NationStates Jolt Archive

...There has been a lot of human rights violations throughout the world, with millions of people suffering from tons of genocides and violence. Wars have been fought, and people died.

The reason is over "human rights", but there has been so much violence and bloodshed that is spilt over the crisis of 'human rights', that it seems to us that there is more human rights violations that occur during the process of intervention. Violence is NOT the answer to every problem out there, we cannot police the world...

Plus, millions upon millions of people get murdered over these conflicts. And then what? Another violation occurs. There has to be a better way to deterimine if human rights are violated or not.

So, I propose this. We have a simple, de facto "court" to determine if human right violations (like genocide) has occured, and if so, is the country responsible for it. While we are a socialist nation, anyone, capitalist, communist, or moderate, can bring accuastions of human right violation against any other nations. We can then peacefully sort out what has happened via the court, thereby avoiding the needless bloodshed and violence.

3 countries who has not been affilated with either side in the Conflict over human rights get to preside over the Court. This will be the "trial by one's peers". Once these three countries are chosen, then the Accusser makes a post laying out his accusation. The Defender then makes a post proving the Accuser wrong. The Judges can then ask questions to the Defender and the Accuser to learn more.

Once a time limit is up, the Judges then make a vote. The 3 countries then vote YES or NO to if human rights violations has occured. The trial is over, and the charges cannot be brought up again, as it has been dealt with.

Once we determined that human rights violations has occured, we can then place sactions on them, or call for the country to stop, but first, we must determine that such a thing happened, and we must do so in a fair manner. Otherwise, it will lead to a point to which a big nation can lie about a 'human rights abuse' in a itty-bitty nation and then pounce on that nation. We need to have respect for small nations, and this Court will help us do that.

Both the Accuser and the Defender needs to go and be willing to respect this framework, and will promise to accept the desicon. If neither the Accuser or the Defender desire to answer the Court, then the Court would have no meaning whatsoever.

Thoughts? Comments?

*bump*

We would be very interested in helping you to establish a court/council to discuss matters of human rights.

As a nation we take human rights very seriously.

The Peoples Freedom wishes no part in this council. Our National Defense always comes before our enemy's rights, both militarily and with civilians.

We would be very interested in helping you to establish a court/council to discuss matters of human rights.

As a nation we take human rights very seriously.

This is just supposed to be a temp. framework, to be set up in case we need to decide if human right abuses occured. We can use this as a way to find it out. There's no permenant position, we only ask that other nations use this when trying to determine if, say, a genocide occured or not, rather than relying on hear-say reports.

The High Ordnate would like to see this court work but agrees that national Security must be taken into account in all cases.

We find this council to be tied up in too much tape and beauracracy and no action