NationStates Jolt Archive

Establishment of ICPIN

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Aware that criminal activities often span multiple jurisdictions,

Alarmed by the prospect of criminals attempting to cross national borders in order to escape justice,

Realizing that many nations employ multiple law enforcement agencies with differing mandates and fields of specialisation, which may not have direct correlations in other nations, making international cooperation between these agencies and others difficult,

Recognising the importance of international communication in tackling crime and apprehending criminals:

1. Promotes cooperation between member nations in the apprehension of criminals, particularly international fugitives, the suppression of criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning criminal activities and their perpetrators;

2. Further encourages member nations to negotiate reciprocal agreements with others to permit law enforcement agents to enter their nation and exercise power of arrest and detention;

3. Emphasises that the decision to grant such powers remains a national prerogative;

4. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication;

5. Establishes the International Criminal Police Information Network (ICPIN) to promote effective communication between nations and their law enforcement agencies, and to facilitate international operations to suppress criminal activities, especially in the fields of:
- trafficking of persons, arms, drugs, stolen goods, illegal technologies and other illegal materials,
- international terrorism,
- organized crime,
- corruption and financial crime;

6. Encourages member nations, where appropriate, to use the ICPIN as means to issue alerts, exchange information and organize efforts to apprehend criminal fugitives;

7. Declares that the ICPIN shall:
- maintain regular contact with all CNOs,
- assist in the establishment and maintenance of the CNOs of nations requesting such aid,
- facilitate communications and cooperation between national law enforcement agencies,
- distribute information and alerts to all relevant CNOs about known or suspected fugitives or criminal activities,
- cooperate with other relevant international agencies, such as the ICSI,
- compile and maintain a database of known and suspected fugitives, international criminal organizations, and criminal activities spanning multiple jurisdictions;

8. Strongly emphasises that:
- ICPIN agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention, nor any authority to engage in police or military actions,
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.

I was initially going to oppose this, then I saw point 3, and realised my objections were unfounded.

I'll be urging my delegate to endorse this.

Clause 3? Bah, Clause 8 was the winner for me:

- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.

(So we don't have to give up all those refugees from OMGTKK-ite "justice").

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Well, I suspect both clauses 3 and 8 will be roundly ignored, and let's not get started on 1, 2 and 4 through 7, but in any case, this proposal has now reached quorum, and hence will go to vote tomorrow (assuming nothing else in queue leaps about 70 approvals). We might come up with a small FAQ, but in any case, do please feel free to ask any questions you might have about the proposal.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

A superflous revelation! I heretically comprehend the renumerative of the Quintuplets of Quod for this waterfall piece of liberation, and in perpendicular I would like to add that such a revolution is long overdyed.

Mrs Malaprop

This is good, sound, solid, useful legislation and has our complete support.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Well, I suspect both clauses 3 and 8 will be roundly ignored, and let's not get started on 1, 2 and 4 through 7...Certainly not by us, as their presence counters the conflicts with our national criminal code found in clause 5 and allows us to support this.

We plan on wallpapering the new CNO with the wording in clause 8 and tattooing it on the underside of the head officer's eyelids.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN

We are confident that this resolution does not encroach on our law enforcement services and commend the Quodite delegation for providing yet another wonderfully crafted piece of legislation.

We look forward to this passing and will gladly dedicate our time to ardently supporting this throughout the debate.

Anvravelle Kramer.

it's simple, it's practical, and it's got our support.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I am very pleased that this proposal has reached queue status, and the UN member nations of my region wish me to inform you that when it reaches the public floor, it shall be receiving unanimous support from the Region of Rayne.

-Akia Liam, elected President of Intellect and Art and UN Delegate for the esteemed Region of Rayne

Generally it looks good. My only concern is the ICPIN itself. I worry that some corrupt nations may use the ICPIN to as a source of information with which to unjustly prosecute people. They may look for acts preformed in a nation that are illegal in their own but not in the nation they were preformed. Of course my concerns maybe unfounded, but still I plan not to vote on this proposal until my concerns are resolved to my satisfaction.

Hark, Council Chairman of the Nomadic Peoples of Travel Gnomes
UN Delegate to the Region of Infinity the Quest for Earth

I worry that some corrupt nations may use the ICPIN to as a source of information with which to unjustly prosecute people.

We’re afraid that we may have misunderstood these concerns (OOC: tired) but we will seek to allay them nonetheless. In the case of information availability we would direct the ambassador to this segment of the resolution in which consent to disclosure provides a filter for nations to protect their citizens from "corrupt" members.

- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,

They may look for acts preformed in a nation that are illegal in their own (Nation B in the example) but not in the nation they were preformed (Nation A in the example).

We’re afraid that this is the section we believe we’ve interpreted incorrectly therefore we apologise in advance if this is the case.

However, we believe that this worry is unfounded because if an act is not illegal in nation ‘A’ then there will be no reason at all for nation ‘A’ to have a log of that activity due to the simple fact that no crime has been committed therefore no fugitive exists meaning ICPIN will never receive information in the first place.

Nation ‘B’ cannot look for information because there is no information in existence.

Anravelle Kramer.

Another area of concern would be criminals being punished multiple times by multiple nations for crimes committed within one country. A person commits a crime the information is entered into the network; the criminal is caught and then serves the sentence for the crime they committed. Later that person is visiting a country with a corrupt government the person is arrested, possibly with reason, possibly with none, and the government punishes the person for past crimes that are in the network even though the person has paid for the crimes in the past in other country.

I don't see anything in this specifically preventing that kind of abuse.

In principle the ICPIN looks like a good idea, but it might have a few problems that still need to be worked out before I can give my approval for it.

Hark, Council Chairman of the Nomadic Peoples of Travel Gnomes
UN Delegate to the Region of Infinity the Quest for Earth

... but it might have a few problems that still need to be worked out before I can give my approval for it.

The proposal has been submitted (it's in the proposal queue), so it can't be changed now.

If your problems are with what the clauses mean, though, ask away.

Well worded, and effective, without trespassing on our jurisdiction. We support.

In fact, I don't really see how anyone could oppose this.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Kingdom of Mythomaniacs supports this resolution wholeheartedly.

Point 3 and 8 are important to us still.

Generally it looks good. My only concern is the ICPIN itself. I worry that some corrupt nations may use the ICPIN to as a source of information with which to unjustly prosecute people. They may look for acts preformed in a nation that are illegal in their own but not in the nation they were preformed.
If the act is not illegal in the nation in which they are performed, then no crime has been committed, and hence the ICPIN would never enter into the equation as they would never be supplied with any information in the first place.
Another area of concern would be criminals being punished multiple times by multiple nations for crimes committed within one country. A person commits a crime the information is entered into the network; the criminal is caught and then serves the sentence for the crime they committed. Later that person is visiting a country with a corrupt government the person is arrested, possibly with reason, possibly with none, and the government punishes the person for past crimes that are in the network even though the person has paid for the crimes in the past in other country.

I don't see anything in this specifically preventing that kind of abuse.
For a start, when you start to mention 'corrupt government[s]' it's always going to be likely the proposal is not going to cover every abuse. The United Nations is a source of international law, and its resolutions rest on nations acting in accordance with its general principles and fulfilling their obligations (as indeed they are required to under Rights and Duties of UN States). If they don't do that, a legal proposal is unlikely to have its intended effect.

That said, I'm having trouble understanding the scenario you present. Even without the ICPIN, it could occur, and even with the ICPIN, there's almost no reason why it would. A nation has no jurisdiction outside its own borders, so a crime committed in another country is none of their business to punish in the first place; the ICPIN seems somewhat irrelevant in that regard.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

First off, this presents serious issues in international politics.

Any time a country does NOT hand over a criminal, it risks sparking an international incident since there will become a precedent to do so. This law is ludicrus.

Further, very few countries share the same rules. If a criminal flees into a different country, that country should be able to persecute them for any crimes they commit there. But you may say "criminal", the J.N.G. says, "possible refugee". Plenty of countries hunt down people and label them as criminals when in reality, they're just trying to find a better way of life.

No, the J.N.G. is against this, and all other bills that begin to make our world into an Orwellin landscape.

Any time a country does NOT hand over a criminal, it risks sparking an international incident since there will become a precedent to do so.
This isn't an extradition treaty. Nothing in this proposal obligates any nation to hand over anyone. And the most curious part of your analysis is that you think such a refusal would not create some international concern anyway.
Further, very few countries share the same rules. If a criminal flees into a different country, that country should be able to persecute them for any crimes they commit there. But you may say "criminal", the J.N.G. says, "possible refugee". Plenty of countries hunt down people and label them as criminals when in reality, they're just trying to find a better way of life.
I don't think any country should be allowed to persecute anyone. As for prosecution, again, this proposal does not prevent anyone from prosecuting crimes committed within their own nation.

I also thank you for vindicating my prediction that clause 8 would not be read; should you do so, you'll notice your right to say 'possible refugee' is firmly protected.

In future, it'd be helpful if you could specify the troublesome sections of the proposal, rather than vaguely wafting at items bearing little relevance to the actual text.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Sen. Sulla looks up from his current copy of Guns and Ammo, and says,
"You have my support, old Boy. The Palentine is firmly behind this one."

*cough* If I would raise a small question on behalf of some of the more teritary regions and nations of the UN. Where are the mandates and definitions coming from regarding what consitutes a crime to the new ICPIN task force?

Who is to define Terrorism? Shall my own countries hard fought struggle against our own ruthless neighbours be classed as terrorism or shall it be the domain of thos nations lucky enough to be called "the elite" to decide who our new "world police" shall track down for the good of all nations?

