NationStates Jolt Archive

MODS - Could this please be used as starter of the "AT VOTE" thread? The thread on the draft does not have the final edit version of the text. Thanks.

This is the final text of the proposal currently at vote:

Diplomatic Immunity
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: REALISING that national law can restrict diplomatic and consular personnel (hereafter referred to as diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse

FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons and cause undue interference with their official duties

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation that the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

PROCLAIMS that a person holding diplomatic immunity is immune from arrest and prosecution by the host nation. The person may be detained by host nation officials only when necessary to prevent death or injury of that person or others. In such case, the law enforcement officers shall immediately notify the mission to which the person is assigned. The person shall be promptly released to the custody of an authorised representative of that mission upon request.

FURTHER PROCLAIMS that diplomatic missions and other property declared extraterritorial by agreement between the home and host nations are inviolable from search by host nation officials. Such property may be entered by host nation officials only upon request by the mission involved. Nations may negotiate other circumstances in which such entry is permitted

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches are inviolable from seizure or search by host nation officials, and exempt from customs and excise duties

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system

PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

RECOMMENDS that nations cooperate in providing diplomatic missions with appropriate security.

Co-authored by Ausserland

----------

Debate on earlier drafts of this proposal may be found here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416711

May I suggest that you at least put a link to the other thread, so that the issues that were debated there do not need to be duplicated here.

May I suggest that you at least put a link to the other thread, so that the issues that were debated there do not need to be duplicated here.

We thank Her Majesty for an excellent suggestion. The link has been added.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I sincerely doubt it will stop those issues resurfacing.

As we have previously stated, we support this resolution, and shall be placing our vote in favour.

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

surely the host nation would like to carry out the punishment as well. murder for example carries different punishments across the world and the victims family may well feel agreived if the murderer escapes the accepted punishment because they're back home. and whose also to say that they'll get punished back home?


AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system


Affirm means to agree with. So if we revoke an ambassadors imunity we can't bring charges against them unless the home nation does the same. what if the home nation won't do this?

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

Off course a nation would want to bring charges but what is meant by non-political reasons?

We feel that this proposal lacks teeth and governments can pick and choose what they want to obey from it (or anything from it).

For these reasons my government has authorised to vote against this.

Interesting. At this point, we are likely to vote in favor.

This is, I feel I should point, in essence a "Defininition" proposal. Previous resolutions mention diplomatic immunity, without a common standard of practice for it. However, due to problems that surfaced after the previous incarnation that it is, for all intents an purposes, an optional urges (OoC: General Assembly as opposed to security council) type resolution. A toothful version also would not have been appropriate for all nations at all levels.

Basically, the toothful variation was rejected, so a largely toothless one compared to the last had to come in to replace it, as previous resolutions make no sense without this resolution

Interesting. At this point, we are likely to vote in favor.

May I ask why?

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

surely the host nation would like to carry out the punishment as well. murder for example carries different punishments across the world and the victims family may well feel agreived if the murderer escapes the accepted punishment because they're back home. and whose also to say that they'll get punished back home?.

The honorable delegate from Kirisubo is quite correct that there is no guarantee that the offender will be punished by his home nation. But if two nations establish diplomatic relations, they do so for the purpose of dealing effectively with each other. For practical reasons, then, the home nation would probably think twice about refusing to punish a convicted criminal. Beyond that, there are many ways the host nation could exert diplomatic pressure to do so.

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system


Affirm means to agree with. So if we revoke an ambassadors imunity we can't bring charges against them unless the home nation does the same. what if the home nation won't do this?.

The honorable delegate's definition of "affirms" is not correct. "Affirms" means to state or declare. The UN is doing the affirming here. There is nothing in these two provisions requiring agreement between the two nations. The answer to the basic question is the same as given above. Is it really in the home nation's best interests to damage its relations with the host by refusing to prosecute a criminal?

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

Off course a nation would want to bring charges but what is meant by non-political reasons?

Probably the best examples (and most often seen in RL) of non-political reasons for revoking diplomatic immunity are commission of a serious crime or a continuing pattern of criminal activity.

We feel that this proposal lacks teeth and governments can pick and choose what they want to obey from it (or anything from it).


We disagree completely with the honorable delegate. The proposal establishes a number of principles which are binding on all UN member nations in their treatment of foreign diplomatic representatives.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Originally Posted by Pallatium
May I ask why?
You certainly may. And we certainly do not have to explain our actions. But we are willing to summarize current opinions.

In a perfect world, nations would iron out their diplomatic agreements in ironclad terms. In reality, this is not always true, so a basic framework for diplomatic immunity situations may well prevent situations that would lead to discord otherwise.

l like this resolution and have voted for :).

Based on the replies provided by the resolution's proponents, my government has voted in favour of this resolution.

After giving the proposal due consideration Reformentia will be recommending a Yes vote from the region of Aarmania.

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system


Have we read the resolution proposal wrong, or aren't these two points contradictory?

At the present time, the Holy Empire of Vitalina as well as several other members of the region of Abokia, along with our UN Delegate has voted against this proposal. Not only do we look down upon such oversights as the one quoted above, but the UN has too much power over sovereign nations as it is.

You do realize the first clause refers to 'host nation', the second to 'home nation'? In the face of that, we struggle to see which oversights - here or elsewhere - you refer to. You might also consider that from the point of view of many UN members this is startlingly pro-sovereign; arguing ZOMG INFRINGEMENT here doesn't seem an especially strong case.

My Goverment likes to feel it can punish a wrong doing diplomat/spy and this would mean we would have to hope the other nation doesn't do a show trial and fix the sentance. Diplomats should be subject to their hosts laws and not be immune from such laws just becuase they are from another land on offical buisness

We respectfully vote against this

The honorable delegate's definition of "affirms" is not correct. "Affirms" means to state or declare. The UN is doing the affirming here. There is nothing in these two provisions requiring agreement between the two nations. The answer to the basic question is the same as given above. Is it really in the home nation's best interests to damage its relations with the host by refusing to prosecute a criminal?

I may have looked up Affirm incorrectly in our dictionary but it dosen't change a lot. I've also put this out to consulatation with our fellow Gatesville delegates and they also feel that our concerns are justified for the same reason.

The two points still read contridictary to me and to other delegates from my region.

Therefore at present we must still respectfully oppose this.

You certainly may. And we certainly do not have to explain our actions. But we are willing to summarize current opinions.

In a perfect world, nations would iron out their diplomatic agreements in ironclad terms. In reality, this is not always true, so a basic framework for diplomatic immunity situations may well prevent situations that would lead to discord otherwise.

And you don't feel that, just for example, it would lead to people conducting expirements within your board that you think are dangerous, that it is tantamount to opening up your boarders and saying "hey, you guys w/t bombs, come on in" and that any diplomat that commits a crime is going to escape justice under this?

We thank the distinguished representatives from Kirisubo and Vitalina for courteously expressing their concerns that these two provisions of the proposal are contradictory:

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system

As the honorable representative of Gruenberg has suggested, the two provisions cannot be contradictory, since they apply to two completely different situations. In the first case, it is the host nation -- the one in which he or she is serving -- which has revoked the immunity. In the second case, the diplomat's own home nation -- the one he or she represents -- has withdrawn the immunity.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We thank the distinguished representatives from Kirisubo and Vitalina for courteously expressing their concerns that these two provisions of the proposal are contradictory:

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system

As the honorable representative of Gruenberg has suggested, the two provisions cannot be contradictory, since they apply to two completely different situations. In the first case, it is the host nation -- the one in which he or she is serving -- which has revoked the immunity. In the second case, the diplomat's own home nation -- the one he or she represents -- has withdrawn the immunity.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


Can the second situation happen at the same time as the first?

So that if Amb. Jensen from Hyrule commits a crime, and I with draw his immunity, can I then ask Hyrule to do the same, so that Amb. Jensen can be prosecuted by me, instead of by them?

Can the second situation happen at the same time as the first?

So that if Amb. Jensen from Hyrule commits a crime, and I with draw his immunity, can I then ask Hyrule to do the same, so that Amb. Jensen can be prosecuted by me, instead of by them?

It's possible to do it that way, but unlikely. What would be the much more likely course would be this.... Ambassador Jensen commits a serious crime. Your State Department (or whatever it's called in your nation) sends a diplomatic note to Hyrule explaining the situation and asking Hyrule to withdraw his immunity. If they decline to do so, you revoke the immunity yourself.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

It's possible to do it that way, but unlikely. What would be the much more likely course would be this.... Ambassador Jensen commits a serious crime. Your State Department (or whatever it's called in your nation) sends a diplomatic note to Hyrule explaining the situation and asking Hyrule to withdraw his immunity. If they decline to do so, you revoke the immunity yourself.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Which would lead to them being tried under someone else's laws, and not mine. And while I realise that, in the theory that Hyrule would want to keep on good diplomatic terms with me, they should agree to withdraw it, there is the chance that Amb. Jensen has done something that they don't consider a crime. In which case I would not expect them to withdraw his status since he hasn't done anything wrong.

I am still unconvinced that in a modern world this proposal is workable in it's current form.

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

surely the host nation would like to carry out the punishment as well. murder for example carries different punishments across the world and the victims family may well feel agreived if the murderer escapes the accepted punishment because they're back home. and whose also to say that they'll get punished back home?


AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system


Affirm means to agree with. So if we revoke an ambassadors imunity we can't bring charges against them unless the home nation does the same. what if the home nation won't do this?

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

Off course a nation would want to bring charges but what is meant by non-political reasons?

We feel that this proposal lacks teeth and governments can pick and choose what they want to obey from it (or anything from it).

For these reasons my government has authorised to vote against this.
The Rouge Nation of Angelfox finds itself agreeing with Kirisubo, and respectfully votes against this resolution

Originally Posted byPallatium
And you don't feel that, just for example, it would lead to people conducting expirements within your board that you think are dangerous, that it is tantamount to opening up your boarders and saying "hey, you guys w/t bombs, come on in" and that any diplomat that commits a crime is going to escape justice under this?
If you are referring to the possibility of bomb-wielding terrorists and mad scientists entering the country with diplomatic immunity, then no, we do not. The proposal certainly doesn’t force nations to accept foreign missions, and it is highly unlikely that our government would allow in diplomats from nations that are unlikely to prosecute, much less nations that send in criminals to staff its embassies. Insinuating that it does reeks of blatant scaremongering.

Caution should always be exercised when you consider allowing a nation to send a permanent envoy to your country. Furthermore, nowhere in the resolution are nations barred from the right to retaliate to such possible transgressions in the manner they see fit.

Which would lead to them being tried under someone else's laws, and not mine. And while I realise that, in the theory that Hyrule would want to keep on good diplomatic terms with me, they should agree to withdraw it, there is the chance that Amb. Jensen has done something that they don't consider a crime. In which case I would not expect them to withdraw his status since he hasn't done anything wrong.

The alternative being you just don't ever get a diplomatic representative from Hyrule to visit your nation at all because they have no assurances their representative won't be incarcerated on trumped-up charges they don't agree are justified just because diplomatic relations between your two nations go south.

There is an actual reason the concept of diplomatic immunity was instituted in the first place...

Kaigan Miromuta takes the floor again and speaks up.

"Honourable delegates, when I first came across this proposal I raised these same crime and punishment concerns. Already its been admitted that this lacks teeth and unless it had teeth this will be a recommendation rather than a proposal. A recomendation will not get us very far.

What is to stop a nation from not co-operating with a host nation or vice versa? the only thing that really works to protect an ambasador and the host people is the friendship treaty that governments sign up to.

This proposal needs send back to the drawing board before it does serious harm to nations"

Kaigan then returns to his seat and waits for the expected reply.

Kaigan Miromuta takes the floor again and speaks up.

"Honourable delegates, when I first came across this proposal I raised these same crime and punishment concerns. Already its been admitted that this lacks teeth and unless it had teeth this will be a recommendation rather than a proposal. A recomendation will not get us very far.

What is to stop a nation from not co-operating with a host nation or vice versa? the only thing that really works to protect an ambasador and the host people is the friendship treaty that governments sign up to.

