NationStates Jolt Archive

I've proposed an act which builds upon the Counterterroism Act, and helps define the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist, whilst maintaining the rights of those engaged in insurgencies

Control of Insurgencies Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Epeiros

Description:The World Assembly recognises that the problem of insurrectionist movements globally are a threat to the freedom and security of citizens of nations of all regimes and sizes. This doctrine proposes that such movements be "nipped in the bud" before they have a chance to spread and damage the lives of all parties involved.

This Resolution protects and ensures

1. The difference between a terrorist and an insurgent, with a terrorist indiscriminatingly attacking millitary personnel and civilians in order to achieve their goals, while insurgents are soldiers fighting an irregular war against millitary personnel of a state. (For the application of WA law to terrorists and terrorist organisations, see WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #25: WA Counterterrorism Act)

2. The recognition of all ethnic/religious minorities as citizens of said state, and the entitlement of said minorities to be treated in the same manner as other citizens, and the prevention of discrimination of any kind, be it physical, economic or cultural.

3. The right of all minorities to an autonomous homeland within the state they reside, so long as said minority have a majority in those regions, and approval for the creation of said autonomous homeland of over 60%.

4. The right of all minorities to an independent homeland, as long as said minority has a majority and approval for the creation of such a state of over 85% in it's homeland

5. That all current insurgencies be immediately asked for a ceasefire for a possible resolution to the conflict in question.

6. That any insurgency which refuses is to be deemed a criminal organisation by the WA, and that any state harbouring or supporting insurgents which refuse a peaceful solution to their conflict are in violation of international law.

7. That a distinction is made between insurgents and the civilians of said minority, and that a failure to distinguish between millitary personnel and civilians on both sides of the conflict is inexcusable and will bring about international retributuion.

8. That any negotiations between a state and insurgents be conducted with a neutral third party and a WA Delegate present, to ensure that the negotiations are fair and beneficial to all involved.

Anything else I could add?

all i can say is that if you stop terrorists/insurgents like the british government did to the IRA

They become like their own underground mafia and that according to alot of people is what is happening with the IRA.

So yes it will be beneficial but the aftermath could be just as damaging

Yep, I know, I'm from Northern Ireland, and the IRA are now basically the Mafia with Rocket Launchers. But NI is safer than it was before the Good Friday agreement.

well nice to meet you mate.

yes it is a lot safer, i know lots of people from ireland and N.Ireland. I even know one person who admitted to me that he was involved with the IRA but not actually a part of it.

But to be honest if other insurgents were to do what the IRA did then we will see once again a huge era of corruption and "gangland" killings.

well nice to meet you mate.


Same to you.


But to be honest if other insurgents were to do what the IRA did then we will see once again a huge era of corruption and "gangland" killings.

The IRA fed (and still feeds) off oppression against the Catholics. Support for them increased massively after Bloody Sunday and the Hunger Strike, because if there's nothing suppressing the Catholics, then there's nothing to fight against. Unfortunately, the UK Gov didn't realise that, and let it grow to the point that it's now going to be very hard to eradicate, simply because of the amount of influence it wields, and past contacts it can contact (Plus ignorant Irish-American Businessmen; I wonder how they'd react if some Anglo-Pakistani Businessman had helped finance 9/11?)

well mate in england there is a party which do encriminate and possibly kill Pakistani' or anyone of asian blood they are known as the BNP.

Well, back on topic.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how this might be improved?

This should be marketed as a separate proposal, rather than a follow-up one, as it deals with a completely different subject. Furthermore, as a nuance, you should style and write this proposal in a way that matches other resolutions. Currently, the wording here is rather informal. You also do not need to make references to past resolutions; if a 'terrorist' is defined in a resolution, and it is not stated that it applies only to that resolution, then (unless I am horribly mistaken) the definition applies to all resolutions dealing with terrorists.

