NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering the closeness of the failure of Diplomatic Immunity, and the support of members who post here, I've come up with yet another draft.
I'm using another thread as the last one is now full of "WTF?!@ D1plomatz c@n e@t r puppyz" responses!
As usual, constructive criticism appreciated


Standardisation And Definition Of Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Diplomatic And Consular Officers Serving Overseas

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

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

NOTING that total immunity is subject to abuse

FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons

EMPHASISING that the decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation)

EMPHASISING that no government is forced to grant diplomatic immunity to diplomats

PROCLAIMS that diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales taxes and taxes on business, property and other holdings and capital gains taxes in the host country) within the host nation, that the residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs duties

EMPHASISING that Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the nation from which they originate (hereafter referred to as the home country), are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the home nation and are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the home nation

PROCLAIMS that the host nation and the home nation have the ability to revoke Diplomatic status.

AFFIRMS that if the host country revokes immunity the diplomat may face a fair trial, as per Resolution #47 “Definition of Free Trial”, under the home countries laws within the home country's embassy in the host country; evidence from witnesses of the host country must be allowed, and the jury must consist of the citizens of the home nation with no bias in regards to the case. Following the trial, the diplomat is deported immediately from the host country, where they may face punishment

AFFIRMS that if the host country revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host country for any crime committed whilst a diplomat had immunity

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

AFFIRMS that if the home nation revokes immunity they may face prosecution by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity.

PROCLAIMS that the home nation must revoke immunity should a diplomat break international law, or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the absence of such laws

PROCLAIMS that no country may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

AFFIRMS that host nations provide missions with appropriate security


Now, the problem is the length. Any idea's on how to shorten it? It needs to be less than 2,500 letters, right?

As one of the major duties of diplomats is to negotiate trade and investment, this time it will be submitted as free trade, significant.
It'll also keep the statwankers happy :D

You might want provision for neutral courts, or for crimes to be tried by a combination host/home country court (Universal Divinity currently prefers a system where diplomats are tried in the host country, under home law, by two home judges and one home judge, with evidence provided by all witnesses applicable, including host police, etc.). That manslaughter/murder/rape clause is problematic. One of the main purposes of diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from harassment. If they can be arrested, they lose this protection.

The problem is that the Country A (sender) cannot always trust courts and legal process in Country B (host), especially during times of hostility (when diplomacy is most important). You must allow for diplomats to keep working despite this.

Previous UN resolutions ensure a free trial, so there should be no worries in that regard; although I have made one or two changes on the back of your suggestions that clarify the legal process

Following this is deported immediately from the host country, where they may face punishment

I'd suggest changing this line to 'Following the trial, the diplomat is deported immediately from the host country, where they may face punishment'

Also, is there a less similar pair of definitions than 'Host' and 'Home'? They could easily be confused - 'Host' and 'Base' country perhaps?

I'd suggest changing this line to 'Following the trial, the diplomat is deported immediately from the host country, where they may face punishment'

Also, is there a less similar pair of definitions than 'Host' and 'Home'? They could easily be confused - 'Host' and 'Base' country perhaps?

I think most intellegent humans can tell the difference. There is a character limit, so give a little bit of breathing room.

I changed base to home as I think it is possible that in the earlier proposal many people thought base meant "the country the diplomat is based in" and not "the country the diplomat is based from"

I think most intellegent humans can tell the difference. There is a character limit, so give a little bit of breathing room.
the only problem is, the lack of intellegence (or reading skills, not sure, maybe both) is what sunk the last one

This is good, but please address the issue of diplomats being exempt from taxation while not being banned from holding business interests in the host nation. Some provision for taxation of such interests is essential, I would argue.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

That's a good idea. I'll add that.

Many thanks.

This isn't going to be submitted for a while, until I've dealt with open skies and perhaps one or two others. I'm posting it now so all the supporters will know that this will be resubmitted at some point in the future.

This is not a bump. Honest.

Although many aspects of the diplomatic proposal are great, it would still (in my mind) be a great comprimise to national security in times leading up to war. During war, it can be seen as a near vital function for restoring peace without domination. To be honest, I am torn with this proposal (as I was with the original) for that simple reason.

edit - for further clarification, I do realise there is a clause indicating that diplomats may be refused. On the other hand, that would raise suspicion and international pressure on any large nation which sought to stay unto its own.

I'm presenting this to my region to canvas opinion.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I would agree with the suggestion above to add in support for neutral courts available to adjucate crimes committed by diplomats.

Let's face it - some diplomats WILL end up committing crimes, and to screw the host country over by preventing any means of enforcing justice other than revoking diplomatic status doesn't seem too fair.

On the other hand, it's far more likely that some evil repressive vile countries (that's right, I'm looking at you, and YOU especially - but not you over there...) will want to do nasty things to their neighbor's diplomats - which would be a problem. That's why I think this resolution should get another try...but with a bit of an amendment in that respect.

And, to further bolster my argument, I'm going to include a smiley with an MP-5: :mp5: . Thank you.

While I really can't offer any better support than that MP5 smiley, I must say that Saint Uriel supports this resolution. Some form of diplomatic immunity is usually a must for doing trade and setting up other international relations, if to do no more than make both nations sleep easier. Its a well written and well thought out resolution and I hope I get the chance to vote for it.

I do see where Elkland is coming from, but this proposal does allow negotiation between two nations: so that if Cobdenia and Elkland negotiated that any Cobdenian diplomatic commited murder would be tried in Elkland, and a diplomat did commit murder, then Cobdenia would have to rescind the diplomats immunity of our diplomat and you

As for the 'neutral courts' argument, the problem is that national law varies, and really they should be prosecuted under the home countries law. I think that the previous resolution "Definition of Fair Trial" ensure the neutrality of national courts. I will make it clear, though, that whilst they are to be prosecuted in the home country, such a trial must be a "fair trial" as per the "Definition of Fair Trial" and "Fair Trial".

Just a quick thought. I'm normally quite good about proposals and try to read them fully and cross reference with other resolutions, but I didn't feel up to the challenge of your proposal. I suspect others will just note the title and vote against since the last one failed.

I suspect others will just note the title and vote against since the last one failed.

I know; hence it will be submitted as:
TSADOIRAPODACO
which stands for The Standardisation And Definition Of Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Diplomatic And Consular Officers

It also has the advantage that Tsadoirapodaco is a very cool, Russian and Greek sounding word

Is there a difference between the host country revoking a representative's diplomatic status and the host country declaring that representative persona non grata?

My feeling is that it is generally up to the home country, not the host country, to decide whether or not a person is to be considered a diplomatic representative of that country (and to revoke that decision at any time), but it is up to the host country to decide whether to recognize that person as a diplomatic representative (and to revoke that recognition at any time).

In some ways it's just semantic hair-splitting, but it might clarify the distinction between what a home country thinks and what a host country thinks.

Opinion?

Well, basically there is a difference between whether the host country or the home country rescinds immunity (simply, if the host country rescinds immunity then a trial occurs under home country law and vice versa), which is in the proposal. The problem is the word limit; and I don't want to confuse morons again.

Guess what's being ressurrected?

Yep. This.

I think I may have solved one of the problems. I think, if I can, I'll add a clause thats states not no state can pretend a spy is a diplomat (so immunity will be granted), or wilfully send a diplomat to commit a crime

Excellent. This will make a very fine resolution.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Good idea.The Adnarian Democratic Republic will support it as long as not all foreign important office-holders have the entitlement to this immunity.
Robert Jones
President and Foreign Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

I think I may have solved one of the problems. I think, if I can, I'll add a clause thats states not no state can pretend a spy is a diplomat (so immunity will be granted), or wilfully send a diplomat to commit a crime

Please don't. We believe it would be like adding a clause prohibiting rain from falling or wind from blowing. :) Intelligence collection has been one of the major functions of diplomatic missions for centuries. We believe it is unrealistic to expect that to change and would damage the credibility of the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

LOL. Fair enough!

But I might add the clause that prohibits countries sending diplomats to wilfully commit a crime.
That should sought out the whole "Diplomats will shoot our president" problem we had last time

And Adnaria, yes. The descision to bestow diplomatic immunity is that of the host country.

I like it so far. It needs a single word here(note the word in red is the addition):

PROCLAIMS that the host nation and the home nation have the ability to revoke Diplomatic status.

Well spotted, Bolshikstan

Two questions, please....

What is your timetable for submitting the proposal? We have been studying it as time permits, and may have some suggestions. If you're planning on submitting the proposal soon, we'll stop procrastinating.

Second.... Where did the idea for exemption from taxation come from? We can't recall running across that as an element of diplomatic immunity, and have some serious reservations about it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The timetable is basically when I get two endorsements, and when I can be bothered to telegram, and when I can whittle it down to the required size without losing the important content.

The exemption from taxation is only with reference to the host country.
Basically, (and this is true for real life) when a (say) Cobdenian diplomat gets sent to Ausserland, he pays the income taxes etc as if he were in Cobdenia, but not those in Ausserland. However, he would have to pay VAT, and taxes on business holdings in Ausserland (might take out that bit about business holdings, though. Waste of space, IMHO). So he still pays taxes; just not those of Ausserland.
After all, it would kind of unfair if someones taxes trebled because of his job, or indeed became non-existant

Oh! Just discovered that it's 3,200 letters, so I'm fine

(might take out that bit about business holdings, though. Waste of space, IMHO).
Yes, I would remove that. Otherwise it looks good and we will support it.

Well, all that needs doing is for the UN to accept my application, get two endorsements, telegram and then win...

And I'll be a happy great crested newt (bunny's having been irradicated in 1900 in Cobdenia)

Thank you very much for your prompt response to our questions.

The timetable is basically when I get two endorsements, and when I can be bothered to telegram, and when I can whittle it down to the required size without losing the important content.

We'll try to give the proposal a more careful reading promptly. This is a complex issue, which the honorable delegate from Cobdenia has done a fine job of covering.

The exemption from taxation is only with reference to the host country.
Basically, (and this is true for real life) when a (say) Cobdenian diplomat gets sent to Ausserland, he pays the income taxes etc as if he were in Cobdenia, but not those in Ausserland. However, he would have to pay VAT, and taxes on business holdings in Ausserland (might take out that bit about business holdings, though. Waste of space, IMHO). So he still pays taxes; just not those of Ausserland.
After all, it would kind of unfair if someones taxes trebled because of his job, or indeed became non-existant

We cannot agree with a general exemption from taxation. We agree that income (including benefits and expense allowances) should be taxed by the home government, and not taxed by the host. But we believe that all other taxes (sales tax and VAT, real estate tax, personal property tax, taxes on corporate profits of business enterprises conducted within the host country, etc.) should be paid by the diplomat to the host. These would most probably not be taxed by the home nation. Of course, all this could be a matter of negotiation between the host and the home country. We suggest removing the section on taxation from the proposal. It really falls outside the scope of diplomatic immunity.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We cannot agree with a general exemption from taxation. We agree that income (including benefits and expense allowances) should be taxed by the home government, and not taxed by the host. But we believe that all other taxes (sales tax and VAT, real estate tax, personal property tax, taxes on corporate profits of business enterprises conducted within the host country, etc.) should be paid by the diplomat to the host. These would most probably not be taxed by the home nation. Of course, all this could be a matter of negotiation between the host and the home country. We suggest removing the section on taxation from the proposal. It really falls outside the scope of diplomatic immunity.

I think I've excluded sales tax (or, if I haven't, I'll add in there). I really don't think the others are really worth worrying about. In general, Diplomats don't own there own property (usually it is supplied by the home country), and if they did buy it I would classify it as a sales tax. Maybe if I changed it to sales taxes that would work. I understand and agree fully the point you are making, but they need to be exempt from customs and income taxes. Basically the problem is length!

EDITED:

It now reads:
PROCLAIMS that diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales taxes and taxes on business, property and other non-liquid asset taxes, and capital gains taxes in the host country) within the host nation, that the residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation

I think that covers it!

The author of this proposal has done a fine job of addressing a very complex and difficult subject, and we applaud the effort. We have a number of suggestions for changes. We apologize if our suggestions seem rather dogmatic; they were prepared by our Ministry for Justice. To facilitate discussion, we will address one portion of the proposal which causes us particular concern in a separate posting.

Standardisation And Definition Of Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Diplomatic And Consular Officers Serving Overseas

We strongly recommend reverting to the original title, "Diplomatic Immunity". We don't think that would lessen the chances of the proposal's passage one iota.

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

Delete. Unnecessary.

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

Delete. What nation's law? If we're talking about the host, it can and should. Diplomats cannot be given free reign to do anything they like. They must be held to the same standard as the nation's citizens. It's the method of enforcing the law that diplomatic immunity addresses. The principle of jurisdiction of place remains active.

NOTING that total immunity is subject to abuse

Good, but suggest a change to "NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse" and a move to below the next paragraph.

FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons

OK, but add "and cause undue interference with their official duties."

EMPHASISING that the decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation)

Change to read: "EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation which the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home country)."

EMPHASISING that no government is forced to grant diplomatic immunity to diplomats

Delete. Unnecessary because of the preceding paragraph.

PROCLAIMS that diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax and taxes on business holdings in the host country) within the host nation, that the residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation

See next posting.

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ‘Diplomatic Bag’ are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs duties

Change to read "...to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches..." Diplomatic bags (pouches) are sent to and from missions, not individuals.

EMPHASISING that Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation of the nation from which they originate (hereafter referred to as the home country), are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the home nation and are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the home nation

Delete. We don't see a need to state this. It's a given that, when at home, they're subject to their country's laws.

PROCLAIMS that the host nation and the home nation have the ability to revoke Diplomatic status.

Change to read "diplomatic immunity".

AFFIRMS that if the host country revokes immunity the diplomat may face a fair trial, as per Resolution #47 “Definition of Free Trial”, under the home countries laws within the home country's embassy in the host country; evidence from witnesses of the host country must be allowed, and the jury must consist of the citizens of the home nation with no bias in regards to the case. Following the trial, the diplomat is deported immediately from the host country, where they may face punishment

Change to read: "AFFIRMS that, if the host country revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host country's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home country. Evidence and testimony from the host country must be weighed if admissable under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home country's mission in the host country whenever practicable. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home country for appropriate punishment."

AFFIRMS that if the host country revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host country for any crime committed whilst a diplomat had immunity

Change to read "... whilst the person had..."

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

Change to read "...diplomats charged with crimes whose..."

AFFIRMS that if the home nation revokes immunity they may face prosecution by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity.

Change to read: "AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face...while the immunity was in effect."

PROCLAIMS that the home nation must revoke immunity should a diplomat break international law, or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the absence of such laws

Delete. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats against arrest and prosection for violations of host country laws, not international law.

PROCLAIMS that no country may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

OK.

AFFIRMS that host nations provide missions with appropriate security

Delete. This has nothing to do with diplomatic immunity.

We'll be more than happy to discuss any of these suggestions that the honorable representative of Cobdenia finds worth considering.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

As we noted in our previous posting, one section of the proposal causes us serious concern:

PROCLAIMS that diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax and taxes on business holdings in the host country) within the host nation, that the residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation

We recommend this section be replaced with:

"PROCLAIMS that a person holding diplomatic immunity is immune from arrest and prosecution by the host country. The person may be detained by host country law enforcement officials only when necessary to prevent death or injury of that person or others. In such case, the law enforcement officials shall immediately notify the mission to which the person is assigned. The person shall be promptly released to the custody of an authorized representative of that mission upon request.

FURTHER PROCLAIMS that diplomatic missions and other property declared extraterritorial by agreement between the home and host nations are immune from search by host nation officials. Such property may be entered by host nation officials only upon request by the mission involved. Nations may negotiate other circumstances in which such entry is permitted."

This suggested change (1) clarifies that the provision applies only to persons holding immunity, not to all diplomats; (2) allows detention to prevent injury to the person or others while requiring immediate release from custody if the home nation requests it; (3) clarifies the search exemption and adds a prohibition against uninvited entry; (4) provides for negotiation of "pre-positioned" authority to enter (as in emergencies). The change also removes all reference to taxation. We firmly believe that this is quite a different issue from diplomatic immunity and is best left to negotiation between host and home nation.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

All excellent suggestions, thankyou. I'll see if I can fit it all in!
But I still think that I should include income taxation; I'm trying my best to mimic real life, you see; I don't think it would be sensible to exclude income taxation for reasons stated above.

(PS; not sure what current branding laws in the UN are, but if it allows, you'll certainly get a mention)

Okay, I've made all the changes you've suggested, pretty much

REALISING that national law can restrict diplomatic and consular personnel (hereafter referred to as diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse

FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons and cause undue interference with their official duties

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation which the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

PROCLAIMS that a person holding diplomatic immunity is immune from arrest and prosecution by the host country. The person may be detained by host country law enforcement officials only when necessary to prevent death or injury of that person or others. In such case, the law enforcement personnel shall immediately notify the mission to which the person is assigned. The person shall be promptly released to the custody of an authorised representative of that mission upon request.

FURTHER PROCLAIMS that diplomatic missions and other property declared extraterritorial by agreement between the home and host nations are inviolable from search by host nation officials. Such property may be entered by host nation officials only upon request by the mission involved. Nations may negotiate other circumstances in which such entry is permitted

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs duties

PROCLAIMS that the host nation and the home nation have the ability to revoke diplomatic immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home country. Evidence and testimony from the host country must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home country's mission in the host country whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home country for appropriate punishment

AFFIRMS that if the host country revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host country for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host country for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect

PROCLAIMS that no country may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

AFFIRMS that host nations provide missions with appropriate security
Co-authored by Ausserland

Left this in because I feel lack of security could be a way around diplomatic immunity. So just say the Cobdenian government hated Ausserland, it could stir the people up to make them hate Ausserlandians, so they could attack the embassy, or allow terrorists to do blow up your embassy, etc.

Not sure if we're allowed co-authors. You used to be allowed one, but I'm not certain nowadays!

AFFIRMS that host nations provide missions with appropriate security

Not sure this is neccessary. The reason being that the Embassy/Consulate should provide it's own security. It's like trusting the Cat to guard the mouse. They maybe friendly today but someday they might snap and attack. Therefore, maybe something along the lines of allowing the posting of two armed embassy guards outside the gates. There should be a 10 foot area they are allowed to move about. All other armed guards would be inside the perimeter of the gates.

That's getting a bit too detailed, really, saying how many guards there should be.
There is also the problem that if a host nation refuses to grant immunity to home nation guards, they would be ineffective. Plus the fact that the home nations guards would have no jurisdiction to arrest etc host nation citizens. Saying that the guards might attack means that they would not be following the resolution, as that would not constitute "appropriate" security. And all UN laws have to followed by the letter. You cannot (technically speaking) ignore them or not not ratify them.

OoC: In real life, the host nation supplies the security. What use would a British policeman be in Iraq when he has no authority to arrest Iraqi terrorists?

I stand corrected. Also never meant to state number, I was just using an example.

Not sure if we're allowed co-authors. You used to be allowed one, but I'm not certain nowadays!
You're allowed one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, I think that Ausserland has earnt his co-authorship!

We are very pleased that the honorable representative from Cobdenia found our suggestions worthwhile. We don't consider it necessary that we be added as a co-author, although we have no real objection to it.

On the issue of security for diplomatic missions....

We continue to believe that this is a matter outside the scope of "diplomatic immunity" and could well be omitted from the proposal. But if that isn't to be, there are some things to consider. The size, location and configuration of diplomatic missions vary widely. So do the means of securing them. Generally, internal security is provided by the home nation. Access control to the mission premises may or may not be provided by the host. All of this depends upon (1) the size and configuration of the mission building or compound, (2) any limitations on the number of personnel assigned to the mission, (3) the amount of trust between the two nations, (4) the political climate in the host nation, (5) the amount of access permitted to local residents, and (6) the confidence the home nation has in host nation security personnel. Security should be a matter of negotiation between the two countries.

We suggest (if eliminating the provision is off the table):

RECOMMENDS that host nations cooperate with home nations in providing diplomatic missions with appropriate security.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Yet another bright idea ausserland! It will certainly be included.

I hope you understand my reluctance to remove it; I basically feel that without it we create a loophole that some unscrupulous nations will use to it's full advantage.

OoC: In my experience (I used to work in a Consulate), what generally happens is that the home nations supplies security on the physical side such as walls and CCTV, whereas the host supplies personell (police on guard outside). I feel that the way you have phrased this perfectly and concisely. I am very glad of your help on this issue.

This has the potential to be one of the finest pieces of legislation enacted by the UN. Let's hope that the member states see matters the same way that I do...

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

This will be submitted shortly.

Any idea's of a catagory? I'm thinking furtherment of democracy or free trade, perhaps human rights.

This is the final version. I've made one or two minor modifications to cut down the number of letters to below the require maximum and consistency, such as changing country to nation, -ize to -ise,

REALISING that national law can restrict diplomatic and personnel (hereafter referred to as diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse

FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons and cause undue interference with their official duties

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation that the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

PROCLAIMS that a person holding diplomatic immunity is immune from arrest and prosecution by the host nation. The person may be detained by host nation officials only when necessary to prevent death or injury of that person or others. In such case, the law enforcement officers shall immediately notify the mission to which the person is assigned. The person shall be promptly released to the custody of an authorised representative of that mission upon request.

FURTHER PROCLAIMS that diplomatic missions and other property declared extraterritorial by agreement between the home and host nations are inviolable from search by host nation officials. Such property may be entered by host nation officials only upon request by the mission involved. Nations may negotiate other circumstances in which such entry is permitted

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches are inviolable from seizure or search by host nation officials, and exempt from customs and excise duties

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system

PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

RECOMMENDS that nations cooperate in providing diplomatic missions with appropriate security.

Co-authored by Ausserland


Any problems?

We have to admit that we're stumped. We just spent some time looking over the list of categories. Then we looked again. And again. And we can't find a single category into which this could logically be squeezed. :( :confused: Our only suggestion is that our distinguished colleage from Cobdenia post a message in the Mod forum asking for help in determining a category.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I would suggest Furtherment of Democracy. Or Political Stability. Um, yes, 'tis a poser!

It really does fall into a sort of "grey area". I would probably submit it as "International Security", but I think you would be allright submitting it as "Furtherment of Democracy" as well. "Furtherment of Democracy" will increase political freedoms while "International Security" will decrease them. Just decide which of those you think it would do and submit it as that. What strength?

Well, the concensus of opinion appears to be stuck between Political Stability and Furtherment of Democracy (which, Bizzarely, are the opposites of one another).

I hereby declare, therefor, that, unless someone gives me a good reason why not, it will be submitted as Furtherment of Democracy.

Why? Because Furtherment of Democracy will gain me the votes of the Statwankers, which Political stability wont.

The people of Cluichstan have just one minor suggestion with regard to this otherwise outstanding proposal, and it relates to this particular clause:

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect

It should be specified that, in such a case, the person facing prosecution can be tried under the rules of judicial procedure of the host nation. This would draw a specific distinction between the implications of revocation of immunity by the home nation and revocation by the host nation (which is covered by an earlier clause).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Actually, I thought the same. However, the bally letter limit caused problems.

I'll try and fit something in, though

Might I suggest, then, cutting this?

PROCLAIMS that the host nation and the home nation have the ability to revoke diplomatic immunity

It's already covered here:

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation which the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

Don't worry, soughted it. Changed he or she to s/he and personnel to officers, as well as the other above suggestions.

Why? Because Furtherment of Democracy will gain me the votes of the Statwankers, which Political stability wont.
Furtherment of Democracy it is then! Are you going to wait for a Monday morning submittal or go ahead and submit it immediately?

I'll wait till an appropriate time (i.e. when I can be bothered)

OOC:

Cobdenia - I sent you a TG about submission a couple of days ago. No response. Did you not get it or did I not get your reply?

I'd change "officers" back to "personnel" if it were me. "Officers" may be inaccurately read as pertaining only to professional foreign service officers. Others, such as attaches and their staffs and administrative personnel may also be considered for diplomatic immunity.

Furtherment of Democracy is fine with me, since I don't think this really fits well in any of the categories. :)

Cluichstan - Good suggestion. Thanks.

Ah, sorry, I'll check it tomorrow morning (it's three o'clock here!)...I have a direct link to this page so I sometimes forget to check messages.

I'll change diplomatic officers back to personnel; it was just a dramatic shortening exercise, but I'm sure I can change it back without much problem!

Submitted. I'll get telegramming soon

I've just posted a copy of this proposal in my regions offsite forum for our delegate to look at. You should get an endorsement out of him...I hope :).

Bugger, I forgotten how to do the web address thingy that links directly to a proposal using the search whatsit.

Help, anyone?

Makes no sense at all.

Took some searching but I found it.

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8747311&postcount=12)

Cheers. I find it makes TG'ing easier and delegates more likely to endorse!

Approved. Good work Cobdenia.

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment


What if the person is found innocent? Can we send them home then?

My biggest problem is having to import the judicial procedures of another country in to my courts. We like our legal system like it is, and don't really want to have to use other people's legal system, since we might find it inferior (no offence to everyone out there)

Also - there is nothing that details what happens if we cut off diplomatic relations. If we are suddenly at war with Hyrule (which might happen), and have cut off all diplomatic ties, can we enter the diplomatic missions and other properties and remove people by force? Or do they get to stay there while the war goes on?

What would usually happen is that an Embassy would be vacated in times of war along with all documents, and the diplomats would not be harrassed.

What if the person is found innocent? Can we send them home then?
Well, you would still have revoked their immunity, so unless you reinstate it they would either have to operate in the country without the immunity, or go home. You can't send them home, just revoke their immunity

My biggest problem is having to import the judicial procedures of another country in to my courts. We like our legal system like it is, and don't really want to have to use other people's legal system, since we might find it inferior (no offence to everyone out there)

Well, it wouldn't be your courts, it would occur within an embassy. However, turning it around, would you rather one of your diplomats abroad was prosecuted under your system? And it would only apply to diplomats to whom you have granted immunity, not regular foreigners

What would usually happen is that an Embassy would be vacated in times of war along with all documents, and the diplomats would not be harrassed.


What if they don't. Am I allowed to require them to leave?

And if I strip them of immunity and strip their building of immunity can I then raid the embassy and kick them all out?


Well, you would still have revoked their immunity, so unless you reinstate it they would either have to operate in the country without the immunity, or go home. You can't send them home, just revoke their immunity


Are - but if they are no longer immune, I can deport them, can't I?


Well, it wouldn't be your courts, it would occur within an embassy. However, turning it around, would you rather one of your diplomats abroad was prosecuted under your system? And it would only apply to diplomats to whom you have granted immunity, not regular foreigners

Erm - if someone commits a crime in another nation, they should be subject to the laws of the nation the crime was committed in, not the land from which they live in. Partly because what they have done as a crime in my nation, might not be a crime in their home nation, and so they can't be tried at all.

Honestly - if someone went abroad from my nation and committed a crime, I would expect them to be punished to the extent of the law in the nation they committed the crime. And if they did it while in my name then I would happily give them over to the justice system of that country.

Honestly - if someone went abroad from my nation and committed a crime, I would expect them to be punished to the extent of the law in the nation they committed the crime. And if they did it while in my name then I would happily give them over to the justice system of that country.

I see, and what if Cobdenia invented a law that said that all foreigners must be of a 3 foot 2 if they want to be allowed in the country in order to irritate Pallatium? Would it be fair that all your diplomats be thrown in prison and publically flogged? What if we decide to lock up all your diplomats for twenty four hours for no good reason (which we are allowed to do according to Habeus Corpus)? What if a law in one country was offensive to the religious and cultural beliefs of another (OoC: e.g. Saudi Arabian illegalisation of alcohol, which is an important part of Christian worship)?

I see, and what if Cobdenia invented a law that said that all foreigners must be of a 3 foot 2 if they want to be allowed in the country in order to irritate Pallatium?


The people of Cluichstan fully endorse this idea. :D

What if the person is found innocent? Can we send them home then?

Yes, you can. There are two ways to do it. You could simply deport the person under your nation's immigration laws. More likely, you'd declare the person persona non grata. Simply put, this means you tell the home nation: "Get this person out of my country now and don't send him back." The diplomatic folks call this "PNGing" someone.

My biggest problem is having to import the judicial procedures of another country in to my courts. We like our legal system like it is, and don't really want to have to use other people's legal system, since we might find it inferior (no offence to everyone out there)

You're not importing the judicial procedures into your courts. The embassy is extraterritorial -- technically a part of the home country, not the host, and that's where the person is to be tried. Not the best of situations, but about all that's practicable.

Also - there is nothing that details what happens if we cut off diplomatic relations. If we are suddenly at war with Hyrule (which might happen), and have cut off all diplomatic ties, can we enter the diplomatic missions and other properties and remove people by force? Or do they get to stay there while the war goes on?

Generally, when two countries go to war, they sever diplomatic relations and they each withdraw their diplomatic representatives from the other country. The diplomats are allowed to close up the embassy and take their stuff with them. Once that's done, the embassy may lose its extraterritorial status and you can do what you like with it. Or the two nations may agree to let their embassies in the other country be padlocked or placed in the custody of a neutral nation. Remember, whatever you do to their diplomatic missions in your country, they can retaliate against your missions in theirs.

Took some searching but I found it.

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8747311&postcount=12)

You are welcome! ;)

That trick is probably the best thing I've done in the UN, and seeing it used always makes me smile. :)

You are welcome! ;)

That trick is probably the best thing I've done in the UN, and seeing it used always makes me smile. :)

Actually I owe you a big thanks. That post helped me a lot when I was working to get my now defunked abortion rights repeal to the floor :).

Thats why I remembered it (just not where it was, hence the search) when Cobdenia asked.

I see, and what if Cobdenia invented a law that said that all foreigners must be of a 3 foot 2 if they want to be allowed in the country in order to irritate Pallatium? Would it be fair that all your diplomats be thrown in prison and publically flogged? What if we decide to lock up all your diplomats for twenty four hours for no good reason (which we are allowed to do according to Habeus Corpus)? What if a law in one country was offensive to the religious and cultural beliefs of another (OoC: e.g. Saudi Arabian illegalisation of alcohol, which is an important part of Christian worship)?

If someone went abroad, not knowing the country they were going to was dry, I would expect them to take the punishment. I might see if I can bring them home (deportion in reverse I guess), but if I can't I don't think I have any arguement that my law should supercede theirs just because I think my law is better.

Isn't that the whole arguement about national soveriengty? That the laws of a nation should be allowed to work in that nation?

And honestly - if your nation enacted such a law I would recall all my diplomats and put you on my travel warning list :}

One more endorsements needed; about twelve hours left...

And if proof be needed that Diplomatic Immunity is required, let me share with you a telegram I received from The Holy Republic of Rlyeh:

Given that the priesthood enjoys butchering the diplomatic legations of nations we find obsteperous or ill-mannered in our sacrificeries, we would hardly be a government which would look kindly on the restriction of said practice.

Speaking of which, we thank you for your contribution to this month's Ides sacrificial quotas. While a Western Union runner is not quite the boon of a full diplomatic staff, every little drop of blood helps to keep the sleeping Elder Gods from getting restless, or worse, peckish.

This is precisely the reason why the people of Cluichstan have not established and will not establish diplomatic relations with Rlyeh. This sort of behavior is a disgrace and should warrant sanctions.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

(OOC: Gotta love the well-done Cthulhu RP, though. :D )

We've done it! 128! Quorum reached!

All right! Come one everybody, do the quorum dance!

*The Cobdenian Delegate procedes to perform the conga, whilest singing:*
Quorum quorum conga! Quorum quorum conga! Quorum quorum conga...

http://bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-09-june.gif

The people of Cluichstan find this quorum conga disturbing...

Quorum quorum conga! Quorum quor... *stops dancing*

You should see the dance the entire Cobdenian government are rehearsing for if/when the resolution passes!

*starts dancing again*
..um conga! Quorum quorum conga! Quorum quorum conga...

The people of Cluichstan are planning to vote in favor of the proposal, but knowing that a huge dance will result, should it pass, gives us pause.

If and when this becomes anything, I'd agree to it. Read over it and it looks good, very agreeable for my taste. Could add some spice to future diplomatic meetings. Anagonia, would therein, place its support with this draft/resolution/whatever.

Congratulations!

Yes, you can. There are two ways to do it. You could simply deport the person under your nation's immigration laws. More likely, you'd declare the person persona non grata. Simply put, this means you tell the home nation: "Get this person out of my country now and don't send him back." The diplomatic folks call this "PNGing" someone.


Yeah - but if they are hell bent on destroying me cause we are at war, what makes you think they will listen to me pnging them?

But hey - if I can deport them then I am quite happy - I can assume deporting includes taking them in a prison van to the edge of my nation and pushing them out?


You're not importing the judicial procedures into your courts. The embassy is extraterritorial -- technically a part of the home country, not the host, and that's where the person is to be tried. Not the best of situations, but about all that's practicable.


On the assupmtion that none of my people will ever be subject to such a procedure - that it will only apply to people of the other nation - then I don't have a problem I guess (although if they commit a crime in my land, I would still prefer the ability to try them. If a diplomat rapes and murders a child, and that is punishable by a slapped wrist in the home nation, it's hardly justice for my people, is it?)


Generally, when two countries go to war, they sever diplomatic relations and they each withdraw their diplomatic representatives from the other country. The diplomats are allowed to close up the embassy and take their stuff with them. Once that's done, the embassy may lose its extraterritorial status and you can do what you like with it. Or the two nations may agree to let their embassies in the other country be padlocked or placed in the custody of a neutral nation. Remember, whatever you do to their diplomatic missions in your country, they can retaliate against your missions in theirs.

I think that, if I ever leave a diplomatic post in another country during times of war, I am going to burn it down and salt the earth. Just so they can't do anything worse :}

Mostly on the theory that if I am already at war with someone, buring down their embassy (once the staff have left of course) might be considered an act of war, but it won't matter so much.

Mostly on the theory that if I am already at war with someone, buring down their embassy (once the staff have left of course) might be considered an act of war, but it won't matter so much.

Go ahead. You'd only be burning down your own embassy. Technically, it's your territory, so you'd be waging war on yourself.

http://bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-09-june.gif


The people of Cluichstan find the quorum can-can even more disturbing...

Go ahead. You'd only be burning down your own embassy. Technically, it's your territory, so you'd be waging war on yourself.

I know - but a good bonfire can be FUN!!!!

Congratulations on reaching quorum. You can count on our support in the GA.

Well - congratulations on reaching quorum, but having re-read it it is not something I can support, and is possibly something I can actively campaign against.

You clearly haven't read it, otherwise you'd realise that no-where in the proposal does it say you have to give anyone diplomatic immunity

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation which the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

Of course, if you don't, then your diplomats abroad will not be given immunity and have to suffer the possible consequences (as most nations practice reciprocity in this respect)

You clearly haven't read it, otherwise you'd realise that no-where in the proposal does it say you have to give anyone diplomatic immunity

Of course, if you don't, then your diplomats abroad will not be given immunity and have to suffer the possible consequences (as most nations practice reciprocity in this respect)

Surprisingly I did actually read that part, and that is not my objection.

I have three areas which worry me. They might be misinterpretations, and feel free to correct me, but anyway....

First : Criminal actions

One of the embassy staff murders one of my citizens, and is caught and arrested. So now I have to turn him over to the embassy. and have no jurisdiction over him. So they can recall him, and he escapes prosecution and justice goes out the window

One of the embassy staff has sex with an underage child (which is defined as rape in my nation, but for the moment I will let that go). However in his nation, the child would not be underage. If I have to turn him over to his court, the evidence, as weighed in his nation, means he is innocent. So again justice is forgone.

On the off chance he is convicted, the punishment for rape in his nation might not be anything - it might be a slap on the wrist. And as a consequence he might actually face justice (as in be convicted in a court of law) but get a ludicrously stupid punishment in response to the crime.

Or - on the off chance he is convicted, the punishment for rape might be death. We support punishment, but we will not have someone killed for a crime committed in our nation. It is an appalling idea. But we are not responsible for judging or punishing them, so they will be killed for a crime we don't consider a capital offence. (We don't have any capital offences)

Second : Non-UN Nations (ok - I know that reads as non-United Nations Nations, but I can't think how else to phrase it).

Non-UN Nations are not bound to this proposal. However we are bound by it. That means while we are required to protect the rights and so forth of diplomats in our nation, any diplomats we send away to non-UN Nations are open to abuse, jail and all sorts of other things.

Further more it means you will have areas in your nation (that is bound and controlled by UN law) that are not controlled by the UN law (since the embassy is considered the territory of the home nation, as opposed to yours, UN law will not apply to it)

(If you could modify it it to only apply between UN nations - so that diplomats from non-UN nations are not protected, that would be better)

Third : National Security

If you are not permitted to monitor what goes on in the embassy, you are open to all sorts of problems - none of which you can do anything about.

There is the issue of experiments and test that you would not permit in your nation. They can run genetic engineering labs, chemical weapons labs and so forth, and your government will have no oversite on these labs.

And there is the issue of terrorism. (This is not something I usually get in to, but it seems like a suitable time). This proposal permits someone to come in to your country, without them or their bags being searched. They can reside in the embassy without any searching or security checks of the host nation. They can travel through your nation to any area in vehicles that can not be stopped or searched.

Which sounds well and good, but substitute the word DIPLOMAT with the words "SUICIDE BOMBER WITH A BRIEFCASE NUCLEAR BOMB" and suddenly you are in a whole new world of pain and danger.

This allows someone total free reign in your nation to do what they want, and there is nothing they can do until there is a crime committed. And if that crime is detonating a nuclear bomb in the center of your major city, then it might be a tad late to actually try to prosecute them.


These are my objections, and unless the entire proposal is gutted and rewritten, there is no way around them.

I am happy to accept that diplomatic papers should be protected. I am happy to accept you can't spy on the embassy. I am happy to accept that one nation could use it's police force to hassle diplomats from another country, and that that is bad. But this is not the answer to the problem - it will just create a whole boat-load of new ones that are insurmountable.

Second : Non-UN Nations (ok - I know that reads as non-United Nations Nations, but I can't think how else to phrase it).

OOC: Try "Non-Member Nations." ;)

OOC: Try "Non-Member Nations." ;)

(ooc) Thanks :} My next attempt would be UN2, but that kind of looks like an attempt to usurp the UN :}

One of the embassy staff murders one of my citizens, and is caught and arrested. So now I have to turn him over to the embassy. and have no jurisdiction over him. So they can recall him, and he escapes prosecution and justice goes out the window

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home country

So, he can't escape prosecution under this resolution

Or - on the off chance he is convicted, the punishment for rape might be death. We support punishment, but we will not have someone killed for a crime committed in our nation. It is an appalling idea. But we are not responsible for judging or punishing them, so they will be killed for a crime we don't consider a capital offence. (We don't have any capital offences)

Then you either you don't expell him, or you suffer the consequences of you do, or YOU DON'T GIVE ANYONE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Second : Non-UN Nations (ok - I know that reads as non-United Nations Nations, but I can't think how else to phrase it).

Non-UN Nations are not bound to this proposal. However we are bound by it. That means while we are required to protect the rights and so forth of diplomats in our nation, any diplomats we send away to non-UN Nations are open to abuse, jail and all sorts of other things.

Further more it means you will have areas in your nation (that is bound and controlled by UN law) that are not controlled by the UN law (since the embassy is considered the territory of the home nation, as opposed to yours, UN law will not apply to it)

Irrelevent. If a non-UN member doesn't give your staff diplomatic immunity, you don't have to give their's diplomatic immunity. NOTHING IN THIS RESOLUTION SAYS YOU MUST GIVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO ANYONE!

Third : National Security

If you are not permitted to monitor what goes on in the embassy, you are open to all sorts of problems - none of which you can do anything about.

There is the issue of experiments and test that you would not permit in your nation. They can run genetic engineering labs, chemical weapons labs and so forth, and your government will have no oversite on these labs.

Give me one good reason why they would do this research in an embassy as opposed to their own country?


And there is the issue of terrorism. (This is not something I usually get in to, but it seems like a suitable time). This proposal permits someone to come in to your country, without them or their bags being searched. They can reside in the embassy without any searching or security checks of the host nation. They can travel through your nation to any area in vehicles that can not be stopped or searched.

Which sounds well and good, but substitute the word DIPLOMAT with the words "SUICIDE BOMBER WITH A BRIEFCASE NUCLEAR BOMB" and suddenly you are in a whole new world of pain and danger.

If you are talking about them doing it on the orders of a government, the article PROCLAIMS that no country may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation covers that. Secondly, if you are talking about someone who becomes a diplomat in order to commit such an atrocity, then I should point out it says nowhere that you cannot search a diplomat. The only things you cannot search are diplomatic bags, embassies and the property of diplomats. If they sent a nuke in a diplomatic bag, then the government would know and be in violation of the above artical. If you are still scared by diplomats, then don't give them immunity.

Basically, all your objections spring for the false assumption that you must give diplomats immunity which this resolution in no way forces you to do. If you don't like the concept, don't give any foreign diplomat in your country immunity!

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home country

So, he can't escape prosecution under this resolution



PROCLAIMS that a person holding diplomatic immunity is immune from arrest and prosecution by the host nation. The person may be detained by host nation officials only when necessary to prevent death or injury of that person or others. In such case, the law enforcement officers shall immediately notify the mission to which the person is assigned. The person shall be promptly released to the custody of an authorised representative of that mission upon request.


This would seem to imply that if I arrest someone, they are to be handed over to the embassy as soon as is possible. Once there, they are free to be recalled and I can't see what I can do about it.


Then you either you don't expell him, or you suffer the consequences of you do, or YOU DON'T GIVE ANYONE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY


This would be my point. This resolution will make it impossible for me to grant anyone immunity the way it is worded.


Irrelevent. If a non-UN member doesn't give your staff diplomatic immunity, you don't have to give their's diplomatic immunity. NOTHING IN THIS RESOLUTION SAYS YOU MUST GIVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO ANYONE!


Again - my point.


Give me one good reason why they would do this research in an embassy as opposed to their own country?


It's against the law, or morally dubious. If you don't do it in your own nation, you have WAY less chance of getting caught.


If you are talking about them doing it on the orders of a government, the article PROCLAIMS that no country may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation covers that. Secondly, if you are talking about someone who becomes a diplomat in order to commit such an atrocity, then I should point out it says nowhere that you cannot search a diplomat. The only things you cannot search are diplomatic bags, embassies and the property of diplomats. If they sent a nuke in a diplomatic bag, then the government would know and be in violation of the above artical. If you are still scared by diplomats, then don't give them immunity.

If the government are planning such an horrific crime against humanity, you think the fact they are in violation of this resolution would stop them?

And - by the by - what if they don't think it is classed as a crime? Maybe they are doing what is necessary to defend themselves (in their eyes).

And finally - "don't give them immunity" - that would be my point. Again.


Ok - I think you get my point now. I can't grant anyone immunity, and you have openly accepted that fact. Thus the resolution that is supposed to prevent dimplomats from being hassled is going to have EXACTLY the opposite effect.

Which is why I can't vote for it or encourage others to vote for it. It's an appalling piece of legislation that will do WAY more harm than good in the long run.

Ok - I think you get my point now. I can't grant anyone immunity, and you have openly accepted that fact. Thus the resolution that is supposed to prevent dimplomats from being hassled is going to have EXACTLY the opposite effect.

Which is why I can't vote for it or encourage others to vote for it. It's an appalling piece of legislation that will do WAY more harm than good in the long run.

