NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal will be an international security proposal that will assist greatly in counterterrorism measures at minimal cost to involved nations.

International Freedom of Potentially Vital Information Act

International Security: Strong.

REALIZING that international terrorism is a threat to all nations in one form or another;
GRANTED that it is the right of nations to protect themselves by taking appropriate counter-terrorist action;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the United Nations is an institution of many nations trying to work towards smoother diplomatic policies;
ACKNOWLEDGING FURTHER that the United Nations should feel obligated to lend support to one another in times of international crisis;
RECOGNIZING that terrorism can quickly find itself in the category of international crisis;
DEFINING terrorism as the use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against right-possessing civilians with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments;
DEFINING right-possessing civilians as civilians that have not, for any reason, lost their rights of citizenship;
DEFINING FURTHER terrorism as inapplicable in times of war unless committed by a warring nation on an uninvolved nation, or vise versa;
EXCLUDING intranational coups from being considered terrorism for the purpose of this resolution unless said coup is initially endorsed with military aid or funding on an international level;
ACKNOWLEDGING FURTHER that terrorism can be committed by any of the following: individuals, small followings, large followings, international organizations, nations, regions;
LET IT BE MANDATED that, in the event of terrorist-level international crisis, the following measures be taken by UN member nations:

1.) All member nations release any information to the offended nation that is in their possession with regard to the offending terrorist party, so that they are better-equipped to handle the situation.

2.) Nations that would feel threatened by revealing such information may request protection, and be exempt from provision one (1) until said protection has been delivered. This protection must be given voluntarily.

3.) Noting that terrorism is a term which can be interpreted a variety of ways, let the United Nations vote on all acts that may fall under this heading, and let the majority agree that an action is a terrorist one before information is sought out under this resolution. This should prevent abuse of this resolution if there is a reasonable suspicion that the nation is attempting to gather information illegally.

4.) If a nation is found to be in breach of this resolution, let all UN nations place an embargo on that nation for a minumum of ten years or until that nation complies.

I appreciate the input of any nations that give it, be them supportive of this proposal or not.

PS: I spent a great deal of time making this proposal all-but-foolproof. I would appreciate it if you read the text in its entirety before commenting.

1) Lose the BOLD and use [ quote] instead. It's hard to read.

2) "5.) Nations found to be in breach of this resolution face an International Court which may deem it necessary to evict said nation from the UN." - Nope. Only mods can evict nations. Lose that punishment, or it's illegal.

3) "and will transfer at least fifty troops each to any nations wishing protection" - A UN mandated army is still a UN army, regardless of the source of the troops. Illegal.

4) " let a list be construed of all nations in support this resolution." If it passes, ALL UN nations support this resolution, because resolutions are ALWAYS mandatory. Illegal.


Sorry. Needs a lot of work.

1) Lose the BOLD and use [ quote] instead. It's hard to read.

2) "5.) Nations found to be in breach of this resolution face an International Court which may deem it necessary to evict said nation from the UN." - Nope. Only mods can evict nations. Lose that punishment, or it's illegal.

3) "and will transfer at least fifty troops each to any nations wishing protection" - A UN mandated army is still a UN army, regardless of the source of the troops. Illegal.

4) " let a list be construed of all nations in support this resolution." If it passes, ALL UN nations support this resolution, because resolutions are ALWAYS mandatory. Illegal.


Sorry. Needs a lot of work.

2: Could I instead just say "let them be evicted," and not explicitly state that it would come to a vote. Apologies if the previous wording was illegal, I was trying to make it seem in character.

3: Can I get a quick explanation of how a UN mandated army is a UN army, as long as the troops are not under UN control, but rather intranationally controlled?

4: I was just trying to make it more appealing to those that were not fully supportive, apologies, consider it removed.

BTW: Just revised it, please check the mandates once more, if it's not too much trouble.

Reading... Please Wait...

Ok, first thing - Title? Need a name here... also, you mentioned I.S. as the Category, what about strength? I'd put this at .

ACKNOWLEDGING ...;
ACKNOWLEDGING FURTHER ...;
ACKNOWLEDGING FURTHER ...;

Ok, a bit repetitive. Try something like "RECALLING", "BELIEVING"... etc.

RECKOGNIZING

Uh-uh. It's spelled "recognizing". No K.

DEFINING terrorism as a valid threat or violent action that would result or already resulted in a death toll of over one hundred right-possessing civilians;
DEFINING right-possessing civilians as civilians that have not, for any reason, lost their rights of citizenship;

All right, I've got a few problems here. If a terrorist attack kills 99 people, it's not a terrorist attack, under this definition. Ok, that might be a bit ridiculous. But say an attack doesn't kill anyone, yet still destroys a great deal of property and accomplishes it's goal of instilling terror. Then is it not a terrorist attack? It sounds like one to me, but not to your proposal. Furthermore, if a terrorist attack hits a high-security prison, that holds convicted murderers who have lost their legal rights, it doesn't matter how many end their life sentences a bit early, it's not considered a terrorist attack.

I think you need to re-think that one. Maybe with something like: The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments That is, after all, what terrorism is. Moving on...

1.) All member nations release any information to the offended nation that is in their possession with regard to the offending terrorist individual, small following, large following, international organization, nation or region, so that they are better-equipped to handle the situation.

Replace individual...region with "party". It's a lot shorter and a helluva lot easier to read. Good step, though.

-Deleted Portion Already Addressed-

This is ok so far. You've basically made it impossible for nations to harbor terrorists - you might also want to put something in about not aiding known terrorist groups, either financially or militaristically. Keep up the work.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hersfold.jpg
The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member
Author, UN Resolution #54, UN Educational Committee
Department Head of UN Affairs, The Lemurian University (http://s4.invisionfree.com/Lemuria/index.php?c=15)

2) Find a punishment that doesn't have a game-mechanics effect and keep the punishment in. Eviction is out, but trade sanctions or something like that might work. Be imaginative.

3) If UN law calls for troops to be sent, they become UN troops no matter who stands in command. This is illegal because it then requires some sort of UN oversight (which means the mods) to roleplay the deployment. Any provision that calls for soldiers to be deployed by UN order is therefore illegal.

4) It's hard to find a way to do what you want to do without gutting the resolution. Keep trying.

On a national level, Frisbeeteria has always opposed anti-terrorism proposals because the meaning can almost always be twisted to support strong, despotic nations who wish to prey on weaker, democratic nations. If you can make THAT bulletproof, then the rest of the proposal is almost irrelevant. I haven't tried making a Bad Example from your text yet (having been busy trying to find rules loopholes), but I bet a few hundred FrisBs that I can do so.

Just being politely destructive ...

~ Fris ~

Alright, edited once again. The punishment now has nothing to do with eviction and the UN has nothing to do with the protection given to a nation that may be endangering itself. How does it look, now?

Oh, yeah, and please try to come up with a scenario that would shoot this down, as I could see how my proposal holds up, or, if it doesn't, I could make it stronger.

Fass has at times supported freedom fighters in other nations as we have had interests in bringing forth more democratic regimes in our geopolitical sphere. These regimes often label these freedom fighters/resistance men as terrorists and according to your resolution we would because of that simple label be forced to help these despotic regimes we were trying to help overthrow.

Our basic problem with anti-terrorism resolutions is that "terrorism" is such an arbitrary notion, which you prove with your definition.

"DEFINING terrorism as a valid threat or violent action that would result or already resulted in a death toll of over one hundred right-possessing civilians;
DEFINING right-possessing civilians as civilians that have not, for any reason, lost their rights of citizenship;"

Is Fass a terrorist nation for killing 100+ civilian citizens of another nation during war? Is 99 okay, but 100 isn't? What about people who have "lost" their rights? Are they worth less? What if the "civilians" are collaborators? And so on, and so forth...

Ok, done reading, and I've edited out the bits you've already fixed. Curse my slow typing.

Wow, Hersfold, thanks for the feedback. Alright, check it again now and read this.


Uh-uh. It's spelled "recognizing". No K.

Wow, I cannot believe I did that. Must have still been thinking acknowledging when I wrote that. Talk about brain farts.


All right, I've got a few problems here. If a terrorist attack kills 99 people, it's not a terrorist attack, under this definition. Ok, that might be a bit ridiculous. But say an attack doesn't kill anyone, yet still destroys a great deal of property and accomplishes it's goal of instilling terror. Then is it not a terrorist attack? It sounds like one to me, but not to your proposal. Furthermore, if a terrorist attack hits a high-security prison, that holds convicted murderers who have lost their legal rights, it doesn't matter how many end their life sentences a bit early, it's not considered a terrorist attack. I think you need to re-think that one. Maybe with something like: (definition of terrorism was here). That is, after all, what terrorism is. Moving on...
Alright, I definately see your point, and am going to go with the general idea of what you said. But, with all due respect, I am leaving out property; due to the high degree of left-wing tendency in the UN, I doubt taking international action over property would be widely accepted. Same goes for taking international action over the lives of convicted killers, however cold-hearted that may seem.

Thanks again for all the input, man.

Fass has at times supported freedom fighters in other nations as we have had interests in bringing forth more democratic regimes in our geopolitical sphere. These regimes often label these freedom fighters/resistance men as terrorists and according to your resolution we would because of that simple label be forced to help these despotic regimes we were trying to help overthrow.

Our basic problem with anti-terrorism resolutions is that "terrorism" is such an arbitrary notion, which you prove with your definition.

"DEFINING terrorism as a valid threat or violent action that would result or already resulted in a death toll of over one hundred right-possessing civilians;
DEFINING right-possessing civilians as civilians that have not, for any reason, lost their rights of citizenship;"

Is Fass a terrorist nation for killing 100+ civilian citizens of another nation during war? Is 99 okay, but 100 isn't? What about people who have "lost" their rights? Are they worth less? What if the "civilians" are collaborators? And so on, and so forth...

And curse my slow typing... apologies, Fass, I realize the initial vagary of this proposal. Please reread it, as it may be somewhat more favorable to you now, and terrorism is defined more precisely. Also read my reply to Hersfold's assistance, that will clarify my judgement here, somewhat.

Missed it the first time I read your message, but I just included a wartime clause that will cover another of your disagreements with my proposal.

I see your point with the property, not so much with the criminals, but the way you have it now should be ok. Just take out the part where you define "right-possesing civilians", because it doesn't really apply in that context.

Speaking as the delegate of a lefty nation (not that the UN appears to agree, having recently categorised us as an 'Anarchy'), I wouldn't be too concerned about the inclusion of a property reference. It is either irrelevant and the reference can be ignored by such nations, or is equally valid as a statement as the property is considered to belong to all citizens of the nation (as in Ecopoeia).

That said, I'm a long way from supporting this proposal for much the same reaons as detailed by the Fass and Frisbeeteria delegates. Without 'terrorists', Ecopoeia would not exist; we would in all probability still be sufferin under the Untan dominion.

Still, I commend your willingness to listen and adapt; indeed, it gives me some hope that we may come to an accord.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

We like the ideas shown in your draft however,

It seems like the "right to refuse extradition" resolution will pass. A nation that is sympathy to a terrorist's causes could easily circumvent this by invoking that resolution. Which was a concern that we express earlier.

In that case you need to define a terrorist, not an easy task, one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

In all we like what you are proposing and if our nation can lend any assistance we will do so.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

This resolution really isn't all but foolproof, and I don't particularly care for the idea of counter-terrorism at all. My primary problem, however, is your base assumption that terrorism threatens everyone. Terrorism is not a threat to all nations, especially since there is hundreds of thousands of them and terrorists are not quite as common.

It's certainly not a threat to me. My nation is a bastion of chaos incarnate, nestled in the infinite space of a pocket dimension the size of a single point above the North Pacific, virtually impossible to locate. It is also very close to one of the least safe nations you can live in, as evidenced in the U.N. report. Anyone attempting to commit acts of terrorism here is going to have to go through a lot of trouble, and even then it would be like throwing a grenade into a hurricane full of napalm.

