At Vote: Suppress International Piracy

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Suppress International Piracy

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


Category: International Security


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Mavenu

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that people should be able to go about their lawful affairs without having to worry about theft, assault or murder,

Recognising that dealing with crimes that occur completely within specific nations and that only affect those own nations’ peoples is a matter for those nations’ own governments,

Believing, however, that any crimes that interfere with international trade and travel and/or that cross national boundaries are matters in which the WA has a legitimate interest,

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), 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,

2. Defines pirates as 'international pirates’ if they operate across national borders and/or attack international trade,

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Strongly urges all WA member nations to act at least as thoroughly against any pirates who operate solely within their own territories as they do against international pirates.

Author: St Edmund.
 
You're welcome to write that part.

Given that this proposal's clause #1 clearly differentiates between 'Pirates' and 'Privateers' (on the basis of whether or not they "are not formally recognised agents of any government"), and that all of the subsequent clauses specifically refer only to pirates, this proposal would place no restrictions at all on nations' use of privateers. My earliest drafts on this general topic did include a clause or two setting some rules about them, but those proved so controversial -- because some nations wanted their right to employ privateers on whatever terms they might choose to be protected, whereas other nations wanted to see privateers banned altogether -- that I dropped them: If anybody here actually wants a resolution about privateers then they'll have to write one themselves.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.
Click to expand...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14...88&postcount=45
 
Please excuse the dualistic posts I've made on the thread. I felt having two opposing opinions would best represent some of the questioning of who exactly is the actual voice for the government of Forensatha... plus, I felt the House of Rats is made up of people evil enough that they'd do something like this.
 
One of the things I'm noting is how many people are following the fad I started on the Jolt forums. Basically, they're going to use this resolution as an excuse to fire on any armed ship that enters their waters.

If anything, it seems this resolution may have actually increased violence, bloodshed, and theft on the open waters of NS already, simply due to the upcoming conflicts between nations.

Ouch.
 
mavenu:
You're welcome to write that part.

Given that this proposal's clause #1 clearly differentiates between 'Pirates' and 'Privateers' (on the basis of whether or not they "are not formally recognised agents of any government"), and that all of the subsequent clauses specifically refer only to pirates, this proposal would place no restrictions at all on nations' use of privateers. My earliest drafts on this general topic did include a clause or two setting some rules about them, but those proved so controversial -- because some nations wanted their right to employ privateers on whatever terms they might choose to be protected, whereas other nations wanted to see privateers banned altogether -- that I dropped them: If anybody here actually wants a resolution about privateers then they'll have to write one themselves.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.
Click to expand...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14...88&postcount=45
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting a reply. So few resolution writers bother to do the grand tour.

I vote FOR. TNP has a long history of piracy, and most of ours is state sponsored.
 
Namyeknom:
mavenu:
You're welcome to write that part.

Given that this proposal's clause #1 clearly differentiates between 'Pirates' and 'Privateers' (on the basis of whether or not they "are not formally recognised agents of any government"), and that all of the subsequent clauses specifically refer only to pirates, this proposal would place no restrictions at all on nations' use of privateers. My earliest drafts on this general topic did include a clause or two setting some rules about them, but those proved so controversial -- because some nations wanted their right to employ privateers on whatever terms they might choose to be protected, whereas other nations wanted to see privateers banned altogether -- that I dropped them: If anybody here actually wants a resolution about privateers then they'll have to write one themselves.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.
Click to expand...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14...88&postcount=45
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting a reply. So few resolution writers bother to do the grand tour.

I vote FOR. TNP has a long history of piracy, and most of ours is state sponsored.
Click to expand...
I'm not the author, i just TGed all the delegates. 24 hours i won't be getting back again....
 
mavenu:
Namyeknom:
mavenu:
You're welcome to write that part.

Given that this proposal's clause #1 clearly differentiates between 'Pirates' and 'Privateers' (on the basis of whether or not they "are not formally recognised agents of any government"), and that all of the subsequent clauses specifically refer only to pirates, this proposal would place no restrictions at all on nations' use of privateers. My earliest drafts on this general topic did include a clause or two setting some rules about them, but those proved so controversial -- because some nations wanted their right to employ privateers on whatever terms they might choose to be protected, whereas other nations wanted to see privateers banned altogether -- that I dropped them: If anybody here actually wants a resolution about privateers then they'll have to write one themselves.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.
Click to expand...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14...88&postcount=45
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting a reply. So few resolution writers bother to do the grand tour.

I vote FOR. TNP has a long history of piracy, and most of ours is state sponsored.
Click to expand...
I'm not the author, i just TGed all the delegates. 24 hours i won't be getting back again....
Click to expand...
*Eluvatar hugs Mavenu
 
whereisthatistan:
Clause 7 appears to violate Resolution #13 Fair Criminal Trial. Vote no.
Click to expand...
Governments can choose to act like that anyway (if their own nations' laws allow) even without this clause.

St Edmund and Mavenu also prefer to convict based on actual crimes rather than on the basis of association... but you might have heard that pirates have been known to run on the basis of "dead men tell no tales" which, in the absence of mediums whose evidence would be accepted by the courts (or of ghosts actually testifying in person, which laws of St. Edmund do allow), would make gathering evidence of specific actions by specific members of crews rather difficult, or impossible if your laws do not allow said evidence from mediums or ghosts (we'll stay away from the fight of what is a person, okay? that's the next WA resolution ;) ). This clause is therefore, in our opinion, is meant to be the lesser of two evils.
 
Namyeknom:
mavenu:
I'm not the author, i just TGed all the delegates. 24 hours i won't be getting back again....
Click to expand...
All the delegates, as in ALL the delegates?

:blink:
Click to expand...
i stopped lobbying in the Ss, as it hit quorom then. When Fris passed the UN "Rights and Duties of UN States", the entire? TNP was involved with lobbying (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States), instead of just me...

It's not like delegate read on a daily basis the proposal forum. There's common complaints on the jolt forum when nothing gets voted on.

think of it as the real UN. they're backslapping, promises of i'll help to TG if you help me, discussions all the time. As i'm a fringe jolt player, as i spend more time in feeder politics, i don't get much support :P

Consider how the UN Peacekeepers were started. The text that follow comes from Pierre Berton's, "Marching as to war, Canada's Turbulent Years, 1899-1953". {summerizing 3 pages worth of text first) It discusses Mike Pearson and his story during the Suez Crisis, in 1956. The Suez Canal has been nationalized on July 26, Israel, France, and Britain has sent in troops (politely saying invaded ;) on Oct 29 ). From the point of view of Canada, it marks a turning point of relations with britain, as it (and the other commonwealth nations) did not inform them in advance.

For Mike Pearson, jockeying between Ottawa and New York, these were stressfl days. He flew to Manhattan on Nov 1, spent the day lobbying delages, and the long night (until 4am) at a marathon session of the General Assembly. THe sides were drawn up when the US sponsored a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire. If canada voted for it she would certainly antagonize Britain and France. On the other hand, Pearson considered the ceasefire resolution an ineffective approach  because no provision had been made to supervise or enforce a cessation of hostilities. Pearson absatined from the vote, and asked for the floor to express his own point of view.

In the hurly-burly that accompained the debate -  the sound of strident voices, the frequent interruptions and onsulations, his colleagues lobbying th edelegates - his scribbled out his speech in the assembly. As one delegate remarked, " few public servants I have known, even seasoned UN pros, had the power to work so effectively in that turmoil".

A ceasfire, Pearson told the assebly, was not enough. "in six months we'll go through all this again if we dont take advantage of this crisis to pluck someting out - if we do not take advantage of this crisis to do somehthing about a political settlement, we will regret it. The time has now come for the UN not only to bring a ceasefire, but to move in and police the ceasefire and make arrangements for a politcial settlement.

The followind day, Pearson lunched with the UN seretary general, talked with the UK representative, flew to Ottawa to meet the ceabinet and to gain approval for a resolution to creat a UN force. He met with the acting british high commissioner, spent time in his own department, and back in NYC by dinner.

Another All night session followed, with Pearson's leg-men, as he called them, lobbying the senior advisers of the various delegations. Finally Canada was able to put forward its own  draft resoltion asking the secretary general to submit, within 48 hrs, a plan to set up an emergency UN foce to secure and supervise a ceasefire.

THe resolution passed 57-0, 19 abstentions. Even france and Britain did not vote against it. Nov 4, 56 saw the creation of the UN Emergency Force.

THe lobbying had paid dividends. Pearson's personal popularity was a major factor. He had been president of the Assembly in 52-52, and the fact that he was on a first-name basiss with half the foreign ministers helped.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top