NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, this is my first draft, if I forget anything (other then actual content) let me know. At the moment, someone will have to submit this for me, as I only have one endorsement :(
This isn't the same as RL diplomatic immunity laws, however I feel this actually irons out the problems that exist in RL.

Draft proposal for Diplomatic Immunity

REALISING that certain national laws can restrict diplomatic and consular personnel from carrying out their assignment.

REALISING that national law can be imposed specifically to hinder diplomatic and consular personnel from carrying out their assignment or otherwise prejudice them.

DESIRING that Diplomatic and Consular officers be able to carry out their assignments.

DESIRING that Diplomatic and Consular officers do not cause offence to the country in which they are serving (hereafter referred to as the host country), and abide by the laws and edicts of the country they serve and originate (hereafter referred to as the base country).

The following is proposed:
Section I: Privileges of Diplomatic and Consular offices and officers
1. Diplomatic and Consular Officers are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host country.
2. The residence and property of Diplomatic and Consular officers is inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents (including but not limited to police, defence, customs and national security personnel).
3. The property of Diplomatic Missions (including but not limited to the Embassies, Chancelleries, Consulates, Consulates-General, High Commissions, Deputy High Commissions, Legations, Governorates, Governorates-General, and the official motor transport of Diplomatic and Consular officers) is inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents.
4. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomatic or Consular office or officer within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents.
5. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomatic or Consular office or officer within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are exempt from customs duties and other import or export duties and taxation.
6. Diplomatic and Consular office or officers are exempt from taxation within the host country.

Section II: Restrictions on the status and privileges of Diplomatic and consular offices and officers
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host country and not in any other nation or within their base country.
2. The granting of Diplomatic or Consular status is decided upon by the host country.
3. Diplomatic and Consular officers are expected to provide their credentials (usually in the form of a Commission, signed by the base country’s Head of State) to the appropriate governmental authority (such as a Foreign Ministry, Foreign Affairs Bureau, Secretariat for International Affairs, et hoc genus omne) prior to receiving Diplomatic or Consular status in the host country; proof of the acceptance of the credentials is to be in the form of a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host country.
4. Diplomats and Consular officers are expected to shew a Diplomatic Passport issued by the base country containing a Diplomatic Visa issue by the host country when entering or leaving the host country.
5. a) Diplomatic and Consular Officers may be expected to carry diplomatic identity cards, issued by the host country upon arrival, whilst within the host country. This is purely so that a Diplomatic or Consular officer may prove his or her status as such upon demand, thus preventing the violation of any of the clauses within Section I.
5. b) Diplomatic and Consular motor vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic or Consular number plates (designed by the host country). This is purely to prevent Diplomatic or Consular officer’s motor transport from being subject to traffic, etc. laws.
5. c) Consular officer’s and office’s sea or river transport vessels are expected to fly a Consular Officer Afloat Ensign, designed by the base country. These ensigns are to be internationally recognized. This is purely to prevent Consular officer’s sea or river transport vessels from being subject to registry restrictions, and sea traffic laws.
6. Diplomatic and Consular officers, whilst exempt from the laws and edicts of the host country, are subject to the laws and edicts of the base country.
7. Diplomatic and Consular officers, whilst exempt from the taxation and duties of the host country, are subject to the taxation and duties of the base country.
8. Diplomatic and Consular officers, whilst immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the host country, are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base country.
9. Diplomatic and Consular officers, whilst out of the jurisdiction of the government agents of the host country, are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base country.
10. The government of the host country has the ability to declare any Diplomatic or Consular officer persona non grata, which is the defined as the revocation of a Diplomatic or Consular officer’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomatic or Consular officer is declared persona non grata they are deported from the country and may face prosecution within the base country.

With referrence to Section II paragraph 10, if you do declare a Diplomat a persona no grata for no reason, other countries are at liberty to declare your diplomats persona non grata. Basically, don't do this for no reason even though you can!

HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor-General to the Dominion of Cobdenia

Pretty standard stuff when it comes to diplomatic immunity. I like it. If you submit it, Fass will telegram our delegate and urge them to support it.

Thank you, Fass. Could you submit it for me? I can't yet due to the fact I only have one endorsement; I'm only in a small region with three UN members.

Alrighty. I'll add to the end of it that it was written by you, but posted by me.

Edit: Slight hitch. I have no idea which category it's supposed to go in and what strenght it is. Anyone have a suggestion? I'm thinking "Political stability: Mild".

you must be crazy.


OOC Jos Ackland in Lethal Weopen 2

IC Jos Ackland in Lethal Weopen 2

Yes, Pretty standard it seems. Well done!

This is pretty sweeping.
Did you intend for it to apply only for diplomats from UN nationstates?



The following is proposed:
Section I: Privileges of Diplomatic and Consular offices and officers
1. Diplomatic and Consular Officers are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host country.
Prosecution and detention, OK.
Why should they be immune from arrest? That just seems like an invitation to abuse.
What about parking tickets? (OOC: I'm from NYC)

2. The residence and property of Diplomatic and Consular officers is inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents (including but not limited to police, defence, customs and national security personnel).
So if drugs were illegal in my nationstate and AOF's ambassador is hosting drug parties in his townhouse, my only option is to declare the ambassador persona non gratis and eject him?

Section II: Restrictions on the status and privileges of Diplomatic and consular offices and officers
4. Diplomats and Consular officers are expected to shew a Diplomatic Passport issued by the base country containing a Diplomatic Visa issue by the host country when entering or leaving the host country.
shew? show?

What effect will this resolution have on the chances of that abominable proposal for immunity for missionaries?

I'm sorry, but YGSM will not support this proposal if it will in any way help the missionaries proposal.

Put in a clause about limited protections for non-proselytizing aid workers, and specifically exclude immunity for any other classes of people, and you will have YGSM's enthusiastic support.

Furtherment of Democracy (allows freedom of diplomatic contact, which leads to greater communication between nations)
Significant.

Vastiva tentatively supports, while our clerks go over the finer points involved. We do like that we can still assassinate an unruly ambassador, which has been our policy in the past.

YGSM: See Section II, Paragraphs 6 and 8. Diplomats are still subject to the laws of their base country, and can be arrested by the police and prosecuted in their base country (so you can fly a policeman out to arrest one of your diplomats abroad for breaking traffic laws).
As regards your fears for the missionary immunity; see Section II, Paragraphs 2 and 3. If the Missionary Immunity proposal goes through, they will still need to be given diplomatic status by the host country (i.e. you can still decide to let them in or not)

Oh and; http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shew It's a perfectly acceptable alternative! :D

Fass: I was thinking 'Furtherment of Democracy; Medium'

It is very good and it will have my approval.

About Category, I think that the right is Political Stability, mild.

Why Furthement of Democracy? An ambassador is not a simbol of democracy: also dictatorship could have ambassardors (like RL: Nazis Ambassador, Soviet Ambassador, Chile Ambassador and similar).

Instead with a stronger diplomacy wars could be more difficult.

I've got a second endorsement now; I'll propose it myself in a couple of days. I think Political Stabilty, "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." seems to be sensible, considering it prevents politican enacting anti-diplomat laws (such as "All foriegn diplomats must travel to work by a series of backflips whilst balancing a newt on their head, and must so an Al Jolson impersonation in Maltese every 15 yards") It should be significant though, as the bill does effectively introduce the concept of diplomats and allow them to do their jobs.

YGSM: See Section II, Paragraphs 6 and 8. Diplomats are still subject to the laws of their base country, and can be arrested by the police and prosecuted in their base country (so you can fly a policeman out to arrest one of your diplomats abroad for breaking traffic laws).
As regards your fears for the missionary immunity; see Section II, Paragraphs 2 and 3. If the Missionary Immunity proposal goes through, they will still need to be given diplomatic status by the host country (i.e. you can still decide to let them in or not)

Oh and; http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shew It's a perfectly acceptable alternative! :D

Fass: I was thinking 'Furtherment of Democracy; Medium'
good points. you have YGSM's tentative support.

It should be significant though, as the bill does effectively introduce the concept of diplomats and allow them to do their jobs.


I think it should be mild. It only affects a very small number of people really- the diplomats. It doesn't affect any other section of society. It doesn't change peoples' lives, and by peoples I mean whole nations. I take 'significant' proposals to mean proposals that have a strong and noticeable effect on people's lives or on how a country is run. Or which dramatically changes international relations. And I don't think this proposal does.

I intend to support the motion, but it really is a pet hate on my part when people over estimate the power of their proposal. I know everyone wants to make a big impact, but please...

A good idea, with one problem.

1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host country and not in any other nation or within their base country.
2. The granting of Diplomatic or Consular status is decided upon by the host country.
3. Diplomatic and Consular officers are expected to provide their credentials (usually in the form of a Commission, signed by the base country’s Head of State) to the appropriate governmental authority (such as a Foreign Ministry, Foreign Affairs Bureau, Secretariat for International Affairs, et hoc genus omne) prior to receiving Diplomatic or Consular status in the host country; proof of the acceptance of the credentials is to be in the form of a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host country.

That's not really enough protection. Under this act, the host country would be able to revoke or deny Diplomatic or Consular status at the border, and presumably interrogate said person and/or seize any documents or information carried. Instead, the "base" country ought to be able to designate Diplomatic/Consular status. The host country could then reserve the right to deny or expel the diplomat in question.

Excellent point, New Hampshire. However, if the base country bestows diplomatic immunity, then there is nothing to stop it giving everybody diplomatic immunity. However, I should point out that when persona non grata is declared they are deported immeadiately.

