cannot really stop it.

You are right, more or less, but there is not a lot that can be done about it. We can not put people in prison for something they haven't done, or something they are conspiring to do. Sure - you can arrest them for conspiracy to commit genocide, but that is a lot harder to prove.

This is the biggest problem in the world - a crime is not actually a crime until it has been committed. You can't charge someone with murder until they have murdered someone.

The other big problem is those who are committing genocide tend not to advertise it, so until it becomes a massive problem, no one knows about it. And I can not see how writing a new proposal will solve that problem. This is an attempt to deal with the aftermath in a formal, organized manner, so that people are brought to justice, rather than witch-hunts taking place and mobs taking over to hand out vigalante justice.

Originally posted by TilEcna:
I am sorry, but you have totally confused me. If this proposal passes you are going to resign? Why?
I would resign if this resolution passes because remaining a part of the UN would force my nation to adhere to the resolutions tenets, namely being forced to sit back and debate the merits of action against genocide while a genocide is allowed to carry on unabated. I object to this so strongly that resignation seems the only viable option should the resolution pass.

The ECG is arbitrary and the power is left to the whims of bureaucrats. The powers of the ECG are too strong and Orwellian. We don't need a world police state.

I to am against this crime against humanity, but I must vote against ECG.

Wow. Of all the arguements I have heard, this is by far and away the strangest.

The Panel will work under the resolutions already passed by the UN - it will not be a rogue agency hunting down people for no reason.

It doesn't exist until it is required, and then it exists only for as long as it is required. It is not a tool for the UN to spy on anyone, unless there is actually compelling evidence that they are committing genocide, in which case they probably should be investigated just a little.

Why would this turn the world in to a police state?

So all in all we can consider ourselves to be lucky to even get a "bad boy, don't do that again!" reaction from the UN after a genocide? That's usually simple to do: after you've killed a people entirely, you cannot do that again - cause they're gone already.

Again: the biggest problem with genocide is that its not a genocide until it has been basically completed. Up to then its just "trouble" or "misunderstandments" or at most "Apartheid". Sure genocide is plain evil but because of its nature we cannot really stop it.
But we can at least bring the perpetrators to justice.

The ECG is arbitrary and the power is left to the whims of bureaucrats. The powers of the ECG are too strong and Orwellian. We don't need a world police state.

I to am against this crime against humanity, but I must vote against ECG.
Madness! How would this be a police state?

I would resign if this resolution passes because remaining a part of the UN would force my nation to adhere to the resolutions tenets, namely being forced to sit back and debate the merits of action against genocide while a genocide is allowed to carry on unabated. I object to this so strongly that resignation seems the only viable option should the resolution pass.
No, you misunderstand. The panel is convened in the aftermath. Hopefully, we efforts will already have been made (through the UN or not) to avert the genocide. If successful, we can prosecute for attempted genocide.

As for the idea that genocide is self-defense, that is absurd.

It can be however: in the case of Israel/Palestine for example it has become clear that there will be no peace until one of the two is either deported out (again) or vanquished.

A millenia long history of violence and hate between the two peoples stemming from the first Israeli invasion of Palestine lands under the leadership of Moses would make that much clear. The only time that there was quiet in that region was when the Romans had stepped in and seperated the two by what now would probably be seen as genocide or equal to (the diaspora).

In the line of "kill or be killed" whoever ends up winning this by wiping out the other can always claim "self defence". In fact both have already been using that excuse extensively... without too much complaints from the international community.

remaining a part of the UN would force my nation to adhere to the resolutions tenets, namely being forced to sit back and debate the merits of action against genocide while a genocide is allowed to carry on unabated.
How does this resolution in particular prohibit your nation from taking up arms and aiding the victims of genocide? From what I've seen, this deals only with the punishment phase of the process.

If you're referring to this: "§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.", may I point out that this is not a new provision of international law. Rights and Duties of UN States states in Article 6 that "§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife."

Nothing in either of these provisions denies your nation the right to Declare War on nations whose actions offend your national sensibilities. Nothing in any of the provisions guarantees that the rest of the UN will follow you, but you still have the sovereign right to declare a State of War against any nation, and to act on that Declaration. You just can't use this Convention as a legal justification before the UN.

I would resign if this resolution passes because remaining a part of the UN would force my nation to adhere to the resolutions tenets, namely being forced to sit back and debate the merits of action against genocide while a genocide is allowed to carry on unabated. I object to this so strongly that resignation seems the only viable option should the resolution pass.

Ok - I think you have missed the point. Or I haven't explained the point properly. Something pointy is going on anyway.

Say GeminiLand takes it upon itself to murder all of it's left-handed citizens, because the new leader's ex-girlfriend was left handed and he didn't like her dumping him.

News of this spreads and it comes to the ears of TilEnca. We ask the UN to create a Panel, and the Panel then investigates. It finds evidence and brings the leader to The Panel, and stops the genocide.

Which is not perfect, because by the time the news has spread, there might have already been two thousand deaths. But it is the best that is realistically possible, short of actually having a big brother society going on.

In the line of "kill or be killed" whoever ends up winning this by wiping out the other can always claim "self defence". In fact both have already been using that excuse extensively... without too much complaints from the international community.
OOC: yes, the real-world international community. Who's to say that the in-game international community can't do better than this?

As many have said previously the problem lies inherit in the wording of the proposal. It is just too unclear, and will probably only lead to increase in UN corruption. It should not be allowed to pass in it's current state.

As many have said previously the problem lies inherit in the wording of the proposal. It is just too unclear, and will probably only lead to increase in UN corruption. It should not be allowed to pass in it's current state.
I dispute the assertion that the wording is unclear. Moreover, what evidence is there for this increasing UN corruption? Where are your measures, your indicators for this allegation?

But we can at least bring the perpetrators to justice.

The only way to do that would be by committing genocide again:
- the crime is heinous enough to make a demand for the death penalty sensible: even "liberal" european states went so far to make this exception on the ban on the death penalty back in 1945.
- the perpetrators are an entire people as well. Hitler probably never killed a Jew in his life, others did that. If you think he's guilty because of responsibility then you could easily argue that the full responsibility lies with all of the Germans, cause they supported him (voted even!) and actually fulfilled his insane wishes. Or with the rest of the countries for not making him stop.
- anything else then blaming ALL the perpetrators (actually active, or by responsibility) will only get down to hanging scapegoats.

This is why basically no genocide has really seen justice. The only people ever sentenced for it were basically sentenced for loosing a war and then stuck in a showtrial to display how rightious the victors were. (Instead of just executing the loosers in the old fashion).

Justice applies to all or none, or it is no justice.

Furthermore: I believe in people having their own responsibility at all times. No one can claim the "Befehl ist Befehl" defence... As a sentient being it is your own choice and no-one else's to pull that trigger or not, strike with that machete, open those valves, hand out your neighbours to certain death or not intervening when you see anything like that happening.

I apologize if this subject has been brought up, but in the instance of war, captives could be tortured to secure information about the enemies positions or weaponry. Would this be inside the lines of the proposal? I expect not, but what if you had the TPP's approval in the matter?

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.


Who accuses? This can and will be abused. Any nation can accuse you of genocide and the accused must submit to an investigation. My nation is independent.

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.

Who defines this? What about war? I should be able to defend my nation. Will I be accused in a time of war and be judged guilty based on the desires of my enemy? People die at war. Is the death of all my enemies thought to be genocide?


The arbitrary nature of the EON leads to unintending consequences.

OOC: yes, the real-world international community. Who's to say that the in-game international community can't do better than this?
Because humans remain humans?

I believe that the point was to keep something like the Holocaust from happening, not war in general, just a "war" against a certain people (i.e. white, black, hispanic, Asian) or for religion, as in WWII (jews, catholics, muslims)

So go ahead and wage war, just dont tell your soldiers "Save your last shot for a black man"

The ECG is arbitrary and the power is left to the whims of bureaucrats. The powers of the ECG are too strong and Orwellian. We don't need a world police state.

I to am against this crime against humanity, but I must vote against ECG.

First, welcome to NationStates! :) It is always nice to see new nations here.

Second, how is this convention Orwellian? Just throwing about the label doesn't make it so.

The only way to do that would be by committing genocide again:
- the crime is heinous enough to make a demand for the death penalty sensible: even "liberal" european states went so far to make this exception on the ban on the death penalty back in 1945.
How many states had banned the death penalty in 1945? Not many, I would think. The TPP does not have the power to demand the death penalty. I disagree entirely that the death penalty is the only appropriate justice, but that's a discussion for another occasion. Even if it were not, condemning to death the individual(s) responsible for orchestrating genocide is not in itself an act of genocide. It's a gross devaluing of the term's meaning to suggest so.

The arbitrary nature of the EON leads to unintending consequences.
The arbitrary nature in which many nations vote will make it pass anyways:
*reads title of resolution* "Genocide Bad! I support!" *vote for*.

But as its an empty resolution anyways, it will not affect anything so it won't be a reason to leave the UN. What I am opposing here is this useless waste of resources on a matter that is already prohibited by the majority of existing resolutions while it WILL give imperialists an excuse for invasion, may the target state have enough national resources to make it pay off.

I believe that the resolution was really just trying to bring awareness to the problem, we all know that nothing was really done about the genocide of the Jewish population of Europe until the end of the war, even though several countries knew about it.

Thanks for the welcome.

How is this convention Orwellian?

The authority is centralized, and the accusations can/will be arbitrary.

Orwellian Kid: He does not know who we are at war with.

Orwellian centralized authority: He does not know.


:eek: :mp5:

The arbitrary nature in which many nations vote will make it pass anyways:
*reads title of resolution* "Genocide Bad! I support!" *vote for*.

But as its an empty resolution anyways, it will not affect anything so it won't be a reason to leave the UN. What I am opposing here is this useless waste of resources on a matter that is already prohibited by the majority of existing resolutions while it WILL give imperialists an excuse for invasion, may the target state have enough national resources to make it pay off.
I disagree that it is an 'empty resolution', but we already knew that. I've put in bold the section of your statement that makes no sense at all to me. Would you care to explain how this will be so?

The fact is, the people in an orwellian society dont NEED to know who their country is at war with, they just need to listen and believe the government.

How many states had banned the death penalty in 1945? Not many, I would think.
Actually, in Europe, quite a few - especially after the Great War. Many of those that hadn't banned it officially yet had not actually executed anyone in decades and often still went ahead with banning the death penalty shortly after 1945. In quite a few cases, convicted nazi's saw their deathpenalty changed in a life sentence.

The TPP does not have the power to demand the death penalty. I disagree entirely that the death penalty is the only appropriate justice, but that's a discussion for another occasion.
Agreed, but tell that to the survivors of a genocide seeking justice.

Even if it were not, condemning to death the individual(s) responsible for orchestrating genocide is not in itself an act of genocide. It's a gross devaluing of the term's meaning to suggest so.
By going after those that "orchestrated" alone and not those that actively put it into action, justice is not done. Its like arresting the godfather while letting all his mobsters frollic freely. Who is a bigger criminal.. one that signs a piece of paper or one that reads this piece of paper and decides that's enough reason to gun down 2000 people?

And who orchestrates a mass lynching like what happened in Rwanda or in during the pogroms in Poland?

Really: to punish a genocide appropriately comes down to a genocide itself. That, and the fact that a genocide is not recognized until its done, is the reason why the best we and the real world have come up with are memorials, slaps on the wrist and killing scapegoats.

Your completely right of course, but not all genocides were unorganized, while many were mearly created out of the rage of thousands of people striking out at others at once, unaware of eachother, they mearly do what they planned to do, succeeding in killing thousands sometimes.

Apologies if I'm wrong about 1945 nations and the death penalty.

Who the TPP prosecutes is down to the TPP and those bringing the charges. Perhaps they'll target the leaders, perhapd they'll bring in the henchmen. That's for those involved to decide at the time.

I think our disagreement comes down to a different sense of what constitutes justice. Neither of us will persuade each other, but I'd like to make it clear that I respect your views and the way you have expressed them.

Best wishes.

"it WILL give imperialists an excuse for invasion, may the target state have enough national resources to make it pay off."

I disagree that it is an 'empty resolution', but we already knew that. I've put in bold the section of your statement that makes no sense at all to me. Would you care to explain how this will be so?

A few very good examples are evident in the world today, but ok:

To invade a country has inherent riscs and costs. As such the prize at the end of the action must be such to cover the costs at least. As I stated before: no country will invade another over some minority they wouldn't particulary care for having in their own borders either.

BUT, it can be used as an excellent excuse to attack a resource-rich nation. eg. "They were killing those people, we had to free them! And yes, now they have contracts with us saying..." "Did I mention this was completely following UN resolutions x, y and z?"

A resource rich country must watch its steps far more carefully... a short slipup by triggerhappy soldiers may get you invaded under cries of "genocide", wheras proven genocide in resource poor countries will not even make the newspapers.

A few very good examples are evident in the world today, but ok:

To invade a country has inherent riscs and costs. As such the prize at the end of the action must be such to cover the costs at least. As I stated before: no country will invade another over some minority they wouldn't particulary care for having in their own borders either.

BUT, it can be used as an excellent excuse to attack a resource-rich nation. eg. "They were killing those people, we had to free them! And yes, now they have contracts with us saying..." "Did I mention this was completely following UN resolutions x, y and z?"

A resource rich country must watch its steps far more carefully... a short slipup by triggerhappy soldiers may get you invaded under cries of "genocide", wheras proven genocide in resource poor countries will not even make the newspapers.
This is very true, and regrettably so. However, since the TPP has no mandate for authorising invasions, it will provide no excuses for such imperialist actions. A nation defends its invasion by making an accusation of genocide in the country it invades: the TPP investigates. If the invading country is found to have made a false claim, it faces international repercussions. If it happens to be a correct accusation, that still doesn't provide UN approval for the invasion; that is a separate matter.

I'm afraid I have to go. Thanks, it's been interesting.

I think I could vote for this.... Though, I will not cast my official vote, to our regional vote in complete.

This is very true, and regrettably so. However, since the TPP has no mandate for authorising invasions, it will provide no excuses for such imperialist actions. A nation defends its invasion by making an accusation of genocide in the country it invades: the TPP investigates. If the invading country is found to have made a false claim, it faces international repercussions. If it happens to be a correct accusation, that still doesn't provide UN approval for the invasion; that is a separate matter.

If the accusation is justified or not doesn't matter, cause by the same reasoning the UN cannot punish the invading nation.

I'm afraid I have to go. Thanks, it's been interesting.
Thanks, same there and have fun :D

I apologize if this subject has been brought up, but in the instance of war, captives could be tortured to secure information about the enemies positions or weaponry. Would this be inside the lines of the proposal? I expect not, but what if you had the TPP's approval in the matter?
The Wolfish Convention on POW addresses this.
Article 8
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

It can be however: in the case of Israel/Palestine for example it has become clear that there will be no peace until one of the two is either deported out (again) or vanquished.

I fail to see this as being a point against this resolution.


A millenia long history of violence and hate between the two peoples stemming from the first Israeli invasion of Palestine lands under the leadership of Moses would make that much clear. The only time that there was quiet in that region was when the Romans had stepped in and seperated the two by what now would probably be seen as genocide or equal to (the diaspora).

In the line of "kill or be killed" whoever ends up winning this by wiping out the other can always claim "self defence". In fact both have already been using that excuse extensively... without too much complaints from the international community.

The Israelis first invaded Palestinian lands? Are you suggesting that the Israelis never lived in Palestine / Israel prior to "the Exodus"?

As for claiming self-defense, you are missing the point. You can claim whatever you like. I could run to a court and claim Abraham was really a woman. But that doesn't mean that "court" is going to find that he was a she.

My point is the claim of self-defense is just that. The resolution calls for the creation of ad hoc (which is a fancy word for on the spot and temporary) panels to judge if this is a case of killing all Jews (like old Hitler sought to do) or a case of defending your nation against a few individuals who just happened to be Jewish.

Let's look at a bit of history here ... and see just how "realistical" self-defense claims are taken ...

March 12th 1938 - Hitler invades Austria
March 13th 1938 - Hitler "annexes" Austria under the "Anschluss" Union.

