NationStates Jolt Archive

Current revision:

WHEREAS genocide is a most reprehensible crime and an affront to civilisation itself;

CONVINCED that no circumstance can justify the commission of genocide; and,

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent and punish acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.


-ORIGINAL POST-

I said I'd do it, so here it is:


Convention Against Genocide
Category: Human Rights, mild

WHEREAS genocide is a most reprehensible crime and an affront to civilisation itself;

CONVINCED that no circumstance can justify the commission of genocide; and,

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent and punish acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, or an innate characteristic.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide, and deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide; member nations shall also have the right to intervene in other nations to prevent acts of genocide from taking place.

3. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are punishable acts, and the prosecution of and punishment for any of these offences is within the jurisdiction of any nation, and may be prosecuted and punished by any nation.

4. Genocide and its associated crimes as described in section 3 may not be considered political crimes for the purpose of extradition proceedings.

5. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the most harsh penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

6. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sentient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

Going too far? Not far enough? I'm open to dialogue, particularly with regard to the potential implications of sections 2 and 3.

Our thoughts, honored ambassador:

1.2: Perhaps we should include the forcible destruction of a unique people's culture in here. That is, one method of genocide is to not only kill members of a group but to kill members of a group that practice their traditional religions or culture, thereby causing the destruction of a religion/cultural group, and often ethnicities as well.

5: Here we could add a further caveat: those convicted of genocide must be guarenteed to never be able to rise to power again. Different nations have different justice systems, but for most nations this will mean either life imprisonment or the death penalty. Word this how you will, I just do not want the United Commonwealth of Lightpunishers letting a genocidal murderer free after five years.

6: Perhaps necessary, but could be tough. What rights are we talking about here?

All in all, a good start on a necessary resolution!

A few random comments.

Mild? For a resolution against genocide?

While I know you're using the 'included but not limited to' construction, the omission of rape as a means of genocide is particularly glaring.

And I think 2 and 3 are much too broad. An unrestricted right to intervention will be abused; similarly with such expansive court powers. It might be better, as under the UN, to have an international tribunal capable of making rulings, though I know the Pretenama Panel was not without its problems.

Oh, and don't use 'sentient beings', use 'people' or 'persons'.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

"Freedom from arbitrary slaughter is the most fundamental right there is, because the dead would generally find it EXTREMELY difficult to exercise any other rights, and the High Council of Clans therefore accepts that it is an important enough matter for legislation against it to over-ride national sovereignty in this way. Some of our ancestors had to face or flee such persecution, and so we already have a nationally-accepted law on the subject despite the fact that we wouldn't behave in that way ourselves. The only point in your current draft that I would suggest changing is in clause #6, where I would use the term 'sapient' instead of 'sentient'."

*(thinks)*

"Should this proposal also consider the possibility of 'negligent genocide', that is to say the destruction of some important aspect of a sapient people's home environment that is carried out without due consideration for their survival?
And what about the problem of any types of sapient beings who are innately hostile to other peoples? My people did had to face a species of that type in the distant past, namely the Chaos-tainted 'Wulfen', and exterminating it was apparently the only way possible to keep its members from continuing with attempted genocide themselves..."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

5. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the most harsh penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.
The harshest penalty that can only be possible is life imprisonment without parole at the very least, since genocide is a very serious and worse than ordinary murder.

I note that some nations may not have life sentences in force for any crimes. It can be observed that some states impose a minimum tariff before parole: this should be denied to perpetrators of genocide.

Erm, reading it through, it doesn't actually ban genocide. It just mandates punishment for those that do. Surely banning it would circumvent the need to worry about punishment?

Erm, reading it through, it doesn't actually ban genocide. It just mandates punishment for those that do. Surely banning it would circumvent the need to worry about punishment?


Well surely banning it is a waste of time?! If a country is going to do it then they're going to do it no matter what. They're going to get punished either way.

Ambassador Ó Se

They can't, WA nations are automatically in compliance, and can't be in non-compliance

You could ban and prosecute at the same time. We do need some justice for the victims.

But if you ban it, there won't be any victims - surely a better solution?

As far as I'm aware, one cannot legislate for non-compliance, as non-compliance is impossible.

But if you ban it, there won't be any victims - surely a better solution?

As far as I'm aware, one cannot legislate for non-compliance, as non-compliance is impossible.



One can and one should legislate for evasion of compliance, which is always possible even if national law still maintains the fiction of compliance.

In this case it should be pointed out that genocides are not always carried out by the state, but often by rogue elements within a society who do not enjoy actual state sponsorship even if in committing such a crime these elements have served the interests of the government which disavows them.



Yours sincerely,

So basically and roughly,

Genocide is the most wanton and unforgivable crime in the world, with absolutely no circumstances to justify the commissioning of genocide.

The definition of Genocide is: (what Kelssek suggests). Not considered a political crime for extradition proceedings.

Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: (what Kelssek suggests)

The World Assembly, seeking to prevent genocide, therefore hereby declares genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide to be illegal and may not be carried out for any reason by any member state.

Member states are urged to work together to bring to justice those responsible for genocide with life imprisonment without parole at the very least, as well as providing aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide.

Finish of with No.6, as Kelssek suggests.

Yes, but that doesn't require the level of detail required.

Either it's state run, in which case banning it would suffice, or not, in which case all you need say is that they be prosecuted by the state and if found guilty punished

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, or an innate or perceived characteristic.

i think is neccessary in the definition

Yes, but that doesn't require the level of detail required.

Either it's state run, in which case banning it would suffice, or not, in which case all you need say is that they be prosecuted by the state and if found guilty punished



i think is neccessary in the definition



Indeed this would be sufficient in our opinion, so long as states are enjoined to prosecute genocidal civilians.

We say this since we are as yet unclear as to whether w.a. compliance is actually incumbent upon civilian individuals. Naturally the state itself would be in compliance, but is each and every individual in the state who is not a member or an employee of government ?


Yours sincerely,

The harshest penalty that can only be possible is life imprisonment without parole at the very least, since genocide is a very serious and worse than ordinary murder.You know, there's also the death penalty.

Naturally the state itself would be in compliance, but is each and every individual in the state who is not a member or an employee of government ?

There is no way you could force compliance beyond the governments themselves. Nations are required to be in compliance as far as they can enforce, but nations do not always have the power to do so.

((OOC: in NationStates there is really no way the government could lose control over any of the population, realistically. IRL governments often have much less power than is desirable and have to compete with other power blocs in their own country. In conclusion, any resolution would require national governments to follow the rules and to exert their authority over their own people to ensure they follow the rules as well. In theory the government may not be able to control certain elements in their own society and we can write resolutions taking that into account; but in practice any nation in NationStates that claims that crimes are taking place outside of their control are full of something smelly))

But if you ban it, there won't be any victims - surely a better solution?

As far as I'm aware, one cannot legislate for non-compliance, as non-compliance is impossible.
As I read the current draft, it would also let us intervene in non-member nations to prevent genocide there, and to punish any people from non-member nations that were involved in committing genocide, which a simple ban wouldn't do...

((OOC: in NationStates there is really no way the government could lose control over any of the population, realistically. IRL governments often have much less power than is desirable and have to compete with other power blocs in their own country. In conclusion, any resolution would require national governments to follow the rules and to exert their authority over their own people to ensure they follow the rules as well. In theory the government may not be able to control certain elements in their own society and we can write resolutions taking that into account; but in practice any nation in NationStates that claims that crimes are taking place outside of their control are full of something smelly))



O.O.C. OK I know that the only way the w.a. can make its laws apply to civilians is to require enforcement by its member states but is that implicit in w.a. compliance or should it be written into the actual statute, that's what I'm asking really.

As for RPing that a genocide has taken place without one's government's control, surely that is perfectly acceptable if one is trying to be a plausible "failed state" or a poorly developed state for that matter, or one in the grips of a serious armed conflict which has impaired the actual reach of your government's control ?

As for RPing that a genocide has taken place without one's government's control, surely that is perfectly acceptable if one is trying to be a plausible "failed state" or a poorly developed state for that matter, or one in the grips of a serious armed conflict which has impaired the actual reach of your government's control ?

((OOC: That is a very good point. My fear is that nations may take the stance "Yes we are a part of the WA, and yes we abide by all resolutions! Oh, but the rebels just nuked two shanty towns and sold an entire tribe of people into slavery. Oh no!" By which I mean some snarky nation might try to make an end-run around WA compliance by claiming "the rebels" or some such did it.

((In conclusion, I suppose it is perfectly acceptable to play the weakened government. Just not as a means to avoid resolution compliance.))

There are breakaway factions or sects existing in some parts of states that can use genocide as propaganda or to weaken the government. The ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg justify inclusion of provisions of justice proceedings for such reason.

The ambassadors of Omigodtheykilledkenny, please be informed that all nations do not use the death penalty.

BTW, a Massacre would be an alternative name for Genocide.

The ambassadors of Omigodtheykilledkenny, please be informed that all nations do not use the death penalty.

Honorable Ambassador, we feel that it is not necessary to detail the exact punishment of the genocidal criminals, for reasons such as you have stated. We would like to see the harshest punishment possible for this crime, but different nations have different punishments: death penalty v life in prison, for example.

This is why we stated:

5: Here we could add a further caveat: those convicted of genocide must be guaranteed to never be able to rise to power again. Different nations have different justice systems, but for most nations this will mean either life imprisonment or the death penalty. Word this how you will, I just do not want the United Commonwealth of Lightpunishers letting a genocidal murderer free after five years.

With this rule it leaves the actual punishment up to the nation itself, but declares that it must be a sentence that will prevent the criminal from ever repeating the crime.

As I read the current draft, it would also let us intervene in non-member nations to prevent genocide there, and to punish any people from non-member nations that were involved in committing genocide, which a simple ban wouldn't do...

I'd contend such an eventuality would be considered as a resolution that affects non-member states, and as such illegal.


The thingy about compliance of civilians is interesting...

The ambassadors of Omigodtheykilledkenny, please be informed that all nations do not use the death penalty.You said "harshest penalty possible." I assumed you meant that no nation should be permitted to execute persons convicted of genocide.

The thingy about compliance of civilians is interesting...


It is the reason we included the requirement that states enact and enforce the provisions of our statute on discrimination and why we felt it necessary to include provisions against discrimination in civil society as well as those against government discrimination.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I'd contend such an eventuality would be considered as a resolution that affects non-member states, and as such illegal.
No. Although the proposal would obviously be illegal if it actually tried ordering non-members to comply, there's adequate precedent for resolutions telling the members themselves how they should deal with non-members.
Consider WA Resolution #20's clause urging & authorising member nations to attack international pirates' bases wherever those are located (which, as member nations aren't allowed to give international pirates safe haven, would mainly have to be in non-member nations), for example...

Indeed, but it does make things trickier.

My suggestion:

WHEREAS genocide is a most reprehensible crime and an affront to civilisation itself;

CONVINCED that no circumstance can justify the commission of genocide; and,

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, or an innate characteristic, percieved or real.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

3. Member nations are prohibited in perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin there borders.

2. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide, and deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide; member nations shall also have the right to intervene in other nations to prevent acts of genocide from taking place.

3. a) Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are to be considered punishable acts in both civilian and military law,
b) Nations must facilitate the extradiction of those suspected of the crimes listed in section a) to the appropriate authority should they have escape outside of the appropriate authorities control, subject to national and international law. The crimes as listed in section a) may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.
c) In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the most harsh penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

4. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sentient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

I'm personally not sure about 3a) - I can see a lot of problems being thrown up but it. Need to give that some thought

No. Although the proposal would obviously be illegal if it actually tried ordering non-members to comply, there's adequate precedent for resolutions telling the members themselves how they should deal with non-members.
Consider WA Resolution #20's clause urging & authorising member nations to attack international pirates' bases wherever those are located (which, as member nations aren't allowed to give international pirates safe haven, would mainly have to be in non-member nations), for example...

Allowing an attack is one thing (indeed, would be allowed even if it wasn't mentioned), bringing them under a foreign nations legal procedings and subject to WA law (as section 3a seems to suggest) is quite another.

We would be more comfortable with the term "Sapient Beings" in the final article, but naturally feel free to ignore us on this point.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Allowing an attack is one thing (indeed, would be allowed even if it wasn't mentioned), bringing them under a foreign nations legal procedings and subject to WA law (as section 3a seems to suggest) is quite another.
Resolution #20 does that with captured international pirates...

We would be more comfortable with the term "Sapient Beings" in the final article, but naturally feel free to ignore us on this point.

"Persons" is better. It's being used a lot in many resolutions and I don't see why we should drop it.

There is a difference between a pirate captured in international waters by a member nation, being held on that nations ship, and being tried for breaking international law by the apprehending nation - that would be in the jurisdiction of the nation in question. Going into another country, imposing one's own laws and legal procedings, against someone who has committed a crime in the nation in question against people in the nation in question is clearly against international jurisdictional standards.

(OoC: I cannot think of an example of someone being prosecuted by a foreign country by a court without jurisdiction, only in a foreign country by an international court. Hussein was prosecuted under Iraqi law, Milosovich by an international court, the holocaust participants by a tribunal of the military occupation nations, etc. The only way it could be done is through the courts martial, who still only have jurisdiction over military personell in territories under there control.)

I have made an ammendment to my suggested alterations, specifically to 3a) and b)

"Persons" is better. It's being used a lot in many resolutions and I don't see why we should drop it.



No, "persons" is not better honoured Ambassador, it is a term too open to abuse and is in any case a term better applied only to humans. This term may have been used in other resolutions, this does not make it the ultimate term par excellence for all resolutions.

Yours sincerely,

I do agree with the Urgenchi representative somewhat, however, I feel that really the WA should be using "person" in all resolutions, and define "person" as a "sapient being" in some later resolution on the protection of sapients

The Dominion of New Leicestershire thanks the Socialist Commonwealth of Kelssek for bringing this issue to the fore. Naturally we support your efforts.

If I might be so bold, I would like to offer a minor rewrite of the excellent rewrite submitted earlier by the Cobdenian delegation for your perusal. Changes are in bold.

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, or an innate characteristic, percieved or real.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

3. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

2. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide, and deny such aid, protection and refuge to the perpetrators of genocide; member nations shall also have the right to intervene in other nations to prevent acts of genocide from taking place.

3. a) Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are punishable acts, and the prosecution of and punishment for any of these offences is within the jurisdiction of any nation, and may be prosecuted and punished by any nation.
b) Genocide and its associated crimes as described in section 3.a may not be considered political crimes for the purpose of extradition proceedings.
c) In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

4. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of all persons, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

Most of these are cosmetic changes but we did correct some spelling and substitute some terms with terms we felt were more appropriate.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

You said "harshest penalty possible." I assumed you meant that no nation should be permitted to execute persons convicted of genocide.

Offtopic maybe, I've always had a problem when people (citizens of moralistic democracies, of course) say that the death penalty is wrong because "they don't deserve to have a quick death, they deserve to rot in a cell", I mean, doesn't that make us worse then the killer-in-question?

Personally I'd like to see the defendant have the choice once convicted of either, life in prison or the death penalty.

I've never been morally in favour of Prison when its more about retribution and not rehabilitation, the talk about life imprisonment "because they deserve it" makes me feel like we're worse than the serial killers.

Give them the choice.

If they go for the death penalty. It shows how much of a coward they are, and prevents them from being some fucked up martyr in history.

I do agree with the Urgenchi representative somewhat, however, I feel that really the WA should be using "person" in all resolutions, and define "person" as a "sapient being" in some later resolution on the protection of sapients


The pipe dream of defining personhood for the purposes of world assembly legislation lives on in your words honoured Ambassador, while we do sympathise with this dream we are less confident that "person" is even as remotely all purpose a term as it could be.

We advocate the use of terms which specifically outline their object as clearly as possible untill such time as new and better terms come into existence.

For the record we are beggining to think that the term "person" should never come to mean anything other than a human being, and that another term should be decided upon in the future which encompasses all the species which make up this organisation's citizenry.


Yours sincerely,

We would be more comfortable with the term "Sapient Beings" in the final article,

"Persons" is better.

No, "persons" is not better honoured Ambassador,

I do agree with the Urgenchi representative somewhat, however, I feel that really the WA should be using "person" in all resolutions, and define "person" as a "sapient being" in some later resolution on the protection of sapients
This does present a problem. I used "persons" in my rewrite, but "sapient" is more correct if you want to protect all intelligent beings residing in WA nations. The problem then arises of how to (or should we) define sapient.

I think it's best to use "person" if only because it sounds better, but we really need a resolution that defines personhood.

I wouldn't object to the use of "sapient" or "sentient" in this Resolution, but I'm afraid it will open up the usual can of worms that springs open whenever those terms are used.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

This does present a problem. I used "persons" in my rewrite, but "sapient" is more correct if you want to protect all intelligent beings residing in WA nations. The problem then arises of how to (or should we) define sapient.

I think it's best to use "person" if only because it sounds better, but we really need a resolution that defines personhood.

I wouldn't object to the use of "sapient" or "sentient" in this Resolution, but I'm afraid it will open up the usual can of worms that springs open whenever those terms are used.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire




Might we suggest the use of the phrase- " uphold the rights of all inhabitants of the w.a. " instead of person or sapient ?


It has the merit of capturing all "persons" who choose to inhabit the nations of the world assembly in our opinion.


Yours sincerely,

For the record we are beggining to think that the term "person" should never come to mean anything other than a human being, and that another term should be decided upon in the future which encompasses all the species which make up this organisation's citizenry.
Residents? Inhabitants? "Those residing in.."?

Surely we can come up with some term that would convey our intended meaning? I'm thinking it should be enshrined in a Resolution of its own though just for purposes of legality.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: let's not sidetrack this discussion of genocide with a brainstorming session on terms for sapient and/or sentient, but it is something that needs to be dealt with.

Let's not sidetrack it with a discussion of capital punishment either. *glares at Unibot*

A person, defined as any being from a species capable of intelligible, complex and abstract thought.

Let's not sidetrack it with a discussion of capital punishment either. *glares at Unibot*

I think it's something that needs to be discussed for any issue dealing with serious punishment. Retribution leads to Martyrs, and we don't want any genocidal martyrs. I think we need to give the offenders of genocide the choice between life imprisonment or the death penalty. Its a choice that the genocidal murderers didn't give to their victims and one that morally sits right with me, I can't obviously speak for anyone else.

I think it's something that needs to be discussed for any issue dealing with serious punishment. Retribution leads to Martyrs, and we don't want any genocidal martyrs. I think we need to give the offenders of genocide the choice between life imprisonment or the death penalty. Its a choice that the genocidal murderers didn't give to their victims and one that morally sits right with me, I can't obviously speak for anyone else.


Sentencing of an individual found guilty of genocide should be left to the sentencing guidelines of the nation which prosecutes that individual, in our opinion.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Sentencing of an individual found guilty of genocide should be left to the sentencing guidelines of the nation which prosecutes that individual, in our opinion.

What if the convicted of genocide is the dictator and ruler of the nation in question. He/she could make the sentencing as light as he/she wanted.

For goodness sake we need an internationally agreed punishment for genocide. At least Life imprisonment is my best option.

We need to get this punishment problem solved otherwise we're not going anywhere.

A re-write of the New Leicestershire rewrite - you must have been posting whilst I was editig the post!

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, or an innate characteristic, percieved or real.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

3. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

2. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide, and deny such aid, protection and refuge to the perpetrators of genocide; member nations shall also have the right to intervene in other nations to prevent acts of genocide from taking place.

3. (1) Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are to be considered punishable acts in both civilian and military law,

(2) Nations must facilitate the extradiction of those suspected of the crimes listed in section 3. (1) to the appropriate authority should they have escape outside of the appropriate authorities control, subject to national and international law. The crimes as listed in section 3. (1) may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

(3) In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

4. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of all persons, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

My main purpose for this is that a universal declaration of jurisdiction of the crime of genocide strikes me as a somewhat dangerous precedent, is rather unenforceable, and does strike me as going against a cornerstone of national rights.

Looking at all the possibilities, I can't see any problem with this arrangement:

Member nation committing genocide: Can't happen, it's banned

Non state actor in Member nation committing genocide: Member nation must act against it, and prosecute those committing it under there laws

Non member nation committing genocide: We can't do anything about it whithin WA law, but one can invade, and prosecute them under military law

Non state actor in a non Member nation committing genocide: same as above

Genocide committer fleeing to a WA nation: Must facilitate extradition to the authority with jurisdiction

Genocide committer fleeing to a non WA nation: Nothing we can do, nor can ever do, due to WA rules.

we need an internationally agreed punishment for genocide

I'm saying it again, for the last time. (Thank God)

The convicted is given the choice between human euthanization or life imprisonment.

For goodness sake we need an internationally agreed punishment for genocide. At least Life imprisonment is my best option.

We need to get this punishment problem solved otherwise we're not going anywhere.

c) In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

I don't think "we" are meant to be "going anywhere". This proposal belongs to the government of Kelssek and I have the utmost confidence in their ability to see it through to the end.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I like your post Cobdenia, better though. (O.O.C You we're writing while I was finishing my)

For goodness sake we need an internationally agreed punishment for genocide. At least Life imprisonment is my best option.

We need to get this punishment problem solved otherwise we're not going anywhere.

Nothing one can do, really, other than what's stated - harshest sentence possible is the only way. Mandating life imprisonment will go against countries that use the death penalty, and those without prisons. Execution will go against nations without capital punishment. I don't believe the WA should have the right to diddle with nations legal systems, forms of punishment, etc.

Genocide committer fleeing to a non WA nation: Nothing we can do, nor can ever do, due to WA rules.

How about tagging in something, about the WA legally obligated to negotiate with non-member nations to have them extradite the offender in question?

Nothing one can do, really, other than what's stated - harshest sentence possible is the only way. Mandating life imprisonment will go against countries that use the death penalty, and those without prisons. Execution will go against nations without capital punishment. I don't believe the WA should have the right to diddle with nations legal systems, forms of punishment, etc.

We do have the RIGHT to.
Just, do we choose to utilize the right...

I think we need to realize the genocide may take place in one nation, but has a tidal wave of effects on international proceedings. A Person is a Person. No matter what race or nationality he or she is. Why should their genocidal murderers be convicted with consideration of their nationality? Isn't that the point of international organizations like the World Assembly?

Genocide committer fleeing to a non WA nation: Nothing we can do, nor can ever do, due to WA rules.
OOC: Remember what happened [in RL] to Eichmann?

harshest sentence possible is the only way

It makes no sense though that one "maxtopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people because they're bigtopian and for a punishment is given a slap on his wrist and sent on his way. However when a "Dystopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people for being bigtopian, he's tied to a rock and enslaved like fucking Prometheus (a duel allegory, considering he would soon become a martyr for humanity too I'm sure).

I mean, maybe thats just international politics for ye, or maybe, just maybe...its just plain unethical.

It makes no sense though that one "maxtopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people because they're bigtopian and for a punishment is given a slap on his wrist and sent on his way. However when a "Dystopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people for being bigtopian, he's tied to a rock and enslaved like fucking Prometheus (a duel allegory, considering he would soon become a martyr for humanity too I'm sure).

I mean, maybe thats just international politics for ye, or maybe, just maybe...its just plain unethical.

We believe that the punishment should be decided at the national level and should be the harshest possible sentence. In addition, however, there should be a clause that whatever sentence handed out by the nation, the genocide criminal will have no opportunity to gain power and commit the same crimes again. That means no "slap on his wrist and sent away," regardless of the nation's stance on punishment.

A clause like this, maybe?

Punishment of the criminal must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form.

I think its a brilliant idea, Harmonious

That allows for some similarity for WA nation's punishments for genocide, but at the same does not take away from nation's political freedoms.

Yes, that's banning genocide criminals from politics like what, OOC, the Thai supreme court did to the deposed prime ministers after the PAD protests and the civilian occupation of the main airport. That would be a better option.

It makes no sense though that one "maxtopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people because they're bigtopian and for a punishment is given a slap on his wrist and sent on his way. However when a "Dystopian" genocidal maniac kills a thousand people for being bigtopian, he's tied to a rock and enslaved like fucking Prometheus (a duel allegory, considering he would soon become a martyr for humanity too I'm sure).

I mean, maybe thats just international politics for ye, or maybe, just maybe...its just plain unethical.

One can, but I seriously advise against it if you want the proposal to pass. Go in favour of capital punishment, and no country that is ethically against such will vote for. Go for a penal sentance, no nation with capital punishment will vote for (for one cannot go about executing murderers, but not mass murders).

Furthermore, giving one punishment willy nilly sitting in these comfy surroundings is foolhardy. Removing the ability of judges to take things into consideration is an important aspect of any fair trial (although such is not a requirement in the WA at the moment, which equally renders mandating punishment as pointless) If a man was coerced, through fear of violence being inflicted onto his loved ones, into being complicit in genocide, should he receive the same sentence as the sadistic architect of a mass genocide? These things need to be born into consideration when worrying about sentencing, and leads to it being impossible to legislate for in a resolution with a 3,500 limit. The only option is to urge, and frankly there is no difference between urging a specific sentence and urging a non specific punishment - it's only an urge, afterall. Furthermore, it seems to have escaped your attention that someone undergoing trial for genocide may be found not guilty, or not proved, depending on one's legal system. Furthermore, the possibility of what you fear is just as likely with a minimum sentence, as there is no definition of a fair trial on the books, nor is there a requirement for such - a judge or country can just find him innocent for no reason whatsoever. That said, I can't see any particular problem with

"Punishment of the criminal must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form."

