NationStates Jolt Archive

Nuremberg Principles
A resolution to increase worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hersfold

NOTING, WITH GREAT REGRET, that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily;

SHOCKED that at times, nations in war do, at times, commit inhumane acts of violence, commonly referred to as “war crimes”;

APPALLED that the United Nations, the body responsible for the betterment of the NationStates World, has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that in some cases, responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict in a court of law;

HAVING PASSED the previous Resolutions #83, Eon Convention on Genocide, and #94, Humanitarian Intervention;

HEREBY ENACT the following Principles to be adhered to when dealing with a nation or person(s) which are guilty of such crimes:

I - Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

II - The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III - The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or Region or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution #47, “Definition of Fair Trial”

VI – Defines the following actions as international crimes, punishable by international law:

1) Crimes against peace:
A - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
B - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (A).

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to intentional murder, ill-treatment, or deportation to slave-labor or any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. This crime is subject to the articles of UN Resolution #83, The Eon Convention on Genocide.

VII - Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

VIII - A trial against a nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes must be conducted by a neutral nation, and is subject to the articles of Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'". The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in Resolution #83, "Eon Convention on Genocide" shall be followed. The neutral party conducting the trial shall have the authority to enforce any passed sentence, through whatever legal means needed.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listen in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment that does not violate any UN Resolution previously passed, or passed hereafter. In addition, no sentence may be that of death.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms as follows:

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all preceding and following this resolution.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

This resolution was co-sponsored by The Federation of Grosseschnauzer.


Edit: All additions and changes to the original draft are highlighted in GREEN.

I have drafted this proposal for a few reasons. First of all, while we have several resolutions that deal with the international crimes of genocide, mistreatment of POW's, etc., we don't actually have a resolution that states how the nations which commit those crimes should be brought to trial. Secondly, these principles (minus a few tweaks to make it fit into NationStates) are the exact same principles that were enacted by the RL UN in 1950, in response to the Nuremberg Trial of Nazi Officials at the end of World War 2. These principles have been in place ever since that time, and are taught to soldiers to this day.

This resolution intends to aid the international community in bringing criminal nations to trial, and to help prevent the onslaught of war crimes or genocide.

This is currently a draft proposal, and is open to comments from all UN members. Please, limit your responses to constructive criticism. If you are posting just to say "I hate this proposal, I'll never vote for it", then save it for when it (hopefully) reaches quorum. The same goes if you support it. Only post if you have a suggestion on how to improve the current draft.

I hope to submit this by the end of the week, but if I am still getting comments at that time, I may delay the submission. And of course, it will not be submitted until it recieves moderator approval. So, please comment, and hopefully we will have this done soon!

I don't understand this proposal.
Eon and Humanitarian Intervention both mandate TPP as the way to bring wrongdoers to trial, and makes the decisions of TPP binding.

What does this proposal accomplish that TPP doesn't?

You're going to need very strong protections guaranteed to conscientious objectors if this is going to work.

Principled objectors in modern military or paramilitary groups face intimidation, harassment, ostracism, violence, imprisonment, dismissal; every level, from their rank-and-file comrades to the highest echelons of military administration, will treat them in all respects as if they are the criminals. They may not face death for objecting - but they have typically been trained from their first day into a culture of obeying orders without question, and made conscious of the scale of penalties. Under these conditions, it takes a quite herculean strength of character to disobey an order on moral grounds. Effectively, therefore, the Nuremberg principle requires individuals to perform the kind of efforts of will that in other circumstances would result in them being heaped with medals - merely in order to be acquitted.

Effectively, if this doesn't come with a very strong package of legal rights and protections for conscientious objectors - protections, for instance, against dismissal, demotion and so forth - it's a hell of a lot to expect.

war crimes are only done by the losers

Why are they called "Nuremberg principles"? I am not aware of such a place or its significance.

OOC: Of course I know what Nuremberg (Nürnberg) is, but this is the NSUN universe. A name change might be in order.

What does this proposal accomplish that TPP doesn't?

This proposal sets guidelines for how individuals should be brought to trial, and also defines further crimes. Eon only covers the crime of genocide, or "crimes against humanity", where this proposal further defines that, and adds "crimes against peace" and "war crimes" to the mix.

@ Rehochipe: I see your point and concerns. It might be rather difficult to fix that problem, but for the meantime (this is not intended to be a permanent solution, yet it may be), how about I add this clause:

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

It would go just below the definitions and just above the recognition of Grosseschnauzer.

war crimes are only done by the losers

Not always. But you just made me think of something, which I will now add in:

VIII - A trial against a nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes must be conducted by a neutral nation, and is subject to the articles of Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'". The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in Resolution #83, "Eon Convention on Genocide" shall be followed.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

Why are they called "Nuremberg principles"? I am not aware of such a place or its significance.

OOC: I know. I'm hoping it won't cause an issue with the mods, because (back IC now) there's this little town in Hersfold called Nuremberg where the Hersfoldian UN Representative lives. :p

One worry that I have about this proposal, is this part:

"AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right"

This seems a bit too open-ended. Unless said crimes are extremely well-defined, even further than they are now, then surely any member of an armed force could disobey an order on the grounds that it might be 'a war-crime', for example, an artilleryman refusing to fire on a city on the grounds that civilians might be kiled by the shell, thereby commiting an 'in-human act'

Plus, this brings to mind the current resolution, the International Court of Justice; even if your proposal is passed, how will these sentences be enforced. By who's army? A NSUN army is forbidden to be created.

Just my thoughts

OOC: I know. I'm hoping it won't cause an issue with the mods, because (back IC now) there's this little town in Hersfold called Nuremberg where the Hersfoldian UN Representative lives. :p

OK, then. It would be interesting to learn of its significance. Off-topic, though. ;)

YGSM finds the concept of war crimes inherently self-contradictory.

This proposal doesn't seem to do anything. Fair Trial is already on the books. End Slave Labor is already on the books. EON and Humanitarian Intervention are already on the books.

The fact of any of these crimes occurring during wartime does not make them any more or any less criminal.

This resolution will have the Democratic Republic of United Sociologist's full support in any form that adheres to these similar stiupations.

However, we would make the following recommendations:
-Further detail of what constitutes a war crime
-Detailing who and how people will be brought to trial, who is responsibile for the trial's exectution, etc.
-Specific outlining of what punishments individuals or nations can face for violations of this resolution.

We would to commend the Constitutional Monarchy of Fass for it's commitment and dedication to Justice and accountability for all nations.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

However, we would make the following recommendations:
-Further detail of what constitutes a war crime

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Are there more things that should be included?

-Detailing who and how people will be brought to trial, who is responsibile for the trial's exectution, etc.

VIII - A trial against a nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes must be conducted by a neutral nation, and is subject to the articles of Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'". The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in Resolution #83, "Eon Convention on Genocide" shall be followed.
I think who can be brought to trial is also dealt with pretty clearly.

-Specific outlining of what punishments individuals or nations can face for violations of this resolution.

Interesting point. TPP leaves punishments up to the discretion of the judges. This seems to fail to do even that.

I guess that our primary concern is that nobody is responsible for seeing that these trials take place, especially if the winner of such conflict is guilt of committing crimes against humanity. Perhaps this is outlined in one of the past bills and we missed it.

Furthermore, we are concerned about what punishments will be dealt out against violators found guilty of these crimes, again, especially if the victor is the group that commits such crimes. How is the UN to punish a state or head of state for ordering war crimes if they are the winner of a war shy of starting another war?

OOC:

Can't eject them from the UN; that'd be game mechanics.
Can't have the gnomes enforce an embargo against them; ditto game mechanics.

All I can think of would be RP'ing an embargo against them, and maybe following them around and griefing every one of their posts with "NSUN War Criminal" posts. Um, which some people would take as a badge of honor, anyway.

-snip-

Ok. How about:

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, intentional murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of a civilian population of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or of persons on the seas; killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

I know that's not much, but it does rule out the possibility of being accused of a war crime when you accidentally blow up Aunt Martha's house. Since the last two have to be rather intentional to begin with, I left them alone.

@ YGSM: As I said in the first post, please do not comment unless you have something to add to the current draft. This is not the time to debate the merits and morals of the proposal, but the time to make it better. If you have no comments to that effect, please do not post.

However, we would make the following recommendations:
-Further detail of what constitutes a war crime
-Detailing who and how people will be brought to trial, who is responsibile for the trial's exectution, etc.
-Specific outlining of what punishments individuals or nations can face for violations of this resolution.

Thanks for the support. I think we've covered the first two suggestions, although the one about the war crimes is rather vague. You are correct, however, that I haven't addressed punishments yet.

How about:

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listen in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment that does not violate any UN Resolution previously passed, or passed hereafter. In addition, no sentence may be that of death.

This would include heavy fines, or the more likely one, life sentence in prison. Like the Eon convention, however, it leaves punishment up to the neutral party conducting the trial. One can assume that the judges would have the proper discretion not to lock a national leader up in prison.

Hey, glad that I could help there Hersfold. Quite proud I helped to change a resolution for the better.

However, two points still come to mind for me:

1. How this resolution would be passed - I'm in no way attacking it, merely asking you how you might reinforce it. For example, no NSUN army can be created, and no large military alliance could be formed without a lot of checking to see if any one nation was allied to the countrie(s) accused of commiting war-crimes, as they then would become tools to commiting war-crimes, accomplices as it were.

2. The part about 'devastation not justified by military necessity' in VI Part 2. I believe this needs to be justified and explained in more detail - perhaps renaming it to 'Reasonable' military neccessity, as if it remains this vague, then any action, no matter how reprehensible, could be allowed by the defense under the view that such an act, whatever that may be, may have stil had military neccessity's. For example:

Say Nation X gasses an entire city that has been besieged by Nation X's military for some time, and still has a notable military, as well as civilian presence. Though this would come under the heading of wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, it could be defended against by the next line of your resolution, by claiming that Nation X was only aiming for the destruction of military forces, and the civilian deaths were an accident.

Actually, I find YGSM has a point. How are you going to enforce the decisions and keep it legal? You pull that part about war criminals, you're in trouble for griefing and, depending on who it is, face possible stalking charges in real life. Yes, people on the internet can get that paranoid.

Unless you come up with an enforcement that can work against all nations while being legal, there is no point to even bother writing this up. All that will happen at best is the court is ignored and at worst you'll end up dooming millions of people to die in a fruitless war that will probably end with the judge panel nations being attacked and devastated as well. And that's ignoring what happens if you try to force the decisions on those nations powerful enough, either through size or the realms of technology and/or magic, to consider nukes to be precision strike weapons.

Unless you can make it enforcible, you have Just Another Useless Committee that is likely to be ignored.

1. How this resolution would be passed - I'm in no way attacking it, merely asking you how you might reinforce it.

Ok, this obviously needs to be addressed, as YGSM brought this up before you, and now DLE's supporting it.

I cannot create an army to force compliance. I cannot eject from the UN. I really can't do anything, other than say "Do what the court tells you because I'm the UN and I say so", waving that all-too-familiar excerpt from the FAQ. Most resolutions work that way. The rules the mods have laid down (Mods, I'm not attacking you in any way, just stating fact) make it damn near impossible to make any of these work in a RL scenario. Even less possible when you've got tens of thousands of nations under this authority, most of which are simply outright belligerent. (Again, not attacking anyone in particular, in fact most of those who I associate with are decent people. It's just that few that make the lot look bad.)

But then, in hindsight, most of the previously passed resolutions have had to abide by the same rules. What can the UN do if a nation refuses to allow their citizens to vote (#8 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7))? Who's going to care if a logging company plants only 4 trees for each one they cut down? (#23 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22)) And what is the TPP going to do if the NationStates version of Hitler refuses to go to jail? (#83 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=82))

The only thing I can think of (and this literally just came off the top of my head, it's not thought out) is to grant that neutral nation conducting the trial the authority to ensure the sentence is carried out. But I will not add that in yet, because as I said, it's a random thought that happened to apply to this debate. If it actually is decent enough, by your lot's judgement, to be added in, I will put it in there. But not until then.

and no large military alliance could be formed without a lot of checking to see if any one nation was allied to the countrie(s) accused of commiting war-crimes,

Don't follow you here. Just because a nation is allied with a nation that commits a war crime, they are not guilty of committing one themselves. Unless they themselves were responsible, by the Principles, for another criminal event.

In answer to your second point (which I don't fell like quoting for some BS reason I'll think up later :p )... hold on, I have to understand your example first.

Ok, I get it now.
:headbang:
Someone HAD to come in with one of those picky points. Always happens. (Nothing against you, just that you happened to be the lucky nit-pick) Let me give my own example, though.

OOC: The United States, on April 6, 1945, dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. They had been trying to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally for months. When Hirohito refused to surrender (albeit, he didn't know an explosion THAT big could be made by a single bomb), the US dropped another one on Nagasaki. Neither city had a very large military presence; in fact, Hiroshima was known for it's flowers. Hundreds of thousand of civilians died upon the explosion, and many, many more afterward from radiation poisoning. Yet many historians argue that the double whammy, as it were, was necessary for the surrender of the Japanese. Once they figured out that it was extremely unlikely for TWO meteorite to hit the same strip of island in three day's time, they did indeed surrender.

IC: Your example would differ as to the exact circumstances. If they had to gas that city in order to accomplish a higher goal, and it was indeed neccessary to that goal, then no, it would not be a war crime. Yet, if they just gassed it because they had a lot of gas and were tired of waiting, it would be a war crime. And that bit of semantics is already covered.

DLE, I think I covered your post already, but if not, feel free to harass me some more. ;)

I cannot create an army to force compliance. I cannot eject from the UN. I really can't do anything, other than say "Do what the court tells you because I'm the UN and I say so", waving that all-too-familiar excerpt from the FAQ. Most resolutions work that way. The rules the mods have laid down (Mods, I'm not attacking you in any way, just stating fact) make it damn near impossible to make any of these work in a RL scenario. Even less possible when you've got tens of thousands of nations under this authority, most of which are simply outright belligerent. (Again, not attacking anyone in particular, in fact most of those who I associate with are decent people. It's just that few that make the lot look bad.)

The majority of resolutions don't create committees. Nothing in any resolutions states a nation cannot ignore what a committee says. In fact, they leave open the option of fully ignoring the committees. The Gnomes cannot enforce what isn't law.

But then, in hindsight, most of the previously passed resolutions have had to abide by the same rules. What can the UN do if a nation refuses to allow their citizens to vote (#8 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7))? Who's going to care if a logging company plants only 4 trees for each one they cut down? (#23 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22)) And what is the TPP going to do if the NationStates version of Hitler refuses to go to jail? (#83 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=82))

In many of those cases, the gnomes force compliance. But not in the case of the TPP, as it doesn't have that option.

The only thing I can think of (and this literally just came off the top of my head, it's not thought out) is to grant that neutral nation conducting the trial the authority to ensure the sentence is carried out. But I will not add that in yet, because as I said, it's a random thought that happened to apply to this debate. If it actually is decent enough, by your lot's judgement, to be added in, I will put it in there. But not until then.

Arguably illegal by potentially creating a UN army.

But then, in hindsight, most of the previously passed resolutions have had to abide by the same rules. What can the UN do if a nation refuses to allow their citizens to vote (#8 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7))? Who's going to care if a logging company plants only 4 trees for each one they cut down? (#23 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22)) And what is the TPP going to do if the NationStates version of Hitler refuses to go to jail? (#83 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=82))

Laws have been enacted to bring your nation into compliance with XXX.
The gnomes automatically adjust your national statistics as soon as a resolution goes into effect.

What are the gnomes supposed to do with this proposal? What economic, civil or human rights statistics would get tweaked?

(I think TPP slipped through as part of Eon and HI because no one realized how some of us would abuse it.)

This is a human rights resolution, as such the Civil and Political rights in a member nation would increase.

As DLE said, there's nothing that can really be done if a nation decides to ignore the court. It's just assumed that the nation's neighbors will get pissed off, which would hopefully discourage that from happening.

I'll add the thing in about the neurtal party enforcing it. I'm going to have to get mod approval on this anyway, so it shouldn't be a huge bother. Plus, since the nation has the authority to only enforce their ruling, no further, I don't think it would create a problem. It's not like the UN can abuse that to wage war on a nation.

How, short of war, are they going to enforce it? Economic sanctions are powerless due to the easy ways of securing trade outside the UN and the high number of economically independent nations in NS. If a nation gets really stubborn, nothing short of war can really do anything.

How, short of war, are they going to enforce it?
[OOC] I think this is a specious argument in game terms. Although UN armies are prohibited, the UN Gnomes enforce 100% compliance through mysterious and better-left-unexplained methodologies. We don't create enforcement methods any more than we stand in front of an actual podium. It's assumed. It has to be, in a game this simple.

It may be a fun argument for RP, but you'd better find a similar RP explanation for all the other stuff you want to keep, or need to pretend to keep, in order for this game to make any sense at all.

"Yes, I am a spoilsport. Why do you ask?"

[OOC] I think this is a specious argument in game terms. Although UN armies are prohibited, the UN Gnomes enforce 100% compliance through mysterious and better-left-unexplained methodologies. We don't create enforcement methods any more than we stand in front of an actual podium. It's assumed. It has to be, in a game this simple.

It may be a fun argument for RP, but you'd better find a similar RP explanation for all the other stuff you want to keep, or need to pretend to keep, in order for this game to make any sense at all.

"Yes, I am a spoilsport. Why do you ask?"

The Gnomes can only back what is official UN law. Nothing in the laws that establishes the courts in question includes anything that says the decisions are enforceable as though resolutions. Also, considering the RP rules, I would say the gnomes are forbidden from enforcing. So don't rely on them.

Here is how I would view the question of enforcement of a trial judgment for war crimes.
The game rules, as noted earlier, automatically cause each nation to enact laws that bring UN member nation "X" into compliance. Thus, at that point, whatever judicial system exists domestically for each UN member has jurisdiction over war crimes that are subject to the jurisdiction of that nation. Therefore, it does not become an issue for the UN to enforce.

I do agree that a mechanism would need to be in place to determine venue and jurisdiction to try specific instances of war crime charges. It would have to be a default provision, that is, a principle that can be applied in a specific set of circumstances in the event a nation that would nominally have jurisdiction fails or declines to exercise jurisdiction over the parties that are charged with violations of the Nuremburg Principles. If the nation that should have exercised jurisdiction (normally the nation where at least some of the acts that constituted the charged war crimes were committed) fails to do so, then it could be say, a nation involved in the conflict, a neutral nation that participated in an international agreement over prosecution of war crimes from a specific conflict, or a nation whose citizens were victims of the war crimes committed in another nation. By listing these, I don't intent to foreclose other descriptions of how to authorize other nations that might be authorized to hold the trials. If trials are held in a nation under such provisions, it would be responsible for administering the punishments for the offenses in accordance with its own domestic laws (again, because of the NS game mechanics.)

As to the name "Nuremburg," the chancellor of the Federation just happened to be visiting a suburb of its capital district, coincidentially named "Nuremburg" when the offer was made to co-sponsor the resolution. :)

Thanks Hersford - a good set of points. My idea about the allies of countries accused of war-crimes was a bit confused - I shall try and explain it a bit more clearly:

If a country is allied with a country accused of war crimes, then they may well be biased towards any actions taken against said country. If they are elected to supervise over the case of the war-crimes, they may vote for the country on trial and therefore be biased. Again, they may also be biased if part of a military force created to enfore the punishment, ie informing the nation of what will happen, and even turning against the enforcing countries and fighting them.

@ DLE, Fris, and top part of Schnauzer's post: I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading the point, nor do I mean to undermine your authority, Fris, but this sounds like an issue the game mods need to decide on when I get this approved. I would like to have something there to show that the sentences will be enforced, but if that turns out to be a game mech issue, then I will remove it and rely, as always, on the mysterious gnomes. (Why are they called gnomes, anyway? Why not "dwarves" or "fairies"? :p )

@ The second part of Schnauzer's post: When I stated that a neutral nation should conduct the trial, I was referring to a nation that had no involvement whatsoever in the conflict. From your post, it sounds like you intend to have a victim nation be the presiding nation at the trial. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, as a nation that was victim to an alleged war crime would be far more likely to find the offender guilty than a nation that had no part in the conflict at all. Do I need to make that more clear in the proposal, or am I misunderstanding something?

@ Skinny: Ok, I see what you mean now. I think that would also fall under the example given by Grosseschnauzer - the allied nation would not be entirely neutral, and as such would not be eligible to be a presiding nation.

@ DLE, Fris, and top part of Schnauzer's post: I don't mean to sound as though I'm evading the point, nor do I mean to undermine your authority, Fris, but this sounds like an issue the game mods need to decide on when I get this approved.
For the record, Hersfold, I was a UN player long before I was a moderator. When I state something that is clearly opinion in an unsigned post, it's a player response, not an official response. If you see my Moderator signature in this color, I am posting in the persona of a Forum Mod, and it's an authoritative post. The rest of the time, I'm just a player with outspoken opinions and a damn good sense of how the game works.
(Why are they called gnomes, anyway? Why not "dwarves" or "fairies"? )
The UN Gnomes are a roleplay invention and are often used interchangebly with the Compliance Ministry. Only the Ministry is actually part of game mechanics. The Gnomes just make it more fun. In both cases, though, you may assume that the changes made by the Ministry / Gnomes are inescapable and unavoidable, which is why I made my previous comment.

When I state something that is clearly opinion in an unsigned post, it's a player response, not an official response.

Ok, thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

And I was just being a smartarse with that question, I didn't really expect anyone to answer. Thanks, though...

This is a human rights resolution, as such the Civil and Political rights in a member nation would increase.

As DLE said, there's nothing that can really be done if a nation decides to ignore the court. It's just assumed that the nation's neighbors will get pissed off, which would hopefully discourage that from happening.

I'll add the thing in about the neurtal party enforcing it. I'm going to have to get mod approval on this anyway, so it shouldn't be a huge bother. Plus, since the nation has the authority to only enforce their ruling, no further, I don't think it would create a problem. It's not like the UN can abuse that to wage war on a nation.
Human rights? And you call it strong?

If this is intended to be just a paper resolution, it loses any strength I was presupposing for it. It doesn't affect how my government treats my citizens, or how my citizens treat each other, in any readily apparent way. It has to do with treatment of enemies during wartime.

I can't see how this could possibly be more than mild.

@ The second part of Schnauzer's post: When I stated that a neutral nation should conduct the trial, I was referring to a nation that had no involvement whatsoever in the conflict. From your post, it sounds like you intend to have a victim nation be the presiding nation at the trial. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, as a nation that was victim to an alleged war crime would be far more likely to find the offender guilty than a nation that had no part in the conflict at all. Do I need to make that more clear in the proposal, or am I misunderstanding something?

You misunderstood part of what I was saying. I was merely giving examples of what might describe other nations that could have the venue and jurisdiction over the trials.

As to the first part of my post, I believe all I was doing was stating my view of how the resolution would become binding and any judgments of a national court would be enforcable as to citizens of UN member states. Nothing more. This is one of those proposals where, if the game rules are utilized well, the issues of venue, jurisdiction, and enforcement of the judgments would get subsumed into the process as a result of how the game mechanics work. I really don't think this is a dispute, rather it's just stating a rationale.

Human rights? And you call it strong?

If this is intended to be just a paper resolution, it loses any strength I was presupposing for it. It doesn't affect how my government treats my citizens, or how my citizens treat each other, in any readily apparent way. It has to do with treatment of enemies during wartime.

I can't see how this could possibly be more than mild.

If the mods think it should have a lower strength, then it will. Please calm down.

To Schnauzer: I'm still not fully getting your point as to the second part of your post. Could you send me a message on the s2 forum about that?

I understand the first part of your message better now, though. I'll still want to discuss that off-site, though. Sorry for my ignorance.

If the mods think it should have a lower strength, then it will. Please calm down.

My post was very calm. As demostrated by the lack of ??? and !!!, not to mention the conspicuous absence of:
:headbang:,
:sniper:, and
:gundge:

Whatever. I do ask, though, that you abide by the request made in the first post, and only post a reply when you have something to add.

After talking with Schnauzer a bit more, I think I understands what he's trying to say (apologizes to those of you who picked it up first time and now think I'm an idiot). I'll work on adding the points he was suggesting, and will post an updated draft in a few minutes.

Nuremberg Principles
A resolution to increase worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hersfold

NOTING, WITH GREAT REGRET, that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily;

SHOCKED that at times, nations in war do, at times, commit inhumane acts of violence, commonly referred to as “war crimes”;

APPALLED that the United Nations, the body responsible for the betterment of the NationStates World, has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that in some cases, responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict in a court of law;

HAVING PASSED the previous Resolutions #83, Eon Convention on Genocide, and #94, Humanitarian Intervention;

HEREBY ENACT the following Principles to be adhered to when dealing with a nation or person(s) which are guilty of such crimes:

I - Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

II - The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III - The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or Region or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution #47, “Definition of Fair Trial”

VI – Defines the following actions as international crimes, punishable by international law:

1) Crimes against peace:
A - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
B - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (A).

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to intentional murder, ill-treatment, or deportation to slave-labor or any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, as according to UN Resolution #31, "Wolfish Convention on POW"; killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. This crime is subject to the articles of UN Resolution #83, The Eon Convention on Genocide.

VII - Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

VIII - A trial against a nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes must be conducted by a neutral nation, and is subject to the articles of Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'". The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in Resolution #83, "Eon Convention on Genocide" shall be followed.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listen in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment that does not violate any UN Resolution previously passed, or passed hereafter. In addition, no sentence may be that of death.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms as follows:

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all preceding and following this resolution.

Neutral nation: Any nation that held no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of crimes against the above Principles, other than that of negotiating a peaceful agreement between the two (or more) parties involved, such as a peace treaty or non-aggression pact.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

This resolution was co-sponsored by The Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

The above draft has also been posted on the NPC forums, the IDU forums, and the UN Old Guard forums.

Schnauzer, let me know if those changes work out for you. I took out the bit about authority of enforcement, and added that definition of Neutral, which is underlined.

Any more comments?

I've sent my suggestions to you.

Sorry, Schnauzer, I haven't had much time to work on this lately.

This draft, which I hope to be the final draft, is what Schnauzer sent me, plus a few refrences to other Resolutions. This draft will be submitted for moderator approval as soon as I have it posted on all four forums it is located at.

Nuremberg Principles
A resolution to increase worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:

NOTING, WITH GREAT REGRET, that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily;

SHOCKED that at times, nations in war do, at times, commit inhumane acts of violence, commonly referred to as “war crimes”;

APPALLED that the United Nations, the body responsible for the betterment of the NationStates World, has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that in some cases, responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED UN Resolutions 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) and 94 (Humanitarian Intervention);

HEREBY ENACTS the following as Principles to be adhered to when there are charges that any nation or person has committed war crimes and other acts in violation of international law:

I - Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible for those acts and is liable to punishment.

II - The fact that internal national or regional law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person or nation who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III - The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or Region or as a responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to that person.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution 47 (Definition of Fair Trial).

VI – The following actions are defined as crimes punishable by international law:

1) Crimes against peace:
A - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
B - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under clause (A) of this definition.

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation to slave-labor, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, as according to UN Resolution 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW); killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, gender, age, medical, or religious grounds, the freedoms of which are protected by Resolutions #7, 12, 19, 25, 26, 31, 44, 51, 69, and 80, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. This crime is subject to the articles of UN Resolution 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide.)

VII - Complicity, by action or inaction, in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

VIII - A neutral nation shall have jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to the articles of UN Resolution 47, (Definition of “Fair Trial"). The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in UN Resolution 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) shall be followed. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any acts of the alleged crime occurred.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, other than a sentence of death, that does not violate any UN Resolution previously or subsequently adopted.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms as follows:

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all previous and subsequent resolutions.

Neutral nation: Any nation that held no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of crimes against the above Principles, other than that of negotiating a peaceful agreement between the two (or more) parties involved, such as a peace treaty, a non-aggression pact, or other cessation of hostilities.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

This resolution was co-sponsored by The Federation of Grosseschnauzer.


If anyone has any further comments, please make them soon. I plan to submit this once I get moderator approval. Any comments are welcome at this point, even if they do not add anything to the proposal itself. Thank you all for your help.

Bumping this thread.

Also, I'm still waiting on mod approval, but once I get it, the proposal will be submitted under the name of "War Crime Principles" as recommended by Frisbeeteria, and I will try to include the names of the ten resolutions I cited in the Crimes Against Humanity section.

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

I really don't like that definition. What about the loss of the life of a family member, friend, fellow citizen, fellow sentient being, or groups of said persons?

I agree with TH, except I must ask it be dropped entirely and a comment about choice put in its place.

Sorry I haven't been here in a few days.

We did get approval on the original proposal, but when I tried to submit it, it was over the character limit by well over 2,000 characters.

Grosseschnauzer and I are working on shortening it, but we're still over by 737.

Here is the current draft:

War Crime Principles

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:

NOTING that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily and that at times, nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence,

APPALLED that the United Nations has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity or other similar acts:

I - Any person who commits acts that constitute a crime under international law is criminally responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a criminal act under international law does not relieve a person or nation from responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits criminal acts under international law acted as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, pursuant to generally accepted principles.

VI - The following are crimes, through action or inaction, and are punishable by international law:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation as slave-labor, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with a crime against peace or a war crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law applies and permits use of another forum. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict or war may be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should a defeated nation wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice results in the loss of one’s own life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all past and future resolutions.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of the above crimes, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to exercise that right.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.


It still includes the definition of Moral Choice, though.

I really don't like that definition. What about the loss of the life of a family member, friend, fellow citizen, fellow sentient being, or groups of said persons?

Generally, you will be making a choice to stop them from being harmed. If you act to stop the action, and they get killed anyway, then you apparently didn't have a moral choice.

If you have a suggestion for a replacement, I'll look it over. But, if at all possible, please make it shorter than the original. :D

It still includes the definition of Moral Choice, though.

Generally, you will be making a choice to stop them from being harmed. If you act to stop the action, and they get killed anyway, then you apparently didn't have a moral choice.

If you have a suggestion for a replacement, I'll look it over. But, if at all possible, please make it shorter than the original. :D

Maybe I should take a different approach here.

[Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.]

I think adding the part about one's own life is rather superfluous. Morals are simply our beliefs about what behaviors are appropriate. A situation in which one's life is in danger is still subject to one's morality, whether operational or intellectual or both. And my rewrite is shorter. :p

I'll leave the issue of defining "choice" alone because I really don't feel like getting into another useless debate about free will. :D

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice results in the loss of one’s own life.

Maybe I should take a different approach here.

[Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.]

I think adding the part about one's own life is rather superfluous. Morals are simply our beliefs about what behaviors are appropriate. A situation in which one's life is in danger is still subject to one's morality, whether operational or intellectual or both. And my rewrite is shorter. :p

I'll leave the issue of defining "choice" alone because I really don't feel like getting into another useless debate about free will. :D

What this comes down to is whether the clause "when neither choice results in the loss of one’s own life" adds anything to the definition. It may well be superflurious because if one does lose their own life, then they could not be charged with a crime. If it is causing confusion, and does not appear to serve a necessary purpose that requires that it be retained, then perhaps removing it from the definition would be better.

APPALLED that the United Nations has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

If you are looking to shorten this, I think the above clause can be removed without changing the justification behind the proposed resolution.

NOTING that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily and that at times, nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence,

APPALLED that the United Nations has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity or other similar acts:

I - Any person who commits acts that constitute a crime under international law is criminally responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a criminal act under international law does not relieve a person or nation from responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits criminal acts under international law acted as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, pursuant to generally accepted principles.

VI - The following are crimes, through action or inaction, and are punishable by international law:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation as slave-labor, or any other purposeful ill-treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with a crime against peace or a war crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law applies and permits use of another forum. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict or war may be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should a defeated nation wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice results in the loss of one’s own life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all past and future resolutions.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of the above crimes, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to exercise that right.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.
Red is my suggestions for deletions.
Green is a change to compensate for a deletion.

I'll bet that brings it well under the limit.

Red is my suggestions for deletions.
Green is a change to compensate for a deletion.

I'll bet that brings it well under the limit.

Having looked over YGSM's suggestions, my government is pleased with the suggested changes.

OOC: Nice job in editing to keep the intent almost the same and shortening the length! :) You win the Ceasar Chavez Day Cookie!

Having looked over YGSM's suggestions, my government is pleased with the suggested changes.

OOC: Nice job in editing to keep the intent almost the same and shortening the length! :) You win the Ceasar Chavez Day Cookie!
Thank you.

VI(1) I just found to be superfluous.

p.s. I thought they were only over by a couple hundred. just re-read and saw 797. My deletions don't go quite that far.

Most of your deletions are ok, YGSM, but not all of them.

NOTING that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily and that at times, nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence,

REALIZING, that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

That's fine. I'll cut those out.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a criminal act under international law does not relieve a person or nation from responsibility.

No. Regional law was added to specifically relate this to NationStates. A UN nation cannot be made exempt from this just because they are in a region where war crimes are legal.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

Eh... while I admit, that doesn't really change the meaning of it... I'd prefer to leave that in just to make clear that national law or orders don't override the UN. But, if it still doesn't fit, I will take that out.

VI - The following are crimes, through action or inaction, and are punishable by international law:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation as slave-labor, or any other purposeful ill-treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with a crime against peace or a war crime.

No. I cannot allow any of those deletions. You have changed the meaning of the proposal. You've removed an entire crime, and made the other two far more lenient. I cannot allow that.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict or war may be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should a defeated nation wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

Those aren't really needed - you're right. I'll take them out.

Neutral Nation...

No. We need that definition to make sure that the trials are fair.

With the accepted changes above, and the shortened version of the Moral Choice Definition accepted by Schnauzer even further above, I think we'll be under, and with Schnauzer's really short draft which I'll post here in a minute, I think we'll fit.

Here is the (final?) draft proposal:


NOTING that wars still take place and that nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence;

REALIZING that there are no means for the United Nations to punish those who commit such acts and that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or other similar acts:

I - Any person who commits high crimes is criminally responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a high crime does not relieve criminal responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits a high crime acts as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not preclude responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

V - Any accused person or nation under these Principles has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, under generally recognized precepts.

VI - The following are defined as high crimes under international law, whether by action or inaction, and may be punished:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy to accomplish such acts.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, deportation, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or mistreatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, extermination, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a Crime Against Peace or a War Crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law applies and permits use of another forum. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict may be guilty of a high crime and may be brought to trial on the complaint of its victims.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.

International Law: Any past, current or future resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of a high crime, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of a high crime, and may not be persecuted for disobedience should the right be exercised; and

ASKS that member nations educate their armed forces of these Principles to prevent the commission of a high crime.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.

I'll send this in for mod approval, and hope and pray that it fits. Thanks to everyone for all your help.

For the record, although I only saw the post just now, I agree with Hersfold's disposition of YGSM's suggestions. Every time I've come up with editing changes, since it was realized that the original final draft was way too long, I have striven to avoid changing the meaning of that particular draft, and to focus on ways to say it in a more concise manner. The last version I posted had it to within 200-300 characters, so further drastic editing wasn't necessary.

make sure to tell us when you submit this.

While I would agree this is not specifically needed, I will lend my support in that it re-affirms and extends the principles of jurisprudence as stated in international law, and ensures that war crime trials conform to existing laws of jurisprudence in relation to Due Process, Habeus Corpus and Definition of Fair-Trial.

So that war-crime trials conform to the same standards of fairness before the law as that which member governments are to abide by.

We have mod approval. I'm now submitting the proposal.

:headbang: Never mind... forgot I need two endos.

:headbang: Still over by 238 characters.

New draft:

NOTING that wars still take place and that nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence;

REALIZING that there are no means for the United Nations to punish those who commit such acts and that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or other similar acts the high crimes below:

I - Any person who commits high crimes is criminally responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a high crime does not relieve criminal responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits a high crime acts as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not preclude remove responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

V - Any accused person or nation under these Principles has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, under generally recognized precepts.

VI - The following are defined as high crimes under international law, whether by action or inaction, and may be punished:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy to accomplish such acts.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, deportation, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or mistreatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; or wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, extermination, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a Crime Against Peace or a War Crime high crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law applies and permits use of another forum states otherwise. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict may be guilty of a high crime and may be brought to trial on the complaint of its victims.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES the following these terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.

International Law: Any past, current or future resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of a high crime, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of a high crime, and may not be persecuted for disobedience should the right be exercised; and

ASKS that member nations educate their armed forces of these Principles to prevent the commission of a high crime.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.

And that fits. Barely. The things I removed are mainly rhetoric, as we don't need 4 different words to say "murder" when we have an "other" at the end of the sentence. Either that, or I was saying the same thing with shorter or less words.

So this proposal is finally submitted.

Text version for easy copying:

NOTING that wars still take place and that nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence;

REALIZING that there are no means for the United Nations to punish those who commit such acts and that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to the high crimes below:

I - Any person who commits high crimes is responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a high crime does not relieve responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits a high crime acts as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of a superior does not remove responsibility when a moral choice was possible.

V - Any accused person or nation under these Principles has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, under generally recognized precepts.

VI - The following are defined as high crimes under international law, whether by action or inaction, and may be punished:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan to accomplish such acts.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, prisoners of war, or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; or wanton destruction of a settled area not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a high crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law states otherwise. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict may be guilty of a high crime and may be brought to trial on the complaint of its victims.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.

International Law: Any past, current or future resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of a high crime, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of a high crime, and may not be persecuted for disobedience should the right be exercised; and

ASKS that member nations educate their armed forces of these Principles to prevent the commission of a high crime.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.

This proposal has be re-submitted. It got about 60 approvals last time through.

I still have my concerns about this, but I'll let them slide for now.

Hersfold, I honestly do not see a need for an international court. But maybe you do. So, please explain to me what need you see.

As co-sponsor, let me answer that.

The resolution does not create or require an "international court." What it does do is provide guidance as to which nation's courts may be the forum to try any of the crimes defined in the resolution. If some other statement of international law creates a forum, then that statement would prevail and that specific forum would handle the case.

As co-sponsor, let me answer that.

The resolution does not create or require an "international court." What it does do is provide guidance as to which nation's courts may be the forum to try any of the crimes defined in the resolution. If some other statement of international law creates a forum, then that statement would prevail and that specific forum would handle the case.

It effectively creates an international court in how it treats the neutral nation.

What the proposal does is it grants a pre-existing court temporary and limited international jurisdiction.

Say this were a real-life UN resolution, and two countries, say (to avoid offending anyone, I'll choose two that are rather unheard-of) Dijbouti (pronounced JA-booty) and Somalia, are at war. War ends, Somalia wins, and is Dijbouti is accusing them of War Crimes. They come to the USA to conduct the trial. The US uses the Supreme Court, an already existing court that normally has jurisdiction over intra-national matters only, to conduct this, and only this, trial. They are not allowed to try any other dispute (unless another set of nations asks them to conduct another war crimes tribunal), and their ruling will affect ONLY Somalia and Dijbouti. After that, they go back to their normal cases.

The court is there to make sure that we dont end up with a victor's trial. Many people claim that the dropping of the atomic bomb in WWII was a war crime by the US. Yet we were not put on trial for it. Instead, we put the Nazis on trial for the Holocaust (which is where the basis of this proposal came from). This court, under this proposal, allows defeated nations to seek justice against their conquerers, and a chance at innocence if they are accused of crimes. If the United Nations is to uphold liberty and democracy, they need to make sure that those ideals spread into international affairs as well. Which I give as the answer to your question, Tiamat Taveril.

Hersfold,

I'd like to compliament you on your example. I personally find the use of "real world" nations in a hypothetical example to really make it easier to understand what the proposal seeks to do.

That said, when your proposal reaches the UN floor, I'd like to suggest that you and Grosseschnauzer prepare a FAQ. This certainly is a question that would be useful to point to again.

Well Done!
-M

What the proposal does is it grants a pre-existing court temporary and limited international jurisdiction.

I don't see a difference beyond semantics on this issue. But that's simply because I prefer simplicity in legislation.

Say this were a real-life UN resolution, and two countries, say (to avoid offending anyone, I'll choose two that are rather unheard-of) Dijbouti (pronounced JA-booty) and Somalia, are at war. War ends, Somalia wins, and is Dijbouti is accusing them of War Crimes. They come to the USA to conduct the trial. The US uses the Supreme Court, an already existing court that normally has jurisdiction over intra-national matters only, to conduct this, and only this, trial. They are not allowed to try any other dispute (unless another set of nations asks them to conduct another war crimes tribunal), and their ruling will affect ONLY Somalia and Dijbouti. After that, they go back to their normal cases.

The court is there to make sure that we dont end up with a victor's trial. Many people claim that the dropping of the atomic bomb in WWII was a war crime by the US. Yet we were not put on trial for it. Instead, we put the Nazis on trial for the Holocaust (which is where the basis of this proposal came from). This court, under this proposal, allows defeated nations to seek justice against their conquerers, and a chance at innocence if they are accused of crimes. If the United Nations is to uphold liberty and democracy, they need to make sure that those ideals spread into international affairs as well. Which I give as the answer to your question, Tiamat Taveril.

And that, Hersfold, is the best answer to a challenge I have seen. I withdraw my reservations posted on the other forum and this one after reading this. They don't apply as much.

And, despite my hatred of international courts, I want to see this voted on. If it is good enough, it will pass the test of the UN.

And that, Hersfold, is the best answer to a challenge I have seen. I withdraw my reservations posted on the other forum and this one after reading this. They don't apply as much.


:eek: Wow. Thanks. Glad I could help.

And yes, I'll definitely do an FAQ when this gets to vote. No question about it.

Many thanks to all of the following Delegates:

WZ Forums, Svai, Ancients Tomatoes, Brausi-mausi, Son0ma, Flibbleites, Republic of Freedonia, _Myopia_, Drizuz, Loprestia, Wildtypes, Aughra, New Matrex, Saysomething, Northern Keldavia, Caer Rialis, Krioval, Dragaia, Creaclia, The Cariebbean, Eldpollard, Th Symbionese Army, Klashonite, Zyphyr, BLACKGRUE, TechnocraticCityStates, Freeze-dried Snacks, The Shadow-Kai, Bijanian Utopia, Kamikastan, Secondzflat, UN Peacekeepers, Felysial, Libertas de Poena, Londingshire Islands, Those that Bibble, Kevin Islands, Tiqwah Ha Am, Nariman, Zouloukistan, Pharan, Lior Liechtenstein, Connivence, Monkey Spankage, Many Eyes, Foil Shango, Abilenia, Cowschickens, Caseylvania, Grumzylvania, Christac, No power structure, Kreitzmoorland, Felix Felicis, Joshisha, Laueria, Mythila, Sporkitorus, The Talisman, Svenstenberg, Kemdoph, Hood Hop, Dizziness, Tell-El-Amarna, Kagu-Zuchi, ETopps, Der Mannia

All of them approved this proposal. If you're not on that list, then you probably approved it after I made this post, and I apologize. It doesn't look as though it's going to reach quorum this time, but it will be re-submitted once more!

i think this should also include the use of WMDs, the reason is that any WMD is a violation of human rights, if you want me to go into detail just ask me, but i think you know why. i think this should add that WMD use be banned.

i think this should also include the use of WMDs, the reason is that any WMD is a violation of human rights, if you want me to go into detail just ask me, but i think you know why. i think this should add that WMD use be banned.
And doing so would cause the proposal to fail instantly (and lose my support) due to the fact that nonmember nations are not bound by UN resolutions and vastly outnumber the UN nations.

i think this should also include the use of WMDs, the reason is that any WMD is a violation of human rights, if you want me to go into detail just ask me, but i think you know why. i think this should add that WMD use be banned.

Explicitly banning the use of WMD's, in addition to the problem stated above by Flibbleities, would also make this proposal illegal. Banning WMD's would extend this proposal into the "Global Disarmament" category, and a proposal is only allowed to be in one category. If this passes, and a nation uses WMD's against another in a seemingly criminal manner, they will be able to try the offender in a fair trial as well, thus (hopefully) reducing the chance of their use anyway.

Proposal re-submitted as-is.

I agree with this proposal for the most part, but I believe you wrote that an army cannot destroy towns, and cities (unless I read it wrong) but isn't that part of war? That can help lead a country to victory, destroying any towns, and cities that are in your way...

An army cannot destroy a town for wanton purposes. Meaning, if they have a specific reason why the destruction of City X is vital to their campaign, then they can burn it to the ground. This might be if City X has a lot of factories that produce arms for the enemy, if it has a great strategic location, etc.

But, if City X is out in the middle of nowhere, a retirement community that has nothing to do with the war, then chances are, the army can't blow it up.

They cannot destroy a city just because they want to. Does that clear things up?

There's a problem with the current posted draft of the proposal:

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, prisoners of war, or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; or wanton destruction of a settled area not justified by military necessity.

Shouldn't it say ill-treatment? Because as it stands, I read it as prohibiting doing anything on purpose to civilians - including good things, like providing medical treatment.

:headbang: Yes. I'll fix it next submission.

Although I disagree with this resolution strongly, I want to congratulate you on a good campaign and willingness to make changes. Good luck, Hersfold. :)

Thanks.

What's your issue with it again? Is it anything I can help address?

Thanks.

What's your issue with it again? Is it anything I can help address?

Not really. You would have to get rid of it entirely to address my issue. That's why I didn't bother saying anything about it before. It would have been destructive rather than constructive. :)