NationStates

Resolution To Regulate International Espionage

The World Assembly
Recognizes the need for espionage especially during times of conflict
Believes that espionage should be held to some kind of moral and ethical standard
Hereby:
Defines
“Espionage” as the act of gathering intelligence to gain an advantage against a real or perceived enemy state
“Operative” as a person trained in espionage that is employed by a state to gather intelligence
Establishes
The International Committee of Espionage Regulation (ICER) to enforce the following regulations by,
Reviewing all planned intelligence operations for compliance
Deciding on appropriate punishments for any violations of these regulations
Prohibits
Member States from gathering intelligence on non-governmental targets
Operatives from involving civilians in any intelligence operations
Member states from involving humanitarian or philanthropic organizations in their intelligence operations
Mandates
That member states inform a trusted neutral party of any intelligence operations
That member states release all gathered intelligence to the public after a five year period from when it was gathered unless releasing said intelligence would pose a serious risk to national security
That member states submit all details of their intelligence operations to the ICER for review

Just submitting this for some feedback and thoughts.

Aedrial wrote:Resolution To Regulate International Espionage

The World Assembly
Recognizes the need for espionage especially during times of conflict
Believes that espionage should be held to some kind of moral and ethical standard
Hereby:
Defines
“Espionage” as the act of gathering intelligence to gain an advantage against a real or perceived enemy state
“Operative” as a person trained in espionage that is employed by a state to gather intelligence
Establishes
The International Committee of Espionage Regulation (ICER) to enforce the following regulations by,
Reviewing all planned intelligence operations for compliance
Deciding on appropriate punishments for any violations of these regulations
Prohibits
Member States from gathering intelligence on non-governmental targets
Operatives from involving civilians in any intelligence operations
Member states from involving humanitarian or philanthropic organizations in their intelligence operations
Mandates
That member states inform a trusted neutral party of any intelligence operations
That member states release all gathered intelligence to the public after a five year period from when it was gathered unless releasing said intelligence would pose a serious risk to national security
That member states submit all details of their intelligence operations to the ICER for review

Just submitting this for some feedback and thoughts.

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! It is good that you posted this here first instead of blindly submitting it. While I can't see anything illegal about it, I will note that virtually no government, either IRL or within NationStates, would support such regulations. I would be prepared for severe and possibly insulting IC resistance.

---

IC: Leo does a double take. "Ambassador, have you lost your alleged mind? Intelligence gathering is by its very nature the most secretive task nations take on, and an international commission consists of that many more chances to blow the operation. Even our relatively benign and restrained intelligence services cannot support such stifling constraints, and I imagine the rest of the Assembly will react even worse. No support."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! It is good that you posted this here first instead of blindly submitting it. While I can't see anything illegal about it, I will note that virtually no government, either IRL or within NationStates, would support such regulations. I would be prepared for severe and possibly insulting IC resistance.

---

IC: Leo does a double take. "Ambassador, have you lost your alleged mind? Intelligence gathering is by its very nature the most secretive task nations take on, and an international commission consists of that many more chances to blow the operation. Even our relatively benign and restrained intelligence services cannot support such stifling constraints, and I imagine the rest of the Assembly will react even worse. No support."

OOC: Thank you. Also yeah I expect that kind of thing

---

IC: Evelyn sighs. “Then ambassador how would you propose to regulate intelligence operations in order to insure they are held to a moral and ethical standard”

IC:

"I suppose while we are at it, we should submit the passwords to our classified systems, the blue prints of our nuclear bunkers, the schematics of our military hardware, as well as our bank routing information, PIN codes, and the names of our first pets to some alleged neutral international body for approval? What kind of inanity is it to suppose that such a thing would work? I will tell you this - if you seek to make such a committee a reality, we shall be submitting one thing only - a member to sit on the committee and provide us with the details of every mission submitted thereto. At least then we would know which nations are too stupid to be of concern!"

