NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I've got some problems with the Genocide resolution that should be easily discerned by people from the following proposed ammendment and the poll questions on my proposed Ammendment to the resolution. I'd like to know who supports the proposal and who doesn't before I submit it. I know there are reasonable people who have the same concern I do, but I want to make sure the amendment will pass if submitted, I'm also more than open to rewording the amendment if need be. I could comment a great deal about what I wrote and why I wrote it, but I'd rather hear reasonable criticism first. Please note that "You're stupid" and similar posts will be ignored as such are not construed by me to be "reasonable criticisim of the ammendment's wording and construction. So here goes:



WHEREAS: The Eon Convention on Genocide resolution states: "§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."; and

WHEREAS: Said section of the resolution may reasonably be read and construed to permit and even sanction Double Jeopardy;

WHEREAS: Double Jeopardy is an affront to civil rights, true criminal justice and invites the abuse and manipulation of the criminal justice system and police powers by goverments and their agents and representatives; and

WHEREAS: The term "new evidence" is not defined in the resolution nor does it provide for a procedure upon re-trial.

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED:

1. The phrase "new evidence" as used in the resolution shall be defined to mean evidence which was not reasonably available at, or reasonably prior to, the time of a final decision on a charge of genocide, due to (1) a lack of scientific relilability; (2) a deliberate concealement or destruction of said evidence; (3) a deliberate attempt to conceal or destroy said evidence; (3) deliberate obstruction of the discovery of said evidence; or (4) an unavoidable catastrophie.

2. Upon a determination by the TPP body which considered the original charge of Genocide that "new evidence" in keeping with the foregoing definition exists, a re-trial of the defendant(s) on a charge of Genocide shall be permitted. if the "new evidence," in and of itself and standing alone, is sufficient to warrant a finding that probable cause to believe that genocide has occurred exists and that the person(s) to be re-tried is/are the perpetrator(s) of said Genocide.

3. In the event re-trial on a charge of Genocide is authrorized under sections 1 & 2 above, a completely new TPP body shall be convened to consider the evidence to be presented in support of the charge of Genocide and the defenses thereto. No individual serving on the original TPP body shall be permitted to serve on the new TPP body nor shall any government represented on the first TPP body have a representative on the new TPP body.

4. At a re-trial authorized by this ammendment, all evidence adduced at a prior trial shall be considered by the TPP body considering the charges as shall be the "new evidence" and the prior verdict of acquittal.

5. Conviction at the conclusion of a retrial shall only be sustainable if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that had the "new evidence" been available and presented at the original trial, a conviction on the charge of Genocide would have occurred.

6. No portion of the Eon Convention on Genocide shall be deemed as repealed or rendered null, void or without effect pursuant to this resolution. Rather this resolution shall be used only for definitional purposes and procedural requirements in considering a re-trial after an acquittal has occurred.

You can't amend Resolutions.

You can't amend Resolutions.

Well, we can pass a new resolution that "amends" one that has already passed though, can't we? One that says the original resolution must be read with this language inserted and the old language deleted or some such. Surely we don't have to vote to completely repeal a prior resolution and then vote in a completely new resolution when the only idea is to insert a few new paragraphs into the old resolution and delete some objectionable language from the old resolution.

First, I've done just a quick review of your proposal, and it seems very well written.

Second, the claims made by players that have said that the Eon Convention on Genocide is illegal, does not in fact have any "real world" standing nor is it consistent with the Fair Trial resolution. I personally think there claims are more of just sour grapes, in that somebody who isn't one of their close friends managed to get a resolution to the UN floor.

Why do I say this? Their other chief complaint is to talk about some stupid science fiction film: Independence Day, and totally confuse / mix up mass murder in self defense with mass murder based purely on ethnicity or culture. (I'll go right out and say it, my government has lost MUCH respect for these nations and is saddened to see this.) Killing somebody because he is waving a sharp hunters knife in your eye is murder. If that person happened to be a Jew, then you just saved your life by killing a Jew. If he was a Jew but didn't threaten you, then you may have committeed a hate crime.

It is pretty damn easy when the death toll is massive and large to find a pattern and evidence that such a program is designed not as self defense, but as a massive hate crime. They know this, we know this ... but they are grabbing at anything they can for the simple reason that they don't like it when the resolution on the floor isn't one they lobbyied for.

In the real world courts have jurisdictions, they always have. In NationStates they do too.

If I were to fly to Zurich and get caught carrying cocaine, I would be in the jurisdiction of a Swiss court, not a US domestic court. The United States would have no legal author to prosecute me, nor would rights that I enjoy under American law apply to me. In fact, for a drug related crime, chances are very slim that the US embassy would even offer me the assistance of finding a pro-American Swiss lawyer.

Now replace Zurich with Hersfold City and the US with Mikitivity. The same problem exists. A Miervatian tried in Hersfold is subject to Hersfold laws. But Hersfold right now has no legal right to try a Miervatian guilty of henious crimes against humanity unless he physically is in the current jursidication of Hersfold (which though my nation respects Hersfold, we don't allow their courts to rule in Mikitivity).

It is very clear that the Fair Trial proposal that was written in Aug. 2003, was never designed with any world court. The Eon Convention on Genocide is creating a very limited and specific world court, that is subject to NEW jurisdiction and rulings. The author has shown a display of prior resolutions, case in point the reference to the Wolfish Convention.

In any event, the parties against the author are grasping at straws. Much worse, I've seen a few of them insult the author by implying that TilEnca has not read the prior resolutions, when this is obviously false. (As I've said before, I'm washing my hands of them, but I don't think we really need to acknowledge their claims, because I think they are weak and petty.)


All that said, I do like what you've written here, and recognize and greatly appreciate that you are trying to appease everybody. This is to be commended, and I'd like to look more carefully at what you've written here, because if you intend to continue with this, I'd like to give your proposal the same fair chance that other people's ideas have had. (And naturally if I like it, I'll advocate tooth and nail for it too!) :)

10kMichael

First, I've done just a quick review of your proposal, and it seems very well written.

Second, the claims made by players that have said that the Eon Convention on Genocide is illegal, does not in fact have any "real world" standing nor is it consistent with the Fair Trial resolution. I personally think there claims are more of just sour grapes, in that somebody who isn't one of their close friends managed to get a resolution to the UN floor.

Why do I say this? Their other chief complaint is to talk about some stupid science fiction film: Independence Day, and totally confuse / mix up mass murder in self defense with mass murder based purely on ethnicity or culture. (I'll go right out and say it, my government has lost MUCH respect for these nations and is saddened to see this.) Killing somebody because he is waving a sharp hunters knife in your eye is murder. If that person happened to be a Jew, then you just saved your life by killing a Jew. If he was a Jew but didn't threaten you, then you may have committeed a hate crime.

It is pretty damn easy when the death toll is massive and large to find a pattern and evidence that such a program is designed not as self defense, but as a massive hate crime. They know this, we know this ... but they are grabbing at anything they can for the simple reason that they don't like it when the resolution on the floor isn't one they lobbyied for.

In the real world courts have jurisdictions, they always have. In NationStates they do too.

If I were to fly to Zurich and get caught carrying cocaine, I would be in the jurisdiction of a Swiss court, not a US domestic court. The United States would have no legal author to prosecute me, nor would rights that I enjoy under American law apply to me. In fact, for a drug related crime, chances are very slim that the US embassy would even offer me the assistance of finding a pro-American Swiss lawyer.

Now replace Zurich with Hersfold City and the US with Mikitivity. The same problem exists. A Miervatian tried in Hersfold is subject to Hersfold laws. But Hersfold right now has no legal right to try a Miervatian guilty of henious crimes against humanity unless he physically is in the current jursidication of Hersfold (which though my nation respects Hersfold, we don't allow their courts to rule in Mikitivity).

It is very clear that the Fair Trial proposal that was written in Aug. 2003, was never designed with any world court. The Eon Convention on Genocide is creating a very limited and specific world court, that is subject to NEW jurisdiction and rulings. The author has shown a display of prior resolutions, case in point the reference to the Wolfish Convention.

In any event, the parties against the author are grasping at straws. Much worse, I've seen a few of them insult the author by implying that TilEnca has not read the prior resolutions, when this is obviously false. (As I've said before, I'm washing my hands of them, but I don't think we really need to acknowledge their claims, because I think they are weak and petty.)


All that said, I do like what you've written here, and recognize and greatly appreciate that you are trying to appease everybody. This is to be commended, and I'd like to look more carefully at what you've written here, because if you intend to continue with this, I'd like to give your proposal the same fair chance that other people's ideas have had. (And naturally if I like it, I'll advocate tooth and nail for it too!) :)

10kMichael

Thank you for a well written and thoughtful reply. Please note, however, that I am not "casting my lot" with those who say the Genocide Resolution is illegal or in contravention of any other UN resolution. Nor am I trying to appease anyone other than myself. I view double jeopardy as a serious affront to civil rights and justice (I'm a criminal defense lawyer in RL) and oppose any law or policy that seemingly sanctions it as the Genocide Resolution does. Note that under current, RL, U.S. Constitutional Law, my proposed amendment would be prohibited as violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause too, but at least it is fair as it gives the prosecution the same (more or less) rights to retry someone as a convicted person can argue in a petition for retrial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.

What I wish to make sure is not possible under the Genocide Resolution is, by way of example only, a claim by a prosecutor in a 2nd Genocide hearing:

"Well, we lost, but only because it was too expensive to get that witness from Tonga to come to Switzerland for the trial. His testimony will be "new evidence" that supports a conviction and we should get another bite at the apple based on this new evidence."

My resolution would prevent that from taking place by ensuring the prosecution put on it's best case first and reserving re-trials for cases where "new evidence" was in fact "new evidence" that was unknown to exist at the time of the original trial and not just evidence the prosecutor didn't present due to an administrative decision or in an effort to "cut corners."

Due Process Resolution Miki. It is illegal under the Due Process Resolution.
It states any person. Meaning no person can be subjected to double jeopardy, irregardless of the court trying him or her.

This amendment still violates double jeopardy.

Firstly - as far as I am aware you can amend resolutions, but only to make them wider. So for example Replacement to RBH replaced RBH because it was a wider application and did not restrict the original resolution. Same with the free education ones.

This would restrict the resolution (if the current proposal passes) and so would probably be deemed invalid.

Secondly - it's not double jepordy :}

Third - that's pretty much all I have to say until the current proposal goes one way or the other.

The only reason to allow a retrail in the case of genocide is a simple one: there's no higher court to appeal to.

