NationStates Jolt Archive


***Proposal: Release of Vital Knowledge Act***

Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 07:10
And I've finally proposed it officially. Please check it out and give it your approval if you like it. Support is appreciated.

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.

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.
Enn
04-06-2005, 07:15
Article 2 is a bit unclear. Am I to understand that nations that feel threatened by giving up information are to give up troops, or will troops be sent there? Please clarify, as at the moment I don't understand what you mean.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 07:19
Article 2 is a bit unclear. Am I to understand that nations that feel threatened by giving up information are to give up troops, or will troops be sent there? Please clarify, as at the moment I don't understand what you mean.
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.

Nations that would feel threatened... may request protection, and be exempt from provision one until said protection has been delivered. This means that until troops are delivered to the aforementioned threatened nation, they will be exempt from provision one. That's all. It doesn't require them to give away troops. The troops are delivered - they don't deliver troops.
DemonLordEnigma
04-06-2005, 16:21
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;

So far, so good.

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.

Not bad.

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.

Request protection from who?

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.

Illegal. The committees are, by UN rules, not to be chaired by nations.
Fass
04-06-2005, 16:48
This proposal is still a bad, unnecessary idea that rapes our stance of strict neutrality. No support.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 16:54
Request protection from who?
Anyone. Any UN nations are allowed to send support, as long as support is sent.

Illegal. The committees are, by UN rules, not to be chaired by nations.
OOC Are you sure? It's not requiring them to be chaired by nations, so I think it slides by as legal - notice it says committee is voluntary. If it were illegal, I'd be surprised, as well as somewhat pissed, because this has been up for a good three weeks and no admins said that committee was illegal, despite the fact that many other things were.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 16:55
This proposal is still a bad, unnecessary idea that rapes our stance of strict neutrality. No support.

If you're strictly neutral, what are you doing pushing resolutions in the UN? Or are you just finding some excuse to disagree with it because you don't like some of the things I say?

You help out your buddies in the UN and nobody knows you did it because the information has to remain confidential... what's not to like?
Fass
04-06-2005, 17:07
If you're strictly neutral, what are you doing pushing resolutions in the UN?

We do not do that. We support resolutions that benefit us, and oppose those that don't. We do not submit, we do not campaign, we do not aid, other than in such sense as that we use or vote. We do do not push, we do not meddle. We also make a difference between military and intelligence neutrality, and neutrality in other areas. This being a military intelligence matter where you wish to force us to meddle in conflicts which do not affect us and that we do not wish to get involved in - as we never do when it comes to military and intelligence matters - we will oppose you.

Or are you just finding some excuse to disagree with it because you don't like some of the things I say?

OOC: You have gotten threads locked before for these sorts of allegations and belligerent argumentation. Do not push your luck.

You help out your buddies in the UN and nobody knows you did it because the information has to remain confidential... what's not to like?

We do not have "buddies" in the UN. We like it that way.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 17:19
We do not do that. We support resolutions that benefit us, and oppose those that don't. We do not submit, we do not campaign, we do not aid, other than in such sense as that we use or vote. We do do not push, we do not meddle. We also make a difference between military and intelligence neutrality, and neutrality in other areas. This being a military intelligence matter where you wish to force us to meddle in conflicts which do not affect us and that we do not wish to get involved in - as we never do when it comes to military and intelligence matters - we will oppose you.


Well, for one, you have supported resolutions that don't benefit you, as you don't need them, but that force your ideas on other people, but that's okay since you clarified that there is a difference in forcing domestic beliefs on people and forcing assistance in potentially deadly situations on people. I still do not see what is so bad about helping UN member nations be more successful and save more lives by providing them with as much intelligence as possible, but I suppose I will not sway you. Good day.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 17:22
OOC: You have gotten threads locked before for these sorts of allegations and belligerent argumentation. Do not push your luck.

OOC I was just being in character. What should my leader think when someone who he disagrees with often makes a claim against his resolution with no sort of support for his argument whatsoever?
DemonLordEnigma
04-06-2005, 17:34
Anyone. Any UN nations are allowed to send support, as long as support is sent.

Hmm.

OOC Are you sure? It's not requiring them to be chaired by nations, so I think it slides by as legal - notice it says committee is voluntary. If it were illegal, I'd be surprised, as well as somewhat pissed, because this has been up for a good three weeks and no admins said that committee was illegal, despite the fact that many other things were.

Pretty damn sure. In Hack's rules, it specifically states that committees are not to be chaired by nations. That was a compromise between two sides, those of us who hate the utterly-useless and entirely despicable committees and are of the justified OOC opinion that the committees should be taken out behind the woodshed and put out of their misery and those who, for some unknown reason, seem to like them.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 17:40
Pretty damn sure. In Hack's rules, it specifically states that committees are not to be chaired by nations. That was a compromise between two sides, those of us who hate the utterly-useless and entirely despicable committees and are of the justified OOC opinion that the committees should be taken out behind the woodshed and put out of their misery and those who, for some unknown reason, seem to like them.
Well, I guess I'll find out if it gets sweeped. And, as a point, I really don't like committees, either. I just figured making a committee to decide for certain that an act is an act of terrorism was the best way to prevent morons getting on and saying, "Well who decides if it's terrorism or not!? What if they decide wrong!? The terrorists don't think they're terrorists!" I figured a majority vote by representatives of 200 regions was the best way to solve that problem.
DemonLordEnigma
04-06-2005, 17:49
Here's a quote. It's under Metagaming.

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 18:02
Dang... thank you admins for completely missing that. I thought the wording only entailed that nations could not be required to serve on committees, not that they couldn't sit on them at all. Blast it all, gonna have to wait for the sweep and propose it again. At least this will give me a chance to clarify article two, since a couple people found its wording to be confusing. Thanks for catching that Enigma.
The Most Glorious Hack
04-06-2005, 18:21
Dang... thank you admins for completely missing that.
Meh. We're not your personal review system. That's what this forum is for.
Rogue Newbie
04-06-2005, 19:22
Yeah, I know... I thought it was legal so I put it here to make sure. I don't know when I'm going to interpret rules differently than the admins do, or misread them completely like I just did. I wouldn't have bothered posting it if not to make sure it was legal. I am just mad that it was up for so long and no admins said anything, and then finally I officially propose it and it's immediately pointed out as illegal.