I have some question regarding content, though. Is the proposal attempting to grant permission to minorities to create their own sovereign states within a nation? If so, then I highly doubt that this proposal will get far. If not, then rewording is in order.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The Fair Nation of Novisfarna agrees with its most esteemed colleague from Glen-Rhodes. A formal definition and separation of the terms "insurgent" and "terrorist" is certainly a worthy goal, but not if it comes with the rather problematic clause of allowing each village to become an "autonomous homeland" if they feel like it. Separatists have, more often than not, little strength for their claims other than petty campanilism, and offering them an official way of splintering a Soverign Nation would be very deleterious. Therefore, we must humbly advise to amend the proposal.

Socrates Theophobos
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Republic of Novisfarna

Nice try. It hasn't got a prayer of being passed, and it's got a decent chance of making matters systematically worse in places, but nice try.

I strongly recommend ditching the reference to the Counterterrorism Act. It might be safe as is, but it puts you firmly on the slippery slope to House of Cards violations like the one Dr Castro just made; if you assume the Counterterrorism Act's definition of "terrorist", you're in trouble the moment the Counterterrorism Act gets repealed.

I have a nagging feeling that this is a lot closer to "Furtherment of Democracy" than it is to "Human Rights".

Oh, and "citizens" seems to be a loaded word to use in section 2; some nations seem to citizenship as an extra status that their nationals have to earn. I don't see the point myself, but they're very annoying in their insistence on it.

This should be marketed as a separate proposal, rather than a follow-up one, as it deals with a completely different subject.

It's not. It is a separate proposal, and I included the definition there to help clarify what I was not doing.

Furthermore, as a nuance, you should style and write this proposal in a way that matches other resolutions. Currently, the wording here is rather informal.

Really? And how would I go about doing that?

Currently, the wording here is rather informal. You also do not need to make references to past resolutions; if a 'terrorist' is defined in a resolution, and it is not stated that it applies only to that resolution, then (unless I am horribly mistaken) the definition applies to all resolutions dealing with terrorists.


Due to insurgents and terrorists being quite similar, I felt it necessary to include a a section on terrorists. However, if it is not needed, I will remove it.


I have some question regarding content, though. Is the proposal attempting to grant permission to minorities to create their own sovereign states within a nation? If so, then I highly doubt that this proposal will get far. If not, then rewording is in order.

If said minority has a long and rich cultural and historic background, if it wishes it means that said minorities could create an autonomous homeland within the state is 60% of the population are said minority and agree with the proposal, and independence if the same qualities are above 85%. Perhaps I should increase the threshold, or remove the independence clause?

The Fair Nation of Novisfarna agrees with its most esteemed colleague from Glen-Rhodes. A formal definition and separation of the terms "insurgent" and "terrorist" is certainly a worthy goal, but not if it comes with the rather problematic clause of allowing each village to become an "autonomous homeland" if they feel like it.


Only if said minority has a long cultural heritage; this does not provide separatists a mantra to create a Republic of Everytown. I should have made that clear.


Separatists have, more often than not, little strength for their claims other than petty campanilism


Indeed, but nationalists have a habit of being irrational, and the harm they can cause can be well out of proportion to the strength they have.


and offering them an official way of splintering a Soverign Nation would be very deleterious. Therefore, we must humbly advise to amend the proposal.


With some situations, there is no other option. If you have an area where 85% or over of the population is hostile to you, you aren't going to be able to enforce your control anyway.

Nice try. It hasn't got a prayer of being passed, and it's got a decent chance of making matters systematically worse in places, but nice try.
I thank you...I think?



I strongly recommend ditching the reference to the Counterterrorism Act. It might be safe as is, but it puts you firmly on the slippery slope to House of Cards violations like the one Dr Castro just made; if you assume the Counterterrorism Act's definition of "terrorist", you're in trouble the moment the Counterterrorism Act gets repealed.

So how should I clarify the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?



I have a nagging feeling that this is a lot closer to "Furtherment of Democracy" than it is to "Human Rights".


Not really. I said all regimes, and I'm not forcing the separatists to be a democracy.



Oh, and "citizens" seems to be a loaded word to use in section 2; some nations seem to citizenship as an extra status that their nationals have to earn. I don't see the point myself, but they're very annoying in their insistence on it.

What term would you recommend?

