NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there's already a thread on this, but to get to the current draft you'd need to navigate several other drafts and a near flame war (which, I admit, was entirely my fault). Hence the new thread. I'll submit this on Friday or Saturday, pending further ammendments.
Constructive criticism appreciated, as always (but remember I've only got a few characters left)!

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, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax) 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 on official visits) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question.
5. Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country containing 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 (excluding sales tax) 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 (PNG), which is the defined as the revocation of a Diplomat’s Diplomatic status. When a Diplomat is declared PNG he/she may face prosecution within the host nation under the laws of the base country prior to deportation, where they may serve a punishment. Only a Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomat, can be declared PNG; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared PNG 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/missions, and they may be searched or tried by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity. This must be invoked if as prescribed under international law or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the absence of such laws
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)

I'm up to 3,499 characters, now.

I never liked the concept of diplomatic immunity. Just because something is legal in your country doesn't mean you have the right to do it in someone elses.

There is a very good reason for it. If it wasn't for Diplomatic immunity, a country could just randomly arrest diplomats, making up some law (for example, speaking out against the president. I know the UN prohibits this, but countries could get round it very easily without actually banning it). And let's face it, there are plenty of dictatorial nations in the UN. Plus, you don't have to give anyone diplomatic immunity. This just forces you to give them certain rights. Plus, many other Resolutions mention Diplomatic Immunity (hence it will be submitted as "Definition of Diplomatic Immunity). Plus, you can negotiate circumstances under which the host country must rescind diplomatic immunity and force them to face prosecution in the host country.

If it's submitted as a "Definition of..." resolution, then you've got my support. Well written.

I would like to see something along the lines of, with the base nation's approval search and seizure may be done upon the possesions of a diplomat. Something along those lines. So that if a Host nation can get the base nation to agree that a search is warranted, then a search is allowed to take place.

Other then that one thing I think it looks good.

I like most of this :).

I do have some concerns with section 1 points 1-4 though. Not too sure I like the idea of a foreign alien, diplomat or not, having rights my own citizens don't have. Rights that put them above the laws of our nation, and unable to be brought to justice if they break the laws of our nation.

I also don't think they should be immune from search and seizure laws if a given situation is serious enough for our nation to feel the need to apply these laws.

I do understand your argument about protection of diplomats, but there are also nations who's diplomats will take advantage of this protection for their own purposes. For example, nation A is at war with nation B. Both have embassies who's diplomats have immunity in nation C (my nation). A diplomat from nation A assasinates the ambassador from nation B on our soil. The government of nation A have no intention of punishing the offender in any way, in fact they declare him/her a hero and award a medal. Under this resolution, there would be nothing we could do to bring the person responsible to justice, and we would only be able to order him/her out of the country. That is unacceptable to us.

I do love part 2 however, and find no fault at all with it :).

I would like to see something along the lines of, with the base nation's approval search and seizure may be done upon the possesions of a diplomat. Something along those lines. So that if a Host nation can get the base nation to agree that a search is warranted, then a search is allowed to take place.
Well, that would go under section 11. I'll change to read diplomats/missions. If possible!

I also don't think they should be immune from search and seizure laws if a given situation is serious enough for our nation to feel the need to apply these laws.
That needs to be included, otherwise a country could just randomly search an Embassy and steal sensitive documents.

For example, nation A is at war with nation B. Both have embassies who's diplomats have immunity in nation C (my nation). A diplomat from nation A assasinates the ambassador from nation B on our soil. The government of nation A have no intention of punishing the offender in any way, in fact they declare him/her a hero and award a medal
I agree that there is a risk. However, there is nothing forcing you to set up relations with a country that has relations with a coutry you are at war with. Plus, there's what I call the "Cold War Hypothesis". Country A could do that to country B, and country B could do it to country A, or retaliate if they do it; therefore neither do it (like, in RL, the Cold War nuclear war). You could also declare all of nations A diplomats PNG, and get rid of them. It wouldn't punish the assasin, but it'll (hopefully) hurt country A's government.
Also, if you catch him orknow of the plot, you could invoke article 13.
Plus, I think that assasinating foreign dignitaries would be a violation of previously passed resolutions, and so you could invoke section article 11. You could also come to arrangement that article 11 can be invoked in the case of certain crimes being commited.

Anyone else have any input?

Having read article 11, I've changed my mind. I'll support this.

Updated. There must be someone else with views about this!

1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation

Is it really standard procedure to not charge a sales tax to diplomats? While I know that some nations have a VAT (value added tax) that functions like a sales tax, and that they allow tourists the right to get rebates if they fill out extensive paper work, I'd rather see the above changed to prohibiting nations charging an income tax on diplomats. Otherwise, I feel they should be expected to pay the same use fees that normal citizens do, as they effectively are long-term residents and depend upon that same infrastructure.

For example, my government's ambassador in Domnonia lives there full time. Since she is there all the time, all the roads, police protection, water supply, hospitals, and whatever else city income taxes go to, are there to help her just as much as any Domnonian. My government is very aware of the cost of things in Domnonian and thus budgets for her office to have enough money to pay for these services. Likewise, we charge a non-refundable sales tax on most transactions in the City States (the tax varies from city to city).

Good point. I'll exclude sales taxes (if the 3,500 character rul permits)

Good point. I'll exclude sales taxes (if the 3,500 character rul permits)

My suggested rewording:

1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention within the host nation, and are exempt from income taxation within the host nation

It might be too simplistic, but space is an issue. *shrug*

Well, there are other taxes that aren't income tax that diplomats would be immune from (such as council taxes or other flat taxes not based on income). I think that sales tax/VAT is the only tax that it would be difficult to be immune from.

This has been submitted, with one or two alterations due to bring it down to the correct length. The content hasn't changed, though.
It is called "Defining Diplomatic Immunity"
Please support it.
Thankyou

"Drink Driving"?

"Is that a slushie, sir? We're sorry, we're putting you under house arrest".

Don't force me to use American, Vastiva.
In English we say drink driving to mean DWI, and drink driving it shall remain!

Don't force me to use American, Vastiva.
In English we say drink driving to mean DWI, and drink driving it shall remain!

*chuckles* We shall be certainly placing under "house arrest" anyone with any beverage found to be driving. You know, DWI is ten characters less...

Yes, but if I said DWI a country could institute a law which makes it illegal to
"Dance with Indians" or "Doodle with Intent" or be a "Diplomat with ink" :p
Hence "drink driving".

Oh, and please endorse. It currently has the most endorsements of any proposal on the list! We just need 112 more!

Unfortunately it just seems to allow for sanctioned spies within your company. Dalisair is VERY opposed to giving spies the means and opportunities to make the results of their industrial espionage easier to smuggle out of the country.

Unfortunately it just seems to allow for sanctioned spies within your company. Dalisair is VERY opposed to giving spies the means and opportunities to make the results of their industrial espionage easier to smuggle out of the country.

Surely, any diplomat suspected of industrial espionage can be granted Persona Non Grata and evicted from the country? This could be followed by a trade embargo with the offending nation. If they're spying from you, then your technology must be at least as good as theirs, if not better. So they would lose out if caught spying.

Unfortunately it just seems to allow for sanctioned spies within your company. Dalisair is VERY opposed to giving spies the means and opportunities to make the results of their industrial espionage easier to smuggle out of the country.

Do your corporations have such poor security as to allow this to occur? Kriovalian technology is leaps and bounds ahead of several nations with which we have embassies, and we have yet to have a single case of foreign industrial espionage (and damn few cases of domestic industrial espionage, for that matter).

Do your corporations have such poor security as to allow this to occur? Kriovalian technology is leaps and bounds ahead of several nations with which we have embassies, and we have yet to have a single case of foreign industrial espionage (and damn few cases of domestic industrial espionage, for that matter).

Well.... *looks around and whistles*

and we have yet to have a single case of foreign industrial espionage (and damn few cases of domestic industrial espionage, for that matter).That you know of...but I've seen quite a few nations suddenly invent technology that looks pretty similar to your own....and a few nations that have found extra cash behind the metaphorical sofa for their national budget.... ;)

It doesn't say anywhere in the proposal that you have to give immunity to diplomats. Just that, if you do, you have to give them these immunities.
Hence it is "Defining Diplomatic Immunity".
Anyway, why would diplomats be more likely to be spies then your own workers, or tourists, or the CEO.

56 approvals and 2 days to go...

I TG'd a series of RDs a few minutes ago. Hopefully they'll give a good response.

It seems telegramming works. 123 approvals so far!

*crazy happy dance*

very good plan. one small problem in my eyes, should diplomats be exempt from taxation other than VAT (Sales tax)?

It seems telegramming works. 123 approvals so far!

*crazy happy dance*

Congrats, you're almost to the shark tank. :D

Actually, thanks to the 'Time Warp' we all experienced, there are currently 108 approvals. Hence my post on this forum letting people know that all today's approvals were lost. [/self aggrandizement]

I know. I need 40 now. S**t.
I've also noticed that some proposals whose deadline was Monday are back on the list, so I might have another couple of days extra. I hope...

After twenty pounds worth of 'phone calls, and nearly getting sacked for telegramming when I should have been working, it'd better bloody reach quorum!

Half an hour left, six proposals needed. Come on Delegates.

