NationStates Jolt Archive

As there appears to have been a recent upsurge of piracy within the worlds of NS ( at least according to a recent, and very entertainingly written, issue... ), my government has suggested that I revive a certain one of our earlier proposals that seems relevant and see how many of the other nations that are represented here would now be interested in its passage.
I’ve made some changes to the text since this discussion began, so here is the current draft _

Suppress International Piracy

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant


Description: The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

2. Defines pirates as 'international pirates’ if they operate across national borders and/or attack international trade,

3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;

4. Requires all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories;

5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

6. Requires all WA member nations to treat all offences committed during acts of international piracy that occurred outside of their own territories at least as seriously, as they would treat any comparable crimes committed within those territories and against their own people, if the alleged perpetrators fall into their hands, and authorises them to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere;

7. Declares that anybody who is accused of having served knowingly as crew aboard any vehicle being used by international pirates, but who can not be linked to any specific offences, shall be subject to appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’; and that proof of that service shall constitute adequate proof for conviction on those charges, unless they prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant in which case courts may be allowed to acquit them;

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

9. Strongly urges all WA member nations to act at least as thoroughly against any pirates who operate solely within their own territories as they do against international pirates.


Author: St Edmund.

And here is the draft before that, with which I opened this discussion_

Suppress International Piracy

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant


Description: The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Author: St Edmund.

The main differences between the two versions are _
A/. The definitions of ‘pirates’ and ‘international pirates’ have been turned into operative clauses rather than just parts of the preamble;
B/. The definition of ‘Pirates’ has been revised to make it clearer clarify that this proposal doesn’t apply to Privateers as well.
C/. The addition, in clause #3 (which was the former c1ause #1), of “markets for their plunder” to the things that member nations must not give to pirates.
C/. The former clause #2 has been split into two parts, which are now clauses #4 & #5.
D/. The former clause #4, which is now #7; has been re-written so that it’s more obviously in compliance with the ‘Fair Criminal Trial’ resolution.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

_____________________________________________________________

OOC: Due to the need for TG campaigns to get proposals to quorum, and my own lack of sufficient internet access to manage much of a campaign, I'll be looking for somebody else who'll do that job in exchange for the right to have their name at the top of the proposal as its proposer...

Since that issue came up, Scotchpinestan has entered into marque contracts with several groups pirates that are privateering under the Scotchpine flag. This has turned into a sizeable source of revenue for our nation, and it has also provided regulation to a previously unregulated industry. Therefore, we will oppose this attempt to roll back the important reforms we have made.

Very well written - relatively mild in wording, though.

But we do believe it's quite sufficient - it splendidly brings the anti-pirating trend before The World Assembly, and I'm sure a great majority of members would appreciate its passage. Including our own nation - the Lone Islands are constantly harassed by these marauders, who we're sure are in the pay of the neighboring factions.

OOC: I'd be very pleased to assist it in reaching quorum once submitted - but I certainly couldn't accept credit for the proposal. That's your honor and yours alone.

_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Very well written - relatively mild in wording, though.

But we do believe it's quite sufficient - it splendidly brings the anti-pirating trend before The World Assembly, and I'm sure a great majority of members would appreciate its passage. Including our own nation - the Lone Islands are constantly harassed by these marauders, who we're sure are in the pay of the neighboring factions.

OOC: I'd be very pleased to assist it in reaching quorum once submitted - but I certainly couldn't accept credit for the proposal. That's your honor and yours alone.

_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


the government of the emperor of urgench thinks this is an excellent and timely resolution, the predations of piracy having taken great toll on recent trading missions between ourselves and other nations, that is why we would strongly suggest you do not have the respected delegate for the Narnian Council propose it, they have recently created for themselves a great store of suspicion and ill feeling by their paucity of skill in diplomacy, which would doubtless hinder the proper progress of this resolution.

yours e.t.c.

As Salzland has already built up its navy in response to pirate attacks, we're absolutely thrilled to have World Assembly approval to send these scum to the Locker.

that is why we would strongly suggest you do not have the respected delegate for the Narnian Council propose it

We'd like to remind the representative for Urgench that our proposal recently passed with the supporting members being thrice that of the opposition. In no way are we in any sort of 'predicament' - in fact, quite the opposite.

We also don't feel it would be in our place to officially propose it (as beneficial as it could be), as you should have noticed earlier. Again, I would be most happy to assist this in reaching quorum, despite the rather snarky opinions of the Urgench representatives - as it is ultimately the author's decision.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We'd like to remind the representative for Urgench that our proposal recently passed with the supporting members being thrice that of the opposition. In no way are we in any sort of 'predicament' - in fact, quite the opposite.

We also don't feel it would be in our place to officially propose it (as beneficial as it could be), as you should have noticed earlier. Again, I would be most happy to assist this in reaching quorum, despite the rather snarky opinions of the Urgench representatives - as it is ultimately the author's decision.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


the government of the emperor of urgench did not suggest that you might be proposing this resolution, we need no instruction from the Honoured delegate for the Narnian Council as to what we "should have noticed".
regardless of the dubious victory you have just won, you have undeniably created a large body of ill feeling for your region by your tyrannical attitudes and demeanor.
we simply suggest that your regions dead hand of dictatorship might be toxic to the wellbeing of any future projects you may wish to cooperate in.

yours e.t.c.

Salzland would cautiously advise all nations that perhaps focusing on the resolution at hand, rather than debating irrelevant and unproductive outside topics, would be the best course of action?

Since that issue came up, Scotchpinestan has entered into marque contracts with several groups pirates that are privateering under the Scotchpine flag. This has turned into a sizeable source of revenue for our nation, and it has also provided regulation to a previously unregulated industry. Therefore, we will oppose this attempt to roll back the important reforms we have made.

"Ahem!"
Defining the term ‘Pirates’ as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government... so those privateers, as long as your government accepted responsibility for their actions, would still be legal...

I can lend a hand, if you're going live before july.

The Chairman:"The Chair recognizes the delegate from The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton!

Delegate Jazz of The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton delegation pushes a button on the console in front of him. The button activates the microphone extended from the desk. Delegate Jazz stands, adjust the microphone and clears his throat.

Delegate Jazz: "Delegate Skyfire and I would first like to express our agreement with the Distinguished Delegate from The Armed Republic of Salzland. The focus of this debate should not be focused on the merits of The Council of Narnia, but on the merits of the propose before us."

Delegate Jazz pauses briefly to exam a note handed to him from fellow The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! Delegate Skyfire. Delegate Jazz nods and takes a breath before speaking.

Delegate Jazz: "As to the propose at hand, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! would like to applaud The Kingdom of St Edmund for its proposal and efforts. As a World Assembly member and the newly elected Regional Delegate to the World Assembly for the region of The Land of Robots in Disguise, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! is more than happy to lend its vote and voice to the passage of this proposal. We would like to express to concerns about two areas.

First, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! does not believe that the definition of Pirate goes far enough. We believe that any act of seizing a ship in international waters except in the case of searching for narcotics, guns, or other contraband or in case of a declared war, should be considered an act of piracy.

Second, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! finds a disturbing lack of 'teeth' in this proposal. We suggest that any nation found guilty of harboring or condoning pirates be disciplined my means of fines up to trade embargoes. For those individuals convicted on piracy disciple should include the loss of the vessel and all weapons belonging to its crew and fines up to a period of time in prison in the nation whose ship was pirated. A captain convicted of piracy, in addition the discpline issued to the crew, should be banned from piloting a ship in international waters for the remainder of his or her lifetime.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/mightycyberton__0.jpg

I have made various changes to this proposal's wording, and a copy of the latest version now appears in this thread's opening post.

I can lend a hand, if you're going live before july.
OOC: Thank you. I can't actually submit it myself, not being a member of the WA any longer, but would be happy to see you do so (and do at least a small TG campaign, too?). There’s a question about the legality of one more possible change (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13795527&postcount=1) about which I’m still waiting for the Mods’ response, but otherwise I think that it’s almost certainly ready to go… I’d like to give people about a couple of days (until some time on Saturday afternoon) to comment on the changes that I’ve just made to the proposal’s wording, but unless any MAJOR problems are pointed out I’ll give you the go-ahead to submit it then…
If you are willing to submit this, would you prefer it if the “Author” credit at the end was transferred from St Edmund to our sister-nation in the South Pacific i.e. ‘Bali Lo’ (http://www.nationstates.net/bali_lo)?

"First, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! does not believe that the definition of Pirate goes far enough. We believe that any act of seizing a ship in international waters except in the case of searching for narcotics, guns, or other contraband or in case of a declared war, should be considered an act of piracy.
If your government wants a proposal on the general topic of 'freedom of naviagtion' then I am afraid that, at the moment, you will either have to write one yourselves or find some other nation that is willing to do so. My own government has decided to concentrate its efforts, this time, on the more specific topic of preventing such actions by "non-state" groups although with a wider geographical scope than just 'international waters'.

"Second, The Constitutional Monarchy of MightyCyberton! finds a disturbing lack of 'teeth' in this proposal. We suggest that any nation found guilty of harboring or condoning pirates be disciplined my means of fines up to trade embargoes. For those individuals convicted on piracy disciple should include the loss of the vessel and all weapons belonging to its crew and fines up to a period of time in prison in the nation whose ship was pirated. A captain convicted of piracy, in addition the discpline issued to the crew, should be banned from piloting a ship in international waters for the remainder of his or her lifetime."
Do I gather that your nation is new here? It is one of the basic rules of this Assembly that all member nations have those resolutions that are passed written into their national law-codes, and that their governments' compliance with those resolutions -- to the letter -- is therefore required by their own laws: Thus, no measures to punish member nations for defying these rules -- which I think are written clearly enough to leave no obvious loopholes -- need be specified...
As for the matter of how pirates should be punished, any scales suggested in a proposal would undoubtedly be regarded as too weak by some of the nations represented here but too weak by some of the others: We therefore feel that leaving this matter to be determined at the national level, with the requirement that the crimes be considered as seriously as comparable crimes (e..g robbery with violence, grand theft, murder) committed within the relevant nations would be, is still the best solution.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

There’s a question about the legality of one more possible change (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13795527&postcount=1) about which I’m still waiting for the Mods’ response,

It's fine.

It's fine.
Thank you.
That change has now been made.

Mighty Cybertron: Does the fact that with this change to the text the WA now effectively "Urges and authorises" its member nations to eradicate any pirate bases that any non-member nations might harbour help to allay your concern about a "lack of teeth"?

Edit: I've now reversed that change, and added an extra line to that clause, so that WA nations will still be urged & authorised to go after international pirates anywhere that isn't under the effective control of any nation at all, and against international pirates' bases wherever those are located, but will have much less scope for using it to justify intruding into non-member nations that are actively working against the pirates themselves...

"Ahem!"
... so those privateers, as long as your government accepted responsibility for their actions, would still be legal...

However, any nation who wishes to offer a letter of marque to a current international pirate will be unable to do so, since this would entail the pirate being given safe passage in that nation, which would conflict with article 3. Granted, once the marque contract begins, the person's no longer an international pirate. But crossing that threshold would be impossible, given article 3. It would cripple the regulated pirate industry by preventing any new legal pirates from entering the industry. We must continue to steadfastly oppose this and urge all of our WA colleagues to do likewise.

We are against piracy, weather it be non-government or government. We believe that all acts must be seen by the act and that laws must not discriminate between the actors.

That being said, we will not give our support because we do not like that "governmental" pirates will be given better chances to go on with their criminal acts. Our navy will do whatever can be done against those privateers to stop them.

We hope we can give our support to a better proposal against piracy. We will not make that, because our English is not good enough.

Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Thank you.
That change has now been made.

Mighty Cybertron: Does the fact that with this change to the text the WA now effectively "Urges and authorises" its member nations to eradicate any pirate bases that any non-member nations might harbour help to allay your concern about a "lack of teeth"?

Edit: I've now reversed that change, and added an extra line to that clause, so that WA nations will still be urged & authorised to go after international pirates anywhere that isn't under the effective control of any nation at all, and against international pirates' bases wherever those are located, but will have much less scope for using it to justify intruding into non-member nations that are actively working against the pirates themselves...

Delegate Jazz:"Delegate Skyfire and I are satisfied for the time being. The Republic of Mighty Cybertron will led its vote and try to get additional votes to support this most worthy proposal. When do you intend to purpose this bill?"

Delegate Jazz:"Delegate Skyfire and I are satisfied for the time being. The Republic of Mighty Cybertron will led its vote and try to get additional votes to support this most worthy proposal. When do you intend to purpose this bill?"

As my government is no longer a member of this Assembly, and I am now here only as an observer, I will be unable to submit this proposal myself. The representative of Mavenu will probably be doing so, instead ( but that nation's player will be away on holiday for another week or so...).


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

third week of july, most likely. Still on vacation. the staff's apparently not in the mood to do any work while I'm gone...

sara mavenu
WA Representative for Mavenu

I propose a system of Orwellian stlye floating fortresses all over the ocean if each nation made just one each we could wipe piracy off the seas of this world. This would be a big expenditure but would not need to be replaced every 20 years.

From the board of fortune

This has been submitted for a test run. No TG campaign at this time.

If you'd like to volunteer for the TG campaign (next week i guess), please let me know here, via TG, or via the south pacific regional forum.

Sara Mavenu
WA Representive for Mavenu

For reference

Approvals: 35 (Yuehan land, Glenlogan, Gibraltenstein, Extermis Germanicus, Jey, Eiga-Baka, Graalium, Hoylake, Gerainia, Charlotte Ryberg, Greater Gonzo, WA Rep for UEFF, The Sine, The Realist Polities, The IKPK Officer, Arandis, MightyCyberton, Starman Deluxe, Wulfenlands, Jimmy Hart, The Artic Republics, Szegedorszag, Kazzan, Holocausia, Hellbilly Deluxe, The Altan Steppes, Britnia, Epigeal, Willi Republic, Corilone, Penguinion, Iznogoud, Inisven, St Anthony the Great, Kleinekatzen, National Doublespeak)

Now at 41 approvals: + Pizzabox, Benedict of Nursia, Icy Cold Death Touch, Minqi, Gallantaria, Jinal.

the purge is coming ^_^

(Yuehan land, Glenlogan, Gibraltenstein, Extermis Germanicus, Jey, Eiga-Baka, Graalium, Hoylake, Gerainia, Charlotte Ryberg, Greater Gonzo, WA Rep for UEFF, The Sine, The Realist Polities, The IKPK Officer, Arandis, MightyCyberton, Starman Deluxe, Wulfenlands, Jimmy Hart, The Artic Republics, Szegedorszag, Kazzan, Holocausia, Hellbilly Deluxe, The Altan Steppes, Britnia, Epigeal, Willi Republic, Corilone, Penguinion, Iznogoud, Inisven, St Anthony the Great, Kleinekatzen, Pizzabox, Benedict of Nursia, Icy Cold Death Touch, Minqi, Gallantaria, Jinal, Amen Obel, Aragaesia, East Ying, Rythonia, The Dense, Theocracyes, Zernas, 9 The Square, Zemnaya Svoboda, Lucky101, Saim-Hahn, American Woman)

One more time.

Approvals: 36 (The Sine, Misplaced States, Jimmy Hart, The Artic Republics, The IKPK Officer, Imperium De Mundi, Superbus Terra, Greater Roanoke, Bears Armed, Txiniamagna, Graalium, The Derrak Quadrant, The Realist Polities, Arandis, Marsian Aliens, Oodges, Gallantaria, Carce, Pizzabox, Charlotte Ryberg, Morse Mortis, Mandrivia, Abeir Delaval, Morrenstien, Otemigoland, KeVes, Delove, Benuhal, Ives-Maxima, Phorensya, Wierd Anarchists, Fortana, Ugaritic Mot, Neo Mithral Hall, Enlightened Pigs, The Foma Project, Travda, Military Command, Swartt, New Hamilton, West Stephanopoulos)

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy

trying again. this time with TG campaign.

Approvals: 76, requires 18 more approvals

Bring
Us
More
Pie

I've always wanted to post this.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

the nation of Axmanland applauds this fine legislation, and is sending a case of whichever intoxicants are legal in your local area to the representative of ST Edmund in recognition of their spirit of international harmony.

Axmanland trades in a large number of narcotics and as you can imagine such high value low bulk goods attract pirates like a mangy cur attracts fleas.

this criminal trade has at least given us a chance to unleash our full naval power but despite several successes (the scourging of Tibal island being the most notable) their tendency to bolt for non Axmanlandian territory when engaged directly hampers our efforts

we fully support any and all efforts to stamp out this diabolical menace

I propose a system of Orwellian stlye floating fortresses all over the ocean if each nation made just one each we could wipe piracy off the seas of this world. This would be a big expenditure but would not need to be replaced every 20 years.

From the board of fortune

*upon hearing this the Axmanlandian representative starts gazing off into middle distance with a glazed look before shaking himself and regaining the floor*

yes huge massive fortresses with U-boat pens and runways and dry docks .........they would be beautiful

of course the would make a vulnerable target it would need to bristle with SAM's and anti ship missiles it would also need a dedicated naval task force and probably a mine cordon just to be sure.......oh and if you didn't want it to be besieged it would need to be powered by nuclear reactors and have a dedicated fighter bomber and transport plane compliment along with a few helicopters

i mean it would be expensive...........but they would be the most wonderful things ever to have floated.

*sits down and dreams of vast sea fortresses*

I've always wanted to post this.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

YAY!

Congratulations, Mav, and thank you for the work that you've put into this.

We see that the concerns we gave on page 1 of this thread have not been resolved, so we will continue to oppose this proposal, although our actual vote is tied to the citizens of Europeia.

If passed, this proposal will have a major negative impact on many a nation's economy.

yes the thieving ones who cant keep their fingers in their own pockets

Steelternia is proud to say that it was the first to vote for this resolution in the world. (Seriously, we are!)

Unlike the previous resolution passed, this resolution defines what the subject is and allows each nation to handle it within its own way, rather than citing the specifics on how it is identified and handled by its members. This way, nations can identify piracy on their own terms and handle it in their own methods, within reason. We need more resolutions like this. The WA is not an international legislative body, it is a body that holds its members to a standard.

The proposal makes sense, but it uses very general terms when speaking about pirates. For example, if we were to use the way this proposal outlines the term "pirate", people who steal ANYTHING from any nation are technically pirates. And addendum 7 is far FAR too vague; any nation could use it to pull any vehicle over in order to extract someone they don't like.

Hauntopinea believes this proposal is a waste of effort, and encourages his fellow WA members to shoot it down.

=======================================
International Communication from the House of Rats
=======================================

In order to show how silly this is, we will hereby recognize any pirate group not recognized as an agent of another nation as being an agent of our House, which itself is part of our nation's government.

Venilli of the House of Rats

=====================
WA Diplomat Communcation
=====================

I've been instructed to vote for it, so I'm supporting it. Doesn't look that bad, though. I think.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

What about the fact that this resolution treats people who "knowingly" serve abroad a pirate vessel the same as people who serve "willingly"?

So, anyone impressed into service (Hey, pirates have done it before. So have navies) is a criminal.

I vote no.

Cracking down on the pirates is a bad Idea. You'll regret this bill when global warming gets worse, mark my words!

I vote no, for the sake of the planet

Cracking down on the pirates is a bad Idea. You'll regret this bill when global warming gets worse, mark my words!...huh?

...huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianism#Pirates_and_global_warming

We are a sad people today, voting to approve this proposal. We cling to the image of the pirate as seen in fictional stories, but could find nothing wrong with this proposal, and so we vote yes, reluctant to end the "age of the Pirate" but seeing the need to do so.

The Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris offers greetings to one and all.

Having read the proposal at hand, we find several problems with it.

Issue: 5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

This sounds like if a base is within your nation, any other nation can attack it there.

Section 7 also has issues with it's wording being a bit assumptive; a bit of the ol' guilty until proven innocent bit.

Additionally, the article for vote barely mentions Privateers, and gives no full description of them, explaination of where they fit in, nor how they are to be treated. If your nation has hired a navel private milita to deal with a pesky neighbor by locking down his shipping, and you have given them a Letter of Marque to do so in your name... does that make you in violation of this article?

Having been a member of a "Pre-emptive maritime salvage team" whose motto was "It was sinking when we got here!" prior to my current duties as Dictator of Life, I have understanding for these privateers and cannot, in good faith (and damage to my nation's coffers) vote for this article.

Add to that as some have said, the global weather impact...

Vote No... both personally and for my Region of Firefly (gotta look out for Space warming too)...

Sounds like yet another "Nice, but not fully good" article, so I suggest No votes.

I have serious concerns about the following:

7. Declares that anybody who is accused of having served knowingly as crew aboard any vehicle being used by international pirates, but who can not be linked to any specific offences, shall be subject to appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’; and that proof of that service shall constitute adequate proof for conviction on those charges, unless they prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant in which case courts may be allowed to acquit them;

I won't logjam our legal system to convict people that "may" have been associated with piracy or a vehicle of piracy. This is ludicrous. It also could be interpreted as putting the burden of proof on the accused, which violates our constitution.

Having discovered yet another brother-nation under Our Lord's starchy enlightenment and having heard this valid arguments, the Peoples of Sasquatchewain regret and withdraw their previous vote for this proposal, changing it instead to a vote against it.

May all be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

The proposal makes sense, but it uses very general terms when speaking about pirates. For example, if we were to use the way this proposal outlines the term "pirate", people who steal ANYTHING from any nation are technically pirates.
If they "operate in groups to use threats and force to seize vehicles and their cargos — and possibly their passengers, and/or crew, as well — for personal gain, and may also use ships or other vehicles as transportation for raids against settlements" and -- to qualify as 'international' pirates, and thus be subject to this proposal -- "operate across national borders and/or attack international trade".
And addendum 7 is far FAR too vague; any nation could use it to pull any vehicle over in order to extract someone they don't like.Firstly, that isn't an "addendum" it's an operative clause.
Secondly, governments could act like that anyway (if their own nations' laws allow) even without this clause... but please remember that there is a resolution in effect that guarantees fair trials.

=======================================
International Communication from the House of Rats
=======================================

In order to show how silly this is, we will hereby recognize any pirate group not recognized as an agent of another nation as being an agent of our House, which itself is part of our nation's government.

Venilli of the House of Rats
Which, as many people see such matters, would turn any attacks that those pirates might then make on other nations into 'acts of war' by you...

What about the fact that this resolution treats people who "knowingly" serve abroad a pirate vessel the same as people who serve "willingly"?

So, anyone impressed into service (Hey, pirates have done it before. So have navies) is a criminal.
"Knowingly" is a lot easier to prove than "willingly", especially if the pirate crews involved haven't left any live witnesses to their crimes... and did you miss this bit? unless they prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant in which case courts may be allowed to acquit them;(OOC: This is actually how English law on the subject worked in RL history...)

Issue: 5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

This sounds like if a base is within your nation, any other nation can attack it there.But according to clauses #3 & #4 you shouldn't allow pirate bases within your territories anyway, so if you're complying with this resolution then there shouldn't be any pirate bases there for other nations to attack. The words that you've stressed are basically there to encourage member nations to deal with pirate bases that are sited in non-member nations (which, of course, don't have to comply with these terms and so could decide to host them...) or in "failed nations".

Section 7 also has issues with it's wording being a bit assumptive; a bit of the ol' guilty until proven innocent bit.(OOC: see my reply to Burkeistan.)

Additionally, the article for vote barely mentions Privateers, and gives no full description of them, explaination of where they fit in, nor how they are to be treated. If your nation has hired a navel private milita to deal with a pesky neighbor by locking down his shipping, and you have given them a Letter of Marque to do so in your name... does that make you in violation of this article?
Given that this proposal's clause #1 clearly differentiates between 'Pirates' and 'Privateers' (on the basis of whether or not they "are not formally recognised agents of any government"), and that all of the subsequent clauses specifically refer only to pirates, this proposal would place no restrictions at all on nations' use of privateers. My earliest drafts on this general topic did include a clause or two setting some rules about them, but those proved so controversial -- because some nations wanted their right to employ privateers on whatever terms they might choose to be protected, whereas other nations wanted to see privateers banned altogether -- that I dropped them: If anybody here actually wants a resolution about privateers then they'll have to write one themselves.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

I am proud to announce official support on behalf of The Most Serene Republic of Etkele

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianism#Pirates_and_global_warming

darn, had i known about that, i would have made a poll...

Dolfor prefers to convict the accused for crimes committed, not for the company you keep.

If an individual is an active pirate, there should be enough charges to level against that person for actual crimes committed, without needing to "pad out the list" with accusations of thoughtcrime.

Any individual who commits crimes based upon serving on a pirate ship should be convicted on *those* crimes. In most cases, willingly serving as part of a piratical crew *during* the commission of crimes should already be sufficient to prove the conscious aiding and abetting of the commission of those crimes.

Merely serving upon a ship designated as "pirate" is too broad a brush -- if it cannot be shown that the accused either committed an actual crime *or* willing served in a support role during the commission of known crimes, presuming intent places an undue burden of proof upon the accused, not to mention that this act invalidates any other threat other than that of death as a coercive mechanism. (For instance, threats of violence against a shanghaied crew member's family, or more commonly, of marooning -- not, technically, automatically death in itself -- may be effectively applied as coercive methods, but are disallowed under this resolution.)

Furthermore, Dolfor finds the vague but ominous "requirement" to "do as much as they reasonably can" troublesome, as what may be "reasonable" under the defense-spending priorities of one nation may be judged "unreasonable" by other WA nations merely due to their judgment of that nation's military budget, thus infringing upon a nation's sovereignty in determining its own defense spending.

Dolfor cannot in good conscience support this resolution.

We will instruct our courts and law enforcement agencies, in line with clause 4's requirement of resonable measures, to ignore large portions of this resolution, which we view as a gross intrusion on the integrity of our legal system.

We will also instruct The Imperial Navy and Coastguard to fire on any vessels of any nation which have entered our territorial waters in pursuit of so called "pirates" since they will have had no prior permission from our government to do so, and will certainly not have any permissions to remove persons from our territory or to take their lives or destroy their property.

yours e.t.c. ,

Which, as many people see such matters, would turn any attacks that those pirates might then make on other nations into 'acts of war' by you...

My House is not responsible if people cannot deal with the idea of ships just doing their job. It specifies they may be agents of the government, but not what they may be doing as agents of the government.

Venilli of the House of Rats

The House of Rats... doesn't represent the views of the nation.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

..., and its bases wherever those are; [/I]

This sounds like if a base is within your nation, any other nation can attack it there.




The sentence you pointed is addressed by the previous one:
...that are not under any nation’s effective control...

and what truly defines effective control?

We of the Free Land of ZapataZulu express our support of security for the seas. However, if it doesn't include privateers, we cannot endorse it, because government-endorsed piracy is just as wrong as private piracy.
Also, what about the environmental effects recently pointed out? The number of pirates is directly related to global warming, as shown by the Pastafarians.

I agree that government endorsed piracy is as bad as private piracy. Still I support this proposal. Why?
This proposal says what we can and should do against private piracy. That is good.
It does only say that governmental piracy is something else. OK, because it does not say that governmental piracy is allowed.
So any nation that sends privateers after another nations ships can know it will be seen as an act of war. I hate war, but if another nation does an act of war it is responsible for it doing so. It will bear the consequences, the privateers are only their agents.

And about the relation with global warning, there is not a scientific relation, just mathematic relation. That proves nothing, it could only be interesting to search for a real relation if it could be there.

This being said I support this resolution fully.

This issue has a simple one sided answer,
i vote for this, because pirates are not going to threaten our people any longer.
Forthwith, Isya III has voted for this topic for a better, safer world

Magnormia has decided to vote against this resolution on the grounds that A)We feel it does not portray so-called privateers as the criminals that they are, but rather as some sort of industry, and B)We feel it creates a dangerous situation in which many incidents between less than friendly, but still not at war, nations can harass eachother in open, international waters, citing this resolution and a claim that the ships/vehicles in question were 'pirates'.

The government of The Republic of Lanceopia strongly supports this resolution. In fact, Lanceopia would consider the seizing of any of its ships an act of war, and would respond accordingly. Any government supporting the criminals by allowing safe haven would be considered as hostile, and treated accordingly. The government of Lanceopia is peaceful and expects to be treated as a peaceful trading nation.

Pirates are needed for a good hearty economy. Privateers are just pirates who work for the government. If this is passed we in Michael Toth promise to open our harbors and ports to any and all pirates who seek refuge and all of them shall be listed as privateers under the employ of Michael Toth. It is time to end the Tyranny and bull shit that have gone on for too long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianism#Pirates_and_global_warming
The Pastafarian definition of 'Pirates' (Pastafarianism says that they were in fact "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of good will" who distributed candy to small children, and adds that modern pirates are in no way similar to "the fun-loving buccaneers from history.") and this proposal's definition of pirates are clearly so different that nations would not be obliged to act against the Pastafarian "pirates" at all, and so any concern about potential environmental effects of passing this proposal would seem to be groundless.

Dolfor prefers to convict the accused for crimes committed, not for the company you keep.

If an individual is an active pirate, there should be enough charges to level against that person for actual crimes committed, without needing to "pad out the list" with accusations of thoughtcrime.

Any individual who commits crimes based upon serving on a pirate ship should be convicted on *those* crimes. In most cases, willingly serving as part of a piratical crew *during* the commission of crimes should already be sufficient to prove the conscious aiding and abetting of the commission of those crimes. Merely serving upon a ship designated as "pirate" is too broad a brush -- if it cannot be shown that the accused either committed an actual crime *or* willing served in a support role during the commission of known crimes, presuming intent places an undue burden of proof upon the accused, St Edmund also prefers to convict based on actual crimes rather than on the basis of association... but pirates have been known to operate on the basis of "dead men tell no tales" which, in the absence of competent mediums whose evidence would be accepted by the courts (or of ghosts actually testifying in person, which our laws do allow...), would make gathering evidence of specific actions by specific members of crews exceedingly difficult. This clause is therefore, in my government's opinion, the lesser of two evils.


not to mention that this act invalidates any other threat other than that of death as a coercive mechanism. (For instance, threats of violence against a shanghaied crew member's family, or more commonly, of marooning -- not, technically, automatically death in itself -- may be effectively applied as coercive methods, but are disallowed under this resolution.)Acts of piracy commonly involve considerable violence, up to and including mass murder, as well as 'grand theft'. My government therefore does not consider any form of coercion less than death threats (which could, under this proposal's wording, be to family members rather than to the people actually being coerced) as adequate justification for helping pirates in even a 'non-combatant' supporting role.

Furthermore, Dolfor finds the vague but ominous "requirement" to "do as much as they reasonably can" troublesome, as what may be "reasonable" under the defense-spending priorities of one nation may be judged "unreasonable" by other WA nations merely due to their judgment of that nation's military budget, thus infringing upon a nation's sovereignty in determining its own defense spending.
Compliance with this proposal would only require nations to "do as much as they reasonably can" according to their own judgement: It contains no mechanism that would let other nations over-rule their decisions about this, or let other nations set their defence budgets.

We will instruct our courts and law enforcement agencies, in line with clause 4's requirement of resonable measures, to ignore large portions of this resolution, which we view as a gross intrusion on the integrity of our legal system.Clause #4 would let you choose the level of effort that you put into actively hunting-down pirates, but it would NOT free you from the obligation to comply with the other clauses... such as #6, which requires you to treat offences committed during acts of piracy elsewhere as seriously as you would treat comparable offences committed within your own territories & against your own people.

We will also instruct The Imperial Navy and Coastguard to fire on any vessels of any nation which have entered our territorial waters in pursuit of so called "pirates" since they will have had no prior permission from our government to do so, and will certainly not have any permissions to remove persons from our territory or to take their lives or destroy their property.
As this proposal makes no attempt to create a right of "hot pursuit" into the territorial waters of member nations you would be fully within your rights to do this... but clause #6 would still, again, require you to take the other nations' accusations against the pursued pirates seriously.

My House is not responsible if people cannot deal with the idea of ships just doing their job. It specifies they may be agents of the government, but not what they may be doing as agents of the government.

Venilli of the House of Rats

Are you seriously suggesting that attacks by a national government's agents upon another nation should not count as acts of war?!?

The House of Rats... doesn't represent the views of the nation.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna
Then if this proposal passes, and they act upon their threat to recognise pirates as their agents, your nation may need to act against that 'House' in order to avoid trouble from the nations whose peoples 7 trade those pirates then attack.

QUOTE=ZapataZulu;14068859]We of the Free Land of ZapataZulu express our support of security for the seas. However, if it doesn't include privateers, we cannot endorse it, because government-endorsed piracy is just as wrong as private piracy.[/QUOTE]As it doesn't say anything about privateers, except that they're not 'pirates' under its definition, you would still be free to continue your existing policies wth respect to them.

This proposal says what we can and should do against private piracy. That is good.
It does only say that governmental piracy is something else. OK, because it does not say that governmental piracy is allowed.
So any nation that sends privateers after another nations ships can know it will be seen as an act of war. I hate war, but if another nation does an act of war it is responsible for it doing so. It will bear the consequences, the privateers are only their agents.
Precisely.

_______________________________________________

Current status = Votes For: 1,776 / Votes Against: 1,547...

... but that's with the delegates of Gatesville, TNP & TEP having voted 'Against' already.



Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

And yet honoured Ambassador Sweynsson -

"5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are"


This article allows all member states to violate each others territorial integrity and national laws in order to seek out and destroy pirate "bases". This article does not specify that nations may only destroy bases within their own territory and it does not stress that nations must request permission to destroy bases which may exist in other member states territory.

There is no need for a "Hot pursuit" clause, this clause goes far further and allows member states to actually make land if they wish and to do what they wish once they get there.


We are gravely concerned about the possible rammifications of this resolution. We will treat all incursions actuated by this resolution into our territory as acts of agression and will act accordingly.

yours e.t.c. ,

Lithiroslavia has a GRAVE shortage of Ninjas, so we eagerly accept Pirates as a replacement, and cannot support this outrage.

President Jerzy 'Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

This proposal, 'Suppress International Piracy,' is of great interest to my nation. Anyone who is familiar with Jaynovakian history knows of the Empire of Jaynova's original czar, Czar Vladimer I, and his troubles with pirates from The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone. My nation's history literally begins with our battle against these pirates, and with the peaceful solution that our wise leader came to.

However, we also recognize that not all pirates are as easy to appease as those who attacked our shore those hundreds of years ago. As you also may know, our coastline along the Golish Sea makes us a target for piracy. At various times during our history (the second pirate wars, the Incident at Port Kucinich), pirates have been a very real and dangerous threat.

I have conferred with the United Socialist States Senate, and we agree that the language in this bill encourages the suppression of piracy without, as we say in my country, Шагать на пальцы ноги любого, of rather, getting in anyone's way. We vote FOR this bill, and we also hope that, due to our shared history, the Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone do the same.

Thank you."

It's ridiculous to say that people can be charged with piracy without a direct link. Two thumbs DOWN.

Then if this proposal passes, and they act upon their threat to recognise pirates as their agents, your nation may need to act against that 'House' in order to avoid trouble from the nations whose peoples 7 trade those pirates then attack.

I am not fully aware of House politics, but... well... Don't tell too many people I'm the source, but the other Houses have been wanting to "talk" with the House of Rats for awhile now. This does give them the excuse.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

It is the opinion of Talgat that no nation has the right to project their naval authority into areas that are outside their teritorial influence. Talgat will not support a measure that will allow any nation to enter the territorial waters of another with their military, without providing reasonable notice and being given permission. We are not comfortable with this measure and must vote against it.

Perhaps institute a more direct approach to the war against piracy? A global pirate-capture organization that works for the WA? Or that is, any threat amongst international waters, for that matter. That way no military action from any given country will be held within international waters, which would urge issues among some countries, even starting wars for military proximity. The WAAPO (World Assembly Anti-Pirate Organization) would serve it's purpose with no national bias, as well as less chances to have ties with any give Pirate organization within any given country.
This is Saturni's position.

Perhaps institute a more direct approach to the war against piracy? A global pirate-capture organization that works for the WA? Or that is, any threat amongst international waters, for that matter. That way no military action from any given country will be held within international waters, which would urge issues among some countries, even starting wars for military proximity. The WAAPO (World Assembly Anti-Pirate Organization) would serve it's purpose with no national bias, as well as less chances to have ties with any give Pirate organization within any given country.
This is Saturni's position.

That's basically a WA police force which if you take the time to read the proposal rules is a textbook example of an illegal proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Piracy is a job. That is their source of income. I am not going to allow the destruction of someone's career!

I believe that each nation should be given the option of either casting piarates out of their nation or signing them on as Privateers.

Way offf.

While the Generican people recognize the need for additional legislation in regards to international pirates, it is our opinion that "pirate" is too loosely defined in this resolution, and this resolution could be abused to define anybody as a pirate, including innocent civilians!

While Generica may be new to the World Assembly, I hope we can convince you other fine leaders to change your vote to "against". Our civil liberties and even our lives may be at stake with the simple click of a mouse!

Piracy is our bread and butter, you cannot ban it. We will resist.


The spegetti monster is with us.

Ruzan votes against this resolution. And our vote has nothing to do with the totally unfounded allegations that Ruzan has dealings with several pirate groups.

The New Age Nexus Votes for this resolution on the grounds that it will destroy any hostile forces from harming international trade and diplomacy. The New Age Nexus has fought long and hard to rebuild itself after the fall of its mother Empire The Nexus. We were always at war with Pirates and if this law would help us settle the score with them once and for all then the people of The New Age Nexus say "Onward to war and international Prosperity!!!!"

The Aaronian Empire of the Aaronian Plateau supports ridding the world of piracy

And yet honoured Ambassador Sweynsson -

"5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are"


This article allows all member states to violate each others territorial integrity and national laws in order to seek out and destroy pirate "bases". This article does not specify that nations may only destroy bases within their own territory and it does not stress that nations must request permission to destroy bases which may exist in other member states territory.

There is no need for a "Hot pursuit" clause, this clause goes far further and allows member states to actually make land if they wish and to do what they wish once they get there.


We are gravely concerned about the possible rammifications of this resolution. We will treat all incursions actuated by this resolution into our territory as acts of agression and will act accordingly.

yours e.t.c. ,

My dear friend Urgench,

I think you are right to say that you will treat all incursions actuated by this resolution into your territory as acts of aggression. We totally agree. But I am sure no one will do that, because you would not accept pirates to act from out of your territories. Any act of destroying bases of pirates inside a nation without agreement of such nation would clearly be seen as an act of war. And an act of war against a nation with does not allow pirates (in the definition of this proposal) would not be reasonable (the wording used in article 5).

But an act of war against nations who allow pirates to act from its territories and doing nothing to suppress these pirates would justify other nations to destroy the bases of these pirates. If those nations tried to negotiate first, that is reasonable, and later only destroy the pirates bases because those pirates became an international menace, that is reasonable too. So I think reasonable leaders, as I see you being one, could support this proposal.

So I ask all reasonable nations to reconsider their votes against this proposal and all reasonable nations who voted in favor of this proposal to keep doing that.

Thank you for your time.

Regards

Piracy is a problem, but it is the opinion of Talgat that no nation has the right to project their naval authority into areas that are outside their teritorial influence. Talgat will not support a measure that will allow any nation to enter the territorial waters of another with their military, without providing reasonable notice and being given permission. We are not comfortable with this measure and must vote against it.

The Arianovian government urges all who have not, member and regional delegate, to vote AGAINST this resolution. The reasons are innumerable above and throughout the thread and it is only a few sincere, but sincerely wrong WA members who are pushing this forward. Please read through the thread, notice the problems with this resolution and put a vote against this resolution immediately. If you have voted for it, reconsider and withdraw.

My dear friend Urgench,

I think you are right to say that you will treat all incursions actuated by this resolution into your territory as acts of aggression. We totally agree. But I am sure no one will do that, because you would not accept pirates to act from out of your territories. Any act of destroying bases of pirates inside a nation without agreement of such nation would clearly be seen as an act of war. And an act of war against a nation with does not allow pirates (in the definition of this proposal) would not be reasonable (the wording used in article 5).

But an act of war against nations who allow pirates to act from its territories and doing nothing to suppress these pirates would justify other nations to destroy the bases of these pirates. If those nations tried to negotiate first, that is reasonable, and later only destroy the pirates bases because those pirates became an international menace, that is reasonable too. So I think reasonable leaders, as I see you being one, could support this proposal.

So I ask all reasonable nations to reconsider their votes against this proposal and all reasonable nations who voted in favor of this proposal to keep doing that.

Thank you for your time.

Regards



Our friend the Ambassador for Wierd Anarchists should know that our opposition to this resolution arises from it allowing other nations to enter our territorial waters and even to make land without our permission and there to kill, arrest and confiscate the property of persons within our borders, possibly even our own citizens. We have no guarantee that these extra-national forces will behave in accordance with our laws or even that they will provide us with evidences for their actions or even that they will be acting in good faith. There is no guarantee that those forces will even be comprised of regular national navies and not hired individuals possibly motivated by personal gain and acting to eliminate competition or satisfying personal vendetta.

There is no requirement that another nation's forces should even provide us with proofs or reports of activities within our territory after the fact.

Our citizens could be swooped upon by foreign privateers hired from non-member nations, without warning or permission, they could be killed, robbed or spirited away to other nations to face charges in courts who's methods or practices we do not approve or accept and we would have no recourse to law and no right to be properly briefed on what had actually happened during the course of these outrageous events.

What if this "pirate base" turns out to be situated in a remote fishing village? what if in the process of destroying this "base" the naval personnel of another nation kills innocent civilians? There is no mechanism within this statute to allow governments to sue or bring charges against other governments should their incompetence or negligence cause loss of life to innocent bystanders or destruction or civilian property or infrastructure.


We should point out that even should this bill pass it will not instantly stop all piracy within all w.a. member states and that even were any specific nation able to eradicate piracy within it's waters periodically it could not guarantee this permanently. And would the answer to this to be to allow all comers to maraud each other's national waters and coastlines without any leavers of balance and redress? Without permission or even warning?

The possibility of abuse of this resolution by unscrupulous nations is infinite.


We must therefore continue to warn that should the naval forces of other member states be detected in our territorial waters without our permission seeking to enforce the provisions of this completely ill-conceived resolution they will face the most serious of consequences.


yours e.t.c.

Krankor stands firmly in the camp of interstellar pirates, battling wispy caped ninjas who masquerade by day as bootblacks.

Think of the effect on Global Warming!

The Democratic Republic of Frattastan is DEEPLY AGAINST.
We think that the resolution is a big limitation to the freedom of self-determination of the nations only in the interest of merchant navies of the most powerful countries. Think about illegal activities by merchant navies, like toxic waste dumping or arms trafficking, not about gentleman pirates.

I have voted against this measure as written.

I find that - outside of open military conflict - overt (formal, with a letter of intent) and covert (informal, without a letter of intent) state-sponsored piracy (privateering) to be a more heinous offense than simple criminal opportunism.

I cannot in good conscience support a proposition which, by direct exclusion, supports state-sponsored piracy.

We will instruct our courts and law enforcement agencies, in line with clause 4's requirement of resonable measures, to ignore large portions of this resolution, which we view as a gross intrusion on the integrity of our legal system.

We will also instruct The Imperial Navy and Coastguard to fire on any vessels of any nation which have entered our territorial waters in pursuit of so called "pirates" since they will have had no prior permission from our government to do so, and will certainly not have any permissions to remove persons from our territory or to take their lives or destroy their property.


It is rare to see the quiet and distinguished ambassador of the Empire of Urgench argue against a resolution on the floor of the WA. It is even rarer to see the ambassador invoke arguments of national sovereignty and threaten WA nations in pursuit of hostile pirate forces. One even wonders if secretly they might endorse or harbor pirates and use those pirates to indirectly promote a secret agenda.

Make no mistake; any pirate who attacks a vessel of Tzorsland has declared war against Tzorsland. Any nation that knowingly provides supplies shelter, aid or succor to those vessels at war with Tzorsland will be considered an equal aggressor to Tzorsland if they do not take reasonable steps to ensure that their nation can never be used as a base of operations. We do not need a WA resolution to defend our national sovereignty against the attempts of other nations to wage discrete war through either terrorists or pirates. We will respond in all cases with appropriate action.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Bombardment_of_Algiers_1816.jpg

Tzorsland votes for this resolution and encourages others to do likewise.

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

Wait so what if our laws between nations differ?

Whos laws do I follow? My lwas, or the territory were the incident happened law?

Some parts of it are confusing, so I vote nay.

It is rare to see the quiet and distinguished ambassador of the Empire of Urgench argue against a resolution on the floor of the WA. It is even rarer to see the ambassador invoke arguments of national sovereignty and threaten WA nations in pursuit of hostile pirate forces. One even wonders if secretly they might endorse or harbor pirates and use those pirates to indirectly promote a secret agenda.

Make no mistake; any pirate who attacks a vessel of Tzorsland has declared war against Tzorsland. Any nation that knowingly provides supplies shelter, aid or succor to those vessels at war with Tzorsland will be considered an equal aggressor to Tzorsland if they do not take reasonable steps to ensure that their nation can never be used as a base of operations. We do not need a WA resolution to defend our national sovereignty against the attempts of other nations to wage discrete war through either terrorists or pirates. We will respond in all cases with appropriate action.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Bombardment_of_Algiers_1816.jpg

Tzorsland votes for this resolution and encourages others to do likewise.






So we are suffered to endure slurs and ugly speculations because we do not want our territory violated by foreign navies intent on murder, kidnap and vandalism?

The respected Ambassador for Tzorsland seems to imagine that by casting aspersions on Urgench and accusing it of crimes it is incapable of committing that they will win support for this fatally flawed resolution. What infamy!

All member states should be outraged that a law is being passed which permits foreign military and naval incursion on sovereign territory with out permissions or warnings.

It is true we do not hold national sovereignty so sacrosanct as other nations and that should be warning enough of the very grave insult to it that this resolution represents, but our citizens lives we hold absolutely sacrosanct, their right to live unmolested by a foreign aggressor is also of paramount importance to us.

This resolution endangers both these rights and represents a monstrous outrage on the dignity and territorial integrity of every member state of this organisation.


Do the members of this organisation really want foreign navies and armed forces harassing their coasts spuriously claiming that it may harbour so called "pirate bases" ? Is it not clear how this resolution could be used to damage commercial and industrial infrastructure of a national competitor?

In fact Urgench has no reported instance of piracy within its waters and we know of no pirate bases in our territory either, but what is there in this resolution which would stop another nation jealous of our commercial dominance from attacking our ports and fishing fleets, our harbours and and naval bases? Nothing at all.

Our commercial competitors could legally excuse themselves from these actions post facto by falsely claiming we were harbouring pirates!

We warn the members of this organisation that this could easily happen to them if this resolution passes and with the legal imprimatur of the World Assembly.

This resolution will cause havoc and do irreparable harm to international peace and security and will create chaos for maritime commerce.


We urge the membership of this organisation not to affirm this resolution in the strongest possible terms.

And we reiterate our warning that any foreign vessels found in our territorial waters threatening our coasts with violence and attempting to remove anyone from our jurisdiction will be unequivocally dealt with.

yours sincerely,

It is rare to see the quiet and distinguished ambassador of the Empire of Urgench argue against a resolution on the floor of the WA. It is even rarer to see the ambassador invoke arguments of national sovereignty and threaten WA nations in pursuit of hostile pirate forces. One even wonders if secretly they might endorse or harbor pirates and use those pirates to indirectly promote a secret agenda.

Haven't you figured it out yet, the ambassador from Urgench only waves the banner of national sovereignty when it suits their interests, the rest of the time they don't give a rat's ass about national sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

I'm more than slightly alarmed that this gives every single other WA nation the de facto right to invade my nation.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

Haven't you figured it out yet, the ambassador from Urgench only waves the banner of national sovereignty when it suits their interests, the rest of the time they don't give a rat's ass about national sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative



In fact our position on national sovereignty is more subtle than that respected Ambassador , but since your nation seems only to apply the rigours of national sovereigntist philosophy to matters of sexual freedom and not to the integrity of national territory or preventing its citizens from being murdered or kidnapped by foreign navies we imagine it would be pointless to expand on our position.

To be accused of hypocrisy on this issue when the respected Ambassador has hardly voiced a word of opposition to a resolution which violates their nation's sovereignty more grievously than any law we have witnessed the passage of since our accession is needless to say a deeply unedifying experience indeed.

yours e.t.c. ,

And yet honoured Ambassador Sweynsson -

"5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are"

This article allows all member states to violate each others territorial integrity and national laws in order to seek out and destroy pirate "bases". This article does not specify that nations may only destroy bases within their own territory and it does not stress that nations must request permission to destroy bases which may exist in other member states territory.

There is no need for a "Hot pursuit" clause, this clause goes far further and allows member states to actually make land if they wish and to do what they wish once they get there.

We are gravely concerned about the possible ramifications of this resolution. We will treat all incursions actuated by this resolution into our territory as acts of agression and will act accordingly.

If your nation complies with clause #33. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;then there shouldn't be any international pirates' bases within your territories, to give people that justification for attacks, should there?

I have voted against this measure as written.

I find that - outside of open military conflict - overt (formal, with a letter of intent) and covert (informal, without a letter of intent) state-sponsored piracy (privateering) to be a more heinous offense than simple criminal opportunism.

I cannot in good conscience support a proposition which, by direct exclusion, supports state-sponsored piracy.
If you want a proposal that bans privateers then you're perfectly free to try writing one and getting it passed...


(OOC: Oops! posted as the wrong nation...)

Under Clause 4 all WA member nations must do all that they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.

4. Requires all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories;

Should such a WA nation fail to do this then clearly there is a genuine need for some other WA member nation to do this for then otherwise such nations would clearly be in violation of clause 3.

3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;

To simply invade another nation for no reason at all is clearly not reasonable. Clause 5 clearly states “as much as they reasonably can.” A nation that is not being reasonable doesn’t need an excuse to do anything because they are being unreasonable. A nation that is in compliance with clause 4 is already doing all that is reasonable an if they cannot suppress international piracy within their territories should welcome any and all aid since they are in fact in violation of clause 3. They are, in fact, acting as a “safe harbor” for international piracy through their omission of adequate suppression. They are a menace to all nations and all those in international waters.

If your nation complies with clause #3then there shouldn't be any international pirates' bases within your territories, to give people that justification for attacks, should there?


If you want a proposal that bans privateers then you're perfectly free to try writing one and getting it passed...


(OOC: Oops! posted as the wrong nation...)




Is the respected Ambassador so naive as to think that this resolution will make all piracy disappear in an instant?

Do they think that nations who's coastlines are continental in scale could ever completely eradicate piracy from these coasts? Or that even were this herculean task achieved that it could ever be anything but temporary?

What this resolution would commit such nations to is a a constant guard against a wily enemy adept at evading capture or discovery on a scale unimaginable. The logistics and expense of such an operation would far out way the actual cost of piracy to the nation in question.

In any event even were this purge achieved there is nothing in this resolution which prevents nations from making false claims against another in order to gain other advantage. The provisions of this resolution do not protect nations from this abuse and do not allow them redress for it.

A nation need simply claim that their neighbours naval base was a den of pirates, attack and destroy it and claim legality under w.a. law after these atrocities had been committed.


This is the appalling vista of the maritime landscape of this organisation's members post the passage of this resolution.

Do they think that nations who's coastlines are continental in scale could ever completely eradicate piracy from these coasts? Or that even were this herculean task achieved that it could ever be anything but temporary?

We seem to have managed this, as far as our territories are concerned.

What this resolution would commit such nations to is a a constant guard against a wily enemy adept at evading capture or discovery on a scale unimaginable. The logistics and expense of such an operation would far out way the actual cost of piracy to the nation in question.
Unproven assertions.

In any event even were this purge achieved there is nothing in this resolution which prevents nations from making false claims against another in order to gain other advantage. The provisions of this resolution do not protect nations from this abuse and do not allow them redress for it.Nothing keeps nations from making such false claims now, anyway... apart from their own laws, in some cases, and concern about other nations' responses to such acts of aggression. The factors that limit such claims now would still apply if this proposal passes.

[A nation need simply claim that their neighbours naval base was a den of pirates, attack and destroy it and claim legality under w.a. law after these atrocities had been committed.And be denied that legality due to an absence of proof for their claims...

Under Clause 4 all WA member nations must do all that they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.

4. Requires all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories;

Should such a WA nation fail to do this then clearly there is a genuine need for some other WA member nation to do this for then otherwise such nations would clearly be in violation of clause 3.

3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;

To simply invade another nation for no reason at all is clearly not reasonable. Clause 5 clearly states “as much as they reasonably can.” A nation that is not being reasonable does’t need an excuse to do anything because they are being unreasonable. A nation that is in compliance with clause 4 is already doing all that is reasonable an if they cannot suppress international piracy within their territories should welcome any and all aid since they are in fact in violation of clause 3. They are, in fact, acting as a “safe harbor” for international piracy through their omission of adequate suppression. They are a menace to all nations and all those in international waters.



The point is that this assistance should be sought for and permission for it granted by the nation which cannot deal with this problem alone, its territory should not be violated on grounds it is unaware of and without warning.

There are no provisions which insure that those apprehended during these razzias should be offered up to the nation who's territorial waters they are apprehended in for prosecution. This is a monstrous deprecation of national authority over its own territory and its right to prosecute those who brake its laws.

This is highly unsatisfactory indeed.

yours e.t.c. ,

We seem to have managed this, as far as our territories are concerned.


Unproven assertions.

Nothing keeps nations from making such false claims now, anyway... apart from their own laws, in some cases, and concern about other nations' responses to such acts of aggression. The factors that limit such claims now would still apply if this proposal passes.

[And be denied that legality due to an absence of proof for their claims...



"Unproven assertions" ?, honoured Ambassador we are not taking part in a university debating team event, it would be best to remember that.

The factors which limit such claims would be undone buy the W.A. directive to seek out and destroy the bases of Pirates where ever they may be [ with out bothering to infrom the government in who's water one may be operating, with out seeking their permission to operate in their waters, with no obligation to hand over those captured to the government in who's waters one is operating, with no obligation to minimise harm or disruption to civilians, without regard to the possible loss of life, destruction of property or the national security of the nation in who's territory one is operating .......... this list of ommissions is endless because this resolution is so very poorly conceived]

How would these nations having made false claims be denied legality? No evidence or proof is required by this resolution for their claims.

yours e.t.c.

Rutianas initial vote was for this resolution. However, after hearing the arguments both for and against, and speaking with Emperor Darson, I have been instructed to vote against this resolution. All the reasonings have already been stated and I do not believe I need to state them again.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Lothar of the Hill People takes the floor on this auspicious date to set the record straight about what the esteemed ambassador from Jaynova believes to be true about our "shared history."
Mr. Novakovich stated:

Anyone who is familiar with Jaynovakian history knows of the Empire of Jaynova's original czar, Czar Vladimer I, and his troubles with pirates from The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone. My nation's history literally begins with our battle against these pirates, and with the peaceful solution that our wise leader came to.

However, we also recognize that not all pirates are as easy to appease as those who attacked our shore those hundreds of years ago.


First; At the time of the incidents in question, The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone engaged in vigorous, non-concentual trading, NOT piracy.