I wholeheartedly applaud an attempt to try and wrestle conrtol of amrs and drugs sales from the hands of murderers and bandits but can I respectfuly suggest that each and every delegate here makes sure that they are whiter than white before allowing such a motion to be passed.

Where are the mandates and definitions coming from regarding what consitutes a crime to the new ICPIN task force?
Before I answer that, it would be helpful to supply the mandate and definition establishing the 'ICPIN task force'; because all I see in the proposal is a point to pass information on.
Who is to define Terrorism?
I would assume most nations would use the existing definition of terrorism as per Resolution #168, but in any case, given no nation is obliged to assist regarding actions they do not consider crimes, your concern would be moot.
"world police"
The ICPIN has no authority to engage in police actions; this is explicitly stated in Clause 8.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

*shufling papers nervously" Ok....... seems like......erm....... Great! You can count on our support! *sits down quickly*

*shufling papers nervously" Ok....... seems like......erm....... Great! You can count on our support! *sits down quickly*
Glad we were able to answer your concern. :)

-- Samantha Benson

QUOD has once again proven itstelf a valuable addition to NSUN.

I have already voted FOR this resolution, but I have one minor question, if you have the time.


8. Strongly emphasises that:
- ICPIN agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention, nor any authority to engage in police or military actions,
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.


I love this article, especially section 3. The bolded section 2 is the source of my minor question. Under what circumstances would or should the ICPIN not agree to provide information? Any of the several nations may have reason to withhold information -- I can imagine that -- but why would the ICPIN?

I am sure that, like a majority of my questions about legislation, the author will swiftly and deftly address my concern, and I will walk away satisifed with the answer and befuddled at why I asked the question in the first place.

Outstanding work, Ms. Benson. I have nominated you for the Intangible Medal of Clarity, which comes with a 300,000G prize and honorary House of Progress privileges.

:(
Such agreements may require such a completely peaceful, anti- arms, anti- crime, only promoting love and peace sort of nation as ours to have to withdraw from diplomatic debate completely!

This may become an application to leave the UN- and may aggressive idiots rather come and kill us all, rather than speculating in such foolishness as this!

In our country, crime is unknown! There shall be no interference of any kind from other, maybe even capitalist countries, in our country!
I tell you, please have your competition and hate-procreating systems to yourselves, have your criminals, but leave us out of it. Don't you realize that money have absolutely no value in itself? Thus- what's the use of it? You can have a hug from us- for free!

I hope my point has been made, although an alarming amount of members have actually voted for this rubbish proposal. I will try and settle the unrest among my loving inhabitants, and see if there may be something more than this to participating in the UN with the rest.

Love, out.

I love this article, especially section 3. The bolded section 2 is the source of my minor question. Under what circumstances would or should the ICPIN not agree to provide information? Any of the several nations may have reason to withhold information, I can imagine that, but why would the ICPIN?
I'm gonna be 100% honest: I can't remember. There was some comment brought up during drafting that made us adopt that wording, but what it was escapes me.

Thinking it through, though, perhaps it might come into play in cases where the circumstances of the case change quite rapidly. There is also an issue of corruption and deceit: if for, example, a nation is trying to track down someone on charges of $crime, but in fact wants to detain them as a political prisoner, then the ICPIN would presumably not cooperate in those enquiries. Also, non-UN nations can conceivably use the ICPIN, yet their criminal codes are more likely to be incompatible with UN nations' (for example, it would make little sense for the ICPIN to assist in the detention of a fugitive whose crime was unauthorised emigration, given persons in UN member nations enjoy that unqualified right).

If anyone can think of any other examples, do please chip in. (And if they can't, that strongly suggests the ICPIN will not exercise that right in any case.)
Outstanding work, Ms. Benson. I have nominated you for the Intangible Medal of Clarity, which comes with a 300,000G prize and honorary House of Progress privileges.
Why thank you. Unfortunately, as I work for the Quintessential Congress, whose Ethics and Procedures Book runs to a spine-snapping number of volumes, it might cause less administrative hassle for me to quietly decline the award (and accept a drink at the Strangers' Bar in lieu?).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

This is good, sound, solid, useful legislation and has our complete support.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Mine as well. I'm pleased to see the United Nations doing something imminently useful and international in nature.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

*shufling papers nervously" Ok....... seems like......erm....... Great! You can count on our support! *sits down quickly*

Sir! You sat down too quickly!

[to everyone else]

The ICPIN may not have the rights and responsibilities of a World Police Force, but it certainly sets up the framework for one to be installed! How do we know that a later resolution is not on the horizon, one that strikes out Sections 3 & 8, thus removing our right to choose to cooperate.

Central Terencio is whole-heartedly against this piece of legislation and will urge the member nations as well as the delegate of our region to vote against this resolution!

Crime is unknown in my country and I will not waste government funds and oppress civil liberties in order to make up for your inability to handle crime.

The ICPIN may not have the rights and responsibilities of a World Police Force, but it certainly sets up the framework for one to be installed! How do we know that a later resolution is not on the horizon, one that strikes out Sections 3 & 8, thus removing our right to choose to cooperate?Because resolutions cannot be amended. Go ahead, read the rules. It can't be done.

While as yet Naestoria has no official ambassador to the UN, we were planning to vote against this by sole virtue of it being an "International Security" resolution. Unfortunately, someone in our government actually read the damned thing, and now we see that it actually makes sense and we're obliged to endorse it, even if we can't vote for it quite yet.

-- The Second Council.

Crime is unknown in my country and I will not waste government funds and oppress civil liberties in order to make up for your inability to handle crime.

This resolution will allow you to track down your criminals in other nations, and vice-versa. You would also have one office to coordinate all the activities of your law enforcement agencies, and thus make sure they're all on the same page. We see nothing oppressive or wasteful about either result; therefore, while we welcome you as a new member to these hallowed halls, we feel your objection is based on incorrect assumptions. Altanar casts its vote in favor.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Congratulations on a well written resolution. But I do have one concern.

But, we don't have crime in Maximus Libra. Now, at the critical juncture of allowing our citizens more rights while maintaining a good economy, another unfunded mandate from the UN. How many new governmental departments will I need to create (I know, only one this time)? That's nice for big super-powers but for us still developing nations?

I have a better suggestion. Spend some of your own money on your own police force. If you don't tolerate crime, you will have no criminals. No criminals and then no need of this resolution.

Still considering our position but leaning against.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra
Republics of Sinners

Sir! You sat down too quickly!

[to everyone else]

The ICPIN may not have the rights and responsibilities of a World Police Force, but it certainly sets up the framework for one to be installed! How do we know that a later resolution is not on the horizon, one that strikes out Sections 3 & 8, thus removing our right to choose to cooperate.

Central Terencio is whole-heartedly against this piece of legislation and will urge the member nations as well as the delegate of our region to vote against this resolution!

As a very new member of this Assembly, the representative obviously isn't yet familiar with the rules. A later resolution could not strike Sections 3 and 8. That would be an amendment: clearly a violation of the rules of the NSUN. The resolution would be deleted by the Moderators and would never come to a vote.

We would urge the representative to reconsider his position. It seems senseless to us to vote against a good resolution on the off-chance that something bad may come along later. As written, and in light of the rules of this organization, the resolution at vote could not serve as a "framework" for a world police force.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Maximus Libra;12633685']Congratulations on a well written resolution. But I do have one concern.

But, we don't have crime in Maximus Libra. Now, at the critical juncture of allowing our citizens more rights while maintaining a good economy, another unfunded mandate from the UN. How many new governmental departments will I need to create (I know, only one this time)? That's nice for big super-powers but for us still developing nations?

I have a better suggestion. Spend some of your own money on your own police force. If you don't tolerate crime, you will have no criminals. No criminals and then no need of this resolution.

Still considering our position but leaning against.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra
Republics of Sinners

Think! You don't have to create any new government departments, period. You simply designate an existing organization to serve as the CNO required by the resolution. You can designate the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Flower Arranging or the Office of the Minister for Fluffy Stuffed Animals. It doesn't matter. Since you (purportedly) have no crime, you would have nothing to report to the ICPIN and no need to query it. And if, by chance, it sent you alerts, you could just use your handy-dandy spam blocker.

Because your nation (supposedly) has no crime seems a very poor reason to vote against a resolution which could be of great benefit to other nations in the world of NS. Acting in the interest of one's own nation is commendable and appropriate. Acting with no regard for the needs and welfare of other nations isn't.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

What is ICSI?

El Principe

A rather apathetic FOR.

Dr. Jules Hodz
is a lazy bum.
With a doctorate.

Passing this bill will lead to other such bills, eventually resulting in the dissolving of the right for criminals to claim sanctuary in my shines/swimming pools/canneries/temples/all of the above. Tasty Fish in the heavens should not be ever denied claiming a person to be under his protection. I also firmly believe in the return of my pet frog who died twenty years ago, and that all rice is actually maggots. I'm not done yet! (The broadcast is cut short to hide His Holiness's insanity fit)

Later a statement signed by the pope was released:
"This resolution will allow you to track down your criminals in other nations, and vice-versa.
- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador
Oh, so other nations' criminals can track me down legally?"

Within twelve minutes the Tasty Fish government began denying the statement was released.

Pope Tasty Fish XXVI, of the Holy Empire of Tasty Fish.

Unfortunately, as I work for the Quintessential Congress, whose Ethics and Procedures Book runs to a spine-snapping number of volumes, it might cause less administrative hassle for me to quietly decline the award (and accept a drink at the Strangers' Bar in lieu?).


As I was right in thinking, you've answered my question to my satisfaction.

And a drink at the Strangers' Bar it shall be. Name your poison.

:(
Such agreements may require such a completely peaceful, anti- arms, anti- crime, only promoting love and peace sort of nation as ours to have to withdraw from diplomatic debate completely!

