NationStates Jolt Archive

All Nations assembled in the World Assembly;

Realizing; that piracy in international waters of ships/freighters/vessels and yachts, is becoming a global threat;

Realizing; that the lives of sailors or just people onboard of these ships/freighters/vessels and yachts are at risk more and more due the piracy;

Realizing; that pirates are “hard to get”;

Therefore,

Establishes; a World Assembly “Naval Peace Force” against piracy;

Article 1 of the Statute, Jurisdiction of the Naval Peace Force against Piracy.

The Naval Peace Force against Piracy will have jurisdiction in:
•World Assembly waters.

•If ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but only after consent of that Nation.

Article 2 of the Statute, the Naval Peace Force itself.
•Member nations of the World Assembly shall be asked by the World Assembly to join this Naval Peace Force against piracy, what means it is voluntary to join the Naval Peace Force Against Piracy.

Article 3 of the Statute, the Powers of the Naval Peace Force against piracy.

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy may only intervene if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have a “license to kill” if the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have the power to make an arrest if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters. Or as the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

Article 4 of the Statue, the rights of an arrested pirate.

•An arrested pirate has the right to remain silence, everything he or she says can and will be used against him or she in the Court of law.

•An arrested has the right to an attorney

•An arrested pirate shall be treated well and shall not be tortured for what ever reason.

•An arrested pirate shall be deported as soon as possible after his or hers arrest to the country of the ships origin that he or she attacked.

•All arrested pirates have the right to a fair trial.

Article 5 of the Statute, the pirates belongings.
•Al the belongings of the pirates, whether they are dead or in custody, will be destroyed, examples of these belongings are their weapons or the vessel they used to attack ships with.

The Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi expresses concerns in regards to the possibility that this might incite the creation of a WA Army or similar bodies to combat international piracy.

The Commonwealth would also like to add that it is the duty of individual nations to ensure that their waters are free of piracy.

Member nations of the World Assembly shall be asked by the World Assembly to join this Naval Peace Force against piracy, what means it is Compulsory to join the Naval Peace Force Against Piracy.


Doesn't this become a problem if a member nation is landlocked and thus retains no Navy?

it is voluntary to join this Naval Peace Force, and afcourse landlocked countries won't be asked to send a navy because they don't have one.

And i agree Okinawakenshi that it is the duty of each indivudual country to fight piracy, but it would be way more efficient if we would have a joint navy to fight piracy, and stop piracy for ever.

If it's voluntary, shouldn't it say voluntary rather than compulsory?

1. Trying to establish any form of WA Army, WA Navy, WA Police, or the like -- including any forces that would be organised by collecting units from member nations, under the auspices of the WA, rather than employed directly by the WA -- is against the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1).

2. Have you overlooked the existing resolution (#20) 'Suppress International Piracy'? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14081128&postcount=2)

It isn't against the rules it is a cooperation-ship between countries of the World assembly to work together, by it's naval services, to catch and trial pirates more efficient.

It isn't my intention to set up a militairy WA force, just a cooperation operating under the name of Naval Peace Force against piracy.

And i have seen the resolution and it does nothing in my opinion.

It isn't against the rules it is a cooperation-ship between countries of the World assembly to work together, by it's naval services, to catch and trial pirates more efficient.

It isn't my intention to set up a militairy WA force, just a cooperation operating under the name of Naval Peace Force against piracy.According to past rulings by the Mods, any force that would be organised through a WA resolution would count as a "WA force" for the purpose of illegality.

and i have seen the resolution and it does nothing in my opinion.You're wrong.

well that's your opinion, I find it a un-useless peace of regultions, it does a lot of "urging" and "declaring" but it isn't doing anything.

well that's your opinion, I find it a un-useless peace of regultions, it does a lot of "urging" and "declaring" but it isn't doing anything.

Oh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Requires" means that this is compulsory...

do you have a problemm with my opinion or what, come on guy free dom of free speech, In my opinion the resolution isn't doing much.

If it's voluntary, shouldn't it say voluntary rather than compulsory?

my mistake, indeed I mean voluntary

do you have a problemm with my opinion or what, come on guy free dom of free speech, In my opinion the resolution isn't doing much.

We have a saying in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites about opinions, "An opinion and an empty sack is worth a sack." Fact is, as was already pointed out, stopping piracy is already covered and therefore doesn't need to be covered again.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Actually it does a lot... let's review.


