NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm hoping this is going to be the final draft of this proposal, and if it isn't, it's not likely to change very much. Could a mod look this over and approve it before it gets submitted?

Nuremberg War Crime Principles
A resolution to increase worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:

NOTING, WITH GREAT REGRET, that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily;

SHOCKED that at times, nations in war do, at times, commit inhumane acts of violence, commonly referred to as “war crimes”;

APPALLED that the United Nations, the body responsible for the betterment of the NationStates World, has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that in some cases, responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED UN Resolutions 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) and 94 (Humanitarian Intervention);

HEREBY ENACTS the following as Principles to be adhered to when there are charges that any nation or person has committed war crimes and other acts in violation of international law:

I - Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible for those acts and is liable to punishment.

II - The fact that internal national or regional law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person or nation who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III - The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or Region or as a responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to that person.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution 47 (Definition of Fair Trial).

VI – The following actions are defined as crimes punishable by international law:

1) Crimes against peace:
A - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
B - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under clause (A) of this definition.

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation to slave-labor, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, as according to UN Resolution 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW); killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, gender, age, medical, or religious grounds, the freedoms of which are protected by Resolutions #7, 12, 19, 25, 26, 31, 44, 51, 69, and 80, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. This crime is subject to the articles of UN Resolution 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide.)

VII - Complicity, by action or inaction, in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

VIII - A neutral nation shall have jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to the articles of UN Resolution 47, (Definition of “Fair Trial"). The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in UN Resolution 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) shall be followed. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any acts of the alleged crime occurred.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, other than a sentence of death, that does not violate any UN Resolution previously or subsequently adopted.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms as follows:

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all previous and subsequent resolutions.

Neutral nation: Any nation that held no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of crimes against the above Principles, other than that of negotiating a peaceful agreement between the two (or more) parties involved, such as a peace treaty, a non-aggression pact, or other cessation of hostilities.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

This resolution was co-sponsored by The Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer.


Also, concerns about the name of the proposal have been brought up several times. I'm sure you can realize why it's titled that OOC, but the best explanation I can give IC is that "Nuremburg" happens to be the name of the suburb of Hersfold's Capital where the Hersfoldian UN Rep lives, and also where the offer was made to Grosseschnauzer to be named co-author. There have also been some concerns OOC that the title might bear some negative opinions from various people from around the globe. Do you (the mods) think that it should be changed, or is it ok as it currently is? I don't really care either way, but would like your professional opinions on it.

PLEASE DO NOT reply to this topic unless you are a moderator for NationStates, and preferably a Game Mod or Admin at that. I do not want speculation, but an official ruling. Thank you.

I might call it the Hersfoldian Principles or Hersfold-Grosseschnauzer Principles, simply to avoid the perception that it is trying to bring a "real world" treaty/event/governmental body into the NSUN.

I'd also wait to hear from others of my colleagues.

I might call it the Hersfoldian Principles or Hersfold-Grosseschnauzer Principles, simply to avoid the perception that it is trying to bring a "real world" treaty/event/governmental body into the NSUN.

I'd also wait to hear from others of my colleagues.

I did think about taking after Wolfish... unfortunately, I don't think Hersfold-Grosseschnauzer will fit. :D Thanks.

I realize Hack's rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405360) are still in Draft and technically don't apply, but I think one aspect of them is a no-brainer.HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED UN Resolutions 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) and 94 (Humanitarian Intervention);

as prescribed by UN Resolution 47 (Definition of Fair Trial).

the freedoms of which are protected by Resolutions #7, 12, 19, 25, 26, 31, 44, 51, 69, and 80, Basing your arguments on resolutions which could conceivably be repealed makes your entire argument shaky. Every one of these references could be replaced with "as defined under international law" or simply eliminated. It weakens your proposal to leave them in.

I think your argument on the name is specious. It's written law. Call it what it is, a "War Crimes Principles" document. Nuremburg is unquestionably a Real World reference, and should be sufficient reason to make this one illegal.

I realize Hack's rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405360) are still in Draft and technically don't apply, but I think one aspect of them is a no-brainer.Basing your arguments on resolutions which could conceivably be repealed makes your entire argument shaky. Every one of these references could be replaced with "as defined under international law" or simply eliminated. It weakens your proposal to leave them in.