This proposal needs send back to the drawing board before it does serious harm to nations"

Kaigan then returns to his seat and waits for the expected reply.

The honorable representative from Kirisubo appears to be contradicting themselves by stating in almost the same breath both that the proposal has no teeth and that the proposal will do serious harm to nations. It would seem that it would have to be either one or the other.

We will of course patiently await a response while the Kirisobian representative makes up their mind.

Kaigan mentally counts to ten and takes the stand again.

"Honourable delegate from Reformentia, i know my own mind and the views of my goverment and region.

Passing a flawed proposal is dangerous as well as stupid. This weak proposal will not benefit host nations.

I repeat the question. What is to stop a home nation not revoking their diplomats immunity?

Assurances have been given already but will these be remembered if the proposal passes?

As it stands we still cannot support this and I urge the other honoured delegates to have a long hard think about this before they cast their votes"

Kaigan mentally counts to ten and takes the stand again.

"Honourable delegate from Reformentia, i know my own mind and the views of my goverment and region.

We did not state otherwise. We did however state that your position was self-contradictory. A fact that has not yet changed.

Passing a flawed proposal is dangerous as well as stupid. This weak proposal will not benefit host nations.

I repeat the question. What is to stop a home nation not revoking their diplomats immunity?

Nothing whatsoever, which is rather the point. It is supposed to be completely and solely the decision of the home nation whether or not they decide to revoke their own representatives diplomatic immunity. They are not supposed to be required to revoke it for any reason other than arriving at the conclusion on their own that it is the proper thing to do.

That does not stop the host nation from revoking it from their end if they feel it is called for. That just has slightly different consequences. Again, deliberately so.

And our point about it being difficult to claim that a resolution is simultaneously toothless in the sense that it is nothing more than a set of recommendations and of great harm to nations remains unaddressed. If you honestly believe it does nothing but make recommendations what great harm do you fear that it will be inflicting on your nation or that of anyone else?

We await your explanation with breathless anticipation.

Vicki-Y is embrassed and angry that a friend of hers is losing an debate by Reformentia. She decides to chip in.

"It's harmful because a nation cannot give limited dipolmatic immunity. He must either give total diplomatic immunity or none. Nations that give out limited diplomatic immunity is being harmed by the resolution."

Honourable Delegate, a recomendation is like a rifle filled with blank rounds. It may make a loud noise but you won't be able to go hunting with it.

You are stating that the home nation has the right of veto on a host nations soil because of this proposal. under this proposal they have the power to stop justice being carried out. Is that what you want the common people out there to think of the UN?

Is that what I have to bring back to my government who are only just emerging into the international community?

Before you start raising the fact that our Empire is a dictatorship remember that any government could well use this weakness to save their ambassadors skin. We are an honourable people and this will not happen with us but my government fears that this proposal could well be abused by governments with less than honourable intentions towards other nations.

There is already mechanisms in place so nations can exchange ambassadors. They're called treaties and a lot more thought goes into them that seemed to go into into this proposal.

Vicki-Y is embrassed and angry that a friend of hers is losing an debate by Reformentia. She decides to chip in.

"It's harmful because a nation cannot give limited dipolmatic immunity. He must either give total diplomatic immunity or none. Nations that give out limited diplomatic immunity is being harmed by the resolution."

Nothing of the kind is established by the proposal under vote. "Limitted Diplomatic Immunity" and "Diplomatic immunity" without the 'Limitted' qualifier are clearly two different concepts, and the proposal does not once restrict nations from agreeing amongst themselves to grant the former rather than the latter. It simply outlines what conditions apply to the granting of the latter.

Honourable Delegate, a recomendation is like a rifle filled with blank rounds. It may make a loud noise but you won't be able to go hunting with it.

You are stating that the home nation has the right of veto on a host nations soil because of this proposal. under this proposal they have the power to stop justice being carried out. Is that what you want the common people out there to think of the UN?

With respect, the representative from Kirisubo appears to be growing confused. We explicitly stated that nothing prevented a host nation from making the decision to revoke immunity on their own. The home nation posesses no veto power in this.

What the home nation does possess is the right to insist that a prior agreement voluntarily entered into by the host nation guaranteeing immunity from prosecution for their diplomat is respected so long as they see reason for this to be so. The host nation may cancel that agreement at any time they wish, they just do not have the right to do it retroactively in a unilateral manner.

Giving them that right would make the granting of diplomatic immunity a meaningless proposition.

Is that what I have to bring back to my government who are only just emerging into the international community?

What was just stated in reply to your comments... most certainly. Take it as an opportunity to instruct these fledgling nations you speak of in how international diplomacy operates.

Before you start raising the fact that our Empire is a dictatorship remember that any government could well use this weakness to save their ambassadors skin.

Of course. It is after all meant to be a means of protecting their ambassadors skin when sending them into a foreign nation in the first place so excuse us if the fact that it can be used to those ends fails to come as a terrible shock... or that we consider the proposals ability to serve its intended function to be a "weakness".

We are an honourable people and this will not happen with us but my government fears that this proposal could well be abused by governments with less than honourable intentions towards other nations.

Any agreement can be entered into in bad faith and subsequently abused. Such abuses tend to have international diplomatic repercussions.

If you are referring to the possibility of bomb-wielding terrorists and mad scientists entering the country with diplomatic immunity, then no, we do not. The proposal certainly doesn’t force nations to accept foreign missions, and it is highly unlikely that our government would allow in diplomats from nations that are unlikely to prosecute, much less nations that send in criminals to staff its embassies. Insinuating that it does reeks of blatant scaremongering.


Now - suppose I had banned all anti-matter experiments in my nation, cause I think they are dangerous.

And suppose Hyrule hasn't banned them, but considers them just dangerous enough to carry out any such experiments WAY outside their boarders. Say - in my nation.

Or suppose they chose to experiment on human test subjects, but again - outside their nation so they can keep it quiet and not upset their people?

They would have carte-blance to do what they please inside my boarders, and I can not do anything about it. Further more, I wouldn't even know because I am not perrmitted to search their embassy, nor am I permitted to such anything they class as a "diplomatic bag" or "diplomatic transport".

If they are going to be guests in my country, I should be permitted to at least have some idea what they are doing.

And I don't think the fact I am concerned about letting people in to my country who I can't search, carrying bags I can't search, is scaremongering. I might well grant immunity to Amb. Jensen, knowing she is of good standing. But what about all her staff? Or does she work at the Embassy alone? Will I get to pick and chose which staff she sends to work in her embassy (given that it is their land, not mine, and their embassy, not mine). If I do, then it might not be so bad. But if Hyrule gets to pick it's own Embassy staff, then how can I be sure their security checks are up to my standards? How do I know, for example, that Leanne K'Tan (of the Hyrule Revolutionary Front) won't find a way to get a job there, just so she can plant bombs in the Embassy?

Everyone appears to be terrified of terrorism, and yet this proposal would almost seem to encourage it.



Caution should always be exercised when you consider allowing a nation to send a permanent envoy to your country. Furthermore, nowhere in the resolution are nations barred from the right to retaliate to such possible transgressions in the manner they see fit.

And when my capital explodes in a big mushroom cloud, and the vast majority of the people who live there are dead, the fact I can retaliate will of course make me feel MUCH better about the situation.

The alternative being you just don't ever get a diplomatic representative from Hyrule to visit your nation at all because they have no assurances their representative won't be incarcerated on trumped-up charges they don't agree are justified just because diplomatic relations between your two nations go south.

There is an actual reason the concept of diplomatic immunity was instituted in the first place...

So far we have tended to work out Diplomatic Treaties with each nation, rather than one size fits all. And hey - no bomings or murders yet.

So far we have tended to work out Diplomatic Treaties with each nation, rather than one size fits all. And hey - no bomings or murders yet.

And you can still do this. Nothing here says you must grant Diplomatic Immunity to a nations diplomat.

And you can still do this. Nothing here says you must grant Diplomatic Immunity to a nations diplomat.

Then what the hell is the point of this proposal? If it can pass and EVERY UN nation can ignore it, why the hell is anyone wasting our time getting people to vote on it? Don't we have better things to do?

Then what the hell is the point of this proposal?

As we have already posted earlier, what this proposal does is establish binding guidelines for what conditions apply when Diplomatic Immunity is granted.

Honourable delegates, this debate has raised core concerns which affect us all.

The delegate from Pallatium fears terror attacks. thats why his government uses treaties.

The Delegate from SLI sector fears partial imunity and with probally still use treaties rather than a one size fits all UN resolution.

The rogue nation of Angelfire agrees with my governments concerns as does other ambassadors who haven't spoken yet but have cast their votes.

We use treaties ourself because they are a lot more precise than a one size fits all resolution that will probally need treaties and local agreements to clarify them.

is this really what we want to pass as a UN resolution? is this what the victims of crime want to hear when the guilty party may not even face charges back home?

I agree even treaties and agreements can go wrong, be abused and leave nasty international incidents in their wake but do we want to pass a flawed proposal? it dosen't make sense to do it or has common sense gone out the window nearest me?

Honourable delegates, this debate has raised core concerns which affect us all.

The delegate from Pallatium fears terror attacks. thats why his government uses treaties.

And as Pallatium is still perfectly capable of utilizing the exact same treaties they always have this proposal will not in any way negatively impact their safety from terror attacks. If Pallatium does not choose to grant visiting diplomats Diplomatic Immunity that is their decision to make.

The Delegate from SLI sector fears partial imunity and with probally still use treaties rather than a one size fits all UN resolution.

The Delegate from SLI sector advocated partial immunity. Which, again, they are free to grant instead of Diplomatic Immunity if they so wish. Once again, this proposal has no negative effect on this set of circumstances.

The rogue nation of Angelfire agrees with my governments concerns as does other ambassadors who haven't spoken yet but have cast their votes.

What exactly were your governments concerns again? We've heard vague warnings of "great harm" but specifics would be appreciated.

We use treaties ourself because they are a lot more precise than a one size fits all resolution that will probally need treaties and local agreements to clarify them.

So keep using treaties. This resolution does not keep you from doing so.

is this really what we want to pass as a UN resolution? is this what the victims of crime want to hear when the guilty party may not even face charges back home?

Nor does this resolution force you to grant Diplomatic Immunity to visiting diplomats so your concerns here are groundless.

I agree even treaties and agreements can go wrong, be abused and leave nasty international incidents in their wake but do we want to pass a flawed proposal?

Certainly not!

Find a flaw of any significance and we may very well change our vote.

As we have already posted earlier, what this proposal does is establish binding guidelines for what conditions apply when Diplomatic Immunity is granted.

Ok - if the NationStates site wasn't down (or at least if I could access it) I would point you to the part of the FAQ that says "resolutions have to do something".

This one clearly doesn't. So not only is it potentially dangerous, it can be argued it is illegal as well.

Though I suppose on the other hand, the natural disaster resolution only applies in time of natural disasters, and not at any others. But natural disasters are not a choice, they are a fact of life....

eh.

Ok - if the NationStates site wasn't down (or at least if I could access it) I would point you to the part of the FAQ that says "resolutions have to do something".

What exactly do you see following the words "what this proposal does" in the post you were replying to? Was it just a big white space to your eyes?

as i've been asked to repeat my goverments concerns here they are.

AFFIRMS that, if the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity and there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime under the host nation's law, the person must be tried for said crime under the rules of judicial procedure of the home nation. Evidence and testimony from the host nation must be weighed if admissible under those rules. The trial shall be conducted within the home nation's mission in the host nation whenever feasible. If found guilty, the person shall be immediately returned to the home nation for appropriate punishment

surely the host nation would like to carry out the punishment as well. murder for example carries different punishments across the world and the victims family may well feel agreived if the murderer escapes the accepted punishment because they're back home. and whose also to say that they'll get punished back home?


AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

AFFIRMS that, if the home nation revokes a person's diplomatic immunity, he or she may face prosecution by the host nation for a crime committed while the immunity was in effect under the host nation’s laws and judicial system

So if we revoke an ambassadors imunity we can't bring charges against them unless the home nation also revokes imunity. what if the home nation won't do this?

URGES nations to prosecute diplomats charged with crimes whose immunity has been revoked for non-political reasons

Off course a nation would want to bring charges but if the home government won't play ball there will be no justice done.

The delegate from Reformentia has said and I quote "what this proposal does is establish binding guidelines for what conditions apply when Diplomatic Immunity is granted"

Guidelines can be ignored by any country that wants to ignore them.

For these reasons my government has authorised to vote against this.

What exactly do you see following the words "what this proposal does" in the post you were replying to? Was it just a big white space to your eyes?

No - I get it does something. But it is also a resolution that every nation can ignore if they chose to, so just by writing it in to UN law it doesn't actually force nations to change anything.

This is what I mean by it does nothing - there are no clauses requiring action. Why spend time passing a resolution everyone can ignore?

as i've been asked to repeat my goverments concerns here they are.

surely the host nation would like to carry out the punishment as well.

Surely they might, and if that was a concern for them an extradition treaty would probably be in order.

So if we revoke an ambassadors imunity we can't bring charges against them unless the home nation also revokes imunity.

So long as we're talking about charges for supposed crimes committed while that diplomat did enjoy diplomatic immunity... of course not! If you could do that Diplomatic Immunity would be meaningless.

what if the home nation won't do this?

Then they won't do it. That's their prerogative. You really seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding what the point of diplomatic immunity is.

The delegate from Reformentia has said and I quote "what this proposal does is establish binding guidelines for what conditions apply when Diplomatic Immunity is granted"

Guidelines can be ignored by any country that wants to ignore them.

Please read that quoted statement again. Pay special attention to the "binding" part. No, UN nations cannot just ignore UN resolutions.

No - I get it does something. But it is also a resolution that every nation can ignore if they chose to, so just by writing it in to UN law it doesn't actually force nations to change anything.

This is what I mean by it does nothing - there are no clauses requiring action. Why spend time passing a resolution everyone can ignore?

Everyone cannot ignore the resolution. It establishes binding guidelines for the conditions attached to the granting of Diplomatic Immunity which all nations must abide by when they choose to grant Diplomatic Immunity.

Just like the banning of single hulled tankers (for example) would establish binding guidelines that all UN nations must abide by when they choose to ship oil in tankers.

Nations of course do not have to engage in shipping oil in tankers. Nor do they have to grant visiting diplomats diplomatic immunity. If they do decide to do either of these things however the relevent resolutions cannot be simply ignored.

Everyone cannot ignore the resolution. It establishes binding guidelines for the conditions attached to the granting of Diplomatic Immunity which all nations must abide by when they choose to grant Diplomatic Immunity.


But it doesn't require anyone to grant it. So I can sort out treatiest that imply immunity but call them Ambassedorial Protection, and ignore this.


Just like the banning of single hulled tankers (for example) would establish binding guidelines that all UN nations must abide by when they choose to ship oil in tankers.


Not quite - it actually BANS the use of single hulled tankers - it is an active resolution that (for want of a better phrase) forces the government to take account of it.


Nations of course do not have to engage in shipping oil in tankers. Nor do they have to grant visiting diplomats diplomatic immunity. If they do decide to do either of these things however the relevent resolutions cannot be simply ignored.

But, as I said, the first does something - it bans the use of tankers. This does nothing as people can still go on swapping diplomats. All they need do is call it by a different name, and they can by-pass this altogether.


Don't get me wrong - I am happy I can by-pass it, cause it means I won't be bound by such a dangerous and ill-conceived proposal, but the fact it can be so easily ignored makes it almost entirely worthless and pointless in passing.

First, we would like to thank the distinguished representative of Reformentia for his spirited, able, and cogent defense of this proposal. It's obvious to us that he has a firm understanding of the realities of international diplomacy. We find nothing to disagree with in his responses to specific concerns raised, so we'll avoid the temptation to clutter up this forum by posting our own responses, which would simply be repititious.

We would, however, like to respond to one concern expressed by Her Majesty, the First Triarch of Pallatium:


And I don't think the fact I am concerned about letting people in to my country who I can't search, carrying bags I can't search, is scaremongering. I might well grant immunity to Amb. Jensen, knowing she is of good standing. But what about all her staff? Or does she work at the Embassy alone? Will I get to pick and chose which staff she sends to work in her embassy (given that it is their land, not mine, and their embassy, not mine). If I do, then it might not be so bad. But if Hyrule gets to pick it's own Embassy staff, then how can I be sure their security checks are up to my standards? How do I know, for example, that Leanne K'Tan (of the Hyrule Revolutionary Front) won't find a way to get a job there, just so she can plant bombs in the Embassy?

In terms of diplomatic immunity, please remember that the host nation has the sole prerogative to grant diplomatic immunity. If you don't want to grant it to a particular individual, you don't grant it. But the issue Her Majesty raises goes beyond diplomatic immunity, so let me address it a bit more fully.

Her Majesty asks if her nation will get to pick and choose Hyrule's embassy staff. Well, you won't be able to control which people Hyrule wants to work in the embassy, but you can certainly control who does work there. First, you would have, when you negotiated with Hyrule about exchange of diplomatic representation, provided that each nation would provide prior notice of intended staffing of the embassy and notice of any additions to the staffs. If you felt that a particular person posed a threat to your nation, you would simply advise Hyrule not to send him or her. What if they send the person anyway? You simply refuse to admit the person to your nation. Remember, the person has to cross your national borders to reach the embassy.

As for Leanne K'Tan and her bomb plans.... That's what your intelligence and counterintelligence services are for. If your relations with Hyrule are good and you have confidence in their personnel vetting system, you'd probably accept their embassy staff nominees without serious question. If not, you'd want to do some good intelligence work yourself before making the decision about admitting the person to your nation.

We would suggest it would be good to keep in mind that there are many, many aspects of the exchange of diplomatic representation that lie outside the scope of diplomatic immunity and thus outside the scope of this proposal. Many of these are simply standard diplomatic practice and many others would be subject to negotiation between the nations involved. This proposal only sets rules for one limited portion of that much broader area.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Don't get me wrong - I am happy I can by-pass it, cause it means I won't be bound by such a dangerous and ill-conceived proposal, but the fact it can be so easily ignored makes it almost entirely worthless and pointless in passing.
Queen Lily, I hate to cite references from the so-called "real world" and usually avoid doing so. However, in this case I must say that if you consider this proposal "dangerous and ill-conceived", then you would also think the same about this one:

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

It's the text of The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, the agreement upon which diplomatic relations are based in RL. The current resolution at vote, though it is a much shorter document due to limits placed on proposal length, is very similar. This is not a radical proposal. Nor is it dangerous, ill-concieved, pointless or worthless. It is, in fact, a very good approximation of the way these matters are conducted in RL. I'm not generally in favor of using RL references in a debate, and I certainly don't present the Vienna Convention as any sort of evidence. The link is just there for your consideration and hopefully it will help put this proposed resolution in the proper context.

First, we would like to thank the distinguished representative of Reformentia for his spirited, able, and cogent defense of this proposal. It's obvious to us that he has a firm understanding of the realities of international diplomacy. We find nothing to disagree with in his responses to specific concerns raised, so we'll avoid the temptation to clutter up this forum by posting our own responses, which would simply be repititious.

We would, however, like to respond to one concern expressed by Her Majesty, the First Triarch of Pallatium:



In terms of diplomatic immunity, please remember that the host nation has the sole prerogative to grant diplomatic immunity. If you don't want to grant it to a particular individual, you don't grant it. But the issue Her Majesty raises goes beyond diplomatic immunity, so let me address it a bit more fully.

Her Majesty asks if her nation will get to pick and choose Hyrule's embassy staff. Well, you won't be able to control which people Hyrule wants to work in the embassy, but you can certainly control who does work there. First, you would have, when you negotiated with Hyrule about exchange of diplomatic representation, provided that each nation would provide prior notice of intended staffing of the embassy and notice of any additions to the staffs. If you felt that a particular person posed a threat to your nation, you would simply advise Hyrule not to send him or her. What if they send the person anyway? You simply refuse to admit the person to your nation. Remember, the person has to cross your national borders to reach the embassy.

As for Leanne K'Tan and her bomb plans.... That's what your intelligence and counterintelligence services are for. If your relations with Hyrule are good and you have confidence in their personnel vetting system, you'd probably accept their embassy staff nominees without serious question. If not, you'd want to do some good intelligence work yourself before making the decision about admitting the person to your nation.

We would suggest it would be good to keep in mind that there are many, many aspects of the exchange of diplomatic representation that lie outside the scope of diplomatic immunity and thus outside the scope of this proposal. Many of these are simply standard diplomatic practice and many others would be subject to negotiation between the nations involved. This proposal only sets rules for one limited portion of that much broader area.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

On the basis of national security, I accept this. However it does mean that you (and this resolution) has now given me an opening to mess with the "diplomatic head" of Hyrule (for want of a better phrase). It would mean that I can refuse people they want to send, and get them to send someone else.

I know - such a thing would be beneath me, and I would probably never do it.

However my other concerns about this still stand - there is still a degree of security issues about having people enter my country without the right to search all their property and baggage, there is still the issue of illegal and immoral experiments going on in my borders, and there is still the issue of the fact I can ignore this, as can every other nation.

So - with the greatest respect for your effort in drafting this - I am still opposed and plan to stay that way.

Queen Lily, I hate to cite references from the so-called "real world" and usually avoid doing so. However, in this case I must say that if you consider this proposal "dangerous and ill-conceived", then you would also think the same about this one:

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

It's the text of The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, the agreement upon which diplomatic relations are based in RL. The current resolution at vote, though it is a much shorter document due to limits placed on proposal length, is very similar. This is not a radical proposal. Nor is it dangerous, ill-concieved, pointless or worthless. It is, in fact, a very good approximation of the way these matters are conducted in RL. I'm not generally in favor of using RL references in a debate, and I certainly don't present the Vienna Convention as any sort of evidence. The link is just there for your consideration and hopefully it will help put this proposed resolution in the proper context.


And I am sure that in real life, there are a whole load of other issues that don't have to be dealt with as they exist in the NSUN.


Plus - if the UN were asked to redraft the conventions after the effects of the various bombings, and the fact suicide bombers are coming to Europe, then the convention would be a lot different than it is now.

And I am sure that in real life, there are a whole load of other issues that don't have to be dealt with as they exist in the NSUN.


Plus - if the UN were asked to redraft the conventions after the effects of the various bombings, and the fact suicide bombers are coming to Europe, then the convention would be a lot different than it is now.
I understand :) . Like I said, I don't like to use RL references and tend to ignore them myself probably 90% of the time.

Since NationStates is back up (go The Admins!) I have this :-


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.


I guess it is a judgement call as to whether this applies, but I would argue it might :}

On the basis of national security, I accept this. However it does mean that you (and this resolution) has now given me an opening to mess with the "diplomatic head" of Hyrule (for want of a better phrase). It would mean that I can refuse people they want to send, and get them to send someone else.

I know - such a thing would be beneath me, and I would probably never do it.

We don't think it would be beneath you at all. You have both the right and the duty to protect your people from persons you feel would pose a danger to them. Keep reciprocity in mind. With this, as in everything else, if you behave irresponsibly towards Hyrule, they can do the same to you. Also, please understand... You can do this now. You can do it if the resolution passes. This is a question of control of entry into your nation, not diplomatic immunity.


However my other concerns about this still stand - there is still a degree of security issues about having people enter my country without the right to search all their property and baggage, there is still the issue of illegal and immoral experiments going on in my borders, and there is still the issue of the fact I can ignore this, as can every other nation.

Your Majesty is quite correct that there are security issues involved with having any sort of extraterritorial presence on your soil. We don't agree with you on the nature and severity of these issues, but they certainly do exist. They are the price you pay for being able to exchange diplomatic representation with other nations. And certainly, you can find ways to avoid the problems you cite. You can simply refuse to grant diplomatic immunity to any diplomats. You can then, as you suggest in a prior posting, simply call it something else. (You could probably do that with most UN resolutions.) You could do it, that is, as long as you limit your diplomatic relations to nations who choose to ignore common diplomatic practice and long-standing tradition and agree with what you are doing.


So - with the greatest respect for your effort in drafting this - I am still opposed and plan to stay that way.

It's been quite obvious to us, from early in the debate on previous drafts of this proposal, that Your Majesty was strongly and unalterably opposed to the proposal. We have the greatest respect for Your Majesty's position, as Your Majesty is obviously acting in what you see as the best interests of your nation. We disagree completely on this matter, but we do so respectfully.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And I am sure that in real life, there are a whole load of other issues that don't have to be dealt with as they exist in the NSUN.


Plus - if the UN were asked to redraft the conventions after the effects of the various bombings, and the fact suicide bombers are coming to Europe, then the convention would be a lot different than it is now.

OoC: How many suicide bombers have ever had diplomatic immunity? 0
Considering that in 1961 a far greater threat existed from the possibility of the Soviets detonating a suitcase bomb in their Embassy in Washington (yet it never happened), I feel it is still relevent. The fact of the matter is, that in order to be a diplomat you need to have some semblence of intelligence; whereas to be a suicide bomber you must be a complete moron.

On the basis of national security, I accept this. However it does mean that you (and this resolution) has now given me an opening to mess with the "diplomatic head" of Hyrule (for want of a better phrase). It would mean that I can refuse people they want to send, and get them to send someone else.

Neither Ausserland not this resolution provided you with such an opening. You can do that now. Without the resolution. Unless you do not currently have any control over your own borders you are always perfectly capable of refusing to let through an envoy you do not want to let through.

And your feeling that you can ignore the resolution is simply incorrect. If you never grant anyone Diplomatic Immunity the resolution will never be relevent to you... but that is not the same as ignoring it any more than a land-locked nation is ignoring the single hulled tankers ban because they don't have a single tanker in their entire nation. If they ever DO buy a tanker it will have to be double hulled. And if you ever DO grant Diplomatic Immunity you will have to abide by the guidelines laid out in this resolution.

honourable delegetes having consulted again with my government i've been asked to read the following.

the shogunate of the empire of Kirisubo wishes to re-itererate its opposition to this proposal due to our concerns about a lack of justice built in to the resolution.

We will continue to use treaties when setting up diplomatic relations. This proposal may place 'binding guidelines' on us when dealing with visiting Ambassadors but we will ensure that our rights as a host nation are built into our treaties.

We fully support the honourable delegate from Pallatium in her efforts to oppose this.

OoC: How many suicide bombers have ever had diplomatic immunity? 0


(ooc) Until the first one? None. But how many suicide bombers were actually known to be suicide bombers before they attacked?


The fact of the matter is, that in order to be a diplomat you need to have some semblence of intelligence; whereas to be a suicide bomber you must be a complete moron.

There are some who would disagree with that assessment, in both cases.

Neither Ausserland not this resolution provided you with such an opening. You can do that now. Without the resolution. Unless you do not currently have any control over your own borders you are always perfectly capable of refusing to let through an envoy you do not want to let through.

And your feeling that you can ignore the resolution is simply incorrect. If you never grant anyone Diplomatic Immunity the resolution will never be relevent to you... but that is not the same as ignoring it any more than a land-locked nation is ignoring the single hulled tankers ban because they don't have a single tanker in their entire nation. If they ever DO buy a tanker it will have to be double hulled. And if you ever DO grant Diplomatic Immunity you will have to abide by the guidelines laid out in this resolution.

Then - okay. I will accept that this is not illegal in UN terms, but still pretty worthless as resolutions go, and certainly something that should not be written in to law.

Going back to suicide bombers, there are two options:

1) The governments sends a suicide bomber over disguised as a diplomat and he blows himself up

2) A diplomat, of his own volition, goes into a crowded street and blows himself up

1) is illegal by this proposal (and UN laws are unbreakable), if 2) occured then you could stop him, arrest him before he detonates the bomb and send him back to the embassy according to this proposal.

So, what's the problem?

Going back to suicide bombers, there are two options:

1) The governments sends a suicide bomber over disguised as a diplomat and he blows himself up

2) A diplomat, of his own volition, goes into a crowded street and blows himself up

1) is illegal by this proposal (and UN laws are unbreakable),


They really aren't. The idea is that the government can't not pass the laws (so that - for example - I am unable to legally ban gay marriage or ban abortion, because of the laws relating to it) but it doesn't mean they can't be broken.

Think about it - most nations have laws against murder. But that doesn't mean murder doesn't happen within their borders.


if 2) occured then you could stop him, arrest him before he detonates the bomb and send him back to the embassy according to this proposal.


So I have a guy who I know is willing to kill himself to kill some of my people, and you want me just to turn him over to someone who could just let him go and do it again? Meaning I would have to put a 24 hour watch on the Embassy to ensure he never leaves it?


So, what's the problem?

Aside from the above, there is still the issue I am letting people in to my nation who I can't be sure aren't carrying horrible, bad and evil weapons.

And all the other stuff - the experiments and the criminals and the lack of support for justice and what can be described as national sovereignty - the fact that the law of my land does not infact cover my land, just bits of it.

They really aren't. The idea is that the government can't not pass the laws (so that - for example - I am unable to legally ban gay marriage or ban abortion, because of the laws relating to it) but it doesn't mean they can't be broken.

Think about it - most nations have laws against murder. But that doesn't mean murder doesn't happen within their borders..

Cobdenia's example was that of a government sending a suicide bomber disguised as a diplomat. The proposal:

PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

Now, to quote the UN FAQ: "[The UN] proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations."

We think that's clear enough.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Cobdenia's example was that of a government sending a suicide bomber disguised as a diplomat. The proposal:

PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation

Now, to quote the UN FAQ: "[The UN] proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations."

We think that's clear enough.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But I can have a law that says "thou shalt not murder Whiter Chickens" in my nation, which is binding on all my people. And yet Whiter Chickens will still end up dead.

Plus - and this is a more semantic arguement - when it says "commiting a crime in the host nation" does it mean "doing something that is considered a crime in the host nation" or "doing something that is considered a crime in the home nation, while in the boundries nation". And given that the embassy is considered part of the home nation, you can arguably commit a crime in the embassy without commiting a crime in the host nation, which would stick to the laws layed out in the proposal.

So shooting out of the window of the embassy might not be a crime - maybe shooting people in the home nation is legal. So the government has not sent someone there to commit a crime in the host nation, as they are not techincally IN the host nation when they committed the crime.


I know - semantics. But given the fact that the embassy is defined as being part of the home nation, the wording is really important.

that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation that the person represents
Am I the only one that noticed this line? Doesn't that COMPLETELY undermine the entire concept of diplomatic immunity. What's the point in diplomatic immunity if the host nation can revoke it at their choosing, without consent of the home nation?

What's the point in diplomatic immunity if the host nation can revoke it at their choosing, without consent of the home nation?

IC: When the host nation revokes diplomatic immunity, they still cannot be tried in the host nations, and a diplomat would face trial under home country law (assuming it wasn't revoked for no reason), and would be sent home. The host nation still cannot imprison them without home country agreement (i.e. if the home country revokes it)

OoC: In real life it exists, and is called declaring someone "Persona Non Grata"

But I can have a law that says "thou shalt not murder Whiter Chickens" in my nation, which is binding on all my people. And yet Whiter Chickens will still end up dead.

But that's not the same. With a UN resolution, ignoring it or any part is considered metagaming. Otherwise what is the point of ANY UN resolution?

What are the motivations, or reasons, for diplomatic immunity and does this resolution achieve those?

"NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse
FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons and cause undue interference with their official duties"

Promote communication between nations, protect safety of diplomats, maybe? We believe in those things, mostly:) We also see the possibility that diplomatic immunity is the creation of another system / structure that allows certain classes of people to live above the law. Or perhaps better stated, the idea of diplomatic immunity is just another grandfathered practice of rolling out the red carpet for royalty.

We dont have red carpets here. We dont even have a real flag yet...

But, we also believe that resolutions like this are quite good at stating intentions and quite empty at dealing with the rogue nations and diplomats that we are ever so fearful of.

On a practical note: The UN "PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation."

If somone wants to commit a crime of a political, religious, social etc. level, I'm sure they will regardless of any "I promise I wont" clauses. There are still countless violations of human rights despite all of the resolutions. "But why did you kill that guy and steal that document, man?" Or, "Why are you holding our delegate captive, dude?. I mean, you SAID you wouldnt..."

If we are concerned about what delegate / what nation we send our delegates into, or allow within our borders, we would state explicitly our boundaries, intentions, and expectations, and consequences for the particular crime(s) committed and success/failure to meet any judicial expectations. We realize non-compliance is a complicated issue when you are not the biggest bully on the field. At the same time, we do not consider ourselves powerless to avoid, deal with, and resolve these worst case scenarios. (that's not a nuclear threat. We dont have the bomb.).

We do believe in the promotion of uniform safety and security standards for political diplomats. We do not believe that all of the intentions surrounding diplomatic immunity are entirely conscious, and that some of those intentions are not in favour of just politics. Nor do we see the this resolution itself as adequate to deal with the practical aspects of situations in which the legislation would be 'enforced'.

X

Am I the only one that noticed this line? Doesn't that COMPLETELY undermine the entire concept of diplomatic immunity. What's the point in diplomatic immunity if the host nation can revoke it at their choosing, without consent of the home nation?

We thank the honorable delegate from Leetonia for raising this point and allowing us to answer it.

The ability of the host nation to revoke immunity does not undermine the concept, since the diplomat remains immune from prosecution by the host nation for offenses committed while the immunity was in force. That's spelled out in a later provision of the proposal:

AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

What are the motivations, or reasons, for diplomatic immunity and does this resolution achieve those?

"NOTING that unrestricted diplomatic immunity is subject to abuse
FURTHER NOTING that a lack of diplomatic immunity can lead to the abuse of diplomats by national governments for political reasons and cause undue interference with their official duties"

Promote communication between nations, protect safety of diplomats, maybe? We believe in those things, mostly:) We also see the possibility that diplomatic immunity is the creation of another system / structure that allows certain classes of people to live above the law. Or perhaps better stated, the idea of diplomatic immunity is just another grandfathered practice of rolling out the red carpet for royalty.

We dont have red carpets here. We dont even have a real flag yet...

But, we also believe that resolutions like this are quite good at stating intentions and quite empty at dealing with the rogue nations and diplomats that we are ever so fearful of.

On a practical note: The UN "PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation."

If somone wants to commit a crime of a political, religious, social etc. level, I'm sure they will regardless of any "I promise I wont" clauses. There are still countless violations of human rights despite all of the resolutions. "But why did you kill that guy and steal that document, man?" Or, "Why are you holding our delegate captive, dude?. I mean, you SAID you wouldnt..."

If we are concerned about what delegate / what nation we send our delegates into, or allow within our borders, we would state explicitly our boundaries, intentions, and expectations, and consequences for the particular crime(s) committed and success/failure to meet any judicial expectations. We realize non-compliance is a complicated issue when you are not the biggest bully on the field. At the same time, we do not consider ourselves powerless to avoid, deal with, and resolve these worst case scenarios. (that's not a nuclear threat. We dont have the bomb.).

We do believe in the promotion of uniform safety and security standards for political diplomats. We do not believe that all of the intentions surrounding diplomatic immunity are entirely conscious, and that some of those intentions are not in favour of just politics. Nor do we see the this resolution itself as adequate to deal with the practical aspects of situations in which the legislation would be 'enforced'.

X

We regret that the honorable representative from Disalienate does not find this proposal worthy of support. Our views on the basic issue are apparently very different. While we disagree with his views, we respect them.

In reply, we can only state that the intent and effect of this proposal is to provide the NSUN member nations with a set of rules and principles covering diplomatic immunity and the inviolability of diplomatic premises which have been, for the most part, worked out and time-tested for hundreds of years in the mythical land of RL. :)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Alright. My official thought on this Resoluiton is that it is well written out. Although i have not yet voted upon it due to the fact that i am waiting for the oppinion of the UN Members of the region i am UN Deligate for.


When they give me their oppinion (hopefully before tomarrow) i will vote on this resolution. If they decide to go FOR it, i will vote FOR. If they decide to go AGAINST it, i will vote AGAINST.



Sorry but the oppinion of the people in my region is my top priority.


Thank you for your cooperation.

What exactly were your governments concerns again? We've heard vague warnings of "great harm" but specifics would be appreciated.

Find a flaw of any significance and we may very well change our vote.
the Rouge Nation of AngelFox humbly apologizes for missing so much. our concerns are that a home nation will refuse to revoke the diplomatic immunity of a diplomat that has done wrong. this is the flaw of the resolution; that if a home nations will not revoke the immunity of a diplomat a host nation will not get justice. we humbly ask that you reread the resolution with an open mind, and think about your position on this topic once more. thank you for your time and attention.

the Rouge Nation of AngelFox humbly apologizes for missing so much. our concerns are that a home nation will refuse to revoke the diplomatic immunity of a diplomat that has done wrong. this is the flaw of the resolution; that if a home nations will not revoke the immunity of a diplomat a host nation will not get justice.

As has been pointed out already, that is not a flaw in the resolution. That is a necessary requirement of diplomatic immunity. You cannot agree to have diplomatic immunity for a visiting diplomat that is subject to unilateral retroactive withdrawal by the HOST nation! That decision MUST be left to the home nation.

To put that decision in the hands of the host nation without requiring home nation consent is to declare "Your diplomat may enter our country and we guarantee they will not be subject to prosecution... unless we decide we want to prosecute them for something."

That's like saying "I promise I won't break into your home... unless I do" or "I promise I won't shoot you... unless I point this gun at you and pull the trigger"

Obviously that is a ridiculous state of affairs. It makes a mockery of the concept of diplomatic immunity.

we humbly ask that you reread the resolution with an open mind, and think about your position on this topic once more. thank you for your time and attention.

And we in return ask that you give careful consideration to what the purpose of granting diplomatic immunity is in the first place. Removing the section you are objecting to renders the granting of such immunity completely meaningless.

please calm down. that is not what i meant. i agree that the home nation should have some say in what happens to their diplomat, but if said diplomat commits a crime he or she should be punished. the way the resolution is written it seems that if a home nation does not wish to punish the diplomat they do not have to. all they have to do is refuse to revoke immunity. also i do not believe this part should be taken out merely corrected so that a diplomat cannot get away with a crime just because the home nation does not wish to punish them. Angelfox.

As has been pointed out already, that is not a flaw in the resolution. That is a necessary requirement of diplomatic immunity. You cannot agree to have diplomatic immunity for a visiting diplomat that is subject to unilateral retroactive withdrawal by the HOST nation! That decision MUST be left to the home nation.


How about agreed withdrawal? Basically if I belive Amb. Jensen has done something wrong, I can ask that he not be permitted to leave the country (he must remain in the embassy), and then if I can show enough proof that he should come to trial in my nation, the home nation must relinquish their claim on him and withdraw immunity. But the important thing is Jensen will be tried in my nation, under my laws, but only if I can show proof that it is something I am not making up.

I could agree to that.


To put that decision in the hands of the host nation without requiring home nation consent is to declare "Your diplomat may enter our country and we guarantee they will not be subject to prosecution... unless we decide we want to prosecute them for something."

That's like saying "I promise I won't break into your home... unless I do" or "I promise I won't shoot you... unless I point this gun at you and pull the trigger"


And when you phrase it like that it sounds dumb. But when you have Amb. Jensen, who has a history of assulting women, but who is a pretty good negotiater, you get the situation where Hyrule could - if it chose to - keep moving Amb. Jensen around from nation to nation, so that he is never left in one nation after the immunity is withdrawn, but is NEVER, EVER charged with the crimes he is guilty of.


Obviously that is a ridiculous state of affairs. It makes a mockery of the concept of diplomatic immunity.


And this resolution makes a mockery of the concept of justice.

As i have stated before, i believe the resolution should merely be changed, not gotten rid of. i would agree to a resolution with agreed withdrawl.

The nation of Galloism opposes this resolution for this reason:

PROCLAIMS that no nation may wilfully send any diplomat with the express purpose of committing a crime in the host nation.

This line is horribly vague. If we are to assume that this refers to the host nation's laws, then it would knock out any espionage attempts (or rather, pretends to). If it refers to the home nation, then it is nearly meaningless, as the home nation may have completely different laws that the host nation may not abide.

Emperor Gallo believes that this resolution has promise, but that in its current form it is unacceptable.

How about agreed withdrawal? Basically if I belive Amb. Jensen has done something wrong, I can ask that he not be permitted to leave the country (he must remain in the embassy), and then if I can show enough proof that he should come to trial in my nation, the home nation must relinquish their claim on him and withdraw immunity. But the important thing is Jensen will be tried in my nation, under my laws, but only if I can show proof that it is something I am not making up.

Proof by whose standards? Who judges if such proof is sufficient?

Detect the problem?

If the host nation gets to declare when the burden of proof has been met without requiring the home nation to agree then there is no difference between this and my "I promise I won't shoot you unless I do" example.

If the home nation has to agree that such proof is sufficient then they can still deny you the right to extradite their ambassador at will if they are of a mind to do so. That's the concession you have to make when you grant diplomatic immunity if you want that immunity to actually have any meaning whatsoever. That's just how it works.

And when you phrase it like that it sounds dumb.

If it quacks like a duck...

But when you have Amb. Jensen, who has a history of assulting women, but who is a pretty good negotiater, you get the situation where Hyrule could - if it chose to - keep moving Amb. Jensen around from nation to nation, so that he is never left in one nation after the immunity is withdrawn, but is NEVER, EVER charged with the crimes he is guilty of.

Which would have serious diplomatic repercussions for Hyrule. What motivation would any nation have for deliberately provoking nations they wanted to negotiate with by repeatedly sending an emissary that they know is prone to committing assault into nations like Pallatium who will take serious offense at such an action? Why send an expert negotiator whose very presence is going to undermine any attemts at genial negotiation? If their intent is just to make you angry they don't need to send an expert negotiator to do it. They don't actually need to send anyone to do it.

Your scenarios aren't making very much sense.

The people of Demantlieu have grave conerns about this practice. It is common knowledge that even with such promises of cooperation and non-criminal conduct, ambassadors to foreign nations are often the unofficial heads of their home nations espionage networks. Political and diplomatic relations can often be pretenses on which other machinations are built. But these considerations are of less signifigance than this one fundamental:

Should this resolution pass, we of Demantlieu will be forced to give rights, privelidges, elevated status, and legal immunity to a chosen few aliens while the rest of our population is not granted such freedoms. We of Demantlieu argue against this resolution for the simple reason that it would grant powers and rights to others that are not granted to our own citizens and leaders.

In Demantlieu, ladies and gentlemen, all are subject to our laws, at all times. There are no privelidged classes here, and Demantlieu will not support a resolution whose ultimate realization will create such a class in our country.

Demantlieu votes AGAINST, and urges all nations who value equality under the law to vote with us.

And when you phrase it like that it sounds dumb. But when you have Amb. Jensen, who has a history of assulting women, but who is a pretty good negotiater, you get the situation where Hyrule could - if it chose to - keep moving Amb. Jensen around from nation to nation, so that he is never left in one nation after the immunity is withdrawn, but is NEVER, EVER charged with the crimes he is guilty of.


Certainly Hyrule could. Hyrule could, that is, if we assume that (1) the nations to which he is assigned are so blissfully ignorant of international affairs that they have no idea of Jensen's criminal history or (2) that those nations are so abysmally stupid that they'll let this known criminal into their countries. And, oh yes, it also assumes that Hyrule is willing to damage its diplomatic relations with nation after nation to keep Jensen employed. The scenario is simply without credibility.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't have any real issues with this resolution
my nation usally estabilishes such requiresments at the creation of diplomatic treaties.

after all any nation abusing diplomantic immunity usally finds it hard to do business in the international community anyway.

if a nation cannot even keep their own diplomats in line how are they going to be faithfull to any treaties, contracts that are beholden to that nation.

Proof by whose standards? Who judges if such proof is sufficient?


The judgement is made by the judges in the nation the crime was committed - the host nation. After all - if it is good enough for every member of my population, why is it not good enough for my guests?



Detect the problem?


No.


If the host nation gets to declare when the burden of proof has been met without requiring the home nation to agree then there is no difference between this and my "I promise I won't shoot you unless I do" example.


No - the host nation must demonstrate to the home nation that the burden of proof has been met under the laws of the host nation. And the home nation must agree if the burden of proof is met. Again - my legal system works for me.

And - by the way - you are asking for exactly the same situation, just in reverse. I have to trust that the burden of proof against the man who murdered two of my people will be met in the home nation. How can I be sure that would be the case?


If the home nation has to agree that such proof is sufficient then they can still deny you the right to extradite their ambassador at will if they are of a mind to do so. That's the concession you have to make when you grant diplomatic immunity if you want that immunity to actually have any meaning whatsoever. That's just how it works.


Then again - this proposal is going to cause me to expel all diplomats in my nation, and work out a whole load of new treaties. Or - you know - do a search and replace on the phrase "diplomatic immunity" with the term "diplomatic protection". That would solve the issue.


If it quacks like a duck...


Then it might be a toy duck, or someone doing an impression of a duck :}


Which would have serious diplomatic repercussions for Hyrule. What motivation would any nation have for deliberately provoking nations they wanted to negotiate with by repeatedly sending an emissary that they know is prone to committing assault into nations like Pallatium who will take serious offense at such an action? Why send an expert negotiator whose very presence is going to undermine any attemts at genial negotiation? If their intent is just to make you angry they don't need to send an expert negotiator to do it. They don't actually need to send anyone to do it.


Maybe the most wonderful and amazing Amb. Jensen is a REALLY good friend of the head of Hyrule (ooc - remind you of anyone in the real world?) and the head of Hyrule doesn't believe the accusations - that he just takes it as a personal vendetta that has no basis.

Maybe the ruler of Hyrule is a total fool and wants to ensure his friend is taken care of, instead of his country (again - remind you of anyone?)


Your scenarios aren't making very much sense.

:}

Certainly Hyrule could. Hyrule could, that is, if we assume that (1) the nations to which he is assigned are so blissfully ignorant of international affairs that they have no idea of Jensen's criminal history or (2) that those nations are so abysmally stupid that they'll let this known criminal into their countries. And, oh yes, it also assumes that Hyrule is willing to damage its diplomatic relations with nation after nation to keep Jensen employed. The scenario is simply without credibility.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Maybe the most wonderful and amazing Amb. Jensen is a REALLY good friend of the head of Hyrule (ooc - remind you of anyone in the real world?) and the head of Hyrule doesn't believe the accusations - that he just takes it as a personal vendetta that has no basis.

Maybe the ruler of Hyrule is a total fool and wants to ensure his friend is taken care of, instead of his country (again - remind you of anyone?)


Further - you have to admit - not every single ruler in NationStates is the model of perfect intelligence and common sense.

Maybe the most wonderful and amazing Amb. Jensen is a REALLY good friend of the head of Hyrule (ooc - remind you of anyone in the real world?) and the head of Hyrule doesn't believe the accusations - that he just takes it as a personal vendetta that has no basis.

Maybe the ruler of Hyrule is a total fool and wants to ensure his friend is taken care of, instead of his country (again - remind you of anyone?)


Further - you have to admit - not every single ruler in NationStates is the model of perfect intelligence and common sense.

The distinguished First Triarch of Pallatium has obviously chosen to ignore the fact that no nation is required to admit any diplomatic representative to its nation. The head of Hyrule can keep trying to assign this serial criminal as an ambassador. But unless we're to assume that all the potential host nations are totally mindless, no one is going to be so stupid as to allow him to cross their borders. We're not prepared to accept such an unreasonable assumption.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I suppose diplomatic immunity is necessary for embassies and ambassadors in some form or another, but I am especially bothered by the following line:

"AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity"

...Which says to me that an ambassador might murder, rape, kidnap, terrorize, or bomb, and I can't do anyting about it, even after he loses his immunity? I find that very hard to accept... I have voted no, and will urge my delegate to do the same.

I suppose diplomatic immunity is necessary for embassies and ambassadors in some form or another, but I am especially bothered by the following line:

"AFFIRMS that if the host nation revokes immunity the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity"

...Which says to me that an ambassador might murder, rape, kidnap, terrorize, or bomb, and I can't do anyting about it, even after he loses his immunity? I find that very hard to accept... I have voted no, and will urge my delegate to do the same.

We added a bold emphasis to the section you quoted, and to your statements regarding it. Try reading them both again and comparing.

We added a bold emphasis to the section you quoted, and to your statements regarding it. Try reading them both again and comparing.

...okay, re-read... and it STILL SAYS that I cannot do anything to him, since here, bolded is what it says in total, ALL of which is relevant:

the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

...so again, as I said it appears to read that an ambassador might murder, rape, kidnap, terrorize, or bomb, and I can't do anyting about it, even after he loses his immunity. And your point is?

I'm sorry to say this because I do respect people's opinions, but all this kuffufle over "eek, these diplomats are going to come into my nation, rape, murder, pilliage and eat our puppies, and I can't touch them...eeek" is making me laugh my head off :D.

These are diplomats, not terrorists. They are blinking bureaucrats. All the majority of them know how to do is push a pen and talk.

Real life nations today give diplomats immunity. How many of them are running around committing crimes?

If someone you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. If someone from a nation you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. Who does and doesn't get immunity is in your hands.

Lets try looking at this from the opposite direction. This also protects your diplomats from unjust arrest and prosocution by the nation they are working in. It works both ways.

If someone you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. If someone from a nation you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. Who does and doesn't get immunity is in your hands.

Oh gee, it all makes sense now... so I trust say, Ambassador Jack the Ripper because he comes as a rep of trusted nation "zzzz". And While he is here, it is found that, while a diplomat, he rapes and kills...

Now one more time, what can I do under this legislation? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

...with that said, why does this resolution not at the very least contain the same protections allowed under the Vienna Conventions:

"Abuses of Diplomatic Immunity

Under the Vienna conventions, all persons entitled to immunity have the obligation and duty to respect the laws and regulations of the host country. Immunity is not a license to commit a crime, and violations of the law are not condoned. Any time a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime, the Department of State advises his or her government of the incident and, where prosecution would be the normal procedure, requests a waiver of the alleged offender's immunity so that the case may be heard in the appropriate court. If immunity is not waived, the Department of State may, in serious cases, order the withdrawal of the offender from the host nation. In the case of an offense committed by a member of a diplomat's family, the diplomat and his or her entire family may be expelled. Diplomatic visas of serious offenders are canceled, and their names are entered into a worldwide lookout system to keep them from returning to the Host Nation.

The Department of State's Office of Protocol works with the injured parties and the foreign government to secure restitution in those cases where criminal incidents have resulted in injuries to individuals. The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 and related regulations require that before a person with immunity can obtain license plates for a vehicle, he or she must have liability insurance. Anyone injured in an automobile accident by a person with immunity may bring direct action against the vehicle's insurer in District Court. In addition, diplomats do not have a right to endanger public safety by driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or by disregarding the rules of the road. Police stop them and, if they are intoxicated, prevent them from driving. Police issue citations for driving offenses and the Department of State revokes drivers' permits for any persons found to be unsafe drivers or who continually abuse driving regulations. Furthermore, some countries follow the practice of investigating, and, if appropriate, taking legal action against their own diplomats who are accused of breaking a host country's laws.

In those cases where immunity prevents civil suits, the Department of State works to settle the matter and mediates disputes in an effort to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

The vast majority of persons entitled to some form of diplomatic immunity are law-abiding people. Only a few ever run afoul of the law. Unfortunately, those few who do exhibit egregious behavior draw the attention of the public and the media and damage the reputation of the entire group."

...add those and resubmit this, and perhaps we will be on the right road.
:)

Originally Posted by Kronod
Oh gee, it all makes sense now... so I trust say, Ambassador Jack the Ripper because he comes as a rep of trusted nation "zzzz". And While he is here, it is found that, while a diplomat, he rapes and kills...

Now one more time, what can I do under this legislation? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
Chances are, if nation "zzzz" is so well respected, then they will do something, and fully prosecute the offending diplomat. Nations don't tend to become respected in a vacuum.

Seriously, what exactly is it that the naysayers are suggesting? That we member nations, instead of granting what this resolution defines, implement some sort of "immunity" policy where any diplomat can be arrested at any time for any reason by the host nation? What kind of immunity is that, if any?

Chances are, if nation "zzzz" is so well respected, then they will do something, and fully prosecute the offending diplomat. Nations don't tend to become respected in a vacuum.

Seriously, what exactly is it that the naysayers are suggesting? That we member nations, instead of granting what this resolution defines, implement some sort of "immunity" policy where any diplomat can be arrested at any time for any reason by the host nation? What kind of immunity is that, if any?

Naysayers? Hey, sorry, just asking, and remaining unconvinved by being personally attacked. Will restricting your diplomats to adhere to the laws of the host nation cut the availability of diplomats, by reducing the number of felons and terrorists that might apply? Will someone please get to the original question? :)

...okay, re-read... and it STILL SAYS that I cannot do anything to him, since here, bolded is what it says in total, ALL of which is relevant:

the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

...so again, as I said it appears to read that an ambassador might murder, rape, kidnap, terrorize, or bomb, and I can't do anyting about it, even after he loses his immunity. And your point is?

We were under the impression you were speaking of an ambassador which committed such acts after his immunity had been lost.

The reason we were under this impression is because we also assumed you knew what the word "immunity" meant and thus could not possibly be asking, even rhetorically, whether the proposal meant that you could not prosecute an ambassador for acts committed while they were immune to prosecution without the consent of their home nation.

It appears we may have been premature in the latter assumption.

I'm sorry to say this because I do respect people's opinions, but all this kuffufle over "eek, these diplomats are going to come into my nation, rape, murder, pilliage and eat our puppies, and I can't touch them...eeek" is making me laugh my head off :D.
I'm enormously enjoying it myself. :D

I'm enormously enjoying it myself. :D

Yeah, you go Yelda!

Sometimes it seems that people want something so badly that they are blind to the obvious. ;)

...and no one yet has answered my simple question: Why in the world might I agree to allow a diplomat, or anyone, to commit obvious and internationally recognized crimes against my populace, simply because he came to my nation under false pretences, without any legal recourse?

One more time:

"the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity"

...please read that bolded line CAREFULLY!

All I am saying here is that diplomats MUST be held to a standard beyond the least common denomiator...

Okay, I understand that many Anarchist, Communist, and Socialist nations might think "I can send ANY popular figure to nation 'XXXX', regardless of his morals and the surrounding morality of the host (ie, send Che Guevara to the US, and let them send Timothy Leary back here). I am just saying, that when Che arrives, he better be ready to follow our laws, As Timpthy Leary must follow yours.

The whole thing, as framed, is ridiculous and moot. Give the host nation or region control based on their existing laws, or give it up, dudes.

Yeah, you go Yelda!

Sometimes it seems that people want something so badly that they are blind to the obvious. ;)

...and no one yet has answered my simple question: Why in the world might I agree to allow a diplomat, or anyone, to commit obvious and internationally recognized crimes against my populace, simply because he came to my nation under false pretences, without any legal recourse?

One more time:

"the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity"

...please read that bolded line CAREFULLY!

You may have misinterpreted my statement. I meant that I too am enjoying watching people try to debate this who have obviously never heard of diplomatic immunity. Acting as if diplomatic immunity was just some batty scheme cooked up by Cobdenia and Ausserland in a basement somewhere. If you are that concerned about the dangers of diplomatic relations, then just don't have any. With anyone. If diplomatic immunity frightens you, then refuse to grant it. It's really that simple.

Yeah, you go Yelda!

Sometimes it seems that people want something so badly that they are blind to the obvious. ;)

...and no one yet has answered my simple question: Why in the world might I agree to allow a diplomat, or anyone, to commit obvious and internationally recognized crimes against my populace, simply because he came to my nation under false pretences, without any legal recourse?

One more time:

"the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity"

...please read that bolded line CAREFULLY!


Look, I do understand where you are coming from. It just seems to me that dipolmacy comes with its risks, even though the chances of a diplomat your nation agrees to give immunity to turning out to be a crimminal is extremely low, but risks all the same. You need to weigh up those risks with the possible benefits. If you think the risks will outweigh the benefits, then don't grant immunity. If you think benefits will outweigh the risks then you take a chance.

Lets try this scenario. One of your immune diplomats wanders away from the group while touring one of Waterana's nuclear power plants. He stumbles accidently into a secure area and is caught. Under this resolution, all we can do is take his immunity away and send him home. Under your idea (if I am reading it the right way) we can charge him with espionage and execute him. Which would you prefer?

There is no way a NSUN resolution can cross all the Ts and dot all the Is because of the character limit. Its also the authors choice what does and doesn't go into a proposal/resolution. Perhaps if this had been brought up while things were in the draft stage, something could have been added.

(OOC) Just so you do believe I do understand your position, click the link below. It details a crime committed under immunity in RL in 1984. I remember it well and the anger displayed at the time, an anger I shared. Do read the top article in the right side bar however after finishing the main story. It tells what happened to the person when he returned home. It must be remembered however that these sort of incidents are very, very rare.

Click Me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/17/newsid_2488000/2488369.stm)

... that these sort of incidents are very, very rare.

Click Me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/17/newsid_2488000/2488369.stm)

That they happen AT ALL totally proves my point, does it not?

That they happen AT ALL totally proves my point, does it not?

Not really, because we don't live in a perfect world. Not the real one or the NS version :).

Not really, because we don't live in a perfect world. Not the real one or the NS version :).
Okay and coombiyah! God or law help my people as I accept people who do not accept our long-proven laws and traditions to come and live within our nation.

Why? Because they don't want to.

He he... :headbang:

Meh... Does it REALLY matter? You UN cool guys are so very full of yourselves to begin with, I mean how could anyone challenge you?

Kofi? Bail me the heck out here: Kofi Annan`s son admits role in oil-for food scam (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42628)

..how much higher does one need to go than the absolute top?
:headbang:

soooooo, anyway, as my first post stated, according to this resolution, If a rapist, murderer, terrorist, or bomber also happens to be a diplomat for region "zzzzzz", I have no legal recourse, RIGHT? Even if he has had his immunity revolked, RIGHT?

...Just trying to make things clear and simple here, okay?

Meh... Does it REALLY matter? You UN cool guys are so very full of yourselves to begin with, I mean how could anyone challenge you?

Kofi? Bail me the heck out here: Kofi Annan`s son admits role in oil-for food scam (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42628)

..how much higher does one need to go than the absolute top?
:headbang:

Well, I'm not cool and not a guy....hang on I'd better check....looks down at chest....nope, definetly not a guy :D.

All I am is someone who answered your posts in a nice way and tried to debate with you. The fact you are sniping now means its time for me to withdraw from the conversation. The subject isn't worth losing tempers over :).

soooooo, anyway, as my first post stated, according to this resolution, If a rapist, murderer, terrorist, or bomber also happens to be a diplomat for region "zzzzzz", I have no legal recourse, RIGHT? Even if he has had his immunity revolked, RIGHT?

...Just trying to make things clear and simple here, okay?

"Immune" is clear and simple enough one would think... and yet there you are still feeling compelled to ask (and in capitalized bolded words now too) whether it means what any dictionary should be perfectly capable of telling you it means.

Yes. Right. You cannot prosecute someone who is IMMUNE to prosecution unless their nation agrees that there is grounds to do so and THEY revoke his immunity from their end and agree to let you prosecute him (kind of like... an extradition. Another concept you may be familiar with.)

That's what Diplomatic Immunity is. And there's a reason you give it to people.

And no, it is not a flaw in the concept. It is the point of the concept. If you can just unilaterally decide you get to prosecute someone you have already granted immunity to then the immunity has no meaning. If you don't like it, don't grant it!

This isn't complicated.

We wonder if at some point there will be an argument presented against this proposal that goes beyond the outraged calling of attention to the fact that a careful reading of the proposal text reveals that if you grant a diplomat immunity they will (and the injustice of this apparently cannot to be overstated) actually have immunity.

