NationStates Jolt Archive

This is our attempt at drafting a resolution to replace Prevention of Terrorism, should a repeal eventually be successful. Comments or suggestions are welcome, and please bear in mind that this is a very early draft.

WA Counterterrorism Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: The Altan Steppes

Description:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING terrorism as a major threat to the lives and well-being of civilians and non-combatants;

CONDEMNING the loss of life and harm that result from terrorist acts;

RESOLVING to address the danger of terrorism to protect the civilian populations of member states;

1) DEFINES terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social or political outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard for civilians or non-combatants, or specifically targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

2) DEFINES civilians, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".

3) REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation. This shall include, but not be limited to, making it a criminal offense to conspire, aid, abet, fund, plan or carry out acts of terrorism across international borders. Member states shall prosecute those who violate such laws to the fullest extent possible within their nation.

4) BARS member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to non-state actors committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

5) REQUIRES member states to freeze, or otherwise take control of without undue delay, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their jurisdiction which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.

6) URGES member states to coordinate counter-terrorism activities, and share information and intelligence on individuals and organizations that practice terrorism, to combat its spread on an international level.

7) ENCOURAGES member states to do everything possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their borders, including but not limited to: poverty, racism, inequality or indoctrinated hatred.

This looks like an excellent start. However, we have a question: why should civilians be picked out? Surely violence by non-state actors directed against military personnel is equally terroristic in nature?

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I suppose the example I'm thinking of is Northern Ireland.

This looks like an excellent start. However, we have a question: why should civilians be picked out? Surely violence by non-state actors directed against military personnel is equally terroristic in nature?

-- Samantha Benson

[size=1]OOC: I suppose the example I'm thinking of is Northern Ireland.[/url]

By our own definition, violence by non-state actors against military personnel would be terroristic activity. However, we tailored our draft specifically at actions against civilians only, because we are aware that some nations would consider acts against military personnel to be a legitimate act, as in a rebellion against an invading or occupying force, for example. We're hoping to avoid opposition being raised to our replacement for that reason, while still protecting civilians from terrorist acts. We think that most nations can reasonably agree that civilians should not be targeted for violent acts, and that this represents a reasonable compromise. However, we're definitely willing to consider adding government or military forces to the remit of this draft, if a way can be found to do so which will not arouse opposition to the draft.

We also feel that actions against state forces by non-state actors which harmed civilians would be covered by the inclusion of the phrase "deliberate disregard for civilians or non-combatants" in the definition.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

You need to differentiate between international terrorism and domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is a matter for domestic policy; if your government wants to consider certain groups freedom fighters and others genuine terrorists, that's their deal. But groups who operate across international borders, or who receive assistance from those who do the same, should be considered a greater threat under international law, and a more germane target for this body's consideration.

You also need to define "civilian."

You have left out two critical components of suppressing terror on an international level: 1) the requirement that nations criminalize and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any person involved in planning, funding or carrying out acts of international terror, as well as aiding or abetting the same, or providing any sort of assistance, whether organizational, logistical or even espionage on behalf of international terror groups.

2) Freezing the assets of suspected international terrorists, though this issue is subject to concerns over due process and presumed innocence.

(Credit where credit is due: the previous anti-terror act contained similar provisions.)

This clause in particular makes us blush:

5) FURTHER URGES member states to do everything possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their boundaries.This is applying unnecessary urgency to a matter that is long-term and ongoing, and you might also consider examples for these "underlying causes" (and yes, we do prefer the term "underlying causes" to more loaded ones such as "root causes").

Try: "ENCOURAGES member states to take additional measures to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their borders, such as poverty, racism, substandard education, and learned hatred for powerful nations and their citizens."

[OOC: I really don't know how to word that last example not so awkwardly, but one of the biggest "root causes" of terrorism is indoctrinated hatred for America, Israel and the West. You can give suggestions for better wording, or drop it altogether. I was just trying to make a point.]

And finally, there is a nagging issue of strategic partnerships or alliances of WA members with non-WA members who do support terrorism. Something in the language must ensure that WA members are not trying to circumvent the mandates of this resolution by passing off their dirty work to non-WA allies.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

Another thing I cannot figure out is why you said "non-state actors". Why is using carpet-bombing, unconventional weapons, or false-flag attacks any less of terroristic nature?

Condemning these actions is necessary, at least because otherwise potential terrorists will simply see this as a manipulation of developing states by "First-World" countries, to essentially further their own agenda which they may feel is quite contrary to their own interests. Thus it fuels the terrorism you seek to eliminate. And then of course there is the issue of morality. I know where I stand on that one.

By the way, in the interests of irrelevant superstition, the Anti-Terrorism Act failed whereas the UN Counterterrorism Initiative passed. Maybe it's nothing, but a different title might work better?

Latest version, taking the recommendations of the Quodite and SchutteGod representatives into account (changes bolded):

WA Counterterrorism Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: The Altan Steppes

Description:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING terrorism as a major threat to the lives and well-being of civilians and non-combatants;

CONDEMNING the loss of life and harm that result from terrorist acts;

RESOLVING to address the danger of terrorism to protect the civilian populations of member states;

1) DEFINES terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors, for the purpose of creating fear or terror, with the goal of achieving a social or political outcome, committed with deliberate disregard for civilians or non-combatants, or specifically targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

2) DEFINES civilians as "individuals who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".

2) REQUIRES member states to take all possible measures at their disposal to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation, to include making it a criminal offense to aid, abet, or help to fund, plan or carry out acts of terrorism across international borders, and to prosecute individuals who violate those laws to the fullest extent possible within their nation;

3) BARS member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to non-state actors committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation;

4) REQUIRES member states to freeze, or otherwise take control of, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their borders which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.

5) URGES member states to coordinate counter-terrorism activities, and share information and intelligence on individuals and organizations that practice terrorism, to combat its spread on an international level.

6) ENCOURAGES member states to do everything possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their borders, including but not limited to: poverty, racism, inequality or indoctrinated hatred.

In response to the representative of Renewed Life, while we deplore the actions you mentioned, we feel that those actions do not fall under the scope of anti-terrorism legislation. Such actions may best be addressed by legislation which deals with how state actors war with each other.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

In your clause one, your comma usage is making the sense of the definition a little difficult to follow. Is it meant to be that it is violence committed by non-state actors for any one (or more) of the four following conditions?

In the first 2) 'Persons' might be better than 'individuals' as the former would also include corporations (such as a dummy corporation used to channel funds to a terrorist organization).

In the second 2), I have two concerns. First, you should probably include conspiracy charges; I guess 'help to...plan' sort of covers this, but conspiracy is a specific legal concept, and it's my understanding it's the one that's most often used on terrorists (where caught before committing the act; they're often dead after committing the act). Second, I'll import from elsewhere a comment someone made about 'all possible measures'. At the risk of being silly, the last terrorist attack in Quintessence of Dust was conducted by two left-handed people, so all possible measures for us might include summarily executing all left-handed people in our nation. There should at least be some window-dressing about such actions being subject to the rule of law or somesuch.

In 4), 'within their borders' might be better as 'within their jurisdiction'. Looking at the UN Resolution #168, which had a similar clause, two further suggestions: 'without delay', 'immediately', owtte; and, as the representative of SchutteGod has mentioned, some nod to due process of law.

This is shaping up very nicely, in my opinion - excellent work!

-- Samantha Benson

And you have two number 2's. Hee hee.

I still don't believe it is nessescary to have a counter/anti-terrorism act. But, this is a lot better than the last one.

In your clause one, your comma usage is making the sense of the definition a little difficult to follow. Is it meant to be that it is violence committed by non-state actors for any one (or more) of the four following conditions?

It's meant to be all of the conditions, really. I've clarified the clause in the latest version, also incorporating the latest suggestions:

WA Counterterrorism Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: The Altan Steppes

Description:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING terrorism as a major threat to the lives and well-being of civilians and non-combatants;

CONDEMNING the loss of life and harm that result from terrorist acts;

RESOLVING to address the danger of terrorism to protect the civilian populations of member states;

1) DEFINES terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social or political outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard for civilians or non-combatants, or specifically targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

2) DEFINES civilians, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".

3) REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation. This shall include, but not be limited to, making it a criminal offense to conspire, aid, abet, fund, plan or carry out acts of terrorism across international borders. Member states shall prosecute those who violate such laws to the fullest extent possible within their nation.

4) BARS member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to non-state actors committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

5) REQUIRES member states to freeze, or otherwise take control of without undue delay, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their jurisdiction which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.

6) URGES member states to coordinate counter-terrorism activities, and share information and intelligence on individuals and organizations that practice terrorism, to combat its spread on an international level.

7) ENCOURAGES member states to do everything possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their borders, including but not limited to: poverty, racism, inequality or indoctrinated hatred.

And you have two number 2's. Hee hee.

Krytellin shoots an annoyed look at his staff, who look away and suddenly find something to do.

We liked #2 so much, we used it twice, apparently.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Couldn't you pass this before repealing the original? I don't see anything in the original that would restrict more serious legislation.

Couldn't you pass this before repealing the original? I don't see anything in the original that would restrict more serious legislation.

You're probably correct that we could, but we'd be worried that having two resolutions on the books that address terrorism would be confusing. Frankly, we also see "Prevention of Terrorism" as just being poor legislation, and we're loath to see it stick around.

You're probably correct that we could, but we'd be worried that having two resolutions on the books that address terrorism would be confusing. Frankly, we also see "Prevention of Terrorism" as just being poor legislation, and we're loath to see it stick around.

Ahh, but that is the fun part. You see, with a stronger legislation on the books, you've a stronger argument to remove the ineffective version, and you'll immediately satisfy the people who assume you've no replacement on the way.

Would you consider changing this clause 2) DEFINES civilians as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".
to
2) DEFINES civilians, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".?

Ahh, but that is the fun part. You see, with a stronger legislation on the books, you've a stronger argument to remove the ineffective version, and you'll immediately satisfy the people who assume you've no replacement on the way.

You do have a point. I'm wondering if we can get an official ruling as to whether or not #12 would have to be repealed before I can submit this.

As to the change requested by St Edmund, I don't see why not. Done.

Whether #12 is repealed before or after this, we will support this resolution.

The draft bill before us is a step in the right way. But I would like to see a increase in militray and police powers to be fore proactive, the reactive. The 501st is will to offer any aid to the The Altan Steppes Bill.

Lord Jack Griffith
Ruler of Sabbat78
Region Delegate of the 501st

I would be for supporting this resolution and encouraging my region to support this as well.

#12, I'm sorry to say, has too many loopholes that could be easily abused by unscrupulous governments.

REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.

I believe this could be a potential loophole though. Does the "rule of law" refer to a Nations laws? If so then a Nation could pass extreme laws for dealing with terrorist.

Does the "rule of law" refer to a Nations laws? If so then a Nation could pass extreme laws for dealing with terrorist.One would assume it subject to both national and international law. And extreme, insane national governments can weasel their way out of anything. That's why Proposals should be written with rational nations in mind, not insane ones.

One would assume it subject to both national and international law. And extreme, insane national governments can weasel their way out of anything. That's why Proposals should be written with rational nations in mind, not insane ones.


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the noble ambassador for The Most Glorious Hack, and wonders how differently the recent debate on the right to fair trial might have gone if this eminently sensible logic had been applied to it.

yours e.t.c.

(bumping this thread to see if there are any additional comments or suggestions.)

I'm wondering if we can get an official ruling as to whether or not #12 would have to be repealed before I can submit this.


It is the belief of the Kazekage no Gaara that that Resolution #12 would not have to be repealed for this proposal to go through.
As always, You have the support of the Kazekage no Gaara.

~Wurmald, Secretary for Kazekage no Gaara, WA delegate of Konoha~

It is the belief of the Kazekage no Gaara that that Resolution #12 would not have to be repealed for this proposal to go through.

Alas, your opinion is not Official.

Yeah, this is going to have to be a replacement for Res #12. There's too much overlap for this to coexist with the other. You need to repeal #12 first to avoid a Duplication error.

Frisbeeteria
Official WA Judge, Jury & Executioner

that sucks...well ****

Duplicating what? Resolution #12 doesn't do anything; there's nothing to duplicate.

Duplicating what? Resolution #12 doesn't do anything; there's nothing to duplicate.

There's only one or two operative clauses in this one. The rest is as wishy-washy as #12.

REALIZING ...
NOTICING ...
1. condemns ...
2. deplores ...
3. Invites ...
4. Calls upon ...
5. Urges ...
6. Further urges ...
RECOGNIZING
CONDEMNING
RESOLVING
1) DEFINES
2) REQUIRES
3) BARS
4) URGES
5) FURTHER URGES
The fact that it's the boilerplate nothingness that is duplicated isn't relevant to the fact that it's duplicated. Having two proposals that "urge" the same things won't fly. The old one has to go.

I have no problem with trying to repeal #12 first. I kind of suspected we'd have to, which is why I wanted an official ruling on that issue.

I would respectfully, however, point out that the latest draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13779122&postcount=10) has three operative clauses as opposed to two, and is slightly less wishy-washy, thanks to the refinements suggested by others in this thread.

We, the Republic of Malenkaia,

Think that the best way to fight terrorism is first and foremost to fight poverty and ignorance.
Thus, we swear to provide as much help as possible to educate and help the people who live in countries where terrorists are suspected to have their quarters.
We think that the first victims of terrorists are their co-citizen, and that they should also be protected by the World Assembly.
We, of course, want to spare as much lives as possible, and think this proposal is a good start.
Still, we cannot support it if there is no proposal that aims to improve education and welfare in the countries where terrorists are known to be.
The respect of human rights and of human dignity should be considered as the only respectable way to fight terrorism.

We believe that this resolution is a good one, but cannot be enough by itself. The WA must protect civilians, all of them, and the first targets of the terrorists are the civilians near them. May we never forget it.

So, to conclude, We are ready to support this resolution, along with a social, humanitarian one that would be proposed to help and give everyone the knowledge to be an educated, civilizated citizen.

Thank you.

Sarina Marcovic,
Secretary for International Relations and WA Discussions,
Elected by the Assembly of the People of Malenkaia.

I would respectfully, however, point out that the latest draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13779122&postcount=10) has three operative clauses as opposed to two.

You really need to edit your current version into your first post as you make changes. Your original version if you want to maintain a copy, but the top of the post should always have the latest version of the proposal. Just good etiquette and common sense.

A very good draft, and at this time I only have one minor niggle.

2) DEFINES civilians, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or government".

Whilst I do appreciate the reasons that an international resolution should not include acts against military and police personell (indeed, whilst at a national level our government believes that acts commited against military personell etc. is terrorism, we further believe that it would be inappropriate for such a thing to be included in international legislation), we do have concerns, in many ways, about the inclusion of members' of a nation's government, simply due to the varying degrees which nations can consider what actually constitutes a member of the government. To whit, it could include all employees of the state (which would bugger up Communist countries somewhat) and I don't think it's particular fair to label civil servents as legitimate "targets" from an international standpoint.

Whilst I do appreciate the reasons that an international resolution should not include acts against military and police personell (indeed, whilst at a national level our government believes that acts commited against military personell etc. is terrorism, we further believe that it would be inappropriate for such a thing to be included in international legislation), we do have concerns, in many ways, about the inclusion of members' of a nation's government, simply due to the varying degrees which nations can consider what actually constitutes a member of the government. To whit, it could include all employees of the state (which would bugger up Communist countries somewhat) and I don't think it's particular fair to label civil servents as legitimate "targets" from an international standpoint.

I will admit to sharing this concern. I will also admit, however, that I'm a bit flummoxed as to what to do about it. As this is a draft aimed primarily at protecting civilians, I don't know that government officials should be covered. However, there is a big difference between a president, say, and the guy who's manning a desk at the local drivers' license office. I'd certainly welcome any suggestions about how to resolve that concern. One thought I've had about that could be to specify that only elected officials would be covered, but that isn't really a satisfactory solution because not every nation elects their officials.

I believe, just believe, that your draft would need some editing, as not to damage the rights of member nationstates. For example, isn't there a right of freedom of expression, If there is , i would suggest repealing it before furthering your draft and putting it up for dissapointment or success before the body of the WA. Maybe I am wrong, but some people might note that they have certain rights in their countries. Go ahead and post it, just be weary of previous resolutions that might effect your own.

the government of the emperor of Urgench thinks that in general most non Executive public servants other than those serving in ministries of defence/war or intelligence, could qualify as civilian for the purposes of this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

I believe, just believe, that your draft would need some editing, as not to damage the rights of member nationstates. For example, isn't there a right of freedom of expression, If there is , i would suggest repealing it before furthering your draft and putting it up for dissapointment or success before the body of the WA. Maybe I am wrong, but some people might note that they have certain rights in their countries. Go ahead and post it, just be weary of previous resolutions that might effect your own.

I have to admit to a bit of confusion. Could you specify what existing resolutions this would come in conflict with? I didn't see any conflict and I have reviewed previous legislation. I'm also not sure how this affects freedom of expression, unless you consider bombs or bullets expressions of free speech.

the government of the emperor of Urgench thinks that in general most non Executive public servants other than those serving in ministries of defence/war or intelligence, could qualify as civilian for the purposes of this resolution.

That could be a viable solution to the government officials question. I'll have to mull it over, but the suggestion is appreciated.

Its one of the first WA (not UN) resolutions. Rights of a nation i beleive. Every nation has the right to: blah blah blah =).
Since terrorism may be considered Freedom of religion e.g. Bin Ladens "Holy War", or freedom of expression, i think it might be a little in need of editing. Remeber "i think" im not sure.

Its one of the first WA (not UN) resolutions. Rights of a nation i beleive. Every nation has the right to: blah blah blah =).

As author of "Rights and Duties of WA States", I can assure you that it doesn't 'blah blah blah' into any realms related to individual rights. It's entirely about the right of the State itself, not the citizens. States may have official religions, but they are not members of that religion. The concept of faith is limited to sentient beings, and does not extend to governmental constructs.

Since this proposal "DEFINES terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror", there is zero overlap.

OOC: I intend to submit my attempt to repeal #12 within the next week (I'm on vacation during that time and will thus have lots of time to TG for it). I'm bumping this for any last requests or suggestions before the repeal is submitted. The most current version is now in the first post of this thread.