I think your argument on the name is specious. It's written law. Call it what it is, a "War Crimes Principles" document. Nuremburg is unquestionably a Real World reference, and should be sufficient reason to make this one illegal.

I don't really think it weakens my proposal any. As it currently stands, they are not repealed, and they (most likely) won't be when this is passed. Refrencing past resolutions is my favorite way of showing people that they've already agreed to what I'm proposing, just in a different or less specific manner - the more resolutions I can find that support my own, the better. Usually 4 is a high number, but I managed to find 10. If anything, those resolutions help to support my proposal. If one does manage to get repealed before this reaches quorum (hoping and assuming that it does), I'll take it out. The ICJ resolution was in the original draft as Resolution #98.

Thanks for the new name. I don't know why that didn't stand out immediately, but sometimes the most obvious answers are the most hidden. I also didn't really want to put my own name in the title - I hate it when people sign their proposals, and that's basically what that would be doing.

Now that Easter's over, I'll bump this. I still need GM approval.

I don't really think it weakens my proposal any. As it currently stands, they are not repealed, and they (most likely) won't be when this is passed. Refrencing past resolutions is my favorite way of showing people that they've already agreed to what I'm proposing, just in a different or less specific manner - the more resolutions I can find that support my own, the better. Usually 4 is a high number, but I managed to find 10. If anything, those resolutions help to support my proposal.
Speaking unofficially....

Conversely, if those resolutions you mention get repealed, then someone can argue "Well, those earlier resolutions were found to be a bad idea, so we should get rid of this one as well." Faulty logic, to be sure, but the association that you create can be just as much a liability as an asset.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

Now speaking officially....
If one does manage to get repealed before this reaches quorum (hoping and assuming that it does), I'll take it out. The ICJ resolution was in the original draft as Resolution #98.
The problem is that the resolutions you reference may be repealed after your proposal is passed. I have already ruled that no proposal may explicitly depend upon another resolution because if the earlier resolution is repealed, then the later proposal/resolution ceases to make sense. UN resolutions can only be repealed. UN resolutions can only be repealed one-at-a-time; they may not be repealed in batch. Thus, the text of proposals must respect this; you can't have interlocking proposals.

Simple references where you mention other resolutions without depending upon them haven't been officially ruled on, but I'm attempting to discourage this because it closely resembles relying upon other proposals.

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED UN Resolutions 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) and 94 (Humanitarian Intervention);
Not illegal under current rules, but I strongly advise you to remove this. If references do wind up being banned from UN proposals, then you can expect that I or another Mod will later submit a UN proposal to have this repealed because this one line makes it illegal under the UN proposal rules.

[mock sulking] The Admins say they won't remove passed resolutions; I have to submit a repeal proposal with "It's out-of-order under current rules" as my argument. [/mock sulking]

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution 47 (Definition of Fair Trial).
The higlighted section is illegal. It must be removed.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, gender, age, medical, or religious grounds, the freedoms of which are protected by Resolutions #7, 12, 19, 25, 26, 31, 44, 51, 69, and 80, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. This crime is subject to the articles of UN Resolution 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide.)
The higlighted sections are illegal. They must be removed.

VIII - A neutral nation shall have jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to the articles of UN Resolution 47, (Definition of “Fair Trial"). The only exception to this Principle shall be when the accused are being tried solely for crimes against humanity, in which case the procedure perscribed in UN Resolution 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) shall be followed. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any acts of the alleged crime occurred.
The higlighted section is illegal. It must be removed. Also note that if something is already covered by another Resolution, then you cannot reaffirm it or double-legislate over it. You must simply avoid it; just don't talk about any situation already covered by another resolution.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, other than a sentence of death, that does not violate any UN Resolution previously or subsequently adopted.
Okay, this... this is good. :) Here, you're not relying on specific resolutions, so if any other resolutions are passed or repealed that somehow affect this, then this still makes sense. I just want to highlight this as a good example. Of course, I still think that talking about other Resolutions should be avoided whenever possible, but if you [b]have to do it, then this is the way to do it: In a manner that respects the fact that resolutions can be repealed at any time.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Now speaking officially....


V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, as prescribed by UN Resolution 47 (Definition of Fair Trial).


The higlighted section is illegal. It must be removed.


I don't see how paraphrasing a passed resolution is illegal.

