NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Colleagues

The Logopian government submits the following draft proposal for your review and consideration.

As always, your most valuable insight is welcome.

-------------
Anti Piracy Initiative
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

Aware that maritime travel is essential to international trade and to the health of worldwide economy;

Recognizing piracy as a clear and present threat to merchant and passenger shipping:

1-DEFINES piracy, for the purposes of this resolution, as any act of aggression, sabotage, robbery, high jacking, or illegal detention perpetrated by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation against a vessel or maritime installation; its crew, cargo, or passengers while at sea or docked at port.

2-CONDEMNS all acts of piracy, including harboring, funding or otherwise assisting pirates and their activities.

3-CHARGES member states with the responsibility of keeping their ports and territorial waters safe from piracy for both domestic and foreign vessels.

4-REQUIRES member nations to create and maintain a coastal guard or similar institutions, capable and responsible of preventing and fighting piracy in their ports and territorial waters.

5-URGES member nations to form bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as regional alliances aimed at solving the problem of piracy in the high seas.

6-CREATES the United Nations Oceanic Security Commission and assigns it the following responsibilities:
a. Compile information about acts of piracy in the seas and asses the risk of piracy in major maritime trade and passenger routes
b. Publicize its findings in periodic reports.
c. Promote the study and development of anti piracy measures suitable for use in non military vessels
d. Seek the cooperation of other international institutions and non member states for the solution of piracy worldwide.

7-REQUIRES member nations to inform the UNOSC of all acts of piracy occurred in their territorial waters, or against their ships in international waters.

--------------



----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

3-CHARGES member states with the responsibility of keeping their ports and territorial waters safe from piracy for both domestic and foreign vessels.

4-REQUIRES member nations to create and maintain a coastal guard or similar institutions, capable and responsible of preventing and fighting piracy in their ports and territorial waters.


A nice idea in theory, but how are poor nations supposed to fund this?

The country I represent (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT) is landlocked (as you may see (http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3567/esat3bdrjx1.jpg)), and so this is not particularly a problem in our case... Although since clause 4 would mandate the creation of a coast guard anyway, I'm not too sure where we'd put this "Esati coast guard".

Mayhap this gentleman (http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3487/esatiguardeo3.jpg), an Esati border guard, could serve as our de jure coast gaurd...


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
ESAT

Yet another topic for which I've got a draft floating around (no pun intended) somewhere in this forum: I'll dig it out, for comparison, tomorrow...

Ambassador Boco

Your comments are certainly welcome. You certainly mention issues we should have addressed in a more careful manner.

A nice idea in theory, but how are poor nations supposed to fund this?

We wouldn't expect nationsto sacrifice other, perhaps more important areas, on behalf of a coast guard. Yet we still believe it is fair for the UN to demmand that nations be responsable for safety in their waters. Your valid concern is noted and we'll definitely rework clause 4. I think adding something along the line sof "to the best of their abilities and within their economic limitations" would suffice.

The country I represent is landlocked (as you may see), and so this is not particularly a problem in our case... Although since clause 4 would mandate the creation of a coast guard anyway, I'm not too sure where we'd put this "Esati coast guard".

I assumed that mentioning an exclusion to this clause for landlocked countries would not be necessary. I'll try to come up with a graceful way to include it.

Ambassador Fairchild,

Thank you for taking my points into consideration. The Esati military (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Military_of_ESAT) is busy enough standing around at the border without having to worry about a coast so far away it can't see it.

For the rest, I believe this is an admirable proposal.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
ESAT

We'd like to commend the ambassador of Logopia for undertaking this effort. While we're sure there will be improvements made as further comments and suggestions are received, we like what we see. We're especially pleased to note that the definition of piracy would include privateering, which is nothing more than state-sponsored piracy.

Ausserland is also a landlocked nation. Including an exception would be nice. If not, we're not going to worry about it. The Army of Ausserland has been trying to figure out something Sergeant Leadenpace could do without bungling it. We'll simply appoint him the Ausserland Coast Guard.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

If this passes, September 19th (http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html) will really suck.

If you drop clauses 3 and 4 I would have no problem supporting this resolution.

3-CHARGES member states with the responsibility of keeping their ports and territorial waters safe from piracy for both domestic and foreign vessels.

4-REQUIRES member nations to create and maintain a coastal guard or similar institutions, capable and responsible of preventing and fighting piracy in their ports and territorial waters.

I would probably be ok with it if 4 were switched to the word "CHARGES" as well, as that merely indicates assigning responsibility. I'm wary of any resolution that demands or requires anything of my nation. Not that it's always non-applicable, but I believe requirements should be reserved for rather important issues. Beyond that, already stated issues with funding or literally lacking a coastline to guard seem glaring. You're already addressing that though so I'll ignore it.

Well written, but won't support in current form. I'll check back though.

Edit: Predictably I missed item 7, which should be an "URGES" for much the same reasons outlined above.

I find the idea of an anti-piracy resolution deeply worrying, for the obvious reason.

Keelhaul Basingstoke
Bloodstonian UN Pirate.

Actually, an exception may already be here, but implied, rather than explicit...

3-CHARGES member states with the responsibility of keeping their ports and territorial waters safe from piracy for both domestic and foreign vessels.In other words, if you have 15 ports, you must keep all 15 safe. If you have 0, you must keep all 0 safe. Landlocked nations can simply say, "All (zero) our ports are safe."

Likewise, the same could be said for "territorial waters," although, this could easily include large lakes and seas contained within the nation. Which should probably be kept free of pirates anyway.


4-REQUIRES member nations to create and maintain a coastal guard or similar institutions, capable and responsible of preventing and fighting piracy in their ports and territorial waters.This too simply requires a literal reading to find the exception. Essentially:

"In order to keep our ports (15) and territorial waters (small) free of pirates, we'll probably need a coast guard that's about 100,000 strong, with $number ships. Time to cut a check."

"In order to keep our ports (0) and territorial waters (non-existant) free of pirates, we'll probably need a coast guard that's about 0 strong, with 0 ships. I guess we're done here."

With both these clauses, the exception for landlocked nations is implied, and no specific exception is really necessary. Of course, adding a throwaway clause in the preamble, or maybe including smaller bodies of water that will likely be in any state aside from desert (or, I suppose, antarctic) nations, could stop the yammering of idiots who will complain that this is forcing them to spend billions on a coast guard for their micronation that exists on another planet where they haven't even heard of water and their omnipotent dragon-god-king-priest-laundromat leader kills any and all pirates instantly like the poor bastard in Scanners...

Well, you get the point.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

If you drop clauses 3 and 4 I would have no problem supporting this resolution.

Lanteana agrees; however, it would appear that omitting the clauses in question would render the document somewhat useless, and quite frankly nothing short of a splendid waste of time. Therefore, Lanteana recommends this issue never reaches the table, as we have far more important things to be doing with our time and the money that isn't ours to begin with.

I've found my own government's old proposal on this subject _
Thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491959),
Latest draft here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11525307&postcount=88).

my nation allows its native or pirates from other countries to live and steal off our shores, but they cannot steal from people living in my country.:sniper:

This is a good idea. I especially like the definition of piracy, as I'm now going to commision everyone in my country to do whatever they like to other people's ships.

I don't think piracy should be illegal aboard the high seas. Along the coast certainly, but not the high seas. Let our citizens have some freedom after all.

I'd change

DEFINES piracy, for the purposes of this resolution, as any act of aggression, sabotage, robbery, high jacking, or illegal detention perpetrated by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation against a vessel or maritime installation; its crew, cargo, or passengers while at sea or docked at port.

to either

DEFINES piracy, for the purposes of this resolution, as any act of aggression, sabotage, robbery, high jacking, or illegal detention perpetrated by an agent without a commission or letter of marque from a sovereign nation against a vessel or maritime installation; its crew, cargo, or passengers while at sea or docked at port.

or

DEFINES piracy, for the purposes of this resolution, as any act of aggression, sabotage, robbery, high jacking, or illegal detention perpetrated by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation, excluding letters of marque, against a vessel or maritime installation; its crew, cargo, or passengers while at sea or docked at port.

depending on whether you want to permit or illegalise privateers.

4-REQUIRES member nations to create and maintain a coastal guard or similar institutions, capable and responsible of preventing and fighting piracy in their ports and territorial waters.

I'd change this. It's a bit dodgy with regards to landlocked nations, but largely as many nations, including Cobdenia, would have issues of tradition with regards to the founding of a fourth military force, as this seems to me to preclude the possibility of such an undertaking being under the jurisdiction of an existing Navy or seabourne police forces. Also, if your being really anal, a nation with a Coast Guard already that is repsonsible for drug trafficking and othe rbrown water roles would, theorectically, be bound to create another coast guard, even if a anti-piracy role existed in it's mandate.

4-REQUIRES member nations to have in place a naval or civil force or similar institution, with the capability and remit to prevent and combat piracy in their ports and territorial waters.

We must disagree with our distinguished colleague from Cobdenia. We don't want that aspect of the definition changed at all. As it stands, it clearly prohibits privateering, since a letter of marque and reprisal is not a commission. This, we believe, is as it should be. Privateering is nothing more than state-sanctioned piracy.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I don't think piracy should be illegal aboard the high seas. Along the coast certainly, but not the high seas. Let our citizens have some freedom after all.I look forward to burninating your ships and citizens.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

After reading current arguments on the subject, and a hefty bribe from an unspecified pirate captain, I'm going to have to fully oppose this measure.

Or as he put it:
Yah can't support thah, even ifin it only disapproves of me lifestyle. Ah have tha right t' be a pirate if I want t' be a pirate. Me mum and me dah told me ah couldn't be a pirate and I showed 'em. I'll show t' UN as well!

Honored colleagues

I welcome the excelent points and valuable feedback that has been provided.

.... would have issues of tradition with regards to the founding of a fourth military force, as this seems to me to preclude the possibility of such an undertaking being under the jurisdiction of an existing Navy or seabourne police forces. Also, if your being really anal, a nation with a Coast Guard already .... would, theorectically, be bound to create another coast guard, even if a anti-piracy role existed in it's mandate.

Indeed the Cobdenian ambassador raises a valid concern. It is not our intent to force nations to create a new military or similar force. If we have your permission we would like to change the clause for your excelent suggestion.

We must disagree with our distinguished colleague from Cobdenia. We don't want that aspect of the definition changed at all. As it stands, it clearly prohibits privateering, since a letter of marque and reprisal is not a commission. This, we believe, is as it should be. Privateering is nothing more than state-sanctioned piracy.

The definition of piracy is one of the thorniest issues in this draft. I must recognize more thought should have been put into it. ¿Should privateering be banned? We don't believe so. It is in our opinion, at least theoretically, a legitimate way for nations to strengthen their navies; something akin to using mercenaries. I do believe, however, that privateers should only be used against enemy beligerent nations in times of war. We believe privateers can be used as a legitimate "pseudo-military" force, but never as a way for the state to sponsor crime in the seas. It is our intent to do something along this lines for the next draft.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Honored Ambassadors

I present the newest draft of Anti Piracy Initiative. Your comments are more than welcome.

----------------------
Anti Piracy Initiative
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

Aware that maritime travel is essential to international trade and to the health of worldwide economy;

Recognizing piracy as a clear and present threat to merchant and passenger shipping:

1-DEFINES piracy, for the purposes of this resolution, as any act of aggression, sabotage, robbery, high jacking, or illegal detention perpetrated by an agent without a commission or letter of marque from a sovereign nation against a vessel or maritime installation; its crew, cargo, or passengers while at sea or docked at port.

2-CONDEMNS and FORBIDS all acts of piracy, including harboring, funding or otherwise assisting pirates and their activities.

3-FORBIDS member nations from employing private ships, crews, or similar agents to perpetrate attacks against the assets, ships, and other installations of member nations during times of peace.

4-CHARGES member states with the responsibility of keeping their ports and territorial waters safe from piracy for both domestic and foreign vessels.

5-REQUIRES member nations to have in place, to the best of their capacity, a civil or naval force or similar institution, with the remit and capability to prevent and combat piracy in their ports and territorial waters. Nations with no ports and territorial waters shall be exempt from this requirement.

6-URGES member nations to form bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as regional alliances aimed at solving the problem of piracy in the high seas.

7-CREATES the United Nations Oceanic Security Commission and assigns it the following responsibilities:
a. Compile information about acts of piracy in the seas and asses the risk of piracy in major maritime trade and passenger routes
b. Publicize its findings in periodic reports.
c. Promote the study and development of anti piracy measures suitable for use in non military vessels
d. Seek the cooperation of other international institutions and non member states for the solution of piracy worldwide.

8-REQUIRES member nations to inform the UNOSC of all acts of piracy occurred in their territorial waters, or against their ships in international waters.
--------------



----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Our Republic 100% approves of this proposal. However, for some nations funding may be an issue. Also, a considerable sized navy may be required as piracy is high in some specific nations of the world.

As a result, we more richer nations may be able to reduce piracy, but we can't fully eliminate it. And even if we did, it would still happen.

In conclusion: piracy should be illegal.

Honored Ambassadors

The latest Anti Piracy Initiative draft will be prsented for delegate approval next monday. Hoping to sumbit the bet possible draft, I would certainly thank and try my best to address any feedback or comments about it.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Anti Piracy Initiative (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy%20initiative) has been submitted. We respectfully request your approval