NationStates Jolt Archive

Here a link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terror) to the proposed International Anti-Terror Act. Please support this effort to address this critical international security concern. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Originally Posted by Hirota

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.


What evidence will be required to support such a claim? And can it be done with one accusation? For example there is an explosion at the local high school (which sometimes happens), and two people who died in the blast are implicated in it, and the government of the country says that they were doing it with a motive in mind, and that The Army Of The Flying Monkeys is a terrorist group. However my government believes that isn't true. Are we forced to accept their evidence? Or is there an international standard that has to be applied? (If the people are dead, you can not bring them to trial, so neither of the fair trial resolutions apply). And if we disagree with them - their evidence doesn't match our level of evidentiary support (ooc - yeah, I watched Legally Blonde last night), do we have to accept it and call The Army Of The Flying Monkeys terrorists, or do we get to make our own mind up?


FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organized and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.


What level of evidence do we have to accept that it is cross-border support? That the finance is coming from outside. Take the example that The Flying Monkeys are purely internal to Hyrule (for example), but Hyrule produces evidence they are being funded by a group in my nation. However my nation has no evidence that the group in my nation are doing this, and believe they are fluffy bunnies. Do we have to act on Hyrule's information?


CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.


Eh.


1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.


Eh.


2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.


How do these new international instruments square with The Universal Bill Of Rights (Esp Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8) and Stop Privacy Intrusion (given that, it can be argued, SPI applies only internally, and does not to prevent nation A spying on the citzens of nation B, even though this would tromp all over the spirit of the law, and further that if Nation A and Nation B make a pact, Nation A can spy on the citizens of Nation B, and hand over all the information to Nation A, making Nation As' hands clean even though it has completely and totally violated the spirit of the resolution)?


3. DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.


Eh.


4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and


Again - how much evidence is required for this.


B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit,


Again - how much evidence.


intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts;


And - this is more important - how much evidence is required for this. Keep in mind that in the first part of (B) they have actually done something, but this part is all supposition. So how much evidence are we required to accept to totally screw over one of our citizens? Freezing somone's fund can ruin them (and more so in the next section), and if someone was so inclined they could easily malign or accuse someone just to screw them over. Further more there is a lot of fear about terrorism that is mostly unfounded, and this section "intend to commit" could be used to stop almost anyone doing anything given enough effort, whether they are infact guilty or not.


of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons;


Firstly - how much control does someone have to have for it to be shut down? Suppose Mrs Smith owns a company called Genco Olive Oil Imports, and part owns it with Mrs Jones. But Mrs Jones (unbeknownst to Mrs Smith) also owns a company called Gemini Software Ltd, that is a front company for funnelling money to a terrorist group in another country. Mrs Jones is caught and arrested, but suddenly Genco is shut down and all the staff - who have NOTHING to do with the money/terrorist stuff are out of work, along with Mrs Smith who is totally innocent. That strikes me as unfair.

Secondly - how indirectly is "indirectly"? Mrs Jones (the evil terrorist woman from above) owns Company A, that owns Compny B, that owns Company C that owns Company D that is partnership with Company E. Is Company E liable since Mrs Jones sits as an honnoury member of the board of directors?


and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly,


Again - how much control and how indirtectly? If Mrs Jones is actually on the board of governers of a school, but the school is not a business, and is not involved in anyway in her actions, would it be under risk from this clause?

(And - by the by - you could make that paragraph more understandable, cause it took me a good long while to get what it meant, and quite honestly I am not sure I have actually got it)


by such persons or associated persons and entities


How far does "association" extend? Because if Clause 8 of The Universal Bill Of Rights extends protection from prosecution for crimes of family, would any associates who are family be excluded? Further more the idea of guilt by association is generally not considered a legal basis for decisisions (or at least not in Pallatium), so just because I am pretty good friend with someone who, it turns out is Mrs Jones (from above), am I an associate of hers? And if so am I, and all my funds, under threat?

Further more Clause 3 of The Bill Of Rights can be interpretted as the right to free assocation (if you try), which is also threatened by this to some degree.


5. DETERMINED that member states shall:
A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;


This is where some civil liberties issues come in to their own, and again the level of evidence required to support these actions. Preventing people from joining groups, organisations and (possibly) religious groups is an afront to various resolutions (religious tolerance and the UBR most notably), so if we are told that The Church of The Fallen Angels is a terrorist group, yet we find no evidence of that, we can not lawfully stop recruitment, nor can we lawfully top people joining. Further more under the Religious Tolerance resolution, we are, strictly speaking, not permitted to discriminate against them by chosing not to offer support (I admit if it turns out that we do find evidence to support it, the other resolutions might not apply, but that is not my biggest concern)


B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;


With "Refugee Protection Act" on the books, the question of evidence once again becomes important. We are not permitted to deny refuge to people who have a legitimate claim, and yet this would require we do.


C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and


"Right To Refuse Extradition" would imply that my nation can deal with people convicted under this crime in my nation - that I don't have to hand them over to the nation where the terrorism is supposed to take place. Would that be correct?

Further more - I would argue that all of these crimes are not of the same degree, and as such you are asking us to elevate talking to the same level of crime as murder, which is entirely unacceptable. I know - freedom of expression does not extend to asking for the murder of someone else, but at the same time saying you are going to kill someone is not the same as actually killing someone, and the punishments for planning terrorism can not be as severe as actually carrying it out. I will give you the benifit of the doubt that "the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts" means that the punishments can vary depending on your part in the crime (so if you just plan something, but not carry it out, you will not be punished as if you had carried it out) and further more, the threat of the use of force should not carry the same punishment as the actual use of force, because again - words are just words and actions are what people should be punished for.

The alternative is that you set the precedent that governments can punish people for simply expressing themselves, which is a dangerous precedent to set.

Finally - does the person who is involved in something have to know they are involved in something? Mrs Smith could supply a payment to somebody and really have no idea what it is for - would they be as guilty as someone else?


D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.


Would all of these actions be conducted under the various resolutions? (Stop Privacy Intrusion, Due Process etc) Or does the fact it is international law, or the fact it is terrorism, mean that the resolutions that are applied at a national level no longer apply to international law?

And - in relation to the application of national law - if Nation B needs to conduct investigations in Nation A, and they have radically different laws about gathering evidence (and so forth), which Nation's law applies? Can agents of Nation B use their own methods and practices in Nation A, or do they have to stick to the law of Nation A? Or will agents not be permitted to enter other nations, and it will be the agents of Nation A that do the investigating on behalf of Nation B?


Also - say Hyrule can detain people for 50 days without charge, but Pallatium can only detain them for 10. Would that mean Pallatium would be permitted to hold them for 50 at Hyrules request, even though it is entirely illegal? Or even if Hyrule demands we hold them for 50, we are permitted to only hold them for 10 and we can not co-operate fully with Hyrule due to our laws?


The next part is "urges", so I can ignore it :}

But if I were going to pay attention then....


6. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter,


Which means what? Changing our laws to meet another nation's so that we punish terrorists as hard as the other nation does?


and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists;


Does this cover just those who are terrorists, or those we suspect? Because those we suspect are, it can be argued, covered by the protection of various resoluations. And again - once we get to those "we know" and "we suspect" is based on what level of evidence?


forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups;


Is this what they are using, or actually intercepting these technologies? Because Stop Privacy Intrustion prevents the interception without suitable proof (which is not something you ask for)


and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.


Another civil liberties issue. "sensitive materials" could be practically anything - government secrets for example. So (again) we come back to evidence. If Hyrule committed genocide, and then the evidence was surpressed and buried, but a group found it out, would it not be in the interest of the Hyrule government to say "yeah - they are terrorists" so the group could never publish or transport it, and everyone would be actively trying to stop them.


What my issue comes down to is this :-

What level of evidence does a nation have to require for groups to fall under this proposal?

Given that it makes NO MENTION of previous resolutions, are we to assume all previous resolutions apply, and that all the actions listed in here must also fall under those resolutions (Stop Privacy Intrustion, Fair Trial, Due Process, Definition of Fair Trial, Refugee Protection and The Universal Bill Of Rights to name all the ones I named)?

Who's law takes precedence in an investigation in to international crimes?

Are all crimes under this to be treated as being as serious as all others?

And under the "taking away someone's money" clause - how much protection is there for innocents who are just caught up in the problem?

These are the civil liberty issues I was talking about - not people being arrested for no reason (although some nations could use this bill to do that), but the interactions between nations, and how much support an accusation needs before it requires action under this proposal.