Resolution #47


7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

I don't see how paraphrasing a passed resolution is illegal.
First, it's double-legislating. You are not allowed to have two different Resolutions legislate on the same thing.

Second, if Resolution #47 is repealed, then you can't conduct a fair trail as prescribed by Resolution #47 because Resolution #47 effectively doesn't exist, anymore.

As a real-life analogy, Representatives in the US Congress are determined by population, but you can't sensibly talk about the number of Representatives from each State being determined by the number of free persons plus three-fifths the number slaves in each State because slavery has been outlawed in the United States for the past 140 years. Passing the thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (abolishing slavery) eliminated the "three-fifths" clause. Unfortunately in Nationstates, you cannot repeal more than one Resolution at a time and you cannot amend Resolutions at all.

If you could amend Resolutions and act on more than one Resolution at a time, then sure, you could have one Resolution rely on another because you could then repeal one Resolution and amend any other Resolutions that relied on it in a single blow. ...but you can't; it's not an option in NationStates. The rules are: One repeal at a time and no amendments. Therefore, you cannot set up a situation where you have to repeal two or more Resolutions simultaneously for the remaining Resolutions to make sense.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I will try to correct the highlighted sections and will submit a (hopefully) legal proposal shortly.

I would like to add that these rules make proposal writing exceedingly difficult, and make it almost impossible to provide a base of support to your proposal. It makes it near impossible to write a proposal that does not step on the toes of a previously passed one.

As such, I would like to suggest to the Moderators and Administrators that those rulings be taken into the highest condsideration for change.

First, it's double-legislating. You are not allowed to have two different Resolutions legislate on the same thing.

Second, if Resolution #47 is repealed, then you can't conduct a fair trail as prescribed by Resolution #47 because Resolution #47 effectively doesn't exist, anymore.


Actually the second reference is conditional ... it says that it is basing its actions on the status of the prior resolution. It is not amending or adding, but saying, "In this legal world, we've given this right ...". When used properly, a resolution or law will extend upon this idea.

Without citing examples (time ... I need to run to catch a bus in 5 minutes), this sort of things happens all the time in US legislation. The best example would be to read proposed state-wide initiatives, as the actual legal text in the back of the voter's guides will show that what is billed as a simple proposition, can be pages of legalese, including references to prior / pre-existing law.

While NationStates is designed to be simple ... we are only a simulation, I don't see this as redoing something.

Now, with my remaining 1 minute, if Resolution 47 were to be repealed, this resolution would only be impacted in the sections that are built upon this argument. And part of the fun of the game is not just firing attacks say on gay rights, but in building a body on law protecting or not that particular right. Who cares if the next task is to work on the next resolution ... even a simple simulation of _politics_ can stand to get a bit more involved. :) (In my opinion of course.)

Thanks, Mik. It's not that big of a deal, as it turns out - if you say that "International Law" is all the currently effective UN Resolutions, then you can lean on them all you want and (I hope - we'll see about this in a second) not get in trouble.

And I'm about to test that theory out. Could a Game Mod or Admin please approve this new draft - changes are highlighted in blue.

War Crime Principles
A resolution to increase worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:

NOTING, WITH GREAT REGRET, that wars around the NationStates World still rage daily;

SHOCKED that at times, nations in war do, at times, commit inhumane acts of violence, commonly referred to as “war crimes”;

APPALLED that the United Nations, the body responsible for the betterment of the NationStates World, has no provision with which to punish those who commit such acts;

REALIZING, that in some cases, responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in an improper verdict or the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED UN Resolutions 31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), 83 (Eon Convention on Genocide) and 94 (Humanitarian Intervention);

HEREBY ENACTS the following as Principles to be adhered to when there are charges that any nation or person has committed war crimes and other acts in violation of international law:

I - Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible for those acts and is liable to punishment.

II - The fact that internal national or regional law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person or nation who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III - The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or Region or as a responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to that person.

V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, pursuant to generally accepted principles of international law.

VI – The following actions are defined as crimes punishable by international law:

1) Crimes against peace:
A - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
B - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under clause (A) of this definition.

2) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to intentional murder, ill-treatment, deportation to slave-labor, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, as determined by international law; killing of hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, gender, age, medical, or religious grounds (the rights or freedoms of which are protected by generally accepted precepts of international law), when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

VII - Complicity, by action or inaction, in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

VIII - A neutral nation shall have jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for one of the above crimes, subject to Principle IV, unless some statement of international law applies and permits jurisdiction and venue in some other specific forum. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any acts of the alleged crime occurred.

IX - A victor of an armed conflict or war may also be guilty of the crimes listed in Principal VI. Should the defeated nations wish to press charges, the victor of an armed conflict or war may be brought to trial.

X - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI may be sentenced to any punishment, other than a sentence of death, that does not violate any UN Resolution previously or subsequently adopted.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms as follows:

Moral Choice: Any time when a person has a choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs, when neither choice will result in the loss of that person’s life.

International Law: Any resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed, including all previous and subsequent resolutions.

Neutral nation: Any nation that held no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of crimes against the above Principles, other than that of negotiating a peaceful agreement between the two (or more) parties involved, such as a peace treaty, a non-aggression pact, or other cessation of hostilities.

ASKS that member nations ensure that their armed forces are fully aware of these principles to prevent these unspeakable crimes from occurring;

AND STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation are given the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of at least one of these crimes, and the freedom from persecution for disobedience should they be forced to excercise that right.

This resolution was co-sponsored by The Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

Thanks, Mik. It's not that big of a deal, as it turns out - if you say that "International Law" is all the currently effective UN Resolutions, then you can lean on them all you want and (I hope - we'll see about this in a second) not get in trouble.

And I'm about to test that theory out. Could a Game Mod or Admin please approve this new draft - changes are highlighted in blue.
Yep. Looks good to me. :)

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

WOOOT!!! Thanks, Cog. I'll probably send it in tommorrow.

And upon doing so, I got told that it was about twice as long as it should be. :headbang:

I may need to ask you to look over a third draft eventually, Cog. Once we have one that fits.

New post because the above edit didn't bump the topic.

WOOOT!!! Thanks, Cog. I'll probably send it in tommorrow.

And upon doing so, I got told that it was about twice as long as it should be. :headbang:

I may need to ask you to look over a third draft eventually, Cog. Once we have one that fits.

Have you also posted the current draft in the UN forums? It seems like the mods are happy, but that we need to cut down the length a bit.

When a resolution has loads of substance and rules instead of general recommendations, I personally find that a small preamble is OK. (In other words, I think you can easily stand to remove one or two of your opening clauses without taking away anything from what you've done here.) :)

I do want to say that I'm a bit sad that you and Grosseschaunzer didn't come up with a fictional city name and optted for a more descriptive title. I personally like the flavour text in the game. Though I'm looking forward to recording the debate on this, "[city name] Principles" sounds better for such a lengthy document.

I do want to say that I'm a bit sad that you and Grosseschaunzer didn't come up with a fictional city name and optted for a more descriptive title. I personally like the flavour text in the game. Though I'm looking forward to recording the debate on this, "[city name] Principles" sounds better for such a lengthy document.

If it's not passing, I'll start a poll. :D

Anyway, after some rather annoyed debate, we finally hammered this out:

NOTING that wars still take place and that nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence;

REALIZING that there are no means for the United Nations to punish those who commit such acts and that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or other similar acts:

I - Any person who commits high crimes is criminally responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a high crime does not relieve criminal responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits a high crime acts as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of his Government or of a superior does not preclude responsibility when a moral choice was possible to that person.

V - Any accused person or nation under these Principles has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, under generally recognized precepts.

VI - The following are defined as high crimes under international law, whether by action or inaction, and may be punished:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan or conspiracy to accomplish such acts.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, deportation, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory; intentional murder or mistreatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of a settled area, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, extermination, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a Crime Against Peace or a War Crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law applies and permits use of another forum. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict may be guilty of a high crime and may be brought to trial on the complaint of its victims.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.

International Law: Any past, current or future resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of a high crime, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of a high crime, and may not be persecuted for disobedience should the right be exercised; and

ASKS that member nations educate their armed forces of these Principles to prevent the commission of a high crime.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.

I don't think we cut anything that would make it illegal, but if someone could check it anyway... (BTW, I'm not even sure if this will fit, but it's probably really close. If it doesn't, I'll trim a few words and re-submit it)

Bump

I've read the new draft. It looks fine in-and-of-itself.

Unless it conflicts with a currently-active UN resolution (which I don't have time to check for), this is legal.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Don't believe it does. Thanks, Cog. Submitting now.