NationStates Jolt Archive

Diplomat Protection Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that that nations can use a variety of methods to restrict a diplomat's ability to do their job

RECOGNIZING that diplomats are a necessary part of interaction between nations and the spread of cultural understanding

RECOGNIZING that diplomatic immunity must be agreed upon by the nation the diplomat represents and the nation the diplomat serves in

DEFINES a diplomat, for the purposes of this resolution, as any member of diplomatic, consular, and other staff serving in an embassy, consulate, consulate-general, legation, high commission, deputy high commission, or other diplomatic mission. This excludes hired personnel with local citizenship

REQUIRES that all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be automatically granted diplomatic immunity

REQUIRES that nations in which diplomats are serving must provide the diplomat with the best medical care on hand in cases of emergency

REQUIRES that all diplomats to other nations shall be free from physical harm, execution, sexual assault, enslavement, or use for medical experiments not necessary for medical treatment of the diplomat by the nation in which they are serving

REQUIRES that any diplomat granted diplomatic immunity be free from prosecution for crimes, search and/or seizure of personal belongings and belongings of family members and personal staff, search and/or seizure of family members and personal staff, seizure of pets, and search and/or seizure of private quarters outside any extraterritorial property by the nation in which the diplomat is serving
a) A diplomat may still be tried for crimes by the nation they serve
b) If suspected of a crime, the nation the diplomat is serving in may present the evidence to the nation the diplomat is from
c) If diplomatic immunity is revoked, the diplomat remains immune to prosecution for suspected crimes that occurred during the immunity by the nation in which they are serving
d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve
e) A diplomat may be expelled from the nation in which they are serving for any reason

REQUIRES that property agreed upon as extraterritorial or as diplomatic pouches or bags be immune to search, seizure, customs, taxes, vandalism or arson by military or government officials of the nation in which the diplomat is serving, or military assaults by the nation in which the diplomat is serving

PROHIBITS nations from sending diplomats with the express intent of committing crimes of espionage, sabotage, subversion, causing harm to the civilian population, and other related crimes committed outside of a diplomats duties

Co-authored by Cobdenia

I know it will need some revision already. Any thoughts?

And thanks to Cobdenia, who's UN resolution served as a reference point for writing this one, and Snefaldia, who served as the source of the idea.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

Actually, I like this. There are a few adjustments I'd make.

MANDATES that diplomatic immunity to crimes and extraterritorial property immunity to search and/or seizure becomes void if it was discovered the nation they serve sent them for the specific purpose of committing the crime

Does throw open a few problems. It could well be part of a diplomats duties to, say, criticise a government or el presidente, and it would be reasonable for a nation to send a diplomat for this purposes, even though such an act may be illegal in the country in which they serve. I'd suggest rephrasing it so:

PROHIBITS nations from sending diplomats with the express intent of committing crimes of espionage, saboutage, subversion, causing harm to the civilian population, and other related crimes committed outside of a diplomats duties

I'd also add the 24 hour rule in at some point - that is to say, a nation may detain an diplomat for 24 hours in circumstances where they pose a direct threat to the population (such as by getting into a car whilst drunk, or walking around firing a revolver, that sort of thing.

I'd also define a diplomat, i.e.

DEFINES a diplomat, for the purposes of this resolution, as any member of diplomatic, consular, and other staff serving in an embassy, consulate, consulate-general, legation, high commission, deputy high commission, or other diplomatic mission. This excludes locally engaged members of staff.

Changes made. I hope you don't mind my using, as-is, the definition you came up with. I couldn't come up with a better one personally, plus it further extends the protections of the document in a way I can't help but like.

OOC:

1/ There are a few typoes that need to be fixed ("occured" should be "occurred", "saboutage" should be "sabotage"... and I might have missed some others...).
2/ What's your rationale for the choice of category? (I'd suggest replacing it with 'Global Disarmament' ['Mild'], and including a preambulatory explanation that successful diplomacy can reduce the likelihood of international conflicts and that diplomats can do their jobs more effectively if guaranteed protection from undue pressure by their host nations...)
3/ What happens if a diplomatic mission's home nation & host nation go to war with each other? The normal procedure in such situations in RL is for that mission's personnel to be repatriated as quickly as possible, which seems reasonable to me as it gives them a motive to continue negotiations for as long as possible instead of making a run for it earlier...

OOC:

1) Thanks. I was half-asleep when I wrote it. I'm surprised the entire thing is in English, honestly.

2) The choice, in part, has to do with the fact the resolution which served as the reference point was itself the same category. The rest of it is that I was unsure, and still am, what category it best fits in. This one can be defended by pointing out that it increases the say governments have in how officials of a certain profession are treated in other nations, but at the same time it can be argued for several others as well.

I'll definitely think on the issue and try to get more imput.

3) War is a problem issue, since both the case of keeping a diplomat in the nation you're at war with and withdrawing them from that nation have advantages. In the end, I figured it best not to attempt to regulate that and leave it up to the nations involved. But, I can also attempt to add in regulation, though going either way on it will produce arguments against this proposal.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain do not believe in diplomatic immunity. We cannot see why the title of Ambassador grants one protection from prosecution in entirely unrelated crimes (homicide, for instance).

We therefore cannot stand by this proposal.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain do not believe in diplomatic immunity. We cannot see why the title of Ambassador grants one protection from prosecution in entirely unrelated crimes (homicide, for instance).

We therefore cannot stand by this proposal.

Sure you can. Just don't ever grant anyone diplomatic immunity.

ACCEPTING that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the nation the diplomat represents or the nation the diplomat serves in
At any time and for any reason?

MANDATES that all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be free from physical harm, arrest, or sexual assault by enemy nations

MANDATES that all diplomats to other nations shall be free from physical harm, execution, sexual assault, enslavement, or being used for medical experiments by the nation in which they are serving
Why the different lists? How come it's OK for everyone other than the WA to arrest someone? Why is the WA allowed to do medical experiments on ambassadors? Has someone been tampering with the beer?

a) A diplomat may still be tried by crimes by the nation they serve

Tried for crimes, surely?

b) If suspected of a crime, the nation the diplomat is serving may present the evidence to the nation the diplomat is from
I'm a bit alarmed that you choose to state this explicitly, which I'd thought was obvious, and don't explicitly state that nations can expel diplomats suspected of a crime, which is rather less obvious.

d) A diplomat may be detained for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities
'present' rather than 'serve'? Also, 24 hours is rather specific, and very unlikely to be related to the nature of whatever threat the diplomat presents. I imagine you're trying to stop nations using this to lock diplomats up indefinitely, but there's nothing stopping them detaining the diplomat again immediately after release.

At any time and for any reason?

Unfortunately, regulating that one goes beyond the scope of length limits for proposals. As such, it's left there with the hopes that it won't be a problem... and, if it is, individual nations can certainly work it out a lot better, based on the circumstances, than my own attempt at regulating it would ever be able to. Thus, I am forced to bow to the limits of my ability to think up scenarios and come up with a set of laws to cover all scenarios and the limits of length.

Why the different lists? How come it's OK for everyone other than the WA to arrest someone? Why is the WA allowed to do medical experiments on ambassadors? Has someone been tampering with the beer?

I originally intended something else with the former, but wasn't exactly fully awake when writing it. It has been altered a bit, though I am currently questioning the wisdom of including it at all.

Tried for crimes, surely?

Thanks. I would have missed that one.

I'm a bit alarmed that you choose to state this explicitly, which I'd thought was obvious, and don't explicitly state that nations can expel diplomats suspected of a crime, which is rather less obvious.

I'm personally alarmed that Cobdenia thought it necessary for the UN resolution that was referenced. I figured if it was such a necessity back then as to be included, it certainly should be carried forward.

I really should give Cobdenia co-author credits for this proposal...

'present' rather than 'serve'? Also, 24 hours is rather specific, and very unlikely to be related to the nature of whatever threat the diplomat presents. I imagine you're trying to stop nations using this to lock diplomats up indefinitely, but there's nothing stopping them detaining the diplomat again immediately after release.

I make the distinction between the two in case a diplomat feels the need to drive outside the nation to which they are assigned to serve and commit crimes there. If one of our diplomats were assigned to serve in Cobdenia, but drove to your nation to commit a mass murder spree, we certainly would prefer that there be no questions of how to act due to terms within our own proposal; in this case, it would be to replace the diplomat for Cobdenia and let the one who committed such a crime in your own nation be handled by your courts.

And, I think I covered the issue of both expelling for crimes and for the issue of only 24 hours with subsection e. All of the crimes we can think of that would apply either involve harm to others, such as murder or theft, or crimes against the nation in which they are serving, such as espionage. Anything we can't think of is covered by the right to revoke diplomatic immunity.

Unfortunately, regulating that one goes beyond the scope of length limits for proposals. As such, it's left there with the hopes that it won't be a problem... and, if it is, individual nations can certainly work it out a lot better, based on the circumstances, than my own attempt at regulating it would ever be able to. Thus, I am forced to bow to the limits of my ability to think up scenarios and come up with a set of laws to cover all scenarios and the limits of length.
Sorry, I was being too brief. I wasn't thinking in terms of regulating it, I was thinking in terms of explicitly saying it was at whim. You're right, though; if nations have some agreement about terminating diplomatic immunity, that should take priority.

I'm personally alarmed that Cobdenia thought it necessary for the UN resolution that was referenced. I figured if it was such a necessity back then as to be included, it certainly should be carried forward.
I'm not averse to it being included, though being in a UN resolution isn't necessarily a guarantee of sanity.

I make the distinction between the two in case a diplomat feels the need to drive outside the nation to which they are assigned to serve and commit crimes there. If one of our diplomats were assigned to serve in Cobdenia, but drove to your nation to commit a mass murder spree, we certainly would prefer that there be no questions of how to act due to terms within our own proposal; in this case, it would be to replace the diplomat for Cobdenia and let the one who committed such a crime in your own nation be handled by your courts.
I don't think there'd be any question of how to act from our side, either. We never granted that diplomat immunity, after all, so assuming he skipped back into Cobdenia before we could catch him, we'd start extradition proceedings with you. Not Cobdenia, except out of courtesy; when he's in your embassy, he's in your territory!