The one thing that does cheer me up is that between Treatment of Prisoners Of War and Habeus Corpus, anyone arrested or detained under this proposal will still have their rights protected under UN law, which is nice.

obviously this one need more work if Pal can pick it apart so easily... i saw in another thread (maybe that part should be turned into a sticky) someone wrote a FAQ dealing with the issue of terrorism. i can see that you read most of it (aiming this one at international terrorism, not domestic). one thing i would like to point out to Pal though is the fact that if they were to define particulars like 'what level of evidence', they would loose any chance of getting the NatSov vote. whilst on principle i do not support anti-terrorist proposals (i have stated my reasons in other threads), this one seems to be quite a good one. keep it up

obviously this one need more work...this one seems to be quite a good one. keep it up

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/FLIPFLOP.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/FLIPFLOP.jpg
i am on the against side, just was giving some constructive criticism

obviously this one need more work if Pal can pick it apart so easily... i saw in another thread (maybe that part should be turned into a sticky) someone wrote a FAQ dealing with the issue of terrorism. i can see that you read most of it (aiming this one at international terrorism, not domestic). one thing i would like to point out to Pal though is the fact that if they were to define particulars like 'what level of evidence', they would loose any chance of getting the NatSov vote. whilst on principle i do not support anti-terrorist proposals (i have stated my reasons in other threads), this one seems to be quite a good one. keep it up

It was the thread during which the draft for this proposal was being worked, which is why those points have been addressed. The FAQ was written by Hirota, who co-authored this proposal with me.



FAQ’s for Combating Terrorism proposal


This post is intended to supply answers to the questions that have tended to pop up at one time or another during the formation of this proposal. It is hoped that by placing all these questions in one place (complete with answer) that instead of seeing the same issues raised and answered, member states will be able to read this topic and realise their concerns have already been addressed and/or considered.

This document will be updated as neccessary.

1. Defining international terrorism (“but they are freedom fighters?”)
This is normally the first issue raised by member states. I personally recognise there are going to be situations when member states would sympathise with a neighbouring group of “freedom fighters” in a different country fighting against a brutal regime.

But, ultimately, it is not their title or their justifications which should be considered. It is firmly believed that actions should be judged above that of names or motivations.

The author’s intentions are threefold:

To protect innocents and non-combatants from terrorism
To prevent the sponsorship, sheltering or funding of terrorism
To encourage international cooperation in terrorism.

For defining international terrorism, the first one is the most relevant, thus that is the condition on which terrorism is judged. If a group targets primarily and deliberately the civilian population then they fall within this definition.

The second part of the definition is more straightforward. As this proposal only deals with international terrorism, the organization has to be either based in, sponsored by, or trained by another nation.

Thus we ignore issues about “is group A freedom fighters?” and instead focus on their actions. If they have a grudge against a government, they should be targeting primarily the government. Not innocents.

Of course, if a group is “legitimately” targeting the government and reducing civilian casualties to a minimum, then there is no legislation or restrictions on this matter. Please note that member states can still declare war on you if you are sponsoring a group, and blowing up buildings is still going to be a criminal act in most nations!

2. National Sovereignty
This proposal is confined to international terrorism – domestic terrorism remains unaffected. They are internal matters not dealt with by this proposal.

The only effect this proposal has on national sovereignty is it denies you the right to sponsor terrorism in another country, which if you were a true national sovereignist you should be against anyway.

3. Civil liberties.
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

4. I want to be able to decide what is and is not terrorism!
That’s fine, you can. You can’t decide what international terrorism is though. The definition above is a good starting place for you to decide what is domestic terrorism, but we are not in the business of meddling in national sovereignty too much.

5. I want to be able to decide what is and is not international terrorism!
The problem with this is that the nations in question will not agree what is international terrorism. Moreover, there are nations who have flatly stated they would not support any proposal without a definition

The definition reached here took several months and several contributions to bring it to the form it is today. It is the product of collaboration and observation by multiple member states.

6. I don’t like the proposal.
Okay, well tell us why, and better still, tell us what you’d do to improve it. If we agree, we can change the proposal if it fails to reach quorum.

Well, obviously #6 doesn't apply anymore, as the proposal has already been submitted, but the rest of it is still good.

And as for Pallatium "picking it apart," I could do the same to any proposed legislation. Doesn't mean I'd be right.

one thing i would like to point out to Pal though is the fact that if they were to define particulars like 'what level of evidence', they would loose any chance of getting the NatSov vote.

And I understand that. And I am happy that the definition of terrorist is all well and good and totally acceptable - I have no issue with that.

Now I am on to the next problem - international co-operation.

Supposing there is a group in Pallatium called The Army Of The Flying Monkeys that are entirely peaceful. Not freedom fighters, not terrorist - just people with Windows Notepad and the ability to write good newspaper articles. They basically snoop around government business (from all nations) and publish a magazine on the web about it. (OOC - imagine The Lone Gunmen from The X-Files for a basic idea).

Now suppose Hyrule has something really big to hide - genocide or something - and The Army of The Flying Monkeys finds out. What is to stop Hyrule declaring to the world that they have found evidnce that TAOTFM are going to step up their crusade and start blowing things up? And if Hyrule declares The Flying Monkeys a terrorist group, then I would be required BY LAW to shut them down, even though they are not terrorists or even freedom fighters or even people with guns.


Can you see why I want to know what kind of process and so forth has to take place for someone to be declared a terrorist (someone who is planning to blow something up is also a terrorist, according to this) under this proposal?

Without that sort of definition, then the proposal is open to so much abuse, it's not even funny.

I would probably agree with you on that scenarion, Pal, and it is one of the main reasons we dont support any anti-terrorism proposal. on one side, if it is vague, it is so open for abuse it isn't funny. on the other side, too discriptive, it interferes with NatSov. the problem is, it is hard to find middle ground on this issue. best of luck to Cluichstan though.

I would probably agree with you on that scenarion, Pal, and it is one of the main reasons we dont support any anti-terrorism proposal. on one side, if it is vague, it is so open for abuse it isn't funny. on the other side, too discriptive, it interferes with NatSov. the problem is, it is hard to find middle ground on this issue. best of luck to Cluichstan though.

I have a whole other scenario as well, that is quite possibly worse than this one.

I am the Queen of Pallatium, and as such am not really permitted to own businesses of any sort (it is felt that I could write laws that would benifit my own business over some others).

But imagine I wasn't The Queen - that Queen Tina had never died - and I was in business with Mrs Meyers. We own 50% each of a huge carpet making business, and we employ around 50,000 people in the country.

Now imagine Mrs Meyers was actually a terrorist mastermind, and I had no idea. Imagine she was responsible for attacks in your nation, Hyrule, Pallatium and TilEnca (before it was destroyed).

And now imagine she is caught. Under this resolution ALL her assetts are to be confiscated and frozen.

So - does that mean the carpet business is shut down? That I lose my business? That 50,000 people lose their jobs? The proposal suggests that would be the case, and even though the 50,000 people had no idea that one of their bosses was a terrorist, they would all be punished for her actions. So would I.

Is that really fair and just?

maybe you should start a thread labled 'Scenarios that prove Anti-Terrorism proposals are a bad idea'....

maybe you should start a thread labled 'Scenarios that prove Anti-Terrorism proposals are a bad idea'....

See - that's the thing. I have seen some really, really good anti-terrorism proposals in my time, and some good but not perfect ones. One posted on this board at the moment shows potential, but has one or two things that need dealing with.

Plus if I start a thread like that someone might ban me for stating the bleedin' obvious :}

3. Civil liberties.
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.


The phrase "normal people" has to be the most over-used and misleading part of any anti-terror legislation, whether it is in NationStates or in the wonderful world we call real life.

This indicates that "normal people" will be safe - they won't be affected by this. And yet what it fails to mention is that everyone is a normal person - even those planning "terrorist attacks". The question then becomes how do you tell the difference between the two.

And since this proposal crosses national borders (with it relating to "international terrorism" an'all) the question then becomes which nation has the power to say "they are normal" and "they are terrorists".

No where in the proposal does it indicate what methods are used. Whether someone has to be suspected of planning an attack, charged with planning attack or convicted of planning an attack - it just says


persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts


If it stated whether the "persons" have to be arrested, charged, convicted or merely suspected, then there would be far less scope for abuse of this by less trustworthy nations, but it doesn't - so all those "normal people" that the two authors are trying to convince you won't be affected by this (which means they are trying to convince you that YOU won't be affected by this, because surely YOU are not a terrorist) are all at risk simply because every person is a potential terrorist (from a certain point of view).


My one sorrow with this is that I haven't been able to find a reason to have it declared illegal under UN law and deleted, because that would ensure that all the "normal people" the authors seemed to be so concerned about (and yet obviously aren't, or they would have taken way more care in drafting this) would be protected.

maybe you should start a thread labled 'Scenarios that prove Anti-Terrorism proposals are a bad idea'....Or maybe he or she should post his or her ideas about the proposal more succinctly (and clearly). I've read through the smaller posts (and skipped the behemoth entirely as is my custom), and still don't know why Pallatium opposses the proposal.

Then again, perhaps that's Pallatium's intent...

Or maybe he or she should post his or her ideas about the proposal more succinctly (and clearly). I've read through the smaller posts (and skipped the behemoth entirely as is my custom), and still don't know why Pallatium opposses the proposal.

