NationStates Jolt Archive

All nations assembled in the World Assembly:

RECOGNIZING; that piracy in international waters is becoming a global threat;

RECOGNIZING; that the lives of sailors, tourist or just people onboard of Merchant Vessels or Cruise Ships and freighters are at risk more and more due the piracy;

RECOGNIZING; that sailors, tourist or just people onboard of Merchant Vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters can't protect themselves against armed pirates;

BELIEVING; that armed private security forces onboard of Merchant Vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters will protect the lives of sailors, tourist or just people onboard of ships against pirates;

Therefore,

DECLARES; that it is legal for Merchant/Cruise or just Shipping Companies to hire Private Armed Security Forces, which will operate onboard and will protect all people against pirates which attack their ship.

But,

OBSERVING; that if we would allow these Private Security Forces onboard of Merchant vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters, we would also need several articles that describe the powers of these Private Security Forces.

Therefore,

Article 1 of the Statute: The Powers of Private Security Forces.

•The Private Security Forces may carry weapons, but only use them if their live or the lives of other people onboard is at risk due pirates or other hostilities.

•The Private Security Forces may only intervene if their ship is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

•The Private Security Forces shall have a “license to kill” if their own live or the live of other people onboard are at risk due to pirates.

Article 2 of the Statute: The Operation Area's.

•World Assembly waters

•International Waters.

•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but at own risk of prosecution.

Hmm... I don't see why I shouldn't support this proposal. In my own opinion, the military should be allowed to do its job, but I don't see why other countries should be restricted from using private security forces.

I don't know much about boats-- are we sure that "merchant vessels, cruise ships, and freighters," is a broad enough definition?

Also, in Article 1, I'd like to see something enabling the Private Security Forces to intervene in ANOTHER ship's attack, in so much as they are granted permission. And that permission be IMPLIED until the point that original ownership of that vessel is secured. And that Private Security Forces will not be responsible for any damages that occur in a logical rescue.

Pausing only to observe that the WA already has legislation directed at dealing with international piracy, we confess to severely mixed feelings concerning this proposal.
BELIEVING; that armed private security forces onboard of Merchant Vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters will protect the lives of sailors, tourist or just people onboard of ships against pirates;
Our first problem is that we do not believe this. We are distinctly not keen on armed policing forces, never mind private ones, so this statement is never going to be popular with us. Further, we are of the opinion that adding guns to a situation invariably makes the lives of associated civilians less safe, not more; it instantly escalates the situation to lethal force, regardless of any previous intentions on either side.

DECLARES; that it is legal for Merchant/Cruise or just Shipping Companies to hire Private Armed Security Forces, which will operate onboard and will protect all people against pirates which attack their ship.
If the honoured ambassador is prepared to make it more explicit that the proposal is only legalising the operation of such private forces onboard ship, we could weather this. Private armies are not legal on Gobbannaen soil, and we have solid cultural reasons for wishing to keep it this way.

•The Private Security Forces may only intervene if their ship is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.
We see the honoured ambassador has noted the difficulty of determining the nature of an attacker in advance, even if the solution is a somewhat clumsy. We do not, however, understand the reason for the limitation on where the ship can be for such defence to be legal.

•The Private Security Forces shall have a “license to kill” if their own live or the live of other people onboard are at risk due to pirates.
Either this is repeating something that has already been laid out, or it so vague and ill-defined as to require that it is taken out and shot. In neither case does something so dangerously vague belong in a proposal.

Article 2 of the Statute: The Operation Area's.
Please remove the Grocers' Apostrophe.

•World Assembly waters
We believe that the Vastiva Memorial Pool to be quite free from piratical activity, unless Captain Henry has become lost again.

•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but at own risk of prosecution.
This is a pointless directive, and doubtless highly offensive to non-member nations. We strongly recommend its deletion.

Personally I find this clause,
RECOGNIZING; that sailors, tourist or just people onboard of Merchant Vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters can't protect themselves against armed pirates;

to be inaccurate, maybe your nations ships can't defend themselves from pirates, but I know that all ships registered in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites are required by law to have weapons on board to be used in that situation.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Private armed security on board merchant ships? What are they going to do, shoot some small arms at a pirate ship while the pirates fire massive naval guns? There's three ways you can protect your merchant fleet from pirates.

1) Put naval guns onboard the merchant ships and let them sink the pirates.
2) Send your navy or submarines to escort the merchant ships and sink the pirates.
3) Pay for Protected by the Light and let my orbital weapons sink the pirates.

This resolution won't do squat against pirates, it really doesn't need to ever make it to the floor.

All nations assembled in the World Assembly:

BELIEVING; that armed private security forces onboard of Merchant Vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters will protect the lives of sailors, tourist or just people onboard of ships against pirates;


I can assure my esteemed colleague that not all nations feel this way. I would remove this.

But,

Though there are some here who will argue that certain people's presence contradicts my next statement. There are no buts in international law...

OBSERVING; that if we would allow these Private Security Forces onboard of Merchant vessels, Cruise Ships and freighters, we would also need several articles that describe the powers of these Private Security Forces.

While I agree with the statement, just tell us what it does...

•The Private Security Forces may carry weapons, but only use them if their live or the lives of other people on board is at risk due pirates or other hostilities.


As determined by whom? The captain of the ship? The captain of the guard, the military, the guy with the gun, the leader of the nation?


•The Private Security Forces may only intervene if their ship is under attack by pirates or any other hostility whether they are in International Waters, or member-nation waters.

I believe my esteemed colleague means to say international or sovereign waters. But more on that later.

•The Private Security Forces shall have a “license to kill” if their own live or the live of other people onboard are at risk due to pirates.

The delegate from Noordeinde certainly does like the phrase "license to kill
. However as this is not a mythical Bond movie, it is un-needed. The presence of the security force and the weapons are a good enough tip off.

•World Assembly waters

Once again... the fountains out front are not under attack. There simply is no such thing as World Assembly waters. There are sovereign waters and international waters. As a matter of fact at this point unless I'm mistaken, sovereign waters are up in the air as the resolution defining them was destroyed when our former headquarters was incinerated...


•In the waters of Non-Member countries of the World Assembly, but at own risk of prosecution.


Actually your proposal only gives the security forces the rights to exist, and puts limits on where they can operate. It says nothing of defining their operations. So, it's possible, I believe, that if a security force violates the laws of the nation who's waters they are in they could be prosecuted in member nations as well.

Further we worry about the precedent of placing private security forces on board a ship with no mandate as to weapons training and tactics. We know that it has worked in other nations and we respect that however in the USoP we'd rather that remain up to the professionals.

My nations policy on pirated craft is pretty simple, if you take one of our ships by force you will soon get to meet the captain of one of our submarines as you float down passed it, after having meet one of our SEAL Anti-Piracy teams.

I can;t see why there needs to be international agreement on this; there are manifold ways to deal with piracy, and the one suggested here is by no means the best

The one suggested here is not the best. But some Nations don't have a well funded military. Some Nations don't have a well funded police force. Why? I really couldn't tell you, since both are very important to the Rogue Nation's welfare, as well as being a pillar to support the integrity of our citizens.

The question really isn't, "how would you deal with it," the question is "Do Nations have the right to hire Private Security Forces." Of course they do. And there should be an international agreement on this, though it should be better defined, as Philimbesi points out.

We need to know what sort of jurisdiction these Forces have. We would like to see their operations defined better. It seems that they can't do anything unless it can be proven that their lives are in immediate danger. Pirates don't always operate that way. Pirates like hostages, and they like TAKING ships more than blowing them up. These Forces, if they are EVER going to do a job that other organizations are so much more qualified for, will need support.

But what is the point of legalising something that is already legal?

Again with the murkiness of definition and purpose in the proposal I'm left to wonder if this isn't a blocker-ish? Blocking nations from forcing companies to use their military to protect ships?

Though I can't remember such a situation occurring in the past.

Private armed security on board merchant ships? What are they going to do, shoot some small arms at a pirate ship while the pirates fire massive naval guns? There's three ways you can protect your merchant fleet from pirates.

