DRAFT: Repeal "Humanitarian Intervention" [Archive]

Krioval

30-04-2005, 02:18

The original resolution:

Humanitarian Intervention

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : Gwenstefani

Description : WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

Votes For : 11,569

Votes Against : 5,957

Implemented : Mon Feb 14 2005

Krioval

30-04-2005, 02:18

For further reference:

The Eon Convention on Genocide

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : TilEnca

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

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.

§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.

§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.

§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.

§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 2: The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.

§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.

§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.

§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3: Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.

§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Article 4: Legal Proceedings

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

§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.

§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.

§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.

§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

Votes For : 15,001

Votes Against : 3,139

Implemented : Tue Dec 7 2004

The Lynx Alliance

30-04-2005, 02:33

looks good, Krioval, cept for 2 points
the 2nd to last point maybe seen as an amendment (pass thru mods for judgement on that one)
the last point could be seen as contradictory, but thankfully you have put both the HI and EON resolutions up to clarify.
after seen at least part of the said abuse that occured in Feburary (i thought it was march...) i can wholy agree with this. it is too open to abuse

Krioval

30-04-2005, 03:21

Yeah, the 2nd-last provision originally started with "urges", which I changed to "supports". In any case, I could probably dispense with it altogether, but if it passed 'modworthiness', I'd like to leave it in simply because it defuses the "why can't we intervene?!" arguments before they're raised.

It's possible that the abusive misrepresentation RP of Res 92 was in March. I'll look in a bit.

Thanks for the support. I was on the recent Pretenama Panel, and I had a few problems. First, Crimmond wasn't in the UN any more, which raises the issue of whether a UN committee is empowered to intervene in non-UN nations' affairs. Also, as soon as we realized that Crimmond had over four billion people and allies, the whole effort pretty much disintegrated - I'm not risking my people for what's essentially a lost cause, sad as I am that TPP couldn't resolve the issue.

Mikitivity

30-04-2005, 03:45

While it is clear that you've put time into writing this repeal, the events of April might have had different outcomes if your nation had put as much effort into the Pretenama Panel as you've done here. I hardly would advocate repealing a resolution solely because nations haven't effectively implemented it in less than 30-days as being resonsible. In fact, I would label such an action as rather disingenious.

But please tell me that you plan to also repeal *all* of the other UN resolutions, on the same basis, i.e. they haven't changed non-UN members in the 30-days since they were adopted.

Because the point that bears noting here is the *two* events the Pretenama Panel has investigated were the situtation in Belem (HIV / AIDS positive people were exterminated) and Crimmond (elves were killed) were both situations were extremely large nations were not members of the UN. In other words, they've never agreed to adhere to the UN principals.

Bottom line, this repeal comes across as an approval of mass genocide. If your nation is bothered by the lack of success of the Pretenama Panel, I'd suggest your government redouble its efforts. At the very least, give it a year to organize itself into something that might prove effective.

The Lynx Alliance

30-04-2005, 03:47

Thanks for the support. I was on the recent Pretenama Panel, and I had a few problems. First, Crimmond wasn't in the UN any more, which raises the issue of whether a UN committee is empowered to intervene in non-UN nations' affairs. Also, as soon as we realized that Crimmond had over four billion people and allies, the whole effort pretty much disintegrated - I'm not risking my people for what's essentially a lost cause, sad as I am that TPP couldn't resolve the issue.
i guess that is a bit of a loophole. the question is, could they leave, then rejoin and not have to go through the process?

Krioval

30-04-2005, 04:24

While it is clear that you've put time into writing this repeal, the events of April might have had different outcomes if your nation had put as much effort into the Pretenama Panel as you've done here.

The representative from Krioval is appalled at this insinuation. We would like to make it clear that, with no clear rules governing the function and organization of TPP in cases of military intervention, it is hardly upon a single nation to 'ad lib' an entire committee into efficiency. The resolution in question is flawed, and hearing other UN members refer to TPP's failure to resolve crises is casting a pall upon the efficacy of the United Nations as an institution.

While it is clear that you've put time into writing this repeal, the events of April might have had different outcomes if your nation had put as much effort into the Pretenama Panel as you've done here.

Resolution 92 passed on 14 February 2005. By my calculations, that is seventy-four days that it has been in effect. What shocks me is more that TPP wasn't made ready to deal with cases of genocide until March. There have been plenty of instances of genocide during the past seventy-four days, and only two have been brought to TPP's attention. This is scandalous, and I would rather refocus the efforts of the United Nations on bringing culprits of genocide to justice since committees seem woefully inadequate in performing humanitarian intervention, and multinational coalitions including non-UN members may be more effective.

But please tell me that you plan to also repeal *all* of the other UN resolutions, on the same basis, i.e. they haven't changed non-UN members in the 30-days since they were adopted.

Irrelevant to this discussion, and I'd figured that you'd know better. Non-UN members aren't to be affected by UN resolutions normally. That Resolution 92 is incorrectly being applied to non-UN members shows the lengths to which some nations will go in order to extend authority onto others. While I tend to avoid the 'national sovereignty' argument, I find it improper, to say the least, to compel non-UN members to comply with some UN resolutions without the benefit of a vote to affirm or repudiate those resolutions, or without the protections of other UN resolutions. That is a blatant violation of national rights, namely the right to subject one's nation to UN oversight or not.

Because the point that bears noting here is the *two* events the Pretenama Panel has investigated were the situtation in Belem (HIV / AIDS positive people were exterminated) and Crimmond (elves were killed) were both situations were extremely large nations were not members of the UN. In other words, they've never agreed to adhere to the UN principals.

Exactly. They're not in the United Nations, and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. Resolution 92 improperly attempts to restrict the rights of nations to not participate in the UN while simultaneously casting aspersions on UN members who would form their own multinational coalitions to disempower people committing genocide. It's intent is laudible, but its effects are a travesty of that intent.

Bottom line, this repeal comes across as an approval of mass genocide.

As opposed to a bunch of nations saying "we don't like what you're doing" but lacking sufficient force to back that up? How has TPP managed to make a dent in the prevention or cessation of genocide?

If your nation is bothered by the lack of success of the Pretenama Panel, I'd suggest your government redouble its efforts.

Krioval is redoubling its efforts. When a sink is clogged, you remove the blockage. We figure the best place to start is where the 'blockage' in effort is occurring - Resolution 92. Perhaps later, a new resolution that has fewer loopholes and potential abuses can be passed. Right now, having no resolution on the books for military intervention is better than what we have now.

At the very least, give it a year to organize itself into something that might prove effective.

How about a year to see if independent organizations are capable of convincing others to intervene, without overt UN approval, and then selling the success story to us at that time? Part of my concern is that most governments really don't care about what's going on 'over there', but I seem to be part of a vocal minority interested in showing the situation as it is, rather than perhaps as we would like it to be.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

The Lynx Alliance

30-04-2005, 04:50

While it is clear that you've put time into writing this repeal, the events of April might have had different outcomes if your nation had put as much effort into the Pretenama Panel as you've done here. I hardly would advocate repealing a resolution solely because nations haven't effectively implemented it in less than 30-days as being resonsible. In fact, I would label such an action as rather disingenious.

But please tell me that you plan to also repeal *all* of the other UN resolutions, on the same basis, i.e. they haven't changed non-UN members in the 30-days since they were adopted.

Because the point that bears noting here is the *two* events the Pretenama Panel has investigated were the situtation in Belem (HIV / AIDS positive people were exterminated) and Crimmond (elves were killed) were both situations were extremely large nations were not members of the UN. In other words, they've never agreed to adhere to the UN principals.

Bottom line, this repeal comes across as an approval of mass genocide. If your nation is bothered by the lack of success of the Pretenama Panel, I'd suggest your government redouble its efforts. At the very least, give it a year to organize itself into something that might prove effective.
obviously you werent around for the first one exploiting loopholes (and also led to the theft of many pieces of office furnature and equiptment. with the second one you mentioned, Crimmond, it is our understanding that the event happened whilst they were UN members, and they left during the TPP trial after, which is a massive loophole prooving the ineffectiveness of this

Mikitivity

30-04-2005, 05:40

obviously you werent around for the first one exploiting loopholes (and also led to the theft of many pieces of office furnature and equiptment. with the second one you mentioned, Crimmond, it is our understanding that the event happened whilst they were UN members, and they left during the TPP trial after, which is a massive loophole prooving the ineffectiveness of this

Actually my government is a sponsor of the United Nations Organizations, so I've been lurking in many of the actual Pretenema panel discussions. With regards to the situations in Belem, my government seconded the motion for economic sancations (OOC: If you'll read the Belem thread in the International Incidents forum, you'll see I was fairly active), I can assure you that the theft of stolen office materials is something that my government pays no attention to (OOC: it is poor roleplaying when players throw UN ambassadors out of windows). Belem also never was a member of the UN, and I can paraphrase the Belemese government when I say, "[They've] never seen the point behind the body." Or so I was instructed when our two nations had a dialog going. (Again OOC: Belem actually is a great player to talk to ... he was happy to answer any questions to improve the quality of his roleplay. I can assure you he didn't have anything to do with this forum, but was happy enough to allow our governments to participate in an open roleplay.)

In the case of Crimmond, I am less certain if Crimmond was in the UN at any point in time, but when the investigations began this month, Crimmond was not to my knowledge in the UN. (OOC: Crimmond had no problem with the roleplay until it turned to warfare, and then in the International Incidents forum merely said that he / she didn't care for the quality of what was being thrown his / her way. This wasn't an objection to the TPP at all ... in fact, it was very clear Crimmond was open to the idea. Crimmond just didn't like inexperience war roleplayers trying to force policies and then replied stating that he / she was going to ignore anything that wasn't well thought out in his / her opinion. This is not a reason to abandon the process, but a big SIGN that we should respect Internationa Incidents forum roleplayers and in the future ask for them to coach us through things. I've met very few NationStates experience roleplayers who are so closed minded that they'll immediately dismiss a newbies attempts to roleplay simply because they are from the UN forum. In fact, most players are really interested in political or military "conflicts" so long as they are well written and interesting. This isn't a fault of the resolutions, but again points to *our* relatively small amount of experience in playing their game in their rules. Essentially, I've rarely seen good roleplayers come to this forum and tell us how to run things, so when we jump over there, we HAVE to respect what they like and give them an out of character reason to want to be part of the process.

I've managed to successfully do this with the International Red Cross twice ... but it takes a heck of a lot more work than debating resolutions. I totally back the idea of the TPP and believe that if we focused on allowing newbies more chances to create *new* resolutions here, that we can roleplay international diplomats in a way that would be very welcomed in the II forum. Though I honestly think it is going to be rare that somebody will invite a bunch of nations into a situation where they are cast as not only the "bad guy" but the "loser" in a conflict, eventually somebody will be interested.

In the real world, genocide happens. Sadly on a regular basis. It is in cases of small countries that people care about, when the international community *can* and has made a positive difference. Eventually an open minded smaller nation will present itself, and the TPP will shine. I'm asking that you seriously drop this repeal and give the TPP a chance to connect UN debates with International Incidents forum roleplays in a way that few other resolutions offer.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

30-04-2005, 06:02

NOTING Resolution #83 - EON Convention on Genocide,

AFFIRMING the stance of the United Nations in preventing genocide and ensuring essential human rights,

-snip-

I don't fully understand. So, the Eon Convention resolution set up the TPP, but repealing Humanitarian Intervention is what will allow it the balls it needs to make a difference? Or am I misreading.

Maybe if you were to explain the whole reasoning behind this repeal proposal from the beginning I'd understand. I don't really know much about either resolution, except that I think TilEnca and Gwenstfani put a lot of critical thought and work into writing them. I don't understand what the problem is.

Mikitivity

30-04-2005, 06:11

The representative from Krioval is appalled at this insinuation.

Good, as any nation that is opposed to genocide should be. However that does not change the fact that your government has put more effort into promoting a motion that would effectively suggest that genocide is OK. I don't think this is your intent, but that is what the message will come across as.

I will now "ping-pong" style (a form of debate I detest, as it is confrontational) explain why my government feels this way:

We would like to make it clear that, with no clear rules governing the function and organization of TPP in cases of military intervention, it is hardly upon a single nation to 'ad lib' an entire committee into efficiency. The resolution in question is flawed, and hearing other UN members refer to TPP's failure to resolve crises is casting a pall upon the efficacy of the United Nations as an institution.

UN resolutions are excellent ways to make general statements of international will, but given that they can not:

1) exceed a very limited number of characters, and
2) target individual nations

What you are suggesting is completely illogical. A set of "clear rules" would take some time to draft out, and would be against NationStates "game mechanics" principals, in that they would require or imply that certain forum actions take place and that individual nations could be targetted for action / response. (OOC: The mods would be down your neck in a heart beat ... seriously don't push this point, I'm sure they'll agree that too specific is a NIGHTMARE for them.)

As for making rules, your nation could easily have used this forum or the UNO to propose informal rules. In fact, you still may do so in either location.

OOC: In many of the feeder regions, players have taken it upon themselves to set up _non_ enforceable regional rules. In times of crisis, I've watched the North Pacific rules thrown out the window by a Delegate turned dictator. The moderators have said they won't interfere with that process, but I've seen a number of moderators and experienced players express that they *like* seeing creativity in players. They also said they won't stop playes from establishing their own rules ... they just will not enforce those rules. That said, if you feel there are rules that need to be created, I've not yet seen you suggest what those rules are. Please seriously consider being a part of the process ... it isn't working, because it is largely being crafted by Gwenstefani and the Venerable Liberatarians. Others have added positive feedback, but they need people who will give them critical advice and fix any problems, not somebody looking to pull the plug. The saying is "Rome was not build in a day."

Resolution 92 passed on 14 February 2005. By my calculations, that is seventy-four days that it has been in effect. What shocks me is more that TPP wasn't made ready to deal with cases of genocide until March. There have been plenty of instances of genocide during the past seventy-four days, and only two have been brought to TPP's attention. This is scandalous, and I would rather refocus the efforts of the United Nations on bringing culprits of genocide to justice since committees seem woefully inadequate in performing humanitarian intervention, and multinational coalitions including non-UN members may be more effective.

Please refresh us your government's efforts to prevent genocide sooner? You did join the panel, which was very appreciated. But how many other nations did you ask to join the panel? My point is simple: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I will submit the scandalous effort is a lack of interest. While I know your government has participated in a positive light for the panel, the panel needs MORE help, not attacks. The bottom line, if you are complaining that the panel isn't working, it is in part a reflection on your nation and my nation and all the other nations present in the UN (well, not the newbies).

But in Mikitivity we never expect newborns to stand on two feet and begin dancing. Human children take years to learn to walk and talk. The panel is still young.

With that in mind, I can tell you exactly why my government has been SLOW to respond ... we've had disaster recovery teams in Neo Tyr and in Ottoman Khaif. We are one nation, but in addition to sending massive amounts of aid (OOC: in the International Incidents forum), we've *tried* to support the panel.

I think it is unrealistic to expect one nation to constantly do everything that any single government wants and in short order.

[OOC: Seriously, if I had more time, I would have helped Chris and James recruit more nations and attempted to coach them in international incidents roleplaying more ... but I don't. My hands are full. But I honestly believe the solution is to just get folks to SLOW down, not pull the plug because they rushed. In fact, I'd dare say OCCly that the failure with Crimmond was because Chris and James probably feared somebody would cry that the TPP in slow to move ... so they rushed, and their coalition fell apart. In the real world stopping genocide is a pain in the arse. That is why it happens frequently. The point of the resolution here or in the real world isn't to always stop it, but to help us stop it when we can. Nothing is 100% effective, especially when it is built on goodwill and cooperation.]

Irrelevant to this discussion, and I'd figured that you'd know better. Non-UN members aren't to be affected by UN resolutions normally. That Resolution 92 is incorrectly being applied to non-UN members shows the lengths to which some nations will go in order to extend authority onto others. While I tend to avoid the 'national sovereignty' argument, I find it improper, to say the least, to compel non-UN members to comply with some UN resolutions without the benefit of a vote to affirm or repudiate those resolutions, or without the protections of other UN resolutions. That is a blatant violation of national rights, namely the right to subject one's nation to UN oversight or not.

No, I think it does have a bearing in this case. The resolution was in part a statement reaffirming the Eon Convention, but at the same time, it was an attempt to encourage UN members to look outside the UN. While we can't just expect non-UN members to listen to UN resolutions, the panel can still investigate charges and even *consider* what actions to take. My government's opinion is that attitudes like yours, have put pressure on other governments to act in haste. While it is true that genocide is quick, my government feels that after a few failures, that UN members will find other ways to respond.

As opposed to a bunch of nations saying "we don't like what you're doing" but lacking sufficient force to back that up? How has TPP managed to make a dent in the prevention or cessation of genocide?

In the case of Belem I would say that the economic sanctions may finacially hurt that government to a minor degree, but in time it could send a single to another dictator that wishes to liquidate his population.

Krioval is redoubling its efforts. When a sink is clogged, you remove the blockage. We figure the best place to start is where the 'blockage' in effort is occurring - Resolution 92. Perhaps later, a new resolution that has fewer loopholes and potential abuses can be passed. Right now, having no resolution on the books for military intervention is better than what we have now.

I disagree. Earlier you complained that there were no rules, and now you are saying there should be no rules. I've yet to see your government's proposal for what the rules should be. My serious suggestoin is make your replacement resolution, if you really were telling the truth before, and show us your rules. Then your idea may have merit.

How about a year to see if independent organizations are capable of convincing others to intervene, without overt UN approval, and then selling the success story to us at that time? Part of my concern is that most governments really don't care about what's going on 'over there', but I seem to be part of a vocal minority interested in showing the situation as it is, rather than perhaps as we would like it to be.

You are right ...

goes to look at Red Cross records
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=38

Since your entire argument is based on the fact that you believe nations should offer aid and participate ... i.e. care, since I see that your government is not a member of the International Red Cross (formed more than 72-days ago), are you planning on correcting that oversight? Or will you also be submitting a repeal on that resolution as well? Remember, the Red Cross was formed back in 2003 ... and yet international activity related to the Red Cross has been supported by a very small minority of governments, of which, your government is not at this time included.

That said, I want to stress I have no problem with your government. I just feel your logic is wrong, and that you are hurting the organization and ability of the UN to promote tolerance outside of the UN more now by your proposed repeal.

Krioval

30-04-2005, 06:29

I don't fully understand. So, the Eon Convention resolution set up the TPP, but repealing Humanitarian Intervention is what will allow it the balls it needs to make a difference? Or am I misreading.

Sorry if I was unclear. EON set up TPP to prosecute individuals suspected of involvement in genocide, which I think is a wonderful addition to the 'toolbox' of the UN. If nothing else, it satisfies complaints that a person can hide behind an office of state to avoid 'paying the price' for vile acts. It also establishes a neutral and impartial venue for a trial that would otherwise carry the stigma of potential political biases. So TPP is a good idea in my eyes for dealing with individual people; presidents, generals, and so on.

EON went so far as to say that "Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention." Resolution 92 is not an extension of EON, but instead an (awkward) extension of the powers of TPP to now investigate entire nations and allow UN-backed military invasions, and people are distressingly pushing for non-UN countries to be targetable by Pretenama Panels.

I don't really know much about either resolution, except that I think TilEnca and Gwenstfani put a lot of critical thought and work into writing them.

TilEnca's resolution is perfectly fine. The only reason I included it was to showcase the differences between it and Res 92 as well as to show that I'm not a genocidal maniac bent on world domination (by affirming Res 83). Gwenstefani's resolution was specifically targeted by myself, Venerable Libertarians, and the current nation of YGSM (this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398091)) the day after Res 92 passed. It shows what we felt (and I continue to feel) are potential abuses of the resolution. While these concerns were addressed, and a system put into place to deal with them (this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398210)), there is nothing in any resolution to solidify those changes. I personally feel that Gwenstefani was onto something good, but seeing a total lack of support for following through on what we've currently got, and looking at the flaws inherent in Res 92, I feel that it needs to go.

Mikitivity

30-04-2005, 06:30

I don't fully understand. So, the Eon Convention resolution set up the TPP, but repealing Humanitarian Intervention is what will allow it the balls it needs to make a difference? Or am I misreading.

Maybe if you were to explain the whole reasoning behind this repeal proposal from the beginning I'd understand. I don't really know much about either resolution, except that I think TilEnca and Gwenstfani put a lot of critical thought and work into writing them. I don't understand what the problem is.

OOC: I'll just point to the off-site stuff related to Crimmond

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=102
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=103
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=117
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=124

Now for my short editorial. There really are very few players in the UN forum who roleplay. And fewer still who tend to roleplay in the same threads as other UN players. A player, New Matrix, somehow found the Pretenama Panel and requested intervention in Crimmond ... which got the ball rolling.

For the longest time, Gwenstefani wanted to start a UN based roleplay, but most UN players come here just to yell at people and tell them how stupid their resolutions are. :( Anyway, eventually enough people said they were interested in RPing something like this, so the process started.

In the course of the actions, everybody wanted to QUICKLY respond, because "lives" were at stake. Very noble indeed. But Crimmond, being an extremely large and experienced roleplaing nation (from 2003), presented serious logistical problems for a bunch nations (many of which are from 2004 and 2005). The math just wasn't there for support ... so Krioval is totally right to point out that there is a lack of interest. But that is *always* going to exist. We don't see but a small fraction of players posting to the UN forums for UN debates, I'm frankly pleased that ~20 players wanted to do this.

My honest opinion is to just give it time.

Krioval

30-04-2005, 06:56

Sorry about the 'table tennis', Mik. It's not my favored debate style either, given the length of our posts and the strength of our opinions. Let's see if I can do this without the massive quoting.

My primary concern deals with Res 92's creation of a "military wing but not really". As the UN cannot control a "world army", it's nigh pointless to me to change the function of a panel originally designated to carry out trials on individuals to suddenly be capable of authorizing invasions of other countries.

Second, some of the countries being invaded are not in the UN, so they're technically not violating resolutions that don't apply to them. Actually, that's a pretty big problem. Can we invade a non-UN country because of something they did while part of the UN? For that matter, can we invade a non-UN country for something they did without ever having been part of the UN? I don't approve of either option, frankly, because it opens the doors to all manner of abuse. Resolutions could be passed that classify something as a major human rights violation, and suddenly the UN could be convening Pretenama Panels to investigate people to whom the resolutions don't even apply.

Third, my government has offered to take refugees from a variety of different nations during the course of our time in international diplomacy. Quite often, this was extremely difficult for us from a variety of standpoints, but it was preferable to allowing people to be killed. Further, we intervened in the conflict between several nations and Farmina, and offered to chair a peace conference to stop a civil war and the execution of one million socialists. In nearly every case, Krioval chose diplomatic means to secure the lives of innocent people even though the nations intent on bloodshed were at least twice our size in both population and military force.

Fourth, our participation in international organizations is irrelevant to this repeal. Krioval gives aid to where and when we wish. Some of our money probably makes its way to the IRCO despite Krioval's past problems with fanatical Christians, and the symbolism therein.

Fifth, in response to questions about UN nations "looking outside the UN", Krioval deals almost exclusively with non-UN members in the international arena, which means that we have to deal with the fact that our resolutions don't apply to them while still attempting to preserve the spirit of those resolutions. Quoting text or convening a panel is not a substitute for sending in a team of diplomats (or assassins, for that matter), or gathering a coalition of allies regardless of UN membership. Res 92 hobbles that process in my view, by creating a "someone else will deal with this" attitude on the part of its supporters. The resolution passed with over 11,000 votes. If the average number of votes cast by a single person was fifty, that would still mean that 220 people voted for this. Where are they? I'll tell you where. They're sitting down patting themselves on the back for a job well done while ignoring the sad fact that they've done nothing to combat genocide.

Finally, I feel that this misapplication of TPP has significant potential to embarrass the United Nations as either a toothless panel that debates without end, or as an inquisitory board that punishes non-UN members in defiance of international law.

Mikitivity

30-04-2005, 07:11

First of all, I completely appreciate your reply. My government would like that to be noted.

Now, to address some of the key points of your reply. My government only provided medical support to the UN forces interested in intervening in Crimmond, so we share your nation's concern about the possible creation of a bi-lateral force under UN authority. However, we do believe that as nations (UN members or not) we are not prohibited from entering into conflicts with the goal of providing more stability. To that end, a better way to enter into a conflict, is to do so with as many nations possible under a combined command.

My government already expressed its opinion that we should have used the threat of sanctions to put an end to the crisis. Not because we felt this would save many elven lives, but rather that it would reduce the possibility of future genocides.

I'd submit that it is still premature to call for a repeal of this resolution, when the panel has not yet had the chance to explore other options. One nation pointed out that they felt covert UN ops would have been an option. I think there are even more possibilities, but would ask that we wait for a much longer period before being quick to judge.

[OOC: Unrelated, but I was trying to book a swiss hotel while writing in this thread, and the rates jumped 20 CHF per night. DRAT!]

Texan Hotrodders

30-04-2005, 07:26

OOC: I'll just point to the off-site stuff related to Crimmond

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=102
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=103
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=117
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=124

Now for my short editorial. There really are very few players in the UN forum who roleplay. And fewer still who tend to roleplay in the same threads as other UN players. A player, New Matrix, somehow found the Pretenama Panel and requested intervention in Crimmond ... which got the ball rolling.

For the longest time, Gwenstefani wanted to start a UN based roleplay, but most UN players come here just to yell at people and tell them how stupid their resolutions are. :( Anyway, eventually enough people said they were interested in RPing something like this, so the process started.

In the course of the actions, everybody wanted to QUICKLY respond, because "lives" were at stake. Very noble indeed. But Crimmond, being an extremely large and experienced roleplaing nation (from 2003), presented serious logistical problems for a bunch nations (many of which are from 2004 and 2005). The math just wasn't there for support ... so Krioval is totally right to point out that there is a lack of interest. But that is *always* going to exist. We don't see but a small fraction of players posting to the UN forums for UN debates, I'm frankly pleased that ~20 players wanted to do this.

My honest opinion is to just give it time.

OOC:

A Saloon Story (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382301)

The Great DodgeBall War (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434)

These are the only RP’s I’ve done (on these forums, with this account) that are of much substance.

Mik is absolutely correct about the situation here. Most people come here to debate and complain about a resolution or complain about the UN in general. Very few come for the possible RP aspect of it.

