NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a draft for an idea that I've been working on (& receiving comments about) for a few weeks over in the DEFCON forum: There are now two [alternative] drafts at posts #53 & #88 (on pages 4 & 6 respectively) in this thread _

Suppression of Piracy

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: St Edmundan Antarctic

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder,

RECOGNISING that dealing with crimes that occur completely within specific nations and that only affect those nations’ peoples is a matter for those nations’ own governments,

BELIEVING, however, that any crimes that interfere with international trade and travel and/or that cross national boundaries are matters in which the UN has a legitimate interest,

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels, their cargo and possibly their passengers and/or crew, for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vessels as transportation for raids against settlements,

DEFINING the term ‘Privateers’ as meaning people who are not members of any nation’s regular armed forces but who are licensed by a government, in some cases through documents that are called ‘letters of marque and reprisal’, to act as pirate-hunters and/or to to carry out pirate-like actions against targets belonging to certain nations (which will normally only be nations with whom their official sponsors are already at war),

RECOGNISING that although privateers are less automatically criminals than pirates they may be less likely to follow the laws of war than are nations’ regular forces and that (especially if faced by a shortage of legitimate targets) they might turn pirate,

1. REQUIRES that all member-nations refrain from giving any pirates safe haven, or any other support for their criminal operations;

2. REQUIRES that all member-nations treat all offences committed during acts of piracy that occurred outside of their own territories at least as seriously, if the alleged perpetrators fall into their hands, as they would treat any comparable crimes that might be committed within those territories;

3. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress piracy, within their own territories and also within any areas such as ‘international waters’ that aren’t under any particular nation’s control;

4. DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder, unless they can prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as non-combatants in which case a court may choose to find them innocent of those charges;

5. DEFINES the knowing provision of unforced support for pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all member-nations to treat such acts as they would any other acts of criminal conspiracy, unless that support is _
A/ given to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners, or
B/ given to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

6. STRONGLY URGES any member-nations that employ privateers to take suitable steps to keep those privateers from turning pirate.


Category: I’m currently classifying it as ‘Moral Decency’, because of the law-enforcement requirements, but could also see an argument for it being ‘Free Trade’ (because pirates, & to a lesser extent privateers, would of course be a barrier to international commerce) or maybe — at least if the clause about nations acting to suppress pirates were to be strengthened, and a line about “even if doing so requires them to increase spending on their armed forces and/or police” was added there – as ‘International Security’ instead… What do you think?
Strength: I’m currently classifying it as ‘Significant’, because although it has binding clauses it would presumably only have direct effects on relatively small numbers of people in a relatively small proportion of the UN’s member-nations… Do you think that it should be ‘Strong’ instead?

Its definition of ‘pirates’ is actually meant to be wide enough in scope to cover ‘space pirates’ (and ‘air pirates’, and maybe even “Mad Max”-esque ‘road gangs’ too!) as well as the more traditional water-going ones.

The earlier drafts said more about regulating privateers, too, but then I had to cut those clauses in order to get this version within the maximum length allowed: If enough people are interested in the subject, and nobody else beats me to it, then I might try writing another proposal — with a title along the lines of ‘Rules On Privateer Enterprises’ — to cover that side of the matter. There was a poll in DEFCON about whether to ban privateers completely, as well as banning pirates, in which votes were cast as follows:

3 x ‘Yes (Ban them), they’re nearly as bad as pirates.’
3 x ‘No (Don’t ban them), we need to be able to use them against non-UN nations.’
1 x ‘No (Don’t ban them), new & small nations might need them.’
0 x ‘No (Don’t ban them), they’re fluffy!’
2 x ‘Ban Pirates? Are you joking?’
1 x ‘My nation is landlocked, so I don’t care.’


(I'll be offline now until some time on Monday, so won't be able to answer any questions that you raise about this until then...)

The Gruenberger delegation (with one exception) strongly supports this proposal. We feel "Moral Decency, Strong" would be the proper category for it. We would, however, be less keen on regulation of privateers.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

:(

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Deputy Ambassador
Minister for Vomiting
Deputy Secretary of State for Penis Jokes
Life Vice-President of the Commercial Privateer Union

The Forgotten Territories will lend its support to this proposal. We are cautious about the termonology in clause 4 as conspiracy to commit theft and murder isn't always an actual defined crime within all nations (though we doubt there are many that don't have the three crimes seperately).

The Empire has had dealings with pirates in the past and still occasionally runs into them. the proposal is sensible and i can broadly agree with it as it stands.

We see privateers as extensions of a nations military forces so our view is that you don't need to mention them at all.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador from Kirisubo

Alright, I'll just say it. I flat-out do not like this. The definition for "pirates" is too muddled (they not formal agents of any government, though "some of them may have informal links to governments," and blah blah blah); I think pirates are cool; I am averse to earlier drafts of this legislation which sought to outlaw privateering, since privateers were very helpful during the American Revolution (we didn't have an awesome kick-ass navy like the British did); and I particularly abhor the implication that pirates and privateers are "automatically criminals" (though privateers "less" so). In the Federal Republic "criminal" status is not "automatic" based on one's profession; it is only applied to those who are convicted for crimes to which there is actual evidence that they committed them, and until such conviction is secured, all accused are presumed innocent. It is their deeds that matter, not their employ.

Besides, the Federal Republic's policy toward piracy is hopelessly schizophrenic -- the government favors those pirates who do stuff it likes (i.e. sabotaging Kawaiian shipping) and prosecutes pirates who do stuff it doesn't like (i.e. aiding Xt'Tapolopaquetl "militants" and other international terrorists in Paradise City). So there is no way it could favor a blanket ban on all piracy.

So there.

...anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder, unless they can prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death...
There are many ways to force people to do something without threatening to kill them, and I don't think it's fair to charge someone because he was "only" threatened with having his legs broken.

This seems to be a good proposal. Pain of death I would suggest could be changed to something like "death or extreme pain to themselves or others" that might work.

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime rejects this resolution and any resolution that attempts to limit, regulate or outlaw an individuals rights. We also ask that the the members of the UN nations recognise the right for individuals to defend themselves from harm. The governement of Eurime feels that the Suppression of Piracy-bill as proposed advocates a state monopoly on violence and allows for governemental piracy (as defined in the specific resolution), thus we cannot accept this resolution.

Vincent Yvain
Secretary of External Affairs

Sunita Saundra
Secretary of Justice & Human Rights

Rodger Alexton
Secretary of Security

Why is this not International Security?

There's no point where it actually discusses an increase in funds (with possible exception to 3 which is a mild clause). It deals with the removal of the right to be a pirate. That's moral decency, even though one's first inclination normally would be international security, given the topic.

BTW, I'd say free trade is right out. Free trade indicates that we're removing government imposed barriers (ie: increasing rights) to increase trade/buffer our economies.

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime rejects this resolution and any resolution that attempts to limit, regulate or outlaw an individuals rights. We also ask that the the members of the UN nations recognise the right for individuals to defend themselves from harm. The governement of Eurime feels that the Suppression of Piracy-bill as proposed advocates a state monopoly on violence and allows for governemental piracy (as defined in the specific resolution), thus we cannot accept this resolution.

Vincent Yvain
Secretary of External Affairs

Sunita Saundra
Secretary of Justice & Human Rights

Rodger Alexton
Secretary of Security

Absolutely ridiculous. I'm really not too worried about defending someone's right to rape, pillage, murder and loot. And by the way -- since you're not a member of the NSUN, I don't give a horse's fadoodle whether you reject this proposal or not. Or the others in which you've cluttered up the discussion threads.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government
So as long as I formally recognize, or acknowledge that pirates patrol the waters, I am free to allow them to continue?


who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels ... for personal gain
So there are no rouge pirates, and as long as they don't profit from these activities they're not pirates?


RECOGNISING that although privateers are less automatically criminals than pirates
Let me stop there, I don't believe that anyone should be assumed as automatically a criminal, and don't agree with the proposal calling pirates automatically criminals and privateers only slightly less so.


DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder
Completely disagree. What good is a trial if they're going to be convicted anyway? What of those who work aboard a legitimate trade ship that is deemed a pirate vessel through one-time action or innaccurate asumption? What of those aboard said ship who had no knowledge or involvement in the incident? What of those who participated unwillingly? This clause makes too many guilty assumptions without enough look at individual circumstances.
It also overlooks piracy that doesn't occur exclusively on vessels.


Do you think that it should be ‘Strong’ instead?
No, I wouldn't go higher than significant.


This should really be international security in my opinion. I would suggest a minor change of word strength in clause three to fix this. I can't really see myself supporting a moral decency proposal on pirates in its current form.

OOC: Hey Gruenberg, I'm commenting in a drafting thread! *Beams*

There's no point where it actually discusses an increase in funds (with possible exception to 3 which is a mild clause).Fair enough, but I'm not seeing "Moral Decency".

Unless being a pirate is a "civil right"...

OOC: Hey Gruenberg, I'm commenting in a drafting thread! *Beams*
Yay!

Fair enough, but I'm not seeing "Moral Decency".