Then again, perhaps that's Pallatium's intent...

Problem is, Pallatium seems to like throw up hugely specific scenarios - answer is it is impossible to set up a resolution that covers absolutely every scenario dreamed up. It's like Cluichistan said - the same could be done for anything.

I'll try and sum up the key questions

EDIT: I've redone the FAQ's myself below. I think the key points are answered.

Or maybe he or she should post his or her ideas about the proposal more succinctly (and clearly). I've read through the smaller posts (and skipped the behemoth entirely as is my custom), and still don't know why Pallatium opposses the proposal.

Then again, perhaps that's Pallatium's intent...

I can break up the large post in to lots of little ones, if that would help?

1) This says that we have to freeze the funds of a terrorist, and then defines terrorist as (amongst others) someone who plans to commit an act of terrorism. But it makes no mention of how that is proven and what legal system is used to determine it. So if Hyrule wants to damage a group in my nation, all they have to do is say they have found evidence (and Hyrule could have the most open evidence gathering system in the world - hearsay, information under duress and so forth) and the group would be declared terrorists around the world

2) It says we have to freeze the funds of a terrorist, but makes no mention of what happens if the terrorist owns a business with someone else who isn't a terrorist - does the entire business get frozen, putting (potentially) thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people out of work for no reason.

3) This says we have to stop terrorist recruitment, but again makes no comment of what level of evidence is required to declare a group "terrorist", so a lot of groups that have nothing to do with terrorism (including various religions and social groups) might come under this act should a nation chose to do so.


All in all - it is wide open to abuse when differing countries have differing legal systems, and - it appears - we only need the word of one nation to brand someone a terrorist and all nations have to fall in line.

FAQ’s for International Anti-Terror Act

This post is intended to supply answers to the questions that have tended to pop up at one time or another during the formation of this proposal. It is hoped that by placing all these questions in one place (complete with answer) that instead of seeing the same issues raised and answered, member states will be able to read this topic and realise their concerns have already been addressed and/or considered.

This document will be updated as neccessary.

1. Defining international terrorism (“but they are freedom fighters?”)
This is normally the first issue raised by member states. I personally recognise there are going to be situations when member states would sympathise with a neighbouring group of “freedom fighters” in a different country fighting against a brutal regime.

But, ultimately, it is not their title or their justifications which should be considered. It is firmly believed that actions should be judged above that of names or motivations.

The author’s intentions are threefold:

To protect innocents and non-combatants from terrorism
To prevent the sponsorship, sheltering or funding of terrorism
To encourage international cooperation against terrorism.

For defining international terrorism, the first one is the most relevant, thus that is the condition on which terrorism is judged. If a group targets primarily and deliberately the civilian population then they fall within this definition.

The second part of the definition is more straightforward. As this proposal only deals with international terrorism, the organization has to be either based in, sponsored by, or trained by another nation.

Thus we ignore issues about “is group A freedom fighters?” and instead focus on their actions. If they have a grudge against a government, they should be targeting primarily the government. Not innocents.

Of course, if a group is “legitimately” targeting the government and reducing civilian casualties to a minimum, then there is no legislation or restrictions on this matter. Please note that member states can still declare war on you if you are sponsoring a group, and blowing up buildings is still going to be a criminal act in most nations!

2. National Sovereignty
This proposal is confined to international terrorism – domestic terrorism remains unaffected. They are internal matters not dealt with by this proposal.

The only significant effect this proposal has on national sovereignty is it denies you the right to sponsor terrorism in another country, which if you were a true national sovereignist you should be against anyway.

3. Civil liberties.
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

4. I want to be able to decide what is and is not terrorism!
That’s fine, you can. You can’t decide what international terrorism is though. The definition above is a good starting place for you to decide what is domestic terrorism, but we are not in the business of meddling in national sovereignty too much.

5. I want to be able to decide what is and is not international terrorism!
The problem with this is that the nations in question will not agree what is international terrorism. Moreover, there are nations who have flatly stated they would not support any proposal without a definition

The definition reached here took several months and several contributions to bring it to the form it is today. It is the product of collaboration and observation by multiple member states.

6. I don’t like the proposal.
Okay, well tell us why, and better still, tell us what you’d do to improve it. If we agree, we can change the proposal if it fails to reach quorum.

Don’t just say “we won’t support this.” Explain why, and then we can understand and try and improve.

Key questions thus far

I'll try and sum up the key questions

What evidence will be required to support such a claim?
It is impossible to say what evidence is necessary. This is because different nations have different positions on what evidence is admissible and different nations have different stances on civil rights and privacy. A nation would be expected to present as much evidence as possible

A nation would be expected to investigate and work with the other nation fully in the interests of international co-operation. That does not mean blindly accepting evidence, but it does mean investigating.

Do we have to accept claims of organizations being international terrorists or do we get to make our own mind up?
You get to make your own mind up, using the definitions as a template for any decision. However, you should make efforts to investigate fully and confirm or deny the accusations of other nations.

How do these new international instruments square with The Universal Bill Of Rights (Especially Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8) and Stop Privacy Intrusion

Stop privacy intrusion: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11

It means that nations have to have approval before eavesdropping on individuals. It does not specify what evidence is necessary, only that there must be evidence and approval by the judiciary. Since nations have different legislation and legal systems it is impossible to specify the process. But Stop Privacy intrusion maintains it’s role, and this proposal makes not impact on that. Stop Privacy intrusion means that a case has to be made before the judiciary for phone tapping etc.

Universal bill of rights: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27

Articles 3 – no impact, and totally unrelated. Peacefully assembling means for peaceful purposes.

Article 6 & 7 – no impact. A person can be investigated before being arrested. A person would be advised of their offences when being arrested as mentioned before.

Article 8 – No impact. This will be addressed later in peripheral impacts.

What does “B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities” mean?

If someone was known to have committed, facilitated or planned to commit an act of international terrorism, then their control of funds and assets are frozen. It does not close down businesses, And it should not stop other people accessing the funds (such as other people). It should not lead to job losses as companies are closed. Business associates should not be affected, but may give cause for investigation into their affairs to see if their participation was innocuous or deliberate.

Does it mean that those who commit lose their bank accounts? Yup. I would expect most nations would have a legal process for this to happen, but this is outside of the proposals scope.

How does this proposal work with the Religious tolerance resolution?

Religious Tolerance: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029620&postcount=20

Religious tolerance has no impact on the proposal – it states “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion.” Nations are not obliged to do anything.

How does the proposal work with Refugee Protection Act

Refugee Protection Act: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030195&postcount=66

This proposal says “B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;”

This works with the refugee protection act: “…so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation,”

I’d argue that member states should make whatever changes to their legislation are necessary to refuse refugee status to international terrorists. That is an individual national matter.

How does the proposal work with Right To Refuse Extradition?

Right To Refuse Extradition : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052878&postcount=104

Right to refuse extradition only applies when the host nation has strong concerns that capital punishment would be practiced. If nations are concerned about the use of the death penalty, nations are encouraged to seek assurances that it will not be used by the other nation. There is still a responsibility for conviction of international terrorists “Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts”

How does the proposal work with Due Process?

Due Process: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029652&postcount=28

There is no effect – “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation….” Since due process is encouraged throughout, there is no issue. Assets are frozen, not taken for public use.

Do we have to change our laws to meet another nation's requirements so that we punish terrorists as hard as the other nation does

No, but you be expected to prosecute international terrorists as harshly as you would prosecute domestic terrorists (assuming that a mechanism cannot be agreed for the extradition of the international terrorist because of concerns under right to refuse extradition).

“exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists” Does this cover just those who are terrorists, or those we suspect?

Both. How they are monitored is subject to member states and various resolutions (notably Stop Privacy Intrusion)

what are sensitive materials? Are government secrets? Can a government suppress the release of such secrets under this legislation

Freedom of press: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030185&postcount=64

Freedom of press ensures that data which is in the national interest is protected and encouraged to be published. I doubt the publication of government buildings, security blueprints, weapons of mass destruction or similar material which will endanger the populace would be unlegislated upon by Freedom of press

Who's law takes precedence in an investigation in to international crimes?

The apprehension and/or investigation of international criminals must work within national legislative framework within the investigating country. Once apprehended, international terrorists should be extradited, within the framework of existing resolutions.

Are all crimes under this to be treated as being as serious as all others?That is a judicial matter – in theory different crimes should be judged differently. Some nations will take a zero tolerance approach – that is a national matter.

How does this proposal work with the Eon Convention?

Eon convention on genocide: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84

Eon condemns the "systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion)." The systematic killing of innocents on the basis that they support the government status quo can be considered another arbitary criteria. This proposal seeks to stop one method of killing innocents - international terrorism.

Eon supports the arguement that terrorism is not justifyable made in this proposal, as it states that genoicde in the name of self-defence is still genocide.