Just visit this link:
Click Here For Free Money! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Defining%20Diplomat%20Immunity)

Congratulations. You've made quorum. Now the work begins. :D

It's a good proposal, it should pass!

Approvals: 148 (Cobdenia, ForeStarnia, Bowlfish, US Liberals, Debrawn, Nevscrow, Groot Gouda, Yelda, Zhukhistan, The Great Bud, United Smufs, Nenuial, Lries, Caseylvania, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Tergaza, Tell-El-Amarna, Republic of Freedonia, Jamesburgh, Archoz, All that glows, Constitutionals, Lesser Jersey, Pilantras, Admiral Corbin, Etnpm, Of Mateo, Epees, Cranio, Christianie, Schmegegi, The Talisman, Sidus, Rising Dreams, Andromecca, Zoanthropia, Friggin Badasses, Kadield, Tomatosia, Juggalando, The Hunter Isles, Fatus Maximus, Krioval, European Member States, Our Lord Spenser, Riegab, Tramformador, Pyro Kittens, Baudrillard, East Sibir, Dragonalo, Sorry Suckers, Son0ma, Caer Rialis, Badiyat ash Sham, Bourgania, Snufflelufflegus Land, The Occupied Tyrol, Master Tom, Flibbleites, G-Rumps, Nipponime, Lior Liechtenstein, Brausi-mausi, Holidayland, Ermarian, Tonewoods, Germireland, My ring, Homietwin, Stir It Up, Drizuz, Lunaria Mirandia, Tiber City, Lucania Prime, Vicaragua, Markodonia, _Myopia_, Abilenia, Bangledesh, Corinos, Robin Lori and DJ, Secondzflat, Fenrig, Ness Snorlaxia, Lost Valley, The Land of Sigmar, The Shadow-Kai, Even Greater Zognor, CNYSkinFan, Sorrow Crown, Falconus Peregrinus, Monadnock, Morkuve, Bhuddists, YGSM, LeBomb, Karaghord, Svenstenberg, Dodaxnia, Minor Sealand, Muhlenburg, Zelandonnii, Slovitopia, Materdei, Moonriders, Amistosia, Irlynn, Sonic The Hedgehogs, Emerald Phoenix, Dan Ding, Zyphyr, Canabolge, Smeggy, Kyott, Spaz Land, Bozwana, Cav, Tir, Chronosburg, Srok Khmer, Punk Rock Leprachuans, Tsel, Nireva, Luxabuxastan, BigPapaPump, Limster, Fenure, Grimmig, Hoo-Doo, Bastokia II, Askalaria, AllThatIsUnholy, Natural Germany, Jacob_is_our_king, Kemdoph, Gansine, Amerikaz, The-Guardians, Salf, Lunar Destiny, Kanteria, Guallidurth, Nuke-u, Finbergia, Gaaradom, Trowk, Felysial)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Woohoo!

I'd like to thank all those above. Plus a special mention to Claverton. If you need any help, let me know!

PS: I noticed your flag, Claverton. You're not a railway enthuiast like me, by any chance? I used to work as a volunteer at the Bluebell before I moved abroad...

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Woohoo!

I'd like to thank all those above. Plus a special mention to Claverton. If you need any help, let me know!

PS: I noticed your flag, Claverton. You're not a railway enthuiast like me, by any chance? I used to work as a volunteer at the Bluebell before I moved abroad...

I hope this resolution gets passed now. It's got a definite benefit for the UN member state governments, unlike many other recent resolutions. Thanks for writing it, Cobdenia!

Yes, I'm a mildly avid railway enthusiast, although in my book the railways ceased to exist in 1996. (1996 is the new 1968... *sigh*.) Railway liveries are a very easy way to make varied but consistant flags, I feel. I work on the North Yorks Moors railway occasionally, as a TTI.

I'm hoping some friendly neighbourhood UN members will give me 2 endorsements, so I can submit the 'Scrap Resolution 18' proposal.

Clarification question, 'cause I'm lazy - do I have to allow diplomats to come into my own nation, or can I simply stop them at the borders and not have to worry about the legal immunities of some of the stupider national diplomats? Otherwise, no problems with this.

Clarification question, 'cause I'm lazy - do I have to allow diplomats to come into my own nation, or can I simply stop them at the borders and not have to worry about the legal immunities of some of the stupider national diplomats? Otherwise, no problems with this.

The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation.

So no, you don't need to accept any diplomats if you don't want to. But if you do accept official diplomats, you've got to treat them nicely.

I'd like to thank all those above.
You're welcome.:)

Saint Uriel supports Cobdenia's well written and well thought-out proposal and has voted to pass it. We'll be asking our regional delegate to do the same.

The voting is 2.35:1 in favour. I'm glad!

I see no reason to grant complete immunity to diplomats. I beleive that diplomats should have to abide by the laws of whatever country they are in just like any other visitor. However if they can make a substantial case of ignorance (not against law in their country perhaps) if a non-violent/non-life threatening law is broken and follow the law thereafter I believe the diplomat should be cleared of the charge. If the diplomat however were to endanger the life of another through the violation of a law then they must face punishment. A good diplomat should be knowledgable of the laws in their host nation and be required to be knowledgable of the host nation's laws in order to be a diplomat. Perhaps a course of sorts regarding the host nation's laws would be good.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

We should give the UN the right to refuse a diplomats imunity right. That way if a diplomat comits a murder or steals something the host country would present the evidence to the UN if all the evidence is in order and the charge is not trumped up for political reasons the diplomat will be handed over to the host government.

Also if u fine the diplomats nation for their diplomats actions, they would be more likely to police their own diplomats.
Personally I don't like diplomats walking around my nation thinking they can get away with anything. This might not be a full solution to the problem, but its a start.

I need one thing explained.

In section 1 it says "1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax) within the host nation "

and in section 2 it says "8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation"

Since this is my first UN resolution vote which one is the one passing 1 or 2 or are they just contradicting each other.

well im not voting for it...

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. They shouldn't be persecutable? They can't get their bags searched at airports? I'm sorry but this just has murders and terrorism written all over it. If they get angry at someone who poses a threat to them, including other diplomats, they just go out and kill them, and you say they should be allowed to? People can steal the diplomats bags and put bombs in them. It wouldn't be too hard. Then they just jump on a plane and set it off. It would make it far to easy for them. If this resolution gets passed I am going to have to leave the UN for good. If this is the kind of people that run most of the world, I don't want to see what the worlds going to be like in 20 years.

First, nothing specifies that a nation has to allow diplomats in. Second, nothing stipulates that if diplomats are allowed in, that they must be present on a permanent basis. Krioval has strong relations with countries with whom we do not have an embassy - when diplomatic delegations are needed, they're sent. This minimizes the chances of 'negative interactions'. Finally, Krioval would likely waive a diplomat's immunity in the event of a murder or serious crime; barring that, as soon as that diplomat reached Krioval (to where he or she would be deported), that diplomat would be arrested under Kriovalian Extraterritorial Law and charged with the murder at home. Risk can be limited by maintaining diplomatic missions only with nations with whom one enjoys strong relations, and by limiting diplomatic access to sensitive regions of the country (we do this all the time).

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. They shouldn't be persecutable? They can't get their bags searched at airports? I'm sorry but this just has murders and terrorism written all over it. If they get angry at someone who poses a threat to them, including other diplomats, they just go out and kill them, and you say they should be allowed to? People can steal the diplomats bags and put bombs in them. It wouldn't be too hard. Then they just jump on a plane and set it off. It would make it far to easy for them. If this resolution gets passed I am going to have to leave the UN for good. If this is the kind of people that run most of the world, I don't want to see what the worlds going to be like in 20 years.

Umm...I hate to tell you this but the (RL) world has *been* like this for decades if not centuries. That's why there are the clauses concerning the host nation's right to refuse diplomatic immunity and diplomatic visas to individuals or nations, as well as the right to declare an individual persona non grata. That's also why the Definition specifically states that diplomats are subject to the laws of the base country, in which (for example) murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and appropriately defined terrorist attacks are also illegal. It's been working in RL for ages; I don't see why it would be as disastrous in NS as you apparently suppose.

What I don't get is why this propsal does boost political stability at the expense of political rights. Should have been free trade (diplomat bags, taxes). So I vote NO.

"Section I
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax) 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"

1. Last year in my country, Romania, 2 american diplomats were involved in traffic accidents resulting 2 deaths. Both were immune and left the country next day. A lot of diplomats driving drunk at night.
2. In the North Coreea emmbasy there is a public restaurant (no money to pay the rent sa they started a business).
3. Diplomatic bags full of drugs, dirty money.

This is not SF... it is pure truth.
If this law passes, I'll quit UN.

So no, you don't need to accept any diplomats if you don't want to. But if you do accept official diplomats, you've got to treat them nicely.

Problem: this essentially renders the entire resolution optional. If we, as egalitairian anarcho-syndicalists, refuse to grant foriegn nationals rights not enjoyed by our own citizens, then the article is dead in our nation, as we will not grant Diplomat status to anyone entering our territory. And by our reading, §2.3 and §2.4 give us every right to do so:

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 on official visits) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question.

As there is no compulsion to act upon this article, it is by its wording optional. Any nation may "opt out" by never granting formal diplomatic status to foreign nationals, so nations should not in fact be forced to undergo a Political Stability shift, as Political Stability in such nations would be entirely unchanged. It's perhaps a bit late to bring this up, but technically, this doesn't seem like a valid resolution.