Noting that, why the hell would anyone want to terrorize me? Sure, I'm a smartass, but that egotistical assurance generally only leads to national delegates declaring war on me, and then quietly retreating in the face of the obstacles that lie ahead of them. And since my nation takes no interest in foreign policy in any case except with the U.N., with nations who literally want to be where they are, what possible reason could there be to try and coerce me with fear? You can't coerce me with fear, I'm friggin Loco!

Either way, I see this resolution as open to abuse, in addition to adopting an aggressive stance on fear based tactics that I'd rather not support in an environment that is better be equipped to promoting peace and prosperity. Maybe if it promoted a defensive rather than agressive use of the information, I might reconsider.

we personally are against anti-terrorism resolutions, because the term terrorism is so fluid (sorry Hersfold, have to ping you for RL reference there, but add that our belief is that it is when someone uses a means to get there own way by using scare-tactics). also, in that we have to give up information, we are concerned about nations abusing it to get our national secrets, which indeed they might. so we wouldnt support this

We like the ideas shown in your draft however,
It seems like the "right to refuse extradition" resolution will pass. A nation that is sympathy to a terrorist's causes could easily circumvent this by invoking that resolution. Which was a concern that we express earlier.

Fortunately, this proposal doesn't conflict with the right to refuse extradition at all. All that the nation would be giving to the attacked nation would be "any information...that is in their possession with regard to the offending terrorist party." It's not a matter of transfer of persons, therefore the Right to Refuse Extradition doesn't apply.


That said, I'm a long way from supporting this proposal for much the same reaons as detailed by the Fass and Frisbeeteria delegates. Without 'terrorists', Ecopoeia would not exist
In that case you need to define a terrorist, not an easy task, one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
we personally are against anti-terrorism resolutions, because the term terrorism is so fluid (sorry Hersfold, have to ping you for RL reference there, but add that our belief is that it is when someone uses a means to get there own way by using scare-tactics). also, in that we have to give up information, we are concerned about nations abusing it to get our national secrets, which indeed they might. so we wouldnt support this

Alright, I think I have a solution for all of those worried about terrorism's definition in the proposal. Please read article three (3) in the proposal. I just added it and it should clear things up.

Noting that, why the hell would anyone want to terrorize me? Sure, I'm a smartass, but that egotistical assurance generally only leads to national delegates declaring war on me, and then quietly retreating in the face of the obstacles that lie ahead of them. And since my nation takes no interest in foreign policy in any case except with the U.N., with nations who literally want to be where they are, what possible reason could there be to try and coerce me with fear? You can't coerce me with fear, I'm friggin Loco!

Unfortunately, I can't make you realize that terrorism is a threat wherever you are and whoever you are. If you are "friggin Loco," and convinced that your nation is bulletproof, I doubt I can convince you to support this proposal. My apologies.

That said, I'm a long way from supporting this proposal for much the same reaons as detailed by the Fass and Frisbeeteria delegates. Without 'terrorists', Ecopoeia would not exist; we would in all probability still be sufferin under the Untan dominion.

Still, I commend your willingness to listen and adapt; indeed, it gives me some hope that we may come to an accord.
I hope my newest addition to the proposal will seem fair in your eyes and balanced in that it will not hurt the purpose of this proposal. It protects intranational coups from the affects of this resolution, so long as no outside party endorses the coup in any matter. Revolution is to be permitted, and, in some cases, inspired, so long as it is not at the expense of other nations. Here is the exact wording:


EXCLUDING intranational coups from being considered terrorism for the purpose of this resolution unless said coup is initially endorsed with military aid or funding on an international level;

Again, I hope that this strikes you as fair. I cannot completely allow coups in this resolution, as a terrorist organization could hide behind this statement by saying that their attack was an attempted coup. If the terrorist party is of an international nature, and the majority of the UN decides that either what they were planning or what they did was of a terrorist nature, then this resolution will take effect.

Have you checked with a mod the legality of saying that the entire UN will vote on whether something is a terrorist act? I seem remember a similar feature in another proposal being deemed illegal.

The MODs have looked at this, yes, and although many things about the original draft (of which a copy no longer exists) were deemed illegal, that was not one of them. With that vote I am just trying to appease nations that find the definition of terrorism difficult to outline by allowing something that would prevent a single nation from deeming an act terrorism, and thereby enacting this resolution.