Justification: Lebensraum. Lebensraum the term the Nazis used to describe the "living room" necessary for German "Self-Defense".

Also keep in mind that Hitler was born in Austria. But his policies from 1931 to 1938 had distanced a growing unificiation effort between Austria and Germany. (I'll point out that still today the two nations are culturally linked, as I found it very interesting when Germans would ask me how "their Arnold" was doing and if I liked him when they found out I was from California.)

Tensions between the two nations started when the Christian Socialist Austrian Chancellor was assasinated in 1934 as part of a Austrian Nazi party coup of the government. What is interesting is that Austria turned to Italy for support, however by 1938 Italy was already in a military conflict in Ethopia and Spain, and very much in need of German military support and not Austrian political support.

German threatened invasion, and with its military ally Italy now backing Germany, Austria "joined" Germany and ceded its sovereignty to become a new German provincal state. It is however important to bear in mind that a signficant portion of the Austrian people actually favoured unification.

Also of note is that on March 26, 1938 Austrian Jews were ordered to leave. Were they a threat? You tell me.

In any even, Lebensraum did not stop with military and political bullying. Oct. 15th, 1938 German "Self-Defense" resulted in the annexation of the Sudetenland (Czech Republic) on the justification: prior to the First World War, Bohemia was largely compromised of ethnic Germans, however after the war the boundaries changed and the Sudetenland was part of Czechoslovakia. Again, pro-Nazi German-Czechs saw the Anschluss Union with Austria as a chance to basically strengthen their ties with Germany. Germany "claimed" to the world that ethnic Germans living in the Sudetenland were being mistreated by the Czechoslavakian government and issued another ultimatium: join or war.

This time Czechoslavakia turned to nations like the United Kingdom and France, who ignored the Czech pleas and without Czech approval met with Hitler to agree to not oppose this "self-defense" annexation.

OK, so "self-defense" join or die arguments have twice worked ... so Hitler continues ... and instead of just sticking to the Sudetenland, on March 14, 1939, Germany annexes all of the Czechoslovakian Republic, including territories where there is no cultural or ethnic claim. Cultural consolidation has now become cultural oppression for the slav majority! (Right, I'm starting to move into the territory of genocide like questions.)

Is Hitler happy with just all of Austria and the Czech Republic? Switzerland to the south has a German majority with other ethnic groups ... why is Switzerland not invaded? There are several answers, but Zurich and unnamed Swiss bank accounts suggest that Switzerland was a non-military arm of the growing Germany "self-defense" effort. Also Austria and Italy were already part of the Axis powers ... and so Hitler focused on other countries.

Iron rich Poland to the east. The traditional formal start of the Second World War is marked by the Sept. 1, 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany. Poland surrendered to Germany and the Soviet Union on Sept. 27 / 28, 1939. The invasion of Poland is significant here, because it was in Poland where some of the most brutal concentration camps were constructed, and it was the large Polish Jewish population that really made it clear that German "self-defensive" lebensraum expansions were also coming at the price of ethnical and cultural lives.

In 1931 there were Polish census estimates of nearly 3 million Polish Jews. I can go back and find estimates of the number of Polish Jews that survived the war, but the numbers are very bleak.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Jews were not the only minority who apparently "threatened" German security, including the "rom" (gypsies) and homosexuals, two groups that even in 2004 have absolutely no military influence and very little political influence.

So the question I have to ask is were Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals really that much of a threat?

My problem with the resolution is not that is against genocide, which is a good thing to fight against, but rather, because it is saying that any individual act by one person to another person for reasons of race is genocide. That is not genocide, but rather, a hate-crime. Also, you must be aware of reversed discrimination. If a black man were to strike out against a white man, the white man would fight back, and who would be the most likely to be blamed? The white man. Because of reversed discrimination, we begin attacking the innocent party, and for that, we must be careful. I am against this resolution, not because I am plannign any major genocide, and I'm not a white supremeist, but rather, because I do not believe that we shoudl slap a label on everything, making it genocide. First, genocide is an actual attempt to wipe out a whole group of people, not just attacking one. Two, if we start putting a label on anything and everything that occurs between people of two different regions or races, then nothing will every be truely looked at and decided. It will just be accepted. While the act is a goo idea, I think it needs to be re-thought, re-developed in multiple parts, and acted upon in a better system then what has been layed out. For these reasons, I am against the Anti-Genocide Act.

The Grand Duchy of Stewiera feels that the proposed resolution before this august body represents a possible threat to the soverignty of Stewiera. A strict interpretation of the articles of the resolution could allow for a nation to be charged with genocide while fighting a war of self-defense. While Stewiera recognizes the need to for international cooperation on this issue, the possible reprecussions for our soverign nation are too clear to be ignored. Accordingly, we have instructed oue ambassador to vote against the resolution.

Well said...well said.

I must take my leave, good day.

Thanks for the welcome.

How is this convention Orwellian?

The authority is centralized, and the accusations can/will be arbitrary.


:eek: :mp5:




As for centralized authority, actually mind connecting the dots a bit more. I'm very aware of what authorianism is, but I don't see how an independent council that is formed to weigh accusations (not make them, but judge them) in public view is remotely related to Orwellian "Real Thought".

These are two entirely different issues!

So please, if you feel you have a strong point to make here, please quote the exact parts of the resolution that are based on propoganada and result in action being taken purely on speculation and/or accusations, and lets not see if perhaps there is even a hint of realism in your claims.

I assure you, that my government does not support propoganda and has a long track record of making the most vocal objections to Orwellian "Real Thought" styled authoritarian decisions. This is not such a case. (p.s. again, look at my government ... we might be capitalizts, but that doesn't mean we are going to trick you anywhere other than perhaps selling your citizens some nice Spice Melange and inviting your citizens to come to Mikitivity to gamble away their savings while enjoying our many ski resorts ... in other words, we aren't evil ... but neither are my people fools). ;)

This resolution is well thought out, fits in the UN goals, and is well written.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda therefor declares its full support for this resolution, also as the UN Delegate for the International Democratic Union, and is sure the region will support this position.

My problem with the resolution is not that is against genocide, which is a good thing to fight against, but rather, because it is saying that any individual act by one person to another person for reasons of race is genocide. That is not genocide, but rather, a hate-crime. Also, you must be aware of reversed discrimination. If a black man were to strike out against a white man, the white man would fight back, and who would be the most likely to be blamed? The white man. Because of reversed discrimination, we begin attacking the innocent party, and for that, we must be careful. I am against this resolution, not because I am plannign any major genocide, and I'm not a white supremeist, but rather, because I do not believe that we shoudl slap a label on everything, making it genocide. First, genocide is an actual attempt to wipe out a whole group of people, not just attacking one. Two, if we start putting a label on anything and everything that occurs between people of two different regions or races, then nothing will every be truely looked at and decided. It will just be accepted. While the act is a goo idea, I think it needs to be re-thought, re-developed in multiple parts, and acted upon in a better system then what has been layed out. For these reasons, I am against the Anti-Genocide Act.

I don't think this is a problem. The resolution specifically defines genocide as "systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society...". Yes, a single crime or a few crimes against a small number of people, for reasons of race, religion, etc, is a hate crime rather than genocide, but you're not likely to get accused of genocide because you "only" killed a small number of people. Basically, genocide is hate crimes on a large scale.

Simple answer: hate and fear.


As for the idea that genocide is self-defense, that is absurd. The killing of combatants is motivated because there is a clear and present danger to another set of combatants or to a civilian population being protected by this other set of combatants.

*I* do not believe it is self-defense. I simply said that is the most likely excuse in the (sick) minds of those that commit genocide.

Genocide is the systematic and government sanctioned killing of an entire ethnic or cultural group not based on physical self-defense, but rather ethnic and cultural differences. It is simply a hate crime measured on a gross scale.

Why does it matter whether or not it's "government sactioned"?

In any event, the entire point of the panel is to on a case by case basis determine what is:

"Look, those Arabs we killed had suit case nukes and were physically on their way to destroying our capital. We killed them because they were trying to kill us, not because they were Arabs."

from ....

"I hate Arabs! They are a threat to democracy world wide because they dress their women in abays (sp?) and don't allow them to vote. Therefore we have decided that any male Arab child will be put to death."

I still say that, in the minds of those that commit genocide, the people that they are trying to wipe out *must* pose a serious threat - why else would they want all those people dead?

My concerns as the leader is the sovreignty of my own nation. I do not wish to cede control to the TPP and also forfeit any right I may have as a nation to also bring charges against one who violated the resolution. I also disagree that the death penalty is "off the table" no matter how foul the deeds committed. In the opinion of myself and my nation of Metaphorical Optimism, thought we are decidedly against genocide, we cannot support this resolution as it is currently written.

The Grand Duchy of Stewiera feels that the proposed resolution before this august body represents a possible threat to the soverignty of Stewiera. A strict interpretation of the articles of the resolution could allow for a nation to be charged with genocide while fighting a war of self-defense. While Stewiera recognizes the need to for international cooperation on this issue, the possible reprecussions for our soverign nation are too clear to be ignored. Accordingly, we have instructed oue ambassador to vote against the resolution.

You gave up your sovereignity the moment you were accepted into the UN. Read the FAQ.

My concerns as the leader is the sovreignty of my own nation. I do not wish to cede control to the TPP and also forfeit any right I may have as a nation to also bring charges against one who violated the resolution. I also disagree that the death penalty is "off the table" no matter how foul the deeds committed. In the opinion of myself and my nation of Metaphorical Optimism, thought we are decidedly against genocide, we cannot support this resolution as it is currently written.

See what I said above.

*I* do not believe it is self-defense. I simply said that is the most likely excuse in the (sick) minds of those that commit genocide.

One year ago (NS time) I ordered the complete destruction of a city, knowing full well all life in it would be exterminated in the process, in order to destroy a group of rebels. Why? Near that city is a facilty holding hundreds of antimatter bombs and I had determined the rebels would easily overrun the defenses there but did not have enough time to reinforce the defenses of the facility. My question to you: Would you have done the same or risked the rebels going after those weapons, which are publically known to be there, and having weapons of mass destruction to do with as they will? Keep in mind these people have already pretty much slaughtered everyone opposed to them in the city they are in.

Why does it matter whether or not it's "government sactioned"?

It doesn't, but most times it is.

I still say that, in the minds of those that commit genocide, the people that they are trying to wipe out *must* pose a serious threat - why else would they want all those people dead?

I considered the fact they had the manpower to easily get a large supply of weapons more powerful than thermonuclear bombs to be sufficient reason. Do you?

My concerns as the leader is the sovreignty of my own nation. I do not wish to cede control to the TPP and also forfeit any right I may have as a nation to also bring charges against one who violated the resolution. I also disagree that the death penalty is "off the table" no matter how foul the deeds committed. In the opinion of myself and my nation of Metaphorical Optimism, thought we are decidedly against genocide, we cannot support this resolution as it is currently written.

I echo Metaphorical Optimism's opinion, the Resolution is too intrusive into my nation's sovreignty. Enigmatica States cannot support the resolution as written.

One year ago (NS time) I ordered the complete destruction of a city, knowing full well all life in it would be exterminated in the process, in order to destroy a group of rebels. Why? Near that city is a facilty holding hundreds of antimatter bombs and I had determined the rebels would easily overrun the defenses there but did not have enough time to reinforce the defenses of the facility. My question to you: Would you have done the same or risked the rebels going after those weapons, which are publically known to be there, and having weapons of mass destruction to do with as they will? Keep in mind these people have already pretty much slaughtered everyone opposed to them in the city they are in.

It doesn't, but most times it is.

I considered the fact they had the manpower to easily get a large supply of weapons more powerful than thermonuclear bombs to be sufficient reason. Do you?

Of course I do. Why would I think otherwise?

I echo Metaphorical Optimism's opinion, the Resolution is too intrusive into my nation's sovreignty. Enigmatica States cannot support the resolution as written.

You must be a non UN nation, as UN nations agreed to have the UN override their sovereignity.

Of course I do. Why would I think otherwise?

Because I was giving you an example of government-ordered genocide with a justification. You just contradicted yourself.

Because I was giving you an example of government-ordered genocide with a justification. You just contradicted yourself.

It is not genocide if if they *really do* pose a threat. There is a difference between what I described (people who commit genocide *feel* that group of people poses a threat) and the situation you described, when they really were a danger. Big difference between reality and what justification you give yourself in your mind.

Nation B invades Nation A and forces all the women of Nation A to have the children of men in Nation B, and not any children of men in Nation A. This would effectively destroy the future of Nation A because they would only be allowed and would be forced to have children that are not their own (so to speak). This can wipe out a society.
I agree that the scenario you describe here is part and parcel of genocide.

However, your resolution uses merely two words to describe this scenario: forced pregnancy.

Many pro-abortionists consider state compulsion to carry a newly conceived unqiue living individual human being to term to be a forced pregnancy, even if, circumstantially, genocidal inculcation as you describe here is not involved, and the pregnancy occurred through a free-will act of consenting partners, whether or not the pregnancy was intended or desired.

My point is, though I give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intention to address only genocide, that the wording on this matter in your resolution is quite ambiguous within the context of whole-world affairs and could easily be construed, I believe, to apply to the scenario I've mentioned.

So I ask you, TilEnca, what can you provide of assurance that this resolution, if passed, would not find itself being applied to its unintended purpose of the scenario I present to you here, considering that both your intention and my valid concern are identically phrased as forced pregnancy?

It is not genocide if if they *really do* pose a threat. There is a difference between what I described (people who commit genocide *feel* that group of people poses a threat) and the situation you described, when they really were a danger. Big difference between reality and what justification you give yourself in your mind.

Ah, but by the very definition of this resolution (which you have said you subscribe to) it is genocide. Let me quote:

Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).

Now, since no definition of "arbitrary" is provided, time for Mr. Dictionary.

Main Entry: ar·bi·trary
Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan>
- ar·bi·trari·ly /"är-b&-'trer-&-lE/ adverb
- ar·bi·trar·i·ness /'är-b&-"trer-E-n&s/ noun

2b seems to cover this. I had no evidence they would actually go after the storage facility beyond the danger they posed and the fact I was not willing to risk it. Thus, the extermination of a part of society, though a rebellious part, by government order.

You beginning to see where this gets sticky?

Ah, but by the very definition of this resolution (which you have said you subscribe to) it is genocide. Let me quote:

Now, since no definition of "arbitrary" is provided, time for Mr. Dictionary.

2b seems to cover this. I had no evidence they would actually go after the storage facility beyond the danger they posed and the fact I was not willing to risk it. Thus, the extermination of a part of society, though a rebellious part, by government order.

You beginning to see where this gets sticky?

Yes, I hadn't really thought about the definition of "arbitrary criteria", but you're right. Perhaps the phrase "...if the group being exterminated cannot be proven to have posed a threat" should be added.

You must be a non UN nation, as UN nations agreed to have the UN override their sovereignity.

I was a member until you mentioned this and I reread the page on the UN. I am relatively new to Nation States and have decided that it is in the best interests of my nation to make its own way. I have resigned from the UN.

Maybe, though the provision of a court seems to cover it.

Going by the votes so far, this is going to pass, so revisions now are not necessary. Maybe if it fails.

I was a member until you mentioned this and I reread the page on the UN. I am relatively new to Nation States and have decided that it is in the best interests of my nation to make its own way. I have resigned from the UN.

I made the same mistake myself the first time I was here.

If you wish to still vote in the UN, make a puppet and have it do the voting.

I made the same mistake myself the first time I was here.

If you wish to still vote in the UN, make a puppet and have it do the voting.

I spent a little time poking around after my last post. I think I'll stay out until I learn more of Nation States. Metaphorical Optimism has developed into quite the "right leaning" nation. We have banned Harry Potter books :) Yep, we'd be happy in a "red state" ;)

The CRO has voted against this resolution due to Article 4 for three reasons...

1) 4.2 : TPP will sentence those convicted...the TPP will be comprised of a mere fifteen nation panel...15! That does not even make up a quarter of a percent of the nations inside the UN! One word: Bias

2) 4.3 : Those acquitted are free to go...However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light...this will tie up the TPP legal system. Evidence can come in many forms, minute and titanic, so this can only lead The CRO to believe that a soul can be tried over and over again...we are talking about double jeopardy and beyond...