However, considering this loophole I have altered Section II, paragraphs 10 and 3 b) to read as such
... prior to receiving Diplomatic or Consular status in the host country and prior to their being posted to the host country...
and
...When a Diplomatic or Consular officer is declared persona non grata they are deported from the country and may face prosecution within the base country. An individual Diplomatic and Consular officer, and not a Diplomatic or Consular mission, property of a Diplomatic and Consular mission, nor the property of anyone holding Diplomatic or Consular status, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomatic or Consular officer who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure.

On an unrelated note, the following new paragraph has been added in Section I

7. Diplomatic and Consular officers, on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa, and their property are exempt from search and seizure at the entry and exit points (including, but not limited to ports, airports, aerodromes, airfields, land crossings and international railway stations) of the host nation

The following new subsections have been added in Section II

3. b) Diplomatic or Consular status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but is not limited too, spouses and dependents of Diplomatic and Consular Officers, Heads of Government on official visits, Heads of States on official visits, and missionaries) at the host country’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the country in question, without the necessity to present credentials.

4. a) Diplomatic and Consular officers are expected to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country.

I have not included them in the main draft for fear of being accused of "slipping things in"

There is a lack about transportation: you had missed to consider diplomatic airplanes.

Added 5 d)
5. d) Consular officer’s and mission’s private aircraft (including, but not limited too aeroplanes, helicopters, dirigible airships and non-dirigible airships) are expected to carry Diplomatic registration numbers, provided they only operate within the base countries and international airspace. These registration numbers are to be internationally recognized. This is purely to prevent Consular officer’s aircraft from being subject to registry restrictions, et hoc genus omne. Aircraft displaying such registration numbers are obliged to follow UN and other internationally recognised laws of the air.

Perfect. The problem would be the 3500 character limit, friend. You don't know which problem gives to me the International Court of Justice writing :(

There's a limit of 3,500 characters? Blast.
It's already on 7,228 characters.
But I'm working on shortening it....

Okay, 3,500 characters:
REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular officers (hereafter referred to as Diplomats)from carrying out their assignment

DESIRING that Diplomats be able to carry out their assignments

DESIRING that Diplomatic and Consular officers do not cause offence to the country in which they are serving (hereafter referred to as the host country), and abide by the laws and edicts of the country they serve and originate (hereafter referred to as the base country)

The following is proposed:
Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host country, and are exempt from taxation within the host country
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and missions is inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host country
4. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
7. Diplomats, on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa, and their property are exempt from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host country
2. The granting of Diplomatic or Consular status is decided upon by the host country
3. a) Diplomats are expected to provide their credentials to the appropriate governmental authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host country and prior to their being posted to the host country; proof of the acceptance of the credentials is to be in the form of a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host country
3. b) Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual at the host country’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the country in question, without the necessity to present credentials
4. a) Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country
4. b) Diplomats and Consular officers are expected to present a Diplomatic Passport, issued by the base country containing a Diplomatic Visa issue by the host country, when entering or leaving the host country
5. a) Diplomats may be expected to carry diplomatic identity cards, issued by the host country
5. b)Diplomatic and Consular vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc, and are obliged to follow UN transport law
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base country
8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base country
9. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base country
10. The government of the host country has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata (hereafter referred to as PNG), which is the defined as the revocation of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared PNG they are deported from the country and may face prosecution within the base country. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, property of a Mission, nor the property of anyone holding Diplomatic or Consular status, can be declared PNG; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared PNG remains inviolable from search and seizure

Check your numbering, Section I jumps from 4 to 7, and section II skips over 7 completly.

As part of this proposal. Can we add that the deligate will be driven, escorted, etc by officials from the hosting country? Along with his or her own personal grauds.For security of both the deligate and the country's safety. If this is already included in the proposal I am sorry for bringing it up.

Flibbleites: The numbering will be sorted out when it is posted; and some of the language (although not the actual content) will be changed

WarGamia: I think most of that is unnecessary, although (if I have room) I will add that the host nation is to arrange security to an appropriate level.

The draft as it now stands:
REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

DESIRING that Diplomats be able to carry out their assignments

DESIRING that Diplomats do not cause offence to the nation in which they are serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and abide by the laws and edicts of the nation they serve and originate (hereafter referred to as the base nation)

The following is proposed:
Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions is inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats, on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa, and their property are exempt from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation.
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation, although the base nation may supplement this if desired

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their credentials (usually in the form of a Commission or Exequatur) to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation
3. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but is not limited to, spouses and dependents of Diplomats, Heads of Government or State on official visits, aid workers and missionaries) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials
4. a) Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base nation
4. b) Diplomats are expected to present a Diplomatic Passport, issued by the base nation containing a Diplomatic Visa issue by the host nation, when entering or leaving the host nation
5. a) Diplomats may be expected to carry diplomatic identity cards, issued by the host nation
5. b) Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc, and are obliged to follow UN transport law
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
7. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
8. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
9. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the revocation of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata they are deported from the nation and may face prosecution within the base nation. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure


Do the taggy things count as characters? If so I'm 3,519. Excluding them: 3,490 characters. I can take out the taggy thing. Or maybe some punctuation!

Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host country
Correct me if I missed something, but it doesn't look like there is any way at all for a diplomat to be charged for a crime under ANY circumstances by the host nation. Any reasonable proposal would include a way for the base nation to rescind diplomatic immunity, if, in the opinion of the base nation the crime was such that the host nation should be given jurisdiction.

I think it's entirely fair for the host nation to have a specified period of detention-without-charge while such questions are raised with the base nation. Diplomatic Immunity is not intended to be a license to commit crimes, it is to permit diplomats to act in ways that the host might consider treasonous when committed by one of their own citizens, and to prevent national law from being used to physically punish for diplomatic reasons.

Sorry, without that, we can't support.

Frisbeeteria: You missed section II paragraph 9; you have the right to revoke their immunity and deport diplomats. Okay, you can't charge them, but any diplomat who's declared persona non grata career is over, and can be charged in their base country. And, of course, there would be repurcussions. You also have the right to reject any potential diplomat in your country.
If I had room I would add something that made it legal to detain for one night(but not charge) diplomats who are about to cause harm to the local population (such as drink driving, or aiming an assault rifle at people). If you can think of any way for such an addition to be included in ten characters, please do so!

The draft as it now stands:


Do the taggy things count as characters? If so I'm 3,519. Excluding them: 3,490 characters. I can take out the taggy thing. Or maybe some punctuation!
If you exclude
(including, but is not limited to, spouses and dependents of Diplomats, Heads of Government or State on official visits, aid workers and missionaries)
you're under 3,500.

why the specific mention of missionaries? is that to head off the missionary proposal?

anyway, it should be automatic that heads of state andspouses and dependents of diplomats are eligible for diplomatic immunity.

why the specific mention of missionaries? is that to head off the missionary proposal?
I wondered about that too, along with the conspicuous absence of any mention of the core of most diplomatic corps, Trade Attaches.
Frisbeeteria: You missed section II paragraph 9; you have the right to revoke their immunity and deport diplomats.
No, I saw that. I just didn't think it was strong enough. Using diplomatic immunity to evade crimes is criminal, whether it's parking tickets or murder. So far, all of the rights belong to the diplomat. I want the host to have more tools than simple ejection.
The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation
I think you mean by this sentence that the host nation provides security to diplomats. Again, why? Let the sending nation protect their own, or let them hire bonded legal guards from the host country if you don't want a bunch of diplomatic gunsels running the streets.

I'm sorry, but this whole proposal is just too unbalanced in favor of the diplomats for us to support it. It's a sound idea, just hard to do within the limitations of the NS UN.

Firstly, congratulations on some very fine work, especially in taking on board comments made my fellow UN members.

Now, the fine-tooth comb:

I-2 - be consistent with is/are; I'd go for 'are'.

I-4 - I'd be tempted to use dashes rather than commas, or perhaps slightly reword the clause to keep the meaning consistent.

I-5 - maybe this could be reworded to make it clear that basic protection ought to be provided by the host nation, in line with the protection already afforded to comparable native dignitaries. The host should also have the right to ban foreign security from carrying, for example, firearms.

You don't need to repeat the numbers that preceed a) and b).

II-4-b - should read "...Diplomatic Visa issued by..."

II-5-a - I'm not convinced this clause is necessary. Excluding it won't make any difference.

With regards to Frisbeetera's main objection, if the host nation is to be granted the right to hold a diplomatic personage for a period without charge, it must be fully in compliance with the Habeas Corpus resolution. I'm not convinced, however, that this right should be available. Should a diplomat commit a crime that the host nation wishes to prosecute, then this has to be negotiated on a bilateral level, really, especially if the base nation has objections to the host's penal code.

Good luck with resolving these issues; Ecopoeia is hoping to support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The work is good, but I dislike that it includes also missionaries. I think that a completely atheist view is better. Missionaries are private persons, like everybody. If you follow this idea, why not include also journalists, then?

Edited again. The *'s etc won't be on the submitted proposal, it's just I can explain alterations

REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

DESIRING that Diplomats be able to carry out their assignments

DESIRING that Diplomats do not cause offence to the nation in which they are serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and abide by the laws and edicts of the nation they serve and originate (hereafter referred to as the base nation)

The following is proposed:
Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats-on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa-and their property are inviolable from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation.
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation. *

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur and Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation
3. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but not limited to Heads of Government or State on official visits**) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials
4. a) Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base nation
b) Diplomats are expected to present a Diplomatic Passport, issued by the base nation containing a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation, when entering or leaving the host nation
5. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc, and are obliged to follow UN transport law
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
7. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
8. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
9. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the rescind of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata they are deported from the nation and may face prosecution within the base nation. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure
10. Diplomats may be put under ‘house arrest’ for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)***



*There is a good reason for the security being the concern of the host nation; jurisdiction.
**I only included missionairies to head of the Missionary proposal; it is still irrelevent, though, for it is up to the host nation to decide who it lets have diplomatic immunity according to II-3 Took it out because I needed the letters!
** I think this might solve the problem. House arrest means you are detained within your residence. I think this solves the problem of differences between national penal system.

Some of the other alterations are just due to, in RL, me contacting the local Consul-General and finding out the RL formalities!

The proposal has been put to the Anticapitalist Alliance for analysis. Thank you for your close attention to my comments.

It has been sumbmitted in the form above.
Please petition your regional delegates to approve it.

NO, no, no, no, no! As with the similarly well-written but flawed proposal regarding missionary immunity, we cannot possibly support it and will lobby our UN delegate accordingly.

We do not like the idea of any sort of diplomatic or missionary 'immunity.' The word, itself, smacks of being above the law. Should some missionary or diplomat double-park in front of one of our Tastefully Tacky (TM) Outlet Villages, we would have no recourse to punish (i.e., fine) them as we would any citizen or tourist who did the same?

Should the diplomat beat his spouse/children for buying some irresistable consumer item, or punch the clerk who refuses to refund the purchase price (under our national No Returns Are Good For Business! policy), then all we can do is kick them out of the country, rather than sentencing them to the usual 6 months of paying full retail prices?

We hate it.

So what is to stop a nation passing a law saying that makes being a diplomat illegal and sentenced to death? Should Outlet Shopping diplomats be beheaded in Cobdenia for being religious? Should Cobdenian diplomats be shot for eating meat where it is illegal? Or do you want all your population to become diplomats to avoid high taxes?
They are not 'above the law'. Reffering you to section II, paragraph 6. They are subject to the laws of their own country.

Seems to me, a diplomat should be 'diplomatic' enough to abide by the laws of the country he/she is visiting. I think it's an issue of 'respect.' If a diplomat is disrespectful enough to publicly eat meat in a vegetarian nation, or outwardly practice religion in an athiestic state, it seems to me that his/her country didn't send the right person. Imagine a diplomat from Drive-On-the-Rightistan who chose not to abide by the traffic laws in Drive-on-the-Leftland. The press (assuming there is some freedom of the press in either country) would likely have a heyday.

Anyway, the proposal lets you accept or reject someone as a diplomat, so I guess you get to look at their background & credentials and Just Say No to someone who doesn't seem 'diplomatic.' It doesn't prevent people from breaking your laws, but maybe you just don't have diplomatic relations with countries that you are worried about here. Like, Outlet Shopping could simply refuse to have diplomatic relations with countries called "Shoplifters Anonymous" and "Nuke the Mall."

(edited to add traffic issue to para 1)

Krioval has approved the amended proposal.

CTDummies, thankyou for pointing out that the granting of diplomatic status is up to the host nation; if Outlet Shopping decides it does not like the concept of diplomatic status, it does not have to grant it. However, if it does decide to grant such status it has to abide by the other articles. And if it doesn't, other nations are unlikely to send diplomats to outlet shopping, nor will they give diplomatic status to outlet shopping diplomats.

NO, no, no, no, no! As with the similarly well-written but flawed proposal regarding missionary immunity, we cannot possibly support it and will lobby our UN delegate accordingly.

We do not like the idea of any sort of diplomatic or missionary 'immunity.' The word, itself, smacks of being above the law. Should some missionary or diplomat double-park in front of one of our Tastefully Tacky (TM) Outlet Villages, we would have no recourse to punish (i.e., fine) them as we would any citizen or tourist who did the same?

Should the diplomat beat his spouse/children for buying some irresistable consumer item, or punch the clerk who refuses to refund the purchase price (under our national No Returns Are Good For Business! policy), then all we can do is kick them out of the country, rather than sentencing them to the usual 6 months of paying full retail prices?

We hate it.
OOC: whether you like it or not, diplomatic immunity is a necessity in the real world.

OoC: In RL most definately. Imagine there were no diplomatic bags, a foreign government could seize sensitive documents; or what if Iraq decided to execute US diplomats prior to the US invasion for breaking some law made for that reason?

OOC: Cobdenia, you mentioned you have diplomatic immunity in RL. How closely does this proposal match RL? Is this a wish-list for diplomats?

The humble and beautiful leader of the Peoples Republic of Laayla desires to apply the rules you have set forth in regards to diplomatic immunity to relations currently being established between her nation and others. The model you have presented is most appealing to us and we wish your permission to use this proposal as a standard form of diplomatic protocol for our nation. We patiently await your reply.

I've been waiting days for a reply. Patiently.

With this server, that's a necessity.

I am resumitting this proposal soon. Any further comments would always be appreciated. I think I might drum up more support by calling it "Kinky Hot Raw Sex With Multiple Partners"
PS.
OoC:
OOC: Cobdenia, you mentioned you have diplomatic immunity in RL. How closely does this proposal match RL? Is this a wish-list for diplomats?
Sorry about the late reply, I was on holiday!
In RL, it is far more complicated because there is NO international agreement. For example, in the UK it is pretty much the same as above. In the USA, however, they will arrest and prosecute diplomats who commit felonies. Also, it's a lot less informal. Only the Ambassador and other heads of post hand over their credentials and recieve an exequator.

The humble and beautiful leader of the Peoples Republic of Laayla desires to apply the rules you have set forth in regards to diplomatic immunity to relations currently being established between her nation and others. The model you have presented is most appealing to us and we wish your permission to use this proposal as a standard form of diplomatic protocol for our nation. We patiently await your reply.
Go ahead. By the Way, Cobdenia is the Commodore. Say Hello to your hubby (Who I know as Laslooslo) for me ;)

Current draft. I will submit when I think I can get an a day off to telegram (OoC I may have a cushy government job, but not THAT cushy...):

REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

DESIRING that Diplomats do not cause offence to the nation in which they are serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and abide by the laws and edicts of the nation they serve and originate (hereafter referred to as the base nation)

The following is proposed:
Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats-on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa-and their property are inviolable from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation
6. Ferrero Roche, arranged in a giant triangle, is expected to be served at all Ambassador’s receptions

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur and Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation
3. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but not limited to Heads of Government or State on official visits**) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials
4. a) Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base nation
b) Diplomats are expected to present a Diplomatic Passport, issued by the base nation containing a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation, when entering or leaving the host nation
5. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc, and are obliged to follow UN transport law
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
7. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
8. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
9. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the rescind of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata they are deported from the nation and may face prosecution within the base nation. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure
10. Diplomats may be put under ‘house arrest’ for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)

6. Ferrero Roche, arranged in a giant triangle, is expected to be served at all Ambassador’s receptions

i like that :p

but anyway, I support this resolution and will urge the delegate of the region of Greater Nova York, Turetel, to do the same.

It's been resubmitted. I managed to fire off about 100 telegrams

9. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the rescind of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata they are deported from the nation and may face prosecution within the base nation. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure

I must object to the diplomat being allowed to keep their property if they are ejected from my nation. If they brought the property itself to my nation from their own, and I do include the land or platform it is sitting on, then I have no objections. But if they bought it from my nation, the fact remains that the DLE government has the right to seize the property of anyone, be they civilian or not, for any reason, as the government owns all property not in private control. If this is to be the effect, then I must ask any nation that wants our property to agree to only rent it and to not try to give their diplomats diplomatic immunity.

As it stands, the military is now going to be trained to include tactics for quickly overcomming Mission defenses and securing top-secret documents before those inside have a chance to deal with such. I can see the terrorist cells of Merlyns also being surprised when they start recieving government funds to train the military to do this.

Well, that would be a breech of Section 1 paragraph 2
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
Invading an Embassy or consulate (which is technically the soil of the base country) usually is a declaration of war. However, by property I was referring to items and not the missions themselves. Embassy's are also owned by the base country; no matter how Communistic your nation is. Anyway, you stated:
as the government owns all property not in private control.
For all intents and purposes an Embassy is private property. It is NOT the property of the host country.
The simple solution is DON'T give diplomatic immunity to anyone. And, of course, suffer the international isolation this would inevitably cause.

Well, that would be a breech of Section 1 paragraph 2

Invading an Embassy or consulate (which is technically the soil of the base country) usually is a declaration of war. However, by property I was referring to items and not the missions themselves. Embassy's are also owned by the base country; no matter how Communistic your nation is.

The DLE Empire has a problem with terrorists who dislike Merlyns being part of the Empire. The only difference between the four nations is a mild accent, and the fact the language is incomprehensible to outsiders and untranslatable by most programs designed to do so makes it so that most people can't tell the difference. Add in an accent that developped on Terrator that is different from those on Terran and you only muddle the waters worse. We can just point out our gun laws, declare terrorists did it, and move on.

And it's not communistic. We're extremely militaristic and just as much capitalistic. Communism really doesn't have a chance in hell of working in DLE. The right to seize any property comes with the government style and the overwhelming popularity of it.

Anyway, you stated:

For all intents and purposes an Embassy is private property. It is NOT the property of the host country.

Which is why I said what I did about having diplomats rent their property from the government. Then they can have their embassies but if we ever kick them out we can keep the property itself. I'm looking at national security and the espionage factor that often accompanies diplomats.

