NationStates Jolt Archive

The original proposal has expired, and this is the current proposal that I have put forth to replace it. It has been revised almost entirely.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING the value of trade to the economies of all nations,

CONCERNED of possible damages to shipping by belligerents and pirates,

CONVINCED that all neutral nations must mutually defend peaceful trade,

The UN

1. DEFINES peaceful trade as that international transit which is not carrying armaments or war materials or otherwise supporting a war effort at any conceivable, reasonable stage, and is not controlled by a belligerent government either militarily or through public ownership;

2. MANDATES the obligation of the independent armed forces of those nations that comprise the UN to protect peaceful trade;

3. DECLARES all attacks on peaceful trade piracy and an international crime;

4. ACKNOWLEDGES the right of belligerents that they may halt non-peaceful trade directed against them, by force if necessary;

5. REQUIRES that all nations must declare their cargo prior to embarcation, or at least announce whether said cargo is or is not containing armaments and war materials;

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Trade Review of Use Establishment (UNTRUE) to investigate all attacks on allegedly peaceful trade by national forces so as to determine the veracity of said claims;

7. DEMANDS that
A. The nation of any ship that has provided non-peaceful trade under the guise of peaceful trade pay indemnities and improve inspection of cargo and other measures to prevent further illegal covert non-peaceful trade, less they forfeit the protections of this act entirely,
B. That any nation attacking truly peaceful trade pay indemnities for their aggression
C. That the shipping of the neutral nation, should it be and have been peaceful trade previously yet still have come under attack, will be mandated to be automatically protected against the offending belligerent nation;

8. REMINDS nations that the defense of allegedly peaceful trade from a belligerent nation by a nation that is neutral prior to the defense is still a belligerent act by said neutral nation until such a point, if any, that it is determined that said shipping was indeed peaceful trade, after which it will be required that the neutral nation's shipping may be protected through force without being considered a belligerent act by international law.

Ok, here's what I don't like

Nation A and Nation B are at war. Nation C continues trading with Nation A and is shipping various weaponry from Nation C factories. Nation D is moving its forces between it's naval base to an allied territory to begin a patrol there. However, Nation D runs across an attack from Nation B on Nation C's cargo. Nation C is officially neutral in the war so Nation D would be mandated to use it's available military capability to stop the attack.

.......

It also makes enforcement of blockades or embargoes illegal.

Ok, here's what I don't like

Nation A and Nation B are at war. Nation C continues trading with Nation A and is shipping various weaponry from Nation C factories. Nation D is moving its forces between it's naval base to an allied territory to begin a patrol there. However, Nation D runs across an attack from Nation B on Nation C's cargo. Nation C is officially neutral in the war so Nation D would be mandated to use it's available military capability to stop the attack.

It also makes enforcement of blockades or embargoes illegal.


If we were nation D in this we'd feel no obligation to help nation C. As by transporting weapons to nation A against Nation B they have taken sides against B.. thus are no longer neutral in this war.. as they supply weapons to one side.... thus if they lose ships in the process they must charge nation A for damages to them and expect nation A to protect them if they want the goods to arrive safe. As to say we, as nation D, must assist either side in this issue would involve us in it on one side or other.

Thus any nation that selects to support one side over other is not neutral in a war. Best embargos is nobody but nation A and nation B going at it alone. Nation D should be looking to help Nation E and Nation F who are truely neutral but may be in danger from either nation A or nation B and even nation C.

If we were nation D in this we'd feel no obligation to help nation C. As by transporting weapons to nation A against Nation B they have taken sides against B.. thus are no longer neutral in this war.. as they supply weapons to one side.... thus if they lose ships in the process they must charge nation A for damages to them and expect nation A to protect them if they want the goods to arrive safe. As to say we, as nation D, must assist either side in this issue would involve us in it on one side or other.

Thus any nation that selects to support one side over other is not neutral in a war. Best embargos is nobody but nation A and nation B going at it alone. Nation D should be looking to help Nation E and Nation F who are truely neutral but may be in danger from either nation A or nation B and even nation C.

:rolleyes:

Aside from issues of standing trading agreements and questions about declaration of war and methods of determining neutrality, let's expand.

Nation E is transferring food to Nation B. Not listed in any official books is that they also have a shipment of weapons being transported. Nation A has learnt about this shipment through various espionage tactics (like, "hey! There was weapons on his last shipment of food". As a little side-note, this is similar to a Germany/US situation in WWI - the US kept shipping weapons inside all sorts of ships, and Germany kept going back and forth between unrestricted submarine warfare because of this problem).

Nation F is passing by this shipment while Nation A is attacking it. Nation F does not know about the fact that Nation E has been secretly transporting weapons nor that this shipment has weapons. In Nation F's eyes, Nation E is innocent and neutral.

The box is not the limitation of your thought process.

How long till this discussion introduces Nation X?

Well X is just begging to be nuked - after all, they drew a big red X across their capital. So I don't see how they end up being relevant to a discussion about neutrality.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9163/redxdance2dd.gif

1. MANDATES the use of military and police capabilities to protect shipping;.


I have a question on this..

As since the UN can't have a military or police; how can it MANDATE one to take any action; since it has none to enforce it's MANDATE?

As this says nothing of where such will come from. Is this in some way establishing a UN police force or military unit to protect shipping.