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Most Serene Republic of Epeiros.

We will absolutely and completely oppose any resolution which includes this right-

"4. The right of all minorities to an independent homeland, as long as said minority has a majority and approval for the creation of such a state of over 85% in it's homeland"

The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench is arguably one of the most ethnically diverse nations in this organisation. It contains hundreds of different races and ethnic groups. Centuries ago our nation was nearly destroyed by nationalistic conflict based on the spurious and wicked notion that ethnicity should be a defining characteristic of national identity. Millions of people died during this internal conflict. It became clear that those who chose to activate the lethal and destructive power of ethnic chauvinism upon the empire of Urgench had no other aspiration than to increase their own personal power.

The empire recovered and introduced a new constitution which radically reformed how we govern ourselves, but all parties to this reform were convinced that the policy of ethnic nationalism must be ended and that a unifying principle such as a trans-racial and international empire was in fact a positive force liable to bring human beings together rather than drive them apart in spite of their superficial differences.

As written this resolution directly abrogates the foundation and structure of Urgench's constitution. We believe that this statute is dangerous and will cause violent strife, mass population exchanges, border disputes, and even ethnic cleansing.

We cannot stress how strongly opposed we are to this resolution in its current form, it is hard to see how any resolution which encourages inter-ethnic and inter-racial discord could ever meet with our approval.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Only if said minority has a long cultural heritage; this does not provide separatists a mantra to create a Republic of Everytown. I should have made that clear.

Unfortunately, a "long cultural heritage" is something vary vague and hard to define. A whole different resolution may be written to assess who has the right to separate and still there would be plenty of space for misinterpretation and shenanigans.

Socrates Theophobos
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Republic of Novisfarna

The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench is arguably one of the most ethnically diverse nations in this organisation. It contains hundreds of different races and ethnic groups. Centuries ago our nation was nearly destroyed by nationalistic conflict based on the spurious and wicked notion that ethnicity should be a defining characteristic of national identity. Millions of people died during this internal conflict. It became clear that those who chose to activate the lethal and destructive power of ethnic chauvinism upon the empire of Urgench had no other aspiration than to increase their own personal power.


Our researchers have investigated The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, and have come to the opinion that the impact upon you will be minimal. Personal, economic and political freedoms are very high in Urgench, and I suspect they have to be for such a diverse state to exist. Note that this resolution is not designed to bring down the collapse of states such as yours, rather it is to force oppressive regimes currently persecuting minorities to stop, and for everyone involved to cease fighting. As your Khanate seems to be a free state, with minimal oppression against any minority (Which I congratulate you on, for having such a diverse country), I suspect that the calls for separation within your components will be very small.
(OOC-Remember that the game is called NationStates, not Federalised Ethnically Diverse States ;) )

Unfortunately, a "long cultural heritage" is something vary vague and hard to define. A whole different resolution may be written to assess who has the right to separate and still there would be plenty of space for misinterpretation and shenanigans.
Of course, but that is why the presence of the neutral third parties will be required to make sure nothing silly is proposed. If a second resolution is needed to address that, I would be happy to draft one up.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Serene Republic of Epeiros.

I personally support the idea. World peace is what the WA stands for so why can't we make it happen? All we have to do is pass a few more of these resolutions i know it is harder than that in real life and there will always be loop holes in every proposal, so why can't we just accept what this person has written in this proposal and just help him a bit on getting it passed?

Our researchers have investigated The Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, and have come to the opinion that the impact upon you will be minimal. Personal, economic and political freedoms are very high in Urgench, and I suspect they have to be for such a diverse state to exist. Note that this resolution is not designed to bring down the collapse of states such as yours, rather it is to force oppressive regimes currently persecuting minorities to stop, and for everyone involved to cease fighting. As your Khanate seems to be a free state, with minimal oppression against any minority (Which I congratulate you on, for having such a diverse country), I suspect that the calls for separation within your components will be very small.
(OOC-Remember that the game is called NationStates, not Federalised Ethnically Diverse States ;) )




Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Serene Republic of Epeiros.



Your investigations, honoured Ambassador were superficial and brought you to completely erroneous conclusions. And you should know that we are by no means the only confederated or federated state in this organisation nor are we the only state to contain numerous ethnic minorities. If the honoured Ambassador doubts the extremely damaging effect this statute would have on Urgench in particular however then perhaps they should read this article-

http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=The_Treaty_of_Derbent#The_treaty_of_Derbent

It seems you are unable to refute our contention that ethnic chauvinism is pernicious and a counter-agent to the peaceful cohabitation of human beings. Whatever the honoured Ambassador thinks the inclusion of such a philosophy in this statute will be the end result will actually be inter-ethnic conflict on a grand scale accompanied by the horrors outrages which characterise this kind of conflict.


We completely concur that the w.a. should protect the rights of the oppressed but not by giving these groups the right to disintegrate the nations in which they may be situated. We therefore completely support the second provision of this statute.

But we cannot support a statute which legalises the actions of monstrous criminals who cloak their unspeakable acts of barbarity in the vicious politics of ethnic self determinism and primitive concepts of race, ethnicity, religion e.t.c. and how these factors interact with national self conception.


We will oppose this resolution as a direct violation of our constitution but more because it is a racist's and ethnic cleanser's charter. Remove the provisions in question and we will support a statute which will genuinely and effectively address the plight of persecuted minorities.

Yours e.t.c. ,



O.O.C. Oh and don't patronise me either. The reason my nation's Ambassador is making these points with reference to Urgench is because they are a good way of illustrating some of the truly terrible aspects of your resolution. You should be prepared to take advice from other players during the drafting process, negative or positive though it may be and remember that this is an international organisation with thousands of different kinds of state within it which your resolution should try to involve and be sensitive to. Unless you genuinely believe that ethnic chauvinism and inter-ethnic competition are morally justifiable that is. Oh and I don't do O.O.C. very often at the w.a. so this isn't me opening a debate out of character, that's for General discussions. U.

This resolution is not designed to encourage nationalism or the harm it can bring. It is designed to bring about a peaceful solution to conflicts already in progress. Perhaps a clause should be introduced saying that it only applies to currently active wars, so as not encourage separatism.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for The Serene Republic of Epeiros

OOC: I wasn't trying to patronise you. I was just making a quip, and I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. Neither am I a supporter of nationalism; it is capable, and responsible for most of the ugly things that happened during the 20th century. However, in certain situations, the idea of nationalism has already taken root, and it is impossible to reconcile the two sides (Kosovo, and South Ossetia are a good examples). I know from personal experience the damage nationalism can bring (As I mentioned before, I'm from Northern Ireland), and I would hate to think that this resolution makes it sound like I'm encouraging it.

This resolution is not designed to encourage nationalism or the harm it can bring. It is designed to bring about a peaceful solution to conflicts already in progress. Perhaps a clause should be introduced saying that it only applies to currently active wars, so as not encourage separatism.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for The Serene Republic of Epeiros

OOC: I wasn't trying to patronise you. I was just making a quip, and I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. Neither am I a supporter of nationalism; it is capable, and responsible for most of the ugly things that happened during the 20th century. However, in certain situations, the idea of nationalism has already taken root, and it is impossible to reconcile the two sides (Kosovo, and South Ossetia are a good examples). I know from personal experience the damage nationalism can bring (As I mentioned before, I'm from Northern Ireland), and I would hate to think that this resolution makes it sound like I'm encouraging it.


The gulf between what a statute may be intended to do and what it actually does can be vast honoured Ambassador. You may well have no intention of encouraging inter-ethnic conflict ( and we are prepared to believe you on that point ) but your resolution as written would have the effect of pouring an excellerant on the simmering coals of of humanity's tendency towards tribalism and group think.

If your resolution were re-written to simply allow groups to seek arbitration of their disputes and an end to persecution of minorities then we could support it wholeheartedly. But allowing any group the unfettered right to claim nationhood on almost any basis would undermine the fabric of most of the member states of this organisation.

