[DRAFT] Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement

[Wallenburg]

"My apologies for holding you so long here, my colleagues. What would you all think of this to address the non-combatant issue?"

"Non-combatant" means any individual who does not directly take part in military or police action and who has not adopted a social or organizational role to that end.

"My office is also considering more specific language regarding 'terrorist', since it may currently be argued to include several forms of violence that, while illegal, depart widely from the common understanding of terrorism."

"Could you clarify what you imagine social and organisational roles would be? Is the politician directing the military action taking either role? Perhaps it could be phrased "social, organisational or political role"?

"A politician simultaneously serving as a military commander would be in the role of a military commander, and therefore directly taking part in military action. Civilian politicians are intentionally excluded from this definition."

[Bananaistan]

"Could you clarify what you imagine social and organisational roles would be? Is the politician directing the military action taking either role? Perhaps it could be phrased "social, organisational or political role"?

"A politician simultaneously serving as a military commander would be in the role of a military commander, and therefore directly taking part in military action. Civilian politicians are intentionally excluded from this definition."

"We remain opposed in this case. Civilian politicians directing their security services to undertake campaigns of terror against civilian populations are legitimate targets. We will not countenance freedom fighters being branded as terrorists on account of targeting such terrorists.

"This proposal would be the greatest blow ever struck against anti-imperialists, freedom fighters, communist rebels, etc ever struck by the global capitalist/imperialist establishment. We have never seen such an anti-socialists proposal"

[Wallenburg]

"A politician simultaneously serving as a military commander would be in the role of a military commander, and therefore directly taking part in military action. Civilian politicians are intentionally excluded from this definition."

"We remain opposed in this case. Civilian politicians directing their security services to undertake campaigns of terror against civilian populations are legitimate targets. We will not countenance freedom fighters being branded as terrorists on account of targeting such terrorists.

"This proposal would be the greatest blow ever struck against anti-imperialists, freedom fighters, communist rebels, etc ever struck by the global capitalist/imperialist establishment. We have never seen such an anti-socialists proposal"

Trevanyika rubs at the base of her neck, pushing away built-up stress. "Such individuals can be arrested, tried in a legitimate tribunal, and then disposed of within the bounds of justice. We achieved as much in Wallenburg, albeit only just before the Anglican delegation banned capital punishment. Really, Mister Hornwood, this isn't as difficult as you make it to be. If would-be terrorists are capable of killing an evil politician, it is not so much more difficult to arrest that politician as to make the easier option of murder morally permissible."

[Bananaistan]

"We remain opposed in this case. Civilian politicians directing their security services to undertake campaigns of terror against civilian populations are legitimate targets. We will not countenance freedom fighters being branded as terrorists on account of targeting such terrorists.

"This proposal would be the greatest blow ever struck against anti-imperialists, freedom fighters, communist rebels, etc ever struck by the global capitalist/imperialist establishment. We have never seen such an anti-socialists proposal"

Trevanyika rubs at the base of her neck, pushing away built-up stress. "Such individuals can be arrested, tried in a legitimate tribunal, and then disposed of within the bounds of justice. We achieved as much in Wallenburg, albeit only just before the Anglican delegation banned capital punishment. Really, Mister Hornwood, this isn't as difficult as you make it to be. If would-be terrorists are capable of killing an evil politician, it is not so much more difficult to arrest that politician as to make the easier option of murder morally permissible."

"Are you seriously suggesting that the oppressed masses, with no access to the machinery of state, and with nothing more than a gun, maybe a bomb and the righteousness of their cause, are going to capable of arresting well guarded senior politicians and subsequently safely detaining them until after they've successfully completed their revolution?

"You can simply not make an omelette without breaking an egg and as much as we would like to live in a world where tyrants step down when nicely asked, one must recognise that this world does not exist and can only be brought about by violent revolution where the workers seize power. This proposal would make it near impossible considering it requires the full security apparatus of all member states to brought against all freedom fighters who actually target their oppressors rather then just their misguided, fellow proletariat wearing the wrong uniform."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why do we assume that freedom fighting terrorists will follow WA law and therefore need to be accommodated? They are revolutionaries. Following the law isn't a concern of theirs."

[Bananaistan]

"Why do we assume that freedom fighting terrorists will follow WA law and therefore need to be accommodated? They are revolutionaries. Following the law isn't a concern of theirs."

"Following the law is a concern of member states and all member states would be required to take significant action against them under sections 3 and 4."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why do we assume that freedom fighting terrorists will follow WA law and therefore need to be accommodated? They are revolutionaries. Following the law isn't a concern of theirs."

"Following the law is a concern of member states and all member states would be required to take significant action against them under sections 3 and 4."

"Member states would already take action against rebels. It's literally in their own best interests to prevent violent challenges to their authority. This seems an unnecessary quibble."

[Bananaistan]

"Following the law is a concern of member states and all member states would be required to take significant action against them under sections 3 and 4."