3) 4.4 : TPP will choose where the sentence should be served...are we led to believe that the TPP can say where a prisoner shall be sent, WITHOUT concent of the nation? Plus, lets not forget 15 nations make the call...where do the other 37213 nations (and growing) have a say in this matter?

The only way I can see in my eyes that this will pass is only through rejection and alterations by those who have drafted this burden.

The only way I can see in my eyes that this will pass is only through rejection and alterations by those who have drafted this burden.
Point of order:

Posters to the UN Forums have been discussing and refining the language since November 13 of this year (see the first post for links). TilEnca has been most accomodating to suggestions and language fixes. Why is it only now that it is on the floor of the General Assembly, in non-alterable form, that you and others find time to be critical of the way it was put together?

The best resolutions are created by cooperative input, either here or in offsite forums. If you want to be a part of that process, come and be welcome. If all you want to do is complain once it gets to the floor, I for one wish you'd keep it to yourself.

Following the posts of the numerous people in this thread, both sides of the issue are indeed, to my view legitimate. With regards to those who seek the passing of this resolution, yes we do need a set definition for what constitutes genocide, and as such, would promulgate a speedy prosecution, thereby saving a lot of lives, in the shortest amount of time possible. But the ideas contained within the resolution are not enough; laws, to be enforced, necessitates the provision of having enforcers. Today's UN is all talk, hardly any action, because it doesn't have a standing military, nor the mandate, to effectively go into a region, and protect people. I propose that to the ECG resolution, an addendum pertaining to a military, rapid intervention force.

Right now, I'm going to vote no on this resolution, 'til it gets revised and polished.

If all you want to do is complain once it gets to the floor, I for one wish you'd keep it to yourself.

...but isnt that what the UN is based upon...people complaining about good work?

Theyre just opinions, just like my points are takes on article 4...sorry if I offened anyone else

While the UN is allowed to "aprehend" those responsible, I have reservations as to wether that will stop the action. Without the ability to conduct a unilateral military response the resolution lacks strength to enforce. Unless your willing to attatch a very loose definition to "aprehend" alloting for a degree of colateral damage. :mp5:

While the UN is allowed to "aprehend" those responsible, I have reservations as to wether that will stop the action. Without the ability to conduct a unilateral military response the resolution lacks strength to enforce. Unless your willing to attatch a very loose definition to "aprehend" alloting for a degree of colateral damage. :mp5:

That's the other problem. They will have to fight their way past my military and through my orbital defenses if I choose to not show up for court after committing what I consider justified homicide. And there are nations much bigger and badder than I am that will also resist.

The CRO has voted against this resolution due to Article 4 for three reasons...


Thank you for your comments. I will endeavour to explain the thinking behind them, either for information, or to maybe change your mind :}


1) 4.2 : TPP will sentence those convicted...the TPP will be comprised of a mere fifteen nation panel...15! That does not even make up a quarter of a percent of the nations inside the UN! One word: Bias


Each nation on the Panel supplies 2 members, making a Panel of 30 people. I realise that in comparrison to the size of the UN, but if you have one person from each nation the size of The Panel would be HUGE!!
Secondly - each member of The Panel can be challanged for bias, and the process should insure that The Panel is totally unbiased and capable of rendering a fair decision at the end.


2) 4.3 : Those acquitted are free to go...However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light...this will tie up the TPP legal system. Evidence can come in many forms, minute and titanic, so this can only lead The CRO to believe that a soul can be tried over and over again...we are talking about double jeopardy and beyond...


The idea was that someone should not get away with the murder of twenty thousand people because of a lack of evidence. Sometimes it can take years, decades even, for mass graves to turn up. When they do, do you not think it would be acceptable to bring the person to trial for the death of so many people?

It also says "However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried" - not that they MUST be retried. So if the evidence is a tiny little thing - a letter saying "maybe we should kill them all" - there is not a necessity for a trial. But if a grave with fifty thousand bodies turns up, then there is enough evidence to warrant a new hearing before the panel.


3) 4.4 : TPP will choose where the sentence should be served...are we led to believe that the TPP can say where a prisoner shall be sent, WITHOUT concent of the nation? Plus, lets not forget 15 nations make the call...where do the other 37213 nations (and growing) have a say in this matter?


My original intention with this was that the panel decides, but it can seek advice and guidance and so forth. So TilEnca can volunteer, or can be asked. If The Panel runs out of options then it might be necessary to force a nation to accept a prisoner, however given the 37213 nations that are available, it is not beyond reason they will find a willing one.


Anyway - that was the original thinking behind Article 4 - I hope it helps, even if it doesn't change your opinion.

Following the posts of the numerous people in this thread, both sides of the issue are indeed, to my view legitimate. With regards to those who seek the passing of this resolution, yes we do need a set definition for what constitutes genocide, and as such, would promulgate a speedy prosecution, thereby saving a lot of lives, in the shortest amount of time possible. But the ideas contained within the resolution are not enough; laws, to be enforced, necessitates the provision of having enforcers. Today's UN is all talk, hardly any action, because it doesn't have a standing military, nor the mandate, to effectively go into a region, and protect people. I propose that to the ECG resolution, an addendum pertaining to a military, rapid intervention force.

Right now, I'm going to vote no on this resolution, 'til it gets revised and polished.

You are aware that this is not the Real UN? And that the laws in here will be enacted in all nations should it actually pass.

And I am almost sure that if this contained an article about military intervention it would get voted down by he largest margin in history. But I could be wrong about that :}

The People of Demographika are concerned about the power that the TPP has in investigation of genocides. Whilst we are in full support of U.N. power to hold genocidal criminals to justice and the rule of law, we are concerned that the resolution does not adequately define the powers that the TPP has, and could result in serious negation of our rights as citizens.
Demographika will not cast its vote until we have been assured that we are able to pass legislation to guard against the TPP using powers that would contravene the rights of our citizens.

The People of Demographika are concerned about the power that the TPP has in investigation of genocides. Whilst we are in full support of U.N. power to hold genocidal criminals to justice and the rule of law, we are concerned that the resolution does not adequately define the powers that the TPP has, and could result in serious negation of our rights as citizens.
Demographika will not cast its vote until we have been assured that we are able to pass legislation to guard against the TPP using powers that would contravene the rights of our citizens.

Could you explain in what way you are concerned?

...but isnt that what the UN is based upon...people complaining about good work?




While you may get personal enjoyment out of complaining about things, there have been many nations that have worked continuously for the past month on this convention. It should be obvious that the UN stands for more than just a bitch fest.

At the beginning of this thread Frisbeeterian provided some links to the draft debates and discussions. Please consider reading them. I think they will illustrate the amount of thought and time that has gone into this.

Furthermore there was a previous Genocide based proposal that failed to reach quorum that also might provide some insight here. If your government is interested I'll see if I can dig up that thread.

Could you explain in what way you are concerned?

We are concerned at the clause stating that the TPP is provided with whatever powers it needs when investigating the genocide case. These powers, by this statement, are unlimited.

We are concerned at the clause stating that the TPP is provided with whatever powers it needs when investigating the genocide case. These powers, by this statement, are unlimited.

Actually, they aren't. They have to abide by all current resolutions within the UN (so no abuse of prisoners and so forth), and they can only do things that relate to the investigation.

I realise you have answered my quesiton, but if you could site a specific example (you are scared The Panel will kidnap all your children, for example) then I might be able to help a little more :}

Point of order:

Posters to the UN Forums have been discussing and refining the language since November 13 of this year (see the first post for links). TilEnca has been most accomodating to suggestions and language fixes. Why is it only now that it is on the floor of the General Assembly, in non-alterable form, that you and others find time to be critical of the way it was put together?

The best resolutions are created by cooperative input, either here or in offsite forums. If you want to be a part of that process, come and be welcome. If all you want to do is complain once it gets to the floor, I for one wish you'd keep it to yourself.
I do hope to have more time in the future to be as proactive as I would like to be. I would indeed prefer to address issues ahead of time in the sequence they will come up for a UN vote. Lately, however, what with the holidays and all ... well, you know ... and I barely have time to address a pending issue when I think it may be nearing its final form .

Still ... you have to admit, that I would be remiss to keep silent on a critical point merely because I just now discovered it.

Indeed, if the "forced pregnancy" wording, which was broached prior to this resolution appearing on the floor, was not resolved then, that's no reason for us to remain silent on the seriousness of its implication at this point.

Considering that this matter was broached and dropped without acknowlegment of the contention at the heart of the matter, its remaining presence is somewhat suspect, to say the least, especially considering TilEnca has yet to respond to my post of concern ... and voters may benefit from knowing about it at this time.

§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due Process



A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Votes For: 9027

Votes Against: 4677

Implemented: Wed Aug 13 2003


Hmm....

I would indeed prefer to address issues ahead of time in the sequence they will come up for a UN vote.
This resolution was fairly typical in that it achieved quorum mere hours before the deadline. Others never see the forums at all - "No Marriage Under Age of 15" was approved entirely by telegram campaign organized within the authors region, I believe, and the author never once responded to the forum topic during the vote. Poor form in my book, but there's no rule against it.

There's pretty much no way to predict what will reach quorum except by careful and regular scanning of the List Proposals view. Of course, you could become an active campaigner and try to push your own agenda here and via telegram. Proactive beats reactive every time, especially when it comes to frustration level. Once it's on the floor, there's not a thing anyone can do to alter it. Thumbs up / Thumbs down is the best you can hope for.

So, do we continue voting on this?
Or do the mods delete it after it is passed?

Hmm....
Guess we'll have to pick a different scapegoat for the second trial ... or vary the charges slightly so it's actually a different crime. Easy enough to loophole, AP.

Considering what AP posted, I cannot support this illegal resolution.

Due process applies to any person, irrespective of the governing body trying them, whether it be a UN Member NS, or the UN itself.

This is an illegal resolution as written.

The issue I have with this resolution, is that in its current wording I do not think that "genocide" is thouroughly defined.
In its present form, the resolution fails to specify the act of genocide as the killing of non-military persons. For example, nation A invades nation B. We will presume that the military personnel of nation A share a common ethnicity. Under the the current document, if nation B were to kill a large portion of the military of nation A in order to repel the invasion, wouldn't they be guilty of committing genocide?
Secondly, the document is very unclear as to how many deaths it takes for the act to be declared as genocide, and it probably would be impossible to come up with such a number, based on the huge differneces in the populations of various nations/ethnic groups.
In conclusion, while I and the nation of Pwnsylvakia do not condone mass murder by any means, I cannot vote in favor of this resolution, simply because if implemented, it could never be enforced as it is intended to be.

So, do we continue voting on this?
Or do the mods delete it after it is passed?
Neither. If Rights of Minorities and Women can stay on the books despite it's blantant contradictions to previous proposals, this minor detail won't get it pulled.

Besides, only Admin can pull resolutions that are already on the floor, and to the best of my knowledge it's never been done. nine illegal proposals were removed (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) during the time that the site was down when we moved to Jolt. Apart from that, no proposal under vote or already passed has been touched.

So, do we continue voting on this?
Or do the mods delete it after it is passed?

How do you define "the same crime"? Can someone be tried for murder twice, if it is two different people? I would hope so, otherwise you would only need to murder one person and that would be it - free licence to kill for the rest of time.

So by the same extention, trying someone twice for the crime of genocide can be broken down in to two different causes, making it not the same crime.

(loop holes are pretty easy to find sometimes!)

Due process applies to any person, irrespective of the governing body trying them, whether it be a UN Member NS, or the UN itself.

This is an illegal resolution as written.

Sorry - but I don't buy that. If you try Mr Smith for a murder, and he is acquitted, you can then try Mr Jones for the same murder, otherwise there would be no point to it.

And - as I explained above, it can easily be rectified :}

Neither. If Rights of Minorities and Women can stay on the books despite it's blantant contradictions to previous proposals, this minor detail won't get it pulled.

Besides, only Admin can pull resolutions that are already on the floor, and to the best of my knowledge it's never been done. nine illegal proposals were removed (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) during the time that the site was down when we moved to Jolt. Apart from that, no proposal under vote or already passed has been touched.

Was it a blatant contradiction, or subject matter already covered by other proposals?

This is a blatant contradiction.
The Law of the Sea is illegal.
This one will be also.

Take out that clause and re-submit the proposal.

Take out that clause and re-submit the proposal.
A) Can't.
B) Won't

NSUN is so full of illegalitites it isn't funny. Nonetheless, we move on.

If you and DLE want to reverse your votes and take a moral stand on it, more power to ya. Build a case around it and RP it out here. Just leave Admin and the mods out of it, because they can't/won't do anything about it, and it's gonna pass anyway.

If it is a different person, then the same person is not being retried for the same crime Til. Therefore it is not doublejeopardy.

[Quote]So by the same extention, trying someone twice for the crime of genocide can be broken down in to two different causes, making it not the same crime.[Quote]

The cause of action would have to be for a different action of genocide. You can not be tried for the same act of genocide twice.

IF the cause of action violates some other human right, they can be tried for that. They can not be tried for the same act of genocide twice. Irregardless of cause of action.

You can not be tried for the same act twice.
You can not be tried for the same act twice.
You can not be tried for the same act twice.

A) Can't.
B) Won't

NSUN is so full of illegalitites it isn't funny. Nonetheless, we move on.

If you and DLE want to reverse your votes and take a moral stand on it, more power to ya. Build a case around it and RP it out here. Just leave Admin and the mods out of it, because they can't/won't do anything about it, and it's gonna pass anyway.

In which case, you pretty much undermine any attempts you make to argue something as illegal, as I can always refer back to this resolution and make an arguement for hypocrisy.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: I have no use for morality in arguing this proposals and resolutions. Logic I have a use for. Legallity, a use for. Morality is a crutch.

A) Can't.
B) Won't

NSUN is so full of illegalitites it isn't funny. Nonetheless, we move on.

If you and DLE want to reverse your votes and take a moral stand on it, more power to ya. Build a case around it and RP it out here. Just leave Admin and the mods out of it, because they can't/won't do anything about it, and it's gonna pass anyway.

I do not RP.
My contention is not one of morals so much as consistency. And I consistently go against inconsistent resolutions.
The case has been presented and is uncontestable.
That it passes is irrelevant.
Komokon will label it illegal as has been done to other illegal resolutions.
Especially if that is your attitude.
AP will support a version that will not be deemed illegal and is consistent with UN Law.

I realise that it does look as if it is in violation of due process, but honestly if you try someone for the mass murder of twenty thousand civillians, but can't find the bodies, then they will most likely be acquitted (unless there some other evidence like a video of the accused saying 'bwahahahah!! they will all die before me!!!').

But then you start finding bodies, and it turns out that it's not twenty thousand - its two hundred thousand.

Does that not make it a different crime than before?

And if this really is going to be an issue, there are many different ways for The Panel to make it a different crime for which the person is being tried.

I realise that it does look as if it is in violation of due process, but honestly if you try someone for the mass murder of twenty thousand civillians, but can't find the bodies, then they will most likely be acquitted (unless there some other evidence like a video of the accused saying 'bwahahahah!! they will all die before me!!!').

But then you start finding bodies, and it turns out that it's not twenty thousand - its two hundred thousand.

Does that not make it a different crime than before?

And if this really is going to be an issue, there are many different ways for The Panel to make it a different crime for which the person is being tried.

You can't try them for the 20,000 you suspected them of. You can try them for the 180,000 you didn't and managed to find. So, yes, it does make a different crime.

The issue I have with this resolution, is that in its current wording I do not think that "genocide" is thouroughly defined.
In its present form, the resolution fails to specify the act of genocide as the killing of non-military persons. For example, nation A invades nation B. We will presume that the military personnel of nation A share a common ethnicity. Under the the current document, if nation B were to kill a large portion of the military of nation A in order to repel the invasion, wouldn't they be guilty of committing genocide?
Secondly, the document is very unclear as to how many deaths it takes for the act to be declared as genocide, and it probably would be impossible to come up with such a number, based on the huge differneces in the populations of various nations/ethnic groups.
In conclusion, while I and the nation of Pwnsylvakia do not condone mass murder by any means, I cannot vote in favor of this resolution, simply because if implemented, it could never be enforced as it is intended to be.