We agree with Pallatium on the issue. This legastion's goal would force nations not to give dipolmatic immunity...is this the purpose of the legisation?

Vicki-Y

Just in case you were wondering, the reason I don't want to vote for it is not because it has no effect (every nation can ignore it, making it totally worthless), but because it will screw up the system I have.

Currently Diplomats and Embassy staff have limited immunity. When they arrive at customs, they declare what is in their luggage (eg "embassy documents") and the luggage is scanned to confirm this (or - more accurately - to confirm there is nothing else in there). This means they can't smuggle in weapons or other associated fun things. (If they need to bring weapons, they must declare them first).

Further more the embassy is classed as their soil, and we are not permitted to enter it without permission, unless we have compelling evidence a crime has been committed (and it must be seriously compelling, to the point of having a panel of ten judges review it and sign off on it).

Diplomats can be taken in to custordy on the same basis, but maybe held under house arrest at the embassy rather than in jail (they are not permitted, however, to leave the country unless given permission). Further more if they are bound over for trial, they lose their immunity by default, and are tried as criminals in our nation, not in another nation. This is because while people are in our borders, they must respect and obey our laws and our justice.


This system has always worked well for us, and we have had no problems.

Your resolution would destroy it, and with it the concept of justice in my nation. Our only resort would be to expel all diplomats and close all embassies until it is repealed.

That's why I chose to oppose it :}

Thus the resolution that is supposed to prevent dimplomats from being hassled is going to have EXACTLY the opposite effect.

Not really. Reciprocity. If you don't give someone immunity, your diplomats don't have immunity in their country. If you want to stop your diplomats being hassled, then give all diplomats in your nation immunity and suffer the unlikely consequences.

This would seem to imply that if I arrest someone, they are to be handed over to the embassy as soon as is possible. Once there, they are free to be recalled and I can't see what I can do about it.

Your getting mixed up. If a diplomat is directly endagering the populace, then you can arrest him and prevent him from causing harm (such as if he's carrying a tactical nuke or about to rape a child, or more realistically getting into a car drunk), give him back to the embassy then revoke his immunity so he faces prosecution (although that part is up to you, of course), which according to previous resolutions must be fair.

It's against the law, or morally dubious. If you don't do it in your own nation, you have WAY less chance of getting caught.

That would violate the clause that says that diplomats are subject to the laws of their own nation. All UN law is mandatory, and you cannot break it, so no worries there.

If the government are planning such an horrific crime against humanity, you think the fact they are in violation of this resolution would stop them?
Yes. UN law is mandatory.

And - by the by - what if they don't think it is classed as a crime? Maybe they are doing what is necessary to defend themselves (in their eyes).

Then the courts will clear it up, and as all UN nations must follow definition of fair trial you can be assured no political pressure can be brought into the equation

EDIT: We must have posted at the same time! With reference to your second post, there is actually nothing in this proposal that prevents you from carrying on your current system, as long as you understand that any nation can operate the same system as you. The original title was to do with basic standardisation, not with actually standardising anything to anything extent!

For example, you could use AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host country for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect , and negotiate with Cobdenia that Cobdenia will revoke the immunity of our diplomats if they break a law in your country, and face prosecution under your laws in your judicial system. Nearly all the arguments you have proposed were made when the original Diplomat Immunity Resolution was up for quorum and failed (due to a campaign by a non-UN nation), hence most of them have been covered (and the honest fact that this does nothing!)

Not really. Reciprocity. If you don't give someone immunity, your diplomats don't have immunity in their country. If you want to stop your diplomats being hassled, then give all diplomats in your nation immunity and suffer the unlikely consequences.


Except that because of this, I am not going to be sending diplomats anywhere.


Your getting mixed up. If a diplomat is directly endagering the populace, then you can arrest him and prevent him from causing harm (such as if he's carrying a tactical nuke or about to rape a child, or more realistically getting into a car drunk), give him back to the embassy then revoke his immunity so he faces prosecution (although that part is up to you, of course), which according to previous resolutions must be fair.


So I arrest him, then send him back to his embassy. Is it not possible that between that, and revoking immunity, he could be taken home?


That would violate the clause that says that diplomats are subject to the laws of their own nation. All UN law is mandatory, and you cannot break it, so no worries there.


Still doesn't cover the morally dubious part :} (For example if genetic engineering was really disliked, but not illegal, in Pallatium, I would find it easier to carry it out outside the boundries of my nation, say in a lab 2000 miles away)


Yes. UN law is mandatory.


But laws against murder are mandatory, and people still break them. All the UN does is say "you must declare this illegal", it doesn't actually stop you from doing it.


Then the courts will clear it up, and as all UN nations must follow definition of fair trial you can be assured no political pressure can be brought into the equation


If they don't think it is a crime, they won't even BRING it to court. It's their embassy - their soil. I have no power to make them take it to trial.


EDIT: We must have posted at the same time! With reference to your second post, there is actually nothing in this proposal that prevents you from carrying on your current system, as long as you understand that any nation can operate the same system as you. The original title was to do with basic standardisation, not with actually standardising anything to anything extent!


Oh. Well - that's the way it works - people sign letters of agreement and we swap ambassedors. And anyone I send to another nation knows full well that they are under the jurisdiction of that nation, and my power to help them is limited should they commit a crime. They seem happy enough to go.


For example, you could use AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host country for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect , and negotiate with Cobdenia that Cobdenia will revoke the immunity of our diplomats if they break a law in your country, and face prosecution under your laws in your judicial system. Nearly all the arguments you have proposed were made when the original Diplomat Immunity Resolution was up for quorum and failed (due to a campaign by a non-UN nation), hence most of them have been covered (and the honest fact that this does nothing!)

(grin) At least you are honest about it doing nothing.

But despite all this - or maybe because of - I can't bring myself to support a resolution that does nothing. Not to quote what other people said in the last floor debate, but "doesn't the UN have better things to do with its time". If this is only going to affect those who want it to affect them, why put it in to international law? Why not just stick to it yourself?

the delegates from SLI-sector and Pallatium have made several goods points some of which my government agrees with.

Surely if one off our laws has been broken a trial should take place on our land with our laws.

secondly if this proposed resolution can be ignored by any government its pointless to even debate it.

we need some protection for diplomats but i don't this is the act that will provide it.

in the meantime I can assure all nations who have sent diplomats to Kirisubo that they have nothing to fear from us as long as no laws, local or UN resolutions are broken.