NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN is missing a fundamental pillar: the enforcement of International Law on a foundational basis. For this reason, I have drafted a proposal that I hope will serve to set the standard.

I believe that it is most fruitful for all stakeholders if the draft is presented before this august body - before being submitted. This proposal is open to any amendments that the good ambassadors might care to make - no doubt it can be polished further to increase its effectiveness.

OOC: These principles of International Law are based upon the Nuremburg Principles that were implemented after the time of the Nazis, however I believe that such ideas will also serve the NSUN just as effectively.


PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

[Current draft]

UNDERSTANDING that many resolutions have before addressed certain crimes of war, but have failed to recognize the great significance of crimes against peace.

RECOGNIZING that countless forms of diplomatic backstabbing, defrauding, blatant dishonor, and unacceptable violations of international security remain unchecked and unregulated amongst members of The United Nations.

NOTING with regret that even the notion of "war crimes" has not been generalized, and has before only partially protected member nations from particular acts of atrocity (i.e. slavery/torture), allowing leaders to commit a vast number of other monstrous deeds that are just too many to address specifically.

REAFFIRMING that it is the duty of The United Nations to create a unified sense of unwavering security, justice and wellbeing for each and every one of its member nations.

ATTEMPTING to establish a better sense of responsibility in all member nations, in an effort to enforce diplomatic integrity and honesty, and to lay down the basic rules against the war crime and the crime against peace.


PRINCIPLE I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

PRINCIPLE II

The fact that domestic law does not prevent a person from committing a crime within his own nation does not relieve that person from responsibility under International Law.

PRINCIPLE III

The fact that the person committing the crime against International Law acted as the Head of State or as a Government official does not relieve him of responsibility under International Law.

PRINCIPLE IV

The fact that the person committing the crime against International Law acted under the orders of anyone else does not relieve him of responsibility under International Law - providing that the person had a moral choice.

PRINCIPLE V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial.

PRINCILE VI

Defines an international treaty or agreement as one which has been recorded and was officially accepted by all nations involved in the treaty or agreement.

PRINCIPLE VII

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war in violation of international treaties, or agreements;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in participation with any crime against peace or any war crime.

____________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Category and strength?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We hadn't given that much consideration yet - given that we'd prefer that the draft be completed before this is decided upon. But, as it is, I would recommend:

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

The term 'International Security' seems a more appropriate choice - though this proposal in no way encourages the "boosting of police and military budgets". The description for 'Political Stability' sounds closer to the mark - however we're not dealing with politics on a domestic basis, which seems to be what it primarily suggests. Still, I'd say its the better category.
____________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Pardon while I read from the Book of Fris:

"And yea, did Fris descend from the mountain and say unto the masses "I bear a command from the Father on High, Max be praised- thou shalt, from henceforth, write thy proposals to fit the category, and not the other way around, lest thy feel the stinging questions of category and strength. Max be praised, amen."

In any case, you may want to eliminate some of the possible duplications you have. For example, we have resolutions about trials, war crimes, war, etc. It would behoove you to look at them and make sure you are not contradicting or duplicating any existing UN law.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

This is a Human Rights proposal, isn't it?

Snef is pretty much right: a lot of this overlaps or duplicates existing UN resolutions, including Eon Convention on Genocide, Wolfish Convention on POWs, Rights and Duties of UN States, Civilian Rights Post War and UN Counterterrorism Initiative, among others. I wager if you take out all the "copied" stuff, all you'd have left is the vague stuff about international law and international treaties, and since the only international law the UN recognizes is the content of UN resolutions, it's moot. Compliance is already mandatory, making that very last clause in particular completely unnecessary.

Bear in mind that the proposal was not written to make a reform, but to tie some things together far more efficiently. This does overlap already existing resolutions, as well as make additions. However I believed that for the purposes of a more singular and central pillar - this would be acceptable...much the same as The Universal Bill of Rights encompasses a broad range of topics.

Other resolutions would simply compliment this proposal by going into specific detail - describing what exactly 'slavery' is, for example. Therefore, it can still be flexible in that regard.

