[PASSED] - Combating international piracy

[Goobergunchia]

This is the proposed replacement for repealing GAR#20, "Suppress International Piracy".

The repeal is here on the forums. This has passed as GA#646 so we are now looking at the potential replacement.

The resolution is based off the "Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation", not on the original UN Laws of the Seas.

Piracy laws have been around since Roman times (I think earlier, so many 2,500 years or so) and IA confirmed that I can run Hostis humani generis on this.


Draft 3

Category: International Security/Mild

The World Assembly (WA),

Concerned for the need to protect the safety of ships at sea due to deliberate harm, such as piracy, sabotage, or other activities;

Noting that crimes that interfere with shipping frequently transcend national borders and interfere with inter-national trade, for which the WA has a clear interest and provides a suitable forum for resolving issues arising from such crimes;

Hereby defines:

“Privateering” means any ship authorized by a state explicitly for the purpose of looting ships from another state;

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any vessels acting under the authority of a state and used for war, national defense and/or civil defense purposes;

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of WA) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of WA;

1. Hereby deems anyone intentionally committing (or attempting to commit), with malicious intent, any of the following on any ships to be guilty of an offence:
   
   
   1. seizes, exercises control (through munity or other means) a ship, its equipment, its passengers/or its cargo by force or the threat of force; and/or
   2. damages or otherwise harms a ship, its equipment, its passengers and/or its cargo to the extent that it endangers the operation and/or safety of the ship;
   3. the participation by any of its citizens in privateering on behalf of one state against another state, except when acting on behalf of a state that is in a status of war (declared or otherwise) with the said other state;
   4. the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring of the aforesaid activities in clauses (1a) to (1c) by anyone;
2. Hereby affirms that a member state shall have priority of jurisdiction over any of the offences in clause 1 of this resolution if the said offence was committed (or allegedly was):
   
   
   1. physically within the waters of the said member state, and/or
   2. on a ship under the flag of the said member state, and/or
   3. by or against a citizen of the said member state; and/or
   4. on a ship carrying cargo belonging to a member state, its citizens or its duly incorporated legal persons;
3. Hereby declares that, for the purpose of the offences in clause 1:
   
   1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
   2. any member state shall have the right to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
   3. the principle of aut dedere aut judicare applies and all member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;
4. Hereby clarifies:
   
   
   1. a member state may not authorize any privateering activities against ships under the flag of another state except in times of war against that state;
   2. that this resolution does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law;
   3. in case of disputes between member states on this resolution (including claims on jurisdiction or extradition (or lack thereof) as per clause 2 and/or clause 3c), such disputes shall be subject to the binding arbitration of the WA Nautical Commission.

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Concerned for the need to protect the safety of ships at sea due to deliberate harm, such as piracy, sabotage, or other activities;

Noting that crimes that interfere with shipping frequently transcend national borders and interfere with inter-national trade, for which the WA has a legitimate interest;

Hereby defines:

“Privateering” means any ship authorized by a state explicitly for the purpose of looting ships from another state;

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any ships acting under the authority of a state and used for:

1. war; and/or
2. militaristic naval activities (including exercises); and/or
3. customs, border patrol, police or other similar activities;

"WA vessel" means any Ship asserted by a member state to be subject to its jurisdiction thereof,

“WA waters” means any ship located in such bodies of waters where a member state asserts that it has jurisdiction over;

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of WA) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of WA;

1. Hereby deems anyone intentionally committing (or attempting to commit), with malicious intent, any of the following on any ships to be guilty of an offence:
   
   
   1. seizes, exercises control (through munity or other means) a ship, its equipment, its passengers/or its cargo by force or the threat of force; and/or
   2. damages or otherwise harms a ship, its equipment, its passengers and/or its cargo to the extent that it endangers the operation and/or safety of the ship;
   3. the participation by any of its citizens in privateering for another state, except those at war;
   4. the aiding and abetting of the aforesaid activities in clauses (1a) to (1c) by anyone;
2. Hereby affirms that a member state shall have priority of jurisdiction over any of the offences in clause 1 of this resolution if the said offence was committed (or allegedly was):
   
