The Union of Nations [NWI Only|IC]

[Electorate]

We believe that Shakadia is using poisoned weapons and would like to bring a proceeding against them in the International Court of Justice or in the International Criminal Court. Thus, we suggest a motion to condemn Shakadia.

The following makes clear our argument from a legal standpoint:
Practice Relating to Rule 72. Poison and Poisoned Weapons
I. Treaties
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 23(a) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially prohibited … to employ poison or poisoned arms.”
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 23(a) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially forbidden … to employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xvii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[e]mploying poison or poisoned weapons” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(xiii) of the ICC Rome Statute, as amended in 2010, “[e]mploying poison and poisoned weapons” constitutes a war crime also in non-international armed conflicts.
II. Other Instruments
Lieber Code
Article 70 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war.”
Brussels Declaration
Article 13(a) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration states that “[e]mployment of poison or poisoned weapons” is especially forbidden.
Oxford Manual
Article 8(a) of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … to make use of poison, in any form whatever.”
Oxford Manual of Naval War
Article 16(1) of the 1913 Oxford Manual of Naval War provides: “It is forbidden … to employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including the “poisoning of wells”.
ICTY Statute
Article 3(a) of the 1993 ICTY Statute lists “employment of poisonous weapons” as a violation of the laws or customs of war to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(e)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[e]mployment of poisonous weapons” is a war crime.
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xvii), “[e]mploying poison or poisoned weapons” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.

so you want to tell me that using weapons to kill enemy soldiers in a war is illegal? so wait you're telling me that you attacking my soldiers and me attacking your soldiers is normal and they're both still killing each other is okay while you're killing civilians and that me getting better weapons to attack your soldiers with is bad? alright r/logic

First of all, this is a straw man. We aren't killing civilians, and poison bullets are illegal, even if conventional warfare, sans poison bullets, is legal.

[Electorate]

so you want to tell me that using weapons to kill enemy soldiers in a war is illegal? so wait you're telling me that you attacking my soldiers and me attacking your soldiers is normal and they're both still killing each other is okay while you're killing civilians and that me getting better weapons to attack your soldiers with is bad? alright r/logic

First of all, this is a straw man. We aren't killing civilians, and poison bullets are illegal, even if conventional warfare, sans poison bullets, is legal.

Further, humanitarian aims can certainly justify war, but committing war crimes really negates this justification.

[Shakadia]

so you want to tell me that using weapons to kill enemy soldiers in a war is illegal? so wait you're telling me that you attacking my soldiers and me attacking your soldiers is normal and they're both still killing each other is okay while you're killing civilians and that me getting better weapons to attack your soldiers with is bad? alright r/logic

First of all, this is a straw man. We aren't killing civilians, and poison bullets are illegal, even if conventional warfare, sans poison bullets, is legal.

really? so you looting and killing in jordan isn't killing civilians? also poison weapons are illegal not poison ammunition and it's used against military, i's still conventional and i guess you sending political prisonners in cages to other countries is legal

[Electorate]

First of all, this is a straw man. We aren't killing civilians, and poison bullets are illegal, even if conventional warfare, sans poison bullets, is legal.

really? so you looting and killing in jordan isn't killing civilians? also poison weapons are illegal not poison ammunition and it's used against military, i's still conventional and i guess you sending political prisonners in cages to other countries is legal

Poison ammunition is by definition illegal. We never said we were killing anybody-- though some people were forcibly extradited to Berland. The latter issue was addressed and will not occur again, as has been guaranteed by the Empire.

[Shakadia]

really? so you looting and killing in jordan isn't killing civilians? also poison weapons are illegal not poison ammunition and it's used against military, i's still conventional and i guess you sending political prisonners in cages to other countries is legal

Poison ammunition is by definition illegal. We never said we were killing anybody-- though some people were forcibly extradited to Berland. The latter issue was addressed and will not occur again, as has been guaranteed by the Empire.

what about you bringing political prisonners to other nations in cages? and also it's still conventional cause (ooc) there is no geneva convention now since any treaty before world war 3 is kinda rendered null

[The Union of Nations]

Poison ammunition is by definition illegal. We never said we were killing anybody-- though some people were forcibly extradited to Berland. The latter issue was addressed and will not occur again, as has been guaranteed by the Empire.

what about you bringing political prisonners to other nations in cages? and also it's still conventional cause (ooc) there is no geneva convention now since any treaty before world war 3 is kinda rendered null

OOC: Although it was a little weird how we decided such, not all treaties before WWIII are considered null. The NWI agreed to acknowledge the Geneva Conventions specifically (we had a poll on it).

[Electorate]

It saddens us to be an international pariah. It was never our intention to cause the harm that we did, but we are addressing the problems that we caused.

All imprisoned Jordanians have had trials and those who committed no violent crimes when they were arrested were allowed to go home. Damaged property was paid for at the government's expense or replaced with identical or better items. Humanitarian aid was provided to the people of Jordan. The Hashemite monarchy (now a rump state) was also paid for land which they lost. People forcibly repatriated to Berland by Electorate soldiers in particular with their families were allowed the option to go home.

[The Union of Nations]

It saddens us to be an international pariah. It was never our intention to cause the harm that we did, but we are addressing the problems that we caused.

All imprisoned Jordanians have had trials and those who committed no violent crimes when they were arrested were allowed to go home. Damaged property was paid for at the government's expense or replaced with identical or better items. Humanitarian aid was provided to the people of Jordan. The Hashemite monarchy (now a rump state) was also paid for land which they lost. People forcibly repatriated to Berland by Electorate soldiers in particular with their families were allowed the option to go home.

Regardless of those efforts, the condemnation of the Electorate will proceed. The vote has commenced.

OOC: It will last until April 21st at approximately the same time.

[Luraqau]

Yea on SCR#3

[Volirum]

For SCR#3

[Vilovia]

For SCR 3

[Karteria]

Yea on SCR#3

[The Union of Nations]

The resolution to condemn Electorate has passed on a 4-2 vote with 3 abstentions. New Zealand and Taiwan both voted negative.

[Kronshtadt]

Lady Jean Nevsky enters the room. She says,

"We are disheartened by the vote passed on this floor. While we abstained and boycotted the vote, we understand why nations felt obliged to vote Yeah on the motion.

I abstained as my nation feels that Electorate has adequately begun to reform and make amend for their actions during the war, and now we are only making further reform harder."

She returns to her seat.

The resolution to condemn Electorate has passed on a 4-2 vote with 3 abstentions. New Zealand and Taiwan both voted negative.

[Electorate]

I propose to your honored personages that for the safety of the world's nations that we renew and honor the now defunct 1967 Outer Space Treaty due to its relevant subject matter and important content. I would like this introduced as a resolution to vote upon.

[Karteria]

I propose to your honored personages that for the safety of the world's nations that we renew and honor the now defunct 1967 Outer Space Treaty due to its relevant subject matter and important content. I would like this introduced as a resolution to vote upon.

Resolution Verbatim Text
Summary (1)
Summary (2)

[Karteria]

I propose to your honored personages that for the safety of the world's nations that we renew and honor the now defunct 1967 Outer Space Treaty due to its relevant subject matter and important content. I would like this introduced as a resolution to vote upon.

"Based on the summaries provided to the Security Council, Karteria is against this proposed resolution. Our qualms stem from the sections that forbids both the claiming of celestial bodies and celestial security.

It would be an effective repeal of section V of Security Council Resolution #1, which allows for celestial claims (per Summary #1: "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty"). Due to multiple nations already laying claim to territory in space, as well, we can't see this being practically enforced by the UN, and it may breed resentment and instability from claimant member-states.

While we generally approve of the prohibition of nuclear weapons in space, barring all security forces and defensive starships leads member-states to be defenseless against non-UN members (per Summary #1: "the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes"). This could also significantly hamper the starship business, as well.

In total, this resolution is detrimental and, ultimately, unenforceable. Focusing on the prohibition of nuclear weapons in outer space is a much more viable directive for this prestigious lawmaking body."

[Luraqau]

I propose to your honoured personages that for the safety of the world's nations that we renew and honour the now defunct 1967 Outer Space Treaty due to its relevant subject matter and important content. I would like this introduced as a resolution to vote upon.

"Based on the summaries provided to the Security Council, Karteria is against this proposed resolution. Our qualms stem from the section that forbids both the claiming of celestial bodies and celestial security.

It would be an effective repeal of section V of Security Council Resolution #1, which allows for celestial claims (per Summary #1: "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty"). Due to multiple nations already laying claim to territory in space, as well, we can't see this being practically enforced by the UN, and it may breed resentment and instability from claimant member-states.

While we generally approve of the prohibition of nuclear weapons in space, barring all security forces and defensive starships leads member-states to be defenceless against non-UN members (per Summary #1: "the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes"). This could also significantly hamper the starship business, as well.

In total, this resolution is detrimental and, ultimately, unenforceable. Focusing on the prohibition of nuclear weapons in outer space is a much more viable directive for this prestigious lawmaking body."

I strongly agree.

[Kronshtadt]

I propose to your honored personages that for the safety of the world's nations that we renew and honor the now defunct 1967 Outer Space Treaty due to its relevant subject matter and important content. I would like this introduced as a resolution to vote upon.

"Based on the summaries provided to the Security Council, Karteria is against this proposed resolution. Our qualms stem from the sections that forbids both the claiming of celestial bodies and celestial security.

It would be an effective repeal of section V of Security Council Resolution #1, which allows for celestial claims (per Summary #1: "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty"). Due to multiple nations already laying claim to territory in space, as well, we can't see this being practically enforced by the UN, and it may breed resentment and instability from claimant member-states.

While we generally approve of the prohibition of nuclear weapons in space, barring all security forces and defensive starships leads member-states to be defenseless against non-UN members (per Summary #1: "the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes"). This could also significantly hamper the starship business, as well.

In total, this resolution is detrimental and, ultimately, unenforceable. Focusing on the prohibition of nuclear weapons in outer space is a much more viable directive for this prestigious lawmaking body."

Lady Jean Nevsky stands to speak,

"We are strongly against Electorate's proposal for the Outerspace Treaty of 1967. If it goes to the floor, we will vote against the proposal. If passed, my government wants this body we will not comply with the text."

[Shakadia]

we will vote against such a resolution as we don't agree with anything sputtered in that agreement, and we will remain by our stance

[Karteria]

we will vote against such a resolution as we don't agree with anything sputtered in that agreement, and we will remain by our stance

OOC: The resolution has already been dropped (per the UN discord channel).

[Electorate]

The conventional Duke Dennis Klemens Claude Gessler, recently appointed representative of the Electorate to the Union of Nations, takes the floor.

"Mr. Secretary, my fellow honored representatives, I do not wish to propose a resolution to you, but I come instead on behalf of my Emperor to deliver the message that after careful consideration, he has decided to adopt the United States of Justice Dollar (UJD) as the currency of our little Empire for various internal reasons. It would be best to observe this transition in further business dealings with the Electorate and we, for our part, will endeavor not to make such a monumental change as this again anytime soon."

[Chawko Dawg]

hey, Can we join the Union of Nations

[The Union of Nations]

hey, Can we join the Union of Nations

You've been accepted into the UN. You are able to vote on Union Assembly resolutions only (as opposed to the Security Council).

[Kronshtadt]

Lady Jean Nevsky raises her plaque to speak -

"I move to vote on the new Space claims by Kronshtadt and Portinabia.

Kronshtadt has claimed the Southern Hemisphere of Alpha Centauri Bb, the only planet in the Alpha Centauri system. It will be operated by the Centauri Corporation.I vote Yes on this.

As for the Portinabian claims, my government feels it is too broad. Instead, we vote to approve 3 asteroids of their choosing to claim. ONLY 3."

She sits down and gets a glass of water after finishing her speech.