We do not of course wish to downplay the earth-shattering nature of this revelation, it's just that it would be nice to see a little variety.

The distinguished First Triarch of Pallatium has obviously chosen to ignore the fact that no nation is required to admit any diplomatic representative to its nation. The head of Hyrule can keep trying to assign this serial criminal as an ambassador. But unless we're to assume that all the potential host nations are totally mindless, no one is going to be so stupid as to allow him to cross their borders. We're not prepared to accept such an unreasonable assumption.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

How are we going to know? Take Amb. Jensen - he has been assigned to seven countries in seven years, but we don't know that. All we know is that Hyrule want to send us a new ambassedor.

Or are you now suggesting that we carry out background checks in to the diplomatic representative of another nation? Which would a) almost certinaly violate the concept of diplomacy, as we are spying on them, and b) mean we have to spy on them, which could be an act of war.

So - how do we know he is a seriel criminal?

I'm sorry to say this because I do respect people's opinions, but all this kuffufle over "eek, these diplomats are going to come into my nation, rape, murder, pilliage and eat our puppies, and I can't touch them...eeek" is making me laugh my head off :D.

These are diplomats, not terrorists. They are blinking bureaucrats. All the majority of them know how to do is push a pen and talk.

Real life nations today give diplomats immunity. How many of them are running around committing crimes?

If someone you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. If someone from a nation you don't trust asks for immunity, simply say no. Who does and doesn't get immunity is in your hands.

Lets try looking at this from the opposite direction. This also protects your diplomats from unjust arrest and prosocution by the nation they are working in. It works both ways.

(ooc) But in real life there are real countries with real weapons and the real ability to wage war. The worst thing that happens here is....... well nothing.

We wonder if at some point there will be an argument presented against this proposal that goes beyond the outraged calling of attention to the fact that a careful reading of the proposal text reveals that if you grant a diplomat immunity they will (and the injustice of this apparently cannot to be overstated) actually have immunity.

We do not of course wish to downplay the earth-shattering nature of this revelation, it's just that it would be nice to see a little variety.

I am all for immunity, but in a limited way. That basically ambassedorial and consular documents are protected (so we can't read them), the Embassy is private property (but not the property of the nation who owns it), and that the bags and baggage of anyone entering my nation can be scanned for various things (inc. guns, explosives, nuclear material etc) but not searched (unless the scan shows something). Further more the Ambassedor and the consular staff are permitted leaway, but if we can show that they should be brought to court in our nation using our legal standard that EVERY OTHER PERSON in our nation is required to live up to, then they can be prosecuted.

I think that would work just fine for us. And indeed - it does work just fine for us and so far, as far as I am aware (though I do need to reread our histories to be sure) there haven't been any incidents that haven't been sorted out to the satisfaction of the Queen.

Where can I find the current United Nation stance to Diplomatic Immunity?
Is there a current policy?

Despite my concerns involving the possible exploitation of this resolution by terrorists posing as diplomats (God knows that they could smuggle into my nation with unchecked bags), I do concur that diplomats do require some form of immunity. And with that, notably going against what I feel is my own intuition as Emperor and International Politician, The Empire of Nykibo votes in favor of this resolution.

Ecopoeia votes in favour of this eminently sensible resolution.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Where can I find the current United Nation stance to Diplomatic Immunity?
Is there a current policy?

OoC: Diplomatic Immunity is (I assume you are talking RL, BTW) more 'Common Law' than statute law. The Geneva Convention of 1961 covers one or two things, such as the ability to detain diplomat who are about to harm the local populace (such as if they carry around a small nuclear device or get into a car drunk-this resolution does include this, BTW). But largely it's up to the individual country in question as to how far it goes. Some countries (i.e. the UK) give all diplomats the same immunity (what it is in the proposal; which is the modern standard), others have some exception (such as the US, which asks that the home country revoke immunity if a diplomat commits a felony-also possible in this resolution, although not explicitly stated), others practice reciprocity (so in Pakistan, they do the same as the Americans for American diplomatic staff, but the same as the British to British Diplomatic staff)

The First Triarch of Pallatium, in her virulent opposition to this proposal, has now gone far beyond the bounds of plausibility, let alone reality.

How are we going to know? Take Amb. Jensen - he has been assigned to seven countries in seven years, but we don't know that. All we know is that Hyrule want to send us a new ambassedor.

That a diplomat could be declared persona non grata in seven countries in seven years and that not be common knowledge in the diplomatic community is ridiculous... almost as ridiculous as assuming that the last six countries would have accepted his credentials and allowed him into their country.

Or are you now suggesting that we carry out background checks in to the diplomatic representative of another nation? Which would a) almost certinaly violate the concept of diplomacy, as we are spying on them, and b) mean we have to spy on them, which could be an act of war.

If your intelligence service does not provide you with information concerning diplomats who are nominated for assignment to your nation, it is totally incompetent. The collection of information for intelligence purposes is an integral part of diplomatic activity and has been for thousands of years. If this was to be considered an act of war, most countries in the world would be at war with most other countries every day.

So - how do we know he is a seriel criminal?

You simply maintain an awareness of what is going on in the world.

Where can I find the current United Nation stance to Diplomatic Immunity?
Is there a current policy?

If you're talking about the NSUN, there really isn't any such policy.

If you mean real life, the subject is covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity (1961), to which almost all nations in the world are signatories. Here's a link:

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

Hope that helps.

Oh gee, it all makes sense now... so I trust say, Ambassador Jack the Ripper because he comes as a rep of trusted nation "zzzz". And While he is here, it is found that, while a diplomat, he rapes and kills...

Now one more time, what can I do under this legislation? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

...with that said, why does this resolution not at the very least contain the same protections allowed under the Vienna Conventions:

"Abuses of Diplomatic Immunity

Under the Vienna conventions, all persons entitled to immunity have the obligation and duty to respect the laws and regulations of the host country. Immunity is not a license to commit a crime, and violations of the law are not condoned. Any time a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime, the Department of State advises his or her government of the incident and, where prosecution would be the normal procedure, requests a waiver of the alleged offender's immunity so that the case may be heard in the appropriate court. If immunity is not waived, the Department of State may, in serious cases, order the withdrawal of the offender from the host nation. In the case of an offense committed by a member of a diplomat's family, the diplomat and his or her entire family may be expelled. Diplomatic visas of serious offenders are canceled, and their names are entered into a worldwide lookout system to keep them from returning to the Host Nation.

The Department of State's Office of Protocol works with the injured parties and the foreign government to secure restitution in those cases where criminal incidents have resulted in injuries to individuals. The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 and related regulations require that before a person with immunity can obtain license plates for a vehicle, he or she must have liability insurance. Anyone injured in an automobile accident by a person with immunity may bring direct action against the vehicle's insurer in District Court. In addition, diplomats do not have a right to endanger public safety by driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or by disregarding the rules of the road. Police stop them and, if they are intoxicated, prevent them from driving. Police issue citations for driving offenses and the Department of State revokes drivers' permits for any persons found to be unsafe drivers or who continually abuse driving regulations. Furthermore, some countries follow the practice of investigating, and, if appropriate, taking legal action against their own diplomats who are accused of breaking a host country's laws.

In those cases where immunity prevents civil suits, the Department of State works to settle the matter and mediates disputes in an effort to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

The vast majority of persons entitled to some form of diplomatic immunity are law-abiding people. Only a few ever run afoul of the law. Unfortunately, those few who do exhibit egregious behavior draw the attention of the public and the media and damage the reputation of the entire group."

...add those and resubmit this, and perhaps we will be on the right road.
:)

Despite the tone of the opening of this posting, we appreciate it that the honorable delegate from Kronrod has taken enough interest in the proposal to do some research on the subject. Now to respond....

If you compare the first paragraph of the quoted text with this proposal's provisions, you'll find that there is no conflict. The second part of the paragraph talks about a practice known as declaring a person persona non grata -- saying to the nation that sent the person: "get this person out of our country and don't send him [her] back!" That is outside the scope of this proposal. You can do it now, and you can do it if this proposal passes.

The next two pargagraphs are talking about civil law. That isn't covered by this proposal. It would have been nice if we could have done that, but the proposal is already bumping right up against the NS length limits. You could certainly include things like this in the negotiations that set up the diplomatic relations between the countries.

The First Triarch of Pallatium, in her virulent opposition to this proposal, has now gone far beyond the bounds of plausibility, let alone reality.


And you have FAR too much faith in your fellow nations.


But, having said that, I object to this, but once it passes, ignore it completely. So I am done arguing with people about something that is so entirely pointless it's passage through the UN won't affect me in the slightest.

I think that it tries to do too much at once

Gentlemen! Ladies! Please, comport yourselves as befits delegates to this body! We are not here to squabble amongst ourselves over something so trivial as choice of diplomats. Leave such petty bickering to your own legislative bodies.

We are not here to debate the merits of individual ambassadors, so I do not see why Amb. Jenkins has been drawn into so much controversy. No doubt his wife will have tearful words for him when he gets home today. Nor are we here to discuss the relative criminal intent of various nations or leaders. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, to decide one thing and one thing only.

Should we, as member nations, agree to grant diplomatic immunity to our foreign diplomats.

Understand something very important there: granting diplomatic immunity is not granting carte blanche to commit acts of agression, criminal offenses, offenses against the public decency, or any of the things our own politicians routinely do. Diplomatic immunity is, however, a way of insulating your diplomats from the populace of foreign countries and insulating their diplomats for your citizens. It is something that we of Demantlieu disagree with on purely egalitarian terms - we grant no immunity of any kind to our citizens or leaders, and certainly expect that diplomats sent to us will behave themselves far better than some of the school-yard hair pulling I have witnessed here today. On that principle of republicanism, then, we do not support the granting of special privelidges to anyone who has not earned them.

My disagreement with this proposal, however, does not grant me a license to drag poor Amb. Jenkins reputation through the mud, however, and if this debate continues to be about the reputation and criminal history of specific diplomats, and the xenophobic idea that all nations will send you their rapists, then by all means let us have some water, brush off our jackets, resume our seats, and discuss this like civilized people.

We thank the distinguished representative of Demantlieu for his thoughtful comments.

We had assumed -- and we sincerely hope we were correct -- that "Ambassador Jensen" was purely a notional figure, invented by the First Triarch of Pallatium solely for the purposes of this debate. We doubt that she would have used the real name of a real [NS real, that is] person for that purpose.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

ooc : sorry for missing so much but i'm just back from work :)

IC:

having listened intently and mulling over the next thing he had to say Kaigan got to his feet and took the rostrum again.

"I agree with the delegate from Demantlieu that we should act like civilised people and debate this in a civilised way.

the concerns of my goverment are known and we will continue to use treaties but I would like to raise a few points.

on the back wall of the council of Daimyo's, my nations parliment is a quote in foot high letters. it reads in english "with power comes a great responsibility".

it is a quotation from our first Shogun who after he won the last battle to unite kirisubo into a stable nation called the surviving lords and rather than chop of the heads of those who oppsed him he surprised everybody.

he told the assembled nobles that 'Kirisubo is now at peace and we all now have a great responsibility. As samurai you know that any kind of power brings responsibility. I need you all and you will be the founders of our parliment'

since that day 400 years ago the same council of Daimyo's has expanded and become the ruling body of our nation.

when i seen these words as a child they had a major effect on me and still do. As ambassador I speak for my government and that is a sobering thought for me. I represent my nation in everything I do and if i disgrace myself with a criminal act i also disgrace my country.

Think on this honoured delegates. This debating chamber holds more power in it than any other place I know. What is decided here affects over 30,000 nations. I don't know any other organisation that can boast that but we need to be carefull. Rash actions and words will do a lot of damage to the public perception if the UN so we should decide this debate in a civilised fashion.

all i ask of the honoured delegates is two things.

Listen to the arguements and cast your vote based on what you think is the right thing to do.

We hold a lot of power so lets use it wisely. Every vote counts no matter how small or large your nation. Lets improve our world rather than damage it and lets get back to work!"

Kaigan takes a deep breath and sits down.

