NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, I have now proposed this once more, officially.

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, for all purposes of this resolution;
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 by another UN member nation or multiple UN member nations. 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.

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) Provision two - serves to protect smaller nations.

5) 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.

6) 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.

DEFINING FURTHER terrorism as inapplicable in times of war unless committed by a warring nation on an uninvolved nation, or vise versa;

Elaborate? I would think that two nations at war would still be perfectly capable of committing terrorist acts against each other. They might technically be classified as war crimes... the intentional targetting of non-combatant civilians in order to terrorize the opposing populace... but it would still seem to be classifiable as terrorism as well.

Elaborate? I would think that two nations at war would still be perfectly capable of committing terrorist acts against each other. They might technically be classified as war crimes... the intentional targetting of non-combatant civilians in order to terrorize the opposing populace... but it would still seem to be classifiable as terrorism as well.

Good question.

This resolution is meant to protect noncombatant nations from unpredicted terrorist attacks. I do not believe that nations would support something that required them to support one side of a war over another, even in the case that one of the nations uses an underhanded tactic of terrorist nature.

I will add "for all purposes of this resolution" to the definitions of terrorism, however, to allow for an expansion of this bill later if the majority of nations find it necessary or preferable.

Alright, I have now resubmitted this proposal officially, support is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Bump.

I see no problems with this proposal.

I would think that two nations at war would still be perfectly capable of committing terrorist acts against each other

Agreed. There is historical evidence to prove this is the case too.

Agreed. There is historical evidence to prove this is the case too.

Yeah, I heard him, I changed it to read "for all purposes of this resolution," so if people want to add terrorist attacks between warring nations to what this resolution does later, this doesn't stop them. Many are reluctant to support counterterrorism proposals, so we have to take it one step at a time. This allows for an expansion.

I see no problems with this proposal.
By the way, if you like it, please give it your approval, it needs all the support it can get. :D

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.
Three points.

First- prove that I have any information. ( I don't. Honest. Ha!)
Second- Make me share it! (I won't)
Third - Why must I share my intelligence with nation x when nation x does not need to share any information with me?


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 by another UN member nation or multiple UN member nations. They must settle for one thousand (1000) troops, but they may settle for fewer. This protection must be given voluntarily.

What the hell use is 1000 troops??? And how do they prevent an explosive laden plane from crashing into my capital city? If a nation of several billion is committing terrorist acts I find little reason to divulge evidence against it when the only protection i am offered is 1000 measly troops. I'd rather face the "wrath" of the UN (ha!) than a formidable non-UN foe.


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.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And 24 hours does not an adequate trial make. Does this comply with the UN Resolution Definition of a Fair Trial (if not, it is illegal). And OOC: 24 hours is almost impossible in an RP situation.

The main failures of this proposal (and by no means all of them!) are that one cannot prove that a nation has ifnormation (nor make it divulge it!) and second does not offer any incentives for a nation to do so.

USELESS!

This proposal is too one sided. It provideds benifits for only the revieving end of the information about terrorism.
Countries can also claim that they have no information about terrorism.

It in my opinion, just doesn't have enough fair compensation for both parties.