Unless being a pirate is a "civil right"...
You could argue that it's restricting things like the freedom of movement or the right to property of pirates. All vessels and their crew have certain - if not "rights", then at least privileges - but they're being taken away for certain of them, because they're committing crimes.

Otherwise, I think it could be International Security, because of things like Clause 3, where there is an implied increase in military and police spending.

Otherwise, I think it could be International Security, because of things like Clause 3, where there is an implied increase in military and police spending.I'm leaning more towards IntSec. Probably 'Signifigant'. It could be argued that Clause 2 could involve increasing police and military funding. If they were in the habit of ignoring said privateers, being forced to take it "seriously" would require additional resources.

But, again, this is kinda like what Fris was talking about with trying to fit a Proposals to a category afterwards, as opposed to writing to the category.

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels, their cargo and possibly their passengers and/or crew, for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vessels as transportation for raids against settlements,

DEFINING the term ‘Privateers’ as meaning people who are not members of any nation’s regular armed forces but who are licensed by a government, in some cases through documents that are called ‘letters of marque and reprisal’, to act as pirate-hunters and/or to to carry out pirate-like actions against targets belonging to certain nations (which will normally only be nations with whom their official sponsors are already at war),
This sounds to me like they are Terrorist and we believe their are already laws in place dealing with such.. Thus Pirate or Terrorist we catch them and they hang.

There's only one law in regards to terrorists thus far

Don't sell them nukes

Everything else is fair game.

Fair enough, but I'm not seeing "Moral Decency".

Unless being a pirate is a "civil right"...

More of, it removes an aspect of the anarchy of International Waters. It removes civil rights when you are outside the direct jurisdiction of a nation.

Having the right to rob people strikes me as a civil right - as uncivil as it might be (but there's a reason why the highest tiers of civil rights are corruption oriented)

The Cloud-Water Community rejects this proposal with the utmost vehemence. Our economy is utterly dependent on piracy We feel that this, uh, doesnt' take account of *mumble, mumble* and probably national sovereignty, too.

Yeah.

Fantastic, my dear fellow, fantastic! Why, glad to see that you are dealing with this very important whachamacallit, what!?
Now then, about this whole "privateer" business; well, good to see that they are pretty much excluded. Privateers are super. I like privateers!

Field Marshal "Pointy" Blaterstock
Military Attache

Having the right to rob people strikes me as a civil right - as uncivil as it might be (but there's a reason why the highest tiers of civil rights are corruption oriented)

The right to rob? Give me a break! This is one of the most bizarre statements we've ever heard in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Not only is it ludicrous, it demeans the whole concept of civil rights. Is the representative of Forgottenlands going to enlighten us next on the right to rape, the right to maim, and the right to vandalize?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

The right to rob? Give me a break! This is one of the most bizarre statements we've ever heard in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Not only is it ludicrous, it demeans the whole concept of civil rights. Is the representative of Forgottenlands going to enlighten us next on the right to rape, the right to maim, and the right to vandalize?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Aye. Tho' p'raps "right" ain't the proper term, mate. What we be lookin' at is the washin' away of a freedom. Whether it be preventin' folks from bein' dishonorable an' takin' advantage o' womenfolk, stoppin' a zealous bosun from maimin' a crew member, or tryin' to keep entrepeneurs o' the sea from doin' their work, that be Moral Decency. Thus we be opposed to it, not bein' fond of morals and decency and all that rot.

Captain O' The Gulf
Jillian The Villian

Having the right to rob people strikes me as a civil right - as uncivil as it might be (but there's a reason why the highest tiers of civil rights are corruption oriented)You're really reaching here.

The right to rob? Give me a break! This is one of the most bizarre statements we've ever heard in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Not only is it ludicrous, it demeans the whole concept of civil rights. Is the representative of Forgottenlands going to enlighten us next on the right to rape, the right to maim, and the right to vandalize?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Certainly. Civil rights have little to do with civility. A civil and good society will have a balance of both civil rights and limitations upon those rights. Civil rights are merely an indication of how many rights you have in your day-to-day lives - how many FREEDOMS you have. A total anarchy will have no laws and thus you will find that people have the right to steal, the right to rape, the right to kill - and the enforcers of the nation will have the right to go vigilante on the person's ass.

civil rights
pl.n.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
(Crossed out due to irrelevancy)

As you can see, not a single point in there does it actually discuss civility. It merely indicates that they are the rights a person has.

To say any concept in this world is pure good or pure bad would be foolhardy. There are dangers and benefits to every concept. Civil rights are yet another of them.

The question isn't whether such right can exist. There is little question that such right can exist - merely by the refusal of a nation to criminalize it (or, perhaps, the oversight). The question is should it be given. I think in all of the examples given by the representative from Ausserland, the vast majority of us would agree they should be outlawed and it is a poor society that fails to protect people's property, dignity, and control over their own body.

Having the right to rob people strikes me as a civil right - as uncivil as it might be (but there's a reason why the highest tiers of civil rights are corruption oriented)
And what about the civil right of the victim of a robbery to not have their stuff stolen or are you too busy worring about the rights of thieves to care about them?

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

You're really reaching here.

Not as much as you'd think. It honestly felt like a natural conclusion.

And what about the civil right of the victim of a robbery to not have their stuff stolen or are you too busy worring about the rights of thieves to care about them?

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Yes.....but if you think about it......that would be a moral decency proposal now, wouldn't it?

EDIT: Seriously:

Right not to be assaulted: Moral Decency
Right not to be bullied: Moral Decency
Right not to be beaten senseless: Moral Decency

Interestingly, Right to not be tortured is often put under human rights - but that's probably because you're limiting the government's rights in favor of the individual.

Ah ha, I have an explaination.

A human rights proposal limits the government in favor of the individual. A Moral decency proposal limits the rights of the individual in favor of the government. Yes, stealing is a right in that regard, just one not often alloted.

An no: I am, by no means, calling for protecting of the rights of criminals when I say this. I would appreciate if people were capable of distinguishing between finding the definition of a right and thinking a right should be given. You'll note I've given my support to this proposal that's withdrawing rights from individuals.

I suppose the proposal could fall into either category, although not very well.

As it is, the proposal takes away the right for nations to harbor or support pirates, although it actually does less to morally condem acts of piracy.

I suggest the proposal add the requirement that nations stop planned or on-going acts of piracy whenever possible. This would definitely tilt the scales towards International Security.

Not as much as you'd think. It honestly felt like a natural conclusion.Really? Hmm...

"UN taxation ban": Moral Decency: removes the UN's right to tax citizens.
"End slavery": Moral Decency: removes the right to have slaves
"Sexual Freedom": Moral Decency: removes the right to pry into personal lives
"Keep The World Disease-Free!": Moral Decency: removes the right to live in squalor

Need I continue?

If you want to use that kind of twisted logic, then everything is a Moral Decency Proposal. I don't buy it. Piracy is not a civil right.

Really? Hmm...

"UN taxation ban": Moral Decency: removes the UN's right to tax citizens.

Should've been Furtherment of Democracy, mild. Why? Issue at stake was taxation without representation. It came before Enodia's ruleset.

"End slavery": Moral Decency: removes the right to have slaves

Matches my statement - removes a right that infringes upon other people's rights. Takes a less than wonderful concept of a right and removes it. Matches my statements perfectly

"Sexual Freedom": Moral Decency: removes the right to pry into personal lives

Should've been Human Rights, significant

"Keep The World Disease-Free!": Moral Decency: removes the right to live in squalor

I could've sworn that document used the word rights a lot

Should've been human rights.

You picked 4 items in the first 10 resolutions and said "this is what a moral decency proposal looks like"?

Need I continue?

Can we go with a few post-Enodia?

If you want to use that kind of twisted logic, then everything is a Moral Decency Proposal. I don't buy it. Piracy is not a civil right.

Alright, let's play your own words then:

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

...

Piracy is a Civil Freedom by that definition.

You picked 4 items in the first 10 resolutions and said "this is what a moral decency proposal looks like"?No, I picked the first four Resolutions that haven't been Repealed and forced them into the Moral Decency category. Much like what is happening here.

Alright, let's play your own words thenRead more closely. Those are Cog's words, not mine.

Piracy is a Civil Freedom by that definition.So is wife beating, owning slaves, murder, rape, assault, arson, theft, bribery, oppressing workers, and anything else in the world.

This is no more about restricting the "right" to commit piracy (Moral Decency) than it is promoting the "right" to ship without being robbed (Human Rights).

Piracy might be a civil freedom, but it sure as hell isn't a civil right.

To take another example...

Allowing parents to smack their children - civil freedom
Banning parents from smacking their children - civil right

OK, it's not as black and white as that, but I'd say the balance of adult/child freedom/right is in favour of such an interpretation. Same with piracy, cannibalism, etc.

Ugh. I hope that makes some sense.

I think there's a danger of this debate running amok - or at least of some of its protagonists doing so - so why don't we settle the question of what category tis proposal is by agreeing that it is an imperfect fit for any category.

And then discuss what category it [i]should[/b] be, without altering the original meaning or adding new obligations.