What constitutes an actual minority in this context in any case? And what would be a sensible criteria for the foundation of a state? For instance in the Confederated Sublime Khanate it is possible to be simultaneously, Urgenchi, Khwarizmian, Tadjik, Mongol speaking, Nestorian Christian, and a citizen of the city of Constantinople. Which of these is a sound identity to build one's nationality upon honoured Ambassador ? If this citizen of the Empire and their family living in a locale in which they formed 85% of the population decided they felt persecuted for any of these identities would it be OK for them to proclaim their street a separate nation honoured Ambassador?


We offer these instances and questions because as written they would become very very pertinent indeed if this resolution were ever passed in to law.

We should point out that unless you make it perfectly clear in the wording of the resolution that this statute only deals with current conflicts or even more specific situations then its effect will be universal and ongoing.

Yours e.t.c. ,

After considering your proposal, I am inclined to agree. However, it should be made clear that only the independence and autonomous clauses will be solely retroactive, and that the other clauses will be ongoing. And again, if this needs to be split into two separate resolutions, to help clarify the definition of "long cultural heritage", then I would be happy to draw them up, with input from ethnically diverse states like yours.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Most Serene Republic of Epeiros

After considering your proposal, I am inclined to agree. However, it should be made clear that only the independence and autonomous clauses will be solely retroactive, and that the other clauses will be ongoing. And again, if this needs to be split into two separate resolutions, to help clarify the definition of "long cultural heritage", then I would be happy to draw them up, with input from ethnically diverse states like yours.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Most Serene Republic of Epeiros


This certainly satisfies our specific concerns, there are no current secessionist disputes going on within the Empire therefore retro-activating the clauses on autonomy and independence would leave us unaffected. However the honoured delegation of Epeiros will still face substantial opposition from other states with current disputes of this nature.

We will be glad to offer you our assistance on a more broadly based statute which would cover the rights of minorities within the context of individual self determination, we are currently working on an anti-discrimination statute which would cover this kind of thing. We would be glad of advice or help in including some of the ideas the honoured Ambassador for Epeiros is positing.

You can find our statute here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567124


Yours e.t.c. ,

Excellent. I'd like to remind all delegates that the purpose of this act is to reduce conflict and harm, not encourage it. Should any states disagree with that principle, then they can expect considerable opposition.
The Epeirote government thanks the delegate from Urgench for their assistance, and we would be honoured to help you with your act regarding the protection of minority groups; our (new) researchers are currently investigating the act, looking for loopholes etc. However, we feel that at least one separate bill is required to end civil wars and rebellions globally, and we hope that the Delegate from Urgench understands that.

Anthony Martin
Foreign Minister for the Most Serene Republic of Epeiros.

I strongly recommend ditching the reference to the Counterterrorism Act. It might be safe as is, but it puts you firmly on the slippery slope to House of Cards violations like the one Dr Castro just made; if you assume the Counterterrorism Act's definition of "terrorist", you're in trouble the moment the Counterterrorism Act gets repealed.
So how should I clarify the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?
The way you're doing it is fine from a legal point of view; you can define terms however you like for the purposes of your resolution, or even leave them undefined if you think they're safe enough from misinterpretation. The important thing is not to rely on definitions in another resolution.

You might want to think whether rephrasing it would throw the rest of your resolution into better focus. At first sight it looks like a terrorism proposal rather than a seccessionism one.

I have a nagging feeling that this is a lot closer to "Furtherment of Democracy" than it is to "Human Rights".
Not really. I said all regimes, and I'm not forcing the separatists to be a democracy.
Ah, that's a common mistake to make. "Furtherment of Democracy" means improving the political rights of people, and doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with democracy. In this case we're definitely talking about political rights, so I'm more and more inclined to think it's the correct category.

Oh, and "citizens" seems to be a loaded word to use in section 2; some nations seem to citizenship as an extra status that their nationals have to earn. I don't see the point myself, but they're very annoying in their insistence on it.
What term would you recommend?
Nationals? Residents?