This may become an application to leave the UN- and may aggressive idiots rather come and kill us all, rather than speculating in such foolishness as this!

In our country, crime is unknown! There shall be no interference of any kind from other, maybe even capitalist countries, in our country!
I tell you, please have your competition and hate-procreating systems to yourselves, have your criminals, but leave us out of it. Don't you realize that money have absolutely no value in itself? Thus- what's the use of it? You can have a hug from us- for free!

I hope my point has been made, although an alarming amount of members have actually voted for this rubbish proposal. I will try and settle the unrest among my loving inhabitants, and see if there may be something more than this to participating in the UN with the rest.

Love, out.

Perhaps if you could actually point out, using the resolution itself as an example, WHY this piece of legislation is "rubbish", more people would be inclined to listen to you. As your argument stands now, it's little more than "OH NO! IT SOUNDS LIKE A BIG BROTHER THINGY, AND I WAS TAUGHT NOT TO LIKE THAT KIND OF THINGY! NO!!!"

Seriously -- disagree all you like, but if you wish your disagreement to carry any weight, please infuse it with something other than boilerplate panic and threats of leaving the UN. Trust me, more and better than you have made that threat and even made good on it over the years, and y'know what? The UN is still here.

There's nothing in this resolution that does ANYthing to hinder your own national police procedures. It's setting up an international criminal database -- a clearinghouse for fugitives from justice so that other jurisdictions might have a clue as to who's out there who is fleeing from the legitimate authority of other nations. If you can raise even a scintilla of argument against a NON-arresting, NON-prosecuting, NON-policing agency looking to help track and keep information on known international criminal activity, please present it here -- for this is the place and this is the time.

Save the Chicken Little routine for the kids.

Crime is unknown in my country and I will not waste government funds and oppress civil liberties in order to make up for your inability to handle crime.

Please pull your head out and explain this statement. Any single nation's ability (or lack thereof) to "handle" crime is NOT WITHIN THIS RESOLUTION's PURVIEW. Please READ the damned thing before you spout off like that. Crime may be unknown in your country, but A) will it be that way forever, and B) what if a fugitive from another nation's justice system ends up in your nation? Wouldn't your police forces like to know something about where he's from and what he's done?

Passing this bill will lead to other such bills, eventually resulting in the dissolving of the right for criminals to claim sanctuary in my shines/swimming pools/canneries/temples/all of the above. Tasty Fish in the heavens should not be ever denied claiming a person to be under his protection. I also firmly believe in the return of my pet frog who died twenty years ago, and that all rice is actually maggots. I'm not done yet! (The broadcast is cut short to hide His Holiness's insanity fit)

Later a statement signed by the pope was released:
"
Oh, so other nations' criminals can track me down legally?"

Within twelve minutes the Tasty Fish government began denying the statement was released.

Pope Tasty Fish XXVI, of the Holy Empire of Tasty Fish.

Posts like this are why I've never written any serious proposals. I comment QUOD and all the others who've ever managed to get resolutions passed in the face of such...interesting...responses.

Think! You don't have to create any new government departments, period. You simply designate an existing organization to serve as the CNO required by the resolution. You can designate the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Flower Arranging or the Office of the Minister for Fluffy Stuffed Animals. It doesn't matter. Since you (purportedly) have no crime, you would have nothing to report to the ICPIN and no need to query it. And if, by chance, it sent you alerts, you could just use your handy-dandy spam blocker.

Because your nation (supposedly) has no crime seems a very poor reason to vote against a resolution which could be of great benefit to other nations in the world of NS. Acting in the interest of one's own nation is commendable and appropriate. Acting with no regard for the needs and welfare of other nations isn't.


Yes, no crime. We took a hard line on crime early on and now we have no crime. No criminals either. And we didn't dump our problems on someone else's doorstep. Fear or Respect, either way We get the results We want. It's been a loooong time since anyone committed a crime in the Protectorate. For that matter of fact crime is very low in the entire Republics of Sinners Region.

If nations with crime problems wish to have treaties with each other to pool their resources, then so be it. True, I can shift the proposal mandated office to one of my internal ones, but still, a mandate for a communications interface is there. Spam blocker? Would someone, perhaps some Super-Power, whose ego surpasses their importance tolerate anyone ignoring their messages?

What is wrong with old fashioned diplomacy? Why not just contact the nation(s) involved and then extradite as usual? Oh, but that's what you do. When we used to have prisoners, they didn't escape.

You take me to task for "Acting with no regard for the needs and welfare of other nations". You presume a familiarity that doesn't exist. Obviously our respective nations have differing cultures. How can you assume that I'm just like you and show such a lack of respect for my culture. I merely explain our position and and talked down to like a child. I can see the appreciation of diversity here. Is it any wonder that more nations are non-members than members.

For such a presumption, We will vote NO and will encourage all nations in our region to follow our example.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra
UN Delegate for The Republics of Sinners

As written, and in light of the rules of this organization, the resolution at vote could not serve as a "framework" for a world police force.Especially since, under the rules, a world police force would also be illegal.

What I don't understand is how an piece of legislation such as this could be passed, considering that almost all important articles are optional. Essentially, what is the point? Why would we want to pass a resolution that is optional? Doesn't that defeat the purpose in the first place? If a nation under the mandate of said resolution deems that a criminal who has committed several heinous felonies in one nation was just or otherwise righteous in their actions, then the criminal walks freely into their borders, exempt from deportation and punishment.

What I don't understand is how an piece of legislation such as this could be passed, considering that almost all important articles are optional. Essentially, what is the point? Why would we want to pass a resolution that is optional? Doesn't that defeat the purpose in the first place? If a nation under the mandate of said resolution deems that a criminal who has committed several heinous felonies in one nation was just or otherwise righteous in their actions, then the criminal walks freely into their borders, exempt from deportation and punishment.

The UN is not designed to be an international central government, at least not yet. It is just meant to provide a framework for cooperation between two states. Passing a bill like this would make dealing with international crime more efficient between two consenting countries.

The ICPIN may not have the rights and responsibilities of a World Police Force, but it certainly sets up the framework for one to be installed! How do we know that a later resolution is not on the horizon, one that strikes out Sections 3 & 8, thus removing our right to choose to cooperate.
We don't. But given such a resolution would be illegal on two counts - one for amendment, one for creating a police force - it's nothing we're unduly worried about. I'd also point out that voting against a resolution because of a resolution that hasn't even been written but that might come along later anyway, is the approximate equivalent of refusing to eat pizza because you're afraid of nuclear war.
Crime is unknown in my country and I will not waste government funds and oppress civil liberties in order to make up for your inability to handle crime.
Perhaps the first point to make is that the United Nations has designated our crime rate as 'totally unknown'. So there's no deficiency on our part being patched up by this proposal. Furthermore, nothing in this proposal requires the suppression of civil liberties - and given we have voted for every single Human Rights resolution presented to the General Assembly during the tenure of our membership of the UN, we should be rather concerned if it did - nor the wasting of funds. The establishment of a CNO is a preemptive measure to reduce government waste by improving the efficiency of communications; absent such a hub, it seems likely multiple smaller-scale contact offices would need to be maintained.
Maximus Libra;12633685']But, we don't have crime in Maximus Libra. Now, at the critical juncture of allowing our citizens more rights while maintaining a good economy, another unfunded mandate from the UN. How many new governmental departments will I need to create (I know, only one this time)? That's nice for big super-powers but for us still developing nations?

I have a better suggestion. Spend some of your own money on your own police force. If you don't tolerate crime, you will have no criminals. No criminals and then no need of this resolution.
I must admit confusion at this. The UN does not recognise Quintessence of Dust as spending any money on law enforcement (though this simply reflects the budget being less than 1% of our total national expenditure, and also run at a local, rather than federal, level). And our crime rate is, as I've stated, 'totally unknown'; we are generally ranked in the top 1,000 nations in the world for 'lowest crime rate'.

As for the issue of unfunded mandate, the financial strain of setting up a CNO would seem to us - by no means an economic superpower - fairly negligible, especially when compared to the inevitable costs of maintaining such offices for each law enforcement branch instead, and the costs of failing to address crime. Furthermore, it seems clear from my reading of clause 7 that you can request aid - including financial aid - from the ICPIN in maintaining your CNO, happily making it a funded mandate.
What is ICSI?
The International Computer Security Institute, established by Resolution #104, "Computer Crimes Act".
Passing this bill will lead to other such bills, eventually resulting in the dissolving of the right for criminals to claim sanctuary in my shines/swimming pools/canneries/temples/all of the above. Tasty Fish in the heavens should not be ever denied claiming a person to be under his protection.
We would vote against other such bills and preemptively deny any association with them. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, this does not dissolve the principle of sanctuary: if you do not consider them a criminal, you do not need assist in any proceedings. (Indeed, you don't even if you do consider them a criminal. This is not an extradition treaty.)
As I was right in thinking, you've answered my question to my satisfaction.