Here's the thing. No - they would not be guilty of committing genocide. Because you would not be killing them because they are of a given ethnicity - you would be killing them because they are invading your country. If you then went further and killed every single person in the invading nation who shared that ethnicity, just because you wanted to, that would be genocide. And consequently a bad thing.

And I believe it can be enforced as intended :}

You can't try them for the 20,000 you suspected them of. You can try them for the 180,000 you didn't and managed to find. So, yes, it does make a different crime.

(OOC - you are not being sarcastic I hope. Cause that would really depress me right now!)

(OOC - you are not being sarcastic I hope. Cause that would really depress me right now!)

OOC: Nope. There have been several court cases in US history where a person has been found innocent of one murder, only to be convicted of a different, related murder. There are also cases where people have gotten off innocent on a murder and then confessed to it afterwards, revealing they really were the murderer. It's depressing, but a fact of life.

I do not RP.
My contention is not one of morals so much as consistency. And I consistently go against inconsistent resolutions.
You do RP. Here in the UN, as Anti Pharisaism.

My view is one of pragmatism. I'm all for removing illegal proposals before they hit the floor, and I'm glad to say that I've been directly responsible for getting several of them removed after making quorum but before they hit the voting floor. Nonetheless, once they're out there, they don't get removed or altered. The game code won't allow it.

I have a laundry list of illegal proposals, topped by The Law of the Sea. I'll be glad to support a repeal, but I'm not pissed enough to propose one of my own. Let me know when and where, and I'll be happy to pitch in towards a repeal of the illegal crap.

I'd be delighted to repeal back to a blank slate, and start it up with a proper UN Charter. Wanna go for that?

Due process applies to any person, irrespective of the governing body trying them, whether it be a UN Member NS, or the UN itself.

This is an illegal resolution as written.

The two actually are different IMHO.

The Fair Trial resolution (which what is a himsefl) is poorly written. Looking at the date: Aug 2003, I'd call it a domestic law resolution, i.e. a resolution like the gay rights resolution.

While at its heart, this resolution is an international law resolution.

In short, this is legal, because the context of the resolutions is two different legal venues: domestic vs. international.

(This is why the many nations begging for more domestic sovereignty protections have a good point.)

OOC: In real life the rights granted to Americans frequently have little meaning in the courts of other bodies / nations. If I were guilty of a crime in Switzerland, obviously Swiss rights would apply ... not the traditional American laws. Travel books basically warn you to not get caught with drugs, as unlike many other European countries, the Swiss (inventors of LSD) don't treat users with the kid gloves. While in the US or Netherlands this is a different matter.

However, the real World Court / ICJ, has its own unique standards. I'm not that familiar with what those standards are, but a NS example of where we make a difference between domestic vs. national, Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban. We've constantly said and roleplayed that the resolution says that the UN can not directly bill citizens, but that it still has the legal authority to collect funds from UN members. In fact, I'd argue that when some resolutions pass, the changes in our economies reflect UN activity in addition to domestic.

This is the direct vs. representative / indirect argument, and we've seen this many times in 2004.

In any event, we are talking not about domestic courts. The panel is composed of 15 judges from different nations, right? Not 15 domestic judges. The reason we are talking about elevating this issue to a higher court (i.e. an international level) is because crimes of genocide are scale based.

We aren't talking about the destruction / termination of 50 people or even 500. We are realistically talking about the systematic sentencing to death of thousands if not millions of people, and the justification for international action, is as I stated earlier, as much about human rights (humanitarian intervention / prevention of these crimes) as it is about international security (as I have repeatedly pointed out while walking many of you through some of the historical pressures that lead to the Second World War and the Holocaust).

Look, this is one issue on which I don't pretend to be the best educated. The law is far from my field of expertise, especially related to courts.

On this one, I shall choose to wait rather than making a final decision. Maybe one of you will utterly convince me. Maybe not. Either way, this is likely to get passed.

And, I deleted the post someone used my puppet nation for that reported this as illegal. I'm about to personally deal with them.

Firstly, can I apologise for not answering your question before now. The thing is with so many subthreads going on in here, and so many people debating the issue, I have decided to make it a policy not to jump in to a debate between two people (such as you and Frisbeeteria) unless I am asked directly. I know - sometimes it looks like I am not answering cause I don't have an answer, but the truth is I don't want to get things confused beyond reason, and that is the best way to do it :}

But now :-

I do hope to have more time in the future to be as proactive as I would like to be. I would indeed prefer to address issues ahead of time in the sequence they will come up for a UN vote. Lately, however, what with the holidays and all ... well, you know ... and I barely have time to address a pending issue when I think it may be nearing its final form .

Still ... you have to admit, that I would be remiss to keep silent on a critical point merely because I just now discovered it.


I am not so much concerned with that. However, as it has been pointed out, this resolution was not created last Saturday and submitted last Sunday - it has been around for nearly a month now.

But that is all water over the damn I suppose :}


Indeed, if the "forced pregnancy" wording, which was broached prior to this resolution appearing on the floor, was not resolved then, that's no reason for us to remain silent on the seriousness of its implication at this point.

Considering that this matter was broached and dropped without acknowlegment of the contention at the heart of the matter, its remaining presence is somewhat suspect, to say the least, especially considering TilEnca has yet to respond to my post of concern ... and voters may benefit from knowing about it at this time.

As far as I can gather, it was not questioned on it's own. Someone (and please forgive me but I can not remember who it was - there has been A LOT of discussion on this in the past month, including two visits to ModWorld on IRC) asked why genocide should cover anything other than murder. They didn't ask about the pregnancy thing specifically - just everything that wasn't murder. So as for it being broached and dropped - that didn't happen to forced pregnancy on it's own - just as a group of other things.

And the answer to that (and I promise I will get to your question in a moment, but I am trying to be as thourough as I can) was that these are all ways in which someone could systematically and effectively wipe out a society or a nation if that someone put their mind to it. And the list isn't exhaustive - there are other ways that it could be achieved, but sadly my mind is not twisted enough to think of them :}

The answer to your question is this....

If a nation outlaws abortion, then women would have to carry the children to term. Which yes - can be defined as forced pregnancy. However it is done across everyone. And while females can be described as a "group" there is a difference between saying all black women must have white children, and saying all women must have all children, regardless of the father.

I realise that is a vague explanation, but I am hoping you can see the difference. Forbidding abortion because you disagree with it is not the same as saying you must have this person's child and this person's child only.

Look, this is one issue on which I don't pretend to be the best educated. The law is far from my field of expertise, especially related to courts.

On this one, I shall choose to wait rather than making a final decision. Maybe one of you will utterly convince me. Maybe not. Either way, this is likely to get passed.

And, I deleted the post someone used my puppet nation for that reported this as illegal. I'm about to personally deal with them.

I admit my legal knowledge is not the best in the three realms either. I was a magician and a software programmer before I became President. (OOC - I am actually a software programmer and have no idea about international law).

I didn't think someone should be permitted to commit genocide and not be brought to trial for it if more evidence was found of the scope of the crime. Because it is such a large crime, and can potentially cover a lot of nations in it's scope.

(OOC - I went down the modcave and the mod I spoke to agreed that this was not a reason to delete it. Whether that helps or not I don't know, but it made me feel better)

OOC: I was not actually going to report it. It had survived several mod cleanings, so it was obviously at least mostly legal and considered enough to pass. But a certain someone decided to try out my accounts without letting me know first.

To be honest, the headaches this has caused are... immense. Pretty much both sides are dealing with complex issues they are not trained for and doing the best they can. Give me a few hours to clear my head of the jumble.

I fail to see this as being a point against this resolution.
It isn't... that whole post was just as answer to your comment that genocide cannot by out of self defence. (As it isn't... it kinda makes the rest of your post good reading but, quite out of the blue and even further unrelated.)

As it stands: Both the Israeli and Palestinians would claim selfdefence in case either succeded in wiping out the other, both have already used this arguement as an excuse to commit further antrocities upon eachother. This brings up an interesting question however: what do we rather have, ungoing perpetual war or genocide?

Genocide in self defence isn't all that strange though, about every scifi action movie (and a large number of books) shows us exactly that. In Independece Day (ID4) the entire alien race is wiped out because else they'd wipe out the entire humanrace. One could argue that this constitutes to the even bigger crime of "xenocide", but that's also what we try to do on a day to day basis upon virii and bacterii.

The "Ender" novels by Orson Scott Card delve deeply into this dillemma and basically comes up with the reasoning that xenocide is allowed when there is a definite "either them or us" situation and no reasoning or communication possible. Between two human peoples one may assume some reason and communication is always possible. (Although, throughout history, the Israeli's and Palestinians have shown a remarkable lack thereof.)

My point is... <snipped essay> ...much of a threat?
The only thing here is that you claimed that genocide out of self defence was absolutely impossible, I disagreed and took the Palestina problem as an example - I in NO WAY suggested that ALL genocides are committed because of a "self defence" angle. Most of your post is just stating the obvious, and a lot is largely unrelated.

The Israelis first invaded Palestinian lands? Are you suggesting that the Israelis never lived in Palestine / Israel prior to "the Exodus"?

<OT> Not suggesting, knowing. All evidence (also from their own books) shows that the Jews lived in Africa, not Palestine, before they moved to Egypt the first time. Note that there's no mention of crossing the Sinaii or Red Sea on the way to Egypt, only on the way out. About all business with Egypt was also conducted via the Nile south wards towards Numibia and all Joseph (GEN.49-50) had to do was follow the waters of the Nile.

Most likely (ok, definitely) the Jews originated from what we now call Northern Etheopia, which is also why there's always been strong connections between that region and Judaism, why the "Lost Black Tribe" was found there in the 80s and why the Arc is most likely located there. Further connection can be found in matters like the "Lion of Sion" etc.

One should also understand that we are talking millenia before christ here, and at that time Northern Etheopia was at least as civilized then the middle east and much more advanced then the entirety of europe. (And ecologically quite the garden of Eden at that.)

All of this may sound strange to us, who have been since Roman times focussed on the Mediteranian-centric view. But one should not forget that the Upper Kingdom of Egypt often was more important in those days and that the Mediteranian was literally a backwater then. Besides: humanity stems from Africa anyways, so why would that be different for the Jews?

And yes, this means that Moses took a few wrong turns (or actually the right one: the south border of Egypt was probably better defended) and went North instead of South. After his people had become weary of struggling through the Sinaii he promised them that they'd have a home over the next mountain tops... never figuring that there may already been people living there: the Philistines; or, as spelling changes over the millenia: the Palestines.

It was an invasion and the trouble between the two never ended until the Romans, with centuries of experience in such matters, got fed up and took measures. It was quite typical of the western world after 1945 to assume they knew better.. which resulted in a renewed fight between the two peoples. Only now its Ali with a slingshot against David in a tank... quite the change from the first time that story was told. </OT>

Again... like the Romans apparently realized there's just a few solutions to this ongoing conflict: genocide or deportation. And whoever of the two peoples accomplishes these first will claim that it was in self defence... probably rightfully so because both are really making a go at it.

Perhaps the phrase "...if the group being exterminated cannot be proven to have posed a threat" should be added.
Perhaps one may consider that if one CAN forcibly exterminate a group, it can't have been all that much of a threat.

§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.

Nice try, but too broad. What is torture? The UN definition of this outlaws any sort of corporal punishment for any crime. Any nation that tries to control it's crime problem by using corporal punishment runs the risk of "committing genocide" if it can be shown that criminals so punished disproportionately belong to some protected group. Likewise, if a nation removes children from homes it considers "unfit", again, that counts as "extermination" by "familial separation" if the affected children belong to a protected group. To quailify as genocide, a crime must be shown as a clear attempt to eliminate a protected group, although the method used may take generations (such by forced marriage).

§3. ...Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.

This phrase effectively invalidates the previous one. Effectively, anyone can be prosecuted for genocide, whether acting under the color of a state or not.

§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

If a state genuinely believes that genocide is necessary for self-defence, the first response to any sort of UN or TPP enforcement action would be to withdraw from the UN. The UN charter is not a suicide pact.

Really, what's the point of this whole section? Without it, a state claiming self-defence would have to convince a panel of 15 other nations that the act of deliberately trying to exterminate a protected group, down to eliminating women and children as members of that group, was a necessary and reasonable act in it's own self defense. With the possible exception of an alien race invading from another world, I have a hard time seeing how they could be successful.

§2. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers.

This is also meaningless. A state can appoint a putative member with no diplomatic experience to be ambassador to the tiny island nation of Puddlespit (no offense if there really is a Puddlespit in the game) one day, then designate this "diplomat" to be their representative to the TPP the next. Likewise, a state can revise their bar exam as needed to create "instant lawyers".

§3. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating.

Extradition of witnesses? Now, there's some heady Star Chamber stuff! Will these witnesses have the right to be free from self-incrimination? If so, what's the point of dragging them across the sea to testify? If not, are you going to grant them asylum after they just finger the former "generalissimo-for-life", when the current "generalissimo-for-life" is his brother? I doubt they'll be too eager to go back home...

This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.

Which means this whole convention is only enforceable upon UN member nations.

§3. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.

This needs clarification, or else proceedings can stretch on for decades. Limit this to new charges only (for crimes that were not considered under the old charges), or the old charges will only be disposed of by conviction.

§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

This is of symbolic value only. If said generalissimo is ever discharged, he is free to go back to his country and serve as First, Special, and Primary Assisstant-for-Life to the Acting Generalissimo-for-Life, Who is My Dearest (and Subservient) Brother. All this does is keep him from acting as nominal head of state...not from starting up a new campaign of butchery.

I like a general prohibition on genocide, and there is much here that is good. But in it's present form, I must regrettfully vote NO.

Perhaps one may consider that if one CAN forcibly exterminate a group, it can't have been all that much of a threat.

Go back to page 9 and read my posts on it. In one post I posted a case of justified genocide where I could eradicate the people and they did serve a very large threat.

One year ago (NS time) I ordered the complete destruction of a city, knowing full well all life in it would be exterminated in the process, in order to destroy a group of rebels. Why? Near that city is a facilty holding hundreds of antimatter bombs and I had determined the rebels would easily overrun the defenses there but did not have enough time to reinforce the defenses of the facility. My question to you: Would you have done the same or risked the rebels going after those weapons, which are publically known to be there, and having weapons of mass destruction to do with as they will? Keep in mind these people have already pretty much slaughtered everyone opposed to them in the city they are in.

This is another case of genocide in self defence, based on an "us or them" system. Because RP you can obviously create the situation where no communication or reason can exist between the two parties, which your story shows.

However one could argue that you could also have targetted the facility holding the WMDs instead.... Apparently you held the value of those weapons in higher regard then the population of that city. I am not sure I would've handled the same, or that this does not constitute regular criminal genocide.

However its comparable to bombing any city (Guernica, the Blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...) and then one again comes onto the question why you are only trialed for such matters if you loose the war (If your action is genocide, what about Truman?).

Its my opinion genocide is only used as an excuse to have a showtrial and then execute the loosers of a conflict - comparable to what humanity did in the olden days on the top of the pyramids of mexico for example.

I am opposed to this proposal because it will only be usable as such an excuse and will do absolutely nothing from preventing genocide in the future.

Much like the real UN's resolution against genocide hasn't stopped the Red Kmehr, Rwanda, Sudan, etc...

After spending awhile doing research on international law (that makes US seem simple...), considering the arguements on here, and looking at passed attempts to get resolutions passed that have resulted in them never having a chance, I've decided to change my position. I'll support this, with extreme reservations.

If a nation outlaws abortion, then women would have to carry the children to term. Which yes - can be defined as forced pregnancy. However it is done across everyone. And while females can be described as a "group" there is a difference between saying all black women must have white children, and saying all women must have all children, regardless of the father.

I realise that is a vague explanation, but I am hoping you can see the difference. Forbidding abortion because you disagree with it is not the same as saying you must have this person's child and this person's child only.
Thank you for replying to my concern.

