NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the final draft I will be posting for revision. Please read it and help me make it better before I propose it. If you are against this bill after thoroughly reading, explain why and perhaps we can compromise.


Release of Vital Knowledge Act

International Security: Mild.

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 resulting in the intimidation or coercion of societies or governments;
DEFINING right-possessing civilians as civilians that have not, for any reason, lost their rights of citizenship for all purposes of this resolution;
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. The recieving nation may not reveal any information they acquire in this manner to outside parties.

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. They must settle for one thousand (1000) troops, but they may settle for fewer. 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 form a committee, dubbed ROVKC or the Release of Vital Knowledge Committee, that will decide whether the definition of terrorism as defined by this resolution is applicable on a case-by-case basis. Debate of each case will be permitted to last a maximum of twenty-four (24) hours. Service of this committee is voluntary and all UN member nations may send one representative if they so desire; however, the maximum number of representatives allowed on the committee for each case will be two hundred (200) and no more than one nation from each region may join the committee. The regional delegate will be able to choose, first, if it will participate, although it may waive this privilege. The committee for each case will be formed on a first-come, first-serve basis.* If no nations apply to be a part of the committee, then the offended nation will be permitted to decide for itself whether the attack was of an international terrorist nature. This should prevent abuse of this resolution if there is a reasonable suspicion that the nation is attempting to gather information illegally.
*The first two-hundred nations to apply will be accepted. Afterwards, applications will be discarded.

the comitte would collapse into it's own bureaucratical shit hole.

Case-by-Case basis would take ridiculously long, especially when concerning highly mobile terrorist cells.

Ignoring the possible illegality of that last post... :rolleyes:

This looks good. Your title's still a bit long, though.

Service of this committee is voluntary and all UN member nations may send one representative if they so desire.

You might want to take that out - committees are traditionally manned by people who magically spring out of the ground for the sole purpose of serving on that committee - I'm not sure if this would count as that or not.

I still think the title is misleading. It makes you think it has something to do with freedom of information in the sense that it would bring more government transparity for UN citizens, but what it is in fact is a resolution that aims to rape any country's policy on neutrality and force them to get involved into situations that they have nothing to do with and also force them to disclose sensitive information that they today have the right to conceal for their own self-interests.

Also you would need to add "for the intents of this resolution" to the definition of what "right-possessing civilians" are, otherwise it will be defining that across the board, which would be ridiculous, as we have far different criteria for who has rights (we feel everybody has rights).

We're still against this.

Case-by-Case basis would take ridiculously long, especially when concerning highly mobile terrorist cells.
It would not take as long as you might think, as only international affairs are going to be affected by this resolution. Also, I think most would agree that taking an extra day to review a situation would be better than applying this resolution to the wrong kind of acts. I will limit the time spent on a case by the committee to 24 hours in light of that point, however.
I still think the title is misleading. It makes you think it has something to do with freedom of information in the sense that it would bring more government transparity for UN citizens, but what it is in fact is a resolution that aims to rape any country's policy on neutrality and force them to get involved into situations that they have nothing to do with and also force them to disclose sensitive information that they today have the right to conceal for their own self-interests.
I see what you mean about the title, and it has been changed. However, this resolution hardly aims to rape a country's neutrality policy. It is a simple release of any documentation with regards to the offender(s), and protection is offered to those who would feel anxious about releasing such information. If "their own self-interests" are not a matter of safety, but instead a matter of underhanded foreign policy, then they should not be allowed to withhold such information, anyway. The information released is confidential, and only the offended nation will see it, no one else. This resolution does not ask you to become militarily involved in other countries' situations.
Also you would need to add "for the intents of this resolution" to the definition of what "right-possessing civilians" are, otherwise it will be defining that across the board, which would be ridiculous, as we have far different criteria for who has rights (we feel everybody has rights).
Done.

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. The recieving nation may not reveal any information they acquire in this manner to outside parties.

No. Gods, no. One of the last things Krioval needs is sensitive information "accidentally" being released into the public sphere. Similarly, I'm sure that there are countries who don't want Krioval "accidentally" releasing information. The potential of this to start wars is far stronger than the potential to deter terrorism. Besides, there's no way to prove that a given nation *has* this knowledge in the first place.

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.

Who's going to do the "protection"? Krioval? Anybody who offers? Again, given thirty seconds and a decidedly evil thought pattern, I could devise ways that this could be abused that would make heads spin.

Noting that terrorism is a term which can be interpreted a variety of ways, let the United Nations form a committee, dubbed ROVKC or the Release of Vital Knowledge Committee, that will decide whether the definition of terrorism as defined by this resolution is applicable on a case-by-case basis. Debate of each case will be permitted to last a maximum of twenty-four (24) hours. Service of this committee is voluntary and all UN member nations may send one representative if they so desire. This should prevent abuse of this resolution if there is a reasonable suspicion that the nation is attempting to gather information illegally.

This is a total nightmare. All UN countries could send a representative, and then 30,000+ nations are expected to come to a vote within a day? Not to mention that the committee is borderline illegal (depends on whether nations would be expected to RP it or not).

In short, Krioval will not be approving this. Good evening.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

Name too long??? need it shortened? Use and Abreviation!

In this Case i would call the Proposal RoVT Act and include the full wording in the Proposal under the Intro.

That brainwave aside, I dont think this proposal would fly. so we wont be backing it.

Nice try though. Keep up the good work.

I've never appreciated the idea of granting any extra power to a group or organization over other peoples sovereignty simply because of a theoretical threat to their safety. This takes the U.N. a step up on the paranoia scale, a step down on the sovereignty scale, and I don't really think it's at all worthwhile - counterterrorism in itself is a stupid idea.

No. Gods, no. One of the last things Krioval needs is sensitive information "accidentally" being released into the public sphere. Similarly, I'm sure that there are countries who don't want Krioval "accidentally" releasing information. The potential of this to start wars is far stronger than the potential to deter terrorism. Besides, there's no way to prove that a given nation *has* this knowledge in the first place.
If recieved information were released, even accidently, the nation that did so would be in breach of this resolution, and therefore kicked out of the UN.
Who's going to do the "protection"? Krioval? Anybody who offers? Again, given thirty seconds and a decidedly evil thought pattern, I could devise ways that this could be abused that would make heads spin.
The protection will be sent by other nations of their own free will, but if no one will be neighborly and help out with said protection, the responsibility would fall to the offended nation, as they are the ones that want the information in the first place.
This is a total nightmare. All UN countries could send a representative, and then 30,000+ nations are expected to come to a vote within a day? Not to mention that the committee is borderline illegal (depends on whether nations would be expected to RP it or not).
First of all, every nation is not going to send a member just because they can. They simply won't bother. Especially if they have no information on the terrorist party to begin with, which is the most likely case. I could see this getting out of hand, however, so instead of being sarcastic and claiming without any support that there are a bunch of scenarios that could happen as a result of this proposal, why don't you be helpful and suggest how to make it better? I have not proposed it officially yet, and it can be changed. Perhaps if all regional delegates were allowed to come it would be better controlled. If you have constructive things to point out about the resolution, say them; if you're just talking to be talking, there are other threads for that.
In short, Krioval will not be approving this. Good evening.
I'm glad Krioval has demonstrated its utterly close-minded nature by promising that they will never support this resolution even though the text is yet to be finalized.
Name too long???
Nope.
That brainwave aside, I dont think this proposal would fly. so we wont be backing it.
Joining Krioval in deciding before you've even read the final state of the resolution. I'm glad you're keeping an open mind here.

The protection will be sent by other nations of their own free will, but if no one will be neighborly and help out with said protection, the responsibility would fall to the offended nation, as they are the ones that want the information in the first place.
It might be a good idea to spell this out explicitly in the text; it wasn't clear to me on first reading.

And with respect to the committee, I agree with your opinion that not all nations will want to send a representative, but it's possible that a lot will. Or that none will. You don't specify what will happen if no one sits on the committee; it might be better just to gloss over that whole part (that is, about the constitution of the committee). Just say that "a committee will be formed...".

It's also not clear to me how exactly such a request for information might work. Is this something to be roleplayed? If so, it might be better done by a UNO such as the Pretenama Panel.

I thought I had something else to add here but I must be getting too tired. :(

It might be a good idea to spell this out explicitly in the text; it wasn't clear to me on first reading.
I did, then removed it because that's illegal for some reason. I'm not allowed to make the resolution as bulletproof as I'd like it because the game mechanics forbid many things.

And with respect to the committee, I agree with your opinion that not all nations will want to send a representative, but it's possible that a lot will. Or that none will. You don't specify what will happen if no one sits on the committee; it might be better just to gloss over that whole part (that is, about the constitution of the committee). Just say that "a committee will be formed...".
Fair enough, I'll think about this and then edit it appropriately. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's also not clear to me how exactly such a request for information might work. Is this something to be roleplayed? If so, it might be better done by a UNO such as the Pretenama Panel.
It's just kind of automatic, these resolutions never really do anything, we just argue about them because we have no lives. Well, that's not exactly true; your nation's economy and description will be modified in a mild way (hence, the rating) if this becomes an official resolution.

I'm glad Krioval has demonstrated its utterly close-minded nature by promising that they will never support this resolution even though the text is yet to be finalized.

Joining Krioval in deciding before you've even read the final state of the resolution. I'm glad you're keeping an open mind here.

I've never considered Krioval a close-minded nation. Though I am amused that you refer to the text as "yet to be finalized" and expect that to be obvious in a thread entitled "Final pre-proposal draft". Keep in mind that Krioval opposes the actual effects of the resolution, and not just the nitpicky details you think will be worked out. No matter how you word it, forcing shared information has certain effects, and nations will be opposed to those effects regardless of how much you change the wording around.

Cease the bandwagon approach - and quit lumping people into an offensive and entirely ridiculous category simply because they're not on your bandwagon. I, for one, not concerned about the small flaws in your proposal. I'm concerned that your proposal is, in its entirety, a bad idea. That's not something you can fix with a redraft, and I'd say that Venerable Libertarians and Krioval are fully justified in their opposal.

If recieved information were released, even accidently, the nation that did so would be in breach of this resolution, and therefore kicked out of the UN. (emphasis mine)

I'll try to stop laughing long enough to ask exactly who's going to enforce those "kickings out"? Or would that make the whole thing illegal (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg)?

The protection will be sent by other nations of their own free will, but if no one will be neighborly and help out with said protection, the responsibility would fall to the offended nation, as they are the ones that want the information in the first place.

And if they're not strong enough?

First of all, every nation is not going to send a member just because they can. They simply won't bother. Especially if they have no information on the terrorist party to begin with, which is the most likely case. I could see this getting out of hand, however, so instead of being sarcastic and claiming without any support that there are a bunch of scenarios that could happen as a result of this proposal, why don't you be helpful and suggest how to make it better?

Scrap it entirely. Stop wasting the UN's time with more pointless and ineffectual committees. Then realize that there are these things called "allies" and "interested nations" who are far better equipped to deal with a given nation's problems than a monolithic agency like the UN. Then realize that Krioval and other nations are not responsible for constantly monitoring the wellbeing of everybody else.

I'm glad Krioval has demonstrated its utterly close-minded nature by promising that they will never support this resolution even though the text is yet to be finalized.

Krioval does not support legislation that requires that we spend our time watching out for everybody else. If people can't control their own borders, they deserve to suffer the consequences. The same can be said for their economy, their education system, and many other facets of government. Those who can, do, and those who can't become colonies of Krioval.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Greetings.

We of Roathin understand the intent behind your proposal.

However, it seems to us that this intent is better served by reversing the perspective. That is, resolve under the auspices of the UN that:

1. Should a terrorist act occur, whether intranational or not; and

2. should a member nation be later proven to have had information which, when laid before a panel of international jurists, convinces them that such information would have had critical value in thwarting such an act; and

3. should said information-holding nation be later similarly proven to have known this critical value; and

4. should said nation have wilfully withheld such information without sufficient humanitarian cause as adjudicated by the UN;

that the said nation should be assessed a penalty for not acting to forestall an act of terrorism where this might have been possible.

We of Roathin grant that this might seem a closed ward somewhat after the elemental has apported, but it does help to clarify certain issues.

We further grant that even should such a suggestion be advanced, it might not be within our interests to assent to this.

RESPONSE TO POJONIA

I've never appreciated the idea of granting any extra power to a group or organization over other peoples sovereignty simply because of a theoretical threat to their safety. This takes the U.N. a step up on the paranoia scale, a step down on the sovereignty scale, and I don't really think it's at all worthwhile - counterterrorism in itself is a stupid idea.
You're right, Pojonia; I sure hate when genocidal maniacs get what they deserve... counterterrorism makes chasing them almost totally one-sided, and, in my opinion, it is not cool when more of the good-guys survive that chase.
Please reply if you have anything constructive to say, as the resolution is hardly set in stone.

RESPONSE TO KRIOVAL

(emphasis mine)

I'll try to stop laughing long enough to ask exactly who's going to enforce those "kickings out"? Or would that make the whole thing illegal (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg)?


It's not mandated by the resolution, that's just what happens when nations disobey UN mandate... they get kicked. So, no, it's not illegal. Nice try, though.

And if they're not strong enough?
If they are not strong enough to lend out some of their troops for the information, and no one will lend out the troops, for them, then I guess they are screwed. But I know my nation would come to the aid of another in a situation where only 500 or so troops were needed, and I know many more would side with me on that point.

Scrap it entirely. Stop wasting the UN's time with more pointless and ineffectual committees. Then realize that there are these things called "allies" and "interested nations" who are far better equipped to deal with a given nation's problems than a monolithic agency like the UN. Then realize that Krioval and other nations are not responsible for constantly monitoring the wellbeing of everybody else.
The committee has a point, and is very effective; it ensures that the number of "bad calls" on whether an act is one of terrorism under the definition set by this resolution is greatly reduced.

Krioval does not support legislation that requires that we spend our time watching out for everybody else. If people can't control their own borders, they deserve to suffer the consequences. The same can be said for their economy, their education system, and many other facets of government. Those who can, do, and those who can't become colonies of Krioval.
Now you're just lying through your teeth; you just supported (quite vehemently) a resolution that was presented for the express purpose of protecting nations that cannot defend themselves in the case that they wish to refuse extradition. Seeing as refusing extradition was already legal, the only reason you would have voted for it is to ensure said protection, therefore Krioval has supported legislation that watches out for someone else.

RESPONSE TO ROATHIN

Greetings.

We of Roathin understand the intent behind your proposal.

However, it seems to us that this intent is better served by reversing the perspective. That is, resolve under the auspices of the UN that:

1. Should a terrorist act occur, whether intranational or not; and

I do not think that a resolution requiring other nations to worry about the intranational affairs of others would be widely accept, which is why I expressly stated that only international affairs will be reviewed.
2. should a member nation be later proven to have had information which, when laid before a panel of international jurists, convinces them that such information would have had critical value in thwarting such an act; and
Hopefully this could not happen, seeing as the information provided would greatly assist the offended nation in stopping the terrorist party before they can hurt the people of another nation. If they were worried about the ability of the offended nation to handle the situation on their own, I would hope that they would lend them a hand. If not, then the repercussions are mainly their fault.

3. should said information-holding nation be later similarly proven to have known this critical value; and
They are in breach of this resolution, and, under UN rules, expelled.

4. should said nation have wilfully withheld such information without sufficient humanitarian cause as adjudicated by the UN;
Same as 3.

that the said nation should be assessed a penalty for not acting to forestall an act of terrorism where this might have been possible.
Same as 3.