NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] WA Doctrine of First Contact

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Serrland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11968
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Serrland » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:27 pm

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:42 pm

Serrland wrote:I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.


And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Keeping in mind, this isolated society must never leave its territory by its own means for it to be legally protected by this document.
Last edited by Stash Kroh on Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2457
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Krioval » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:58 pm

OOC: Might it be better to redraft this as a policy on colonialism? I ask only because I'm worried that this isn't going to have a huge impact otherwise. Certainly, I'd say that the strength should be reduced to "mild" given its limited authority. I don't want to discourage you from writing legislation, but this proposal seems to be a bit spread out while trying to deal with one particular issue. I'm just not sure how best to approach this issue, though.

User avatar
Serrland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11968
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Serrland » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:31 am

I guess the biggest question for me is whether or not the World Assembly has the legal right to deny full sovereignity over a part of a nation's territory...

User avatar
Celtica and Neotopia
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Oct 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Celtica and Neotopia » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:24 am

From General Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States":
Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

.......

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.


"International law" being the resolutions put into place by the World Assembly, we may remove nations' jurisdictions over territory, as well as persons and objects within that territory. To answer your question, esteemed ambassador: Yes, we do have the legal right.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Last edited by Celtica and Neotopia on Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:20 am

Stash Kroh wrote:
Serrland wrote:I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.


And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^


Serrland wrote:I guess the biggest question for me is whether or not the World Assembly has the legal right to deny full sovereignity over a part of a nation's territory...

Celtica and Neotopia wrote:From General Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States":
Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

.......

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.


"International law" being the resolutions put into place by the World Assembly, we may remove nations' jurisdictions over territory, as well as persons and objects within that territory. To answer your question, esteemed ambassador: Yes, we do have the legal right.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

Well, the legal power, anyway... but does 'power' really = 'right'?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:31 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Stash Kroh wrote:
Serrland wrote:I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.


And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^



Hhhm... but were those awakened members a part of Bears Armed before ? I ask only because the nation they awake to may have progressed without them, but if they are affilated with the progressed nation (Bears Armed) than they would not be protected by this law.

I might need to clarify this in the definition.

Krioval wrote:OOC: Might it be better to redraft this as a policy on colonialism? I ask only because I'm worried that this isn't going to have a huge impact otherwise. Certainly, I'd say that the strength should be reduced to "mild" given its limited authority. I don't want to discourage you from writing legislation, but this proposal seems to be a bit spread out while trying to deal with one particular issue. I'm just not sure how best to approach this issue, though.


I share your fear that this proposal is becoming possibly toothless, however will attempt to keep the central idea of the resolution intact in hopes to protect natives' rights. I also think, however, a free trade resolution regarding merchantilism and the free will of colonies sounds quite intriguing for the future.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:37 am

Stash Kroh wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:
Stash Kroh wrote:
Serrland wrote:I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.


And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^


Hhhm... but were those awakened members a part of Bears Armed before ? I ask only because the nation they awake to may have progressed without them, but if they are affilated with the progressed nation (Bears Armed) than they would not be protected by this law.


They were pre-sapient bears living within areas of woodland that, because they still contained such pre-sapient bears, were legally protected from settlement (or other exploitation) by the sapient Ursines inhabiting the adjacent areas.

Stash Kroh wrote:I might need to clarify this in the definition.

That depends on how likely you consider such an event occurring within a nation that's actually a WA member is, I suppose: Remember, we are only "observing" this organisation nowadays...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Terra Albia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Aug 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Terra Albia » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:04 am

I think it's good.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:00 pm

Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.


I'm thinking of creating a self-defense clause to protect against an exploitation of IIa. But going about this, without creating a major loophole will be difficult.

Any suggestions would be welcome...

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:06 am

Unibot wrote:Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.

Nonsense, respected ambassador. The good Captain has but to explain this doctrine -- albeit with irreverent haste -- and then it ceases to apply. Indeed, were he in such a situation the proposal would compel him to make the explanation forthwith, since contact has been made. We recommend keeping a well-trained bard on hand for just such emergencies.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:51 am

Gobbannium wrote:
Unibot wrote:Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.

Nonsense, respected ambassador. The good Captain has but to explain this doctrine -- albeit with irreverent haste -- and then it ceases to apply. Indeed, were he in such a situation the proposal would compel him to make the explanation forthwith, since contact has been made. We recommend keeping a well-trained bard on hand for just such emergencies.


As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.
Last edited by Unibot on Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:35 am

Unibot wrote:As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.

We stand corrected, having overlooked that clause. Largely because with think it rather arbitrary and hence silly.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Gc1mak
Diplomat
 
Posts: 777
Founded: Jun 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Gc1mak » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:42 am

DEFINES for the purposes of this document, an isolated society as a non-WA nation or a community of inhabitants that has yet to either..

a. Scientifically prove the existence of a civilization besides their own;
b. Travel to another civilization through their own means, without any support for the transportation from outsiders;


So you are going to prevent everyone from declaring war or invading Non-WA Nation?
Last edited by Gc1mak on Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Celtica and Neotopia
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Oct 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Celtica and Neotopia » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:10 am

No, because most non-WA nations are not isolated societies. If they declare war on your nation, then they are no longer isolated. You can't invade them if they're isolated all the same, which makes sense, considering a World Assembly member can't be isolated.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:44 am

Gobbannium wrote:
Unibot wrote:As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.

We stand corrected, having overlooked that clause. Largely because with think it rather arbitrary and hence silly.


Hhm.. something tells me I would prefer it if you hadn't been corrected. :(

I'll be pondering on how to word a self-defence clause this week, I'm thinking along the lines of.. if the terms of the proposal are read out to them, they understand, and they still attack a foreigner without any means of the attacked to leave the said territory (probably because they're held there aganist their own free will) than the proposal's terms cease to be active for the isolated society in question.

If you have any advice on how to correct the silliness of the definition, and have the time to commit to giving such advice, please do so ambassador, because I'm apparently blind to it.
Last edited by Stash Kroh on Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:20 am

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.


How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:38 am

Stash Kroh wrote:
Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.


How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?

But surely the WA's "members" are the actual nations, rather than the individual inhabitants of those? Wouldn't the current wording of that clause only have an effect if the "isolated" society was attempting to detain an entire member-nation? :unsure:
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:31 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Stash Kroh wrote:
Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.


How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?

But surely the WA's "members" are the actual nations, rather than the individual inhabitants of those? Wouldn't the current wording of that clause only have an effect if the "isolated" society was attempting to detain an entire member-nation? :unsure:


Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...
Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:30 pm

Some changes have been made...

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:22 pm

The intentions may well be good for this proposal, however, we must continue to object to this as written. While it appears upon superficial inspection to be written so as to protect isolated and less advanced cultures, it instead seems to guarantee that such cultures remain isolated and technologically impaired by over-protection and well meaning but misguided hand-wringing. Do we really want a "bubble-wrap" proposal?
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:23 am

Stash Kroh wrote:Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...
Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.


Hr'rrm. What if the person being detained is a 'national' of a WA member nation, rather than a 'citizen' thereof, or they're detaining people from non-member nations whom a conveniently-located WA nation wants to rescue?
And on the other paw, what if the people being detained deserve it, because they had entered into that isolated culture's territory for some illegal reason such as poaching, tomb-robbing, prospecting for gold in the natives' 'sacred' lands, or even attempting a quiet act of genocide so that some outside group could then occupy that "uninhabited" territory?

Maybe something along the lines of
Suspends the application of these terms to a specific 'isolated society' if the said community is wrongfully detaining any outsider within its territories.
?

Oh, and perhaps there should be an injunction to use "the minimum force practical" if & when such interventions do become "necessary", too? I realise that some WA members' governments would probably still consider massive blitzkriegs as meeting that stipulation, but at least then we'd be providing a guideline for the more 'reasonable' nations here...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:The intentions may well be good for this proposal, however, we must continue to object to this as written. While it appears upon superficial inspection to be written so as to protect isolated and less advanced cultures, it instead seems to guarantee that such cultures remain isolated and technologically impaired by over-protection and well meaning but misguided hand-wringing. Do we really want a "bubble-wrap" proposal?


I think you'll find, ambassador, the newer drafts stray away from the paternalistic bubble-wrap situation, but instead encourage a smooth transition from isolated to non-isolated society.

Bears Armed wrote:
Stash Kroh wrote:Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...
Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.


Hr'rrm. What if the person being detained is a 'national' of a WA member nation, rather than a 'citizen' thereof, or they're detaining people from non-member nations whom a conveniently-located WA nation wants to rescue?
And on the other paw, what if the people being detained deserve it, because they had entered into that isolated culture's territory for some illegal reason such as poaching, tomb-robbing, prospecting for gold in the natives' 'sacred' lands, or even attempting a quiet act of genocide so that some outside group could then occupy that "uninhabited" territory?

Maybe something along the lines of
Suspends the application of these terms to a specific 'isolated society' if the said community is wrongfully detaining any outsider within its territories.
?

Oh, and perhaps there should be an injunction to use "the minimum force practical" if & when such interventions do become "necessary", too? I realise that some WA members' governments would probably still consider massive blitzkriegs as meeting that stipulation, but at least then we'd be providing a guideline for the more 'reasonable' nations here...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


You bring up several really good points, ambassador, however I think I'd prefer not using something as arbitrary as "wrongfully detained", when talking about communities who could be so chaotic as to 'detain' and burn people on a stake for committing a cultural sin that others would see as fairly common.

At the moment, the way I'd go about solving the problem is changing the "Suspends" clause to protect all outsiders, and try an load the outlawing clause without all the reasons as to why those outsiders shouldn't be entitled to leave the isolated society.

So for sure I'll add some sort of miniature clause outlawing the disruption of the environment, the wildlife, and any culturally important sites which the isolated society could declare, by member nations.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20836
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:06 am

Stash Kroh wrote:You bring up several really good points, ambassador, however I think I'd prefer not using something as arbitrary as "wrongfully detained", when talking about communities who could be so chaotic as to 'detain' and burn people on a stake for committing a cultural sin that others would see as fairly common.

"Hr'rmm. If this proposal is edited to include a list of the purposes for which WA nations can "legitimately" authorise people to enter those areas then we could authorise the retrieval of any detained outsiders who were there legitimately whilst leaving the others to their fate... although I suppose we might have to allow protection of any accidental trespassers too...
Presumably any "isolated society" whose members go out into the surrounding lands to abduct outsiders would be deemed to have forfeited its 'isolated' status voluntarily, under this proposal's terms, so we wouldn't need to specify such abductees as another class of people whose rescue could be carried-out?

Oh, and if there are actually two or more such "isolated" societies within a given area, and these have contact with each other, would intervention by more 'advanced' societies be justifiable in order to prevent the worst possible catgeories of atrocity (genocide, slave-raiding?) in their 'local' inter-societal relationships?

I'm going to think some more about this..."*


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


____________________________________________________________

(* ... but I've got to finish writing the Bears' entry for the latest 'Worldvision Song Contest' first...)
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:52 am

"Oh, and if there are actually two or more such "isolated" societies within a given area, and these have contact with each other."


It depends upon how they meet each other, in the flesh (or fur), over a satellitte telephone conversation or between messages in a bottle -- I suppose.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Imperium Anglorum, Princess Rainbow Sparkles

Advertisement

Remove ads