Although the wording could be worked on; I would prefer

"Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form."

OOC: Remember what happened [in RL] to Eichmann?
OoC: No, I wasn't even a twinkle in pater's eye in 1960.

However, it was very didgy. Just the Argentinians pretty much decided they were glad to be rid of Eichmann and didn't make a fuss (well they did, then changed there minds). It was very much against Argentinian law, and debatably against international law. In any case, the country in question isn't exactly known for it's adherence to international laws and protocols.

Plus, I really think the original wording will open a mahoossive can of worms, and would be less effective then current, and less enforceable

"Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form."

Thats good.

It allows for a general "minimum" punishment across all WA nations for genocide, how the punishment is followed through can then be left to the national level.

I like it.

One can, but I seriously advise against it if you want the proposal to pass. Go in favour of capital punishment, and no country that is ethically against such will vote for. Go for a penal sentance, no nation with capital punishment will vote for (for one cannot go about executing murderers, but not mass murders).

I was saying something a little different before though, then just blindly convicted criminals with one type of punishment (I promised I wouldn't repeat my idea again, out of fear of redundancy, its up above). It was to avoid the criminals convicted to become genocidal martyrs, and the punishments focusing too much on retribution under the false pretence of "rehibilitation".

f a man was coerced, through fear of violence being inflicted onto his loved ones, into being complicit in genocide, should he receive the same sentence as the sadistic architect of a mass genocide?

Without an international document on fair trials, we'll have to trust that courts work efficiently and justly. We are taking that for granted already without a current fair trial document in place (I believe it was repealed? Correct?).

Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form.

I rather like this little addition. Good work all!

Here are two more areas I feel need some work:

1 (2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

We advocate adding another act of genocide: "forcing individuals to leave the group in such a way as to result in the destruction of the group." (Wording is debatable)

4. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sentient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

Does anyone else think that the "rights" talked about here could be a sticky issue? Last time I checked we do not have a Resolution on the rights of sentient beings.

forcing individuals to leave the group in such a way as to result in the destruction of the group.

Like a politically-forced exodus? Thats a creative idea, but will need clever wording to get around "banning all push factors of emigration" unintentionally.

An attempt... (with some loopholes, for sure)

No member nation may politically force the migration of an ethnic minority or attempt to use mass extradition as an alternative to genocide.

Actually, I was considering more along the lines of taking an individual out of their cultural or ethnic group and forcing them to abandon the culture/traditions/religions of that group, effectively destroying that group without killing anybody.

Forced emigration is another issue altogether, although one worthy of addressing.

Well I figured forced emigration would be what governments would turn to if they couldn't commit genocide, so why not crack that off while we're at it?

Actually, I was considering more along the lines of taking an individual out of their cultural or ethnic group and forcing them to abandon the culture/traditions/religions of that group, effectively destroying that group without killing anybody.

I see, you're talking about cultural assimilation to the equivalent of genocide.

Sorry, what I was talking about, is actually called "Diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora)"
I don't know about you, maybe I'm just an idiot, but its a new word for me,
the difference being exoduses are more collective then diaspora(s).

Wow. I wasn't expecting such an explosion of comment over New Year's Eve. I can't possibly answer everyone's concerns specifically, but let me tackle some of those on the first page in a general fashion.

The reason I went for mild is because (in my interpretation, which may be wrong) strength reflects what changes are actually made, and since the vast majority of states are not carrying out genocide at this time, the change is actually minimal. But I'm not attached to that, so I'll make it "significant" or "strong" if that's what everyone thinks fits better.

I don't want to set a precedent for the WA mandating what a nation's criminal justice system can do. That is why I stick to "urging" the harshest one allowable by law; which in Kelssek would be life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. If the harshest penalty is death, well, I'm not in favour of the death penalty but it's not my nation. If the harshest penalty available is ten years, well, there's something wrong there, but again, it's not my nation. I'm happy as long as member nations apply penalties as severe as or more severe than those given out for murder or high treason.

For the same reason, as some nations believe all criminals have the chance of being rehabilitated but others do not, I do not want to mandate the permanent disenfranchisement even of those convicted of genocide, as much as I personally feel it would be desirable. In any case, you don't need to hold an official position to perpetrate a genocide.

The reason I have applied global jurisdiction is first to avoid the messy and problematic international tribunals which other resolutions have had trouble with, and to avoid getting bogged down in specifics. At the same time, I don't like the idea of those who commit genocide hiding out in third countries and escaping punishment because that country can't or won't claim jurisdiction. That problem isn't fully solved by this, of course, because they can flee to non-member nations, but at least they can't ever enter a WA nation again without risking prosecution.

Actually, I was considering more along the lines of taking an individual out of their cultural or ethnic group and forcing them to abandon the culture/traditions/religions of that group, effectively destroying that group without killing anybody.

That would make the residential schools and the Stolen Generation acts of genocide, which is a little too much in my book. Terribly racist and misguided policies, yes, but not genocide.

Alright, here is a revision, incorporating some of the suggestions:


WHEREAS genocide is a most reprehensible crime and an affront to civilisation itself;

CONVINCED that no circumstance can justify the commission of genocide; and,

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent and punish acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are punishable acts, and the prosecution of and punishment for any of these offences is within the jurisdiction of any nation, and may be prosecuted and punished by any nation.

5. Genocide and its associated crimes as described in section 3 may not be considered political crimes for the purpose of extradition proceedings.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.


The first of my own additions is obvious, when I realised the definition didn't cover campaigns to kill off all homosexuals.

"Best of their ability", I feel is necessary so a nation doesn't close its borders to refugees and say "Well, we're already doing something for the six guys who made it in" while at the same time not obligating a nation to accept refugees if they are simply unable to help them due to their own national circumstances.

I also dropped the right to intervene because I don't think there are really any restrictions in place at present demanding reasons for a member nation to carry out interventions if it so desires. I'll put it back, of course, if there's something I'm missing.

Here is an alternative for non-universal jurisdiction, incorporating Cobdenia's suggestions:

4. (1) Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are to be considered punishable acts in both civilian and military law.

(2) Jurisdiction over the acts specified in subsection 4(1) shall rest with the state or states in whose territory the acts are alleged to have taken place, with a state whose nationals are victims of the alleged acts, or with a state whose nationals are suspected of commiting the acts.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes listed in subsection 4(1) to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in subsection 4(1) may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

I don't know. I still think that "this" is brilliant...
Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form.
It's better than just saying they get the maximum penalty in their nation.

And I would also strongly argue that force emigration be covered in the paper, because if you take away nation's "right" to commit genocide they're going to turn to forced emigration and the WA is going to be swamped with an exodus of refugees. Thats the kind of stuff that leads to a future repeal.

As I've stated before, something like this would help,

No member nation may politically force the migration of an ethnic minority or attempt to use mass extradition as an alternative to genocide.

That would make the residential schools and the Stolen Generation acts of genocide

Residential schools kill the potential (kind of like abortion), the conveyor of their ethic culture they could have been, and in effect devastate minority cultures, if its not genocide, its worse.

That problem isn't fully solved by this, of course, because they can flee to non-member nations, but at least they can't ever enter a WA nation again without risking prosecution.

On one the pages I also suggested that the WA be legally obligated to barder or make deals with non-member nations to have them extradite those pesky genocidal murderers that fled to them.

And I would also strongly argue that force emigration be covered in the paper, because if you take away nation's "right" to commit genocide they're going to turn to forced emigration and the WA is going to be swamped with an exodus of refugees. Thats the kind of stuff that leads to a future repeal.

As I've stated before, something like this would help,


Forced mass migration is covered by this statute if it tends to cause the death of those forced to migrate en masse honoured Ambassador. If this population exchange does not cause any deaths we could not see how it qualifies as a genocide.


yours e.t.c. ,

Assimilationist policies with the intent of eliminating a certain culture or ethnic group by erasing their distinctiveness isn't genocide. It's reprehensible and should be illegal in its own right- but please, let's get our ducks in a row and deal with genocide first- eugenics and assimilation can be easily dealt with in other resolutions.

let's get our ducks in a row and deal with genocide first-

Just saying...lets not leave unintended consequences open to exist, a pile of stranded refugees is not good, this resolution might have saved their life, but I want to protect their way of life too, and in many cases thats more important to them.

Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

Question, is there a resolution about universal aid and health for refugees or even just human beings? Can we deny a nation's right to provide aid to another human being, no matter his criminal history?

I don't want to set a precedent for the WA mandating what a nation's criminal justice system can do. That is why I stick to "urging" the harshest one allowable by law; which in Kelssek would be life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. If the harshest penalty is death, well, I'm not in favour of the death penalty but it's not my nation. If the harshest penalty available is ten years, well, there's something wrong there, but again, it's not my nation. I'm happy as long as member nations apply penalties as severe as or more severe than those given out for murder or high treason.

My argument is, why does one murderer get a smack on the wrist while the other is imprisoned for life merely because of their nationality, there needs to be some constant of justice to be fair across the borders of the WA. Genocide can't be left up to the national level alone, it effects us all internationally. there's something wrong there, but again, it's not my nation Their needs to be a level of similarity and accountability between all the national punishments, to hold justice true, it makes no sense that one murderer has an easier punishment than another because he/she killed the right people, in the right place and time.

Thats why I'm still very much for adding this clause...

Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form.

This would be a suitable requirement of the MAXIMUM punishment for a nation to use in the case of genocide, and would form the basis of a "minimum" punishment for one convicted of genocide on WA soil.

Their needs to be a level of similarity and accountability between all the national punishments, to hold justice true, it makes no sense that one murderer has an easier punishment than another because he/she killed the right people, in the right place and time.

I accept your point of view. However, there is this thing called national sovereignty which we have to respect, and we also must be mindful of precedent-setting. I invite you to consider your reaction to a resolution dictating that you must apply the death penalty without exception for anyone convicted of first-degree murder, drug-smuggling, or jaywalking.

Furthermore, the problem with your suggested clause is that it is vague. It is not clear what exactly is meant by it and it seems to suggest that the only acceptable punishments are life imprisonment without parole and execution. If this is indeed what you mean I must object because judges must be given the leeway to apply sentences in proportion to the crime. It would be difficult to equate someone who was coerced into commiting genocidal acts to someone who happily went around hacking off people's limbs, or to a national leader who personally directed mass murder; and your proposal seems to do so.

Here are some facts on this matter:

1) Any attempt to dictate an exact mandatory sentence for genocidal criminals (hereafter referred to as GC) will fail; the death penalty is illegal in some nations and life imprisonment is too light a sentence in others.

2) This clause:

Punishment of the one found guilty of the crimes as listed in section x. (1)must not allow the opportunity for the convicted to commit the same genocidal crimes in any shape or form.

Some honored ambassadors have been looking at this as a method of dictating the sentences that nations hand out in their justice systems. However, the primary purpose of this clause (and we must not forget this) is to prevent a: nations giving GCs a slap on the wrist, which would furthermore open that country up to harboring GCs who flee there for clemency; and b: to ensure that no GC can climb to power again.

Does this require that some nations will be forced to change slightly for compliance? YES, YES, a thousand times YES! But this is a necessary and important part of this resolution--to ensure that no GC has a "safe harbor" and cannot rise to power. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nations will not have to change sentences to meet this requirement: most nations have either the death sentence or life imprisonment on their books as sentences, and either of these sentences meet the requirements of this clause.

3) I concur with my honored colleagues that we should save assimilation and forced emigration for other resolutions.


SIDE NOTE:

It would be difficult to equate someone who was coerced into commiting genocidal acts to someone who happily went around hacking off people's limbs, or to a national leader who personally directed mass murder; and your proposal seems to do so.

I fail to see why an individual coerced into committing genocidal acts should get off any lighter than a serial/spree killer or someone who "personally directed mass murder." The individual coerced into the act still has committed such a heinous crime that he or she deserves the maximum punishment under law and should never be allowed to rise to power again. Just because the mastermind of the genocide deserves a harsher punishment than the coerced does not change the fact that the coerced deserves the maximum punishment.

I accept your point of view. However, there is this thing called national sovereignty which we have to respect, and we also must be mindful of precedent-setting. I invite you to consider your reaction to a resolution dictating that you must apply the death penalty without exception for anyone convicted of first-degree murder, drug-smuggling, or jaywalking.

Furthermore, the problem with your suggested clause is that it is vague. It is not clear what exactly is meant by it and it seems to suggest that the only acceptable punishments are life imprisonment without parole and execution. If this is indeed what you mean I must object because judges must be given the leeway to apply sentences in proportion to the crime. It would be difficult to equate someone who was coerced into commiting genocidal acts to someone who happily went around hacking off people's limbs, or to a national leader who personally directed mass murder; and your proposal seems to do so.