*snip*
We had assumed -- and we sincerely hope we were correct -- that "Ambassador Jensen" was purely a notional figure, invented by the First Triarch of Pallatium solely for the purposes of this debate. We doubt that she would have used the real name of a real [NS real, that is] person for that purpose.
*snip*


One certainly hopes, Ambassador. I would have apologized for misspelling his name, but he is in fact fictional. I ask your pardon for my slippery mind - it has already been a long day, and age does not make this any easier.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, NSUN

If you're talking about the NSUN, there really isn't any such policy.

If you mean real life, the subject is covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity (1961), to which almost all nations in the world are signatories. Here's a link:

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

Hope that helps.

That's interesting. I never realised there was an international convention.

Shame about the character limit; I would have C&P'd it otherwise!

We thank the distinguished representative of Demantlieu for his thoughtful comments.

We had assumed -- and we sincerely hope we were correct -- that "Ambassador Jensen" was purely a notional figure, invented by the First Triarch of Pallatium solely for the purposes of this debate. We doubt that she would have used the real name of a real [NS real, that is] person for that purpose.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

(ooc, REALLY ooc) So the thing is I am a big fan of Buffy, and when I could not be bothered writing out "Ambassedor" every time, I shortened it to "Amb" - and if you watch enough Buffy you find an actress named Amber Benson who is by far and away the single best person in the show (for all sorts of reasons), but to avoid implicating her in all this, I figured I could change Benson for Jensen, and.........

Yeah. I am a geek. but I have made my peace with that :}

Despite all the debate, and the repeated attacks on Hyrule I seem to make, my problems still remain the same :-

National Security.
Non-Member Nations (although that is a small problem)
Unethical experimentation.

So I still stand opposed. But - as I said - if I can totally ignore it's passage from the floor, then my opposition is little. (Not small enough to support it, of course, but small enough not to attempt a repeal when it almost inevitably passes)

Votes For: 7,122

Votes Against: 2,732

It appears that, barring any late swell of opposition, this proposal will pass tomorrow. Congratulations to my esteemed colleague from Cobdenia, as well as his counterpart from Ausserland, who co-authored the resolution. Well done, gentlemen!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

My Lady of Pallantium -

I can fully support Nerdiness. Lord knows that I'm enough of a nerd for us all, and I got my start VERY early in computing. Let us just say that the internet was obvious to me and my collegues before the military got their heads around it's uses.

-IC-

I can fully appreciate your objection to this measure, believe me. I am for this measure, but as you are aware the people of Demantlieu are most assuredly not.

James Capri,
Demantlien Ambassador, NSUN

...okay, re-read... and it STILL SAYS that I cannot do anything to him, since here, bolded is what it says in total, ALL of which is relevant:

the diplomat remains immune for prosecution by the host nation for any crime committed whilst the person had immunity

...so again, as I said it appears to read that an ambassador might murder, rape, kidnap, terrorize, or bomb, and I can't do anyting about it, even after he loses his immunity. And your point is?

Well, if he is about to murder someone, or walking around with a bonb strapped around his waist, you can detain him until the missions asks for him back, remove his diplomatic immunity and then he would HAVE to face trial under the home country laws. If he were to commit a crime after his immunity was revoked, during the trial or whatever, the host nation could prosecute him. Basically, you can't remove his immunity and prosecute for something that happened while he had immunity, but if you remove and he commits a crime again he would have no immunity so you could

Despite all the debate, and the repeated attacks on Hyrule I seem to make, my problems still remain the same :-

National Security.
Non-Member Nations (although that is a small problem)
Unethical experimentation.

So I still stand opposed. But - as I said - if I can totally ignore it's passage from the floor, then my opposition is little. (Not small enough to support it, of course, but small enough not to attempt a repeal when it almost inevitably passes)

One by one:-
National Security-If a diplomat is wondering around with a loaded Sten Gun, you can detain him, and hand him over to the mission as he would be posing a threat to the local populace, and he would face prosecution under home nation law and sent home and punished. Or you arrange that any diplomat caught doing such a thing will have his immunity revoked by the home country and prosecuted and host nation law.

Non-Member nations-Don't give immunity, unless they give you immunity. Anything they do to you, you do to them

Unethical Experiments-Embassy's and diplomats have to abide by Home country law, therefore in order to do it such experiments must be legal in the home country. So, why the hell would anyone perform unethical experiments in an Embassy and not in a university or hospital in the home country?

It appears that, barring any late swell of opposition, this proposal will pass tomorrow. Congratulations to my esteemed colleague from Cobdenia, as well as his counterpart from Ausserland, who co-authored the resolution. Well done, gentlemen!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Well, the pacifics and the other feeders haven't voted. But seeing as they as a total constitute only 1,592 votes for the delegates, it would take them, every UN nations in their regions and a lot of swing...

(ooc, REALLY ooc) So the thing is I am a big fan of Buffy, and when I could not be bothered writing out "Ambassedor" every time, I shortened it to "Amb" - and if you watch enough Buffy you find an actress named Amber Benson who is by far and away the single best person in the show (for all sorts of reasons), but to avoid implicating her in all this, I figured I could change Benson for Jensen, and.........

Yeah. I am a geek. but I have made my peace with that :}
OOC: Don't worry, I'm sure you're not the only Buffy fan around here.http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/paranoid.gif

IC:The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

One by one:-
National Security-If a diplomat is wondering around with a loaded Sten Gun, you can detain him, and hand him over to the mission as he would be posing a threat to the local populace, and he would face prosecution under home nation law and sent home and punished. Or you arrange that any diplomat caught doing such a thing will have his immunity revoked by the home country and prosecuted and host nation law.


And hey - justice is still entirely bypassed for my people. And it assumes the home nations wants to prosecute and - well you have heard it before and if I didn't convince you then, I won't convince you now.


Non-Member nations-Don't give immunity, unless they give you immunity. Anything they do to you, you do to them


Yeah - but their definition of immunity is NOT bound by this, so they are under no obligations to abide by it, even if we grant each other immunity. So again - something I am going to ignore.


Unethical Experiments-Embassy's and diplomats have to abide by Home country law, therefore in order to do it such experiments must be legal in the home country. So, why the hell would anyone perform unethical experiments in an Embassy and not in a university or hospital in the home country?
[/QUOTE]

Supposing you are doing expierments on humans. No one in your nation likes you doing it, so you keep it secret. And suppose you had an embassy 500 miles away, and that since it was so far away, and not a place the public can visit, you could hold experiments in there while all the time maintaining plausible deniability about doing it.

And suppose that embassy is in my nation, and we REALLY dislike people who experiment on humans, and tend to have them arrested and put in jail forever and ever.

Are we to just accept the fact it is going on within our borders, if not technically within our nation?

And it assumes the home nations wants to prosecute and - well you have heard it before and if I didn't convince you then, I won't convince you now.

The text of the proposal says the home nation must prosecute if there is just cause. Justice will be served, as all UN nations already have to abide by Habeus Corpus and Fair Trial and Definition of Fair Trial

Supposing you are doing expierments on humans. No one in your nation likes you doing it, so you keep it secret. And suppose you had an embassy 500 miles away, and that since it was so far away, and not a place the public can visit, you could hold experiments in there while all the time maintaining plausible deniability about doing it.

Or you could do it in a secret lab in your own country. And seeing as it is very likely that your citizens are going to visit an embassy (such as to get an emergency passport) it would pretty foolish.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you."

This message is to inform you that our regional delegate, Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=omigodtheykilledkenny) -- although its ambassador has been precoccupied of late with all the drama inflicted upon him by his new "wife" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9809800&postcount=108) ("No, Listeneisse, that dress does not make you look fat! How many times do I have to say that before you believe me? ... No, that doesn't mean I prefer you skinny! ... *sigh* It doesn't mean I like you fat either ... You look fine in that dress! ... OK, fine, you look ravaging, sexy, vivacious, sultry, veluptuous, whatever word you want!! ... What the hell does my ex-girlfriend have to do with this?! ...") -- was nonetheless able to cast its 21 votes in favor of the standing resolution. Thank you.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

The text of the proposal says the home nation must prosecute if there is just cause. Justice will be served, as all UN nations already have to abide by Habeus Corpus and Fair Trial and Definition of Fair Trial


And if the punishment for killing someone in Hyrule is a slap on the wrist, then yeah - justice in their eyes will be served but in my eyes it will be a joke.



Or you could do it in a secret lab in your own country. And seeing as it is very likely that your citizens are going to visit an embassy (such as to get an emergency passport) it would pretty foolish.

And all of the governments of the world are renouned for their lack of stupidity and abundance of common sense.

In line with all the official announcements that are being made, I would like to say the following on behalf of my cabinet and nation.

"Since we are alone in our region, we cast a single vote against the resolution. It is all we need to register our displeasure and disbelief that such an interesting yet pointless, dangerous yet worthless and over all ill-conceived resolution would be foisted upon us.

Further more, in anticipation of the resolution passing, we have revoked all immunity from all diplomats currently stationed in Hyrule, and are renegotiating diplomatic treaties with all the relevent nations to ensure that smooth diplomacy between us can continue without the dangers this resolution will bring.

Finally, this is the first time in the memory of The Queen and in the history of our nation, that we can remember a resolution being passed that will have no effect on the citizens of the UN, and can indeed be ignored by any nation that choses. Given the time wasted in drafting it, getting it to the floor and having the nations vote on it, the fact it can be ignored and ultimately will have no effect within the UN, it is truly a sad, sad day for this once proud organization, and every member nation who supported this resolution should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank you"

The resolution Diplomatic Immunity was passed 8,691 votes to 3,746, and implemented in all UN member nations.

The people of Cluichstan would like to congratulate the my esteemed colleague from Cobdenia on the passage of his nation's proposal. Congratulations, too, to the proposal's co-author, the my esteemed colleague from Auuserland. Excellent work, gentlemen!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Wow, I was expecting it to pass, but not by that much. I suppose the UN realised that diplomatic immunity is the only logical step, despite the ridiculous scenario's posed by Pallatium.

I would like to congratulate the Cobdenian UN Ambassador for a well thought out proposal. I would also like to congratulate the Cobdenian UN Ambassador for their resolution passing by such a large margin.

Colonel Jonathan St. Claire, Minister of Foreign Affairs
UN Ambassador for The People's Republic of Bolshikstan
Bolshikstan, The East Pacific

(ooc)

do you know how funny I found the fact that the resolution passed, and almost at once the forums developed serious bugs, as if they were protesting the decision :}

(ooc)

do you know how funny I found the fact that the resolution passed, and almost at once the forums developed serious bugs, as if they were protesting the decision :}

OOC:

:D

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/5127/untitled6bu.png

Uh-oh. Looks like you're in trouble.

Uh-oh. Looks like you're in trouble.

I'm sure our esteemed colleague from Cobdenia is trembling with fear...

Knee's are a knocking....

Congratulations.

Hang on...I promised you all a special dance!

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-16-june.gifhttp://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-07-june.gifhttp://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-03-june.gif

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-09-june.gifhttp://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-09-june.gifhttp://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Dancers/Dancer-09-june.gif

Hang on...I promised you all a special dance!


Which one of those was you? (g)

Okay, is it just me who's found that when they have a proposal at quorum, everyone thinks your a mod or something? People keep asking me things like "How do I join the UN?" and such...

Okay, is it just me who's found that when they have a proposal at quorum, everyone thinks your a mod or something? People keep asking me things like "How do I join the UN?" and such...

At least you're not being asked the dumbest question of all (I hope): "How do I get to be a mod?" :p

Not yet, although someone asked me what happened to the email that was sent about the UN. I told 'em to try their Junk email...

I hope I do get asked the mod one, though, so I can unleash the sarcasm...

Clearly my proposal didn't inspire such awe among the noobish classes. Curses.

Okay, is it just me who's found that when they have a proposal at quorum, everyone thinks your a mod or something? People keep asking me things like "How do I join the UN?" and such...

Maybe it's just they think that if you can get a proposal to the floor, you know something about the UN :} (I realise that can be argued as debatable in some cases, but to avoid the big-scary-yellow-mac-of-doom it shouldn't be argued here!)