As since the UN can't have a military or police; how can it MANDATE one to take any action; since it has none to enforce it's MANDATE?That's where the Gnomes come in.

Nation C is not neutral, as according to the proposal, nations have the right to stop the transportation of armaments and supplies supporting war efforts. Nation B is well within its rights to attack a supply ship that is carrying weapons to its enemy. Nation C should have to declare their cargo, and if they are carrying items that violate neutrality then they are open game. Nation D's attack on Nation B's ships is a violation of neutrality, as they are taking sides in a war, no matter their intentions. They should not intervene, whether the ship is peaceful or is carrying weapons covertly like the Lusitania (which would be a violation of the law), unless they are willing to be considered a belligerent for the time being.

All such attacks on allegedly neutral shipping will be investigated, and if it is found that if Nation B's attack was unfounded then nation D and others will be able to protect Nation C's ships passing through peacefully to Nation A, and Nation B will be forced to pay amends for their attack and be considered to have commit an international crime for the first attack and any further ones.

However, if Nation C is found to have LIED about their supplies, then they will be considered a belligerent state and cut off from all shipping protection in Nation A's waters completely until such a time that they pay an indemnity and show that they will prevent any further belligerent actions.

My basis for this proposal is the Iran-Iraq war, in which valuable oil supplies were endangered by Iranian and Iraqi ships that would have cut off the lifeblood of industry the world over. My intent with this proposal is to allow such peaceful shipping through war-torn areas, as well as stop the dangers of piracy from interrupting trade. Nation A and B and C and D's peaceful shipping should be protected, as should Nation E through Z's.

This does not establish any kind of UN military force of any kind whatsoever. It is expected that the independent military forces of those nations comprising the UN will follow this proposal if enacted to defend peaceful shipping without direct action from the UN.

Edited: Edited to show that I have edited the proposal. Edit.

We simply would not allow you to send armaments into a blockaded area. There is no guarantee that they are not going to the enemy. Hi, I'm a merchant trader with arms however, I am not going to Kenya where the fighting is, but instead to their neighbor Zaire. This does not work. We also reserve the right to use privateers/merchant raiders during wartime. No arms shipments would be getting through the area period. This goes for supplies. Find an alternate route. Most nations putting up a blockade or embargo would agree with us. For the most part we would let non-essential supplies through to other ports. The only way we would allow this is if we had the right to track, board and search, and escort non-alighed merchant ships to their destination.

We simply would not allow you to send armaments into a blockaded area.

Alright, that's fine. You can still do that. It's a belligerent action to attack another country's ships, but hey. This treaty doesn't prevent that.

There is no guarantee that they are not going to the enemy. Hi, I'm a merchant trader with arms however, I am not going to Kenya where the fighting is, but instead to their neighbor Zaire.

You could still be able to attack. It's not a peaceful transit and is suspicious. UNTRUE would probably agree and you could get out of paying any indemnity. But you'd still be making a belligerent act, and should be willing to pay the consequences of said act.

This does not work. We also reserve the right to use privateers/merchant raiders during wartime.

Privateers and merchant raiders are, by definition, criminals. This should not change. They should expect no protection by the law.

No arms shipments would be getting through the area period. This goes for supplies. Find an alternate route. Most nations putting up a blockade or embargo would agree with us.

OK, but the first part about attacking arm shipments is still a belligerent act to attack another nation's ships. This is outside of the arbitration of UNTRUE, as it is not peaceful neutral trade, and up to the independent politics of the nations' of the navies. Also, in the case of supplies, you do realize that had this policy of "no supplies go through a war zone" been in place during the Iran-Iraq war, you would have done terrible damage to the world's economy by refusing to let the oil supplies through? This should not be permissible, as it is peaceful trade which must be sustained for the health of the world's economy.

For the most part we would let non-essential supplies through to other ports. The only way we would allow this is if we had the right to track, board and search, and escort non-alighed merchant ships to their destination.

This is what UNTRUE does.

We've really got to put a stop to these silly acronyms...

We've really got to put a stop to these silly acronyms...

It helps catch the eye, and it's better than some unpronounceable acronym that looks like Klingon. :D

It helps catch the eye, and it's better than some unpronounceable acronym that looks like Klingon. :D

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4196/mavorcha.jpg
QA PLA!
Quit Acronyms Promulgating Language Annihilation

I have revised the proposal almost entirely, and placed the proposal again in the UN eligible proposals. Please review it if you are interested.

Privateers and merchant raiders are, by definition, criminals. This should not change. They should expect no protection by the law.

Privateers are, by definition, licenced agents of national governments and not criminals: That's what differentiates them from pirates... If international law allows governments to issue 'letters of marque and reprisal' then privateers should have the same legal rights as regular naval personnel, and if it doesn't then there aren't any true privateers (rather than just pirates using that label because it sounds better) anyway... and 'merchant raider' ships are generally manned by either by regular naval personnel or by members of official [government-controlled] naval auxilliary services.

Not only do we not like tis proposal, we don't like this very idea. Although the delegation from Dancing Bananaland acknowledges the spirit of this proposal, we beleive that the UN has no right to force one nation to fight on another's behalf, for any reason under any circumstances. We as nations have the right to chose what battles and what wars we fight regardless of morality. If this resolution passes, we will resign from the United Nations.