And, I think I covered the issue of both expelling for crimes and for the issue of only 24 hours with subsection e. All of the crimes we can think of that would apply either involve harm to others, such as murder or theft, or crimes against the nation in which they are serving, such as espionage. Anything we can't think of is covered by the right to revoke diplomatic immunity.
Again, sorry for being too hasty to be clear. I was thinking more of intoxicants, or more likely diseases, that take more than 24 hours to clear. It doesn't necessarily involve wrong-doing on the part of the diplomat after all, just a danger to the public.

The multiple 24 hour arrest nuisance is still viable even with subsection e, I'm afraid.

I'm just not convinced that 24 hours isn't too arbitrary. It's not something I'll sweat over, but I don't see that it helps to state it.

Sorry, I was being too brief. I wasn't thinking in terms of regulating it, I was thinking in terms of explicitly saying it was at whim. You're right, though; if nations have some agreement about terminating diplomatic immunity, that should take priority.

Part of me wants to alter it, but part of me says it is fine as it is. If I include too much, I may accidentally create limits to how it can be used... and if I include too little, it could potentially be abused.

Unfortunately, I do not see a way to really address any particular use of it without potentially causing problems. I'm not going to give up on that just yet, as sometimes ideas hit me on how to alter it.

I'm not averse to it being included, though being in a UN resolution isn't necessarily a guarantee of sanity.

I know. I was looking for an idea and ran across a repealed one about libraries and holograms. It was interesting to see that it had passed, only to be repealed around a month later.

I don't think there'd be any question of how to act from our side, either. We never granted that diplomat immunity, after all, so assuming he skipped back into Cobdenia before we could catch him, we'd start extradition proceedings with you. Not Cobdenia, except out of courtesy; when he's in your embassy, he's in your territory!

Which would go quick, considering the issue involved and the high level at which it would be dealt. Though, there may be a bit of a delay as he's dressed down on national television...

Again, sorry for being too hasty to be clear. I was thinking more of intoxicants, or more likely diseases, that take more than 24 hours to clear. It doesn't necessarily involve wrong-doing on the part of the diplomat after all, just a danger to the public.

The multiple 24 hour arrest nuisance is still viable even with subsection e, I'm afraid.

I'm just not convinced that 24 hours isn't too arbitrary. It's not something I'll sweat over, but I don't see that it helps to state it.

On diseases, I'm sure that it would not actually be considered detainment by some, though I do see your point. I'd make an exception for quarantines, but that itself could also be abused in the same way the 24 hour one would be.

I'll see if I can come up with a better way to handle it.

Sanctaria likes this proposal very much.

After many attempts at revision to account for some problem areas, I think I have it as good as it's going to get. Unfortunately, the issue is length limits.

Are there any final suggestions for editting before it's submitted? And, please, include any spelling or grammar mistakes in the suggestions.

On diseases, I'm sure that it would not actually be considered detainment by some, though I do see your point. I'd make an exception for quarantines, but that itself could also be abused in the same way the 24 hour one would be.

I'll see if I can come up with a better way to handle it.
I'd certainly consider it detainment, since it's no different from what we do for criminals.

If you've got the characters, adding "or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve," to (d) might work.

Added. Combined with the medical care addition earlier, I think that might resolve some issues, though it is unfortunately still massively far from perfect.

More changes made, based on a review by my region.

OOC:

With regards to this clause RECOGNIZING that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the nation the diplomat represents or the nation the diplomat serves in
Can the nation in which a diplomat is serving simply revoke that diplomat's immunity at will and then treat them just as it could a non-diplomat, or can it only revoke that immunity in the context of declaring them 'persona non grata' and sending them home? If the former is the case then that would severely weaken this proposal's effectiveness, but the latter (which I think is how the rules work in RL...) isn't clearly stated to be the case instead.

With regards to the '24 hour rule': Why should this need to be extended, and why should diplomats be a risk of repeated detention for several consecutive days? Isn't the idea behind this that 24 hours should give the host nation enough time in which to return that diplomat to his or her mission's base (or, alternately, to declare them persona non grata and put them onto a vessel that's bound for their homeland), which should be done?

I notice the "longer with agreement" clause has gone. Any particular reason why?

ETA: The reason I wanted an extension to the 24 hour rule, Ambassador Borrin, is that I can think of circumstances in which the arbitrariness of it being 24 hours becomes a problem, especially when the diplomat hasn't actually done anything wrong as such. If she becomes a vector for a highly infectious or contagious disease, for example, letting her anywhere outside a secure medical facility would be a blindingly stupid risk to public health.

i just want to know one thing.

if your resolution provides diplomatic immunity(which i support) than why do the diplomats NOT have IMMUNITY from arrest and all that.

Also, note that diplomats don't go around shooting people or causing crime so don't you think that your immunity doesn't really provide adequate IMMUNITY.

thank respected Ambassador. If returned with a good response i can honestly support this proposal.

OOC:

With regards to this clause
Can the nation in which a diplomat is serving simply revoke that diplomat's immunity at will and then treat them just as it could a non-diplomat, or can it only revoke that immunity in the context of declaring them 'persona non grata' and sending them home? If the former is the case then that would severely weaken this proposal's effectiveness, but the latter (which I think is how the rules work in RL...) isn't clearly stated to be the case instead.

OOC: Whether or not they can still be a diplomat is, ultimately, up to the two nations in question. That's one of the finer details that are not touched on purpose in order to save length, plus to allow for instances in which treating a diplomat as a non-diplomat may become a necessity. Personally, I would say the second one, but there are some who would like the option to do the first one in case it ever became necessary.

Back to IC now.

I notice the "longer with agreement" clause has gone. Any particular reason why?

There are two diplomatic teams working on this, and the second one had a copy that wasn't current. A discrepency in editting popped up that will be corrected shortly.

i just want to know one thing.

if your resolution provides diplomatic immunity(which i support) than why do the diplomats NOT have IMMUNITY from arrest and all that.

Also, note that diplomats don't go around shooting people or causing crime so don't you think that your immunity doesn't really provide adequate IMMUNITY.

thank respected Ambassador. If returned with a good response i can honestly support this proposal.

Unfortunately, diplomats are people. As I have personally demonstrated during my stay within the WA, diplomats sometimes let personal quirks prevent them from properly serving the nation which they represent. And while we accept that not all diplomats commit crimes or are sent to cause trouble, we must also accept that there will always be a minority that serves as an exception. And while we understand that there is concern over the safety of diplomats, we also face the fact that nations must have the right to protect themselves as well. We do note that you may always use diplomacy to gain more protections than this proposal grants for your diplomats, but also note that not all nations wish to participate in a program of diplomatic immunity. We have tried to balance out the varying problems associated with this topic, though ultimately it still leaves a lot of people within the hands of individual nations.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

The People's Republic of Very Large Explosions believes that diplomatic immunity impairs the ability of a nation to serve its people. The People's Republic of Very Large Explosions would oppose this proposal and urge others to.

Very Large Explosions would support a WA-controlled diplomacy area that is not controlled by any nation, but does not support any form of in-country diplomatic immunity.

well said

The People's Republic of Very Large Explosions believes that diplomatic immunity impairs the ability of a nation to serve its people. The People's Republic of Very Large Explosions would oppose this proposal and urge others to.

Very Large Explosions would support a WA-controlled diplomacy area that is not controlled by any nation, but does not support any form of in-country diplomatic immunity.

We would like to note that the passing of this proposal would not, in any way, prevent Very Large Explosions from continuing to not use diplomatic immunity or prevent the community that is suggested. The issue of diplomatic immunity, even under this, is something both nations must agree to.

If the passing of this proposal would also require other agreements between nations, then this proposal is redundant.

The People's Republic of Very Large Explosions opposes any World Assembly agreement regarding diplomatic immunity due to the fact that they either seem to be redundant or force diplomatic immunity on Very Large Explosions and the other WA Members from the region of Weird O Clock which Very Large Explosions represents.

The passing of this proposal still gives some protections to diplomats, as well as defining the protections granted by diplomatic immunity without infringing too much on the necessity of nations to adapt their diplomacy based on individuality. Please point out to me how a more strict treatment of it could possibly be beneficial to the WA without causing problems.

Are you going to propose it? So i can give endorsment?

Are you going to propose it? So i can give endorsment?

Don't rush them, we want to make sure this is done right. As I've said in the past, "Writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We will spend at least two more days working on this, to see if any improvements could be made, and may take longer if anyone else has improvements as well. To make sure it is as good as it can be when submitted.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

The reason I wanted an extension to the 24 hour rule, Ambassador Borrin, is that I can think of circumstances in which the arbitrariness of it being 24 hours becomes a problem, especially when the diplomat hasn't actually done anything wrong as such. If she becomes a vector for a highly infectious or contagious disease, for example, letting her anywhere outside a secure medical facility would be a blindingly stupid risk to public health.
OOC: I was thinking in terms of 24 hours detention being the upper limit, rather than as being automatically allowed in full to the authorities. After some further thought, my suggested wording for that clause would be something along the lines of _

d) A diplomat may be detained in any case where their actions or medical condition pose a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, but their head-of-mission must be notified promptly of this fact: if neither the diplomat concerned nor the head-of-mission waives the diplomat's immunity then they must be returned promptly to the mission's premises

So if they become "a vector for a highly infectious or contagious disease", and won't (or can't) seek appropriate medical help for it themselves, their head-of-mission would be entitled to choose between letting them be forced into a suitable medical facility or having them returned to the mission's premises... and if they made the latter choice, of course, the host nation's government would be perfectly entitled to place the entire mission under quarantine. Would you consider that situation acceptable?