Next; We were not at war or battling as the esteemed Mr. Novakovich attests, but rather our foreign policy was one of taking what we wanted from those weake... uh, less advanced than us, and giving them what they had coming.

And Then; It was our emisaries who finally realized that the Novakians had nothing left that we wanted.

And Another Point; Not Pirates, not appeased.

Are we voting for this resolution?

I'll get back to you on that.

My Friends. There is great support in defeating the measure before us.

Piracy is a problem, but not one that can be reasonably fixed with the resolution at hand. We cannot rid ourselves of pirates by giving other Nations the ability to violate our territorial waters and even land if they are pursuing "pirates". This is an obnoxious idea and must be defeated. Talgat is a small nation. There are nations who enlist more people in their military than our population. Under the current resolution my nation and all other nations are placed in a horribly threatening position.

Do not propose to me that you are more capable of defending our nation from pirates than we are. If a nation is threatened by piracy and cannot take care of it themselves then we say it is the responsibility of that nation to ask another for help. Do not package a resolution that at first is common sense and then include in that same resolution the violation of national integrity.

This is a resolution that has the capacity to create war between nations. This cannot be tolerated and it is the opinion of Talgat that this resolution should not have even made it to a vote.


Regards,

N.J. Montgomery
Head of State, Kingdom of Talgat

The nomadic people of Those who walk alone are pray not predator.

In fact our position on national sovereignty is more subtle than that respected Ambassador , but since your nation seems only to apply the rigours of national sovereigntist philosophy to matters of sexual freedom and not to the integrity of national territory or preventing its citizens from being murdered or kidnapped by foreign navies we imagine it would be pointless to expand on our position.

To be accused of hypocrisy on this issue when the respected Ambassador has hardly voiced a word of opposition to a resolution which violates their nation's sovereignty more grievously than any law we have witnessed the passage of since our accession is needless to say a deeply unedifying experience indeed.

yours e.t.c. ,

It is my fervent believe that stopping international piracy constitutes an international issue and thus is one that the WA should tackle. On the other hand, the only possible way that sex could be considered an international issue is if the participants were straddling a national border while they do it. But that's beside the point since we're not here to talk about sex we're here to talk about piracy. Besides, as has been pointed out to you already, if you don't have any pirates headquartered within your nation's borders, then your sovereignty cannot be violated because there won't be any reason to do so.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It is my fervent believe that stopping international piracy constitutes an international issue and thus is one that the WA should tackle. On the other hand, the only possible way that sex could be considered an international issue is if the participants were straddling a national border while they do it. But that's beside the point since we're not here to talk about sex we're here to talk about piracy. Besides, as has been pointed out to you already, if you don't have any pirates headquartered within your nation's borders, then your sovereignty cannot be violated because there won't be any reason to do so.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I, um, have to disagree.

You see... um... Well... What about suspicion? I mean, suspicion is why you cross the border to begin with, right? So if a nation has no pirates operating in their borders but someone suspects they do, then they still have to put up with people crossing their border anyway. Plus, what's really to stop a nation from using suspicion to cross a border, then proceeding on a military campaign against that nation under the guise that nation could possibly have been supporting pirates.

Oh, and I have a note from the Empress here. She, um... Wow. She says that, to prevent piracy, any nation crossing into Forensathan-controlled waters without Imperial permission will be declared suspected of piracy and shot at. To further prevent piracy, all ships from outside nations must be unarmed to get permission, with the exception that an armed ship may cross if they agree to the seizure of all ammunition, torpedos, missiles, and anything else that might explode. They will also have to agree to the confiscation of all weaponry that could possibly be carried by a humanoid of up to eight feet in height. All complaints should be directed to the author of this resolution, as we are just doing our part to help fight piracy and are acting fully with the encouragement of this resolution.

Oh, and members from certain nations will have to accept cavity searches, due to our suspicion their nations are supporting piracy. We apologize for the incon... incon... Er... *flips through a dictionary* inconvenience.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

This resolution is simply absurd. To deny a nation any degree of domestic right to territorial waters and allow any nation chasing "pirates" to enter our waters is outright insulting. The delegation from Gernish stands by the delegation from Forensatha in decrying this declaration and agreeing to the same consequences for undocumented and unwelcomed ships entering into Gernish's territorial waters as their esteemed Empress so eloquently stated.

A passage of this resolution would erode national soverignty to an unacceptable level and Gernish cries out for any against this resolution to suspend WA membership until more reasonable legislation is passed.

Good day.

Thank you to the honorable Representative from Gernish for seeing through the smoke and mirrors resolution that has been brought before us.

I am beginning to question the intelligence and free thought of some of the member nations. It is apparent to me that the only representatives that have read the document are discussing it. I cannot in good faith believe that any reasonable person who has read the document and our debate transcipt, does not have a comment. Within this debate there is an overwhelming number of nations that do not believe the resolution should pass.

To those that support the resolution and are continuing to discuss it. Please explain to us why we should support it. I have read a lot of reasons not to, but none to the affirmative. I can assure you that the nation of Talgat is not apposed to changing their position if it the right thing to do. However, not a single member of this esteemed body has addressed our concerns. This was our most recent argument;

Piracy is a problem, but not one that can be reasonably fixed with the resolution at hand. We cannot rid ourselves of pirates by giving other Nations the ability to violate our territorial waters and even land if they are pursuing "pirates". This is an obnoxious idea and must be defeated. Talgat is a small nation. There are nations who enlist more people in their military than our population. Under the current resolution my nation and all other nations are placed in a horribly threatening position.

This is a resolution that has the capacity to create war between nations.

How is this not a legitimate concern? Please feel free to telegram our offices, in the interest of ensuring accurate communication.

Regards,

N.J. Montgomery
Head of State, Kingdom of Talgat

It is my fervent believe that stopping international piracy constitutes an international issue and thus is one that the WA should tackle. On the other hand, the only possible way that sex could be considered an international issue is if the participants were straddling a national border while they do it. But that's beside the point since we're not here to talk about sex we're here to talk about piracy. Besides, as has been pointed out to you already, if you don't have any pirates headquartered within your nation's borders, then your sovereignty cannot be violated because there won't be any reason to do so.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative



There is no doubt that piracy is an international issue, honoured Ambassador, that much is self evident. But that is not the point.

The point is that a sensible remedy to the problem of piracy could easily be found without completely destroying the territorial integrity of every member state with a coast line.

Let us be clear, we are as anxious to eliminate piracy as any sensible nation should be. But we are not remotely interested in attempting to do this by completely divesting ourselves of the right to try people who have broken our laws in our own courts, or by endangering the life or property of our citizens.

To suggest that just because a nation may have eliminated piracy from its waters that this will inoculate it against the vicissitudes of this resolution is preposterous, the resolution does not require that nations prove that piratical activity is taking place in another nations waters before attacking the nation in question's coasts, it does not require that evidences be provided after such an attack, it does not require a nation to warn or seek permission from the nation who's coasts it attacks, if the respected ambassador does not see that this allows this resolution to be grotesquely abused by unscrupulous nations with other agenda than the elimination of piracy then we fear for the honoured Ambassador's faculties of perception.


yours e.t.c. ,

I have cast my regions vote against this resolution. After discussion my region, voted unanimously to oppose this resolution.

And my government is preparing legislation, that our president has expressed his support of. If this resolution passes, our government will enact the Territorial Waters Defense Act. Any Ship of war, entering our territorial waters, will be warned, and if they fail to heed the warning they will be fired upon- Until they retreat or are destroyed. We fought very hard for our freedom and sovereignty - We will not tolerate another naval power within our waters simply because they claim to be "chasing pirates". Those who chase pirates into our waters, can rest assured we ourselves will deal with the problem. The problem being either the other nations Navy OR the Pirates.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain would also like to inform this Assembly that, should any armed vessel enter our territorial waters without express permission given by the Peoples, that vessel will be declared pirate. We will, in such an event, be given permission by this proposal to fire upon and sink this pirate vessel. Should such a vessel return fire, we will consider this an act of aggression.

Before arguments are raised regarding the Peoples' position, we wish to point out that the flying of colors is not protection against the declaration of pirate. As well, our Navy should not be expected to recognize the flags or understand the languages and dialects of the thousandfold members of this Assembly. We therefore declare it reasonable to fire upon armed vessels flying colors.

I have cast the vote of the region of Europeia AGAINST this resolution as well, and hope to see many more regional delegates vote against as well. I would inagine that several large regions have not weighed in yet, and thus there is still time to defeat this unnecessary and dangerous proposal.

I have cast the vote of the region of Europeia AGAINST this resolution as well, and hope to see many more regional delegates vote against as well. I would inagine that several large regions have not weighed in yet, and thus there is still time to defeat this unnecessary and dangerous proposal.


Unfortunately respected Ambassador it seems that some of the more numerically endowed delegates have indeed already voted. Not all but most.

yours e.t.c. ,

Unfortunately respected Ambassador it seems that some of the more numerically endowed delegates have indeed already voted. Not all but most.

Yes it is interesting to see this resolution still winning even with major oposition from some of the feeders and Gatesville. (Is it me or does Gatesville seem "bigger" these days; they are catching up to the East Pacific in terms of endorsements.)

Another Change has been made at the Palentine delegation. The Dolphins in the large aquariun are all wearing eyepatches, and swearing like pirates( Duh! What did you expect from the foul mouthed scourges of the southern seas?). Behind the desk are a bunch of Catgirls and Thesadorians dressed like Pirate wenches. They are cavorting around and passing out large tankards of rum and ale. However, the good, unwholesome, and lovable reprobate, Senator Sulla, is nowhere to be found. Insted a Skull is sitting on the desktop. It eyes glow a malevoent red. Suprisingly it begins to talk.

"Greetings Mortals! You may call me ‘Murray’! I am a powerful demonic force! I am the harbinger of your doom! And the forces of darkness will applaud me as I stride through the Gates of Hell – carrying your head on a pike! MWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

A Thessadorian lass walked over to the Skull and said,
"Cut that out Murray, and stick to the script that the Senator left you!"

"Sigh!....Sorry about that, Mortals! I got a little carried away. I'm Murray the EVILEST Talking Skull in Nationstates. My good friend Senator Sulla(a man that warms even my own blackened soul), called me from Texas and asked me to fill in for him for this debate, seeing I'm an expert on all things Piratey. After all I am the bouncer at Planet Threepwood, mortals!"

The Skull pauses for a moment before continuing quite evilly,
"The Palentine has voted no on this resolution. We find that the navy does a better job suppressing pirates than some international body. A few heavily armed Q-ships does wonders with keeping pirates away from your shipping. Also the Palentine has a large fanclub for that wonderful bundle of Pirate Fluffiness, Kari Kagrosi, The WA representative of Bloodstone Kay, and thus thinks pirates are great. I have been further instructed to offer you the voters of the festering snakepit, Rum and Ale, served by very fetching Catgirl and Thessadorian Pirate wenches, if you will change your votes to against.

It is winning because the close minded vote for it.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain would suggest one of this Assembly's more educated ambassadors begin the process of production of a Repeal Proposal. We would do it ourselves, but would rather prefer seeing a proposal that is actually functional.

The Trilateral Federation, regretfully, cannot support this resolution, as we share the concerns about clause 5 others have expressed. We'd rather not see other nations' navies mucking around in our waters. If this resolution does in fact pass, this shall serve as official notification that the Trilateral Federation fully expects any nation planning to enforce this resolution to obtain permission from our government before entering our waters. The Federation Defense Forces will respond appropriately and immediately to any unauthorized incursions.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench has decided that in the event of this resolution passing it will transfer the legal title to the territorial waters of Urgench which is currently in his Divine Majesty the Emperor's name to his Serene Highness Prince Hithum 52nd of Zanjan.

The Principality of Zanjan is a small vassal state of the Empire of Urgench which whilst paying tribute to the empire is autonomous and free from the empire's international obligations. Therefore this dangerous and extremely worrying resolution will not apply in the waters around the Empire of Urgench.

His Serene Highness Prince Hithum has requested that the Imperial Navy assist him in continuing to police the waters around Urgench since his state is completely landlocked and has no navy or military forces.

His Serene Highness Prince Hithum has requested that we convey to the membership of the w.a. that he will consider any vessel which enters his waters in arms as hostile and will be subject to ultimate sanction should its crew resist or evade capture. Those taken in to custody can expect to be treated in accordance with the w.a.'s rules for the treatment of P.O.W. unless their actions have constituted actual criminal behaviour in Urgenchi and Zanjani law.

yours sincerely,

It should be pointed out that clause 5 states, “as much as they reasonably can.” Sure I can see how a talking skull, yes even Murray, can somehow consider the blanket invasion of one nation into another as “reasonable.” Unfortunately I cannot see reasonable member nations of the World Assembly thinking likewise. Should such nations occur, I hardly doubt they would need this resolution to be so blatantly stupid.

After all, should this resolution pass, I can be reasonably assured that all member nations will be doing all they reasonably can to prevent piracy and will easily respond to any call should I track a pirate vessel into their territorial waters. Non WA members, on the other hand I cannot be so reasonably assured, but I can always secure separate treaties for Non member states.

The fact that this is clearly a non issue can only suggest that these nations who are so opposed to this are in fact opposed to clauses 3 and 4. They do not want to “refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations.” They do not want to “do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.” They want to support international piracy because it can be a very profitable enterprise.

The Principality of Zanjan is a small vassal state of the Empire of Urgench which whilst paying tribute to the empire is autonomous and free from the empire's international obligations. Therefore this dangerous and extremely worrying resolution will not apply in the waters around the Empire of Urgench.

What further need have we of witnesses? Is this not clear proof that the Empire of Urgench is through action or through deliberate inaction supporting international piracy? By declaring its waters no longer a part of its “nation” it is effectively removing itself not from clause 5 as it states (because if I would follow a pirate anywhere, the “Principality of Zanjan” is still anywhere) but from clauses 3 and 4 which requires the empire to eliminate international pirates in its own waters. Remember clauses 3 and 4 are “requires” while clause 5 is “urges.” This Barbary coast cannot allowed to continue.

Vindetta's Delegation at the World Assembly

We would like to stress that we are against this resolution if it is not made clear that people who are fighting regimes from the sea and for this atack government ships are not to be considered pirates.

We would like the definition to be made more strict, including only people who make sea roberies for the purpose of profits.

We urge all socialist and democratic countries to follow our vote, not to provide dictatorial regimes a way to repress rebels inside international law.

It should be pointed out that clause 5 states, “as much as they reasonably can.” Sure I can see how a talking skull, yes even Murray, can somehow consider the blanket invasion of one nation into another as “reasonable.” Unfortunately I cannot see reasonable member nations of the World Assembly thinking likewise. Should such nations occur, I hardly doubt they would need this resolution to be so blatantly stupid.

After all, should this resolution pass, I can be reasonably assured that all member nations will be doing all they reasonably can to prevent piracy and will easily respond to any call should I track a pirate vessel into their territorial waters. Non WA members, on the other hand I cannot be so reasonably assured, but I can always secure separate treaties for Non member states.

The fact that this is clearly a non issue can only suggest that these nations who are so opposed to this are in fact opposed to clauses 3 and 4. They do not want to “refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations.” They do not want to “do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.” They want to support international piracy because it can be a very profitable enterprise.



This is vicious slander and ignoble slur. Urgench is wholey committed to the rule of law in all contexts. This resolution is a recipe for chaos and lawlessness and that is why we oppose it.

yours e.t.c.,

What further need have we of witnesses? Is this not clear proof that the Empire of Urgench is through action or through deliberate inaction supporting international piracy? By declaring its waters no longer a part of its “nation” it is effectively removing itself not from clause 5 as it states (because if I would follow a pirate anywhere, the “Principality of Zanjan” is still anywhere) but from clauses 3 and 4 which requires the empire to eliminate international pirates in its own waters. Remember clauses 3 and 4 are “requires” while clause 5 is “urges.” This Barbary coast cannot allowed to continue.


The reason for our having to hand control of our national waters to the Principality of Zanjan is that we cannot allow a situation where foreign nations can legally violate our territorial waters without warning or permission, take the lives of persons be they criminal or innocent bystanders, destroy property, and remove persons from our jurisdiction.

This resolution is so dangerous that his Divine Majesty the Emperor has personally insisted that his ancestral legal rights over the territorial waters of the Empire be mandated to his cousin and Ally his Serene Highness Prince Hithum of Zanjan in order that his patrimony cannot be legally made the target of jealous and criminal nations who might wish to assail it.

yours e.t.c. ,

It should be pointed out that clause 5 states, “as much as they reasonably can.” Sure I can see how a talking skull, yes even Murray, can somehow consider the blanket invasion of one nation into another as “reasonable.” Unfortunately I cannot see reasonable member nations of the World Assembly thinking likewise. Should such nations occur, I hardly doubt they would need this resolution to be so blatantly stupid.

Our nation practices slavery.

Not all nations within the WA meet the standards of what most would consider reasonable.

After all, should this resolution pass, I can be reasonably assured that all member nations will be doing all they reasonably can to prevent piracy and will easily respond to any call should I track a pirate vessel into their territorial waters. Non WA members, on the other hand I cannot be so reasonably assured, but I can always secure separate treaties for Non member states.

The Empress's warning still applies. Sorry, but if you wish to follow them, you must submit to our standards.

However, we will be happy to deal with the pirates for you.

The fact that this is clearly a non issue can only suggest that these nations who are so opposed to this are in fact opposed to clauses 3 and 4. They do not want to “refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations.” They do not want to “do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.” They want to support international piracy because it can be a very profitable enterprise.

Um, I don't see how it is a nonissue. All you have done is assure me the reasonable members won't do it. What about the unreasonable ones? Can you assure me they won't abuse it?

And, we should note that piracy is not very profitable to us. Our nation relies on trade and tourism with other nations, plus our own economy. Piracy hurts trade, hurts tourism, and steals from our nobles. Why would we support that? Aside from the criminals in the House of Rats. Why the Empress hasn't dealt with them yet...

In any case, I must accuse you of using slander to try to erase legitimate concerns. Please do not dirty the WA's floor with your lies. Not all diplomats are old enough to properly respond to such dishonorable behavior.

In fact, because of your lack of truthfulness in your actions, I must respectfully request that you submit your nation for an inspection by a coalition of WA nations, since how quickly you accuse others of supporting piracy is a perfect example of what someone would do to hide the pirates within their own borders. Misdirection is a know strategy of pirate supporters. If you submit quietly, I promise that the cavity searches of your government will not be broadcasted on Forensathan news and we'll try to ex... expe... speed the processing of your nation.

Diplomat Asuka Fenla

The fact that this is clearly a non issue can only suggest that these nations who are so opposed to this are in fact opposed to clauses 3 and 4. They do not want to “refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations.” They do not want to “do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within their own territories.” They want to support international piracy because it can be a very profitable enterprise.

Because of the wording of the resolution, we changed our stance. It is not because we find piracy to be 'profitable'. Quite the opposite. However, we are planning a move similar to the Urgenchi. Should this pass, and it seems likely it will, our waters will be transferred to our Ally, Alanda and Alexia, a non WA member state. We will, of course, continue to deal with pirates in our waters.

However, by declaration of our Emperor and the Emperor of Alanda and Alexia, any military vessel entering our waters without express permission will be treated as hostile. Rest assured, neither of our nations will ever give permission to pirates to enter our waters or set up base.

Your suggestion that those of us who are opposed for your reasoning is highly offensive to any intelligent being who opposes both this resolution and piracy.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

We have great sympathy for this resolution. We feel that international piracy should be tackled and eradicated. However we note the concerns of some nations about the scope of this resolution to allow other nations to search and attack pirates in other nations of the WA.

Therefore we must turn to clauses 4 and 5. Some nations while doing all that they reasonably can to suppress piracy may still not eradicate it completely. Therefore other WA nations may attack any bases in the first nation’s territory. We are not convinced this will lead to numerous attacks on ports and seaside villages by other WA nations without their being pirate bases actually present as the ambassador from Urgench fears. However we wondered if Urgench might agree to a similar resolution if it included a clause that stated there should be joint action when an WA nation is having trouble eradicating pirates in their territory rather than allowing unilateral action by all nations.

However we do see the ambassador’s point about where such pirates would be tried. Maybe there should be a clause about who’s jurisdiction pirates fall under. Maybe along the lines that pirates captured in a WA nation should be tried in that nation unless they have an extradition treaty with them.

We also are concerned about clauses 7 and 8 and feel that it should be left up to each individual nation how to decide to treat those who served as a pirate. Some nations may well have laws that state that those who take part in a robbery where someone is killed will be charged with murder and if that is the case then it would apply to pirates where murder is committed. Again we think that the case of supporting pirates should be dealt with under each nations own laws. We would have supported a clause that said nations should consider a defence of being forced to help and then allow each nation to set it own definitions of what that force has to be.

It is therefore we great reluctance that we are considering voting against this very worthy resolution. We think this resolution will be passed but we would prefer that this resolution was reworded and re-submitted.

Yours

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Macwick;14078109']We have great sympathy for this resolution. We feel that international piracy should be tackled and eradicated. However we note the concerns of some nations about the scope of this resolution to allow other nations to search and attack pirates in other nations of the WA.

Therefore we must turn to clauses 4 and 5. Some nations while doing all that they reasonably can to suppress piracy may still not eradicate it completely. Therefore other WA nations may attack any bases in the first nation’s territory. We are not convinced this will lead to numerous attacks on ports and seaside villages by other WA nations without their being pirate bases actually present as the ambassador from Urgench fears. However we wondered if Urgench might agree to a similar resolution if it included a clause that stated there should be joint action when an WA nation is having trouble eradicating pirates in their territory rather than allowing unilateral action by all nations.

However we do see the ambassador’s point about where such pirates would be tried. Maybe there should be a clause about who’s jurisdiction pirates fall under. Maybe along the lines that pirates captured in a WA nation should be tried in that nation unless they have an extradition treaty with them.

We also are concerned about clauses 7 and 8 and feel that it should be left up to each individual nation how to decide to treat those who served as a pirate. Some nations may well have laws that state that those who take part in a robbery where someone is killed will be charged with murder and if that is the case then it would apply to pirates where murder is committed. Again we think that the case of supporting pirates should be dealt with under each nations own laws. We would have supported a clause that said nations should consider a defence of being forced to help and then allow each nation to set it own definitions of what that force has to be.

It is therefore we great reluctance that we are considering voting against this very worthy resolution. We think this resolution will be passed but we would prefer that this resolution was reworded and re-submitted.

Yours

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA



We are heartened that the honoured Ambassador for Macwick has seen the faults of this resolution and that however laudable its aims it has the propensity to cause great disharmony within the membership of this organisation.

We should point out that we do not think that malicious abuses of the provisions of this resolution are inevitable , but we do think they are more likely than before since nations will have the encouragement and disguise of a w.a. statute to hide behind.

Our primary concern is with negligence, carelessness which foreign naval forces may be guilty of in our national waters. We might be able to forgive such dereliction or accidental failures if we had invited the assistance of a foreign force in our territory, since such things are always possible in the heat of conflict, but to have this inflicted upon us without warning and without our express consent is utterly unacceptable and would be tantamount to an unprovoked attack on our nation.

The argument that any nation unable to completely eradicate piracy in the blink of an eye ( as the respected Ambassador for St Edmunds would have us believe is possible ) is somehow an active participant in criminal activity which amounts to an act of war is so absurd as to be comical.
Does the respected Ambassador suggest that the way to end theft of goods from shops in cities is to level to the ground the neighbourhoods in which these thieves may have lived? On the grounds that the neighbours of these thieves offered "safe harbour" to them? This argument used by the respected Ambassador is patently absurd and is not the sort of reasoning which should animate an international law.

yours e.t.c. ,

7. Declares that anybody who is accused of having served knowingly as crew aboard any vehicle being used by international pirates, but who can not be linked to any specific offences, shall be subject to appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’; and that proof of that service shall constitute adequate proof for conviction on those charges, unless they prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant in which case courts may be allowed to acquit them;


Because of this provision I cannot approve. I see this giving too much leeway to abuse and that being the case, I do not see how anyone can vote yes.

The Confederacy of Southwest Candonesia recognizes the need for security against piracy. However, such an issue is best left to the security forces of the individual countries. This resolution is both overly strong and unnecessary and I urge any other nation that supports national sovereignty to halt this attempt to weaken our governments.

I have been further instructed to offer you the voters of the festering snakepit, Rum and Ale, served by very fetching Catgirl and Thessadorian Pirate wenches, if you will change your votes to against.In a somewhat inebriated state, Susa glares at the neighboring Palentine contingent, blinking repeatedly as though he doesn't believe what he is seeing.

"Shit, Jimmy," he says to the young man seated next to him, "I must have had a little too much of that rum and ale, 'cause it looks like that Evil Talking Skull wants to kill me! ... Maybe I shouldn't have told them Palentine dudes I was considering voting yes? ..."

Jimmy turns to his boss and slaps him.

The ambassador clutches his cheek and suddenly comes to his senses. "Thanks, man," he says gratefully. "I don't know what came over me! There's no such thing as 'to much'!"

The obvious expression of most individual nations, who may not be delegates, but are valued nonetheless and dare I say the WILL OF THE PEOPLE here is being expressed AGAINST this resolution. Member nations of the WA are clearly speaking out, as any can see in their esteemed comments, to rally against a resolution that is poorly worded, and unnecessary, something to be dealt with by individual leaders. This resolution is condescending to the WA member, who lacks big delegate votes and power brokering time, to see be voted on and swayed massively. Delegates really need to take a look at how their member states are feeling about this, look at this resolutions flaws as clearly discussed above so much that I need not reiterate them....is this necessary? Is this right? Is this something we need to MAKE LAW or are there other issues of importance, and I say that with all due respect to supporters.

Delegation of Arianovia,
Joey James

VOTE AGAINST or REVERSE YOUR VOTE now!

Yes it is interesting to see this resolution still winning even with major oposition from some of the feeders and Gatesville. (Is it me or does Gatesville seem "bigger" these days; they are catching up to the East Pacific in terms of endorsements.)

well, considering that the TEP just (being a month ago) had a change in government, nope.

Gatesville, TP, TNP and TEP all voted against. TWP voted for, TSP, TRR, and Laz have not voted *sends TG to delegate...*.

Well, maybe he read your TG. And maybe he didn't as TSP as voted FOR the resolution.

Now that this resolution will pass, my nations government has instructed me to announce to all WA nations. "We have now passed the Territorial Waters Defense act, any ship of war- without express permission from all branches of our Nations government who Enter our waters under any guise be it "pirate" chasing or any other reasoning, will be warned, if the warning is ignored you will be fired upon. And continued to be fired upon until you announce retreat, show retreat, or are destroyed. We will not tolerate another nations Navy in our Waters. And we have also put are our Air force on alert readiness. We are most displeased with the World Assembly this day. And condemn those who forced this through in the World Assembly, for forcing our nation to take such a strong military stance. To in our view defend our very Territory."

Thank you

Well, maybe he read your TG. And maybe he didn't but either way TSP has voted FOR the resolution.

Now that this resolution will pass, my nations government has instructed me to announce to all WA nations. "We have now passed the Territorial Waters Defense act, any ship of war- without express permission from all branches of our Nations government who Enter our waters, will be warned, if the warning is ignored you will be fired upon. And continued to be fired upon until you announce retreat, show retreat, or are destroyed. We will not tolerate another nations Navy in our Waters. We are most displeased with the World Assembly this day"

Thank you

Those Who Walk Alone;14074431']Lothar of the Hill People takes the floor on this auspicious date to set the record straight about what the esteemed ambassador from Jaynova believes to be true about our "shared history."
Mr. Novakovich stated:


First; At the time of the incidents in question, The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone engaged in vigorous, non-concentual trading, NOT piracy.

Next; We were not at war or battling as the esteemed Mr. Novakovich attests, but rather our foreign policy was one of taking what we wanted from those weake... uh, less advanced than us, and giving them what they had coming.

And Then; It was our emisaries who finally realized that the Novakians had nothing left that we wanted.

And Another Point; Not Pirates, not appeased.

Are we voting for this resolution?

I'll get back to you on that.


President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Honored ambassador of Those Who Walk Alone, or Lothar, if I may call you that:

Surely, I meant no offence when I spoke of your...um..."non-concentual traders," I was merely honoring our shared history. However, it was of my understanding that these traders were not acting on behalf of your nation's government, but rather as outlaws in their own nation. That is why I called them "pirates" instead of "war parties."

I am not, however, accusing your country of an act of war. This is an event that happened hundreds of years ago, and we have forgiven and forgotten any offences that may have occured.

It should be noted, though, that if your mariners are in-fact, "not pirates", then you should have nothing to worry about with this act.

Thank you."

Though piracy is not a good thing and the Brokebackonian government is all in favor of reducing crime in its own land and at sea, we cannot accept this bill due to the strictness of clauses 4 and 5.

The nomadic people of Those who walk alone are pray not predator.


Our noble history is not in question here...

and at least our schools are advanced enough so that every kindergartener can spell properly, unlike the esteemed Michael Toth.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Honored ambassador of Those Who Walk Alone, or Lothar, if I may call you that:

Surely, I meant no offence when I spoke of your...um..."non-concentual traders," I was merely honoring our shared history. However, it was of my understanding that these traders were not acting on behalf of your nation's government, but rather as outlaws in their own nation. That is why I called them "pirates" instead of "war parties."

I am not, however, accusing your country of an act of war. This is an event that happened hundreds of years ago, and we have forgiven and forgotten any offences that may have occured.

It should be noted, though, that if your mariners are in-fact, "not pirates", then you should have nothing to worry about with this act.

Thank you."

Lothar is my name, so you may call me that, Jay. While this is not the proper forum to discuss the foreign policy of past regimes, let me simply reiterate that The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone NEVER endorsed a policy of piracy on the seas, nor have we ever engaged in clandestine or unofficial / unsactioned warfare. Our distant past may have been frought with violence, but I believe that our current record of diplomacy over war, nulcear non-proliferation, the banning of all fire arms not specifically designed, sold, and licensed for hunting, and our commitment to the reduction of not only our standing military but also those of all member nations speaks for itself!

Thank you, and good day!

As this resolution seems likely to pass, the Federation Congress has approved, by a vote of 365-53, emergency legislation CB265, The Territorial Waters Act. This legislation has now been signed by President Kasimira, making it Federation law.

This legislation confirms that authority over Federation waters shall rest with the constituent states of the Federation, specifically the Ascendant Kingdom of Akamia, the Nomadic Clan Lands of the Argali, and the Golden Kingdom of Altanar, respectively. As these waters are now controlled by our sovereign constituent states, none of which are WA members, the strictures of this legislation shall not apply.

At the request of our constituent states, the Federation Defense Forces shall continue to assist constituent state defense forces in patrol and defense of our collective waters. We again reiterate that foreign naval forces that enter our waters without obtaining permission from us beforehand are subject to detention or destruction.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Michael Toth now shall open all it's ports and harbor to pirates and offer them all safe harbor and employ if they so wish. It also wishes to tell the WA or any of it's nations not to even think about moving in to stop these actions, and that if they do they shall be found in direct violation of the non-aggression pact.

Well, maybe he read your TG. And maybe he didn't but either way TSP has voted FOR the resolution.

You do realize that I was the proposer of the resolution....

Michael Toth now shall open all it's ports and harbor to pirates and offer them all safe harbor and employ if they so wish. It also wishes to tell the WA or any of it's nations not to even think about moving in to stop these actions, and that if they do they shall be found in direct violation of the non-aggression pact.

We are happy this resolution is approved. Congratulations. There could be better wording against military actions, but I believe in reasonable solutions.

No problem if Michael Toth keeps the pirates in his nation. That is fine. No stealing and plundering anymore on the seas. Whatever they do to your nation as being hosted there, it is fine by me.

If they come out en plunder ships of mine and other peaceful nations, you can expect to have some problems greater than that you wanted to have.

Live long in peace

Michael Toth now shall open all it's ports and harbor to pirates and offer them all safe harbor and employ if they so wish. It also wishes to tell the WA or any of it's nations not to even think about moving in to stop these actions, and that if they do they shall be found in direct violation of the non-aggression pact.

3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;

So since compliance is mandatory and Michael Toth still likes to consider itself a member of the WA, I can only assume that these are going to be national pirates rather than international ones :)

You do realize that I was the proposer of the resolution....

Yes, it is very easy to note in the upper right hand corner who proposed this ..... piece of tra....*ahem* resolution. And had merely pondered if it really mattered or not if he read telegram.

I would like to respectfully ask the delegate from Wencee to be more... diplomatic in dealing with the delegate from Mavenu. They are, after all, our regionmate and, despite any opinion on flaws my nation may hold for this resolution, there is still the respect to be had for the fact that a lot of work was put into it, a lot of time was invested in making sure it was legal, and the delegate from Mavenu worked hard to even get it to vote. In addition, the delegate from Mavenu has certainly shown a lot of restraint when it comes to certain challenges.

The Membership of this organisation should consider the waters formerly of the Empire of Urgench now of the Principality of Zanjan as completely closed to non-civilian shipping. At the request of our friend and ally Prince Hithum of Zanjan the Imperial Navy of Urgench has been ordered to capture or alternatively destroy all vessels of non-Urgenchi or Zanjani registration which are armed and not in Zanjani waters for purposes of Civil shipping.

yours e.t.c. ,