NationStates Jolt Archive

Sky Marshall Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Noordeinde

Description:
All Nations assembled in the World Assembly;

Recognizing; that terrorism is a nowadays threat;

Recognizing; that planes, especially commercial planes are becoming more and more the target of terrorists;

Observing; that Airline Companies and national Authorities would like to have Air Marshalls onboard of risk flights;

Believing; that Sky Marshalls onboard of a plane is a good thing to do against possible terrorism;

Recognizing; that not every nation within the World Assembly allows these Sky Marshalls;

Strongly urges; Member States to allow these Sky Marshalls , to operate onboard of commercial flights as a safety precaution against possible terrorists.

All Nations assembled in the World Assembly;

Recognizing; that terrorism is a nowadays threat;

Recognizing; that planes, especially commercial planes are becoming more and more the target of terrorists;

"We avoid this by using other means of flight. Perhaps if those nations that relied on planes were smart enough..." Silara began.

"I wouldn't continued that," Terrim warned.

Observing; that Airline Companies and national Authorities would like to have Air Marshalls onboard of risk flights;

"No, our air travel companies and national authorities wouldn't," Gorim said.

Believing; that Sky Marshalls onboard of a plane is a good thing to do against possible terrorism;

"Having a worthwhile intelligence agency does the job better," Silara said.

Recognizing; that not every nation within the World Assembly allows these Sky Marshalls;

"And for good reason," Gorim replied.

Strongly urges; Member States to allow these Sky Marshalls , to operate onboard of commercial flights as a safety precaution against possible terrorists.

"Who provides the air marshalls?" Engle asked. "Because it almost looks like this is illegal."

Oh for Godsake would the delegate from Noordeinde stop flooding the queue with useless, barely legal if not flat out illegal proposals? At least have the courtesy to put one of these harebrained proposals up for suggestions PRIOR to setting in in stone by putting it in the queue.

My nation like many others already places members of our military on each commercial flight. It is our solution but we don't feel it's the only solution. Much less a world wide solution.

However my esteemed colleague from Eluneyasa is correct, not all nations want to placed armed individuals on planes , not all nations use commercial airlines and a top notch intelligence community that stops terrorists from getting on to our flights is a much more effective way of going about stopping terrorism.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador - USoP

Well what should I anwer on this?!?! My esteemed colleugue, I haven't seen any proposal yet at the world assembly yet. So if you don't like our proposals please just do not reply, I would really appriciate, thank you!! I wil only answer from now on to serious and non sarcastic replies.

And if I may say, every little step, just as this little and "mild" resolution, to fight terrorism is great, and therefor I ask permission via the World Assembly that we at least can have Sky marshalls onboard in the World Assembly member countries. To protect our citizens against terrorism.

And I guess you like the word illegal, but nothing in this resolution is illegal so for godsake stop complaining.

Well what should I anwer on this?!?! My esteemed colleugue, I haven't seen any proposal yet at the world assembly yet. So if you don't like our proposals please just do not reply, I would really appriciate, thank you!! I wil only answer from now on to serious and non sarcastic replies.

"Are you suggesting that we were not serious with our replies?" Silara asked.

"Have fun with this one," Terrim said, throwing up his hands in exasperation.

And if I may say, every little step, just as this little and "mild" resolution, to fight terrorism is great, and therefor I ask permission via the World Assembly that we at least can have Sky marshalls onboard in the World Assembly member countries. To protect our citizens against terrorism.

"You mean you need permission from the World Assembly to use your own law enforcement for this? Do you also need permission from the World Assembly to set up your own tax code? Fund your schools? Provide electricity to your citizens? Breathe?" Silara asked. "Why can't you do that on your own?"

And I guess you like the word illegal, but nothing in this resolution is illegal so for godsake stop complaining.

"No, I like the word 'margarita.' You see, it's such a lovely little word that involves such a pretty little drink, an entertaining show as your drink is made, and maybe a bit of fun in your room with a couple of guys you pick up at the bar," Silara replied, earning a snorts of laughter and snickers from the other Eluneyasan delegates. "If the World Assembly provides this marshalls, it's illegal. You know, they don't like having cops under their command and all that. If it's you providing them, what's the point?"

Your proposal is based on a faulty assumption; namely, that airlines and governments want sky marshals in the first place. As some have already pointed out, not all of them do.

That wouldn't matter, though, for a far more grievous reason: your proposal does nothing, other than point out that terrorists like to target planes and telling member states it might possibly be a good idea to maybe let armed people on the planes as a means of prevention or deterrence. Do we really need legislation to do that, especially if that's all it does?

As an aside, my country doesn't have sky marshals, and doesn't see the need to pay for them when the flight crews aboard our commercial planes are usually armed and trained by the airlines they work for to provide security. We see that as a private sector issue, as it is for any business to provide for the security of its patrons.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

yeah your indeed not serious with your replies, so please go somewhere else.

Noordeinde, I respectfully disagree with this proposal.
I dislike big government in the hands of the World Assembly.
Terrorism hasn't hit my country or my allies. If terrorism ever does, then we will deal with the issue when it presents itself.

Your proposal is based on a faulty assumption; namely, that airlines and governments want sky marshals in the first place. As some have already pointed out, not all of them do.

That wouldn't matter, though, for a far more grievous reason: your proposal does nothing, other than point out that terrorists like to target planes and telling member states it might possibly be a good idea to maybe let armed people on the planes as a means of prevention or deterrence. Do we really need legislation to do that, especially if that's all it does?

As an aside, my country doesn't have sky marshals, and doesn't see the need to pay for them when the flight crews aboard our commercial planes are usually armed and trained by the airlines they work for to provide security. We see that as a private sector issue, as it is for any business to provide for the security of its patrons.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Well good for you that even your pilotes know how to shoot, but pilotes should be flying and not be used as a security agent as well, in my opinion..

Therefor I want this piece of regultions to pass, to guarantee the airline passengers safety against terrorism.

So to make it clear for everyone, I would like to see that this piece of regulations shall pass to guarantee airline passangers safety against possible terrorism, at least within the WA.

And I mean why is it such wrong or weird to submitt such a proposal to protect airline passangers.

yeah your indeed not serious with your replies, so please go somewhere else.

OOC: All of the comments provided were serious, and all of the challenges I provided were serious. This is a forum where you can roleplay, and some of us do. You have yet to deal with any of my challenges except dislike the form in which they were presented, and yet all of the challenges are legitimate.

Noordeinde, I respectfully disagree with this proposal.
I dislike big government in the hands of the World Assembly.
Terrorism hasn't hit my country or my allies. If terrorism ever does, then we will deal with the issue when it presents itself.

Well that's fine that it hasn't hit you, but it still hits other people, countries etc... is it then still good, no, should we prevent it. yes

OOC: All of the comments provided were serious, and all of the challenges I provided were serious. This is a forum where you can roleplay, and some of us do. You have yet to deal with any of my challenges except dislike the form in which they were presented, and yet all of the challenges are legitimate.

Let me ask you. What is such bad about a resolution that provides airline passengers more safety onboard against possible terrorist threats, because Sky marshalls are onboard?

And why did I add it to the WA, well an International Airline, operates INTERNATIONAL, but because several countries do not have any regulations on Sky marshalls, you can't provide safety to passengers.

Therefor I would very much appriciate if this proposal woould become a resolution, so that All member States of the World Assembly can provide extra safety to airline passengers within the world assembly.

So what is wrong with it, and it would be way more efficient to have WA regulations instead of each country it's own.

One man's terrorism is another's, patriotism.
I protect only my allies and those whom I agree with. If rebellions or terrorism hits others, let other organizations combat it without my pocketbook being effected.

One man's terrorism is another's, patriotism.
I protect only my allies and those whom I agree with. If rebellions or terrorism hits others, let other organizations combat it without my pocketbook being effected.

well it won't be your pocketbook. with this proposal, will only urge countries to allow airline companies to have onboard Sky marshalls to protect airline passengers against any hostile or terrorist threat.

And if we do this as WA it would be way more safe to step onboard of a commercial flight within the WA countries because their will always be backup, the sky marshalls.

Let me ask you. What is such bad about a resolution that provides airline passengers more safety onboard against possible terrorist threats, because Sky marshalls are onboard?

This doesn't mandate there be sky marshalls aboard, any powers they'd have for taking people down, or what they'd be armed with. It also doesn't adjust for such considerations as the fact some people would use living creatures (as Eluneyasa does ICly) instead of mechanical objects for the majority of their aerial transportation.

And why did I add it to the WA, well an International Airline, operates INTERNATIONAL, but because several countries do not have any regulations on Sky marshalls, you can't provide safety to passengers.

Actually, there are other ways of providing it. Some people use very powerful security forces in airports, some people use private security forces on the planes themselves, some people use living animals that would be very hard to hijack (you try crashing a living animal into a building against its will), and some people use automated security with weapons and hostility scanners. Each of those methods is effective in its own way if handled correctly.

And that's not even touching the problem on if the air marshall is armed and their gun is stolen during a flight.

The issue is, if you're going to look at the idea of airline security, you need to take into consideration that nations may already have come up with differing methods of handling the problem and a solution that adapts to their unique situations, as well as considering their differing approaches to the problem. For example, an air marshall wouldn't do any good with Eluneyasa's form of air travel... what is he going to do, shoot an innocent and hard-to-replace animal just because its rider gets a little stupid?

Therefor I would very much appriciate if this proposal woould become a resolution, so that All member States of the World Assembly can provide extra safety to airline passengers within the world assembly.

So what is wrong with it, and it would be way more efficient to have WA regulations instead of each country it's own.

This doesn't actually mandate anything; it does not guarantee air marshalls would be on the flights. In addition, it's not more efficient when you consider the vast range of differences in WA nations. Some have not even reached the point where they have air travel, while others do it in unusual methods and still others are advanced enough to journey through the stars.

It is up to the airline how a sky marshall will be armed, and not up to the Wa, that would make it only more difficult. So the airline will decide how a sky marshall will be armed and how far his authority on the plane will go.

And indeed a lot of countries already use a lot of ways to secure their planes and airports, but this is just an extra safety precaution fior all airline passengers within the WA nations.

And I think it isn't an excuse if your not in the air-travel era, we can still fly above your country.

The point I just want to make is. Terrorism is becomming a global threat, nowadays terrorist target commercial airlines, they try to hijack planes etc... with Sky Marshalls onboard we might prevent such terrorist actions. It really just is an extra safety precaution for all passengers flying with commercial airliners within countries who are member of the World Assembly.

And it would be great if WA nations would allow sky marshalls to operate within the WA countries, therefor we urge them in the proposal, so that we can make flying in world assambly member nations just safer.

I guess the "WA zone of countries" will be the safest place to fly above, partially because Sky Marshalls are allowed to operate within that zone against possible terrorist threats, if this propoosal would become a resolution.

The point I just want to make is. Terrorism is becomming a global threat, nowadays terrorist target commercial airlines, they try to hijack planes etc... with Sky Marshalls onboard we might prevent such terrorist actions. It really just is an extra safety precaution for all passengers flying with commercial airliners within countries who are member of the World Assembly.

There's already a resolution covering the counterterrorism requirements of WA nations,Here in fact (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14283232&postcount=27), it's possible that sky marshalls could fall under one of the requirements.

Hereby:

1) REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.

Kari Kagrosi
WA Pirate

Gnoria concurs with many of its friends, silly or no. A resolution that compels nations to do what is (a) in their best interests to do if it is needed and (b) possibly unneeded is, frankly, pointless.

If we want to legislate about air marshals, perhaps a better idea would be talking about coordination air marshals on international flights or protection of airlines internationally. As it stands, this proposal would merely get in the way of member states trying to do what they need to do.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

So if you don't like our proposals please just do not reply, I would really appriciate, thank you!!

And let you mistake our silence for approval of your ideas, no thanks.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

you know I thought I remembered the name Noordeinde and I finally remembered why.
In three different threads with three different proposals, I've disagreed with you. In each of your proposals you've asked for more power for what you claim to be international security.
here's your rather long proposal for an international court:
Conscious: that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time,

Mindful: that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,

Recognizing: that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world,

Affirming: that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,

Determined: to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes as:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

Determined: to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court in relationship with the World Assemblies system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.

Emphasizing: that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,

Resolved: to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice.

PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT
Article 1 The Court
An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.
Article 2 Relationship of the Court with the United Nations
The Court shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations through an agreement to be approved by the Assembly of States Parties to this Statute and thereafter concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.
Article 3 Seat of the Court
The seat of the Court shall be established at s’Gravenhage in the Grand Duchy of Noordeinde. ("the host State").
The Court shall enter into a headquarters agreement with the host State, to be approved by the Assembly of States Parties and thereafter concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.
The Court may sit elsewhere, whenever it considers it desirable, as provided in this Statute.

PART 2. JURISDICTION
Article 4 Jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Court has Jurisdiction within al nations that are member of the World Assembly.

Article 5 Prosecutor
The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the World Assembly, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.
If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.
The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence regarding the same situation.
If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence.

Article 6 Applicable law
The Court shall apply:
In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;
Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.
The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions.
The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender, as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

Part 3. Crimes that will be handled by the court

Article 7 Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
The crime of genocide;
Crimes against humanity;
War crimes;
The crime of aggression.
The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the World Assembly.

Article 8 Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 9 Crimes against humanity
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Murder;
Extermination;
Enslavement;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
Torture;
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Enforced disappearance of persons;
The crime of apartheid;
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
For the purpose of paragraph 1:
Attack directed against any civilian population means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
Extermination includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
Enslavement means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
Torture means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
Forced pregnancy means the unlawful confinement, of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
The crime of apartheid means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Article 10 War crimes
The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as a part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(i)Wilful killing;
(ii)Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii)Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv)Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v)Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi)Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii)Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii)Taking of hostages.
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i)Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii)Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii)Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the World Assembly, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv)Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v)Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi)Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii)Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the World Assembly, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
(viii)The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(ix)Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(x)Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi)Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(xii)Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xiii)Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(xiv)Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(xv)Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(xvi)Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(xvii)Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
(xviii)Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(xix)Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
(xx)Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
(xxi)Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(xxii)Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
(xxiii)Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
(xxiv)Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(xxv)Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival;
(xxvi)Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Part 4. Judges

Article 11. Appointment of Judges at the International Criminal Court.

The judges of the International Criminal Court are elected for nine-year terms by the member-countries of the World Assembly and thereby the court. Candidates must be nationals of those countries and they must "possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices".
A judge may be disqualified from "any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground", and a judge may be removed from office if he or she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions.
The judges are organized into three divisions: the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division.

Finally here's your proposal for disarming embassies:
Embassy Disarmament Proposal.

Nations of The World,

Several nations in our world arm their foreign embassy's with biological weapons, nuclear weapons but also rocket launchers,grenades, flamethrowers, swords etc...

All weapons that could seriously harm the people of the Country were the Embassy is.

We hearby make the request at the World Assembly, to disarm all Embassies from such EXTREME weapons. And that from now on it's PROHIBITED to secure your foreign Embassy's with such weapons.

We request as well if this proposal will be accepted by the WA, that WA inspectors will check all embassies for the prohibited weapons. And will "punish" all country's who are still arming their embassies with these weapons.

ladies and gentlemen, Heads of State, decide wise.

I just thought it was very interesting and wanted others to see this as well just to see what they think of your proposal's as a whole.

well your free to show them to the world no problems with me, but where are your proposals I haven't seen 1 Not 1.

And btw I did didn't place the new court version, I only used it to verify how I would explain genocide or war crimes.

well your free to show them to the world no problems with me, but where are your proposals I haven't seen 1 Not 1.

And btw I did didn't place the new court version, I only used it to verify how I would explain genocide or war crimes.

Participation in the debates is not dependent on if you have put a proposal forward. You don't have to write one to agree or disagree with something proposed on this floor.

I would suggest you post your ideas for proposals as drafts for the community at large to critique and debate while you can make adjustments to them.

We also suggest if the delegate from Norrdeinde insists on not posting a draft for critique and comment he develop a much thicker skin.

Oh, and for the record I have put forth two drafts in the past, neither of which found quorum, but also neither of which were question as to content or legality.



Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

We must in complete seriousness concur with our ambassadorial colleagues. This proposal will change exactly nothing, which we consider a blessing. Were it to attempt to make these undefined "Sky Marshalls" compulsory, it could well make the situation considerably worse.

My esteemeded colleague, please read vback the proposul it isn't compuslory, it urges countries to allow sky marrshalls, and their is a difference between urging and declaring something compulsory.

And I hope you know yourself what sky marshalls are.

And let me ask you, how wold sky marshalls make the situation worse? I mean they are onboard to protect passengers against possible terrorist threats.

Again urging nations to put a Sky Marshal on every commercial flight will have a negligible affect on terrorism. Terrorists will train and develop ways to defeat them, or ways to take flights without them.

The way to stop terrorism on commerical flights is to stop the terrorist before they get on the flight... not make them tougher.

Nigel S Yolkin
WA Ambassador

Noordeinde, are you here for honest critique or are you here just to drum up support for your proposal and get it to quorum? If the former, then you will have to read over the entire thread. If the latter, then you're in seriously the wrong place for it.

I'm open for critique, ofcourse butt well let's be honest sometimes when i'm in a bad mood and I read all those critics, well it just pisses me of sometimes.

And to react on Phillembesi, I absolutely agree on the fact that you shoud prevent terrorist from boarding a commercial plane. But what we see on international airports is that some of them have "security gaps" and therefor as "last force" against possible terrorist I think the solution would be to allow sky marshalls, at least within the WA member countries. So that we at least can protect the passengers flying within the WA countries.

And I it would be great if terrorist would decide to travel otherwise instaead of by plane. It would in such a situation more safe to fly and the Sky Marshalls had another effect, they scare away possible terrorist.

But if I may ask, what do you think would be the solution to prevent passengers of commercial flights against possible terrorism on planes, which we can also become a WA resolution to improve the safety against terrorism with as target planes?

Noordeinde, it is true that I haven't written any new proposal. I still feel that I am new to the world community and do not feel I am the man qualified to take action in that particular way.
I however was a delegate in the world assembly and voted on every issue, asking questions from my coleaques and debating them. I also am not one to always be negative or always vote yes. I weigh the issues and determine my stance.
In many of your proposals, I wonder about the purpose of them. What good does it do? What does it intend to accomplish?
In this particular one, I haven't asked that question. I know you feel safety of the skies is important and perhaps it is a problem for your country or maybe even your region.
In my country it is not and never have I been urged from members of my region to take an action against it. I just don't want bigger government for the WA.
My philosophy is that sometimes the best government is one that dictates the least.
Just please don't attack my record of proposal writing.

Does the delegate from Noordeinde really believe that the possible presence of armed men on a plane is going to stop someone prepared to die and convinced what they are going to do is right? Does he think that in the eyes of a terrorist dying in a firefight with the infidel while taking out as many as he can is any better or worse then completing the task? The answer is no.

Arrest the terrorist , before he boards. Some (including me) would say better still kill the terrorist before he plans.

You're right in terms of the airline companies, it would be great if terrorists decide to take the train... of course in terms of train companies... that's a different story. What does the delegate from Noordeinde suggest then... rail marshals?

wel I'm sorry for that than, I didn't know that you actually have experience as a delegate. And well the proposal has been written just to protect the citizens of world assembly nations which use commercial flights as a way of transport to get from point A to B.

I'm actually glad it isn't a problem in my country and region. And well I did actually write this proposal as well to keep it that way, and to have an extra safty precaution if some sort of situation would occur.

But I do understand your point of small government, and I do respect that ofcourse, well we will see waht happen friday when delegates can't vote anymore on the proposal.

Does the delegate from Noordeinde really believe that the possible presence of armed men on a plane is going to stop someone prepared to die and convinced what they are going to do is right? Does he think that in the eyes of a terrorist dying in a firefight with the infidel while taking out as many as he can is any better or worse then completing the task? The answer is no.

Arrest the terrorist , before he boards. Some (including me) would say better still kill the terrorist before he plans.

You're right in terms of the airline companies, it would be great if terrorists decide to take the train... of course in terms of train companies... that's a different story. What does the delegate from Noordeinde suggest then... rail marshals?

And no, trains have conductors to hold order onboard, and otherwise you always have, at least in several countries, Railway Police.

A conductor yes, yet that conductor would be able to do little if a individual armed with a small balloon of ricin gets on and breaks the bag on his way out.

If the same individual is in a prison (or grave) it's a moot point.

But one thing, a plane and a train are 2 ways of transportation. And they aren't compareble, so why discuss it, my colleague Delegate?. Both ways of transportations will have it's own policies. And now and here were discussing Sky Marshalls onboard of commercial flights and not conductors on trains.

Yet, they are comparable in that terrorists can use them to ply their trade. The conductor example was brought forth by you, not me.

You offered no counterpoint to any of the points brought forth outlining why I thought sky marshals don't act as a deterant, you latched on to the train marshals comment.

I welcome your response to my opinion on the deterrent argument.

My esteemeded colleague, please read vback the proposul it isn't compuslory, it urges countries to allow sky marrshalls, and their is a difference between urging and declaring something compulsory.
If our esteemed colleague read what we wrote rather than what he thought we wrote, he would note that we rejoiced in the proposal did absolutely nothing compulsory, or indeed useful.

And I hope you know yourself what sky marshalls are.
Our understanding is that they are some form of private security operative, with the entertaining diplomatic issue that on international flights there is no jurisdiction for them to attempt to enforce.

And let me ask you, how wold sky marshalls make the situation worse? I mean they are onboard to protect passengers against possible terrorist threats.
We subscribe to the principle that if one must police for something, one has already failed. At that point, the policing itself adds to the tension and resentment, thereby making it more likely that irritation will turn into anger and action. It is certainly an observable effect in Gobbannium that operators who have employed private security agents on internal flights have experienced a sharp drop in passenger numbers.

The Palentine will oppose this resolution should it come to vote. The question of whether or not nations allow Sky Marshalls to fly on planes is one best left to the discretion of each nation(and airline), and not an international body.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

What an excellent proposal. We at Transantactic Zeppelin are currently trialling this on our first flight to Noordeinde. In fact, according to the telegramme we have just recieved, they are currently dealing with a smuggling situation at the moment, as it is coming in to land at Nooreinde's primary field. We should be getting pictures any minute now...ah...here we go...






















http://www.obit-mag.com/media/image/8470_Hindenburg.gif



Shit.


Maybe this sky marshall thing isn't a good idea.


Stan Carruthers
Press Wallah
Transantarctic Zeppellin (TM)