[Withdrawn] Repeal GA #20: Surpress International Piracy

[Port Ember]

Greetings Ambassadors of the World Assembly!

I would like to point out that this is my very first attempt at writing a proposal for the World Assembly.

I am looking forward to, and am humbled by the future prospects of receiving inputs from the skilled and experienced community - so I would like to thank all in advance!

Notification Table

---

1. 08 February 2020: First Draft submitted to the World Assembly Community for Input/Debate.

2. 21 February 2020: Proposal Withdrawn from the chamber.

Overview Information:

---

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#20

Draft 1 of the Proposal: Repeal: "Suppress International Piracy"

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the dangers piracy poses to international trade and security;

Applauding the resolution in its attempt to curb the negative consequences of international pirating activities;

Concerned however, that Article 1 (one) of the resolution vaguely implies that there is a distinction between 'pirates' and 'privateers', without defining how this distinction can be made in the real world, which can easily lead to law enforcement agencies unlawfully engaging in armed conflict against these law abiding privateers;

Appalled by the fact that Article 5 (five) encourages and authorizes member states to actively engage suspected pirates within international waters, as this powers may easily be abused in the real world, allowing armed forces and law enforcement agencies from any member state to attack a law abiding vessel of any other nation under the guise of these powers;

Concerned with the fact that this same Article 5 (five) can easily be interpreted as authorizing any vessel hailing from any nation to undermine the sovereign ocean territory of any other nation under the guise of hunting international pirates, and can thus easily cause a international incident;

Concerned with the fact that Article 6 (six) authorizes any nation to engage and arrest any person and/or vessel traveling within international waters under the guise of carrying out an arrest on any person whom is suspected of acts of piracy and bring them to trail and imprisonment, even though no laws were broken in the host's territory, which can easily be abused by any nation holding a vendetta against another nation;

Noting that this resolution does not address the procedure of handling a captured vessel and its cargo in the event that the owner/operator of the captured vessel is arrested under suspicion of piracy and found not guilty in a court of law, which can easily lead to abuse by the arresting state by permanently confiscating the legal property of another person/nation;

Concluding that although the intention of the entire regulation is pure and good, it can easily be abused by any state with a vendetta against another state under the guise of this law, which can easily escalate to war;

Hereby repeals GA#20 "Suppress International Piracy".

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Port Ember -- whose path had already crossed mine in NS Sports, and who didn't know that I was also the player behind St Edmund -- asked me whether I'd take a look at their first draft of a GA Repeal proposal before they posted it here, without telling me which resolution it was aimed at.
I said yes, I would.
They sent me a copy of this draft.
Here's a copy of my reply to that.

Guess what? Even though are no ‘Bear’ nations are mentioned in connection with that Resolution, it is one of mine… St Edmund, mentioned at the foot of the text as ‘Author’ (and not just Co-Author…), was my previous “main nation”…
I’ll review your draft anyway, though.
(And I admit that the resolution wasn’t “perfect”... but please remember that it was created back when the maximum number of characters allowed was only 3’500, rather than 5’000 as at present, so I couldn’t fit more clarification into some sections where that might seem desirable…)


“Acknowledging” clause, and “Applauding” clause: Thank you, those are fine.

First “Concerned” clause: I don’t think that it’s quite as “vague” as you suggest about the actual difference between pirates and privateers, but there is enough potential for misunderstandings in the application of this resolution that I wouldn’t challenge that clause under the ‘Honest Mistake’ rule. Of course if the privateers are based in the law enforcement agencies’ own nation then they should be registered in some way with the national authorities who should have notified the agencies (and/or given the privateers some way of proving their status to the agencies when challenged), and if foreign privateers are attacking the law enforcement agencies’ own nations’ trade (and perhaps settlements) then they are committing acts of war anyway, but here’s scope for confusion when foreign privateers are seen attacking foreign trade.

“Appalled” clause: That clause says nothing about “suspected” pirates, so national agencies would face just as much obligation to justify their actions with this clause in place as they would if the resolution was repealed or had never been passed in the first placed. This point I might challenge under the ‘Honest Mistake’ rule (although I admit that I might lose that challenge… and of course, as the target resolution’s author, I wouldn’t actually have a vote in that GenSec decision…).

Second “Concerned” clause: That’s a fair comment. If I had had enough extra characters available to use then expanding that clause to say something about trying to cooperate with the other nations involved before taking unilateral action (except, perhaps, in “hot pursuit” situations) would definitely have been on my list of things to do. There had to be at least a potential right to take unilateral action, though, not just because of non-member nations who might deliberately be sheltering pirates but because of member nations whose governments might have illegally been doing so… and nations whose governments lacked the ability to suppress the pirates themselves (in RL, look at the situation in Somalia…) but who might — for one reason or another — try to veto foreign attempts at such actions: During the resolution’s original drafting process, which was actually back in NS-UN days, several players commented that their nations would fall into one or another of those categories…
Third “Concerned” clause: Again, in my opinion, you overstate the matter slightly. Nothing in the targeted clause authorises arrests “under the guise” of believing people to be pirates, so the legality of the arresting agencies’ actions (and those of their governments) in such cases would still be subject to the usual burden of proof. Again, I might challenge this under the ‘Honest Mistake’ clause but, again, I admit that I might lose that challenge.
“Noting” clause: true enough, but then nothing in any existing GA resolution addresses such details in cases where arrests for any other alleged crimes don’t lead to convictions, either… and I think that nothing in this particular resolution would block the passage of a new resolution to address the matter on that sort of general basis…
“Concluding” clause: Again, I think that you overstate the potential problem slightly, but in this case I wouldn’t bother to invoke the ‘Honest Mistake’ rule.

So, overall, this is a good solid piece of writing that does focus mainly on (what were agreed during the drafting and the ‘At Vote’ debate to be) the target resolution’s main problems. It might well be declared legal by a majority in Gensec even with the couple of points where I’d be tempted to claim ‘Honest Mistake’. I wouldn’t try to judge the GA’s mood well enough to make a forecast about its chance of passing, but wouldn’t rule that possibility out…

B-A

[Port Ember]

OOC:

I confirm the OOC facts which the Kind Bear has brought to light. Furthermore, as I also conveyed in our TG conversation, the fact that the Kind Bear continued to assist me and give his kind advice & guidelines, speaks volumes of his noble character. I will remain forever humbled and thankfull by this noble gesture.

Post Edited: I replied in a total IC fashion to B.A's arguments, even though he made those arguments in a TG to me, as a player and not as a rep for Bears Armed. Thus I edited the post to address B.A the player and not the nation.

Kind Bear, thank you dearly for your wise comments regarding my proposed Repeal Resolution, and I hereby wish to deliver my respectfull counter-arguments:

On your argument regarding the first "Concerned" clause:

- The main focus of this clause should definitely be read and understood as to the example of 'in the circumstance of foreign privateers attacking foreign trade', to which you allready agreed to the fact that there is scope for confusion. Especially due to the fact that in a real situation, a vessel witnessing these events will almost without a doubt immediately spring into armed action against the 'precieved pirates', before attempting any form of oral/written diplomacy, even though they (the privateers) are acting within the comfines of the law. The fact that such an event can easily lead to an international incident must surely be appreciated.

On your argument regarding the "Appalled" clause:

- While I concur with the fact that the original resolution does not mention specifically the term "Suspected", however it does not specifically contain a qualifier, for example "where a vessel is observed commiting acts of piracy". I honestly believe that due to the lack of the qualifier, it is very easy for any captain/master of a war/law enforcement vessel to interpret this clause to include "suspected pirates".

- I agree with you that in the event which a vessel decides to board & inspect, or even under extreme cases attack a pirate vessel, perhaps falsely accused at that, that the weight of justification would fall upon them. However, this simple sentence does not prevent the possible damage this clause can inflict. Let me make an theoretical example:

A war vessel of Nation A (hereforth Vessel A) is sailing in international waters and observes a unknown vessel of Nation B (hereforth Vessel B) and for some reason suspects that Vessel B is a pirate vessel (due to intelligence received, established modus operandi or etc etc etc) and decides it is their moral obligation to board & inspect Vessel B for evidence of piracy, and thus will be relying on the Regulation in question as legal authority. Thus in the case that Vessel B allows the boarding & inspection to take place but no damming evidence was found, Vessel B had valuable time wasted and may influence their profit and livelihood in the case of being law abiding traders. This very event may even be duplicated by many more vessels which Vessel B encounters on their journey. Or, if Vessel B feels that this event is unsafe and a possible ruse by actual pirates, and continues to refuse boarding rights, Vessel A may feel justified to carry out violent actions to force compliance. I honestly feel that, especially since this events can take place within International Waters - that it is completely unaccaptable and has the possibility of hindering global legal free trade. The beaurocracy of filing a complaint against unjustifiable events caused by these powers does by no means repair the possible damages it may cause.

On your argument regarding the second "Concerned" clause:

- I will not go into much detail as you have personally admitted that this clause is lacking in the required specifics. I fully understand that at the time of writing, there was good intentions at heart while drafting this clause, and character number restrictions hindered the act to fully include the required specifics. Unfortunately these specifics is required to ensure the absolute safety of all ocean going vessels and their crews, and offcourse to the stability of international free trade. Due to the fact that Ammendments is not possible, this clause will remain a concern until this Resolution can be repealed.

On your argument regarding the third "Concerned" clause:

- I honestly respect your views and opinions, and appreciate the fact that your arguments admits that your concern is based on your personal opinion and not a solid fact. My counter debate on this highlight follows the same structure as my previous counter argument, especially focussing on the point of the regulation in question does not contain a qualifier, for example "where a vessel is observed commiting acts of piracy". I again honestly believe that due to the lack of the qualifier, it is very easy for any captain/master of a war/law enforcement vessel to interpret this clause to include "suspected pirates". Furthermore, the same argument as before can be highlighted, of which regardless 'the burden of proof' is a factor or not, the beaurocracy of filing a complaint against unjustifiable events caused by these powers does by no means repair the possible damages it may cause.

On your argument regarding the "Noting" clause:

- I personally feel that you are in agreeance with this specific clause, although you feel its concerns is too general. There is certainly truth in your argument, however the I feel that this specific example is worth highlighting. We must surely consider the immense monetary value a ocean faring vessel and its cargo when considering a resolution like this. This is not a confiscated $10 NSD pair of sunglasses we are addressing, but a vessel possibly worth millions of NSD $, and if no clear guidelines exists on how to correctly and fairly deal with this matter, it can easily be abused to ruin the livelihood of many innocent traders.

On your argument regarding the "Concluding" clause:

- I once again honestly respect your wise and humble opinion, but I am forced to humbly dissagree with you. I do not feel as if I am overstating by any means, and I believe that you would agree with me based on my previously mentioned arguments. As a whole, I truly respect the work put into this resolution, but it truly does equip nations with the power of potentiolly abusing it and harassing the prosperity and interests of another sovreign nation. The World Assembly must always ensure to solve global problems, and not add to it. I personally feel that a morally wrong action must be deemed wrong outright, and not potentiolly be enabled to hide behind the skirt of International Law.

Lastly, on numurous times during your argument you mention the fact that you might challenge this repeal via the "Honest Mistake" Rule, but in the same breath you admit that you feel there is a strong possibility of losing such an appeal. Surely the fact that there is a possibility, small or not, of losing an appeal, must be an indicator that there is indeed a element of moral fairness lacking within the original resolution? This is offcourse not by design, but its still a possibility in my mind as I have argued for in my above counter arguments.

As a final statement, I can not thank you enough for your kindness shown to me, Kind Bear. I truly hope that I managed to convince you in the above counter-arguments.

[Bears Armed]

OOC:

I confirm the OOC facts which the Kind Bear has brought to light. Furthermore, as I also conveyed in our TG conversation, the fact that the Kind Bear continued to assist me and give his kind advice & guidelines, speaks volumes of his noble character. I will remain forever humbled and thankfull by this noble gesture.

IC:

The Port Emberian Ambassador rises from his seat and quickly straightens his tie before looking around at the many faces looking back at him. He clewrs his throat and starts speaking into the microphone atop bis desk:

[i]"I wil now address the honourable Ambassador hailing from Bears Armed.

OOC
My entire comment was OOC, the Bears' ambassador wasn't involved...

[Port Ember]

OOC
My entire comment was OOC, the Bears' ambassador wasn't involved...

You are right, that was an inexcusable mistake from my side. I appologise simcerely. I edited the post in question in an attempt to hopefully awnser your concerns, in a OOC manner. I hope this clears my mistake.

[Port Ember]

Author's Notice

Due to not receiving any opposition, counter arguments or inputs from the honourable members of the Assembly, the Diplomatic Corps of The Republic of Port Ember hereby announces that the current draft will be submitted for approval on 21 February 2020.

Please be advised that this date is not set in stone and may be extended if the need arises.

To your Wealth & Health!

Edited.

[Verdant Haven]

Did you actually change anything from your original draft? From what it looks like, you received feedback from the original author on a number of points of contention, replied basically dismissing all of those comments, and it's now in "Final Draft" form. I think there is probably a great deal more consideration to be had here.

While I agree that the original GAR 20 isn't flawless, I don't think it is anything like as vague or hole-filled as is being suggested here. I would definitely dispute some of the assertions, especially bearing in mind the stricture that WA resolutions are presumed mechanically to be flawlessly enforced. Non-compliance simply isn't possible.

Specifically, in my view:

1) I believe that Article 1 provides clear definition of the distinction between pirate and privateer. A Pirate is not formally recognized as an agent by any government, while a Privateer is. On top of that, you list your concern that law enforcement agencies may "unlawfully engage" in armed conflict against "law-abiding" privateers. It is of note that a privateer is only considered law-abiding by their own nation and perhaps some close allies. Most people do view them as pirates, and they certainly aren't "law-abiding" in the sense that a merchant ship going about its business is.