Personally, I think we should be aiming for International Security, Significant, perhaps by making it clearer that states should prevent piracy from occurring in their own waters.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The definition for "pirates" is too muddled (they not formal agents of any government, though "some of them may have informal links to governments," and blah blah blah);

So how would you define them? There have been RL examples of pirates who were informally (but not formally) sponsored by various governments, for example Sir Francis Drake in some of his attacks on the Spanish colonies in the Americas...

I am averse to earlier drafts of this legislation which sought to outlaw privateering, since privateers were very helpful during the American Revolution (we didn't have an awesome kick-ass navy like the British did); and I particularly abhor the implication that pirates and privateers are "automatically criminals" (though privateers "less" so).

However the current draft contains no such ban. The "automatically criminals" line I'll consider re-writing....

In the Federal Republic "criminal" status is not "automatic" based on one's profession; it is only applied to those who are convicted for crimes to which there is actual evidence that they committed them, and until such conviction is secured, all accused are presumed innocent. It is their deeds that matter, not their employ.

And what happens when it's definitely proveable that a particular shipload of pirates committed certain serious crimes but there are no longer any outside witnesses available (because "Dead men tell no tales", unless you have ghosts testifying in court as we sometimes do in St Edmund...) to say which specific members of that crew were responsible for each particular offence? Would you just turn the murdering bastards loose again, to commit further atrocities? At least finding them guilty of conspiracy to commit murder entails some punishment...

Besides, the Federal Republic's policy toward piracy is hopelessly schizophrenic -- the government favors those pirates who do stuff it likes (i.e. sabotaging Kawaiian shipping) and prosecutes pirates who do stuff it doesn't like (i.e. aiding Xt'Tapolopaquetl "militants" and other international terrorists in Paradise City). So there is no way it could favor a blanket ban on all piracy.

Yes, I already suspected that one of the DEFCON poll's votes against banning piracy was yours: I wonder whose the other one was?

There are many ways to force people to do something without threatening to kill them, and I don't think it's fair to charge someone because he was "only" threatened with having his legs broken.

This seems to be a good proposal. Pain of death I would suggest could be changed to something like "death or extreme pain to themselves or others" that might work.

Considering the seriousness of many pirate crews' crimes, I am reluctant to accept any threat less than 'pain of death' as sufficient justification for helping them. Threats to others might be an adequate reason, but explaining that without running over the length-limit would be tricky and I think that such cases would probably be fairly rare anyway (OOC: going on my readings about RL piracy, in which such conscripts were normally taken from other ships' crews rather than from amongst their families). I'll point out that, unless the nation concerned has mandatory minimum penalties for such 'conspiracy' offences, the courts could still accept such claims as a justifiable basis for clemency & reduced sentences...

Having the right to rob people strikes me as a civil right - as uncivil as it might be (but there's a reason why the highest tiers of civil rights are corruption oriented)

We would like to have some of whatever the Forgottenlands' representative is smoking.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Personally, I think we should be aiming for International Security, Significant, perhaps by making it clearer that states should prevent piracy from occurring in their own waters.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We concur with our Gruenberger friend.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There's no point where it actually discusses an increase in funds (with possible exception to 3 which is a mild clause). It deals with the removal of the right to be a pirate. That's moral decency, even though one's first inclination normally would be international security, given the topic.

BTW, I'd say free trade is right out. Free trade indicates that we're removing government imposed barriers (ie: increasing rights) to increase trade/buffer our economies.

Your first paragraph correctly explains my assumptions with regards to those two categories. As regards 'Free Trade', however, the official definition simply refers to "barriers" rather than to "government imposed barriers" and there is precedent for removing barriers of other kinds being considered legal too. (E.g. 'Meteorological Cooperation', in which the fact that not knowing what the weather would do was a hindrance to some kinds of business; or 'Maritime Safety Standards', in which losses of people & goods at sea -- and perhaps the possible consequent reluctance on some people's part to risk transportation by sea -- were the "barriers" affected...)

As regards 'Free Trade', however, the official definition simply refers to "barriers" rather than to "government imposed barriers"
But the explanation provided clearly paints the Free Trade category as being about laissez-faire economics. This seems to me to be about regulating trade, and restricting options - whilst I'm unconvinced piracy is a "civil right", I acknowledge it's a form of commerce - so I don't think it would fit.

No, I picked the first four Resolutions that haven't been Repealed and forced them into the Moral Decency category. Much like what is happening here.

I'm not randomly shoving something into it

Read more closely. Those are Cog's words, not mine.

Whatever. They are a thorough explaination of the categories by a mod and what you left as the official explaination of the categories.

So is wife beating, owning slaves, murder, rape, assault, arson, theft, bribery, oppressing workers, and anything else in the world.

Yes, so?

This is no more about restricting the "right" to commit piracy (Moral Decency) than it is promoting the "right" to ship without being robbed (Human Rights).

I do believe I already discussed the difference between right to being able to do something and the right to not have something done to you. One is a freedom, the other is a protection.

On a different note, I would appreciate it if people stopped replying to this legality debate with IC comments. I don't recall very many legality debates that were done IC. Why? Because I'd rather hear your opinions about this without the bias of your ministers.

Personally, I think we should be aiming for International Security, Significant, perhaps by making it clearer that states should prevent piracy from occurring in their own waters.
Agreed.

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government So as long as I formally recognize, or acknowledge that pirates patrol the waters, I am free to allow them to continue?

If you’re formally recognising them as your agents then I’d say that they fall under my definition of ‘privateers’ (“licenced by a government”), instead: You could allow them to continue operations, on that basis, but any attacks that they made on other nations’ shipping would (as most people would probably see it) count as acts of war by your nation…

who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels ... for personal gainSo there are no rouge pirates, and as long as they don't profit from these activities they're not pirates?

“Rouge”? Whether or not they use any form of make-up is a matter for their own personal choice… ;) If you mean “Solo” then I suppose that, under this definition, the answer is “No”: I added the mention of groups after somebody in DEFCON pointed out that my original definition would have covered individual carjackers… (Can you give me any RL examples of pirates successfully operating on a solo basis?) My definition was meant to cover people whose main motivation for their attacks was personal gain, whether or not they actually did well enough to make a profit by this: If more people agree that it isn’t clear enough on that point then I’ll work out how to change it accordingly.

RECOGNISING that although privateers are less automatically criminals than piratesLet me stop there, I don't believe that anyone should be assumed as automatically a criminal, and don't agree with the proposal calling pirates automatically criminals and privateers only slightly less so.

My definition of ‘pirate’ states clearly that they use force (&/or threats of force) to commit various crimes: I don’t see why anybody whose actions fit that definition shouldn’t be regarded as a criminal… As for privateers, I’ve already said (in an earlier comment today) that I’ll be changing that line…

DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder
Completely disagree. What good is a trial if they're going to be convicted anyway?It still has to be proven, probably through a trial, that they were serving on those vessels.
What of those who work aboard a legitimate trade ship that is deemed a pirate vessel through one-time action I wouldn’t call that “a known pirate vessel” , would you?
or innaccurate asumption?See my slightly earlier remark about needing to prove that they were aboard “a known pirate vessel”: Doesn’t “prove” imply more than an assumption?
What of those aboard said ship who had no knowledge or involvement in the incident?If they took service aboard before it was “a known pirate ship” and could prove that they honestly didn’t know of the attack in time to do anything against it then I’d expect the courts to say that their not knowing it was a pirate ship was enough for acquittal on that charge: I admit that other nations’ courts might disagree, but unfortunately we’re up against the potential complexity of some situations and the limited length allowed for UN resolutions here… If they stayed aboard after the first attack, knowing the ship to have become a pirate one, then they’re either covered by the line about being forced into cooperation or counted as having joined the pirates…What of those who participated unwillingly?If they participated actively in the actual crimes then they’re guilty: Otherwise we’d get just about every bloody pirate apart from their captains claiming to have been coerced into participation & demanding clemency because of that.
This clause makes too many guilty assumptions without enough look at individual circumstances.Consider [a] the aforementioned limit on proposals’ lengths, and [b] the fact that sentencing is still left for national courts, who can take individual circumstances into account to whatever extent their own nations’ laws allow.
It also overlooks piracy that doesn't occur exclusively on vessels.The only cases of pirates conscripting crewmen (who would normally be specialists such as carpenters, surgeons or fiddlers) of which I’m aware occurred at sea, and keeping such conscripts under control would presumably be harder if they were allowed ashore/aground. Can you give me any RL examples of conscripts being used ashore?

Do you think that it should be ‘Strong’ instead? No, I wouldn't go higher than significant.

This should really be international security in my opinion. I would suggest a minor change of word strength in clause three to fix this. I can't really see myself supporting a moral decency proposal on pirates in its current form.

I’m considering this.

But, again, this is kinda like what Fris was talking about with trying to fit a Proposals to a category afterwards, as opposed to writing to the category.

OOC _
I try to write proposals based on what my nation's government would want them to say: In this case they saw a "need" for an anti-piracy proposal and included the clauses that they felt one should cover... It wasn't a case of thinking "I want a 'Moral Decency' proposal, what would be a possible topic?" (i.e. I'm roleplaying rather than "statwanking"...)