I'd think that's why it was built into the resolution anyways. In case of a national law you'd near always be able to appeal the outcome by going to a higher court. This is basically a 1 level court, which makes that impossible unless you go back to the same court - causing your double jeapardy. Its either a conflict with civil rights because of that or because of not having a court of appeal.

ALso i'd like to note that this whole freaking out over double jeapardy is utterly american and has little or no influence on the world... and that this same america has refused to endorce any world court unless they are only part of the judges and never of the ones trialed.

OOC: Does the UK allow double jeopardy? I thought this was an issue only in the US.

<-- Not a lawyer. Obviously.

Mikitivity, your post above is pretty insulting. As a nation who is anti-genocide and ALSO anti-Eon-Convention...
Second, the claims made by players that have said that the Eon Convention on Genocide is illegal, does not in fact have any "real world" standing nor is it consistent with the Fair Trial resolution. I personally think there claims are more of just sour grapes, in that somebody who isn't one of their close friends managed to get a resolution to the UN floor.
First, there's plenty of real-world examples that conventions against Genocide don't stop it. The UN has passed a huge number of resolutions condeming various actions- including genocide, and it still doesn't prevent it taking place.

Second, nor does the Internation War Crimes Tribunal (the RL version of the TPP, to all extents and purposes) has never bought a western government to trial beyond the Nuremburg trials. The UK and USA, both of whom have been called for questioning by a defence council at Slobadan's trial in the Hague- and guess what, neither are going to turn up and answer his questions about deliberate bombing of civililan facilities. Yes, Millosovich is an evil guy, yes his claims may well be an attempt to fudge his own trial- but if the IWCT worked, they'd be there defending themselves under cross-examination. They're not. Ergo, unless the TPP hoicks people in forcibily, powerful nations won't be held to account- and justice is no justice unless it applies to all.
Their other chief complaint is to talk about some stupid science fiction film: Independence Day.
Erm, some nations started on a debate of ID4. To my mind they were way off topic- and a fair few involved in the debate were supporters of the Eon Convention.
Killing somebody because he is waving a sharp hunters knife in your eye is murder. If that person happened to be a Jew, then you just saved your life by killing a Jew. If he was a Jew but didn't threaten you, then you may have committeed a hate crime.
Fully accepted by all sensible people partaking of the debate. Genocide is the attempt to eradicate a *race* of people. From my dictionary:
It is pretty damn easy when the death toll is massive and large to find a pattern and evidence that such a program is designed not as self defense, but as a massive hate crime. They know this, we know this ... but they are grabbing at anything they can for the simple reason that they don't like it when the resolution on the floor isn't one they lobbyied for.
That's, erm, how can I put this? Cow Effluent. Steer-Waste. Cattle-Excretea. That-which-remains-after-the-grass-has-passed-through-the-bull.

Yes, if a death toll after say a civil incident is huge, the victims are all of one ethnicity, the perps. are all of another ethnicity, then yes- well, freak-me if it isn't a racially-motivated slaughter. Genocide. Again, any of the more mature and more sensible nations using this board will accept that- that's what genocide IS. What *I* am objecting to is that:

-The Bill creates a multinational panel that all nations must subject themselves to, that appears to be accountable to no nations, and appears to be convened at the whim of virtually anyone.
-The Bill *possibly* violates double-jeopardy. I'm not sure, the wording isn't clear.
-The Bill could do far far more to combat the causes of genocide- inequality, fear, poor welfare, poor standards of living and lack of education. It makes no attempt to.
-The Bill *could* be used by large imperialistic nations to invade small, resource-rich nations.
-The Bill encourages the retributive-persecution of those who commit genocide, rather than reintergration and encouraging forgivness.

I'm not against TilEna proposing bills. Hell, I'd vote for THIS bill if it addressed the points I just outlined. Kindly don't apply limited labels to everyone who votes against a bill- or others will be inclined to do the same to you, and that's not right either.
In the real world courts have jurisdictions, they always have. In NationStates they do too.
Can't see anywhere where anyone has said they don't.
In any event, the parties against the author are grasping at straws.
Maybe some of them. Personally, I'm quite happy to outline my reasoning, just as I did above. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm saying "I don't agree, and this is why". I'm not even trying to get OTHERS to agree with me- I'm just Explaining, because if I didn't it seems I'd be grouped with the straw-grasping vindictive lobbiests that you claim are trying to shoot this bill down.
Much worse, I've seen a few of them insult the author by implying that TilEnca has not read the prior resolutions, when this is obviously false.
Unike your insults of those voting against the resolution, of course- which are justified, righteous and therefore fine to make.

Either way, kindly take some time and care to read every post on the debate before painting everyone against the bill with the same brush. Different people vote against the same resolution for different reasons- just like different people vote FOR a given bill for different reasons.

First, there's plenty of real-world examples that conventions against Genocide don't stop it. The UN has passed a huge number of resolutions condeming various actions- including genocide, and it still doesn't prevent it taking place.


I think it has been pointed out once or twice that nothing can stop genocide. Laws can only attempt to punish or deter.


Second, nor does the Internation War Crimes Tribunal (the RL version of the TPP, to all extents and purposes) has never bought a western government to trial beyond the Nuremburg trials. The UK and USA, both of whom have been called for questioning by a defence council at Slobadan's trial in the Hague- and guess what, neither are going to turn up and answer his questions about deliberate bombing of civililan facilities. Yes, Millosovich is an evil guy, yes his claims may well be an attempt to fudge his own trial- but if the IWCT worked, they'd be there defending themselves under cross-examination. They're not. Ergo, unless the TPP hoicks people in forcibily, powerful nations won't be held to account- and justice is no justice unless it applies to all.


The Panel can request the extradition of those who are required to the case, and those in the UN are required to turn up. Since resolutions do not apply to those outside the UN there is not a lot that can be done about them, unless nations are willing to go and get them.


Erm, some nations started on a debate of ID4. To my mind they were way off topic- and a fair few involved in the debate were supporters of the Eon Convention.


It was in regard to self-defence :}


-The Bill could do far far more to combat the causes of genocide- inequality, fear, poor welfare, poor standards of living and lack of education. It makes no attempt to.


Could you give me examples as to how one resolution can cover social justice, human rights and intenrational security all in one go, without violating UN law?


-The Bill *could* be used by large imperialistic nations to invade small, resource-rich nations.


HOW?

how can you commit genocide in self defence?! that makes no sense, if my life is on the line are you saying i can not defend myself? genocide can not be commited in self defence. Unless what you mean that say hitler for example claimed that the Jews were revolting and that he killed them all in defence of himself and his fellow germans? is that what you meant? that some one cant commit an act of genocide and then claim it as self defence on such a mass scale?

Well, we can pass a new resolution that "amends" one that has already passed though, can't we? One that says the original resolution must be read with this language inserted and the old language deleted or some such. Surely we don't have to vote to completely repeal a prior resolution and then vote in a completely new resolution when the only idea is to insert a few new paragraphs into the old resolution and delete some objectionable language from the old resolution.
A properly designed UN voting system would do all that. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those systems.

Long-time UN moderator Enodia wrote up some basic rules in response to a rash of proposals that couldn't be implemented in game code. Those rules appear in the first post of Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176). They have since been expanded and clarified by other mods, particularly Cogitation. The section on amendments is completely clear:7. Amendments
You may not submit a proposal that 'changes' the wording or effect of a passed resolution. You can make a repeal proposal if you really want to see the back of one, but that's it.
Note that this was in response to prior resolutions, such as #17 Required Basic Healthcare as modified by #20 'RBH' Replacement. Those both passed in June 2003, but the rules didn't go into effect until September / October 2003 (and have been adjusted several times since). Older laws were grandfathered out of necessity, as there was no way at the time to remove them. A second example often used is #21 Fair Trial, as modified by #47 Definition of 'Fair Trial'. Note that the latter doesn't purport to replace any of the original language, it merely enhances it.

A number of 'grandfathered' resolutions that were blatantly illegal under the Enodian Protocols were removed during the move to Jolt. (For a complete list of passed and removed resolutions, see NSwiki's UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).) I don't think you'll see Admin removing anything else that way again - they've "handed the keys of the UN" to the players with the new Repeal ability. It's up to us to police our own messes.

Mikitivity, your post above is pretty insulting. As a nation who is anti-genocide and ALSO anti-Eon-Convention...

First, there's plenty of real-world examples that conventions against Genocide don't stop it. The UN has passed a huge number of resolutions condeming various actions- including genocide, and it still doesn't prevent it taking place.

The claims that this resolution are illegal, which is what you first replied to in your point by point reply has nothing to do with genocide, but instead the issue of double jeopardy to which the ambassador from Anti-Phar raised. Please see his nations' comments in this and other threads.

In fact, it is that objection that gave rise to this proposed amendement (I'm not addressing if we can even do this, though I think Frisbeeteria's point is well made and worth listening to here) is that in the UN resolution "Fair Trial" there is a clause created (similar to American law) to give the right to people to not be tried twice.

Now I've argued that this doesn't matter because that resolution was designed to apply to national courts, not international courts, because there were none at the time. Anti-Phar countered that point by stating that that particular resolution applies to all individual courts (domestic or not) and that it is a basic human right.

I don't think your post really addresses the above, which is the heart of the matter of this proposal.

Second, the claims made by players that have said that the Eon Convention on Genocide is illegal, does not in fact have any "real world" standing nor is it consistent with the Fair Trial resolution.

Which is why I argue it from the NS viewpoint.

I personally think there claims are more of just sour grapes, in that somebody who isn't one of their close friends managed to get a resolution to the UN floor.

And with that, you have lost some of my respect. You have no clue how hard it was for me to decide to oppose TilEnca and how much I didn't wish to do it.

Why do I say this? Their other chief complaint is to talk about some stupid science fiction film: Independence Day, and totally confuse / mix up mass murder in self defense with mass murder based purely on ethnicity or culture. (I'll go right out and say it, my government has lost MUCH respect for these nations and is saddened to see this.) Killing somebody because he is waving a sharp hunters knife in your eye is murder. If that person happened to be a Jew, then you just saved your life by killing a Jew. If he was a Jew but didn't threaten you, then you may have committeed a hate crime.

I'm surprised you didn't bother to read the resolution. If you had, you would have realized that Independence Day is a valid arguement. Take a look at the definition of genocide and then the clause about it being used in self-defense.

It is pretty damn easy when the death toll is massive and large to find a pattern and evidence that such a program is designed not as self defense, but as a massive hate crime. They know this, we know this ... but they are grabbing at anything they can for the simple reason that they don't like it when the resolution on the floor isn't one they lobbyied for.