And a drink at the Strangers' Bar it shall be. Name your poison.
Why thank you; perhaps you could recommend an Intangible beverage of note.
Maximus Libra;12634921']If nations with crime problems wish to have treaties with each other to pool their resources, then so be it.
As a nation with no crime problem, we wholeheartedly agree.
What is wrong with old fashioned diplomacy? Why not just contact the nation(s) involved and then extradite as usual? Oh, but that's what you do. When we used to have prisoners, they didn't escape.
Again, this is not an extradition treaty. And your 'why not' is perplexing, because the very purpose of the CNO is to make old fashioned diplomacy distinctly easier and more efficient.
For such a presumption, We will vote NO and will encourage all nations in our region to follow our example.
Prime Minister von Aschenbach was perfectly civil, and perfectly accurate, and a spiteful reaction like this hardly seems to allay his criticisms.
What I don't understand is how an piece of legislation such as this could be passed, considering that almost all important articles are optional.
It's a question of perspective. For me, the important article is Clause 4: and that one is not optional.
Essentially, what is the point?
The point is to promote international cooperation in suppressing crime and bringing criminal justices, while recognising that some measures towards that are not going to be appropriate in every situation.
Why would we want to pass a resolution that is optional?
We wouldn't, nor indeed would we be permitted to under the proposal rules. Yes, this is filed as a Mild proposal, but the establishment of a CNO is not optional.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose in the first place?
Given the purpose was to make some basic requirements, but leave the more complex approaches to individual discretion, evidently not.
If a nation under the mandate of said resolution deems that a criminal who has committed several heinous felonies in one nation was just or otherwise righteous in their actions, then the criminal walks freely into their borders, exempt from deportation and punishment.
Correct. And while that is the case absent this resolution anyway, we feel it's unlikely on two counts. For one, it would likely create severe international tensions that would probably outweigh any benefit to the refusenik nation; for two, it would seem unlikely that they would want such an individual walking aruond freely in their nation.

I thank those who have responded to comments during my time away from the debate.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

To Ausserland :upyours: .
It appears you are over stepping your authority Madam. As the good book of the National Church of Barbender clearly states "Judge not, lest ye likewise be judged" "You can try the spirits to see if they are of God." (That means we can judge right from wrong, but we are not allowed to condemn people. Condemnation is the Lords. Just so you know and won't continue in the error of your ways, Ausserland) All cultures are not made equally. Even if you have 4.13 billion population it does not give you the Super Power to look down on developing nations. Arrogance is unbecoming as a Nation's representative. You should taste the poison in your words before you open your mouth. I don't know how you handle insults to your honor be we of Barbender dost allow honor duels to the death.

"Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare."

For a Nation that coddles it's criminals out of existance, you don't respect the right of fellow nations to deal with criminals as they see fit.

To fellow UN delegates:
"Crime -- especially youth-related -- is well under control, thanks to the all-pervasive police force."

This is the current state of my nation. I voted for this resolution before I voted against it. The audacity of Ausserland to openly insult and then proceed to browbeat my region's UN delagate made me realize I cannot side with Ausserland in voting for this resolution. I urge others nations that are tired of being pusshed around by Super Power nations to vote against this resolution.

Criminals won't make it into my country. I have a 5 mile defensive strip totally surrounding my nation. In said strip I have mines and other deadly pitfalls. So either way your criminals find justice at your hand or they find death in mine. So yes forests do end at national borders.

*Sends memo* By way, Manth, where did you get your whale steaks from? I haven't tried them and there is no market for them currently in the Republics of Sinners. Signed a potential ally Tauren of Barbender, Amb, Left hand of the national church of Barbender, High Inquisitor, and General of the Armed Forces of Barbender.

As the good book of the National Church of Barbender states "Those that fail to take care of their family are infidels, and have denied the faith already."


Tauren Amb. to the UN and the Left hand of the National Church of Barbender.

I urge others nations that are tired of being pusshed around by Super Power nations to vote against this resolution.Smaller doses. Less frequently.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

An excellent resolution, Ms Benson. I am sometimes wary of International Security measures but once again I am proven a fool to doubt the integrity of those who propose them. I happily place my nation's vote in favour.

Benedictions,

Criminals won't make it into my country. I have a 5 mile defensive strip totally surrounding my nation. In said strip I have mines and other deadly pitfalls.Apparently you fail to realize that by deploying land mines along your borders you're in violation of UN resolution #40 Banning the use of Landmines (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029857&postcount=41).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why thank you; perhaps you could recommend an Intangible beverage of note.


Praskitrino. Our national lime-derived liquor. Perfect on a hot, Intangible summer day.

Nice refutations without losing your cool, by the way.

*snip paranoid ramblings*

Criminals won't make it into my country. I have a 5 mile defensive strip totally surrounding my nation. In said strip I have mines and other deadly pitfalls. So either way your criminals find justice at your hand or they find death in mine. So yes forests do end at national borders.



I hereby submit to the General Assembly that Barbender is in violation of NSUN Resolution #40 Banning the Use of Land Mines.

Gnomes, do your duty.

To Ausserland :upyours: .
It appears you are over stepping your authority Madam. As the good book of the National Church of Barbender clearly states "Judge not, lest ye likewise be judged" "You can try the spirits to see if they are of God." (That means we can judge right from wrong, but we are not allowed to condemn people. Condemnation is the Lords. Just so you know and won't continue in the error of your ways, Ausserland) All cultures are not made equally. Even if you have 4.13 billion population it does not give you the Super Power to look down on developing nations. Arrogance is unbecoming as a Nation's representative. You should taste the poison in your words before you open your mouth. I don't know how you handle insults to your honor be we of Barbender dost allow honor duels to the death.



For a Nation that coddles it's criminals out of existance, you don't respect the right of fellow nations to deal with criminals as they see fit.

To fellow UN delegates:


This is the current state of my nation. I voted for this resolution before I voted against it. The audacity of Ausserland to openly insult and then proceed to browbeat my region's UN delagate made me realize I cannot side with Ausserland in voting for this resolution. I urge others nations that are tired of being pusshed around by Super Power nations to vote against this resolution.

Criminals won't make it into my country. I have a 5 mile defensive strip totally surrounding my nation. In said strip I have mines and other deadly pitfalls. So either way your criminals find justice at your hand or they find death in mine. So yes forests do end at national borders.

*Sends memo* By way, Manth, where did you get your whale steaks from? I haven't tried them and there is no market for them currently in the Republics of Sinners. Signed a potential ally Tauren of Barbender, Amb, Left hand of the national church of Barbender, High Inquisitor, and General of the Armed Forces of Barbender.

As the good book of the National Church of Barbender states "Those that fail to take care of their family are infidels, and have denied the faith already."


Tauren Amb. to the UN and the Left hand of the National Church of Barbender.

We have overstepped no authority. We have every right, as you have, to voice our opinions in this Assembly. We make no claim to being a "Super Power". If our opinions carry any weight at all in this organization, it's because we've worked to contribute to it and to help others become active and contributing members.

Now, let us express one of those opinions....

The decisions by your nation and your regional delegate to vote against the resolution because you took offense at our comments is a display of childish petulance more worthy of an elementary schoolyard than this Assembly. "You were mean to my buddy! I'll fix you! I'll vote against your resolution!" Sad, since it's not even our resolution -- simply one we find worthy of support.

And if you want your comments to be taken seriously here, we'd suggest you not make obscene gestures while quoting your good book.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ambassador Mattan finally finds his way back to the General Assembly Building.

"...Ah right. Here it is. So... We in New Manth are voting for this piece of legislation. That's all. ...what? Whale steak? Well I got mine fresh delivered from Mattan Inc's whaling division. Want some? Or, uh..."

The ambassador thinks for a few moments.

"I think they were doing something with whale meat down at the bar. Didn't pay much attention."

I hereby submit to the General Assembly that Barbender is in violation of NSUN Resolution #40 Banning the Use of Land Mines.

Gnomes, do your duty.At the risk of threadjack, UNR #40 is nothing but an emotive essay that doesn't actially ban anything. The gnomes can take an extended lunchbreak.

The gnomes can take an extended lunchbreak.

Too late. They already accepted the commission, and have deployed forces commensurate to the task.

http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2001/EliteForces.jpg

Zunania will oppose this legislation, not because it goes against its principles, but because it does not adequately address the need for a global apprehension of all criminals.

By supporting this legislation, members of the united nation endorse the idea that nothing more should be done. I, in quality of leader of Zunania, believe that this resolution will prevent any more substantial legislation concerning international criminal by its mere existence. Passing this resolution would allow the UN to consider the matter settled and go over another topic without further consideration.

But "what is wrong with this resolution?" some may ask. Well, let me explain it to you. Although it does go in the right direction, this is unfortunately not binding to any nation in any way by letting nations decide how and to what extent they should adopt and enforce it.

I believe that nations that will do everything in their power to apprehend international criminals will be at a disadvantage, as they will allow other nations to get their criminals incarcerated but will not have the right to apprehend those criminals that have fled in a country that has decided to not to enforce this resolution strictly.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is reciprocity.

Instead of such a broad resolution to be passed, I propose the constitution of a set of elementary laws that will be declared "International Laws" and will therefore be enforced equally in every country. The status of every person who would break those law would, be considered internationally, but the sentence would be executed in the person's native country. This would, I hope, prevent double jeopardy or the execution of different sentences in different countries, which would punish a person more than he or she deserves.

What laws this new resolution should include is still up to debate. In my humble opinion, murder and theft should definitely be included.

I call for all of you who hope for a decent international judiciary system to oppose this last resolution, not because it is ideologically wrong, but because the debate needs to go on. You do not have to necessarily support my idea, but you should understand that this topic should be debated further.

And to those super powers who have the endorsement of many countries, I ask to reconsider your vote. Errare Humanum Est, we are all human and we all make mistakes. Only the fools never change their minds.

Francois B., UN delegate and Chancelor of the Federation of Zunania

What I don't understand is how an piece of legislation such as this could be passed, considering that almost all important articles are optional. Essentially, what is the point? Why would we want to pass a resolution that is optional? Doesn't that defeat the purpose in the first place? If a nation under the mandate of said resolution deems that a criminal who has committed several heinous felonies in one nation was just or otherwise righteous in their actions, then the criminal walks freely into their borders, exempt from deportation and punishment.

It encourages co-opperting between members in order to serve justice. It isn't madatory because a) then a lot of people including me would think it enfringes on national power or b) it could potentially envoke the "no-NSUN Army" rule.

Too late. They already accepted the commission, and have deployed forces commensurate to the task.

http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2001/EliteForces.jpg


The Gnomes have hired mercenary squirrels?


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

This isn't an extradition treaty. Nothing in this proposal obligates any nation to hand over anyone. And the most curious part of your analysis is that you think such a refusal would not create some international concern anyway.

I don't think any country should be allowed to persecute anyone. As for prosecution, again, this proposal does not prevent anyone from prosecuting crimes committed within their own nation.

I also thank you for vindicating my prediction that clause 8 would not be read; should you do so, you'll notice your right to say 'possible refugee' is firmly protected.

In future, it'd be helpful if you could specify the troublesome sections of the proposal, rather than vaguely wafting at items bearing little relevance to the actual text.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)
"I'm astounded by your inability to understand our statement most completely. The problem isn't that it will be enforced, and we even pointed that out. We read 8, and read it clearly. The problem with with international incident is not that a person may be forced to hunt down another. The problem with international incident is that every time a country refuses to help out another country, it ceases to be the simple "we don't care" attitude that once existed if a criminal escaped into another country, it becomes an active denial of assistance. Thus, a country's right to act how it pleases all of a sudden can be seen as a face-slap to nearby countries instead of just merely prioritizing its own interests.

Therein, lies the problem. The J.N.G. will not support this passing. True, we will remain in the U.N. However, we will have only a token force of one individual to comprise our ICPIN, and his or her or its sole job will be merely to make sure the automated message that says "no we won't assist you here" continues to function.

The rules of nearly all other countries in the U.N. are barbaric while they let the major threats to the lives and safety of the populace run around unchecked. We would hate to even think about enforcing other country's laws, just as most other countries are too corrupt to even attempt our system. We stand on our "no thank you" policy on this one.

On the flip side... almost every single corporation is a law-breaking entity by our country's laws, and nearly every other country's law enforcement are criminals by our standards, which makes this even more difficult."

~ A duly approved message from the J.N.G. Composed by social studies professor, Dr. J.S. Auctus and approved by 2/3 of responders of the required period

"This current proposal is genius in my opinion. I think that each country should be able to help one another in a united. The underground world must be stoped. Decade after decade, the miniorities tople the unstable goverments. We should unite together and capture these thugs. We should, unitedly, declare war on the underworld and begin a new reign of good and justice in the world!" declares King Leonardo Stromonofski III of Genoviastan while at the podium at the UN headquarters.

The Prince of Warminster and his Highness's government hold the position that although the law enforcement activities of each member nation are their own concern, a co-operative network between agencies can only be beneficial to the security of each member state. However, the decision to allow foreign officers and agents to operate within another sovereign state must lie with the government or Head of State of said member nation, as sovereignty must be inviolate.

Minister of State
Principality of the Isle of Warminster

Less government!!!

Less government!!!

Is the phrase "tastes great" supposed to precede this?

Is the phrase "tastes great" supposed to precede this?
Or at least it would have during the last debate.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Quick recap: New proposal. We opine. Replies fly. We rebuke. Site goes crazy.

A little more in depth: After We post and note that we are "leaning against", we are told we should not be selfish and should consider other nations. How insulting. If We had no care for other nations We wouldn't be in the UN. Yet, WE replied with the least of rebukes choosing to go against the popular tide of sentiment and voted no. Nations have gone to war over less than a percieved insult. Perhaps nuance is lost on some members. After watching several votes, We have noticed an apparent lack of a "loyal opposition", a "devil's advocate" if you will. Someone who will make you look past your assumptions and consider others points of view as valid, even if you don't agree.

I sense sycophants with thin skins not used to being talked to in an enthusastic manner. Making your opponent lose their temper is a valid diplomatic ploy. However, we haven't gone that route ... yet. Diplomacy is a contact sport. Rough and tumble. and yet the super-powers are so terrified of the third world that they verbally attack anyone that doesn't agree with them. My what tolerance is shown by example. (Full disclosure - Proceeding paragraph is sacrastic)

A side note on Barbender and land mines: How many knees were broken by the involuntary jerking? The Protocol clearly states that the use of land mines in conflicts is prohibited. Unlike some others, We took the time to discuss this with the good ambassador from Barbender. We note that the Protocol 1) does not prohibit the production of land mines, 2) does not prohibit the sale of land mines, 3) does not prohibit the peaceful (non-conflict) use of land mines. The Ambassador has shown me that 1) Barbender is not at war. 2) the land mines are primarily for law enforcement - anti-illegal immigration devices and secondarily for defensive purposes should anyone be foolish enough to try to invade. 3) The Barbender anticipates further use of landmines as entertainment - something about television but I missed it.

Cultural diversity must be respected. While We don't agree with no guns, there are nations with no guns and no crime. We salute them. (How did you do it?) But whining because someone doesn't do as you like or isn't "playing nicely" is unbecoming a diplomat. (whining should be done in private) Verbal barbs are Ok by me, but Character Assassination is another matter. This is the line a diplomat will come to, as needed , but never cross.

But this is all just my point-of-view, through the lens of my experiences. Wake up and smell the coffee, and do have a piece of tenderloin-au-orca.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambasssador Plenipotentairy
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

4. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication;


Although ChaZZZlandia fully supports cooperation between nations in order to fight all forms of crime, organized or not, we cannot support an international body impressing it's will upon a sovereign nation, and thus cannot support this bill.
It is disapointing to see that the only way this body seems to act on issues is to impose international mandates and laws, thus transforming itself into a type of international quasi-government which imo is not it's mandate or intended purpose.

tehReal~ChaZZZy
Founder of ChaZZZlandia

Ok, first, this is starting to bug me. What is all this about 'super powers'? Quintessence of Dust has a population of 5 million, a middling economy not ranked in the top 100 in its region, a poorly funded military, and few diplomatic connections. We are in no possible estimation a 'super power'; we simply worked out how to submit UN proposals. Maybe some of you complaining about being unduly oppressed by these imaginary super powers should give it a try.

Oh, what am I saying...
But "what is wrong with this resolution?" some may ask. Well, let me explain it to you. Although it does go in the right direction, this is unfortunately not binding to any nation in any way by letting nations decide how and to what extent they should adopt and enforce it.
Flatly untrue. Its most significant provision - the establishment of a CNO - is compulsory, and we believe this alone will significantly aid efforts to suppress international criminal activities.
I believe that nations that will do everything in their power to apprehend international criminals will be at a disadvantage, as they will allow other nations to get their criminals incarcerated but will not have the right to apprehend those criminals that have fled in a country that has decided to not to enforce this resolution strictly.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is reciprocity.
This is not an unreasonable concern, but there is nothing to suggest that this cannot be achieved with this resolution in place. First, we clearly cannot allow other nations to go trampling across borders: that would completely violate the principle of territorial sovereignty. Second, there is no major incentive for nations not to assist in the capture of criminals, given those individuals are surely likely to pose a threat in their own nation, and that doing so would generate international distrust and anger. Third, the aim of this proposal is to make it easier for international efforts: given that, it seems much more likely reciprocal efforts will spring up.
Instead of such a broad resolution to be passed, I propose the constitution of a set of elementary laws that will be declared "International Laws" and will therefore be enforced equally in every country. The status of every person who would break those law would, be considered internationally, but the sentence would be executed in the person's native country. This would, I hope, prevent double jeopardy or the execution of different sentences in different countries, which would punish a person more than he or she deserves.
What I'm not clear on is how this scenario - and I should point out every UN resolution is considered an international law - would actually advance the cause of justice any further than ours would. You have veered off from originally talking about reciprocity in detaining criminals, to having completely equal legal codes. The two are entirely distinct. And there is no guarantee that a nation with weak or corrupt law enforcement, or no commitment thereto, would be any better at enforcing such laws than they would at assisting others in capture of fugitives.
What laws this new resolution should include is still up to debate. In my humble opinion, murder and theft should definitely be included.
That would be incredibly challenging. The only attempt for the UN to legislate on murder went horribly awry, and can you imagine a resolution on theft that takes into account those nations with no concept of private property? These types of statutes are intrinsically national affairs.
I'm astounded by your inability to understand our statement most completely. The problem isn't that it will be enforced, and we even pointed that out. We read 8, and read it clearly. The problem with with international incident is not that a person may be forced to hunt down another. The problem with international incident is that every time a country refuses to help out another country, it ceases to be the simple "we don't care" attitude that once existed if a criminal escaped into another country, it becomes an active denial of assistance. Thus, a country's right to act how it pleases all of a sudden can be seen as a face-slap to nearby countries instead of just merely prioritizing its own interests.
This may an unresolvable clash of axioms, because I simply reject your starting premise. The idea that, without this proposal, a nation consistently harbouring criminals and refusing to assist in efforts to bring them to justice would be seen as perfectly fine is frankly silly. That kind of attitude would be 'seen as a face-slap' anyway; this proposal could not possibly such superlatively rank irresponsible practices seem any more so. And if, anything, it adds protection to such states, because it contains an explicit of their right to do such (rather odd) things.
Therein, lies the problem. The J.N.G. will not support this passing. True, we will remain in the U.N. However, we will have only a token force of one individual to comprise our ICPIN, and his or her or its sole job will be merely to make sure the automated message that says "no we won't assist you here" continues to function.
Um, the ICPIN is an international organization that, should this proposal pass, will be run by the UN. I don't understand what you mean by 'your ICPIN', although I'm sure you're not confusing it with the CNO, because that would reflect a pretty poor understanding of the proposal at hand, which I'm sure isn't the case here.
The rules of nearly all other countries in the U.N. are barbaric while they let the major threats to the lives and safety of the populace run around unchecked. We would hate to even think about enforcing other country's laws, just as most other countries are too corrupt to even attempt our system. We stand on our "no thank you" policy on this one.
Curious, then, that you would vote against a proposal guaranteeing your right to do so. But, it takes all sorts.
Although ChaZZZlandia fully supports cooperation between nations in order to fight all forms of crime, organized or not, we cannot support an international body impressing it's will upon a sovereign nation, and thus cannot support this bill.
Then the United Nations is not the body for you, and establishing one central point of communications for law enforcement branches is the mildest mandate imaginable, especially compared to some of the other legislation the UN has passed.
It is disapointing to see that the only way this body seems to act on issues is to impose international mandates and laws, thus transforming itself into a type of international quasi-government which imo is not it's mandate or intended purpose.
'imo' is an important qualifier here, because imo it is.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

EDP123 is undecided and has some questions.