OOC: Can the nation in which a diplomat is serving simply revoke that diplomat's immunity at will and then treat them just as it could a non-diplomat, or can it only revoke that immunity in the context of declaring them 'persona non grata' and sending them home? If the former is the case then that would severely weaken this proposal's effectiveness, but the latter (which I think is how the rules work in RL...) isn't clearly stated to be the case instead.OOC: Whether or not they can still be a diplomat is, ultimately, up to the two nations in question. That's one of the finer details that are not touched on purpose in order to save length, plus to allow for instances in which treating a diplomat as a non-diplomat may become a necessity. Personally, I would say the second one, but there are some who would like the option to do the first one in case it ever became necessary.

OOC; My concern wasn't whether they would be entitled to continue to work as a diplomat within the nation that had removed their immunity, it was whether the host government could simply remove immunity and then (if its own rules of behaviour allowed) mistreat them. If the latter would be the case, as you seem to be saying, then defining the rights that 'Diplomatic Immunity' involves seems fairly pointless because any government that finds those rights inconvenient could simply cancel the immunity of the diplomats whom it wanted to affect.
In fact, if allowing (& continuing to recognise) immunity would be that optional, your proposal might actually be ILLEGAL under the "No optionality" rule...

The government of the Emperor Of Urgench would have a fairly substantial objection to the following provision-

"MANDATES that all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be free from detainment except by WA security forces"

Our government would not submit to a mandate which allows w.a. security forces, what ever they may be, to detain or distrain our Ambassador.

Our agreements with other nations on matters of embassies strictly prohibit any detention of our Ambassador's without the express permission of the government of the Emperor of Urgench. Our Ambassadors are instructed to make themselves as cooperative as possible to local authorities and were these authorities to provide us with cvompelling evidence of wrongdoing we would likely divest the diplomat in question of their immunity and offer them up to the local authorities for interogation and possible prosecution.

But the above quoted phrase does not even specify under what circumstances a diplomat would be held by the w.a., what duration, what conditions, and on what grounds, this is a deeply unsatisfactory situation which would jeopordise our nation's continued membership of this organisation.

yours e.t.c.,

OOC; My concern wasn't whether they would be entitled to continue to work as a diplomat within the nation that had removed their immunity, it was whether the host government could simply remove immunity and then (if its own rules of behaviour allowed) mistreat them. If the latter would be the case, as you seem to be saying, then defining the rights that 'Diplomatic Immunity' involves seems fairly pointless because any government that finds those rights inconvenient could simply cancel the immunity of the diplomats whom it wanted to affect.
In fact, if allowing (& continuing to recognise) immunity would be that optional, your proposal might actually be ILLEGAL under the "No optionality" rule...

Technically, diplomats are all under at least some protection by this proposal, so the nation in question would actually have to remove the diplomat from the category of diplomat in order to freely mistreat them. So if a diplomat simply has their diplomatic immunity removed, they would still be protected from physical harm by the third mandate.

Also, take a look at the current Clause D, compared to the one you're suggesting, and let me know if it covers your challenge on the issue. Medical concerns are now the second Mandate.

The government of the Emperor Of Urgench would have a fairly substantial objection to the following provision-

"MANDATES that all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be free from detainment except by WA security forces"

Our government would not submit to a mandate which allows w.a. security forces, what ever they may be, to detain or distrain our Ambassador.

That was specifically included to prevent member nations from detaining the ambassadors of other nations, all the while allowing for the WA security forces to do their particular job. We would have put in that it simply grants all ambassadors sent to the WA diplomatic immunity automatically, with the WA counting as the nation in which they serve, which would mean that it would take a vote of the WA to revoke the diplomatic immunity of any particular ambassador. However, we foresaw several problems related to that, with some coming from nations that oppose the use of diplomatic immunity.

OOC: And, it might actually be a violation of the rules to include it.

Our agreements with other nations on matters of embassies strictly prohibit any detention of our Ambassador's without the express permission of the government of the Emperor of Urgench. Our Ambassadors are instructed to make themselves as cooperative as possible to local authorities and were these authorities to provide us with cvompelling evidence of wrongdoing we would likely divest the diplomat in question of their immunity and offer them up to the local authorities for interogation and possible prosecution.

But the above quoted phrase does not even specify under what circumstances a diplomat would be held by the w.a., what duration, what conditions, and on what grounds, this is a deeply unsatisfactory situation which would jeopordise our nation's continued membership of this organisation.

yours e.t.c.,

As far as we know, there are no provisions under which the WA security forces can detain diplomats. However, we shall go over it and see if there are ways to improve it without drawing too much ire. It may simply require automatically granting diplomatic immunity on the issue...

OOC: In other words, I'm going to alter it to grant diplomatic immunity, then call for a mod ruling on it.

We cannot be sure if it is legal but we would suggest declaring the w.a. " International Neutral Territory" in which all diplomatic staff enjoy immunity unless their government expressly revokes it.

Would this solve the problem? Assuming that it is legal of course.


yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador of Urgench,

how can there be International Neutral Territory? the international community is completely compromised of nations with their own private land. I was never aware that such neutral land existed. no resolutions seem to indicate it. So if this bill were to include this neutral land that doesn't exist it doesn't seem very viable, until such a land is established don't you think?

Respected Ambassador of Wachichi.

It is a purely theoretical legal conceit really, respected Ambassador. But there are actual buildings and actual grounds of the W.A. indeed we are one of its many chambers now. Many, many Ambassadors have been defenestrated through those windows over yonder ( the elderly khan points toward the tall, unfinished and as yet unglazed windows as his assistant hands the ambassador for Wachichi the note on which his words are written ). It is a glorious and ancient tradition honoured Ambassador.

These buildings and there grounds could be declared a " Diplomatic zone " in which the Ambassadors of the w.a could carry out their work free from fear of molestation.


yours e.t.c. ,

That was specifically included to prevent member nations from detaining the ambassadors of other nations, all the while allowing for the WA security forces to do their particular job. We would have put in that it simply grants all ambassadors sent to the WA diplomatic immunity automatically, with the WA counting as the nation in which they serve, which would mean that it would take a vote of the WA to revoke the diplomatic immunity of any particular ambassador. However, we foresaw several problems related to that, with some coming from nations that oppose the use of diplomatic immunity.
Ahem. What WA security forces? That sounds suspiciously like the police we aren't allowed to have...

Now I come to think about it...
MANDATES that nations in which diplomats are serving must provide the diplomat with the best medical care on hand in cases of emergency

MANDATES that all diplomats to other nations shall be free from physical harm, execution, sexual assault, enslavement, or use for medical experiments by the nation in which they are serving
Aren't these two occasionally going to come into conflict? There are going to be cases when the best -- often the only -- medical care is experimental. And we still have the situation where a diplomat isn't obliged to stay in the infectious diseases ward for more than 24 hours if she doesn't want to.

In which case, the part about security forces shall be left out entirely. If the part about them having diplomatic immunity while serving in the WA isn't legal due to the circumstances of diplomatic immunity, then the WA portion shall simply be removed entirely to save space, since everything else would already be covered.

Aren't these two occasionally going to come into conflict? There are going to be cases when the best -- often the only -- medical care is experimental. And we still have the situation where a diplomat isn't obliged to stay in the infectious diseases ward for more than 24 hours if she doesn't want to.

How about these changes:

MANDATES that all diplomats to other nations shall be free from physical harm, execution, sexual assault, enslavement, or use for medical experiments not necessary for medical treatment of the diplomat by the nation in which they are serving

d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve

Better, but Mary the Typhoid can still refuse treatment, and the only recourse is to expel her, and I still don't really want her walking through an airport.

Don't know of any way to solve that without creating further problems as a result.

Don't know of any way to solve that without creating further problems as a result.

That's why I originally suggested the "with the agreement of the nation they serve" rider, which I notice has turned into the exact opposite of what I was after.

Hmm... That was definitely unintentional.

I'm tempted to go back and reword the medical part so that diplomat detainment for medical reasons can be, at the agreement of both nations, mandatory for as long as is necessary.

RECOGNIZING that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the nation the diplomat represents or the nation the diplomat serves inWhile this doesn't make the Proposal optional, it's ridiculous to include and very clearly makes this nothing greater than 'Mild'.

Giving the hosting nation the ability to revoke diplomatic immunity renders this Proposal mostly toothless and runs against the whole point of immunity.

Indeed we would not accept having the diplomatic immunity of our nation's civil servants revoked on a whim by the nation they had been sent to. In fact we would see this as totally undermining the very principle of diplomatic immunity.

yours e.t.c. ,

That particular clause has been removed. We are, next, currently working on the medical issue. Trying to balance it out, without going too far.

Without that revocation clause, I'm going to get a whole lot more insistent that you explicitly say that a nation can expel a diplomat at will. Clause (e) strongly implies that they can't.

Without that revocation clause, I'm going to get a whole lot more insistent that you explicitly say that a nation can expel a diplomat at will. Clause (e) strongly implies that they can't.



That makes perfect sense and is wholely reasonable. Our treaties with our allies and neighbours have always included this stipulation.


yours e.t.c. ,

Without that revocation clause, I'm going to get a whole lot more insistent that you explicitly say that a nation can expel a diplomat at will. Clause (e) strongly implies that they can't.

Change made.

Any last edits before submission?

Yes, honoured Ambassador, we have one minor but perhaps none the less important concern, which is the liberal use of the term "Mandates" within the resolution. The term "Mandate" having a specific legal meaning which is perhaps not that intended by those clauses in which the term appears.

The term "Mandate" meaning a commission by which a party is entrusted to perform a service, often gratuitously and with indemnity against loss by that party, or a commission of an international organisation of states to administer a territory.

There are other common usage meanings of this term but we suggest that to eliminate confusion another term might more usefully be employed.

yours sincerely,

Change made. Let me know if this one is better.

That is certainly a great improvement as far as we are concerned, honoured Ambassador, and will certainly improve the understanding of the intent of this resolution.

We will have every hope of being able to support this resolution should it come to vote.

yours e.t.c. ,

Assuming no changes are necessary, it should be submitted soon.

This proposal is submitted!

Sanctaria has given it's approval affter consultation.

Approvals: 92 (Monacia, Zemnaya Svoboda, Mushet, Rashuta, Jimmy Hart, Foerost, Royal British States, R539, PeaceFreedom, Dragonia Star, Centralite, Neo Ozia, Rutianas, The Land of Nephi-Lehi, Insterburg, Kilpaka, Lionslicer, Ascendas, Belarum, Angels World, Vyzud, Sentinel Optik, Transsyllia, Autonomous Sentients, The Derrak Quadrant, New Chalcedon, New Castrograd, Lives Relived, Asiatic Land, The Immortal Volturi, Ubu-Rex, Tsruhkwah, Cristina n Brandon, Nurdia, Quintessence of Dust, Arch druid, Athens1991, Loyale, Al Sabr, North East South West, Floreria, Dancing Ninja Islands, Zensunnia, Earth Worshippers, Txiniamagna, Water and Sun, Flibbleites, Bacon Major, Tolenezgo, Nebolion, Civio, Splanky, Troon, Qrupil, Cidrei, Peace Republic, Sanctaria, Tagranthia, At2, JOE-GA-BOL, Indian Gangs, Assino, Quffuffull, New Old New New York, Mibive, Port de Land, Chickenstate, Ventei, Graalium, Emperial Poland, Misplaced States, Jawooglyness, Detop, Shuai Gemen, Bochas, CRUISHTAJ, Catie the Great, Mandrivia, Khalifistan, Jockland UberAlles, Agent Death and Blu, Slowpokeia, The Great Irwin Rommel, Roma Legions, Los Bacanasos, Hergada, Ruebenland, Aus49lax, Maxilion, Yourlordship, DHaran Islands, The Aaronian Empire)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

In the words of a certain soccer announcer:

GGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLL!

*cough*

Sorry about that. Just happy about this getting through so quickly.

Now, time to begin work on the next proposal.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Goodness that was swift, what method did the honoured Ambassador use to canvass approvals?

Of course we congratulate the honoured Ambassador on their success also.

yours e.t.c. ,

I used the list from Living Wage Act as the list of who to contact first, then added a few others I knew might support it. And I asked politely and got help in telegramming. It was nothing really special on my end. The resolution, both the work done by Xen and the editting by others, is what I believe ultimately did most of the work in getting approvals.

In the words of a certain soccer announcer:

GGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLL!

*cough*

Sorry about that. Just happy about this getting through so quickly.

Congratulations.

Thank you. I just have to see how the vote ends up.

Congratulations, and good luck. If you've got past my grumpy cynicism on diplomats you should manage most reasonable challenges. The unreasonable ones there's no reasoning with :)

I have no problems with this, I just think it's unneccessary. It's just another way the WA is trying to take over our nations. Less government. Why not let the individual nations decide about how they handle their diplomats? It's unneccessary, and it shows that the WA is running out of ideas for things to change. Maybe that means everything's good.

I have no problems with this, I just think it's unneccessary. It's just another way the WA is trying to take over our nations. Less government. Why not let the individual nations decide about how they handle their diplomats? It's unneccessary, and it shows that the WA is running out of ideas for things to change. Maybe that means everything's good.

"We can't think of anything so everything must be fine" is profoundly silly an assertion.

Since it is the opinion of the MacEnthailand embassy that individual nations handle their own embassy procedure and diplomatic customs, Snefaldia will do the same and revert to our traditional mode of diplomacy. It involves burying ambassadors from unfriendly nations up to their neck and having every passer-by hack at them with a dull blade. Also, something about nailing hats to the heads of those without sufficient respect to remove them.

Snefaldian ambassadors will be expected in kind to be exempted from all manner of law and punishment in their nation, and will take (at will, and at any time) sexual pleasure from any person in the nation they are visiting. Failure on the part of the authorities to allow this will mean military intervention.

Perhaps the MacEnthailandians realize the error of their suggestion? I would hope so, because it's been so long since I've nailed a hat to a head and I think my aim would be a bit spotty.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I have no problems with this, I just think it's unneccessary. It's just another way the WA is trying to take over our nations. Less government. Why not let the individual nations decide about how they handle their diplomats? It's unneccessary, and it shows that the WA is running out of ideas for things to change. Maybe that means everything's good.

This is actually just our opening act. I currently have two more proposals sitting on my desk, written up and waiting for this one to go up to vote so one of them can be submitted for editting and changes. The reason this one in particular was chosen as an opening is because it governs the international side of diplomacy and guarantees that those granted diplomatic imunity are fairly dealt with.

Note that most of it deals with diplomatic immunity. If you don't agree with the provisions of it, then simply don't enter into any diplomatic agreements over it.

Also, I would like to thank Nemo Taranton for providing a good example of why this is a necessity.

I have no problems with this, I just think it's unneccessary. It's just another way the WA is trying to take over our nations. Less government. Why not let the individual nations decide about how they handle their diplomats? It's unneccessary, and it shows that the WA is running out of ideas for things to change. Maybe that means everything's good.


Is the honoured Ambassador refering to some pre-ordained hierarchy of acceptable or important topics for statutory remedy which the w.a. should be using? If so we would appreciate knowing how it is arranged.

Or is the honoured Ambassador for MacEnthailand presuming that their own legislative priorities must be those of this entire organisation? If so then we are happy being in ignorance of that particular list.

yours e.t.c. ,

Standardisation of the treatment of diplomats and diplomatic missions is one of the most key points to the smooth flow of international diplomacy. One cannot get a more truly international matter then that.

Against


(Only joking)

I don't care how I am treated. I invite an attack.

I might just rejoin WA just to send battlions, I mean staffs of diplomatic personel overseas. With current technological advances, whats there to prevent my cloned super soldiers, errr I mean diplomats from carrying out acts of infamy immediately after the declaration of war? I mean everyone in my country has a martial background and to a certain extent proficiency in warfare. Also, if this means that I can mark containers filled with "diplomatic tools" to be sent to other nations without fear of search then I would certainly not reject such a wonderful WA resolution.

To think that a diplomat can enter my nation, break the law, and not be punished is absurd. I understand how someone can see the need for diplomatic immunity, but if someone breaks the law and goes unpunished what kind of example would that be for others? If someone set fire to my house, and then was able to just leave the country without anything happening, I would be pretty ticked.

I urge everyone to vote AGAINST this measure.

It's a good idea, but it's not complete.

While yes, diplomatic immunity to keep them out of jail or for being punished by the host nation is a GOOD idea, there needs to be some sort of repercussion for certain actions.

I believe the resolution says that the diplomat's may not enter a country with the specific intent to do something wrong. What's to stop the diplomat from spontaneously deciding to commit some heinous act?

What needs to be amended to this resolution is something to this effect.

"Should the Hosting nation find the Diplomat's actions to be in violation of certain basic Human Rights, or in violation of certain International Laws, they, the Host nation may request that the Diplomat in question be brought before an international trial to be held accountable for their actions."

I am all for this act. Killing political enemies who have escaped our nation would be made much easier.

I might just rejoin WA just to send battlions, I mean staffs of diplomatic personel overseas. With current technological advances, whats there to prevent my cloned super soldiers, errr I mean diplomats from carrying out acts of infamy immediately after the declaration of war? I mean everyone in my country has a martial background and to a certain extent proficiency in warfare. Also, if this means that I can mark containers filled with "diplomatic tools" to be sent to other nations without fear of search then I would certainly not reject such a wonderful WA resolution.

And who, in their right mind, would ever establish diplomatic relations with your nation, or let your "diplomats" within shooting distance of their borders, after you've made such a statement publicly? There is this, after all:

RECOGNIZING that diplomatic immunity must be agreed upon by the nation the diplomat represents and the nation the diplomat serves in

Oh, there's also this clause that kinda moots your "point":

PROHIBITS nations from sending diplomats with the express intent of committing crimes of espionage, sabotage, subversion, causing harm to the civilian population, and other related crimes committed outside of a diplomats duties

Let's not let this debate descend into silly-time quite so quickly, please.

The Trilateral Federation supports this legislation.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

lo everyone! While new to these debates, I read the Proposal and I think Diplomatic Immunity Has its good points. Too many Ambassadors have a tendency to abuse that power. Ambassadors can be immune to an extent. But to be Immune to all the Host Nations laws is absurd.Paragraph 8 states; REQUIRES that any diplomat granted diplomatic immunity be free from prosecution for crimes, search and/or seizure of personal belongings and belongings of family members and personal staff, search and/or seizure of family members and personal staff, seizure of pets, and search and/or seizure of private quarters outside any extraterritorial property by the nation in which the diplomat is serving
a) A diplomat may still be tried for crimes by the nation they serve
b) If suspected of a crime, the nation the diplomat is serving in may present the evidence to the nation the diplomat is from
c) If diplomatic immunity is revoked, the diplomat remains immune to prosecution for suspected crimes that occurred during the immunity by the nation in which they are serving
d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve
e) A diplomat may be expelled from the nation in which they are serving for any reason

If a Diplomate is free from prosecution for crimes against persons and/or property and search and seizure then Paragraph "8-a can not be aplied to them. If Diplomatic Immunity is revoked and the diplomate is not deported, then he/she should not be exempt from prosecution by the Host Nation.

To think that a diplomat can enter my nation, break the law, and not be punished is absurd. I understand how someone can see the need for diplomatic immunity, but if someone breaks the law and goes unpunished what kind of example would that be for others? If someone set fire to my house, and then was able to just leave the country without anything happening, I would be pretty ticked.

I urge everyone to vote AGAINST this measure.
I agree with this viewpoint. Yxksuuaeo prides itself on outside influences and believes diplomats are the pathway to Imperialism. We are neither large, nor an economic powerhouse, and we are vulnerable to these larger post-industrial wastelands coming and trying to exploit us. If a country does not feel that they should abide by our laws, then they will have no access to our country. Likewise, if any country questions the safety of their diplomat, then they also have no right in our land; the safety of international individuals has gone uncompromised for days. Yxksuuaeo will never send out diplomats to any country, as we have no embassies, thus this resolution has no intent for us other than a negative one.