Unlike you, the arguements have been over whether or not it can actually be enforced (a serious question in this case) and whether it is legal when previous resolutions are looked into. And I don't lobby for resolutions, so this is more flamebait from you.

real world courts have jurisdictions, they always have. In NationStates they do too.

If I were to fly to Zurich and get caught carrying cocaine, I would be in the jurisdiction of a Swiss court, not a US domestic court. The United States would have no legal author to prosecute me, nor would rights that I enjoy under American law apply to me. In fact, for a drug related crime, chances are very slim that the US embassy would even offer me the assistance of finding a pro-American Swiss lawyer.

Now replace Zurich with Hersfold City and the US with Mikitivity. The same problem exists. A Miervatian tried in Hersfold is subject to Hersfold laws. But Hersfold right now has no legal right to try a Miervatian guilty of henious crimes against humanity unless he physically is in the current jursidication of Hersfold (which though my nation respects Hersfold, we don't allow their courts to rule in Mikitivity).

This isn't the real world. Point invalidated.

It is very clear that the Fair Trial proposal that was written in Aug. 2003, was never designed with any world court. The Eon Convention on Genocide is creating a very limited and specific world court, that is subject to NEW jurisdiction and rulings. The author has shown a display of prior resolutions, case in point the reference to the Wolfish Convention.

The Fair Trial Resolution does not state it is limited to national courts. No point.

In any event, the parties against the author are grasping at straws. Much worse, I've seen a few of them insult the author by implying that TilEnca has not read the prior resolutions, when this is obviously false. (As I've said before, I'm washing my hands of them, but I don't think we really need to acknowledge their claims, because I think they are weak and petty.)

I see you grasping at straws and proving that you have not entirely read the resolution proposed with this. You have shown an ignorance of the arguement going on, the exact arguements and valid points that have been made and acknowledged by TilEnca as such, and appear to be making statements unsupported by the majority of the evidence at hand. No accusations I have seen suggest TilEnca is ignorant of passed resolutions.

The claims that this resolution are illegal, which is what you first replied to in your point by point reply has nothing to do with genocide, but instead the issue of double jeopardy to which the ambassador from Anti-Phar raised. Please see his nations' comments in this and other threads.

And here you start showing some knowledge of the resolution. The Fair Trial resolution lacking any statement it applies to national courts makes it apply to all courts.

In fact, it is that objection that gave rise to this proposed amendement (I'm not addressing if we can even do this, though I think Frisbeeteria's point is well made and worth listening to here) is that in the UN resolution "Fair Trial" there is a clause created (similar to American law) to give the right to people to not be tried twice.

Now I've argued that this doesn't matter because that resolution was designed to apply to national courts, not international courts, because there were none at the time. Anti-Phar countered that point by stating that that particular resolution applies to all individual courts (domestic or not) and that it is a basic human right.

There is no evidence to support your claim about the Fair Trial resolution. Find some, and maybe I'll consider it. As it is, it just appears to be in the spirit of a person who has not read the entire arguement or even the entire EON convention and is just mad that people would dare attack a resolution he supports.

I don't think your post really addresses the above, which is the heart of the matter of this proposal.

What I was attempting to address was the array of either misleading, insulting or just downright daft comments. Obviously went sailing past in the stratosphere tho' :)

I think it has been pointed out once or twice that nothing can stop genocide. Laws can only attempt to punish or deter.
Yup, I've agreed with that comment every time it's been made, too. What I'm saying is that steps can be taken to:

REDUCE THE LIKELYHOOD OF A GENOCIDE STARTING

Genocide breeds out of fear, hatred, poor standards of living and economic and social depression. Don't believe me? Look at Hitler's rise to power- economic collapse, a depressed nation, Hitler walks up and says "The Jews are to blame". Bingo, first step towards the holocaust had been taken.

Historians now reckon that a series of processes have to be undertaken before a genocide occurs- you start with pointing out that someone's different, then that they're to cause for something, then you make it acceptable to punish them for whatever they're causing, then you punish them for being different. It's not pre-planned, it just works out that way- gradual densitization of a population toward an ethnic/racial/cultural group.

The Panel can request the extradition of those who are required to the case, and those in the UN are required to turn up.
Again, my point about the USA and UK attending the War Crimes Tribunal- both obliged to turn up, neither of whom do. This USUN resolution will *not* be obeyed by powerful nations who are found to violate it.
Could you give me examples as to how one resolution can cover social justice, human rights and intenrational security all in one go, without violating UN law?
Sure. A "UN Resolution to Aid the Prevention of Racial Hatred, Genocide, and Ethnic Clensing" would have to cover-


-International efforts to reduce world poverty- ie, allowing non-repayment of loans to developing nations if the money was being spent on infrastructure and development, free-er and fair-er trade etc.

-International efforts to improve world litteracy and education- again, providing aid to nations so that they can educate their people (in order that they realise people different to themselves are not something to be feared.

-Provide the outline of a basic criminal justice system that was fair and equal, that could be taken, adopted, and improved upon by nations as they wished. (adoption of the system would be optional, obviously)

-Provide the outline of situations when the NSUN would and wouldn't condone/approve of (not "allow" "authorize" or "start") military action against other UN nations by another UN nation.

-Provide a system where in any conflict involving a UN nation, NSUN observers (delegates from UN nations, acting under their own nation's diplomatic flag) are dispatched and keep track of who's doing what in the war.

Okay, that's all I could come up with within a 2 minute think... but I'm sure between 10,00 UN nations we should be able to come up with something better, right? Genocide is NOT something that "just happens" because of "nasty crazy people". It arises out of certain events, that can be prevented in real ways. You can't stop it ever happening, but you can decease the liklihood.

And with that, you have lost some of my respect. You have no clue how hard it was for me to decide to oppose TilEnca and how much I didn't wish to do it.



I'm surprised you didn't bother to read the resolution. If you had, you would have realized that Independence Day is a valid arguement. Take a look at the definition of genocide and then the clause about it being used in self-defense.



Independence Day is a HORRIBLE arguement.

Here is why.


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.

The UBR is of course a reference to the UN Universal Bill of Rights (one of several references in the Eon Convention to prior resolutions).

But to the point at hand, you continue to IGNORE this and claim that an attack of killing somebody in the process of attacking you is also based on "arbitrary criteria".

I've watched ID4. When the aliens first arrived to the Earth, some humans actually were waving on building tops, thankful to see signs of intelligent life. The reaction was not one where humans responded to the aliens via a first strike.

Furthermore at the end of the movie, Will Smith and Bill Pullman killed a single mothership. I don't recall them saying, "Gee, let's build a space program and find out if there are any more of these creatures."

I do believe they traveled from planet to planet ... the "locust" analogy was used. But guess what ...

*drum roll*

There is more than one locust swarm.

In any event, ID4 is a terrible example to use, especially in light of the fact that there are amble real-world historical examples that can be reviewed too.


Yes, TilEnca added that in there *because* your nation was one of the few that originally kept bringing up this ID4 example. Let's not lose sight of this.

You've pointed out that "real-world" examples don't apply in NationStates. That isn't entirely true. They can't be referenced within a resolution, but if you are free to make-believe and pretend you are the leader of a society of alien robots from BILLIONS of lightyears away who likes to talk to Earthmen, then what is to stop me from roleplaying that the Holocaust happened or that the "concepts" and "lessons" learned from the Holocaust, Second World War, or World Court don't have value and still hold.

The subject of jurisdiction in courts is still valid. Hersfold has not right to try a Miervatian for crimes committeed in Mikitivity, nor does Mikitivity have a legal right to try an Hersfoldian for crimes against humanity committeed in Hersfold. My examples illustrated a real-world and then a NationStates equivalent ... would it help if I found some Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise movie to make things easier to understand?


The Fair Trial resolutions were written before either of our nations joined. In fact, few of the nations here can recount what happened and since the pre-Jolt records are LOST, I certainly think it is logical and reasonable to assume that the following applies to domestic courts / jurisdictions:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #21
Fair trial
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The outer hebrides

Description: We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Votes For: 10,713
Votes Against: 3,069
Implemented: Sun Jul 13 2003


This is a reference to "nations"! Notice it specifically also talks about "mode of government" and "citizens". The resolution is talking about national / domestic jurisdictions.

And yet this is a point that is constantly IGNORED.

Now a second resolution, as authored by Ninjadom (whom I believe is around with a new nation name) has also been discussed:


Definition of 'Fair Trial'
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ninjadom

Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

Votes For: 12,556
Votes Against: 6,283
Implemented: Sat Feb 14 2004



I've added bold text to the reference to the prior resolution being vague and the clause that a defendant should be tried in the venue for where the crime was committeed ... though I think that too could be considered vague. Furthermore, notice how references are made to criminal and civil courts? Bear in mind that many nations have military court systems which are independent of these courts. Again, there is such a thing as jursifidiction.

Finally, in between these two resolutions is the "Due Process" resolution:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #27

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: 9,027
Votes Against: 4,677
Implemented: Wed Aug 13 2003


Now of the three, this is the resolution to which Anti-Phar was talking about ...

First, I've highlighted "Grand Jury" in blue. Do you have a Grand Jury? Not all nations adopt the same "American" model of government, and yet this resolution clearly speaks of this. International jurisdictions had not yet been created by the UN (though it is possible that something similar has been created through bi-lateral roleplayed agreements). In any event, I most certainly doubt that they played with a Grand Jury in mind.

Is that a violation of this resolution?

No, I think not, because the prior resolutions were modeled after a mostly American court system, as is this resolution.




The larger question here isn't about genocide, as this is a discussion on the need for a repeal and new version of the soon to pass Eon Convention on Genocide, and focused entirely on the question of double jeopardy.

Now I've dismissed many of the arguments for the need for double jeopardy in part based on other poor arguements (primarily those which have IGNORED Article 1, clause 1 of the Eon Convention) under my observation (and this is an observation made based on long-term posting trends including arguments publically made before this resolution reached the UN floor) that many of the nations whom suggest that the Fair Trial resolutions prohibit double jeopardy are doing so because they have turned to ANYTHING to strike down the resolution ... even silly SciFi movies.

Good grief! Will you please read, slowly and carefully, the following sentence, and then never again say anything about Indepedence Day 4 in this topic!:

ID4 was used by BOTH sides in the debate (pro- and anti- EON Convention) as an *example* of genocide as a defence.

Please cease stating that the use of ID4 as an example devalues the anti-EON arguements.

In doing so you also devalue your own arguement as ID4 was ALSO used by PRO-EONists.

