NationStates

“The kingdom of havalland votes in favor”

"The Unified Electorates of Ainslie votes against this resolution in its entirety. The provisions together are unacceptable for us and we will continue to exercise our right to national sovereignty in dealing with this matter."

"The Republic of Biaten votes against this resolution."

"The State of Shidei votes in favor of this resolution"

"The Aprosian People's Democratic Union votes in favour."

The Kingdom of Wellsia, votes no. The League is not meant to be a police force interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

"The time of voting for Resolution No. 20 put forth by the Kingdom of Havalland has elapsed. The results are as follows: 7 for, 5 against, and no abstain. With this, Resolution No. 20 passes. All members of the League must do due diligence with this resolution as it has passed narrowly. The League advises caution in any aggressive actions and hopes that this crisis be solved with minimal threat to human life."

Mason stood up and looked at the Chairman. “Madam Chairman, distinguished representatives, I have received a communication from His Majesty’s government. I am to inform all present that Wellsia wishes to issue a formal protest to Resolution 20, it should not be the League who determines the internal affairs of Mokova. This being said Wellsia will remain true to it’s membership and support the decision of the majority.”

Sebastian stands “I and King Leon thank you my fellow delegates, we understand that some are afraid that we are overstepping but I assure you that King Leon III did not make this choice lightly, in truth it has weights heavy on his heart, however hard this decision may be He made his choice and the people of Havalland can feel a little safer.”

Ahnslen League delegate Jesse Kerslin quickly looked over his notes again and had a sip of water before raising his hand slightly to get the attention of the chamber. He then began to speak into his microphone.

“Good day delegates. As many of you would be aware, just over three years ago my predecessor introduced a resolution to establish the Multinational Anti-Drug Smuggling Authority. Whilst there was controversy surrounding it then, there were enough votes for it to be passed. After much consultation and discussion within the foreign affairs establishment in Arnton, it has become the opinion of the Unified Electorates that MADSA was a knee-jerk response to the Buzz epidemic that has been on the whole completely ineffective. As such, the following resolution aims to take a different approach to that introduced under the initial modus operandi of MADSA.

The threat of drug smuggling, especially from international organised crime syndicates remains real and significant. It is vital that we have a strong and well functioning organisation that empowers and facilitates nation-states to combat this threat to all of us.

RESOLUTION 21
A resolution to repeal Resolution Ten of this League concerning the Multinational Anti Drug-Smuggling Authority and replace with the provisions within this resolution, number 21.

Concerned that the Multinational Anti-Drug Smuggling Authority, established in 2017, has not made a significant contribution to fighting the international illicit drug trade,
Acknowledging the importance of a strong, international agency to combat and dismantle international syndicates who aim to smuggle illegal substances across national borders,
Recognising the duty member-states of this League have to ensuring international peace and security,
Distancing the Multinational Anti-Drug Smuggling Authority from its weak and dependent past form,
Focusing on the need for a refreshed and renewed resolve to the blight that the illicit drug trade is on all economies within the Isles,

The League of The Western Isles hereby;

1. Repeals the 2017 resolution (Resolution #10) to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions set out in this resolution. These are predominately its requirement to collaborate with the League assembly and the foreshadowing of an international police agency.
   
2. Establishes and reshapes Multinational Anti-Drug Smuggling Authority (MADSA) to reflect the following provisions in this resolution.
   
3. Establishes the Office of the Commissioner of MADSA and vests the power to appoint the Commissioner in the Secretary-General.
   • The Commissioner shall be responsible for representing the organisation at public events and regularly report to the Assembly of the League on the organisation’s progress.
   • The Commissioner is to oversee the day to day functions of the Authority, including liaising with high-level officials in national governments.
   • The Commissioner may be dismissed before the expiry of their four year term by a majority vote of the Assembly.
4. Stipulates that the Multinational Anti-Drug Smuggling Authority is responsible for administrating and facilitating collaboration between nations on dismantling organised drug smuggling syndicates throughout The Western Isles. Further, its jurisdiction extends to any power or instrument given to the agency in this resolution or latter resolutions.
   
5. Introduces ‘MADSA warrants’ as a means by which ‘nation A’ can compel other nations or another nation, ‘nation B’, to act on ‘nation A’s’ suspicion that an individual or group may be participating in the international drug trade.
   • MADSA warrants can be issued by any national government or its delegate and filed in a database administrated by MADSA which all nations can access and are expected to act upon.
   • MADSA warrants are to be used in order to investigate and if necessary, arrest individuals involved in the trade of illicit substances across national borders.
   • MADSA warrants do not replace regular extradition processes, but rather compel national governments and local police to arrest and investigate suspected crimes that have taken place in other jurisdictions.
   • MADSA warrants require the signature of the Commissioner of MADSA or a suitable representative appointed by the Commissioner in order to be enforceable.
   • MADSA warrants cannot be used as a means by which to compel a nation to extradite an individual or members of a group.
   • MADSA warrants can only be issued where a government or its delegate possesses a reasonable suspicion that an individual has participated or will participate in activities linked to the trade of illicit substances.
   • Disputes over MADSA warrants are to be heard by a single judge of the International Court of Justice at the earliest possible opportunity.
   • If a government has concerns about the warrant before the stage at which it is to be enforced, they may appeal to a single judge of the International Court of Justice who will determine the merits of the claim. If there is merit to the appeal, the case shall be heard in front of two or more judges of the Court.
6. Introduces the offence of ‘harbour or facilitates the international illicit drug trade’.
   • This offence is criminal in nature and can only be brought in circumstances where MADSA warrants have been ignored in an unreasonable or malignant manner.
   • The penalty for an offence under section 6 of this resolution is to be decided through the discretion of a single judge or multiple judges of the International Court of Justice, but can be no more than fifteen years imprisonment.
   • This offence does not prevent a national government from initiating procedures against an entity, organisation or government to remedy a wrong that has been committed against the former because of the latter.

Introduced to the League by the Unified Electorates of Ainslie on January 3, 2021.

Adopted by the League, with nine in support, five against and one abstaining.

“We do hope that this draft provides a way forward and marks an important step towards shutting down organised crime across national borders.”

"Well written, and as long as this falls under the jurisdiction of the ICJ, then this is fine."

"Our intention is that it falls under their jurisdiction."

"Could these warrants be issued against heads of state? I believe these warrants will need a signature from the ICJ. If State A decides State B is doing something with no evidence and simply issues a minimally justified order against the head of state in State B, then what is the recourse for that nation?"

"With regards to the specific example you offered, it is our understanding that sitting heads of state would be protected from virtually any prosecution or legal proceeding under existing international law. As the resolution highlights though, failure to act upon MADSA warrants can lead to proceedings in the International Court of Justice against the State itself. It is then our hope that the ICJ, by a single judge, would expediently grant a trial to claims with merit and dismiss claims without merit. The warrants would likely require the signature of a high ranking bureaucrat in MADSA and if that should be in the resolution, it is a painless addition for us."

"I'd like to see that added and that a panel of judges ensuring the warrants, be they search or arrest, are accurate, specific in their claims, and limited in their scope, be created. Bureaucrats deciding what warrant can be issued seems like a recipe for corruption."

"Should these judges be from the International Court of Justice? I'm not sure if it is practical for a panel of ICJ judges to oversee the issuing of these warrants. Within the resolution it notes that 'disputes' are to be handled by a single judge. Would such broad language not extend to a particular government's concern about the contents of the warrant?"

"Yes, and if need be, for this sort of organization which can issue warrants across national boundaries to be effective, the ICJ can be expanded. There should be a panel from the ICJ doing this no matter what. Otherwise, this warrant system is simply a tool for corruption and geo-political games.

As for the language, no. The language must be more specific actually naming and describing a process for appeals of warrants before their execution can be required by law."

"That is fair. It would be good to have a proactive rather than a reactive approach, so that will be added."

"I look forward to its addition"

"If a government has concerns about the warrant before the stage at which it is to be enforced, they may appeal to a single judge of the International Court of Justice who will determine the merits of the claim. If there is merit to the appeal, the case shall be heard in front of two or more judges of the Court.

Is this acceptable to the Shanzians?"

"Yes."

Gabriel slowly read through the resolution, checking every word. He then wrote down a quick note on a piece of sticky note in a rushed manner then pushed it to an aide's chest, who quickly got it into his hands and walked out of the chamber. .

Gabriel said a few less than diplomatic words under his breath before glancing over first at the Aprosian delegate and then the Estral delegate. It was in times like this Gabriel and surely the government he represents were happy they only signed up to being an observer state rather than a full member of the League. Regardless, the warrants in particular felt like an overstep of the courts into Keverai's sovereignty and marked a concerning step towards unveiling the morally questionable practices that the Keveraite economy relies upon for its wealth.

"We are in support of Resolution 21 proposed by the Ahnslen representative."

"And we sincerely thank all nations here that voted for Resolution 20."

“Havalland approves of resolution 21, we agree that illegal drugs are a problem that we must deal with”

Delegate McCarthy:
"New Jacobland votes against Resolution 21. We have a proud history of drug legality, and we believe this could cause some of our moguls to be arrested in foreign countries over a crime that is legal in their country, supplying drugs to smugglers, which they committed in NJ. I feel this is unfair to pro-drug nations. Our government at risk of being arrested overseas for not complying with a warrant over something legal in NJ."