This sounds to me like they are Terrorist and we believe their are already laws in place dealing with such.. Thus Pirate or Terrorist we catch them and they hang.

By our definitions _
Primary motivation ideological = Terrorist.
Primary motivation financial (although perhaps with choice of targets partly limited on ideological grounds, e.g. Christians only attacking Muslims or vice versa) = Pirate.

The right to rob? Give me a break! This is one of the most bizarre statements we've ever heard in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Not only is it ludicrous, it demeans the whole concept of civil rights. Is the representative of Forgottenlands going to enlighten us next on the right to rape, the right to maim, and the right to vandalize?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

The second version of the late-&-not-very-lamented 'Murder & Manslaughter Laws' to be submitted was classified as 'Moral Decency' and spent the normal number of days in the queue (before failing to reach quorum on time) without being deleted for illegality: If banning murder is acceptable within the 'Moral Decency' category then why not banning piracy (which often includes murder, after all) too?

Alright, let's play your own words then:
Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.
Piracy is a Civil Freedom by that definition.

That's what I was going by, too...

So that's _
1/ Change the line about privateers and "automatically criminal".
2/ Change the category to 'International Security', and the clause about nations acting to suppress piracy accordingly.

OOC: Why didn't any of you discuss the category during the weeks when this was still under work in DEFCON? Several of you are active there, after all...

OOC: Why didn't any of you discuss the category during the weeks when this was still under work in DEFCON? Several of you are active there, after all...

OOC: To me, the category was clear. Didn't see any reason to discuss it. :(

OOC: Why didn't any of you discuss the category during the weeks when this was still under work in DEFCON? Several of you are active there, after all...
The category wasn't a problem for me - I would have been fine with it being Moral Decency. It didn't occur to me to dispute it.

Ok, a different angle that occurred to me on the bus.

If we were to legalize piracy (no chance in hell of passing, I know), what category would it fall under?

Ok, a different angle that occurred to me on the bus.

If we were to legalize piracy (no chance in hell of passing, I know), what category would it fall under?

Have to be 'Human Rights', obviously... ;)

I'd say "Free Trade"; if having your menchant fleet sunk by a lot of one legged blokes with eyepatches isn't a barrier to trade, I don't know what is...

Amended version _

Suppression of Piracy

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: St Edmundan Antarctic

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder,

RECOGNISING that dealing with crimes that occur completely within specific nations and that only affect those own nations’ peoples is a matter for those nations’ own governments,

BELIEVING, however, that any crimes that interfere with international trade and travel and/or that cross national boundaries are matters in which the UN has a legitimate interest,

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels, their cargo and possibly their passengers and/or crew, for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vessels as transportation for raids against settlements,

DEFINING the term ‘Privateers’ as meaning people who are not members of any nation’s regular armed forces but who are licensed by a government, in some cases through documents that are called ‘letters of marque and reprisal’, to act as pirate-hunters and/or to to carry out pirate-like actions against targets belonging to certain nations (which will normally only be nations with whom their official sponsors are already at war),

RECOGNISING that although privateers are not automatically criminals like pirates they may be less likely to follow the laws of war than are nations’ regular forces and that (especially if faced by a shortage of legitimate targets) they might turn pirate,

1. REQUIRES that all member-nations refrain from giving any pirates safe haven, or any other support for their criminal operations;

2. REQUIRES all member-nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress piracy, within their own territories and also within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that aren’t under any particular nation’s control;

3. REQUIRES that all member-nations treat all offences committed during acts of piracy that occurred outside of their own territories at least as seriously, if the alleged perpetrators fall into their hands, as they would treat any comparable crimes that might be committed within those territories;

4. DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder, unless they can prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as non-combatants in which case a court may choose to find them innocent of those charges;

5. DEFINES the knowing provision of unforced support for pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all member-nations to treat such acts as they would any other acts of criminal conspiracy, unless that support is _
A/ given to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners in general, or
B/ given to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

6. STRONGLY URGES any member-nations that employ privateers to take suitable steps to keep those privateers from turning pirate.

OOC _
Does the line that gets added automatically because of the category chosen count towards the maximum length allowed? I'm assuming not...

I'd say "Free Trade"; if having your menchant fleet sunk by a lot of one legged blokes with eyepatches isn't a barrier to trade, I don't know what is...

You're answering my question rather than FL's one, I assume?

OOC _
Does the line that gets added automatically because of the category chosen count towards the maximum length allowed? I'm assuming not...
No.

You can check the proposal length by putting it in the submission box, and c+ping in a large number of characters (I usually use a thousand 0's) to force it over the character limit. Then when you submit, you can work out how many characters you have left (in my example, if it's 900 over the limit, you have 100 to spare; if it's 1100 over, you have to cut 100).

With the ammendment, this category debate is moot. However, I'd still like to finish it because it does concern how categories are looked at. I'd say we continue to debate on a seperate thread....

The second version of the late-&-not-very-lamented 'Murder & Manslaughter Laws' to be submitted was classified as 'Moral Decency' and spent the normal number of days in the queue (before failing to reach quorum on time) without being deleted for illegality: If banning murder is acceptable within the 'Moral Decency' category then why not banning piracy (which often includes murder, after all) too?

Aye. Consider fer a moment, if ye will, what the work of a pirate be. We pirates sail the open sea, stealin' the gold from the greasy hands o' merchants, releavin' them o' the burden o' life and property, not payin' no taxes or duties, drinkin' the finest rum there be, and gen'rally makin' trouble fer y'all. If stoppin' all that ain't moral decency, what do y'all say it be?

Captain O' The Gulf
Jillian the Villian

I'd say "Free Trade"; if having your menchant fleet sunk by a lot of one legged blokes with eyepatches isn't a barrier to trade, I don't know what is...
But pirates are free traders, surely? And it's not a government restriction on trade.

But pirates are free traders, surely? And it's not a government restriction on trade.
no it's not a government retriction on trade but it does hinder trade in the same way a government tax would. So it would have the same effect to your country making it in the same catagory.

If you don't think it hinders trade the same way a tax would think about this. A government tax makes things from other countries more expensive right? If there are pirates in the water you have to protect yourself from the pirates witch costs money. Or you have to run the risk of being taken by pirates which you need to pay people more to do(saliors don't want to be killed and the company is taking the risk of losing the product). So both would increace the price of products from other countries and both hinder trade the same way.

But pirates are free traders, surely? And it's not a government restriction on trade.
no it's not a government retriction on trade but it does hinder trade in the same way a government tax would. So it would have the same effect to your country making it in the same catagory.

If you don't think it hinders trade the same way a tax would think about this. A government tax makes things from other countries more expensive right? If there are pirates in the water you have to protect yourself from the pirates witch costs money. Or you have to run the risk of being taken by pirates which you need to pay people more to do(saliors don't want to be killed and the company is taking the risk of losing the product). So both would increace the price of products from other countries and both hinder trade the same way.

But pirates are free traders, surely? And it's not a government restriction on trade.
There's actually precedent for putting things that cut non-governmental restrictions on trade in the free trade category. For example: #148: Meteorological Cooperation, #152: Maritime Safety Standards Act, #156: UN Patent Law and #163: UN Copyright Convention.

But pirates are free traders, surely? And it's not a government restriction on trade.

Pirates hinder & deter legitimate trade.
Government toleration of pirates is therefore a government-imposed restriction on legitimate trade.
This proposal forbids government toleration of pirates, and thus removes that restriction.
Ergo, in my opinion, this proposal could reasonably be defined as 'Free Trade'.

Pirates hinder & deter legitimate trade.
Government toleration of pirates is therefore a government-imposed restriction on legitimate trade.
This proposal forbids government toleration of pirates, and thus removes that restriction.
Ergo, in my opinion, this proposal could reasonably be defined as 'Free Trade'.

Certainly a reasonable argument, but, in my not-so-humble opinion, you have to look at what the effect of a resolution would be. In this case, the proposal is saying that governments need to clamp down on piracy. Right, well, that would most likely require an increase in spending on military and police, thus plunking it right into the International Security category.

Certainly a reasonable argument, but, in my not-so-humble opinion, you have to look at what the effect of a resolution would be. In this case, the proposal is saying that governments need to clamp down on piracy. Right, well, that would most likely require an increase in spending on military and police, thus plunking it right into the International Security category.

Which is where, now that it's been slightly altered since the original post, It's ended up...

I've got relatives visiting town for the next fortnight, so probably won't be able to spend much time online during that time: My current plans for this proposal are a test submission next Monday, to see how much support it can gather without any TG-ing, and then (unless it actually makes quorum that time) its resubmission with a TG campaign two weeks after that (i.e. on Monday 7th August)...

SUBMITTED (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy)

Approved, although the permanence of that approval, and whether it would translate into a vote FOR, will be discussed within the region.