The simple solution is DON'T give diplomatic immunity to anyone. And, of course, suffer the international isolation this would inevitably cause.

Isolation my Empire is used to. After all, take a look at where we're located and the challeneges of just reaching the inhabitable areas. But as it stands, we cannot risk the security breaches.

I'm looking at national security and the espionage factor that often accompanies diplomats.

The right to decide whom you give Diplomatic Immunity is yours. Feel free to have no embassies.

And I have no idea what possible security breaches a Diplomat could perform.

The right to decide whom you give Diplomatic Immunity is yours. Feel free to have no embassies.

And I have no idea what possible security breaches a Diplomat could perform.

Simple. They bring in surveilance equipment and keep an eye on troop movements, weapons storage, etc. If they are really good, they can pay people in your nation to give them classified documents. You have embassies, you have to worry exactly how much of your classified information is being snuck out and sold to the highest bidder.

BTW- We enjoyed the pictures of your leader in the shower and posted them all over our databases. We bought them off of Ebay.

The proposal only covers diplomats and diplomatic mission. If you're foreign minister is daft enough to give diplomatic immunity to a spy, then it's your own fault.
Plus, there is recprocity. You do something a little dodgy to Cobdenia using your diplomats, Cobdenia does something dodgy to your country using our diplomats.
And, if you could tell me how to solve that problem in eight characters...

The proposal only covers diplomats and diplomatic mission. If you're foreign minister is daft enough to give diplomatic immunity to a spy, then it's your own fault.
Plus, there is recprocity. You do something a little dodgy to Cobdenia using your diplomats, Cobdenia does something dodgy to your country using our diplomats.
And, if you could tell me how to solve that problem in eight characters...

OOC: EVERY foreign officer is a potential spy. EVERY single one.

Potentially, yes. Blast it, every foriegner is potentially. And all your citizens are potentially. If you're against this proposal because of its potential to allow espionage, you'd have to shoot all your citizens and every sentient being on the planet.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania, as others, is not in agreement. We do not see any official, irregardless of status, as immune from the law (even our own government officials [unlike other nations] do not possess immunities).

We would continue to prosecute personnel, even if diplomats, for severe violations of the law (such as murder, or grand larceny).

If our own president cannot be immune from prosecution, or myself even, in lieu of our office, why should we grant such to foreign diplomats residing in our nation...

As for residences... The Consular offices are considered property of the foreign nation; though if they reside off the Consular soil; their private residence is still subject to all provision of Tekanian federal law. Their private non consular residence is not subject to any immunities towards Constitutionaly normative warrants.

As for being effected internationally by this... We really do not care what uncivilized nations, who cannot even send diplomats who are capable of acting respectfully towards the rights of others, complain about...

Sorry, but Diplomatic Immunity is a ploy by those with criminal intent.

Diplomatic Immunity is not a ploy. It's a neccesity.
For example, Tekania irritates Cobdenia. Cobdenia then enacts a law making it illegal for people who do not have double (or more)-barrelled surnames to exists, and shoots every Tekanian diplomat.
What is to stop Cobdenia randomly invading the Tekanian Embassy and stealing all the Top Secret Communique?
And have you actually read the resolution?
Sections II subsections 9 and 10:
9. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the rescind of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata they are deported from the nation and may face prosecution within the base nation. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure
10. Diplomats may be put under ‘house arrest’ for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)
So if a diplomat commits a crime, you declare him persona non grata and he is deported and faces prosecution for his crime in his home country (assuming it was a crime in his home country). If he poses a direct threat to the local populace (so, if he's sabotaging a nuclear power plant or cocking an automatic rifle) you can stop him and put under house arrest, then declare him persona non grata.
You might want to look at section II subsections 6, 7, and 8
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
7. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
8. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
They are not "above the law" they are merely subject to the law of their home nation and not the host nation

We really do not care what uncivilized nations, who cannot even send diplomats who are capable of acting respectfully towards the rights of others, complain about...
If they don't send Diplomats who you don't think will act respectfully, then don't accept them until they send someone who will.

This proposal is not to make Diplomats Super Human it is to prevent the more likely scenario of persecution of Diplomats by foriegn nations

Diplomatic Immunity is not a ploy. It's a neccesity.
For example, Tekania irritates Cobdenia. Cobdenia then enacts a law making it illegal for people who do not have double (or more)-barrelled surnames to exists, and shoots every Tekanian diplomat.
What is to stop Cobdenia randomly invading the Tekanian Embassy and stealing all the Top Secret Communique?
And have you actually read the resolution?
Sections II subsections 9 and 10:

With such laws, we would cut ties, and remove recognition of your government.


So if a diplomat commits a crime, you declare him persona non grata and he is deported and faces prosecution for his crime in his home country (assuming it was a crime in his home country). If he poses a direct threat to the local populace (so, if he's sabotaging a nuclear power plant or cocking an automatic rifle) you can stop him and put under house arrest, then declare him persona non grata.
You might want to look at section II subsections 6, 7, and 8


He did not commit crimes in his "base nation", he commited crimes in the Constitutional Republic... As such, we possesses jurisdictional superiority. And we will prosecute them, because we do not grant anyone immunity... Including our own representatives. The host country is incapable of prosecuting without violating international law... As such, this creates a loophole; whereby it legalizes the violation of international laws...

No sir, If a diplomat commits an act against a member of the Republic, in violation of the law; they will be tried by the only court internationally sanctioned for such actions; that is the court of the Republic.... No immunity shall be granted.

As per NSUN Resolution "Definition of Fair Trial", I declare this proposal in violation of present, standing international law...

Mr. Smith, Diplomat from Cobdenia murders a citizen of the Republic... Under this proposal, we must deport him.... Once in Cobdenia, Mr. Smith refuses to waive his rights under the DoFT... Cobdenia then must turn him over to the Republic; we however are barred from prosecution; therefore Mr. Smith cannot be turned over to the Republic; yes, Cobdenia cannot prosecute... Mr. Smith is completely immune from all prosecution, because you, sir, cannot respect the laws of nations which you have ties with....

No, I will not support it....


They are not "above the law" they are merely subject to the law of their home nation and not the host nation

Anyone in a host nation, regardless of office or status, should be subject to the laws of that nation.


This proposal is not to make Diplomats Super Human it is to prevent the more likely scenario of persecution of Diplomats by foriegn nations

It does make them super-human in light of present laws. As it creates a legal loop, whereby the person effectively and internationally makes themselves immune from all prosecution, merely because of their status...

It is quite common, and their are many documented cases of Diplomats using immunity to commit all sorts of acts... I will not submit to legislation mandating immunity... We provide no immunity, and never shall...

You seem unable to get round the concept of reciprosity. What you do to Cobdenia (such as prosecuting a Diplomat due to laws that Cobdenia considers arcane) Cobdenia would do to you.

You feel that Diplomats abuse there immunity. Well, they don't. They wouldn't BE Diplomats if they weren't Diplomatic :rolleyes:.

You also fail to realise that a lack of Diplomatic Relations leads to wars through the inability to negotiate...

OoC RL Example: Prior to Gulf War 1, the USA had Diplomatic relations with Iraq. When the USA declared war on Iraq, the Diplomats left, and due to the fact that the US Diplomats had Diplomatic Immunity, Iraq couldn't just imprison them and they were allowed to leave the countr. If it hadn't been for Diplomatic Immunity, they would have all been shot.
There has only been one example of abuse of Diplomatic immunity and that was the murder of that policewoman in London who was shot from the Libyan embassy. The declaration of all Libyan Diplomats persona non grata (not just in the UK) was far more devestating to the Libyans to lose their diplomatic relation then it was to the British through loosing a policeman.

The fact is, it is near impossible for Diplomats to abuse their power (as they face prosecution in their home county and definately lose their jobs if declared PNG) to any real sense. It is far more realistic that a government would persecute diplomats.

Present International law prevents countries from prosecuting individuals for crimes commited in a different jurisdiction, unless the person being prosecuted, waives his own rights.

Regardless of this resolution; NSUN member nations cannot prosecute people for the commission of crimes in another nation....

This resolution makes it impossible for diplomats to be prosecuted. PERIOD... Unless the diplomat in question, HIMSELF, waives his own rights... It would not matter if we deported Mr Smith for murder... You cannot prosecute him. Under International Law, only we can... This law would make it impossible for US to, as well... which means NO ONE could prosecute a diplomat for violations of high crimes...

As such, should you manage to get this lawless and heinous legislation across the NSUN floor... We will be forthwith seizing all Consular offices in operation by other NSUN member states; and deporting all consular officers to their respective nations... Since their very presence is a threat to law and order in the Republic.... And the respective property will be returned to its prior owner of record...

We will not allow persons of status who are above prosecution into the Republic...

Again, you need to read the resolution. Section II, 8
8. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
It may be a different jurisdiction, but when a Diplomat is involved it becomes the jurisdiction of the police of the base country.
Think of it this way: The ground the diplomat is standing on is his own nations. Therefore the crime he commits is on his own soil.

As such, should you manage to get this lawless...
It is not lawless because of Section II, 6
6. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
Therefore, as I have said before, it is not lawless.
Since their very presence is a threat to law and order in the Republic
Well, since diplomats could not operate in Tekania without fear of persecution, we and our allies would automatically remove all diplomatic personel. Of course, if the resolution doesn't pass, we could strip them, make them walk round Cobden Square naked, tar and feather them, then burn them at the stake.
We will not allow persons of status who are above prosecution into the Republic...
Are you trying not to read the resolution in its newest form? They are not above prosecution. They above prosecution only in the country they are based in, where they are subject to the laws of their own land. They would be above prosecution in Tekania, yes, but not above prosecution.
Seeing as you don't want to protect your own Diplomats, and are unwilling to protect foreign diplomats in your own land, I am suprised that you have any diplomatic relations.