The only possible effect Eon may have which goes beyond that made by the proposal is that it forbids the use of the death penalty for acts of genocide. It is unclear if this would apply to this proposal, and I would suggest that nations working co-operatively to combat international terrorism discuss this themselves.

Just a neutral observation: at the moment, both sides are throwing huge posts back and forth. As PC has observed, that doesn't necessarily make for a decent debate. In any case, it doesn't really seem like you're engaging with each other's points. Maybe you should just concentrate on going through arguments individually? That way, the rest of us could keep up.

EDIT: Or not.

Problem is, Pallatium seems to like throw up hugely specific scenarios - answer is it is impossible to set up a resolution that covers absolutely every scenario dreamed up. It's like Cluichistan said - the same could be done for anything.


And, personally, I think that is a good thing for people to do. I know - it gets annoying, and people tell me I am being unreasonable. But - as shown below - you have pretty much answered all of my questions and it has reassurred me that (despite my somewhat snippy post previously, for which I am somewhat sorry) you have actually thought a lot of this through.

So - thanks (and - seriously - I am a tad sorry about the snippyness)



What evidence will be required to support such a claim?
It is impossible to say what evidence is necessary. This is because different nations have different positions on what evidence is admissible and different nations have different stances on civil rights and privacy. A nation would be expected to present as much evidence as possible


And - I take it - if we disagree with that evidence, we are not required to act?


A nation would be expected to investigate and work with the other nation fully in the interests of international co-operation. That does not mean blindly accepting evidence, but it does mean investigating.


Ok. I can live with that.


Do we have to accept claims of organizations being international terrorists or do we get to make our own mind up?
You get to make your own mind up, using the definitions as a template for any decision. However, you should make efforts to investigate fully and confirm or deny the accusations of other nations.


Ok. I can live with this as well. And the investigations will be run under Pallatium law :}


How do these new international instruments square with The Universal Bill Of Rights (Especially Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8) and Stop Privacy Intrusion

Stop privacy intrusion: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11

It means that nations have to have approval before eavesdropping on individuals. It does not specify what evidence is necessary, only that there must be evidence and approval by the judiciary. Since nations have different legislation and legal systems it is impossible to specify the process. But Stop Privacy intrusion maintains it’s role, and this proposal makes not impact on that. Stop Privacy intrusion means that a case has to be made before the judiciary for phone tapping etc.


Just checking :}


Universal bill of rights: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27

Articles 3 – no impact, and totally unrelated. Peacefully assembling means for peaceful purposes.


This goes back to the level of evidence - I might think it's peaceful, but you might think its a terrorist meeting. But again - my nation, my decision :}


Article 6 & 7 – no impact. A person can be investigated before being arrested. A person would be advised of their offences when being arrested as mentioned before.


I can't remember what six and seven are... Hold on....
Oh yeah - it was the idea of secret tribunals being held, because the terrorists can't be shown the evidence against them or sometimes what they are being charged with. But - ok.


Article 8 – No impact. This will be addressed later in peripheral impacts.


Ok.


What does “B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities” mean?

If someone was known to have committed, facilitated or planned to commit an act of international terrorism, then their control of funds and assets are frozen. It does not close down businesses, And it should not stop other people accessing the funds (such as other people). It should not lead to job losses as companies are closed. Business associates should not be affected, but may give cause for investigation into their affairs to see if their participation was innocuous or deliberate.


Ok.


Does it mean that those who commit lose their bank accounts? Yup. I would expect most nations would have a legal process for this to happen, but this is outside of the proposals scope.


Again - ok.


How does this proposal work with the Religious tolerance resolution?

Religious Tolerance: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029620&postcount=20

Religious tolerance has no impact on the proposal – it states “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion.” Nations are not obliged to do anything.


Again - this went back to evidence (And, by the way, I am glad to see people taking this resolution as seriuosly as possible (snark)) and the supposed protections religions have.


How does the proposal work with Refugee Protection Act[b]

Refugee Protection Act: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030195&postcount=66

This proposal says “B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;”

This works with the refugee protection act: “…so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation,”

I’d argue that member states should make whatever changes to their legislation are necessary to refuse refugee status to international terrorists. That is an individual national matter.


Again - evidence (you will find me saying this a lot, since you answered the evidence question!)


[b]How does the proposal work with Right To Refuse Extradition?

Right To Refuse Extradition : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052878&postcount=104

Right to refuse extradition only applies when the host nation has strong concerns that capital punishment would be practiced. If nations are concerned about the use of the death penalty, nations are encouraged to seek assurances that it will not be used by the other nation. There is still a responsibility for conviction of international terrorists “Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts”


Ok. I can mostly live with this. As long as the extradition resolution is in place.


How does the proposal work with Due Process?

Due Process: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029652&postcount=28

There is no effect – “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation….” Since due process is encouraged throughout, there is no issue. Assets are frozen, not taken for public use.


I am thinking that putting someone in jail that would deprive them of liberty :} But again - my nation, my legal system, my rules :}


Do we have to change our laws to meet another nation's requirements so that we punish terrorists as hard as the other nation does

No, but you be expected to prosecute international terrorists as harshly as you would prosecute domestic terrorists (assuming that a mechanism cannot be agreed for the extradition of the international terrorist because of concerns under right to refuse extradition).


Ok.


“exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists” Does this cover just those who are terrorists, or those we suspect?

Both. How they are monitored is subject to member states and various resolutions (notably Stop Privacy Intrusion)


Ok.


what are sensitive materials? Are government secrets? Can a government suppress the release of such secrets under this legislation

Freedom of press: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030185&postcount=64

Freedom of press ensures that data which is in the national interest is protected and encouraged to be published. I doubt the publication of government buildings, security blueprints, weapons of mass destruction or similar material which will endanger the populace would be unlegislated upon by Freedom of press


FOP only covers the press though, not private individuals or groups (such at TLG from X-Files) set about revealing the truth. And while I accept the whole blueprints thing, there is more information than that in government buildings.

But hey - we can extend FOP to cover such groups... hmmm :}


Who's law takes precedence in an investigation in to international crimes?The apprehension and/or investigation of international criminals must work within national legislative framework within the investigating country. Once apprehended, international terrorists should be extradited, within the framework of existing resolutions.


Kewl :}


Are all crimes under this to be treated as being as serious as all others? That is a judicial matter – in theory different crimes should be judged differently. Some nations will take a zero tolerance approach – that is a national matter.


Again - kewl.


This Q&A will be added to the Q&A's on this proposal (which I will repost in this topic shortly)

See - now I am more happy than I was. Thank you :}

Just a neutral observation: at the moment, both sides are throwing huge posts back and forth. As PC has observed, that doesn't necessarily make for a decent debate. In any case, it doesn't really seem like you're engaging with each other's points. Maybe you should just concentrate on going through arguments individually? That way, the rest of us could keep up.

You are right - I'll do both. FAQ's will be updated as it is needed, and now I'll do each point on their own:

And - I take it - if we disagree with that evidence, we are not required to act?

It depends on the weight of the evidence - but as a minimum I'd suggest a nation performs their own investigation when presented with moderate evidence. That doesn't mean you are locking people up, but it does mean you should snoop around.

Of course, if one person says that group A is practicing international terrorism, it's not enough to work on. If they can provide corroborating information, then that changes things.

Give an investigation the same seriousness as any other criminal investigation - you don't ignore compelling evidence and fail to act, just like you don't act on the word of a single person.

I am thinking that putting someone in jail that would deprive them of liberty :} But again - my nation, my legal system, my rules :}Of course there has to be due process before depriving of liberty.

This goes back to the level of evidence - I might think it's peaceful, but you might think its a terrorist meeting. But again - my nation, my decision :}I think if there were 3 suspected terrorists in a room supposedly talking about the form of Hirota's soccer league champions (Capitol Rangers) in whispered tones, even the dumbest nation would suspect.

Give an investigation the same seriousness as any other criminal investigation - you don't ignore compelling evidence and fail to act, just like you don't act on the word of a single person.

Depends on the person - if we know that Mrs Jones is a pathalogical liar, we tend to investigate any claims she makes with that knowledge.

As for the others - I accept. I am happy that this is not going to destroy my nation, which is pretty much all I ask out of a proposal :}

As for the others - I accept. I am happy that this is not going to destroy my nation, which is pretty much all I ask out of a proposal :}My goodness, have I converted the nation of Pallatium from tenative opposition to general apathy? :D

<does a little dance>

Just a neutral observation: at the moment, both sides are throwing huge posts back and forth. As PC has observed, that doesn't necessarily make for a decent debate. In any case, it doesn't really seem like you're engaging with each other's points. Maybe you should just concentrate on going through arguments individually? That way, the rest of us could keep up.

EDIT: Or not.

(smirk) Sorry - I was posting at the same time as you, and finished the long post before I read this. Isn't fun timing cool?