Current situation _
Approvals: 60 (St Edmundan Antarctic, Gruenberg, Leg-ends, Erith Avlantia, Republican Hope, We can not hear you, Flibbleites, Putrid Limburger, Airmen Overseers, The Isle of Duckia, Ceorana, Riknaht, Ellenburg, Lyon county, Artifegus Hiberniae, Gatenby, OCR, Hormigo, Proteani, Mannana, Raethe, The Lowcountry, Colbert Report, Kapstadt, Firebert, RacconTown, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, Sly Glory, Hulion, Battleon54, Kamikastan, Legendary Alcatraz II, Ultrasilvania, New Walomedia, Melawati, Vaughanaria, Sardan, The Derrak Quadrant, Agramerland, Rozza, Ahsmenistan, Gaiah, Wootelania, Emails, Tarmsden, Dutch Utopia, All Things Halo, The Vuhifellian States, Kwyliathiotarup II, Aetheronian Republics, The Golden Sunset, Pitufina, Swanness, Epios, Three Islands, Esperantania, Fire Hound, Kevcompman, Upenzi, Montyclifford)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 64 more approvals)

OOC: I have to go offline for the night in a few minutes time. If any of you happens to see any more approvals given to this proposal before it runs out of time later today (or maybe early tomorrow?) would you please make a note of them and post the names in this thread?

Dammit. I checked the list, but it turns out I got there right after the update. Sorry, Ed. : (

Dammit. I checked the list, but it turns out I got there right after the update. Sorry, Ed. : (

Oh well, thank you for trying...

Nearly halfway to quorum (even if there were no later approvals after I logged out) even without a TG campaign: Definitely worth trying again...
I'll resubmit it on Monday week (the 7th August), with a TG campaign: Any offers of assistance?

I fear I may be forced to oppose any legislation that discriminates against pirates while allowing ninjas to go free.

Unless this could be contrued to apply to ninjas too? In which case we would support any legislation defining ninjas to be merely a type of pirate :)

Slightly amended, again: Definitions moved a bit further up the page, and a few words (in parentheses) added to the “BELIEVING” clause, to make it clearer why I consider this a matter for the UN to deal with…

Suppression of Piracy

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: St Edmundan Antarctic

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder,

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels, their cargo and possibly their passengers and/or crew, for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vessels as transportation for raids against settlements,

DEFINING the term ‘Privateers’ as meaning people who are not members of any nation’s regular armed forces but who are licensed by a government, in some cases through documents that are called ‘letters of marque’, to act as pirate-hunters and/or to carry out pirate-like actions against targets belonging to certain nations (which will normally only be nations with whom their official sponsors are already at war),

RECOGNISING that dealing with crimes that occur completely within specific nations and that only affect those own nations’ peoples is a matter for those nations’ own governments,

BELIEVING, however, that any crimes that interfere with international trade and travel and/or that cross national boundaries (as those of pirates often do) are matters in which the UN has a legitimate interest,

RECOGNISING that although privateers are not automatically criminals like pirates they may be less likely to follow the laws of war than are nations’ regular forces and that (especially if faced by a shortage of legitimate targets) they might turn pirate,

1. REQUIRES that all member-nations refrain from giving any pirates safe haven, or any other support for their criminal operations;

2. REQUIRES all member-nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress piracy, within their own territories and also within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that aren’t under any particular nation’s control;

3. REQUIRES that all member-nations treat all offences committed during acts of piracy that occurred outside of their own territories at least as seriously, if the alleged perpetrators fall into their hands, as they would treat any comparable crimes that might be committed within those territories;

4. DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder, unless they can prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as non-combatants in which case a court may choose to find them innocent of those charges;

5. DEFINES the knowing provision of unforced support for pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all member-nations to treat such acts as they would any other acts of criminal conspiracy, unless that support is _
A/ given to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners in general, or
B/ given to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

6. STRONGLY URGES any member-nations that employ privateers to take suitable steps to keep those privateers from turning pirate.

I’ll be re-submitting it on Monday morning [GMT], barring emergencies, with a TG campaign targeting the delegates who voted for the recent ‘Counter-terrorism’ resolution (because this one is in the same category as that one) as well as the delegates who actually approved this one last time around.
Are there any last-minute suggestions about the wording or layout?
Are there any offers of help with the TG campaign?

If you make the mandatory clauses focused very strictly on international acts of piracy I would be likely to vote for it. Otherwise, I can't support it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Get rid of any mention of privateers. They're not pirates. Don't bring privateers into it.

Unfortunately, we could not support this proposal without an outright ban on privateering. The issue of letters of marque and reprisal is nothing more than legalizing piracy in the selfish interest of the issuing nation. And just what are those privateers going to do when the war ends? Do we really think they'll be turning their attentions to basket-weaving? Commissioning privateers does nothing more than place the actions which constitute piracy under a national flag. The actions are the same. If they're wrong, they're wrong.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Unfortunately, we could not support this proposal without an outright ban on privateering. The issue of letters of marque and reprisal is nothing more than legalizing piracy in the selfish interest of the issuing nation. And just what are those privateers going to do when the war ends? Do we really think they'll be turning their attentions to basket-weaving? Commissioning privateers does nothing more than place the actions which constitute piracy under a national flag. The actions are the same. If they're wrong, they're wrong.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


Privateers are no different from mercenary soldiers, with the sole exception that they operate on the seas. So I suppose my Ausserlander friend will be proposing a ban on mercenaries?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Unfortunately, we could not support this proposal without an outright ban on privateering. The issue of letters of marque and reprisal is nothing more than legalizing piracy in the selfish interest of the issuing nation. And just what are those privateers going to do when the war ends? Do we really think they'll be turning their attentions to basket-weaving? Commissioning privateers does nothing more than place the actions which constitute piracy under a national flag. The actions are the same. If they're wrong, they're wrong.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Agreed but I think a ban on privateers can be done in a seperate resolution. This leaves that argument to be fought out and not take a good resolution on piracy down with it if banning privateers loses.

Besides, the Federal Republic's policy toward piracy is hopelessly schizophrenic -- the government favors those pirates who do stuff it likes (i.e. sabotaging Kawaiian shipping) and prosecutes pirates who do stuff it doesn't like (i.e. aiding Xt'Tapolopaquetl "militants" and other international terrorists in Paradise City). So there is no way it could favor a blanket ban on all piracy.

In the name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We rise in support of this proposal, for reasons that the representative of OMGTKK make all too obvious here. A strong, international effort to combat lawlessness on the high seas would ease Our military's reliance on its "shoot first and ask questions later" policy towards international air and sea traffic, not to mention the savings in the expense of naval mines and surface-to-air missiles.

Privateers are no different from mercenary soldiers, with the sole exception that they operate on the seas. So I suppose my Ausserlander friend will be proposing a ban on mercenaries?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Mercenaries do not equal privateers.

Define Privateers: (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-25,GGGL:en&q=define%3Aprivateer)
"A privateer is a private attack/raid ship working for a country, or a person working on that ship. Privateers were licensed to attack and take ships from countries at war with the sponsoring country."
"A privately-owned, armed sea vessel commissioned by a sovereign government to attack and raid the merchant ships of a hostile nation. The term also applies to the ship's owner, its captain or crew."

Define mercs: (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-25,GGGL:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define:mercenary&spell=1)
"mercenary(a): used of soldiers hired by a foreign army"
"a person hired to fight for another country than their own"
"A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for money, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations."

Agreed but I think a ban on privateers can be done in a seperate resolution. This leaves that argument to be fought out and not take a good resolution on piracy down with it if banning privateers loses.

One could equate the pirate/privateer debate to something like the terrorism/freedom fighter debate. It's spliting hairs and attempting to justify an act.

Privateers are no different from mercenary soldiers, with the sole exception that they operate on the seas. So I suppose my Ausserlander friend will be proposing a ban on mercenaries?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Wrong. Privateeers are much different than mercenaries. Mercenaries are hired by a belligerent, in most cases to fight against the armed forces of another land. Privateers are "licensed" by a belligerent to commit what would otherwise be piracy against merchant vessels, including unarmed merchant vessels. They are not usually paid by the nation which issues the letter of marque and reprisal; they're compensated by the plunder and prize money they collect. Apples and oranges.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Agreed but I think a ban on privateers can be done in a seperate resolution. This leaves that argument to be fought out and not take a good resolution on piracy down with it if banning privateers loses.

We would remind the honorable representative from Newfoundcanada that this proposal is still, we believe, in the drafting stage. Our point is that we believe privateering, as well as piracy, should be banned, and we see no reason not to do it in a single proposal. Why have to go through the drafting, submission, and voting process twice?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I fear I may be forced to oppose any legislation that discriminates against pirates while allowing ninjas to go free.

Unless this could be contrued to apply to ninjas too? In which case we would support any legislation defining ninjas to be merely a type of pirate :)

In my government's opinion ninjas are less likely than pirates to be active on an international basis, and thus are less of the UN's business: If your government chooses to write an anti-ninja proposal then we will consider that text on its own merits...

If you make the mandatory clauses focused very strictly on international acts of piracy I would be likely to vote for it. Otherwise, I can't support it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

"On the one hand, some members of the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic can see why you're suggesting this and -- following a quite strictly "sovereigntist" viewpoint -- agree with you: On the other hand, neither they nor any of that government's other members can see a legitimate reason why any national government wouldn't want to suppress piracy within its territories anyway -- because isn't defending a nation's people, from internal as well as external threats, its government's main duty? -- and consequently even the more sovereigntist of them don't see this proposal's wording as too great an infringement of NatSov."

*(an assistant mutters something into Dr Sweynsson's left ear...)*

"Ah. I've just been reminded that your nation is an 'Anarchy' that apparently doesn't have any govenment-run law-enforcement bodies at all, so that a reluctance to have to develop any such bodies might also be a factor in your arguments...
H'mm. Leaving aside the question of whether it should be considered appropriate for a 'nation' with no means of enforcing UN resolutions within its territories to have any say in the making of those resolutions, or indeed whether a 'nation' that doesn't have a government should even be counted as a proper nation in the first place, I do wonder just how you came to be selected and appointed as your homeland's representative here?"

_____________________________________________________

OOC: No insult intended, but the idea of an 'anarchy' having an official representative does seem somewhat strange...

I did actually consider having the proposal refer solely to international piracy, when originally drafting it, but the limited space available (especially as I was then planning to include several more clauses about regulating privateers) made that seem impractical... and as pirates are probably more liable than most other sorts of criminals to expand their activities from a local basis to an international one, if allowed to operate unchecked, suppressing the "local" ones too seemed advisable from a 'protection of international trade' viewpoint anyway...
I might change this point if I drop the remaining clauses about privateers, but that's still only under consideration...

Get rid of any mention of privateers. They're not pirates. Don't bring privateers into it. & Unfortunately, we could not support this proposal without an outright ban on privateering. The issue of letters of marque and reprisal is nothing more than legalizing piracy in the selfish interest of the issuing nation. And just what are those privateers going to do when the war ends? Do we really think they'll be turning their attentions to basket-weaving? Commissioning privateers does nothing more than place the actions which constitute piracy under a national flag. The actions are the same. If they're wrong, they're wrong.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
__________________
OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

“A split in views that was also reflected in the poll of DEFCON members held while this proposal was still at the early drafting stage, which was one of the main reasons why most of the original clauses about regulating privateers (apart from the explanation of how they differ from pirates, and a [very relevant] request that nations try to keep them from turning to piracy) were removed and that side of the topic basically left for a [possible] later proposal instead…”

Agreed but I think a ban on privateers can be done in a separate resolution. This leaves that argument to be fought out and not take a good resolution on piracy down with it if banning privateers loses.We would remind the honorable representative from Newfoundcanada that this proposal is still, we believe, in the drafting stage.

“Well, the “drafting stage” was really meant to be the several weeks that earlier versions of this proposal spent before DEFCON, and the further weeks that it has then spent in this forum both before and after it was initially submitted on a ‘trial run’ a fortnight ago, with the request for comments at this stage just to clean up any relatively minor problems that people might have noticed, but it looks as though my staff may be doing further re-draft after all…”

Our point is that we believe privateering, as well as piracy, should be banned, and we see no reason not to do it in a single proposal. Why have to go through the drafting, submission, and voting process twice?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
__________________
OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

“Firstly, because we were more confident about the chances of getting the ban on pirates that we wanted through the UN successfully than we were about the prospects of passing a resolution to tackle privateers as well; secondly, because the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is still considering its own policy about privateers (whose use is still legal, under our own laws, against other nations that employ them and as pirate-hunters); and thirdly, because of the limited length allowed for UN resolutions…"

"On the one hand, some members of the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic can see why you're suggesting this and -- following a quite strictly "sovereigntist" viewpoint -- agree with you: On the other hand, neither they nor any of that government's other members can see a legitimate reason why any national government wouldn't want to suppress piracy within its territories anyway -- because isn't defending a nation's people, from internal as well as external threats, its government's main duty? -- and consequently even the more sovereigntist of them don't see this proposal's wording as too great an infringement of NatSov."

*(an assistant mutters something into Dr Sweynsson's left ear...)*

"Ah. I've just been reminded that your nation is an 'Anarchy' that apparently doesn't have any govenment-run law-enforcement bodies at all, so that a reluctance to have to develop any such bodies might also be a factor in your arguments...
H'mm. Leaving aside the question of whether it should be considered appropriate for a 'nation' with no means of enforcing UN resolutions within its territories to have any say in the making of those resolutions, or indeed whether a 'nation' that doesn't have a government should even be counted as a proper nation in the first place, I do wonder just how you came to be selected and appointed as your homeland's representative here?"

To make a long story short, the Minister of Hospitality met me on the street one day and we had a few drinks together. He said I'd make a good UN Representative and told me it would pay well. He was right, and I find it to be a good learning experience, so I stuck around and made myself at home.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

OOC: No insult intended, but the idea of an 'anarchy' having an official representative does seem somewhat strange...

I did actually consider having the proposal refer solely to international piracy, when originally drafting it, but the limited space available (especially as I was then planning to include several more clauses about regulating privateers) made that seem impractical... and as pirates are probably more liable than most other sorts of criminals to expand their activities from a local basis to an international one, if allowed to operate unchecked, suppressing the "local" ones too seemed advisable from a 'protection of international trade' viewpoint anyway...
I might change this point if I drop the remaining clauses about privateers, but that's still only under consideration...

OOC: Well on the NS site, you'll see that Anarchy pages often say "has no government in the normal sense of the word, however..." and that's exactly right. All HotRodia has in the way of a government is the Ministry of Hospitality, which deals with all international relations and hosts domestic cultural events on occasion.

No....here's why:

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html

arrrr jim lad...

OOC: Well on the NS site, you'll see that Anarchy pages often say "has no government in the normal sense of the word, however..." and that's exactly right. All HotRodia has in the way of a government is the Ministry of Hospitality, which deals with all international relations and hosts domestic cultural events on occasion.

OOC: Oh-kay... I suppose that that's not really any stranger than some of the other things that happen around here...

No....here's why:

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html

arrrr jim lad...

And which clause of the proposal would ban that?

Here's an alternative version, modified so that it deals more specifically with international piracy, with the clauses about privateers removed to make room for those changes as well as to please some of the people here:

Suppress International Piracy

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: St Edmundan Antarctic

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder,

RECOGNISING that dealing with crimes that occur completely within specific nations and that only affect those own nations’ peoples is a matter for those nations’ own governments,

BELIEVING, however, that any crimes that interfere with international trade and travel and/or that cross national boundaries are matters in which the UN has a legitimate interest,

DEFINING the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), who operate in groups to use force and/or threats to seize vessels, their cargo and possibly their passengers and/or crew, for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vessels as transportation for raids against settlements,

DEFINING pirates as 'international if they operate across national borders and/or attack international trade,

1. REQUIRES that all member-nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or any other support for their criminal operations;

2. REQUIRES all member-nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress intenrational piracy, within their own territories and also within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that effectively aren’t under any particular nation’s control;

3. REQUIRES that all member-nations treat all offences committed during acts of international piracy that occurred outside of their own territories at least as seriously, if the alleged perpetrators fall into their hands, as they would treat any comparable crimes that might be committed within those territories;

4. DECLARES that anybody who has been proven to have been a crewperson aboard a known international pirate vessel but not proven guilty of any specific offence shall be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and murder, unless they can prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as non-combatants in which case a court may choose to find them innocent of those charges;

5. DEFINES the knowing provision of unforced support for international pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all member-nations to treat such acts as they would any other acts of criminal conspiracy, unless that support is _
A/ given to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners in general, or
B/ given to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

6. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to act as thoroughly against any non-'international' pirates who are operating within their territories as the preceding clauses require them to act against international pirates.

I'll either submit this version or re-submit the one that I submitted before (which is on page 4 of this thread) on Monday, depending on which of them recieves the most support here during the intervening days, with a TG campaign to try getting it to quorum... and if anybody else then wants to draft a proposal about privateers I'll be interested to see how that works out...

A slightly modified version (with a couple of typoes fixed) of the version of this proposal that goes by the title of 'Suppress International Piracy' has now been SUBMITTED (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy).
I will be doing a TG campaign for it, this time, targeting the delegates who approved it last time and those who voted for the Counter-Terrorism resolution: Help with this would be gratefully received...

If you give me a list and at least the basis of a form TG (I suck at writing them) I can probably do some tonight.

If you give me a list and at least the basis of a form TG (I suck at writing them) I can probably do some tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, here's a suggested draft for the TG, although if you (or anybody else who might decide to help) wants to use an improved version then obviously I won't complain _

'Greetings.
This message is to draw your attention to a proposal by the title of 'Suppress International Piracy', which you can find at
http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy .This is an 'International Security' measure, designed to help protect nations' peoples & trade from attacks, and as I noticed that you voted in favour of the 'UN Counterterrorism Initiative' (which was also an 'I.S' proposal) when that was passed a few weeks ago I hope that you will therefore be willing to give this proposal your approval now too.

(Sent on behalf of the government of
the St Edmundan Antarctic)'

_________________________________________________________

Update: List of delegates who approved it last time around all contacted. Section #1 of this list done. I'll be back onto this project tomorrow morning...

_________________________________________________________

The following list names all of the delegates who voted for the 'UN Counterrorism Initiative', apart from the ones who either approved 'Suppression of Piracy' last time around -- whom I'm about to start TGing -- or who have already approved it this time*: I've divided the list into numbered sections so that anybody who wants to help can just take one section at a time... Will anybody who does take a section of the list to contact please say so in this thread _

1. Party Mode, Ginger Lovers, Jimbolizerland, PanzerOrta, The Talisman, Buhnuf, Zanzibar Fortress, Eriaduan, Monteville, Spam Islands, Glasgowdonia, Mathor, Lukdovia, Timmia, New Old New New York, The Coast of Scottland, North Gumbidia, Bellezza Dal Mare, French Marshal Ney, GetAssistas, Nominee, Anastoga, JujenDanq, Tolene, Lemures Terra, Worldia555, Nieghbours, Los Santos, Binzer, Shambley, Backa Palanka, Buzzman,
2. Davinity, LawnElf, Miriana, Boico, Al Tira, Open Skies, B-B, Qutaria, Echodom, Killer Ninja Monkeys, Pope Gnome, Lisvania, A2riya, N00bination, Flux Capacitors, RebelRednecks, Novus Equitas, Banazistan, Paintsvlle, Denoman, Hyperslackovicznia, Ickleford, Industrius, Nospam, Sovereign Dentonia, The doomed world, Trewin, Ruthless Happiness, Deadite Grotto, Songeur, Cuncti, Lord Satyr, Ballardogo, Davane, Menser,
3. Vorlich, Larsonlandia, Alambique, Canniballis, SwirlingEvil, Izarie, Los Catholicos, Maranellos Ferrari, Unchosen, Clivedamonia, Cape Isles, Azlyn, New Thomasus, Llamasvilleland, Bananadamage, Traffic conesylvania, HeebsWithChutspa, Tennisace, The High Trinity, Purple Android, Membrania, Oldham Road, Lattanites, Alacerbellum, Kaneiro, United Britannica, Deadly People, Qom-Riyadh, Tseirp, Andy Saul, Titanburg, Arbiters Sangheili,
4. Blitzin NS, Takamata, Demondragon, Land of anarchisme, Hip-hoppers, Paniclandia, Assorted Ghettos, Arturo the beaner, Fonseca porto, The Zymurgy of Ninkasi, Dande_Lion, Gallifery-Skaro, Zathurustra, SaintlyLand, West Xavier, Electro-Texas, Malme, Diversions, Kibombwe, Gahim, Doggy do, Tomatoe-munchers, Sydian, Ashkevronia, Adolf Barham, The Second Atlantis, Liechtenmach, Jray of CTU, Neliana, Regius, Thymlia, Berkut, Viprota,
5. Maes Yr Haul, Juggled geese, Halo04, Brandon Burum, Norderia, Justwood, Evansontoria, Hamuland, Schamtek, Ceppland, Gaming Dragons, Arkaria, Di Gladius, Kwyliathiotarup II, Arhkonnius, The Delights Mountains, Magnum Innominandum, Bordoria, Beertown, TomTomlandia, Phoot, Barna woods, FWEDD, Celebros, Zerkovistan, Sorgloss, Britona, Russian Oompa Loompas, Literate Spam Guild, Beavorpigs, Union Separatists,
6. Purple Broken Hearts, Escaped felons, The Holy Quill, Foxcollar, New Shea, Egosphere, Shiyadowa, Sumeran, Night Lude, Royal Canadian, Sardan, Jey, Zaibatsu0, Thelastempire, A TARDIS, The North Provinces, The Siths Lords, Spehlicious, Shai-Shai, Aresistan, WilliamFBuckley, South Malaysia, Dizziness, Whuzzeheckistan, Dor Caranthir, Fraztopia, Compuq, Porro Ago dominatus, Gwazzaria, Salty Sweet, United states of South, Jindorio,
7. Sariputta, Zambagi, Davesylvania, Psychology Majors2006, Xenious, Pauligor, Antipatris, Lukenesia, Unified Persons, Amoryville, Munsterteiger, The Fighting Mongii, Melawati, Aedhan, Yippee and Yay, Lamahkae, Lunatic Retard Robots, Alestrazsengradd, Vulpa, Ma Ha Dell, Chucknorland, Al Kassad, Drynwhyl, Punishing, Tha Fellas, Eyster, Eretenia, Roma Novum Superior, Mr God, Kryptonika, Researching, Gold Griffin,
8. Indochinese Colonies, Winter Triangle, Rose Petals Falling, Saint Louis University, Uranatia, McCreary, Imperial Spartak, Sporkailii, Wichahpi, The Minions of Cthulhu, Ohrder, Daedra1a, Bellaben, Threadholm, Queex, Tskllandia, Viitasaari, Yukatania, Communistic Soviets, New Tachbe, Heddon, Rivermoon, Commaggrah, Alport, Impact factor, Martinbia, Matteh Island, FOR SCIENCE, The Great Commonwealth,
9. Ekoz, Wannahakaloogee, Ajeo, Tiffar, Marcaevia, Raw Tomato Haters, Liam The Superior, Fazzaland, Riishmark, Lesser Yorkshire, Merinium, Danimalville, Andretti, Davidus, KingstoniaDromesburg, Draconias23, Botarkia, The Frozen Chozen, Dharma Revolution, Townships and Villages, Cadburybars, Pordistan, Spaz Land, Popetons, Quazare, Djrhodes, Gebuladi, Vidarr, White Kanatia, Otakuopolis, Traffic Lights 2,

10. Mikionesota, Great Denizistan, Commishick, Parabolastan, Concordare, Free Soviet Peoples, The Warrior Region, Willic, James_xenoland, PinkoInca, Durodale, Byronism, Athens and Midlands, A Flat, Arcanus Imperii, ShivaShiva, Penguinlanden, Sly Glory, Kyle27, Matagual, Torklesh, Capitalistocrace, Transcendental People, Pestes, Michelle allen, The Aromatic Douche, Sparksalot, Oakmons, Jed Scott, Nuditopia, Minekuria, Faerin II,
11. AhmanRa, Dobed, Agios Petros, Dahveedland, Skybase one, Vzerokia, Deloitiandazzo, Polamalu2, The Seeker of Power, N8 Corp, Nuevo Chile 2, Fitswell, Mandy Sue, Emperor Gowen I, Lloydoria, Drekni, The Souless Damned, Wurzborg, Locosquid, FMP, Gisran, Bases, DesCha Central, The Dead and Dreaming, Chelodia, Derkaderkastein, Galeshi, Nicktenstien, Kuro Hi, Ducklin, Voicetrack, Esprit et le corps, The Risen Christ, Imperial Hubris,


12. Los Sino, Silgo, Taichinan, Tykanni, France Hating People, Dragryth, Laughing Jesters, Nova Capitalia, Republic of Bosnia, Dasvia, Alkathia-Zenithia, Anathelas, Griffinwold, Kaplechistan, HUNTERALAFUNK, Shivalnah, Central US City States, Simiard, Doriimaa, Zappyzap, Oddardynia, South Bixxaver, Free People of Scouse, Ryrwn, East Zozo, Lampyland, Heisdorf, Nag Ehgoeg, Daglar, Lord neik, Mamasso, SAM of the SPARTANS,

13. Pohjois-tattila, Rubicuba, The Voltarum, The Burning Kingdom, Montegava, False Light, Ille Argentum Empire, Kanjimana, Kolico, British Might, Hotti, Twistland, Ardidi, Norhtland, Welsh Colmanderia, M Haynes, Ayceedeecia, Logic-land, DE12F, Wyldtree, Moroboshi, Maladanska, Draifus, Monkrovia, Madavar, Alkrensia, Zieghail, Banished Scientists, Chadrockistan, Green Amber, Gustafville, Unified Elements,

14. Varain, Beavrcreek, Civitas Erimae, Altastonia, Dramura, Madazi, Krystodonia, Aurania-Shifre, Malashaan, Medved, Helre, Prima Philosophi, Geekopolous, Ithilis, Pugonia, Zombiedolphins, Bezwoldian, Bobersky, Pro-Sovereignty Babes, Giant Pumpkin Patches, Services for Idiots, Rosencreuz, 29th Ave, Dux Nuts, D4rk 3mpire, Orange Isles, Wolfiness, Hathaldir, B312KU7, Blue Light Mafia, Piggy Pals, Klystah, Jump in the Fire, The House of Baugh,

15. Defenestratium, Lyzantoi, Korinekia, Dieshin, Dioxin, Britannic Colonies, Andaras Prime, White-Rose, Doktor B, Aakron, The Kalahari Desert, Quatenus, Ida Allene, Tar Zetar, Mandlandia, American Border Collie, Westi, The Supreme Lara, Screaming Statues, Sheaton, Ryneland, Ostar-Richi, As Baile, ThreeleggedPeople, Skankaslovakia, Gamedudex, Rhelan, Bournside, Uzbekistan and Solomon, Labaigo, Rapscall, Momenta,

16. Gate06, Lower gage, Vasquezeula, Freemen Lands, The Candrian Empire, Crying Emokids, Hebrudann, Hulion, GX-Land, Budpatz, Ludo Lambrechts, Uberwald, Stonedge, Chandelier, Yetilaends, The New Inquisitors, Hanzistantopia, Orserus, Shalun, Leicnin, Asragoth, Bargwann, Zingatan, Puss in Boots 43, Forgottenlands UN, Ledgendus, Inn, Nordmenn, Apachah, Robo Chicken, Jewbagelton, WaffenBrightonburg, Purple City,

17. KlickKlickPancake, Kuranei, Nurith the Second, Slow children playing, CoVespucci1, The Almighty Amos, Malarktopia, Mallowblasters, Darkmagik104, Deenster, Aman la, Cornbread Fanatics, A Five Legged Dog, NewTexas, Empiri Astra, Neo Tyros, Fwuffy, Bonalbo, Spartan Alliance, Ultravibe, OmnusOmega, Krakoa, Sparkleshoe, Queenbean, Nosedondekistan, Jello Biafra, Sumisu, Shadow Prophets, Kaihola, RobinsMinstrels,

18. Homosapi-jens, Vuam and Isma, Al Khamali, Hathaldir, Pravda Veritas, Pauli the Great, Insane Power, Futuristic America, Fauck, Squaddies, Windsor-Bainbridge, Deo et Rege, Clay City, Rilkan Knowledge, Tjaart, Mozique, Hekatontarchos, Blazing Dragonz, Head Shot Land, Backpfeifengesicht, King Steadley, Genata, 5164-954, Wisner, Seamour, Orioni 2, Lacrosse will Rule, Western Persia, Commaggrah, The Reborn USA, Vulgaronia, Bostichia, Ginash, Sajanistan, Wairen.


(* and apart from a couple of the feeders' delegates, whom I'll contact via my puppets in their regions...)

Starting section 2 of the list...

Starting section 2 of the list...
Bollocks, didn't see this post yesterday. I'll do #3 over lunch, but I'll probably only be able to do one more, as I have to send more for my own proposal.

I'll start with #18.

EDIT: 18 is done.

Bollocks, didn't see this post yesterday. I'll do #3 over lunch, but I'll probably only be able to do one more, as I have to send more for my own proposal.

Thank you. Understood. 'Good Luck' for your own proposal.

I'll start with #18.

EDIT: 18 is done.

Thank you.


Sections '2', '4', '5' & '6' done.
I have to go offline for a while now, back later this evening...

Current approvals = 26.

Starting section #7...

Section '7' done, starting section '8'...

Oh 3 is done.

Is up to 42 approvals

Oh 3 is done.
Thank you.

Is up to 42 approvals
43 now...

Some TGing of selected target nations done.
Starting section '9'...
Finished section '9'.

Update: Sections '10' & '11' also finished on Wednesday.

Approvals: 65 (St Edmundan Antarctic, Gruenberg, The Derrak Quadrant, Leg-ends, Flibbleites, Einsteinistan, Corellisi, Conchland, Raethe, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, Purple Android, Gaiah, Warring Minorities, Zanzibar Fortress, RacconTown, Riknaht, The Golden Sunset, Emails, Ellenburg, All Things Halo, OCR, Unterwasserseestaat, Hormigo, Mannana, Tarmsden, Brazen II, Jey, Ceile Dei, Drynwhyl, Sombre Shovels, Celebros, Kamikastan, Phoot, Halo04, Malabra, Cuncti, Erith Avlantia, The Fighting Mongii, Alestrazsengradd, Martinbia, Wootelania, Masoa, Dor Caranthir, Neotopolis, Airmen Overseers, The Wolf Guardians, Lake Shore Drive, Three Islands, ElJefe, Progressive Islands, Ubu-Rex, Sorgloss, Mergitroy, Party Mode, Tremdale, Spaz Land, Galeshi, Daisetta, Legal Bluenose, Pitufina, South Adair, Aurixun Kotharis, Iron Felix, Ultrasilvania, Voicetrack)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 59 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Aug 24 2006

OOC: Somehow, I don't think that it is going to reach quorum this time... If it had been rather closer to doing so (say 90-ish approvals, rather than just 59) when I initially logged on today then I might have done some more TGing, but as things were -- with such a short time left for people to see my messages & decide about responding -- there didn't seem much point.
I'll try to check the list later this evening, and hope that one of you will manage to do so very shortly before it times out too, to see if anybody else has approved so that I can ask them to do so again when I re-submit it... When I resubmit it will depend on how much more support it receives, and on how busy I get with other things after I return to work next week.
I wonder whether Mikitivity was right, and the sheer number of proposals that are already at quorum is dissuading a lot of people from looking further through the list?

OOC: I think Mik is probably right. My repeal of the WHL is only up to 35 approvals. It did just as well on a dry run without TGs. :(

OOC: I think Mik is probably right. My repeal of the WHL is only up to 35 approvals. It did just as well on a dry run without TGs. :(

I'm a little bit ahead of the dry run, but only by about 10%... :(

There have been 2 more approvals since my previous post, which were by by 'Bugtusle' and 'The Isle of Duckia'.

Update: and 'People To Look At' makes 68...
Going offline for the night now: Please could somebody else check the list, and post the names of any later approvers here, shortly before the proposal runs out of time...?

I don't think it's so much the volume of queued proposals, as how they got there. Necessarily, quite a few delegates have been TGed maybe six times in the past week or so (not to mention other efforts that haven't reached quorum). On my latest Hearing Impaired Aid Act repeal, I got far more TGs than usual telling me to stop sending TG spam.

I didn't get a one. :confused:

I didn't get a one. :confused:
Yeah, well how many proposals has Gruen been pushing letely?

Yeah, well how many proposals has Gruen been pushing letely?
Well, I did use puppets to do the TGing.

Maybe they just don't like me :(

The list is very short today, so we're trying again...here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy).

And again...
(and the link in the previous post works again, too...)

And again...

Sheik Larebil plays a through ball to the delegate from St Edmundan Antarctic.

There can be no piracy resolution without a corresponding ninja resolution. All such efforts will fail.

OOC: The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia can WALK THE PLANK ON THIS ONE!! :D

To quote from what I said in Martime Neutrality thread, "My old man was merchant seaman for most of his working life, so I would support this one with which-ever one of my nations was in UN at the time."

But come to think of it instead of a resolution to protect shipping from pirates, maybe you need one to protect pirates from Excruciatian Carrier Battle Groups :D

Whoever wrote "BELIEVING that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder....." has never visited Excruciatia though.... ;)

Funny really, you name it and I stay in character with Excruciatia. BPL has every nasty under the sun, but bring the sea into the topic and even I get serious :)

What if your privateers are also involved in the "Salvage" business. This creates some unique problems. When is taking a stranded vessel for salvage equivalent to piracy...

What if your privateers are also involved in the "Salvage" business. This creates some unique problems. When is taking a stranded vessel for salvage equivalent to piracy...

If I'm not mistaken, salvage laws would still apply. It's piracy when you seize a ship with people on it or some such thing, but when the ship is abandoned or without inhabitants, I believe it's legitimate salvage.

It's piracy when you seize a ship with people on it or some such thing, but when the ship is abandoned or without inhabitants, I believe it's legitimate salvage.

Of course if the vessel is sinking, even with people it's covered under "wrecker" laws and not piracy, assuming that the cause of the sinking vessel is not related to the wreckers/pirates in the first place.

And wrecking is a noble profession ... after all John Wayne once played one in a movie. (One of the few movies where his character died in the movie.)

but when the ship is abandoned or without inhabitants, I believe it's legitimate salvage.
So I can send in a crew of bloodthirsty murderers (calling them Customs Officials or something equally innocuous), trump up some excuse or other to kill everyone on board, and then toss the bodies overboard. Then, when an 'unrelated' ship who happens to fly my flag and 'happens' upon the empty ship, it's Salvage, right?

Cover your bases well. The loophole police are out in force.

So I can send in a crew of bloodthirsty murderers (calling them Customs Officials or something equally innocuous), trump up some excuse or other to kill everyone on board, and then toss the bodies overboard. Then, when an 'unrelated' ship who happens to fly my flag and 'happens' upon the empty ship, it's Salvage, right?

Cover your bases well. The loophole police are out in force.

OOC: Point. Actually, after I posted that I looked up salvage laws. Apparently it's not as clear-cut as the movies make it seem- there's a whole lot salvors can't do.

IC:

You have a good point. I don't believe, though, that this resolution necessarily has to deal with salvors and salvage laws- that is another issue for another resolution.

So I can send in a crew of bloodthirsty murderers (calling them Customs Officials or something equally innocuous), trump up some excuse or other to kill everyone on board, and then toss the bodies overboard. Then, when an 'unrelated' ship who happens to fly my flag and 'happens' upon the empty ship, it's Salvage, right?

Technically yes, its all those bloodthirsty murderers who should be drawn and quartered not the salvagers. (After they draw and quarter you for arranging all of this of course.) See: Wrecking (shipwreck)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_%28shipwreck%29), Marine Salvage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_salvage), and of course This non Wiki Reference (http://www.shipwreckhistoreum.com/).