Considering this, there are two viewpoints:
1) There are more crazy diplomats then crazy dictators, therefore citizens should be protected from them
2) There are more crazy dictators then crazy diplomats, therefore diplomats need to be protected from them

Again, you need to read the resolution. Section II, 8

Again, it is not... If he commits murder abroad, outside the confines of the Consulate, he is not commiting it under his own soil...


It may be a different jurisdiction, but when a Diplomat is involved it becomes the jurisdiction of the police of the base country.
Think of it this way: The ground the diplomat is standing on is his own nations. Therefore the crime he commits is on his own soil.


No, it does not.... The Consular is the only soil of the base nation... Soil outside the Consular is CRoT territory, and applicable to our laws. PERIOD.

Private residences outside of the Consular are CRoT jurisdictional territory...

Consular officers living on CRoT soil, outside of the Consular are subject to all laws and taxes of any other resident-alien...

This proposal is blatant, and disgusting perversion of justice, and all that law stands for....

CRoT will never honor this load of crap legislation... And will do everything to make sure it ends up in the refuse pile where it belongs.

We reserve our protected rights, under international law, to abide by the principles of international law, and will never let this blatant violation of the DoFT go unchecked. The purpose of the DoFT was to ensure persons accused of a crime received a fair trial... This law stands in divergence to that law, in that it legalizes the violation of DoFT venue clause for persons of status... And we will not allow this...

We cannot allow any person or government to see themselves above the law... We cannot legalize the violation of the principle of fair-trial... for any reason... We will not give up the very basic principles of free, just and fair government, for any reason what-so-ever... This proposal is a travesty...

We will never grant diplomats immunity to the law; and we will never allow our own diplomats to consider themselves above the law of the nations to which they attend...

No, diplomatic immunity is a farse... A disgusting piece of legislation that stands opposed to responsible government... Diplomatic immunity is a heinous violation of each of our own nations citizens...

Are we, as free and responsible officials, going to let these criminals from Cobdenia free run of our nations? Above our laws? Are we honestly going to let people get away with all sorts of high crimes? Are we going to be the ones to stand there and tell that widow, whose husband was shot by a diplomat, that there will be no justice for her husband's murder? Are we going to tell that young man, whose livlihood was wrecked, because a speeding diplomat rammed, and paralyzed him, that there will be no justice for this crime, that the person who commited such acts are above the ability for his own country to prosecute? Do we honestly want people in our nation, who are above our own laws, and can commit crimes against our own people, to run free...

If you answered yes to that... I pity you... You are lower than low... You do not even deserve to represent your people... You have already commited treason against your own constituents.... I would rather see 1000 Tekanian diplomats slaughtered abroad in the performance of their duties; than to see the wanton destruction that could be caused on the people, under the guise of immunity...

There is absolutely no logical need for diplomatic immunity... It can serve no logical function... If my diplomats need immunity to survive in a nation, why do they need to be there in the first place? No.... it's a farse... If you believe in responsible government; you will oppose this legislation...

Look up "venue"... It is the principle that the prosecution takes place before the jurisdiction where the crime took place; before the actual locality of the crime; where the person accused can face his accusers fairly... Can Cobdenia provide such to a person who commited crimes in the District of Yorktown, Tekania? No, they cannot... Thus, even if "venue" is perverted into Cobdenian jurisdiction by some farsical law, the very principle of venue is still violated. Are you willing to sacrifice the life of some young woman's child, run over by a diplomat's car, for the safety of a Consular in another nation? Is that woman, who was raped by a diplomat... is it worth the safety of our own Consulars? How can we sit here and consider the life of a governmental bureaucrat above that of our own constituents?

[OOC:IRL between 1980-1986 there were over 147 crimes commited by diplomats in possession of immunity; the most common being grand larceny, and assault]

Should we be granting immunity to foreigners on our own soil, when we do not even grant immunity to our own? No... we should not... We cannot let people be above the law, despite what Cobdenia claims as otherwise. Are we going to sit here while proposals come accross pissing all over the very precepts of fair and just government? No, we will not...

If the NSUN, however, decides that such is the case... We will be tendering our resignation from such a body that would allow diplomacy take precedence over our own peoples lives and well-being... And we have commited treason against the very principles of fairness and justice that we have fought so hard to create...

As for my own relations.. they are fine, because, unlike your petty nation... Nations with ties to mine know that they will be treated fairly as with my own people... The simple fact is, immunity is not needed, and only a somone like yourself, with CRIMINAL INTENT, would propose that it is. My own people are more important than any number of diplomats...

And if you find offense, that I would prosecute someone, even if a diplomat, for murdering another, in a fair and just recourse as per international law... And consider the principle of providing the accused diplomat all the rights tehy have before international and tekanian federal laws, and assure of such.... Then, sir, you are a sick and perverted individual... Diplomatic immunity is not needed, and it does nothing but to protect the criminal...

There are far more cases of diplomats abusing their immunity to commit crimes, than their are of petty dictators persecuting diplomats...

We are in agreement with the Tekanian delegate.

As it stands, under this it is very easily abused. Let's say a DLE candidate assassinates the leaders of Cobdenia with a weapon they smuggled into the country. Well, under this, they are under DLE jurisdiction. Even if we ignore the crime being committed in another jurisdiction and the whole part about jurisdiction rights granted by international law, the fact remains that it is not a crime in DLE for such to happen (well, the potential losses of innocent lives are, but forcibly removing the government isn't). This is due to DLE's view that the populous has the right to change government at any point, a right that the government has actually fought against the populous on numerous occasions to protect. To make it even worse, DLE law only applies to DLE planets and territories and, as such, DLE doesn't hold it as illegal for a citizen to commit crimes in another nation (in fact, I only know of one nation that does). As long as they remain under DLE jurisdiction, the fact remains that they have not committed a crime.

I should also note that I share Tekania's views. If one of my citizens, even a diplomat, is stupid enough to commit a crime in their nation, the government of DLE will not help them or even take the effort of protesting (unless we feel the punishment was too lenient). As such, any citizen of DLE needs to be familiar with the laws of any nation they travel to before travelling. We hold the same policy for all nations.

I've always felt that if we established Diplomatic Immunity we set up a set of "Diplomatic Laws" that all diplomats have to adhere to. Still, the fact that diplomats are bound to their nation's laws is a compromise.

What the hell happened to you Tekania? The Mactonese Charge d'Affaire eat your puppy?
And the whole point about jurisdiction is pointless because you have jurisdiction over the people within a certain perimiter. You have no jurisdiction over the diplomats, but the police of the home country do. It's not about the perimeter, it's about the people.

And what about immigration laws? What if one country has no immigration? It would be physically impossible for a country to have diplomatic relations with them.
And just imagine if they had to abide by the taxation laws of the host country. What a farce! Every Diplomat would refuse to be sent to any nation that had higher taxes then the base country, and every Diplomat would be clamering to be sent to countries with no tax!

And the proposal does allow for ways around this problem:
Let's say a DLE candidate assassinates the leaders of Cobdenia with a weapon they smuggled into the country.
Well, you could declare them persona non grata as soon as you discover the weapon has been smuggled in or see them walking around with the weapon, and when he opens fire (or if carrying a weapon is illegal, if he continues to carry the weapon. Or indeed, if gun ownership is illegal the same applies) he would be under the jurisdiction of your police.
Plus, if a diplomat were to be assaulting someone, he could be stopped and placed under house arrest for one night, and then declared persona non grata.
Plus there is absolutely nothing in this proposal that prohibits you from setting up arrangements with countries to ensure that they will be prosecuted and face certain minimum sentences in the base country.

Ok, let's deal with this realistically...

*Can a nation outlaw someone based on nationality? Especially in the case of a Diplomat (Non-Combatant)...

International Law already says no... Review the "Refugee Protection Act"

*Can a nation try someone for a crime they commited against and within another territory?

Internation Law already says no... Review the "Definition of Fair-Trial" Resolution

*******

So, basically, the only thing this does; in refference to PRESENT and standing international law, is destroy the principles of 'fair-trial'... Violate jurisprudence; allow for the protection and immunity of feloniously criminal persons opperating as diplomats...

So, if I send a Tekanian diplomat to Cobdenia; I already rest assured, by present International Law; that the government of Cobdenia cannot create laws to single out my or other diplomats based upon name, nationality or what-not.... What this does do, is create a situation; whereby if a diplomat does commit some heinous crime; it ties all hands in prosecution [Sorry, Cobdenia; there is no way I could try said diplomat for a crime commited in your nation, and be in compliance with the jurisprudence in connection with 'Fair-Trial'; one law cannot create a mitigation against another. And this is true of all NSUN member states... Now, in relation to non-members; any relations with them stand the same; we must grant them immunity; while our own diplomats have no other protections than they did before in the said non-member nation.

As for taxation... It does not matter if consulars would be pushing for the easier tax states... They do not get to pick their offices... They are appointed government officers, and will either go to where they have been appointed, or they can resign, and have another appointed... This is all moot, if they live at the Consulate, like they are supposed to... It is understood, that if they live outside of the Consular offices, they are subject to the same laws and procedures of all of their neibouring residents... which includes applicability to taxation... The Republic itself has no problem covering the host taxation for the diplomat; if it is overly burdensome... The same with traffic laws... They are expected, and will be held accountable by the host state; for violation of moving offenses... We take pains to make sure such officials know the laws of the nation they are to be attending... And if said diplomats screw-up... We expect the host nation to abide by all international jurisprudence, provide the said consular a proper trial under international law; and proscribe any penalty to which they would proscribe their own citizenry... The idea that a state would consider Tekanian officials residing in Consulate status in their nation; and in provision grant immunities and protection to which they would not provide their own citizenry; is abhorent to the Republic... and such a state would be considered a disgrace to the Republic; in violation of their own citizens; and the principles of equality and fairness before the law...

The idea of sending consulars in attendance to a state that cannot abide by existing International laws in relation, and which cannot be trusted to provide said diplomats equal protection to their own citizenry; renders diplomacy to begin with moot; and pointless... And as such would not have attendance before them in the first place.

The ideas expressed in this proposal are abhorant and disgraceful before all the principles of equality before the law, and the very foundation of International Jurisprudence as expressed before by this body... And a backward step towards feudalistic thinking in government; whereby government is above the law... No, regardless of nationality, rank, position or status; all persons in residence should be applicable to the same law...

2. FULLY ACCEPTS responsibility for the well-being of non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of war;
{snip}
4. CALLS UPON all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion.
That means you only have to accept them if the diplomats are currently at war, and it doesn't stop people enacting immigration laws that, while not actually discriminating against race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion (through lack of qualifications, or other acceptable reasons). Plus, many diplomats are military officers (OoC: such as me), and thus not liable for protection under this act.

As for "The Definition of Fair Trial". It makes no mention of jurisdiction. It does say:
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
Well, one could interpret that to mean that if one commited a crime in the street, the trial would have to be held in the street! However, I assume it means that the trial would have to take place in the country in which it occured. As this proposal is currently doomed to fail at the moment (@%$# server breakdown...), we shall alter the persona non grata clause so that the diplomat may face prosecution make sure that the trial occurs in the host country, but is presided over by a judge, jury and barristers and according to the laws of the base country, prior to deportation.

Now, in relation to non-members; any relations with them stand the same; we must grant them immunity; while our own diplomats have no other protections than they did before in the said non-member nation.
This was not intended to cover diplomats of Non-UN countries diplomats whithin UN nations. Of course, you don't need to let them in either. ou don't need to let Un diplomats in either (hence your argument is entirely null and void as it nowhere forces you to accept diplomats). However In the next draft, this shall be emphasised if possible (I thoroughly dislike the 3,500 word limit)

The rest of your argument is nothing more then moralistic tripe, containing far too many elipses.
If you fail to come up with anything other then this "fairness in the eyes of the law" and "equality" neo-Communistic garbage, which you have spewed time and time again, we will presume you have nothing of any value left to say.

OoC: They do not get to pick their offices
In RL they do.

Neo-Communistic? No, it's called libertine... But, then again, a fascist like yourself would not grasp the diffentiated concept between Communistic economic form, and a proper true Free and Libertine Constitutional Republic... Taxes your brain abit too much...

Equality before the law is the precept of all free societies.... And is the product of understanding that all citizens possess equal standing to one another.... Not the falsity of communism which will treat all as socio-economic equals... But that before the citizen government, all persons, whether street beggar or President, are applicable to the same code and standards... Instead of the rank feudalistic mentality of an archaic neo-fascistic state, such as yours...

And since the Universal Bill of Rights, in Article 4, specifically presents the principal of Equality before the law, I would say your words are indicative of your states inability to adhere to existing NSUN legislation... The idea of you making proposals, which could in any capacity conform to the existing standards of this body, is ludicrous....

[IRL Consulars are appointed by the Head of State to perform said functions... The only "picking" they are capable of doing, is picking whether to accept the appointment or not... IOW... You're either lying, or an idiot... I'll let you pick... Sure, people can "Ask" the head of state, but asking is no more picking, than Oliver says "Please sir, can I have more?"... The Head of State makes the appointments... The appointees only have the power to accept or decline the appointment... In totalitarian states, they do not even have that... In the US, the "Chief of Missions", that is the head Ambassadore, or the Consulars are picked from the Foreign Service... a government bureaucracy which staffs foreign Consulates... The President makes his appointments from this pool as chief consular (Ambassadore to a particular nation)... Much like the rest of their service, they are moved as per government needs, and not by their own choice (short of resigning their posts of appointment).... A "Diplomat" has as much choice over their place of office, as the people who a particular Head appoints to his cabinet have over their own placement... So... There is no "Yes they get to pick it..." since it is obvious you are either totally ignorant of the appointment process within legitimate government forms, or you are lying....]

Equality before the law is the precept of all free societies
And we have that in Cobdenia. The only thing this does is change the law to which you have to abide. It doen't change the equality factor. Without Diplomatic Immunity, a Cobdenian Diplomat in Tekania is seen equal in the eyes of Tekanian Law. With it, they are equal in the eyes of Cobdenian law. As Cobdenia has to abide by UN laws as well as Tekania, I don't see how could be a major problem to you unless you wish to subject Cobdenian Citizens to your laws.
Going back to tax and using your statistics:
Tekania:The average income tax rate is 90%, and even higher for the wealthy.
Cobdenia: Citizens pay a flat income tax of 2%
Now, do you think it would be fair if your Diplomats just joined the diplomatic service to avoid high taxation? There can't be many countries with higher taxation then Tekania!

OoC:
In Britain, it is different. While technically they are appointed by the Queen, in reality all Ambassadors (bar a couple; South Africa is a politcal appointment at the moment and the Governor of the Flaklands and Gibralter spring to mind) are career diplomats. What happens is that when your post ends, you are given a list of posts applicable to your grade that are soon to become vacant. You have to pick a certain number of these posts (of which one must be a "Difficult Post"), and then a commitee makes a choice as to where you are going. And you may refuse.
That is what we meant by picking.
Anyway, I do fear this is turning into a flame war. Sorry for getting a little pee'd off. I spent an hour on the telephone to a chap I know in London who has to deal with all this. It cost me a fortune. Hence I am so desperate to get it passed...

You miss my point, I see no need to subject Cobdenian citizens residing in Cobdenia to Tekanian law.... nor to subject Tekanian citizens residing in Tekania to Cobdenian law... However, that, those in residence to another state, are to abide by the laws of that state... And I am also, not reffering to crimes occuring in the Consular offices of the other nation... but towards crimes occuring on the soil, and towards citizens of the host nation... That is, Ambassadore's, while outside of their Consular offices, and running free in Republic territory, or subject to all laws of the Republic, and the same with my own Diplomats overseas...

Most Ambassadore's do not own, or live in residences outside of the Consulate.... However, if they do, they should not be immune from taxation just because they do... The consular might be declarative territory of the base nation, as per treaty... but private residences amongst the public are not... They are property of the Diplomat, and are subject to the same Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities as all other residences in the Republic...

[Even in Real life, Diplomats are not granted the level of immunity that this proposal mandates... States have the power to revoke immunity... Such is occuring at this point in my home state, where waiver is being brought against an UAE diplomat for soliciting sex from a 13 year old girl... And has occured in the past against a Republic of Georgia Diplomat, after he was arrested for driving drunk, crashing, and killing a 16-year old girl]...

The simple fact is, mandating adherence to base state laws, for diplomats in residence of a host state, is not acceptable... I see no point in the allowance of diplomats from nations where certain acts are legal, to commit said acts with impunity in this state... This limits diplomatic options, in that we would be forced to bar nations who do not adhere to our law (which would be all, if this were to pass) from attendence...

We have had diplomats operating in hostile situations since the founding of the Republic, and have not suffered from any actions, even from the most autocratic states, against them... We have found, in the dealing with other states, that adherence to their laws and procedures, is far more of a diplomatic ovature than the granting of impunities... And moves and assistance of host nations to prosecute diplomats who have violated our laws, is a great endeavor... Sometimes it comes at the price of a Diplomats life... but that is what the Diplomats job is... And the diplomats, equal to our own citizenry abroad, are made to understand that while abroad they are applicalbe to the laws and jurisdiction to which they attend; and that the Republic will make no effort to relieve their situation; short of the other states violating existing International Legislation pertaining to their accusation and trial...

All we're doing now is covering old ground.
OoC:
However, with reference to:
[Even in Real life, Diplomats are not granted the level of immunity that this proposal mandates... States have the power to revoke immunity... Such is occuring at this point in my home state, where waiver is being brought against an UAE diplomat for soliciting sex from a 13 year old girl... And has occured in the past against a Republic of Georgia Diplomat, after he was arrested for driving drunk, crashing, and killing a 16-year old girl]...
And according to the proposal they can revoke immunity (persona non grata), and diplomats are expected to face prosecution in the base country (assuming what they did was a crime)
In real life it is really complicated. Basically, in America they are immune from arrest for everything bar felonies. In Britain and most of the rest of the world, it is as above, just about. This is because America considers itself God and therefore superior to everyone and even doesn't have to abide by official recognised international law, let alone unofficial common law such as this.
What may have happened is that they were declared persona non grata, sent back home to face charges and prosecution in the UAE. However, if he faces prosecution in the UAE, he would probably end up losing his head. He may have renounced his Diplomatic immunity to face a better fate in the USA. But as I say, it is complicated. However, as I said above, if Diplomatic Immunity was to be an internationally agreed resolution pertaining to it, this is how it would look, more or less.
And I have been threatened with arrest once for doing nothing more or less then my job. Trust me, it is needed in real life. And the only real abuse I've done is when I parked illegally and drank a double Scotch when I was in Saudi Arabia.