I was glad to see more RP-related discussions coming up with players like DLE, Vastiva, Tekania, and Krioval participating regularly in the UN forum. I think the UN is a great possible source for material that can be used to start an RP. I’m hoping we can get more people to participate in UN RP, especially in UNO’s like the IRCO, TPP, UNCIAT, UNWODC, and UNSC. (Was that enough acronyms? :D )

I would also like to echo Mik's advice about not jumping into the RP forums so quickly. You need to read the stickies carefully and haunt the forums for a few days reading random threads to get a sense of the roleplaying conventions that govern the RPs. Particularly in the case of a war RP, you need to do some reserach and make sure you have the facts about your nation together. It's a good idea to ask people for help and be mildly embarrassed right away rather than to jump in, make a n00b mistake, and ruin any chance that these people will ever RP with you again. :)

Krioval

30-04-2005, 07:28

See, I understand the government of Mikitivity's concerns, but at the same time, I see Resolution 92 as problematic precisely because it encourages complacency. Talking about "preventing future genocide", especially in non-UN nations, is fine, but threatening a single nation with sanctions, even if signed by a hundred nations, is meaningless if that nation doesn't trade with the hundred otherwise. The UN is not the organization that seems likely to advocate methods that are likely to stop genocide: weapons of mass destruction, assassination of key government officials, trade wars (not simple sanctions, believe me), espionage, and sabotage. And before you ask, Krioval is fairly skilled in the use of all of those methods, though we tend to like the trade war due to its lack of killing and abundance of transparency.

It does bother me that I am one of the more militaristic nations in the UN presently (and certainly on the panel). That, to me, explains why nothing is getting done. Setting aside for the moment that Krioval is proscribed from using troops and armament above the level a defending nation possesses, we are unable to support what amounts to a half-assed military operation unsupported by numbers. Resolution 92 encourages exactly that kind of behavior, in my eyes, because it promises a nice convenient solution to genocide: complain to TPP organizers, sit back, and watch the genocide stop. Its reliance on a panel not designed for the purposes for which it is currently being used are tremendous drains on initiative to actively intervene in cases of genocide.

Vastiva

30-04-2005, 08:41

OOC:

A Saloon Story (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382301)

The Great DodgeBall War (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434)

These are the only RP’s I’ve done (on these forums, with this account) that are of much substance.

Mik is absolutely correct about the situation here. Most people come here to debate and complain about a resolution or complain about the UN in general. Very few come for the possible RP aspect of it.

I was glad to see more RP-related discussions coming up with players like DLE, Vastiva, Tekania, and Krioval participating regularly in the UN forum. I think the UN is a great possible source for material that can be used to start an RP. I’m hoping we can get more people to participate in UN RP, especially in UNO’s like the IRCO, TPP, UNCIAT, UNWODC, and UNSC. (Was that enough acronyms? :D )

I would also like to echo Mik's advice about not jumping into the RP forums so quickly. You need to read the stickies carefully and haunt the forums for a few days reading random threads to get a sense of the roleplaying conventions that govern the RPs. Particularly in the case of a war RP, you need to do some reserach and make sure you have the facts about your nation together. It's a good idea to ask people for help and be mildly embarrassed right away rather than to jump in, make a n00b mistake, and ruin any chance that these people will ever RP with you again. :)

Converting Vastiva's near-constant humanitarian missions to IRCO ones - or having IRCO sponsorship - would be easy enough. UNAIDS could be an extension of this, as could UNWODC and NDAO.

At the moment, we are doing our own thing in space, have no use for UNSC action ("Establish permanent Lunar base") as we aren't interested in the moon. However, we could have our orbiting platform used by UNSC missions as a refueling station without a problem.

UNEC missions would seem to be to "less fortunate" nations, so Vastiva would support providing books and educational technology if asked to do so.

TPP is being done well by Gwenstephani... and we have quite forgotten what the UNCIAT is.

OOC: We will also help others in RPing these situations in NS or II, as best we can.

Waterana

30-04-2005, 09:32

The Pretenama Panel does have the ability to scare the heck out of small non-roleplaying nations like me. It was another nation bringing up the possibility of bringing Waterana before TTP that made me realise I had gone way too far with my crap in that other thread (none if that new legislation is happening by the way). So even if it has limited teeth against bigger nations, it certainly does have teeth against smaller ones.

It wasn't that I didn't want to RP fighting my case, it was the fact that I just know I am nowhere near a good enough RPer (in fact I'm rubbish at it) to hold my own doing it. Even though nothing formal happened, you can count Waterana as a sucess story for the TPP if you wish because just the threat was enough to make us back down.

I personally don't think the TPP has been given enough time to really show whether its effective or not and also think it needs more than two examples to prove its worth or otherwise.

Vastiva

30-04-2005, 09:35

You make the point - it needs actual teeth to be more then a paper tiger.

Krioval

30-04-2005, 09:47

Waterana

30-04-2005, 10:02

As I remember the discussion, Waterana was already reconsidering amending the property seizure part of the legislation based on nothing more than Krioval's lowering of what we considered a strong reputation. I think I may have indicated I'd likely refuse trade too. TPP was invoked improperly in that circumstance (negotiations were already underway) and in an utterly ham-fisted manner. And when Krioval can say that someone was ham-fisted in invoking threats of force, it usually means that the threat was disproportionate.

Though that brings up another issue - TPP can be invoked against just about anything, and severity of the case doesn't seem to be the primary concern so much as imposing one's will onto another. That bothers me.

Yes you are right about that. I was reconsidering because of what you said above but it was the TPP threat by another nation that scared me into writing my last post in that thread. I intended dragging it out a bit further with you before backing down on just the property seizure part and ending it in a compromise.

Just the fact that most if not all nations here could easily destroy my little non-militaristic nation (and I couldn't RP the war in a pink fit) without even raising a sweat was teeth enough to make us back right down damm quick.

Gwenstefani

30-04-2005, 13:23

Firstly, apologies if I repeat anything- I admit I have not had time to read everything posted thoroughly yet- but I really feel the need to throw in my two cents worth.

The Pretenama Panel has not been in action for very long. We only very recently recruited enough member to form a panel- the reason we could only impose economic sanctions on Belem was because we didn't have enough members to form a panel to debate the issue. Crimmond therefore was our first case, which on hindsight was a bad idea for a committee so new and inexperienced, what with Crimmond being one of the most powerful nations around.

It is true in the real world, as well as in NS, that superpowers are often above justice. That doesn't need to be the case, but at the moment, yes it is probably true that TPP is not powerful enough to bring it to justice. Again, that doesn't always need to be the case.

You can't just throw something away after the first failure. It has been noted at many points throughout the Crimmond process that in many ways this was a test case to highlight any flaws and weaknesses in the legislation that we can now amend and improve upon. You learn from your mistakes. And TPP will get better for them. Practice makes perfect.

I think it is unfair, and untimely, for you to want to disband TPP already after only one operation.

Gwenstefani

30-04-2005, 13:39

Second, some of the countries being invaded are not in the UN, so they're technically not violating resolutions that don't apply to them. Actually, that's a pretty big problem. Can we invade a non-UN country because of something they did while part of the UN? For that matter, can we invade a non-UN country for something they did without ever having been part of the UN? I don't approve of either option, frankly, because it opens the doors to all manner of abuse. Resolutions could be passed that classify something as a major human rights violation, and suddenly the UN could be convening Pretenama Panels to investigate people to whom the resolutions don't even apply.

If TPP was a non-UN organisation, we could do exactly the same thing. It could intervene in the affairs of a non-UN member for committing genocide. And it could do this however it liked, by any means, with any consequences. UN TPP however, is bound by rules and legislation, which is adhered to, although not part of Res 92 (because that would be illegal- otherwise, I would have submitted rules to TPP).

Third, my government has offered to take refugees from a variety of different nations during the course of our time in international diplomacy. Quite often, this was extremely difficult for us from a variety of standpoints, but it was preferable to allowing people to be killed.

And indeed, in the case of Crimmond, our first option was the diplomatic approach to ask Crimmond to allow the safe passage of all Elves out of the country to be transported to safe nations willing to house them. TPP will always seek a diplomatic approach first. However, Crimmond refused to allow this and doubled its efforts to kill the population. We were then forced to consider military intervention.

You repeatedly argue that TPP doesn't do much to help the victims of genocide. Are you suggesting, then, that no TPP will help more? Incidentally, you can repeal Res 92, but TPP will still exist, just without official UN approval (but no UN disapproval either- still perfectly legal).

Gwenstefani

30-04-2005, 13:43

Resolution 92 encourages exactly that kind of behavior, in my eyes, because it promises a nice convenient solution to genocide: complain to TPP organizers, sit back, and watch the genocide stop.

Resolution 92 states that the coalition of nations bringing the case to TPP should essentially be the ones carrying out the intervention with any support they can muster. They are therefore bound to help out. TPP is designed to assist and regulate interventions that could ostensibly happen anyway, except with less control and less success.

Granted the Crimmond affair was still unsuccessul. But again, it was our first attempt. Don't end the process prematurely.

Gwenstefani

30-04-2005, 14:08

Though that brings up another issue - TPP can be invoked against just about anything, and severity of the case doesn't seem to be the primary concern so much as imposing one's will onto another. That bothers me.

No it can't. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, or a really severe case of widespread human rights abuse, although I can't think of any example other than genocide or ethnic cleansing that would fit the bill.

TPP has systems in place to stop it being used for any purpose.

Krioval

30-04-2005, 21:13

Gwenstefani, while I think that the intent behind using TPP to stop actively ongoing genocide is impressive, the reality of the situation is that not only does it currently fail to meet any threshold for success, but it also demonstrates the laxity of the UN as a whole to deal with "yet another committee". The loopholes in Resolution 92 have been closed by a decision of a minority of UN members, and there is technically nothing to prevent an inquisition against a non-UN member while there is also the issue of whether TPP is effective at all in these cases.

For me, it's the classic "it doesn't work, and if you make [X] changes, it won't work" scenario. As it stands, TPP is toothless due to UN apathy. There's no easy way around this. If it were "toughened up", then there'd be the dangerous precedent of litigating against non-UN countries. Not involving TPP in this process would make it a lot easier to prosecute nations in which genocide is occurring regardless of their UN membership.

This isn't, at least by my count, the first failure of TPP. The first failure was technically the total inability of the organization to stop the execution of people with sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases in Belem. In that case, TPP didn't even get involved until all the patients were dead. That is not a success. In Crimmond, TPP was unable to consider the nuances of diplomatic, covert, and military operations, as well as to drum up sufficient support to compel Crimmond to pay attention. While TPP was deliberating (poorly), forces outside the UN were doing something. It's time to face up to the fact that TPP is not doing the job it was supposed to do, and that frankly, we can do better.

Krioval

30-04-2005, 21:17

What I do suggest is that Resolution 92 be repealed, and then an International Security measure be passed to make UN members better able to deter genocide and egregious abuses of human rights through show of arms. Then I'd consider a Human Rights proposal that allows TPP to investigate both genocide (as it currently does) and human rights abuses committed by individuals, as TilEnca had originally intended.

Venerable libertarians

01-05-2005, 04:24

TilEnca's resolution is perfectly fine. The only reason I included it was to showcase the differences between it and Res 92 as well as to show that I'm not a genocidal maniac bent on world domination (by affirming Res 83). Gwenstefani's resolution was specifically targeted by myself, Venerable Libertarians, and the current nation of YGSM (this thread) the day after Res 92 passed. It shows what we felt (and I continue to feel) are potential abuses of the resolution. While these concerns were addressed, and a system put into place to deal with them (this thread), there is nothing in any resolution to solidify those changes. I personally feel that Gwenstefani was onto something good, but seeing a total lack of support for following through on what we've currently got, and looking at the flaws inherent in Res 92, I feel that it needs to go.

Indeed the text of Gwenstefanis proposal was totally open to abuse as the nation of loretana I think it was found out very quickly! However TPP as it is now had been Fixed as it were and i was glad to lend it the support of my nation and region. As a participant i grew frustrated in the matter of Belem as the 19 minimum members for selection for a Panel as stated in the rules took forever to gather. The end result of that was that Belem had completed its Genocide before a Panel could be set up to stop it. I propose we do not use Belem in our examples as it was not dealt with by a Panel.
The First real example of a panel in action was the Crimmond Investigation. Again it took forever to begin this panel as a Chair had to be Elected. The Voting on this was manic with members being vague etc! Yet the Panel was electric with posts and participation. When Crimmond Openly admitted to genocide and using its massive size and that of its allies to scare off the Panel declared it didnt care what the panel thought it was finally decided to use military means to force the crim to stop.
This is where the whole thing went diddies up! My inexperience in war RP, although my opening Assault was well written and open ended to facilitate others to join and RP, was Immediatly dismissed by the Crim RP'er who decided to godmode my nation to betsy,
I indeed Godmoded the assasination attempt on Lord Byron in an attempt to give my real life persona a back seat as i had been called into work on my day off and could not continue the rp untill much later. This was explained to the Crim OOC in my opening Assault and had he/she wanted to RP the War He/she could have done so easily. Instead My efforts were Dismissed and the resulting confusion led the assault to fall through. Nations Deserted the Attack, others had no idea what to do or where to go and as For your Nation Krioval, and that Of YGSM I had requested Your assistance in the BCC (Battle Control Center)which i had assumed would be accepted due to both your nations being on the Panel but neither your nation or that of YGSM participated further. (edit... Not true! YGSM danced a Pixie army of Godmoding size over the border into Crimmond only to be told by crimmond that it owned europe! which was funny)

TPP 0001 as i have called it failed for these reasons.
1, Inexperience of the RP'ers.
2, Crimmond not desiring a role play of a war situation.
3, RL getting in the way and Time zone Restrictions.
4, Nations involved in the Panel deciding they cant be involved after it was decided to Go to war. In for a penny, In for a pound should be the rule here.

one other point, I read what you said regarding needing more than 3 hrs sleep. I am with you there buddy! Its now 4:23 am as i type this.

Venerable libertarians

01-05-2005, 04:54

Proof of Crimmonds intolerance and Unbelievable Arrogance......

Posted in the Civil HQ to inform the realm of the events of the War .......

3 days ago The Principality of Templar Crusaders WAR UPDATE......

There has been an assasination attempt on Lord Esheram Byron of the Tmplar Crusaders. He is currently in a coma and the assasin is at large and presumed From the Nation of Crimmond.

Further Updates as they develope,
Prince Alvetti of the Medici.

Telegram recieved By Templar Crusaders, Home nation of Lord Byron from Crimmond.....

OOC: I am going to pretend I did not read this blatent violation or RP protocal. I will not lecture you on how I and ONLY I can control my forces. I am going to warn you that if this happens again, your nation will be annihilated. And I've been playing long enough that I could find an IC reason to do it, too.

Reply from Templar Crusaders......

OOC! Ok where can this War RP protocol be found to be read and considered? And i do not fear your Bully Boy threats.

"I am going to warn you that if this happens again, your nation will be annihilated. And I've been playing long enough that I could find an IC reason to do it, too."

Do your worst!
Who exactly does this Guy think he is treatening a nation of the realm for its duty to report to the Members of the Hibernian Task force matters that concern their nations? Let it be Noted that the Assasination attempt used the word "presumed".

Krioval

01-05-2005, 05:25

OOC:

And in fact, that's the OOC impetus behind the IC repeal proposal. Mixing UN committee RP and II RP is almost always going to be a mess unless there's some overlap. Seeing as how I'm one of the few people on TPP list who actively posts in II (and sometimes NS), that's problematic. Add to that I'm in the middle of two major RPs here, I moderate another website's forums, and I have the little issue of having to show up at my job and sometimes hang out with friends, and it becomes too much. It was absolute hell getting TPP organized for this factor alone.

IC:

Krioval maintains that the failure of the Pretenama Panel to investigate Belem or to successfully resolve the crisis in Crimmond is endemic to its nature, that being as a court to try individuals as per Resolution 83. The text of Resolution 92 creates a difficult situation for the Pretenama Panel also because the United Nations is forbidden from raising a military force. Krioval fully intends to undo this well-intended but ill-conceived resolution that allows nations to assuage their consciences while doing nothing to combat the terror of genocide.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

01-05-2005, 06:28

It's time to face up to the fact that TPP is not doing the job it was supposed to do, and that frankly, we can do better.

What is the replacement resolution you are proposing?

Vastiva

01-05-2005, 07:27

Krioval

01-05-2005, 07:43

What is the replacement resolution you are proposing?

What I do suggest is that Resolution 92 be repealed, and then an International Security measure be passed to make UN members better able to deter genocide and egregious abuses of human rights through show of arms. Then I'd consider a Human Rights proposal that allows TPP to investigate both genocide (as it currently does) and human rights abuses committed by individuals, as TilEnca had originally intended. (post 29)

That said, I don't have a rewrite already drafted, as I just came up with the idea of the repeal yesterday, and have the barest of ideas where the UN would go afterward. Ultimately, I could deal with no replacement, a replacement focusing on beefing up military force in general, a replacement focusing on extending the focus of TPP to more general human rights violations other than genocide to prosecute individuals, or both replacement resolutions.

My view is that the way things currently stand are counterproductive, and as I consider a weak or toothless response to be worse than none whatsoever.

Magna_Cartman

01-05-2005, 09:33

Now for my short editorial. There really are very few players in the UN forum who roleplay. And fewer still who tend to roleplay in the same threads as other UN players. A player, New Matrix, somehow found the Pretenama Panel and requested intervention in Crimmond ... which got the ball rolling.

I thought Magna Cartman bought it to the TPP's attention :S

Magna_Cartman

01-05-2005, 10:04

Pojonia

01-05-2005, 15:48

Thank you very much for posting everything we need right in the thread. Love!

It looks pretty good, but quick question -

NOTES WITH REGRET the ineffectiveness of the Pretenama Panel, as convened under the auspices of Resolution #92 - Humanitarian Intervention, to form a suitable intervention force to rapidly and effectively stem the tide of an ongoing genocide in April 2005

Could I hear the logic that leads up to this notation? What, exactly, happened in 2005?

Gwenstefani

01-05-2005, 16:39

and there is technically nothing to prevent an inquisition against a non-UN member while there is also the issue of whether TPP is effective at all in these cases.

Without Resolution 92 there is nothing to stop such a thing either.

This isn't, at least by my count, the first failure of TPP. The first failure was technically the total inability of the organization to stop the execution of people with sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases in Belem. In that case, TPP didn't even get involved until all the patients were dead.

That was because at the time we didn't have enough members to convene a panel. So essentially you're saying that The Pretenama Panel failed to stop genocides that occurred before it was formed. Geez. Sorry about that. I guess maybe if I was born a few months earlier...

It's time to face up to the fact that TPP is not doing the job it was supposed to do, and that frankly, we can do better.

As I've said: give it a chance. Crimmond was our first attempt and it was beyond our scope for a newly created, inexperienced and relatively weak panel. That will change. We are already using the experience in Crimmond to improve the way TPP works.

And TPP may not always be able to stop genocide. Perhaps Crimmond will always be too big to stop (I disagree though, given time). But even in RL, the UN can't always help. Shall we disband the UN then? What if the next 3 TPP cases succeed?? We may never know if you get your way.

Krioval

01-05-2005, 19:50

Magna Cartman would not support any move to repeal resolution #92 as this would in our opinion tie TPP's hands considerably.

Consider this - person A is tried for genocide, later person B continues where A left off and is tried as well, then person C comes along and does the same thing - the circle continues.

Quite frankly? If the nations of the universe are willing to allow the genocide to continue without becoming involved, then it's on all of us. The above scenario feeds back into the faulty reasoning that got Resolution 92 passed in the first place, that being that nations want to publicly declare their opposition to genocide without having to then follow up on that declaration with action.

The idea that nations will "do the right thing" without taking into consideration the costs of such action is naive at best and destructive at worst. Krioval's population, for example, is ardently against genocide to the point that we have allowed refugees to enter despite questions of economic and cultural impact. As it's turned out, those impacts were less than expected, and saving lives was of paramount importance. At the same time, ask the public of Krioval whether they support military intervention in a country larger than Krioval, and in which conflict many Kriovalian soldiers are expected to die, support drops off considerably. Factor in that the country in question is one most Kriovalians have never heard of outside of high school geography class, the percentage of support drops to about thirty.

In other words, three in ten Kriovalians would strongly consider going despite the risk. About two of those ten wouldn't go for any reason whatsoever, and oppose these types of military intervention. This leaves five who vary in their response depending on our chances of victory, the scale of the extermination, our relations with the country in question, and, loathe as I am to admit it, who is being eliminated. Frighteningly enough, some people oppose Krioval's intervention because they are convinced that TPP is some form of invincible superheroic organization that can wave a magic wand and make genocide disappear, metaphorically speaking.

For the record, I am not seeking to limit Resolution 92, but instead abolish it entirely, and replace it only if there is sufficient demand.

Krioval

01-05-2005, 20:08

Could I hear the logic that leads up to this notation? What, exactly, happened in 2005?

The Belem fiasco (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=78) - investigation requested on 21 March 2005 and terminated without decision on 11 April 2005

Request for intervention in Crimmond (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=102) - investigation requested on 16 April 2005; note that Crimmond was not, and is not, a member of the United Nations

Proceedings against Crimmond (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=103) - investigation initiated 18 April 2005 and ended in failure at close of April 2005; it is assumed that all Elves in Crimmond have been eradicated at the time of this message

Krioval

01-05-2005, 20:21

As I've said: give it a chance. Crimmond was our first attempt and it was beyond our scope for a newly created, inexperienced and relatively weak panel. That will change. We are already using the experience in Crimmond to improve the way TPP works.

And TPP may not always be able to stop genocide. Perhaps Crimmond will always be too big to stop (I disagree though, given time). But even in RL, the UN can't always help. Shall we disband the UN then? What if the next 3 TPP cases succeed?? We may never know if you get your way.

Krioval is actually more worried at the trend of indicting and convicting nations who are not bound by the resolutions that we of the United Nations pass. Besides, this is not 1978 Krioval where the interregnum government was wildly unpopular, and the demonstrations against its policies resulted in actual change. "Give it a chance" is not what Krioval needs to be hearing - we are unwilling to have international politicking destabilize the government back home.

Now, TPP declined to investigate Malatose for banning same-sex marriage while being in the UN, the HIV patients were foresaken in Belem due to international apathy, and the "Crimmond Situation", as it has been termed in the Kriovalian press, is a disaster. At least some part of nations' unwillingness to participate in TPP is that it is poorly defined as the resolution level, instead relying on a black-box function designed by twenty nations to determine TPP's powers. Again, having to explain that to the people back home is proving more and more difficult. As popular sentiment in Krioval begins to mount against the United Nations as a whole (it's at about 28% against, up from 11% at this time last year), the government of Krioval wishes to eliminate some of the unpopular resolutions, and #92 is at the top of their list right now. Return TPP to its original focus on individuals and respect the text of the EON Convention resolution, which mandated that nations should not be invaded on basis of TPP's decisions.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Gwenstefani

01-05-2005, 20:56

Firstly, would you please stop inappropriately citing Belem as an example of a TPP failure. I have repeatedly informed you that Belem occurred before TPP was even functional, so it was no wonder that by the time we were operational that it was by then too late.

Now, TPP declined to investigate Malatose for banning same-sex marriage while being in the UN
Because it did not constitute genocide, ethnic cleansing, or an offence serious enough to mandate TPP involvement, as per Res 92.

,the HIV patients were foresaken in Belem due to international apathy,
As in lack of member on TPP? Yes. But Res 92 had only just been passed.

Return TPP to its original focus on individuals and respect the text of the EON Convention resolution, which mandated that nations should not be invaded on basis of TPP's decisions.
The Eon Convention was left open to further amendments. It did not mandate that intervention could not occur on the basis of TPP's decisions. It actually said that intervention could not be justified on the basis of The Eon Convention. Res 92 provided this justification. Besides, Til Enca, the author of the Eon Convention, was a supporter of Res 92, and of humanitarian intervention as a concept.

Krioval

01-05-2005, 21:17

I will not stop referring to the Belem affair as a failure of TPP to become involved. TPP has existed since the passage of EON, which was in December 2004. Is it now to be believed that a committee requires four months to become active? The fact remains that TPP was in existence when the Belem crisis was brought to its attention, and the message to the world was "we're not ready to actually intervene". This is a failure. People died because we were unable to mobilize a response, thanks in large part to the arbitrary procedures and vague definitions given in Resolution 92.

Resolution 92 was passed on 14 February 2005. This is a matter of public record. Intervention in Belem was requested on 21 March 2005. This is also a matter of public record. All material or links to material relevant to that case are here for easy access. Over one month went by since Res 92 passed, and the committee was still "unready"? This makes Krioval wonder if it will *ever* be ready to deal with the exigencies of genocide or whether it will be relegated to a talking head that dispenses delightful condemnations of the act while not stopping it.

As for a UN member defying a human rights resolution and restricting its citizens unduly being classified as not being "an offence serious enough to mandate TPP involvement, as per Res 92", I think that should illustrate Krioval's dim view of Res 92 quite elegantly. We have a small group of nations who sit in judgment of others based on arbitrary definitions and protocols, yet lack the power to enforce a decision.

In other words, Res 92 has allowed TPP to become:

Open to abuse
Politically motivated to press for guilt
Operational in secret, and yet
Ineffective in carrying out a judgment

It conjures the idea of an inquisition that lacks the muscle to carry out a potentially rigged decision, which would be comical if not for the fact that Krioval is compelled to finance the organization! Repealing Resolution 92 would restore sanity to TPP while opening up avenues to pass new resolutions that prepare UN members militarily for combatting genocide and also to define what constitutes a severe enough human rights abuse to justify TPP's intervention with regards to individuals.

Gwenstefani

01-05-2005, 22:14

I will not stop referring to the Belem affair as a failure of TPP to become involved. TPP has existed since the passage of EON, which was in December 2004.

Only in the same way that every committee in every other UN Resolution that mentions one does. I.e. an imaginary committee that exists in theory. TPP is one of the few committees that has actually been formed. And it does take time. Nothing just magically appears. It has taken time and effort to form TPP, and the only reason it took so long is because this is a game, and it takes time for people living in different time zones with jobs and social lives to coordinate such things .

