NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I know that I said the last one was my final draft, but in an effort to be as fair as I can possibly be to people that may have been absent for the early drafting process and protect this proposal as well as I can from loopholes, unclear statements, and vagaries, I will give one more chance to the current opponents of this resolution to suggest some constructive changes to the resolution. After this thread leaves the mainstream I will be posting a notice for the proposal of this resolution and will officially present it.

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.* If a regional delegate wishes to be present at the committee meeting, it shall be his express privelege to participate in place of other non-delegate nations within his region. 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.

Please reply as soon as possible if you have legitimate suggestions for this resolution and I will get back to you on them as quickly as I can.

By the way, I would like to explain my reasoning on various major aspects of the resolution.

1) Exclusion of intranational terrorist attacks from the definition of terrorism - I do not feel that it should be the UN's job to provide counterterrorism support for intranational affairs, only international affairs.

2) Creation of the committee - I want to ensure that no (or very, very, very few) cases are ever incorrectly defined as "terrorist."

3) Limit to 24-hour debate - to make decisions on terrorism hasty so that as little time as possible is spent debating before the information can be put to use, and to encourage nations to wait for the information before they go after terrorist parties without being full informed on their activities.

4) Limit to 200 members in committee - same reason as limit of time: to speed up the debate process.

5) Limit of one member from each region - regions generally consist of nations with similar views, and also I do not want there to be a chance of one region performing a covert terrorist attack and then forcing all of their allies in to fill up the voting slots, thereby deciding that a terrorist attack was not terrorism illegitimately.

6) Allowing regional delegate special power - to allow the feelings of the region as a whole to decide whether an act is one of terrorism, not just the quickest nation to buzz in that happens to be in that region.

7) Provision two - serves to protect smaller nations.

8) Prohibition of a nation revealing information received in this way - serves to greatly deter any attempts at using this resolution for unscrupulous purposes in a manner similar to the committee; also serves to protect smaller nations with an attempt to ensure that information transferred with regards to this resolution be kept confidential.

9) Definition of right-possessing civilian - I feel that many nations would not want to comply with a counterterrorism resolution, even one that just releases information, over the lives of criminals; this fact may be cold-hearted, but it is, in my mind, the bitter truth.

We repeat yet again that the name is not representative of what the resolution is all about. It misrepresents it as a freedom of information act, while, in fact, it is no such thing.

Well, all it is is a release of vital information act; an act that will mandate the release of information percieved as helpful to nations that have suffered the brutality of a terrorist attack. However, if you still feel that said title is misleading, what would you suggest to replace it?

You really shouldn't have started a new thread, though I can see your desire to eliminate the criticisms of the old thread.

You already know my stance on how the entire thing is a bad idea, but lets seize on some details now. From what I can see, if a nation doesn't want to supply information, they will declare war on you. Then it's inapplicable (DEFINING FURTHER). There's a loophole, and a stupid one at that.

You also said it would be the U.N.s job to provide counterterrorism. Counterterrorism is aggressive action better left to other organizations as opposed to the U.N., which has no official military and really doesn't slant towards a "Kill or be killed" mentality.

These are weaker arguments, but I really didn't see you responding to the older ones, so keep them in mind as well.

You already know my stance on how the entire thing is a bad idea, but lets seize on some details now. From what I can see, if a nation doesn't want to supply information, they will declare war on you. Then it's inapplicable (DEFINING FURTHER). There's a loophole, and a stupid one at that.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Fortunately, it's not a loophole, because the act of terrorism occurred before the war, thus it is still under the jurisdiction of this resolution.

You also said it would be the U.N.s job to provide counterterrorism. Counterterrorism is aggressive action better left to other organizations as opposed to the U.N., which has no official military and really doesn't slant towards a "Kill or be killed" mentality.

This has nothing to do with the a UN army or a "kill or be killed" mentality... it is a simple transfer of information between nations which, both being in the United Nations, are supposed to be on the same side.

These are weaker arguments, but I really didn't see you responding to the older ones, so keep them in mind as well.

Actually, I responded to every single argument presented thus far. If you missed it, or do not think I described it fully enough, I would suggest looking back in the transcripts (OOC search for "FINAL" in forum search to view old thread). If that does not settle your concerns, bring the arguments that you feel I ignored to the floor once again, and I will respond to them once more in as much detail as I possibly can.