You have presented here an attempt to differentiate between the two meanings of "forced pregnancy" that I presented earlier.

However, I wasn't asking for a conceptual differentiation presentation. I believe I clearly asked how your resolution would differentiate between the two meanings of "forced pregnancy" as I already described them.

This differentiation and the method of performing the differentiation is important, as if the pro-abortion resolution is ever repealed, this resolution's ambiguity could be construed to support no-questions-asked abortion.

I can see the difference in the two. Would the U.N. see the difference when judging a case?

Do you see my point, and my question?

I believe that your resolution would be more clearly representative of its intent if instead of the phrase "forced pregnancy" it employed the phrase "forced impregnation". Impregnation is an act that occurs early in the life of the newly conceived unique living individual human being. Impregnation is also an act-implying noun which, in this case, is an act that has a definite beginning -- after conception -- and a definite ending -- the completion of the attachment of the newly conceived human being to the vaginal wall -- and the completion of impregnation occurs with essentially nine months of pregnancy remaining.

However, worded as "forced impregnation" would still allow pro-abortionists to appeal to this resolution to abort chemically after conception and before impregnation.

So therefore the most appropriate succinct phrase here for your resolution that truly describes the genocidal issue you wish to address would be "limiting choice of breeding partners on the basis of race or national group", as this phrase covers everything relevant to the matter without creating a vague ambiguity that could be misapplied to abortion.

This is another case of genocide in self defence, based on an "us or them" system. Because RP you can obviously create the situation where no communication or reason can exist between the two parties, which your story shows.

True.

However one could argue that you could also have targetted the facility holding the WMDs instead.... Apparently you held the value of those weapons in higher regard then the population of that city. I am not sure I would've handled the same, or that this does not constitute regular criminal genocide.

Actually, targetting the facility would have been suicide. Antimatter bombs work by using a magnetic field to keep the matter and antimatter separated. To detonate, it drops this field. That is why shooting the bomb will cause it to detonate. It's about like trying to stop gasoline from igniting by using a flamethrower on it.

However its comparable to bombing any city (Guernica, the Blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...) and then one again comes onto the question why you are only trialed for such matters if you loose the war (If your action is genocide, what about Truman?).

I've accused Truman of genocide on multiple occasions. In this resolution, I would be tried for the crime anyway.

Its my opinion genocide is only used as an excuse to have a showtrial and then execute the loosers of a conflict - comparable to what humanity did in the olden days on the top of the pyramids of mexico for example.

Actually, this is a case of a resolution that does not care about winners or losers. If they use genocide to win, they go to trial. If they use it and lose, whether or not there is anyone left alive to put on trial becomes an issue.

I am opposed to this proposal because it will only be usable as such an excuse and will do absolutely nothing from preventing genocide in the future.

It may not prevent it, but it is as close as you can get. Genocide happens for a variety of reasons.

Much like the real UN's resolution against genocide hasn't stopped the Red Kmehr, Rwanda, Sudan, etc...

Unlike the real UN, with this one you don't have a choice. As long as you are a UN member, you must obey the resolutions.

Actually, targetting the facility would have been suicide. Antimatter bombs work by using a magnetic field to keep the matter and antimatter separated. To detonate, it drops this field. That is why shooting the bomb will cause it to detonate. It's about like trying to stop gasoline from igniting by using a flamethrower on it.
As its a fantasy weapon, another fantasy solution could've been made up though. Like a "bomb" that encases the entire facility in an impregnable cocoon, or a forcefield that encapsulates it and then accellerates into outerspace. (etc.)

I've accused Truman of genocide on multiple occasions. In this resolution, I would be tried for the crime anyway.
And who would have the power to arrest and trial the president of the USA for that?

Actually, this is a case of a resolution that does not care about winners or losers. If they use genocide to win, they go to trial. If they use it and lose, whether or not there is anyone left alive to put on trial becomes an issue.
As the Truman example shows, this is not true. It is also not true for Stalin, Mao and other victors. Those that win a war are commonly not easily touched, because they apparently have large military resources. This is often also the reason why they conduct such activities: who dares to object or take action against them?

Many NS stations may object to your extermination of a city, but many NS nations would also not be able to take on your country, seen as its equiped with anti-matter bombs and such. The same would apply to future instances.

It may not prevent it, but it is as close as you can get. Genocide happens for a variety of reasons.
None of which are prevented by this resolution.

Unlike the real UN, with this one you don't have a choice. As long as you are a UN member, you must obey the resolutions.
So the next time you have some "rebellious trouble" you just first quit the UN, vape that town, and rejoin when the dust has settled?

Again: its an empty resolution that will just be used as an excuse for harrassing other heads of state, invading weaker countries and for the hanging of scapegoats, those unfortunate enough to loose a war or those that don't have doomsday devices.

Perhaps one may consider that if one CAN forcibly exterminate a group, it can't have been all that much of a threat.

I agree, that is logical.

____The next has nothing to do with SCO-land's comments___

Another point raised is "what if we have to kill all the aliens attacking from ID4 just like Will Smith and Bill Pullman did!"

Guess what? Genocide is large scale and systematic murder of an ethnic or cultural group, not because that group poses a military threat to you, but because they are simply different.

Ask yourself this:
Why did Hitler kill so many Jews?
Why did Will Smith kill so many bugs / space roaches?

If you honestly think that the two are related, I'd honestly love to take you on a tour and introduce you to some Holocaust survivors *and* Will Smith (whom I don't know, but perhaps my government can arrange a meeting). I'm absolutely confident both would be very annoyed by this belief.

I'm only half kidding. Holocaust survivors are still alive today and would probably would find governments comparing the systematic termination of a group of humans because of not their military power, but the religion they were born into with a Hollywood depiction of a Marine using a F-18 to kill *a single* alien mothership that was systematically destroying all human life as being, in a single word:

SAD!


Use your brains. The ID4 example is way out of line.

Don't like me using examples from the 1930s/1940s? We've talked about Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Sudan, and a few other places where the pattern is consistent ... genocide is not masked as a "police action" or expansion of borders in order to promote international peace and security. Still not making since, we can talk more about Israel and Palestine ... but guess what, if the Israeli government were to simply kill every non-Jew, not because there was a chance he or she might be a suicide bomber, but because they weren't Jewish, that too is genocide.

The key: ethnicity and cultural identity. Not suit-case bomb, but ethnic background.

Frankly, it is clear that many of the ambassadors here are going to continue to support this in favour of "self-defense" (which is a logical falacy). But I'm not going to buy that until you honestly can turn around and convince a Holocaust or Rwandan survivor. Look these people in the eyes and tell the rest of us if you honestly believe that just because these individuals were born to different TRIBES that they pose a threat.

Don't make the mistake of saying genocide is simply mass murder. It is not. It is mass murder that is motivated not by self protection. As SCO-land correctly pointed out ... if it is easy to implement a systematic (not a "Luke Skywalker / Anakin Skywalker Lucky Shot Down a Thermal Exhaust Port") program of extermination of so many people ... those people obviously weren't that much of a security threat, or guess what ... *gasp* they'd stop their own executions.

Thank you for replying to my concern.


Better late than never I suppose.


You have presented here an attempt to differentiate between the two meanings of "forced pregnancy" that I presented earlier.

However, I wasn't asking for a conceptual differentiation presentation. I believe I clearly asked how your resolution would differentiate between the two meanings of "forced pregnancy" as I already described them.


Sorry. I guess I misunderstood, or didn't explain properly.


This differentiation and the method of performing the differentiation is important, as if the pro-abortion resolution is ever repealed, this resolution's ambiguity could be construed to support no-questions-asked abortion.

I can see the difference in the two. Would the U.N. see the difference when judging a case?


Yes. Or at least that is the intention behind the proposal. Banning abortion in and of itself it not an attempt or an act of genocide. However if the law banning it, or the order banning it, applies in such away that it would weaken or destroy part of the society that the order is applied to, then it could be considered asn act of genocide. If however it is just "you can't be having abortions no more" then that is not picking or attacking a specific group - it is just a law.


Do you see my point, and my question?


I do, and hopefully answered it above (I am doing this in a random order)


So therefore the most appropriate succinct phrase here for your resolution that truly describes the genocidal issue you wish to address would be "limiting choice of breeding partners on the basis of race or national group", as this phrase covers everything relevant to the matter without creating a vague ambiguity that could be misapplied to abortion.

However it is a long phrase, and the proposal is two characters under the limit as it stands. And I think that the phrase "forced pregnancy" doesn't stand on it's own, but as a part of an article that says it must be done as part of a systematic attempt to wipe out the society.

I honestly believe that it will not be an issue.

As its a fantasy weapon, another fantasy solution could've been made up though. Like a "bomb" that encases the entire facility in an impregnable cocoon, or a forcefield that encapsulates it and then accellerates into outerspace. (etc.)

Most of which is beyond the technical level of my nation and would be both techwanking and godmoding.

And who would have the power to arrest and trial the president of the USA for that?

Cruise missile to the White House would do a good enough job of that. Hold on while I invent my time machine and steal an aircraft carrier.

As the Truman example shows, this is not true. It is also not true for Stalin, Mao and other victors. Those that win a war are commonly not easily touched, because they apparently have large military resources. This is often also the reason why they conduct such activities: who dares to object or take action against them?

Uh, this is NS, not reality. In NS, resolutions are automatically enforced by magical gnomes that have godlike powers and enjoy taking people into backrooms and "talking" with them.

However, I have a distinct advantage some do not.

Many NS stations may object to your extermination of a city, but many NS nations would also not be able to take on your country, seen as its equiped with anti-matter bombs and such. The same would apply to future instances.

Most NS nations can't even reach mine, as it's nearly 2000 lightyears away from Earth.

None of which are prevented by this resolution.

True.

So the next time you have some "rebellious trouble" you just first quit the UN, vape that town, and rejoin when the dust has settled?

No need. DLE is both a singular nation and a multination empire. Just limit the UN resolution to the one part of the empire actually in the UN and glass as many rebels as I want. That's how I dodge around the hydrogen cars resolution.

Again: its an empty resolution that will just be used as an excuse for harrassing other heads of state, invading weaker countries and for the hanging of scapegoats, those unfortunate enough to loose a war or those that don't have doomsday devices.

Partially true. However, they'll also try to enforce it on larger nations as well.

Here's my question: How can it be enforced without using WMD and having a full-scale war? Hell, just trying to get into my nation right now involves fighting your way past hundreds of ships and, depending on the planet, up to three orbital platforms with four ion cannons apiece (soon to include plasma cannons and multiple disruptor turrets as soon as I upgrade them from fusion reactors to antimatter reactors and finish developing plasma cannons).

Genocide is large scale and systematic murder of an ethnic or cultural group, not because that group poses a military threat to you, but because they are simply different.
The point is that in defending oneself, one may be "a bit" more brutal in your actions if the opposing force is more "alien"/"foreign". And the central part of any military action is often the "dehumanisation" of the opponent. This is often needed because healthy human beings (which soldiers generally are, or start out as) oppose the killing of other human beings mentally.

But because the enemy is made into "Nazi's", "Gooks", "Terrorists", "Teatowels" (etc.) they are suddenly not "human" anymore and as such don't deserve the same treeatment "worthy"/"human" opponent would. This often rapidly decays into military brutality in the line of what happened at My Lai, Abu Graib and the 1000s of other places where soldiers tortured, raped, pillaged and killed entire communities during "regular" warfare.

I'm only half kidding. Holocaust survivors are still alive today and would probably would find governments comparing the systematic termination of a group of humans because of not their military power, but the religion they were born into with a Hollywood depiction of a Marine using a F-18 to kill *a single* alien mothership that was systematically destroying all human life as being, in a single word:
SAD!
Use your brains. The ID4 example is way out of line.
I'd like to state that in no way I would or did suggest the two are comparable, duh.

This is however a RP game forum and other fictional events (like Mr. Antimatter Bomb and his city) have also been used as examples. As such I don't think I went very far out of line by using a fictional example as opposed to a real one. Fiction often goes to bigger extremes, which makes it easier to cristalize a point as opposed to real events which often have endlessly more nuances and side facts.. in which one tends to gets lost more quickly then a 1.5 hour movie. Your whole elaboration upon the union of Austria and Germany for example wasn't all that important to the point you were trying to make.

Don't like me using examples from the 1930s/1940s? We've talked about Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Sudan, and a few other places where the pattern is consistent ... genocide is not masked as a "police action" or expansion of borders in order to promote international peace and security.
In fact it often is. The most successful series of genocides on file is that of the multitude of different native american cultures - these actions were in fact commonly defended with arguements like "police action" (Tippecanoe, Sand Creek), especially "expansion of borders" and promotion of peace and security.

Still not making since, we can talk more about Israel and Palestine ... but guess what, if the Israeli government were to simply kill every non-Jew, not because there was a chance he or she might be a suicide bomber, but because they weren't Jewish, that too is genocide.
So what is bulldozing the houses of and killing of unrelated (to bombers) Palestinians? Or the blowing up of unrelated (to the government) shoppin or communiting Israeli's? In both cases its done JUST because one is Palestinian or Israeli... What is this? Small scale genocide?

Don't make the mistake of saying genocide is simply mass murder. It is not. It is mass murder that is motivated not by self protection. As SCO-land correctly pointed out ... if it is easy to implement a systematic (not a "Luke Skywalker / Anakin Skywalker Lucky Shot Down a Thermal Exhaust Port") program of extermination of so many people ... those people obviously weren't that much of a security threat, or guess what ... *gasp* they'd stop their own executions.
Agreed.

The whole question/debate however is when a massmurder IS a genocide and basically that is the same question as "when is a killing murder?" (self defence, part of a "justified" military operation, (involuntary) manslaughter) Something which can be debated endlessly in philosphy and courtcases.

If a nation "accidentally" wipes out an entire culture, for example by not knowing anyone lived where the nuclear testsite was planned, is that "involutary mass manslaughter" or genocide? The end effect is the same.

After reading the proposal I have to conclude that it is badly written. So man holes you could drive a Mac truck through it. Especally the double jeporady clause as no standard by which to judge any "new evidence" is presented. According to this clause, one could be held in a perpetual state of being tried under the slighetest of pretexts. What a boon to any political opposition this would be.

And "TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.", what type of bullpucky is this? Using this yardstick to determine membership you could just continuously dismiss potential board members untill an impass is reached, or all the parties involved die of old age!

Heck, there's not even a standard by which "evidence" itself is defined! I could say "you killed 20 million people", show a couple of doctored photos and you're on trial buddy!

If this proposal was re-drafted, I would be very open to ratifying; in its present state, our people would never be able to live with the abuses it may well cause.

Most of which is beyond the technical level of my nation and would be both techwanking and godmoding.
And anti-matter isn't? Its all by your own choice afterall. For all purposes we are godmods, and just tune our abilities down to make it interesting. You chose to vape that town, not to take other measures (like dumping a large amount of well equiped troops between the city and the facility... not particulary high-tech.)
Cruise missile to the White House would do a good enough job of that. Hold on while I invent my time machine and steal an aircraft carrier.
Why the aircraft carrier if you got masses of starships?;)

Uh, this is NS, not reality. In NS, resolutions are automatically enforced by magical gnomes that have godlike powers and enjoy taking people into backrooms and "talking" with them.

However, I have a distinct advantage some do not:

Most NS nations can't even reach mine, as it's nearly 2000 lightyears away from Earth.

DLE is both a singular nation and a multination empire. Just limit the UN resolution to the one part of the empire actually in the UN and glass as many rebels as I want. That's how I dodge around the hydrogen cars resolution.

(sic)

All more reasons why this resolution is an empty promise. If it work for you, it works for many others - if they are powerful and cunning enough. Its comparable to why the USA, USSR and China have never been held accountable for their own genocidal and massmurdering actions.

Here's my question: How can it be enforced without using WMD and having a full-scale war? Hell, just trying to get into my nation right now involves fighting your way past hundreds of ships and, depending on the planet, up to three orbital platforms with four ion cannons apiece (soon to include plasma cannons and multiple disruptor turrets as soon as I upgrade them from fusion reactors to antimatter reactors and finish developing plasma cannons).
Again, more reasons to why this resolution is utterly useless. It will only prevent genocide from happening in weaker nations that would be bullied by more powerful ones anyways.