Plus, it's getting rather broken-record-ish. Sorry, but your continued insistence to keep bringing up ID4 is getting tiresome. I've listed several reasons why I'm against the bill as it currently stands, and why the proposed amendment won't be wipe-enough for me, and what *I* feel should be included.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if you don't agree at least say so in a coherant arguement- not with a mantra of "ID4 is a lame example dredged up by desperate people to thwart our Well-Meaning and Good resolution".

Finally, in between these two resolutions is the "Due Process" resolution:

...

Is that a violation of this resolution?

No, I think not, because the prior resolutions were modeled after a mostly American court system, as is this resolution.

Wang Chun says that yes, it is a violation of Resolution #27, for two reasons:

First, there is no process for indicting someone suspected of genocide via Grand Jury prior to them being placed on trial by the TPP (and yes, the resolution on the floor COULD have been written to allow the TPP to empanel a Grand Jury for this purpose).

Second, the resolution on the floor provides for a defendent to be placed in double jeopardy, in clear violation of Resolution #27.

What I was attempting to address was the array of either misleading, insulting or just downright daft comments. Obviously went sailing past in the stratosphere tho' :)

Not exactly. I simply chose to ignore your earlier statements. (Besides, my nation has been called far worse ... names aren't about to hurt us.)

To be frank, I'm aware that many of you may take offense to my comments, but I honestly suspect that many of you are not aware that many of YOUR earlier comments have offended my government and others. I thought I had made this point clear last week before I left, but when I returned from talking to my government over the weekend I see that my earlier comments were ignored.

Sadly it is much easier for my nation's points to be considered if I behave rudely than politely. It is a sad state that the UN forum is in, but given the seriousness of this topic, my government felt it was necessary.

The subject of genocide and what my government views as political manuevering to block international actions in response to these crimes has always been of critical importance to the citizens and corporations of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity ... lots of dead consumers will not help the Spice Melange market.


But back to the subject at hand ...

This does not change my *opinion* that the series of UN trial rights resolutions include many references to a particular (*cough* American *cough*) legal system, and don't easily apply to a world court ... meaning my government feels no need to talk about a repeal to the Eon Convention in order to pass this proposal. This is an opinion, but it is not an opinion formed in a vaccum. I feel I've demonstrated above that my government has looked at many of the prior UN resolutions and has a fair understanding of these resolutions.

Though I'll also restate that these proposed amendements are in fact fairly well written, and my government still recognizes the author of the proposed amendments as having acted in good faith and respects this nation.

Independence Day is a HORRIBLE arguement.

Here is why.



The UBR is of course a reference to the UN Universal Bill of Rights (one of several references in the Eon Convention to prior resolutions).

But to the point at hand, you continue to IGNORE this and claim that an attack of killing somebody in the process of attacking you is also based on "arbitrary criteria".

I've watched ID4. When the aliens first arrived to the Earth, some humans actually were waving on building tops, thankful to see signs of intelligent life. The reaction was not one where humans responded to the aliens via a first strike.

Furthermore at the end of the movie, Will Smith and Bill Pullman killed a single mothership. I don't recall them saying, "Gee, let's build a space program and find out if there are any more of these creatures."

I do believe they traveled from planet to planet ... the "locust" analogy was used. But guess what ...

*drum roll*

There is more than one locust swarm.

In any event, ID4 is a terrible example to use, especially in light of the fact that there are amble real-world historical examples that can be reviewed too.


Yes, TilEnca added that in there *because* your nation was one of the few that originally kept bringing up this ID4 example. Let's not lose sight of this.

You've pointed out that "real-world" examples don't apply in NationStates. That isn't entirely true. They can't be referenced within a resolution, but if you are free to make-believe and pretend you are the leader of a society of alien robots from BILLIONS of lightyears away who likes to talk to Earthmen, then what is to stop me from roleplaying that the Holocaust happened or that the "concepts" and "lessons" learned from the Holocaust, Second World War, or World Court don't have value and still hold.

The subject of jurisdiction in courts is still valid. Hersfold has not right to try a Miervatian for crimes committeed in Mikitivity, nor does Mikitivity have a legal right to try an Hersfoldian for crimes against humanity committeed in Hersfold. My examples illustrated a real-world and then a NationStates equivalent ... would it help if I found some Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise movie to make things easier to understand?


The Fair Trial resolutions were written before either of our nations joined. In fact, few of the nations here can recount what happened and since the pre-Jolt records are LOST, I certainly think it is logical and reasonable to assume that the following applies to domestic courts / jurisdictions:



This is a reference to "nations"! Notice it specifically also talks about "mode of government" and "citizens". The resolution is talking about national / domestic jurisdictions.

And yet this is a point that is constantly IGNORED.

Now a second resolution, as authored by Ninjadom (whom I believe is around with a new nation name) has also been discussed:




I've added bold text to the reference to the prior resolution being vague and the clause that a defendant should be tried in the venue for where the crime was committeed ... though I think that too could be considered vague. Furthermore, notice how references are made to criminal and civil courts? Bear in mind that many nations have military court systems which are independent of these courts. Again, there is such a thing as jursifidiction.

Finally, in between these two resolutions is the "Due Process" resolution:



Now of the three, this is the resolution to which Anti-Phar was talking about ...

First, I've highlighted "Grand Jury" in blue. Do you have a Grand Jury? Not all nations adopt the same "American" model of government, and yet this resolution clearly speaks of this. International jurisdictions had not yet been created by the UN (though it is possible that something similar has been created through bi-lateral roleplayed agreements). In any event, I most certainly doubt that they played with a Grand Jury in mind.

Is that a violation of this resolution?

No, I think not, because the prior resolutions were modeled after a mostly American court system, as is this resolution.




The larger question here isn't about genocide, as this is a discussion on the need for a repeal and new version of the soon to pass Eon Convention on Genocide, and focused entirely on the question of double jeopardy.

Now I've dismissed many of the arguments for the need for double jeopardy in part based on other poor arguements (primarily those which have IGNORED Article 1, clause 1 of the Eon Convention) under my observation (and this is an observation made based on long-term posting trends including arguments publically made before this resolution reached the UN floor) that many of the nations whom suggest that the Fair Trial resolutions prohibit double jeopardy are doing so because they have turned to ANYTHING to strike down the resolution ... even silly SciFi movies.


The Double Jeopardy clause stands on its own for any person.

If that doesn't suffice, this resolution is still illegal as the resolution mandates that the UN or NS create a grand jury to be used if it desires trying any person for such offenses, as a person may only be tried under the specifications listed, it is not limited in scope, it applies to the UN and NS. This TPP panel fits the description of a Grand Jury, or, if not, it is illegal. So, this whole thing, though well written, and full of good intentions that AP agrees with, is blatantly illegal.

A movie with Kevin Spacey or Drew Beerrymore please.

Wang Chun says that yes, it is a violation of Resolution #27, for two reasons:

First, there is no process for indicting someone suspected of genocide via Grand Jury prior to them being placed on trial by the TPP (and yes, the resolution on the floor COULD have been written to allow the TPP to empanel a Grand Jury for this purpose).

Second, the resolution on the floor provides for a defendent to be placed in double jeopardy, in clear violation of Resolution #27.

I disagree.

"Grand Jury" is a proper noun (it was capitalized in the original resolution -- which is very conclusive in my mind that it was an attempt of some player to force their idea of a legal system on others), but what it really is (besides a name) was left vague in the resolution.

What is a Grand Jury?
What resolution defines it?
Why can't the TPP be a "Grand Jury"?
Why can't you?
Do any UN resolutions address this issue?

Resolutions that force specific aspects of "American" law (especially the earlier ones) are very poor. Today if a resolution were proposed that talked about using the US Dollar, it would be removed. I will argue that a resolution forcing a bicameral legislature or a US court system (including a "Grand Jury") to be also illegal, as this is a reference to a type of judicial system that some real-world nations and possibly many NationStates nations do not follow.

The double jeopardy concept is again an American concept, and the series of three trial resolutions I quoted clearly are talking about domestic courts.

The double jeopardy concept is again an American concept, and the series of three trial resolutions I quoted clearly are talking about domestic courts.

No, we adopted the concept of Double Jeopardy also. Anyway, the UN adopted it.

No, not all resolutions are domestic to NS. Any person, is any person, in any Grand Jury or any body assembled in performance thereof.

No person shall means no person can be brought to trial unless by those courts specified in the resolution if a UN Member or the UN is filing charges.

The Double Jeopardy clause stands on its own for any person.

A movie with Kevin Spacey or Drew Beerrymore please.

LOL, and here I was hoping we'd start talking about Men in Black and all those peesky aliens that visit the Earth? ;)


As for the concept of double jeopardy introduced in the Due Process resolution, I think that that particular resolution is intended to impact domestic courts ... it is a "Furtherment of Democracy" resolution, not a basic "Human Rights" resolution.

The Universal Bill of Rights does not grant this right.

Furtherment of Democracy resolutions IIRC enhance political freedoms (Political Stability are their opposite number).

The reason I'm objecting to the claims that the Eon Convention is illegal, is because I honestly believe nothing like it was considered in the drafting or debate of the resolutions we've mentioned in the course of this debate:

Fair Trial
Due Process
Definition of Fair Trial
Universal Bill of Rights
Wolfish Convention on POW

I may have missed another resolution, but these are the key resolutions that I've seen mentioned for various reasons.

My opinion is that some of those earlier resolutions are in and of themselves illegal ... but in a way that I don't "mind" the resolutions, but feel that the parts that are inconsistent with current rules can be "loopholed" away.

To change the track a bit, as the author of two resolutions that also would be illegal today, I don't believe we need to remove resolutions that are grandfathered, but I also don't believe we are stuck to grandfathered clauses.

In the case of the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution, the reason that resolution would be illegal today ... it talks about a real world report in the preamble. The activating (i.e. numbered clauses are still legit). I really wish the mods could just strike through specific lines.

Needle Sharing has an illegal appendix. The resolution itself is fine, but I tacked that last bit on, knowing that most players do read resolutions, but keep their comments to off-site forums. Our forum is kinda cluttered and hard to read. :(

So you aren't going to see me moving to recall / repeal the three trial resolutions, but I feel each of them is poorly worded and violates the current game rules. Thus I feel comfortable in calling them for what they are ... attempts by players to change domestic laws (and in one case not a statement on human rights).

So, the UN, a democratic body, is not beholden to Resolutions it passes in furtherment of democracy? That is confusing.