Establishes; a World Assembly “Naval Peace Force” against piracy;

Creates in affect a WA Navy

The Naval Peace Force against Piracy will have jurisdiction in:
•World Assembly waters.


Unless you mean the fountain's out front, this means the WA just took control of member nations waters...

•If ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but only after consent of that Nation.

Course that does matter because it just took control of all international waters too.

Article 2 of the Statute, the Naval Peace Force itself.
•Member nations of the World Assembly shall be asked by the World Assembly to join this Naval Peace Force against piracy, what means it is voluntary to join the Naval Peace Force Against Piracy.

Laws passed are mandatory, not voluntary, if the WA Navy were legal, you just signed us all up.


•The Naval Peace Force against piracy may only intervene if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.


As decided by whom?

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have a “license to kill” if the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

Naval Peace Force? License To Kill?

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have the power to make an arrest if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters. Or as the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

So it's a WA Navy and WA Police Force. Both illegal.


Article 4 of the Statue, the rights of an arrested pirate.

•An arrested pirate has the right to remain silence, everything he or she says can and will be used against him or she in the Court of law.
•An arrested has the right to an attorney

•An arrested pirate shall be treated well and shall not be tortured for what ever reason.

•An arrested pirate shall be deported as soon as possible after his or hers arrest to the country of the ships origin that he or she attacked.

•All arrested pirates have the right to a fair trial.


Not all nations have these rights.



•Al the belongings of the pirates, whether they are dead or in custody, will be destroyed, examples of these belongings are their weapons or the vessel they used to attack ships with.


That's just mean...


Plus there are nations in this body that are made up of Pirates, might be a tough sell to them. As a very smart delegate once said, the law does what the law says. Above might not have been my esteemed colleague's intent but alas it is the outcome.

do you have a problemm with my opinion or what, come on guy free dom of free speech, In my opinion the resolution isn't doing much.Care to explain why "in your opinion" the resolution "isn't doing much"? I can bleat all I like about how Antarctica is at the top of the world, not the bottom, but without producing any evidence no one has any reason to take what I say seriously. All WA nations are already required to criminalize and suppress international piracy, to deny international pirates safe haven, and to try anybody accused of international piratical acts. And we need to mobilize a "voluntary" international force for what? The sake of efficiency? Since member states are already required to counter international piracy, they are naturally going to team up and assist each other to these ends when it suits their purpose, so I would imagine a number of international anti-piracy forces already exist.

Even if this voluntary force was legal, it is entirely unnecessary.

•World Assembly waters.

The WAHQ swimming pool is adequately protected.

•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but only after consent of that Nation.

Non-member countries of the WA? You mean those countries that can ignore anything and everything that we pass?

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy may only intervene if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

On the off chance that my navy is practicing battle maneuvers, they'd technically be under attack by pirates.

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have a “license to kill” if the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have the power to make an arrest if ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters. Or as the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.

But my citizens are pirates.

Article 5 of the Statute, the pirates belongings.
•Al the belongings of the pirates, whether they are dead or in custody, will be destroyed, examples of these belongings are their weapons or the vessel they used to attack ships with.
So each time one of my glorious citizens dies, I have to destroy his/her property, I'm sure the bereaved family will be pleased with such an action.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

[ooc:
<sigh!>
Ya know, just once, I'd like to see a crisis from RL actually occur, and a proposal for NS, not be written to deal with it.]

[IC]

Realizing; that pirates are “hard to get”
I must repectfully disagree old boy. In my own personal experience, I've found that some pirate wenches are pretty easy, if you know what I mean, and I'm sure you do.:D

Establishes; a World Assembly “Naval Peace Force” against piracy;
Article 1 of the Statute, Jurisdiction of the Naval Peace Force against Piracy.
The Naval Peace Force against Piracy will have jurisdiction in:
•World Assembly waters.
•If ships/freighters/vessels and yachts sailing under a member countries flag is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.
•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but only after consent of that Nation.
Why? My nation already funds a Navy. Why in the devil would my Empress want to fund another, old boy?

•The Naval Peace Force against piracy shall have a “license to kill” if the lives of World Assembly Countries citizens are at risk due to pirates.
This isn't James Bond, old boy. My government gives the Commander of the Naval Vessel interdicting the Pirates, the discretion to use deadly force.

•All arrested pirates have the right to a fair trial.
So I guess hanging them from the yardarm is not an option?