I do agree, but I feel such a clause will be the only thing that would prevent a rise in calls for a specifically laid out punishment. It's vagueness is, in many ways, it's strength, allowing for national sovereignty - it's not just life imprisnoment or execution, but could be something along the lines of prohobiting them from entering politics, removal of military rank, etc. That said, I personally do not mind no mention of sentencing or punishment, but if it has to be done, this is the best way.


4. (1) Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide are to be considered punishable acts in both civilian and military law.

(2) Jurisdiction over the acts specified in subsection 4(1) shall rest with the state or states in whose territory the acts are alleged to have taken place, with a state whose nationals are victims of the alleged acts, or with a state whose nationals are suspected of commiting the acts.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes listed in subsection 4(1) to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in subsection 4(1) may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

I feel this is a better approach, although I feel that 4. (2) should be exluded, due to two reasons:
1) Deliberate vagueness, allowing for a future resolution concerning jurisdiction, etc. and allowing for such things as military jurisdiction in territories occupied with the specific purposes of holding those accountable (which isn't covered).

2) I'm not overly keen about jurisdiction being attached to people based on nationality - it's usually based purely based on territory (OoC: there were exceptions, such as British citizens in Egypt prior to 1935, but that wasn't really considered cricket, even at the time); there's also to problem of wrangling over who holds the trial, and may mean nations arbitrarily assign nationality to those so they can get jurisdiction.

I'd also like the inclusion of a statement that geoncide is a justified reason for military action - I appreciate it isn't neccessary, but it's good to have.

We're not saying that the clause be deleted about "maximum penalties" being served. We are saying that a clause after that, needs to inform the courts they need to make it impossible for the convicted to commit genocide again. It probably wouldn't change many justice systems at all, and it is a "small" thing to ask of a government, but necessary, if a nation has little more than a slap on the wrist for a maximum penalty than this whole document is pointless in their borders. The clause doesn't specify that the death penalty is needed to fulfil these requires, nor life imprisonment, maybe nations would opt for house arrest, normal life carried out with police surveillance or fucking purgatory, but whatever it is, the murderer shouldn't be able to commit the crime again. The clause is a small but important thing to ask for governments to do, we don't want genocidal murderers capable of killing again, however rehabilitation is surely still allowed on the grounds of this clause (the truly rehabilitated do not kill again.)

I feel this is a better approach, although I feel that 4. (2) should be exluded, due to two reasons:
1) Deliberate vagueness, allowing for a future resolution concerning jurisdiction, etc. and allowing for such things as military jurisdiction in territories occupied with the specific purposes of holding those accountable (which isn't covered).

2) I'm not overly keen about jurisdiction being attached to people based on nationality - it's usually based purely based on territory (OoC: there were exceptions, such as British citizens in Egypt prior to 1935, but that wasn't really considered cricket, even at the time); there's also to problem of wrangling over who holds the trial, and may mean nations arbitrarily assign nationality to those so they can get jurisdiction.

I'd also like the inclusion of a statement that geoncide is a justified reason for military action - I appreciate it isn't neccessary, but it's good to have.

It's true the question of nationality is an important one, because many non-state ethnic groups may constitute a "nation" independent of the territorial state, but I think the problem can be averted if the definition is expanded to refer to "resident national or citizen." I think it's quite important to have a clause designating where jurisdiction lies, because there could be myriad situations where jurisdiction disputes can be used as pretext for war or political gain.

I'm also unsure that the designation of nationality for political purposes is less of a problem, as it will be hard to prove that, say, a Maxtopian national accused of genocide is actually a Bigtopian national. Granted, we could have unscrupulous states doing just that, but you'd run into that in any trial situation and in my mind the benefit of having a clause on jurisdiction outweighs the possible abuse it might hold.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I fail to see why an individual coerced into committing genocidal acts should get off any lighter than a serial/spree killer or someone who "personally directed mass murder." The individual coerced into the act still has committed such a heinous crime that he or she deserves the maximum punishment under law and should never be allowed to rise to power again. Just because the mastermind of the genocide deserves a harsher punishment than the coerced does not change the fact that the coerced deserves the maximum punishment.

Ah. I start to realise what you all have been going on about. I have actually mostly been thinking of soldiers told that certain people are "enemies" and ordered to kill them, and cases of "you will join my army and do as I say or your entire family will be killed."

There have also been scenarios in some genocides where a person married to a someone of the targeted group is coerced into killing their children, by threatening that person or their spouse (or the other way round, being made to kill the spouse under threat of their children being killed). People being put into such situations are as much victims as the explicit targets, and deserve sympathy and help rather than punishment.

In response to Cobdenia, these concerns, as well as the possibility of states having too lax of a maximum punishment, were what actually gave me the idea of universal jurisdiction. However, perhaps you're right and deliberate vagueness with regards to jurisdiction would be good. In consideration of this, how about simply:

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.


I am still uncomfortable with potentially going too far into national criminal justice and punishment, but here is a possible change:

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

This sounds good, although I would just suggest one minor edit: "...those convicted of genocide. Part of the sentence must include measures..." This way there will be no confusion: the former clause is a "strongly urged" to implement the harshest punishment possible, while the latter clause is a non-optional rule about preventing repeats of the genocide.

This would prevent my revenge against the Germans...

This would prevent my revenge against the Germans...
Firstly what do you have against the Krauts?

And secondly, you do realize there are no Germans in this game, after all NS is not RL.

Firstly what do you have against the Krauts?

And secondly, you do realize there are no Germans in this game, after all NS is not RL.
Oh, I'd say there are some Germans. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=Germany)

Oh, I'd say there are some Germans. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=Germany)
Ok I'll give you that, but still doesn't explain why he wants to exterminate them all.

(OOC, explain why Hitler wanted all the jews exterminated or why General Ripper thought commies where controlling minds with their bodily fluids...genocidal murderers are obviously insane, and therefore unreasonable, end of story.)

Ok I'll give you that, but still doesn't explain why he wants to exterminate them all.

Maybe... I'm Jewish? And possibly a little bipolar. Eye for an eye, buddy. East Germany got pretty screwed up after the war, but West Germany still hasn't gotten what's coming to them.

Maybe... I'm Jewish? And possibly a little bipolar. Eye for an eye, buddy. East Germany got pretty screwed up after the war, but West Germany still hasn't gotten what's coming to them.

((OOC: It really sounds like you are talking about real life there, fella. That won't fly here--we only deal with fictional countries and people.))

OOC: Well there are apparently plenty of Germans in both NS and NS2.

Here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=germany

And here: http://nationstates2.com/g/nation/genocidethejews

That one's a bad example, I know, but in reality, I have nothing against the German people. Dondolastan suffered badly in the Great Patriotic war, which has lead it's people and leaders to be suspicious of the German people as a whole.

Actually, one thing about the German people does bug me: Socks and sandals.

OOC: Well there are apparently plenty of Germans in both NS and NS2.

Here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=germany

And here: http://nationstates2.com/g/nation/genocidethejews

That one's a bad example, I know, but in reality, I have nothing against the German people. Dondolastan suffered badly in the Great Patriotic war, which has lead it's people and leaders to be suspicious of the German people as a whole.

Actually, one thing about the German people does bug me: Socks and sandals.

((OOC: lol about the socks and sandals!

But seriously, yeah I know there are Germans in NS. I did not realize that NS history so closely mirrored RL history, that there was a Jewish genocide, etc. So I apologize for my affront!))

O.O.C. There are multiple "histories" in nation states, not all are the same. Urgench's is quite different to Real World history.

If the leaders of Dondolastan could figure out which Germany actually did it, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. So damned many socks and sandals... Lederhosen is something else that pisses of the people of Dondolastan. Is it OK to declare Genocide against Lederhosen?

I'm sorry... We're way off topic here, Genocide is bad and anyone who does it is bad. My people know this first hand and I will be the one of the first ones to act if it is happening.

Okay, here we are, hopefully the final revision before I try to get it passed, maybe next month.

I think I will go for Human Rights/Significant (or whatever the intermediate option is, if that's not it).

WHEREAS genocide is a most reprehensible crime and an affront to civilisation itself;

CONVINCED that no circumstance can justify the commission of genocide; and,

SEEKING to enact measures to prevent and punish acts of genocide,

NOW THEREFORE, the World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

I have no further suggestions. We would support the resolution as stands.

Best of luck to you!

Might we suggest that the wording of this clause - " 4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states." specify that these acts are actually criminal rather then simply "punishable".

The difference is quite profound, and since the following clauses make reference to the criminality of these acts it would seem important to specify that such acts are in fact criminal in responsibility.

perhaps the clause could read- " ... shall be acts of criminal responsibility in all member states and shall be punishable therefore." or words to this effect.


Yours,

Would "shall be criminal and punishable acts in all member states" work?

It leaves out the notion of responsibility but it conveys the point, honoured Ambassador.


Yours sincerely,

<sigh>
Must y'all continue to come up with Human Rights resolutions. I'm begining to get a reputation around here that I'm softer than a sneakerfull of grits.:tongue:
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I like this one. Best Wishes!!!!!!!

Maybe... I'm Jewish? And possibly a little bipolar. Eye for an eye, buddy. East Germany got pretty screwed up after the war, but West Germany still hasn't gotten what's coming to them.

What did West Germany do that was so bad? Being run by the other 3 Allies and the East left to the Russians? Too bad the USSR has ever really gone away though.

What did West Germany do that was so bad? Being run by the other 3 Allies and the East left to the Russians? Too bad the USSR has ever really gone away though.


The discussion of legendary events which occurred in the fabled "Real World" and not in this one are best taken to other places of debate.


Yours,

What did West Germany do that was so bad? Being run by the other 3 Allies and the East left to the Russians? Too bad the USSR has ever really gone away though.

OOC: Probally nothing more than turning a blind eye while 6 million people were exterminated in their own backyard.

Okay, it's time to start pushing this to a vote. One final time, any drafting, wording, definitions, tyops, or other issues?

Great language and will support it to best ability

Delightfully well-written and coherent. My vote as a Delegate is assured, and you can count on me on lobbying efforts.

I have just submitted the proposal and am now in the process of telegramming delegates.

Any WA Delegate who wishes to add their approval can go to this link: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=genocide

Thanks.

We are delighted that you have settled on this course of action honoured Ambassador, we will recommend to our regional delegate that they approve this statute, and we will support it with our vote and our voice should it reach quorum.


Yours,

Quorumyay

I make a point of putting things to votes earlier to have time to discuss them. And I put this to a vote before it even reached Quorum. And I have been sent to vote against and so I have.

I wish to point out one thing though

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders. As we do not know what the word whithin means. I do not see how we can prohibit anything. I am not nitpicking as laws require proper wording (Or just spell check in Nation states)

and there were some issues with 3

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide. If you refer to our government being unable to help perpetrators of genocide .. must you first convict them of such an act? Not simply accuse them of it? And well many nations in my region have taken refugees in for scores of reasons.. We will not risk war to do so.

I myself simply find this resolution 'idealism' rather then something that can be fully carried, out as intended.

Kind regards~

How rewarding it must be for the honoured Ambassador for Wencee to once again find themself in the position of opposing justice and decency.


Yours,

How rewarding it must be for the honoured Ambassador for Wencee to once again find themself in the position of opposing justice and decency.


Yours,

And how.. expected to find the honored Ambassador for Urgench, to be sniping at people whom answer to votes other then his own (I cast a vote for a region not merely myself Ambassador). And to those who can see flaws even in idealism.

Regards

Ah, shit. How did I miss that? Well, I don't think anything can be done about it now, unfortunately. That said:

And well many nations in my region have taken refugees in for scores of reasons.. We will not risk war to do so.

I'm curious to know what makes you think people will declare war on you for taking in refugees.

Well as an example (OCC: I have to go to pick someone up at the airport so this will be quite rushed and not as good of an example as I would like to give)

Side A and Side B are fighting each other Side A wins said conflict. And 'refugees' Are banging at our border many of them possibly being soldiers in the former. Said nation A could easily threaten us with anything from war to trade embargo's to which ever they say fit, if they believed we were letting enemy soldiers and dissents to escape and live freely in our boarder. They may even claim the same 'genocidal' accusations as the, refugees and demand that we return them less we face 'dire' consequences, then one would ask who is even telling the truth or are they both? The situation is never as cut and dry as one would prefer. Likely? maybe not. possible? certainly.

Kind Regards~

And how.. expected to find the honored Ambassador for Urgench, to be sniping at people whom answer to votes other then his own (I cast a vote for a region not merely myself Ambassador). And to those who can see flaws even in idealism.

Regards



Oh the defense of "just following orders", how charming. It is remarkable that your region considers itself so apt to criticise the legislative efforts, idealistic or not, of states which actually have consciences and yet makes no attempt to produce statutory remedies it might deem more realistic.

It is even more remarkable that the honoured Ambassador for Wencee should accuse us of "sniping" when their only stated objections to a statute which bans genocide ( one of the most heinous crimes imaginable ) are of the most insignificant and nitpicking kind.

Does your region have a conscience honoured Ambassador ? We ask since it seems that it has the mythical Spanish Inquisition's attitude towards honoring the letter of the law rather that the spirit.


Yours,

Firstly, your example is of a war, not a genocide. In your hypothetical, this resolution doesn't even apply.

But let's say during that war, State A is perpetrating a genocide. Think realistically now. Why would a nation want to risk more lives and matériel in a second war against another country solely for the reason of chasing down some soldiers, after they have won their war?

Looking at the resolution again, it says if you have reason to believe genocide is taking place, then yes, there is a duty to do what you can "to the best of your ability". Accepting the fact that many nations here are in fact stupid and/or insane, I don't think anyone here is expecting you to get into a war for the sake of some refugees; that would certainly be beyond the "best of your ability" to shelter them, after all, it's hard to take refuge in a country that is at war.

We are under no illusions that someone so brutally malevolent as to carry out a genocide is going to be put off by a WA resolution. The objective is firstly to try to alleviate the suffering by ensuring nations do not close their borders to the victims, and by explicitly stating that it is against international law, and secondly to, as much as possible, provide for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. It's aimed as doing as much as we can do to prevent genocide, to make life very difficult for those who do perpetrate them, and to provide an international basis for their prosecution and punishment.

The only problem I can see with this resolution is in its very definition of Genocide. What happens if many are killed of different cultures or groups? Is it genocide or simply mass murder? I state this merely as an escape route for possible convicted nations of such crimes. They can claim that they never commited genocide because they never targeted a single group but spread their crimes over several. This just me voicing my thoughts out loud...

Why "must" a neutral nation root out all genocide by force?And why must said state be forced to give as much aid as it possibly can? This resolution will bankrupt stable nations, and that money will go eventually to the gun smugglers in corrupt nations.

Genocide is horrendous, but to punish my land for other men's evils is morally inexcusable. You must vote no!

The Jamahiriyastani people are offended that the WA is suggesting its members are not tolerant of cultural diversity. When has this thing called "genocide" actually ever occurred? Or is the esteemed author of this proposition simply labeling the targeting of groups appropriately deemed as threats to national and international security "genocide?"

The only problem I can see with this resolution is in its very definition of Genocide. What happens if many are killed of different cultures or groups? Is it genocide or simply mass murder? I state this merely as an escape route for possible convicted nations of such crimes. They can claim that they never commited genocide because they never targeted a single group but spread their crimes over several. This just me voicing my thoughts out loud...
We would suggest that the view of the commissioning party is irrelevant; they may be the only people capable of making definitive statements regarding intent, but their honesty is far from unquestioned by this point. It is for us as respondent nations to make the determination as best we can, and the definition provides us with clear guidance for so doing. Do we believe that a single group being targeted, and the others simply collateral damage? Then genocide is a fair charge to level. Is there no pattern we can observe that points to total destruction? Then we are "merely" looking at mass murder, not that in our case that would make a great deal of difference. Are many groups being targeted for destruction? Then multiple genocide is being committed.

These are not easy determinations to make, and as you observe they may be subjective rather than objective. They are, however, our determinations, not those of the alleged genocide. Clever aggressors may allow unscrupulous member states to duck their responsibilities as you suggest, but those member states may in any case avoid their moral duties by resigning from the WA.

Why "must" a neutral nation root out all genocide by force?
We have re-read the resolution carefully, and cannot see how the honoured ambassador can possibly draw this statement from it.

And why must said state be forced to give as much aid as it possibly can?
We would observe that "To the best of their abilities" is not quite the same as "As much as they possibly can." If the moral duty to give aid to the persecuted is not clear, we cannot think of a way of rephrasing it to make it clearer.

This resolution will bankrupt stable nations, and that money will go eventually to the gun smugglers in corrupt nations.
We have to wonder at the motives impelling such ridiculous scaremongering. Does the honoured ambassador truly believe that there is so much genocide being committed that the nations of the World Assembly, acting in concert, will be bankrupted? Or is there some darker reasoning impelling this nonsense?

Congratulations! Assuming this legislation passes, the term genocide will now broadly apply to such activities as distributing contraceptives or denying gay couples the access to the adoption of children.

While I don't agree with governments that would deny gays the right to adopt, I would never call such a policy genocide, and at the same time, distributing contraceptives to risk-prone social groups could significantly reduce instances of sexually-transmitted infections such as AIDS (or VODAIS).

I believe this broad application of the genocide label is an unfortunate element of this proposal. Nevertheless, unless I'm otherwise convinced, I'll be giving the proposal my support. The Twafflonian government will just have to creatively interpret certain clauses of the resolution in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield, Twafflonia

The Jamahiriyastani people are offended that the WA is suggesting its members are not tolerant of cultural diversity.

Where, exactly, is the resolution suggesting that?

When has this thing called "genocide" actually ever occurred?

Even if one were to accept your utterly ludicrous assertion that no genocides have ever occurred, anywhere, the very fact that they could happen is a superb reason to legislate against them.

Or is the esteemed author of this proposition simply labeling the targeting of groups appropriately deemed as threats to national and international security "genocide?"

Targeting threats to national and international security is one thing; trying to wipe out whole groups of people is entirely another. But I suspect you know that, Ambassador, and just don't care.

-Irina Misheli, Acting Ambassador

Congratulations! Assuming this legislation passes, the term genocide will now broadly apply to such activities as distributing contraceptives or denying gay couples the access to the adoption of children.

How on earth does distributing contraceptives for voluntary use, or gay couples adopting children, possibly constitute an intent to destroy a particular group on the basis of (what I assume you are referring to) sexual orientation?

well what we really need to do is get rid of the axis of evil

How on earth does distributing contraceptives for voluntary use, or gay couples adopting children, possibly constitute an intent to destroy a particular group on the basis of (what I assume you are referring to) sexual orientation?


Frankly honoured Ambassador we are utterly astonished at the elaborate mental acrobatics which some delegations seem to have performed in order to find fault with what is in fact an entirely decent and highly timely proposal.

We recommend you sit back and enjoy the show.


Yours sincerely,

Current revision:

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.



I see no problem with most of this bill apart from in section 6. As nations are urged to punish genocide, there is nothing specific and nothing that requires them to do so. Therefore, in theory, a nation could be 100% aware of genocide occuring within its boundaries and choose to do nothing about it.

Finally I would request a clarification on a broader definition of genocide to wonder if businesses and political groups are allowed to be irradicated by not being under the definition of genocide cited in the original proposal.

I see no problem with most of this bill apart from in section 6. As nations are urged to punish genocide, there is nothing specific and nothing that requires them to do so. Therefore, in theory, a nation could be 100% aware of genocide occuring within its boundaries and choose to do nothing about it.

And if I had specified particular penalties, you'd be screaming national sovereignty.

Finally I would request a clarification on a broader definition of genocide to wonder if businesses and political groups are allowed to be irradicated by not being under the definition of genocide cited in the original proposal.

No, under this definition that should not be genocide, as membership in a political or business organisation is not generally considered an innate characteristic. However, even if it doesn't meet this definition of genocide, "eradicating" any group is still mass murder, and would still be considered a severe atrocity by any civilised nation.

There is also another resolution, already passed, which says this:

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

and this:

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

*John Croaw, the loud, rude minister of foreign affairs of Aberiska bursts into the room, the copy of the proposed bill in hand.*

"Gentlemen, and ladies, I have been dispatched to express our nation's displeasure with this bill! By the lord, the wordings on this document is a travesty! It'll prohibit nations form, 'taking measures to prevent births within the group.' So, if my government starts a safe-sex campaigne aimed at Bigtopians, some mad country can invade us to stop genocide?

"And another thing, we cannot 'intend to destroy in whole or partially, an identifiable group.' So... uh, what about those Longian Terrorists within our nation? Again, if we try ot take them out, we'll be destroying a 'part' of an 'identifiable' group. Hell, we might as roll over on our backs and give the terrorists the keys for our missiles, for Falcon's sakes!

"And what is with this upholding of 'the rights of sapient beings?!' Those animal rights activitists keep arguing that chimps are sentient, too! Are we going to be charging zoos with Genocide for taking away the young chimps to be sold?

"And just exactly what is 'punishment' mean in 'punishable act'? If a nation is being punished for genocide, what is the sentence supposed to be? No answer, probably, because it isn't written into the bill!"

*He rips his copy and throws teh bits into the air.*

"Why, whoever came up with this--"

*An aide taps Minister Croaw on the shoulder and whisper something about 'ordered to not offend people.'*

"Oh, uh, yeah, right Jim. Thanks."

*Croaw coughs.*

"Anyways, our glorious nation's stance on the issue is that we will not support this bill unless the wordings are tightened to eliminate these ambiguities, such as making provisions for terrorists, defining sapient, and so-forth. Our leader does not care how good the motive of this bill is. As long as it has the potential to be misused by groups seeking our 'destruction' and fortune-seeking, imperializing nations, we will lobby against it."

*John Croaw, the loud, rude minister of foreign affairs of Aberiska bursts into the room, the copy of the proposed bill in hand.*

"Gentlemen, and ladies, I have been dispatched to express our nation's displeasure with this bill! By the lord, the wordings on this document is a travesty! It'll prohibit nations form, 'taking measures to prevent births within the group.' So, if my government starts a safe-sex campaigne aimed at Bigtopians, some mad country can invade us to stop genocide?

"And another thing, we cannot 'intend to destroy in whole or partially, an identifiable group.' So... uh, what about those Longian Terrorists within our nation? Again, if we try ot take them out, we'll be destroying a 'part' of an 'identifiable' group. Hell, we might as roll over on our backs and give the terrorists the keys for our missiles, for Falcon's sakes!

"And what is with this upholding of 'the rights of sapient beings?!' Those animal rights activitists keep arguing that chimps are sentient, too! Are we going to be charging zoos with Genocide for taking away the young chimps to be sold?

"And just exactly what is 'punishment' mean in 'punishable act'? If a nation is being punished for genocide, what is the sentence supposed to be? No answer, probably, because it isn't written into the bill!"

*He rips his copy and throws teh bits into the air.*

"Why, whoever came up with this--"

*An aide taps Minister Croaw on the shoulder and whisper something about 'ordered to not offend people.'*

"Oh, uh, yeah, right Jim. Thanks."

*Croaw coughs.*

"Anyways, our glorious nation's stance on the issue is that we will not support this bill unless the wordings are tightened to eliminate these ambiguities, such as making provisions for terrorists, defining sapient, and so-forth. Our leader does not care how good the motive of this bill is. As long as it has the potential to be misused by groups seeking our 'destruction' and fortune-seeking, imperializing nations, we will lobby against it."



Half the things the respected Minister objects to are already prohibited by the Charter of Civil Rights, and it would behove so high an official to be aware of this.

Why your nation would decide to single out specific ethnic or national minorities within its borders for a "safe sex campaign" and not make this a more general program for all its citizens is mystifying, single out individuals who need assistance by all means but in fact the CoCR already makes it illegal to target whole groups in any case.

As for sapient beings, it would be wise for the respected Minister to further familiarise himself with the other nations of this organisation, some of whom are peopled with talking dolphins, anthropomorphic Bears and supernatural beings. The protection of these races and others is of the greatest necessity if this organisation is to be truly coherent in administering justice to its members.


Yours,

Voting for this resolution would only ensure that those committing genocide are punished, not banning the action. This is an issue because banning the action is not mentioned in the resolution itself, and the closest the resolution comes is stating that the worst penalty possible be placed upon those committing the action. The other problem I see with the resolution is how do you handle all those who are direct and indirect victims of the genocide that have been spared. If these issues are resolved i will rethink my decision on the bill.

Brandon K.
Yanguan

I assume the ambassador from Yanguan has missed the bit that says "member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide"?

How on earth does distributing contraceptives for voluntary use, or gay couples adopting children, possibly constitute an intent to destroy a particular group on the basis of (what I assume you are referring to) sexual orientation?

Acts of genocide include [...] forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group

Distributing contraceptives, whether for voluntary use or not, is undeniably taking measures to prevent births within the group. Even passing laws limiting the number of children a couple may have is undeniably taking measures to prevent births. Passing a law that forbids gay couples from raising children would forcibly remove children from existing gay foster homes.

None of these actions should be considered genocide, yet by the proposals broad definitions, they certainly are. The definition of genocide should have been limited to the attempted wholesale murder of a group. Extending the definition to such minutiae as potential children blurs the definition and distorts the issue.

But as I said, the bill is more good than bad, and retains Twafflonia's support, problems of definition notwithstanding (this is primarily because Twafflonia does not distribute contraceptives, oversee adoption practices, or regulate childbirth, so banning these practices as genocide will have no real effect in my state).

Distributing contraceptives, whether for voluntary use or not, is undeniably taking measures to prevent births within the group.

Or, honoured Ambassador, distributing contraceptives for voluntary use could constitute an attempt to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Or an attempt to improve the health of reproductively viable women who might otherwise suffer the effects of numerous pregnancies.


Even passing laws limiting the number of children a couple may have is undeniably taking measures to prevent births.

And why would a state do this anyway respected Ambassador ?


Passing a law that forbids gay couples from raising children would forcibly remove children from existing gay foster homes.

Yes and it would be illegal under the CoCR.

None of these actions should be considered genocide, yet by the proposals broad definitions, they certainly are. The definition of genocide should have been limited to the attempted wholesale murder of a group. Extending the definition to such minutiae as potential children blurs the definition and distorts the issue.

So the forced mass sterilisation of whole ethnic minority groups is not an attempt at genocide honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

I assume the ambassador from Yanguan has missed the bit that says "member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide"?

Ambassador, I fully understand that bit, but that is not adequate information. You do not provide any mechanisms to make that statement true. I will have to ask you for some kind of solvency to genocide that is better than the assumed statement in quotations above

Absolutely voting for this proposal

Ambassador, I fully understand that bit, but that is not adequate information. You do not provide any mechanisms to make that statement true. I will have to ask you for some kind of solvency to genocide that is better than the assumed statement in quotations above


perhaps reading the statute in it's entirety will assist the honoured Ambassador in their quest for solvency.

It is clear enough.


Yours,

Ambassador, I fully understand that bit, but that is not adequate information. You do not provide any mechanisms to make that statement true.

WA Compliance Ministry?

Cookesland votes FOR

Richard York
WA Ambassador

Distributing contraceptives, whether for voluntary use or not, is undeniably taking measures to prevent births within the group. Even passing laws limiting the number of children a couple may have is undeniably taking measures to prevent births. Passing a law that forbids gay couples from raising children would forcibly remove children from existing gay foster homes.

Okay, but the resolution says:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

Please note the criteria which must exist before an action can be considered genocide. There must be intent to destroy the group. It is not genocide to hand out contraceptives or take children away from an abusive parent, if there is no intent to destroy a certain group.

It is not even genocide if your government notices that (group) has a high rate of STDs and you give out condoms hoping to reduce the incidence of disease. What would be genocide is if you were to give out condoms to (group) because you don't want them to reproduce, or if you took children away from (group) so as to eradicate the group.

But as I said, the bill is more good than bad, and retains Twafflonia's support, problems of definition notwithstanding (this is primarily because Twafflonia does not distribute contraceptives, oversee adoption practices, or regulate childbirth, so banning these practices as genocide will have no real effect in my state).

Well, I'm glad of that and thankful for your support, but please don't assert that it does certain things, when it does not.

Why your nation would decide to single out specific ethnic or national minorities within its borders for a "safe sex campaign" and not make this a more general program for all its citizens is mystifying,

"Look, you skick-talker, if one specific minority happens to be plagued with... what's the politically correct term... 'promiscuous young people' that gets into things they can't handle, and this happens significantly more for this minority, wouldn't it make sense for the campaign to be aimed so that we have the biggest impact on them? You know, bringing out that Bigtopian singer, you know the famous one, and have her talk about safe sex instead of another Aberiskan?

"I don't know about you, but that makes a LOT of sense to me."

CoCR already makes it illegal to target whole groups in any case.

"Great, you just told us can't even collectively HELP our minorities without tripping up some &%%# WA legislation. I'll just go tell that to my boss, that we got to scrap every single affirmative action legislations because we can't 'target' minorities anymore.

"So, if minorities begin to loose their homes because we can't give extra funds or face indirect work-place discrimination, then I guess the blood's on you.

"Ah well, at least we can divert some of those 'criminal' funds to something more reasonable, like defense.

Way to go, Mr. Ambassador.

As for sapient beings, it would be wise for the respected Minister to further familiarise himself with the other nations of this organisation, some of whom are peopled with talking dolphins, anthropomorphic Bears and supernatural beings. The protection of these races and others is of the greatest necessity if this organisation is to be truly coherent in administering justice to its members.

"Look, I ain't saying nothing about talking dolphins and whatever bears you said. I'm just saying, defining things help make things clearer and avoid confusion.

"See, but wouldn't defining sapient be another step in protecting these rights? You know, since if a group claims that the being they are killing aren't 'sapient,' than they aren't committing genocide, as far as this bill is concerned. Unless there is a concise definition of sapient written in another piece of legislation, this bill won't do anything."

"See, you've talked for a while, but you haven't answered any of my questions, just replied with smart-talk that sounds intelligent. You haven't addressed our concerns with Longian extremists... you just said that half of my objections are against the... Civil Code, or whatever it's called. It would be helpful for you to point out just which of my objections are outlawed, instead of me and my trying to guess from the documents."

"See, but wouldn't defining sapient be another step in protecting these rights? You know, since if a group claims that the being they are killing aren't 'sapient,' than they aren't committing genocide, as far as this bill is concerned. Unless there is a concise definition of sapient written in another piece of legislation, this bill won't do anything."

The definition is not going to be up to those who commit the genocide, just as someone accused of fraud doesn't get to decide the definition of fraud. Genocide perpetrators frequently claim or say that the people who are being killed are sub-human or non-persons anyway. Using the word "sapient" is the most appropriate term when many nations have populations of non-human intelligent species, like Bears Armed.

Also, please read the resolution properly instead of cherry-picking phrases out of context. I've already dealt with a similar comprehension issue above.

If I might be so frank, personhood is a very sticky area. Even among those possessing a human genome, there are many with injuries or other conditions that result in an intelligence comparable to animals, or perhaps even a total lack of self-awareness. Dolphins pass the "mirror test," though some humans don't. Are they persons?

"Sapience" is a term that has no clear definition, and sapience alone as a qualification for personhood will result in the exclusion of some humans.

We sorely lack a definition of personhood, and international legislation can provide one. It might be worth considering formally extending personhood not only to all those possessing a human genome, but also the highest orders of animals who might fall short of "sapience," yet who possess high degrees of self-awareness and even the rudiments of culture: the cetaceans, great apes, etc.

This is not the first time we've had this problem. The WA has had a resolution on this very topic previously, but it failed (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Sentients_Rights_Act). I think we can all agree that defining sapience, or humanity or personhood for that matter, is outside the scope of this resolution. That doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit if we also had a passed resolution explicitly defining sapience. For now, it is up to the discretion of member nations, just as with everything else that the WA doesn't have a resolution on.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.
For purposes of this Resolution, what level of evidence is required for "suspicion"?

Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: ... forcibly removing children from the group...
So, if a hypothetical religious group's actions are deemed by the State to be counter to the welfare of the children in the community, removing those children from the community for their own protection can be deemed an act of genocide?

Regarding the previous discussions of abortions, contraceptives, and adoptions, I see nothing that supports those allegations unless the specific, identifiable group is targeted. However, I believe a case could be made that failure to provide medical services such as IVF to a homosexual couple could be defined as genocide ("taking measures to prevent births within the group") regardless of whether the service is otherwise legal. At any rate, I'm sure some trial lawyers will enjoy the increased business as they file class-action suits.

For purposes of this Resolution, what level of evidence is required for "suspicion"?

In my view it would entail the normal proceedings for extradition between nations. A nation would have to make formal charges and make a formal extradition request to the nation where the person has escaped to. Laying down international extradition law, again, is not within the scope of this resolution, which is why it refers back to national laws for the specifics, while still being open to a future resolution specifically addressing extradition - "subject to national and international law".

So, if a hypothetical religious group's actions are deemed by the State to be counter to the welfare of the children in the community, removing those children from the community for their own protection can be deemed an act of genocide?

No, because the intent of that action is not to destroy that group. Again, the determination is going to depend on the circumstances. It would be genocide if it can be proven in court with evidence that "for the childrens' welfare" was only an excuse and the real intent was to exterminate that group. A genuine move to protect the children cannot be considered genocide.

However, I believe a case could be made that failure to provide medical services such as IVF to a homosexual couple could be defined as genocide ("taking measures to prevent births within the group") regardless of whether the service is otherwise legal. At any rate, I'm sure some trial lawyers will enjoy the increased business as they file class-action suits.

No, it can't, because that cannot possibly be construed as an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Homosexuals don't necessarily give birth to homosexual children, for one thing.

"Look, you skick-talker, if one specific minority happens to be plagued with... what's the politically correct term... 'promiscuous young people' that gets into things they can't handle, and this happens significantly more for this minority, wouldn't it make sense for the campaign to be aimed so that we have the biggest impact on them? You know, bringing out that Bigtopian singer, you know the famous one, and have her talk about safe sex instead of another Aberiskan?

"I don't know about you, but that makes a LOT of sense to me."


Respected Minister we are not familiar with the term "skick-talker" and frankly do not wish to be enlightened on the matter, please restrain yourself and do not use epithets of any kind when addressing us in future.

The presumptions in your example are too spurious to deserve detailed consideration, and underline a rather shallow understanding of good governance which would be comical if it were not so chilling.

Suffice it to say that having a an individual with considerable cultural capital with any particular group address that group on issues which may effect members of that group would not constitute discrimination, and would not be illegal.




"Great, you just told us can't even collectively HELP our minorities without tripping up some &%%# WA legislation. I'll just go tell that to my boss, that we got to scrap every single affirmative action legislations because we can't 'target' minorities anymore.

Indeed the CoCR tells your government this not us. By all means address the individual difficulties which an individual citizen may face in accessing state services of any kind but to address an entire group as though the issues they face are homogeneous and endemic is illegal, illogical, and deeply detrimental to social cohesion.

So called "affirmative action" is a deeply morally suspect practice which has not been shown to have long lasting positive social outcomes.

"So, if minorities begin to loose their homes because we can't give extra funds or face indirect work-place discrimination, then I guess the blood's on you.

Address your individual citizens concerns and difficulties and treat them all as equals and your government will be acting in concert with its obligations under the CoCR. Indirect or direct work place discrimination is illegal under the CoCR in any case and would be directly the responsibility of your government to remedy.

We should point out that it is not the job of other delegations sent to this organisation to familiarise you, respected Minister, with w.a. statutes you should already be familiar with, nor is it any concern of ours that on proving your ignorance of your nation's international obligations you proceed to offer erroneous and absurd presumptions in place of considered and reasoned arguments.

There are lists of passed world assembly resolutions, we suggest the respected Minister make themselves at least passably conversant in them.


Yours,

The resolution presently at vote, Convention Against Genocide, seems to us to be inherently flawed; it states that striking at an identifiable group with violent means is defined as Genocide, and therefore against World Assembly law. We would point out that terrorist groups and other such violent extremists are identifiable by a shared belief; it is then Genocide to pursue a police action against them in which members are harmed or killed? In addition, this resolution would prohibit warfare entirely; targeting people of another nationality or belief would be defined as Genocide, thus preventing two nations from engaging in conflict, even if provoked.

The resolution is hardly clear on enforcement; it states to invoke the harshest penalties under law upon the perpetrators, but due to its guidelines it would be impossible to arrest anyone, lest the nation in question be accused of Genocide as well. In short, we believe that this resolution is self-contradictory, and should not become law.

With respect,

The Triumhominate Council of Migdou

The resolution presently at vote, Convention Against Genocide, seems to us to be inherently flawed; it states that striking at an identifiable group with violent means is defined as Genocide, and therefore against World Assembly law. We would point out that terrorist groups and other such violent extremists are identifiable by a shared belief; it is then Genocide to pursue a police action against them in which members are harmed or killed? In addition, this resolution would prohibit warfare entirely; targeting people of another nationality or belief would be defined as Genocide, thus preventing two nations from engaging in conflict, even if provoked.

The resolution is hardly clear on enforcement; it states to invoke the harshest penalties under law upon the perpetrators, but due to its guidelines it would be impossible to arrest anyone, lest the nation in question be accused of Genocide as well. In short, we believe that this resolution is self-contradictory, and should not become law.

With respect,

The Triumhominate Council of Migdou

Textual study seems not to have been in the curriculum of the Ambassador's education; I humbly suggest that he read the resolution again, and carefully, and then return to the debate with a better understanding of the text. The twisted acrobatic argument makes no legal sense in the context of international law.

Beyond this, the Imperial Council has not yet authored a suggestion for the Dangjin Huangshang in the consideration of this bill for the Great Jin; thought I am personally in support of such legislation being enacted in the Empire the Council may feel differently.

Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

Why your nation would decide to single out specific ethnic or national minorities within its borders for a "safe sex campaign" and not make this a more general program for all its citizens is mystifying,Maybe because there are considerable differences in the current birth-rates of different groups? There are, after all, sapient Rabbits somewhere around...

The only part that I really disagree with is the section forcing member states to take action against perpetrators (sp?) of genocide.

I fully agree with this proposal, but I think we should add on to it. We should stop the ideas of genocide before they are formed. Such as a religous education program in schools, I mean most genocidal conflicts come from religous disputs; maybe if someone would endorse me I could write up a proposal for such a progam.

The Lord Bishop of the Holy republic of Eduro,
Lord Lux

In my view it would entail the normal proceedings for extradition between nations. A nation would have to make formal charges and make a formal extradition request to the nation where the person has escaped to. Laying down international extradition law, again, is not within the scope of this resolution, which is why it refers back to national laws for the specifics, while still being open to a future resolution specifically addressing extradition - "subject to national and international law".
This resolution will require member nations to "facilitate" extradition of those "suspected" of the crime. If each nation gets to decide for itself what "suspicion" means, then it is wide open for abuse. If nation A decides that it "suspects" the family of nation B's prime minister of genocide, nation B would be required to facilitate extradition, or be in violation of this resolution. That nation A is only seeking to gain hostages is irrelevant to the resolution.

No, because the intent of that action is not to destroy that group. Again, the determination is going to depend on the circumstances. It would be genocide if it can be proven in court with evidence that "for the childrens' welfare" was only an excuse and the real intent was to exterminate that group. A genuine move to protect the children cannot be considered genocide.
But each such incident would demand a trial (or multiple trials, depending on the number of people involved) to determine intent. Because on the surface, it meets the criteria of the resolution.

Otherwise, a State which wishes to engage in true genocide need only provide a flimsy excuse as to intent, and the resolution is meaningless.



No, it can't, because that cannot possibly be construed as an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Homosexuals don't necessarily give birth to homosexual children, for one thing.
I agree with your interpretation; I doubt some members of the legal profession will be so obliging. ((ooc... I didn't mean that last part as a serious concern, just an attempt at a humorous comment regarding ambulance chasers))

This resolution will require member nations to "facilitate" extradition of those "suspected" of the crime. If each nation gets to decide for itself what "suspicion" means, then it is wide open for abuse. If nation A decides that it "suspects" the family of nation B's prime minister of genocide, nation B would be required to facilitate extradition, or be in violation of this resolution. That nation A is only seeking to gain hostages is irrelevant to the resolution.

Members states will not be able to simply decide for themselves whether a genocide has taken place, they will have to follow the guidelines set out in this statute for making such a determination.

In the absence of an international criminal court, which would doubtless face much greater opposition than this statute would were it to be brought to vote in a resolution, what else would the honoured Ambassador suggest ?

Genocide must be made illegal, it is one of the worst crimes that may be committed, and defining what genocide is, making it illegal and demanding that those who have committed it be punished is the most practical way of doing this.


But each such incident would demand a trial (or multiple trials, depending on the number of people involved) to determine intent. Because on the surface, it meets the criteria of the resolution.

And what would be the problem in holding such trials honoured Ambassador ? Presumable you would rather those accused of genocide be properly tried for their crimes rather than merely found guilty and sentenced without a trial, no ?

Otherwise, a State which wishes to engage in true genocide need only provide a flimsy excuse as to intent, and the resolution is meaningless.

And such an excuse would no longer be valid under the provisions of this statute.


Yours,

Members states will not be able to simply decide for themselves whether a genocide has taken place, they will have to follow the guidelines set out in this statute for making such a determination.
Which returns me to my original question... what is the evidentiary requirement for genocide to be "suspected"?

In the absence of an international criminal court, which would doubtless face much greater opposition than this statute would were it to be brought to vote in a resolution, what else would the honoured Ambassador suggest ?
Adequate definition of terms.

Genocide must be made illegal, it is one of the worst crimes that may be committed, and defining what genocide is, making it illegal and demanding that those who have committed it be punished is the most practical way of doing this.
Agreed. I do not believe this resolution adequately addresses the

And what would be the problem in holding such trials honoured Ambassador ? Presumable you would rather those accused of genocide be properly tried for their crimes rather than merely found guilty and sentenced without a trial, no ?
Of course. The definitions of this resolution are much too broad, though.

And such an excuse would no longer be valid under the provisions of this statute.
That is not the impression I received from the answer to my original question. That answer led me to believe that if a group performed an action explicitly identified as an act of genocide (forcibly removing children) from a group protected by this resolution (a hypothetical religious group sharing a set of beliefs), all that need be said is that an alternative plausible intent be provided.

I feel that the resolution at vote has some flaws and for the resolution to be successful the flaws will have to be addressed in some other legislation or else interpreting the resolution could become difficult

Which returns me to my original question... what is the evidentiary requirement for genocide to be "suspected"?

The evidential requirement is laid out in the statute, what is the evidential requirement of any crime to be suspected honoured Ambassador ? It is the evidential requirement for a crime to be proved to have taken place which matters most.


Adequate definition of terms.

The terms are clear enough, how much more detailed would you have them be honoured Ambassador ?

Agreed. I do not believe this resolution adequately addresses the

There we will have to disagree.


Of course. The definitions of this resolution are much too broad, though.

They are broad because genocide may take many forms and preventing it necessitates compassing many kinds of action which might otherwise remain legal but they are not so broad as the honoured Ambassador seems to believe.


That is not the impression I received from the answer to my original question. That answer led me to believe that if a group performed an action explicitly identified as an act of genocide (forcibly removing children) from a group protected by this resolution (a hypothetical religious group sharing a set of beliefs), all that need be said is that an alternative plausible intent be provided.

That was not the fault of the answers you received honoured Ambassador, rather it was the fault of your interpretation of them.


Yours,

A few random comments.

Mild? For a resolution against genocide?
I know, right?

While I know you're using the 'included but not limited to' construction, the omission of rape as a means of genocide is particularly glaring.

With all due respect, and while I agree that rape is a terrible thing, I think it would be going out on a limb to include rape in a Genocide decision. Rape is an abomination, but it does not fall under the same category as mass murder.

Oh, and don't use 'sentient beings', use 'people' or 'persons'
Good plan.

-Stephen Perigren
Chief Representative of the Nomadic Peoples of Kinaesthesia

With all due respect, and while I agree that rape is a terrible thing, I think it would be going out on a limb to include rape in a Genocide decision. Rape is an abomination, but it does not fall under the same category as mass murder.


I know this shouldn't really matter, but in the real world under the Rome Statute of the ICC rape is considered a genocidal act when it is carried out in large numbers against the women of one specific race

With all due respect, and while I agree that rape is a terrible thing, I think it would be going out on a limb to include rape in a Genocide decision. Rape is an abomination, but it does not fall under the same category as mass murder.


What appalling sophistry, of course rape may be used to effect a genocide, and of course it is a tool of the genocidal. Selective breeding programs where women are deprived the right to reproduce with whom they choose with the intent of breeding out of existence an entire group of people is an act of genocidal rape.


Yours,

Which returns me to my original question... what is the evidentiary requirement for genocide to be "suspected"?

The same as for any other crime. Nations may of course differ on their standards of proof, and such differences will have to be settled bilaterally, or until a resolution specifically dealing with extradition comes along.

Yes, some people guilty of genocide might potentially be sheltered by sympathetic governments demanding an unreasonably high level of evidence, but this will be a problem anyway because the majority of nations are outside the WA and will not be affected by the resolution even if it had the most stringent provisions in this regard.

And if I did write in some really tough standards here, national sovereignty would become an issue. Such is the nature of compromise.

That is not the impression I received from the answer to my original question. That answer led me to believe that if a group performed an action explicitly identified as an act of genocide (forcibly removing children) from a group protected by this resolution (a hypothetical religious group sharing a set of beliefs), all that need be said is that an alternative plausible intent be provided.

If genocide is suspected and charges are indeed laid, though, that "alternative plausible intent" would have to stand up in a court of law. You can't get away with armed robbery just by proposing an alternative plausible explanation of how it appears on the CCTV footage that you threatened the cashier with a knife.

Since the ambassador from the barbarian state of Migdou left this message in our diplomatic mailbox (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1564221&tab=visitor_messaging#visitor_messaging); rather than share its import with the Lianheguo, I shall reproduce their message here and answer it for the benefit of the scholarly discourse and the members of this general assembly.

Your instant jump to insults and general disregard for civility reveals much about your culture, but we shall take the higher path and refrain from further comment. Since the debate has ranged far since our argument was laid down, allow us to explain to you exactly what we meant. Perhaps then you can clarify the reasons for your discourtesy.

I do not deign to explain my actions or choice of words to foreign barbarians; I am Han and the ambassadors of the Great Jin are servants of the Dangjin Huangshang Son of Heaven who rules the civilized world; but because textual study is the basis of the jinshi degree and because I strive to be a superior man, I will respond to your statements.

Hypothetical: a group of eco-terrorists menace your nation, destroying the offices of corporations whose actions they find objectionable and killing countless civilians in the crossfire. Like any good leader, you wish this to stop. Police are sent in to arrest the members of the group; in the process, a member of the group is shot and crippled, while two others are killed. In order to stop the attacks, the group must be destroyed, and you have just killed and inflicted serious harm upon members of the group. Are the officers in question then to be tried for Genocide because they attacked members of a group defined by belief in order to preserve their own lives and the lives of innocent civilians?

When Han Gaozu unified all-under-Heaven, he looked to the ancient texts to order the state. When Kong Fuzi sought to teach the Way, he looked to the Canons of Yao and Shun. So to when we consider this we must look to the WA Counterterrorism Act, namely the operative articles of that decree; which legally requires prosecution of all terrorists and actions taken against them. As terrorists, they have no legal protection under the law.

Second Hypothetical: A neighboring nation has been sending covert agents into your country to hijack shipments of valuable resources (oil, gold, whatever you covet). You discover indisputable proof of the other nation's involvement, perhaps invoking sanctions; they move troops to the border and covertly strike your military installations. You have more than sufficient grounds of war, but if you attack their army with the intent of destroying it as a threat to your people, you have just committed Genocide against people of another nationality and culture.

Laozi said "the way that can be named is not the eternal way," so to is the genocide you are naming not the true genocide. The Rights and Duties of WA States precludes such a dangerous interpretation of the law; specifically article 4. Similarly, such a strict interpretation can hardly be applied; a court of law imbued with righteousness will surely acquit an officer of government who defended his state!

Third Hypothetical: Members of your army stand accused of Genocide, and you are obligated to punish them to the highest extent of the law. You send military police to arrest them, but they refuse to come quietly and open fire on your officers. If your officers use force when attempting to arrest them, and their targets or any of their followers, who follow a belief and are probably of a specific nationality, they too may be accused of Genocide.

This is a ridiculous example, the text indicates on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation. Such officers, though I must confess a situation would never arise in the Great Jin, would be under arrest for violation of the law rather than their adherence to some creed or membership in some ethnic group. This is the crux of the definition; the reasons for genocide must be made on a certain basis. The terrorists are being arrested for their violent terrorism, the barbarian armies attacked because they threaten the state, the delinquent officers of the Great Jin being taken because they have refused to honor the law.

It become clear the intent of the resolution; not muddied by confusing interpretations. When all understand, all-under-Heaven is ordered.

Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

i think when the WA makes any rules the should stick to small and easy to understand rules. so some1 doesnt vote yes thinking it means one thing than 2 find out by tricky word play the ,meaning he thought it wanst, wat it really means meant.

i think when the WA makes any rules the should stick to small and easy to understand rules. so some1 doesnt vote yes thinking it means one thing than 2 find out by tricky word play the ,meaning he thought it wanst, wat it really means meant.

All WA ambassadors are more than welcome to come to headquarters ( OoC: Have we rebuilt yet?) and make queries directed at the author and their proposal. Also keep in mind, Ambassador, that simplicity is relative.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

having long ago wiped all other ethnic/political/religios groups from our nations face (like most developed nations) we of axmanland feel fully justified in backing this motion and denounce nations who participate in such action

further more we hotly deny any links to shadowy non WA vassal states and have no knowledge of any well equipped death squads opperating within these catspaw states ..........witch dont exist!

*sits down eyes darting left and right*

This definition of genocide includes:

""any act committed...with intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of...nationality"

which could be used to argue that all acts of war are genocidal in nature.

While this is arguably a bad-faith interpretation of the definition, it does seem to fall within the letter of the broad language employed by this resolution -- no particular effort is made to distinguish between genocidal activities and lawful wartime activities.

( OoC: Have we rebuilt yet?)

OOC: Yes, and have been for some time, the Management just never made any sort of announcement.

I thank the honourable Mr. Li for his most able explanations, which should help a great deal in alleviating the misunderstandings we are dealing with.

While this is arguably a bad-faith interpretation of the definition, it does seem to fall within the letter of the broad language employed by this resolution -- no particular effort is made to distinguish between genocidal activities and lawful wartime activities.

Yes there is. Do you usually fight a war because you want to destroy - literally, exterminate the members of another nation, on the basis of their nationality, or to defeat their military and gain their surrender?

While this Nation is new, it does know the difference between a thinly veiled civil rights law and genocide. It clearly re-defines the definition of genocide into a law to protect homosexuals. While this Nation believes in equality for all, it does not believe in ambigious PETA type metaphors that will be blatantly misinterpreted. NAY

"1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation. "

Whis this Nation is new, it does know the difference between a thinly veiled civil rights law and genocide. It clearly re-defines the definition of genocide into a law to protect homosexuals. While this Nation believes in equality for all, it does not believe in ambigious PETA type metaphors that will be blatantly misinterpreted. NAY"
We thank the honoured ambassador for providing a perfect example of why it should so be considered.

We thank the honoured ambassador for providing a perfect example of why it should so be considered.


So then, it is acceptable to pass laws that good common sense would implore, then hide 'earmarks' that will most certianly cause it to be overturned?

If it is a hate-crime law one wants passed, then propose one.

I am puzzled by the nature of this objection by Feral Swine, in particular what they mean by "ambigious PETA type metaphors" (and I'm not being snarky here, I genuinely have no clue what you're trying to imply). Would targeting homosexuals for mass slaughter or some other measure designed to eliminate them not be considered genocide? If not, why not?

While this Nation is new, it does know the difference between a thinly veiled civil rights law and genocide. It clearly re-defines the definition of genocide into a law to protect homosexuals. While this Nation believes in equality for all, it does not believe in ambigious PETA type metaphors that will be blatantly misinterpreted. NAY

"1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation. "



There are already several w.a. resolutions which protect homosexuals from certain kinds of persecution, and one of these The Charter of Civil Rights also offers protection from discrimination to a vast panoply of minority groups within society.

In having addressed the rights of minorities including homosexuals already the w.a. has set a precedent for protecting human dignity regardless of prejudice and narrow mindedness. To not do that in a statute which seeks to protect the right to live of many many billions of persons belonging to minority groups would have been inconsistent and unjust.


Yours,

OOC: Yes, and have been for some time, the Management just never made any sort of announcement.OOC: So, can we start registering office locations yet?

OOC: So, can we start registering office locations yet?

OOC: You'd have to take that up with the Management.;)

What's the problem with these homophobes? Don't they know sexual orientation clauses do also protect them?

Should they be located on a Nation with a majority of homosexuals (oh, believe me, they do exist), these laws also protect homophobes from being raped and/or hunted down and hanged.

If a nation passes a law banning homosexual adoption, they can be prosecuted for genocide.

This law is tying one argument to another that has no bearing on the initial argument. It is sneaky and wrong. It's called being logical and using reason, not being a homophobe. Labeling of people who are not in aggreance with your views is exactly what fundamentalists of any variety do.

This definition also defines genocide as restricting population among these groups. If a nation were to pass a law prohibiting same-sex adoptions, they would be guilty of genocide. While the law prohibiting same-sex adoptions would be wrong, it is NOT genocide.

We just talked about this on the previous page. In fact I can just repeat exactly what I said earlier:

No, it can't, because that cannot possibly be construed as an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Homosexuals don't necessarily give birth to homosexual children, for one thing.

Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

This would make couples give up their foster and adopted children if a law was passed to prohibit homosexuals or even "single people cohabitating" with children. I know, it has been passed in Arkansas. But even Arkansas does not call it genocide.

This would make couples give up their foster and adopted children if a law was passed to prohibit homosexuals or even "single people cohabitating" with children. I know, it has been passed in Arkansas. But even Arkansas does not call it genocide.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make with this gibberish and do you mean this Arkansas (http://www.nationstates.net/region=arkansas) or this one (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=soviet_arkansas)?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

While this Nation is new, it does know the difference between a thinly veiled civil rights law and genocide. It clearly re-defines the definition of genocide into a law to protect homosexuals.

OOC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySlMFFJQcO0

Paragraph 175 (known formally as §175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality.
The statute was amended several times. The Nazis broadened the law in 1935; in the prosecutions that followed, thousands died in concentration camps. East Germany reverted to the old version of the law in 1950, limited its scope to sex with youths under 18 in 1968, and abolished it entirely in 1988. West Germany retained the Nazi-era statute until 1969, when it was limited to "qualified cases"; it was further attenuated in 1973, and finally revoked entirely in 1994 after German reunification.

NEVER. AGAIN.

If a nation passes a law banning homosexual adoption, they can be prosecuted for genocide.

This law is tying one argument to another that has no bearing on the initial argument. It is sneaky and wrong. It's called being logical and using reason, not being a homophobe. Labeling of people who are not in aggreance with your views is exactly what fundamentalists of any variety do.

This definition also defines genocide as restricting population among these groups. If a nation were to pass a law prohibiting same-sex adoptions, they would be guilty of genocide. While the law prohibiting same-sex adoptions would be wrong, it is NOT genocide.


Again, honoured Ambassador, the kind of law you are referring to is already illegal under the Charter of Civil Rights which this organisation recently ratified.

Why exactly this organisation should wish to tread lightly around the scruples of a state which would persecute and marginalise whole sections of its citizenry is in any event perfectly mystifying.

Such states have no qualm in treating fellow human beings as sub-human and less deserving of their basic human dignity than others, we have no problem with treating such a state's attempts to occlude their persecuted minority's rights to have children as a form of genocide.

Thankfully the general ability of such states to persecute in this way has been substantially compromised already and to propose that this statute does that anymore radically than any of other human rights statutes already passed by this organisation is spurious and illogical.



Yours,

Why should my rich powerhouse of a nation give money and aid to countries that clearly are just going to put that money to drugs and guns *cough* Africa *cough*, it is true that they need help but that is what borders are for, if you don't like your country then you can just get out. If you can't tell by now I am totally against this vote.

Why should my rich powerhouse of a nation give money and aid to countries that clearly are just going to put that money to drugs and guns
Where does this Resolution require you to give money and aid to countries? It mentions giving aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide. It says nothing about giving it to national governments.
*cough* Africa *cough*
And yet another confusing mention of a specific Region. What makes you think Africa (http://www.nationstates.net/region=africa) would have a problem with drugs and guns?

If you can't tell by now I am totally against this vote.
I can tell that you have not read or understood the text of the Resolution and that you are confusing NS with the mythical land of RL.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Okay I did not read every single post on this subject but there are quite a few problems with this resolution. First off being how you define what genocide is... I mean come on. Do you really think that taking measures to prevent childbirth is considered genocide? IF that is the case with your nation, then when you start having economic trouble due to population growth, I for one will be waiting on your boarders for you to take measures to start controlling the population. The second your economy starts to fail because you are trying to support too many people within your boarders and you begin to instate population control laws, I will be among the first to roll into your country and take everything you own until the WA tells me to stop.
Next is the fact that we our going to force our beliefs on nations that we don't even recognize as members of our organization. That is completely uncalled for, unless they start to try and enforce their beliefs on us then we have no right to take action against them.
Lastly, you really need to change sapient beings to people or persons. A sapient being is defined as... Having great wisdom and discernment. Also looked at as sapience, sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment. Judgment is a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. This means cats, dogs and any other organism that can learn from its mistakes and make judgment calls of its own.

I will be among the first to roll into your country and take everything you own until the WA tells me to stop.

It will be entertaining to watch a nation of only 6 million inhabitants attempt to invade a nation of 10.791 billion.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

It will be entertaining to watch a nation of only 6 million inhabitants attempt to invade a nation of 10.791 billion.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I don't believe he meant it as him alone. If someone were to do what he just said, which is technically an act against the resolution, that would mean that several members of the WA would be against this offending nation.

Therefore, hypothetically, it wouldn't be a mere 6 million against 10 billion. It would be several nations against one large nation. While this would be hard, not all 10 billion of those citizens would be militarily effective. Since a nation failing economically due to population issues wouldn't be able to support large armies financially, it would mean only 1% or less of the population would be able to be in the military. That would be approximately one billion in the military. Then you would have to realize about 60-70% of the military are in staffs and logistical positions rather than combat positions, meanly about 30% of the force would be combat effective. That would leave 300 million combat effective troops against a multiple front operation. While this is still daunting against those trying to stop said 'genocide', it is only a matter of time before the 'genocidal nation' falls to a multinational police action.

Either way, my fellow from Godtachta Andiabhalthu is correct in his logic, and the Armed Republic of Miigard will vote against this as well. While we too would act against genocide, the Resolution's definition of 'genocide' has that one fatal flaw. That would mean the Chinese would have been committing genocide upon themselves for nearly a century.

Matthew Lionheart, Vice Admiral, Miigard Republic Navy; Retired
President of the Armed Republic of Miigard

That would mean the Chinese would have been committing genocide upon themselves for nearly a century.
The Chinese (http://www.nationstates.net/region=china) have been committing genocide upon themselves? How do you know this?

I have never seen this level of scurrilous charges presented against various Regions in an At Vote discussion. First Arkansas, then Africa and now China. I would ask the delegations of Feral Swine, The Confediracy, and Miigard to provide some proof of these things before making any more such accusations.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

As far as the government of Bears Armed is concerned, this proposal contains one -- but only one -- significant flaw: It does not consider the possibility of any member-nation's inhabitants ever being faced with a "them or us" situation, due to attack by some other people who are themselves relentlessly genocidal in policy and who simply cannot be reasoned with. However, as we ourselves haven't had to deal with such a situation for over three centuries, they have directed me to cast the vote of the Bears Armed Mission in the proposal's favour and I have therefore done so.

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


____________________________________________

OOC: Yes, the conflict to which Borrin refers here was already written into the nation's history. No, his people's ancestors really didn't have any viable alternative to destroying those ['Chaos-tainted'] ursophagic foes...

Okay I did not read every single post on this subject but there are quite a few problems with this resolution. First off being how you define what genocide is... I mean come on. Do you really think that taking measures to prevent childbirth is considered genocide?

It is, if it is done with the intention of destroying a particular group. You are reading the examples and apparently completely ignoring the definition.

IF that is the case with your nation, then when you start having economic trouble due to population growth, I for one will be waiting on your boarders for you to take measures to start controlling the population.

Yes, of course, because it's only possible to have a problem with the birth rate being too high, and our main population issue of having too low a birthrate is clearly imaginary, but I digress and oooh, custard!

I will be among the first to roll into your country and take everything you own until the WA tells me to stop.

I think I missed the part where this resolution automatically authorises military invasion in the case of violations.

We would like to convey the congratulations of the Government of the Emperor of Urgench to the honoured and esteemed delegation of Kelssek who's excellent work and dedication to this matter has been a salutary lesson to the membership of this organisation.

This statute will stand out in the record of history as a shining example of decency and compassion.

May the Horde of Kelssek ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.

Yours sincerely,

I thank the khan for his kind and gracious words, and for his aid in defending this resolution. In fact I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. Let us proceed to the Strangers Bar and get drunk.

Congrats on achieving the resolution. I would like to point at that my reasoning behind the "Arkansas" metaphor was the exact thing happened. A law passed that said cohabitating adults could not adopt or foster children. This was a thinly veiled law that meant NO GAYS can foster or adopt. I oppose any acts of hidden agenda being built into a resolution. This is the reason the Attorney General almost always kicks bills back for not enough clarification.

Now, If one nation decides to have a "squeeze one off day", or requirement of all lower income people to wear condoms, will they be guilty of genocide?

requirement of all lower income people to wear condoms

It would be... oh wait, can't even find words... Just imagine the scene:

A police officer permanently in every bedroom, so as to check if condoms are properly positioned before intercourse, and watching the whole intercourse fron an advantadged point of view, so as to certify that it will not be removed during the act, and then after the act, said officer taking said condom to a permanent disposal facility.

Sadly, no.

Well done ambassadors. I did vote for, despite my recent illness. The illness turned out to be nothing other than normal flu. No, no H5N1.

Well, at least the way you worded the punishment really kicks ass.

Yours etc,

Either way, my fellow from Godtachta Andiabhalthu is correct in his logic, and the Armed Republic of Miigard will vote against this as well. While we too would act against genocide, the Resolution's definition of 'genocide' has that one fatal flaw. That would mean the Chinese would have been committing genocide upon themselves for nearly a century.

Matthew Lionheart, Vice Admiral, Miigard Republic Navy; Retired
President of the Armed Republic of Miigard

May I be the first to say that the great Han people have not, in fact, been committing genocide against ourselves. The Great Jin State is much too peaceful and harmonious for such a thing to happen.

In any case, I offer the congratulations of the Imperial Council on the passage of the resolution. Kelssek qiānsuì, may your nation last for a thousand years!

Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū