[PASSED!] Repeal GA#666 "COLE for Heinous Crimes"

[Tinhampton]

I'll try and take this on myself now...

I guess this is legal. Although that is about all you have going for this repeal.

thanks!

Disappointed that the target resolution sets low standards of good faith in these reviews through only requiring the tribunal to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

How is this a "low standard of good faith"?

Article 2a is the only standard that must be followed by tribunals. The main body of Art 2 says the tribunals must act "bona fide" in doing so. Ergo, a low standard of good faith.

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

That is obviously not what the clause does. If someone has been acquitted for the same crime in the past, that is evidence against extradition. Although the very resolution you cite states that retrials (double jeopardy) can only happen under "significant miscarriages of justice". In any other situation, doing this would obviously violate GA #198 (or any replacements thereof in case that it is repeal).

I'll try to explain what W&S said: IRL, the United States does not allow past acquittals to be considered in future trials because they make the acquitted/tried person look bad, making the trial unfair.

Acquittals for Heinous Crime XYZ must be considered by the tribunal in deciding whether to extend comity over XYZ in a certain instance. The tribunal is not actually trying the suspect for XYZ; that will be the job of the court of whichever member state tries them.

Adamant that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,

This argument makes no sense. The goal of the target is not to make sure that "their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in"; although GA #147 has no requirement that a tribunal (or otherwise a member nation) formally consider whether or not to extradite in all cases involving heinous crimes. It merely restricts extradition. How is facilitating comity superfluous against restrictions on extradition?

I'll accept that comity, and the study of extradition viability, is not incompatible with GA#147. (GA#515 "International Bankruptcy Protocol" is the only other resolution that discusses comity at all, and then it assumes comity means the application of laws rather than a straight try-or-extradite decision.) A reasonable member state would have always reviewed the viability of extraditing of its own accord, and made a decision from that starting point, anyway.

However, if you are being extradited from one member state to another - the only case in which GA#666 calls for comity - then GA#37 ensures the same basic rules apply to trials both in your member state of residence and the member state that laid the charges. If you are extradited, your trial must follow GA#37. If you aren't extradited, your trial must follow GA#37 anyway. Why would extradition be a potentially valuable tool in the cases your target resolution envisages?

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - GA#666 establishes it as nothing more than a police force that pursues those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial,

This is an intentional feature of the target. Allowing future resolutions about other law enforcement actions to be considered at vote is far preferable to not one, not two, not three, not four, but five resolutions trying to stop a WA police or military from being even considered. I guess you have the right to disagree, although philosophically I am opposed to this argument in any form.

It is a matter we will continue to disagree on

Ice: Ooc: Apologies for not mentioning this earlier, although this has not been submitted yet. How is this true when the Section 3 mandate for extradition (the IEC mandate applies "[w]here a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3") allows for extradition for both "charg[ing] or convict[ing] the individual"?

That... means the clause is still true? Not sure what your point is.

The police force does more than "pursu[ing] those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial". Am I misreading the repeal argument (specifically the "nothing more" wording)?

Edit 2: When would it be "more than" a police force which pursues charged individuals?

When it's a police force that pursues convicts. Changed.

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest (never mind assaults IEC agents in doing so) or even when they are meant to deploy arms, and

Necessary means that it is a sine qua non. Can the person be safely extradited without IEC armed force? This is an objective standard, not an "unclear" one as alleged here.

If The Ice States' armed police are not ready to safely extradite James McTerrorist back to Tinhampton, they are allowed to detain him and remove him at a future, more appropriate point in time. If they do not feel as though safe extradition is possible, the only other option for comity is to try him in TIS.

[The Ice States]

My concerns as to the factual accuracy of "Bemused" are now resolved, thank you.

Article 2a is the only standard that must be followed by tribunals. The main body of Art 2 says the tribunals must act "bona fide" in doing so. Ergo, a low standard of good faith.

The tribunals must both consider those factors, and act bona fide.

That is obviously not what the clause does. If someone has been acquitted for the same crime in the past, that is evidence against extradition. Although the very resolution you cite states that retrials (double jeopardy) can only happen under "significant miscarriages of justice". In any other situation, doing this would obviously violate GA #198 (or any replacements thereof in case that it is repeal).

I'll try to explain what W&S said: IRL, the United States does not allow past acquittals to be considered in future trials because they make the acquitted/tried person look bad, making the trial unfair.

Acquittals for Heinous Crime XYZ must be considered by the tribunal in deciding whether to extend comity over XYZ in a certain instance. The tribunal is not actually trying the suspect for XYZ; that will be the job of the court of whichever member state tries them.

Not all nations are the USA; but even so, it is precisely because this is not actually a trial that it is irrelevant. A nation can still (and rationally would) consider the fact that they were tried for something before as reason not to grant comity; as granting comity would result in double jeopardy.

This argument makes no sense. The goal of the target is not to make sure that "their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in"; although GA #147 has no requirement that a tribunal (or otherwise a member nation) formally consider whether or not to extradite in all cases involving heinous crimes. It merely restricts extradition. How is facilitating comity superfluous against restrictions on extradition?

I'll accept that comity, and the study of extradition viability, is not incompatible with GA#147. (GA#515 "International Bankruptcy Protocol" is the only other resolution that discusses comity at all, and then it assumes comity means the application of laws rather than a straight try-or-extradite decision.) A reasonable member state would have always reviewed the viability of extraditing of its own accord, and made a decision from that starting point, anyway.

However, if you are being extradited from one member state to another - the only case in which GA#666 calls for comity - then GA#37 ensures the same basic rules apply to trials both in your member state of residence and the member state that laid the charges. If you are extradited, your trial must follow GA#37. If you aren't extradited, your trial must follow GA#37 anyway. Why would extradition be a potentially valuable tool in the cases your target resolution envisages?

There is nothing to do with GA #37. The point of comity (and extradition) is not to guarantee a fair trial, but rather to ensure that the person is tried regardless of whether they cross arbitrary borders before they are actually tried.

Necessary means that it is a sine qua non. Can the person be safely extradited without IEC armed force? This is an objective standard, not an "unclear" one as alleged here.

If The Ice States' armed police are not ready to safely extradite James McTerrorist back to Tinhampton, they are allowed to detain him and remove him at a future, more appropriate point in time. If they do not feel as though safe extradition is possible, the only other option for comity is to try him in TIS.

The provision in Section 4 assumes that "a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3".

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Be that as it may, with your point about it “not being a trial,” I did not use the USA as an example because I believe the USA is the end all be all of “good law.”

The example is meant to use irl case that I am familiar with to explain why it’s a bad idea to include the language of past trials. I believe there are similar rulings in most common a d civil law jurisdictions. Generally speaking it is unfair to the defendant to bring up irrelevant past encounters with the law because of the risk of prejudice. Think about how a wily prosecutor could use such a thing when cross-examining a defendant or defense witness with knowledge. Even if an extradition hearing is not a trial, I think it’s still bad language.

[Tinhampton]

My concerns as to the factual accuracy of "Bemused" are now resolved, thank you.

Article 2a is the only standard that must be followed by tribunals. The main body of Art 2 says the tribunals must act "bona fide" in doing so. Ergo, a low standard of good faith.

The tribunals must both consider those factors, and act bona fide.

Beyond the Article 2a factors (which I consider to be matters of good faith in themselves), tribunals must act in good faith. What, beyond Art 2a, does "good faith" mean? Really whatever member states want it to mean - within GA law, naturally. This is not the kind of standard the GA should be setting for its member states.

I'll try to explain what W&S said: IRL, the United States does not allow past acquittals to be considered in future trials because they make the acquitted/tried person look bad, making the trial unfair.

Acquittals for Heinous Crime XYZ must be considered by the tribunal in deciding whether to extend comity over XYZ in a certain instance. The tribunal is not actually trying the suspect for XYZ; that will be the job of the court of whichever member state tries them.

Not all nations are the USA; but even so, it is precisely because this is not actually a trial that it is irrelevant. A nation can still (and rationally would) consider the fact that they were tried for something before as reason not to grant comity; as granting comity would result in double jeopardy.

Tribunals are indeed well within their right to consider past acquittals for the heinous crime in the decision to require either a trial or extradition, and must do so in good faith. GA#198 says you cannot try and overturn these acquittals beyond "[s]pecific circumstances, which qualify as significant miscarriages of justice" - and such circumstances must be defined by the member state.
This definition need not be good-faith: you can simply say that the findings of a tribunal that comity should be extended over a war crime your courts previously said didn't happen constitutes a big miscarriage of justice, because the tribunal was constituted according to WA law and is superior to your domestic law. I'm not even getting started on what the prosecutors think

I'll accept that comity, and the study of extradition viability, is not incompatible with GA#147. (GA#515 "International Bankruptcy Protocol" is the only other resolution that discusses comity at all, and then it assumes comity means the application of laws rather than a straight try-or-extradite decision.) A reasonable member state would have always reviewed the viability of extraditing of its own accord, and made a decision from that starting point, anyway.

However, if you are being extradited from one member state to another - the only case in which GA#666 calls for comity - then GA#37 ensures the same basic rules apply to trials both in your member state of residence and the member state that laid the charges. If you are extradited, your trial must follow GA#37. If you aren't extradited, your trial must follow GA#37 anyway. Why would extradition be a potentially valuable tool in the cases your target resolution envisages?

There is nothing to do with GA #37. The point of comity (and extradition) is not to guarantee a fair trial, but rather to ensure that the person is tried regardless of whether they cross arbitrary borders before they are actually tried.

A heinous crime is a violation of WA law. Every single state must outlaw heinous crimes. If they do not, they are non-compliant with WA law and punished accordingly. If you are "charged [with] a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation," then you will be tried for that heinous crime. Let me explain.

• If your home state claims jurisdiction, your appeal against extradition must be accepted, and further must be tried in your home state.
• If your home state doesn't claim jurisdiction, the charging state seeks to exercise its jurisdiction, and your appeal is rejected, you must go to the charging state to face trial.
• If your home state doesn't claim jurisdiction, the charging state seeks to exercise its jurisdiction, and your appeal is accepted, then there will be no trial by the home state. However, Article 4 of GA#466 "World Assembly Justice Accord" says that the charging state can still sue you in a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee "for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law."

Ergo, you will be tried for the heinous crime you have been charged with in some venue - either your home state, the charging state, or the WAJC.

Prove me wrong: can you give an example of a situation where, in the absence of GA#666, the trial of a suspected heinous criminal would not be guaranteed? (Assume that all other GA resolutions exist as normal.)

If The Ice States' armed police are not ready to safely extradite James McTerrorist back to Tinhampton, they are allowed to detain him and remove him at a future, more appropriate point in time. If they do not feel as though safe extradition is possible, the only other option for comity is to try him in TIS.

The provision in Section 4 assumes that "a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3".

We're agreed that, where comity-by-extradition happens, the extradition does not need to be immediate. If it never happens, however, the member state will be non-compliant (or compliant, but in bad faith, at best). I asked Ice three - really four - questions via Discord.

1: Can the decision to extradite - once it is made - be reverted to a decision to try at home? He said it can.

2a: If comity is extended but extradition would never be safe, can comity only be extended in this case via trial? He didn't answer, but I'm assuming - given his earlier comments about compliance - that yes, comity can only be extended via trial.

2b: If comity can only be extended via trial in such a case, then either it will eventually be safe for you to extradite (and comity via extradition can happen in good-faith compliance) or it will never be safe for you to extradite (and comity via trial is thus the only option). So why is the IEC's "armed defensive support" mandate necessary? I'm personally not convinced that it is.
Suppose that, for a given suspect, there will eventually be a combination of circumstances allowing for their safe extradition. If you go around and ask every other member state to help with this, but you somehow don't get enough support, you can ask the IEC for help. The IEC would therefore be a fallback option in the sense their assistance is only strictly necessary where member states cannot help. (Compare with Wallenburg v. Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction." GenSec said there that, if GA#312 remained in place, you could still create an international criminal court for war crimes etc. - but only for cases where no member state, at all, was willing to claim jurisdiction.)
Mage argues that the IEC is desirable because they are a possible first point of contact for assistance - but nothing is stopping you from asking other member states first. (If IRL states need help with extradition, they could hypothetically call upon allied member states - New Zealand has the rest of the Anglosphere to lend a hand, say. Many African nations would have PR China.) I believe that, in the event all other member states say "no dice" - or at least sufficiently many that safe extradition without IEC help is impossible - the member that extended comity would revert its decision to extend it via extradition and instead extend it via trial, thus nullifying any possible need for the IEC.

3: If comity is not extended, what happens? He said the member state that rejects comity has the same options available to it as it did without GA#666.

TL;DR: I'm sticking by my guns because I don't see a practical, absolutely necessary use for the IEC as it's currently constituted, irregardless of any future tasks that may be handed to it.

[Refuge Isle]

While "may use armed force only as necessary" sounds like a good a corporate-synergy nebulousness that can hand-wave away the need to provide any specifics, one still wonders what happens in practice. The repeal text represents this idea, but given that it is such a monumental flaw, one wonders if more time should be spent considering it.

Many questions of mine still persist, as they were never adequately answered beyond the scant generalities that exist in the target. What kinds of force is the World Assembly permitted and expected to enact through its military? Can the World Assembly injure the target individual? Presumably the target individual will not always be a prisoner. Can they destroy objects and barriers to enter the location the accused is or to obtain them? Can they kill in self-defence? What is the protocol or recompense where the suspect kills themselves in order to not be captured by the World Assembly military force?

There are many resolutions that are wholly devoted to regulating police and militaries, and the death knell for this one is that it establishes a whole military department of the World Assembly in a footer clause, restricted only by vague phrases without elaboration. So what are the regulations that would govern it any its use of force? The extant resolutions within the General Assembly were originally constructed with the knowledge that the WA, at the time, did not have the capacity for a military of its own and therefore target member nations.

So what can the World Assembly NOT do as it regards collateral damage, given any hypothetical situation can be inserted into the "as necessary" variable, while the World Assembly is, itself, not impacted by many of its own resolutions relating to military force, destruction of infrastructure, etc. One clause does not contain enough foundational material to govern the responsible and safe use of a militarised force, especially one that should not even exist.

[The Ice States]

I do not believe that continued argumentation on this matter is likely to be productive given that we fundamentally hold opposing opinions on the merits of a WA police of any kind. Although I will nonetheless be responding to these points.

The tribunals must both consider those factors, and act bona fide.

Beyond the Article 2a factors (which I consider to be matters of good faith in themselves), tribunals must act in good faith. What, beyond Art 2a, does "good faith" mean? Really whatever member states want it to mean - within GA law, naturally. This is not the kind of standard the GA should be setting for its member states.

Good faith means good faith. The term, in turn, must be interpreted in good faith. See GA #654, Section 3. To that end, good faith requires (inter alia) duly considering arguments both for and against extradition, following due process and existing legal procedures, and so on. If good faith is "not the kind of standard the GA should be setting for its member states", then you should know that 41 other resolutions have used the term. I grant that some of these are repeals or only use the term in their preambles, although that does not change the fact that this is not even among the first times the World Assembly sets a standard of good faith.

Not all nations are the USA; but even so, it is precisely because this is not actually a trial that it is irrelevant. A nation can still (and rationally would) consider the fact that they were tried for something before as reason not to grant comity; as granting comity would result in double jeopardy.

Tribunals are indeed well within their right to consider past acquittals for the heinous crime in the decision to require either a trial or extradition, and must do so in good faith. GA#198 says you cannot try and overturn these acquittals beyond "[s]pecific circumstances, which qualify as significant miscarriages of justice" - and such circumstances must be defined by the member state.
This definition need not be good-faith: you can simply say that the findings of a tribunal that comity should be extended over a war crime your courts previously said didn't happen constitutes a big miscarriage of justice, because the tribunal was constituted according to WA law and is superior to your domestic law. I'm not even getting started on what the prosecutors think

Actually, yes it must be in good faith. If a member nation does not interpret and comply with WA law in good faith, it is in non-compliance with GA #654.

"It requires tribunals to consider past trials -- what if the tribunal decides to engage in double jeopardy!?". If you think that GA #198 is not a good enough standard, then you can repeal and replace that. That has nothing to do with how this resolution affects double jeopardy. It does not authorise (or otherwise "ope[n] the door for") double jeopardy.

If your home state doesn't claim jurisdiction, the charging state seeks to exercise its jurisdiction, and your appeal is accepted, then there will be no trial by the home state. However, Article 4 of GA#466 "World Assembly Justice Accord" says that the charging state can still sue you in a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee "for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law."[/list]
Ergo, you will be tried for the heinous crime you have been charged with in some venue - either your home state, the charging state, or the WAJC.

Prove me wrong: can you give an example of a situation where, in the absence of GA#666, the trial of a suspected heinous criminal would not be guaranteed? (Assume that all other GA resolutions exist as normal.)

This is a gross misinterpretation of GA #466. That resolution only allows an entity to charge someone for "damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law". Emphasis mine. Where the [member nation/other entity] did not suffer damages as a result of the heinous crime, GA #466 does not authorise it to bring charges before the WAJC.

TL;DR: I'm sticking by my guns because I don't see a practical, absolutely necessary use for the IEC as it's currently constituted, irregardless of any future tasks that may be handed to it.

The target does not claim that the IEC is "absolutely necessary". Policy can be beneficial without being "absolutely necessary".

Be that as it may, with your point about it “not being a trial,” I did not use the USA as an example because I believe the USA is the end all be all of “good law.”

The example is meant to use irl case that I am familiar with to explain why it’s a bad idea to include the language of past trials. I believe there are similar rulings in most common a d civil law jurisdictions. Generally speaking it is unfair to the defendant to bring up irrelevant past encounters with the law because of the risk of prejudice. Think about how a wily prosecutor could use such a thing when cross-examining a defendant or defense witness with knowledge. Even if an extradition hearing is not a trial, I think it’s still bad language.

How is someone having been acquitted for a crime irrelevant to extradition for that same crime? None of the rules of evidence in the USA you cited ("US Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 608, and 609") appear to prohibit acquittals for the same act from being used as evidence in favour of the defence. Regarding this not being a trial, double jeopardy in real life is generally invoked such that a trial cannot be commenced if double jeopardy happened. Therefore, the past trials can be used so that a person is not extradited if they have already been tried for that act, thereby preventing double jeopardy.

[Tinhampton]

I will submit this in about two weeks.

What Refuge said: ENRAGED has been greatly expanded. Thank you.

Good faith: I did say within WA law. I stand by my claim that good faith is an arbitrary standard, albeit not a completely subjective one, and still too weak to be the kind of standard we should apply in such cases.

WAJA: Somebody in a member state is always harmed by a heinous crime. That somebody is hence entitled to sue in WAJC courts.

Necessity: The IEC may not be necessary but I've already repeatedly explained why it isn't a benefit either.

[Tinhampton]

This will be submitted on schedule.

[Tinhampton]

Last call.

[The Ice States]

Bump, as this comes up in a few hours.

[Sea Dome]

A rookie intern from the SD WA Delegation rushes up to you nervously clasping a manila folder, from which at least a page of notes slip out and fall to the ground. "Did that guy mean to say there is a question in this vote whether isolated Member Nations that cannot count on military support from allies should be able to extradite people that they don't independently have the force to? Am I hearing that right?"

[Tinhampton]

A rookie intern from the SD WA Delegation rushes up to you nervously clasping a manila folder, from which at least a page of notes slip out and fall to the ground. "Did that guy mean to say there is a question in this vote whether isolated Member Nations that cannot count on military support from allies should be able to extradite people that they don't independently have the force to? Am I hearing that right?"

Smith: Oh---some rabbit in the headlights moment, this. If you have neither the willingness nor the ability to deport the subject of a comity decision, your alternative under the target resolution is to try at home. Trial at home will remain an option even if the repeal passes. As, for that matter, is trial with the Judiciary Committee.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Full support!

Kudos to the author for recognizing the totalitarian themes of GAR #666, and rallying the opposition accordingly.

The so-called COLEfHC is absolutely lousy with imposing dictatorial WA-superiority over the rights of individual states. The WA does well to reject such notions in favor of a system of consensual cooperation. As the WA is meant to be.

[AC Alex]

Office of the President of Sophia
WORLD ASSEMBLY VOTING RECOMMENDATION

---

General Assembly: Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes (GA#666), by Tinhampton with Refuge Isle, Witchcraft and Sorcery and Merni

Recommendation: FOR

Rationale: The target resolution has a number of holes and structural issues that allow for far more than just flexible interpretation - it's a metaphorical mobius strip where inverted stances are both within the same line. Most notably in this amorphous legal structure, the clause allowing for an extra-national armed force to use force as necessary fails to define what necessary entails. The repeal resolution is well crafted, pointing out many flaws that allow for the non-orientable interpretations and articulating issues that very clearly conflict with previous resolutions (despite an inserted attempt at the beginning of the target resolution to handwave that away).

We believe the authors of the repeal have advocated a convincing argument, including what had been previously extensively litigated, and it does appear to have popular support.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by AC Alex, a Resident of Sophia. If you liked this, please upvote our recommendation dispatch here!

This resolution will be at vote between the major updates of August 12th 2023 and August 16th 2023.

[Tinhampton]

Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes" was passed 9,476 votes to 3,334. (73.97% support)

For: 9,476: Kethania (624), Ebonhand (588), Altys (502), Overthinkers (443), Fooooooooo (265), Malphe II (215), Treadwellia (213), Frattastan II (210), Le Libertia (194), Typica (168), Socialist Platypus (155), Vinslott (107), South Boston Irishmen (105), New Asden (94), The Glorious Hypetrain (93), Rayekka (90), Witchcraft and Sorcery (84), Deims Kir (75), Student Loan Debt (74), Aerlion (74), Suomalainem (72), Vancouvia (71), Verdant Haven (71), Marim Grunzy (67), Wintermoot (60), Lesser Velutaria (58), New United Common-lands (56), 9006 (51), Vobron (50), Mikeswill (49), Oogway (39), Bearded Dragones (34), Shanlix (31), Moukden and Kirin (27), Sanctaria (27), Mark (26), Middle Ibarthelastorosa (26), Lamoni (25), Gran River (21), Cruciland (20), Densaner (20), Indusse (20), Gideon (20), Tinhampton (19), Magical Girl Emi (19), NewTexas (19), Astoreus (18), Haltoria (16), Holy Anderele (16), Felix Femboi (16), Ignilacrim (15), TheMothman (14), Kartof (14), Jiguo (12), Axorian (11), Eshington (11), Awesomeness (11), Kingdom of Englands (11), Revengi (11), Bolgatostand (11), Haaton Prime (10), Tubrita (10), Brovloand (9), The Bolivian Socialist Falange (9), Aura Banitia (9), Union of the Squids (8), The Voltarum (8), Cektia (8), Kiev-Russ (8), The unforgivable country (8), Brocklandia (8), Freedom Rims (7), Thee Imperium 0f Man (7), Reino do Brazil (7), Siluvia (7), Eternal Algerstonia (7), Madrocea (7), Flemingisa (7), Malenkia (7), Acelandia (6), One Small Island (6), Dominos country (6), Vennos (6), Greater Cuba (6), The Greenlandic North (6), Migs (5), Hazahmkong (5), Voxija (5), Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations (5), Wabacha (5), Nine Kre (5), Great Libertona (5), Reactorland (5), Kartunesia (5), The Soviet state of Svalbard (5), The Dao (5), Jarrett Van Hees (5), Jibuti (5), The Village Society (5), Kingdom of Castille (5), Oi Barbaroi (5), Aanlin Mra (4), Lysset (4), Toriniall (4), Puttt (4), Seanat (4), Kolloquia (4), Asase Lewa (4), The Beer Barony (4), Vegaga (4), Stratocratic-Anarchy Oceanic Empire (4), Metal is the best (4), The Palentine (4), Qudrath (4), Ulissebuerg (4), Kakastania (4), Polandorus (4), South Sulphur (4), Island of Avalon (4), Saab Minivan (3), Redshirts (3), Chodean Kal (3), Egosoc (3), Velvoinka (3), Devonithia (3), The Great Mandalore (3), Gatchina (3), The Immortal Fire Nation (3), Trash Heap (3), Tricorniolis (3), Flor-Fina (3), Gonzlandia (3), Kleinekatzen (3), Kylarnatia (3), Chap Ven (3), Huri (3), Rust Islands (3), Von Zeischter (3), Joeyist Union (3), Mancel Rictor (3), Arcerar (3), Maiseau (3), Pirates and Buccaneers (3), Coders (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Zombiedolphins (3), Weyland Yutani (3), Imperial Holia Myzkaaria (3), The Tony Paporordia (3), Gregandua (3), Dolor Mortis (3), NBCLand (3), Cyrisk (3), The Warpstorm (3), Radole (2), Bobs city (2), Paeliopolis (2), Nea Athena (2), Imperial Felchah (2), Dytarma (2), New Stonkopolis (2), Theoscafia (2), Poliski (2), Dolphinicus (2), Torvien (2), Nytocho (2), Nouvel Acadie (2), The Ancient World (2), Jablistan (2), Novaros (2), Nouveau Strasbourg (2), Yarvenia (2), Heneraton (2), Providemist Seclusa (2), Diamond-Topia (2), Raccquesi (2), NinjitsUtopia (2), Chemgota (2), Cha Hetstopia (2), Free Woritanarbio Islands (2), Untecna (2), Molson Iceland (2), Djeeta (2), Astatima (2), Adeiatic (2), The Spanish Coast (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Capitaltopial (2), Hustlertwo (2), Xeknos (2), Nordmain-Ostfalen (2), Pulastan (2), Movovia (2), Grundabal (2), Gandoor (2), The Rising Aura (2), Chairman Cities (2), Sedgistan (2), NiCrawlosis (2), Roshar TM (2), Kincones (2), Wantsum (2), Radio TV Solutions (2), Kinnies (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Hetairaea (2), Sneyland (2), Hitaland (2), GraySoap (2), Malamute (2), Golanchia (2), Akiniad (2), Sigrunia (2), Transsobor (2), Yi-Go (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Making Catgirls Real (2), Char Aznable Neo Zeon (2), United Lammunist Republic (2), New Laikland (2), Italia Gallia (2), Phoenicia- (2), Yaaaastopia (2), Roushia (2), Utopiaana (2), Nascadia (2), Memestw (2), Dracos - Haven (2), The Pigeon Cult (2), and (3,324) individual member nations.

Against: 3,334: Chipoli (897), Imperium Anglorum (438), Lenlyvit (278), Mechanocracy (209), Creeperopolis (185), Ramelia (66), Parkplace (26), Fransmany (18), United Districts of Panem (18), Maurnindaia (16), Gravia (11), LEOLAND3 (11), Splena (10), Rulsolia (8), Landbang Rkipo Islands (8), Comunist Land1 (6), Hydroponic Nation (6), Lurusitania (6), Wadelhelpia (5), New Delfos (5), Brazil FS (4), The Ruby Ranch Republic (4), The United States of Azania (4), Wobbegong (4), Northern Bucovina (4), Eclaire (4), The Grand Kingdom of Elsweyr (4), The Surviving Canadian Resistance (4), Soviet Union Empire (3), Sciencest (3), Greater nihon empire (3), Communo-Slavocia (3), North Portu (3), Blazekinland (3), Kabarovsk (3), DeviDukedom (3), The Hanzanburg Union (3), British Arzelentaxmacone (3), Kolecharna (2), Garlean (2), Galactic Powers (2), Unerovara Kophoider (2), Terencia (2), Mini Orchs (2), WA Ondoles (2), The Utes (2), Xehino (2), CrossVegas (2), The Terren Dominion (2), Awinysh (2), Mitoporation (2), -A100 (2), Mitzvah (2), Silver-Tree (2), Rhodo-Fordia (2), Boarder Princes (2), Gunterlandia (2), and (1,007) individual member nations.