[Orthographic sidenote: shouldn't §2.13 read "(including, but not limited to, drunk driving)"?]

1. Last year in my country, Romania, 2 american diplomats were involved in traffic accidents resulting 2 deaths. Both were immune and left the country next day. A lot of diplomats driving drunk at night.

You might like to read the full proposal, especially sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 of article two. You can declare them persona non grata, place them under house arrest for one night and then declare them persona grata, or arrange that diplomatic immunity must be rescinded if they drink drive. And you don't need to give diplomats immunity. They would also have been sacked, I'm guessing.
As a RL diplomat, I've never driven drunk.

2. In the North Coreea emmbasy there is a public restaurant (no money to pay the rent sa they started a business).

The only reason sales tax is excluded is for ease. The reason they cannot be taxed is very simple. Is it fair that a diplomat from one country, with a tax rate of 5%, is sent to a country where the tax rate is 95%, causing one country to be effectively paying another? Is it fair that, due to higher tax rates combined with higher wages, a diplomat based in another country starves to death?


3. Diplomatic bags full of drugs, dirty money
And you think it would be better if a dodgy government could just steal sensitive government documents off diplomats? Also see article two section 7 and 8.

What I don't get is why this propsal does boost political stability at the expense of political rights
Free trade is more to do with the sale of goods. Political stability seems the best, as it stops a government from inventing laws to hinder diplomats.

People can steal the diplomats bags and put bombs in them.
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

Noticed 'sealed'. In RL, British Diplomatic bags are sealed with a untamperable holographic seal.

Since this is my first UN resolution vote which one is the one passing 1 or 2 or are they just contradicting each other.

Urm...no, they don't contradict one another. If Cobdenia was to send a diplomat to Savio Nazareth, Savio Nazareth would be the host country, Cobdenia the base country. Thus the diplomat would be subject to Cobdenian law, but not Savio Nazareth law.

Problem: this essentially renders the entire resolution optional.
It's a 'defining' proposal. And it isn't optional; if you give a diplomat immunity you have to abide by this resolution. That was the idea! And if you don't give diplomats immunity, you might end up with no diplomatic relations!

[Orthographic sidenote: shouldn't §2.13 read "(including, but not limited to, drunk driving)"?]
:mad: I'm British. I'll use the bloody British term, not the Yank term!

Problem: this essentially renders the entire resolution optional. If we, as egalitairian anarcho-syndicalists, refuse to grant foriegn nationals rights not enjoyed by our own citizens, then the article is dead in our nation, as we will not grant Diplomat status to anyone entering our territory.

That is your current right ...

The point of Diplomatic Immunity is to standardize laws between nations that do wish to exchange embassies, in order to make it easier for those nations that wish to deal with others on equal terms to establish those embassies.

There are nations that do not allow the consumption of Spice Melange. These nations are free to tell my government that Mikitivity ambassadors can not drink things like Spice Beer, but my government's standard response is, "That is shame. We are now reconsidering having a formal exchange of ambassadors, and would recommend that our two societies consider using another nation as a third party for possible contact, as it is sadly clear that your government does not share the same love of civil liberties as ours."

Naturally there are variations of this message, but the point really being asked isn't if you are planning to invoke the right you currently have, but rather if you feel that standardization is a good idea and if you feel this resolution achieves this sort of standardization.

My government reviewed one of the earlier drafts of this resolution, and is leaning towards voting in favour. We firmly support the concept of diplomatic immunity and feel that standardization, even if it means our governments surrend some authority in relation to the laws we hold diplomats to, is a net benefit. If we feel that this resolution is a progressive step forward, I am confident that the Council of Mayors will vote yes.

[Orthographic sidenote: shouldn't §2.13 read "(including, but not limited to, drunk driving)"?]
:mad: I'm British. I'll use the bloody British term, not the Yank term!

OOC: American, might be better than "Yank". ;)

But in any event, I'd like to suggest that British English is appropriate in this game. Specifically, JOLT is a British server ... so I think as an American that by playing a Common Wealth game that I've forfeited any right to complain.

Actually, given that Max Berry is Australian, Australian terms would be even *more* appropriate. So I totally agree with the language used in Cobdenia's resolution.

It's a 'defining' proposal. And it isn't optional; if you give a diplomat immunity you have to abide by this resolution. That was the idea! And if you don't give diplomats immunity, you might end up with no diplomatic relations!

But. 'Defining' or no, this binds no nation to any action. Thus, why should nations suffer a Political Stability "improvement", if they can freely "opt-out" by refusing to grant diplomatic immunity?

:mad: I'm British. I'll use the bloody British term, not the Yank term!

I'm sorry. Very and really. I did wonder if it might be a question of dialect after posting. The last thing I want to do is encourage the speaking of Yankee English at the expense of other dialects. Please accept my humble and sincere appologies.

Naturally there are variations of this message, but the point really being asked isn't if you are planning to invoke the right you currently have, but rather if you feel that standardization is a good idea and if you feel this resolution achieves this sort of standardization.

Hmm. Put like this, the objections of the Community of Free Syndicalists fall to the wayside. Our collective would suffer very real damage by the mere legal statement that we recognize that some inhabitants of our territory should be considered as being more equal than others. Still, it does remain questionable whether a less fanatically ideological state should be forced to shift...

Hmm. Put like this, the objections of the Community of Free Syndicalists fall to the wayside. Our collective would suffer very real damage by the mere legal statement that we recognize that some inhabitants of our territory should be considered as being more equal than others. Still, it does remain questionable whether a less fanatically ideological state should be forced to shift...

In those cases, the exchange of ambassadors can be "conditional".

"We would like to exchange ambassadors and will follow the UN resolution "Defining Diplomat Immunity", however in the interest of cultural stablity, we ask that when you are selecting ambassadors to send to our nation, that your government stress to these individuals and their staff that while they are free to adhere to some customs that are frowned upon by my government, that should their behavior and conduct become disruptive to Mikitivity, that we reserve the right to recall our exchange of embassies. That said, we are looking foward to the exchange of ambassadors."

:)

My point is you can always back out, if another government is not being sensitive to your cultural values. For example, Mikitivity will not tolerate racists, so if another nation sent an ambassador who was beating elves, we'd be forced to close that embassy. Legally they might have that right, but we always retain the right to say "no" to the entire process.

The standardization is there, and the doors are opened. But the real devil is in the implementation and faithfulness put into the exchange.

Now I'd like to suggest that if a Mikitivity ambassador were sent to another society and totally unable to faithfully respect that said nation, that perhaps there are one of two conclusions: (1) perhaps our two nations are so very different that the exchange is ineffective in the first place, or (2) this difference highlights the need for tolerance on both our nation's parts, with the understanding that as we work through our problems we might one day better understand one another.

Who is to say which of the two conclusions is better? ;)

The United States of Allemande votes in support. Good effort to make the current (RL) rules of diplomatic immunity fit in a 3500-word proposal, BTW.

I will not vote in favor of this resolution unless I will be guarenteed the ability to prosecute a diplomat who has committed an act of espionage or terrorism within my nation.

We have just one objection, articulated very well by our friends in Rehochipe:

Pretty critical if you're going to exempt diplomats from tax is forbidding them from holding business interests in the host nation. Which this conspicuously fails to do. Particularly since


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

In RL, the diplomatic bag is (meant) to be strictly documents-only.
Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I did vote for this bill but I have one complaint.
This bill also protects missionaries which I disagree with, and anyone else that believes in seperation of church and state should disagree. You see this bill gives some of the same immunities to missionaries that it gives to diplomats, missionaries are religious figures and because I believe in seperation of church and state I think they are just regular citizens, in which case they should have no special rights.

Don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm tired and, truthfully, butt-lazy at the moment, so:

What happens if a nation finds out that one of the nations with an embassy in its borders is spying on it? They could prosecute the spy, but if he's acting on orders from the ambassador, the ambassador gets off scott-free? Or is that where PNG would be invoked?

Don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm tired and, truthfully, butt-lazy at the moment, so:

What happens if a nation finds out that one of the nations with an embassy in its borders is spying on it? They could prosecute the spy, but if he's acting on orders from the ambassador, the ambassador gets off scott-free? Or is that where PNG would be invoked?

*If* the resolution is only protecting the rights of diplomats already in a nation, but still giving nations a right to say who can establish an embassy, then I'd suggest that the worst case scenario is that the nation that was spied upon has to simply cancel the mission and give the spies time to leave and a polite notice like, "If you come back, we'll introduce you to our mother-in-law. Trust us, this is not an experience to look forward to." ;)

Personally, I disagree with that first part making diplomats immune from arrest. As a communist nation, I beleive in equal status for all. This puts diplomats above the law, which is against both democratic and communist views.

Personally, I disagree with that first part making diplomats immune from arrest. As a communist nation, I beleive in equal status for all. This puts diplomats above the law, which is against both democratic and communist views.

But, you can agree with the other nation that if their diplomats break your laws or customs, you will close the embassy. Suppose you had a law saying no-one can work between 11 and 11:30 in the morning. You would offer to exchange ambassadors with Neighbourland, but on the condition that their ambassadors obey your 11am rest law. If their ambassador breaks that law, then you have the right to shut down the Neighbourland embassy.

You can't prosecute ambassadors - but you can make them lose their jobs.

The divine powers that be have agreed to this proposal and it has our full support.

I see no reason to vote for this, Section II contradicts everything in Section I. It is, IMO, an entirely worthless proposal.

I can't stand it and voted against it. While I believe that diplomats should have a certain degree of imunity, that goes too far. A diplomat could just get in a country and blow it up if they aren't searched on mission for the enemy country. It's the host country's right to search whomever they please because it's them that could end up getting hurt. That was my major objection to it.

Which civilised country would use their diplomats as a weapon? No country would allow their diplomats to bring explosives or weapons into another country, because no-one would trust their diplomatic services again, and they would be left unable to communicate with anyone!

And there's the little matter of smuggling the explosives/weapons away from the diplomat to the terrorist without the host nation noticing.

Using common sense you have a valid argument. Using the realistic world though, you have next to no argument. These days, it's so much more complicated than that. A diplomats loyalty could be closer to a secret terrioist organization and they themselves be the terroist. It probably wouldn't happen, but it's better safe than sorry and if the country feels it needs to search them so they won't be little more than useless soil the next day, they have all the right in the world. I'd rather have more procautions than needed than less.

Using common sense you have a valid argument. Using the realistic world though, you have next to no argument. These days, it's so much more complicated than that. A diplomats loyalty could be closer to a secret terrioist organization and they themselves be the terroist. It probably wouldn't happen, but it's better safe than sorry and if the country feels it needs to search them so they won't be little more than useless soil the next day, they have all the right in the world. I'd rather have more procautions than needed than less.

If there is a country who you think has a strong chance of being infiltrated by terrorists, even to the diplomatic service, then just don't have an embassy for that nation. Communicate via intermeditaries in other countries, or on neutral soil.

You're not required to set up an embassy. If it really is going to become a terrorist staging post, then shut it down!

I'll give you that, that's a good point.

I though don't feel that the United Nations has a right to tell a state how to treat someone. I think the two nations invovled can reach an agreement on their own that everyone's happen with, rather than imposing laws just for the sake of having more rights than citizens of that country.

This returns to our objection to the resolution. Nothing in it binds two nations - even two nations that wish to grant their exchanged diplomats immunity from prosecution - to abide by its guidelines. There is no definition declaring what sort of agreement shall be construed as "Diplomatic Immunity", so two nations may draw up a treaty defining the treatment of the other's diplomats, but so long as they do not explicitly invoke the name "Diplomatic Immunity", they are not bound to obey this resolution. Period. It is a technically optional resolution as currently worded...

It is a technically optional resolution as currently worded...

The ancient ambassador from Mikitivity grins upon hearing this and rises again.

Actually you are correct, but I ask you, knowing that nations can leave the United Nations at will, what resolutions are trulely binding?

But before allowing anybody to answer his rhetorical question, the fossil quickly holds up an open hand and smiles.

But first allow me to answer my own question. While the best UN resolutions appear optional, as a statement of this body, they are not merely words on paper (or a screen for those of you reading these proceedings), but they also happen to be a reflection of the international will. On issues that cross international borders, the opinion of other nations frequently has merit. And with this in mind, is it not wise for most nations to follow the spirit of international will.

If the answer is no, and international will is something that we feel should be frequently ignored, then what is the point behind a "United" Nations? Where other ambassadors might say that strong language in a resolution and mandatory resolutions builds a strong international will, I will submit that a group of nations that comes together by agreeing in principal are more likely to stay true to those principals and build upon the ideas adopted in this body.

They can't be taxed, arrested if done something wrong, and other speacial pervliges. Not even the PRESIDENT gets that stuff. So if it is passed its not going to effect The Mormon Chuch cuz we will disobey it no matter if we get booted from the UN infact we will leave!! that is bull that some forgien person can skipp out on taxes, and the law. That is my feelings on this is why should we just give them stuff. They shouldn't need to be exampted agaist being arrested cuz they shouldn't be doning anything wrong. Taxed everyone but them gets taxed?? not right ( i am talking about property tax ). some of the speacial pervilges yea but not alot of them.

They can't be taxed, arrested if done something wrong, and other speacial pervliges. Not even the PRESIDENT gets that stuff. So if it is passed its not going to effect The Mormon Chuch cuz we will disobey it no matter if we get booted from the UN infact we will leave!! that is bull that some forgien person can skipp out on taxes, and the law. That is my feelings on this is why should we just give them stuff. They shouldn't need to be exampted agaist being arrested cuz they shouldn't be doning anything wrong. Taxed everyone but them gets taxed?? not right ( i am talking about property tax ). some of the speacial pervilges yea but not alot of them.

Actually, the President does get that stuff, when he's visiting a foreign country - heads of state can apply for diplomatic immunity.

This is a treaty on how diplomats are to be treated. Diplomats and ambassadors are a country's representatives in a foreign nation, and it is important that they can get on with international negotiation without being swamped in small things like car parking tickets.

I sense the rate of accidents for diplomats increasing.

This suggesting is absolutely RIDICULOUS! This is basically giving diplomats a lisence to do WHATEVER they want in certain countries. So if a diplomat commits mass first degree murder then they are put on HOUSE ARREST for 24 hours. This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.

This is effectivley allowing spys to do what they want laeving countries that rely on a carefully planed defensive line in terrible danger.(I pesonally prefer the "mindless swarm of unarmed troops" method of defence but other people don't).

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


I like this! Once this bill passes, I can send a diplomat to the Secular Nation's Union with an assasination order, have him hide his pistol in the "Diplomatic Bag" and allow him to freely walk into the conference room! Wolfgang Rico would be eliminated with ease!

But then the same can happen to me, or my Emperor Maximus IV, and I don't like those prospects.

The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer staunchly opposes this bill and will work for it's defeat until this clause is stricken!

--Welsh

This piece of legislation is rediculous and a waste of time, for a diplomat not to pay sales tax? Thats just plain silly, it costs the host nation money to have them within there borders. They should not however be taxed, but for them not to pay local city or state sales taxes? This resolution is weak and is to far contradictory. 5. Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country containing a diplomatic visa from the host country

I like this! Once this bill passes, I can send a diplomat to the Secular Nation's Union with an assasination order, have him hide his pistol in the "Diplomatic Bag" and allow him to freely walk into the conference room! Wolfgang Rico would be eliminated with ease!

But then the same can happen to me, or my Emperor Maximus IV, and I don't like those prospects.

The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer staunchly opposes this bill and will work for it's defeat until this clause is stricken!

--Welsh

That would only happen if you have an embassy with your enemies, and you didn't agree that any diplomat going into the throne-conference room without permission will be shot.

As I say above, no civilised country would use their diplomats as assassins. That would be like dropping bombs from International Red Cross aircraft. It would be ruthlessly effective once, then no-one will go near you or negotiate with you again, and your only contact with your neighbours would be the contact of bayonet against kevlar.

This piece of legislation is rediculous and a waste of time, for a diplomat not to pay sales tax? Thats just plain silly, it costs the host nation money to have them within there borders. They should not however be taxed, but for them not to pay local city or state sales taxes? This resolution is weak and is to far contradictory. 5. Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country containing a diplomatic visa from the host country

As Cobdenia (who is a real, OOC, diplomat, as far as I understand) stated earlier:

CAUTION! This text contains economics! (He didn't say that. That was me.)


"The only reason sales tax is excluded is for ease. The reason they cannot be taxed is very simple. Is it fair that a diplomat from one country, with a tax rate of 5%, is sent to a country where the tax rate is 95%, causing one country to be effectively paying another? Is it fair that, due to higher tax rates combined with higher wages, a diplomat based in another country starves to death?" - Cobdenia.

These diplomatic rules are the ones that work very effectively in the real world for the last 200 years or so.

These diplomatic rules are the ones that work very effectively in the real world for the last 200 years or so.

But if the people here ruled the real world there would be a nuclear war within a week.

The proposal allows for arbitrary removal of Diplomatic immunity by a host country. Unless there are guidelines for such removal then anytime hostile nations get perturbed with one another they can remove diplomatic immunity from the entire embassy and behead all of them.

CNYSkinFan land will vote against it and as a UN Delegate to the hailRedskin region I suggest all of you vote against it as well.

Definately got my vote.

I agree with most of the points.

:headbang:

Everyone is missing the one point... you do not have to grant diplomatic immunity. Just because a diplomatic mission is coming to your country does not mean that they are "above the law" as many have so eliquently put it.

What this is stating is: if you decide, as the host nation, to grant to the diplomats of another nation, diplomatic immunity; then the following items apply. But you still have the right as the host nation to say, "we accept you into our country, but you do not have diplomatic immunity," then none of this resolution applies.

The point is, just be careful to whom you grant immunity!!!

:mp5:

This proposal is unjust and unfair to people.No diplomat can be allowed all that.

This resolution is a waste of time. :headbang: It is not necessary to pass because most nations recognize diplomatic immunity, and half of it is ridiculous anyway. If your in that country and you break a law in that country, you should face some sort of punishment. Vote this bureaucratic-waste-of-paper down.

Don't forget, if this resolution passes, we can always repeal it.

I like the proposal, and GOOD FOR YOU, you put in actual u.n. format. good idea, but cannot be arressted at all? not even for murder?!!! :confused: well, i'll vote for it. then i shall revoke everyon's diplomatic immunity in my counrty if they so much as bend a blade of grass

boo hiss!!! :sniper:

How is it that some nations against this proposal can maintain diplomatic relations in the first place? As others have mentioned, using a diplomat for an assassination would be quite shocking, and *might* work a single time before its base country becomes an international pariah. Even allied countries would be wary of letting a delegation in after something like that.

For that matter, spying is usually more easily accomplished by non-diplomats simply because everybody's looking at the diplomats. You know who the diplomats are, but the spies could be anyone. Krioval grants diplomatic immunity out of respect for the nations with whom it has exchanged ambassadors also because it protects our diplomats as well - the agreements are usually binding on both parties.

I did vote for this bill but I have one complaint.
This bill also protects missionaries which I disagree with, and anyone else that believes in seperation of church and state should disagree. You see this bill gives some of the same immunities to missionaries that it gives to diplomats, missionaries are religious figures and because I believe in seperation of church and state I think they are just regular citizens, in which case they should have no special rights.I don't believe that's true.

"Mission" means "diplomatic mission", not "religious mission". This means that the proposal protects the embassy, consulates, legations, and other "missions" instead of just protecting diplomats' persons and residences.

If your country has laws against prosetylization, you can always declare religious missionaries who are protected by their nations as diplomats PNG and send them packing.

I will not vote in favor of this resolution unless I will be guarenteed the ability to prosecute a diplomat who has committed an act of espionage or terrorism within my nation.

You can negotiate that with the sending nation. However, in RL, in addition to diplomatic immunity, diplomats are explicitly allowed to spy. In fact, a large part of many diplomats' jobs could be called spying - it's what they do.

Terrorism - an argument in the form of a skit:
Mr Bob blows up the Universal Exchange Towers of Divinity City.
Universal Divinity cops (or NIA or Mossad or FBI) arrest Mr Bob
Mr Bob says "Oy, you can't arrest me. I'm the Cultural Attache for the Fascist Republic of the Taliban."
Universal Divinity says "The Holy Republic of Universal Divinity finds itself in a state of war against the forces of fascism" and sends its ninjas to destroy the Taliban. It also deports Mr Bob and closes diplomatic relations with the Taliban.

A few things...

First, let me point you to Wikipedia's article on Diplomatic Immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity.

Second, I would like to point out that in RL, diplomatic immunity promotes peace rather than allowing military acts. During the Cold War, the US and USSR maintained diplomatic relations. The ability to communicate with each other was vital in preventing the Cuban Missile Crisis (for example) into war. If the US had at any time been discovered opening a Soviet dipbag, they would have come very close to war. It was this trust, privacy and secrecy that allowed a diplomatic solution to be made.

they would have come very close to war
What, and they weren't that close anyway? But yeah, I like this one.

A few things...

First, let me point you to Wikipedia's article on Diplomatic Immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity.


That was an interesting read.

I looked through the proposal, and I don't like it. It seems like diplomats would just be able to be jerks and do pretty much anything without punishment.

I can't stand it and voted against it. While I believe that diplomats should have a certain degree of imunity, that goes too far. A diplomat could just get in a country and blow it up if they aren't searched on mission for the enemy country. It's the host country's right to search whomever they please because it's them that could end up getting hurt. That was my major objection to it.
good point
i didn't actually bother to read the whole thing
but what i did read, i didn't like
however, this bill is probably going to pass :rolleyes:

I looked through the proposal, and I don't like it. It seems like diplomats would just be able to be jerks and do pretty much anything without punishment.
exactly
to hell with this proposal :sniper:

Although the resolution is an impressive piece of work, it appears to me that it defines immunity with too much latitude for host nations. I would say that UN nations should be expected to give other members' official delegates full immunity, with only the right to eject the misbehaving reserved.

Section I
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax) 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


1. The granting of Extraterritoriality, all over history, diplomats have committed crimes, and have gotten away with it. They should not be exemot from the laws the break in a host nation. They should not have immunity, because they are doing a service for their country. If the diplomat committs murder then he should be tried, and sentenced to death. And not in his own country, it should be done in the host nation so as to humiliate the people of the nation he/she serves.

1. The granting of Extraterritoriality, all over history, diplomats have committed crimes, and have gotten away with it. They should not be exemot from the laws the break in a host nation. They should not have immunity, because they are doing a service for their country. If the diplomat committs murder then he should be tried, and sentenced to death. And not in his own country, it should be done in the host nation so as to humiliate the people of the nation he/she serves.

Suppose the nation of Redland has a love/hate relationship with Blueland. Blueland does something minor that gets up Redland's nose, like putting an embargo on one of Redland's dictator friends, so they take his grace Mr Blue, Blueland Ambassador to Redland, to court for something trivial and send him to prison for 15 years. Diplomats would become like chess pawns.

The whole purpose of Diplomatic Immunity is to ensure that diplomats are safe from this sort of international blackmail, thus ensuring that Redland and Blueland can always negotiate with one another. This is much more important than any petty indiscretions a short-sighted diplomat may do, shortly before being removed from his post by his angry Foreign Office...

i think it is not a good idea what is the difference between diplomats and regular if we acceppt this we will accept that our diplomats are first class and rest of people are second class

i think it is not a good idea what is the difference between diplomats and regular if we acceppt this we will accept that our diplomats are first class and rest of people are second class

Hey, I replied to your post half a second before you posted your reply!

Diplomats have to be under a very different set of rules, because they are the means by which countries can negotiate with one another. It's not creating 'First Class' and 'Second Class', it's creating 'Citizen Class' and 'International Representative' class. And anyway, a diplomat is no different to anyone else when he's in his home country.

Im against Diplomatic Immunity as a whole. I see it as just another excuse by other countries for their acts on foreign soil. This resolution says that the host country can take a diplomate to court, only for certain reasons itself, but then makes it almost impossible to make a case by keeping it that you can not search their property. This is just sending the message to diplomates to hide the gun or weapon they used, or the drugs their importing, in their homes, cars, or any other property. This makes diplomates the number one black market sellers. They have the perfect storage, their property, they have the perfect transport, their property, so Diplomatic Immunity is not something that most, if any country, would want. It allows to many complications. If you do not want other countries commiting felonies or supplying anti-government militias then you should vote against this resolution.

I think this is a horrid idea.It gives to much for granted by allowing diplomats to move and do as the wish in a nation unchecked. Theoretically these "DIPLOMATS" could be spies engadged in espionage for all we know. They could and probably would find ways through the patchwork of loopholes that this Definition of Diplomat immunity suggests. I say it should Hell! :sniper:

When you are visiting another country you must learn to adapt yourself to their customs and their ways.

It is ridiculous to believe that a diplomat can act anyway they want(legally) in any country.

NEVER! If you are a guest in MY country, you will abide by MY laws. Not twiddle around the country with your "Diplomat Bag". It's possible for a Diplomat to walk into a bank, break open a cash register and steal the money (since he technically isn't posing a threat to anyone I can't do anything about it!). Either that, or I put him under "house arrest"?!?! And that's if he hurts someone! If he goes on a killing spree and I put him in bloody house arrest, what happens then? I give him a daisy and let him go?! :headbang:

I am strongly against this resolution!

Vohteria

Diplomatic immunity is needed
who says all govorments r good & will follow the rules with diplomats
pls vot FOR

:headbang: Seriously, how many more times is this complaint going to be registered before you take a close look at the legislation? "but I don't want diplomats spying/stealing/raping/killing/eating babies! This bill virtually gives them a blank check on thier behavior!" No, it doesn't. All it does is formalize the de facto laws of international diplomacy. If you don't like this proposal, then never grant diplomatic immunity to anyone, and this proposal will have no effect on you country whatsoever. Its that simple. These restrictions can only be placed on the host country volentarily, and it only aplies to those the host country chooses. This proposal is only dangerous if you grant immunity to someone with dynamite strapped to thier chest, and in that case, its you own damn fault.

:headbang: Seriously, how many more times is this complaint going to be registered before you take a close look at the legislation? "but I don't want diplomats spying/stealing/raping/killing/eating babies! This bill virtually gives them a blank check on thier behavior!" No, it doesn't. All it does is formalize the de facto laws of international diplomacy. If you don't like this proposal, then never grant diplomatic immunity to anyone, and this proposal will have no effect on you country whatsoever. Its that simple. These restrictions can only be placed on the host country volentarily, and it only aplies to those the host country chooses. This proposal is only dangerous if you grant immunity to someone with dynamite strapped to thier chest, and in that case, its you own damn fault.

What a nasty little resolution. So the UN conspires to give member states' diplomats powers and rights greater than the people of the host nation? Wonderful. A shameful idea for the UN to endorse. Cannot believe this manipulative resolution will pass with little protest. A 2000 vote difference in favor - are people even reading it?

To the nations telegramming all the "FOR" delegates:

I assure you most completely that I have read the resolution. I continue to vote in favor. I wonder, however, if you have bothered to read the arguments posted on this very thread beyond the "OMFG they'll bomb me and kill my people and laugh about it while lighting bonfires in honor of [insert maleficent deity or subdeity here]!!!" types.

At the very least, coordinate your telegram campaign so that I get only one notice.

I'm sorry. No, no, no and no. If some diplomatic biggot waltzed through my country, and decidied to drop a bomb, or assasinate our Twilight Eye (Excecutive Branch) I would arrest him, try him under our laws, and have him excecuted. If I wanted this :sniper: , this :mp5: , or this :gundge: I would agree. But I don't so :upyours:

I'm sorry. No, no, no and no. If some diplomatic biggot waltzed through my country, and decidied to drop a bomb, or assasinate our Twilight Eye (Excecutive Branch) I would arrest him, try him under our laws, and have him excecuted. If I wanted this :sniper: , this :mp5: , or this :gundge: I would agree. But I don't so :upyours:
And any nation that tried that would soon find that no other nation would grant their diplomats immunity.
Please bear in mind that this proposal in no way, shape, or form requires nations to grant diplomatic immunity.:headbang:

My primary concern with this Resolution is Section 1, Part 5, which states that "The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation".

Does this mean literally what it says, that a nations 'primary concern' is the 'security of Diplomats'? Or is this particular resolution meant to be taken in a certain context?

If this is to be taken literally, surely leaders would rail against such a violation of sovereignty - having the U.N. impose national priorities upon a nation without resourse to its citizens will. Surely a nations priorities are the provision of defence first, and then basic public services? Why should the U.N. possess the right to assert what are and what are not national priorities?

If a context exists in which this Resolution should be viewed, then what is it? Where can I read/learn of it?

As I am a new member of the U.N., and new to Nation States, I would appreciate guidance on several matters pertaining to this post. First, is this the correct forum to be voicing such opinions? If not, then where should I make such comments? Second, what effect do these votes have? Can someone point me to an explanation of the U.N. system? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

...is the fact that if a host nation has granted you diplomatic immunity, if anything goes sour through the diplomats fault or through other foreign relations issues, diplomatic immunity can immediately be withdrawn and as soon as aforesaid diplomat leaves his embassy/residence, he can be arrested, imprisoned without trial or whatever the laws of the host nation demand. This then, surely contravenes his/ her human rights and, is just illogical. Surely there would be some sort of 24hr period of grace to leave the country or something? this, while not affecting the international relations between the conflicting countries, would also give an innocent individual personal security etc. etc. After all, you can't choose your nationality.

-currently spending a year dead for tax reasons

...is the fact that if a host nation has granted you diplomatic immunity, if anything goes sour through the diplomats fault or through other foreign relations issues, diplomatic immunity can immediately be withdrawn and as soon as aforesaid diplomat leaves his embassy/residence, he can be arrested, imprisoned without trial or whatever the laws of the host nation demand. This then, surely contravenes his/ her human rights and, is just illogical. Surely there would be some sort of 24hr period of grace to leave the country or something? this, while not affecting the international relations between the conflicting countries, would also give an innocent individual personal security etc. etc. After all, you can't choose your nationality.
If they're declared persona non grata, they face trial under the base countries laws in the embassy, and are thrown out. They still cannot be arrested by the host country, as they cannot be arrested for any crime commited while they have diplomatic immunity.

As for the other complaints, it just seems to me as if they read diplomatic immunity to mean spy immuntiy...

I have recieved 2 telegrams now asking me to reconcider my position on this matter, I have shifted my position to 'neutral', but will be going back to 'for' when this is posted

Diplomatic immunity only works if people trust you, so if you screw us over, we will chuck your diplomats out and we will tell the rest of the region about it, then it will happen in theor nations too. There is nothing wrong with this resolution. We are talking about people here who could start or stop wars and bring great wealth to both nations.

If a diplomat murdered one of my citizens then considerable diplomatic pressure would be applied to have him prosicuted for the crime. Also if a diplomat started shooting people in the street and the police shot him dead then I don't think anyone could complain as they were acting in self defense.

This is a load of fuss over nothing. If you don't like it then resign!

Members of the United Nation, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to express my sincere apology to arrive here at such a late time.
We were overwhelmed by refugees from Crimmond and I could not hasten any
of my other duties.

Proleta wishes it could vote for the current resolution, however it seems to be
forced against it. Proleta's vote will be against it for the following reasons:



Section I
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.
Proleta reads nothing about the Embassy and any Consulates of the base
country. Are they not also part of the base country, and are therefore banned
from any search?

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.
Proleta will not accept any host country official to search and/or seize any
of its Diplomatic official's property while being placed within the borders of the
host country, wether it is at the Embassy, a Consulate or any of the
residences of the officials working for the base country.


5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation.
Proleta strongly disagrees with this article, since no country other than
Proleta can tell or order them to see what is their primary concern.


Section II
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation.
If Proleta has this decision, then we insist we have the right to revoke
any Immunity to any Diplomat, as well.


6. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc.
Proleta will insist strongly, that any content, being sentient or not, alive or not,
belonging to the Diplomat or not, fall unter the immunity as bestowed upon the
Diplomat, until the Diplomat informs the proper authorities that the item in question
is not his.


Until these issues have been solved, Proleta will remain against the current resolution.
If this resolution will be passed unchanged, Proleta will rethink being part of the
United Nations.

I thank you for your patience and time.


Elo, Quint of Proleta

Invoilable means "sacrosanct".

Proleta strongly disagrees with this article, since no country other than Proleta can tell or order them to see what is their primary concern.
Well, the base country can't protect an Embassy as it's police forces have no jurisdiction over anyone other then. What I meant by primary concern is that it this the concern primarily of the host country rather than the base country.

If Proleta has this decision, then we insist we have the right to revoke
any Immunity to any Diplomat, as well.
That's what persona non grata's about. You can't arrest them for any crime commited while they had diplomatic immunity and for good reason. What if Cobdenia makes up some law so that we could arrest your ambassador because he said something that irritated us? We could revoke his immunity and arrest him making the idea of diplomatic immunity pointless!

I'm not certain what Proleta is talking about with reference to the other articles.

Proleta wishes it could vote for the current resolution, however it seems to be forced against it. Proleta's vote will be against it for the following reasons:

Section I
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.
Proleta reads nothing about the Embassy and any Consulates of the base
country. Are they not also part of the base country, and are therefore banned from any search?
the embassy is on the soil of the embassys country. therefore the police have no power

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.
Proleta will not accept any host country official to search and/or seize any of its Diplomatic official's property while being placed within the borders of the host country, wether it is at the Embassy, a Consulate or any of the
residences of the officials working for the base country.
thats what is says, correct me if I'm wrong

5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation.
Proleta strongly disagrees with this article, since no country other than
Proleta can tell or order them to see what is their primary concern.
I think they are talking about not letting terrorists blow it up etc. although I'm not certain in exactly what terms the auther is reffering

Section II
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation.
If Proleta has this decision, then we insist we have the right to revoke
any Immunity to any Diplomat, as well.
you do, read the proposal

6. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc.
Proleta will insist strongly, that any content, being sentient or not, alive or not, belonging to the Diplomat or not, fall unter the immunity as bestowed upon the Diplomat, until the Diplomat informs the proper authorities that the item in question is not his.
why?


Until these issues have been solved, Proleta will remain against the current resolution. If this resolution will be passed unchanged, Proleta will rethink being part of the United Nations.
just read it again and take 20mins to read the whole topic. we've delt with most of it already

I think they are talking about not letting terrorists blow it up etc. although I'm not certain in exactly what terms the auther is reffering
Yep. I meant that it is mainly the concern of the host nation, not the base nation.

I am strongly against this. I think that this resolution gives far too much freedom to a diplomat. And one question I have that I dont believe is covered: Lets say a respected person goes to another country and commits a crime. Can he/she be granted immunity AFTER the crime has been commited?
I know most countries would not even consider this. But under certain circumstances it most definately could happen. How would this be covered? could their property still be searched? Could they be brought to trial by the host nation?

And without the proposal, there is too much freedom for a country to imprison or execute diplomats.
With reference to your question, however, if a Cobdenian were to go to Mystatia, it is up to Mystatia to give them immunity. The host government (the country where the diplomat is from) gives immunity, not the base government (the country where the diplomat is working in)

And if a diplomat starts killing, raping, and pillaging; we'll just wait politely for their country of origin to rescind their immunity? Hell no. Mirfak already recognizes diplomatic immunity for low-level offenses and cites expulsion from the country and repayment of damages caused as the only punishment for foreigners. We're not giving them any more protection than that. If this resolution passes, The Alphin plans to recommend an override resolution in the Council.

And if a diplomat starts killing, raping, and pillaging; we'll just wait politely for their country of origin to rescind their immunity? Hell no.
Of course not, the country of origin isn't the one who granted the immunity to begin with.:headbang:

If it's submitted as a "Definition of..." resolution, then you've got my support. Well written.
Have you read the resolution? It's defining how diplomats can do whatever the heck they want. I don't think this should pass. Honestly, not allowing for search and seizure of diplomatic property is preposterous. If there's a threat within the host country, and the host country needs something inside the diplomatic property or needs to search the property for the safety of the host nation's people(which should be the prime concern of every nation, not that the diplomat is safe, the diplomat should come with an entourage)but the host nation can't, then there could be a major problem on a nation's hands. I strongly urge all who have not voted to vote against this resolution.

Have you read the resolution? It's defining how diplomats can do whatever the heck they want. I don't think this should pass. Honestly, not allowing for search and seizure of diplomatic property is preposterous. If there's a threat within the host country, and the host country needs something inside the diplomatic property or needs to search the property for the safety of the host nation's people(which should be the prime concern of every nation, not that the diplomat is safe, the diplomat should come with an entourage)but the host nation can't, then there could be a major problem on a nation's hands. I strongly urge all who have not voted to vote against this resolution.
If you're so paranoid about it then, DON'T GRANT ANYONE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.:headbang:

And if a diplomat starts killing, raping, and pillaging; we'll just wait politely for their country of origin to rescind their immunity?

Nope, you declare the persona non grata and they get prosecuted for murder, rape and pillaging in their home country. Other proposals ensure a fair trial, so I can't see why this would be a problem.

Yet again, another person failing to see the point of diplomatic immunity.
The most heinous crime commitable in many countries is treason; yet a diplomat may have to, as part of his job, commit treason.
RL example: In North Korea, saying anything anti-Communist is against the law and will lead to a swift execution. Yet, the Swedish ambassador (the US has no representation) will have to condemn communism and Kim Jong Il as part of his job. That is why diplomatic immunity must exist!

:headbang:

I wonder how many people half-read the proposal, go "OMG NOOO!!!!one11! DIpl0MATZ TERRIST SPYS BOMERS! This proposal is clearly in breach of the great Marxist principles of equality upon which the proud Commonwealth of Jacob's Cream Crackers is based. TEH TErrisST DIPLONAZI SPYS WilL B BLAK MARCET SMUGLERS! NO nono noNO!", vote 'Against', come here and post their reasons for voting against (without reading the rest of the thread, of course), and never come back again to see their argument refuted?

Actually, I think I do know - there's about 5,400 of them at the minute.

Countries are not forced to send diplomats. Nobody forces them. They come voluntarily, they should be under that country's jurisdiction. THey are just as likely to be persecuted as citizens of a country. You might as well just make all people immune to laws. Think of all the horrible things diplomats could get away with. A terrorist could be a diplomat, mass murdering, but immune to arrest.

You can do this in your country but let me have control of mine!!!

Yet another person who hasn't read the proposal!

Of course not, the country of origin isn't the one who granted the immunity to begin with.And yet, somehow, they're the ones that have the right to allow the host nation to arrest their diplomat under this pact. That is rediculous.

Commustan isn't a UN member. :rolleyes:

And yet, somehow, they're the ones that have the right to allow the host nation to arrest their diplomat under this pact. That is rediculous.

No, you can declare any errant diplomat 'Persona Non Grata' and have him tried under his own laws. If you think he gets off too lightly, you have every right to shut down the embassy, and only allow a new one if the other nation promises to ban their diplomat from doing that again.

Please reconsider your vote!

No, you can declare any errant diplomat 'Persona Non Grata' and have him tried under his own laws. If you think he gets off too lightly, you have every right to shut down the embassy, and only allow a new one if the other nation promises to ban their diplomat from doing that again.

Please reconsider your vote!We have read the proposal. We are not satisfied with its provisions as it does not allow for recovery of stolen assets or any prosecutory action whatsoever on the part of the host nation. To grant a diplomat such wide latitude is to invite scandal. Our position stands.

Waterana has just voted for this resolution.

Any concerns we had during the draft stage have been fixed or explained and the assurance that we have ultimate control over which persons will recieve dipolmatic immunity within our borders has solved any fears we once had.

If a diplomat murders someone, they can't be arrested. If they steal they can't be arrested. A better proposal then this would say for what a diplomat can be arrested, an international standard. Saying something along the lines of.If they are suspeceted of crime they may be arrested, but must go to an international court. And of course they should have to pay things like sales tax, but not income tax in the country to which they are diplomats. :mad: :headbang:

Finally got round to reading the proposal and it looks perfectly fine to me. Diplomatic immunity is a necessity in this world. Any perceived misdemeanour of the diplomat is the that of the base nation and not the individual.

De Lyon supports this proposal but suspects that private interest groups are trying to mislead delegates

Votes For: 6,909

Votes Against: 7,010

101 vote difference - this one has gone from landslide to "damned close" in the space of 24 hours.

Votes For: 6,943

Votes Against: 7,036

93 Vote difference....

damn. hope it passes. it is prob the only time i would actually support it.

I think this just shews how many people are unable to read in the world :rolleyes:

I think this just shews how many people are unable to read in the world :rolleyes:
i know. if i hadnt read it, and didnt see the debate, i would have voted no, because i believe diplomats arnt above the law. but the section where they can still be held accountable is good

Yes, I think they don't notice these articles:
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 on official visits) at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question.
7. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation (excluding sales tax) of the base nation
8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
11. The government of the base country has the right to rescind the immunity of any of its diplomats/missions, and they may be searched or tried by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity. This must be invoked if as prescribed under international law or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the absence of such laws

Okay, the difference is now ONE vote!

i just hope, that if it passes with only a small amount of difference, no one is stupid enough to put in a repeal based on the difference

We're winning now!
The Fro Royal Family changed it's position (due to democracy and my telegramming them and pointing out the above articles)
Let's hope that the Pacifics don't vote against it at the last minute...

Plus, most repeals don't have a telegram campaign, and the chances are it would be posted here if they were going to TG campaign

Hey, I read it and spoke here, and I still disagree with it.

I just read The Rejected Realms RMB and the delegate plans to vote against this resolution. You might consider sending him a telegram as he controls a large number of votes.

But for what reason? You don't have to give diplomatic immunity to anyone, you can freely negotiate circumstances under which diplomats can be prosecuted under your laws, there is nothing that anyone who doesn't want to mercilessly slaughter diplomats to have against it!

PS apparently there are some rogue non-UN nations who are telegramming against this proposal, for no obvious reason...

I disagree. I think it is best for each nation to choose its own policy on the matter.

Well im sorry but i have to vote against this on the basis that no matter what a diplomat does hes immune from all prosecution... Anyone here forget about the Syrian diplomat in New York not to long ago.... was caught trying to meet with 13 year old girls at places to molest them, and nothing could be done...

there is no point to this resolution in its current form, as it obviusly isnt clear on who gives the diplomatic imunity, or to how it is given. I fear for my people, who will be placed beneath forigners in legal matters if this "diplomatic immunity" is to be used on diplomats without the consent of my govorment, if the resolution gives the UN or other nations this power.

this resolution may also led to a falls sense of security among the diplomats, and that in turn maight led diplomats into truble with its delegated nation. i do not wish this for my diplomats, or diplomats visiting the glorius domain of Da Authority.

when in rome, do as the romans. when in my country, obey my laws or die.

there is no point to this resolution in its current form, as it obviusly isnt clear on who gives the diplomatic imunity, or to how it is given. I fear for my people, who will be placed beneath forigners in legal matters if this "diplomatic immunity" is to be used on diplomats without the consent of my govorment, if the resolution gives the UN or other nations this power.
So, you're illiterate?
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
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation

this resolution may also led to a falls sense of security among the diplomats, and that in turn maight led diplomats into truble with its delegated nation.
Again, you need to read it:
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation

when in rome, do as the romans. when in my country, obey my laws or die.
Certainly; Of course this means that all Pudelian diplomats will be arrested and shot for being illegal immigrants...

Well im sorry but i have to vote against this on the basis that no matter what a diplomat does hes immune from all prosecution... Anyone here forget about the Syrian diplomat in New York not to long ago.... was caught trying to meet with 13 year old girls at places to molest them, and nothing could be done...

Actually, he was declared persona non grata and executed in his home country.

Also, you need to remember that I (who has diplomatic immunity in RL) would have been thrown in gaol three times for doing my job; if it hadn't been for diplomatic immunity I would be dead.

I think it is best for each nation to choose its own policy on the matter.

So, you'd be willing to allow a country to change it's policy after it recieves your diplomats, then execute them under immigration laws or for commiting treason?

So, you'd be willing to allow a country to change it's policy after it recieves your diplomats, then execute them under immigration laws or for commiting treason?Honestly, if that was a nation's intention I very much doubt that a U.N. rule against it would stop them. This resolution really doesn't mean anything in that respect. Until the U.N. creates an enforcement coalition these protective regulations will go unheeded by the very entities they attempt to reign in.

Mirfak stands against the resoluion on two levels. First, it will have no impact on the existing policies of most nations and force others into adopting a new set of rules that is, in many cases, redundant. Second, its impact is so insignificant that between its weak provisions and the ability of rogue states to ignore it, it really means nothing at all. In essence, this resolution imposes weak regulations that will be completely ignored by pretty much any nation that doesn't like them. In trying to gain votes by being centrist it has lost its meaning.

What would a diplomat need to do that would be illegal? And I don't want answers like, "Residing in a foreign country". There are legal mechanisms granting resident alien status in most countries I've heard of, and I doubt it would be good diplomatic practice to deport all the diplomats from one's country on the grounds of illegal immigration.

So, you're illiterate?
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
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation


Again, you need to read it:
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation


The resolution does state the above, yes. However, my fears steem from the fact that every nation will be pressured to give out diplomatic imunity based not on its own criteries of security, but rather on the bases of larger more powerfull nations.
Also the fact that the resolution vaguely states that security is a priority, is not a valid counter argument in any way, again the possibilty of a false sense of security felt by the diplomats as a direct result of this resolution.

in conclusion, it is the belife of The Autority that this resolution will be the basis of more politica strife, then the diplomatic stability gained by defining diplomatic imunity.

Krioval notes with regret the inability of "Defining Diplomat Immunity" to pass. Perhaps it will succeed later.

Last UN Decision

The resolution "Defining Diplomat Immunity" was defeated 7,998 votes to 7,353.

I have proof that the majority of nay voters were illiterate:
The Jamtastic Empire of James Brogan
i won't change my mind if i get another tellagram from you or anone else i'll do the opposit

PS apparently there are some rogue non-UN nations who are telegramming against this proposal, for no obvious reason...

My government considers it unfortunate that the Defining Diplomat Immunity resolution failed, and felt that this was a well designed and written resolution.

As to the nature of the non-UN member telegram campaigns, I dare say that we might find it more productive to address the comments in this thread and others provided by UN members that voted against the resolution to see if it is possible to work their opinions into a future draft.

[OOC: I would guess that some, but not many, of the no votes were related to stat wanking -- anything that isn't a boost in civil or economic freedoms often must fight an uphill battle in NationStates. If you want a resolution to pass, simply make it Human Rights or Free Trade, and you'll instantly gain some support. However, I did observe that there were some nations that were paying close attention to the resolution's text and they had what I'd consider valid reasons to vote no. I disagree with their reasons, but I think this really is an issue that not everybody sees eye-to-eye on. Simply put, it isn't another "Let's save the poor children" resolutions. So unless those negative telegram campaigns had any substance, I'm willing to guess that many UN Delegates pretty much ignored the telegrams.

On the bright side, perhaps we should make a resolution prohibiting the clubbing of baby seals and make it a "Human Rights" resolution! Nobody can resist a stat boost, when it comes to saving baby seals. <-- joking, you can put those clubs down now ;)

I have proof that at least one person doesn't realize that a single post fails to accurately define "a majority".
I have proof that the majority of nay voters were illiterate:
The Jamtastic Empire of James Brogan

Trust me Frisbeeteria, that wasn't the only one. Just the only one I hadn't deleted at the time of posting!

And I agree there were some valid reasons for voting no, Mirfak being an example of someone of this.
It's just I can't believe the amount of "Diplomats can eat our puppies and murder our president and rape our sheep" type replies and telegrams.
And the bloody statwankers.

Oh well, my next proposals are all going to be free trades (after all, Cobdenia is founded on Cobdenism); so rest assured that we have lost this battle, but that does not mean that Cobdenia will just give up.

Although you might want to remove your diplomats from Cobdenia before we arrest them all for tax fraud, looking at old ladies in a funny way and illegal immigration...

It's just I can't believe the amount of "Diplomats can eat our puppies and murder our president and rape our sheep" type replies and telegrams.

This is pretty typical of most telegrams received when sponsoring a UN resolution. My standard response is to typically just add that nation to my ignore filter and then post them on a "Hostile Nation" list on my regional forum.

When I've participated in other telegramming campaigns, I've just avoided those players. There is no point in directly telling them you are ignoring them ... just ignore them, and life goes on fine.

OoC :
With all the comments in the 12 pages before this message, would it be possible to address the problems of most and rewrite the resolution?

After all, just because it was voted nay, doesnt mean it is a bad idea.

i think that diplomatic ammunity suck it is not fair. just cause their a foreigner they should not have ammunity.

i think that diplomatic ammunity suck it is not fair. just cause their a foreigner they should not have ammunity.
You did notice that the vote ended, and it lost?

It's IMMUNITY, btw. It's in the TOPIC TITLE, for Pete's sake.

It's just I can't believe the amount of "Diplomats can eat our puppies and murder our president and rape our sheep" type replies and telegrams.
And the bloody statwankers.

Honestly. I got several telegrams asking me to reconsider my yes vote, some more polite than others, but all of them ultimately devolving into one or both of the above. "Thanks" to all involved in those campaigns for spamming my TG inbox, BTW. I don't mind *one* concerted effort to get a delegate to switch votes, but I really think that *one* should be the limit, imposed by decency and civility.

And don't think I couldn't write a Human Rights proposal that specifically allowed the clubbing of baby seals. Not only could I write it, but if it dealt with sufficient other material, it might even pass moderator approval. :p

It's in the TOPIC TITLE, for Pete's sake.
But does Pete have diplomatic ammunity? Because that would be so unfair.
[/nonsense]

I am one that ended up voting against the resolution because of some problems with the way the proposal was worded, and but for those I would have voted for.
I've noticed a trend, especially in the super-regions, to vote against almost anything on the UN floor. I've yet to discern a clear rationale for this in The North Pacific, as a for instance, but it's definitely there. This was a resolution where support of a, as in one, super-region that voted against it would have made the difference.
The problems that I noticed were two (1) the definition of persona non grata seems a little off from what I think was actually intended, and 2) the provision that limited house arrest to 24 hours didn't quite make sense to me. The intent of house arrest should have been to force the diplomat's nation to either surrender the diplomatic to the host nation's jurisdiction or to otherwise settle the claims, as written it just didn't make sense to me.
I think with a little more work and clarity in the language, the resolution would muster a majority.....and it would help if the sponsor makes a concerted effort to visit the offsite forums of some of the key regions to generate support. I know that I was not aware of this proposal until it hit the floor, so I'm sure I am not the only one who had to make a judgment without any opportunity to seek refinements beforehand. I hope y'all can learn from the stragetic mistakes and make another run at it having fixed the flaws that are still present.

Generally, I think immunity agreements should be worked out between nations outside of the United Nations and I felt that the proposal was a bit too complicated for such a simple concept. There are some nations that Pilot does not have diplomatic communication with and treats all diplomats from that country was foreign illegals.

Looking over old U.N. resolutions, your proposal was the closest margin of defeat in the history of resolutions. With that said, perhaps you should give it another shot.

Actually, he was declared persona non grata and executed in his home country.

Also, you need to remember that I (who has diplomatic immunity in RL) would have been thrown in gaol three times for doing my job; if it hadn't been for diplomatic immunity I would be dead.

I quite want to hear this story...

The only telegram I got was one from Cobdenia, which mirrored one of his responses here. It is my personal hope that a stronger, clearer resolution is presented in the future, one that gives host nations more power to reclaim damages incurred by rogue diplomats.

My condolances to Cobdenia. I know what it feels like to have close votes (my repeals), I'm just sorry this one didn't turn out as affirmative for you.

I think it would be a good idea to restructure the proposal and somewhat resubmit. A lot of the comlaints here can be used as changes to be considered. In fact, there're a few nations I know interested in consulting on proposal content that I may be able to contact for you. They've set up a forum and everything. If you're interested I'll telegram you about it, and maybe them, you and I and others can give this idea another shot. After whatever interval you need to rest and recuperate, of course.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the proposal being voted down.

I might try again. But first I'll worry about Open Skies.
In this I was trying to make it the same as the RL diplomatic immunity (or what it would be if there was an international agreement). What I'll do is make the purpose clearer, screw PNG, and include exclusions. And I'll try and get away with making it a "furtherment of democracy" or "free trade" for the statwankers.

Hmmm I think that people on here are paranoid and really don't understand how the mechanics of that resolution would have worked. I think you should try it again, but this time post it in the forums a while before hand to see if there are going to be any sticking points.

I have no understanding of stat wanking. All I know is that my nation is going great guns and that I'll support anything I believe in.

i think some of them didnt even read it, saw the title and thought 'oh no, no way, you do a crime in our nation, you do the time buddy' without actually seeing the part that they can be charged by their base country, or the base country can suspend the immunity so they can be charged by the host country

i think some of them didnt even read it, saw the title and thought ...

This is true with all resolutions. I think picking a title is a double edged sword ... a descriptive title may help when collecting UN Delegate endorsements for a proposal, but as you pointed out, it could lead to knee-jerk reactions.

The issue isn't the knee-jerk reactions really, but to acknowledge that different "governments" have different amounts of time to spend on international affairs. Some will read a resolution, a rare few will research it, while others will read the title and Secretariat impact summary ("a resolution to ...").

I believe Grosseschnauzer had the best advice ... court the feeders. Every vote cast really counts twice. It means one for, and one less against. With that in mind, I'd recommend resolution proponents visit the feeders. During the Natural Disaster Act, I was in the East and West Pacifics, and Grosseschnauzer and I were both covering one of the North Pacific debates. I had a few mid sized regions I visited as well.

Ultimately I'd recommend that all nations be involved and active in your region first. Regions tend to have military or political alliances, and then establish embassies with one another. Volunteer to be a representative of your region to another region and also participate in the diplomatic functions in this allied region. That way when your resolution hits the floor, your government's reputation will be known in two regions.

I know that you put a lot of hard work into this proposal and I followed the thread until the end. I voted for it and I encouraged all the UN members and my delegate from my region to vote for it.

I am really sorry it did not pass. It appears that there are a lot of members that did not read the entire proposal and had no idea what they were voting for. They seemed to get it stuck in their minds that this resolution REQUIRED them to give immunity to other diplomats. :headbang:

Oh well, I am checking to see which ones in this list said they were voting NO and I guess they will not be entering my country on diplomatic missions.