NationStates Jolt Archive

Genocides, by definition, are specifically targeted by the government at an ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. Civil wars are started by a rebellious faction that turns against the government. I am fairly certain that the said panel would be able to distinguish between the two.


What if the rebellious faction is primarily composed of a certain ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group? Then wouldn't the government specifically focusing on the rebellion look like they are targeting a certain ethnic, racial, etc. group? In fact, MOST rebellious factions are composed of a certain ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. So it is only a matter of OPINION if the actions of a country is genocide or repression of rebellion.

OOC: i.e. Revolutionary war can be seen as an attempted genocide of Protestants. American Civil War can be seen as an attempted genocide of the Southern culture. The California Bear Flag rebellion can be seen as an attempted genocide of Mexicans.

Not to engage in semantics, but this proposal is using The Pretenama Panel to justify invasion. The EON Convention is not being used - only a body established in it.

Well, the Pretenama Panel is still bound by the Convention is it not? If it is, then it can't be used to create war. Thus, this proposal is illegal.

I believe that any attempts to defeat this proposal is useless at this point. Those of us greatly opposed to this proposal must begin drafting a repeal immediately. The vast majority of those who voted for the proposal is under the misconception that it purely focuses on ending genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, they have not taken the time to fully consider the implications of the words "calling for an end to tyranny." They have not considered that a falsely accused country has no legal recourse to challenge their conviction before they are invaded. And they have not considered that their national sovereignty will be subject to the whim of two rival countries and a panel of 15 unelected nations. Unfortunately, these people will not take the time to read the well spoken arguments in this forum, but they will read a well written repeal. I call upon senior and articulate members such as Asshelmetta to write a suitable repeal that will stop this proposal before it harms innocent nations.

That sadly we have to vote against this resolution.

It provides no protection for the accused, it will lead to witch hunts within the UN. The requirement for only two accusers is too small, the panels can be packed with nations that dislike the accused.

This resolution will almost certainly pass and it will be a terrible day for the legisature of the UN, we will become the laughing stock of those outside.

Delegates give lip service to fairness, decency and justice here. That much is obvious when they can vote for a resolution that refutes the presumption of innocence.

TilEnca, how does the Pretanama panel choose the 15 nations on the panel? People here seem to think that you can choose 15 of your buddies to sit on it, but that certainly wasn't my interpretation. And if, as I thought it was, a random selection, then it becomes much more difficult to abuse the panel in the ways people are fearing. Maybe a couple of them could be persuaded by illegitimate means, but the entire panel? I think not.

I really have no idea. But I thought it would be something like the way trials are chosen for juries. Remember - it was originally designed as a panel to try people for crimes, not to decide whether a crime is taking place or not.

Genocides, by definition, are specifically targeted by the government at an ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. Civil wars are started by a rebellious faction that turns against the government. I am fairly certain that the said panel would be able to distinguish between the two.

However, I still think the initial inoperative clause regarding national sovereignty is unnecessary.

Plus there is a tendency for both sides to fight in civil wars, rather than a huge one sided slaughter.

OOC: American Civil War can be seen as an attempted genocide of the Southern culture.

I thought the South declared war?

Well, the Pretenama Panel is still bound by the Convention is it not? If it is, then it can't be used to create war. Thus, this proposal is illegal.

Again - it is a matter of semantics. As it is written, TilEnca can not storm in to GeminiLand and shoot everyone in sight, claiming that The EON Convention gave it the right to do so.

But under this resolution The Panel can grant permission to intervene. It is not limiting or interfering in The EON Convention in anyway, so I don't think it is illegal.

I believe that any attempts to defeat this proposal is useless at this point. Those of us greatly opposed to this proposal must begin drafting a repeal immediately. The vast majority of those who voted for the proposal is under the misconception that it purely focuses on ending genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, they have not taken the time to fully consider the implications of the words "calling for an end to tyranny." They have not considered that a falsely accused country has no legal recourse to challenge their conviction before they are invaded. And they have not considered that their national sovereignty will be subject to the whim of two rival countries and a panel of 15 unelected nations. Unfortunately, these people will not take the time to read the well spoken arguments in this forum, but they will read a well written repeal. I call upon senior and articulate members such as Asshelmetta to write a suitable repeal that will stop this proposal before it harms innocent nations.

And the people who oppose it have obviously not taken the time to read the counter-arguements, indicating that there are a lot of safeguards built in to this, and while it is true any proposal/resolution can be abused if you look hard enough, it is not beyond reason that they are looking too hard.

That sadly we have to vote against this resolution.

It provides no protection for the accused, it will lead to witch hunts within the UN. The requirement for only two accusers is too small, the panels can be packed with nations that dislike the accused.

This resolution will almost certainly pass and it will be a terrible day for the legisature of the UN, we will become the laughing stock of those outside.

Delegates give lip service to fairness, decency and justice here. That much is obvious when they can vote for a resolution that refutes the presumption of innocence.

Does that include the delegates who have claimed Genocide is a right of National Sovereignty?

Out of curiousity, if after a repeal or whatever, I removed the reference to tyranny, and referred only to genocide and ethnic cleansing, would more people be in favour of this resolution? Or would they just find other reasons to veto it?

If you removed the references to military action, I would. ;)

I really have no idea. But I thought it would be something like the way trials are chosen for juries. Remember - it was originally designed as a panel to try people for crimes, not to decide whether a crime is taking place or not.

In which case the accused must have the right to object to a percentage of nations on the panel as in the courts.

The problem is that if we make this resolution "fair" it takes to long to implement the punishment. The time lag could allow any Nation to complete the genocide.

If we allow quick decisive action by concerned nations it is open to abuse by the unscrupulous.

We say despite the time spent on this resolution it would be better to allow it to fail for the moment. Regions could then decide to adopt their own revised version as an experiment to find the best model for eliminating genocide.

The authors of the resubmitted resolution would then have clear historical analysis of the problems encountered when applying this type of mandate.

If you removed the references to military action, I would. ;)

So basically it would be a resolution to condem genocide? Wow. That would be as effective as standing on the sidelines with the strongly worded memos.

Does that include the delegates who have claimed Genocide is a right of National Sovereignty?

Yes we think it does.

Their national conscience is already clear if they encourage such attrocities. They cannot appreciate that their actions are wrong, if they could they would not defend their actions. They would be volunteering for intervention already.

Nations that do not respect the variety of people within their borders, must simply hate the greater variety within the United Nations. But there is no bar to membership on grounds of insanity.

All members have the right to contribute here so it is crucial members use their best judgement of the arguments and the delegates National Problems when voting.

What if the rebellious faction is primarily composed of a certain ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group? Then wouldn't the government specifically focusing on the rebellion look like they are targeting a certain ethnic, racial, etc. group? In fact, MOST rebellious factions are composed of a certain ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. So it is only a matter of OPINION if the actions of a country is genocide or repression of rebellion.
Except in a civil war, THE REBELLIOUS FACTION STARTS IT. And in a genocide, THE GOVERNMENT STARTS IT. Yes, a civil war can become a genocide if the government quickly and over-harshly retaliates, but again that will be rather easy to see from the outside.

I thought the South declared war?
Technically, no. The south seceded from the union without any hostility whatsoever, and the North declared war to preserve the nation.

Yes we think it does.

Their national conscience is already clear if they encourage such attrocities. They cannot appreciate that their actions are wrong, if they could they would not defend their actions. They would be volunteering for intervention already.

Nations that do not respect the variety of people within their borders, must simply hate the greater variety within the United Nations. But there is no bar to membership on grounds of insanity.

All members have the right to contribute here so it is crucial members use their best judgement of the arguments and the delegates National Problems when voting.

Then I give in. The idea that national sovereignty as a defence of genocide is acceptable to some people, then I despair of what The UN is coming too, and quite frankly am ashamed to be a part of such a corrupt and evil organization.

I feel it important to address the lack of coverage this Resolution provides for the general rule of law and human rights. Every person, governing body, etc., regardless of their crimes should be given the same right of justice.

Denying them their right to international law and the right to a fair trial is not upholding these human rights.

I agree with the scope and aim of this Resolution . . . but as the UN it is our duty to see that the rights of every person are represented and upheld. My problem is not the aim of taking down these kinds of governing bodies, but with the methods used.

I feel it important to vote this Resolution down, and to immediately begin a rework of the proposal to include a trial, and process by which justice is upheld and the accused faces a jury of their oppressed citizens, or barring the inability to find unbiased citizens, a jury of nations both impartial and familiar with the international laws.

Also, I feel this proposal is not broad enough in scope. Not only should we be watching out for NAtions which violate the laws, but it should further include the governing bodies of Regions as well. Allowing for the removal and UN assisted restructuring of Regional government after freeing an oppressed Region.

Again, I agree with the AIM of this Resolution but feel that in it's present form, it lacks the definition and protections needed to be voted into law.

Thanks for your consideration, and I hope to see this Resolution turned down and reworked to include the right of law, and the protection of Regions as well.

I must say that this resolution sounds suspisiously like a resolution that could lead countries to war and force countries into handing out humanitarian aid that some countries havnt got. I for one would not be happy to hand over humanitarian aid to some when my economy was so weal. Were does this resolution end??

Funny how most people here are against the Iraq war but for this...

Out of curiousity, if after a repeal or whatever, I removed the reference to tyranny, and referred only to genocide and ethnic cleansing, would more people be in favour of this resolution? Or would they just find other reasons to veto it?

I would then be in favor of it. Especially if you included a right to a trial for the accused nation.

Except in a civil war, THE REBELLIOUS FACTION STARTS IT. And in a genocide, THE GOVERNMENT STARTS IT. Yes, a civil war can become a genocide if the government quickly and over-harshly retaliates, but again that will be rather easy to see from the outside.


OOC: Good point, however, it is not always clear who starts the hostility. The "Shot Heard 'Round The World" that started the American Revolutionary War may have been shot from either the British or the Americans. Also, it depends on what you consider "starting" a war. Again using the Revolutionary War, the British point to the Boston Tea Party as the begining of rebellion. However, the Americans point to the punishment levied on Boston as the beginning of repression. And even in clear cases of genocide such as the Holocaust or slaughter of the American Indians, the Nazi's claimed the Jews were war criminals and the Americans (at the time) claimed that the Indians were hostile against settlers first. So in the end, it does come down to opinion.

And the people who oppose it have obviously not taken the time to read the counter-arguements, indicating that there are a lot of safeguards built in to this, and while it is true any proposal/resolution can be abused if you look hard enough, it is not beyond reason that they are looking too hard.

I have read all of the counter-arguements. To my concerns over the word "tyranny" the counter-arguement is that the UN would only intervene when the people disapprove of the government. To my concerns of no legal recourse for the accused nation, the counter-arguements are that the Pretenama Panel would not allow for an unfair removal of a government and "How Dare You Claim National Sovereignty For A Nation Committing Genocide?!?!?" And to my concern over a non-elected 15 member Panel deciding important issues such as whether to invade a nation, there are no counter-arguements because neither the framer nor the chief supporter TilEnca knows exactly how the Pretenama Panel functions.

Because I do not believe the counter-arguements are strong enough, I do not support this legislation.

I must say that this resolution sounds suspisiously like a resolution that could lead countries to war and force countries into handing out humanitarian aid that some countries havnt got. I for one would not be happy to hand over humanitarian aid to some when my economy was so weal. Were does this resolution end??

This proposal doesn't force you to do anything you don't want to. If you don't want to give aid, don't. All this proposal does is allow states who WANT to intervene for humanitarian reasons do so legitmately with UN guidance.

Funny how most people here are against the Iraq war but for this...

Well, maybe because the war in Iraq was about non-existant weapons of mass destruction under the nonsensical banner of a war on terrorism.

This proposal concerns intervention in the case of genocide.

Quite different.

In all honesty, I think the words "ending tyranny" are the major stumbling block for me. While "extreme human rights violations" is a vague phrase, I have less ability to believe that it could be exploited to the same level as "tyranny". So, to answer the delegate from Gwenstefani's earlier question, yes, Krioval would endorse and later vote for a resolution with genocide and ethic cleansing being the actions targeted.

Lord Darvek Tyvok,
Kriovalian Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Good point, however, it is not always clear who starts the hostility. The "Shot Heard 'Round The World" that started the American Revolutionary War may have been shot from either the British or the Americans. Also, it depends on what you consider "starting" a war. Again using the Revolutionary War, the British point to the Boston Tea Party as the begining of rebellion. However, the Americans point to the punishment levied on Boston as the beginning of repression. And even in clear cases of genocide such as the Holocaust or slaughter of the American Indians, the Nazi's claimed the Jews were war criminals and the Americans (at the time) claimed that the Indians were hostile against settlers first. So in the end, it does come down to opinion.
OOC (kind of): If only there were some sort of Pretanama Panel at the time to look in and see for sure...
Funny how most people here are against the Iraq war but for this...Yeah, because it's exactly the same thing, right? In this case, intervention has to be given approval by a UN Panel first, and in the Iraqi Conflict case, intervention was done as a vigilante act without the blessing of the UN, and...oh wait. I guess that nullifies your point, doess't it?

I feel it important to address the lack of coverage this Resolution provides for the general rule of law and human rights. Every person, governing body, etc., regardless of their crimes should be given the same right of justice.

Denying them their right to international law and the right to a fair trial is not upholding these human rights.

I agree with the scope and aim of this Resolution . . . but as the UN it is our duty to see that the rights of every person are represented and upheld. My problem is not the aim of taking down these kinds of governing bodies, but with the methods used.

I feel it important to vote this Resolution down, and to immediately begin a rework of the proposal to include a trial, and process by which justice is upheld and the accused faces a jury of their oppressed citizens, or barring the inability to find unbiased citizens, a jury of nations both impartial and familiar with the international laws.

Also, I feel this proposal is not broad enough in scope. Not only should we be watching out for NAtions which violate the laws, but it should further include the governing bodies of Regions as well. Allowing for the removal and UN assisted restructuring of Regional government after freeing an oppressed Region.

Again, I agree with the AIM of this Resolution but feel that in it's present form, it lacks the definition and protections needed to be voted into law.

Thanks for your consideration, and I hope to see this Resolution turned down and reworked to include the right of law, and the protection of Regions as well.


Read The EON Convention on Genocide, and then decide if this needs voting down on those grounds again.

For those of you who are worried about abuse of the Pretanama panels, in my interpretation of them, the panel members would not be chosen by those making the claim- that would be ridiculour and hardly providing "justice". would suggest that the panel was randonly selected from available UN members, much like jury duty.

An alternative to these panels, should a redraft be necessary: If the International Court of Justice proposal was passed, would that provide an approriate venue for the hearing? It would also allow for the accused nation's defence.
Thoughts?

I would then be in favor of it. Especially if you included a right to a trial for the accused nation.

Do people just ignore past resolutions? Did you not read The Eon Convention? The one that brings people to trial on charges of genocide?

I guess it's true. People who vote on these things pay no attention to anything other than the title.

there are no counter-arguements because neither the framer nor the chief supporter TilEnca knows exactly how the Pretenama Panel functions.


In my defence - I know how it functions in regard to the resolution that created it :}

The Eon Convention on Genocide
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: TilEnca

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

Article 1:Definition And Limits

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

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

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

Article 3:Investigation and Intervention

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

Article 4:Legal Proceedings

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

For those of you who are worried about abuse of the Pretanama panels, in my interpretation of them, the panel members would not be chosen by those making the claim- that would be ridiculour and hardly providing "justice". would suggest that the panel was randonly selected from available UN members, much like jury duty.

An alternative to these panels, should a redraft be necessary: If the International Court of Justice proposal was passed, would that provide an approriate venue for the hearing? It would also allow for the accused nation's defence.
Thoughts?
The International Court of Justice wouldn't be the appropriate place, I think. If I understood that resolution, it is to mimic the RL ICJ, which is slow moving.

I want some assurance that the panel could not be stacked by the accuser, and that the accused would be notified of the inquest and have an opportunity to rebut the accusations.

But it needs to be something quick - genocide doesn't need to take months or years.

The problem(s) with using the Pretenama Panel for this is that TPP was designed to try individuals, not nationstates. There was no need in TPP to specify that the accused would be notified, because their government had to be notified in the extradition request. Add in the 4th clause, that says TPP can be convened effectively in secret, and you have a real problem.

We need a resolution to define how TPP members will be chosen and what boards and forums are acceptable places to convene them. Things like - no member of a TPP can be in the same region as the accuser or the accused.

Do people just ignore past resolutions? Did you not read The Eon Convention? The one that brings people to trial on charges of genocide?

I guess it's true. People who vote on these things pay no attention to anything other than the title.

Neither the proposition nor the Eon Convention has any assurance that the accused has an opportunity to defend themselves in court. The Eon Convention only maintains that the accused has an opportunity to challenge the members of The Pretenama Convention while the proposition makes no mention of any rights of the accused. If I have misunderstood the propositions, go ahead and contradict me, but I'm confident you will not find any wording that promotes the idea of the accused defending themselves in trial.

Neither the proposition nor the Eon Convention has any assurance that the accused has an opportunity to defend themselves in court. The Eon Convention only maintains that the accused has an opportunity to challenge the members of The Pretenama Convention while the proposition makes no mention of any rights of the accused. If I have misunderstood the propositions, go ahead and contradict me, but I'm confident you will not find any wording that promotes the idea of the accused defending themselves in trial.

Ok. Go back and re-read it. Especially the part that references the resolutions it operates under. There are a lot of UN laws about how trials should be conducted. and this operates in respect to all of them.

(Just so as you know)


§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions


Which leads to Fair Trial, The UBR, Due Process (despite the spelling mistake), The Wolfish Convention, Barbaric Punishments, Definition of a Fair Trial (to some degree).

So - yeah - the accused do get a right to defend themselves.

Again - it is a matter of semantics. As it is written, TilEnca can not storm in to GeminiLand and shoot everyone in sight, claiming that The EON Convention gave it the right to do so.

But under this resolution The Panel can grant permission to intervene. It is not limiting or interfering in The EON Convention in anyway, so I don't think it is illegal.

Well, you know your own proposal better than I do (since you wrote it). However, my sticking point is that The EON Convention created The Pretenama Panel (TPP), thus making the TPP bound to EON's rules. If it is part of EON's rules (as I believe it would because EON created it) then it makes this Resolution illegal, since it uses a EON-ruled panel to justify a war, illegal under EON rules.

So - yeah - the accused do get a right to defend themselves.
The accused don't even get notified there's a trial on.

That's one big difference between EON and this resolution.

The accused don't even get notified there's a trial on.

That's one big difference between EON and this resolution.

I think you are confusing the two situations.

The Convention tries people - using all the rules and regulations the UN has about trials.

This proposal gives grounds to invade, to stop the genocide and bring people to trial. So the accused don't need to be told there is a trial under this proposal, because there isn't one - this is just to stop them killing people.

This proposal gives grounds to invade, to stop the genocide and bring people to trial. So the accused don't need to be told there is a trial under this proposal, because there isn't one - this is just to stop them killing people.

So under this proposal two accusers exist, the accused exist, There is a recommendation from a selected body, that sounds like a jury. The panel decides on a course of action, that sounds like a judge.

So far it sounds like a trial.

But the accused does not have to be informed, has no right of representation because they are unaware of the charges.

Now it sounds like a book called The Trail by Kafka.

The formation of the selected body and the panel are unclear from the resolution. The accused would not have to be aware of their presence.

This sounds like a Kangaroo court.

Too late to stop the steamroller now, McGonagall will just have to live with this travesty until it can be improved.

There most certainly is a trial in this one.
Or an inquest, if you prefer.

TPP is convened to render a finding that genocide is happening and that invasion of the country is justified, not to try the war criminals after the invasion.

So under this proposal two accusers exist, the accused exist, There is a recommendation from a selected body, that sounds like a jury. The panel decides on a course of action, that sounds like a judge.

So far it sounds like a trial.

But the accused does not have to be informed, has no right of representation because they are unaware of the charges.

Now it sounds like a book called The Trail by Kafka.

The formation of the selected body and the panel are unclear from the resolution. The accused would not have to be aware of their presence.

This sounds like a Kangaroo court.

Too late to stop the steamroller now, McGonagall will just have to live with this travesty until it can be improved.
The EON Convention gives some information about how TPP is constituted, but says nothing about how the members are chosen.

ooc: I believe we can remove much of the abusive potential and make TPP actually role playable, without going the full repeal route.

I am in full support of this proposal now. This will give countries more guidence and choice i feel. I urge every nation to vote FOR this proposal. This can only do good things for the UN and help countries to work together more effectivly to help the needy. Can i ask one thing will this resolution go against countries who supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups??

I am in full support of this proposal now. This will give countries more guidence and choice i feel. I urge every nation to vote FOR this proposal. This can only do good things for the UN and help countries to work together more effectivly to help the needy. Can i ask one thing will this resolution go against countries who supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups??

I am hoping it won't.

The delegate from Nichaemea wishes to simply state that he has found problems with the following ideas proposed in the bill:

1. The ending of tyranny.
2. The use of a military force to prevent such actions described.
3. The case that violators will not be protected by international law under this bill.
4. The fact that the victims must welcome the impending military force.

If these four clauses are removed, the Holy Empire of Nichaemea is prepared to support the proposal.

The cases made against:

1. This idea conflicts with national soveriegnty rights.
2. This idea violates the use of military action by the UN. It is also the placing of the idea of RPing in a UN proposal, something that never should be done.
3. This idea removes protections of citizens' (esp. the victims of genocidal acts) civil rights as provided by past resolutions; if the country loses its protections, it opens the citizens up to LEGAL chemical, biological and nuclear attack.
4. On a more silly note, the victim(s) may not wish to welcome them. They may instead wish to oppose them, as they wish to die, especially in the case of the genocide of a religious cult.

These four clauses must be removed before the Holy Empire of Nichaemea, along with its regional constituents, would support the proposal.

1. This idea conflicts with national soveriegnty rights.


Again - the right to commit genocide should NOT be protected by national sovereignty.


2. This idea violates the use of military action by the UN. It is also the placing of the idea of RPing in a UN proposal, something that never should be done.


No it doesn't. The UN can not have an army, but where is it written that member nations can not go to war?

As for the RP stuff - why not?


3. This idea removes protections of citizens' (esp. the victims of genocidal acts) civil rights as provided by past resolutions; if the country loses its protections, it opens the citizens up to LEGAL chemical, biological and nuclear attack.


Why? All it does is say that the person who is currently slaughtering twenty thousand per day is no longer allowed to claim that that action is protected by the law. Once he is stopped then he gets the protection of the law again.


4. On a more silly note, the victim(s) may not wish to welcome them. They may instead wish to oppose them, as they wish to die, especially in the case of the genocide of a religious cult.


This would not stop them. It doesn't force anyone to welcome an attempt to stop genocide - it just says if the victims would like some protection this can give it to them.


These four clauses must be removed before the Holy Empire of Nichaemea, along with its regional constituents, would support the proposal.

Another person claiming genocide is protected by national sovereignty. What a shocker.

It passed.

Yay.

It is a sad day for international peace. For one last time, Sunimir and the region that has elected it to be its delegate, regret that more could not have been done to open the eyes of the voters. Peace be with you gentlemen, and good luck in the comming arms race.

The resolution Humanitarian Intervention was passed 11,569 votes to 5,957, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Well, for better or for worse, it passed with a large majority. Now let's see what people do with it.

Congrats to Gwenstefani!

The resolution passed with a super majority (2/3) vote:
11,569 to 5,957.

I've updated the resolution in the United Nations Association archive and will upload the pdfs tonight.

Out of curiousity, if after a repeal or whatever, I removed the reference to tyranny, and referred only to genocide and ethnic cleansing, would more people be in favour of this resolution? Or would they just find other reasons to veto it?

I also would allow for this alteration; the idea of military action taken is much less important than such said tyranny references. However, the major issue is would a repeal and rewrite succeed? The Holy Empire of Nichaemea does not think so.

Congratulations, Gwenstefani!

I'm way too much a nerd on this, but it looks like it was just short of a supermajority of two-thirds. I get 66.01% voting in favor. Still, congratulations are in order for Gwenstefani for the overwhelming votes in favor of her proposal.

And once again, the mindless herds vote themselves blindly into subjugation.

Congratulations, Gwenstefani!

Ignore the rabble - it was a job well done.

... should be at least ten minutes before someone tries to repeal it. :D

Hey, if they don't try to repeal it, it wasn't a good resolution.

This resolution moved the civil rights in our Nation from superb to world bench mark.

We would therefore like it recorded that our people are upset with having to comply with this provocative mandate.

This resolution moved the civil rights in our Nation from superb to world bench mark.

We would therefore like it recorded that our people are upset with having to comply with this provocative mandate.
We moved from very good to excellent without suffering losses in any other category. Much thanks, Gwenstefani :D

Thanks everyone who supported the motion, and even those who didn't. To those who opposed certain parts of the proposal but not all of it, I'm sorry, but I did post it here before I submitted it, but responses were lacking then. But you never know, should any of the repeals work then you have my promise that I will take all of your issues into account. There is already a repeal application, but it has no argument in it whatsoever. It has 3 endorsements though, noticeably delegates who endorsed the original resolution. I guess some people will endorse everything.

Asshelmetta: I would be intetested in hearing your ideas on how to prevent the Pretenama Panel from being open to abuse? I think the jury-style random selection would work.

Since the Pretenama Panel is now a critical element of two UN resolutions, and has a fairly broad and important function, I'd suggest that we keep the workings of the panel based on democratic principals. (i.e. a resolution that is consistent with the Eon Convention and Humanitarian Intervention resolutions could enhance and further define the Panel itself and would be an excellent the Furtherment of Democracy category) :)

Furthermore, I'd like to echo Gwenstefani's sentiments on rushed repeals. My government is wary about repeals, because so many of them are just as poorly worded and defined (sometimes worse) than the resolutions they seek to repeal. In a few situtations, when my government is aware of a replacement resolution in draft form, we may support repeals -- but these situations are rare.

In short, the City States finds most attempts at repeals as ill-conceived and a waste of our time. In the case of a repeal on this resolution, it is the recommendation of my government that a better alternative would be to explore further improvements to the Pretenama Panel, since that would help two key resolutions instead of one.

On that note, my government will be happy to attend any working groups to address this issue. (Count me in!)

I'm way too much a nerd on this, but it looks like it was just short of a supermajority of two-thirds. I get 66.01% voting in favor. Still, congratulations are in order for Gwenstefani for the overwhelming votes in favor of her proposal.

I stand corrected. 67% would be a supermajority, and your math does in fact match the UNA count of 66.01%. :)

If you are interested in nerdy statistics, check out the United Nations Association Chronological Summary:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/Ressummary.pdf

(updated last night with Gwenstefani's resolution)

Since the Pretenama Panel is now a critical element of two UN resolutions, and has a fairly broad and important function, I'd suggest that we keep the workings of the panel based on democratic principals. (i.e. a resolution that is consistent with the Eon Convention and Humanitarian Intervention resolutions could enhance and further define the Panel itself and would be an excellent the Furtherment of Democracy category) :)
...
On that note, my government will be happy to attend any working groups to address this issue. (Count me in!)

Are we allowed (by game rules) to make a proposal defining how the Pretenama Panel works since it is mentioned in past resolutions? I hope so, I think it's a very good idea. Also, if the International Court of Justice proposal ever passes, then I think it would be an ideal forum for genocide cases.

But yes, I would also be interested in working out such a proposal. If anyone else is, please indicate your support here. Perhaps it would be best to have some input from some of the opponents of this proposal and the system it used, so we can work out any possible points of abuse.

Are we allowed (by game rules) to make a proposal defining how the Pretenama Panel works since it is mentioned in past resolutions? I hope so, I think it's a very good idea. Also, if the International Court of Justice proposal ever passes, then I think it would be an ideal forum for genocide cases.

But yes, I would also be interested in working out such a proposal. If anyone else is, please indicate your support here. Perhaps it would be best to have some input from some of the opponents of this proposal and the system it used, so we can work out any possible points of abuse.

We have to tread carefully. Basically as long as we don't submit the idea into the proposal queue, and just keep it here it is fine. If we end up with something we want to submit as an actual proposed resolution (proposal), then I'd suggest we ask Hack or Cog or Myrth to look it over once.

There are 3 appeal attempts already.

Are we allowed (by game rules) to make a proposal defining how the Pretenama Panel works since it is mentioned in past resolutions? I hope so, I think it's a very good idea. Also, if the International Court of Justice proposal ever passes, then I think it would be an ideal forum for genocide cases.

But yes, I would also be interested in working out such a proposal. If anyone else is, please indicate your support here. Perhaps it would be best to have some input from some of the opponents of this proposal and the system it used, so we can work out any possible points of abuse.
That section of the EON convention was pretty short. There's a lot left unsaid.

I don't see why an enhancement resolution should be illegal, as long as it doesn't actually change the 4 or 5 lines in EON.

If we decide we need to change it in some minor way, that's when we need to go to the mods for arbitration. Seems to me they tend to allow very minor side-effects on prior resolutions.

So yes! A separate thread!

Are we allowed (by game rules) to make a proposal defining how the Pretenama Panel works since it is mentioned in past resolutions?
Speaking as a Forum Mod, I have no true voice in the UN moderation aspect. I can say with some authority as a long time poster in UN that there are other options.

I'd suggest creating a roleplay Pretenama Panel thread, and define your own rules. As long as it's RP and player-created, it's by-definition outside the realm of content moderation. Such a player-created panel could define their own set of rules, modify them to suit as often as necessary, seat Member Nations on the panel, hold votes, arrange for interventions, and so on.

As long as it remains roleplay and makes no attempt to enforce those rules on unwilling nations (as opposed to nations roleplaying being unwilling), I think you'd be complety safe. A wildly successful TPP topic could even possibly join the UN Strangers Bar as a sticky thread.

If you attempt to define this in terms of a proposal, I think you're entering a minefield with no clear path. It's just about impossible on so many levels. Stick with RP, and you're fine.


The preceeding has been an unoffical opinion.

RP is the problem - EON specifically says there can be multiple TPP's functioning at the same time, and there is no central body to organize them or decide what member nationstates can serve on them.

Although that suggests I could abuse Humanitarian Intervention to set up a Pretenama Panel charging Loratana with Tyranny.

Who's with me?

RP is the problem - EON specifically says there can be multiple TPP's functioning at the same time, and there is no central body to organize them or decide what member nationstates can serve on them.

Although that suggests I could abuse Humanitarian Intervention to set up a Pretenama Panel charging Loratana with Tyranny.

Who's with me?

How many people does it take to lodge a formal investigation? [reads resolution] Two?! So if I seconded the above proposal...?

RP is the problem - EON specifically says there can be multiple TPP's functioning at the same time, and there is no central body to organize them or decide what member nationstates can serve on them.
Multiple TPPs is no problem. You can have seperate threads, though I'd think one would be better (given the number of active participants in UN). Your central thread could also contain a repository of links to TPPs that are set up in International Incidents, which is probably the proper place for a large one to play out. It's quite safe to assume that there are probably always 'background' TPPs going on with the other 36,419 nations that don't post here.

Also, there's nothing wrong with organizing a Steering Committee designated to create a checklist of TPP "suggestions". Each could follow its own variant of the unofficial rules, but I guarantee that such an 'unoffical resource' would be quite useful for future TPPs.

Don't look at it as a problem, look at it as an opportunity.