The point is - the proposal selects those atrocities that are considered a violation of what should be considered a concept of an encompassing guideline in the UN - The International Law. It should clearly define the situations where offenders of this guideline should be considered guilty of such actions. We have no such official concept of the restrictions of ‘International Law’ as of yet – and if implemented, would make things far easier for us.

Despite all that - it also addresses the issue of crimes against peace. Currently, it is perfectly acceptable and legal for a member nation to violate an agreement/contract/treaty with another for its own sinister advantages! And this is the very root of many of the addressed war crimes. Such behavior should not be condoned - and should certainly be considered unacceptable and illegal: this is what the proposal will lay down also.
_________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Bear in mind that the proposal was not written to make a reform, but to tie some things together far more efficiently. This does overlap already existing resolutions, as well as make additions. However I believed that for the purposes of a more singular and central pillar - this would be acceptable...much the same as The Universal Bill of Rights encompasses a broad range of topics.

This is the sort of RP-style justification that the mods were looking for with a resolution outlawing a UN military a few months back. If you're going the "legitimacy" route, go it fully.

Other resolutions would simply compliment this proposal by going into specific detail - describing what exactly 'slavery' is, for example. Therefore, it can still be flexible in that regard.

I believe that would be amendement, if not house of cards. You can't retroactively define what words mean in other resolutions.

Despite all that - it also addresses the issue of crimes against peace. Currently, it is perfectly acceptable and legal for a member nation to violate an agreement/contract/treaty with another for its own sinister advantages! And this is the very root of many of the addressed war crimes. Such behavior should not be condoned - and should certainly be considered unacceptable and illegal: this is what the proposal will lay down also.

Why is that in any way a bad thing?

H.S.
etc.

"And yea, did Fris descend from the mountain and say unto the masses "I bear a command from the Father on High, Max be praised- thou shalt, from henceforth, write thy proposals to fit the category, and not the other way around, lest thy feel the stinging questions of category and strength. Max be praised, amen."

Mind you, that's just a rough translation of the original.

http://lib.colostate.edu/archives/rare/antiquities/Photos/StoneTabletReduced.jpg

Mind you, that's just a rough translation of the original.



Oh, quite. And it's be translated from the original into English, then into my native tongue, then back into English. Which would explain that the next passage says "Spark the Dog, Have you seen the raincoat?" when it should say "Character limit is 3500."

H.S.
etc.

Seigfried glanced down at his translation of tablet. "No, it doesn't get much clearer when you only translate it into English once...'yea, 'lo, thou shalt heed the word of Fris, who has...' Then comes a long list of qualifications and deeds that make Fris worth listening to. Everything from killing bandits, facing chickens in Bristol, and pleasing all sorts and numbers of gods to '...who brewed tea for his mum, who has unstuck the kitchen cabinet of its eggbeater.'"

i see at least two problems, #1, Decapodians are thankfully exempt because we are not 'person's. #2, there is no enforcement mechanism. declaring something illegal doesnt mean anything unless it is enforced.

i see at least two problems, #1, Decapodians are thankfully exempt because we are not 'person's.

I see we have a new contender for the "Most Pedantic Delegation" award.

While I believe this proposal duplicates much existing legislation and therefore do not favor it, I can't help but think that your problem #1 is making so much of a stretch that it must be made of rubber. Some kind of "super-rubber", even.

-Ikir Askanabath, etc.

Why is that in any way a bad thing?

My point exactly: apathy. The UN does nothing to prevent diplomatic contracts from being broken - which would be quite harmful to our very goal, wouldn't you think? - and thus, this proposal will make such dishonorable and harmful actions illegal.

i see at least two problems, #1, Decapodians are thankfully exempt because we are not 'person's.

Well you've come across a bit of a problem, then. For example - your youngsters are in a bit of a situation...given that The Child Protection Act defines children as being 'human beings' only. Not to mention all the other resolutions that you're 'thankfully' exempt from.

Again, this proposal does overlap other resolutions. And add other important issues such as 'deportations'. But quite clearly, it isn't "a house of cards" - given that it does not rely on any of the other resolutions in any way to exist.

