[DRAFT] Repeal #20 Suppress Int'l Piracy

[Biosphere 1]

Hello honorable ambassadors, representatives, and delegates.

The following is my life's work, so be kind. It is my intention to replace #20 with a new resolution, the Safe Seas Act (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=331814).

Also, there are cookies and milk enough for everyone.

APPLAUDING the intentions of GA#20 "Suppress International Piracy" to protect law abiding citizens by authorizing the prosecution of acts of piracy in international waters;

OBSERVING an incomplete definition of international piracy as pirates who "operate across national borders and/or attack international trade;"

NOTING pirates have targeted vessels of all purposes, including cruise ships and luxury sailing vessels;

OBSERVING WA member nations are required to treat the criminal acts committed by international pirates as seriously as if committed within their territories;

NOTING WA member nations are not required to apprehend such suspects if possible, nor thereafter to prosecute these suspects, let alone being allowed to acquit or pardon them for whatever reason, or upon conviction to sentence the criminals to a lenient punishment;

OBSERVING an unclear authority of WA member nations to "suppress international piracy...and its[sic] bases wherever those are;"

NOTING a base of piracy may reside within another nation's territory or territorial waters, into which the WA may not authorize another nation to intrude;

OBSERVING WA member nations are prohibited from giving any support to pirates not within custody;

NOTING pirates routinely kidnap hostages for ransom, and paying such ransom may be construed as support for pirate operations;

DISMAYED that GA#20 leaves the seas as dangerous as before its' enactment;

HEREBY repeals "Suppress International Piracy."

[St Edmund]

(Author of #20 here. This has been noted, and I'll post a reply within the next day or two.)

[Biosphere 1]

Thank you honorable ambassador from St Edmund. I humbly look forward to your rebuttal. I mean no disrespect for proposing your resolution's repeal. My purpose is only to implement a more aggressive anti piracy policy. If I may be so bold by asking, please refrain from referring to my proposed replacement within this chamber (thread), as it is a work in progress.

[Separatist Peoples]

[quote[OBSERVING an incomplete definition of international piracy as pirates who "operate across national borders and/or attack international trade;"[/quote]
How does this not adequately cover the definition of pirates?

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,

“There’s assault, murder, theft, and kidnapping.”

NOTING pirates have targeted vessels of all purposes, including cruise ships and luxury sailing vessels;

“And?”

NOTING WA member nations are not required to apprehend such suspects if possible, nor thereafter to prosecute these suspects, let alone being allowed to acquit or pardon them for whatever reason, or upon conviction to sentence the criminals to a lenient punishment;

“How does this not grant authority?”

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;

“There. Authority granted. It’s just optional. I don’t see why we should be required to go hunting when we have more important missions, so compelling states would be idiotic. As to the issue of acquitting or being lenient, the same can be said of literally every resolution banning a criminal action. It is unavoidable.”

OBSERVING an unclear authority of WA member nations to "suppress international piracy...and its[sic] bases wherever those are;"

“Theres nothing unclear about it. Authority to achieve the ends in international territory was granted.”

NOTING a base of piracy may reside within another nation's territory or territorial waters, into which the WA may not authorize another nation to intrude;

“Which is fair, because another state, especially a nonmember state, is not able to be affected by WA law. There is no way one could write a law that would prevent this from occurring.”

NOTING pirates routinely kidnap hostages for ransom, and paying such ransom may be construed as support for pirate operations;

“Only a fool would consider that to be support. Ransom is coerced out of an entity, not given in support.”

[St Edmund]

Hello honorable ambassadors, representatives, and delegates.

The following is my life's work, so be kind.

I’ll try.
This is an OOC post, because of its need to reference aspects of the rules and Modly rulings that would be harder to explain in IC terms..

OBSERVING an incomplete definition of international piracy as pirates who "operate across national borders and/or attack international trade;"

NOTING pirates have targeted vessels of all purposes, including cruise ships and luxury sailing vessels;

Don’t you consider ‘the tourist trade’ to be a part of “international trade”? I would… and even if nations don’t consider this to be so, how likely is it that pirates could prey extensively on such vessels without needing either to “operate across national borders” in the process or to “attack international trade” too because there simply wouldn’t be enough of those rather specialised targets accessible within the territories & territorial waters of a single nation?

OBSERVING WA member nations are required to treat the criminal acts committed by international pirates as seriously as if committed within their territories;

NOTING WA member nations are not required to apprehend such suspects if possible, nor thereafter to prosecute these suspects, let alone being allowed to acquit or pardon them for whatever reason, or upon conviction to sentence the criminals to a lenient punishment;

If they apprehend/prosecute/sentence/etc criminals for offences committed [against their own people] “within their territories” then not doing so in the case of pirates who committed comparable offences [possibly against foreigners instead] elsewhere would not be treating the latter’s offences “as seriously”.