(and - somewhat ooc - a while back I was posting one post to every response, and various users told me "there is an edit button you know", which is why I started going with replying to everything in one post)

My goodness, have I converted the nation of Pallatium from tenative opposition to general apathy? :D

<does a little dance>

You answered my questions in a polite manner, which is all I was really asking for out of this.

And actually - given the intepretation of the resolution - yeah. It's not something I will support, but not something I will actively oppose in anyway.

Apathy rocks.... (when you can be arsed)

(and - somewhat ooc - a while back I was posting one post to every response, and various users told me "there is an edit button you know", which is why I started going with replying to everything in one post)

What bastards.

Well, ok, so I guess you got me there. I just meant it was a bit hard to keep up with. But, it's not my debate, so I'll keep out of it.

The people of Cluichstan express their sincere gratitude to their Hirotan friends for their eloquent answers in response to questions posed regarding this resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The people of Cluichstan express their sincere gratitude to their Hirotan friends for their eloquent answers in response to questions posed regarding this resolution.

No probs - I just hope you two behave in future - we don't need more topics descending into anarchy over little squabbles.

Play nicely, and Hirota won't need to annex the both of you. :D

No probs - I just hope you two behave in future - we don't need more topics descending into anarchy over little squabbles.

Play nicely, and Hirota won't need to annex the both of you. :D

I promise I will do my best :}

After reading Hirota's answers to Pallatium, clarifying this Resolution's meaning, the government of St Edmund is able to declare its support for the proposal.

Knootoss supports this resolution and hopes that no right-thinking nation will oppose it. The only real motive we can see for opposing such a balanced resolution is covert or overt support for terrorist causes.

~Aram Koopman

The author’s intentions are threefold:

[...]
To encourage international cooperation in terrorism.

I'm sure Red Cell and The Collective (cookie for anyone who gets that reference) will be pleased to hear it!

Knootoss supports this resolution and hopes that no right-thinking nation will oppose it. The only real motive we can see for opposing such a balanced resolution is covert or overt support for terrorist causes.

~Aram Koopman

Do you want me to get in to how wrong the phrase "right thinking nation" is when we are talking about terrorism?

What's next? Enemies of freedom?

Do you want me to get in to how wrong the phrase "right thinking nation" is when we are talking about terrorism?

What's next? Enemies of freedom?


I am unaware of any hidden irony in my statement. Freedom-loving nations ought to endorse this resolution. I am not going to say that you are an enemy of freedom, but I do question your resolve in the War on Terrorism.

~Aram Koopman

OOC: I am well-aware of very un-PC RL references. ;)

I'm sure Red Cell and The Collective (cookie for anyone who gets that reference) will be pleased to hear it!


"in" of course should be "against"

I've made the correction.

I am unaware of any hidden irony in my statement. Freedom-loving nations ought to endorse this resolution. I am not going to say that you are an enemy of freedom, but I do question your resolve in the War on Terrorism.

~Aram Koopman

OOC: I am well-aware of very un-PC RL references. ;)

I didn't think there was any irony in your statement - that's what scared me :}

(ooc - I am not going to carry this on, cause my real life views on this are going to bleed in to my IC views and it will not end well!!)

OOC: So... uh... I win on the basis of being able to separate IC and OOC? And I'm a bleeding heart liberal myself, out of character. :p I still think this is a good resolution tho.

OOC: So... uh... I win?

(ooc) If you want to look at it that way. I think it's a moral victory for me cause I stepped back from an arguement - something I am usually very bad at doing :}

(ooc) If you want to look at it that way. I think it's a moral victory for me cause I stepped back from an arguement - something I am usually very bad at doing :}

OOC: I added an argument but you already replied *points up*

OOC: I added an argument but you already replied *points up*

(ooc - ok. you win. go you! and yes - that sounds sarcastic but wasn't meant to be I swear. And to get out of this....)


(ic) I still have issues with this, but not for the reasons I stated above. All politics are local, and this is not the business of the UN.

Ok - I have one or two arguements in defence of the suggestion that the UN has no business legislating on this. They are all based around the supposed right to self-defence.

The UN has (to my knowledge) not passed a resolution that forbids someone to be killed. It has not passed a partial or full ban on the death penatly, it has passed resolutions that confirm the right of nations to chose whether or not to employ the death penalty, it has passed a resolution that (to some people's view point) permits the murder of an unborn child. And it has passed a resolution that permits someone to help someone else to die.

Further more, while it has passed various resolutions that protect the right to life, they do not explicitly say that the person can not be killed (fair trial, due process and so forth protect the right of prisoners to be tried fairly, but do not prevent execution at the end). The extradition resolution also says that a nation does not have to send someone off to die in another country, but it does not explicitly forbid it.

Finally The Eon Convention on Genocide says that, in terms of self-defence, genocide can be justified and is not actually a crime.

With all that in mind, I would argue that the UN has no business saying that the killing of someone is a crime so bad that every nation must condem it, regardless of circumstance, motive or justification. It goes against the spirit of every other resolution that is passed, and totally and utterly exceeds the power the UN should have. (I am not suggesting for one moment that this makes the proposal illegal - I would never say that, because I would most likely be wrong).


So - that's my reason for opposing it. No other resolution has ever said that killing someone is entirely, totally and utterly wrong, and I don't think that the UN should have the power to make such a huge and sweeping moral judgement that will potentially effect every single person in every single nation.

Ok - I have one or two arguements in defence of the suggestion that the UN has no business legislating on this. They are all based around the supposed right to self-defence.

The UN has (to my knowledge) not passed a resolution that forbids someone to be killed. It has not passed a partial or full ban on the death penatly, it has passed resolutions that confirm the right of nations to chose whether or not to employ the death penalty, it has passed a resolution that (to some people's view point) permits the murder of an unborn child. And it has passed a resolution that permits someone to help someone else to die.

Further more, while it has passed various resolutions that protect the right to life, they do not explicitly say that the person can not be killed (fair trial, due process and so forth protect the right of prisoners to be tried fairly, but do not prevent execution at the end). The extradition resolution also says that a nation does not have to send someone off to die in another country, but it does not explicitly forbid it.

Finally The Eon Convention on Genocide says that, in terms of self-defence, genocide can be justified and is not actually a crime.

With all that in mind, I would argue that the UN has no business saying that the killing of someone is a crime so bad that every nation must condem it, regardless of circumstance, motive or justification. It goes against the spirit of every other resolution that is passed, and totally and utterly exceeds the power the UN should have. (I am not suggesting for one moment that this makes the proposal illegal - I would never say that, because I would most likely be wrong).


So - that's my reason for opposing it. No other resolution has ever said that killing someone is entirely, totally and utterly wrong, and I don't think that the UN should have the power to make such a huge and sweeping moral judgement that will potentially effect every single person in every single nation.

EON actually says "§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action."

So, genocide is not justifyable under self-defence.

Blowing up innocents is also not justifyable - you say sometimes it is justified to bomb innocents because they have voted in a government - what is the difference between that and killing people based on other criteria, such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion - It's an arbitary criteria. Voting demographics are just another arbitary criteria.

For my mind - international terrorism can in many ways be considered genocide, and eon condemned genocide as a heinous crime. The only difference is a matter of scale - although terrorism can be a tool of genocide.

What Eon does do however is forbid the use of the death penalty in international crimes. This would be something which would suggest those guilty of international terrorism cannot be sent to their death. ("§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.")

OOC: I'm suprised you did not fall back to this resolution earlier, Til.But I happen to think Eon actually strengthens the arguement for this proposal.

Ok - I have one or two arguements in defence of the suggestion that the UN has no business legislating on this. They are all based around the supposed right to self-defence.

The UN has (to my knowledge) not passed a resolution that forbids someone to be killed. It has not passed a partial or full ban on the death penatly, it has passed resolutions that confirm the right of nations to chose whether or not to employ the death penalty, it has passed a resolution that (to some people's view point) permits the murder of an unborn child. And it has passed a resolution that permits someone to help someone else to die.

Unless I missed it, I have not seen a resolution that protects nation's right to employ the death penalty - though I've seen plenty of drafts on either side of this coin. The UN, however, has put several resolutions through protecting nations who do not believe in Death Penalty from having to worry about the Death Penalty being used in something of direct concern to them (various resolutions disallowing death penalty at the international level and right to refuse extradiction).

With all that in mind, I would argue that the UN has no business saying that the killing of someone is a crime so bad that every nation must condem it, regardless of circumstance, motive or justification. It goes against the spirit of every other resolution that is passed, and totally and utterly exceeds the power the UN should have. (I am not suggesting for one moment that this makes the proposal illegal - I would never say that, because I would most likely be wrong).

Against the SPIRIT? The spirit of every resolution pertaining to the allowance of death has been of the lines "for the betterment of rights" and the spirit of every resolution pertaining to prevention of death has been "to help those that would otherwise be dead". As such, this goes VERY MUCH WITH the entire spirit of the UN resolutions thus far.

EON actually says "§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action."

So, genocide is not justifyable under self-defence.


That's not what it means. It means that you can't not come to trial if you commit genocide, but if it is done in self-defence, you won't be convicted and punished for it.


Blowing up innocents is also not justifyable - you say sometimes it is justified to bomb innocents because they have voted in a government - what is the difference between that and killing people based on other criteria, such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion - It's an arbitary criteria. Voting demographics are just another arbitary criteria.


You make a moral decision to vote for someone and support what they do. You don't make a moral choice to be black or short-sighted (the religion one I will let go, because at some point you do make a choice about that. And to some extent if you are part of a religion that is torturing and murdering people, I say that you are a target)


For my mind - international terrorism can in many ways be considered genocide, and eon condemned genocide as a heinous crime. The only difference is a matter of scale - although terrorism can be a tool of genocide.


Yeah - but self-defence, while not excusing it, does permit you not to be punished.


What Eon does do however is forbid the use of the death penalty in international crimes. This would be something which would suggest those guilty of international terrorism cannot be sent to their death. ("§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.")


Actually - no. Because terrorism is not genocide, even though it can be a part of it. Terrorists can not be punished under EON just because they are terrorists - Article 1, Section 3


§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.


Terrorists, by your definition are "non-state actors" and genocide is committed by the state or on behalf of it. So I would argue that the two are entirely seperate (I know - there is the "private group" clause, but genocide is generally a governmental crime)




OOC: I'm suprised you did not fall back to this resolution earlier, Til.But I happen to think Eon actually strengthens the arguement for this proposal.

I think that your interpretation of EON is wrong, and not what the original author intended (ooc - I know that for a fact)

Unless I missed it, I have not seen a resolution that protects nation's right to employ the death penalty - though I've seen plenty of drafts on either side of this coin. The UN, however, has put several resolutions through protecting nations who do not believe in Death Penalty from having to worry about the Death Penalty being used in something of direct concern to them (various resolutions disallowing death penalty at the international level and right to refuse extradiction).


The Right To Refuse Extradtion says


AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders


I would say that that protects the rights of nation to use the death penalty in pretty clear language.


Against the SPIRIT? The spirit of every resolution pertaining to the allowance of death has been of the lines "for the betterment of rights" and the spirit of every resolution pertaining to prevention of death has been "to help those that would otherwise be dead". As such, this goes VERY MUCH WITH the entire spirit of the UN resolutions thus far.

No resolution has ever said that "killing is bad, full stop". This resolution does that and requires every nation to agree.

That's not what it means. It means that you can't not come to trial if you commit genocide, but if it is done in self-defence, you won't be convicted and punished for it.I quoted it quite clearly. It says genocide in self-defence is still genocide. My observation stands.You make a moral decision to vote for someone and support what they do. You don't make a moral choice to be black or short-sighted (the religion one I will let go, because at some point you do make a choice about that. And to some extent if you are part of a religion that is torturing and murdering people, I say that you are a target) It said arbitary criteria, it did not specifiy criteria. Since it does include criteria where the person has a choice (religion) thus I'd argue that set a precedent that arbitary criteria can include personal decisions, such as electoral demographics.Actually - no. Because terrorism is not genocide, even though it can be a part of it. Terrorists can not be punished under EON just because they are terrorists - Article 1, Section 3Quite right, it's because they commit genocide. And when you added private groups, you basically accepted that the state is not the only force which would commit genocide.(I know - there is the "private group" clause, but genocide is generally a governmental crime)Generally, not always.
I think that your interpretation of EON is wrong, and not what the original author intended (ooc - I know that for a fact)Regardless of the intention, it is the reality of the situation. I can't argue intent against the author, but I can argue effect, and that's all that is really important.

And, to quote someone "Personally, I feel that we are all blind to the failings of our own resolutions unless they are thrown right in our faces."

No resolution has ever said that "killing is bad, full stop". This resolution does that and requires every nation to agree.This proposal actually says "killing of innocents is bad, full stop." No direct legislation on the death penalty (apart from the impact of other relevant resolutions).

The Right To Refuse Extradtion says

I would say that that protects the rights of nation to use the death penalty in pretty clear language.

That's something to remember - clearly proposals to outlaw the death penalty may be illegal without this being repealed.

I quoted it quite clearly. It says genocide in self-defence is still genocide. My observation stands.


Yes - I don't argue that. But it doesn't mean you get punished for it. In the same way that killing in self-defence is still killing.


It said arbitary criteria, it did not specifiy criteria. Since it does include criteria where the person has a choice (religion) thus I'd argue that set a precedent that arbitary criteria can include personal decisions, such as electoral demographics.


Wow - history really does repeat itself. The previous arguement using those words were that someone could be brought to The Panel for executing someone who had committed a crime.



Quite right, it's because they commit genocide. And when you added private groups, you basically accepted that the state is not the only force which would commit genocide.Generally, not always.


More or less. But I would still disagree that blowing up one building is genocide.


Regardless of the intention, it is the reality of the situation. I can't argue intent against the author, but I can argue effect, and that's all that is really important.

And, to quote someone "Personally, I feel that we are all blind to the failings of our own resolutions unless they are thrown right in our faces."

And I think that you are interpretting the effect wrongly. It's not how I, and whole boat load of other people, interpretted when it was passed.

(Which leads me to say that no - I won't bring any terrorist action to the attention of The Panel, because it would be a waste of their time)

This proposal actually says "killing of innocents is bad, full stop." No direct legislation on the death penalty (apart from the impact of other relevant resolutions).

I didn't say there was. I am just saying that you are the first person to say that "killing is bad" with no exceptions. And I disagree.

Wow - history really does repeat itself. The previous arguement using those words were that someone could be brought to The Panel for executing someone who had committed a crime. I don't give a monkeys about a panel - it's not something I care about. I'm not even sure it has a place in the UN anymore, it's an outdated concept that would be illegal if it was submitted today.More or less. But I would still disagree that blowing up one building is genocide.Building? No (although a criminal matter). Building full of innocents and nothing else? Yes.And I think that you are interpretting the effect wrongly. It's not how I, and whole boat load of other people, interpretted when it was passed.When it was passed I'm sure it was full of intentions, but I'm talking about NOW.(Which leads me to say that no - I won't bring any terrorist action to the attention of The Panel, because it would be a waste of their time)Good, let member states deal with it then, and keep the prehistoric out of it. IN other words, exactly what this proposal aims to accomplish.

It either has no impact with Eon, or it sits perfectly well with Eon, depending on if you think terrorism is genocide - I'm not about to decide that for individual nations and neither should you.

I didn't say there was. I am just saying that you are the first person to say that "killing is bad" with no exceptions. And I disagree.
Killing is bad, nobody in their right mind would want to do it (I'm talking war, executions the lot). Sometimes it's the lesser of evils though. Better perhaps to kill someone before they can kill again.

With the definition of international terrorism however, It is the greater of evils. Your arguement that it might be okay to kill innocents is bordering on the sociopathic.

This proposal still needs about 100 delegate approvals before it can reach the floor, but it only has about 24 hours left on the proposal list. If you've already approved it, the people of Cluichstan thank you. If not, please do so as soon as possible. If you yourself are not a regional delegate, we ask you to contact your regional delegate and urge him or her to approve this important proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

This proposal still needs about 100 delegate approvals before it can reach the floor, but it only has about 24 hours left on the proposal list. If you've already approved it, the people of Cluichstan thank you. If not, please do so as soon as possible. If you yourself are not a regional delegate, we ask you to contact your regional delegate and urge him or her to approve this important proposal.
Doubt it will make it then. Have you done any serious TG campaigning?

Doubt it will make it then. Have you done any serious TG campaigning?

(OOC: Very little, I'm afraid. Haven't had any time really, what with the holiday weekend coming up and a business trip next week. If need be, I'll just resubmit it next week. Working the TG campaign while I'm on travel will keep me from being bored out of my skull at night in my hotel room.)

(OOC: Very little, I'm afraid. Haven't had any time really, what with the holiday weekend coming up and a business trip next week. If need be, I'll just resubmit it next week. Working the TG campaign while I'm on travel will keep me from being bored out of my skull at night in my hotel room.)

I've TG'd about 80 delegates today, I'll try and so some more, but doubt it will be sufficent.

If you do resubmit, I'll telegram from the Z's and you start from page 1? :D

If you do resubmit, I'll telegram from the Z's and you start from page 1? :D


Sounds like a plan. And thanks for the help. I'll be home from work in a couple of hours or so and will start TG-ing as well.

I don't give a monkeys about a panel - it's not something I care about. I'm not even sure it has a place in the UN anymore, it's an outdated concept that would be illegal if it was submitted today.Building? No (although a criminal matter). Building full of innocents and nothing else? Yes.When it was passed I'm sure it was full of intentions, but I'm talking about NOW.Good, let member states deal with it then, and keep the prehistoric out of it. IN other words, exactly what this proposal aims to accomplish.