The fact remains that TPP was in existence when the Belem crisis was brought to its attention, [...] Resolution 92 was passed on 14 February 2005. This is a matter of public record. Intervention in Belem was requested on 21 March 2005.

Yes, and when Res 92 was passed it started off the chain of events leading to the actual creation of TPP. It didn't just magically appear on the passage of the proposal. Please be realistic. Obviously it takes time for things to get organised.

This makes Krioval wonder if it will *ever* be ready to deal with the exigencies of genocide or whether it will be relegated to a talking head that dispenses delightful condemnations of the act while not stopping it.

TPP has already been demonstrated to act as a deterrent to smaller nations committing genocide. Therefore it is working. And eventually it will be able to tackle larger and larger nations as it becomes more experienced and stronger. IT TAKES TIME THOUGH.

As for a UN member defying a human rights resolution and restricting its citizens unduly being classified as not being "an offence serious enough to mandate TPP involvement, as per Res 92", I think that should illustrate Krioval's dim view of Res 92 quite elegantly. We have a small group of nations who sit in judgment of others based on arbitrary definitions and protocols, yet lack the power to enforce a decision.

That's because Res 92 was specifically designed to address genocide and ethnic cleansing, just as the Eon Convention was. The Eon Convention would not sentence anyone in Malatose as you implied Res 92 should. And if you would like to see TPP's powers extended to include these things, then perhaps instead of repealing Res 92 to FURTHER restrict TPP's jurisdiction, you should draft an extension of Res 92 to include other crimes.

In other words, Res 92 has allowed TPP to become:
Open to abuse
Politically motivated to press for guilt
Operational in secret, and yet
Ineffective in carrying out a judgment
All rubbish.
UN rules did not allow us to put the fine print into the resolution, but TPP has strict regulations limiting its behaviour and preventing abuse. TPP does not operate in secret- it takes place in public forums that are open for everyone to see, the links to which are found in numerous places in the UN forums, including one of the stickies. TPP was not ineffective in carrying out a judgement- it made a judgement even in the case of Crimmond. The only ineffectiveness in the Crimmond case was the military intervention and that was because we were inexperienced and outnumbered militarily- both factors that can change if we are given the chance to actually develop TPP out of it's toddler-hood.

Krioval

02-05-2005, 00:42

I keep hearing that I should "just give it more time". How much? Mikitivity suggests an entire year. I think that'd be just short of criminal to be required to sit and wait that long for results. As far as smaller countries being dissuaded from genocide by TPP, they're also dissuaded by Krioval pointing a Hammer of Raijin at their capital. If anything, it's the threat of overwhelming force, not the source of the threat that matters. Heck, Krioval doesn't even have to mention force outright, we simply insist that one's international reputation would be lowered, trade stopped, and "oh by the way, I'd hate to see something unfortunate come of this". The citing of TPP's "success" in reducing the likelihood of small countries committing genocide is far more specious than my citing the TPP's failure in preventing, slowing, or stopping genocide in Belem.

With regard to what Resolution 92 does or does not do, the reason so many questions continue to exist is because the resolution is vague. This was brought up during the drafting phase, when delegate approvals were sought, when the resolution was up for vote, and after its passage. This resolution sailed through because people wanted to appear to be for human rights even though the resolution really ties up resources far more effectively than it promotes its (admirable) agenda. If it was meant for Res 92 to refer exclusively to genocide and ethnic cleansing, it should have said that. It doesn't, though, which is why it is extremely frustrating to determine what can be investigated under said resolution's authority. As far as extending Res 92, that sounds like a terrible idea - if Res 92 were to be later repealed, I'd be left with an eviscerated resolution, which has been ruled questionable at best under the current protocols of the United Nations.

The only "rules" governing TPP with respect to Res 92 are those agreed upon by members after the fact, which is potentially dangerous. This is because, as I have repeatedly said, TPP was intended to try individuals. A similar situation would be if Krioval granted the District Court of Torokara the ability to direct the military forces of Krioval, which would be disastrous even with added regulations. Without added regulations spelled out and ratified by Krioval, it would be a nightmare. That is the system currently governing TPP with regard to military intervention in UN and non-UN nations alike. I honestly wonder if Res 92 would have passed if it were stated clearly that non-UN nations could be targeted for intervention.

In closing, I find that there is an atmosphere of instability and uncertainty surrounding Resolution 92 and its invocation that is greatly disturbing to Krioval, and I further find that the inability of the measure's staunchest supporters to concede that a problem exists until practically forced represents a level of hubris that must not be allowed to continue.

The Lynx Alliance

02-05-2005, 03:28

i am in agreeance, somewhat, with krioval. there needs to be some seperation between this resolution, and the EON convention resolution. EON covers only genocide (the extermination of a race of sentient beings), where as what i believe HI was intending is protection of human rights, and the enforcement there of (via TTP). but the problem is that there is too much of a blur from this one that overlaps EON, which almost causes this to be EON part 2, thus technically, an amendmant on EON. also, another proposal has caused me to question the legality surrounding the use of TPP to enforce this resolution. that proposal proposed to use a body set up by another resolution in order to enact the resolution, and it's legality was questioned. now i am not sure as to whether the HI resolution was passed before or after the rule came in, but it is very much a borderline amendmant, and even states the use of TPP as set out by EON.

Vastiva

02-05-2005, 03:31

The Lynx Alliance

02-05-2005, 03:42

The Caliph sits back, munches popcorn, and wonders if this will be available on the "UN's GREATEST HITS" DVD vol 6, to be released later this year.

Seriously, a good debate, but without teeth, what is the TPP?
i guess you have to find a balence somewhere inbetween 'toothless tiger' and 'easily abused'. on one hand, criminals get away. on the other, innocent nations get dragged through the mud. but that isnt the only inherent problem with this resolution, as we have stated above in our previous post

Krioval

02-05-2005, 06:08

My concerns can be classified into two types - potential abuse ("ROWR! Do what we tell you or we'll smack you good!") and ineffectiveness ("We'd invade you, but you did say '...and what army', didn't you?"). They are broken down as follows.

Potential abuse:

Few nations currently sit in on TPP, and they're making all the decisions. This is a problem because investigations can be scuttled if as few as three people think that Resolution 92 doesn't apply. In a universe where not everything is as simple as "genocide" versus "no problem whatsoever". The investigation into whether Malatose was guilty of "extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale" never left the ground. While I don't dispute that a definite human rights crisis is occurring if people are killed, why is it that a formal hearing on whether denying civil rights to people based on a superficial characteristic in a UN member, in direct contravention of a UN resolution, isn't convened? Why should so few nations get such power.

Non-UN states are not in the UN, but can be subject to TPP's rulings. Crimmond was never in the UN, yet when genocide was occurring there, TPP was convened rather than seeking allies independently of the UN and conducting diplomatic, covert, or military operations to stop the atrocity. If TPP can essentially extend UN rule into countries that do not vote on UN policy, how is this respectful of national sovereignty?

There are no formal rules, in a UN resolution, governing TPP protocols. There are instead *voluntary* restrictions. If the composition of the panel were to change, however, what is to say that the rules couldn't morph as well?

What are the limits of TPP's authority? Can TPP order or allow use of a weapon of mass destruction? Are political assassinations acceptable? This was not an issue when TPP was a trial court for genocide, but as a would-be military wing of the UN, these questions and more are unanswered in Resolution 92.

Ineffectiveness:

Few nations sit on TPP, and they're unable to mobilize a coalition to deal with threats. Belem was practically ignored due to an insufficiency of nations to convene a panel. Crimmond was allowed to complete its reign of terror due to a lack of involvement in TPP. Lack of involvement and lack of ability to organize a military force will doom TPP. Better to pull it back a bit than to have the UN take additional reputation hits.

All options are unable to be put on the table. Is TPP going to be willing to do everything it takes to end genocide? Will assassinations be allowed? Other covert operations? Mirroring an above concern, TPP has no standing ruleset when it comes to types of intervention, and on-the-fly decisions do not serve the body of the UN.

Who runs the show? The chairperson runs the hearing, of course, but who commands the military forces under the UN banner?

What about non-UN nations who want to help? They can't sit on the panel, and there appears to be zero impetus to involve friendly nations outside this body to secure innocent people against genocide.

Paid for by the Opponents of Resolution 92. Think of the children. Vote "yes" to repeal Resolution 92 and restore sanity to the UN...somewhat.

Mikitivity

02-05-2005, 07:32

Yes, I keep saying, give it more time, and a year is a good estimate. FACT: the international red cross, has had virtually no roleplaying activity in nearly a year and a half, and yet it has not ONCE come under attack for the same sorts of things that are being said of the TPP. If you honestly want to see greater participation in something, then it really means doing the exact same thing you do when you have a proposed resolution or repeal, you have to telegram and invite others to participate. With the exception of Gwenstefani and the Venerable Liberatarians, I do *not* know if anybody else has tried this yet. But I don't think until a player can honestly say they have, that they have any leg to stand if advocating that there already has been enough time.

As for the level of participation in UN based RPs, I'm of the opinion many players don't have much time to devoit to NationStates. Maybe 15 minutes a day, 6 days a week. These players will vote and support things, and probably find UN resolutions interesting, in that there is only a very limited amount of daily issues, but the resolution tend to change each time (with the exception being debates about repeals, which tend to really rehash the general debate of the resolutions -- the records are there for you to look and see if my opinion is sound here, but this is what I've seen).

I'm of the opinion that we'll never have many players wanting to get involved in RPs ... but at the same time, I do not see this meaning I can't "pretend" that instead of NationStates having human players, many of whom simply don't have the time to devote to the game as others, that they will "largely" support RP activities. Furthermore, UN based RPs offer the minority of players that have the time, something to do other than yell at people about how stupid they feel resolutions are.

Krioval

02-05-2005, 08:24

The IRCO does not involve invading other countries. It cannot ever invade other countries. That's the whole point. TPP is a potential loose cannon, and then there's the question as to whether there are any cannonballs. It certainly hasn't stopped itself looking foolish for getting in a can't-win situation.

Vastiva

02-05-2005, 08:53

If the IRCO shows up, and you don't want them there, you wave a gun and they go away.

The TPP has tried to land armed forces into a non-UN nation.

BIG difference.

Magna_Cartman

02-05-2005, 10:13

The idea that nations will "do the right thing" without taking into consideration the costs of such action is naive at best and destructive at worst. Krioval's population, for example, is ardently against genocide to the point that we have allowed refugees to enter despite questions of economic and cultural impact. As it's turned out, those impacts were less than expected, and saving lives was of paramount importance. At the same time, ask the public of Krioval whether they support military intervention in a country larger than Krioval, and in which conflict many Kriovalian soldiers are expected to die, support drops off considerably. Factor in that the country in question is one most Kriovalians have never heard of outside of high school geography class, the percentage of support drops to about thirty.

I agree that there are expenses and issues that go along with any action taken with respect to putting a stop to genocide. In the case of Crimmond, Magna Cartman had to pay for our delegate to get to TPP, had to pay for accomodation, had to arrange military support and had to prepare it's military for any possible action.

Frankly, and not being up ourselves here - the contribution Magna Cartman was making to the TPP force was substantial. The support we gathered was also quite substantial. We of course had some opposition to the decision, especially given that we are in the middle of a civil war - but then again, our president is elected for life and isnt concerned about "if I do this, what will happen at the next election".

I doubt any nation's people would be happy with a country going into a losing battle. Frankly, when the TPP matures it should be powerful enough to take on most challenges it faces. Just remember, the TPP isnt taking ALL a nation's forces, only some (as decided by the individual nations).

Thomas Wilson, Delegate to the UN

Magna_Cartman

02-05-2005, 10:24

Few nations sit on TPP, and they're unable to mobilize a coalition to deal with threats.

Belem was practically ignored due to an insufficiency of nations to convene a panel. Crimmond was allowed to complete its reign of terror due to a lack of involvement in TPP. Lack of involvement and lack of ability to organize a military force will doom TPP. Better to pull it back a bit than to have the UN take additional reputation hits.

Beleem was around a month after these powers were given to TPP.

Crimmond was an unfortunate situation and frankly, TPP is not the only ones at fault here. Crimmond's techniques for the RP are poor. They had no interest in a diplomatic solution and pretty much had no interest in war RP. Their entire attitude "Do this or we will annihilate you" really shows that they can't RP fairly.

All options are unable to be put on the table. Is TPP going to be willing to do everything it takes to end genocide? Will assassinations be allowed? Other covert operations? Mirroring an above concern, TPP has no standing ruleset when it comes to types of intervention, and on-the-fly decisions do not serve the body of the UN.

I actually agree with this. There needs to be rules specifying what TPP can and cant do. Why can this not be done by a seperate resolution?

Who runs the show? The chairperson runs the hearing, of course, but who commands the military forces under the UN banner?

Same as last point

Gwenstefani

02-05-2005, 14:17

This is a problem because investigations can be scuttled if as few as three people think that Resolution 92 doesn't apply.

No, unless it a very clear case that it would not be relevant, then it would require the 15 panel members to decide whether it was a TPP concern (i.e. they would carry out stage 1 of the TPP proceedings). Correct, this was not done in the case of Malatose. But that was before even Belem. We did not have 15 nations to even do this. We were not operational before the case of Crimmond

Why should so few nations get such power.
Anyone wanting to be part of such decisions can be. Potentially the entire UN could be party to them. Yet the entire UN has not signed up- we therefore have to base such decisions on a representational basis- the UN members who have volunteered. And it is representational in that most UN members voted in favour of the proposal.

Non-UN states are not in the UN, but can be subject to TPP's rulings.
Without UN backing, any nation can intervene in a non-UN member's affairs. It could do this however it liked, for any purpose, by any means, regardless of the consequences. Res 92, and TPP legislation, regulates this in an attempt to make the outcome more favourable for everyone concerned.

There are no formal rules, in a UN resolution, governing TPP protocols/
That would be illegal under the current game rules I was not allowed to put the TPP laws up to a UN vote. However, all TPP actions are governed by all other UN resolutions, as well as TPP legislation which was drafted with the spirit of UN law in mind and put up for approval in the UN forums. It was amended until most of the initial objections of Res 92 were appeased. So really, they pretty much have been UN approved as much as they can be.

What are the limits of TPP's authority? Can TPP order or allow use of a weapon of mass destruction?
That issue came up in the case against Crimmond, and was unanimously ruled out. WMD can never be a useful tool in the fight against genocide as it does exactly what it is trying to prevent.

Few nations sit on TPP, and they're unable to mobilize a coalition to deal with threats. Belem was practically ignored due to an insufficiency of nations to convene a panel. Crimmond was allowed to complete its reign of terror due to a lack of involvement in TPP. Lack of involvement and lack of ability to organize a military force will doom TPP. Better to pull it back a bit than to have the UN take additional reputation hits.

Yes, at the time of Belem we did not have the 15 panel members to convene a panel. But look at us now- we have over 30 members. Signs that TPP is growing stronger. And yet you would like to prevent us from gaining more members and experience? At the same time arguing that we are too weak and inexperienced. It seems you do not even want to give us the chance to iron out the creases that you are so appalled at. Surely it would be better to fix the problem rather than throw the whole thing away before we've even tried to.

Is TPP going to be willing to do everything it takes to end genocide? Will assassinations be allowed? Other covert operations? Mirroring an above concern, TPP has no standing ruleset when it comes to types of intervention, and on-the-fly decisions do not serve the body of the UN.

Perhaps you'd like to be involved with the re-examination of TPP legislation we are considering. Certainly it will include the explicit phrase that avenues of diplomacy must be the first approach to ending the genocide.

Who runs the show?[/b] The chairperson runs the hearing, of course, but who commands the military forces under the UN banner?

It is voted on.

What about non-UN nations who want to help?[/b] They can't sit on the panel, and there appears to be zero impetus to involve friendly nations outside this body to secure innocent people against genocide.

Non-UN members do help. And wish to help. For the same reason we wanted to help in the first place. To try to put a stop to genocide.

Krioval

02-05-2005, 18:03

Gwenstefani

02-05-2005, 19:14

Krioval finds the debate at an impasse. We remain unconvinced of the merits of having TPP lead invasion forces into other nations, especially those outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The current situation has all the makings of a political "perfect storm" where TPP exceeds its jurisdiction, its authority, and its ability to solve problems all at the same time.

Yes Krioval, because you prefer unilateral invasions. Which are much more prone to abuse.

Regardless of the outcome of this repeal attempt, The Pretenama Panel will continue to exist, working outside the UN, doing the exact same role. Only it will become much less regulated if it doesn't have to abide by UN laws- non-UN members could join the panel... and so on and so forth.

Frisbeeteria

02-05-2005, 19:53

This is the current draft of the Repeal, right? I think this needs a bit of editing. Note that I am a Forum Mod, not a Game mod, so this review is not an official UN mod ruling, but I *am* quite familiar with the rules of the game and of the UN.
NOTING Resolution #83 - EON Convention on Genocide,

AFFIRMING the stance of the United Nations in preventing genocide and ensuring essential human rights,

RECOGNIZING the authority of the Pretenama Panel, as defined in Resolution #83, to try and sentence individuals implicated in the commission of genocide, the sponsoring nation

NOTES WITH REGRET the ineffectiveness of the Pretenama Panel, as convened under the auspices of Resolution #92 - Humanitarian Intervention, to form a suitable intervention force to rapidly and effectively stem the tide of an ongoing genocide in April 2005

HAVING CONSIDERED the immense potential for abuse given the text of that resolution, as demonstrated in February 2005

EMPHASIZING the need for a decisive and timely response to accusations of genocide or human rights abuses

DECLARES Resolution #92 to be null and voidIt's fine up to this point.

SUPPORTS the use of diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions by interested nations in combatting human rights abuses

SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the role of the Pretenama Panel in bringing those responsible for or complicit in acts of genocide to justice
These two lines imply new law or additional enforcement of current law. Repeals may only do one thing, and that is to repeal existing law. Anything that sounds like new law being proposed makes a repeal illegal. Lose the last two lines, and you're probably fine.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Mikitivity

02-05-2005, 20:47

These two lines imply new law or additional enforcement of current law. Repeals may only do one thing, and that is to repeal existing law. Anything that sounds like new law being proposed makes a repeal illegal. Lose the last two lines, and you're probably fine.

Krioval's last statement isn't proposing anything new, but reaffirming the Eon Convention on Genocide (which is not the subject of their repeal). I'd argue that the last statement is OK still, because the Pretenama Panel will still be around and as Krioval pointed out elsewhere can still focus on individuals.

If I may, while I disagree with Krioval's repeal, I do feel that it is very well written and clearly is focusing on the issue of international military invention. However, perhaps if others aren't focusing on this, this point could be reiterated by adding another clause stating this opinion.

[Again, this is not my government endorsing this proposal. We still feel that the net impact of this resolution / repeal will result in promoting genocide.]

Frisbeeteria

02-05-2005, 21:07

It's not so much that they're proposing new law, as that they are listed in the conclusions section.Descriptive: NOTING, AFFIRMING, RECOGNIZING, NOTES WITH REGRET, HAVING CONSIDERED, EMPHASIZING

Conclusive: DECLARES, SUPPORTS, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMSThe only conclusion a Repeal can draw is that the repealed Resolution is null and void.

By my reading, this could be fixed by moving the DECLARES line to the bottom, and changing SUPPORTS to SUPPORTING and AFFIRMS to AFFIRMING. Then they don't appear to be new conclusions from a repeal.

Mikitivity

02-05-2005, 21:13

Krioval

02-05-2005, 23:33

By my reading, this could be fixed by moving the DECLARES line to the bottom, and changing SUPPORTS to SUPPORTING and AFFIRMS to AFFIRMING. Then they don't appear to be new conclusions from a repeal.

Thanks for the help. I've made the changes to the proposal (first post) to reflect your suggestions.

Krioval

02-05-2005, 23:43

Yes Krioval, because you prefer unilateral invasions. Which are much more prone to abuse.

Where the heck does this come from? I was using diplomatic measures to put pressure on Waterana. Diplomatic measures usually don't involve unilateral (or any other) invasions unless the diplomats are establishing a beachhead in an embassy (which, seeing the opposition to the latest resolution, Krioval is forced to wonder if this is becoming commonplace!). With regard to Waterana, I never even mentioned force. I prefer multilateral coalitions to end genocide, but outside UN control, especially when dealing with non-UN offenders. Krioval has been remarkably consistent on this.

Regardless of the outcome of this repeal attempt, The Pretenama Panel will continue to exist, working outside the UN, doing the exact same role. Only it will become much less regulated if it doesn't have to abide by UN laws- non-UN members could join the panel... and so on and so forth.

TPP seems to already be flouting the big rule: UN resolutions don't apply to non-UN countries. Technically speaking, if a nation wishes to execute almost half its populace and crow about it to the entire universe, as long as it's not a UN member, the UN has no claim to jurisdiction in that case. I don't worry that a UN-unsupervised coalition isn't bound by UN resolutions; if Krioval were in a war with a non-UN country, it's not like we'd hesitate to use assassination or a WMD as a response (if needed, and sparingly). TPP isn't my "sacred cow" that must be preserved in whatever form. Krioval reacts to wars and atrocities depending on the circumstances involved, and frankly, we don't need a panel to convene when a few coded communications with the right nations' leaders will get the job done faster and better.

Mikitivity

03-05-2005, 01:31

TPP seems to already be flouting the big rule: UN resolutions don't apply to non-UN countries. Technically speaking, if a nation wishes to execute almost half its populace and crow about it to the entire universe, as long as it's not a UN member, the UN has no claim to jurisdiction in that case.

But be the same argument, there is no restriction (currently in place) in UN rules to prevent UN members from saying, "Bad _bad_ nation!"

If I may be so bold, the mistake you are making is assuming that by joining the UN, that our nations are surrending a right all nations have, namely to put pressure, be it diplomatic, economic, or other, on other socities.

The Humanitarian Intervention resolution actually grants the right to our governments to complain about the affairs in other nations under extreme situations. If the resolution were repealed, a UN "puppet" could propose a resolution that would say that UN members forfeit this right in the interest of international harmony or somesuch (perhaps a Political Stability issue).

Krioval

03-05-2005, 02:25

Where did I say, or for that matter imply, that UN members are giving up a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries? What I *said* was that the UN, which I daresay includes committees spawned under UN resolutions. TPP is technically "the UN" for the purposes of raising and using an army. Krioval, on the other hand, is not. The primary difference? TPP was formed by the UN, while Krioval was not. TPP should not have the power to launch invasions into non-UN states for this reason.

As far as the likelihood of a resolution passing that wouldn't allow intervention in other countries, it'd either be:

illegal,
easily evaded,
illegal and easily evaded,
impossible to get passed,
illegal, easily evaded, AND impossible to get passed,
and so on.

If humanitarian intervention were specifically banned, for example, Krioval could invade and claim to be doing it for territorial conquest. Then, once the situation was defused, Krioval says something to the effect of, "Well, there were too many people wearing pink on Tuesday, so we returned control of the country to its citizens." If it sought to ban all war, it'd contravene the Rights and Duties resolution. If it sought to ban all invasions, there's next to zero chance of passage, and then you'd simply have lots of passive-aggressive militaries that skirt non-UN nations' borders until war is declared on them and they're listed as the "defender".

OOC: Even by my reasonably loose standards for IC/OOC hybrid debate, using the potential for puppetwank to scuttle the right of UN members to complain ICly is taking this way too far. No resolution can restrict what any UN member can or cannot post to these forums, so "complaining" is protected.

Mikitivity

03-05-2005, 16:30

See, that is where our governments disagree. Any UN intervention is never going to include all UN members, but we do not mind the UN providing the frame work for a balanced / diverse investigation and then if necessary coordinating a multi-national operation.

There is nothing in the Humanitarian Intervention resolution that would prevent non-UN members from aiding in this process, and frankly my government remains firm in its support of the Pretenama Panel.

Krioval

05-05-2005, 18:17

The repeal proposal, as it appears in the first post of this thread, has been submitted. After being repeatedly told that the UN can intervene at will in non-UN affairs through a UN committee, and then later being told that TPP investigates genocide with zeal while ignoring slave labor, including that leading to the death and injury of the enslaved, Krioval sees no other choice than to repudiate a body defined by selective enforcement, selective investigation, and an inability to follow up on its decisions.

The repeal proposal can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Humanitarian)

Gwenstefani

05-05-2005, 19:59

Krioval

05-05-2005, 22:16

Then why are you sitting on a panel you are so opposed to? If you don't believe we can improve it by amending the existing TPP legislation (and instead want to abolish it altogether) why do you continue to be involved with it?

Simply put, I agree with the aims of the Pretenama Panel as outlined under Resolution 83, and I believe that individuals should be prosecuted for instigating or covering up acts of genocide. I think TPP could shine in such a role if given the opportunity, but it has instead been run into the ground by repeated questionable decisions regarding jurisdiction, inability to threaten all but backward nations, and the latest curveball - I'm being told that TPP is overwhelmingly concerned with genocide, but that forced labor doesn't merit attention, even if the slaves are being worked near to or fully to death.

If every new investigation creates another problem while not solving the previous ones, TPP as empowered by Res 92 is going to be the laughingstock of the United Nations, and quite possibly the entire international community.

Gwenstefani

05-05-2005, 22:26

Simply put, I agree with the aims of the Pretenama Panel as outlined under Resolution 83, and I believe that individuals should be prosecuted for instigating or covering up acts of genocide.

The only individuals we can prosecute are leaders of UN member states. So far, no UN member states have committed genocide. Or at least those who have have never been reported.

I'm being told that TPP is overwhelmingly concerned with genocide, but that forced labor doesn't merit attention, even if the slaves are being worked near to or fully to death.

If you want to extend the powers of TPP, draft a new resolution to do so. Res 92 was targeted specifically at genocide and ethnic cleansing, as was the Eon Convention. Personally, I would object to TPP being able to intervene on any UN law violation because most of them are not serious enough to justify military intervention. However, if you wished to expand it to some of the more serious ones, then fine. Or, alternatively, you could offer an alternative interpretation of "other major human rights violations" and have that voted on within the current TPP legislation. I think either of those two solutions would be more productive than a repeal to disband the entire thing.

If every new investigation creates another problem while not solving the previous ones, TPP as empowered by Res 92 is going to be the laughingstock of the United Nations, and quite possibly the entire international community.