"Member states would already take action against rebels. It's literally in their own best interests to prevent violent challenges to their authority. This seems an unnecessary quibble."

"Ah come on Ambassador. Of course the member state subject to the action will already take action. The problem is that other member states, even those sympathetic to the cause of the rebels, will be forced to take action against them."

[Wallenburg]

"Exactly what do you want me to do, Mister Hornwood? Introduce an explicit exemption from the law for communists?"

[Bananaistan]

"Exactly what do you want me to do, Mister Hornwood? Introduce an explicit exemption from the law for communists?"

"Simply expand your proposed definition of non-combatants to exclude political masters of state terrorism."

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

"Exactly what do you want me to do, Mister Hornwood? Introduce an explicit exemption from the law for communists?"

"Simply expand your proposed definition of non-combatants to exclude political masters of state terrorism."

"And how do you determine that category? At what point is an individual politician responsible for state terrorism to such an extent that terrorism in kind is a moral response?"

[Bananaistan]

"Simply expand your proposed definition of non-combatants to exclude political masters of state terrorism."

"And how do you determine that category? At what point is an individual politician responsible for state terrorism to such an extent that terrorism in kind is a moral response?"

"Your delegation proposes a white-wash of state terrorists, not mine. Your delegation proposes to make international war criminals of all but the most pacifist national liberation movements and revolutionaries, not mine. It's your hole to dig yourselves out of. We would prefer no international law on the topic than this deeply flawed charter for tyrants."

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

"And how do you determine that category? At what point is an individual politician responsible for state terrorism to such an extent that terrorism in kind is a moral response?"

"Your delegation proposes a white-wash of state terrorists, not mine. Your delegation proposes to make international war criminals of all but the most pacifist national liberation movements and revolutionaries, not mine. It's your hole to dig yourselves out of. We would prefer no international law on the topic than this deeply flawed charter for tyrants."

"We propose merely that the World Assembly not grant international sanction for the extrajudicial murder of civilian non-combatants. If your 'liberation movement' requires the murder of such individuals, then I question how much liberty it actually brings."

[Bananaistan]

"Your delegation proposes a white-wash of state terrorists, not mine. Your delegation proposes to make international war criminals of all but the most pacifist national liberation movements and revolutionaries, not mine. It's your hole to dig yourselves out of. We would prefer no international law on the topic than this deeply flawed charter for tyrants."

"We propose merely that the World Assembly not grant international sanction for the extrajudicial murder of civilian non-combatants. If your 'liberation movement' requires the murder of such individuals, then I question how much liberty it actually brings."

"You propose to make international war criminals of such movements by granting bogus non-combatant status to tyrants and dictators."

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

"I have worked out some issues with sections one and three."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"I have worked out some issues with sections one and three."

OOC: I want to make it clear I’m not planning to just throw a grenade about the non-combatants definition and then run off. I’ve been busy with work lately but I do have some thoughts that will hopefully be constructive and that I’ll post IC soon.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To the Wallenburgian Delegation, et al:

I have read several important treatises on this subject. (OOC: Well, at least one treatise. Most of it... Okay, I skimmed it.)

After due consideration, our Delegation would like to offer the following missive to hopefully aid our friends in this endeavor.

The problem really seems to lie in the definition of terrorism. Most of international law dealing with concepts like "combatants" and "non-combatants" and "civilians" has a fundamental premise: that national governments will bind themselves to international law in exchange for like treatment from other nations. Of course, that framework does not work well when discussing militant groups which are not nations, or which otherwise refuse to be bound by international law. It is those groups that were historically thought of as the parties capable of "terrorism," and it is those groups who were targeted in the prior General Assembly resolution on the subject.

National governments could, of course, still be complicit in the commission of acts bearing the hallmarks of terrorism. But when they did, the behavior was not generally attributed to the nation writ large and every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, teacher, preacher, and swamp creature therein. Rather, only the offenders themselves were punished and usually then as "war criminals" and not "terrorists." The concept of a "terrorist nation" is rather new, and it might not even be a very good concept for the reasons I just mentioned (it is hard to say that a nation's children, elderly, and infirm could all be properly labeled as part of a terrorist nation). Although candidly the conduct of some nations in modern warfare and others in violently suppressing the human rights of their own people bring possible merit to the concept.

Introductory remarks aside, here (briefly) are the key problems I've identified with attempting to use concepts like "combatant" and "non-combatant" or "civilian" when defining terrorism.

1. There is simply too much difficulty in determining who is a legitimate target when dealing with various forms of "total war" (which holds that during times of war every usable part of the whole nation - including the baker, etc. - must be enlisted in some way, shape, or form to fight the threat).
2. The fact that many (if not most) nations now have civilian leadership, and that national leadership may be fairly viewed as a very legitimate military target - even more so than any particular "combatant" soldier.
3. Finally, there seems to be something that is a "terrorist act" which can be performed regardless of the status of the victim. Example: An army doctor who accepts a radical religious teaching, "switches sides," and goes on a rampage through his base, killing several fresh conscripts and some of his own patients.

With all that in mind, we have attempted to rethink the definition of "terrorist" or "terrorism" in a way that avoids the combatant/noncombatant distinction. Here is what we came up with; perhaps you can do something with it:

For the purposes of this resolution, "terrorist" describes (1) the intentional or indiscriminate use of violence against vulnerable, helpless, or defenseless people, (2) which is done in pursuit of ideological, political, religious, or social objectives, and (3) which is intended at least in part to achieve those ends by instilling a sense of insecurity and fear in a target population.

We hope this proposed definition at least helps sharpen the debate or give ideas for how to overcome this obstacle. If our members would prefer to continue thinking about the problem in terms of "combatants" and "non-combatants" our delegation would be happy to consider the matter further and try to come up with best definitions for those terms. But, first, we would like to at least posit that, emulating water, the best solution may be to find the easiest way around the problem rather than through it.

If it Pleases and Sparkles,
Kaylin Twinklebright
Political Ally, Class 37
Ambassador to the World Assembly

[The Orwell Society]

I see this as a significant improvement over the first draft. Support.

[Wallenburg]

"My thanks to Ambassador Twinklebright for attempting to assist on the issue of producing a clear image of terrorism, but I am afraid their offered substitute definition is a serious step backward in clarity and utility. The definition you offer, Ambassador, renders practically every military or police action potentially terroristic if a member state so chooses, or practically none so. The entire definition as provided suffers from deficiencies from one end to the other, but section 1 is the most harmful area. Such words as 'vulnerable, helpless, or defenseless' can be stretched or squashed into a great many different shapes, all of them colorable interpretations and therefore compliant to any mandate that might enforce them. I cannot justify using this."

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“I concur with the Wallenburgian ambassador that the definition given by Ambassador Twinklebright is vague and can be open to multiple interpretations.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"My thanks to Ambassador Twinklebright for attempting to assist on the issue of producing a clear image of terrorism, but I am afraid their offered substitute definition is a serious step backward in clarity and utility. The definition you offer, Ambassador, renders practically every military or police action potentially terroristic if a member state so chooses, or practically none so. The entire definition as provided suffers from deficiencies from one end to the other, but section 1 is the most harmful area. Such words as 'vulnerable, helpless, or defenseless' can be stretched or squashed into a great many different shapes, all of them colorable interpretations and therefore compliant to any mandate that might enforce them. I cannot justify using this."

"Oh I didn't think it was all that bad given how difficult dealing with this definition is in real life. But very well; if we are intent on trying to fit the concept of terrorism into the existing paradigm of sanctioned international warfare between combatants - an exercise which I am not sure will prove the right approach over the long term - here are some brief thoughts on that.

Noncombatants are defined by what they are not - combatants. Therefore, the best approach is to try to capture all of the legitimate targets of violence into one class, and then say targeting anyone not in that class amounts to terrorism (assuming all the other parts of the definition are met).

Traditionally, combatants were held to be (1) the members of a national or sub-national organized armed force (2) who are legally authorized by their nation to use violence (3) against the people who are not citizens of that nation (4) in the pursuit of social, political, and military ends, (5) during a time of declared or open armed conflict.

You might consider adding to that definition: (b) any individual otherwise acting as a combatant without official sanction or authority and (c) any members of leadership who, despite not using violence themselves, are legally authorized to direct or control the application of violence on others.

If you just negative that, you come to the definition of noncombatant (i.e. a noncombatant is any individual who does not meet the definition of combatant).

I am not sure if pursuing this line will reveal additional clarity, but those are my initial (somewhat rushed) thoughts on what it means to be a combatant."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The advantage of the Sparklian delegation's proposed definition is that it gets at the root of what makes us recoil with disgust when some maniac blows up a shop full of ordinary citizens, without the hypocrisy of protecting those who pull the strings merely because they have layers of bureaucracy isolating them from their own maniacs, soldiers, stormtroopers, etc. Leaving such protections in place renders the proposal little more than another feel-good excercise. The word 'terrorism' itself has been diluted to mean simply any act beyond carrying a protest sign that the speaker finds objectionable. Not that this proposal or the authoring delegation is necessarily guilty of this, but we should be aware how close to writing a law called 'Ban on Bad Stuff' we are when we over-apply words like 'terrorism' and 'tyranny' and the like."

"I fear the current draft may protect certain rear-echelon motherfuckers from the consequences of their actions by rendering violence against them 'terrorism' even if they have ordered or abetted oppressive acts. Member states already have every reason to prevent violence against their own citizens, and to cooperate with other states to prevent cross-border attacks; if adding more requirements in that vein is to be at all useful, it needs to be in a way that permits targeted strikes against masterminds, not just another screed against the jackboots on the ground."