----

OOC: Looking at the prohibitions, here are just some of the most blatant problems...

- Prohibiting the gathering of intelligence on non-governmental targets would prohibit most operations against terrorists, plus forces of PMCs or irregulars, as well as blocking more law enforcement investigations.

- Prohibiting operatives from involving civilians seems to erroneously suppose that intelligence agencies are largely military. The operatives, as you call them, are generally civilians themselves. So are the vast majority of government officials, both on the initiating and receiving end of an intel operation.

- Prohibiting humanitarian or philanthropic organizations from being caught up in intel ops may be the only salvageable concept here, but will take a lot of work to clarify.

- Informing third parties of intel ops? Hell no. That's a massive danger to the operatives involved, and in itself provides intelligence about your own capabilities and knowledge.

- Releasing everything to the public after a couple years unless it is a serious risk to your own national security? Hell no. That's a massive danger to the individuals involved (the agents, the sources, etc), plus if you're gathering on individual targets, that's just massively disrespectful of individual privacy of your targets. What your learn about them may be relevant governmentally for planning, but publicly spreading their business? That's just insulting.

- Submitting details of the intelligence operations to an international committee for review? Hell no. So beyond just a supposedly neutral and trusted third party, you also want people to submit details to a completely non-neutral group over which they have no control, and which very well might be staffed by citizens of your target?

There isn't enough "no" in the world for this.

Verdant Haven wrote:IC:

"I suppose while we are at it, we should submit the passwords to our classified systems, the blue prints of our nuclear bunkers, the schematics of our military hardware, as well as our bank routing information, PIN codes, and the names of our first pets to some alleged neutral international body for approval? What kind of inanity is it to suppose that such a thing would work? I will tell you this - if you seek to make such a committee a reality, we shall be submitting one thing only - a member to sit on the committee and provide us with the details of every mission submitted thereto. At least then we would know which nations are too stupid to be of concern!"

----

OOC: Looking at the prohibitions, here are just some of the most blatant problems...

- Prohibiting the gathering of intelligence on non-governmental targets would prohibit most operations against terrorists, plus forces of PMCs or irregulars, as well as blocking more law enforcement investigations.

- Prohibiting operatives from involving civilians seems to erroneously suppose that intelligence agencies are largely military. The operatives, as you call them, are generally civilians themselves. So are the vast majority of government officials, both on the initiating and receiving end of an intel operation.

- Prohibiting humanitarian or philanthropic organizations from being caught up in intel ops may be the only salvageable concept here, but will take a lot of work to clarify.

- Informing third parties of intel ops? Hell no. That's a massive danger to the operatives involved, and in itself provides intelligence about your own capabilities and knowledge.

- Releasing everything to the public after a couple years unless it is a serious risk to your own national security? Hell no. That's a massive danger to the individuals involved (the agents, the sources, etc), plus if you're gathering on individual targets, that's just massively disrespectful of individual privacy of your targets. What your learn about them may be relevant governmentally for planning, but publicly spreading their business? That's just insulting.

- Submitting details of the intelligence operations to an international committee for review? Hell no. So beyond just a supposedly neutral and trusted third party, you also want people to submit details to a completely non-neutral group over which they have no control, and which very well might be staffed by citizens of your target?

There isn't enough "no" in the world for this.

IC: I find that to be a gross mischaracterization and exaggeration of the intent of this resolution, but I must admit you do make some good points. The bill needs to be reworked I realize that now.

---

OOC: thank you for the critique. It’s clear I need to basically completely rethink this.

Aedrial wrote:OOC: thank you for the critique. It’s clear I need to basically completely rethink this.

So we can assist here, can you clarify what realistic goal you would like the proposal to accomplish?

I think it's fair to say that no nation will accept a proposal requiring them to reveal their espionage activities to pretty much anybody. They will almost certainly also not accept something telling them who they can engage in espionage towards, as any attempt to create limits will create situations where exceptions are required, and it would be genuinely impossible to name them all.

I think the one place where some sort of agreement might be gained is in the sort of thing you identified in prohibition three. Some sort of agreement prohibiting the placement of espionage assets within recognized humanitarian organizations that are permitted to operate on the basis of their humanitarian function might be reasonable. A similar prohibition might be manageable prohibiting the deliberate harming of innocent civilians as a means to achieving intelligence unrelated to the civilians harmed (for example, no bombing a marketplace just to see what kind of forces respond to it).

Aedrial wrote:Resolution To Regulate International Espionage

Cornelia Schultz, stealthily entering the drafting chamber, quickly gathers intelligence about the proposal being formed here.

"You know, I'm something of a spy myself." she brags*. "Perhaps we can look at this here and offer some advice."

The World Assembly
Hereby:
Defines
“Espionage” as the act of gathering intelligence to gain an advantage against a real or perceived enemy state
“Operative” as a person trained in espionage that is employed by a state to gather intelligence

"Firstly, we need some formatting here. It looks terrible. Bullet points. Numerals. Something to break up the text.

"Secondly, the operative definition is redundant. If Espionage is defined as gathering intelligence, why do you need to say that an operative is trained in espionage to gather intelligence?"

Establishes
The International Committee of Espionage Regulation (ICER) to enforce the following regulations by,

"Firstly, isn't there some existing committee you can expand? We already suffer from an alphabet soup of committees.

"Secondly, how will they enforce any of these regulations? With guns? Strongly worded letters, perhaps?"

Reviewing all planned intelligence operations for compliance

"Alright, hold up... this is needlessly intrusive into national affairs. You're trying to tell me every single intelligence operation needs to be reviewed by this committee for compliance? In some nations that could be hundreds or even thousands of operations per day. Are the reviews to be done in advance or can we just execute the operation and wait for the ICER to review our performance?"

Deciding on appropriate punishments for any violations of these regulations

"So like... time outs?"

Prohibits
Member States from gathering intelligence on non-governmental targets

"Is this even a possible or reasonable prohibition? Any operation going after a government target will incidentally gather intel on non-governmental agents. Memorizing private security guard shifts, when cleaning staff enters a building, capturing civilians in photographs taken of a target..."

Operatives from involving civilians in any intelligence operations

"What counts as involvement? Is bribing a civilian to let you pass involving them in your operation?

"Also this whole section should probably be split into two sections, one for regulations on operatives and one for member states. "

Mandates
That member states inform a trusted neutral party of any intelligence operations

"This would be a potential massive security leak waiting to happen."

That member states release all gathered intelligence to the public after a five year period from when it was gathered unless releasing said intelligence would pose a serious risk to national security

"Why was this totally arbitrary period chosen for what otherwise looks like a useless regulation?

"Look, Ambassador, maybe we need some resolution on spying. But this isn't it."

OOC:
*Cornelia Schultz is not a spy in any way, shape, or form.

OOC: Frankly, I can't imagine any resolution on espionage is necessary. Nations can deal with discovered espionage publicly through their existing criminal justice systems and externally through diplomatic relations.

Nations will engage in espionage in violation of the law if it benefits them because it is necessarily covert. And nations are inclined to use summary lethal force to deal with foreign spies where the risk of an intel leak is high and the act is covert.

Given that, I question how any regulation of espionage could be remotely practical.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Given that, I question how any regulation of espionage could be remotely practical.

OOC: Presumably the Wine And Crouton Conference would send a lot of nations a lot of fines for failing to comply...

More seriously, I agree with everything that was said by other on the subject. Araraukar relies on diplomats and spies instead of missiles and guns to keep itself safe, and there's no way they'd agree to something like this.

Verdant Haven wrote:Prohibiting humanitarian or philanthropic organizations from being caught up in intel ops may be the only salvageable concept here, but will take a lot of work to clarify.

OOC
That's something that my nation could support IC.