Should I assume that this day of silence means everyone supports my proposal? Because I seriously doubt that to be the case.

this would be all well and good if terrorists were limited to one base of operations but then it would be an intranational problem. this is dealing with international terrorism.

lets say that terrorist cell A is active in my country and commits an act of terrorism. they have active branches in countries 1, 2, 3 ,4 and 5.

with this act i can "request" information from all countries even though only cells in countries 1, 2 and 3 may have been directly responsible but i can use this to get information on 4 and 5 as well.

considering the nature of terrorism i can request information from another country that involves banking/finance, industrial, commercial, judicial and immigration. all of these outlets are used frequently by terrorists and information, by the proposal, would be allowed.

if they choose not to release the information then they are protected but will be seen by the rest of the NSUN as being supporters/protectors of terrorism.

all it would take is one nation one time to use measure 2 for this system to break down completely.

also, why is the safe-guard so limiting? very little can be accomplished in a 24 hour period between so many member nations. also, why limit to 200 members of committee when this this would be upheld by every member nation and delegate? this safe-guard would cause more problems in the long run due to the rushed nature set forth leading to rushed judgements and abuse of the system it was designed to protect.

this is a no-win proposal. either i turn over all information requested that could theoretically be used against me in the future or i refuse to participate setting a domino chain of events that will lead to no member nation participating.

this would be all well and good if terrorists were limited to one base of operations but then it would be an intranational problem. this is dealing with international terrorism.

lets say that terrorist cell A is active in my country and commits an act of terrorism. they have active branches in countries 1, 2, 3 ,4 and 5.

with this act i can "request" information from all countries even though only cells in countries 1, 2 and 3 may have been directly responsible but i can use this to get information on 4 and 5 as well.

If they are cells of the same terrorist party, then yes, all countries would be required to release information regarding that terrorist party to you.

considering the nature of terrorism i can request information from another country that involves banking/finance, industrial, commercial, judicial and immigration. all of these outlets are used frequently by terrorists and information, by the proposal, would be allowed.

If a countries commercial, judicial, or financial situation was tied to the terrorist party, then this information would be applicable.

if they choose not to release the information then they are protected but will be seen by the rest of the NSUN as being supporters/protectors of terrorism.

No, they must release the information if they receive said protection, according to the way this bill has been worded.

all it would take is one nation one time to use measure 2 for this system to break down completely.

I fail to see what you mean... provision two is only applicable if the country does not receive the requested protection. If they do receive it, then provision two can no longer be used to refuse information release.

also, why is the safe-guard so limiting? very little can be accomplished in a 24 hour period between so many member nations. also, why limit to 200 members of committee when this this would be upheld by every member nation and delegate? this safe-guard would cause more problems in the long run due to the rushed nature set forth leading to rushed judgements and abuse of the system it was designed to protect.

The judgements are not rushed. Two-hundred people can easily make a very respectable decision in a twenty-four hour window. The act of terrorism also has to be considered such by the definition of this bill to even undergo further consideration, so the chances of a misjudgement are almost nonexistant.

this is a no-win proposal. either i turn over all information requested that could theoretically be used against me in the future or i refuse to participate setting a domino chain of events that will lead to no member nation participating.

Actually, you can't refuse to participate completely. You may only do so until a nation grants you one thousand (1000) troops as protection, at which point you must release said information, whether you want to or not.

I think you are misreading the bill. You seem to think provision two excludes a nation from participation in this resolution. It does not. You also seem to think that the information is released to all nations. It is not. The information goes straight to the offended nation, no one else, and provision two only applies until a nation has received one thousand troops for support.

Come on, people, I am sure that Bavle isn't the only person with reservations about this proposal. Speak up so I can make it acceptable before it is set in stone. Besides, Fass, you still need to suggest a title that fits this bill more fairly than "Release of Vital Knowledge Act." And I still don't understand how that isn't what this bill is.

Well, then, shall I assume that not a soul in the United Nations disagrees with my proposal? I hope this is the case, and, with the long silence that my bill has seen, I would be surprised to meet a large degree of resistance when I officially propose my bill within the next twenty-four hours. Thanks to all for their input in making this resolution as good as it could be.

Well, then, shall I assume that not a soul in the United Nations disagrees with my proposal? I hope this is the case, and, with the long silence that my bill has seen, I would be surprised to meet a large degree of resistance when I officially propose my bill within the next twenty-four hours. Thanks to all for their input in making this resolution as good as it could be.

I won't be surprised when it sustains almost no degree of support. Why do you keep bumping this thread?

I won't be surprised when it sustains almost no degree of support. Why do you keep bumping this thread?

A: Why wouldn't you be surprised? No one's had anything bad to say about it in about a day from what I can see. B: Because other threads keep getting "bumped" by stupid comments, and I want to make sure everyone that actually reads the forums on bill debate has a chance to put their two cents in before it can't be changed.

Thank you for your suggestions on this matter, for all that took the time to read my bill. I will be reviewing it once more or twice more, asking some of the nations that I am on friendlier terms with what they think, and then be posting it OOC at around midnight tonight, US EST (GMT -5:00, if I remember right).