It either has no impact with Eon, or it sits perfectly well with Eon, depending on if you think terrorism is genocide - I'm not about to decide that for individual nations and neither should you.

And yet you are happy to tell me that killing is bad.

And as for the rest of it I find you sadly deluded.

Killing is bad, nobody in their right mind would want to do it (I'm talking war, executions the lot). Sometimes it's the lesser of evils though. Better perhaps to kill someone before they can kill again.

With the definition of international terrorism however, It is the greater of evils. Your arguement that it might be okay to kill innocents is bordering on the sociopathic.

And yet there are countless experts who will tell you that if there is an outbreak of a deadly virus, and a town is quarantined, it is perfectly okay to shoot anyone who tries to break that quarantine to serve the greater good.

But surely shooting someone who is sick would be an horrific thing to do? Apparently not.

I find your arguement based in the fact YOU don't believe killing innocents can be necessary, because you have never found yourself in situation where you have no other choice than to do so. Consequently I argue you can't possibly expect everyone to support such an arguement, based as it is on an incomplete experience.

These ludicrous arguments really need to stop...

And yet you are happy to tell me that killing is bad.

And as for the rest of it I find you sadly deluded.You call me the deluded one? I don't care. Others clearly don't "Knootoss supports this resolution and hopes that no right-thinking nation will oppose it."

Call me deluded, the only reason I might be deluded was in thinking you were reasonable. How very foolish of me. Did I say any rubbish about viruses? No, you did. So don't try and put words in my mouth. I'm not about to concern myself with some "countless experts" you might want to magic up out of thin air to justify some horribly theoretical issue That has absolutely nothing to do about reasoned debate, and all about trying to....well, I don't know what exactly. Trying to waste my time is my guess.

I've been patient, but I’m not playing anymore Pallatium, and rather than lower myself to your current standard, I’m just going to ignore you. When you are ready to play nicely, I’ll listen.

You are just making yourself look silly Pallatium, and I'm not about to let you drag me down with you.

These ludicrous arguments really need to stop...

I thought that a good 200 posts ago, and yet you still submitted the proposal.

You call me the deluded one? I don't care. Others clearly don't "Knootoss supports this resolution and hopes that no right-thinking nation will oppose it."

Call me deluded, the only reason I might be deluded was in thinking you were reasonable. How very foolish of me. Did I say any rubbish about viruses? No, you did. So don't try and put words in my mouth. I'm not about to concern myself with some "countless experts" you might want to magic up out of thin air to justify some horribly theoretical issue That has absolutely nothing to do about reasoned debate, and all about trying to....well, I don't know what exactly. Trying to waste my time is my guess.

I've been patient, but I’m not playing anymore Pallatium, and rather than lower myself to your current standard, I’m just going to ignore you. When you are ready to play nicely, I’ll listen.

You are just making yourself look silly Pallatium, and I'm not about to let you drag me down with you.


Fine. But drafting someone who has the unremitted gall ro use the phrase "right thinking nations" in your defence doesn't convince me you are right.

OOC: Pallatium, I'm sure you said earlier in this thread that you were content to abstain since some of your concerns had been addressed. Why the change?

OOC: Pallatium, I'm sure you said earlier in this thread that you were content to abstain since some of your concerns had been addressed. Why the change?

(ooc, and having no desire to degenerate in to name calling and hair-pulling) Because, after thinking about it, I realised the entire proposal was self-righteous and hypocritical, and not something I could rightly support.

I completely back your proposal international security is of vital concern for my country just last week we had a security breech at our airport something must be done!
Good Will
President Tamsin Gemini
United States of Star Signs

Unfortunately, the proposal failed to garner the necessary support to reach the floor. We will submit it again on Monday, however, and hope those of you who supported it this week will do so again. Thank you to those delegates who supported it and especially to the representative from Hirota, the proposal's co-author, for his work in arguing the case for it here.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

How about no?

Can one wonder if this act does anything? All it does is allow anybody to call anybody else a terrorist.

A great weapon for the terrorists themselves...

Suppose my nation hates the "I HATE SLI SECTOR" Group. Now, we do not do anything against that group, even so we hate it, due to reforms in our government. Howevre, the IHSS Club had members that have done certain illegal acts, like not paying taxes or inciting unlawful rebellion. We arrest these criminals, but we do not crack down on the IHSS.

The IHSS calls us terrorists for doing this.

...Do I want my nation to be nuked by a colation of crusading nations wishing to blow me up to stop the terrorism acts I'm doing? No. But the IHSS calls us terrorists. Therefore, we have to have done terrorism. Therefore, put on the sactions, send in the troops, and blow my nation up, because I'm a terrorist, because The IHSS says so! They can present proof: They are arresting members of The IHSS, and the reason is because they are members of The IHSS!

And what if I call The IHSS terrorists back?

This law does not support terrorism. If two 'terrorist' groups/nations fight each other (note that the terrorist label is just that, a label. It's tossed around like it has no meaning...just like genocide), then the UN has to destroy both nations. Both the IHSS and SLI Sector will be destroyed, will have sactions, will be attacked...because of this prospal. Why? Because we called each other terrorists!

That why the UN should decide! Not nations, not groups, nobody! Only a indepedent committe, of netural people who really don't care or know what has happened, can decide who's the real terrorist, if any, is! And even that committie idea is flawed...

If you can't address this point, then I will be forced to be AGAINST your propsal.

How about no?

Can one wonder if this act does anything? All it does is allow anybody to call anybody else a terrorist.

A great weapon for the terrorists themselves...

Suppose my nation hates the "I HATE SLI SECTOR" Group. Now, we do not do anything against that group, even so we hate it, due to reforms in our government. Howevre, the IHSS Club had members that have done certain illegal acts, like not paying taxes or inciting unlawful rebellion. We arrest these criminals, but we do not crack down on the IHSS.

The IHSS calls us terrorists for doing this.

...Do I want my nation to be nuked by a colation of crusading nations wishing to blow me up to stop the terrorism acts I'm doing? No. But the IHSS calls us terrorists. Therefore, we have to have done terrorism. Therefore, put on the sactions, send in the troops, and blow my nation up, because I'm a terrorist, because The IHSS says so! They can present proof: They are arresting members of The IHSS, and the reason is because they are members of The IHSS!

And what if I call The IHSS terrorists back?

This law does not support terrorism. If two 'terrorist' groups/nations fight each other (note that the terrorist label is just that, a label. It's tossed around like it has no meaning...just like genocide), then the UN has to destroy both nations. Both the IHSS and SLI Sector will be destroyed, will have sactions, will be attacked...because of this prospal. Why? Because we called each other terrorists!

That why the UN should decide! Not nations, not groups, nobody! Only a indepedent committe, of netural people who really don't care or know what has happened, can decide who's the real terrorist, if any, is! And even that committie idea is flawed...

If you can't address this point, then I will be forced to be AGAINST your propsal.I'm not in the habit of repeating myself, so I'll direct you to the FAQ's

And secondly I'm not in the habit anymore of catering for stretched hypothetical scenarios - my patience is nearly expired for them. All I am willing to say is that domestic terrorism is unaffected. And secondly I don't care a monkeys if you want to call another nation a terrorist to start a war - there are stupider reasons to start a war.

And secondly I'm not in the habit anymore of catering for stretched hypothetical scenarios - my patience is nearly expired for them. All I am willing to say is that domestic terrorism is unaffected. And secondly I don't care a monkeys if you want to call another nation a terrorist to start a war - there are stupider reasons to start a war.

A question: Is there any international terrorist groups today?

All I have seen is local terror movements, which, therefore, is exempt from the resolution.

If there is no international terror groups in the world today (and, by a check on the II fourms, there is not)...then the resolution means nothing.

A question: Is there any international terrorist groups today?

All I have seen is local terror movements, which, therefore, is exempt from the resolution.

If there is no international terror groups in the world today (and, by a check on the II fourms, there is not)...then the resolution means nothing.

In RL or NS? I presume you mean NS.....because RL has obvious examples.

Anyway.....In NS there are loads....I'll illustrate my point.

*magics one up from thin air for RP purposes*

There's one.....

*magics another*

There's two.....

Don't use RP to justify anything. 'Cos I can always use RP to unjustify the same point. I don't care what is being roleplayed - it makes no difference.

Thank you Hirota. You cleared up all misconceptions I had about the resolution.

It means that there is always an exception to every rule.

I now support this propsal, but I fear...

If anybody can RP however they want, then it defeats the purpose. RPing is not to prove a point, it is like real life. A person isn't suppose to RP just to make a point true. He has to find facts, events on the ground, to prove it. And I do think it makes a difference what RP is...if people worry about genocide, and there is no actual genocide RP going on, then the prospal is meaningless. RP matters a whole lot more than you think, Hirota.

I will support the propsal, but I'm against your view of RP.

If anybody can RP however they want, then it defeats the purpose. RPing is not to prove a point, it is like real life. A person isn't suppose to RP just to make a point true. He has to find facts, events on the ground, to prove it. And I do think it makes a difference what RP is...if people worry about genocide, and there is no actual genocide RP going on, then the prospal is meaningless. RP matters a whole lot more than you think, Hirota.I'm not an especially big Roleplayer - 99% of my posts are in the UN sections rather than II or other roleplay threads, so I'm probably not a great person to argue roleplaying. IN fact, if I had the chance I'd follow Miktivity's philosophy and just ignore RP altogether

Having thought about this over the weekend, I have some more questions :} I have just re-read the FAQ/post and they don't appear to be covered by it (but if I am wrong, I apologise in advance) and hopefully (since I am endeavouring to use real life as a template) they won't over-stretch the bounds of belief.


1) The difference between civilians and innocents (there is a reason I am asking this, so stay with me)

Where do the following people/groups/etc fall (it is assumed that by attacking businesses etc you will kill some people) :-

Family of armed forces who live on a miltary base, but are not military personnel
Armed forces members who are home on leave (and their family)
Emergency Services personnel
Members of a civilian government (those who actually "rule")
Members of a puppet civilian government (those who actually "rule")
People who work in the civil service (those who work for the government, but don't make any decisions)
Privately owned businesses that directly support the government
Privately owned businesses that do not directly support the government.
PUblic services (transport, health etc - outside of the civil service but still work for the government)
Schools/universities etc
"Re Education" Centers

(the next part requires a leap of faith, based on the assupmtion that, even though laws forbid torture and so forth, that doesn't mean it won't happen. This leap of faith is based on the idea that every nation has laws against murder, yet murder still happens)

Civilians who work for the government in a "torture/brainwashing/interrogation" capacity, but don't actually serve in the military


2) Non Member Nations

Are we bound by this when the terrorists being financed are acting non-member nations?

3) Occupation

If we have been invaded and occupied, could we use the arguement that, since we are now part of the invading nation, anything we do would be classed as domestic terrorist, even if we leave the geographical borders of our nation and start blowing things (And people) up in the geographic borders of the other nation?


That's pretty much it I think. Some of the people in the first question are (in theory) obvious, and I know what answer I am expecting, but other ones less so :}

OoC: The link doesn't work anymore; it goes to another anti-terrorism proposal.

IC: Whilest I am disappointed that the legislation only covers international terrorism, and therefore does not include Dr. Veejay Seejay Petrapetal and his protectionist protectionists*, we understand the reasons why and thus support this very good piece of legislation.

*not a typo protectionist is the worst possible insult in Cobdenia, and they are a terrorist organisation that believes in protectionism and fights for it.

OoC: The link doesn't work anymore; it goes to another anti-terrorism proposal.

IC: Whilest I am disappointed that the legislation only covers international terrorism, and therefore does not include Dr. Veejay Seejay Petrapetal and his protectionist protectionists*, we understand the reasons why and thus support this very good piece of legislation.

*not a typo protectionist is the worst possible insult in Cobdenia, and they are a terrorist organisation that believes in protectionism and fights for it.

I can't actually find the proposal at the moment - it doesn't appear to be in the list at all??

OoC: The link doesn't work anymore; it goes to another anti-terrorism proposal.

IC: Whilest I am disappointed that the legislation only covers international terrorism, and therefore does not include Dr. Veejay Seejay Petrapetal and his protectionist protectionists*, we understand the reasons why and thus support this very good piece of legislation.

*not a typo protectionist is the worst possible insult in Cobdenia, and they are a terrorist organisation that believes in protectionism and fights for it.

It ran out of time, I think Cluichstan is going to resubmit later today.

sorry to bump, but I still have questions :}

1) The difference between civilians and innocents (there is a reason I am asking this, so stay with me)

Where do the following people/groups/etc fall (it is assumed that by attacking businesses etc you will kill some people) :-

It's difficult to specify ranges given the number of different sizes a government can occupy - Hirota has a near non-existent government, other states may have everyone under government control. These are obvious extremes which test boundaries. I'll assume we are taking about a reasonable sized government comparable to most RL governments.

But I'll say it again, it is generally impossible to get down to total specifics given the broad variety of nations and differing setups. Some are obvious, some are debatable.

And I'm assuming that all these scenarios are presuming the targetting of people rather than of buildings. Blowing up an empty building is probably not terrorism, although it is a nations soverign right to deem it illegal.

Family of armed forces who live on a miltary base, but are not military personnel - Military bases normally have residential areas within them - if the family was at home, it would be terrorism (since there really is no benefit in blowing up houses). But if they were on a visit to daddy's nuclear warhead control center, the answer is obvious.

Armed forces members who are home on leave (and their family) Home as in on a military base? Or home as in a normal home? I suppose it's terrorism, since for every 1 soldier, there are 1 to 4 family members who are non-combatants.

Emergency Services personnelAmbulance? Fire Services? Would be tough for anyone to defend blowing them up. Police? Depends how the police operate, but arguably easier to say it's a legitimate target.

Members of a civilian government (those who actually "rule")Acceptable targets

People who work in the civil service (those who work for the government, but don't make any decisions)Acceptable targets

People who work in the civil service (those who work for the government, but don't make any decisions) Difficult to justify, depends what the people were doing in particular - if they were processing benefits claims it would be difficult to justify, for example. But I'm sure there are scenarios which are arguable.

Privately owned businesses that directly support the government
I think that would be terrorism - although depends on the nature of their trade. if they manufacture arms or supply mercenaries then that is probably justifiable. If they sell flowers it would be difficult

Privately owned businesses that do not directly support the government.
Terrorism, although look above.

PUblic services (transport, health etc - outside of the civil service but still work for the government)
Terrorism, generally. Roads, rail lines are not people, though. Cars, buses and trains are full of people.

Schools/universities etc
"Re Education" Centers
Difficult to see how it would not be terrorism.

Civilians who work for the government in a "torture/brainwashing/interrogation" capacity, but don't actually serve in the military
Probably legimate....but shouldn't be happening in the first place

2) Non Member Nations

Are we bound by this when the terrorists being financed are acting non-member nations? Depends on what kind of international relationship you have with the other nation. This can't cover their actions, but it could act as a suitable framework for discussions. I don't see why a nation would have to be bound by this if a non-member state was the other party.

3) Occupation

If we have been invaded and occupied, could we use the arguement that, since we are now part of the invading nation, anything we do would be classed as domestic terrorist, even if we leave the geographical borders of our nation and start blowing things (And people) up in the geographic borders of the other nation?

I suppose it depends on international recognition of the annexation of the state. If the region has no objections, then fair enough, it is part of your state.

But say there is a working government in exile, clearly sheltered by another nation or nations, then it would be debatable. In WW2 most of the European nations invaded by Germany had a government in exile. Clearly Germany's control of europe was not recognised by the international community.

I imagine that means the French resistance were arguably a state sponsored group (having received and supplied information to and from the Allies, who did not recognise German rule of France, and moreover in RL as long as hostilities continue (that is, until a peace treaty comes into effect or hostilities are otherwise formally terminated), the Occupying Power cannot annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty), who did perhaps practice terrorism (having killed french informers, and Nazi Sympathisers - but I suppose you could argue they were not innocents and had chosen to become involved in the conflict). Moreover I'm pretty certain fighting an invading power is not the same as international terrorism.

...who did perhaps practice terrorism (having killed french informers, and Nazi Sympathisers - but I suppose you could argue they were not innocents and had chosen to become involved in the conflict).


See - this is where I am now having issues with your proposal. In the proposal you say you can not kill civilans, yet your arguements seem to say you can not kill innocents.

Collaborators, sympathisers, informers - they are all civilians (it could be argued). They are not innocent and most certainly deserving of death (at least collaborators and informers are, and sympathisers are just collaboraters in sheeps hats) but they are civilians.

But seriously - the proposal says civilians, not innocents, and by your own admission not all civilians are innocent.


Moreover I'm pretty certain fighting an invading power is not the same as international terrorism.


But crossing over in to their country is. And blowing up their train lines and transport depots is. Yet it's a damn good way to stop an invasion and undermine support for said invasion.

See - this is where I am now having issues with your proposal. In the proposal you say you can not kill civilans, yet your arguements seem to say you can not kill innocents.

Collaborators, sympathisers, informers - they are all civilians (it could be argued). They are not innocent and most certainly deserving of death (at least collaborators and informers are, and sympathisers are just collaboraters in sheeps hats) but they are civilians.

But seriously - the proposal says civilians, not innocents, and by your own admission not all civilians are innocent.

I appreciate the distinction. It will be ammended.

This proposal seems to have hit the backburner for the time being. I'll try and contact Cluichistan and find out what is going on. If needs be, I'll submit myself and credit Cluich as co-author.