1) Put naval guns onboard the merchant ships and let them sink the pirates.
2) Send your navy or submarines to escort the merchant ships and sink the pirates.
3) Pay for Protected by the Light and let my orbital weapons sink the pirates.

This resolution won't do squat against pirates, it really doesn't need to ever make it to the floor.

OOC: I'm fairly certain that this idea comes from the recent incident where 4 pirates in a rubber dingy hijacked a freighter and kidnapped it's Captain off the coast of Somalia. An incident which could have been stopped with one bullet, simply shoot the dingy causing it to deflate.

noordeinde change live to life. "own life or life's of the people"
I don't believe this is expanding government beyond control, so I'm ok with it.
I'll give that to you noordeinde

OOC: I'm fairly certain that this idea comes from the recent incident where 4 pirates in a rubber dingy hijacked a freighter and kidnapped it's Captain off the coast of Somalia. An incident which could have been stopped with one bullet, simply shoot the dingy causing it to deflate.

OoC: Which begs the question, does the author no how bloody difficult it is shooting a rubber dingy from a ship?

OOC: wouldn't you go away if proffesional security forces would open fire on you, I bet you would, and that's why it shoulld be legal for shipping companies to hire well trained security forces to scare away pirates and to protect thr crew against pirates attacks.

My question for my esteemed colleague is simply in what nations is it illegal for them to do so.

Nigel S Youlkin.
WA Ambassador

Private security forces on the open sea? I suggest you go see the movie State of Play

Nigel looked at his translator... "Movie?" - "State Of Play?"

Max shook his head slightly. "I got nuthin" he said.

My question for my esteemed colleague is simply in what nations is it illegal for them to do so.

Nigel S Youlkin.
WA Ambassador

As I understand it, anything that is not expressed in WA legislation is for each Nation to determine. Therefore, and admitting that I'm not familiar with every Nation, I can only assume that it is in fact illegal in some places. And in order to protect the rights of Nations, and their Private Security Forces, while in international waters, this proposition should pass.

Again, the issue here isn't whether or not we think Private Security Forces are the best way to handle pirates. It is whether or not Nations have a right to employ such measures. Now lets hear an arguement saying that they don't.

Now lets hear an arguement saying that they don't.


Yes... and.. It is the absence so far of that argument that leads me to conclude that it's not illegal. Were I to put forth a resolution legalizing cannabis worldwide or legalizing putting babies on spikes there would be a cavalcade of nations where canibis is illegal and putting babies on spikes is frowned upon. Therefore we are asking the same question... What nations make it illegal? and why?

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

And if it is illegal in some nations, it's probably for good reason - mistrust of security firms, preference of using military forces stationed on merchant ships, use of the convoy system, fears of mutiny, preference of Q-ships (Cobdenia's preferred method).

Cobdenian law requires small arms to be carried on merchant ships, accessible only to and issuable by the ships' master (who may delegate their use to other officers and seamen). This is largely as an anti-mutiny protection, but use against pirates is also permissable - though not always advised (as it can exaccerbate the situation).

Why shove one size fits all legislation onto the WA nations when the circumstances of piracy may preclude the use of one method over another, and otherwise hamper the use of other methods. For example, why do they have to be private security, and not seconded naval personel? Perfectly good reasons exist as to why some nations might prefer this.

Furthermore, there already exists a resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14081128&postcount=22) requiring nations to deal with piracy. Rendering this utterly pointless as a anti-piracy proposal, as well as unneccessarily intrusive into the methods used to deal with it.

This resolution is the merchantile equivalent of mandating that armies use .303 calibre bolt action rifles, 17lb field guns, and 17 inch bayonets in war. Pointless, and misses the fact that others may prefer a different approach.

My esteemed colleague, the Representative of Cobdenia, seems to miss the point. Can we stop talking about the military for a moment? Is it agreed that military acts against piracy are legal thanks to previous resolutions and... well, common sense. Because NO, I don't presume to tell nations what means are best for them. I don't think the author of this proposal does either. Again, it is simply their RIGHT to employ private forces. And the point is to express WA consent for them to do so, considering that they are NOT military, and are thereby not necessarily granted the same rights in protecting themselves. In todays media world it is important to leave little room for interpretation of law.

I'm sure Ambassador Youlkin will find out what nations make this illegal if this proposal ever reaches quorom. Until that time, I'm sure he will grant me the generalization that 'it is illegal SOMEWHERE,' since the World Assembly is full of diversity. This proposal is simply saying that, if an incident arises in MY waters where Private Forces are illegal (though I think you'll find my waters to be barren of piracy,) the Nation of Cobdenia has the right to protect itself using WHATEVER means necessary and without being prosecuted because my particular Nation doesn't condone such methods.

This is not intrusive. This is inclusive.

Hmm... well, I'm going to have to admit defeat here, despite the legitimacy of my arguement. Law is law, and I have to agree that the resolution in effect grants Nations the right to their own means of anti-piracy.

This proposal doesn't stand well enough on its own feet and will need a re-draft, but I am still tenatively in support of it. Unfortunately, a repeal of the past Resolution may be necessary, on the grounds that:

"1. Defines the term ‘Pirates’, for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause),"

This is a terrible definition of the term 'pirate,' and (I hope by accident,) seems to describe in frightening exactness Private Security Forces.

I think a clear and binding definition of International v. Sovereign waters is needed before any laws regulation who can attack who in what are passed.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

Would the Ambassador be interested in undertaking such a proposal? With or without help? I offer my own assistance, but recognize my significant lack of experience.

Also, I don't plan to allow 'attacks,' of any kind, in so much as protecting oneself or National interests does not constitute an attack.

Private Security Forces are legal with the correct licence and approval in the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg but there restrictions in the aspect of the licence to kill. Private security forces may perform a civilian arrest against the pirates whilst the police forces are summoned. It is only legal to use brute force against pirates if it poses a fatal and I mean fatal threat to to the safety of passengers on ships.

All sovereign waters of the country are actively monitored by full-duty sea watchers at many types of locations, from ships to lighthouses or marine stations.

Finally, please remember that the World Assembly cannot dictate what goes on outside their jurisdiction.

Ambassador Youlkin is no doubt aware of the WA's jurisdiction, and for that reason wishes for a clear and binding definition of International -v- Sovereign waters.

In my own opinion it is necessary to legalize WA Nations' rights to protect themselves regardless of location or jurisdiction.

"Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. "
- Resolution 2

Technically, this would mean that my boat in your waters belongs to you. I disagree, and think that in fact the Article means to say that jurisdictional possession of a 'thing,' is retained by its Nation of origin. And that the task of protecting should be granted as an 'immunity.' If no International Law presently suffices, then we should make one.

I remember a law existing on the topic however it was lost in the fire.

I believe the Cobdenian delegation was the author, and I would be very supportive should he decide to propose the law again... or allow others to use parts of it in their own version.

Unfortunately, a repeal of the past Resolution may be necessary, on the grounds that:

"1. Defines the term ‘Pirates’, for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause),"

This is a terrible definition of the term 'pirate,' and (I hope by accident,) seems to describe in frightening exactness Private Security Forces."Ahem!" You left out the section after the comma, which narrows the definition down somewhat:
unlike ‘Privateers’, and who operate in groups to use threats and force to seize vehicles and their cargos — and possibly their passengers, and/or crew, as well — for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vehicles as transportation for raids against settlements,

"Ahem!" You left out the section after the comma, which narrows the definition down somewhat:

Perhaps the delegate from Absolvablity would like to revise and amend is comments to "the part I read is a terrible definition of the term 'pirate,' "

Nigel said... his tongue deeply entrenched in his cheek...

You're quite correct, Ambassador. In my haste I misread the quotation, and thought that the rest applied to a definition of 'Privateers.' Of course, now that I see it correctly, and now that I've familiarized myself with the definition of 'privateers,' I understand my explaination is still a little silly.

I still think it should be re-defined however, considering that all pirates may not wish to seize vehicles or cargo, but instead simply hinder transferrence of goods. An illegal embargo, for example.

I also think that the vague reference to privateers alone is not enough to grant Private Security Forces their entitled rights, considering that the definition of 'privateer' implies that the VEHICLE as well as the personel are private in nature.

So include in this proposal (if it goes ahead, which I personally don't actually see as necessary) a clause requiring that whatever 'private security forces' are hired for this purpose _
"must have been licenced to perform such work by the government of a WA member nation, whose agents they shall count as for the purpose of legal responsibility while performing this job;"
and then you're fully legal under resolution #20...
And this would introduce at least a small measure of 'quality control' into that field, because sensible governments won't licence forces that they don't trust to do the job properly, too...


(OOC: This is 'Bears Armed'/'St Edmund', in case you hadn't already guessed....)

That is, almost exactly, what I'd like to see done. I just wonder if this could be construed as a 'house of cards,' violation, or whatever, in that it cooperates with another resolution. Or, if I made the proposal strong enough to stand on its own feet, if it would be viewed as illegal.

I find a few of the WA's policies confusing in these regards. And wonder why it should be illegal to 'amend' past resolutions? This is the cause of many needless repeals. Furthermore, if the new resolution were to gather a sufficient number of votes, wouldn't it be an appropriate and legal amendment? Whether or not the previous author intended for it?

I find a few of the WA's policies confusing in these regards. And wonder why it should be illegal to 'amend' past resolutions? This is the cause of many needless repeals. Furthermore, if the new resolution were to gather a sufficient number of votes, wouldn't it be an appropriate and legal amendment? Whether or not the previous author intended for it?

OOC: I believe amendments are impossible because of the mechanics of the game. It's impossible to add to or adjust the original changes to your nations made by the passage of the resolution and maintain other aspects of the resolution intact. This means the whole resolution needs to be taken out before changes and adjustments can be made. The MODs can explain or correct me but that's how I understand it.

OOC: I believe amendments are impossible because of the mechanics of the game. It's impossible to add to or adjust the original changes to your nations made by the passage of the resolution and maintain other aspects of the resolution intact. This means the whole resolution needs to be taken out before changes and adjustments can be made. The MODs can explain or correct me but that's how I understand it.

OOC:That is correct, good sirrah Its a mechanics(game code) thing. You either vote for or against. If you don't like a passed proposal, then you must repeal it. At least thats how I understand the rules as posted.

OOC: Game code? I don't know much about 'engines' or DHTML or anything like that, but by looking at what is presently possible I can tell you that 'game mechanics,' or more precisely, 'mechanics,' has nothing to do with the legality of amendments. It is not impossible to adjust changes. At any rate, all I'm saying is that amendments should be legal THAT IN NO WAY take away from anything said in the original resolution. It is precisely because insufficient wording is most often revealed in hindsight, and that new matters may provide necessity for further example, that amendments should take place. UNDERSTANDING that if that original resolution is repealed, so is the 'amendment.' And I use the word amendment loosely, OOCly, because what I am proposing is certainly not to add text to any past resolutions.

Or even if you don't share my thoughts... can you at least admit that a political game outlawing amendments is highly ridiculous?

When a resolution is passed it affects aspects of your nation (http://nstracker.jfsoftware.com/index.php?nation=Absolvability). Those changes are stay in affect in until the resolution is repealed. The game is set up as it is and no one is going back to change it, so yes it is impossible to make partial adjustments. In basic of terms passing a resolution is the same as clicking yes to an issue. The changes are made in one swoop (the compliance telegram) and stay in effect. Much like you can't change your nations outlook on an issue until it comes up again, you can't change your nations outlook on a resolution until it's repealed and then issued again.

Well. Lets not use the word 'impossible' to describe something that nobody is willing to change, okay?

Furthermore, I don't think it was anybody's intention to deny amendments that work in complete abideance with a resolution. It is precisely for your reasons that an amendment must not contradict anything. As far as 'expounding' goes, it should be considered to be a stand-alone resolution, and we'll all get our beloved compliance telegrams. I don't see how this is in any way problematic, nor have I heard any arguements other than 'I don't want to change.' NOR HAVE I, that I'm aware of, been contacted by any real admin/mod to tell me that my interpretation of the rules is incorrect.

Well. Lets not use the word 'impossible' to describe something that nobody is willing to change, okay?

Furthermore, I don't think it was anybody's intention to deny amendments that work in complete abideance with a resolution. It is precisely for your reasons that an amendment must not contradict anything. As far as 'expounding' goes, it should be considered to be a stand-alone resolution, and we'll all get our beloved compliance telegrams. I don't see how this is in any way problematic, nor have I heard any arguements other than 'I don't want to change.' NOR HAVE I, that I'm aware of, been contacted by any real admin/mod to tell me that my interpretation of the rules is incorrect.

then I leave you to the MODS. because obviously my two years playing this game (nor for that matter, my RL degree in computer science and job in web development) isn't enough to prove to you that I know what I'm speaking about.

What I mean to say is that adding to a resolution shouldn't be seen as a violation, because if these additions weren't explicitly covered then no effects were felt by complying nations. That doesn't make sense to you?

Yes it does. It's a tough call though because it would depend on how your are adding to the resolution. You'd have to make sure that if the first one were to fall the addition wouldn't be left out in the wind by the collapse.

Why? In the real world sense, most things that have 'amendments' attached are not subject to repeal. On the other hand, in this game, isn't it entirely logical and therefore acceptable that an amendment should fail when the original resolution does? Furthermore, an amendment could be repealed WITHOUT the original resolution being effected.

I know it's a tough call, but it should be considered.

Why? In the real world sense, most things that have 'amendments' attached are not subject to repeal. On the other hand, in this game, isn't it entirely logical and therefore acceptable that an amendment should fail when the original resolution does? Furthermore, an amendment could be repealed WITHOUT the original resolution being effected.

I know it's a tough call, but it should be considered.

again read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7)

I already have. We've totally commandeered this thread (which I have no guilt about, cuz the author isn't around, lol) so lets confine our discussion to the other one please. Frankly, I'm tired of playing tag with you anyway. Heh. Cuz I think I'm losing.

I already have. We've totally commandeered this thread (which I have no guilt about, cuz the author isn't around, lol) so lets confine our discussion to the other one please. Frankly, I'm tired of playing tag with you anyway. Heh. Cuz I think I'm losing.

Fair nuff :)

Again, it is simply their RIGHT to employ private forces. And the point is to express WA consent for them to do so, considering that they are NOT military, and are thereby not necessarily granted the same rights in protecting themselves. In todays media world it is important to leave little room for interpretation of law. But for those nations where this is already doable then this proposal is unnecessary, and as for those nations where this is prohibited then perhaps shipping companies in those nations should work to get those laws changed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I already have.Then perhaps you should reread it until you fully comprehend why amendments can not be coded into the game.

I guess I can admit that 'for nations where this is already doable' the proposal is unnecessary. But only because the same can be said for... well, anything. And perhaps shipping companies in the other nations should work to get those laws changed. That's not really the point. In fact I feel this is the same misdirection I've encountered so many times now. If the WA is not here to create international law, then why is it here? What is its jurisdiction? Does it have any power whatsoever? Those are rhetorical questions and should be regarded as such.

The 'amendment' issue has been cleared up on another thread though not to my satisfaction.

MODEDIT: DO NOT CARRY PERSONAL ARGUMENTS FROM ONE THREAD TO ANOTHER. Especially from a thread that has been closed. Doing so is a rules infraction.

I guess I can admit that 'for nations where this is already doable' the proposal is unnecessary. But only because the same can be said for... well, anything. And perhaps shipping companies in the other nations should work to get those laws changed. That's not really the point. In fact I feel this is the same misdirection I've encountered so many times now.
And yet we note that you continue to respond to this canard rather than any substantial points made. You are thus as guilty as any in perpetuating this powerless attitude, ambassador. We advise flatly ignoring such assertions unless they are accompanied by reasoning which may be appropriately analysed.

Incidentally, there are many such knee-jerk reactions that can be seen in this chamber on a regular basis. We dare say that we perpetrate some ourself. We submit that such statements are worth no more than their supporting submissions provide.

If the WA is not here to create international law, then why is it here? What is its jurisdiction? Does it have any power whatsoever? Those are rhetorical questions and should be regarded as such.
Let it not be said that we ignored an opportunity for rhetoric.

The WA is here to create a body of international law. It therefore has considerable power; absolute power, in effect, over any nation that chooses to be a member.

The exercise of such power is naturally a matter to be undertaken with extreme caution. The WA has laid upon itself rules and procedures that it will adhere to in making law; that the total body of it's law will always remain consistent, for example, no matter what resolutions may be added or removed. The restrictions that the respected ambassador rails at are all there for a reason (OOC: though some of them strain the roleplaying imagination from time to time!), and some cogitation of what those rules prevent will help make sense of the whole.

Incidentally, in recent debate on this subject great mention was made of the "policies" of the WA. Asking after such betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the WA; it is far too sprawling and disparate an organisation to have the sense of direction implied. The WA has no policy, except locally as individual nations and groups present proposals for consideration and vote, and even then such policy is a momentary thing of temporary concensus that can be undone with another vote.

I closed this thread briefly to think about it. I have reopened it because the proposal's author deserves the right to have his proposal discussed.

He does not deserve to have his thread hijacked by a discussion that has already been thrashed out elsewhere and closed. I will regard all further attempts in this thread to discuss the questions of amendments and "WA policies" -- rightly described by Gobbannium's ambassador as non-existent -- as rule infractions and will treat them as such.

This means DO NOT REPLY to earlier posts on the irrelevant topics. I don't propose to spend any more time on this by going through each post and weeding out the irrelevant references while retaining the proposal-related ones. They're here, and here they stay, but IGNORE THEM.

The last thing my nation would like to do is create an industry for private armies. Let's keep this in the hands of our militaries. Besides, modern piracy is only common off the shores of unstable or governmentless nations. Instead of creating a cycle of escalation between pirates and soldiers of fortune lets examine options of creating stability in the region.

This really does seem a waste of time. There is a resolution dealing with piracy on the books. If a nation wants to allow private security forces on merchant vessels, there is nothing stopping them, as long as the Nation that the vessel is registered and the shipping company signs off on it. Just as any nation is free to use Q-Ships to perform the same job. While I applaud the ideals of wanting to keep one's merchant shipping safe, I must say that my nation would oppose this resolution.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I will regard all further attempts in this thread to discuss the questions of amendments and "WA policies" -- rightly described by Gobbannium's ambassador as non-existent -- as rule infractions and will treat them as such.

Fair enough. May we (back IC) remind the author that he is yet to respond to any of our substantive criticisms of this draft?

The Empire of Mussolioni strongly rejects this proposal. We support a strong publicly-funded military. We believe that is the only proper military to have. The presence of a private defense agency would greatly endanger my nation because I believe that any for-profit organization would attempt to subvert my nation's sovereignty. National service is not a for-profit venture. The people are supposed to sacrifice themselves for the nation, and nothing more. The thought of having the military become a capitalistic entity frightens me.

So my vote is no.

The people are supposed to sacrifice themselves for the nation, and nothing more.

It's amusing that Mussolioni said that, considering that a wise general once said, "It is not your job to die for your country; it is your job to make some other poor son of a bitch die for his."

Of course, that's really neither here nor there. But neither if the esteemed representative's arguement. Unless he is implying that Private Security Forces might be acceptable if they were of ex-military pedigree.

We actually like the idea of leaving shipping securities to the individual nations. We don't like proposals dealing with piracy, period. We have numerous problems, obviously, with the piracy resolution currently on the books. However, aside from the obvious objections there are several other reasons we sternly object to it. The most predominant is there is currently no definition of what constitutes national and international waters.

We are currently working on having R20 repealed and implore that the matter be dropped and ask that each nation either provide their own protection or seek security from a neighbor. I'm sure the Palentine will be offering naval security at a premium.