And that is the very point. This proposal introduces the notion of "the war crime" into the UN. And coins the phrase "crimes against peace". Unlike other resolutions, it doesn't simply ban a very specific crime, but collectively herds all such relevant atrocities together, and stamps them with a big red label:

This is a war crime.
This violates International Law.
This is illegal.

So - if this proposal is disregarded...how is the UN going to assure their member nations from protection against this genre of shocking violations?

Well maybe we can put our reading glasses on, check our watches, yawn a bit, sit in the General Assembly for a year or ten and hope that someday, someone will eventually outlaw every specific war/peace crime in that dreadfully long, long list? Or...the alternative is this proposal - clean most of it all up in one sitting.

#2, there is no enforcement mechanism. declaring something illegal doesnt mean anything unless it is enforced.

Then you should be quite glad that this proposal hasn't been submitted yet. If you would like to see an enforcing mechanism - don't just say so! Give us an example!

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

My point exactly: apathy. The UN does nothing to prevent diplomatic contracts from being broken - which would be quite harmful to our very goal, wouldn't you think? - and thus, this proposal will make such dishonorable and harmful actions illegal.


Again, why is breaking diplomatic agreements a bad thing? You haven't explained why cutting an alliance or ending trade with a nation is a bad thing. What exavtly is dishonorable about looking out for your own national interest?

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

You do raise a valid question - but check out the proposal again.

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war in violation of international treaties, or agreements.

'For malicious intent' might even be a suitable addition - as war isn't the only way a country can get ripped off.

On that note, this could go even further to enforce all forms of diplomatic treaties - a contract would not be a contract if both parties can't guarantee to the other that they'll see it through.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

This seems like a pretty solid proposal to us and we will strongly support it. Our one major problem is that this would seem to protect non-UN international law, which might lead to an awkward situation. For example: if some nations were to sign a voluntary agreement on prisoners of war that exceeded the bounds of UN law, then the UN would be bound to protect even those parts that went beyond what its own members were willing to authorise. Wouldn't this create an awkward diplomatic situation?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You do raise a valid question - but check out the proposal again.

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war in violation of international treaties, or agreements.

'For malicious intent' might even be a suitable addition - as war isn't the only way a country can get ripped off.

On that note, this could go even further to enforce all forms of diplomatic treaties - a contract would not be a contract if both parties can't guarantee to the other that they'll see it through.


I see where you're going, and I disagree. However, my objections are immaterial in the face of duplication: Rights and Duties of UN States Article 10, and Article 11 already deal with these sorts of situations.

Again, I would suggest you look through the resources available and clear your proposal of any duplications. There's a handy repository in these forums, as well as the official site list. The Goobergunchian delegation's resources are also helpful, if not up to date.

H.S.
etc.

I think this is a very good law, and, reading the conversation here, I think the proposal itself outweighs the problems that have been brought up with it. Perhaps so slight tweaking of a couple areas wouldn't hurt, but I will be supporting this.

___________________
Fotar
~Vice Chancellor of the Council of Narnia

However, my objections are immaterial in the face of duplication: Rights and Duties of UN States Article 10, and Article 11 already deal with these sorts of situations.

We maintain that this is not a question of duplication. For example, the Rights and Duties of UN States uses this term five times (three of which are in Articles 10 and 11):

"International Law"

But what exactly does "International Law" mean? This proposal is self-explanatory. It will establish what the basic "Principles of International Law" is in the UN.

This seems like a pretty solid proposal to us and we will strongly support it.

We're very pleased to have gained your support, Samantha Benson, and will do what we can to address the issue you have brought forward.

Our one major problem is that this would seem to protect non-UN international law, which might lead to an awkward situation. For example: if some nations were to sign a voluntary agreement on prisoners of war that exceeded the bounds of UN law, then the UN would be bound to protect even those parts that went beyond what its own members were willing to authorize. Wouldn't this create an awkward diplomatic situation?

It would - if the proposal demanded that we endorse the particular contents of any specific contract. In that case, all the proposal requires we do - is to correctly judge which nation failed to live up to its promise, and discipline it accordingly. Its not about the content of the contract - its about keeping the nations honest.

But...if someone did start jumping up and down about the fact that the UN defended a stakeholder in a contract that went beyond the limits of what we have officially authorized - all we need to say is, we might not necessarily agree with the content of the contract, but in acting as a fair and impartial body, we are legally required to ensure that any dishonest nations who break treaties be reprimanded. *Takes a deep breath*

We don't need to endorse the specific contract - in fact, we can even publicly express our disapproval of the content, but maintain that the offender nevertheless committed an illegal action by violating a specific rule of the International Law that we have set out. Does that make sense?

If not, feel free to make a suggestion for an amendment - thats the beauty of non-submitted proposals!

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

We maintain that this is not a question of duplication. For example, the Rights and Duties of UN States uses this term five times (three of which are in Articles 10 and 11):

"International Law"

But what exactly does "International Law" mean? This proposal is self-explanatory. It will establish what the basic "Principles of International Law" is in the UN.


This is still illegal- you cannot retroactively define terms in previously passed resolutions! I cannot author a resolution that includes a clause defining what the word "tax" means in "UN Taxation Ban." It might not be using the word, but that's an amendment.

Futhermore, I believe you missed my point.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

These are the clauses to which I was referring. Article 10 uses the term "treaties" as an indicator of what constitutes "international law." Article 11 specifically states that relations must be conducted in a manner consistent with said law.

Again I'll say you are essentially duplicating this resolution. The UN already has law dealing with the situation. I urge you, once more, to look at the passed resolutions and the ones you've duplicated- to repeat what Mr. Faisano said: Eon Convention on Genocide, Wolfish Convention on POWs, Rights and Duties of UN States, Civilian Rights Post War and UN Counterterrorism Initiative.

If you submit it with those duplications, I can guarantee you it will be deleted for duplication.

H.S.
etc.

The proposal is up for endorsing to reach quorum! Fotar hopes the delegates will support this proposal and help it reach quorum before the March 31st deadline.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=international%20law

_____________________________
Fotar
Vice-Chancellor, Council of Narnia

International Law Principles (for want of sufficient space, the ideal title had to be compromised) was submitted a day and a half ago, and has racked up 45 approvals so far.

Another 50+ approvals needed, and it'll reach quorum! All the feedback I've gotten from those I've promoted the proposal to - is positive, and very supportive of what they call a 'worthy goal'. I trust it'll do well if it gets to quorum.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

If you submit it with those duplications, I can guarantee you it will be deleted for duplication.

I'm not sure I'd agree with "guarantee", but I'm certainly leaning in that direction. Snefladia's summary is pretty much on the money, plus this isn't really entirely Human Rights, but a mishmash of multiple categories. That, as was previously stated, is the fundamental flaw of not writing to the category.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out that as time moves on, what once was promisable could be no more. Take the case of war, if I were offered free trade with a nation as long as i could protect the men / women of my new friend's delegation, and war tore my region apart, then how could I possibaly live up to my obligation? Or the case could be made that I nolonger have an intrest in trade with a nation I once did. Further, if we take the example that two nations are in alliance, and it becomes apparent that one nation nolonger agrees philosophically with the other, who is the other nation to say "we have a contract"? In yet another instance, let us say that you are trading with me, and my goods are cheaper in anothr nation, is it not good buisness to go where the goods are better priced? So, while I applaude the intentions of this legislation, I must say that I cannot support it in good faith.

Well overnight it gained 60 more approvals and reached quorum. And my inbox is overflowing with nothing but ecstatic support.

Frisbeeteria - I understand that the proposal could have been closer to the mark and written in a more comfortable sense...though for the reasons I've stated before, I object to the fact that its duplication.

Please keep in mind that I haven't blatantly disregarded any rules for constructing proposals, and it may look a little needful around the edges (i.e. only JUST squeezing into Human Rights), and ofc I will attempt to, in the future, ensure that my proposals come closer to the mark.....

*bows before the holy moderator*

Haha I'll accept any decision you do make - but nevertheless I do urge that you consider my proposal just worthy enough to pass through the gates of Purgatory...
________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Well overnight it gained 60 more approvals and reached quorum. And my inbox is overflowing with nothing but ecstatic support.

Frisbeeteria - I understand that the proposal could have been closer to the mark and written in a more comfortable sense...though for the reasons I've stated before, I object to the fact that its duplication.

Please keep in mind that I haven't blatantly disregarded any rules for constructing proposals, and it may look a little needful around the edges (i.e. only JUST squeezing into Human Rights), and ofc I will attempt to, in the future, ensure that my proposals come closer to the mark.....


You have not taken any of the suggestions offered to you, period. You have ignored everything other delegations have said to you. It would behoove you in the future to spend more time listening to the other delegates, many of whom have authored or co-authored a proposal or two, when they tell you your legislation might be duplicating. That way, when you submit it, the moderators don't have to deliberate over it's legality- because there won't be any issues with it in the first place.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Once again, I play the heavy.

There are vague duplications (Rights & Duties), possible contradictions (Diplomatic Immunity), and some serious problems of category. Rushing to submission doesn't do anybody any favors. Shoehorning into a category is never a wise idea. Being in the queue is not proof against deletion.

The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator


For when you clean up the illegalities, here's the delegate list:

Approvals: 133 (The Narnian Council, Ithaca Guardian, Deep Space Ulysses, Ubustar, Homeric Odyssey, 12 Gods, Brazykystan, Aatesio, Ashmore, Stephanephpolis, Pagemaster, Comnemnus, Kabanatuanistan, New Alboria, Quintessence of Dust, Intelligenstan, Mikeswill, Larcasting, Starman Deluxe, Cordova I, Ivan silva, Jorvik gods, Ephidael, Dellfi, The Atreidond Islands, Eiga-Baka, Ventei, Rantchess, Black Empire, Belarum, Jamkong, Terracitius, Technoviking, De Oro, Hillcats, Chazzistan, Digalia, 12 Colonies of Kobol, Slacktonovich, Golugan, Amaranthine Asphodel, Santa clauses8, Camborgia, DukeCurtis, West Stockport, Henderson-Hasselbach, Opioids, Jacko-funland, QWERTY9223, Sark813, Nova Veridonium, Mikel_aa, The Digital Network, Now with Sprinkles, TheDeadEye, Homieville, Laak, Romulious, Jubatia, Woollymice, Issoria, Whatmustido, Las Islas Pilipinas, Rosmnia, Nurdia, Gilliganstan, Virusvirus, 46566, Jon the Warlord, Slices Right, Orokos, Mugombiee, Fabingrad, South Lorenya, Psycotia Island, Zauberdragon, Belussa, Waitesland, Azmodaizion, Rhadan, Piratical Descent, Tarmsden, Major Buds, Ikradonia, Jajistan, Maxtoria, Bon Chovy, Cranberry Mice, 7 cities, TheBPOE, Bulskaria, Pimpland TCK, Teply, Grandmaster Flashers, Repocheta, Si Se Puede, Wierd Anarchists, Haughtainia, ERS Republica Defender, Pogux, Wicked229, Minyos, Hydro Services, Althzakar, Azemica, Altranath, Aeron Land, Conganese Rebels, Dokta, Gustenian, TheIcemark, Misplaced States, Chamberliania, Wot2the, Likititi, Libertas Proprius, Bay Islands, Cimbabwe, Yshurak, Girvis, Free Blue Rebels, Norwedenland, Ascendas, Nikitha, Hadristan, Body Parts Ressurected, Euleos, Lower Sumeria, Aralonia, Bats outta Mordor, Rakua, New Hamilton, Travda)

RECOGNIZING that countless forms of diplomatic backstabbing, defrauding, blatant dishonor, and unacceptable violations of international security remain unchecked and unregulated amongst members of The United Nations.

REAFFIRMING that it is the duty of The United Nations to create a unified sense of unwavering security, justice and wellbeing for each and every one of its member nations.

ATTEMPTING to establish a better sense of responsibility in all member nations, in an effort to enforce diplomatic integrity and honesty, and to lay down the basic rules against the war crime and the crime against peace.

We do not believe it is the place for the NSUN to enforce this kind of moral standards on the international community. Why, for example, should diplomatic relations be "checked" and "regulated" by an supranational international institution like the NSUN, and by what norms is it established what constitues "countless forms of diplomatic backstabbing, defrauding, blatant dishonor, and unacceptable violations of international security", or what is "a better sense of responsibility in all member nations, in an effort to enforce diplomatic integrity and honesty"?

Even though we might be inclined to support some sort of NSUN-legislation on matters of international law, it will not be a proposal that includes a prefered one-size-fits-all moral code, surely with the intention to speak for all, but still reflecting nothing more than the preference of the submitting nation, to be forced upon the rest of us in supranational legislation, without regard to context and differing shared values among different communitarian communities.

The simple solution that would satisfy us, of course, is getting rid of the moral fluffy parts.

Jenny Kahn
Resident Bureaucrat
Timur Lenk UN-office (TLUNO)

Rushing to submission doesn't do anybody any favors. Shoehorning into a category is never a wise idea. Being in the queue is not proof against deletion.

With all due respect, I did what I could. Two days before submitting it, I contacted Frisbeeteria both through the appropriate email - then via telegram. In regards to whether or not they thought it illegal. No response.

I also contacted HotRodia via his email. No response.

As you can see, I did not 'rush' the submission. Rather, I sought the good opinion of the mods, and they failed to respond.

However, I will accept the responsibility of the proposals upon my own shoulders - and the cause for its deletion. Thanks for saving the Delegates list.

Snefeldia, we appreciated your criticism over this week, but in no way was it constructive nor helpful. If you truly did wish to see the proposal altered and submitted more comfortably, instead of resorting to patronizing, you would have thought out useful suggestions. I did not hear one from you - and I don't take you to be that useless. And the 'I told you so' speech does no one any favours too...this proposal was my hard work and my laborious hours.

Hopefully in the future we may meet on better terms.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

With all due respect, I did what I could. Two days before submitting it, I contacted Frisbeeteria both through the appropriate email - then via telegram. In regards to whether or not they thought it illegal. No response.

I also contacted HotRodia via his email. No response.

As you can see, I did not 'rush' the submission. Rather, I sought the good opinion of the mods, and they failed to respond.

The UN forum is the appropriate place for input. We Mods have FAR more to do than vet every proposal submission. We count on the UN regulars to provide guidance, and only step in at the very end if there are still problems. Sending us emails and telegrams will not work, now or ever. Follow the process, please.

Snefeldia, we appreciated your criticism over this week, but in no way was it constructive nor helpful. If you truly did wish to see the proposal altered and submitted more comfortably, instead of resorting to patronizing, you would have thought out useful suggestions. I did not hear one from you - and I don't take you to be that useless. And the 'I told you so' speech does no one any favours too...this proposal was my hard work and my laborious hours.

Hopefully in the future we may meet on better terms.With all due respect, it is not Snefaldia's fault this was deleted, so to snipe at them now is something less than constructive. Their delegation repeatedly pointed out the proposal's flaws, its illegalities, and pointed more than once to helpful resources available to all members that could have helped mitigate the legislation's faults. You chose to ignore their criticisms, and got punched in the face. We would advise you to take more care in the future, and not blame others for your own lack of diligence.

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

[OOC: I gotta find another regular ambassador soon - Susa's not helping one wit.]

Thank you, Mr. Faisano. I don't think anything else needs be said on the subject.

But in regards to the proposal- this is a chance to remove those problems. I would implore you to go back and look at the duplications in the clauses I mentioned, as well as the texts of the proposals Mr. Faisano mentioned previously, and rewrite those so as not to duplicate.

If this is the product of your labour, make it one we can vote for. Obviously 133 delegates think you're on the right track- just clean it up, make it clear, and my government may support it.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

We would advise you to take more care in the future, and not blame others for your own lack of diligence.

I understand where you're coming from, but you may have missed this in my last post:

"However, I will accept the responsibility of the proposals upon my own shoulders - and the cause for its deletion."

I understand that it is rare for one to admit a shortcoming, and easy to overlook - do not in any way assume that I 'blame' Snefaldia for the deletion. We simply fired back at their biting words.

Who knows? We may have another shot at it. It seems the NS community is very willing to take on board the issue of International Law, so with a bit of polishing up we might serve the UN better.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia