[DRAFT] Protecting Global Commerce and Navigation

[Barfleur]

Protecting Global Commerce and Navigation
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding prior legislation by this august body to prevent and suppress piracy, terrorism, and other cross-border crimes;

Recognizing that the modern-day economy is increasingly reliant on free routes of access between member nations, involving the movement of individuals, goods, money, and other resources;

Alarmed that such routes of access are vulnerable to violence and other forms of obstruction that have not been addressed by international law, and which pose a grave risk to sapient life and the global economy as a whole;

Believing that, in order to maintain confidence in international trade, the public must be assured of the quality and safety of consumer products,

Hereby enacts the following, in a manner consistent with prior legislation, as international law:

1. None of the prohibitions in this resolution shall apply with respect to any activity performed by members of the armed forces of any nation, or by police, customs, or law enforcement personnel of any nation, in the course of the normal performance of their duties, as permitted or required by national and international law.

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to use actual or threatened violence at any port, airport, spaceport, or other transportation facility in any member nation, or aboard any vessel registered in a member nation, with the intention of obstructing the movement of goods and persons between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a member nation and a non-member nation.

3. It shall be unlawful for any officer, rate, or other member of the crew of a vessel registered in any member nation to deliberately wreck or destroy such vessel or any cargo therein, or to resist or countermand lawful orders in furtherance of the aforementioned acts. But this section shall not apply with respect to any act done in self-defense, or in an emergency on board which threatens the vessel or any person or persons aboard the same, or in a bona fide rescue or salvage effort.

4. It shall be unlawful for any person to maliciously destroy, disable, render unusable, or endanger any railroad, highway, bridge, road, or canal in any member nation with the intention of obstructing the movement of goods and persons between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a member nation and a non-member nation.

5. It shall be unlawful for any person to maliciously destroy, tamper with, or sabotage any consumer product in any member nation or aboard any vessel registered in a member nation if such product is shipped in commerce between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a member nation and a non-member nation; or if such product is delivered for use on any building or ground used by the World Assembly or any committee thereof.

6. It shall be unlawful for any person in a member nation to threaten to commit any act which, if completed, would constitute an offense under this resolution, or to willfully convey false information regarding an attempt to commit an offense under this resolution, if the person making such threat or conveying such false information reasonably believes that such threat or false information will be believed, and intends to obstruct the movement of goods and persons between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a member nation and a non-member nation.

7. An offense under section 2, 3, 4, or 5 of this resolution shall be deemed aggravated if such offense results in the death of any person or is committed in reckless disregard of the risk of death, or with the intent to cause death or panic.

8. Offenses under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this resolution shall be prosecuted in the nation in which they were committed, but an offense committed in international waters may be prosecuted in any member nation, without regard to whether such nation was affected by the commission or attempted commission of such offense.

9. Any person who suffers a loss, whether of a physical or financial character, by reason of an act done in violation of this resolution may bring a suit in the court of the nation in whose jurisdiction such act was committed, or before the World Assembly Judiciary Committee. If the court or Judiciary Committee finds in favor of the plaintiff, it shall order the defendant to cover the costs of damages inflicted during or as a result of the violation, as well as the costs of replacing any property damaged or destroyed in the course of such violation. In addition, the defendant shall be liable for all costs incurred by reason of a threat to commit an act in violation of this resolution in the circumstances described in section 6, including costs associated with preparing for and responding to such a threat, regardless of whether the threat was actually carried out.

10. A person shall not be liable, in a civil or criminal case, for any act which was done as part of a labor or industrial dispute, did not involve the actual or threatened use of violence against any person, and did not impede the movement or operations of an ambulance or similar emergency services.

11. In this resolution, the term "vessel" means a maritime vessel or a space vehicle; the term "consumer product" means any product intended for purchase or use, regardless of the manner in which such product was grown, mined, or manufactured; and the term "member nation" means a nation which is a member of the World Assembly, and includes any territory, local government, or other place subject to the jurisdiction of any such nation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You can only legislate for member nations. Illegal as written.

And would make it impossible to stop illegal drug and weapons (and child porn and endangered animals, etc.) trade, which I'm fairly sure contradicts a few existing resolutions. Also the one about stopping invasive species. So illegal as written.

Has other issues too but those are obvious biggies.

[Barfleur]

OOC: You can only legislate for member nations. Illegal as written.

And would make it impossible to stop illegal drug and weapons (and child porn and endangered animals, etc.) trade, which I'm fairly sure contradicts a few existing resolutions. Also the one about stopping invasive species. So illegal as written.

Has other issues too but those are obvious biggies.

OOC: This proposal only legislates with respect to member nations and international waters (see GA#20, "Suppress Int'l Piracy".) And I will amend section 5 to include law enforcement and customs for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 4 has no located-in-membs-nations restriction. In fact the wording "between member nations" suggests in transit between membs territories. Whether in nonmembs areas or intnat areas.

Sorry brevity, busride bumpy.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Clause 4 has no located-in-membs-nations restriction. In fact the wording "between member nations" suggests in transit between membs territories. Whether in nonmembs areas or intnat areas.

Sorry brevity, busride bumpy.

OOC: Made that addition. No worries about brevity; short feedback > no feedback!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Have you considered the following?

1. It shall be unlawful for–

1. ...
   
   
2. ...
   
   
3. ...

---

It shall be unlawful for any person to maliciously destroy, disable, or endanger any railroad, highway, bridge, or road in any member nation with the intention of obstructing any form of commerce or navigation between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a point in a member nation and a point in a non-member nation.

The Germans are invading Belgium and have reached an important bridge on the River Meuse. King Charles and his near-suicidally brave army – of great pluck, of course, – defend the river crossing. It is a beautiful summer's day in early August 1914. The Germans intend to navigate from a point within Belgium on one side of the river to one other side of the river. The Belgians are consumed with righteous indignation at the unprecedented invasion of their homeland and shredding of the 1839 Treaty of London in which the King of Prussia, now Emperor of the German Empire, promised for himself and his successors to protect Belgian neutrality. The Belgians seek to do harm – and possess in themselves some ill will – to those which betrayed them and now come to brutalise their citizens, occupy their country, and burn down their cities.

A courageous young artillery officer recently mustered from his hometown just a few miles from the bridge balances on wires strung under it, readying some sticks of dynamite to the bottom of the bridge, built in the youth of the Belgian kingdom, shortly after it had thrown off the yoke of Dutch oppression. As German cavalry comes over the crest of the hill, an enormous thunder erupts from both sides of the river. Men and horse alike fall into the ground. Soon, the Belgian position becomes untenable as horse artillery sets itself up on the opposing bank, enfilading the hastily-dug Belgian positions. Infantry, heading to ford the river, see our young artillery officer and open fire. Taking cover behind one of the stone arches, he reaches towards the detonator and slams the button. He expects an enormous cloud of dust to erupt from the arch, taking him with it into the water.

Alas no. A World Assembly gnome appeared on the spot, used an ACME weapons nullifier, and turned the dynamite into some Yankee Candles. Captured by the Germans, our young artillery officer is shot to death at the orders of a military tribunal few days later for having attempted to break international law. King Albert's army is overrun as various bridges are miraculously protected from destruction.

Unburdened by delays, the Imperial German Army marches on Paris and breaks through the mustering BEF and French Fifth Army on the way, capturing the French capital in a few short weeks. British troops withdraw to the continent as the German government withdraws from the World Assembly to proceed with mass executions of tens of thousands of civilians for imagined guerrilla activities. See generally, Alan Kramer and John Horne, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (2001). The Belgian government in exile submits a resolution to repeal Protecting Global Commerce and Navigation.

[Clarence Thomas]

Notokiwa: (After sitting for a few minutes in the silent chamber.) ...Cat got your tongue? Or maybe it's just me who thinks the silence is awkward?
Notokiwa: ...Apropos of nothing in particular, I feel inclined to suppose aloud that some hypothetical Belgian artillery officer might well be motivated by the desire to protect their homeland. Surely, saying that indignation explicitly described as righteous is characterized by malice, as well as attributing only the intent to do harm to that brave artillery officer, would be bad-faith interpretations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Notokiwa: (After sitting for a few minutes in the silent chamber.) ...Cat got your tongue? Or maybe it's just me who thinks the silence is awkward?
Notokiwa: ...Apropos of nothing in particular, I feel inclined to suppose aloud that some hypothetical Belgian artillery officer might well be motivated by the desire to protect their homeland. Surely, saying that indignation explicitly described as righteous is characterized by malice, as well as attributing only the intent to do harm to that brave artillery officer, would be bad-faith interpretations.

Preempted.

The Belgians seek to do harm – and possess in themselves some ill will – to those which betrayed them and now come to brutalise their citizens, occupy their country, and burn down their cities.

maliciously | məˈlɪʃəsli |
adverb
in a manner characterized by malice or ill will; with intent to do harm: proof that the defendant acted maliciously | a maliciously constructed website. (Oxford Dictionary of English.)

malice n. 1. (in criminal law) A state of mind (see MENS REA) usually taken to be equivalent to *intention or *recklessness: it does not require any hostile attitude.(Oxford Dictionary of Law.)

Try again.

[Clarence Thomas]

[Preempted.

The Belgians seek to do harm – and possess in themselves some ill will – to those which betrayed them and now come to brutalise their citizens, occupy their country, and burn down their cities.

maliciously | məˈlɪʃəsli |
adverb
in a manner characterized by malice or ill will; with intent to do harm: proof that the defendant acted maliciously | a maliciously constructed website. (Oxford Dictionary of English.)

malice n. 1. (in criminal law) A state of mind (see MENS REA) usually taken to be equivalent to *intention or *recklessness: it does not require any hostile attitude.(Oxford Dictionary of Law.)

Try again.

Notokiwa: (Observes the chamber's silence and shrugs.)

[Ardiveds]

Have you considered the following?

1. It shall be unlawful for–

1. ...
   
   
2. ...
   
   
3. ...

---

It shall be unlawful for any person to maliciously destroy, disable, or endanger any railroad, highway, bridge, or road in any member nation with the intention of obstructing any form of commerce or navigation between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a point in a member nation and a point in a non-member nation.

The Germans are invading Belgium and have reached an important bridge on the River Meuse. King Charles and his near-suicidally brave army – of great pluck, of course, – defend the river crossing. It is a beautiful summer's day in early August 1914. The Germans intend to navigate from a point within Belgium on one side of the river to one other side of the river. The Belgians are consumed with righteous indignation at the unprecedented invasion of their homeland and shredding of the 1840 Treaty of London in which the King of Prussia, now Emperor of the German Empire, promised for himself and his successors to protect German neutrality. The Belgians seek to do harm – and possess in themselves some ill will – to those which betrayed them and now come to brutalise their citizens, occupy their country, and burn down their cities.

A courageous young artillery officer recently mustered from his hometown just a few miles from the bridge balances on wires strung under it, readying some sticks of dynamite to the bottom of the bridge, built in the youth of the Belgian kingdom, shortly after it had thrown off the yoke of Dutch oppression. As German cavalry comes over the crest of the hill, an enormous thunder erupts from both sides of the river. Men and horse alike fall into the ground. Soon, the Belgian position becomes untenable as horse artillery sets itself up on the opposing bank, enfilading the hastily-dug Belgian positions. Infantry, heading to ford the river, see our young artillery officer and open fire. Taking cover behind one of the stone arches, he reaches towards the detonator and slams the button. He expects an enormous cloud of dust to erupt from the arch, taking him with it into the water.

Alas no. A World Assembly gnome appeared on the spot, used an ACME weapons nullifier, and turned the dynamite into some Yankee Candles. Captured by the Germans, our young artillery officer is shot to death at the orders of a military tribunal few days later for having attempted to break international law. King Albert's army is overrun as various bridges are miraculously protected from destruction.

Unburdened by delays, the Imperial German Army marches on Paris and breaks through the mustering BEF and French Fifth Army on the way, capturing the French capital in a few short weeks. British troops withdraw to the continent as the German government withdraws from the World Assembly to proceed with mass executions of tens of thousands of civilians for imagined guerrilla activities. See generally, Alan Kramer and John Horne, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (2001). The Belgian government in exile submits a resolution to repeal Protecting Global Commerce and Navigation.

OOC: Doesn't clause 8 take care of stuff like this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Have you considered the following?

1. It shall be unlawful for–

1. ...
   
   
2. ...
   
   
3. ...

---

It shall be unlawful for any person to maliciously destroy, disable, or endanger any railroad, highway, bridge, or road in any member nation with the intention of obstructing any form of commerce or navigation between member nations, or between two points in a single member nation, or between a point in a member nation and a point in a non-member nation.

The Germans are invading Belgium and have reached an important bridge on the River Meuse. King Charles and his near-suicidally brave army – of great pluck, of course, – defend the river crossing. It is a beautiful summer's day in early August 1914. The Germans intend to navigate from a point within Belgium on one side of the river to one other side of the river. The Belgians are consumed with righteous indignation at the unprecedented invasion of their homeland and shredding of the 1840 Treaty of London in which the King of Prussia, now Emperor of the German Empire, promised for himself and his successors to protect German neutrality. The Belgians seek to do harm – and possess in themselves some ill will – to those which betrayed them and now come to brutalise their citizens, occupy their country, and burn down their cities.

A courageous young artillery officer recently mustered from his hometown just a few miles from the bridge balances on wires strung under it, readying some sticks of dynamite to the bottom of the bridge, built in the youth of the Belgian kingdom, shortly after it had thrown off the yoke of Dutch oppression. As German cavalry comes over the crest of the hill, an enormous thunder erupts from both sides of the river. Men and horse alike fall into the ground. Soon, the Belgian position becomes untenable as horse artillery sets itself up on the opposing bank, enfilading the hastily-dug Belgian positions. Infantry, heading to ford the river, see our young artillery officer and open fire. Taking cover behind one of the stone arches, he reaches towards the detonator and slams the button. He expects an enormous cloud of dust to erupt from the arch, taking him with it into the water.

Alas no. A World Assembly gnome appeared on the spot, used an ACME weapons nullifier, and turned the dynamite into some Yankee Candles. Captured by the Germans, our young artillery officer is shot to death at the orders of a military tribunal few days later for having attempted to break international law. King Albert's army is overrun as various bridges are miraculously protected from destruction.

Unburdened by delays, the Imperial German Army marches on Paris and breaks through the mustering BEF and French Fifth Army on the way, capturing the French capital in a few short weeks. British troops withdraw to the continent as the German government withdraws from the World Assembly to proceed with mass executions of tens of thousands of civilians for imagined guerrilla activities. See generally, Alan Kramer and John Horne, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (2001). The Belgian government in exile submits a resolution to repeal Protecting Global Commerce and Navigation.

OOC: Doesn't clause 8 take care of stuff like this?

Looks like I should read further down.

---

Also see viewtopic.php?p=332#p332 ?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Given you specifically mention non-member nations and international areas, using "any person" sounds like referring to non-member nations' populations as well. Thus illegal.

Usually accepted ways to get around that are to use "inhabitant of a member nation" instead of "any person", or just leave out any and all mentions of any nations. I'm not sure why you specify any areas anyway as you cover both international and domestic commerce.

Clause 9 is unnecessary as dictionary definitions.

You mention spaceports, do you intend 'vessel' to include spaceships? Because if yes, why?

Also, what do any of the clauses have to do with navigation? Misleading titles are generally disliked.

Why do you mention police and law enforcement separately when the former is included in the latter and the latter is more professional sounding?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clause 9 specifying natural persons is not unnecessary dictionary definitions.

[Barfleur]

OOC: I found IA's story amusing, and I did consider your point. I do think, however, that section 8's military exception would cover such activities (also, I doubt "navigation" would be defined as including an invading army). As for GA#20, there is a distinction of note: GA#20 forbids the seizure of goods on the high seas while section 2 of this proposal covers the destruction of goods. That is an important loophole that could use closing.

In response to Ara: The resolution applies to conduct committed within a member nation (which, for obvious reasons, is under WA jurisdiction) and to conduct committed on WA-registered vessels in international waters. I believe that falls within the scope of legitimate WA jurisdiction.

(Also, it's nice to see Justice Thomas in the chamber!)

[Araraukar]

OOC: If person must be defined, make it a definition and stick it at the start of active clauses rather than bury it at the end.

The use of "ANY person" still catches nonmember people. If you're going to define a person, make it "a citizen of any World Assembly member state". That would mean not needing to specify you mean people instead of whatever a student of finances thinks a person means, as well as sort out the issue of nonmember legislation.

[Bananaistan]

"Why are corporations, who in some member states are people too I'm led to understand, allowed to go around destroying ports left, right and centre?

"Commonly understood words don't need defining. In this case, it makes no sense to exempt legal fictions."

OOC: A potential option to avoid teh fuckwittery about non member nations would be rejig to the standard format of mandates to member states to outlaw and/or prevent the bad stuff.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We are broadly supportive of the intended policy goal articulated here. The details give me some hesitation. I will try to forward a detailed evaluation in the near future."

Ooc: assuming I get enough sleep to remember English.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: ... The use of "ANY person" still catches nonmember people. If you're going to define a person, make it "a citizen of any World Assembly member state". That would mean not needing to specify you mean people instead of whatever a student of finances thinks a person means, as well as sort out the issue of nonmember legislation.

A few remarks. 'Citizen of any WA member state' excludes individuals within the jurisdiction of a member who are committing crimes. It would be a regression to ethnic-based extraterritoriality rather than any kind of modern conception of jurisdiction. Moreover, the jab about what 'a student of finances [sic] thinks a person means' can really only be made if one is unfamiliar, at best, with comparative law. See eg, the following in no particular order.

“person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporated and a partnership constituted under the law of Scotland,

Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 sch 1 (Scotland) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/10/schedule/1

“person” and “party” include any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate;

Interpretation Act 1965 s 2(1) (Singapore) https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/IA1965

"person" includes any corporation, either aggregate or sole...

Interpretation Act 1968 s 3 (Jamaica) https://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/me ... on_act.pdf

“Person” shall be read as importing a body cor- porate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of “person” shall be read accordingly;

Interpretation Act 2005 s 18(c) (Ireland) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005 ... ed/en/html

In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as “person”, “party”, “someone”, “anyone”, “no‑one”, “one”, “another” and “whoever”), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.

Interpretation Act 1901 s 2c(1) (Australia) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00028

person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;

Interpretation Act s 35(1) (Canada) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... lText.html

"person" includes a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law;

Interpretation Act s 29 (British Columbia, Canada) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docu ... #section29

person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body

Interpretation Act s 29 (New Zealand) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/pub ... 31803.html

“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.

Interpretation Act 1978 sch 1 (UK) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

1 USC s 1 (US) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

About the United States. See eg Caroline Kaeb, Putting the "Corporate" Back into Corporate Personhood, 35 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 591 (2015). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester ... l35/iss3/3

It has even been argued that the United States is the only country in the world providing for corporate personhood in a constitutional context.4 But while the United States has become well-known for its long-standing tradi- tion and leading role with regard to promoting corporate personhood, the notion of corporate personhood is not a uniquely American one.

The notion that the United States has an exclusive hold on corporate personhood is a common misperception, particularly with regard to Europe. Granted, unlike in the United States, the manifestations of corporate per-sonhood have traditionally been more tentative in European legal systems, especially in civil law jurisdictions. This is illustrated vividly by the tradi- tional resistance of European civil law systems to hold corporations crimi- nally liable (as legal persons) under their domestic criminal codes.5 It may seem like a natural progression that European legal systems, which have been holding firm on the doctrine of societas delinquere non potest,6 also would have conceptual troubles acknowledging corporations, as fictional entities, to be holders of constitutional, fundamental, or even human rights. In fact, even though many EU member states have been reluctant to confer entity liabilities and rights on corporations beyond the context of civil and commercial matters,7 their domestic courts generally have not barred corpo- rations, as legal persons, from procedural safeguards and substantive rights per se.8 Particularly the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Eu- rope’s regional human rights court, has had a long history of extending the fundamental rights guarantees under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)9 to corporations and has been the engine for a pro- business agenda of fundamental rights protections in Europe.10

So maybe at this point 'person' including corporation is just something that is well-established in law.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The word person as commonly understood by ordinary laypeople refers to a real human being. The fact that all these laws had to use an additional section to extend it to unreal people indicates that even these politicians and drafters know that people mean people when they use the word person. If it was the case that the normal commonly understood definition including unreal people, then all these sections of law would be superfluous.

Edit: It's also interesting to find out that, say, a person can murder a corporation in Ireland, and a corporation can be a murderer: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964 ... print.html

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The word person as commonly understood by ordinary laypeople refers to a real human being. The fact that all these laws had to use an additional section to extend it to unreal people indicates that even these politicians and drafters know that people mean people when they use the word person. If it was the case that the normal commonly understood definition including unreal people, then all these sections of law would be superfluous.

If you go to any Interpretation Act, you will find many superfluous provisions that most lay people will understand to mean other things. This includes stuff like when the law says 'He may not sit there' it includes 'She may not sit there'. Interpretation Act 1978 s 6 (UK). You will find it says '"Month" means calendar month'. Ibid sch 1. The presence of an assertion is not dispositive as to it being outside common use. Moreover, reading WA resolutions – pretend laws – as if they were text messages would be entirely ignoring their linguistic context.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In response to Ara: The resolution applies to conduct committed within a member nation (which, for obvious reasons, is under WA jurisdiction) and to conduct committed on WA-registered vessels in international waters.

Piracy is generally considered to be a crime of universal jurisdiction. To extend jurisdiction in international waters would be little more than asserting a universal jurisdiction for the matter herein.

[Barfleur]

"Why are corporations, who in some member states are people too I'm led to understand, allowed to go around destroying ports left, right and centre?

"Commonly understood words don't need defining. In this case, it makes no sense to exempt legal fictions."

OOC: A potential option to avoid teh fuckwittery about non member nations would be rejig to the standard format of mandates to member states to outlaw and/or prevent the bad stuff.

"Ambassador, we welcome the concern and appreciate the feedback, but if the conduct is engaged in within the boundaries of a member nation, it need not matter the nationality of the perpetrator."

In response to Ara: The resolution applies to conduct committed within a member nation (which, for obvious reasons, is under WA jurisdiction) and to conduct committed on WA-registered vessels in international waters.

Piracy is generally considered to be a crime of universal jurisdiction. To extend jurisdiction in international waters would be little more than asserting a universal jurisdiction for the matter herein.

OOC: The principle is the same, however, this proposal covers acts not currently defined as piracy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Piracy is generally considered to be a crime of universal jurisdiction. To extend jurisdiction in international waters would be little more than asserting a universal jurisdiction for the matter herein.

OOC: The principle is the same, however, this proposal covers acts not currently defined as piracy.

So apply the same logic as piracy re jurisdiction. Expand such that member nations have universal jurisdiction in international waters for actions violating this resolution.

[Araraukar]

You will find it says '"Month" means calendar month'.

OOC: Because lunar months are used by a whole other existing calendar system in RL as well as many religions around the world, including Christianity. "Person" used of anything but people is only used in Legalese.

IC:

"Ambassador, we welcome the concern and appreciate the feedback, but if the conduct is engaged in within the boundaries of a member nation, it need not matter the nationality of the perpetrator."

"But you're not doing that. You're specifically referring to international waters. And you can keep trying to dance around the issue all you want, but as long as you are trying to legislate for "any person", you're by definition trying to legislate for non-member nations' persons as well. If you turned it around - as has been suggested to you before - and legislated that within member nations' territories or aboard a ship registered in a member nation, it is unlawful to do whatever you want to ban, then you wouldn't have this issue! Why are you stuck on a wording you KNOW will cause issues, when you could say the exact same thing in a way that doesn't?"

[Barfleur]

OOC: The principle is the same, however, this proposal covers acts not currently defined as piracy.

So apply the same logic as piracy re jurisdiction. Expand such that member nations have universal jurisdiction in international waters for actions violating this resolution.

OOC: Will do.

IC:

"Ambassador, we welcome the concern and appreciate the feedback, but if the conduct is engaged in within the boundaries of a member nation, it need not matter the nationality of the perpetrator."

"But you're not doing that. You're specifically referring to international waters. And you can keep trying to dance around the issue all you want, but as long as you are trying to legislate for "any person", you're by definition trying to legislate for non-member nations' persons as well. If you turned it around - as has been suggested to you before - and legislated that within member nations' territories or aboard a ship registered in a member nation, it is unlawful to do whatever you want to ban, then you wouldn't have this issue! Why are you stuck on a wording you KNOW will cause issues, when you could say the exact same thing in a way that doesn't?"

"I have instructed the administrative secretary of my delegation to make the suggested changes. I consider them to be minor, but this proposal is necessary to the point in which any jurisdictional technicality that could derail it must be ironed out."