The opposition to this resolution is taking a increasingly incoherent and bizarre form, we fear for the future of this organisation if some of its members do not even understand the rudiments of international relations.

yours e.t.c. ,

Your Excellency Mongha the Khan of Kashgar, I quite agree. Thus I have decided to throwabout non sequiturs and other nonsense in favour of the resolution, as nonsense seems to be a currency in great circulation in these walls. I shall start...now

If you don't give diplomats immunity, your children will explode and your puppies will speak Norwegian.

I am all for this act. Killing political enemies who have escaped our nation would be made much easier.

I think I speak for all sane ambassadors when I say, "Huh?"

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We can not seriously be considering that if a nation chooses against this option, and if passed, they adhere to outside influence pertaining to their laws and policies regarding procedures they may or may not follow? National Sovereignty is at stake, I implore you to VOTE AGAINST.

d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve

I cannot support this as worded - it is far too vague!

We can not seriously be considering that if a nation chooses against this option, and if passed, they adhere to outside influence pertaining to their laws and policies regarding procedures they may or may not follow? National Sovereignty is at stake, I implore you to VOTE AGAINST.

I've read this three times and the only part I understand is "National Sovereignty." Since that was the only part you saw fit to put into plain words, I'll conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve

I cannot support this as worded - it is far too vague!

How, pray tell, would you like it clarified? There is such a thing as a "character limit" on proposals- shocking, I know, I've been trying to submit the entire corpus of the Pali Canon as law for months and keep running up against it.

N.T.
etc.

To think that a diplomat can enter my nation, break the law, and not be punished is absurd. I understand how someone can see the need for diplomatic immunity, but if someone breaks the law and goes unpunished what kind of example would that be for others? If someone set fire to my house, and then was able to just leave the country without anything happening, I would be pretty ticked.

I urge everyone to vote AGAINST this measure.

I urge you to re-read the part that says that both nations have to agree to diplomatic immunity, and the part that stipulates that the host nation can expel the offending diplomat and present evidence to that diplomat's nation of residence and request charges be brought against them.

I believe the resolution says that the diplomat's may not enter a country with the specific intent to do something wrong. What's to stop the diplomat from spontaneously deciding to commit some heinous act?

What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously tying his shoe? What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously hailing a cab? What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously combusting? It is a touch ridiculous to expect a resolution to account for every single whim that may enter a person's mind without any warning.

What needs to be amended to this resolution is something to this effect.

What needs to be done is to make such suggestions during the drafting phase, not once it's been submitted already. Once a resolution is up for vote, it cannot be amended.

I agree with this viewpoint. Yxksuuaeo prides itself on outside influences and believes diplomats are the pathway to Imperialism. We are neither large, nor an economic powerhouse, and we are vulnerable to these larger post-industrial wastelands coming and trying to exploit us.

....and what about this resolution forces you to accept outside influences or diplomats if you don't want them? I'll give you a hint: if you look for something that does, you won't find it.

Likewise, if any country questions the safety of their diplomat, then they also have no right in our land; the safety of international individuals has gone uncompromised for days.

So, if a nation's diplomats have concern for their safety, which any sentient being with even an ounce of self-preservation skills will have, they have no right to be in your country? Wow. Just wow. And why do I get the sneaking suspicion that your ports of entry have big signs on them like you see in factories, saying "We've gone (x) days without an injury"? The safety of international individuals has gone uncompromised for entire days, has it? That's such a long time....except it's not.

Yxksuuaeo will never send out diplomats to any country, as we have no embassies, thus this resolution has no intent for us other than a negative one.

So...you won't be sending diplomats anywhere, and won't be accepting any....then why in the seven hells do you care?

We can not seriously be considering that if a nation chooses against this option, and if passed, they adhere to outside influence pertaining to their laws and policies regarding procedures they may or may not follow? National Sovereignty is at stake, I implore you to VOTE AGAINST.

You don't seem to understand that making international laws that affect the laws and procedures member states may or may not follow is kind of what we do here. If the WA never did anything that affected its member states' laws or policies, what would we be doing here? Getting drunk in the Strangers' Bar and knitting tea cozies?

It is painfully obvious that the nations arguing against this resolution don't understand the concepts of diplomatic immunity and extraterritoriality in the first place. If nations cannot be assured that the diplomats they send abroad won't be mistreated or harassed, what exactly is the incentive to engage in diplomacy in the first place?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I might just rejoin WA just to send battlions, I mean staffs of diplomatic personel overseas. With current technological advances, whats there to prevent my cloned super soldiers, errr I mean diplomats from carrying out acts of infamy immediately after the declaration of war? I mean everyone in my country has a martial background and to a certain extent proficiency in warfare. Also, if this means that I can mark containers filled with "diplomatic tools" to be sent to other nations without fear of search then I would certainly not reject such a wonderful WA resolution.

Such a thing is prohibitted by this resolution. Read the bottom portion.

To think that a diplomat can enter my nation, break the law, and not be punished is absurd. I understand how someone can see the need for diplomatic immunity, but if someone breaks the law and goes unpunished what kind of example would that be for others? If someone set fire to my house, and then was able to just leave the country without anything happening, I would be pretty ticked.

I urge everyone to vote AGAINST this measure.

Then don't agree to any diplomat entering your nation having diplomatic protection. And you can always kick the diplomat out at any time you want to.

It's a good idea, but it's not complete.

Agreed. However, it cannot be more complete at this time due to length limits on WA proposals. As such, there's really no way you can ever craft a perfect law without it being insanely specific in what it applies to.

While yes, diplomatic immunity to keep them out of jail or for being punished by the host nation is a GOOD idea, there needs to be some sort of repercussion for certain actions.

I believe the resolution says that the diplomat's may not enter a country with the specific intent to do something wrong. What's to stop the diplomat from spontaneously deciding to commit some heinous act?

Nothing, but it's an impossibility to prevent diplomats from doing that without removing their free will. While admittedly we could do it, we would first need the resolution on torture repealed due to some of what is required to program a human.

What needs to be amended to this resolution is something to this effect.

Amendments are illegal.

"Should the Hosting nation find the Diplomat's actions to be in violation of certain basic Human Rights, or in violation of certain International Laws, they, the Host nation may request that the Diplomat in question be brought before an international trial to be held accountable for their actions."

There's already provisions related to legal prosecution of diplomats. A nation hosting a diplomat may, under this resolution, eject the diplomat and then start negotiations with the diplomat's home nation for legal prosecution. Note the diplomat is only immune to prosecution in the nation they are serving under this.

lo everyone! While new to these debates, I read the Proposal and I think Diplomatic Immunity Has its good points. Too many Ambassadors have a tendency to abuse that power. Ambassadors can be immune to an extent. But to be Immune to all the Host Nations laws is absurd.

Diplomats are not actually immune to a host nation's laws. For one thing, going over with the intent of breaking those laws is strictly forbidden under this. For another, the diplomat can still be tried for their crimes in their home nation, so the host nation could ship the diplomat back home for trial and then have the home nation ship him back for serving the sentence, assuming it's just prison time. But, whether or not that is done is between nations to work out, and a nation could always decide not to use diplomatic immunity if it's a concern.

If a Diplomate is free from prosecution for crimes against persons and/or property and search and seizure then Paragraph "8-a can not be aplied to them. If Diplomatic Immunity is revoked and the diplomate is not deported, then he/she should not be exempt from prosecution by the Host Nation.

You're misreading it. The first part of paragraph 8 states a diplomat may not be tried by the host nation, while 8-a states they may still be tried by their home nation. The idea is that a diplomat who commits a crime is not immune to prosecution for it.

I agree with this viewpoint. Yxksuuaeo prides itself on outside influences and believes diplomats are the pathway to Imperialism. We are neither large, nor an economic powerhouse, and we are vulnerable to these larger post-industrial wastelands coming and trying to exploit us. If a country does not feel that they should abide by our laws, then they will have no access to our country. Likewise, if any country questions the safety of their diplomat, then they also have no right in our land; the safety of international individuals has gone uncompromised for days. Yxksuuaeo will never send out diplomats to any country, as we have no embassies, thus this resolution has no intent for us other than a negative one.

Actually, this resolution has no effect upon you. Diplomatic immunity is optional, with a lot of it requiring cooperation between nations. Considering you never send out diplomats except the one you sent to the WA, this actually doesn't do anything as far as your nation is concerned.

The opposition to this resolution is taking a increasingly incoherent and bizarre form, we fear for the future of this organisation if some of its members do not even understand the rudiments of international relations.

I am forced to agree. The objections to this mostly seem to stem from reading the title or misreading the resolution itself.

We can not seriously be considering that if a nation chooses against this option, and if passed, they adhere to outside influence pertaining to their laws and policies regarding procedures they may or may not follow? National Sovereignty is at stake, I implore you to VOTE AGAINST.

You're 20 resolutions too late to make this argument, honestly.

d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve

I cannot support this as worded - it is far too vague!

There's nothing vague about it. It says, basically, that if your diplomat does something like getting drunk and then nearly running over a group of schoolkids while driving, the host nation has the right to toss them in jail for a day. If they're even more of a threat and the home nation agrees to the sentence, it could be longer than a day.

I apologize about the language being obtuse, but this is a legal document.

Diplomat Asuka Felna, who seriously believes she needs to be paid more to do this job

Our Holy Kingdom of Dacari currently opposes this resolution as we believe when a diplomat's immunity is revoked, he/she should be tried for any crime he/she is suspected of committing while in a nation regardless of when.

We hope this resolution is ammended before suspected passage, or Dacari will seriously consider leaving the World Assembly as we will not allow diplomats suspected of crimes to use their immunity as a shield and excuse to commit crimes while in our great nation.

Jose Maron
Dacari W.A. Delegate

While The Republic of Lanceopia is just barely still in the WA (internal discussions are underway) after the last bill was horrendously passed, we support this resolution as it is now written.

Ambassador Lance
The Republic of Lanceopia

You have a problem with raising the minimum wage but, it is ok to let a diplomat that commited a crime go free?

Our Holy Kingdom of Dacari currently opposes this resolution as we believe when a diplomat's immunity is revoked, he/she should be tried for any crime he/she is suspected of committing while in a nation regardless of when.
I can understand where you're coming from here, but ex post facto actions like this are a very dangerous precident to set. The host nation still has some options, such as applying to the diplomat's home nation for them to prosecute him. Presumably the host nation trusts the home nation at least that far, given that they've both agreed to give the diplomat immunity in the first place.

We hope this resolution is ammended before suspected passage, or Dacari will seriously consider leaving the World Assembly as we will not allow diplomats suspected of crimes to use their immunity as a shield and excuse to commit crimes while in our great nation.
I should start that serious considering right now, then, because once a resolution comes to vote it can't be changed. It has to be accepted as is or not at all.

YES GUYS, I have a great idea, let's just let Diplomats do what they want, and go on a Murderous Rampage if they want, and even if their Immunity is revoked, they STILL can't be tried for it. GREAT IDEA.

From:
Ambassador Lathom
Delegate to the WA from The Holy Empire of the Solarian Isles
Cleric in the service of the Solarian Divine Emperor

To:
Honored General Assembly of the World Assembly

Re:
Diplomat Protection Act

Though we agree with the spirit and intentions behind this act, and we do treat all foreign diplomats with complete respect due their station, we cannot support it. All people, Solarian or otherwise, are all equal in the eyes of His Holiness, our Divine Emperor. All foreign diplomats are taught our Sacred Laws, and are expected to abide by them, just as any Solarian citizen would be expected. Should they violate our Sacred Laws, they will be subject to the same chastisement as would any other offender in our sacred land. We see no reason why anyone should be immune from equal treatment under the law.

Our Holy Kingdom of Dacari currently opposes this resolution as we believe when a diplomat's immunity is revoked, he/she should be tried for any crime he/she is suspected of committing while in a nation regardless of when.

That's why you make an agreement with their home nation to have the home nation try them instead.

We hope this resolution is ammended before suspected passage, or Dacari will seriously consider leaving the World Assembly as we will not allow diplomats suspected of crimes to use their immunity as a shield and excuse to commit crimes while in our great nation.

Amendments are illegal. And, should you leave, I claim your stapler. My own is about to run out of staples by the end of this vote... probably because I'll end up using them all on someone to prove a point.

You have a problem with raising the minimum wage but, it is ok to let a diplomat that commited a crime go free?

Where does it say they go free?

YES GUYS, I have a great idea, let's just let Diplomats do what they want, and go on a Murderous Rampage if they want, and even if their Immunity is revoked, they STILL can't be tried for it. GREAT IDEA.

Hey! Guess what? It's still illegal for diplomats to do that! They can still be prosecuted for it, still be jailed for it, and even be executed for it!

Though we agree with the spirit and intentions behind this act, and we do treat all foreign diplomats with complete respect due their station, we cannot support it. All people, Solarian or otherwise, are all equal in the eyes of His Holiness, our Divine Emperor. All foreign diplomats are taught our Sacred Laws, and are expected to abide by them, just as any Solarian citizen would be expected. Should they violate our Sacred Laws, they will be subject to the same chastisement as would any other offender in our sacred land. We see no reason why anyone should be immune from equal treatment under the law.

The diplomatic immunity part is optional. Both nations involved have to agree to it. If you don't agree to it, then it doesn't happen.

Also, even under diplomatic immunity as this resolution defines it, they're not actually immune to your laws. It's prohibited for them to come into your nation with the idea of breaking your laws, you may eject any diplomat who breaks your laws at will, and you can also make an agreement with the home nation for that nation to prosecute any diplomat who breaks your laws.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

The diplomatic immunity part is optional. Both nations involved have to agree to it. If you don't agree to it, then it doesn't happen.

Also, even under diplomatic immunity as this resolution defines it, they're not actually immune to your laws. It's prohibited for them to come into your nation with the idea of breaking your laws, you may eject any diplomat who breaks your laws at will, and you can also make an agreement with the home nation for that nation to prosecute any diplomat who breaks your laws.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

The fact that it's not absolutely binding in all circumstances is the reason that our nation will not leave the WA should this pass. We still find the very concept distasteful, but we will uphold it even should it pass.

Ambassador Lathom

The fact that it's not absolutely binding in all circumstances is the reason that our nation will not leave the WA should this pass. We still find the very concept distasteful, but we will uphold it even should it pass.

Believe it or not, but situations like your's are part of why it's not binding like that. One of the issues that was addressed early on in drafting is that the length limit of the resolution prevents it from being long enough to apply to all circumstances. Thus, the simpler solution was to make the diplomatic immunity portion something both nations have to agree to. There are other details which are also up to them to work out on their own.

At the same time, this also, should it pass, prevent some delegates from getting annoyed at others and tossing them out the nearest window. It's kinda hard to refute a guy when he's too busy falling to his death to listen.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Why are a Diplomats family's bags protected from search or seizure. Only the Diplomat's should be.

Why are a Diplomats family's bags protected from search or seizure. Only the Diplomat's should be.

To prevent nations from abusing diplomats by confiscating all of the belongings of any family member that accompanies the diplomat.

I urge you to re-read the part that says that both nations have to agree to diplomatic immunity, and the part that stipulates that the host nation can expel the offending diplomat and present evidence to that diplomat's nation of residence and request charges be brought against them.



What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously tying his shoe? What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously hailing a cab? What's to stop a diplomat from spontaneously combusting? It is a touch ridiculous to expect a resolution to account for every single whim that may enter a person's mind without any warning.



What needs to be done is to make such suggestions during the drafting phase, not once it's been submitted already. Once a resolution is up for vote, it cannot be amended.



....and what about this resolution forces you to accept outside influences or diplomats if you don't want them? I'll give you a hint: if you look for something that does, you won't find it.



So, if a nation's diplomats have concern for their safety, which any sentient being with even an ounce of self-preservation skills will have, they have no right to be in your country? Wow. Just wow. And why do I get the sneaking suspicion that your ports of entry have big signs on them like you see in factories, saying "We've gone (x) days without an injury"? The safety of international individuals has gone uncompromised for entire days, has it? That's such a long time....except it's not.



So...you won't be sending diplomats anywhere, and won't be accepting any....then why in the seven hells do you care?



You don't seem to understand that making international laws that affect the laws and procedures member states may or may not follow is kind of what we do here. If the WA never did anything that affected its member states' laws or policies, what would we be doing here? Getting drunk in the Strangers' Bar and knitting tea cozies?

It is painfully obvious that the nations arguing against this resolution don't understand the concepts of diplomatic immunity and extraterritoriality in the first place. If nations cannot be assured that the diplomats they send abroad won't be mistreated or harassed, what exactly is the incentive to engage in diplomacy in the first place?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador
But that's what is wrong. I don't want to be forced to deport the criminal diplomat. I want to punish him in any way I want. If he murders someone in Erikobbystan, I want execution!

But that's what is wrong. I don't want to be forced to deport the criminal diplomat. I want to punish him in any way I want. If he murders someone in Erikobbystan, I want execution!

Then don't agree to diplomatic immunity with anyone! Good grief, can't you lot read?

You mean, just being a diplomat to the WA makes you immune? Hells yeah! I can definitely get behind this! You can count on my nation's full support.

...Now where the hell did I put that grenade-launcher?


Jimmy and Commander Chiang are in whispered conference as the ambassador gives his statement of support:

"We're already in noncompliance, aren't we, Commander?"

"Of course. We wouldn't be the Federal Republic if we weren't a little in defiance of every law."

"But how long until the other nations finally call us on that last clause? President Fernanda definitely wanted to cause this body harm by picking Susa."

"No, Mr. Baca, he just wanted to threaten to cause this body harm. Everyone knows the ambassador couldn't explode a bottle-rocket. Besides, with all the defenestrating lunatics the rest of the nations regularly send here, who's going to notice a harmless jihadi or two?"

If you can hold them for 24 hours then you should be able to search them under certain circumstances i.e. if there caught doing crack or somthing.

If you can hold them for 24 hours then you should be able to search them under certain circumstances i.e. if there caught doing crack or somthing.

Which nations will immediately abuse to get copies of every single piece of diplomatic communication, not to mention stripping the poor diplomat and doing repeated cavity searches on live television.

yes guys, i have a great idea, let's just let diplomats do what they want, and go on a murderous rampage if they want, and even if their immunity is revoked, they still can't be tried for it. Great idea.

lolz

Forensatha-That's why you make an agreement with their home nation to have the home nation try them instead.

If the crime happens in Dacarian soil, Dacari tries them, period. We can't place our total trust in foreign nations who may decide to screw us and whisk their diplomats back home.



Amendments are illegal. And, should you leave, I claim your stapler. My own is about to run out of staples by the end of this vote... probably because I'll end up using them all on someone to prove a point.

WTF is a stapler?

Jose Maron
Dacari W.A. Delegate

Forensatha-

If the crime happens in Dacarian soil, Dacari tries them, period. We can't place our total trust in foreign nations who may decide to screw us and whisk their diplomats back home.



WTF is a stapler?

Jose Maron
Dacari W.A. Delegate




We imagine it is common to use acronyms for oaths and swear words in Dacari, but it is hardly decorous to use them here honoured Ambassador.

As for the honoured Ambassador's nation's stance on immunity, of course Dacari may negotiate with those nation's who wish to establish embassies with them that immunity will not apply to their ambassadorial staff.