At least give it the chance to prove itself one way or the other. And as Mikitivity suggests, if you really want to see TPP being effective, put more effort into improving it as opposed to destroying it. I'm not going to pretend I don't find your actions highly hypocritical.

Krioval

05-05-2005, 22:56

When does "give it a chance" finally give way to "it's not working and needs massive overhauling"? In TPP's current effort, the panelists aren't even showing up, yet non-UN nations were advised to delay intervening in the crisis. One nation on TPP has admitted to having strong relations with the investigated country at one point, and now another nation on the panel is implying that I'm unfit for the panel due to my country's political views. I'm still waiting for the logic of all of this to be explained.

Yet Krioval is acting in hypocrisy? We have never come out in support of Resolution 92. We may have said that reforms would make its passage palatable to us, but beyond that, we've seen it as a waste of time and resources. There have been varying definitions of what constitutes a severe enough abuse to merit investigation, there have been questions as to how long the reach of TPP is when it comes to non-UN states, and now there are questions as to the integrity of the panel itself. How long would Gwenstefani suggest that Krioval watch these messes deteriorate slowly before we move to pull the plug and end it finally?

Gwenstefani

05-05-2005, 23:08

How long would Gwenstefani suggest that Krioval watch these messes deteriorate slowly before we move to pull the plug and end it finally?

Maybe longer than one hearing?? Our second one has only just started. If at first you don't succeed... try again. At least once. You don't seem to even consider the idea that TPP might improve with time. You're not willing to give it any time to improve though, so that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One nation on TPP has admitted to having strong relations with the investigated country at one point, and now another nation on the panel is implying that I'm unfit for the panel due to my country's political views. I'm still waiting for the logic of all of this to be explained.

I've not been following the proceedings as closely as I could be as I am not on the panel this time, so I don't know what this refers to. But if there really was a conflict of interest, then this is when the vetoes can and should be used, especially if there are suspicions of bias due to strong diplomatic ties between a panel member and the accused nation. Your country's political views should not be of any relevance however.

Yet Krioval is acting in hypocrisy?
You speak of all the things TPP should be achieving, yet don't help to achieve it, you actively hinder it. You talk about wanting to include slave labour as under TPP's remit, and then campaign to restricts TPP's jurisdiction rather than expand it. You sit on TPP while simultaneously launching a repeal against it. I consider this to be hypocrisy.

Yes, there are still many issues surrounding TPP that need to be resolved. Amendments to the legislation based on experiences in Crimmond have already been proposed and are being discussed. The best way to test theory is to put it to practice. And from every experience, we'll learn more, and use what we learn to improve things. This process is trial and error. And it takes a bit of time. Show me a better way?

Gwenstefani

05-05-2005, 23:24

yet non-UN nations were advised to delay intervening in the crisis.

And I agree that that may not always be appropriate. However, in this case, Macton was refusing to RP and intervention before negotiations had taken place anyway.

Krioval

05-05-2005, 23:30

Repealing Resolution 92 would not disband the Pretenama Panel, as you yourself said while discussing whether the number of panelists could be reduced to seven. Krioval does not enjoy our position being misrepresented, especially through the use of emotional appeals that run counter to fact.

And honestly, give me a timeline. Not "after more hearings" or "once we revisit the rules" - I'd like an actual date by which one should reasonably believe that TPP can act in accordance with Resolution 92 without being either corrupted or ineffective. The suggestion by Mikitivity that Krioval wait one year is considered ludicrous by our government. An entire repeal-and-replace action could take place in fewer than two months, and could probably be done in a single month.

Leave the first response to commission of genocide or human rights abuses to interested human rights observers throughout the international community, regardless of their affiliation with the United Nations. (HINT: this already happens in most cases). When and where such incidents occur, immediately request international assistance in ending the crisis while stressing the need to at least attempt diplomacy.

Should diplomacy fail, consider all options for ending the human rights crisis, including invasion, assassination, sabotage, or even a massive destructive strike. Every participant of the would-be intervention force should feel comfortable with mentioning any and all possible ways to end the problem. Then determine who is going to do what, which limits on force are imposed, and then go off to deal with the threat.

As it turns out, this is primarily what the international community does on a regular basis (OOC: see the II forum). One will note that a UN resolution and committee are not needed for this process to work quite nicely, and one doesn't run into jurisdictional issues regarding UN versus non-UN states. TPP can then become involved in the trials of individuals involved in the genocide following a successful intervention. That *was* its original intent, after all.

Mikitivity

06-05-2005, 00:29

And honestly, give me a timeline. Not "after more hearings" or "once we revisit the rules" - I'd like an actual date by which one should reasonably believe that TPP can act in accordance with Resolution 92 without being either corrupted or ineffective. The suggestion by Mikitivity that Krioval wait one year is considered ludicrous by our government. An entire repeal-and-replace action could take place in fewer than two months, and could probably be done in a single month.

No harm here, because my government considers the concept of expecting a "child" or new organization to be able to run a marathon in only a few months equally ludicrous. ;)

Your motion is still premature.
Give it time.

OOC: You aren't going to get a date from me, because frankly ... I have my hand in a lot of aspects of this game (you guys only see a smaller part in the UNO). It is incredibly fraking easy to throw stones at things, but very challenging to actually get off one's seat and take the mantel of leadership.

My honest suggestion, if you are so intent on not allowing the players whom *are* active and seem to be enjoying what they are doing, before you make a serious attempt at a repeal, also have a "replacement" draft proposal in hand to show that you *are* interested in improving upon the idea, because right now it honestly looks like you are just trying to simply take away something that people *are* actively trying to improve. In the real world and in the fantasy world this is frustrating.

Krioval

06-05-2005, 03:14

OOC: I strongly recommend not bringing in all the OOC meta-awareness stuff into this. Krioval is pushing for a repeal based on Kriovalian governmental politics. I'm "sorry" if my RPing is somehow lesser than TPP's RPing (considering I'm still on TPP), but it's not as if UN members couldn't investigate genocide without a resolution specifically for that purpose. Imported ViZion had attempted to start an alliance specifically to combat that problem around the time I was getting to know the forums better. Don't act as if all genocide prevention efforts by TPP RPers would have to stop if this resolution is repealed. That's blatantly false, and when stated OOC, it's extremely problematic. So if I frustrate on basis of playing my nation as it's designed to be played while simultaneously *not* taking anything away except a poorly designed resolution, it's not on me to deal with that.

IC:

Frustrating is the following:

Macton has halted the murder of the aborignals unfit for work, but has not ceased the slave labour. While this is regrettable, we must remember that we charged to investigate genocide, not slavery.

"Sorry guys, they're just working you into the ground. Nothing to do here. Move along."

And I'm supposed to explain that statement to the Kriovalian government and press how?

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

The Lynx Alliance

06-05-2005, 03:45

remembering from the intial start to this discussion, reading over the passed resolutions, and just seeing the last page again, we, The Lynx Alliance, were under the impression that EON covers genocide, and HI was supposed to cover human rights abuses using TPP setup by EON. the problem lies in that there is heavy overlap from HI on EON in that it mentions quite a lot about genocide (possible illegalities there?). i personally agree with the repeal, and that a subsequent proposal be made to cover the human rights abuses. as for those saying 'give it a year', it has almost been 6 months since the implementation of TTP through EON. surly that is long enough.

Mikitivity

06-05-2005, 05:12

as for those saying 'give it a year', it has almost been 6 months since the implementation of TTP through EON. surly that is long enough.

Far from it.

Having been extremely active in over my government's year in the UN, we actually do have something to show for ourselves: three resolutions, one ghost written resolution, a couple of co-authored resolutions, and references to my government in a few other resolutions. On top of that, Mikitivity has participated in UN elections monitoring (in the II forum), several disaster recovery operations (in the II forum), and set up the United Nations Organizations in order to facilitate greater UN participation. On top of all that, my government has heavily funded the United Nations Association. Co-founded a region that together has authored 8 of the 100 resolutions that have been adopted by the UN, has one of the higher UN participation rates in NationStates, and is extremely active in local regional affairs.

Anybody can claim that it is easy to organization coalitions and encourage participation from other governments. Having done so on MANY occasions, on behalf of my government, I'll attest it is the hardest work in this game (aside from moderation). If any government honestly still believes it has a track record of pulling nations TOGETHER to build something that will last, please tell my government what we are doing wrong, because as it stands now, my government will simply not jump when any young whippersnapper government says, "Well, gee ... you've done a lot, but we want you to do more and faster while we sit back and watch and mock UN resolutions."

OOC:
The arguement you guys should be taking is, one that has been presented but also ignored: "Can military force be used to 'enforce' pease." Vastiva has actually hinted at this at least a half dozen times here and on the UNO forums. It is a very STRONG point ... but it is weakened every time the "but two months" or "but six months is long enough" arguements. Until you've actually tried to coordinate *anything* in NationStates with over 20 other nations at the same time, NOBODY is in any place to pass that sort of judgement on anybody else. Period. Simple as that.

I know how so many people are anti-religion around here, but the Bible has some good sayings. They are good because they make since. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The point behind that isn't to say who has sinned and who has not, but it points out that people who haven't had to face the circumstances of another person aren't really qualified to even GUESS at what that other person has done.

By claiming that this has had enough time, but having no "resume" to point to, your opinions judging the efforts of others really don't stand up. In fact, they are kinda rude. :(

In 2004, some of the most interesting posts I read where either Joccia's (UN roleplaying that was over the top, but fun) or the ones from others whom would issue government "reports" on how they planned to integrate and comply with the next UN resolution. I think what is really happening here is instead of NS UN being the Human Rights domestic bill of the week that it was in 2003 and 2004 (don't believe me, reread those earlier resolutions), we are seeing more resolutions focusing on *international relations* between nations.

Heck, there is a sad and real reason genocide and human rights abuses exist in the real world today. It ain't easy in a world of 200 nations to coordinate things and really enforce real UN resolutions ... but that doesn't stop the UN from at least making the statements and trying a wee-bit. And I don't believe for a minute that we should really allow ourselves to focus too much on the "time".

Finally, (my last point for tonight on this subject) many veteran players will point out that to argue "costs" and "economic impacts" of resolutions is frankly impossible, because with different tech levels and the turnover in nations, there are no "world" statistics. Costs and economics are really imaginary and fluid concepts. I'll submit that logically "time" is the same way. In the International Incidents forum, you will see veteran and good roleplayers argue that there are different "game clocks". In practice you'll often see a vet explain at the beginning of his/her RP what their "clock" is set to.

The reason this is done is because time is hard to measure, particularly when there are people whom in 6 months can have 10 times the number of posts of other players whom have been playing for 2 years. Some people consider Nationstates minor fun, others turn it into a pastime (I'm guilty of this -- but in our defense ... those of us that do this, simply like the game).

Krioval

06-05-2005, 05:45

If only this repeal were based on another nation's or region's experience in passing UN resolutions, the argument of Mikitivity would be dead-on. As it stands, however, whether one has passed a UN resolution or not is as germane to this discussion as the Commander of Krioval's impending divorce. What *is* topical is that Krioval feels that all the arguments supporting Resolution 92 are the "tug at the heartstrings" emotionally based ones. Since any opposition to this resolution can be effectively silenced with "obviously you don't care about genocide" (disingenuously), it's a tremendous uphill battle to even get my repeal effort considered seriously.

If only territoriality didn't enter into the equation, and who has what UN experience could be subjugated by the merits or lack thereof in a resolution. "The Global Library" readily passed. Yet it was repealed and replaced. But in this case we have the added problem of a handful of UN members basing a good deal of their interaction with the rest of the universe through a UN committee empowered by a vague and potentially abusable resolution. There is nothing to prevent this committee from operating independently while the UN as a whole considers whether it should fly the UN flag or not. Ultimately, that must be the only argument in favor of Resolution 92 - it attaches to a handful of nations the legitimacy of the United Nations as a whole, without which they feel that their efforts would be somehow lessened.

It works against itself. Krioval feels that bringing the United Nations into a role where it wields military power in some forms while we are otherwise forbidden from raising a military force creates problems. Is that UN symbol really that important when it comes to fighting genocide and human rights abuses? The focus appears to have drifted from the cause of human rights to various political maneuverings designed to empower some as the "bringers of justice" even as the foundational charter of said organization is being amended to disallow military intervention unless victory is obvious.

Krioval avoids entangling alliances, and we feel that relegating massive works to committees is counterproductive. Yet, without a huge network of allies, and without bowing to the demands of every country we come across, Krioval has managed to avoid any war since the Commandership was ratified. Gaining the trust of nations through direct interactions is key to garnering support for one's cause - not self-important committees.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

The Lynx Alliance

06-05-2005, 05:54

What *is* topical is that Krioval feels that all the arguments supporting Resolution 92 are the "tug at the heartstrings" emotionally based ones. Since any opposition to this resolution can be effectively silenced with "obviously you don't care about genocide" (disingenuously), it's a tremendous uphill battle to even get my repeal effort considered seriously.

we are in complete agreeance here. if we were didnt care about genocide, we would be wanting to repeal EON as well. as it is, with our stance, we want seperation and clarity between EON and what we beleive to be the basis of HI in human rights abuse. whilst admitting they kind of sit side-by-side, there is very much a difference between the two. also it seems that HI is being used to cover genocide than EON. which is it? which one officially covers it? both? that would make HI inherently illegal. EON? scrap HI, and re-write. HI? scrap EON... hang on a tick, HI needs EON for the TPP... isnt that illegal? we need some clarity here, that is our argument.

Mikitivity

06-05-2005, 07:12

If only territoriality didn't enter into the equation, and who has what UN experience could be subjugated by the merits or lack thereof in a resolution. "The Global Library" readily passed. Yet it was repealed and replaced. But in this case we have the added problem of a handful of UN members basing a good deal of their interaction with the rest of the universe through a UN committee empowered by a vague and potentially abusable resolution. There is nothing to prevent this committee from operating independently while the UN as a whole considers whether it should fly the UN flag or not. Ultimately, that must be the only argument in favor of Resolution 92 - it attaches to a handful of nations the legitimacy of the United Nations as a whole, without which they feel that their efforts would be somehow lessened.

OOC: That is perhaps one of the BEST in character arguements / discussions that I've seen. :) You stated your point, and completely in character, I just wanted to acknowledge that.

IC:
Upon listening to Directory Vartek's speech, the ancient ambassador from Mikitivity, slow rose after the representative from the Lynx Alliance finished adding his voice to that of Krioval's. His slow moving hands pull out the annuals of the United Nations Association archives.

In the interest of brevity, I'm going to focus on two parts of your arguement that I believe are in error. In doing so, I'd like to direct this body's attention to the records provided to us by the United Nations Association. In particular I think we should focus on what really did happen with the Global Library saga.

First, if this body would humour an old man, I'd like to echo the UNA's notes summarizing the original Global Library debates of Jan. 2005, which read, "The Global Library resolution marks the first time that the nation that sponsored a resolution changed its vote during the course of the debate. Great Agnostica was convinced by nations opposed to the resolution to make changes and actually advocated against this resolution in favour of a better version."

The UNA notes themselves are not nearly as interesting as the UN Floor debate, as the UNA actually recorded 9 separate official UN discussions related to the Global Library (http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/FD.pdf, see page 16). Also note that the resolution was discussed for over a month in draft form, and my government feels that some of the points brought up in early Jan. should have been heeded to in early Dec. when Great Agnostica made clear its intentions to see this process through.

What is unique about the Global Library debates, is that the replacement resolution was discussed not prior to just the repeal, but proponents and opponents alike were willing to put asside their differences on the vote and begin work on the REPLACEMENT! This is unheard of!

But the UNA records on the resolution to Repeal "the Global Library" make note of this fact, if you will indulge me further, "The Global Library was the third resolution to be repealed (Fight the Axis of Evil and Legalize Prostitution were repealed before the Global Library), however, at its time, the Global Library was the first resolution that was adopted after repeals were allowed to be repealed. At the time of its repeal, the Global Library resolution also was the resolution with the shortest time between its original adoption, Jan. 17, 2005, and its repeal (nearly 30 days later).

True to its earlier statements, the government of Great Agnostica actually supported the repeal of its own resolution on the grounds that it and a coalition of other governments were interested in replacing the resolution with a proposal they felt better addressed the points raised in the debate surrounding the original resolution. In fact, the debate surrounding the repeal of the Global Library mirrored much of the debate from a month earlier. It should be noted that the 37,376 libraries cited in the repeal is but an estimate based on current UN member. On Jan. 7, 2005 the UNA estimated the UN membership to be 37,438.

It should be noted that the debates in Repeal “the Global Library” appeared to capture just as much attention as the original debates did.

A month after the passage of this repeal, Mousebumples introduced a new Social Justice resolution, Universal Library Coalition, which eventually passed by a larger margin than the original Global Library resolution. The Universal Library Coalition was based on the arguments raised in the two debates centered on the Global Library."

Now this gets to the interesting question? How many nations would have favored the repeal if not for the fact that a replacement was already advocated by the original sponsoring nation?

And my government and the UNA are in agreement here, "The Universal Library Coalition grew out of the original opposition to the Furtherment of Democracy resolution, the Global Library (resolution #86). During the course of debate for the Global Library in Jan. 2005, Mousebumples and Pojonia were among the many nations that expressed concern over the text of the original resolution. These two nations worked along side a coalition of many other governments to first repeal the Global Library with resolution #92 (sponsored by Pojonia) and then to continue work on improving upon the basic concept of the Global Library resolution. As part of the draft proposal process, Pojonia conducted a survey in which UN members where asked to vote on several different proposal ideas. A slight majority of nations favored the early draft of Mousebumple’s idea with a museum (a provision from the original Global Library resolution) still included. The feedback from Pojonia’s survey was instrumental in the final wording of Mousebumple’s resolution. The Universal Library Coalition represents the second UN resolution to come forth as part of a repeal and rewriting of an existing UN resolution.

Nargopia conducted a second poll asking nations about the issue of a physical global library component to the idea of a universal / global library, since this was one of the key debates related to the original resolution and repeal of that resolution. Nations were split on the issue, with only a small number of nations favoring the inclusion of some sort of physical library."

Earlier the honored Director Vartek hinted that my experience with organizational affairs is not a valid point in these arguements. I actually maintain that experience does matter. Namely, having been active in international affairs and having closely followed the debates surrounding the Global Library, my years of experience clearly indicate that the reason a Furtherment of Democracy (the Global Library) resolution was able to return as a Social Justice (the Universal Library Coalition) idea is largely related to the dedication of a number of nations to actually see to it that some form of library existed. Long before the repeal was drafted, proponents of a library system had essentially done their homework, as is shown by the poll presented on page 26 of the following document.

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

My government position remains the same, nations that have never had the burden of actually trying to coordinate international position simply do not have the experience necessary to pass judgement on the time frame it takes to coordinate individual nations. Failing to see any set of goals or promises from the repeal sponsors in this case, it is clear to me that they too are guilty of rushing through things.

That said, I'd suggest that before any government attack international organizations which seek to better coordinate the affairs of other nations, that said governments actually *attempt* to try and see things from a unique prespective and see what it takes to really get nations to agree to come together. In all of my experiences, I've found that by actually getting one's hands dirty not only allows one to find better solutions, but in the process of actually putting meaning into the fancy words behind UN resolutions, a pro-active nation can actually have a great role in future decision making process.

For example, Krioval should be compliamented, for they did join the Pretenama Panel and have participated in the actual discussions in good faith. However, should they continue to do so in a larger, say recruitment capacity, it would be entirely possible that Krioval (or any other nation that takes on a true position of leadership) would be better able to convince TPP member states into using military intervention as a means of last resort.

My government does support the TPP, though we still feel diplomatic and economic measures should be considered long before any military interventions. However, this opinion on my government's part is not going to be a reality if my government is viewed internationally as a non-leader and even adversary of international coallitions. With great power, comes great resonsibility. And that responsibility sometimes includes using the system to slowly change things for the better. The Pretenama Panel is a democratic process, and as more nations participate, my experience suggests that the Panel will become its own watchdog.

As the old man sits back down, many in the UN Halls begin to wonder if there really is a Miervatia word for brevity, and pitty the day should the fossil decide to talk about something at length.

The Lynx Alliance

06-05-2005, 08:40

listens to the old man from Mikitivity with respect, the aproaches the floor
I think there is a vast difference here between the ULC and this discussion. repealing the HI resolution does not get rid of TPP. it is our understanding that most of the investigations carried out by TPP thus far are regarding genocide. if you repeal HI, this will have litte effect, as genocide is already covered by EON. But taking heart from an old man's ramblings, no offence ment of course, the best course of action is to work out a replacement proposal and state that when HI is repealed, that proposal would be submitted as a replacement. in the meantime, TPP can still function, just that it is limited to genocide and not human rights abuses.
returns to his seat, hoping that a compromise can be met

Vastiva

06-05-2005, 08:48

We have no patience for fossils, mobile or otherwise.

The UN was never intended as the world's policeman. This latest is merely an attempt to subvert the ideology of a resolution into making us just that - a move, we would add, which will result ultimately in the destruction of all UN nations.

Numbers being touted are all for the merrier - but if Vastiva is forced to pull all funding from it's IRCO and UNWODC missions because the military needs those funds to keep off the latest flood of invaders, then so be it. Particularly if the UN itself is the reason for even larger wolves attempting to tear down our door.

We will not walk that path, alone or in company. Better to leave behind the ideology then a nation of corpses achieving nothing in the name of a panel using power it was never meant to have, for ends none can rightly believe to be... altruistic.

Gwenstefani

06-05-2005, 13:07

we are in complete agreeance here. if we were didnt care about genocide, we would be wanting to repeal EON as well. as it is, with our stance, we want seperation and clarity between EON and what we beleive to be the basis of HI in human rights abuse. whilst admitting they kind of sit side-by-side, there is very much a difference between the two. also it seems that HI is being used to cover genocide than EON. which is it? which one officially covers it? both? that would make HI inherently illegal. EON? scrap HI, and re-write. HI? scrap EON... hang on a tick, HI needs EON for the TPP... isnt that illegal? we need some clarity here, that is our argument.

Firstly, although TPP was founded 6 months ago in the Eon Convention, it was only on the passing of Res 92 that moves were made to set it up. Previously there was no real need for an active Panel as no UN members were committing genocide so there was noone to try. Humanitarian Intervention extended the scope of Eon Convention, but in reality, rather than imposing laws on non-UN members (illegal), it regulates UN members intervention in such affairs. Res 92 doesn't outlaw genocide. It gives UN members the right to do something about it if they go through TPP.

Secondly, the Eon Convention and Res 92 are in no way the same, other than they both deal with genocide, but they do so in very different ways. And although HI uses the TPP as set up in Eon, this is not illegal. It was a time and effort saving device , an alternative to setting up an entirely new committee (which is now frowned upon anyway).

The Lynx Alliance

06-05-2005, 13:37

Powerhungry Chipmunks

06-05-2005, 18:14

since a recent proposal was deemed illegal since it's basis was to use a commitee set up by a passed resolution to enact the contents, that would make this illegal too. and if it is supposed to, as you have stated, 'regulate UN members intervention in such affairs' i would question both its legality (are UN member - non-UN member relations actually within the scope of the UN?) and also effectivness (can the UN inteveen in non-UN nation affairs? can a coalition interveen under the UN banner? if not, why do they have to go through TPP?). there is too much grey area here. also, whilst a the creation of a new commitiee is frowned upon, it isnt entirely illegal (ask fris, he caught me out on that one).

Here's the latest I've seen from The Most Glorious Hack. If this is outdated (it came from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8707434&postcount=93)), let me know.

Thought I addressed that in the second version posted by the Gnomes:

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.

It seems, to me, that so long as a committee has the ability to be non-RPed (staffed by such mystical beings--should no UN members take the initiative to sit on such a committee) the committee's okay. I imagine they won't stop UN nations from RPing these committees if they so desire (as shown by TPP, UNCIAT, etc.). It's just that it has to be possible for oversight to be entirely via UN Gnomes, should no nations be interested.

This also seems to fall in line with the MetaGame rules about mandating activity or RPing, an extension of that principle. We can't mandate forum or committee activity, so, it has to be possible that no members perticipate in a committee, or that participation in it just be assumed. I see no problem with one of these typically UN Gnome-operated committees being the impetus for a member driven RP.

Mikitivity

06-05-2005, 18:18

It seems, to me, that so long as a committee has the ability to be non-RPed (staffed by such mystical beings--should no UN members take the initiative to sit on such a committee) the committee's okay. I imagine they won't stop UN nations from RPing these committees if they so desire (as shown by TPP, UNCIAT, etc.). It's just that it has to be possible for oversight to be entirely via UN Gnomes, should no nations be interested.

I think that is the key ... we don't have to roleplay things to assume that they are happening, but if a player wants to roleplay something, so long as it is made clear that it is a roleplay and has no real endorsements it should be fine.

Krioval

06-05-2005, 18:31

When Krioval joined the list of nations interested in the Pretenama Panel, it was under the perhaps naive assumption that the panel was not going to be used selectively against non-UN members. Yet that is exactly what this panel is doing, and the pressure on Krioval to quit the panel for drawing attention to its shortfalls is alarming to say the least. Every case where this panel has considered or attempted intervention is shrouded in controversy.

Malatose:

The above country, a UN member, attempted to suppress people of a particular sexual orientation from marrying, directly contravening then three UN resolutions. It was determined that TPP could not intervene since denail of marriage rights, even in a UN state bound by UN resolutions, was insufficient for intervention, or for that matter, diplomatic pressure.

Result - A subjective scale on which human rights abuses needs to be evaluated, and which is not bound by a UN resolution

Belem:

The above country, a former UN member, decided to exterminate 175,000 patients suffering from a terminal STD. They had already been rounded up in concentration camps without other nations being aware, and the executions were beginning. TPP was unable to convene sufficient panelists to begin the investigation, let alone intervene, and it apparently never occurred to potential panelists to form an international coalition outside the UN to intervene directly.

Result - 175,000 patients were executed while TPP was unable to convene. Lack of human resources for the panel is now an acceptable excuse for refusal or delay in intervention.

Crimmond:

The above country, never having been in the UN, began eradicating its elvish population. TPP convened and rapidly found Crimmond culpable in large part due to Crimmond's admission to the crimes. However, TPP lacked sufficient military resources to launch a full-scale invasion, and other methods of intervention were never considered.

Result - Countless elvish citizens of Crimmond were massacred. The true enormity of this crime may never be fully known. A dangerous precedent, now being placed into the charter of this organization, may actually refuse to consider military intervention unless victory is assured, though alternate measures to deal with genocide have not been considered, with disdain being the reaction toward some nations' suggestions of sabotage or assassination.

Macton:

In perhaps one of the more disturbing cases before us, the above nation began enslaving and torturing its aboriginal population recently. Almost immediately, and despite the nation's non-UN status, members of TPP were looking foward to invading a "weak" country to shore up support for the panel. More shockingly, it was revealed during the discovery phase of TPP's investigation that Macton was a former province of Cobdenia, who brought the original complaint. It was this same nation, Cobdenia, who also said, and I quote:

Macton has halted the murder of the aborignals unfit for work, but has not ceased the slave labour. While this is regrettable, we must remember that we charged to investigate genocide, not slavery.

At the same time, non-UN states were urged to delay intervention until the panel ruled - and there is another potential shortage of panelists, which means that Macton will likely continue its abuse of its aboriginal population, likely resulting in deaths, while the panel sits on its collective hands. Even Krioval has taken a position on the panel, if only to alleviate the suffering of Macton's aboriginal population as rapidly as possible.

Result - TPP is being corrupted. It is even possible that Cobdenia brought the original charges to TPP knowing full well that the investigation would become mired early on, and that Macton, a former province, would be able to benefit economically from its slave labor. In such a case, it is conceivable that genocide could actually be dragged out for longer due to TPP's action, or total lack thereof.

Krioval cannot allow these people to have died to prop up an organization whose motto appears to be "trial and error - wait and see". Well, Krioval has waited, and we have seen. There have been a couple trials, but already there have been far more errors. Please join Krioval in supporting a repeal of Resolution 92.

The Lynx Alliance

07-05-2005, 03:24

seeing this evidence from Krioval, noting the amount of UN compared to non-UN nations involved, and the explination from Gwenstefani, this seems merely to be a way of the UN policing (very ineffectivly) non-UN nations. also, we not the fact:
At the same time, non-UN states were urged to delay intervention until the panel ruled
it is our understanding that UN resolutions do not cover non-UN nations, and that aside from nations independantly talking them, the UN, or an organisation under the UN banner such as TPP, has no influence over the actions of non-UN members (the urge to delay). so either this is an illegal attempt at infuencing non-UN nations, or TPP is not a part of the UN. since, in our understanding, TPP is very much an UN organisation, implimented by UN resolution, it means those using it in these afairs are the ones breaking the law. whilst we condem genocide and human rights abuses, we also condem abusing a system or organisation to violate laws. how can we condem someone for crimes when we ignore the laws we establish ourselves?

OOC: maybe this one was best left to the RP forums...

Vastiva

07-05-2005, 03:36

Josef Stalin was told the Pope did not like his policies. His question "And how many divisions does he have" is telling as to the beliefs of dictators and those in power.

Currently, Vastiva is defending a small nation attempting to defend it's national soverignty. We do this because of our beliefs, not the fact our nations military can hammer most of the "attackers" without breaking a sweat.

If TPP is being used as a hammer against non-UN nations, it is a device which should be either strengthened to usability, or removed. Krioval has shown the first is impossible. That leaves one clear choice.

Ecopoeia

07-05-2005, 04:35

I see little reason for repeal of the resolution in question. That said, I understand the Krioval delegate's frustration at various faults, flaws and failings with respect to the operation of the Pretenama Panel. What I fail to comprehend is the relevance this has to resolution 92.

Where Ecopoeia would like to see reform - or at least a change in attitude among participating states - is in the thirst for military retribution evident in the most recent investigations. Such a lust for war reflects poorly on all involved.

and the pressure on Krioval to quit the panel for drawing attention to its shortfalls is alarming to say the least

This statement is alarming. For the record, I wish to make clear that Ecopoeia does not support such pressure. We have no desire to see Krioval resign from the Panel.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: Many of the failings of TPP are due to participating players simply not having the time or not communicating with the accused in an investigation. Hopefully, lessons have been learnt with respect to the latter. With regards to the former.. well, I hope that my own withdrawal from the latest investigation sets an example. Don't have the time? Drop out - who's going to think less of you, for heaven's sake? We all have lives to live.

Additionally - and I hope my opinion counts for something, given my time served as a humble player - we're trying something new here. In my experience, no NSUN committee has had a such a wide remit, nor has one been the beneficiary of such widespread participation. Krioval is playing a role in excellent fashion and I commend them; however, let's be careful here. No matter how good their points - IC or OOC - I think it's too early to deliver a verdict on the efficacy or otherwise of the Pretenama Panel and related organisations and legislation.

Threnas

07-05-2005, 04:50

ooc: is it actually possible for a commitee to have active enough roleplaying in it to enforce any medium sized army to react to it?
So I think the only options are to either roleplay that there are more countries supporting the commitee than there are posters or abandon the idea that you can uphold a resolution with a commitee.

My country would support the TPP, except I (irl) dont have the time to make estimations of how much I could help, how the TPP exactly works and all other kind of other stuff to roleplay it. So gamewise the TPP is actually stronger than you are atm roleplaying it (atleast imo).
To me it seems more like a clash between people just not being active enough in the game to make the commitee work than a failure of the commitee itself. And I doubt its possible to strenghten the roleplayed commitee by changing the resolution it is based on.

Sorry for not adding anything IC.

Gwenstefani

07-05-2005, 14:02

it is our understanding that UN resolutions do not cover non-UN nations, and that aside from nations independantly talking them, the UN, or an organisation under the UN banner such as TPP, has no influence over the actions of non-UN members (the urge to delay).

Macton had stated that it would ignore all intervention attempts by any nation that did so before the negotiations took place. Non panel members were therefore urged to wait for them to occur and then help the panel with any intervention that was required afterwards.

Krioval

07-05-2005, 21:00

And I'm sure that Macton being a former province of Cobdenia and enjoying warm relations with them until very recently had nothing to do with Macton's reluctance to engage other nations directly. Oh wait. I *don't* believe that.

OOC: Such an inappropriate ignore is hardly compelling IC evidence for or against the repeal. The fact of the matter is that if one starts a RP on how they're genociding half their population and they don't have the foresight to close the RP, it's their own damn fault when others want to intervene. Let's please keep the completely OOC metagaming out of this discussion.

The Yoopers

07-05-2005, 22:01

is it actually possible for a commitee to have active enough roleplaying in it to enforce any medium sized army to react to it?
So I think the only options are to either roleplay that there are more countries supporting the commitee than there are posters or abandon the idea that you can uphold a resolution with a commitee.
The reason the first TPP failed against Crimmond was because we didn't realise we were going up against one of the single most formidable nations in NS with allies just as powerful. Any medium sized nation, say 2 billion people, would have easily been defeated by the force we assembled. There was also confusion within our own ranks and the assault was over before it really started.

Krioval

07-05-2005, 23:17

So if a nation wishes to commit genocide and evade TPP, all they have to do is assemble sufficient allies to rebuff the entire process and embarrass the entire United Nations? Interesting. Besides, one would think that a bit of preliminary investigation into the entire situation would have determined the futility of a direct assault without additional allies. Go figure.

Magna_Cartman

07-05-2005, 23:53

Is that UN symbol really that important when it comes to fighting genocide and human rights abuses?

This is actually something I had failed to consider. Should your repeal actually gain support and pass, then there is nothing stopping those who wish to take action with regards to these matters from convening their own "non-UN Pretenama Panel", which would not be subject to the ideals of the UN.

Such a panel could be quite powerful and easily abused, but it could be done.
Thomas Wilson
Magna Cartman's Delegate to the UN

Magna_Cartman

08-05-2005, 03:09

the pressure on Krioval to quit the panel for drawing attention to its shortfalls is alarming to say the least.

I supported calls for you to step down from the current panel due to the following statement by your delegate:

The government of Krioval must formally move to dismiss these proceedings due to jurisdictional concerns. Macton is not party to United Nations resolutions as such, and we feel that it is highly inappropriate for a United Nations organization to be performing this investigation.

As you would recall we ended up in a disagreement following this - an investigation setup under the current rules is not the place to score political points. I still believe this to be the case. I would of had no problems what-so-ever with you serving on the panel if you did not bring this up.

Macton:

In perhaps one of the more disturbing cases before us, the above nation began enslaving and torturing its aboriginal population recently. Almost immediately, and despite the nation's non-UN status, members of TPP were looking foward to invading a "weak" country to shore up support for the panel.

If you do not support these actions then you should not have served on the panel. You had the right to refuse to sit on the panel.

Krioval cannot allow these people to have died to prop up an organization whose motto appears to be "trial and error - wait and see".

Krioval is a member of TPP and is serving on one at present. Therefore it is with hypocracy that these statements are made. If you feel this strongly against TPP then perhaps you should step down to save embarrasment.

In closing, may I say that if Krioval spent the amount of time it has invested in rubbishing TPP in actually coming up with a workable solution and gaining support, TPP may well be improved. As such, it is the opinion of the Magna Cartman Government that until such time as Krioval comes up with a solution (i.e. replace the resolution it wishes to repeal) we view them as nothing but a pack of whingers.

Good day,
Thomas Wilson - MC Delegate to the UN

Crimmond:

OOC: Crimmond was unco-operative with any RP and godmoded it anyways. Basically, Crimmond broke the RP rules with this. I will agree that TPP did not have the military numbers to mount a successful operation.

Krioval

08-05-2005, 05:15

Should your repeal actually gain support and pass, then there is nothing stopping those who wish to take action with regards to these matters from convening their own "non-UN Pretenama Panel", which would not be subject to the ideals of the UN.

Let's follow that train of thought completely to its logical destination. Right now there is nothing preventing nations from invading other nations - including for participating in genocide. It's been done several times, in fact. So I am still wondering why nations here seem to have a deep abiding need for the UN flag to fly over their conferences and their invasion forces.

I supported calls for you to step down from the current panel due to the following statement by your delegate

Lord Wilson, I commend you on your abilities to transcend the space-time continuum, seeing as how I made this comment:

the pressure on Krioval to quit the panel for drawing attention to its shortfalls is alarming to say the least (10:31 am PDT, 6 May)

before Magna Cartman said this:

In my belief, Krioval should not be standing on the panel whist ever it is trying to bring it down (8:32 pm PDT, 6 May)

I assure all nations involved that Krioval is incapable of time travel, so it becomes interesting how Magna Cartman's statement could have provoked Krioval's response given that Krioval's "response" was ten hours earlier than Magna Cartman's statement. As for the motion by Krioval being classified as an "attempt to score a political point", am I to now understand that any questions as to jurisdiction are to be rebuffed immediately, but TPP will condone slavery and civil wars resulting in massive waves of death now?! This is the commitment to peace and tranquility that this "glorious" panel has?

As for the "suggestion" of improving the panel, Krioval has offered several, including returning the decision to individual countries and their coalitions rather than convening a superfluous panel. It wasn't broken before, so there was, and is, no reason to "correct" the situation. Furthermore, Krioval's suggestion as to how to deal with the current situation in Macton has gone unaddressed, which reflects on the focus of the other panelists on villifying Krioval for our positions outside the panel rather than the merits of the arguments we raise inside.

That Magna Cartman sees fit to criticize Krioval's record on human rights, we might point out that the critic is a dictatorship while Krioval has open elections, and we offer a greater degree of civil liberty to our citizens than does our clamorous opponent in this debate. Frankly, Krioval couldn't care less what Magna Cartman wants - I hear a lot of words spoken for their effect, but not for their substance. Krioval has suggested that the universe does not need a UN police agency since earlier methods of combatting genocide seemed to be up to the task, and TPP would have done an excellent job in prosecuting individuals after the fact.

Vastiva

08-05-2005, 06:07

OOC: Crimmond was unco-operative with any RP and godmoded it anyways. Basically, Crimmond broke the RP rules with this. I will agree that TPP did not have the military numbers to mount a successful operation.

OOC: No, the TPP blew the RP rules. Trust me on this, I've been RPing in II longer then your nation has been around.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

08-05-2005, 07:29

(Krioval, are you planning on resubmitting the repeal? I remember that Groot Gouda, I believe, likes to give a non-telegram submission to his resolutions before starting any telegram campaign, is that what you are planning on doing?)

Krioval

08-05-2005, 07:42

OOC: Yeah, I'm probably going to run it again while your resolution is up for vote. This one's too contentious to risk it having to sit on the queue for more than a day, should I be fortunate enough to get it there in the first place. Once the backlog clears, I'll try to push my proposal to the floor.

Venerable libertarians

09-05-2005, 02:41

As a member of the pretenema Panel and considering the disaster of the investigation of Crimmond (TPP 0001), for which we take much of the blame as the nation leading the assault against the crim, As an accuser on the current Panel investigating Macton (TPP 0002) we would like to .........

1, Oppose this abhorrent repeal which seeks to stop UN backed intervention where nations openly murder their own people. The Nation of Krioval whom we have had the utmost respect for since first entering these forums and whom we assisted with the nation of Asshelmetta (YGSM) in showing the failings of the first draft of such a panel, to our mind is simply wrong. The many mistakes of the first panel have been addressed by the current, and we are still learning. The panel is in its infancy and as such has to crawl before it can walk nevermind run.

2, State openly that We were the first to see that the nation of Krioval who was called as an alternate to TPP 0002 could be doing so with a hidden agenda. As such it was our nation who raised this and suggested krioval resigns from the Panel as his Judgement is called into question by his opposition to it. The Panel is currently voting on the matter of Guilt of the accused and Krioval has decided, even though the Evidence is overwhelming, to abstain from the voting process.

Your Ideals in this regard are simply flawed and your position on the panel to my mind is Untenable. The Pretenema Panel is and will continue to, find nations, UN or other, and take them to task over their blatant disregard for the lives of their Peoples.

Krioval

09-05-2005, 04:50

The current proceedings (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=132) of the Pretenama Panel have made it look like the kangaroo court that it is rapidly becoming. Cases are carefully selected to ensure that the accused is guilty before the panel is actually convened, and then, when a panelist dares do anything other than nod and say "guilty" on command, that panelist is villified before all the other members of the panel in a most disgraceful fashion. That Director Vartek had to suffer the scorn and ridicult of nations supposedly committed to peace for several days without respite is simply terrible, and to the man's credit, he returned and cast a vote anyway. That it was not the vote that the rest of the panel wanted to hear apparently merits a broadside against the integrity of all Krioval. The Pretenama Panel was not meant to be an organization where the votes are predetermined, so Krioval wonders why it is that a simple abstention is shouted down with such vitriol. Perhaps it is not Koro Vartek, or Krioval, who have an ulterior motive here.

That we are attempting to repeal Resolution 92 (not the Pretenama Panel, as so many sould like to claim is irrelevant to our ability to serve, though Krioval had honor enough to announce our intents openly and without coercion, rather than attempt to subvert the process. At this juncture, if anybody has evidence implicating Krioval in attempting to use covert means to harm the panel, I would be most interested in hearing it. If there is none, I would strongly suggest that the slanders against Krioval cease.

If it is the opinion of those serving on the Pretenama Panel that a nation should be ejected for speaking its mind even in the midst of a recruitment crisis, by all means, make that known. Director Vartek and I have other tasks to which our attention could be directed.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Krioval

09-05-2005, 04:54

As for the reasons for today's abstention, since our esteemed colleagues on the Pretenama Panel have indicated that civil wars and enslavement of entire subpopulations are not covered by the Pretenama Panel's jurisdiction, and that the two parties involved in Macton are, or were, involved in an ongoing civil war, and that currently the government of Macton is "simply" involved in mandating forced labor, there is a sufficient doubt that genocide is occurring in my mind to warrant an abstention. While I firmly believe that what Macton is doing is completely wrong and merits international intervention, I am compelled to follow the procedures of the Pretenama Panel while I serve on it, as distasteful as I find several of those restrictions. I pray that history will not judge me too harshly for that.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

RomeW

09-05-2005, 05:51

OOC: Interesting. I never realized it before, but this Repeal is proof that Resolution #92 was the ONLY Resolution in UN history where one could actually see it in action. The other ones we just have to "believe" they're either working or not- TPP we can actually "see" if it's working or not. Interesting.

IC:

During the initial debates, the Roman Empire was SOLIDLY against the implementation of Resolution #92, for its breach of standard UN protocol that respects the soverignty of non-UN member nations. We decided to send a representative to The Pretenama Panel because we wanted to make a stand against genocide, but from the early going, it was quite obvious that TPP was toothless and rudderless. We also fear that one day TPP will be abused, and used to enforce ALL UN Resolutions on non-members, a day we do not want to come. This is why we stand firmly with Krioval and move that Resolution #92 be Repealed. Thank you.

Magna_Cartman

09-05-2005, 09:38

It becomes interesting how Magna Cartman's statement could have provoked Krioval's response given that Krioval's "response" was ten hours earlier than Magna Cartman's statement.

Obviously the delegate from Krioval has a problem understanding what I am getting at. I have stated that I supported calls for you to leave the panel. Your abstaination further supports these calls.

As for the motion by Krioval being classified as an "attempt to score a political point", am I to now understand that any questions as to jurisdiction are to be rebuffed immediately, but TPP will condone slavery and civil wars resulting in massive waves of death now?

How does TPP condone slavery and civil wars. The legislation setting up TPP and the way it is ran provides no formal process for dealing with these. If we were to do this then Krioval would say "TPP is breaking the rules". Then, you would also see it unwise for us to deal with these in respect to Macton because it is not a UN member.

Krioval's suggestion as to how to deal with the current situation in Macton has gone unaddressed, which reflects on the focus of the other panelists on villifying Krioval for our positions outside the panel rather than the merits of the arguments we raise inside.
Krioval's only solution was that we dispense with the proceedings because of "juristictional concerns". You were "vilified" inside the panel because of your sidestepping and total inaction.

That Magna Cartman sees fit to criticize Krioval's record on human rights, we might point out that the critic is a dictatorship while Krioval has open elections, and we offer a greater degree of civil liberty to our citizens than does our clamorous opponent in this debate.
This is comical. I suggest you read theMagna Cartman Constitution (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Magna_Cartman_Constitution).

Krioval couldn't care less what Magna Cartman wants - I hear a lot of words spoken for their effect, but not for their substance.

Much like Krioval, lets complain but take no real action.

Venerable libertarians

09-05-2005, 10:56

The difficulties the current panel and previous investigations was simply time or the lack of it. These are twofold, ergo the first being as it is genocide we are investigating measures must be taken quickly to limit the potential harm to the victims which leads to the second being the problems of members not being available due to RL, work, family etc and problems of multiple timezones.
Both Venerable libertarians and Gwenstefani (RL IRELAND AND SCOTLAND) are in the Grenwich mean time zone and others are effected by the zones of the continental USA.

Macton has by its own admission killed many of its aboriginal population after an uprising by the minority. Macton has given these statistics itself in posts in the international incident forum and its hatred and racist posts are there for everyone to read. Civil war is where the nations Opposite creeds take to armed struggle rather than political means to force their beliefs. After the insurection by the aboriginals who are deemed less than human by their opressors, was quashed, the Mactonese government gave an order to kill the aboriginal populace by working them to death and if they fought this they and their families were put to death. This is at least Ethnic Cleansing and at worst genocide. Krioval has by its abstention in light of overwhelming evidence of genocide, which TPP has a mandate to investigate and try to stop, is worthy of the criticism by the Panel members. TPP does not have a mandate to investigate or intervene in any other issue but genocide and the member for Krioval knows this only too well so any inference to such by that nation is moot.

As for Kriovals Injured indignation at the members statements of incredulity at Kriovals stance in light of the evidence, it was simply pointed out to the member that the panel was to investigate Macton and not the place to showcase the repeal which krioval has so cynically raised. After the Crimmond debacle I personally started a thread within the UNO seeking the responses of the members to highlight the problems and to seek a solution to those. Instead of focusing efforts there Krioval decided to run straight to the UN in an effort to kill off the Panel. It is the Panel Members who should feel betrayed by the open accusations against their integrity by krioval in their efforts, possibly flawed but definately noble, to stop the occurence of genocide and to protect life and the basic rights to life.

that the two parties involved in Macton are, or were, involved in an ongoing civil war, and that currently the government of Macton is "simply" involved in mandating forced labor, there is a sufficient doubt that genocide is occurring in my mind to warrant an abstention. Is it Possible that the Member has not read the evidence fully or has missed the open statement of killing within Mactons thread. Perhaps the member should take 5 minutes out of the time set aside for this repeal to read the Evidence fully.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

09-05-2005, 14:11

Much like Krioval, lets complain but take no real action.

Now, now. I believe that Krioval's gone about this repeal politely but resolutely. I don't see any reason to lay such accussations against him--true or not, this'd probably decrease the quality of the conversation.

Krioval

09-05-2005, 17:23

As for Kriovals Injured indignation at the members statements of incredulity at Kriovals stance in light of the evidence, it was simply pointed out to the member that the panel was to investigate Macton and not the place to showcase the repeal which krioval has so cynically raised.

This would have merit if only Krioval had raised any issue of the repeal while in conference with other members of the panel, which we did not. There are two things that Krioval has done that are considered "wrong" by the majority of other panelists, or at least those speaking up in conference:

Krioval questioned the jurisdiction of a UN-sponsored organization to raise an army and invade a nation outside the UN, and
Krioval did not vote "guilty" the moment a vote was taken, but instead chose to abstain, since we are unconvinced that the matter isn't one pertaining to slavery and civil war, which Krioval has been told are not actionable under the panel's directives.

The proposal has been resubmitted. It is time that an organization selective in its investigations and firm in its prearranged verdicts be returned to the form for which it was originally designed - the prosecution and detention of individuals implicated in inciting or carrying out genocide.

Venerable libertarians

09-05-2005, 17:31

This would have merit if only Krioval had raised any issue of the repeal while in conference with other members of the panel, which we did not. Krioval will monitor the panel remotely, as we are not empowered with a vote this round due to our being an alternate. If and when necessary, a delegate will be sent to the site of the panel. Finally, Krioval is compelled to lodge a formal complaint as to the target of this inquiry - Macton is not a member of the United Nations, and as such, it is Krioval's view that an intervention in their territory exceeds the reach of this institution.

Clearly it was the first thing you raised, in conference with the Panel Members in TPP 0002 investigation thread. Your Objections were noted and you were reminded that TPP 0002 thread was not the place to highlight your repeal.

Krioval

09-05-2005, 17:58

Funny how the word "repeal" never appears in my statements. The question of jurisdiction is an important one in my mind, and it was not motivated by this repeal effort. Krioval has made several efforts to separate the repeal proposal from the current panel's proceedings, at least to the point of keeping repeal-related arguments away from the panel while it is in conference. On the other hand, other nations have not shown Krioval a similar level of respect when it comes to addressing the merits of our arguments, to the point of interpreting an abstention as somehow condoning genocide. I continue to find that the Pretenama Panel, in its current form, allows a minority of UN members to dictate policy to anyone they choose, restrained only by their consensus.

As for nobility of intent, one could argue, I suppose, that the Catholic evangelization of Krioval from 1890 until 1978 was for a noble cause. One could also argue that the resistance of the aboriginal people of Krioval to retain our religion was also noble. In any case, the conflicting "noble" principles led to the forcible abolition of a stable monarchy in 1973 and civil war from 1994 until 1999. During this time, millions of people were either killed in combat or executed for other crimes. Nobility of intent is all well and good until it becomes the servant of political expediency.

Venerable libertarians

09-05-2005, 18:17

The Honourable Member of Krioval can state what he likes here in this thread as it is obvious that he is in a mood for Ping pong. The original Posts are there in TPP 0002 in the UNO forums for all to read and there is no issue of transparency. TPP 0002 link read for yourself! Click this link (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=132)

Lets stick to the facts.
1, the first post by Krioval was to cause friction in the panel.
2, The Member was asked to keep the panel happenings and the Repeal as separate so as not to deviate from the task of investigating Macton.
3, on selection Krioval further made reference to his objection.
4, Abstaining from a vote of Guilty where the Genocide evidence was undeniable was akin to a slap in the face of his fellow members.

The Members of this United Nations can draw their own conclusions. Let it be Known that all efforts have been made to make the Investigation as true to the Panel rules as they can be. Further to this point let it be also Known that Lord Byron representing the Realm of Hibernia has no Hidden agenda for defending the role of the Pretenema Panel and simply wishes to see an end to Genocide by any nation who believes it can get away with Murdering its own without sanction.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

09-05-2005, 18:23

4, Abstaining from a vote of Guilty where the Genocide evidence was undeniable was akin to a slap in the face of his fellow members.

Well, though I won't argue about the convincing quality of the evidence, but I really would hate it if a vote of mine at some point in the future were attacked. I mean, in order for TPP to stay transparent with public voting, there really can't be any ridicule or reprisal for voting a certain way.

And I think only a Not Guilty vote would have been a "slap in the face". Abstaining I don't see as malicious.

Venerable libertarians

09-05-2005, 19:47

Well, though I won't argue about the convincing quality of the evidence, but I really would hate it if a vote of mine at some point in the future were attacked. I mean, in order for TPP to stay transparent with public voting, there really can't be any ridicule or reprisal for voting a certain way.

And I think only a Not Guilty vote would have been a "slap in the face". Abstaining I don't see as malicious.
It appears the member quoted above is correct in pointing out this. However it is there to further our assertions that Director Kovo Vartec of Krioval has been working on the panel to a hidden agenda.

Magna_Cartman

09-05-2005, 22:58

Funny how the word "repeal" never appears in my statements. The question of jurisdiction is an important one in my mind, and it was not motivated by this repeal effort. Krioval has made several efforts to separate the repeal proposal from the current panel's proceedings, at least to the point of keeping repeal-related arguments away from the panel while it is in conference. On the other hand, other nations have not shown Krioval a similar level of respect when it comes to addressing the merits of our arguments, to the point of interpreting an abstention as somehow condoning genocide. I continue to find that the Pretenama Panel, in its current form, allows a minority of UN members to dictate policy to anyone they choose, restrained only by their consensus.

The word repeal never appeared in the honourable member's statements to TPP, but the "juristictional concerns" raised are akin to this repeal. Your concerns have been dealt with previously and this just shows your complete arrogance with respect to the resolutions governing TPP.

I believe that your abstention was pre-planned in any case and the concerns over whether or not this is a civil war was used at a later time (I could be wrong, as I quite often am). In any case, an appropriate vote would have been not guilty if you had concerns over whether or not genocide was occuring or if it was some other problem which TPP can not investigate.

Your previous complaints about Magna Cartman's civil rights (which obviously were malformed) has angered our government and we see it as a further attempt to smear your opposition.

Thomas Wilson
Delegate to the UN.

Petronea

10-05-2005, 00:14

Esteemed Colleagues:

The Principality of Petronea was ineligible to sit on the current panel due to the prior selection of a panelist from our region. Because of this ineligibility, we were hesitant at first to contribute to this discussion, but given the present level of discord, we feel obliged to intervene.

As concerns the statement by Mr. Wilson that Director Vartek's concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Pretenama Panel [I]were effectively equivalent to a pre-existing resolve to repeal UN Resolution 92[end edit], it is our opinion that such concerns are in no way indicative of, nor akin to, a decision to attempt a repeal of the Resolution on Humanitarian Intervention. Director Vartek could have just as easily initiated a simple debate separate from the proceedings of the Panel. That he did not is, in our opinion, regrettable; however, that he could have implies to us that his concerns do not directly indicate a desire to repeal the Resolution. In our opinion, such statements as Mr. Wilson's[end edit] only increase the difficulty of reaching a reasoned conclusion.

As regards Director Vartek's overall concerns:

Having reviewed the text of UN Resolution No. 83, I see no limitation of its application to individuals. Indeed, the word 'individual' does not appear in the Eon Convention. It appears from the wording of this Convention that it was indeed intended to apply to the governments of nations - it specifically states that "genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state". While it is indeed true that the Convention mentions in its final article constraints which are clearly to be applied to individual, it in no way limits itself to individuals. Further, it does not generally prohibit invasions of nations; it merely states that the Convention itself may not be used to justify such invasions.

Secondly, the text of Resolution No. 92 does not single out genocide based upon the interpretation of genocide as a violation of UN resolutions. Were this the case, we would fully agree with you that Resolution 92 mandates a UN body which oversteps the UN mandate. However, we do not believe that it is the case. Resolution 92 is clearly based on the description of genocide laid out in Resolution 83, which specifically states that it is intended to cover "those protected by the UBR". The Universal Bill of Rights (UNR 27) in turn appears to declare that it is intended to apply to all human beings. It would thus seem that Resolution 92 is to apply to all governments whose subjects are human beings.

We agree that it is, to say the least, regrettable that members of Pretenama Panels thus far convened have seemed to be more intent than was wise on initiating military actions, in consequence of which intentions it has lowered its own credibility. Yet we do not see this flaw as reason enough to remove the ability of the members of the United Nations to organize a force under the aegis of the United Nations which is to carry through the intentions of Resolution 83. In response to your question about the importance of the symbolism of the backing of such a force by the United Nations, we must say that we believe it to be extremely important. Both within and without the membership of the United Nations, such backing is seen as a strong indicator to those who are grossly abusive of universally recognized rights that the international community as a whole will not tolerate their behavior, and that an international organization is prepared to authorize its members to oppose such behavior.

I apologize, finally, for the length of my speech, and I thank you for having the patience to hear me out.

[I]Altren, Metarch of Kymnos, stands down.

Krioval

10-05-2005, 01:00

I submit that there is no hidden agenda going on at all, at least on the part of Krioval. We have been painstakingly transparent in all our diplomatic interactions with regard to this panel. If one wishes to make those assertions again, I again demand evidence. Otherwise, I urge silence on this matter.

The jurisdictional concerns fueled both my motion on the panel and this repeal, that is true. I have never denied this. At the same time, the repeal and the motion have no bearing on one another - they are derived from a common root but are divergent concepts. One seeks to limit while the other seeks to abolish. Both are intended to return the focus of UN committees on the UN. If that is my "agenda", I cannot fathom how I could have been any more public about it.

As for the delegate from Magna Cartman, I again hear a lot of unsubstantiated commenary about my intentions. I would suggest if there is any evidence to back up those claims, it should be brought forward. The fact of the matter remains that other panelists have indicated that civil war and slavery do not merit the intervention of the Pretenama Panel. While I am otherwise inclined to judge Macton guilty, there is still question as to what they are guilty of. This has been the focus of hours of deliberation on my part, and presently, the issue is not sufficiently clear-cut for a verdict to be declared. That I have had to defend Krioval's position from vitriolic attacks is most unfortunate. As for civil rights issues, all I can say on that issue is that no citizen of Krioval has been murdered by my military for attempting to hold a referendum - not to point fingers of course, but just to indicate one aspect of civil freedom that Kriovalians have never feared to lose.

As for the EON Convention, Krioval notes the following clause:

§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime.

As it says nothing about being able to indict entire nations or national governments, it is properly presumed that said power does not exist. This is proper because one does not presume that the United Nations can act beyond the authority granted by the resolutions collectively passed. Also of note in EON:

The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.

Krioval wonders when and if this will ever happen.

Finally, no UN resolution has binding force on nations outside of the UN. This is critically important. The Universal Bill of Rights does not and cannot be applied to states outside the reach of the United Nations. While I think those principles are essential to basic liberties, at the same time, if a nation has never had a chance to vote on the issue and has voluntarily chosen to eschew the benefits and responsibilities of UN membership, we have the duty to not use the facade of the UN against that nation, but to instead approach them as a coalition of nations interested in a particular outcome. As when this body was first organized, it was made extremely clear that its purpose was never to organize military force or to pressure non-UN states. It should remain that way.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 01:40

What we get, yet again from the nation of Krioval, is not a statement of fact but what should be termed "the krioval Roundabout of verbal bamboozlement". In his opening remarks in the last post he begins by stating that he had no hidden agenda, then remarkably through his own verbiage admits to having an open agenda. The point of his posts are to...
i, Shut down the current Pretenema Panel which he has the utmost contempt for, and ......
ii, to close off the resolution which made it possible for that panel to convene in the first Place.
Get this straight Krioval. The Venerable Libertarians has sided with you on many an occasion and we still have the Utmost respect for your nation and its representatives. Our rebuttal to your claims is far from Vitriolic( possible exception to the slap in the face bit, Terribly sorry old chap ). We simply feel your nation is wrong in its assertion that TPP has no right to intervene in non UN nations where genocide is concerned, Is wrong in its assertion that TPP should then look at cases of Human rights abuse and slavery which TPP has no mandate to investigate and is wrong in its assertion that TPP can be abused in any way.

As to the Notion of focusing the attention of UN commitees on the UN we can promise the member of Krioval that if evidence is found supporting an accusation of Genocide By a UN Member, that member will not be left out by the equality with which the Pretenema Panel views any nation participating in an act of Genocide against their own People.

Krioval

10-05-2005, 02:42

"The Krioval roundabout of verbal bamboozlement"? I thought that I was quite clear. Krioval is opposed to UN-sponsored intervention in non-UN states, and sees the Pretenama Panel as being potentially used for enforcing the will of the UN on all nations, regardless of membership. Couldn't be simpler, really. To this end, Krioval has, openly and without attempting to hide, asked the panel to reconsider its claim to jurisdiction over non-UN states, and proposed a reversal of the policy that allows the panel to raise a military force in the first place.

This is no less honorable than being in favor of UN intervention in non-UN states, or of maintaining Resolution 92. Thus, I do not appreciate the near-constant insinuations by my opponents that having an "agenda" is somehow wrong, or (falsely) that it involves something hidden. The agenda of several of the current panelists is just as apparent as is Krioval's, and just by claiming that one is against genocide does not make one right in one's actions.

To address the point of the delegate from Venerable Libertarians, all I can say is this. Krioval has been set upon most viciously by a number of nations serving on the current and previous panels. While some nations chose to be a bit more restrained in their criticism, there was never an impetus to ask people to withhold the over-the-top hostility. As of this point, only the representatives of Enn and Powerhungry Chipmunks have deigned to affirm the rights of Krioval to make statements and motions that are not in line with the majority of current panelists. It is this stigmatizing that leads Krioval to believe that the Pretenama Panel as it exists is rapidly becoming consumed by its vision of infallibility, and that dissenters must be silenced. Such attitudes often, in my experience, lead to corruption, and it is for this reason that Krioval is pushing for the Pretenama panel to be either restricted voluntarily to investigations within the United Nations, or else returned to its original focus of trying individuals.

~ Koro Vartek

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 02:56

Such attitudes often, in my experience, lead to corruption, and it is for this reason that Krioval is pushing for the Pretenama panel to be either restricted voluntarily to investigations within the United Nations, or else returned to its original focus of trying individuals.

And round, and round, and round, we go again. It is time Koro. Bring on your repeal. Let the Delegates have their say, Again!

Petronea

10-05-2005, 03:27

The Principality of Petronea, while agreeing substantively with many of the concerns of Krioval, wishes to focus on one issue brought up by Director Vartek:

As [the EON convention] says nothing about being able to indict entire nations or national governments, it is properly presumed that said power does not exist. This is proper because one does not presume that the United Nations can act beyond the authority granted by the resolutions collectively passed.

This is certainly true, and indeed one may wonder how a nation or national government could appropriately be indicted.

On the other hand, the Eon Convention does state that "genocide is committed ... by the state", and that "those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community". This phrasing seems to indicate that justice is required not only of individuals, but of governments, for these acts and their instigation. Perhaps the Convention should be amended to clarify this ambiguity. In other words, our interpretation is that the Convention itself is vague in defining what sort of authority is in fact granted to the United Nations in this respect.

Certainly we feel that some sort of intervention in a situation involving genocide is required; and it seems that you agree on this point. The disagreement is apparently over whether this should be done by an entity specifically created by a UN resolution, or by some other entity. Do you feel that it might be appropriate for a UN organization (with the same kind of NGO status as the Red Cross/Red Crescent) to form an international court to adjudicate these matters with respect to individuals (perhaps only officials of governments who are members of the organization)? This would allow international pressure to be brought to bear on nations violating the Convention, without directly involving the UN. In addition, were the organization properly promoted, the involvement of some of the most prominent nations might cause others to consider joining, so that the court could have wide jurisdiction.

Perhaps, too, military action could be deemed necessary and carried out by a coalition of nations acting independently of the UN. Might this be an acceptable solution?

Respectfully,

Altren
Metarch of Kymnos
Representative of the Principality of Petronea
to the Pretenama Panel

Krioval

10-05-2005, 03:36

To Altren, Metarch of Kymnos,

Krioval's ideal situation would be the one where interested nations create either a temporary or permanent alliance geared toward diplomatic and military intervention in cases of genocide, regardless of where the acts occur. Then, the Pretenama Panel would be convened to try individuals (including government officials) of commission, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in genocide. UN states are required to allow TPP to access their lands for evidence, and while non-UN states could refuse (even post-intervention), the multinational coalition based on their land could then create an ad hoc panel to address the issue of who is or is not guilty of those crimes.

Ultimately, TPP would exist as a protection for UN states; while they are required to submit to its authority, it is also guaranteed that the judgments rendered will be as impartial as possible (thus safeguarding against "victors' justice") and that those found guilty will be treated in accordance with other UN resolutions. This is exactly as it should be, in my eyes.

I hope that this addresses your latest point, in which I believe that we find significant common ground.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Petronea

10-05-2005, 03:48

Director Vartek,

I believe we have an understanding.

One final issue that concerns Petronea deeply is this: The resolution allowing humanitarian intervention mentions the involvement of "impartial and independent human rights experts". Although this is obviously desirable, is there some way (in the system you describe) to ensure that such experts be called? Or should the burden of obtaining such independent expertise be upon the legal representatives on both sides?

Altren
Metarch of Kymnos

Krioval

10-05-2005, 05:05

Currently, there has been little to no outside supplementation of impartial human rights experts, though I could see the International Red Cross/Crescent Organization taking on such a role in my proposed model. Also, I think it would be important that both sides of a dispute could agree on a suitable chairperson for the commission, allowing that person to determine who qualifies as an "expert". I would expect that each side in the legal conflict would call their own witnesses, though IRCO testimony could be invaluable to one side or another, depending on the circumstances.

~ Koro

Magna_Cartman

10-05-2005, 05:08

As for the delegate from Magna Cartman, I again hear a lot of unsubstantiated commenary about my intentions. I would suggest if there is any evidence to back up those claims, it should be brought forward. The fact of the matter remains that other panelists have indicated that civil war and slavery do not merit the intervention of the Pretenama Panel. While I am otherwise inclined to judge Macton guilty, there is still question as to what they are guilty of.

All the evidence needed can be seen here and in the TPP#002 thread. If Krioval had objections to the panel and the way it operates, it should have voted with it's feet and
removed itself. It is still our opinion (and the opinion of others - read the other comments) that Krioval's motion was related to this.

The statements made by Krioval about Magna Cartman's civil rights were also uncalled for. I notice that the honourable member has since refused to answer the calls from our government to explain this.

Magna_Cartman

10-05-2005, 05:15

As of this point, only the representatives of Enn and Powerhungry Chipmunks have deigned to affirm the rights of Krioval to make statements and motions that are not in line with the majority of current panelists.

My objection to your motion was two-fold and has been explained before:
1. Under the current rules, your objection was pointless and as such could not be supported
2. It was wasting the time of the panel

The Krioval government's insinuation that Krioval is being "vilified" because it is making statements which are not in line with the majority is laughable. Krioval seems not to understand that TPP#002 is not the place for such objections to be made, given that their delegate has raised them in the past and been referred to appropriate legislation.

EDIT:
Further to this discussion - may I put this question to the Krioval government - would you prefer it if another organisation investigating and dealing with genocide sprung up that could deal with the matters within any means possible?

Instead of being guided by UN ideals and resolutions, such an organisation could do what it likes how it likes. I think TPP is a much better way of doing things.

Krioval

10-05-2005, 05:27

More on this? Well, I, for one, am glad that what another person's intentions are cannot be determined by a consensus vote of one's opposition. Somehow I strongly doubt that, say, Magna Cartman would accept that its intentions are mired in a desire for universal supremacy and subordination of all other states simply because I could find a few people who agree with me. As for the comments on the rather unsettled situation in Magna Cartman, if that nation feels it is in a position to criticize Krioval's human rights record in any way, I feel that it is germane to this conversation to point out factors that may give those words perspective.

For the representative of a dictator to condemn the representative of a democrat on civil and political rights just strikes Krioval strangely. We urge the repeal of Resolution 92 to restore the United Nations to real matters of human rights - not to create organizations that are at best equivalent to "unofficial" coalition interventions, and at worst a means to strip nations of their sovereignty at will.

~ Koro Vartek

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 08:26

We urge the repeal of Resolution 92 to restore the United Nations to real matters of human rights - not to create organizations that are at best equivalent to "unofficial" coalition interventions, and at worst a means to strip nations of their sovereignty at will.

Again may we point out that TPP has only a mandate for intervention in matters of Genocide and Not Human rights Abuses. That as long as Resolution 92 stands that this will be that case and that Kriovals worries regarding National Soverignity, especially as it applies to non UN Nations is worrysome as Krioval by its last post holds that above the intervention in a matter of Genocide. The Pretenema Panel is "Officially" Regulated by a UN resolution, Resolution 92, and for as long as it allows for All the nations of the NS world to be taken to task for the Heinous crime of Genocide, We cant and wont support a repeal of resolution 92.

Vastiva

10-05-2005, 08:48

Again may we point out that TPP has only a mandate for intervention in matters of Genocide and Not Human rights Abuses. That as long as Resolution 92 stands that this will be that case and that Kriovals worries regarding National Soverignity, especially as it applies to non UN Nations is worrysome as Krioval by its last post holds that above the intervention in a matter of Genocide. The Pretenema Panel is "Officially" Regulated by a UN resolution, Resolution 92, and for as long as it allows for All the nations of the NS world to be taken to task for the Heinous crime of Genocide, We cant and wont support a repeal of resolution 92.

Then you are a fool. The NSUN is to oversee only those nations in the United Nations. We have created a monster of arrogance if we believe we can be the world's policeman. All this can do is make us more the joke then we already are.

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 08:58

Then you are a fool. The NSUN is to oversee only those nations in the United Nations. We have created a monster of arrogance if we believe we can be the world's policeman. All this can do is make us more the joke then we already are.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The Pretenema Panel does not contrive to be the worlds police force. Why is it that nations like yours whilst on one hand say that you are against Genocide but on the Other want to inhibit its investigation and efforts to see it stopped? Is it simply due to the national soverignty issue. Vastiva feels the UN is already a Joke? Please enlighten me, for i havent been given the Punchline!

Vastiva

10-05-2005, 09:20

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The Pretenema Panel does not contrive to be the worlds police force. Why is it that nations like yours whilst on one hand say that you are against Genocide but on the Other want to inhibit its investigation and efforts to see it stopped? Is it simply due to the national soverignty issue. Vastiva feels the UN is already a Joke? Please enlighten me, for i havent been given the Punchline!

You wish a punchline? Very well, try this. Of the nations of the UN - and we in total make up less then a third of the world - how many support the Pretenama Panel in their decisions? Very few. Very very few. Vastiva has few entanglements, yet the smallest of these could have destroyed what was sent to Crimmond without a second thought.

If we do not strive to be the world's police force, perhaps the representative from Venerable Libertarians would be good enough to tell me what the UN is doing sticking it's nose in non-UN nations business? Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to why this formed government - for, as it has the right to declare war, it is nothing less - has the right to drag the UN into battles it has no reason to be in in the first place?

Do we wish genocide stopped? Perhaps. But as our authority extends only as far as the UN membership, perhaps it would be prudent to being at those limits rather then attempting to moralize the world in one swift blow. For I assure you, should this chimera raise it's head too far, all of it's heads shall be swiftly removed.

Already, the Pretenama Panel seeks to stop that which is beyond our power to legislate - where will it end, sir? What protections have those nations against the power of the Panel? Are they represented? Are they consulted? Does any action of the Panel fall under the measures called by Fair Trial, or are those to be discarded because the "accused" is not within these walls?

We have created a beast which purports to operate outside our laws, ourside our jurisdiction - and as such, it may treat those it seeks to judge as it will. Consider the power this Panel has assumed - shall we let this stand? And if so, do we not feed the rumor the UN seeks to dominate the world until it is a truth?

Choose your words carefully before you answer - the Panel as it believes itself now is beyond the law. Shall this be allowed to continue? And why do you believe this vacation from the rights of those who are not here to choose not to live under our laws and ideas, is merited?

Magna_Cartman

10-05-2005, 10:46

Once again sir, you have got your wires crossed. Magna Cartman has elections - presidents are elected for life or until they resign. Are you saying this system is flawed?

As for the unsettled situation in my country, there is not much we can do about that except to try and regain control. I am sure there have been disturbances in Krioval's history.

It is amusing that the honorable member from Krioval keeps on bringing in irrelevant information into the debate. I do not see how the government structure of my nation affects this debate. Magna Cartman seeks to only control it's own nation and has no interest what-so-ever in dominating others. Frankly, if we were to take another nation over - our system of government would no longer work, as it has well for 100 years.

In any case, I hope Krioval gains the support it needs to put the repeal to all UN members, then we can accurately see just how much support there is on either side.

Thomas Wilson,
Delegate to the UN

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 11:10

You wish a punchline? Very well, try this. Of the nations of the UN - and we in total make up less then a third of the world - how many support the Pretenama Panel in their decisions? Very few. Very very few. Vastiva has few entanglements, yet the smallest of these could have destroyed what was sent to Crimmond without a second thought

The Pretenema Panel is convened by UN Members and as it is still an infant body you are correct in your assertion that it lacks the Power of Numbers that was shown to very good effect in the case of Crimmond. However when it comes to intervention the panel can get the assistance of like minded nations who are not members of the UN therefore TPP, whilst restricted to the rules set down by Resolution 92 can with networking gain the assistance if numbers are required outside of the UN. Your reference to the Crimmond incident is again recognised as valid and is openly accepted as such. The problems we experienced here is Time and the need for a rapid reaction, especially when the accused when informed of the Panel speeds up the Act of genocide.

If we do not strive to be the world's police force, perhaps the representative from Venerable Libertarians would be good enough to tell me what the UN is doing sticking it's nose in non-UN nations business? Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to why this formed government - for, as it has the right to declare war, it is nothing less - has the right to drag the UN into battles it has no reason to be in in the first place?

With respect, as a member of these United Nations, We make no apology for being a member of a group who would try to protect the rights to life for those who cant defend them selves. to Accuse as you do is to say to the IRCO members why do you give assistance to the non UN Nation stuck by famine or disaster. As to the matter of war, No UN Nation is forced or coerced into aiding panel members, UN or Non UN, In any Intervention that passes the way of diplomacy for the heavy hand of the Armalite. The Panel does not go into war under a UN banner but under the banner of the Coalition of Nations who have agreed to assist in stopping Genocide.

Do we wish genocide stopped? Perhaps. But as our authority extends only as far as the UN membership, perhaps it would be prudent to being at those limits rather then attempting to moralize the world in one swift blow. For I assure you, should this chimera raise it's head too far, all of it's heads shall be swiftly removed.

Am i correct by this you are trying to say take baby steps rather than huge strides? I can understand and even accept that as i have said the panel can only crawl before it can walk, nevermind run. The Venerable Libertarians do not wish to Moralise to the world how to run your nations, which religion or idyll of governance to choose. We simply wish to Protect those peoples whom are treathened with their own demise for no other reason than the way they look, or for the distinction of being different by their governing majority. Your Reference to the chimera is not apt as the Panel is not a serpent of multiple heads but ruled by the single Chair elected by the members. It is that Chair who decides on the means of any Intervention.

Already, the Pretenama Panel seeks to stop that which is beyond our power to legislate - where will it end, sir? What protections have those nations against the power of the Panel? Are they represented? Are they consulted? Does any action of the Panel fall under the measures called by Fair Trial, or are those to be discarded because the "accused" is not within these walls

The Legislature is in the form of resolution 92 and untill we have seen an end to genocide it will not end, Sir. Up to the current Panel the Nations being investigated have been informed from the earliest possoble point that they are being investigated and are warned as such. Up to now the two investigations have had such overwhelming evidence that the accused had admitted genocide openly. The First was an Abject failure for which the Venerable Libertarians takes much of the Blame, as crimmond sped up its plans to commit genocide the Nations on the first Panel were forced to speed up and poorly role play an assault. This was only after all efforts of diplomacy were exhausted. The second has, with the lessons of the first worked out better so far. This is open for all to see on the UNO forums.

We have created a beast which purports to operate outside our laws, ourside our jurisdiction - and as such, it may treat those it seeks to judge as it will. Consider the power this Panel has assumed - shall we let this stand? And if so, do we not feed the rumor the UN seeks to dominate the world until it is a truth?

We have created a Panel of caring Nations which operates to the guidelines set within these United Nations, A group of nations who hold the Ideals of the United Nations Highly and we only seek to end Hatred, Bigotry and racism in any nation where it is encountered. We care not for Rumour or conjecture as to what nations outside of the UN think.

Choose your words carefully before you answer - the Panel as it believes itself now is beyond the law. Shall this be allowed to continue? And why do you believe this vacation from the rights of those who are not here to choose not to live under our laws and ideas, is merited?

Let us speak personally here. We know the task we are charged with is not an easy one, we accept that we have taken the road less travelled. We wont Apologise for standing up and telling a bully that it is out of order. We will not sit idly by and watch innocent men women and children die just because it is inconvenient to an nation perpetrating such. We fear not our detractors here in the UN full in the knowledge that we are doing the "Right" thing.

Magna_Cartman

10-05-2005, 12:01

With respect, as a member of these United Nations, We make no apology for being a member of a group who would try to protect the rights to life for those who cant defend them selves. to Accuse as you do is to say to the IRCO members why do you give assistance to the non UN Nation stuck by famine or disaster. As to the matter of war, No UN Nation is forced or coerced into aiding panel members, UN or Non UN, In any Intervention that passes the way of diplomacy for the heavy hand of the Armalite. The Panel does not go into war under a UN banner but under the banner of the Coalition of Nations who have agreed to assist in stopping Genocide.

Our colleague already understands that there is nothing stopping a UN nation from intervening in a case of genocide independent of the UN as it sees fit. What they fail to understand is that the panel is governed by UN resolution that sets out a framework for how it is to operate. TPP is therefore a much safer way to deal with these matters.

I agree with the Venerable Libertarian delegate that the same argument could be used for IRCO. You could say that assisting a non-UN nation is interfering and trying to push the ideals of the UN onto them.

I note at this time that TPP is dealing with the Macton situation extremely well. I notice the silence from supporters of the repeal on this matter now.

Petronea

10-05-2005, 12:35

Altren of Kymnos addresses the representative of the Venerable Libertarians:

Sir, I may not speak for the nation of Krioval; I can, and will, for the Principality of Petronea, on the basis of the shared understanding our nations have gained.

It is the opinion of Petronea that the primary questions at issue here are: What authority does an organization created by UN resolution have over non-UN nations? and How can one ensure the fair treatment of the accused nations by the Panel, particularly when the accused are under no obligation to accept its authority?

With respect, it seems to us that your comparison of the Pretenama Panel with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Organization is unapt. The IRCO was not created by UN resolution, and its activity does not imply the backing or credit of the United Nations as a whole. The Pretenama Panel was created by UN resolution, and seems to have been regarded by its constituent panelists as backed by the authority of the United Nations in its dealings with non-members. If it is indeed the case, as you have asserted, that "the panel does not go into war under the UN banner", then there is no overt need to reinforce its military authority by a UN resolution - other than to ensure that the mechanisms of the panel's deliberations are monitored by an organization with stated ideals.

It is this very assurance of which Petronea is uncertain. Surely the defendant in any proceeding has the right to representation, and to confront the accusers - such is the United Nations understanding of a fair trial. Yet how is this representation and confrontation to occur, if the accused is not required to acknowledge the authority of the judges? It is not enough to say that the offenders in past cases had been warned; nor does it suffice to say that they admitted guilt. Even criminals who admit guilt are entitled to, nay assigned, legal representation. Petronea is concerned that sufficient attention has not been given to how the panel may ensure such representation in its proceedings, especially those which appear likely to end in military intervention.