Where are these agents recruited from, will we be fairly represented?

Where will these agents be trained?

who will be in charge of this agency?

Once these questions are answered we will announce our decisison

I initially was against this proposal as well, but I agree clause 8 was what won me over.

OOC:
Where are these agents recruited from, will we be fairly represented?

Where will these agents be trained?

who will be in charge of this agency?
1. UN committees are generally assumed to be staffed by 'gnomes', or faceless shirts who spring into existence for the purpose of staffing the committee. However, there's nothing to stop people RPing having some of their nationals serve in such functions; people did it with The Pretenama Panel and the UNCIAT, for example. So you could probably say that some of those working for the ICPIN come from EDP123 and certainly, there's no way you could be unfairly represented.

2. I have no idea where they would be trained, but it's important to emphasise ICPIN agents aren't police officers. They're mainly going to be desk jockeys, transferring information between other agencies.

3. No one is really 'in charge' of the agency, but they're accountable to the General Assembly. Their internal structures they would largely determine, but mostly they'd be responding to requests from particular nations.

My governement feels that thier questions have been answered in such a way that implies that the organisation will be a failure. EDP123 has always distrusted organisations that do not have a solid heriachial structure and answers such as "no one is in charge" and "I have no idea where they will be trained" shows a lack of planning.

However, My governement feels the idea has promise. The debates continue in my government, but it is likely that we will abstain, being unable to decide one way or the other.

A hush falls over the General Assmebly as suddenly the Flibbleite National Anthem (http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/sony/ps1/ff8intro.mid) begins to play. Then suddenly the door slams open and in walks Brandon Flibble, the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites. Brandon quickly walks over to the podium and begins to speak while brandishing a piece of paper.

All right, what the frak is this! I just received this message from The Free Land of Junior New Genetica, allow me to read it for you.
From the J.N.G. pre-ICPIN counsel:

By the laws of the J.N.G., all of the international corporations that have touched the J.N.G.'s boundaries (which, is the majority of them) are criminal. We demand you hand over all CEOs of major corporations that happen to be within your boundaries when the establishment of the ICPIN occurs so that we may prosecute them within our courts.I have some news for The Free Land of Junior New Genetica, you have no right to demand we hand over anyone even if this passes because according to our Commerce Department's records, no Flibbleite corporation has ever done business in your nation.

I believe if this passes you won't have to hand them over anyway. The resolution states that no prosecution is neccesery if you do not feel the offener is a criminal.

While this resolution is well intentioned, Clause 8 is both the reason the Duchy of IrishRuggers will approve this resolution, and the reason that this resolution is a meaningless piece of legislation. It effectively removes the teeth from the entire proposal, ensuring that only a small handfull of crimes will effectively be prosecuted throughout the member-nations of the UN.

Respecfully, the Duke of IrishRuggers.

Flatly untrue. Its most significant provision - the establishment of a CNO - is compulsory, and we believe this alone will significantly aid efforts to suppress international criminal activities.

I believe, Mrs. Benson, that your claim is unfounded.

First of all, Zunania's prison are too crowded to take in any of our neighbors criminals and you understand as well as I do that the execution of the citizens of other nations, criminals or not, would create a major diplomacy crisis.

Secondly, we do not need our neighbors to tell us our criminals are within their borders if they do not intend to do anything about it.

Lastly, the CNO may be compulsory, it remains an organism of communication, and not action. As far as I know, one needs slightly more than information to put somebody in prison. Hell, my government spends more and more every year in strengthening the enforcing arm of our judiciary system: our police, and does such with reason. This hum, CNO as you seem to call it, _is_ a step in the right direction, but it misses the point.

This is not an unreasonable concern, but there is nothing to suggest that this cannot be achieved with this resolution in place. First, we clearly cannot allow other nations to go trampling across borders: that would completely violate the principle of territorial sovereignty. Second, there is no major incentive for nations not to assist in the capture of criminals, given those individuals are surely likely to pose a threat in their own nation, and that doing so would generate international distrust and anger. Third, the aim of this proposal is to make it easier for international efforts: given that, it seems much more likely reciprocal efforts will spring up.

You make a point there, but I am still not convinced of the good will of my neighbors, in which case this proposal does not guarantee anything for me. Words such as "likely" and "suggest" have no place, in my humble opinion, in the process of making a law.

I would also like to point out that at no point I asked for the right to go "trample accross borders". I would never want foreign police to enter my country, but would gladly bring back criminal to their dear fatherland.

What I'm not clear on is how this scenario - and I should point out every UN resolution is considered an international law - would actually advance the cause of justice any further than ours would. You have veered off from originally talking about reciprocity in detaining criminals, to having completely equal legal codes. The two are entirely distinct. And there is no guarantee that a nation with weak or corrupt law enforcement, or no commitment thereto, would be any better at enforcing such laws than they would at assisting others in capture of fugitives.

That would be incredibly challenging. The only attempt for the UN to legislate on murder went horribly awry, and can you imagine a resolution on theft that takes into account those nations with no concept of private property? These types of statutes are intrinsically national affairs.

You must understand that the last part of my letter was just an opinion and not a formal proposal. It exposed the need for more debate rather than a hasty decision over a resolution that, I believe, is too weak.

Respectfully,

Armani K.
Minister delegate to International Affairs
Representative of the Federation of Zunania to the United Nation

While this resolution is well intentioned, Clause 8 is both the reason the Duchy of IrishRuggers will approve this resolution, and the reason that this resolution is a meaningless piece of legislation. It effectively removes the teeth from the entire proposal, ensuring that only a small handfull of crimes will effectively be prosecuted throughout the member-nations of the UN.
So, what you're saying is that if Joe Bloggs in Genericdictatorshipstan commits the crime of, say, calling the government stupid and then flees to New Anonia, you want us to be forced to send him back there? Fat chance. That's essentially outlawing refugees.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Ambassador

So, what you're saying is that if Joe Bloggs in Genericdictatorshipstan commits the crime of, say, calling the government stupid and then flees to New Anonia, you want us to be forced to send him back there? Fat chance. That's essentially outlawing refugees.

Not necessarily. One could imagine that some _special cases_ would call for the sending back of a criminal to its home country. However, most cases would still not be concerned, and refugees would still be allowed.

Armani K.
Minister Delegate to International Relations
Zunania's Representative to the United Nations.

New Leicestershire supports the passage of this resolution to increase international cooperation in crime fighting and have cast our vote in favour.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

What would happen if someone in a dictatorship did something that the dictator considered illegal, but that a democratic nation would consider the person's right, and so the person had to flee from the dictatorship to another country?

What would happen if someone in a dictatorship did something that the dictator considered illegal, but that a democratic nation would consider the person's right, and so the person had to flee from the dictatorship to another country?
In the real world, it would just depend on the relationship between the two countries. Bush would send prisoners to Saudi Arabia but probably not Iran.

What would happen if someone in a dictatorship did something that the dictator considered illegal, but that a democratic nation would consider the person's right, and so the person had to flee from the dictatorship to another country?

We would direct the representative to Clause 8 of the resolution which stipulates that the democratic nation is not compelled to aid in the “apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal”. Aid in such cases is given at their discretion.

8. Strongly emphasises that:
- ICPIN agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention, nor any authority to engage in police or military actions,
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.

First of all, Zunania's prison are too crowded to take in any of our neighbors criminals and you understand as well as I do that the execution of the citizens of other nations, criminals or not, would create a major diplomacy crisis.
We wouldn't ask or expect you to imprison criminals from other nations. What this proposal deals with is efforts to track down fugitives or to apprehend those involved in international crimes; normally - although this goes beyond the scope of this proposal - once detained such individuals would be extradited to face charges - and resulting imprisonment - in the nation in which they committed the crime.
Secondly, we do not need our neighbors to tell us our criminals are within their borders if they do not intend to do anything about it.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it does seem to be broadly correct, yes.
Lastly, the CNO may be compulsory, it remains an organism of communication, and not action. As far as I know, one needs slightly more than information to put somebody in prison. Hell, my government spends more and more every year in strengthening the enforcing arm of our judiciary system: our police, and does such with reason. This hum, CNO as you seem to call it, _is_ a step in the right direction, but it misses the point.
Well, perhaps you could explain what exactly the point is. Your bizarre, gutter-trailing snipes aside, clearly the CNO is a point of communication because it coordinates between existing law enforcement divisions: as you yourself have just stated, states operate law enforcement bodies. There seems no need for, if I'm inferring your vague posturing correctly, the UN to force nations to set up new police bodies to overlap the mandates of perfectly adequate existing ones; however, it is necessary for the different divisions to be coordinated, such that - for example - the coast guard don't allow a fugitive drug smuggler to walk free on demonstrating he has an up-to-date boat licence.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Some clarification is required please.

4. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication;

This as I understand stipulates that all UN nations:
1. must maintain a CNO,
2. which will communicate with all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction.
3. Also, the CNO will become the first point of contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication.

With regards to my first point (1.), must nations construct their own offices for this agency, or are they only required to maintain it after its built? Which more importantly raises issues of finances, and how is this organization to be funded and operated? Who is to provide the payroll for the employee's, and who shall allocate funds and insure no misappropriation of funding for this internation organization.

With regards to my second point (2.), the wording requires clarification for me. Does this mean that any agency a member nation so decides not to communicate and share information with the ICPIN is in fact an act of breaking the law. Understandably, many nations might have internal organizations with security issues they may deem to sensitive to be exposed to an international communitee that does not necessarily have that nations best interests at hands. Further, how will sensitive security information be handled in order to ensure that information is not distributed in an inappropriate manner.

With regards to my third point (3.), this appears to demand that the ICPIN become the arbiter of communications between nations. Perhaps better explanation of this will alleviate concerns.


7. Declares that the ICPIN shall:
- maintain regular contact with all CNOs,
- assist in the establishment and maintenance of the CNOs of nations requesting such aid,
- facilitate communications and cooperation between national law enforcement agencies,
- distribute information and alerts to all relevant CNOs about known or suspected fugitives or criminal activities,
- cooperate with other relevant international agencies, such as the ICSI,
- compile and maintain a database of known and suspected fugitives, international criminal organizations, and criminal activities spanning multiple jurisdictions;


1. If the ICPIN is to assist in the establishment and maintenance of the CNO's, how is it able to do so? How will the ICPIN generate revenue? If you are asking nations to contribute funding in order to support this organization then how much ? And how will nations be able to ensure that their money is being used in responsible ways?

2. Who determines who all relevant CNO's are when information is being distributed and alerts? Again, this encroaches upon the issues of international security and trust. What prevents the abuse of the informations obtained by this agency?

8. Strongly emphasises that:
- ICPIN agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention, nor any authority to engage in police or military actions,
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.

1. Though it is said that any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN the overall mandate is worded that it only strongly emphasises this to occur. What are the guarantees ?



The idea of the ICPIN is a good one, and one which my government may support if the issues we have brought up are addressed and satisfactorily answered. I invite all nations to strongly consider the points brought up here, for not to do so would be irresponsible. Let not good ideas fall apart due to poor planning.

My governement feels that thier questions have been answered in such a way that implies that the organisation will be a failure. EDP123 has always distrusted organisations that do not have a solid heriachial structure and answers such as "no one is in charge" and "I have no idea where they will be trained" shows a lack of planning.

However, My governement feels the idea has promise. The debates continue in my government, but it is likely that we will abstain, being unable to decide one way or the other.

OOC (Out-of-Character):

If this were RL (real life), I'd agree 100% with your concerns. But I think we have to consider the resolution in the context of the UN as it's set up in the game. NSUN instrumentalities are staffed by the ever-popular "gnomes", which removes considerations of staff selection/training/reporting chains from the table. I may be wrong, but I think this was probably done deliberately to simplify things into game-manageable scope.

It might be worthwhile for you to browse through the existing resolutions and take a look at some of those that establish committees. I can't recall any of them that set specific requirements for training of staff or establish reporting channels for the committees. Some specify competencies, but nothing beyond that. To me, the structure of the resolution shows an understanding of the way this organization works, rather than poor planning. Just one of the ways in which -- as we all need to be reminded occasionally -- NS is not RL.

Hope that helps.

Although ChaZZZlandia fully supports cooperation between nations in order to fight all forms of crime, organized or not, we cannot support an international body impressing it's will upon a sovereign nation, and thus cannot support this bill.

Then the United Nations is not the body for you, and establishing one central point of communications for law enforcement branches is the mildest mandate imaginable, especially compared to some of the other legislation the UN has passed.

It is disapointing to see that the only way this body seems to act on issues is to impose international mandates and laws, thus transforming itself into a type of international quasi-government which imo is not it's mandate or intended purpose.

'imo' is an important qualifier here, because imo it is.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Samantha please don't presume to "advise" me what international body "is or isn't" for me.

As far as your "interpretation" of what this body should stand for, based on your intrusive legislation it seems fairly obvious what you believe this body's purpose is and that is why I oppose your bill.

tehReal~ChaZZZy

:cool:

4. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction...


This concept is disturbing in the sense that it turns from on of the U.N.'s greatest promises - that of national sovereignty. It infringes upon member state's rights. The language should be along the lines of "Strong encourages," etc.





3. Emphasises that the decision to grant such powers remains a national prerogative;

This, on the other hand, is a step in the right direction. The idea here should be applied throughout the resolution.

4. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication;

We have already sketched out our CNO. We have a lovely little closet picked out, where we shouldn't have any problem running a phone line and an extension cord. Repalce the brooms and mops with a small desk, plug in a light in, and there we go, our CNO !

Oh, and so that we are the first contact "requirement" we have added Voice Mail.

We have just enough budget available to setup this "office" and pay someone minimum-wage to man the desk. But don't worry, we should be able to jump right on the phone, part time. Unfortunately, it will only be 2 days per week to start, but hey, it's something right ? !

We feel this meets the requirements of the CNO, in the absence of any binding specifics in the proposed resolution.

Everyone who voted for this needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I think everyone is expecting that just because your in the UN your a nice guy and therefore your going to actually do something good because your motivated by the good-natured theme of this resolution.

People who sign on to this thinking it's actually going to help are in for a shock. This is teethless, and only serves to increase red-tape and lull the participants into a false sense of security.

This resolution wants to be INTERPOL, but it isn't. Compare the two and you'll see the signifigant shortcomings of this proposal.

And don't even get me going on the Title of this resolution: "... improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." Where exactly does this resolution say anything about police and/or military budgets ?

Voting for this just because you think it's a nifty idea is not OK. I admit, I think it's a very nifty idea. But without some muscle behind it it's nothing more than sticking your head in the ground. Give me something with some teeth and I'll gladly sign on !

What say you ?

With regards to my first point (1.), must nations construct their own offices for this agency, or are they only required to maintain it after its built? Which more importantly raises issues of finances, and how is this organization to be funded and operated? Who is to provide the payroll for the employee's, and who shall allocate funds and insure no misappropriation of funding for this internation organization.
You seem to confusing the CNO and the ICPIN in this clause. I'll try to address them separately:
- if you do not already have something like a CNO - many nations will - then you will be expected to construct it: however, as mentioned, the ICPIN is authorised to provide financial aid to nations who have trouble with this;
- the ICPIN will be funded as other UN organizations are i.e. tenuously: should the Karmicarian proposal, UN Funding Act, be adopted as a resolution, then the ICPIN would be one such organization to benefit.
With regards to my second point (2.), the wording requires clarification for me. Does this mean that any agency a member nation so decides not to communicate and share information with the ICPIN is in fact an act of breaking the law.
No. Cooperation with the ICPIN is optional.
Further, how will sensitive security information be handled in order to ensure that information is not distributed in an inappropriate manner.
As stated in the proposal:
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
With regards to my third point (3.), this appears to demand that the ICPIN become the arbiter of communications between nations. Perhaps better explanation of this will alleviate concerns.
Again, you have clearly become confused between the CNO - which is a national office - and the ICPIN - which is an international one. The word 'arbitration' would be misleading, but the CNO is intended as the main means of communication between nations on law enforcement measures: as such, they might well not require recourse to the ICPIN.
1. If the ICPIN is to assist in the establishment and maintenance of the CNO's, how is it able to do so? How will the ICPIN generate revenue? If you are asking nations to contribute funding in order to support this organization then how much ? And how will nations be able to ensure that their money is being used in responsible ways?
All of this is subject to common vagaries of UN funding. However, some initial points:
- this proposal does not require your nation to contribute funds to the ICPIN;
- the ICPIN can presumably draw from the UN budget as any UN committee or organization can;
- I strongly suggest reviewing the proposed UN Funding Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524510).
2. Who determines who all relevant CNO's are when information is being distributed and alerts?
The ICPIN: however, given nations exercise a veto over disclosure of their own information, they would obviously be able to negotiate regarding any situations where they felt uncomfortable about particular CNOs being informed.
What prevents the abuse of the informations obtained by this agency?
See my earlier point about reading the proposal.
1. Though it is said that any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN the overall mandate is worded that it only strongly emphasises this to occur. What are the guarantees ?
It is an absolute.
This concept is disturbing in the sense that it turns from on of the U.N.'s greatest promises - that of national sovereignty. It infringes upon member state's rights. The language should be along the lines of "Strong encourages," etc.
The UN has never promised absolute national sovereignty. And maintaining a CNO is an incredibly minor mandate, that anyway is of use primarily for international relations.
We feel this meets the requirements of the CNO, in the absence of any binding specifics in the proposed resolution.
So long as it is able to carry out its required functions, yes, it does.
This resolution wants to be INTERPOL, but it isn't. Compare the two and you'll see the signifigant shortcomings of this proposal.
OOC: This is pretty ironic given this proposal pretty much exactly correlates to the RL Interpol. For CNO, read NCB, and for ICPIN, read Interpol, and you have it.
And don't even get me going on the Title of this resolution: "... improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." Where exactly does this resolution say anything about police and/or military budgets?
That's a function of all International Security proposals; only someone who didn't know the basic mechanics of the UN would make so foolish an error, but I'm sure that's not the case here, right? Besides, maintaining a CNO will - marginally, and hence the Mild rating - require some added police spending, even if it is only to rent a closet and run a telephone.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

This concept is disturbing in the sense that it turns from on of the U.N.'s greatest promises - that of national sovereignty. It infringes upon member state's rights. The language should be along the lines of "Strong encourages," etc.
The UN has never promised anything of the sort. In fact it has promised, and I quote directly from Rights and Duties of UN States, "that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law."

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

The Colony of Autoctonia, will vote NO to this resolution. Our government recongnizes the effort in reducing crime, but has some problems with the text itself, and unless it's ammended completely, we won't change our mind. I, in quality of ambassador of the Computer, who efficently rules our country, will give you some reasons:
1.- Our government it is not agree to mantain the inefficiency of other countries. In our land there isn't and there never has been crime at all. This resolution will make our country to support a CNO because of other countries haven't been enough hard with their nationals, and have too liberal legal codes? That's not Autoctonia's problem.
2.- As I have seen, no country has considered the effect this resolution will have on world demographics. Obviously, there will be massive movements of population to that countries whose legal codes are more "liberal", in order to flee from those countries like ours, who put a strong effort in reducing crime, to make live in society more enjoyable. And we are afraid that precisely those countries will be the most unprepared to hold these massive immigration. If this bill is passed, soon we'll have one forbidding movements of populations between nations, as well of lots of international incidents.
3.- To end, we just have to add that this resolution is completely useless, unless there is an effort to make an International Criminal Code, or something like this. If we cannot agree what a "criminal" is, then lots of persons will suffer of arrests without any guiltyness. It will lead to massive detention of innocents, in some countries, and a paradise of crime in others. This bill does not fight against organized crime, it only leads the crime to criminal paradises, where they can plot to respectable countries like ours.

Ambassador of Autoctonia, in name of the Computer, who is always right.

Dear Members of the United Nations;

While the measure currently before the General Assembly of the United Nations is written with sound legal knowledge it a repeat of a past resolution that also passed. It it resolutions of this nature that bog down the purpose and intent of the United Nations and I will acting on behalf of my region be voting against it. Furthermore I will lobby that our entire Region do the same.

Yours;

Andrew Thomas
Minister of International Affairs

the measure currently before the General Assembly of the United Nations is written with sound legal knowledge it a repeat of a past resolution that also passed.

Andrew Thomas
Minister of International Affairs

Would you care to provide proof of your claim Minister Thomas, or are you just trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Indeed I to think that the establishment of ICPIN is a hard one to dissagree with because every nation needs a strong defense system of police and other law enforcement officals. I was actually very impressed by the way that this act was set up because it really gives you the facts straight forward and (even if you are questioning the act) draws you in to beliving it is right. All of the UN topics should be set up with the same advantages.

Dear Members of the United Nations;

While the measure currently before the General Assembly of the United Nations is written with sound legal knowledge it a repeat of a past resolution that also passed. It it resolutions of this nature that bog down the purpose and intent of the United Nations and I will acting on behalf of my region be voting against it. Furthermore I will lobby that our entire Region do the same.

Yours;

Andrew Thomas
Minister of International Affairs

Please tell us exactly which existing resolution you think this "repeats". To our knowledge, it does not duplicate any existing resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Too late. They already accepted the commission, and have deployed forces commensurate to the task.

http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2001/EliteForces.jpg

That oughta do it, actually.

The Colony of Autoctonia, will vote NO to this resolution. Our government recongnizes the effort in reducing crime, but has some problems with the text itself, and unless it's ammended completely, we won't change our mind. I, in quality of ambassador of the Computer, who efficently rules our country, will give you some reasons:
1.- Our government it is not agree to mantain the inefficiency of other countries. In our land there isn't and there never has been crime at all. This resolution will make our country to support a CNO because of other countries haven't been enough hard with their nationals, and have too liberal legal codes? That's not Autoctonia's problem.
2.- As I have seen, no country has considered the effect this resolution will have on world demographics. Obviously, there will be massive movements of population to that countries whose legal codes are more "liberal", in order to flee from those countries like ours, who put a strong effort in reducing crime, to make live in society more enjoyable. And we are afraid that precisely those countries will be the most unprepared to hold these massive immigration. If this bill is passed, soon we'll have one forbidding movements of populations between nations, as well of lots of international incidents.
3.- To end, we just have to add that this resolution is completely useless, unless there is an effort to make an International Criminal Code, or something like this. If we cannot agree what a "criminal" is, then lots of persons will suffer of arrests without any guiltyness. It will lead to massive detention of innocents, in some countries, and a paradise of crime in others. This bill does not fight against organized crime, it only leads the crime to criminal paradises, where they can plot to respectable countries like ours.

Ambassador of Autoctonia, in name of the Computer, who is always right.

If this is a computer, I wouldn't trust one of your calculators.

You're not maintaining anyone's "inefficiency". You're merely agreeing to task one person to be the CNO who is the liaison with ICPIN. It's really no more than that, especially since you have no crime. However, it's unlikely that you'd have control over, say a rogue robot from another computerized nation who manages to sneak into your nation. Wouldn't you need to know what OS he's using...or something? That's what ICPIN would do for you, if you ever needed it.

And even if you never need it, others do, and that's the point of the UN, to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number and aid one another in international issues. Whether you choose to believe it or not, crime is an international issue.

END OF LINE.

ICPIN is a vacuous series of statements of intent - none are binding on anyone. To be sure, cooperation in apprehending major criminals and terrorists is desireable, but one country's saboteur is always some other country's hero. This resolution is really a declaration of political correctness.

While the measure currently before the General Assembly of the United Nations is written with sound legal knowledge it a repeat of a past resolution that also passed.
Cite or retract, please.
ICPIN is a vacuous series of statements of intent - none are binding on anyone.
Flatly untrue. Read clause 4 again.
To be sure, cooperation in apprehending major criminals and terrorists is desireable, but one country's saboteur is always some other country's hero.
Correct. Read clause 8 again.
This resolution is really a declaration of political correctness.
I don't know just what the hell to suggest reading here.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

If this is a computer, I wouldn't trust one of your calculators.

You're not maintaining anyone's "inefficiency". You're merely agreeing to task one person to be the CNO who is the liaison with ICPIN. It's really no more than that, especially since you have no crime. However, it's unlikely that you'd have control over, say a rogue robot from another computerized nation who manages to sneak into your nation. Wouldn't you need to know what OS he's using...or something? That's what ICPIN would do for you, if you ever needed it.

And even if you never need it, others do, and that's the point of the UN, to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number and aid one another in international issues. Whether you choose to believe it or not, crime is an international issue.

END OF LINE.

So ICPIN will become an international organ to understand and compare laws between countries? I feel not. I recognize the value of ICPIN as an useful organ to track our criminals onto foreign countries, if we had some -which it is not the case-. The case is, that because some other countries aren't able to hold their criminals, countries without crime will have to do "the housework" for them.

And, as the Glassworld ambassador says, one country's saboteur is always some other country's hero
This is another aspect we have to complain about. We all know that intellingence actions usually involve criminal ones. How many times a criminal will be detentioned in one country to be extradited, to later be hosted by a third one, as "refugee" or "diplomatic personnel"? As you can see, the whole ICPIN pretection can be easily broken.

The case is, that because some other countries aren't able to hold their criminals, countries without crime will have to do "the housework" for them.


What exactly gives you that idea? Specifically, which clause?

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Hell, what gives you the idea that you shouldn't? Whether or not criminals from another country who move to your country are your responsibility in a technical sense, they are certainly your problem.

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

So ICPIN will become an international organ to understand and compare laws between countries? I feel not. I recognize the value of ICPIN as an useful organ to track our criminals onto foreign countries, if we had some -which it is not the case-. The case is, that because some other countries aren't able to hold their criminals, countries without crime will have to do "the housework" for them.

This is another aspect we have to complain about. We all know that intellingence actions usually involve criminal ones. How many times a criminal will be detentioned in one country to be extradited, to later be hosted by a third one, as "refugee" or "diplomatic personnel"? As you can see, the whole ICPIN pretection can be easily broken.

**SYNTAX ERROR**

What "housework" are you talking about? ICPIN does nothing but collect and share information about international criminal activity. If you have no crime, your CNO will get a nice title for his resume and little more to do except read bulletins coming TO you FROM ICIPIN. Assign a junior-level internal security functionary to the post and give him memory storage capacity and a computer. Done. You've complied and perhaps someday might aid another nation in their chase after a fugitive.

You and others like you keep saying that "other nations can't hold their criminals" -- are you so sheltered that you've never heard of a crime happening that wasn't even noticed by the victim or victims until long after the perpetrator has fled? Crimes like embezzlement or other large-scale international frauds are almost never detected while they're being committed. Wouldn't it be nice if, once the fleeing miscreant has been positively identified, information about them could be shared with police agencies around the world?

I'm very happy that your nation is crime-free. I'm also very sorry that consideration for others is not within your programming -- it makes me wonder why you joined the UN at all.

END OF LINE

We would like to coagulate the Quadrangle of Dust on the inducement of this convection into the UN assemblage, and farther appelate it's passing

Mrs Malaprop

A rorthy wesolution, and one I am glad has peen bassed

Rev. Spooner

Quintessence of Dust, we of Thaedium find your expansions on our questions very useful in comming to our conclusions. This mandate is one that Thaedium shall support fully at this time.

Thank you to those who assisted with drafting, campaigning and debate, and obviously to everyone who voted for it.

Well done, Ms. Benson. We shall hold your honorarium and honorary House of Progress privileges along with the prize and Medal of Legislation for the bittersweet day of your retirement from public service. (We hope to be holding them for a very long time.)

The country of Rainbowlnesia supports this 100 percent.

The country of Rainbowlnesia supports this 100 percent.

Well, I'd hope so, it passed a couple of days ago.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative