NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Rate This new proposal on how good you think it is.

This Act shall improve diplomatic relations between nations by creating several articles of Diplomatic Security

Article 1. Giving Diplomatic Immunity to all Diplomats. This is defined by:
1. Guaranteed Safe passage through all nations for members of a diplomatic mission, both temporary and permanent ¹.
2. That the Diplomat may not be prosecuted under the host nations laws² provided that he is not conducting espionage and there is not sufficient evidence that he is conducting said espionage.
3. The Diplomat may however be expelled by the host nation to his home nation if he is suspected of committing a crime other than espionage.
4. Diplomatic immunity is not provided to Security Personnel or Maintenance Staff.

Article 2: Sovereignty of Embassies and Consulates
This is defined by:
1. That said Embassy or Consulate will be sovereign territory of the nation that has established it and the host nation may not impose it's laws upon it³
2. That an attack on an embassy shall be treated as an attack on the owners nation and will create sufficient reason for a declaration of war.
3. That a foreign national in his nations embassy may not be pursued by the host nations police forces unless permission is granted by the embassy.

Article 3: Security of a Diplomatic Mission
This is defined by:
1. That all diplomatic missions, temporary or permanent may not be prevented from having a security force. The host nation may however restrict the number of the security personnel and may restrict the weaponry used.<Sup>4</Sup>
2. That the Host nation must allow at least 1 armored vehicle⁴ for the protection of the diplomats. This does not mean armed.

¹A Permanent Diplomatic Mission is defined as one that will remain in the country for at least 5 years such as an embassy or a consulate. A Temporary Diplomatic Mission is defined as one that will remain there for less than 5 years such as a mission to negotiate a peace treaty.
²This does not apply to Traffic Tickets or the equivalent.
³This does not apply to restrictions on the number of Personnel or restrictions on weapons or armed vehicles.
⁴All Security Personnel are entitled to at least a .45 caliber handgun.

The idea is good (although I would say that...I wrote the resolution for the old UN (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=126)); but I dislike the implementation.

Promising. It needs work though; I'll hold off on being picky about the grammar (*cough*apostrophes*cough*) because more serious things need fixing first.

Article 1.2 is basically written the wrong way round. The whole "not conducting espionage and there's no proof his is" (which would obviously have to be fabricated, since he isn't) reads awkwardly. Try replacing everything in that sentence from "providing" with: "except on charges of conducting espionage." Fair Trial laws then cut in, so there's no need to bang on about evidence unless you want to stack the decks in favour of the diplomats.

(Memo to self: oh my dear sweet Joss, there's another massive national security hole in Fair Criminal Trial. Make sure no sensitive information is ever kept in an embassy.)

Apart from the definition of temporary and permanent missions, which isn't really needed, all the footnotes are a bad idea. You won't be able to do even the fancy formatting you can do in this forum in the formal submission, for starters. More seriously, when you're making serious exceptions to a rule you should never try to bury them in the fine print. It engenders distrust, and gives the vast majority of read-nothings out there a golden opportunity to completely misconstrue what you're doing.

Also, if you put the exceptions in the main text you've got a better chance of noticing that pretty much all of them need to be much more carefully specified. We're writing law here, and "Traffic tickets or the equivalent" doesn't really cut it.

Category? Strength?