Well, this is an interesting discussion... Our own personal opinion? Foriegn laws can differ greatly from our own. We would prefer to have our own diplomats stay under our own jurisdiction. This protects them from some oddities of foriegn law they may not know of or understand. This also prevents other nations from venting their anger at us on our representatives. We have many friends, and inevitably, also have many enimies, but we keep relations open with all countries unless we decide our representatives would be in immediate danger. If someone abuses one of our representatives, we will go to war with them reguardless, but this gives firm backing to our stance. As for the representatives commiting high crimes and trying to get away with it, such an action would be detrimental to the best interests of the nation they are representing and would be considered a form of treason for any of our representatives. In the Monarchy, treason carries a sentance of death. Minor crimes are more of a nusiance and, for the most part, are better off overlooked as they would provide an unessicary distraction.

Thankyou, Yooperian Delegate. That leads me to point out a few laws that nations (I mean that in an NS sense and RL sense) may have, that the UN cannot legislate against, and may need to be broken as part of a Diplomats job:
Treason
High Treason
Aiding the flight of political prisons
Aiding the flight of children (OoC: where I am, many British women marry people from this country {which I shan't name}, who then kidnap the children and take them to this country. Here, the father has custody for all children over 11. So the local Consul General rekidnaps the children and sends them back to Britain. I must iterate that they were taken to this country against the wishes of the children themselves)
Denouncing Government policy
Denouncing the national leader

And the proposal does allow for ways around this problem:

Well, you could declare them persona non grata as soon as you discover the weapon has been smuggled in or see them walking around with the weapon, and when he opens fire (or if carrying a weapon is illegal, if he continues to carry the weapon. Or indeed, if gun ownership is illegal the same applies) he would be under the jurisdiction of your police.

Which doesn't help if said weapon is a bomb disguised to look like something else or a gun hidden inside something else. Carrying a briefcase is perfectly legal in most nations, even though the modifications that turned it into a machine gun are not.

Plus, if a diplomat were to be assaulting someone, he could be stopped and placed under house arrest for one night, and then declared persona non grata.

Depends on the assault. In DLE, weapon-enhanced lethal force is perfectly acceptable for self-defense. It's not in many nations. And trying to stop and arrest someone who has been told they're under the jusrisdiction of their home nation and thus thinks it's perfectly legal to walk around on the streets with the two assault rifles on their back, ten grenades on their belt, and a missile launcher on their shoulder isn't exactly easy (though, it is easier in DLE, as portable missile launchers are not that effective against graviton shields and energy cannons bigger than your head are quite convincing reasons to surrender).

The point is, you are going to have problems with this when extremely different laws start to interact within the same nation. In addition, your little solution there doesn't work because they were outside of your jurisdiction at the time the crime happened, meaning you cannot arrest them.

Plus there is absolutely nothing in this proposal that prohibits you from setting up arrangements with countries to ensure that they will be prosecuted and face certain minimum sentences in the base country.

Except the fact the criminal was in my jurisdiction and the crime was in their's, which makes it illegal for both to prosecute unless one nation is willing to give up jurisdiction rights. You trying to prosecute for a crime in your nation committed by a diplomat, with the way your resolution is worded, is quite simply illegal.

Well, this is an interesting discussion... Our own personal opinion? Foriegn laws can differ greatly from our own. We would prefer to have our own diplomats stay under our own jurisdiction. This protects them from some oddities of foriegn law they may not know of or understand. This also prevents other nations from venting their anger at us on our representatives. We have many friends, and inevitably, also have many enimies, but we keep relations open with all countries unless we decide our representatives would be in immediate danger. If someone abuses one of our representatives, we will go to war with them reguardless, but this gives firm backing to our stance. As for the representatives commiting high crimes and trying to get away with it, such an action would be detrimental to the best interests of the nation they are representing and would be considered a form of treason for any of our representatives. In the Monarchy, treason carries a sentance of death. Minor crimes are more of a nusiance and, for the most part, are better off overlooked as they would provide an unessicary distraction.

Yooper, attempting to punish your citizens for crimes committed in other nations is expressly illegal in the UN unless you can get the other nation to wave jurisdiction rights. As it stands, they can do anything they want. The crimes are happening to another jurisdiction while the citizen remains in yours.

Thankyou, Yooperian Delegate. That leads me to point out a few laws that nations (I mean that in an NS sense and RL sense) may have, that the UN cannot legislate against, and may need to be broken as part of a Diplomats job:
Treason
High Treason
Aiding the flight of political prisons
Aiding the flight of children (OoC: where I am, many British women marry people from this country {which I shan't name}, who then kidnap the children and take them to this country. Here, the father has custody for all children over 11. So the local Consul General rekidnaps the children and sends them back to Britain. I must iterate that they were taken to this country against the wishes of the children themselves)
Denouncing Government policy
Denouncing the national leader

1 and 2 is impossible to commit, since, by defininition it is impossible for a government to charge someone who is not part of said government with.

3 is moot, since the idea of "Political Prisoners" is outlawed by the precepts of the UBR.

4 is a touchy two-way sword... Kidnapping? even to Kidnap back? You people need to lay off the LSD or what-ever it is that you take in large quantities in order to come up with such drastic ideas...

5,6 are also already violations of International Law, as per the UBR, it is impossible to criminalize persons for speaking out publicly against government policy or leaders...

So what you have are 6 examples.... 5 of them are invalidated by principle and by international law... without this proposal...

The last is an attempt to legalize kidnapping... Also, the last one can be dangerous... Diplomatic immunity does not extend as far as allowing a person to continue the commission of a crime in progress, only immunity from prosecution .... no honest law officer would look at immunity documents if he is caught, and let him continue... even with this, he will either depart, without the kids.... Or if he continues, he will be stoped by police, and shot if neccessary, to prevent his continual commission of a crime.... just as we would impound a diplomats car, and revoke his driving lisense for driving drunk... Sure, you can make him immune from prosecution, but he cannot be made immune from the very process of law and order....

And if a Diplomat is going to be caught beating a person... he is either going to stop, or be shot as well.... Let's see if an "immunity" document makes him immune to head-shots... Not a single [i]reasonable nation would object to my actions in doing such... They can cry all they want...

No one will walk Tekanian street with complete immunity... no way...

****at this, the Tekanian delegate grabs his copy of the proposal, and heads to the bathroom to use it for the function to which it is most fit....****

Except the fact the criminal was in my jurisdiction and the crime was in their's, which makes it illegal for both to prosecute unless one nation is willing to give up jurisdiction rights. You trying to prosecute for a crime in your nation committed by a diplomat, with the way your resolution is worded, is quite simply illegal.
Actually, international law says that they must be prosecuted where the crime took place. They way it is worded could very easily be interpreted to mean that, if you commited a crime on the street, the trial would take place on the street! However, that aside, there is nothing in international law that prohibits trial of a Diplomat under the laws of the base country with a jury, barrister, jury, etc. from the base country as long as the trial takes place in the host country.

1 and 2 is impossible to commit, since, by defininition it is impossible for a government to charge someone who is not part of said government with.
Really? You should tell Sir Mark Thatcher that! Plus, you've contradicted yourself. I thought you thought that "nobody is above the law"?

You are correct about the last 5 and 6. Except there is a slight problem...
Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
Maybe the diplomats aren't human!

The fact is you have clearly stated as much knowledge of international diplomacy as a Great Crested Newt. You are unable to distinguish an Embassy and a Consulate, you cannot spell Ambassador correctly, I very much doubt you know what a legation is, and you have this delusion that an Ambassador lives in the Embassy, you seriously over-use elipses, and when you started rabbling on about the kidnapping, you displayed I complete ignorance of extradition treaties. And you can't speak Latin...

Actually, international law says that they must be prosecuted where the crime took place.

That's DoFT and waveable by the criminal. The Rights and Duties resolution is what covers jurisdiction, and it requires a UN law that specifically creates an exception to it in order for it to override the resolution. This doesn't do it.

They way it is worded could very easily be interpreted to mean that, if you commited a crime on the street, the trial would take place on the street! However, that aside, there is nothing in international law that prohibits trial of a Diplomat under the laws of the base country with a jury, barrister, jury, etc. from the base country as long as the trial takes place in the host country.

Actually, there is. The jurisdiction portion of Rights and Duties. You can only try a criminal for a crime committed inside your jurisdiction. You cannot, however, try a criminal outside of your jurisdiction. In this case, the crime happens to your jurisdiction but the criminal was in another jurisdiction at the time. Legally, the criminal is not even in your nation when the crime happened. That, in turn, is what makes them immune.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Sorry, but the jurisdiction argument doesn't cut it. In fact, it was that line which made me decide to write this! It requires this resolution so that these immunities can be defined!

OoC: First off an apology to Tekania. As I've said, this resolution actually cost me a hell of a lot of cash by making a trunk call. Hence I wan't this to reach quorum. It won't this time, I know that. Unless there is a miracle. However, if it reaches quorum and fails, it will not be resubmitted.

Sorry, but the jurisdiction argument doesn't cut it. In fact, it was that line which made me decide to write this!

And in that case is where you have made your biggest mistake. You see, this doesn't establish an exception. This has nothing in it that establishes an exception.

I'll remove all the stuff I posted that was subsequently deleted in your original post. I don't want to turn this into a flame war (too late, probably!).
And in that case is where you have made your biggest mistake. You see, this doesn't establish an exception. This has nothing in it that establishes an exception.
I'd personally read, subject to the immunities recognized by international law that, if they have immunities recognised by international law, this article is irrelevent. As it stands, this part of the article has no reason to exist. But it does, and provide a nice loophole for me!

I'd personally read, that, if they have immunities recognised by international law, this article is irrelevent. As it stands, this part of the article has no reason to exist. But it does, and provide a nice loophole for me!

Except your proposal doesn't include anything that actually exploits the loophole. The articles it does contain grant a loophole for the diplomat to do what they want due to the crime being in one jurisdiction and the diplomat in another. Even revoking diplomatic immunity means nothing, as legally they were not in your jurisdiction at the time they committed the crime.

I'll add a "Recalling etc" if I can fit it in next time.

The reason you can't try someone for a crime while they had diplomatic immunity is because that could be exploited by evil dictators.
DLG "DLG wishes to state it's disgust at your recent policy regarding cheese"
The Knights Who Say Nee! "You are now persona non grata. Arrest him for using the sacred word!"
The reason property is invoilable is for similar reasons (which someone else suggested)
Demon Lord Enigma's Vice-Consul is walking through Port Sir Richard airport carrying sensitive DLG government documents
Cobdenia "Persona non grata. Quick, get his documents"

Also, there is room in this proposal (a loophole I purposefully allowed, if you will) that enables you to ensure countries to negotiate "rules" before they accept diplomats, such as they will face trial in their own nation for murder, burglary etc.
The real problem is the 3,500 word limit. If it was higher, I might have been able to make sure that members knew this was an option. Plus, it is up to the government whether it grants immunity or not. If you do, you have to stick by the rules.
I don't see what all the fuss is about, really.

Here's the proposal that will be submitted should it fail this time around
New bits in bold
RECALLING Article 2 of the “Rights and Duties of UN States” resolution and Article 5 of “Definition of Fair Trial”

REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

The following is proposed:
Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats-on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa-and their property are inviolable from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur and Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation.
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation
4. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but not limited to Heads of Government or State on official visits) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials
5. a) Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base nation
b) Diplomats are expected to present a Diplomatic Passport, issued by the base nation containing a Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation, when entering or leaving the host nation
6. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc, and are obliged to follow UN transport law
7. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
9. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
10. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the rescind of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic or Consular status, for any reason. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata and may face prosecution within the host nation under the laws of the base country prior to deportation, where they may serve a punishment. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure
11. Diplomats may be put under ‘house arrest’ for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)

My only complaint about #10 is that it could be abused...the Diplomat could do something that's against the host country's laws but not of the base country's and the host country could declare the Diplomat "persona non grata" to get around the Immunity. That's why I still think we need a set of "Diplomatic Laws" that govern Diplomatic behaviour, if only to curtail this kind of abuse.

EDIT- Oh, and you may want to edit #11 to read "drunk driving" instead of "drink driving".

My only complaint about #10 is that it could be abused...the Diplomat could do something that's against the host country's laws but not of the base country's and the host country could declare the Diplomat "persona non grata" to get around the Immunity.
That's why the only "may" face prosecution. And if Cobdenia was to randomly and pointlessly declare all RomeW's diplomats persona non grata, you would do the same. It's the same with the "using diplomats as assassins" argument. It's like the cold war; the USSR could have nuked the USA, but the USA would have nuked the USSR back, and vice versa. Nobody would abuse it because it would be abused back.

I'll make it clear that governments can negotiate thier own laws (such as all diplomats will face prosecution for certain crimes)

As for drink driving/drunk driving. Well, then we're getting into English vs US dialect...

Treason : Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies....

How is a state to charge a diplomat from another nation with treason? A Cobdenian diplomat is incapable of committing Treason against the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, because he's not a Tekanian citizen and has no allegiance in the first place to Tekania.

[IRL, Mark Thatcher was not charged with Treason, he was charged under South African Anti-Mercenary Laws for supplying money to the Coup for the purchase of a helicopter]...

The very concept of political prisoners, within reason, falls in UBR #2-4 in conjunction with the force and imposition of restrictions outlined in UFC #5 a-c... Obviously this is only applicable to people who openly disagree with the government; and does not extend to actual acts of terrorism, violence, and the like; but then; terrorist activities should not be actions commited by a 'diplomat' in the first place... And one could argue then, that said person is not a 'diplomat' and therefore possesses no immunity... Then, of course, I could pull R&D S-II/A4 and kill the diplomat... Since nations have a complete and unrestricted right to sigular or collective self-defense (hmm... got a loophole in this one... if he commits acts against my country himself, he effectively has commited an act of war; therefore the entire Immunity Res is invalided by Section II of the Rights and Duties Res... Effectively acts by the Diplomat fall in violation of Section II-Article 6, and thus Article 5 for violation of Declaration; allowing the host country to make declaration against the base nation; by law, no other NSUN nation (Section-II Article 7 and Article 8) may assist the base nation in any effort... Therefore we declare war, capture the Diplomat as an terrorist insurgent agent operating in our nation... Since he is no longer a recognized Diplomat, being from a nation outside (in violation) of present International Laws....

Anyway, all pointless... Sorry, but I do not believe in complete and utter immunity for diplomats... And there is no pervasive argument that will swing me to support it... Since you do not plan on a resubmit, any further discussion is pointless... though if you change your mind, and I encourage you to; I would support that there be provision for trial in the host nation... with the Judge and defense lawyer from the base nation, prosecutorial lawyer from the host nation, and provision for jury from base nation, but with option for waiver...

My only complaint about #10 is that it could be abused...the Diplomat could do something that's against the host country's laws but not of the base country's and the host country could declare the Diplomat "persona non grata" to get around the Immunity. That's why I still think we need a set of "Diplomatic Laws" that govern Diplomatic behaviour, if only to curtail this kind of abuse.

EDIT- Oh, and you may want to edit #11 to read "drunk driving" instead of "drink driving".

Yes, some of the most common offenses that occur, are ones that occur from cultural differences; abuse, child pornography or sex, etc... Where base nations may not have laws governing such... There definitely needs to be a seperate set of criteria to govern Diplomatic envoys....

[IRL: Some of the most common abuses that occur amongst middle-eastern diplomats in the USA is actual assault on workers, rape and soliciting sex from minors; such are not crimes in their base nation... Also, in the case in Virginia, where the Diplomatic envoy from Georgia was driving Drunk and killed the 16 year old in a crash; the Republic of Georgia rescinded the Diplomatic status of the Envoy and allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to prosecute... Such provisions should also be applicable to a res such as this.... Since all the evidence and witness' will be host nation; it would be easier to hold trial in host nation; which is one of the purposes of venue... base nation would lack the neccessary evidence to prosecute]

Shoot. I forgot about that. I'll try and add this in...
11. The government of the base country has the right to rescind the immunity of any of its diplomats, and they may be tried by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity.
This existed in one of the earlier drafts and was removed. Now I've managed to squeeze it in. I had to loose the Ferrero Roche bit :(
I'll only not resubmit if it reaches quorum and fails. It won't reach quorum this time so I probably will.
And in some countries Treason can be against anyone. Even people who aren't even in the country!
Plus, you cannot deny that there are dictators in (NS) world who are members of the UN, who will find ways of squirming around the UN resolution and, while not discriminating, are more likely to be used against diplomats.
The problem is not that you don't bring up ligitimate concerns, but rather the 3,500 character limit.

Plus, you cannot deny that there are dictators in (NS) world who are members of the UN, who will find ways of squirming around the UN resolution and, while not discriminating, are more likely to be used against diplomats.

That is true... However, there is little that can be done about it; short of developing an international standard for diplomats to follow... But the potentiality for abuse is always present in any law.... Which is why the Republic feels the duty of the law is retributive and not preventative...

Actually, if you were to propose an international standard of laws that diplomats would have to adhere to, or face revokation according to Section II Article 11, I would support it (I can't endorse as I am not a delegate).
As it currently stands it will be resubmitted as such

RECALLING Article 2 of the “Rights and Duties of UN States” and Article 5 of “Definition of Fair Trial”

REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

Section I:
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats-on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa-and their property are inviolable from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation

Section II:
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur and Diplomatic Visa issued by the host nation.
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation
4. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but not limited to Heads of Government or State on official visits) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials
5. Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country, which contains a diplomatic visa from the host country
6. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc.
7. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the base nation
8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
9. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
10. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata, which is the defined as the revokation of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic status. When a Diplomat is declared persona non grata and may face prosecution within the host nation under the laws of the base country prior to deportation, where they may serve a punishment. Only an individual Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomats, can be declared persona non grata; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared persona non grata remains inviolable from search and seizure
11. The government of the base country has the right to rescind the immunity of any of its diplomats, and they may be tried by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity. This must be invoked if a diplomat breaks any UN law
12. Governments are free to negotiate other circumstances between them under which article 10 must be used
13. Diplomats may be put under ‘house arrest’ for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)
New bits in bold

Actually, if you were to propose an international standard of laws that diplomats would have to adhere to, or face revokation according to Section II Article 11, I would support it (I can't endorse as I am not a delegate).
As it currently stands it will be resubmitted as such


New bits in bold

The revamped proposal is within line to desired goals... Should it be re-submitted, you can count on my approval as Delegate.

Thankyou, and once again my apologies for some of the comments. I'd had a bad day yesterday...

Section 11 should probably say "as prescribed under international law or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the abscence of such laws" in instead of "UN law", because you'd run the risk of submitting a proposal that would not be able to stand up on its own. Other than that, it looks great.

Done. I had to shorten persona non grata to PNG (except for once, so it is obvious what PNG stands for) to get it to fit!