NationStates

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the implicit bias of this Assembly against social, political, or religious groups of people not associated with governments of member states, and yet who exist within member states;

Recognizing the implicit bias of this Assembly in favor of the governments of member states, however legitimate or illegitimate, regardless of corruption, disregard for shared morals, or unjust treatment of their populations;

Understanding that governments of member states often utilize tactics which the target resolution prohibits non state actors from utilizing, creating a disadvantage for non-state actors in conflict with their governments, without regard for the justifications of these groups;

Believing that groups of non state actors should be afforded every right under the law as the governments of member nations in the interests of securing liberty from tyrannical governments;

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #25 “WA Counterterrorism Act” for the following reasons:

1) The resolution defines terrorism as an act committed by “non state actors”, reserving the ability to target civilian populations for the governments of member states, yet denying it to any group of non state actors opposing them, regardless of the justifications of either belligerent in a conflict, creating an unfair advantage in in favor of potential tyrannical governments.

2) The resolution defines civilian populations as “persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces or police”, meaning that the resolution prohibits non state actors from targeting politicians, scientists and engineers, manufacturers of weapons of war, and other non-military assets used in war, however allows governments of member nations to attack these targets, furthering the disadvantage of groups of non state actors, regardless of their justifications;

3) The resolution requires member nations to take action against any group of non state actors which exist inside their own borders who may be unjustly labeled under the resolution as terrorists by the governments of which they are at war, forcing member states to side with the governments of member states in internal conflicts, regardless of the justifications of either belligerent.

4) The Resolution prohibits member states from providing aid to any non state group who may be unjustly labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war, while simultaneously allowing aid to these governments, regardless of their justifications.

5) The Resolution requires members states to seize the assets of any non state group unjustly labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war , further disadvantaging these non state groups in their conflicts, regardless of their justifications.

6) The Resolution would punish any member state which supports a non state group which has been labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war , regardless of their justifications.

Tinhampton wrote:Have you read Articles 6 and 7 of the target yet?

The Civitas Islands wrote:Target Resolution: GAR #25: WA Counterterrorism Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the implicit bias of this Assembly against social, political, or religious groups of people not associated with governments of member states, and yet who exist within member states;

Recognizing the implicit bias of this Assembly in favor of the governments of member states, however legitimate or illegitimate, regardless of corruption, disregard for shared morals, or unjust treatment of their populations;

Understanding that governments of member states often utilize tactics which the target resolution prohibits non state actors from utilizing, creating a disadvantage for non-state actors in conflict with their governments, without regard for the justifications of these groups;

Believing that groups of non state actors should be afforded every right under the law as the governments of member nations in the interests of securing liberty from tyrannical governments;

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #25 “WA Counterterrorism Act” for the following reasons:

1) The resolution defines terrorism as an act committed by “non state actors”, reserving the ability to target civilian populations for the governments of member states, yet denying it to any group of non state actors opposing them, regardless of the justifications of either belligerent in a conflict, creating an unfair advantage in in favor of potential tyrannical governments.

2) The resolution defines civilian populations as “persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces or police”, meaning that the resolution prohibits non state actors from targeting politicians, scientists and engineers, manufacturers of weapons of war, and other non-military assets used in war, however allows governments of member nations to attack these targets, furthuring the disadvantage of groups of non state actors, regardless of their justifications;

3) The resolution requires member nations to take action against any group of non state actors which exist inside their own borders who may be unjustly labeled under the resolution as terrorists by the governments of which they are at war, forcing member states to side with the governments of member states in internal conflicts, regardless of the justifications of either belligerent.

4) The Resolution prohibits member states from providing aid to any non state group who may be unjustly labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war, while simultaneously allowing aid to these governments, regardless of their justifications.

5) The Resolution requires members states to seize the assets of any non state group unjustly labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war , further disadvantaging these non state groups in their conflicts, regardless of their justifications.

6) The Resolution would punish any member state which supports a non state group which has been labeled under the resolution as “terrorists” by the governments of which they are at war , regardless of their justifications.

Hannasea wrote:OOC: For what it's worth, this interpretation is wrong, though I can't exactly explain why. The WA Counterterrorism Act does prohibit state terrorism, as ruled by the mods discussing Repeal "International Criminal Court".

Hannasea wrote:OOC: For what it's worth, this interpretation is wrong, though I can't exactly explain why. The WA Counterterrorism Act does prohibit state terrorism, as ruled by the mods discussing Repeal "International Criminal Court".

Wallenburg wrote:The text of the target plainly excludes state terrorism from the definition of terrorism

DEFINES “terrorist act(s)” as an act committed by a person falling under the definition of a “terrorist” whose cause is to achieve social, political, or religious ends through violence knowingly targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I have four major complaints. First, the lengthy preamble is unnecessary and could be more concise. Second, correct me if I’m wrong, but is this repeal in favor of the ‘non-state actors’? There are multiple examples in your repeal I could point out, but at the end of clause 2, you say, “…furthuring the disadvantage of groups of non state actors…”. I will need some clarification on this. Third, as displayed in the example, the grammar and spelling in this repeal need to be polished further.
And lastly, I am completely opposed to any repeals against the first 50 GA resolutions for a number of reasons. For one thing, drastic changes can occur that could be beneficial or downright detrimental in the absence of the original resolution or a replacement resolution. Given that resolutions take time to be drafted, submitted, and voted on in this institution, there is ample time for the changes to alter the multiversal society. Also, it is not easy to make a near-perfect argument against the first resolutions of the GA, as such argument would require knowledge of the perspectives of the time in which the original resolution was passed and knowledge of modern perspectives on the subject. Therefore, the Clevesian people cannot support this repeal on the grounds of a lengthy preamble, grammatical errors, possible pro-“non-state actor” motives, and the detrimental and unviable idea of repealing one of the first 50 GA resolutions.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Hannasea wrote:Of course it does, but there was some sort of magic invisible clause that only Mousebumples and Mallorea could discern.

Thankfully they no longer have jurisdiction, and we can truthfully point out that IRL, these definitions would render the French Maquis "terrorists" but the DGSE's sinking of the Rainbow Warrior "not an act of terrorism."

---

IC:

Leo pats the various pockets of his dark gray wool suit for a few moments, then grimaces in annoyance and rises to speak empty-handed.

"Ambassador, this strikes me as an ably written, well-conceived repeal. I have a few grammatical and typo fixes to suggest, but for the moment I seem to have misplaced my pen. Where's that damnable intern when you need him? Anyway, I will address Your Honor again shortly with suggestions, but this shouldn't require too much work. Support."

The Civitas Islands wrote:

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I have four major complaints. First, the lengthy preamble is unnecessary and could be more concise. Second, correct me if I’m wrong, but is this repeal in favor of the ‘non-state actors’? There are multiple examples in your repeal I could point out, but at the end of clause 2, you say, “…furthuring the disadvantage of groups of non state actors…”. I will need some clarification on this. Third, as displayed in the example, the grammar and spelling in this repeal need to be polished further.
And lastly, I am completely opposed to any repeals against the first 50 GA resolutions for a number of reasons. For one thing, drastic changes can occur that could be beneficial or downright detrimental in the absence of the original resolution or a replacement resolution. Given that resolutions take time to be drafted, submitted, and voted on in this institution, there is ample time for the changes to alter the multiversal society. Also, it is not easy to make a near-perfect argument against the first resolutions of the GA, as such argument would require knowledge of the perspectives of the time in which the original resolution was passed and knowledge of modern perspectives on the subject. Therefore, the Clevesian people cannot support this repeal on the grounds of a lengthy preamble, grammatical errors, possible pro-“non-state actor” motives, and the detrimental and unviable idea of repealing one of the first 50 GA resolutions.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

This repeal is not necessarily in favor of non state actors, however it recognizes that there are many instances where the government is corrupt or tyrannical and that revolutionaries bringing social or political change are put at a disadvantage by the target resolution. This repeal seeks to remove the unfair disadvantage the target resolution places against revolutionaries that may be fighting for liberty.

As far as not wanting to repeal any of the first 50 GA resolutions, your concern that it would bring some sort of upheaval to this chamber, (at least for this target resolution) is unfounded. Its not like this is a repeal of GAR #2. In fact, many of the first resolutions were imperfect and needed replacement. With respect to the perspectives in time of this resolution, while social attitudes may have changed, the legislation and its effects has not.

Concerning grammatical errors, I am open to any and all suggestions from my colleagues in this respected body.

While I am disappointed at your dismissal of this resolution, I respect your decision. Thank you for the feedback, ambassador.

The Civitas Islands wrote:Some grammatical changes have been made, and I am considering proposing this resolution soon. Any final thoughts?

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:

The Civitas Islands wrote:Some grammatical changes have been made, and I am considering proposing this resolution soon. Any final thoughts?

“Ambassador, is there any way you could shorten the preamble to three clauses? If not, that is acceptable since most of my complaints have been answered already.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

The Civitas Islands wrote:Some grammatical changes have been made, and I am considering proposing this resolution soon. Any final thoughts?

The Civitas Islands wrote:

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, is there any way you could shorten the preamble to three clauses? If not, that is acceptable since most of my complaints have been answered already.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

I believe each clause of the preamble is important as it's own clause, and I don't think shortening it would be beneficial to the resolution.

Apatosaurus wrote:"Full support."