NationStates

The World Assembly,

Noting that the repeal of GA 25 "WA Counterterrorism Act" by GA 613 on 5 Jun 2022 has left an almost two-year-long silence from the Assembly on this issue,

Confident that all responsible nations of the world have a collective interest in suppressing international terrorism, even if terrorism is sometimes in the interest of one or more members,

Believing that the division between non-state and state actors is especially relevant given the ability of the World Assembly to directly regulate member state actions through legislation such as GA 519 "Provisional Rule in Wartime", GA 458 "Command Responsibility", GA 345 "Proscription on Living Shields", GA 340 "Access to Humanitarian Aid", GA 334 "Protected Status in Wartime", GA 317 "Wartime Looting and Pillage", among others, and

Seeking to finally put in place a replacement to correct this collective action problem, hereby enacts as follows.

1. In this resolution:
   
   
   1. a "belligerent" is
      
      
      1. a governmental organisation with largely exclusive control over a defined and permanently populated territory that is capable of entering into relations with other states
         
         
      2. that is engaging in declared armed conflict with another such governmental organisation;
   2. "terrorism" is when a non-belligerent uses force or violence against civilians or non-combatants to induce fear for the purpose of achieving a change in a state's economic, religious, political, or social policy;
      
      
   3. "terrorist" is a person who engages in terrorism.
2. Terrorism shall be illegal in all member states. Every member nation shall prosecute terrorists within the jurisdiction of member nations collectively to the fullest extent possible. Each member nation, furthermore, has the right to assert universal jurisdiction over terrorists.
   
   
3. No member nation may fund, arm, or otherwise aid terrorists. Nor may any member nation do so through intermediaries such as non-member states or corporations.
   
   
4. Every member nation has the right and duty to seize all things of value which they can show on the balance of probabilities are used or will be used to aid terrorism. After such seizure, the seizing member nation shall promptly conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation as to the disposition of such things and return them if it is found that such things did not meet that evidentiary standard.
   
   
5. All member nations are encouraged to engage in good faith negotiations with non-belligerent actors to reach a consensual compromise on political differences that would obviate a perceived need for violent conflict and to adopt democratic institutions to that effect. All member nations are further urged to cooperate in law enforcement activities that are consistent with the purposes of this resolution.

---

Prior legislation.

GA 12 viewtopic.php?p=324#p324
GA 24 (repealed GA 12) viewtopic.php?p=387#p336
GA 25 viewtopic.php?p=387#p387
GA 612 (repealed GA 25) viewtopic.php?p=39953796#p39953796

Some feedback would be appreciated as to whether I have fully avoided plagiarism allegations in this draft, as I have taken some inspiration from the following sources:

Montevideo Convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevide ... convention
GA 25. viewtopic.php?p=387#p387

IC: Opposed. We have many, erm… allies that fall under this legislation’s definition of “terrorism”.

OOC: Full support

Full support, but with a suggestion: a clause or subclause making explicit that acts of self-defense by well-intended individuals or organizations in protest do not constitute terrorism (this self-defense may be against state or non-state actors seeking to harm protesters or suppress their lawful right to protest, but which inadvertently causes unintended peripheral harm to uninvolved non-combatants)

Is economic policy left out of 1b intentionally or are you amenable to its inclusion?

Attempted Socialism wrote:Is economic policy left out of 1b intentionally or are you amenable to its inclusion?

I included this.

More feedback requested.

Will this still be "new" in 2035, a decade after its passage?

I intend to submit this also next week.

Support as long as the title is changed.

"We are inclined to support, however, the Sovereign finds great concern in the third clause;"

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[3.] Every member nation has the right and duty to seize all things of value which have a substantial probability of aiding in terrorism. After such seizure, the seizing member nation shall promptly conduct a through and unbiased investigation as to the disposition of such things and return them if it is found that such things are not actually used to aid in terrorism.

"The mandate of presumptive seizure of any goods, regardless of origin, purpose, nature, or destination, on, the absolute vaguery of 'substantial probability', to be conclusively proven negatively after the fact, somehow, is an utterly bizarre and senseless mandate. It could very well be read to require Member-States to seize, search, and subject to 'through' - I assume you mean, 'thorough'? - investigation, virtually anything destined for a particular locale, or consisting of particular materials or components. After all, say, fertilizers, are often used in the production of improvised explosives; whose to say those farmers in that famine-stricken nation aren't secretly handing out a little here and there to their violent friends out in the countryside? And, of course, well, you can't really prove that, but you also can't prove they aren't; and the draft quite specifically requires Member-States to prove the negative, not the positive." Raxes clicks, pointedly picking a switched-off tablet out of a pocket, "Oh, that's funny, another bomb just went off; those lunatics are demanding a change to agricultural policy; I wonder why?"

He puts the tablet back, and clicks again. "In other words; the Sovereign cannot support this unless this clause is quite heavily revised."

Second Sovereignty wrote:"We are inclined to support, however, the Sovereign finds great concern in the third clause;"

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[3.] Every member nation has the right and duty to seize all things of value which have a substantial probability of aiding in terrorism. After such seizure, the seizing member nation shall promptly conduct a through and unbiased investigation as to the disposition of such things and return them if it is found that such things are not actually used to aid in terrorism.

"The mandate of presumptive seizure of any goods, regardless of origin, purpose, nature, or destination, on, the absolute vaguery of 'substantial probability', to be conclusively proven negatively after the fact, somehow, is an utterly bizarre and senseless mandate. It could very well be read to require Member-States to seize, search, and subject to 'through' - I assume you mean, 'thorough'? - investigation, virtually anything destined for a particular locale, or consisting of particular materials or components. After all, say, fertilizers, are often used in the production of improvised explosives; whose to say those farmers in that famine-stricken nation aren't secretly handing out a little here and there to their violent friends out in the countryside? And, of course, well, you can't really prove that, but you also can't prove they aren't; and the draft quite specifically requires Member-States to prove the negative, not the positive." Raxes clicks, pointedly picking a switched-off tablet out of a pocket, "Oh, that's funny, another bomb just went off; those lunatics are demanding a change to agricultural policy; I wonder why?"

He puts the tablet back, and clicks again. "In other words; the Sovereign cannot support this unless this clause is quite heavily revised."

Thanks for noticing the typographical error.

"Substantial probability" is not vague. "[A] substantial probability is a degree of proof meaningfully higher than probable cause, intended in the pre-trial detention statute to be equivalent to the standard required to secure a civil injunction – likelihood of success on the merits." Blackson v. United States, 897 A.2d 187, 196 n. 16 (D.C. 2006) (citations omitted) (quoted from https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/le ... e-numbers/). I would put it around 35–40 pc probability. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/appel ... guage.html.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:"Substantial probability" is not vague. "[A] substantial probability is a degree of proof meaningfully higher than probable cause, intended in the pre-trial detention statute to be equivalent to the standard required to secure a civil injunction – likelihood of success on the merits." Blackson v. United States, 897 A.2d 187, 196 n. 16 (D.C. 2006) (citations omitted) (quoted from https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/le ... e-numbers/). I would put it around 35–40 pc probability. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/appel ... guage.html.

OOC:
Consider that if you cannot make your case in-character, and find it necessary to cite real-life US case law, for, some reason, that it is perhaps not entirely applicable or presumptively obvious in the World Assembly. This isn't a latin term with obvious legal purpose, - though I have my issues with that, not that this is the time or the place for that discussion, - it is a regular english phrase. Moreover, some admittedly limited googling has (to the extent we can pretend there's any consistency in results between users these days,) discovered no evidence that this is a standard used outside the United States, and I'm thus unconvinced of any reasonable interest in introducing it internationally, especially given that there seems to quite serious disagreement as to what 'substantial probability' even means. Here's one (more recent!) example;

United States v. Brown, 352 F. Supp. 3d 589, 595 (E.D. Va. 2018) wrote:“[...] Setting "substantial probability" below "preponderance of the evidence" would contravene the plain meaning of the words. If "preponderance of the evidence" means that something is at least probable, then "substantial probability" must be higher than that burden. Therefore, the Court cannot agree that "substantial probability" should be less than fifty percent. [...]"

Various articles also suggest that the problem is not merely between these two courts, but exists similarly between virtually any court in the United States.

To note; the idea that you can mathematically determine the probability that a given shipment will make its way to 'terrorists', is, ridiculous, and I don't quite know what you expect me to say about that. Obviously no Member-State will go and mathematically derive the probability that literally any freight will be individually directed to John Q. Terrorist, so the ultimate effect of establishing such as a mandate upon Member-States, will effectively be, completely arbitrary, totally unnecessary, lengthy and expensive search, seizure, and trial, of basically anything going basically anywhere, at basically every border crossing. The effects this regime of absurd paranoia and arbitrary seizure will have on international trade (and international economies at large) will be catastrophic; raising prices dramatically at all levels, resulting in massive waste, and burning a hell of a lot of money and time for Member-States. Just don't do it.

I oppose the word "new" in the title.

Otherwise support.

I've removed the word "new".

In light of the countervailing precedent noted as well as apparent lack of usage outside of the United States, I'm going to set a balance of probabilities test and have made edits to that effect. I don't buy this argumentation that we can't at all evaluate probabilities. We evaluate probabilities all the time in the common course of life; this is no different. This is exceptionally common across jurisdictions and includes the civil law jurisdictions which rest on their judges' "une intime conviction". A showing must regardless be made, which is now explicit.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

(Image)
Counterterrorism Convention
International Security: Strong

The World Assembly,

Confident that all responsible nations of the world have a collective interest in suppressing international terrorism, even if terrorism is sometimes in the interest of one or more members,

Believing that the division between non-state and state actors is especially relevant given the ability of the World Assembly to directly regulate member state actions through legislation such as GA 519 "Provisional Rule in Wartime", GA 458 "Command Responsibility", GA 345 "Proscription on Living Shields", GA 340 "Access to Humanitarian Aid", GA 334 "Protected Status in Wartime", GA 317 "Wartime Looting and Pillage", among others, and

Seeking to correct this collective action problem, hereby enacts as follows.

1. In this resolution:
   
   
   1. a "belligerent" is
      
      
      1. a governmental organisation with largely exclusive control over a defined and permanently populated territory that is capable of entering into relations with other states
         
         
      2. that is engaging in declared armed conflict with another such governmental organisation;
   2. "terrorism" is when a non-belligerent uses force or violence against civilians or non-combatants to induce fear for the purpose of achieving a change in a state's economic, religious, political, or social policy;
      
      
   3. "terrorist" is a person who engages in terrorism.
2. Terrorism shall be illegal in all member states. Every member nation shall prosecute terrorists within the jurisdiction of member nations collectively to the fullest extent possible. Each member nation, furthermore, has the right to assert universal jurisdiction over terrorists.
   
   
3. No member nation may fund, arm, or otherwise aid terrorists. Nor may any member nation do so through intermediaries such as non-member states or corporations.
   
   
4. Every member nation has the right and duty to seize all things of value which they can show on the balance of probabilities are used or will be used to aid terrorism. After such seizure, the seizing member nation shall promptly conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation as to the disposition of such things and return them if it is found that such things did not meet that evidentiary standard.
   
   
5. All member nations are encouraged to engage in good faith negotiations with non-belligerent actors to reach a consensual compromise on political differences that would obviate a perceived need for violent conflict and to adopt democratic institutions to that effect. All member nations are further urged to cooperate in law enforcement activities that are consistent with the purposes of this resolution.

---

Index of prior legislation.
GA 12 viewtopic.php?p=324#p324
GA 24 (repealed GA 12) viewtopic.php?p=387#p336
GA 25 viewtopic.php?p=387#p387
GA 612 (repealed GA 25) viewtopic.php?p=39953796#p39953796

So far from this legislation I can see what you’re getting at with designation of a Terror state. I believe the definition of terrorism can continue with more context. Due to I would like to see the protection of ones faith by not labeling them a terrorism state. Due to a religion difference, keyword religion not faith.

As well applying a one year or two year policy of review of a state to be returned from a terror state list.

This proposal has nothing to do with the designation of state sponsors of terrorism.

Pro alteris. The following clause has been added to the preamble: "Noting that the repeal of GA 25 "WA Counterterrorism Act" by GA 613 on 5 Jun 2022 has left an almost two-year-long silence from the Assembly on this issue". I believe that noting the passage of time, including the provision of dates, is legal: the site itself prints implementation dates at the bottom of every resolution.