Neither I nor the representative from Krioval believe that populations threatened by genocide should not be protected. Our questions are whether this process can, or should, be accomplished by an organization created and operated under UN auspices.

In closing, I should like to stress that although Krioval and Petronea have a shared understanding, and common apprehensions, yet we are not fully in accord. The questions which I raised initially seem to have been answered by Krioval to its satisfaction; and in the negative. Petronea has not yet seen evidence sufficient to feel comfortable answering the questions either positively or negatively; but we have a spirit of optimism that these important issues may be resolved. It is in this spirit that the Principality of Petronea entered into the United Nations, and it is in this spirit that we announce our intentions to work within it for the good of all.

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 12:57

To recognise the Honourable members statements we shall only say this much. We have stated our position, Clearly. We have Answered questions with Honesty and integrity and we hereby state our objection to the Repeal and thus We will not support it.

On one further note regarding the IRCO,
The IRCO was not created by UN resolution, and its activity does not imply the backing or credit of the United Nations as a whole.

To the Honourable Member, I give you NSUN Resolution # 29, The IRCO.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #29

The IRCO
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Los chingados

Description: This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule. It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need. They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens. May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

Votes For: 11,835
Votes Against: 1,600

Implemented: Mon Sep 1 2003

Petronea

10-05-2005, 13:25

Krioval

10-05-2005, 16:52

I am compelled to wonder if anybody who so strongly advocates for Resolution 92 has bothered to read it.

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.) (emphasis mine)

Apparently, Resolution 92 allows one to unseat an unpopular dictator. However, it requires the consent of the "victims" in any case of intervention. In the Macton dispute, then, it would have required the express consent of the aboriginal peoples before intervention could have begun. Further, how does one prove that the victims have consented? Is there a form that needs to be filled out? To list all the potential cases where TPP can intervene, thanks to the "delightful" vagueness of Resolution 92, intervention could theoretically be invoked (and, in fact, *must*) in the following situations:

Toppling an unpopular dictator (even outside UN control!)
Genocide (well, obviously)
Denial of civil rights to one class of one's population
Slavery (surprised?)
Anything that can be crammed into the definition of "human rights abuses on a grand scale"

Of course, remember to get the victims' express consent to act. It is deplorable that some nation states consider their interpretation of a text to be the only valid one, especially when the text is contemporaneous with the debaters. UN resolutions are not holy writ, and if they were, Resolution 92 would be sufficient to induce Krioval's collective conversion (away from it, in case it's not obvious yet). But here lies another example of the problems inherent with Resolution 92: some wish it to be the standard by which the Pretenama Panel operates, yet they don't fully understand what lies within its text. Perhaps we need to augment certain countries' education budgets with an emphasis on literacy and reading comprehension.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Krioval

10-05-2005, 16:53

My sincerest apologies to the honored representative. I had reviewed the UN resolutions by title, but obviously missed this one. I humbly withdraw my comments with respect to the IRCO.

Altren
Metarch of Kymnos

We all make mistakes from time to time, honored delegate, but some of us are willing to admit them and work to correct them.

~ Koro

Venerable libertarians

10-05-2005, 17:06

My sincerest apologies to the honored representative. I had reviewed the UN resolutions by title, but obviously missed this one. I humbly withdraw my comments with respect to the IRCO.

Altren
Metarch of Kymnos
No Need to Apologise my friend, These things Happen.

Gwenstefani

10-05-2005, 17:29

We all make mistakes from time to time, honored delegate, but some of us are willing to admit them and work to correct them.

~ Koro

Like some of us on TPP are trying to do?

RomeW

11-05-2005, 07:02

First of all, we would like to commend the Vastivan Delegate for their comments, as they were extremely well-spoken and precise for the matter at hand.

Moving on, we would like to address a few points that have been raised in this discussion.

It is this very assurance of which Petronea is uncertain. Surely the defendant in any proceeding has the right to representation, and to confront the accusers - such is the United Nations understanding of a fair trial. Yet how is this representation and confrontation to occur, if the accused is not required to acknowledge the authority of the judges? It is not enough to say that the offenders in past cases had been warned; nor does it suffice to say that they admitted guilt. Even criminals who admit guilt are entitled to, nay assigned, legal representation. Petronea is concerned that sufficient attention has not been given to how the panel may ensure such representation in its proceedings, especially those which appear likely to end in military intervention.

...and why, pray tell, do those nations refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the "UN Court" (and I speak not primarily to you but more the Delegates in support of TPP)? Because time and time again, TPP has shown itself to be nothing more than a paper tiger and a laughingstock on the international scene. The situation in Belem is understandable- TPP was just getting its feet wet and, as a new, unproven entity, the Belemese saw no reason to legitimize its existence. However, since then, TPP has yet to give anyone a reason to legitimize its existence, as it has failed to partake in any meaningful action against the guilty states or even for the parties being exterminated. Granted, the Mactonese situation is a step in the right direction for TPP, but how much of that was due to the ties between Cobdenia and its former province Macton? To which we further point out that Cobdenia and Marramopia, who were not sitting on TPP concerning Macton, did most of the negotiation and the actual work involved in the crisis, while TPP sat idly. TPP has yet to prove itself as an effective institution with regards to genocide in ANY situation, and this is why we believe it must be terminated.

I agree with the Venerable Libertarian delegate that the same argument could be used for IRCO. You could say that assisting a non-UN nation is interfering and trying to push the ideals of the UN onto them.

Not so. We, a constitutional and democratic monarchy, could give a fascist dictator $50B to help with his food shortage and he would still remain a fascist dictator, and with his laws still intact. The Pretenama Panel works differently. It seeks to not only enforce a new set of laws onto the target nation, it may even remove that nation's government or even its governmental system. Unlike foreign aid, which does not seek to change the laws of the land but simply to provide help to the nation in need, TPP is not an intervention system that does not abridge national soverignty, for it is requiring a nation to change its laws (outlaw genocide) or even its government and/or governmental system.

Furthermore, foreign aid is voluntarily asked for and received by the nation in question- TPP intervention is not. In fact, its very nature calls for an involuntary intervention, and thus does not fall under the same category as the "intervention" of the IRCO. Never have I heard a nation who has asked for aid be forced at gunpoint to receive aid, unlike the nations commiting genocide, who never asked for intervention in the first place.

While we respect the Venerable Libertarian Delegate, we cannot let their fallacy pass without refutation, for it is not within the spirit of UN debate to allow untruths to fester.

(OOC: Magna Cartman, no disrespect to you as a player- it's just that ever since your Delegate ICly slagged the Kriovalian Delegate unjustly, my Delegate would not give you respect. Just to clarify)

Vastiva

11-05-2005, 07:39

Our colleague already understands that there is nothing stopping a UN nation from intervening in a case of genocide independent of the UN as it sees fit. What they fail to understand is that the panel is governed by UN resolution that sets out a framework for how it is to operate. TPP is therefore a much safer way to deal with these matters.

I agree with the Venerable Libertarian delegate that the same argument could be used for IRCO. You could say that assisting a non-UN nation is interfering and trying to push the ideals of the UN onto them.

I note at this time that TPP is dealing with the Macton situation extremely well. I notice the silence from supporters of the repeal on this matter now.

My silence does not mean you have converted me. Be very careful in your interpretation of signs and portends.

The IRCO does not seek military action; it cannot, by it's nature. Strawmen arguements do not impress us.

Vastiva

11-05-2005, 07:43

Like some of us on TPP are trying to do?

Strawmen are good only for burning.

It is your perception of your own "power" and the lack of checks upon these powers which are in discussion.

The IRCO can land food, it can land aid. It cannot land troops.

The ineptitude of the TPP could very well endanger us all. This too must be considered as you flail about, believing in a power the UN is not empowered to grant.

Krioval

11-05-2005, 07:47

Gwenstefani

11-05-2005, 12:54

Krioval is still awaiting information as to how the victims of genocide or human rights abuses can consent to the Pretenama Panel's intervention. It is widely assumed among Kriovalians that people incarcerated in death camps are not easily able to contact international organizations to request a change of government in their home nation. Clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

TPP will not help people who do not want to be helped. I doubt, though, that there will be many instances where people are happy to be ethnically cleansed.

Further, we are disheartened by the unwillingness of members of the Pretenama Panel to concede the very real crises facing its functionality. One such problem is that many nations' diplomats appear to be so busy as to be unable to attend crucial votes, delaying the panel's activity. As the panel is simultaneously asking nonmembers to withhold international intervention until the panel is succeessfully done, the overall effect is to slow international response to mounting crises.

TPP has been quite willing to admit that TPP has flaws- however, we are trying to fix them rather than disband TPP altogether in this context. As we have said repeatedly, this kind of thing has never been attempted before, and it will not work perfectly instantaneously.

I fear most of the arguments on this thread (on both sides) are going round and round in circles. If anything new or relevant comes up I'll respond again... For now I'll agree to disagree

Powerhungry Chipmunks

11-05-2005, 13:17

Strawmen are good only for burning.

It is your perception of your own "power" and the lack of checks upon these powers which are in discussion.

The IRCO can land food, it can land aid. It cannot land troops.

The ineptitude of the TPP could very well endanger us all. This too must be considered as you flail about, believing in a power the UN is not empowered to grant.
According to my understanding, Gwenstefani was not using a strawman argument. And TPP will never "endanger us all", only those who choose to participate and/or recognize it or any consequent conflict. And I don't see what power TPP is granting that it's "not empowered" to grant.

Krioval

11-05-2005, 17:53

OOC:

Saying, effectively, that TPP can't do much of anything because someone can ignore it isn't a very strong argument in its favor. Technically, just about anything in NS can be ignored, but it doesn't mean it should be. I'd really, really prefer IC-only arguments for or against the repeal - if I'm misunderstanding something, though, let me know.

IC:

The delegate from Gwenstefani has yet to answer my question. How does one verify that people want intervention, and how many people need to consent? As to the issues of the panel's flaws, these issues should have been ironed out earlier. The Pretenama Panel was established half a year ago, and expanded without having ever convened three months ago. In that time, I have yet to see one outcome that could not have been achieved more rapidly and to greater effect outside the walls of the United Nations. While it may be convenient to "agree to disagree" when one is in the majority of parties thus far showing interest on this issue, Krioval notes that few, if any, arguments against this repeal effort focus on anything of substance. Instead, I hear sappy emotionalism, the "wait and see" philosophy in its many incarnations, and accusations that Krioval is somehow guilty of having secret agendas.

Krioval would also like to remind Gwenstefani that repealing Resolution 92 would not disband the Pretenama Panel - it would merely restrict its focus to individuals.

~ Koro Vartek

Vastiva

12-05-2005, 06:45

According to my understanding, Gwenstefani was not using a strawman argument. And TPP will never "endanger us all", only those who choose to participate and/or recognize it or any consequent conflict. And I don't see what power TPP is granting that it's "not empowered" to grant.

OOC: See also "Role Playing". Sheesh, PC, I'd have thought you'd have caught on by now. By "strawmen", the Caliph was not referring to an arguement, he was refering to the "power" of the TPP to enforce it's own decisions, as in "has none" or "All smoke and mirrors".

Krioval

12-05-2005, 07:32

OOC: I think I'll try a telegram campaign this weekend - I'll resubmit the proposal Friday night. Is there anyone out there with a reliable list of delegates? Otherwise, I'll just use the ones voting on the current resolution (which I'll poach tomorrow night).

Powerhungry Chipmunks

12-05-2005, 15:33

OOC: See also "Role Playing". Sheesh, PC, I'd have thought you'd have caught on by now.

You know as well as I do that United Nations is not a full-fledged RP forum. There was no "IC", or other markings hinting that your comment was 'in character'. I see no problem with my response.

By "strawmen", the Caliph was not referring to an arguement, he was refering to the "power" of the TPP to enforce it's own decisions, as in "has none" or "All smoke and mirrors".

Still sounds like an inside joke with yourself to me, as I don't see an explanation behind those assertions. I think if you're going to convince people that TPP is unjust--or, I should say--"All smoke and mirrors", you're probably going to need to be a little clearer in what you're saying.

Vastiva

13-05-2005, 05:52

:rolleyes:

You know as well as I do that United Nations is not a full-fledged RP forum. There was no "IC", or other markings hinting that your comment was 'in character'. I see no problem with my response.

*hands you some glasses* It's called "reading the posters style".

Still sounds like an inside joke with yourself to me, as I don't see an explanation behind those assertions. I think if you're going to convince people that TPP is unjust--or, I should say--"All smoke and mirrors", you're probably going to need to be a little clearer in what you're saying.

OOC: Obviously you haven't been reading the discussion, and I'm not going to repeat everything repeatedly, because that's repetitious.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

13-05-2005, 16:30

*hands you some glasses* It's called "reading the posters style".

First off, it's no responsiblity of mine to know what your "style" of posting is--not everyone else is as expert in the subject of you as you are. I really do have better things to do with my time than make the list or RPers, "okay this person likes to RP; this person doesn't. This person will want me to take his comments with a grain of salt because he has a maniacal sultan at the keyboard; this is a regular person who regularly discusses things". And since this forum is only optionally IC, I'm not required to do that anyway. If someone's going to play in character, they're going to have to make it known to me, rather than just assuming I can read their mind, or have completed an exhaustive study of their "wonderful" posts.

And, now that I look around, I don't see any habitual indicators that you're always posting IC. I mean, one would think that if your "style" to post IC were so self-evident, that you'd occasionally put "IC" tags in your posts. As of now, I don't see any, and now that I'm looking back to other posts of yours I remember, I can't say that I remember any then, either. To me, it seems just as likely that this "my style is always IC" complaint is just a copout for when you get into a disagreement with someone, or get caught acting childish ("it was my character that flamed you, I swear!"), as it is likely that you honestly think you've made it easy for anyone on the forum--evidence being readily available--to deduce your comments as IC.

Which, obviously, I disagree with--and even if I didn't, it still isn't my duty to find out what "your style" is. If you play hide-and-go-seek without telling anyone, don't be surprised when no one comes looking for you. Definitely don't act as if it's my responsibility to catalogue your behaviors on this forum.

About the repeal, I really haven't see any adequate (according to my perspective) explanation as to why the TPP doesn't have the authority that it's claiming. Not in your posts. Not in the rest of the thread. I have been keeping up with the thread, and I have tried to keep an open mind to Krioval's arguments, but as of now, I really don't see any convincing reason for me to support this repeal. If you're going to hurt Krioval's repeal (presumably without his/her permission) by telling those with questions to "read the rest of the thread", then so be it. If no one will shoulder the burden of proof that this repeal is necessary, then I am, by default, against it.

Krioval

13-05-2005, 17:51

It is the belief of the government of Krioval that if delegates present wish for the United Nations to interfere unilaterally in the affairs of nations outside this organization, they will oppose the repeal effort. Sadly, there is little that can be done about this, except to point out that it was never the intention of the United Nations to form an army, or to impose UN resolutions on non-UN states. It is a disturbing trend to see a weakening in the foundational principles of the United Nations to protect at least the barest of national sovereignty, and by waving a UN flag over an invasion force into a non-UN country, the hegemonic tendencies of some members of the UN become evident.

Krioval is opposed to UN-sponsored intervention into non-UN nations because those nations lack the protections of other UN resolutions. They have no vote on issues before this body. Thus, it stands to reason that they are not beholden to the decisions of the United Nations. If it is reasoned that they are, or should be, then the United Nations has become an agent of tyranny - a nation could theoretically have a government deposed for violating a UN resolution while technically never having been bound by said resolution. That would constitute an illegal act, if the protocols of the UN are said to have any binding force on its members.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

OOC: If the game mods thought that Res 92 was meant to apply to non-UN nations, I have my doubts that it would have been left on the queue.

Vastiva

13-05-2005, 20:07

yadda yadda yadda

OOC:
:rolleyes: You must not do the "Play thing" or "Theater thing" often. Anyone who watches dramatic arts would know the difference in a twinkling. Very well, I'll endeavor to be clearer of OOC and IC in my posts here from now on, will a color change do?

About the repeal, I really haven't see any adequate (according to my perspective) explanation as to why the TPP doesn't have the authority that it's claiming. Not in your posts. Not in the rest of the thread. I have been keeping up with the thread, and I have tried to keep an open mind to Krioval's arguments, but as of now, I really don't see any convincing reason for me to support this repeal. If you're going to hurt Krioval's repeal (presumably without his/her permission) by telling those with questions to "read the rest of the thread", then so be it. If no one will shoulder the burden of proof that this repeal is necessary, then I am, by default, against it.

OOC:
OOC: If the game mods thought that Res 92 was meant to apply to non-UN nations, I have my doubts that it would have been left on the queue.

There, have you seen it now? That would be the plainest anyone could spell it out - the TPP is judging nations not in the UN and thereby exerting power over nations which are not under the rightful domain of the UN auspices. That would be like me seizing your computer because Fred told me I could - Illegal as all hell, no conferred authority.

The TPP is also in defiance of "Fair Trial" as the accused is not given a fair trial and is not given a representative to be heard: all TPP cases are performed "in a vacuum".

Now, the arguement could be forwarded "Fair trial doesn't apply, they're not a UN nation" - but if that is the case, neither does the TPP.

Does that clarify the general stance?

Krioval

13-05-2005, 22:03

OOC: I'll put up the next round of this repeal when I get home from work tonight. I've grabbed the list of delegates voting on the current resolution as of yesterday - if anybody has a better list, feel free to let me know. If anybody is really interested in helping me telegram delegates, I'd love to know!

Powerhungry Chipmunks

13-05-2005, 23:45

OOC:
:rolleyes: You must not do the "Play thing" or "Theater thing" often. Anyone who watches dramatic arts would know the difference in a twinkling.

Don't patronize me like that. It's immature, and it's specifically OOC.

And besides that, it’s incorrect.

I regularly enjoy theatrical productions (musicals, opera, and otherwise). However, there are fundamental differences between theater and text-based roleplay. Mainly, I have to construct the scene in my head when reading yours and other's text roleplay (that is, when you produce enough evidence that it is a RP remark) before interpreting its meaning, whereas when I go to the theater the visual situation is already laid out before me--all I have to do is add meaning.

When two people see the same play, it's very likely that they'll come to similar conclusions, because they're both receiving the same visual data and the only difference between them is the interpretation of that data. When reading a book, or in this case, considering an unknown IC response, the same two people can easily recreate the visual scene very differently, especially when there are few cues to lead them to the author's intent.

If you had said "you must not do the 'II roleplay thing' or 'NS roleplay thing' much" in your comment, though it still would be unprofessional and childish, it would at least be somewhat accurate. Activity or patronage in or of theater is entirely detached from forming expectations in text-based Nationstates RP. I admittedly don't do much NS RP. But do not mistake that as me not enjoying literature and cultural events, or, as you imply, being somehow beneath you.

Venerable libertarians

14-05-2005, 01:48

Gentlemen, if you are indeed Gentle men!
Lets forget the acrimony beteen each other and lets be reminded that we have a repeal to discuss here.

This thread has been Jacked enough, No?

Vastiva

14-05-2005, 01:57

Don't patronize me like that. It's immature, and it's specifically OOC.

OOC: Got an idea for you, PC. How about you stop with the arrogance, I'll tone down what you perceive as patronization, and we both pretend we can work with each other for the betterment of the UN? Tacit respect at the least would seem accomplishable.

IC:
We continue to be of the opinion - which the representative from Powerhungry Chipmunks has not yet faced - the Pretenama Panel is either overstepping the bounds of its stated purpose, or ignoring prior legislation. In either case, this makes the Panel illegal, and worth repealing.

Ecopoeia

14-05-2005, 02:54

Having given the matter careful consideration, I believe that The Pretenama Panel has indeed exceeded its brief with the trials of non-UN nations. It grieves me that we are unable under international law to try sch rogue states, but this, regrettably, is the reality that we face.

That said, I have recommended to my nation's UN representatives that they do NOT endorse any move to undermine the Panel. TPP is undergoing extensive teething troubles, but we should not give up on it yet.

Josephine Nyerere
Ecopoeian Representative to The Pretenama Panel

Vastiva

14-05-2005, 02:56

Ecopoeia

14-05-2005, 03:15

Your pardon, did you just state "Yes, it's illegal, but let's keep it anyway?" That sort of statement, we wish on the record.
No, my contention is that TPP has acted illegally, not that it is illegal.

J Nyerere

Krioval

14-05-2005, 03:25

No, my contention is that TPP has acted illegally, not that it is illegal.

J Nyerere

The difference being that if we all ask really nicely, it won't overstep its bounds again? We of Krioval are not very good at begging, though - we prefer something in writing, preferably in resolution form.

Koro Vartek

Vastiva

14-05-2005, 03:32

No, my contention is that TPP has acted illegally, not that it is illegal.

J Nyerere

Then, if we drive over your car with a tank, we are not performing an illegal action, just acting illegally?

Odd, our definitions remain distinctly different. Without a firm limitation on the power of the Pretenama Panel, it is a wildcard. As a wildcard, it performs beyond it's legal power, for whatever reasons it believes merit action.

We find this particular tank requires removal, as it has proven - not once, mind you, but three times it is incapable of remaining within the boundaries of the UN, and believes itself to have the power of judgement over those not in the UN - with the ability to freely override the designs of the "Fair Trial" resolution.

Do you deny these allegations? We thought not.

As it cannot be... "trusted"?... it should be eliminated.

Krioval

14-05-2005, 04:19

OOC: Resubmitted - TG campaign to begin tomorrow.

Enn

14-05-2005, 05:36

I'm considering my position on this. Particularly in light of the current Panel, which was instituted after the rules governing TPP were changed to speed up the process. It's currently in a very confused state, in which the Chair (myself) is being presented with three different interpretations of said rules.

I'm worried that it is going to turn into a complete bureaucratic dinosaur. But I can't say for sure that I'll support the repeal attempt at present.

[edit] err... that was meant to make sense. If needed, I'll try writing it out again.

Venerable libertarians

14-05-2005, 11:40

We find this particular tank requires removal, as it has proven - not once, mind you, but three times it is incapable of remaining within the boundaries of the UN, and believes itself to have the power of judgement over those not in the UN - with the ability to freely override the designs of the "Fair Trial" resolution.

Do you deny these allegations? We thought not.

Under the Current rules the Panel has the right to investigate Non UN nations for the Atrocity of Genocide therefore the "three times" of which you speak were perfectly legal. That my friend is a fact no matter what tank you may try to drive over it.

And asking, "do we deny the allegation", then stating that you thought not in the same post without giving the nations represented here the right of reply is akin to my saying that this post ends All discussion on this matter, which it clearly does not.

The Panel has acted Legally. The Panel convenes Under a UN Banner but acts as an International Panel in matters of Intervention.

Krioval

14-05-2005, 20:23

Some quotes from TPP and its auxiliary sites:

As a general rule, UN resolutions apply only to UN members, the Eon Convention on Genocide was an exception.

The question, then, is how either of these resolutions are meant to be considered legal by the protocols of the UN? I mean, if we're allowed to have "special exceptions" whenever we can sneak them through, where does it all end? I firmly find that if the vetting committee (OOC: game mods) were under the impression that either EON or 92 were meant to target non-UN states, they would have been killed before reaching the floor. The UN, collectively, has no power over the actions of nations not among its membership. To circumvent this with "cleverly" worded resolutions obliterates that restriction, to the detriment of both UN and non-UN nations.

I interpret that there is no mandate for tpp to investigate or act on anything other than genocide.

Thanks to the clarity of Resolution 92? Well, if it's the prevailing view, I suppose...

Genocide is not the only thing covered by the PP. Human rights abuses, which in my opinion would include slavery, are included in the resolution.

...oh. The resolution is unclear. Funny how that was my objection in February too. So we (collectively) really don't know the authority of the panel.

And I still do not understand why everyone thinks this should only apply to UN Nations. There is no reason that other Nations can not attempt to censor another Nation (UN or not) for their actions. At least this way their is a chance at a diplomatic solution. I stand by the idea that the Panel has whatever juristiction we can enforce.

There would be the arrogance and belligerence that Krioval has been most concerned with in past days. The attitude that the UN can and should suppress anything its members want, even if it exceeds UN jurisdiction is troubling, to say the least. If the above is the prevailing attitude about the panel, that it "has whatever jurisdiction we can enforce", I think that I will have to work that much harder to undo the travesty of Resolution 92.

Krioval

14-05-2005, 20:26

Under the Current rules the Panel has the right to investigate Non UN nations for the Atrocity of Genocide therefore the "three times" of which you speak were perfectly legal.

Perhaps legal under the resolution, but that simply shifts the illegality onto the resolution. Ultimately, illegality exists, and has been exposed, much to the chagrin of the more vocal members of the Pretenama Panel - so desperate for a success that rules and regulations get twisted around on an hourly basis.

The Panel convenes Under a UN Banner but acts as an International Panel in matters of Intervention.

And yet it is Krioval who has been accused of doublespeak and logical contortions. That is truly ironic.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Venerable libertarians

15-05-2005, 00:45

much to the chagrin of the more vocal members of the Pretenama Panel - so desperate for a success that rules and regulations get twisted around on an hourly basis.

Interesting, Please give examples to your spurious claim!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rysonia, again
And I still do not understand why everyone thinks this should only apply to UN Nations. There is no reason that other Nations can not attempt to censor another Nation (UN or not) for their actions. At least this way their is a chance at a diplomatic solution. I stand by the idea that the Panel has whatever juristiction we can enforce.

There would be the arrogance and belligerence that Krioval has been most concerned with in past days.

I believe Rysonia has been taken out of context here. That was a Personal statement of how Rysonia, Believes any nation should be taken to task for any inhumanity. But that does not reflect the position of The Pretenema Panel. The Pretenema Panel has been mandated clearly to investigate and act on matters of genocide and that alone. Other matters are hazy and thus have not been included in the Mandate of TPP. The Three nations Investigated so far has been with an occurence of Genocide. The First the Panel could not convene for due to lack of members. The Second failed due to the accused nation Godmoding and being reluctant to role play with novice RP'ers. the Third as yet Unresolved Panel is reaching agreement as we speak on intervention. The rules have been fully adhered to and it seems any problems with interpreting those rules shall be ironed out. We have said this before and we shall say it again. As TPP is in its infancy it will make errors. Did not this very United Nations have such errors when in its infancy and since, thinking of the last successful repeal by the powerhungry Chipmonks which removed an outdated proposal which should have been repealed before the replacement came into being.
I for one will not like Koro Vartec cast the first stone at TPP and we apologise to Kriovolians eveywhere for not being as Perfect as they so obviously are.
We ask simply that Krioval end this repeal and work from within, with the other members to get TPP to function as it should.

Lord Esheram Byron,
Representing the king of the Venerable Libertarians and the Realm of Hibernia.

Krioval

15-05-2005, 02:43

The entirety of the commentary from Rysonia (empases mine):

I think that right there should say it all. Genocide is not the only thing covered by the PP. Human rights abuses, which in my opinion would include slavery, are included in the resolution.

And I still do not understand why everyone thinks this should only apply to UN Nations. There is no reason that other Nations can not attempt to censor another Nation (UN or not) for their actions. At least this way their is a chance at a diplomatic solution. I stand by the idea that the Panel has whatever juristiction we can enforce.

Not only are those ideas completely in context, but I took painstaking efforts to make sure I was not misrepresenting the ideas. Rysonia is a member of the panel. The delegate from that nation said that the panel is not limited solely to genocide. The words "I think that..." or variations thereof were not included. Either the panel lacks sufficient protocols to prevent nations from speaking for the entire panel regardless of content, or the panel really doesn't seem to mind that its role is being expanded by fiat. No, I think that Rysonia's comments are blatantly obvious.

Now, from the "evidence against Macton" thread:

The UN pretenama panel has been notified awaiting secondment.
Have a nice apocalypse!

The difference being, Crimmond was a very large military power.

Macton is not.

Gwenstefani alone outnumbers Macton in both population and military statistics. A coalition of TPP members will immensely outpower you. You would do well to avoid a military confrontation, and resort to diplomatic resolutions.

So those comments set the tone, that being: we're bigger, so we're right. That the panelists then were unable to come to an agreement on whether slavery was sufficient to involve the panel, following which there was intense pressure on the Chair to unilaterally decide a course of action. During the entire time, there was never any move to summon a Mactonese representative before the panel - those negotiations were done outside the panel's convention.

My contention stands. Some members of the Pretenama Panel appear sufficiently desperate for a successful intervention that one would target a former province, while others threatened repeatedly with the size of the panel's combined military force. Non-UN states were also discouraged from intervening until the panel was complete, even though there was really no strong reason to wave them off. "Forgive" me if it all looks a bit self-serving, what with all the political back slapping going on in and around the panel's chambers.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Vastiva

15-05-2005, 03:39

Under the Current rules the Panel has the right to investigate Non UN nations for the Atrocity of Genocide therefore the "three times" of which you speak were perfectly legal. That my friend is a fact no matter what tank you may try to drive over it.

And asking, "do we deny the allegation", then stating that you thought not in the same post without giving the nations represented here the right of reply is akin to my saying that this post ends All discussion on this matter, which it clearly does not.

The Panel has acted Legally. The Panel convenes Under a UN Banner but acts as an International Panel in matters of Intervention.

You remain blind, so I shall ask you a few direct questions which I require a direct answer to:

WHO gave them the right to do anything to nations outside the UN?

Where is their power to act internationally derived from?

Where is the protection "Fair Trial" guarantees shown in any of the panels conveined so far? If you wish the resolution quoted again here, I shall - though I would prefer you quote where the Panels followed the guidelines of that resolution.

How is this different then any other illegal group of thugs?

RomeW

15-05-2005, 07:34

You remain blind, so I shall ask you a few direct questions which I require a direct answer to:

WHO gave them the right to do anything to nations outside the UN?

Where is their power to act internationally derived from?

Where is the protection "Fair Trial" guarantees shown in any of the panels conveined so far? If you wish the resolution quoted again here, I shall - though I would prefer you quote where the Panels followed the guidelines of that resolution.

How is this different then any other illegal group of thugs?

*applauds* Well said Vastiva, well said.

Gwenstefani

15-05-2005, 12:42

we're bigger, so we're right[/b].

The quote from me there was a) said when I was not serving on the panel and b) made very clear that I was speaking as Gwenstefani and not on behalf of TPP. I was talking one state to another. However, I see nothing wrong with using the threat of force to prevent violence and genocide.

Gwenstefani

15-05-2005, 12:46

Krioval

15-05-2005, 19:51

What's the United Nations?

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

Emphases are my own. I am particularly interested in how one can claim that the UN has any authority over a non-UN state when it is spelled out that this is not the case. In short, the delegate from Gwenstefani is wrong.

It is legal. It has noble goals. It is regulated by laws and legislation. It is governed by democratic principles.

It is illegal. It has noble goals on paper, but individuals' political aspirations seem to interfere even with that. It is regulated by voluntary laws that could be reversed on a whim. What "democratic principles"? The "right" to vote guilty or be ridiculed? The "right" to make no motions that would stop an intervention? Gwenstefani must have a very interesting notion of democracy to forward those restrictions as "democratic principles".

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Venerable libertarians

15-05-2005, 21:21

Originally Posted by The UN FAQ
What's the United Nations?

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

(Emphasis by Venerable Libertarians) If Krioval wishes to use the Faq then this could tell nations that we have the Right to govern the World!

It is not only TPP which can have confusing elements. We read them and choose to apply them where we can and Interpret them in the hope that we are in Keeping with the original Ideal with which they were intended keeping true to when they were first posted..

Krioval

15-05-2005, 22:03

Please. The fact that it then goes on to state, clearly, that UN members are bound by UN decisions while nonmembers are not make the meaning obvious and evident. Using Resolution 92 to shove UN authority down the throats of nations declining membership is the sort of thing I would have originally thought Gatesville's populace used in horror stories, and that it was practically baseless. Now I begin to see that these stories have basis in reality, and it is a scary thought - Krioval has no need for "big brother" to dominate and oppress, and we are disinclined to allow the United Nations to be corrupted into such an agency.

Koro Vartek

Gwenstefani

15-05-2005, 22:14

Emphases are my own. I am particularly interested in how one can claim that the UN has any authority over a non-UN state when it is spelled out that this is not the case. In short, the delegate from Gwenstefani is wrong.

No, Krioval is wrong. I can use the bold feature too. Resolution 92 does not prevent non-members from committing genocide. If it did, TPP would be redundant. What Resolution 92 actually does, which is quite legal, is offer a support base and an advisory board for UN members who wish to put an end to genocide, which they are entitled to do.

The UN (and Res 92) does not tell non-members that they cannot commit genocide.

UN members may tell non-UN members that if they do commit genocide, they will do something about it.

TPP regulates what those UN members do.

Therefore, logically, Res 92 does not directly affect non-UN members at all.

It is illegal.
It is legal.
It has noble goals on paper, but individuals' political aspirations seem to interfere even with that.
Show me any resolution that can not be benefited from by particular nations. At least TPP requires a 2/3 majority of a panel of 15 randomly selected states. Abuse is not made easy.
What "democratic principles"? The "right" to vote guilty or be ridiculed? The "right" to make no motions that would stop an intervention? Gwenstefani must have a very interesting notion of democracy to forward those restrictions as "democratic principles".
Let me see, the fact that the resolution was voted for democratically, the fact that all panel decisions are voted on democratically, and so on.

If Res 92 were illegal, it would never have been passed. The fact is, it is not. So there are two options. Repeal it. Or help improve it in ways you would find acceptable. You have chosen not even to attempt the latter option. You complain about TPP going to far and not going far enough at the same time. You complain about hearings taking too long, and yet deliberately hold them up.

When you don't want something to work, it often won't. If you try and improve it, it often will. I suppose this will come under your category of emotions and heart-string pulling appeals, and so you will instantly dismiss it.

But then, what is the argument against genocide itself if not an appeal to emotions and hearts?

Krioval

15-05-2005, 22:37

The representative from Gwenstefani would do well to consider the very real possibility that if it were specifically said during the campaign to pass Resolution 92 that it was meant to apply to non-UN countries, it would have likely either been pulled outright, or it might have failed. Krioval is trying to improve the Pretenama Panel - by returning it to its original focus. That some nations seek to turn it into the "UN army of vengeance" against nations outside the UN is appalling.

UN members may tell non-UN members that if they do commit genocide, they will do something about it.

Not by resolution, they can't. Besides, "they will do something about it" implies a UN-backed military force, which is expressly forbidden. The UN as a whole cannot dictate policy to countries outside its membership. That's the main point of this repeal effort - the UN has gone too far in this regard, and the potential for abuse must be reversed before it is too late, and someone manages to find a way to use the UN as an agent of suppression.

Technically, by your argument, the UN could use military intervention to impose a 40-hour workweek on non-UN states. Imagine, after all this time of telling people that they can leave the UN if they disagree with its policies that UN members are now starting to say that it doesn't matter; they'll hunt you down no matter what!

I don't see two-thirds majority described in any of the relevant resolutions, either. Of course, I'm not entirely surprised. And repeatedly insisting that the resolution is legal doesn't make it so. And with regard to your comment about helping out, Krioval does help, by obliterating a vague and potentially abusive resolution and leaving the door open to a better worded replacement. Resolution 92 needs to go.

Finally, genocide is a problem that can be combatted rationally. It is a crime against basic human rights, namely those of life and a certain degree of liberty. It may not stir the heart to also mention that there is an economic impact of genocide that is decidedly negative. It takes resources to commit, and afterward, the labor pool is greatly diminished. Frankly, charging in, banner of "truth and justice" flying, is a good way to get a lot of people killed in a very short period of time, and the underlying situation is seldom resolved. Treating the Pretenama Panel as the sole recourse for intervention when other nations are willing and able to place sufficient diplomatic pressure on a would-be genocidal nation or people is actually making the problem worse. Many panelists seem possessed by an insidious form of hubris - they believe in their own infallibility, despite having been proven wrong in the past.

~ Koro Vartek

Vastiva

16-05-2005, 01:15

You remain blind, so I shall ask you a few direct questions which I require a direct answer to:

WHO gave them the right to do anything to nations outside the UN?

The UN has not yet limited the relations between member and non-UN member states. Anything not illegal is therefore legal.

The TPP is a UN creation, and therefore has no authority or power over any non-UN nation.

Where is their power to act internationally derived from?

Again, if there is nothing preventing UN members from doing so, then it is legal.

You have just admitted to being a group of armed, self-righteous thugs. We appreciate the admission.

Where is the protection "Fair Trial" guarantees shown in any of the panels conveined so far? If you wish the resolution quoted again here, I shall - though I would prefer you quote where the Panels followed the guidelines of that resolution.

I will have to look into this later, but ff this is not the case, then it is easily remedied by amending TPP legislation to incorporate all aspects of the Fair Trial. The exact TPP workings cannot be included in the actual UN resolution. We would be best to therefore amend TPP law rather than repeal it altogether.

Amendments are illegal, and you have just admitted the TPP panels are not paying attention to prior resolutions, which makes them all the more illegal.

How is this different then any other illegal group of thugs?

It is legal.

False. You have already admitted it is not legal.

It has noble goals.

Irrelevant.

It is regulated by laws and legislation.

False. You have already admitted this is not the case.

It is governed by democratic principles.

Irrelevant and false.

Vastiva therefore charges you - as you have already admitted and proven the Pretenama Panel to be overstepping its bounds and charter, that you move with all haste to have the Pretenama Panel... disbarred.

Fatus Maximus

16-05-2005, 01:35

Krioval

16-05-2005, 05:42

I can attack any nation, UN or non-UN member, for any reason, can I not? Including the fact that I want to prevent another nation from commiting genocide? The Pretenama Panel allows a place for UN members interested in preventing genocide from taking place to align their efforts against genocidal nations. The UN can't expect a non-member to confrom to a resolution they've passed- but individual nations, under the supervision of the panel as a whole, can at least prevent genocide from taking place.

Fatus Maximus can attack any nation it wants. So can Krioval or any of the other nations possessing at least some level of armament. However, the United Nations cannot, and it cannot create agencies that use military power against other nations, especially those outside the UN. The Pretenama Panel was created by the UN to police the UN, and to remove individuals involved in genocide from power (and from freedom, for that matter). It was illegally amended to illegally use military power illegally against nations outside the UN.

What I don't quite understand is why there is so much hoop-jumping by way of rhetorical devices to justify the UN becoming involved in the affairs of non-UN states when UN (and non-UN) nations could convene a "Coalition Against Genocide", which could follow the exact ruleset of the Pretenama Panel under Resolution 92, but with none of the questionable legality (where questions still remain, that is).

Gwenstefani

16-05-2005, 12:27

Krioval

16-05-2005, 15:48

The UN should not be "guiding" or "advising" armed forces. That is not its job. And to apply the "duck test" (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, call it a duck):

There's an army.
It was created in response to an investigation of the Pretenama Panel.
The Pretenama Panel was empowered to raise an army by Resolution 92.
Logically, then, Resolution 92 led to the creation of an army by the UN.
Said UN-based army is intervening in non-UN states, which constitutes interference in their sovereignty effectively by the United Nations.
It also makes use of a committee established by previous resolution, which is illegal under current rules.
Therefore, Resolution 92 is illegal.

Besides, having to wonder constantly if an intervention is legal (and no, majority opinion doesn't count) does nothing to increase the legitimacy of an invasion. I'm sure I could find ten UN members willing to endorse my conquests as well, but I don't consider that an overwhelming mandate, nor should I automatically think that the world will shower me with gifts for seeking UN approval (in such a limited form nonetheless!) before a military intervention. Apparently, Krioval is not the only nation concerned with this.

Gwenstefani

16-05-2005, 16:06

It was created in response to an investigation of the Pretenama Panel.
The Pretenama Panel was empowered to raise an army by Resolution 92.
No, actually. The army was ready to be raised already by the nations willing to intervene. Before acting, they consulted the TPP. The force may have been bolstered by this process through others lending their support (as the incident now has international publicity) but the force was not created by TPP.

Said UN-based army is intervening in non-UN states, which constitutes interference in their sovereignty effectively by the United Nations.
Not a UN-based army, other than the fact that the nations are UN members. But they are perfectly within their rights to invade a non-UN member. For whatever reason.

It also makes use of a committee established by previous resolution, which is illegal under current rules.
Only in name and set up. But Res 92 can stand on its own, even with the repeal of the Eon Convention.

Therefore, Resolution 92 is illegal.
It is legal.

Krioval

16-05-2005, 19:04

Fine. Krioval understands that Gwenstefani has no problem with the UN organizing and "advising" an invasion force. That does not make it any more legal, however, and merely saying that it does has no effect whatsoever on that fact. As Resolution 92 specifically refers to protocols set up in a previous resolution (83 - EON), it cannot stand on its own. The people of Krioval are tired of our UN contributions going toward funding illegal actions in non-UN states. Besides, if we're going with "majority rules", apparently the thirty panelists should concede the matter to the fifty-nine delegates opposing "Humanitarian Intervention". Consider it a sacrifice to democratic principles.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

Vastiva

16-05-2005, 19:28

Perhaps the confusion is arising from the slightly different purposes of TPP under the Eon Convention and Res 92.

In Res 92, the panel is not raising a UN force. The Panel is only judging the merits of the case and offernig advice. While TPP members may choose to be a part of the intervention, they are not obliged to, and are doing so as individual nations. Those wishing to intervene come to the panel first. At least part of the force should already have been raised.

Vastiva: No, I certainly did not admit to being a thug.

The amendments are not illegal- I am not referring to Res 92 but TPP legislation created outwith the resolution. The Panel rules cannot be included in UN Resolutions as that is illegal. They are therefore able to be amended so long as their is a majority approval.

I have never admitted to TPP being illegal because I believe it is very much legal.

We return to our original questions, yet again:

1) WHO gave them the right to do anything to nations outside the UN?

Answer: No one. A UN panel cannot act outside the UN, because the UN does not have the right to function outside the UN. All other activities of the UN which move outside UN jurisdiction (IRCO, etc) do so with the blessings of the non-UN nation. The TPP is an exception to this, and is therefore illegal.

2) Where is their power to act internationally derived from?

Answer: It's imagination. A UN organization does not have that right.

3) Where is the protection "Fair Trial" guarantees shown in any of the panels conveined so far? If you wish the resolution quoted again here, I shall - though I would prefer you quote where the Panels followed the guidelines of that resolution.

Answer: Does not exist. Therefore, the TPP is acting illegally by sheer truth of not recognizing earlier UN Resolutions. This in and of itself makes the TPP illegal.

4) How is this different then any other illegal group of thugs?

Answer: It's not. You have illegally manipulated a UN-office to overstep the bounds of authority of the UN to give the illusion of legality. Therefore, any actions taken in reference to that illegal action are by definition illegal.

The only arguement would be legality of action, and you have none. Therefore, you are a group of thugs acting illegally under assumed UN authority.

As to your contention "We are acting individually" - I call bullshit. You did not attempt to attack Crimmond as a group of individuals, and you are not dealing with Macton as a group of individuals. If the representative from Gwenstephani would like, we can quote a half dozen times the assaulting and/or diplomatic force directly referred to itself as representing the Pretenama Panel.

So, you are lying, flat out and simple. The TPP is not acting upon its decisions as a group of individuals, it is raising armies to act under it's banner. This is hideously illegal in view of the UN rules; you are therefore acting as a bunch of thugs, attempting to cloak yourselves in UN respectability when in fact you are engaging in illegal actions repeatedly and without even an attempt to take into account prior UN resolutions - specifically, "Fair Trial".

Illegal, immoral, and must be repealed because of the abuses members have heaped upon what may once have been a "morally just idea" - by your actions and those of the panel members, you have shown conclusively that power corrupts, and such must not be allowed to sully the reputation of the United Nations.

Thank you.

Gwenstefani

16-05-2005, 19:53

3) Where is the protection "Fair Trial" guarantees shown in any of the panels conveined so far? If you wish the resolution quoted again here, I shall - though I would prefer you quote where the Panels followed the guidelines of that resolution.

Firstly, Fair Trial guarantees those rights only to citizens and civil hearings. However, I think you will find that TPP does adhere to most of that legislation anyway. It was set up with fairness in mind. The following numbered phrases are from "Definition of a fair trial"

1. Is speedy and efficient.
We are trying to improve the speed of trials. (OOC: But RL difficulties including time differences hinder this). However, we are trying to streamline the whole process. Here I would refer to TPP being in its infancy. I'd like to nominate Reason #1 as shorthand for that in case I use it later.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
TPP offers the accused nation to defend itself.

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
TPP offers the accused nation the chance to rebut what the accusing nations claim.

4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course.

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
Not possible in this international context. It is highly unlikely that the genocide-committing country will allow foreign officials into the country for such a purpose.

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
In this case, other national representatives. Check.

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
We uphold that as much as is possible in that we have a randomly selected panel. Furthermore, there exists opportunities to veto certain panel members if it can be shown that they would display detrimental bias. The accussed nation can veto for any reason.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
Res 92 upholds the principle of proportionality. That is in the text of the resolution.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
All trials can be viewed by the public with the only exception being when the panel discusses possible intervention plans for obvious reasons- it would be self-defeating to broadcast action plans.

10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.
Check.

So how does TPP not adhere to this resolution? Even if it didn't (but it does) it is not bound by this resolution which applies only to civil trials. Oh and by Krioval's logic, this resolution is illegal in that it relies on Res 21: Fair Trial.

Regarding now your comments that TPP members are thugs:

Firstly, you have yet to remove yourself from TPP membership list. You thug*.

Secondly, I personally believe that the use or threat of force is necessary. Thuggishness implies improper use of force. I believe that using force to end or prevent genocide is not improper. Rather, I believe letting genocide happen because it occurs in a certain country is improper. Thuggishness is not bound by laws and regulations. TPP is.

And if I have to be labelled a thug for wanting to put an end to genocide then I will be. And if Resolution 92 is repealed, I will continue to do so. And it will be so much easier without all the regulations and UN laws governing the act. And more dangerous I would imagine. Probably even profitable. But that is the road you want to go down.

(* I am not saying that to offend you. Nor do I want you to withdraw from TPP. I am merely pointing out that at one point you clearly believed TPP and Res 92 to be a worthwhile cause. So much so that you wanted to participate in it. To then turn round and call it thuggish is somewhat unwarranted.

Krioval

17-05-2005, 00:02

When the hell did the UN become the universe's premier center on doublespeak and selective interpretation? I mean, Resolution 92 is interpreted as broadly as possible in order to include non-UN states while "Definition of a Fair Trial" is arbitrarily restricted to civil hearings. Like the representative from Vastiva, Krioval also calls bullshit, if for nothing else than the English language has already been tormented enough by "netspeak" that we don't need to contort sentences and phrases beyond the breaking point here.

If the accused can veto a nation's inclusion for any reason, then the Pretenama Panel is effectively dead. Nations have already excluded entire panels simply because they are non-UN states and (correctly) claim that the panel is acting beyond its jurisdiction. So it's already not working - are we surprised?

In closing, it's time to clear out this vague, functionally indistinct, and corruptible resolution. Krioval urges its colleagues to vote in favor of repeal.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

Gwenstefani

17-05-2005, 00:38

If the accused can veto a nation's inclusion for any reason, then the Pretenama Panel is effectively dead.
l

I should have made it more clear: the accused nation gets 2 vetos.

Krioval

17-05-2005, 01:27

I should have made it more clear: the accused nation gets 2 vetos.

Could you please point me to the relevant text in the relevant resolution?

Gwenstefani

17-05-2005, 12:41

Could you please point me to the relevant text in the relevant resolution?

It is found in TPP legislation on the UNO forums. The actual panel workins are not allowed to be included in UN resolutions.

2.2.1 The Veto System
Once the panel has been established, there will be the chance to veto the participation of certain members. A maximum of four nations (4/15) can be substituted with replacement nations (from the list). The vetos shall be divided as such: 2 veto votes shall be allocated to the accused nation; and 2 veto votes shall be allocated to the accusing nations. However, the elcted Chair is exempt from this process and may not be vetoed off the panel.

The full TPP legislation is as follows:

1. Definition
2. Selection
2.1 Eligibility for Selection
2.2 The Selection Process
3. Investigation and Intervention
3.1 Panel jurisdiction
3.2 Voting Mechanics
4. Legal Proceedings

1.0 Definition

In the case of an appeal for humanitarian intervention, as stated in UN Resolution #92 on Humanitarian Intervention:
[Cases of genocide] may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel.

As stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UN Res. #83)]
§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.

2.0 Selection

2.1 Eligibility for Selection
• Members of the panel must be members of the UN.
• The nations requesting permission for humanitarian intervention may not sit on the panel themselves.
• Of the fifteen nations on the panel, no two may be from the same region, i.e. nations of fifteen different regions must be represented.
• Of the fifteen nations on the panel, no two may be from the same multi-national empire, and nations belonging to such a setup (or similar) must declare it.
• No other nations from the accused or the accusing nations' region may sit on the panel.
- No nation may sit on more than one Pretenama Panel at the same time
- Nations must have been added to the list for at least 2 weeks before they can sit on a panel (to prevent last minute subscribing after an appeal has been made)

2.2 The Selection Process
Below this document is a list of UN members who have declared themselves willing to sit on *any* future Pretenema Panel. When it is necessary to form a panel, fifteen nations will be randomly selected from this list, using the Mikitivity Random Selection Procedure. If there are any rule violations on such picks, e.g. 2 nations from the same region, only the first nation to be chosen will remain on the panel.

Of the 15 nations chosen, one is to be elected Chair. Candidates must be proposed and seconded, and then put to a vote. The candidate with the most votes will chair. In the case of a two way tie, votes for any candidates other than the two-tied nominees will be redistributed. In the event of a 3 way tie (5 votes each), the vote will be retaken (considering just those 3 nominees that are tied) except instead of just voting for the chair, they have to rank the 3 nominees in order of preference 1 2 or 3. Then, IF there is a tie again (someone may change their vote to break the tie), obviously each nominee will have 5 first votes each, but the number of second votes will then be counted. If there is still not an outright winner, then the 2 nominees who got the most votes in that round will be considered in a final vote, resulting in an outright winner.

2.2.1 The Veto System
Once the panel has been established, there will be the chance to veto the participation of certain members. A maximum of four nations (4/15) can be substituted with replacement nations (from the list). The vetos shall be divided as such: 2 veto votes shall be allocated to the accused nation; and 2 veto votes shall be allocated to the accusing nations. However, the elcted Chair is exempt from this process and may not be vetoed off the panel.

3.0 Intervention and Investigation
• §1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP will proceed to form a strategy for intervention.
• TPP will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate.
• TPP will meet only in the UN forum, with all discussions posted in order that all members may examine the evidence and conclusions, allowing for greater accountability and transparency.

3.1 Panel Jurisdiction
• The Panel has 3 purposes:
Stage 1) To establish whether there are grounds for intervention (i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing is occurring) by examining evidence provided by the accusing coalition and human rights organisations, as well as hearing the accused nation’s defence.
• Stage 2) If it is agreed that there are grounds for intervention, the panel will then assess the plans for intervention, and will establish a list of goals and targets for the operation. They may also forbid certain actions. Any decisions should be based upon upholding the ideals of proportionality, consequence and motive. All actions must aim only at ending the genocide and restoring order, and excessive or unnecessary means should not be used.
• Stage 3) TPP will then decide on the post-intervention obligations of each of the intervening nations. These could include all aspects of peace-, state- and nation-building; including but not limited to maintenance of order, infrastructure repairs, medical aid, etc.
• If intervention is approved and commences, TPP may at any point provide further guidelines, especially if circumstances change dramatically. TPP may at any time choose to withdraw intervening forces, especially if they abuse their role and/or ignore TPP’s guidelines.

3.2 Voting Mechanics
• Each stage requires taking a vote before moving onto the next stage. Each vote requires a 2/3 majority to pass. Therefore at least 10 of the 15 nations must vote in favour.

4.0 Legal Proceedings
• TPP will act in accordance to UN resolutions, and their guidelines and goals for intervention will incorporate these.
• Members of TPP (And of the intervening coalition) are prohibited from getting reparations or spoils of war.
• Any post-intervention state-building must be done in the best interest of the state in question. Intervening nations may not use this as an opportunity to unduly promote their own businesses and economies.

NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFT: Repeal "Humanitarian Intervention"