Still... looking at your listing and the fleet I could put get into action (Emperors Hammer Order of BAttle (http://www.minos.net/~sco/fleet-manual/fleet.html)) I think I could get you a good run for your money ;)

And anti-matter isn't? Its all by your own choice afterall. For all purposes we are godmods, and just tune our abilities down to make it interesting. You chose to vape that town, not to take other measures (like dumping a large amount of well equiped troops between the city and the facility... not particulary high-tech.)

Why the aircraft carrier if you got masses of starships?;)


All more reasons why this resolution is an empty promise. If it work for you, it works for many others - if they are powerful and cunning enough. Its comparable to why the USA, USSR and China have never been held accountable for their own genocidal and massmurdering actions.


Again, more reasons to why this resolution is utterly useless. It will only prevent genocide from happening in weaker nations that would be bullied by more powerful ones anyways.

Still... looking at your listing and the fleet I could put get into action (Emperors Hammer Order of BAttle (http://www.minos.net/~sco/fleet-manual/fleet.html)) I think I could get you a good run for your money ;)

I'm going to have no choice but to agree. Resolutions such as this turn a Nation such as mine into nothing but a target.

I'd like to state that in no way I would or did suggest the two are comparable, duh.


That is why I separated my comment supporting your quote from the rest of my post. :p


Your whole elaboration upon the union of Austria and Germany for example wasn't all that important to the point you were trying to make.


I think it was.

I wasn't trying to say, "Hilter was bad." I was trying to illustrate how a "but we should permit defensive actions" can spiral into genocide and worse, global war.

The point behind German unification and nation building wasn't really ever about lebensraum, but rather control. It is the opinion of my government that nations arguing fictious cases are likely to fall prey to the same human rights abuses that characterized Nazi Germany. (Godwin is of course spinning somewhere on the old usenet right now.)


So what is bulldozing the houses of and killing of unrelated (to bombers) Palestinians? Or the blowing up of unrelated (to the government) shoppin or communiting Israeli's? In both cases its done JUST because one is Palestinian or Israeli... What is this? Small scale genocide?


That is the point of the panel.

Is it genocide or just a really stupid domestic conflict?

The resolution has set up a system for creating independent panels as needed in order to really look into the 1% of the cases where we really can't just dismiss the death as an immediate threat.

But in the case of Irsaeli, I'd say that if the homes being bulldozed are being bulldozed with the plan to destroy a particular ethnic group, then yes most panelists from Mikitivity would likely be inclined to condemn the Israelis whom sanction this policy. (Thankfully for Israeli and sadly for Palestine, nobody from my nation has been invited to pass judgement ... and even if somebody were to, like any court, we really need to take a wait-n-see approach.)


Agreed.

The whole question/debate however is when a massmurder IS a genocide and basically that is the same question as "when is a killing murder?" (self defence, part of a "justified" military operation, (involuntary) manslaughter) Something which can be debated endlessly in philosphy and courtcases.


OK, go to the International Incidents forum. Find one no-way case, one maybe case, and one probably case for genocide.

If this is NationStates, let's look at what is happening in our world and play with these case studies.

I've already talked about the NationStates roleplayed Joccian Genocide from Feb. 2004 in the draft discussions for this resolution. Genocide does happen in NationStates, but unfortunately since this happened pre-Jolt, many of the records from that time have been lost. (Believe me, in a few months, I hope to recover as much of the Joccian Genocide documentation as exists, as it is crucial to the United Nations.)


If a nation "accidentally" wipes out an entire culture, for example by not knowing anyone lived where the nuclear testsite was planned, is that "involutary mass manslaughter" or genocide? The end effect is the same.

Then the panel might find the individual charged with commissioning / authorizing that act innocent of genocide.

Here is why: genocide is a crime of intent and scale. Everybody is so focused on the scale, that they are blurring and confusing intent.

Example 1:
You coming at me with a knife, me killing you.
You an Arab, me a Jew.

Genocide? No way. No scale. But the harder part to see is that the reason I would have killed you is because you waved a razor sharp hunting knife in my eye. Not because you were an Arab.

Example 2:
You and ten of your Arab friends coming at me.
Me, a Jew, killing the lot of you.

Genocide? No way. It isn't like I planned any of this.

These cases wouldn't even have standing for an international court. They are thankfully trival.

Example 3:
You a microscopic bug, me a giant.
I breathe you, and by ingesting you, you die.

Genocide? No way. Murder? Manslaugther ... er bugslaugther.

Example 4:
You and 10 billion of your bug friends, me a giant.
I drink the lot of you, you die.

Genocide? Maybe. If I picked up a glass of water that said, "Colony of 10 billion sentient bugs" and said, "Freakn satanic bugs! I'll show you." *gulp* There is a premeditated desire to whipe out a "group" based in hate.


Now lets talk about Germany. It is pretty amazingly easy to prove intent and not to, when there are survivors. As I said before, anybody who wants to justify genocide in the case of "self-defense" really should find a European 60-year old and talk to him or her. While certain groups were more likely to be thrown into concentration camps, and of those, other groups more likely to be marked for the gas chambers, even Catholic and Protestant civilians in occupied countries lived in fear. (One of my best friends dad's spent the first couple years of his life in his family basement in Amsterdam ... not that far from Ann Franke's house ... well, OK, not right next to it, but Amsterdam is simply one of the easiest cities to walk around in.)

The point behind this resolution is actually to deter nations from practicing genocide.

The fact that some many nations are more interested in talking about Will Smith and his legendary exploits, actually suggests that the "strength" of this resolution is something nations fear. While they cite possible abuses, I think there is enough of a concern and interest in two parties here that the panel will keep its decisions to only the most henious of crimes against sentient peoples.

For the Will Smith camp ... there are enough nations that are worried about abuses, that they will surely represent some of the nations on any future panel. The ability to quickly dismiss my above example 1, 2, and 3, and understand that it is intent (as judged by testimony of witnesses and whatever evidence is provided) that really matters, will mean we won't see abuses of this panel.

Never forget Rwanda camp, we too have a vested interest in really making only the most conservative use of the panel. If we abuse the panel, the resolution will be recalled. It happened with the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution, and eventually one of the Oct./Nov. 2004 human rights resolutions will follow -- my government is moderately certain of this.

Anyway, the point of the panel really isn't to punish, but to discourage. Punishment will not bring back the dead. Discouragement may reduce the numbers of dead.

This really is perhaps one of the most sound ideas to hit the UN since my nation joined in Feb. 2004, and as you can see by looking over old debates, my nation has been very active in many UN debates and activities in nearly 10 months.

I am totally confused now. Why would this proposal turn your nation in to a target?

Surely your nation is a target at the moment. All this does is set out what happens after a genocide - what happens before will happen whether this proposal becomes a resolution or not.

This resolution has a good basis, but it is limiting the power of nations and furthering a one-world government by creating a seemingly international criminal court that allows for double jeopardy to take place on an international level while damaging national authority on justice. Such a body would be in direct contradiction to Resolution 47: 'Definition of a Fair Trial.'
The correct way to handle this issue is to assemble an international council to take military action against regimes that commit genocide and whom refuse to disband. After disbanding or being defeated militarily, the leaders of said regime should be handed over to the people that they have wronged with the mass killing in order for justice by the victims, not bureaucrats, to be delivered.

This resolution has a good basis, but it is limiting the power of nations and furthering a one-world government by creating a seemingly international criminal court that allows for double jeopardy to take place on an international level while damaging national authority on justice. Such a body would be in direct contradiction to Resolution 47: 'Definition of a Fair Trial.'
The correct way to handle this issue is to assemble an international council to take military action against regimes that commit genocide and whom refuse to disband. After disbanding or being defeated militarily, the leaders of said regime should be handed over to the people that they have wronged with the mass killing in order for justice by the victims, not bureaucrats, to be delivered.

Good point, this would create a double jeopardy situation... as such I would have to vote against it...

Though it is likely to pass, should it fail, maybe it should be rewritten have this court; but make it an appelate court in cases of genocide.

And anti-matter isn't? Its all by your own choice afterall. For all purposes we are godmods, and just tune our abilities down to make it interesting. You chose to vape that town, not to take other measures (like dumping a large amount of well equiped troops between the city and the facility... not particulary high-tech.)

Actually, I bought the antimatter bombs from Klonor and used them as a base around which to develop my own unique antimatter missiles. I've also developed antimatter reactors (based off of experience with fusion reactors and observations of antimatter reactors in action for warp tech), antimatter producers (based off of an antimatter producer I stole from a derelict), and am developing plasma cannons and soon to develop antimatter cannons (both based off of watching such tech in action). So, no, it's not techwanking for me to have antimatter bombs.

And the fact I could not reinforce that facility also was a sign I probably could not move large numbers of military personel into position in time. My ships are not that big and the city in question is a ways away.

Why the aircraft carrier if you got masses of starships?;)

Because, technically, my nation exists about 3 billion years after the real US fell. Besides, I was talking about real life.

All more reasons why this resolution is an empty promise. If it work for you, it works for many others - if they are powerful and cunning enough. Its comparable to why the USA, USSR and China have never been held accountable for their own genocidal and massmurdering actions.

You know, getting these convincing arguements from both sides to change my mind is getting annoying...

Again, more reasons to why this resolution is utterly useless. It will only prevent genocide from happening in weaker nations that would be bullied by more powerful ones anyways.

In the end, this may be true. Oh well.

Still... looking at your listing and the fleet I could put get into action (Emperors Hammer Order of BAttle (http://www.minos.net/~sco/fleet-manual/fleet.html)) I think I could get you a good run for your money ;)

About the only things you have that I'm actually worried about are the gravity well producers. The rest my newer ships can dodge, and soon those weapons will be even less effective when my newest line of ships is ready. Keep in mind my factbook numbers are far, far out of date.

genocide as self defense could be considered war. what if the people in question were trying to wipe out you and your kind? i believe that a nation needs the right to defend itself. the wording of the self-defense clause is too vague for me to accept. please consider this.

genocide as self defense could be considered war. what if the people in question were trying to wipe out you and your kind? i believe that a nation needs the right to defend itself. the wording of the self-defense clause is too vague for me to accept. please consider this.

We've been over this. Repeatedly.

This resolution is a ridiculous and disgusting violation of a nation's rights.

In my nation, Paxtonne, we believe in exterminating seeds before they grow into something that could threaten peace here. If I want to send the National Guard to gun down a horde of civil rights protesters, I very well should be able to!

The two actually are different IMHO.

The Fair Trial resolution (which what is a himsefl) is poorly written. Looking at the date: Aug 2003, I'd call it a domestic law resolution, i.e. a resolution like the gay rights resolution.

While at its heart, this resolution is an international law resolution.

In short, this is legal, because the context of the resolutions is two different legal venues: domestic vs. international.

(This is why the many nations begging for more domestic sovereignty protections have a good point.)

OOC: In real life the rights granted to Americans frequently have little meaning in the courts of other bodies / nations. If I were guilty of a crime in Switzerland, obviously Swiss rights would apply ... not the traditional American laws. Travel books basically warn you to not get caught with drugs, as unlike many other European countries, the Swiss (inventors of LSD) don't treat users with the kid gloves. While in the US or Netherlands this is a different matter.

However, the real World Court / ICJ, has its own unique standards. I'm not that familiar with what those standards are, but a NS example of where we make a difference between domestic vs. national, Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban. We've constantly said and roleplayed that the resolution says that the UN can not directly bill citizens, but that it still has the legal authority to collect funds from UN members. In fact, I'd argue that when some resolutions pass, the changes in our economies reflect UN activity in addition to domestic.

This is the direct vs. representative / indirect argument, and we've seen this many times in 2004.

In any event, we are talking not about domestic courts. The panel is composed of 15 judges from different nations, right? Not 15 domestic judges. The reason we are talking about elevating this issue to a higher court (i.e. an international level) is because crimes of genocide are scale based.

We aren't talking about the destruction / termination of 50 people or even 500. We are realistically talking about the systematic sentencing to death of thousands if not millions of people, and the justification for international action, is as I stated earlier, as much about human rights (humanitarian intervention / prevention of these crimes) as it is about international security (as I have repeatedly pointed out while walking many of you through some of the historical pressures that lead to the Second World War and the Holocaust).

Any venue argument is pointless. The Due Process law does not distinguish venue between national and international court. It applies to any person. Where they be tried by a UN Nation, or the UN. Under domestic or international law.

This resolution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Due Process Resolution. As such it is illegal.

(OOC - I went down the modcave and the mod I spoke to agreed that this was not a reason to delete it. Whether that helps or not I don't know, but it made me feel better)

Somebody ought to tell Vastiva this!

That one UN Resolution violates another is no reason to delete it. That is terrible. So, what is the rule: If it is partially illegal, but not entirely, and we like the idea, we will keep it? That is one heck of a bonebreaker test.

If no one minds A repeal of this resolution should be submitted, perhaps by AP, (since I do not care that other illegal Resolutions exist we should turn a blind eye to this one and go with a no resolution left behind mentality), then have Frisbee re-submit the proposal less the contradictory clause.

Good point, this would create a double jeopardy situation... as such I would have to vote against it...

Though it is likely to pass, should it fail, maybe it should be rewritten have this court; but make it an appelate court in cases of genocide.

The ultimate nation of principle. Please see page nine as it is outlined as explicitly violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Due Process Resolution.

The ultimate nation of principle. Please see page nine as it is outlined as explicitly violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Due Process Resolution.

Agreed, but if it was made as an appelate court, it would not hold (though other sections would have to be changed in relation; like the ones involving punishment schemes; since appelate courts can only over-rule lower courts judgments; not change particulars).

Genocide can never be used as self defense. In law, "self defense" can only be used if the force used is equal to that used upon you, or if the danger is immenent enough. The fact is, genocide is the mass destruction of an entire race or people. Seems a little excessive if you ask me. -Anti Apathy
Ille de France

Two things come to mind.

1)What would it be an appelate court to? As I see it either both the UN and NS have courts to try Genocide, in which case the courts are mutually exclusive and may be able to each try a person for the same crime, or we are allowing the UN Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Member Nations Courts with respect to Genocide, and cases can be removed from State to UN Courts. Or, grant UN courts SMJ over Nationstates courts as an apellate court.

@)You can only appeal technicalities/errors of the court (Allowing/disallowing evidence, misinterpreting the law to the jury etc) that would have significantly altered the outcome of the trial. Both the State/UN can appeal decisions of their courts if errors were made during trial. However, an appeal is not recognized if it is soley because the state/defendant does not agree with the outcome of the trial.

Genocide can never be used as self defense. In law, "self defense" can only be used if the force used is equal to that used upon you, or if the danger is immenent enough. The fact is, genocide is the mass destruction of an entire race or people. Seems a little excessive if you ask me. -Anti Apathy
Ille de France

In the UN Resolution, Genocide is defined more broadly, therefore so is the scope of self defense.

If one social organization is attempting to eliminate your social organization , then your social organization is justified to eliminate the attacking social organization in self defence.

If one band of peoples sole purpose is to eliminate the government via anymeans necessary, then the government is justified in eliminating that band of peoples.

If terrorists are inclined to destroy civilized society, civilized society is justified in eliminating all terrorists.

-Anti Empathy
err... I mean
-Anti Pharisaism

Two things come to mind.

1)What would it be an appelate court to? As I see it either both the UN and NS have courts to try Genocide, in which case the courts are mutually exclusive and may be able to each try a person for the same crime, or we are allowing the UN Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Member Nations Courts with respect to Genocide, and cases can be removed from State to UN Courts. Or, grant UN courts SMJ over Nationstates courts as an apellate court.

@)You can only appeal technicalities/errors of the court (Allowing/disallowing evidence, misinterpreting the law to the jury etc) that would have significantly altered the outcome of the trial. Both the State/UN can appeal decisions of their courts if errors were made during trial. However, an appeal is not recognized if it is soley because the state/defendant does not agree with the outcome of the trial.