OBSERVING an unclear authority of WA member nations to "suppress international piracy...and its[sic] bases wherever those are;"

NOTING a base of piracy may reside within another nation's territory or territorial waters, into which the WA may not authorize another nation to intrude;

If that other nation is a WA member — in which case, of course, it shouldn’t be tolerating pirate bases within its territory anyway — then Resolution #20 became a part of that nation’s own laws when it was passed, or when the nation joined the WA if that only occurred later on, and so the action is authorised (and, thus, legal) under that nation’s own laws. If that other nation isn’t a WA member then all that the “Authorises” actually means is that the action would be legal under WA law, so that no later resolution could forbid it.
There was actually a Modly ruling that this clause would be legal, back in the original drafting thread (back in NS-UN days) in the Jolt forum.
I admit that this was one of the most controversial points, which did receive a significant amount of criticism from other nations when the resolution was being re-drafted and passed, though. If I was writing the proposal today then I’d try a bit harder to find room for adding a limitation along the lines of “after allowing any nation within whose territories those operations would have to take place a reasonable amount of time in which to deal with the problem itself” — although the submitted version was already pretty close to the maximum length allowed anyway, without that — but I console myself (and defend the clause) with the thought that a “reasonable” nation would probably make such an allowance without needing to be told, and that the Mods have said that we only need to write on the presumption that [most] nations will be reasonable…

OBSERVING WA member nations are prohibited from giving any support to pirates not within custody;

NOTING pirates routinely kidnap hostages for ransom, and paying such ransom may be construed as support for pirate operations;

So it might… and, arguably, so it should. Paying such ransom not only helps to support the pirates involved, it encourages those & other pirates to carry out further kidnappings for ransom as well. Consequently banning such payment, although it might be unfortunate for any captives actually being held when the ban came into force, would probably reduce the total amount of suffering for all people in the long run…

DISMAYED that GA#20 leaves the seas as dangerous as before its' enactment;

I disagree with that assessment… and I also disagree with the idea that your suggested replacement (at least as currently worded) would significantly improve the situation.

“Which is fair, because another state, especially a nonmember state, is not able to be affected by WA law. There is no way one could write a law that would prevent this from occurring.”

You're right that WA law can’t tell (or even urge) non-member nations what to do, no; but it can tell members how to treat non-members, and in this case it actually does effectively urge members to suppress international pirates’ bases even if those are located within non-member nations…

[Separatist Peoples]

You're right that WA law can’t tell (or even urge) non-member nations what to do, no; but it can tell members how to treat non-members, and in this case it actually does effectively urge members to suppress international pirates’ bases even if those are located within non-member nations…

"Now that sounds like a violation of GAR#2."

[Imperium Anglorum]

How so? Resolution 2 states that 'World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner'. An Urges statement would not be any of that. The closest that would be to would be 'organising', but the organisation of a police action is completely different from just stating that a police action should happen.

The resolution simply removes the barrier that member states must refrain from violating national sovereignty 'subject to the immunities recognised by international law'.

[Separatist Peoples]

How so? Resolution 2 states that 'World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner'. An Urges statement would not be any of that. The closest that would be to would be 'organising', but the organisation of a police action is completely different from just stating that a police action should happen.

The resolution simply removes the barrier that member states must refrain from violating national sovereignty 'subject to the immunities recognised by international law'.

"Clause 1 and 3 guarantees member states sovereignty of governance free from unrequested foreign intervention. While nonmembers aren't strictly mentioned, I don't see any reason why member states would be allowed to discriminate based on, say, CoCR in regard to status of nationality in the WA for something as basic as border recognition."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm confused about what we're even arguing here at this point.

Anyway, there's an argument in this repeal that comes back to the "magic invisible clauses" issue. The mods are understandably preoccupied with category reform but if they ever do get around to responding to that in process query, it might help clarify what states' obligations with respect to prosecuting piracy actually are. Thus, I'd be inclined to wait on that before going ahead with any repeal/replace - though given the massive failure of the recent effort, waiting might be politically expedient anyway.

[St Edmund]

You're right that WA law can’t tell (or even urge) non-member nations what to do, no; but it can tell members how to treat non-members, and in this case it actually does effectively urge members to suppress international pirates’ bases even if those are located within non-member nations…

"Now that sounds like a violation of GAR#2."

That same question was raised (Well, referring to the NS-UN version of 'Rights & Duties', rather than to GA Resolution #2 itself, but basically the same wording was involved...) in the original drafting thread, and Hack ruled then that the clause was legal.

I don't see any reason why member states would be allowed to discriminate based on, say, CoCR in regard to status of nationality in the WA for something as basic as border recognition."

CoCR applies to member nations' treatment of people, not to member nations' treatment of other nations... otherwise your argument would logically prevent discrimination between nations "on the grounds of nationality" in [for example] declarations of war, too...

[Araraukar]

I don't see any reason why member states would be allowed to discriminate based on, say, CoCR in regard to status of nationality in the WA for something as basic as border recognition."

CoCR applies to member nations' treatment of people, not to member nations' treatment of other nations

"Well, yes, but non-member nations also have people living in them. Well, most of us do. Some have... things. And some of the nations with... things, are also WA nations, so that's no excuse either."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

CoCR applies to member nations' treatment of people, not to member nations' treatment of other nations

"Well, yes, but non-member nations also have people living in them. Well, most of us do. Some have... things. And some of the nations with... things, are also WA nations, so that's no excuse either."

"The things," said Ford Prefect quietly, "are also people."