Separatist Peoples wrote:Thyerata wrote:OOC: I'm having trouble with Article II. Assuming you're following RL public international law in this resolution, the "I was following orders" defence either doesn't exist, or is severely restricted. If that were true - and I'd need to check my books when I go back to university next week - then Article II is redundant
OOC: you're not correct. The Nuremburg defense may fly in Nationstates because some nations will consider that acceptable as a defense. Certainly, there is nothing that bans it as a defense, currently. I've limited it. Similarly, I've bolstered it in a select few circumstances, so the opposite approach, that it is never a good defense, isn't always true.
Unlike Real World international law, we assume there is no common law or customary law when writing WA resolutions. If it isn't written into statute, then its the wild west.
OOC: Thyerata does follow RL public international law, meaning that the Nuremberg defence would not work. Consequently Article II is incompatible with domestic law.
IC: it is our view that the defence of "I was just following orders" does not exist in international law. In any event Thytian law does not recognise it. Consequently, as Article II seems to envisage such a defence, we are opposed to this proposal.