If the Due Process Resolution is illegal for setting up a judicial system that entails the right to not be tried twice for the same offence, as a furtherment of democracy (which court systems are), how many resolutions are in fact, illegal?

The reason I'm objecting to the claims that the Eon Convention is illegal, is because I honestly believe nothing like it was considered in the drafting or debate of the resolutions we've mentioned in the course of this debate:

So? If that were the case constitutions would be voided as opposed to amended, or advancement would be halted for lack of foresight on the part of the past.

This resolution can be made to fit within Due Process. The two are not mutually exclusive.

So, the UN, a democratic body, is not beholden to Resolutions it passes in furtherment of democracy? That is confusing.

If the Due Process Resolution is illegal for setting up a judicial system that entails the right to not be tried twice for the same offence, as a furtherment of democracy (which court systems are), how many resolutions are in fact, illegal?

I'll address your second question first ... based on the current UN rules, I'd say many of the prior resolutions are illegal. A frequent violation is making a reference to the real-world. There have been a few "amendements" made, which are also illegal. And there are a few resolutions which are in the wrong category or apply to multiple categories ... both are "illegal" with respect to game rules.

If you are willing to accept that prior resolutions can be "legal" and consistent with the rules due to being grandfathered, I'd ask that you consider that current resolutions should be extended some liberties with respect to those prior grandfathered resolutions.

What is less clear is if it was the intent for the UN to always repeal and revise resolutions ...

But is more clear is time and time again the moderators have said that basically when you join the UN you are signing to agree to all UN resolutions and adopt its national policies. The UN in this game is arguably not really an interational "confederation", but more of a stronger "federation" of governments all recognizing a more common body of domestic laws. (This is something my nation disagrees with and sides more with the domestic / sovereignty rights groups like Gatesville with ... but I think we are in the minority here.)


Now your first question ... I think Furtherment of Democracy resolutions are designed to be largely about granting political freedoms to "individuals". Frisbeeteria had a hard time finding a category for his "Rights and Duties" resolution because the resolution was never about the relationship between a nation and its citizens. The UN Taxation Ban has been frequently considered to be a protection of citizens from a world body, the UN ... and is not a political freedom, but a "human right".

In any event, I'll freely admit that this is a matter of opinion, but I do really believe there is sufficient history here to suggest that the Furtherment of Democracy resolution "Due Process" is a guideline for domestic courts and was not intented for international courts ... because back in 2003 the UN didn't even have a charter like resolution.

Without a doubt, I agree with Frisbeeteria that starting over in NS2 and having an actual UN Charter and separating national / domestic from international issues would be interesting. But there has been a lot of hard work that went into looking at prior UN resolutions, real world UN examples, and some of the roleplaying related to international relations at work here, and the document before use that is proposed to be amended because some feel it is illegal really is a sneaky way to write a resolution like the Rights and Duties and Wolfish Convention that is really more focused on roleplaying and not issuing domestic laws.

So? If that were the case constitutions would be voided as opposed to amended, or advancement would be halted for lack of foresight on the part of the past.

This resolution can be made to fit within Due Process. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You are right. It is possible for the Eon Convention to have not been written in such a way to be consistent with the double jeopardy clause in the Due Process resolution, but here is something for you to consider ...

Since the Due Process resolution makes reference to a "Grand Jury", and yet does not really address what this is, would it not also be wise to consider that even if a double jeopardy clause (I know this was your find, but I feel others whom are opposed to the UN being against genocide in general have latched onto your point) were incorporated into the Eon Convention, that perhaps the Due Process resolution is poorly constructed and also worth review and redesign too?

If so, the question really is a matter of opinion: what is a more critical effort, considering that other resolutions / proposals will continue to flood forward?

Yes. But, are game dynamics such that if Due Process were repealed, and a legal rights initiative granting people the right not to be held in Double Jeopardy would be illegal with respect to the Genocide Bill. The UN has voted itself into a deadlock.

Know that I think about this, is it a bill to have such a convention to ratify this proposal, or a proposal itself. The title is somewhat confusing.

DLE stands on its own. But, I have noticed a few attaching to my viewoint. I have a habit (Bad one to the complacent members) of being the voice of reason for dissenters that otherwise are ignored or not taken seriously.;)

(Or, as you probably remember, I can be a real stickler for reason and consistency ;))

Sure. A "UN Resolution to Aid the Prevention of Racial Hatred, Genocide, and Ethnic Clensing" would have to cover-



Sorry - I meant an NSUN resolution covering human rights, social justice and international security. It can't be done because a resolution can not cover more than one category at once. It would have to be three seperate resolutions.

Yes. But, are game dynamics such that if Due Process were repealed, and a legal rights initiative granting people the right not to be held in Double Jeopardy would be illegal with respect to the Genocide Bill. The UN has voted itself into a deadlock.

Know that I think about this, is it a bill to have such a convention to ratify this proposal, or a proposal itself. The title is somewhat confusing.


I don't follow your first point, but would like it if you could expand upon that, because I feel you probably have something that I'm just not understanding but could help me see your POV here. :)

As for the title, there are a few "Conventions" that were adopted as UN resolutions. In other words, you are voting to have all UN members adopt this convention. The "resolution" is technically, "Should the UN adopt the following convention". Many other resolutions are more generalized statements.

I think non-UN members can choose to ratify this convention via roleplaying but only via roleplaying.

Independence Day is a HORRIBLE arguement.

Here is why.



The UBR is of course a reference to the UN Universal Bill of Rights (one of several references in the Eon Convention to prior resolutions).

But to the point at hand, you continue to IGNORE this and claim that an attack of killing somebody in the process of attacking you is also based on "arbitrary criteria".

Actually, I wasn't ignoring it. I was paying attention to the entire article and have evidence you did not read all of it. The evidence:

§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.

ID4 is a valid arguement.

I've watched ID4. When the aliens first arrived to the Earth, some humans actually were waving on building tops, thankful to see signs of intelligent life. The reaction was not one where humans responded to the aliens via a first strike.

Furthermore at the end of the movie, Will Smith and Bill Pullman killed a single mothership. I don't recall them saying, "Gee, let's build a space program and find out if there are any more of these creatures."

I do believe they traveled from planet to planet ... the "locust" analogy was used. But guess what ...

*drum roll*

There is more than one locust swarm.

Actually, if you paid attention to the movie, they mention that is the entire alien civilization.

Now, the above is fun to play with. Using your words, I can nuke a small human nation to nonexistance if they actually fire at me. Why? They attacked me and there are always more human nations.

In any event, ID4 is a terrible example to use, especially in light of the fact that there are amble real-world historical examples that can be reviewed too.

Actually, no real-world examples of justified genocide exist. So, in this case, we have to turn to fiction.

Yes, TilEnca added that in there *because* your nation was one of the few that originally kept bringing up this ID4 example. Let's not lose sight of this.

And this is where I laugh a bit.

You have fallen under a simple misconception: You assumed the arguement was against the EON Convention. It wasn't. ID4 was brought up to counter the claim that there are no unjustified genocides. It would help if you would read the arguement you are complaining about.

[wuote]You've pointed out that "real-world" examples don't apply in NationStates. That isn't entirely true. They can't be referenced within a resolution, but if you are free to make-believe and pretend you are the leader of a society of alien robots from BILLIONS of lightyears away who likes to talk to Earthmen, then what is to stop me from roleplaying that the Holocaust happened or that the "concepts" and "lessons" learned from the Holocaust, Second World War, or World Court don't have value and still hold.[/quote]

And in this you prove you have not bothered to read the factbook thread I so helpfully provided in my sig.

1) I'm a little under 2000 lightyears away.
2) The only "robot" in my nation is the leader.

Your example is, under the terms and definitions provided in the resolution, as valid as mine. So, don't provide any RL examples. They are not NS.

The subject of jurisdiction in courts is still valid. Hersfold has not right to try a Miervatian for crimes committeed in Mikitivity, nor does Mikitivity have a legal right to try an Hersfoldian for crimes against humanity committeed in Hersfold. My examples illustrated a real-world and then a NationStates equivalent ... would it help if I found some Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise movie to make things easier to understand?

Actually, the subject of jurisdiction is not valid. We're talking about an international court on genocide. It's jurisdiction is all UN members and their peoples.

The Fair Trial resolutions were written before either of our nations joined. In fact, few of the nations here can recount what happened and since the pre-Jolt records are LOST, I certainly think it is logical and reasonable to assume that the following applies to domestic courts / jurisdictions:



This is a reference to "nations"! Notice it specifically also talks about "mode of government" and "citizens". The resolution is talking about national / domestic jurisdictions.

And yet this is a point that is constantly IGNORED.

Now a second resolution, as authored by Ninjadom (whom I believe is around with a new nation name) has also been discussed:




I've added bold text to the reference to the prior resolution being vague and the clause that a defendant should be tried in the venue for where the crime was committeed ... though I think that too could be considered vague. Furthermore, notice how references are made to criminal and civil courts? Bear in mind that many nations have military court systems which are independent of these courts. Again, there is such a thing as jursifidiction.

Finally, in between these two resolutions is the "Due Process" resolution:



Now of the three, this is the resolution to which Anti-Phar was talking about ...

First, I've highlighted "Grand Jury" in blue. Do you have a Grand Jury? Not all nations adopt the same "American" model of government, and yet this resolution clearly speaks of this. International jurisdictions had not yet been created by the UN (though it is possible that something similar has been created through bi-lateral roleplayed agreements). In any event, I most certainly doubt that they played with a Grand Jury in mind.

I voted in favor of the ban on bioweapons as a previous nation.

An international court was never intended when those were passed. Why? Take a look at the mess this one has caused so far. It'll only get worse.

And I do have a Grand Jury. The police do that job.

Is that a violation of this resolution?

Depends.

No, I think not, because the prior resolutions were modeled after a mostly American court system, as is this resolution.




The larger question here isn't about genocide, as this is a discussion on the need for a repeal and new version of the soon to pass Eon Convention on Genocide, and focused entirely on the question of double jeopardy.

Actually, this is also a discussion on whether certain examples are correct or not.

Those earlier ones were focused on court system ideals people of the time were mostly familiar with. So is this one. There is no reason why those resolutions, which lack any claim of jurisdiction limitations and actually in one case provides a category this one can fall under, should not overrule any contradictory portions of EON.