Article 5 of the Statute, the pirates belongings.
•Al the belongings of the pirates, whether they are dead or in custody, will be destroyed, examples of these belongings are their weapons or the vessel they used to attack ships with.
Bugger that! Why do you think my Nation has an Admiralty Court? They will bloody well decide who owns the pirate vessel and cargo.

Besides old boy, I suppose you should look at already passed resolutions in the future. Resolution #20 already deals with international piracy.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

[ooc:
<sigh!>
Ya know, just once, I'd like to see a crisis from RL actually occur, and a proposal for NS, not be written to deal with it.

hey the first piracy one was started in 2006 ;)

We cannot in good faith support any proposal that would promote the suppression of piracy any further. We feel the current binding resolution is too far over reaching as is without adding this absurd resolution to it. We are, in fact, working to repeal R20, and should be doing so in the coming week. We encourage all nations to leave the subject of piracy on the national level rather than make it an international affair.

We cannot in good faith support any proposal that would promote the suppression of piracy any further. We feel the current binding resolution is too far over reaching as is without adding this absurd resolution to it. We are, in fact, working to repeal R20, and should be doing so in the coming week. We encourage all nations to leave the subject of piracy on the national level rather than make it an international affair.But international piracy, by definition, obviously is an international affair! Are the pirates themselves willing to operate at a purely national level?

But international piracy, by definition, obviously is an international affair! Are the pirates themselves willing to operate at a purely national level?

The resolution which addresses piracy is what defines it as international piracy. We believe it is anything from it. Pirates tend to make a safe haven and not stray far from it. It isn't like they travel the world in search of ships, that would be insane, first because it would be near impossible to make port in a nation that would let them enter, and second assuming their purpose was to plunder, they can't carry excess weight forever.

OOC: There is RL data to back this up, piracy use to be localized, now mind you any vessel from any nation that got within range was fair game, but usually they stuck to their waters. It's similar to how the Somali pirates do, they only attack vessels using their waters.

IC: Therefore we feel the International Piracy resolution should be struck, and instead be left to the individual nations to collaberate together the address the issue.

We encourage all nations to leave the subject of piracy on the national level rather than make it an international affair.

If pirates would stick to attacking only ships from their nation of origin, we might be inclined to leave it on the national level. When pirates attack Federation shipping or military vessels, however, we believe it becomes international in scope, as they're usually from a different country, such as a few of our neighbors.

We also believe that we have the right to give pirates who attack Altani citizens or soldiers an all-expenses-paid, ammunition-laden trip to the bottom of the ocean. We don't need a "WA task force" to do it, particularly one that is illegal and contradictory to existing legislation.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

If pirates would stick to attacking only ships from their nation of origin, we might be inclined to leave it on the national level. When pirates attack Federation shipping or military vessels, however, we believe it becomes international in scope, as they're usually from a different country, such as a few of our neighbors.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador


We are not convinced that there is sufficient enough evidence to suggest piracy goes on in international waters. We would also like to bring the attention to Clause 5 of R20;


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

There is enough levity in this clause to permit pursuit of pirates into sovereign waters, possibly causing collateral damges to the sovereign, possibly provoking an international incident. Navies may also blockade ports suspected of harboring pirates as well. The other thing is there is no resolution, to our knowledge, which defines where a nation's waters end and international waters begin.

We have other problems with R20 but we wont go any further into them in this thread. We are planning a serious initiative to have it removed, and we will start another discussion focusing on it.

WYMP

OOC: There is RL data to back this up, piracy use to be localized, now mind you any vessel from any nation that got within range was fair game, but usually they stuck to their waters. OOC: There's some fairly major RL evidence to the contrary, too, such as (1) the pirates in the Mediterranean during the 1st century BC, who operated from one end of that sea to the other until the Romans put them down; (2) the pirates in the Caribbean during the 17th & 18th centuries, who were mainly based on British or French islands but mainly attacked Spanish ships and settlements; (3) the 18th century pirates, mostly of European origins, who used Madagascar as a base for operations against Indian & Middle Eastern trade.
IC: Therefore we feel the International Piracy resolution should be struck, and instead be left to the individual nations to collaberate together the address the issue.Are you confusing the existing resolution with the proposal that was raised by Noordeinde? Resolution #20 does leave actually dealing with the pirates to the individual nations and any alliances that they might form, instead of calling for the orgaisation of "WA" task-forces for that purpose, its main emphasis is on barring nations from sheltering pirates.

Dealing with pirates is the job of the individual nations' navies (or other means they wish to use, like the orbital weapons of the Light Bowmen). It should remain that way. Also the WA can't have a standing navy or army or police force so it's a rules violation.

Which...

Tired of seafaring pirates harassing YOUR merchant ships? Tired of having to replace your crews because they were killed by pirates? Tired of all the monetary losses from needing convoys to protect your shipping? Well not any more! Introducing, Protected by the Light, the new program of the Divinen Light Bowmen!

A subscription to Protected by the Light includes 24/7 defensive services in any area covered by the orbital laser cannons of Divinen as well as enough communicators for your ships' captains. Should one of your vessels be attacked by pirates, all the vessel's captain has to do is send in an alert with his communicator, triggering an alarm at the Light Bowmen HQ. When this happens, our operators will bring the zone up on one of our screens via satellite, aim the laser cannon and blow those seadogs right out of the water! All this can be yours at the low price of only ten million kilzons a month!

Building and training and operating a navy just for pirates is silly and can cost your nation billions, not to mention take years while you're still losing goods and money to pirates. So why do it, when there is Protected by the Light, filling your needs in a much cheaper alternative that takes effect immediately!

Our laser cannons are accurate enough to hit 98 out of a hundred shots on a soccer ball-sized target from geosynchronous orbit, so we won't miss and hit your ship. Nor are our laser cannons harmful to the environment, after the pulse of energy is fired all ill-effects to the environment are gone. Unlike toxic nuclear weapons, the laser cannons strike with a non-nuclear energy pulse and thus have no after-effects. Call 1-800-KILBUCS to register YOUR merchant fleet for Protected by the Light today!

The Light Bowmen are not responsible for any shrapnel-related damage or injury. Also they cannot be held responsible for pirate attacks outside the range of our orbital weapons.

OoC: Sorry for that, I just thought it appropriate to offer an alternative solution to deal with pirates since I'm shooting down the WA one.

Obviously the delegate from Divinen missed the large sign that clearly states No Soliciting.

Obviously the delegate from Divinen missed the large sign that clearly states No Soliciting.

Hey now! Soliciting for bribes on the floor of the festering snakepit....err...General Assembly is a major source of my income, my friend.:D
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Now with 50% more unwholesomeness than ever before.

Hey now! Soliciting for bribes on the floor of the festering snakepit....err...General Assembly is a major source of my income, my friend.:D
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Now with 50% more unwholesomeness than ever before.

There is of course the votes for sale exemption.

"Oh crap..." *looks around for 'no soliciting' sign*

"Oh there it is, on the other side of that pillar." I have to remember to steal that after the delegates go to sleep for the night...

OoC: Seriously, I didn't actually commit a violation rules-wise I could get banned over did I?

"Oh crap..." *looks around for 'no soliciting' sign*

"Oh there it is, on the other side of that pillar." I have to remember to steal that after the delegates go to sleep for the night...

OoC: Seriously, I didn't actually commit a violation rules-wise I could get banned over did I?

OOC:We're just messing with ya kid.:tongue:

OOC:We're just messing with ya kid.:tongue:OOC: Did you have to go and enlighten him before I could collect some 'protection money' in echange for a promise not to report him? :tongue:

OOC: Did you have to go and enlighten him before I could collect some 'protection money' in echange for a promise not to report him? :tongue:
OOC:Sorry friend, but extortion and bribe solisitation is my turf.:D

"Oh crap..." *looks around for 'no soliciting' sign*

"Oh there it is, on the other side of that pillar." I have to remember to steal that after the delegates go to sleep for the night...

OoC: Seriously, I didn't actually commit a violation rules-wise I could get banned over did I?

I'm sorry we're not able to correspond with banned nations..

Hello,

In a nutshell the Naval Peace Force is an army and this is the core of your resolution. If you removed the NPF then sadly this resolution would be ineffective, also noting that many parts are already covered by previous resolutions. The World Assembly opposes the establishment of their own army or police force so therefore it is not possible to proceed further. Sorry.

The Kingdom of Mgopia would like to comment on this anti piracy proposal.

Mgopia agrees that this proposal is a good idea, however, not all the nations waters are infested with pirates.

Because of that, not all nations would be willing to form an international naval force to strike against specific waters.

It would be much more effective if forces were for individual regions, like the East Pacific.