Yes.... correct... the UN Genocide Appelate court can be the final determining court.... but like all other appelate courts, it only has two options; uphold the original verdict, or over-rule the original verdict (innocent/guilt)... And then leave it to the original laws of the NSUN member nation to define punishment (which would have been by the lower court). Appelate courts cannot alter the charge or change the sentence (except by over-rulling in pronouncement of innocence)... It would be a rubber-stamp court, as opposed to a re-hearing of the entire case.

In law, "never" does not exist.

The People's Republic of Penguitalia will not support this bill while it makes no attempt to prevent genocide. As it stands (as has been pointed out by various other delegates) all the resolution does is encourage further persecution, and possibly pave the way for large imperialist nations to invade resource-rich neighbours in order to "protect" ethnic groups.

When this bill, or an accompanying resolution, lay down measures to be taken to try and prevent genocide, then it shall have Penguitalia's support.

The People's Republic of Penguitalia will not support this bill while it makes no attempt to prevent genocide.

You can't prevent genocide, except by accepting resolutions like this which should make governments think twice before committing genocide.

Title slightly edited in the pathetic hope that it'll cut down on multiple topics...

- "To dream the impossible dream..."
UN Gnome in Charge of Fruitless Tasks

No, it won't work- and do you know why? Take Hitler... No resolution from the precursor to the UN would have persuaded him *not* to attempt to wipe out the Jews, communists, homosexuals, pagans or disabled within his borders, and here's why:

He didn't think he'd fail.

The German economy was wired so that Germany would be ready for all-out war by 1944. As it happened, the show got started a little bit early and things didn't work out quite right. The rationalé was that after one big conflict, Germany and her allies would either actually have conquered every nation that stood against them (and any small nations nearby), or have become so unassailable that any nation that wished to stand before them, couldn't.

So, if you're utterly convinced you're not going to have to answer to anybody, if you're utterly of the belief that whoever your victims are deserve to be wiped out, then no quantity of paperwork is ever going to stop you.

However, there are measures that can be taken to limit it- education of groups to limit fear of each other, the outlawing of extremist nation parties (and yes, I'm saying political freedoms SHOULD be limited), economic advancement of diverse nations.

It's incredible how quickly people forget to hate so long as they're warm, dry and have a new beemer parked outside. It's usually in poor conditions (such as when your economy's suffering hyperinflation and you need a wheelbarrow to carry the notes to buy a loaf of bread, or when your last cow's just died and the locusts have just arrived to eat your crops) that people turn to hatred and fear.

Improve standards of living around the world and you limit some of the potential for racial hatred. In countries with high standards of living, improve education and cross-ethnicity communication.

In regards to the prevention part, it won't work.

Most nations do not have laws that stop people murdering other people - the laws act as a deterrent instead. So that if you think "wow, I would like to blow my neighbours head off with a gun" then you might also think "Oh no - that would land me in jail".

So hopefully the fact that genocide is now (or will be if this proposal passes) a recognised crime that carries a procedure for punishment will deter various leaders from doing it.


In regards to the double jepordy part - I have explained my reasoning, and explained why it does not violate the Due Process resolution. And given the totally vague and badly worded nature of the Fair Trial procedure, it really does not violate that at all.

Genocide can never be used as self defense. In law, "self defense" can only be used if the force used is equal to that used upon you, or if the danger is immenent enough. The fact is, genocide is the mass destruction of an entire race or people. Seems a little excessive if you ask me.

That fully depends on the "us or them" conditions: if the only way to protect yourself from impeding genocide by others is to commit genocide upon them, the force used would be equal to that used upon you.
In the very hypothetical case that the Jewish resistance in Warshaw had gotten their hands on a nuke and had used it on Berlin - would you be able to condemn it?

Well I'm for it, for reasons stated in previous posts. Just thought I'd voice that fact.

Will work/ won't work?

I'm not sure.

You define genocide as removing an entire part of society.

You have said that forced pregnancy would bring this about because it would prevent women from mating with the men from the same society.

This implies that you don't have to kill anyone to commit genocide, only force them to behave in a different way.

(Can you see where I'm taking this?)

What about paedophiles and cannibals? If I "re-educate" these people, who are societies in their own right, I am (apparently) commiting genocide. Yet the UN its self has outlawed crimes against children, and The King of the World has outlawed cannibalism.

I cannot vote for such a resolution. It must be reworded. Perhaps redefine what you mean by society.

Were I in the U.N. I'm sure I'd provide my vote for it ...

Genocide can never be used as self defense. In law, "self defense" can only be used if the force used is equal to that used upon you, or if the danger is immenent enough. The fact is, genocide is the mass destruction of an entire race or people. Seems a little excessive if you ask me. -Anti Apathy
Ille de France

Wrong. Genocide can be used in self-defense. Want an example? The movie Independance Day.

Excuse me for butting in, but that was in a near impossible situation, now I believe in aliens as much as the next guy, but its still pretty unbelievible.

Anyway, remember in the movie, the aliens were trying to wipe us out first, AND that was really just the warrior caste (or however they organize things) while they were just going to slaughter our entire race. So I suppose I must agree with you on that point.

Im sorry for not agreeing with those who think Genocide is ok, but how can I agree with that?
I cannot agree with the slaughter of innocense. Hands that shed innocent blood must be stopped, for me that is an important principle.

I feel that forced relocation of a society based on the same principles as mentioned in the resolution should also be considered an act of genocide since, although the society is not actually being terminated, it's cultural identidy is being put in jeoparty.
Otherwise, good job on the resolution. :)

Excuse me for butting in, but that was in a near impossible situation, now I believe in aliens as much as the next guy, but its still pretty unbelievible.

You do realize you're talking to a nation of people more evolved than humans that is based nearly 2000 lightyears away and is led by an android built by a previous, and even more advanced, civilization? You also realize said nation has actually obliterated an entire nation, annexed three others, and may end up annexing a few more as it meddles in Earth politics, right?

Anyway, remember in the movie, the aliens were trying to wipe us out first, AND that was really just the warrior caste (or however they organize things) while they were just going to slaughter our entire race. So I suppose I must agree with you on that point.

Actually, that was the entire alien civilization. They moved from planet to planet like locusts.

You want another example? Find my story in this thread of me destroying an entire city that was overrun by rebels.

Im sorry for not agreeing with those who think Genocide is ok, but how can I agree with that?
I cannot agree with the slaughter of innocense. Hands that shed innocent blood must be stopped, for me that is an important principle.

Genocide isn't always to kill the innocent.

Mass extermination of " HUMANS " should never be allowed or ignored.

Mass extermination of " HUMANS " should never be allowed or ignored.

So you're saying the people of my nation should be allowed to be exterminated just because they are not human?

So you're saying the people of my nation should be allowed to be exterminated just because they are not human?
Oh, leave the anthropocentric puppy alone, DemonLordEnigma. When he makes messes like this on the floor, swat his butt with a rolled up newspaper and send him to his cage. Shoving his nose in the puddle only confuses him into thinking you want him to make messes.

Oh, leave the anthropocentric puppy alone, DemonLordEnigma. When he makes messes like this on the floor, swat his butt with a rolled up newspaper and send him to his cage. Shoving his nose in the puddle only confuses him into thinking you want him to make messes.

Well, considering it tends to hurt when I do that, maybe he'll learn. If not, I can always take your suggestion and grab the newspaper.

We object to the claim that killing people for religious reasons is genocide. Our sole purpose and duty on Sancta Torquemada is the complete and irreversible elimination of all who do not follow the true religion and we object to these pejorative remarks about our most sacred obligations.

We object to the claim that killing people for religious reasons is genocide. Our sole purpose and duty on Sancta Torquemada is the complete and irreversible elimination of all who do not follow the true religion and we object to these pejorative remarks about our most sacred obligations.

Do you even realize how many UN resolutions you are violating? Also, if a religion has to slaughter others to be in power, it's obviously a weak religion not worth worshipping.

OOC: The above was entirely IC.

I support the UN resolution to punish genocide but I don't understand why it says that people who are not guilty are free to walk about the world with no consquences. I believe in innocent until proven guilty but they were brought before the courts for a reason and I think that people accused (but are inoocent) of the charges should be further investigated so they don't fall under the "double jeopardy" scenario. I would like to see a clause to that article saying that they will be held for a certain amount of time until it is determined that the person in question is truely innocent. They could also be compensated for time spent in holding in regards to their business and/or personal lives that were disrupted when they went into holding. The holding period could be something like 2 weeks, which would give the TPP enough time to fully investigate the claim of genocide in the first place. Think about how many Nazis were freed because they were able to cover up their actions during WWII and those who were innocent and put to death.

We object to the claim that killing people for religious reasons is genocide. Our sole purpose and duty on Sancta Torquemada is the complete and irreversible elimination of all who do not follow the true religion and we object to these pejorative remarks about our most sacred obligations.

Violation #1 : NSUN Resolution "Religious Tollerance" enacted 21st June, 2003. In the enactment of war in the name of a religion.

Violation #2 : NSUN Resolution "Universal Bill of Rights", Article 1. For violating the peoples right to choose and worship any faith, through the punishment of people by the state, who do not accept the illegally mandated (As per Article I of this Resolution and Violation of Religious Tollerance) state religion.

How do you plead?

I support the UN resolution to punish genocide but I don't understand why it says that people who are not guilty are free to walk about the world with no consquences.

How about... they're not guilty! You want to be held in jail an extra year just because you were suspected of a murder? No? Didn't think so.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty but they were brought before the courts for a reason and I think that people accused (but are inoocent) of the charges should be further investigated so they don't fall under the "double jeopardy" scenario.

Double jeopardy is illegal, so it doesn't matter.

I would like to see a clause to that article saying that they will be held for a certain amount of time until it is determined that the person in question is truely innocent.

You know, the trial is a pretty good sign of innocense...

They could also be compensated for time spent in holding in regards to their business and/or personal lives that were disrupted when they went into holding.

Not if they are the leader of a nation. You're talking about paying them for their time not ruling and having caused who knows how many problems.

The holding period could be something like 2 weeks, which would give the TPP enough time to fully investigate the claim of genocide in the first place.

It takes longer than that if they are smart. I have two entire planets for them to investigate and search, so they'll be at it for decades if I were arrested for it. It all depends on the size of the nation.

Think about how many Nazis were freed because they were able to cover up their actions during WWII and those who were innocent and put to death.

Kinda sad, but most of them are dead now.

They may choose and worship any [false] faith they please. Our [true] faith requires us to kill them as a means of worship.

They may choose and worship any [false] faith they please. Our [true] faith requires us to kill them as a means of worship.

You have 7 million people total. I can easily field an army that size. I call in my puppets, I can probably double that if I tried.

You are commiting multiple violations of human rights. As such, my true religion, KillthemallandletHacksortthemoutism, requires me to liberate your people from your false faith by exterminating said faith. Death squads should be there in two hours, depending on how long it takes them to prepare the missiles.

Suddenly don't like it now, eh?

Edit: No, I won't call my puppets. Just having a bit of fun with this one. Besides, I don't use them in that way.

Ackronism is the olny true faith and this has been accepted by Ackronians around the nation for years mainly as the death penalty is administered for worshiping or otherwise following another religeion.

now a few years ago a cleric from the land of Twerk illegaly entered Ackronia and started to insight rebellion against the church!, former Twerkians who happen to be the second largest ethnic group in Ackronia who had converted to Ackronism years before started to burn AcKronian Temples.So as per the Book of Ackron's instructions of what to do should such an event occur the Royal custodian gaurd with the blessing of the high preistses systematicly and riteously slaughtered avery single Twerkian man woman and child in the land.

was that genocide? and if so will it not be allowed any more?

Ackronism is the olny true faith and this has been accepted by Ackronians around the nation for years mainly as the death penalty is administered for worshiping or otherwise following another religeion.

now a few years ago a cleric from the land of Twerk illegaly entered Ackronia and started to insight rebellion against the church!, former Twerkians who happen to be the second largest ethnic group in Ackronia who had converted to Ackronism years before started to burn AcKronian Temples.So as per the Book of Ackron's instructions of what to do should such an event occur the Royal custodian gaurd with the blessing of the high preistses systematicly and riteously slaughtered avery single Twerkian man woman and child in the land.

was that genocide? and if so will it not be allowed any more?

Yes. Very definitely yes. And a long history of persecution and violating UN resolutions.

oh.....crap......

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]You do realize you're talking to a nation of people more evolved than humans that is based nearly 2000 lightyears away and is led by an android built by a previous, and even more advanced, civilization? You also realize said nation has actually obliterated an entire nation, annexed three others, and may end up annexing a few more as it meddles in Earth politics, right?

Actually, that was the entire alien civilization. They moved from planet to planet like locusts.


Look buddy, its a big galaxy, obviously this species had been terrorizing the galaxy for years, I dont think that was the only "mothership" at all, thats just not productive for a species like that, taking resources from one planet at a time.

Now where do people draw the line from "mass murder" to "genocide"?

What about paedophiles and cannibals? If I "re-educate" these people, who are societies in their own right, I am (apparently) commiting genocide. Yet the UN its self has outlawed crimes against children, and The King of the World has outlawed cannibalism.

I cannot vote for such a resolution. It must be reworded. Perhaps redefine what you mean by society.

I can see where you are going, but you are wrong.

If someone attacks a child, or rapes a child, then yes - that person can be executed in some nations. But that is one person, not a whole part of the society. And even if you execute ten pedophiles for committing crimes, you are killing them because they committed a crime, not because of who they are.

Why does everyone seem to think executing one person because he commits a crime automatically equates to genocide?

Genocide is usually affiliated with the mass killing of people for a certain reason or relation those people have.

We (our law enforcement) dont go around every week specifically looking for molesters or pedophiles, they just catch people who are commiting crimes and then the people are tried on their crime.

[/quote]Look buddy, its a big galaxy, obviously this species had been terrorizing the galaxy for years, I dont think that was the only "mothership" at all, thats just not productive for a species like that, taking resources from one planet at a time.[/quote]

Obviously, you didn't watch the movie. Because if you had, you wouldn't have missed the part where they specifically said that was the entire civilization. It's kinda hard to refute it when they said it that plainly.

Now where do people draw the line from "mass murder" to "genocide"?

See the first post of this thread and read the definition provided there.

I am humbled by your abilities to notice small things in movies that I obviously forgot about.


And yeah, just remember I WASNT being rehtorical with that little bit at the end. Not to sound rude of course.

They may choose and worship any [false] faith they please. Our [true] faith requires us to kill them as a means of worship.

Violation of NSUN resolutions mentioned before... State sanctioned religious persecution is an international crime.

Push it any further Mr. and the Constitutional Republic of Tekania will declare you a false government, and subject to Peacekeeping actions by this great an glorius Republic.

Violation of NSUN resolutions mentioned before... State sanctioned religious persecution is an international crime.

Push it any further Mr. and the Constitutional Republic of Tekania will declare you a false government, and subject to Peacekeeping actions by this great an glorius Republic.

Um, you're a little late. I just need to make the war topic.

Um, you're a little late. I just need to make the war topic.

oooo :>

So basically this resolution AGAINST genocide is about to cause a possible genocidal war. Thats great.

So basically this resolution AGAINST genocide is about to cause a possible genocidal war. Thats great.

No, we wouldn't commit genocide.... We'd take over his nation and instil a new, better government for its people.

So basically this resolution AGAINST genocide is about to cause a possible genocidal war. Thats great.

Well, if we have to exterminate the entire religion to save the people as a whole...

No, we wouldn't commit genocide.... We'd take over his nation and instil a new, better government for its people.

Or annex it entirely. I take half, you take half. Unless you don't want it.

So basically this resolution AGAINST genocide is about to cause a possible genocidal war. Thats great.

Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't it the fact that somoene wants to break various other UN resolutions on religious tolerance that is about to start a war?

I have two quotes for you all:

Well, if we have to exterminate the entire religion to save the people as a whole...

and

Or annex it entirely. I take half, you take half. Unless you don't want it.

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiich pretty much make the point that's been made several times: that this Bill serves only to encourage war-like action by large, ultra-powerful states in order to gain territories and resources, or further genocide itself.

Ergo, all right-thinking sensible levelheaded nations, get voting against this badly worded, ambiguous resolution that will NOT serve to deter genocidal maniacs!

Ok. I have tried to be tolerant about this, but I am just lost and confused now.

Why does this resolution encourage genocide?

If someone can explain that to me, then I will be a happier person, because right now I feel that every single person is missing the point :}

I have two quotes for you all:

Well, if we have to exterminate the entire religion to save the people as a whole...

and

Or annex it entirely. I take half, you take half. Unless you don't want it.

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiich pretty much make the point that's been made several times: that this Bill serves only to encourage war-like action by large, ultra-powerful states in order to gain territories and resources, or further genocide itself.

Uh, you realize I am targetting that nation for that because they have violated resolutions already in place and, frankly, because this one is not yet international law? It's not exactly able to stop me right now. I just want to annex them so I can provide my new puppet with a place of their own.

Ok. I have tried to be tolerant about this, but I am just lost and confused now.

Why does this resolution encourage genocide?

If someone can explain that to me, then I will be a happier person, because right now I feel that every single person is missing the point :}

Simple: How are you going to force me into court if, say, I decide to exterminate all members of PETA because I don't like their leader's hair color? Or if I order all of Merlyns reduced to glass? I'm not the only one you would have this problem with.

oh.....crap......

Don't worry, the UN doesn't allow actual action taken against your country either, besides: you CAN'T do it again, cause if you did it rightthere'd be no Twerkians left to kill anyways.

it bears repeating. Although there is much in this proposition that is good and necessary, there is sadly a fatal flaw that could do more harm than good.

I refer you all to Article 4, §3, which read, "Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light." This ought to more aptly be known as "The Double Jeopardy Clause".

While well-intentioned, the unfortunate side effect is that nations can use it against political opponents on a repeated basis, based on new "evidence", which may or may not be legitimate. The result will be a waste of money for all involved.

The fact is that these cases should be brought to court only when the case is pretty airtight to begin with. Leaving the possibility of retrial will lead to a large number of trials based on flimsy evidence, on the grounds that "better" evidence might eventually arise.

Genocide cases are often not "open and shut". They are complicated, costly, and drawn out enough as it is. This proposal, as it is, ought to be rejected and redrawn in such a manner that it keeps most of the good parts while throwing out that which has potential to cause great harm to us all.

Um, you're a little late. I just need to make the war topic.
By going into an unsanctioned war, with the noted intent to eradicate an entire religion (which apparently has a 100% base, making it sure genocide) you are in breach of far more basic rules. Does that mean I can now compact your entire Empire with a few well placed "gravity bombs"?

Demonlord technically is considering going to war with his grounds based on stopping a cult like religious government...

Although they didnt say THAT in the resolution. :D

Ok. I have tried to be tolerant about this, but I am just lost and confused now.

Why does this resolution encourage genocide?

If someone can explain that to me, then I will be a happier person, because right now I feel that every single person is missing the point :}


Okay, so to say it encourages genocide is a bit of an overstatement- as is saying it'll STOP genocide.

Point being, if someone (faction A) commits genocide in nation X against faction B, nation Z could intervene against faction A. With me so far?

Now, let's suppose the TPP gets involved and a huge witchhunt gets underway for members of faction A. Now, nation Z's got troops on the ground who're probably a little twitchy. Faction B, assuming some of them are left, will be a tad pissed off.

The TPP will take ages, if not actually years, to gain all the evidence- ohhhh yes, don't think this process is quick. (OOC: Hell, in real-life terms, there's still debate over whether or not a massacre of WW2 polish soliders and civillians was by Germans, the USSR or other Poles. These investigations take YEARS). You think that's going to stop Nation Z from clearing out the faction A and trying to take over, given half a chance? You think Faction B won't want MAJOR repercussions (ie, rolling heads, barrels of blood etc etc)?

The TPP tribunals may well help bolster a feeling of uselessness and futility amoungst the victims of genocide, helping to encourage retribtution-style attacks. Plus, the TPP, if it authorizes the death penalty for genocide-encouraging national leaders, will effectively be wiping out faction A.

All minor points, but, given the right circumstances...

By going into an unsanctioned war, with the noted intent to eradicate an entire religion (which apparently has a 100% base, making it sure genocide) you are in breach of far more basic rules. Does that mean I can now compact your entire Empire with a few well placed "gravity bombs"?

Good luck on trying.

If you bothered to read my posts and looked at the actual context, you would realize my intent is to change the government. Wiping out the religion is a secondary, and hopefully unnecessary, thing. However, I'm not going to claim to be ubernice and above wiping out a people if necessity for it comes up. I don't have the option of such a code with the region I am in.

Now, if he doesn't bother to reply to take up my challenge, then posting a topic on it would be pointless. Can't fight someone who doesn't bother to show up.

Simple: How are you going to force me into court if, say, I decide to exterminate all members of PETA because I don't like their leader's hair color? Or if I order all of Merlyns reduced to glass? I'm not the only one you would have this problem with.

I might not be able to. But if this proposal was not in existance, or if it doesn't pass and fails to become a resolution, would you not still be able to do that anyway?

People who want to use this as an excuse to start a war or commit genocide are probably going to find some excuse to do it anyway.

Thank you Penguitalia, I think everyone needed that little slap on the face.



On the subject of the war, what do you mean "accept your challenge?" ITS WAR MAN! NOT A DUEL!
(OOC: I suppose it depends on the person in this game, but in real life, do you think Germany challenged Poland before invading? I mean sure people sometimes ask for a surrender, but thats after roughing up the enemy a tad bit.)

Now please, we know you consider your war to be to reconfiger the man's government, which could also be grounds for genocide given the right applications, if his country is nearly all political based and there is no "seperation of church and state." I'd reconsider your grounds before going through with this...

what if the council of elders finds it to be apparent that people with a certian universal attirbute such as brown hair or blue eyes or some sort of radiation/alien material based mutation are a danger to the nation? the book of Ackron says they must be killed to preserve the riteous would, they have to be indirectly killed or otherwise removed from the country? because if so what would the purpose of the royal custodian gaurd be? we Ackronians could not continue to practice our religion if this resolution is passed.

I refer you all to Article 4, §3, which read, "Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light." This ought to more aptly be known as "The Double Jeopardy Clause".

While well-intentioned, the unfortunate side effect is that nations can use it against political opponents on a repeated basis, based on new "evidence", which may or may not be legitimate. The result will be a waste of money for all involved.


As I have said previously - it does not say "every single tiny piece of evidence will cause a new case to be brought". It says "...... can be retried....." - meaning that if the evidence would not support a new trial, a new trial would not be brought. But if a mass grave of twenty thousand bodies was found in the back yard of the person acquitted, that would be enough evidence to justify retrying them.


The fact is that these cases should be brought to court only when the case is pretty airtight to begin with. Leaving the possibility of retrial will lead to a large number of trials based on flimsy evidence, on the grounds that "better" evidence might eventually arise.


Again - can, not must. Flimsy evidence will not necessarily lead to another collapsed trial.


Genocide cases are often not "open and shut". They are complicated, costly, and drawn out enough as it is. This proposal, as it is, ought to be rejected and redrawn in such a manner that it keeps most of the good parts while throwing out that which has potential to cause great harm to us all.

The bit that will cause the problems is the bit that refuses to allow someone to get away with mass murder because of a lack of evidence at the original trial date.

And - on a sort of related note that is kind of off at a tangent - there is this to consider.

If Mr Jones of GeminiLand is setting about slaughtering all of the right-handed red-heads (because he was dumped by a right-handed red-head five years before) and is brought to trial before all the evidence can be gathered, it might bring an end to the slaughter because he knows that people know what he is doing and care enough to do something about it. By this point around ten thousand people have been killed.
The Pretenama Panel is brought to order, but Mr Jones is acquitted due to the lack of evidence. But he does not go back to murdering most of his people because he knows he is being watched for it and someone is bound to notice. Then - two years later, more evidence surfaces and Mr Jones is brought before another panel to answer futher charges. And convicted.

If you wait until there is evidence to support a case then the slaughter could continue for another five, ten years - the lives of twenty to thirty million people could hang in the balance. And Mr Jones would still be convicted, but twenty million people have died because the international community waited.

Is this not more of a danger than anything else you can think up?

what if the council of elders finds it to be apparent that people with a certian universal attirbute such as brown hair or blue eyes or some sort of radiation/alien material based mutation are a danger to the nation? the book of Ackron says they must be killed to preserve the riteous would, they have to be indirectly killed or otherwise removed from the country? because if so what would the purpose of the royal custodian gaurd be? we Ackronians could not continue to practice our religion if this resolution is passed.

(OOC - Hitler ordered the death of everyone who was not pure, because it threatened the purity of their nation. Was that justified?)

Would this be a suitable time to repeat something I have been saying all along?

NO LAWS CAN STOP GENOCIDE.

Thank you.

I think thats a tad grandeur, but it gets the point across TilEnca.

As for Ackronia, I dont think most of the world gives a damn about your "council of elders" have yourself a damn good inquisition in your OWN country, just dont touch anyone elses.

I might not be able to. But if this proposal was not in existance, or if it doesn't pass and fails to become a resolution, would you not still be able to do that anyway?

People who want to use this as an excuse to start a war or commit genocide are probably going to find some excuse to do it anyway.

I'm pointing out one of the inherent weaknesses: You may not be able to bring them to trial.

On the subject of the war, what do you mean "accept your challenge?" ITS WAR MAN! NOT A DUEL!
(OOC: I suppose it depends on the person in this game, but in real life, do you think Germany challenged Poland before invading? I mean sure people sometimes ask for a surrender, but thats after roughing up the enemy a tad bit.)

OOC: It's a way to dodge having to fight a war. Of course, this has to do with the fact Enigma uses a lot of threats and bluffs without intending to back them up. This was one of those times, but everyone else has forced him into a corner of being forcibly committed if the war challenge is actually accepted. Matter of pride. The extermination and annexation comments were jokes that got taken seriously.

Now please, we know you consider your war to be to reconfiger the man's government, which could also be grounds for genocide given the right applications, if his country is nearly all political based and there is no "seperation of church and state." I'd reconsider your grounds before going through with this...

In this case, it is removing the church from power and putting someone else in. Not that difficult to do.

Quote: OOC: It's a way to dodge having to fight a war. Of course, this has to do with the fact Enigma uses a lot of threats and bluffs without intending to back them up. This was one of those times, but everyone else has forced him into a corner of being forcibly committed if the war challenge is actually accepted. Matter of pride. The extermination and annexation comments were jokes that got taken seriously.




OOC: pride is the fall of nations...we'll see how this turns out, eh?


Of course your means seem to be peaceful, and hopefully there will be no blood in this takeover, and perhaps his country will be better off under your rule.

I'm pointing out one of the inherent weaknesses: You may not be able to bring them to trial.


I was aware of that when it was drafted. However the UN member nations are required to submit to the investigation and give up suspects.

Outside of the UN it is always going to be a problem, but there is not a lot I can do about it, and I have resigned myself to that fact.

OOC: pride is the fall of nations...we'll see how this turns out, eh?


Of course your means seem to be peaceful, and hopefully there will be no blood in this takeover, and perhaps his country will be better off under your rule.

OOC: Of course I'm peaceful. Militaristic != Invade everything you can reach and then try to invade what you can't. But, that pride thing does cause problems. Enigma's effectively immortal and DLE isn't the easiest nation to reach by any stretch of the imagination or level of technological advancement, so pride tends to be the norm for him.

I think thats a tad grandeur, but it gets the point across TilEnca.

As for Ackronia, I dont think most of the world gives a damn about your "council of elders" have yourself a damn good inquisition in your OWN country, just dont touch anyone elses.

(grin) Then my work here is done :}

I was aware of that when it was drafted. However the UN member nations are required to submit to the investigation and give up suspects.

Outside of the UN it is always going to be a problem, but there is not a lot I can do about it, and I have resigned myself to that fact.

Even inside the UN it is going to be a problem. Not all countries are going to be willing, and some will fight it out rather than be arrested.

Definitely, how many countries would it take to put one rebellious one out of commision? How many actually care enough to do THAT in the first place? We'd need it to be extremely well organized.

Even inside the UN it is going to be a problem. Not all countries are going to be willing, and some will fight it out rather than be arrested.

Originally I was going to write it so that UN members would not have a choice, but given that I was already jumping up and down on the sovereignty of member nations, I thought better of it.

(OOC - it will leave open a lot of opportunities for roleplaying I guess)

(IC)

I thought that if I made it too strong - that if I gave The Panel the power to take people related to the case without extradition proceedings, that almost everyone would object to it on the grounds of Big Brother/"The UN is a bunch of fascists".

This way makes it less scary, but also weakens it a little.

Good luck on trying.
I was being retorical :P

If you bothered to read my posts and looked at the actual context, you would realize my intent is to change the government. Wiping out the religion is a secondary, and hopefully unnecessary, thing. However, I'm not going to claim to be ubernice and above wiping out a people if necessity for it comes up. I don't have the option of such a code with the region I am in.
If you had bothered to read his posts you'd have noticed that his state is his religion and vice versa, and that the population gives 100% support - your basic Theocracy. Furthermore, the actions he admitted to commit are inherent to his religion, as part of the practice, rituals, experiences and dogmas.

To take out the state, you'd need to take out the religion and to take out the religion you'd have to take out the people - which would come down to retributing genocide on someone else with genocide: basically giving the entire culture the death sentence for genocide by the power vested in you by yourself.

Besides the problem that you are denying his state freedom of religion and practice you are also on a vigilante action against his state: you are sentencing him without trial. You only have his short comments to go by, perhaps there's much more of a story to the thing.

I guess you just proved what I've been trying to say here: this resolution will only endorce such actions by powerful states like yours against weaker ones. If fact I'd say that his actions don't sound much worse then the ones you admitted to committing yourself. That plus the other illegal actions by you in this matter would make you up for the same treatment yourself, by your own reasoning. - which brought up my retorical question. :D

Now, if he doesn't bother to reply to take up my challenge, then posting a topic on it would be pointless. Can't fight someone who doesn't bother to show up.
Yeah, that's always a biatch.. we could start making clucking noises at this point if you want. :P

I'm pointing out one of the inherent weaknesses: You may not be able to bring them to trial.
One weakness of this entire resolution I've been trying to point out all along. Powerful nations will still do as they please, cause no-one can do anything about it. They will also abuse this resolution to invade weaker countries "to save the people" - as you just declared to want to do in this thread.
In this case, it is removing the church from power and putting someone else in. Not that difficult to do.
"It is removing Saddam from power and putting someone else in. Not that difficult to do." - G.W.Bush

Its not all that easy unless you are prepared to be a bigger oppressor then what you are trying to replace.

"§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation. "

--Nice thought--however, Genocide should not be used to describe crimes of all but murder, and/or the infertalization of an entire race (as per your definition of 'race' in #1). This is because these are the ONLY two forms of extermination that ARE extermination. If you rape someone, you're not eliminating them. Separation from your family doens't get rid of you. torture is not killing, enslavement removes citizenship and basic human rites, but isn't killing. Finally, forced pregnancy. this one is actually just absurd--how, pretell, can one exterminate a race if one is forcing that race to procreate?

Now, that having been said--I support this proposal, though I will *not* vote in favour of it unless the above article is changed to encompass only those crimes which can justifiably be linked to genocide.

Torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy can be included under "Crimes against Humanity". Familial separation could be included in a definition for Ethnic Cleansing (which, for the record, is not genocide).

Definitely, how many countries would it take to put one rebellious one out of commision? How many actually care enough to do THAT in the first place? We'd need it to be extremely well organized.
It all depends on what the spoils will be for the "coalition of the willing" that will barge in to "safe the innocent".

In case of a weakly defended resource rich nation I'm betting the entire world will want a piece of the action. In case of a well defended resource poor nation I'm betting they'll just be left to do whatever they please in their own country.
*refers to his arguements about resource rich/poor way back in this thread*

Again: this entire resultion is an empty promise to the oppressed and a get out of jail freecard for the realy big oppressors.