Now I've dismissed many of the arguments for the need for double jeopardy in part based on other poor arguements (primarily those which have IGNORED Article 1, clause 1 of the Eon Convention) under my observation (and this is an observation made based on long-term posting trends including arguments publically made before this resolution reached the UN floor) that many of the nations whom suggest that the Fair Trial resolutions prohibit double jeopardy are doing so because they have turned to ANYTHING to strike down the resolution ... even silly SciFi movies.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You posted a silly real-world example, ignored Section 5 of Article 1, and pointed out a case of where people mixed up two resolutions and didn't bother to check it out. You'll find many of us arguing in it are not ignoring any part of the resolution that actually applies to our arguements, but are paying careful attention and arguing using the rules set down in EON. Some of us are questioning the legallity of it because it appears illegal, not because we don't support it.

In reply to Frisbeetaria's note that the rules say:

7. Amendments
You may not submit a proposal that 'changes' the wording or effect of a passed resolution. You can make a repeal proposal if you really want to see the back of one, but that's it.

I would suggest that my proposal does not change the wording or effect of the Genocide Resolution (assuming it passes), but rather sets forth definitions to be used in the application of the proposal and procedural safeguards to be applied in the event a re-trial is contemplated. I don't believe my proposal actual requires that any portion of the original proposal be deleted nor does it change the effect of it. It still permits retrials when "new evidence" is discovered after an acquittal, it merely defines what "new evidence" and the procedure that will be used in the re-trial process.

My proposal still allows for double jeopardy, but it limits the potential for abuse and establishes a standard of fairness for the imposition of double jeopardy. However, I will go back and do a quick review and maybe a "nip and tuck" edit to make it clear that I am no trying to repeal the Genocide proposition, merely clarify the meaning and application of an important provision.

Secondly, the stated rule and the apparent attitude about prior ammendments fails to take into account the legal doctrine of "implied" or "implicit" repeal. This is a valid and viable legal doctrine that real courts rely upon. It holds basically that it must be presumed that a legislative body, such as the U.N., is aware of its prior enactments and that when it enacts a new rule that directly contradicts the provisions of an old rule, even if the new rule does not explicity mention repeal of the old rule, it must be assumed the legislative body intended to repeal that portion of the old rule that is in conflict with the new rule. The repeal of the old rule is thus implied or is implicit in the new rule. The new rule, however, will only act to impliedly repeal those portions of the old rule that are in direct conflict and only insofar as the conflict exists.

By way of example; assuming the prior enactments of the U.N. forbid double jeopardy under all circumstances, it must be assumed the U.N. is aware of this prohibition. However, if the Genocide act passes, even though it does not explicitly state it is repealing anything, it will impliedly repeal the prohibition of double jeopardy when the crime charged is Genocide. It would not repeal it if the crime charged were "international terrorism" or some such other crime, only if it were Genocide. The new law, in effect, impliedly repeals the old law to the extent the old law is in direct conflict with the new. Other than that, the old law stays in effect. Laws must be read together in a manner that seeks to give full effect to all, but when there is a direct conflict, the newer law takes prescedence over the older one. Likewise the more specific law takes prescedence over the more general. The Genocide act is a newer law and is more specific as to the crime it applies to and hence it will take prescedence over any older laws regarding double jeopardy when the crime charged in Genocide.

There, I hope that is clear as mud.
:)

It limits it - your own words. Proposals are not permitted to limit other resolutions, only to repeal them.

As far as I am aware, but I am not an NSUN lawyer :}

And - as indicated - I do not believe the Convention is in violation of previous resolutions.

It limits it - your own words. Proposals are not permitted to limit other resolutions, only to repeal them.

As far as I am aware, but I am not an NSUN lawyer :}

And - as indicated - I do not believe the Convention is in violation of previous resolutions.

Actually, I said "it limits the potential for abuses." As pointed out, it still permits re-trials after an acquittal. The Genocide proposal says that a re-trial can take place after an acquittal if new evidence is discovered, this proposal defines what is "new evidence" and then states how the "new evidence" will be used to effect a re-trial. So I would argue it does not limit the original proposal at all. It merely clarifies it.

Also, I do not assert the Genocide Convention is in violation of previous resolutions or that it is in accord with them. That is beside the point in my proposal.

Actually, I said "it limits the potential for abuses." As pointed out, it still permits re-trials after an acquittal. The Genocide proposal says that a re-trial can take place after an acquittal if new evidence is discovered, this proposal defines what is "new evidence" and then states how the "new evidence" will be used to effect a re-trial. So I would argue it does not limit the original proposal at all. It merely clarifies it.

Also, I do not assert the Genocide Convention is in violation of previous resolutions or that it is in accord with them. That is beside the point in my proposal.

I might have to change my vote at the top :}

Ok - I am not going to comment any further until the proposal currently on the floor is decided one way or the other - I realise it looks like it is going to pass, but you never know - something might change in the ntext 24 hours. (A week is a long time in politics and all that).

Then I will come back and re-read this, and if it is not in violation of any UN rules, and it does not water down the strength of the current proposal, I will consider my support for it. I know - that doesn't mean a lot given I have one vote and no power to approve, but eh - I just thought I would tell you :}

(Edit - I realise there are a lot of conditionals there, but you have to understand from my perspective I put a lot of work in to this proposal, and I think it is fine as it is. Not in violation, and I don't have the same issues with the idea of double jepordy that some people do when it comes to the murder of an entire nation)

I have edited the proposal to address some of the concerns raised thus far in this thread. The edited version appears below and in post one. The language in blue is language that might possibly be seen as a limit or implicit repeal of a portion of the genocide proposal and I am open to ideas on its revision or outright removal from my proposal.
I've also retitled the first post and the proposal to reflect its purpose as a definitional and procedural clarification of the original proposal. So, how about this, change anyone's, adequately address concerns?



WHEREAS: The Eon Convention on Genocide resolution states: "§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."; and

WHEREAS: Said section of the resolution may reasonably be read and construed to permit and even sanction Double Jeopardy;

WHEREAS: Double Jeopardy is an affront to civil rights, true criminal justice and invites the abuse and manipulation of the criminal justice system and police powers by goverments and their agents and representatives; and

WHEREAS: The term "new evidence" is not defined in the resolution nor does it provide for a procedure upon re-trial.

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED:

1. The phrase "new evidence" as used in the resolution shall be defined to mean evidence which was not reasonably available at, or reasonably prior to, the time of a final decision on a charge of genocide, due to (1) a lack of scientific relilability; (2) a deliberate concealement or destruction of said evidence; (3) a deliberate attempt to conceal or destroy said evidence; (3) deliberate obstruction of the discovery of said evidence; or (4) an unavoidable catastrophie.

2. Upon a determination by the TPP body which considered the original charge of Genocide that "new evidence" in keeping with the foregoing definition exists, a re-trial of the defendant(s) on a charge of Genocide shall be permitted. if the "new evidence," in and of itself and standing alone, is sufficient to warrant a finding that probable cause to believe that genocide has occurred exists and that the person(s) to be re-tried is/are the perpetrator(s) of said Genocide.

3. In the event re-trial on a charge of Genocide is authrorized under sections 1 & 2 above, a completely new TPP body shall be convened to consider the evidence to be presented in support of the charge of Genocide and the defenses thereto. No individual serving on the original TPP body shall be permitted to serve on the new TPP body nor shall any government represented on the first TPP body have a representative on the new TPP body.

4. At a re-trial authorized by this ammendment, all evidence adduced at a prior trial shall be considered by the TPP body considering the charges as shall be the "new evidence" and the prior verdict of acquittal.

5. Conviction at the conclusion of a retrial shall only be sustainable if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that had the "new evidence" been available and presented at the original trial, a conviction on the charge of Genocide would have occurred.

6. No portion of the Eon Convention on Genocide shall be deemed as repealed or rendered null, void or without effect pursuant to this resolution. Rather this resolution shall be used only for definitional purposes and procedural requirements in considering a re-trial after an acquittal has occurred.

I have to admit - it is pretty impressive and something I could support.

As long as this has the support of the moderators (or - to phrase it a better way - the moderation staff don't laugh it out of the room and burn it when they see it) I would have no problem in supporting this. It tidies up most of the problems that people appear to have with not allowing people to get away with mass murder, and does so in a suitable way.

Btw - what does adduced mean?

Change the title away from calling it an amendment. Call it "International Double Jeopardy Definition" or the like.

Btw - what does adduced mean?

Thanks.

"adduced" = ad·duce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ds, -dys)
tr.v. ad·duced, ad·duc·ing, ad·duc·es
To cite as an example or means of proof in an argument.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin addcere, to bring to : ad-, ad- + dcere, to lead; see deuk- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad·ducea·ble or ad·duci·ble adj.

adduced

Adduce \Ad*duce"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Adduced; p. pr. & vb. n. Adducing.] [L. adducere, adductum, to lead or bring to; ad + ducere to lead. See Duke, and cf. Adduct.] To bring forward or offer, as an argument, passage, or consideration which bears on a statement or case; to cite; to allege.

Reasons . . . were adduced on both sides. --Macaulay.

Enough could not be adduced to satisfy the purpose of illustration. --De Quincey.

verb {T often passive} FORMAL

to give reasons why you think something is true:

- None of the evidence adduced in court was conclusive.

Syn: To present; allege; advance; cite; quote; assign; urge; name; mention.

Change the title away from calling it an amendment. Call it "International Double Jeopardy Definition" or the like.

I can't change the title of the thread, but if you'll look at the first line of the first post it says Procedural & Definitional Clarifications of the Eon Genocide Convention

I'll think of a catchy title when I actually submit it.

Thanks.

"adduced" = ad·duce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ds, -dys)
tr.v. ad·duced, ad·duc·ing, ad·duc·es
To cite as an example or means of proof in an argument.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin addcere, to bring to : ad-, ad- + dcere, to lead; see deuk- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad·ducea·ble or ad·duci·ble adj.

adduced

Adduce \Ad*duce"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Adduced; p. pr. & vb. n. Adducing.] [L. adducere, adductum, to lead or bring to; ad + ducere to lead. See Duke, and cf. Adduct.] To bring forward or offer, as an argument, passage, or consideration which bears on a statement or case; to cite; to allege.

Reasons . . . were adduced on both sides. --Macaulay.

Enough could not be adduced to satisfy the purpose of illustration. --De Quincey.

verb {T often passive} FORMAL

to give reasons why you think something is true:

- None of the evidence adduced in court was conclusive.

Syn: To present; allege; advance; cite; quote; assign; urge; name; mention.

(smirk) I would have been happy with just on definition you know :} But thanks anyway :}

I can't change the title of the thread, but if you'll look at the first line of the first post it says Procedural & Definitional Clarifications of the Eon Genocide Convention

I'll think of a catchy title when I actually submit it.

I like the title. But you may want to shorten it.

I'll think of a catchy title when I actually submit it.
Make it a SHORT catchy title. You've only got 30 characters to work with.

Make it a SHORT catchy title. You've only got 30 characters to work with.

I understand that short and catchy is important. :)

Frisbeeteria, does my editing adequately address your earlier points though?

Frisbeeteria, does my editing adequately address your earlier points though?
It seems to, though I don't know what NSers will do with an actual legally-correct proposal. I'm guessing they'll ignore it in large quantity, based on prior experience.


Getting a proposal properly written is about 10% of the battle, but this one looks like it's ready to go. Have at it.

It seems to, though I don't know what NSers will do with an actual legally-correct proposal. I'm guessing they'll ignore it in large quantity, based on prior experience.


Getting a proposal properly written is about 10% of the battle, but this one looks like it's ready to go. Have at it.

(smirk) You don't think he (or she) should at least wait until The Convention actually passes, do you?

Legalspeak is lovely... assuming people can understand it. There are kids playing this game remember- how on earth are they to fairly vote on a resolution if they can't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo.

Now, I'm not trying to patronise children. There are kids I've *met* who are probably a damn sight smarter than me... but there are also kids who aren't hyper-intelligent, and there are also a huge number of incredibly dumb adults too.

It'd be nice if they weren't excluded from the game :P

If you wanna talk legalspeak, become a lawyer. Otherwise, let's have some Good English please? By that I mean clear and consice and understandable- abusing legal definitions and textbooks (especially in an incorrect way) is just a poor a use of language as l337 5p34|{...

Also, what I'd *really* like to see is a resolution that addresses the causes of genocide... any takers?

Also, what I'd *really* like to see is a resolution that addresses the causes of genocide... any takers?

If I can be totally honest?

The cause of genocide is someone needing an enemy, so they pick on one that can't possibly fight back, then demonise them, and then destroy them so that the people can feel good about themselves for having ridded the world of such an evil group of people.

The only way to stop it is to stop ass-hats taking power.

No, I've been through this before.

A thousand people don't decide suddenly to go kill another thousand just for kicks.

A leader doesn't persuade his/her underlings to kill a thousand others just because s/he woke up with a bad headache. Or because they thought it would be fun. Or because they're "mad" for a given value of insane.

1 in 4 people in western societies now suffer from some kind of mental illness at some point in their lives- is genocide on the increase? Well, I've seen no rampaging mobs trying to kill every white/gay/black/arab/jew/christian (delete as inappropriate) person in Hull recently. Weren't many lynch mobs in Norfolk either.

Now, go to the Sudan, for example. Or Bosnia. Where you find poor, poorly educated people with poor standards of living and a grudge, *that's* where you find genocide. Things Can Be Done To Help Reduce The Chances Of It Occuring.

Read that last sentence carefully- I'm not saying it can be stopped, or prevented, or anything like that. I'm saying certain factors help contribute to the liklihood of a genocide taking place. They're long term factors- genocide doesn't suddenly "flare up"- it's just reported that way in the news. It's the serious issues behind historial territiorial pissings (which can be overcome by education and reconciliation of the groups in question) and poor economic and social development that lead to genocide, at least in this day and age.

Why do we need this, cant our own nations deal with genocide on there own, we have law, why cant our judges decide for themselves, forget this waist of time TPP junk. Who needs it, not me?

Legalspeak is lovely... assuming people can understand it. There are kids playing this game remember- how on earth are they to fairly vote on a resolution if they can't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo.

Now, I'm not trying to patronise children. There are kids I've *met* who are probably a damn sight smarter than me... but there are also kids who aren't hyper-intelligent, and there are also a huge number of incredibly dumb adults too.

It'd be nice if they weren't excluded from the game :P

If you wanna talk legalspeak, become a lawyer. Otherwise, let's have some Good English please? By that I mean clear and consice and understandable- abusing legal definitions and textbooks (especially in an incorrect way) is just a poor a use of language as l337 5p34|{...

Also, what I'd *really* like to see is a resolution that addresses the causes of genocide... any takers?

Yeah, this entire thread (and amendment (amendwhattah? ;) )) has been a great way to prove my sentiments about bureacratspeak, as elaborated upon in the "will pass" thread. The moment the dictionaries had to get digged up and people started whacking eachother with quotes from them it was clear that its not working anymore.

I wouldn't support this amendment on those factors alone, never mind what its trying to say and completely failing to get across. Plain language people! That the real world is getting more and more warped by bureaucrats doesn't mean we can't try and do better in here.

This really makes me think about writing a resolution proposal against the use of bureaucratspeak... in plain language.

The only problem I have had with this whole thread is the word adduced - and I asked what it meant and I was told.

It's not beyond reason this game could be taken down to it's lowest common denominator, but isn't there something to be said for trying to educate as well as have fun?

It's not beyond reason this game could be taken down to it's lowest common denominator, but isn't there something to be said for trying to educate as well as have fun?
There's something to be said to be a good example for the real world if not an experiment as well? This game is our chance to have us all have our own little utopia's after all.

This really makes me think about writing a resolution proposal against the use of bureaucratspeak... in plain language.
The English language is so easily misinterpreted and/or multi-interpreted that the rigid definitions of bureaucratspeak became necessary.

When NS proposal writers use "plain language", they get slammed for not being precise. When NS proposal writers use bureaucratspeak, they get slammed for "warping the language". Looks like a classic no-win scenario to me.

I challenge SCO-land (or anyone) to create a thread in the UN forum concerning any resolution or proposal, (past, present, or future) and post language that everyone agrees is complete and clear with no possibility of misinterpretation.

When I see such language, I will agree with the premise espoused by this author. Until then, I'd rather see clearly written bureaucratspeak from the likes of Mauiwowee, than the usual drivel from most UN proposal authors.

The English language is so easily misinterpreted and/or multi-interpreted that the rigid definitions of bureaucratspeak became necessary.

When NS proposal writers use "plain language", they get slammed for not being precise. When NS proposal writers use bureaucratspeak, they get slammed for "warping the language". Looks like a classic no-win scenario to me.

I challenge SCO-land (or anyone) to create a thread in the UN forum concerning any resolution or proposal, (past, present, or future) and post language that everyone agrees is complete and clear with no possibility of misinterpretation.

When I see such language, I will agree with the premise espoused by this author. Until then, I'd rather see clearly written bureaucratspeak from the likes of Mauiwowee, than the usual drivel from most UN proposal authors.


Yay!! (That was me saying "here, here" normally btw)

I am content with this definitelynotanamendmentnosirree. I would be similarly content to see a 'plain English' version. I would also support a resolution attempting to take a more preventative approach to genocide. It would sit nicely alongside the current resolution.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The English language is so easily misinterpreted and/or multi-interpreted that the rigid definitions of bureaucratspeak became necessary.

When NS proposal writers use "plain language", they get slammed for not being precise. When NS proposal writers use bureaucratspeak, they get slammed for "warping the language". Looks like a classic no-win scenario to me.

I challenge SCO-land (or anyone) to create a thread in the UN forum concerning any resolution or proposal, (past, present, or future) and post language that everyone agrees is complete and clear with no possibility of misinterpretation.

When I see such language, I will agree with the premise espoused by this author. Until then, I'd rather see clearly written bureaucratspeak from the likes of Mauiwowee, than the usual drivel from most UN proposal authors.

*clapping*

I'm bookmarking this particular reply and will direct future, "But this is too hard for me! Why are political games so wordy?" posts here.

But I'll add one point ... when something is written on an elementry level, it can go anywhere. When something is complex, the bottom line elementry summary is right at the tope of the proposal / resolution:

A resolution to ...

Furthermore, something I've rarely seen (it does happen) is for a UN newbie to come in and instead of attacking a proposal by crying about how god awful long it is to say, "I don't understand this, could somebody explain it to help me out?"

There are plenty of simple worded proposals still out there. The Most Glorious Hack just posted an example of one about "pancakes" last night, and that thread has taken off.

But to the subject as hand, this proposed amendment is actually well written. I also feel the Eon Convention too is well written. To get a better feel of the range of quality we see, read the entire UN proposal list (which many of you might do). Then look over the historical UN resolutions. I'm of the opinion that the quality of resolutions has slowly increased, but that we still get some poor ones that I like to call "Little Golden Book" quality.

The English language is so easily misinterpreted and/or multi-interpreted that the rigid definitions of bureaucratspeak became necessary.

When NS proposal writers use "plain language", they get slammed for not being precise. When NS proposal writers use bureaucratspeak, they get slammed for "warping the language". Looks like a classic no-win scenario to me.

I challenge SCO-land (or anyone) to create a thread in the UN forum concerning any resolution or proposal, (past, present, or future) and post language that everyone agrees is complete and clear with no possibility of misinterpretation.

When I see such language, I will agree with the premise espoused by this author. Until then, I'd rather see clearly written bureaucratspeak from the likes of Mauiwowee, than the usual drivel from most UN proposal authors.

Thank you! I appreciate your vote of confidence. :)

OK, the genocide resolution has passed and I'm about ready to submit my proposal. However, before I do so, I'd like some suggestions regarding the blue language in the amended version and title suggestions. I'm currently thinking it might be a good idea to delete the [color=blue]blue[/blue] language in paragraph #2, but leave #5 alone. As for the title, I'm still thinking, right now the best I've come up with is:

Genocide Law Term's Definition or;

The Fair Double Jeopardy Rule

Help?

More suggestions ...


WHEREAS: Said section of the resolution may reasonably be read and construed to permit and even sanction Double Jeopardy;

WHEREAS: Double Jeopardy is an affront to civil rights, true criminal justice and invites the abuse and manipulation of the criminal justice system and police powers by goverments and their agents and representatives; and

Though the term "double jeopardy" is what has been quoted, I don't believe that the UN resolution that addressed this, resolution #27 Due Process actually used the term itself.

Furthermore I wouldn't say that double jeopardy is an affront to civil rights, since the resolution in question is a "Furtherment of Democracy" resolution (which may or may not be appropriate ... it might actually fit as a human rights / civil rights issue as you've suggested).

That said, I'd recommend that your second preambulatory clause be rewritten:


WHEREAS: its Due Process resolution guareenteed "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo";


I'm trying to keep consistent with your format (which thankfully is easy, as you've written a very well organized resolution). :)

Er, I suspect I misspelled guareenteed, but since it is late and I'm tired you'll want to reword my suggestion if you choose to use it.