However where this negotiation has not taken place then immunity will apply to ambassador's sent to Dacari whether Dacari likes it or not, if this resolution passes. The only remedy to this is a repeal of the resolution or resignation from the w.a.

yours e.t.c. ,

It looks like Unwholesome Reprobate Day at the Palentine delegation. insted of the usual degenerate holding court(that would be the good Senator Sulla for all you noobies out there), an entirely new one was sitting behind the desk cheerfully drinking martinis, smoking cigars, and ogling ang good looking female that walked by. Yes true believers, the Palentine had the audacity to send the Prime Minister, Lord Julius, to the festering snakepit....err... Hallowed halls. He givwes a final puff of his cigar, and makes a rather unwholesome leer at the assembled delegates, before speaking,

"Greetings and salutaions, excetery, excetery! The Palentine would like to go on record as being for the resolution, with some minor reservations(which of course I'll find a way to weasel out of, should it pass). As Prime Minister I tend to use the diplomatic service as a way to ummmm....unload some of my more undesirable and pestersome reletives onto the international community. And as such I really like the idea of diplomatic immunity."

WTF is a stapler?

Its that device on your desk you use to staple papers together, my good man. They're devilishly hard to come by around these parts I'm told.
Excelsior,
Lord Julius


BTW, On behalf of my good friend Senator Sulla, I'm claiming his chairs if he leaves.:D

Which nations will immediately abuse to get copies of every single piece of diplomatic communication
Oh, you can already abuse Fair Criminal Trial to do that, Ambassador :)

However where this negotiation has not taken place then immunity will apply to ambassador's sent to Dacari whether Dacari likes it or not, if this resolution passes.
I'm afraid your enthusiasm is running away with you, honoured khan. The default situation is actually the other way round, according to the wording of the resolution; both the Dacari government and anyone dumb enough to send diplomats there have to agree to it before the diplomats get immunity.

Oh, you can already abuse Fair Criminal Trial to do that, Ambassador :)


I'm afraid your enthusiasm is running away with you, honoured khan. The default situation is actually the other way round, according to the wording of the resolution; both the Dacari government and anyone dumb enough to send diplomats there have to agree to it before the diplomats get immunity.


Oh goodness, so it is, we thank the most noble and honoured Ambassador Coch for correcting our mistake.

Our minds have been elsewhere of late and we fear this has clouded our apprehension.

In any event the statute is a good statute, and most of the opposition to it has been ludicrous gibberish concocted by the minds of sociopathic pre-adolescents in our opinion. To vote against this statute on such imbecilic advice would be an act of gross dereliction and folly.


yours e.t.c.,

I am new to this, so feel free to educate me. I like the rule, but what provisions in the game allow for political ambassadorial actions and responsibilities, or the conducting and detection of routine covert or subversive activities?

Given some construct for developing and maintaining ambassadors, and some gaming structure for the activities we all know they engage in, I do not see a reason to consider such a regulation in the confines of the game.

I am new to this, so feel free to educate me. I like the rule, but what provisions in the game allow for political ambassadorial actions and responsibilities, or the conducting and detection of routine covert or subversive activities?

Given some construct for developing and maintaining ambassadors, and some gaming structure for the activities we all know they engage in, I do not see a reason to consider such a regulation in the confines of the game.

OOC: Basically? Roleplaying is the issue. The World Assembly is primarily set up in such a way that it applies to the roleplaying community that's active in the game. Admittedly, for some people this resolution has no actual effect.

Good day, Delegates.

The Delegate of Kross Karme would like to remind all the delegates here in the Word Assembly that the protection of Diplomats, Consuls, Ambassadors and all other related officers is recognized by both customary international law and the general principles of international law.

As such, this resolution need not be voted for nor should have been drafted in the first place.

I urge the assembly to shift their focus on other more pressing issues than this one.

Thank you, Chair.

Good day, Delegates.

The Delegate of Kross Karme would like to remind all the delegates here in the Word Assembly that the protection of Diplomats, Consuls, Ambassadors and all other related officers is recognized by both customary international law and the general principles of international law.

As such, this resolution need not be voted for nor should have been drafted in the first place.

I urge the assembly to shift their focus on other more pressing issues than this one.

Thank you, Chair.


Which customary international laws and general principles of same is the honoured Ambassador refering to? As yet no such customary laws or principles have been agreed upon by this body and as such these customs and principles have no legal standing hence the need for this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Those Who Walk Alone believe that all people ALL people are subject to the law. It only serves to breed mistrust of ambassadors and diplomats and allows them to act without thought or regard for consequences if they are granted immunity from prosecution. This creates prime conditions for either improprieties on the part of the diplomat or the perception of such by the host nation. Both have severe remifications!

Just as ignorance of a law while visiting a foreign land does not serve as an excuse for breaking the law, neither should simply working for the government.

There is an old saying my mother taught me that springs from our rich gambling heritage: Always play by the house rules or go home.

The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone can not and will not support this measure. We will never grant nor accept diplomatic immunity.

We vote NO!

Good day, Delegates.

The Delegate of Kross Karme would like to remind all the delegates here in the Word Assembly that the protection of Diplomats, Consuls, Ambassadors and all other related officers is recognized by both customary international law and the general principles of international law.

As such, this resolution need not be voted for nor should have been drafted in the first place.

I urge the assembly to shift their focus on other more pressing issues than this one.

Thank you, Chair.

I can assure you that no such custom or law existed at the time this was first drafted and that such still does not. After all, at the time, I was the one who did most of the research. One of the advantages of my previous position. The necessity of this, given the lack of any already in place, thus becomes obvious.

Those Who Walk Alone believe that all people ALL people are subject to the law. It only serves to breed mistrust of ambassadors and diplomats and allows them to act without thought or regard for consequences if they are granted immunity from prosecution. This creates prime conditions for either improprieties on the part of the diplomat or the perception of such by the host nation. Both have severe remifications!

Except, as the resolution notes, they're not immune from prosecution. Only the host nation may not prosecute, and only if both nations agree to diplomatic immunity. If diplomatic immunity is not in play, then you are free to prosecute at will. And even if it is, you can still have the diplomat's home nation or some other nation do the prosecuting (note the diplomat's immunity is only applied to the host nation).

Just as ignorance of a law while visiting a foreign land does not serve as an excuse for breaking the law, neither should simply working for the government.

There is an old saying my mother taught me that springs from our rich gambling heritage: Always play by the house rules or go home.

The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone can not and will not support this measure. We will never grant nor accept diplomatic immunity.

We vote NO!

Goody! That means I can do this!

*moves to defenestrate the ambassador from Those Who Walk Alone*

Now, had this passed already, I would not have been legally able to do that.

Now, does anyone else have a silly challenge that isn't based on the resolution's actual words or is based on not bothering to read all of it?

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Members of the World Assembly I will keep my comments brief, much like most diplomats have so far during this debate. My government thinks this is a good resolution which is finely crafted. In fact we haven’t seen such a finely craft one before. We hope that all other ambassadors work as hard as the Asuka Felna and we commend her work. We think it has a nice balance between international regulation and national sovereignty. When we submit our first draft resolution my team will endeavour to follow her example.

We will try to convince our region to support this resolution and we will try to convince the union of regions we are a member of to support it too.

Yours

Tancred Lionheart
The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Goody! That means I can do this!

*moves to defenestrate the ambassador from Those Who Walk Alone*

Now, had this passed already, I would not have been legally able to do that.

Now, does anyone else have a silly challenge that isn't based on the resolution's actual words or is based on not bothering to read all of it?

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Oh please, like diplomatic immunity has ever stopped us from defenestrating before.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

diplomatic immunity. So we allow our delegates to be criminals. makes no sense to me im afraid.

diplomatic immunity. So we allow our delegates to be criminals. makes no sense to me im afraid.

Well if you're afraid that diplomats visiting your country are going to behave like criminals, don't grant them diplomatic immunity.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

diplomatic immunity. So we allow our delegates to be criminals. makes no sense to me im afraid.


In the absence of any actual sentence structure or point to the words of the respected Ambassador for Cerial we must tell them that what they say, to paraphrase them, makes no sense to us we are afraid.

yours e.t.c. ,

Oh please, like diplomatic immunity has ever stopped us from defenestrating before.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Or hitting them in the face with pies, or even Susa kicking the delegates in the nuts.:D

Those Who Walk Alone;14106051']Those Who Walk Alone believe that all people ALL people are subject to the law. It only serves to breed mistrust of ambassadors and diplomats and allows them to act without thought or regard for consequences if they are granted immunity from prosecution. This creates prime conditions for either improprieties on the part of the diplomat or the perception of such by the host nation. Both have severe remifications!

Just as ignorance of a law while visiting a foreign land does not serve as an excuse for breaking the law, neither should simply working for the government.

There is an old saying my mother taught me that springs from our rich gambling heritage: Always play by the house rules or go home.

The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone can not and will not support this measure. We will never grant nor accept diplomatic immunity.

We vote NO!

Have fun finding allies. Most nations consider harming or jailing ambassadors and diplomats as acts of war. Particularly some of the more unstable and bloodthirsty jeeters found around the NS world.

Its that device on your desk you use to staple papers together, my good man. They're devilishly hard to come by around these parts I'm told.
Excelsior,
Lord Julius


BTW, On behalf of my good friend Senator Sulla, I'm claiming his chairs if he leaves.:D

LOL very good Lord Julius, very good. But yea, we don't like this resolution. His Majesty may be open to negotiating with foreign nations concerning the extent of diplomatic immunity, but we're still considering leaving.

Jose Maron
Dacari W.A. Delegate

I would have to agree with Cobdenia with this proposal. Making sure that diplomats are not sent to commit crimes and get away with them is fine revision.

Throughout the debate, Jaris Krytellin has been sitting at the desk for the Altan Steppes delegation, drumming his fingers on the desktop. His expression has grown more and more pained, listening to the opponents of the resolution. Krytellin is normally one of the politer and more civil representatives in the GA, but the other Altani diplomats begin to look at him nervously. His left eye begins twitching in a previously-unseen facial tic. Finally, he jumps out of his chair. Arjel Khazaran makes a dive to grab him, but misses as Krytellin runs up to the front of the GA.

By the gods, what in the seven hells is wrong with some of you? Do your nations pick their ambassadors at random out of a hat? Or do your nations send people here as some form of remedial education for those who've failed out of your public school systems?

We keep hearing some of you say that you won't vote for this resolution because you don't like the idea of not being able to punish diplomats who break the law in your country. What part of "if you don't give them diplomatic immunity this won't apply" do you not understand? It's like trying to speak to someone who not only speaks a different language, but can't hear or read lips.

Some of my colleagues seem to think that we can amend this thing after it's been submitted. Perhaps a class in Resolutions 101 is in order.

Some of my colleagues seem to think there are already protections in place for diplomats in international law. Can you cite those for me please? Oh, no, wait, you can't. Why? Because they don't freaking exist! This resolution would establish those protections.

But some ambassadors, in their infinite wisdom, conclude that this resolution will make your nations accept diplomats if they don't want them, or give diplomatic immunity if your nations don't want to. It does not do either of those things, which my esteemed colleagues in the opposition would've realized if you'd bothered to read and comprehend the gods-damned thing. And yes, if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic, and I should probably say that too because if your abilities to comprehend sarcasm are on a par with your abilities to comprehend legislation, you didn't get that either.

To the seven hells with this. I need a drink.

Krytellin walks off. On the way out, he looks at Khazaran, who is just getting off the floor. "Nice swan dive," he snaps as he walks out. Khazaran sits back down, unruffled.

I see requirements, prohibitions and one definition of Diplomat, but Diplomat Immunity is not defined within this document.

On that note I vote against, and suggest anyone else with enough sense to read between the lines and notice the lack of defining arguments also vote against until a more revised document is provided.

I see requirements, prohibitions and one definition of Diplomat, but Diplomat Immunity is not defined within this document.

Here's the definition:

REQUIRES that any diplomat granted diplomatic immunity be free from prosecution for crimes, search and/or seizure of personal belongings and belongings of family members and personal staff, search and/or seizure of family members and personal staff, seizure of pets, and search and/or seizure of private quarters outside any extraterritorial property by the nation in which the diplomat is serving
a) A diplomat may still be tried for crimes by the nation they serve
b) If suspected of a crime, the nation the diplomat is serving in may present the evidence to the nation the diplomat is from
c) If diplomatic immunity is revoked, the diplomat remains immune to prosecution for suspected crimes that occurred during the immunity by the nation in which they are serving
d) A diplomat may be detained for nonmedical reasons for 24 hours in cases where they serve a direct threat to the wellbeing of others, such as driving while intoxicated or other similarly dangerous activities, or longer, with the agreement of the nation they serve
e) A diplomat may be expelled from the nation in which they are serving for any reason

Which is pretty obvious to anyone who bothered to actually read that part.

On that note I vote against, and suggest anyone else with enough sense to read between the lines and notice the lack of defining arguments also vote against until a more revised document is provided.

Interestingly, you're the only person who has had problems finding a definition for "diplomatic immunity" within the resolution, and that includes people who have opposed it. Please, read over it again.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Or hitting them in the face with pies, or even Susa kicking the delegates in the nuts.:D

Or for those of us who are really old school, bashing them in the head with a frying pan.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

LOL very good Lord Julius, very good. But yea, we don't like this resolution. His Majesty may be open to negotiating with foreign nations concerning the extent of diplomatic immunity, but we're still considering leaving.

I claim his filing cabinet.

They made me keep the one that fell thirteen stories after the old building burned down.

My nation believes if a diplomat or ambassador expects the respect of his host nation he should show mutual respect to said nation. We believe it is the duty of an ambassador to be a well versed in the laws of his host nation in order to fulfill his duties, and find it greatly disrespectful for him not to follow those laws. It seems that if one were to disobey a law that he or she knew about it should be taken as an insult to that nations governmental system. A system in which that diplomat and or ambassador is trying to establish friendly relations with.

If other nations feel differently feel I am mistaken feel free to correct me either in this forum or by personal telegram. I would really like to hear how any one can justify this act.

My nation believes if a diplomat or ambassador expects the respect of his host nation he should show mutual respect to said nation. We believe it is the duty of an ambassador to be a well versed in the laws of his host nation in order to fulfill his duties, and find it greatly disrespectful for him not to follow those laws. It seems that if one were to disobey a law that he or she knew about it should be taken as an insult to that nations governmental system. A system in which that diplomat and or ambassador is trying to establish friendly relations with.

If other nations feel differently feel I am mistaken feel free to correct me either in this forum or by personal telegram. I would really like to hear how any one can justify this act.

You have a good point. I will be the first to admit that one of the flaws of this resolution is that, ultimately, there are areas which simply require too much legislation for this resolution to fully cover. Those areas were purposefully left up to the individual nations, since it is beyond the capacity of myself or any of my staff to come up with the full list of possibilities for just one of these items.

The area you are talking about is one of those areas partially left up to the individual nations. To prevent abuse of delegates when two nations agree to diplomatic immunity (the fact they have to agree to it is an important part that was felt necessary to respect those who do not wish to use it), they can agree to have the home nation or an outside party do the trial instead. In fact, if a delegate breaks the law in a host nation, they can still be tried for it by their home nation. Considering the amount of trust one has to engage in to even agree to diplomatic immunity, I do not think it unreasonable to trust the home nation to properly sanction their diplomats.

I admit this is not anywhere near as complete as I would personally like it to be. It would need to be at least seven or eight times the current length. But, based upon the variation within the World Assembly, I feel this is as complete as it needs to be, and I encourage all WA nations to add more provisions onto Diplomatic Immunity in their own negotiations if they are using it.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

My nation believes if a diplomat or ambassador expects the respect of his host nation he should show mutual respect to said nation. We believe it is the duty of an ambassador to be a well versed in the laws of his host nation in order to fulfill his duties, and find it greatly disrespectful for him not to follow those laws. It seems that if one were to disobey a law that he or she knew about it should be taken as an insult to that nations governmental system. A system in which that diplomat and or ambassador is trying to establish friendly relations with.

If other nations feel differently feel I am mistaken feel free to correct me either in this forum or by personal telegram. I would really like to hear how any one can justify this act.

Hip hip!

You tell 'em!

Except, as the resolution notes, they're not immune from prosecution. Only the host nation may not prosecute, and only if both nations agree to diplomatic immunity. If diplomatic immunity is not in play, then you are free to prosecute at will. And even if it is, you can still have the diplomat's home nation or some other nation do the prosecuting (note the diplomat's immunity is only applied to the host nation).




Diplomat Asuka Felna

Isn't the point of a resolution to be binding on all parties to the WA? What is the point of penning and voting on resolutions that any member state can simply elect not to follow? Why have rules if nobody or somebody is exempt from following them?

*Lothar of the Hills proceeds to shake a hornet's nest and hurls it at Asuka's head*

Those Who Walk Alone;14109677']Isn't the point of a resolution to be binding on all parties to the WA? What is the point of penning and voting on resolutions that any member state can simply elect not to follow? Why have rules if nobody or somebody is exempt from following them?

*Lothar of the Hills proceeds to shake a hornet's nest and hurls it at Asuka's head*



We think that the purpose of this resolution is to regulate certain outcomes of a particular negotiated status which the diplomats of member states may operate under. There is a secondary regulated status for diplomats at the w.a. Both sets of regulations are binding on all member states where this status is desirable and agreed to on the one hand and entered into by sending a diplomat or other dignitary to the w.a. on the other.

yours e.t.c. ,

Those Who Walk Alone;14109677']Isn't the point of a resolution to be binding on all parties to the WA? What is the point of penning and voting on resolutions that any member state can simply elect not to follow? Why have rules if nobody or somebody is exempt from following them?

Because these lay out what to expect if you do choose to follow common courtesy. Nations who try to impose conditions one way or the other can be told where to get off with a clear conscience.

More practically, it prevents anything much more rigid and inflexible from being passed. Should I assume from your reluctance that you want all diplomats to have total immunity to everything?

.<snip>...Should I assume from your reluctance that you want all diplomats to have total immunity to everything?


That actually isn't might be a bad idea, my dear Ambassador Coch. Some ambassadors I've sent out to other nations, would steal anything not nailed down, then come back later with a crowbar to get the rest.:D However I'll take whatever immunity I can get for those in the diplomatic service.

Excelsior,
Lord Julius
Prime Minister of the Palentine

You know, it seems to us humble people from the little ol' Altan Steppes that the people who complain about this resolution not being binding and inflexible would be the very same people that would complain if it was binding and inflexible. We can't really consider such objections all that worthy of taking seriously under such a conclusion. Just throwing that out there.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

This resolution is a good idea. Implementation will undoubtedly protect our high commissioners and embassy staff from unreasonable acts of repression. Additionally, we will do our best to ensure proper conduct of our overseas staff.

While this legislation is certainly not perfect, and perhaps not even as good as it could be at the moment, it seems necessary for the insurance of international tranquility.

Your resolution just passed! Actually, this is a good one since political freedoms go up.

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to offer its congratulations to the honoured and respected delegacy of Forensatha on their success with this resolution.

May the horde of Forensatha ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours e.t.c. ,

Thanks this wretched reolution, Yxksuuaeo is now Democratic instead our Iron Fist stance that has gained us respect among dictators the world 'round.

Thank you for the congratulations. Now, however, on to other legislation.

His Majesty, and our Royal Senate have decided, we shall not leave the W.A.

We will negotiate with nations concerning diplomatic immunity.

Jose Maron
Dacari W.A. Ambassador

Thanks this wretched reolution, Yxksuuaeo is now Democratic instead our Iron Fist stance that has gained us respect among dictators the world 'round.

Quit bitching, you haven't been around long enough to have bureaucratic inertia set in yet, you'll get back to where you want to be soon enough.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative