[DRAFT] Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

In response to this repeal effort. It seems to me important that our anti-terrorism resolution be replaced in the likely event of a repeal.

Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement

---

---

Category: International Security || Strength: Significant || Proposed by: The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices

---

Condemning the scourge of terrorism across the international community,

Determined to respond to this violence in a single, unwavering voice,

The World Assembly hereby enacts these terms:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "terrorist" describes the intentional application of violence against non-combatants that
   
   
   1. is motivated in part or wholly by a belief system or the pursuit of ideological or political ends,
      
      
   2. is not necessary for the purpose of self-defense, and
      
      
   3. violates international law, or which would violate international law were the violent party a military actor,
   as well as any individual or organization which engages in such activity.
   
   
2. Member states must cease, prohibit, and penalize:
   
   
   1. participation in terrorist activities and membership in terrorist organizations;
      
      
   2. the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists in order to facilitate imminent terrorist acts; and
      
      
   3. the international transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists or groups likely to do the same.
3. However permitted by international law, the World Assembly requires member states to exercise their abilities to the fullest extent necessary to apprehend terrorists and reduce the likelihood of terrorist acts within their jurisdiction.
   
   
4. Member states must cooperate with organizations likely to be the target of terrorist acts by terrorists operating within their jurisdiction. Such cooperation includes but is not limited to information-sharing and counterintelligence operations, insofar as these do not jeopardize the security of member states or their military secrets.

Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement

---

Condemning the scourge of terrorism across the international community,

Determined to respond to this violence in a single, unwavering voice,

The World Assembly hereby enacts these terms:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "terrorist" describes the intentional application of violence against non-combatants in a manner which violates international law, as well as any individual or organization which engages or participates in such activity.
   
   
2. Member states must cease, prohibit, and prosecute the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists, as well as to groups proven to likely do the same.
   
   
3. Member states must take all measures necessary and permitted by international law to apprehend terrorists and prevent terrorist acts within their jurisdiction.
   
   
4. Member states must cooperate with organizations likely to be the target of terrorist acts by terrorists operating within their jurisdiction. Such cooperation includes but is not limited to information-sharing and counterintelligence operations, insofar as these do not jeopardize the security of member states or their military secrets.

Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement

---

Condemning the scourge of terrorism across the international community,

Determined to respond to this violence in a single, unwavering voice,

The World Assembly hereby enacts these terms:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "terrorist" describes the intentional application of violence against non-combatants in a manner which violates international law, or which would violate international law were the violent party a military actor, as well as any individual or organization which engages in such activity.
   
   
2. Member states must cease, prohibit, and penalize:
   
   
   1. participation in terrorist activities and membership in terrorist organizations;
      
      
   2. the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists in order to facilitate imminent terrorist acts; and
      
      
   3. the international transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists or groups likely to do the same.
3. Member states must take all measures necessary and permitted by international law to apprehend terrorists and prevent terrorist acts within their jurisdiction.
   
   
4. Member states must cooperate with organizations likely to be the target of terrorist acts by terrorists operating within their jurisdiction. Such cooperation includes but is not limited to information-sharing and counterintelligence operations, insofar as these do not jeopardize the security of member states or their military secrets.

[Bananaistan]

"What is violence and what are non-combatants?"

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

"What is violence and what are non-combatants?"

"We understand both these terms rather well. The World Assembly has passed plenty of resolutions using these terms without defining them. For an example, I refer you to Mr. Bell's 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'."

[The Orwell Society]

It seems a bit short and doesn't have enough operative clauses. In this state, it is not a worthy replacement of its predeccessor.

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

It seems a bit short and doesn't have enough operative clauses. In this state, it is not a worthy replacement of its predeccessor.

Proposal length has no relationship with quality. What do you feel is lacking in the current text?

[The Orwell Society]

It seems a bit short and doesn't have enough operative clauses. In this state, it is not a worthy replacement of its predeccessor.

Proposal length has no relationship with quality. What do you feel is lacking in the current text?

Elaboration, and lots of it. Your draft has two operative clauses, a single definition, and three articles, none of which sporting any subarticles to clarify their affect.

[Hulldom]

“Should the repeal pass, this has our Support.”

Response to The Orwell Society: short, sweet, and to the point is better.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Member states must cease, prohibit, and prosecute the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists, as well as to groups proven to likely do the same.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'But not punish?'

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“This proposal does enough to carry out the sabotage of terrorist activities. This needs no more operative clauses, since from what I have learned as a WA ambassador, more operative clauses leads to more room for honest mistakes and whatnot.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Imperium Anglorum]

“This proposal does enough to carry out the sabotage of terrorist activities. This needs no more operative clauses, since from what I have learned as a WA ambassador, more operative clauses leads to more room for honest mistakes and whatnot.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

I'll note that this is positive legislation. The HM rule apples only to negative legislation (repeals).

[Bananaistan]

"What is violence and what are non-combatants?"

"We understand both these terms rather well. The World Assembly has passed plenty of resolutions using these terms without defining them. For an example, I refer you to Mr. Bell's 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'."

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed then. This is a charter for the protection of the civilian directors of terror and oppression, as well as police and various other "non-combatants" within the common meaning of that word and would force all member states to not only cease support for all national liberation and revolutionary movements but to actively work towards their defeat.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

[Wallenburg]

"We understand both these terms rather well. The World Assembly has passed plenty of resolutions using these terms without defining them. For an example, I refer you to Mr. Bell's 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'."

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed then. This is a charter for the protection of the civilian directors of terror and oppression, as well as police and various other "non-combatants" within the common meaning of that word and would force all member states to not only cease support for all national liberation and revolutionary movements but to actively work towards their defeat.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

"I'm really not sure what I can offer you, ambassador. My home nation's own liberation did not require terrorism as I have defined it in this proposal. Now, it did include terrorism, as a consequence of the broad revolutionary coalition it was based on and the rather poor regulation of early republican groups, but you won't find a single respected historian who regards that terrorism as an actual strategic necessity. Perhaps your own academics think they can draw out some necessity to raping and murdering non-combatants, holding them hostage, or destroying the infrastructure they need to survive, but I rather think that, if your only solution to achieve revolution is specifically to bring about maximum suffering for the people you are 'liberating', then your revolution is not actually bringing about worthwhile outcomes."

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed then. This is a charter for the protection of the civilian directors of terror and oppression, as well as police and various other "non-combatants" within the common meaning of that word and would force all member states to not only cease support for all national liberation and revolutionary movements but to actively work towards their defeat.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

"I'm really not sure what I can offer you, ambassador. My home nation's own liberation did not require terrorism as I have defined it in this proposal. Now, it did include terrorism, as a consequence of the broad revolutionary coalition it was based on and the rather poor regulation of early republican groups, but you won't find a single respected historian who regards that terrorism as an actual strategic necessity. Perhaps your own academics think they can draw out some necessity to raping and murdering non-combatants, holding them hostage, or destroying the infrastructure they need to survive, but I rather think that, if your only solution to achieve revolution is specifically to bring about maximum suffering for the people you are 'liberating', then your revolution is not actually bringing about worthwhile outcomes."

"What about the politicians who devise and implement imperialist and oppressive policies and direct their armed forces to carry them out? Under your proposal only the poor fool soldier is a legitimate target but never the politician."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To the Wallenburgian Delegation et. al

The Princess bestows her commendations on you for pursuing a noble cause in your Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Agreement proposal. Unfortunately, it is my task to inform you that a provision of your proposal contradicts existent international law. Specifically:

Member states must cease, prohibit, and prosecute the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists, as well as to groups proven to likely do the same.

contradicts GAR #399, which provides:

5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

If a nation wishes to continue to provide arms (which are clearly "non-humanitarian resources") to its domestic terrorist groups, this Assembly has seen fit to estop ourselves from regulating such matters.

Regretfully,
Delilah Avocado
Associate Judge, Sparklesian Court of Annoying Pleas
Special Legal Affairs Envoy to the World Assembly

[Juansonia]

perhaps you could clarify that police agencies and violent non-state actors count as combatants(excluding those who would be non-combatants despite acting in a conventional military).

edit: this is in response to Bananaistan's comment

[Wallenburg]

Unfortunately, it is my task to inform you that a provision of your proposal contradicts existent international law. Specifically:

Member states must cease, prohibit, and prosecute the transfer or provision of non-humanitarian resources to terrorists, as well as to groups proven to likely do the same.

contradicts GAR #399, which provides:

5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

This proposal qualifies as "future regulation which seek[s] to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To the Wallenburgian Delegation et. al

We understand that your aim is to fall under the exception for "future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." However, your definition of terrorist is not limited to only those threatening "imminent" lawless action.

We must presume that the General Assembly meant every word of its enactment to carry some meaning. We therefore cannot read the immanency requirement out of the exception, without ignoring the plain text of the law.

Accordingly, this proposal seeking to prohibit trade in firearms with terrorist groups which may one day be violent, but which do not pose an imminent threat, remains in contradiction of international law.

If you have some further explanation, beyond merely invoking the exception, for how your proposal is narrowly tailored to meet the very fine language of GAR #399's exception, our Legal Affairs Department would like you to make that explanation public.

Sincerely,
Delilah Avocado
Associate Judge, Sparklesian Court of Annoying Pleas
Special Legal Affairs Envoy to the World Assembly

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

Edits have been made in hopes of bringing this in line with the national sovereignty provided for in GA #399.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Edits have been made in hopes of bringing this in line with the national sovereignty provided for in GA #399.

To the Wallenburgian Delegation et. al

As you know, we raised a concern that any resolution based on Draft A of this proposal would create a contradiction of laws with GAR #399. Specifically, we asked how this Assembly could stop member nations from providing firearms to domestic terrorist groups, when GAR #399 broadly abridges our authority to regulate internal firearm activity.

We appreciate your concession, by ready amendment, that GAR #399 does indeed prohibit altering domestic firearms policy except to meet imminent threats. So the WA is of course powerless to demand nations stop allowing domestic terrorist groups to access any internal firearms they choose; at least not until such point as that group is imminently engaged in unlawful activity.

It is sad to see the international community accept this state of affairs. We inherited it more than we created it. Yet so much prospective good work is out of reach, by our own choosing.

These amendments are sufficient to avoid a legality filibuster on this matter from our Department. By addressing only conduct done in support of imminent unlawful action, the plain text meets GAR #399's demand for immanency.

Sincerely,
Delilah Avocado
Associate Judge, Sparklesian Court of Annoying Pleas
Special Legal Affairs Envoy to the World Assembly

P.S. Of course, our intelligence service announced publicly yesterday that it highly doubts any nation would ever acknowledge doing something "in order to facilitate a terrorist act." They say every nation will have some kind of cleaner motives to point to than that.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Full support.

[Fachumonn]

Support.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Published at large to the General Assembly:

Greetings, friends. Our Delegation joins the Bananaistanianiaian request for clarification of this term:

[W]hat are non-combatants?"

We acknowledge the Wallenburgian point, that the WA has accepted at least one reference to non-combatants in a prior resolution without demanding further elaboration at that time. Of course, such occurrence is not a binding and final adjudication that the term is perfectly understood for use in all contexts forever. And anyway, the omission even at the time was probably a mistake. The concept of a non-combatant is hardly subject to universal consensus and even a moment of thought reveals the messiness around the edges. Are all non-military civilians non-combatants, even if they actively, intentionally, and aggressively support the war effort? What about the monarch who must royally bless the invasion plans before they may be carried out, but thereafter merely goes to tea and trusts the messy business to the generals? What about unarmed military engineers who survey the field and design the battlements? The industrialists filling military equipment contracts? The armed first aid and rescue specialist in the field? The bankers who buy war bonds? Is it very clear to others how all of these examples either are, or are not, participating in the combat? It is not so obvious to our delegation.

If we cannot describe a simple test for understanding who is and who is not a non-combatant, how can we ever be expected to fulfil this proposal's mandate of withholding resources from those doing violence to non-combatants?

Particularly in a law claiming to provide 'comprehensive' treatment of this subject, failing to at least try to pin down the concept further would make this effort incomplete.

There is a fundamental question of what we are doing when we seek to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets of violence. Save that for another day. Assuming the law must always recognize legitimate targets of violence, then we must at least try to be as clear as possible about who sits in which camp.

Please join us in calling for further debate on the scope of what it means to apply violence against 'non-combatants.'"

Hopefully,
Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

[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."

[Separatist Peoples]

Published at large to the General Assembly:

Greetings, friends. Our Delegation joins the Bananaistanianiaian request for clarification of this term:

[W]hat are non-combatants?"

We acknowledge the Wallenburgian point, that the WA has accepted at least one reference to non-combatants in a prior resolution without demanding further elaboration at that time. Of course, such occurrence is not a binding and final adjudication that the term is perfectly understood for use in all contexts forever. And anyway, the omission even at the time was probably a mistake. The concept of a non-combatant is hardly subject to universal consensus and even a moment of thought reveals the messiness around the edges. Are all non-military civilians non-combatants, even if they actively, intentionally, and aggressively support the war effort? What about the monarch who must royally bless the invasion plans before they may be carried out, but thereafter merely goes to tea and trusts the messy business to the generals? What about unarmed military engineers who survey the field and design the battlements? The industrialists filling military equipment contracts? The armed first aid and rescue specialist in the field? The bankers who buy war bonds? Is it very clear to others how all of these examples either are, or are not, participating in the combat? It is not so obvious to our delegation.

If we cannot describe a simple test for understanding who is and who is not a non-combatant, how can we ever be expected to fulfil this proposal's mandate of withholding resources from those doing violence to non-combatants?

Particularly in a law claiming to provide 'comprehensive' treatment of this subject, failing to at least try to pin down the concept further would make this effort incomplete.

There is a fundamental question of what we are doing when we seek to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets of violence. Save that for another day. Assuming the law must always recognize legitimate targets of violence, then we must at least try to be as clear as possible about who sits in which camp.

Please join us in calling for further debate on the scope of what it means to apply violence against 'non-combatants.'"

Hopefully,
Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

"As the author of the resolution in question, I would like to clarify that, when I wrote Wartime Looting and Pillaging, I deliberately did not define noncombatant, primarily because it seemed to be a facially obvious distinction for the purposes of directing military violence in combat. I suspect now that this was a fairly rosey view of the issue, but at the time my intention was to make two broad distinctions, when interpreted with Protected Status in Wartime and Rules of Surrender: combatants are those fighting, so noncombatants are either civilians not currently fighting or any person explicitly given more detailed protections and responsibilities in conflict, like aid workers or neutral parties.

"I had intended to leave the definition of combatant fuzzy, as situations are so often liquid and fact-intensive. Essentially, anybody engaged in fighting would be potentially covered by the Compliance Commission's search for noncompliance. That left, essentially, a much greater weight on the task of sorting between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. As unlawful combatants included those state actors committing war crimes, my hope was to cut off aid to all perpetrators regardless of definition as state actors or terrorists.

"The author has my support, in principle, to this policy. I've already started drafting notes for potential ways to address this issue as drafting develops with the intention of aiding the authoring delegation as they so desire."

[Bananaistan]

"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"?