2) With regards to your first complaint about Article 5, if we presume people will not follow the resolution in good faith, then one can assume that there is nothing you can write that will prevent a nation from operating "under the guise" of some granted power. GAR 20 specifically urges and authorizes nations to suppress "international piracy." International piracy is defined through multiple lines of the resolution as People who are not formally recognized agents of any government, who operate in groups to use threats and force to seize vehicles and their cargoes [etc] for personal gain [etc], who operate across national borders and/or attack international trade. I do not not believe a reasonable interpretation of this allows for a nation operating in good faith to deliberately falsely attack a legally-operating vessel under the guise of suppressing international piracy.

3) With regards to your second complaint about Article 5, I would strongly disagree about it "authorizing any vessel hailing from any nation..." to take action. Treaties and international agreements are made all the time which obligate or encourage enforcement actions by governments, law enforcement, and military forces, and not a one of those is interpreted as meaning that every private citizen is suddenly authorized to go try to handle things themselves. A treaty saying "we will protect your oil tankers" doesn't mean Bill should take his cabin cruiser and go start hunting for mines, and "we will suppress piracy" doesn't mean Cap'n Bob can grab his container ship and start boarding foreign vessels. This concern seems to me to be entirely invented.

4) This doesn't say anything about engaging and arresting people suspected of piracy. It says to treat acts of international piracy committed by those who fall in to their hands as at least equal to acts of piracy committed domestically. Given other GAR legislation, such as GAR 35 "The Charter of Civil Rights" which prohibits discrimination based on a person's national origin (inescapably enforced, remember!), and GAR 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" which provides for an impartially-adjudicated, knowledgeably-defended trial (inescapably enforced, remember!), I just don't think this is a reasonable concern. If we were dealing with non-WA nations, sure, that's a fear, but the WA cannot affect non-WA nations, so they are not part of our consideration.

5) The handling of a captured vessel and cargo of a not-guilty individual does not need to be separately covered. It is already specified that a case will be handled in accordance with the same laws that would apply to a domestic case, and the previously referenced resolutions 35 and 37 provide for domestic protections.

I would imagine Bears Armed was being polite and was hedging bets with regards to the outcome of any given Honest Mistake filing (since none of us anywhere can guarantee somebody else's opinion), but I would say there is a very strong case to be made for "Honest Mistake" on at minimum the last three items I cited above. Those three in particular really come across as disregarding elements of how the WA works, and how things like treaties and laws function between nations.

[Port Ember]

Snip.

First off, thank you for the reply.

The reason why I did not adapt my original draft was due to the fact that my counter arguments made sense to me personally at the time, and as the Kind Bear did not respond I felt reasonable that the orginal concerns could be let fly. I was obviously wrong.

So it did take pushing my draft forward to the.. "Final draft" stage in order to get an additional response from the community. Aye it makes me look like a fool now, I can learn to live with it.

Your responses makes sense and I will now go back to drawing board.

Thank you for the input

[Verdant Haven]

I definitely didn't want to make you feel like a fool or anything! These things are a delicate process, and I'm still learning it myself. We're all lawyers here on the forums :-P

I do obviously believe what I wrote, but I likewise believe (and it looks like Bears Armed does too) that GAR 20 isn't without its flaws. If you are really dedicated to this specific bit of overhaul, it could be worth continuing to draft on this topic. You certainly do have a talent for writing, an an ability to analyze and present arguments - that's quite worthwhile. When it comes to repeals, the older resolutions are going to be tough targets. The ones that are still around have survived well over a decade without a successful repeal, so people don't see too many obvious flaws. It may be simpler to check out the topic suggestion thread for some current issues folks have thoughts about, or to focus a repeal/replace effort on something a bit more recent, which hasn't already undergone years of scrutiny.

In the end, it's all up to you! My opinion is no more valid than yours on any of this. We all have to work together to get anything in proper shape, and that can sadly take a very long time sometimes. In my own experience drafting issues (not resolutions), a lack of any responses at all usually means people aren't overly interested in undertaking that topic, rather than that they love what they're seeing. I've definitely ditched drafts simply based on lack of response in the past, and it can sometimes be weeks of tweaking and adjusting, making little changes, to catch the forum's imagination.

[Port Ember]

Thank you - that is all very solid advice.

Your arguments does raise a lot more concerns and questions in my mind, to whom which I will not get an easy awnser if any at all.

Bearing in mind the limitations to my whole rationale regarding this repeal, I do not see a solution. I'll probally withdraw this attempt now.

Thanks for the advice