I also think you should consider changing the second preambulatory clause to say what you are really attempting to do ... make the two resolutions consistent with one another. :) Perhaps:


WHEREAS: The TPP created by the Eon Convention on Genocide resolution is still a UN based court and subject to the general principles as put forth in the Due Process and other resolutions; and


However, before you consider that, I think we'll want a moderator to "rule" on this to make sure that you won't get zinged for proposing something others might view as an amendment.

I'll copy this post and visit the #modcave and see if they have the time, because I do not want anybody who has worked hard in good faith to get a warning.

"twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo - Oh no, sentenced to limbo? The dance or the place? :D

Just kidding, I know what you mean, I just found it humorous. Thanks for offering to run it by the modcave. I'll look at your idea for paragraph 2 and do some cogitating on it.

The English language is so easily misinterpreted and/or multi-interpreted that the rigid definitions of bureaucratspeak became necessary.

When NS proposal writers use "plain language", they get slammed for not being precise. When NS proposal writers use bureaucratspeak, they get slammed for "warping the language". Looks like a classic no-win scenario to me.
With all respect, that's the fault of the people using plain language then. It is *entirely* possible to write an article, a rulebook, an essay- anything, even a NSUN proposal- in clear, non bureaucratic language.

Here in the UK there's a Clear English Campaign that gives prizes to companies and institutions who publish their information to an acceptably clear standard, and also condems institutions that publish their information in incomprehensible jaron-ridden mumbo-jumbo.

Funnily enough, some of the most bureaucratic institutions in the UK, dealing with some of the most complicated issues in British Society, (such as the Inland Revenue- UK tax law is pretty damn complicated)- manage to get Clear-English certification on every pamphlet they publish. If a government department who manage to screw up several thousand tax returns each year can explain tax law to people in plain english, I'm sure a couple of wannabe-international moneymen, movers and shakers and wheelers and dealers can manage to write a short article for a game that's accessible to everyone playing that game.

I've only been playing NS for a month or so, but it's pretty clear to me that the UN is pretty inaccessable as an institution- sure you can hit "JOIN" easily enough, but to get involved you need to be pretty articulate.

Writing something that's clear and easy to read isn't difficult. Three examples for you:

1) Jenoside is bad an we shud do evrying we can to kill peeple who do it.

2) Genocide is trying or succeeding to destroy a group of people who have things in common- such as their religous or political beliefs, sexuality or ethnic origin.

3) Genocide:- to whit; the systematic and deliberate eradication of a cross-section of society, based upon uniting factors, namely religious observance, political alliegance, sexual preference or other cultural factors.

Pretty poor examples I know- just working from the top of my head- all reffering to genocide. Should be pretty clear which is poor english, which is understandable at the low-end of high school education and which is written to pseudo-jargon.

"twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo - Oh no, sentenced to limbo? The dance or the place? :D

Just kidding, I know what you mean, I just found it humorous. Thanks for offering to run it by the modcave. I'll look at your idea for paragraph 2 and do some cogitating on it.

Nobody was there last night, but I still asked for help and they might look at it. It was late, and if you or somebody else tries again today you may have better luck.

With all respect, that's the fault of the people using plain language then. It is *entirely* possible to write an article, a rulebook, an essay- anything, even a NSUN proposal- in clear, non bureaucratic language.


Please take Frisbeeteria's advice and do just that.

You don't have to submit your idea, so making something that has already been done is fine. But you've admitted to only having been here for a month. Many of us are closing on a year and have slowly watched the overall quality of resolutions (including the ability to understand what they are doing) increase.

Now in the realworld, UN resolutions and resolutions in other organizations do have a particular format and style. There is an excellent style guide stickied at the top of this forum that I completely recommend to everybody. What the guide doesn't talk about is *why* the real world started adopting those standards.

Several of us have tried to explain that what you are calling hard to understand actually is more precise. But I honestly believe that sometimes experience is a better teacher, and really think going through the exercise of making your own example will do some good.

-10kMichael

As a title, how about "No Double Jeopardy for Those Accused of Genocide"?

Although that sounds like a penalty to be administered by Alex Trebeck. :)

"No Double Jeopardy for Those Accused of Genocide"?
Too long. You only have 30 characters, giving us: "No Double Jeopardy for Those A"

I've seen worse, though.

Well, we can pass a new resolution that "amends" one that has already passed though, can't we? One that says the original resolution must be read with this language inserted and the old language deleted or some such. Surely we don't have to vote to completely repeal a prior resolution and then vote in a completely new resolution when the only idea is to insert a few new paragraphs into the old resolution and delete some objectionable language from the old resolution.

hmm...I do not know if this has been said before. Changing a previous resolution then calling it an amendment and changing a previous resolution then not calling it an amendment are not different. It is still an amendment!

If you allow me to demonstrate a simple analogy:

Taking a chicken egg and not calling it an egg does not make it anything other than an egg.

According to the rules, you can repeal the currently active resolution on the grounds that some of its contents are not accordance to the spirit of the UN, ,allow actions of such nature, through possibly a loop hole or just do not make sense. Then make your case for a new, (and hopefully) improved resolution.

If I had merely restated earlier comments, firstly, I would be very relieved and secondly, would like to extend my apologies to what might appear to be... stealing your thunder?

With much respect,
Diplomatron ver2.0, Secretary of UN affairs for the Nomadic People of Nihilistic Robots

I guess I hadn't noticed the rule about titles being limited to 30 characters.

Ok, then how about "Genocide and Double Jeopardy"?

I guess I hadn't noticed the rule about titles being limited to 30 characters.

Ok, then how about "Genocide and Double Jeopardy"?

Aside from the fact it isn't double jeopardy :}

Aside from the fact it isn't double jeopardy :}

Ooh, isn't it? Then I wonder what all the good people were so hard discussing about? Maybe you could enlighten me?

Ooh, isn't it? Then I wonder what all the good people were so hard discussing about? Maybe you could enlighten me?

There are two groups. Article 4 of The Convention allows someone who was acquitted to be retried for genocide should more evidence come up.

I say this isn't double jepordy, but simply another trial based on more evidence - generally indicating a bigger crime than was first through.

The other side says it is cause you are trying someone for the same crime twice.

This amendment is supposed to be a middle ground so that people don't get annoyed with the Convention the way it stands.

There are two groups. Article 4 of The Convention allows someone who was acquitted to be retried for genocide should more evidence come up.

I say this isn't double jepordy, but simply another trial based on more evidence - generally indicating a bigger crime than was first through.

The other side says it is cause you are trying someone for the same crime twice.

This amendment is supposed to be a middle ground so that people don't get annoyed with the Convention the way it stands.

TilEnca, maybe you should have your sarcasm sensors adjusted ;)

But you've admitted to only having been here for a month.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that "length of service" was marked in the same manner as in the military and that new players were sneered at for not having been around long.
Now in the realworld, UN resolutions and resolutions in other organizations do have a particular format and style. Many of which are *now* trying to move *away* from that type of format and style towards plain, clearer english.
Several of us have tried to explain that what you are calling hard to understand actually is more precise.I'm saying it's hard to understand for some players. Personally, I can understand techobabble and bereaucrat-speak; it's what comes from working as a civil servant. I just don't think it's healthy for the game overall to be filled with so much of it.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that "length of service" was marked in the same manner as in the military and that new players were sneered at for not having been around long.

How many resolution debates have you participated in?

Of those debates how many of them would you consider the resolution text to be "too hard to read"?

How many of these would you consider "too vague"?

My point is that until you've seen how the UN forum reacts to the level of detail in a resolution, you might not really be qualified to "speak for the UN masses".

It is true that there are nations that do in fact want dumbed down resolutions.

"The UN will make more beer."

Yeah! Goodie!

We can now debate that.

But it is also true that there are nations that are interested in having resolutions with a bit of complexity.

"The UN will make and distribute beer to nations on a basis of the need of beer consumption ..."


Many of which are *now* trying to move *away* from that type of format and style towards plain, clearer english.


You and SCO-land?

Perhaps I missed the UN committee meeting where this new trend was revealed, but Frisbeeteria has pointed out many times that writting a resolution is a double edged sword. If it is too complex, people whine about how hard it is to follow. If it is too simple, people are crabby about the lack of details and loopholes.

Most of us have mantained that there are two good ways to deal with that:

(1) Try to find the middle ground, or
(2) See to it that resolutions of both types reach the UN floor.

And both approaches have happened in Nov. / Dec. 2004 IMHO. The Eon Convention was a much better resolution in amounts of detail and gameplay than the two gay marriage resolutions earlier last month (Definition of Marriage and the Rights of Minorities and Women). The Stem Cell resolution, I didn't care for the wording, but I think it wasn't debated down for a lack of details, but just because of the nature of the issue.

Basically I think your complaints will have a lot more merit when you can honestly say you've seen a range of resolution types and on different topics. For example, environmental resolutions can be much more sensitivity to content than a basic human rights, which often dance around simple questions like murder, sexuality, and abortion.


I'm saying it's hard to understand for some players. Personally, I can understand techobabble and bereaucrat-speak; it's what comes from working as a civil servant. I just don't think it's healthy for the game overall to be filled with so much of it.

You are right. There always will be players that can't understand long or complex issues.

Should we shield them or ask the players that can understand that to dumb things down?

I am offering yet another alternative. Allow them to say, "Gee, this doesn't make sense. Could somebody explain this in plain English?"

If you view this game as an educational experience, then part of the process of learning to interact with others includes knowing when to say, "I don't understand." Those are prehaps the three most important words a person can learn.

This really is a political game. While it might be reasonable to walk out in the middle of a pick-up volleyball game for a newbie to say, "Gee, I can't jump as well as you can. Would it be OK if we just pretended that I could offer my service without worrying about the line?" Most people are gonna say, sure, knock yourself out.

But you are also going to see the players who really like that volleyball game continuing to serve the ball with the skill and determination that they've always displayed for the game, though instead of aiming for the new kid, they might drive that ball towards that obxinous woman on the other side who has her own nasty service. ;)

You want plain to read resolutions, write em.
You have questions about the harder to read ones, ask them.

But don't walk into the middle of a game and say, "OK, now that I can ignore the service line, I noticed your services are still ... well, kinda hard to return. I think we should play to the lowest common demoninator here and we should all agree to serve under handed and if I think the ball is hit to hard, I'll rule a side-out."

p.s. you aren't the only civil servant playing the game ...

Aside from the fact it isn't double jeopardy :}

That's surprising. It reads, in part:

§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.

Being retried for the same offence is the very definition of double jeopardy, is it not?

Being retried for the same offence is the very definition of double jeopardy, is it not?

Yep!

Like I said - it's a matter of perspective :}