I'd like to remind all delegates that the purpose of this act is to reduce conflict and harm, not encourage it. Should any states disagree with that principle, then they can expect considerable opposition.
I agree with the principle all right, however I'm not at all convinced that the proposal as it stands won't do the exact opposite. Any hiving off of cultural homelands for recognisable minorities is going to create another cultural minority, those who regard the original nation as their homeland and resent no longer being in it. If you divide down again to satisfy them, you'll have enclaves of the original minority again. Carry on for long enough and you can alternate which nation consecutive houses are in down a street, which is clearly a pretty futile state of affairs.

The way you're doing it is fine from a legal point of view; you can define terms however you like for the purposes of your resolution, or even leave them undefined if you think they're safe enough from misinterpretation. The important thing is not to rely on definitions in another resolution.

Of course. So, should I copy the definition of terrorist from resolution #25?


You might want to think whether rephrasing it would throw the rest of your resolution into better focus. At first sight it looks like a terrorism proposal rather than a seccessionism one.

I will draft another version of the act for tomorrow, and any comments would be graciously appreciated.


Ah, that's a common mistake to make. "Furtherment of Democracy" means improving the political rights of people, and doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with democracy. In this case we're definitely talking about political rights, so I'm more and more inclined to think it's the correct category.

Thank you for the advice. Epeiros is still relatively young on the world stage.


I agree with the principle all right, however I'm not at all convinced that the proposal as it stands won't do the exact opposite. Any hiving off of cultural homelands for recognisable minorities is going to create another cultural minority, those who regard the original nation as their homeland and resent no longer being in it. If you divide down again to satisfy them, you'll have enclaves of the original minority again. Carry on for long enough and you can alternate which nation consecutive houses are in down a street, which is clearly a pretty futile state of affairs.
The act has been amended so that it is retroactive, so that no further secessions will take place. Considering that the populace must be up to 85% of the original minority, and presumably conducted via referendum, this means that towns and villages which do not have a majority of the original minority will not choose to secede. Also, we should take into account that in the presence of today's nationalism, an terrible side effect of such wars involves ethnic cleansing; this means that ethnic distribution after such conflicts tends to be in largely unbroken segments, thus generally reducing the chances of enclaves. In the event that there are large enclaves, there's always the possibility of corridors (OOC: As in Gorazde, in Bosnia), or if the Enclaves are too big/far away from the "mainland" there may be no choice but to accept it as an enclave (OOC: As in Nakhchivan, in Azerbaijan.)
(OOC: I'm trying to be as careful as possible with my wording there; ethnic cleansing is obviously absolutely horrific [Just read Safe Area Gorazde by Joe Sacco if you don't believe me], so I'm trying to present it in as neutral a way as possible. I'm not being cold hearted.)

The act has been amended so that it is retroactive, so that no further secessions will take place. Considering that the populace must be up to 85% of the original minority, and presumably conducted via referendum, this means that towns and villages which do not have a majority of the original minority will not choose to secede. Also, we should take into account that in the presence of today's nationalism, an terrible side effect of such wars involves ethnic cleansing; this means that ethnic distribution after such conflicts tends to be in largely unbroken segments, thus generally reducing the chances of enclaves. In the event that there are large enclaves, there's always the possibility of corridors (OOC: As in Gorazde, in Bosnia), or if the Enclaves are too big/far away from the "mainland" there may be no choice but to accept it as an enclave (OOC: As in Nakhchivan, in Azerbaijan.)
(OOC: I'm trying to be as careful as possible with my wording there; ethnic cleansing is obviously absolutely horrific [Just read Safe Area Gorazde by Joe Sacco if you don't believe me], so I'm trying to present it in as neutral a way as possible. I'm not being cold hearted.)




Honoured Ambassador formulating laws for this organisation based on lessons learnt from the mythical "Real World" is a Sisyphean task. The NS world is both more complicated and less so at the same time. In general it is best to approach legislative formulation here with fewer preconceptions about "human nature" especially since not all member states are majority human in population and some are completely non-human and many of the human states are radically advanced or regressed in culture and society. The best resolutions make allowance for the current legal framework of the w.a. and are as broad in their conception of their chosen issue as possible and as focused in addressing it as possible.


Yours e.t.c. ,