   
   1. physically within the WA waters of the said member state, whether the ship is a WA vessel or not; and/or
   2. on a WA vessel under the flag of the said member state; and/or
   3. by or against a citizen of the said WA member state; and/or
   4. on a ship carrying cargo belonging to a member state, its citizens or its duly incorporated legal persons;
3. Hereby declares that:
   
   1. the principle of hostis humani generis shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that:
      
      1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
      2. any member state shall have the right to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
   2. the principle of aut dedere aut judicare shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;
4. Hereby clarifies:
   
   
   1. a member state may not authorize any privateering activities against ships under the flag of another state except in times of war against that state;
   2. that this resolution does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law;
   3. in case of disputes between member states on this resolution (including claims on jurisdiction), such disputes shall be subject to the binding arbitration of the WA Nautical Commission.

Notes

Note that compared to the old resolution (GA#20):

- Clause 1 is refined

- Clause 1's bit on privateers is properly defined and prohibited

- Does not distinguish between "international pirates" or domestic pirates (clause 2/4/9) as under RNT, purely domestic crimes can be sorted out through national legislation and does not concern the WA;

- Clause 3 is covered now by an "aiding and abetting" clause

- Clause 7 is the most controversial and is removed, the second part of clause 8 for the same reason

- Clause 5 is adopted via a direct citation of the concept of hostis humani generis;

- Clause 6 is adopted via a direct aut dedere aut judicare citation.



Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Concerned for the need to protect the safety of ships at sea due to deliberate harm, such as piracy, sabotage, or other activities;

Hereby defines:

“Privateering” means any ship authorized by a state explicitly for the purpose of lootingships from another state;

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any ships acting under the authority of a state and used for:

1. war; and/or
2. naval activities (including exercises); and/or
3. customs, border patrol, police or other similar activities;

"WA vessel" means any Ship asserted by a member state to be subject to its jurisdiction thereof,

“WA waters” means any ship located in such bodies of waters where a member state asserts that it has jurisdiction over, regardless of whether another state may lay claims to such waters;

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of the World Assembly) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of the World Assembly;

1. Hereby deems anyone intentionally committing (or attempting to commit), with malicious intent, any of the following on any ships to be guilty of an offence:
   
   
   1. seizes, exercises control (through munity or other means) a ship, its equipment, its passengers/or its cargo by force or the threat of force; and/or
   2. damages or otherwise harms a ship, its equipment, its passengers and/or its cargo to the extent that it endangers the operation and/or safety of the ship;
   3. the participation by any of its citizens in privateering for another state, except those at war;
   4. the aiding and abetting of the aforesaid activities in clauses (1a) to (1c) by anyone;
2. Hereby affirms that a member state shall have priority of jurisdiction over any of the offences in clause 1 of this resolution if the said offence was committed (or allegedly was):
   
   
   1. physically within the WA waters of the said member state, whether the ship is a WA vessel or not; and/or
   2. on a WA vessel under the flag of the said member state; and/or
   3. by or against a citizen of the said WA member state; and/or
   4. on a ship carrying cargo belonging to a member state, its citizens or its duly incorporated legal persons;
3. Hereby declares that:
   
   1. the principle of hostis humani generis shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that:
      
      1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
      2. any state authorizing the offences of clause 1, or authorizes privateering against a member state, shall be an enemy of all member states;
      3. any member state shall have the right and the obligation to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
   2. the principle of aut dedere aut judicare shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;
4. Hereby clarifies:
   
   
   1. a member state may not authorize any privateering activities against ships under the flag of another state except in times of war;
   2. that this resolution does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law;
   3. in case of disputes between member states on this resolution (including claims on jurisdiction), such disputes shall be subject to the binding arbitration of the World Assembly Nautical Commission.

Notes

Note that compared to the old resolution (GA#20):

- Clause 1 is refined

- Clause 1's bit on privateers is properly defined and prohibited

- Does not distinguish between "international pirates" or domestic pirates (clause 2/4/9) as under RNT, purely domestic crimes can be sorted out through national legislation and does not concern the WA;

- Clause 3 is covered now by an "aiding and abetting" clause

- Clause 7 is the most controversial and is removed, the second part of clause 8 for the same reason

- Clause 5 is adopted via a direct citation of the concept of hostis humani generis;

- Clause 6 is adopted via a direct aut dedere aut judicare citation.

[Tinhampton]

Can a member state assert jurisdiction over all waters everywhere simply to see to it that pirates are prosecuted? (And if pirates are sighted in WA waters claimed by multiple member states, which member gets "priority of jurisdiction?")

I'd also note that you define the term "flag state" (defined as a member state which either claims jurisdiction over a ship or for which that ship is "duly registered onits registry") without ever using it, instead preferring to use the term "WA vessel" (which is a ship jurisdiction over which has been claimed by a member state, without registration being necessary). Are there any plans to include registration as a potential condition for a WA vessel, thus fully removing the necessity of having to define a "flag state," or do you not see the need for a two-prong test?

Imagine that Simone Republic prosecutes pirates under Article 3b. It is required to do so "where no other member state has requested extradition" of those pirates. But if Tinhampton requests that those pirates be extradited to their territory - so they can face prosecution in Tinhampton rather than Simone Republic - then GA#147 "Extradition Rights" de facto forbids those pirates from being extradited, because "the nation from which extradition is requested [Tinhampton] claims jurisdiction over the crime for which extradition is sought [piracy]." And Article 3a(iii) permits any member state (including Simone Republic and Tinhampton) to prosecute pirates, thereby creating universal jurisdiction for piracy. Why is the Article 3b carveout, which allows member states not to prosecute pirates where another member state seeks their extradition, necessary - or at all useful?

[Simone Republic]

Can a member state assert jurisdiction over all waters everywhere simply to see to it that pirates are prosecuted? (And if pirates are sighted in WA waters claimed by multiple member states, which member gets "priority of jurisdiction?")

The declaration is hostis humani generis, so pirates are an enemy of all member states at all times, everywhere, with an assumption of cooperation between member states.

This mirrors the current situation in the Gulf of Aden (near Somalia), where everyone from the Security Council (so China, France, Russia, UK, US) all have battleships ready to blast pirates. This is one where traditional rivals are all there together (India and Pakistan are both there for example). MV Moscow University in 2010 was an example of the Russians blasting Somali pirates (to save their own ship) even though the Australians spotted them first.

I'd also note that you define the term "flag state" (defined as a member state which either claims jurisdiction over a ship or for which that ship is "duly registered onits registry") without ever using it, instead preferring to use the term "WA vessel" (which is a ship jurisdiction over which has been claimed by a member state, without registration being necessary). Are there any plans to include registration as a potential condition for a WA vessel, thus fully removing the necessity of having to define a "flag state," or do you not see the need for a two-prong test?

I left it in there anyway as I am still thinking about whether being a flag state should give higher priority in jurisdiction somewhere in clause 2. Since WA doesn't have a universal shipping registry (I've had a draft on it for sometime but hasn't submitted it) I've kind of left that dangling for now. Alternatively I can slightly arrange 2(b).

Imagine that Simone Republic prosecutes pirates under Article 3b. It is required to do so "where no other member state has requested extradition" of those pirates. But if Tinhampton requests that those pirates be extradited to their territory - so they can face prosecution in Tinhampton rather than Simone Republic - then GA#147 "Extradition Rights" de facto forbids those pirates from being extradited, because "the nation from which extradition is requested [Tinhampton] claims jurisdiction over the crime for which extradition is sought [piracy]." And Article 3a(iii) permits any member state (including Simone Republic and Tinhampton) to prosecute pirates, thereby creating universal jurisdiction for piracy. Why is the Article 3b carveout, which allows member states not to prosecute pirates where another member state seeks their extradition, necessary - or at all useful?

To use your example above, under aut dedere aut judicare, Simone Republic will not prosecute unless Tinhampton decides not to prosecute. Since Tinhampton has decided to prosecute, Simone Republic will not have to prosecute. If both states want to prosecute, they''ll need to negotiate, or WANC can intervene. It is a very deliberate citation. So GA#147 will not apply because there would not be a claim on jurisdiction that is not settled by WANC before GA#147 comes to play. I made a minor change to 4c to explicitly state "on this resolution (including disputes on jurisdiction)" if that works better.

Additional edit (since the subject of GA#147) has come into play a couple of times: using the example above:

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and there's no extradition treaty between SR and Tin -> GA#147 applies anyway and there is no extradition, SR will have to prosecture under this proposal

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and there's other incompatibilities in between the laws of SR and Tin (say over corporal punishment, my nation officially has corporal punishment) -> GA#147 applies anyway

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and SR also wants to prosecute -> fight it out in WANC

- if Tinhampton decides NOT to extradite, then SR MUST prosecute under aut dedere aut judicare

[Cappedore]

Could you disambiguate what is meant by "naval activities (including exercises)"? These can mean anything - from military exercises to normal civilian naval exercises. If you wanted to keep it in line with the proposal, then I'd recommend specifying these as "militaristic naval activities / exercises" - just so you can ensure that military-orientated piracy is kept in line and so international jurisdiction isn't broken. :)

[Simone Republic]

Could you disambiguate what is meant by "naval activities (including exercises)"? These can mean anything - from military exercises to normal civilian naval exercises. If you wanted to keep it in line with the proposal, then I'd recommend specifying these as "militaristic naval activities / exercises" - just so you can ensure that military-orientated piracy is kept in line and so international jurisdiction isn't broken.

I changed it to "militaritistic naval". Happy to clarify.

[Juansonia]

OOC: lootingships? What are lootingships?

[Simone Republic]

OOC: lootingships? What are lootingships?

Rats. Fixed. I meant "looting ships" so it now reads "for the purpose of looting ships from another state"

Also I changed this bullet:

(4a) a member state may not authorize any privateering activities against ships under the flag of another state except in times of war against that state

I am putting this on last call because the repeal of GA#20 looks likely to pass.

[Heidgaudr]

All OOC

I am putting this on last.call because the repeal of GA#20 looks likely to pass.

Submitting would be premature in my opinion. This got buried very quickly and then was never bumped again, so I suspect a lot of people haven't had the time to look through and comment on it yet.

The World Assembly (WA),

Concerned for the need to protect the safety of ships at sea due to deliberate harm, such as piracy, sabotage, or other activities;

Hereby defines:

This preamble needs another line or two at least. Maybe establish that this is an international issue because piracy often crosses national borders or happens in international waters. Stuff like that.

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any ships acting under the authority of a state and used for:

1. war; and/or
2. militaristic naval activities (including exercises); and/or
3. customs, border patrol, police or other similar activities;

This seems like a bad and overly broad definition. Plus do we even need to define "ships"?

"WA vessel" means any Ship asserted by a member state to be subject to its jurisdiction thereof,

“WA waters” means any ship located in such bodies of waters where a member state asserts that it has jurisdiction over;

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of WA) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of WA;

I'm almost certain these don't need to be defined.

the participation by any of its citizens in privateering for another state, except those at war;

The way this is written makes it sound like a nation is liable if any citizen participates in privateering, regardless of whether the nation's government is complicit or has knowledge of it.

3. Hereby declares that:

1. the principle of hostis humani generis shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that:
   
   1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
   2. any member state shall have the right to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
2. the principle of aut dedere aut judicare shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;

I really hate using Latin legal jargon like this, especially as it borders on Real World reference for how dependent it is on understanding RL admiralty law. Is there any possible way to write this in plain text that doesn't rely on Roman law?

[Simone Republic]

All OOC

I am putting this on last.call because the repeal of GA#20 looks likely to pass.

Submitting would be premature in my opinion. This got buried very quickly and then was never bumped again, so I suspect a lot of people haven't had the time to look through and comment on it yet.

*snip*

This preamble needs another line or two at least. Maybe establish that this is an international issue because piracy often crosses national borders or happens in international waters. Stuff like that.

Sure. I usually get criticised more often for having very long preambles, but sure. Most of my sh!t gets buried pretty quickly anyway. My "last calls" can last for months and it's at least two and a half months anyway based on the current queue.

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any ships acting under the authority of a state and used for:

1. war; and/or
2. militaristic naval activities (including exercises); and/or
3. customs, border patrol, police or other similar activities;

This seems like a bad and overly broad definition. Plus do we even need to define "ships"?

"WA vessel" means any Ship asserted by a member state to be subject to its jurisdiction thereof,

“WA waters” means any ship located in such bodies of waters where a member state asserts that it has jurisdiction over;

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of WA) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of WA;

I'm almost certain these don't need to be defined.

The riff is kind of derived from "Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation" but I can simplify that. Basically it only needs to exclude any ships under the authority of a member state - if (say) I use a border patrol boat to rob a ship from your nation, I am in effect declaring war anyway. The cumbersome jurisdiction definitions are all for a single clause when fighting over jurisdictions, to get around the very vague definitions in "Law of the Seas".

The way this is written makes it sound like a nation is liable if any citizen participates in privateering, regardless of whether the nation's government is complicit or has knowledge of it.

*snip*

I really hate using Latin legal jargon like this, especially as it borders on Real World reference for how dependent it is on understanding RL admiralty law. Is there any possible way to write this in plain text that doesn't rely on Roman law?

I'd try to clarify this.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: In clause 1, you use different grammatical structures between clauses 1a and 1b and clauses 1c and 1d. The latter two, in my opinion, work better. Also, clause 1d as written only includes two of the modes of complicity, but there are four: aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring. For the sake of completeness, I recommend doing all four.)

[Simone Republic]

All answers in one go.

(OOC: In clause 1, you use different grammatical structures between clauses 1a and 1b and clauses 1c and 1d. The latter two, in my opinion, work better. Also, clause 1d as written only includes two of the modes of complicity, but there are four: aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring. For the sake of completeness, I recommend doing all four.)

Reads like English Common Law Inchoate Offences 101, but sure.

*snip*

3. Hereby declares that:

1. the principle of hostis humani generis shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that:
   
   1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
   2. any member state shall have the right to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
2. the principle of aut dedere aut judicare shall apply to the offences in clause 1 and that member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;

I really hate using Latin legal jargon like this, especially as it borders on Real World reference for how dependent it is on understanding RL admiralty law. Is there any possible way to write this in plain text that doesn't rely on Roman law?

Ouch, since Kenmoria's request above actually made it slightly worse in terms of citing 18th century common law in this proposal. Personally I find it much more efficient to say hostis humani generis to be honest but I have simplified the resolution quite a bit, although at a slight risk of minor ambiguities.

I have also simplified the definitions, and slightly lengthened the preamble.

[Old Hope]

Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Concerned for the need to protect the safety of ships at sea due to deliberate harm, such as piracy, sabotage, or other activities;

Ok.

Noting that crimes that interfere with shipping frequently transcend national borders and interfere with inter-national trade, for which the WA has a clear interest and provides a suitable forum for resolving issues arising from such crimes;

Yes.

Hereby defines:

“Privateering” means any ship authorized by a state explicitly for the purpose of looting ships from another state;

“Ships” means any vessel of any type, including (as examples) submarines and offshore drill platforms, excluding any ships acting under the authority of a state and used for war, national defense and/or civil defense purposes;

Offshore drill platforms, well, but not defense vessels? It should be "excluding any vessels", not ships or you run into circular definition problems.

For the purposes of this resolution, a “state” means any state (regardless of whether it is a member of WA) and a “member state” means a state that is a member of WA;

Fine.

1. Hereby deems anyone intentionally committing (or attempting to commit), with malicious intent, any of the following on any ships to be guilty of an offence:
   

Malicious intent sounds like a gigantic loophole.... a nation could have laws and a culture that tell you that enriching yourself is a just reason to commit piracy.

1. seizes, exercises control (through munity or other means) a ship, its equipment, its passengers/or its cargo by force or the threat of force; and/or
2. damages or otherwise harms a ship, its equipment, its passengers and/or its cargo to the extent that it endangers the operation and/or safety of the ship;
3. the participation by any of its citizens in privateering on behalf of one state against another state, except when acting on behalf of a state that is in a status of war (declared or otherwise) with the said other state;
4. the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring of the aforesaid activities in clauses (1a) to (1c) by anyone;

Hereby affirms that a member state shall have priority of jurisdiction over any of the offences in clause 1 of this resolution if the said offence was committed (or allegedly was):

1. physically within the waters of the said member state, and/or
2. on a ship under the flag of the said member state, and/or
3. by or against a citizen of the said member state; and/or
4. on a ship carrying cargo belonging to a member state, its citizens or its duly incorporated legal persons;

Hereby declares that, for the purpose of the offences in clause 1:

1. anyone who commits such offence(s) commits an offence against all member states;
2. any member state shall have the right to stop the happenstance of such an offence and to prosecute anyone accused of such an offence;
3. all member states must, subject to due process, prosecute anyone reasonably accused of such offence(s) (and penalize anyone duly convicted thereof) where no other member state has requested extradition;

1. Get an extradition request.
2. Decline.
3. Do not prosecute.

Hereby clarifies:

1. a member state may not authorize any privateering activities against ships under the flag of another state except in times of war against that state;
2. that this resolution does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law;
3. in case of disputes between member states on this resolution (including claims on jurisdiction or extradition (or lack thereof) as per clause 2 and/or clause 3c), such disputes shall be subject to the binding arbitration of the WA Nautical Commission.

[Simone Republic]

1. Get an extradition request.
2. Decline.
3. Do not prosecute.

I changed the word "ship" to "vessel" above.

The scenario above specifically cannot happen. I might re-include the specific words "aut dedere aut judicare" just in case. Thus mandatory under this proposal for a member state stuck with the alleged criminal to prosecute if there is a reasonable case ie no "step 3" above.

"Respondeat Superior" (GA#447) is titled in English words originally from Latin by the way. If we can use "coup d'etat" we should be OK with this.

Additional edit (since the subject of GA#147) has come into play a couple of times: using the example above:

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and there's no extradition treaty between SR and Tin -> GA#147 applies anyway and there is no extradition, SR will have to prosecture under this proposal

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and there's other incompatibilities in between the laws of SR and Tin (say over corporal punishment) -> GA#147 applies anyway

- if Tinhampton decides to extradite, and SR also wants to prosecute -> fight it out in WANC, this becomes a jurisdiction issue (say the piracy happened in SR's heavily polluted waters and the ship carried tins from Tin and flew Tin's flag)

- if Tinhampton decides NOT to extradite, then SR MUST prosecute under aut dedere aut judicare

[Simone Republic]

Submitted.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1677838334

[Chairman Cities]

We The U.S. CC Will Review The Current Proposal.

[Qelmar]

FROM THE QELMARI WA MISSION HEAD

We, the peoples of Qelmar, while recognizing that there ought to be some sort of prosecution for piracy, and understanding that "catch and release" is unsustainable in the long term, nevertheless cannot support this resolution. Section 3(c) places undue burdens on nations that, for whatever reason, do not have an extradition treaty. Prosecuting piracy is often expensive and frequently resource-consuming, and nations should not have to shoulder those costs alone. We would prefer an international piracy court to which member nations must contribute a small amount of funds in the case of piracy cases involving multiple nations.

Alana Zeller
Head of Qelmari Mission to the WA
Qelmari Worker's Party delegate

Addendum, 11 April 2023:

While still regretting clause 3(c), upon consultation with our fellow peoples in our region, we intend to vote in bloc FOR, WITH RESERVATIONS (to clarify- the regional bloc is for, we are adding our particular reservations as an individual nation). While expressing the hope that an international court can one day be created, and our reservations about the current prosecution system, this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the WA, urgently so, in fact. Additionally, since it deals with an international threat with notoriously thorny prosecution issues, Qelmar views it as within the WA's purview to make law in this area, and believes that all but the most NatSov of nations would agree.

[Virginian Inquisitors]

It would behoove the good members of the World Assembly to vote no on this. Each individual nation should maintain its own independent policy regarding piracy.

[Untecna]

It would behoove the good members of the World Assembly to vote no on this. Each individual nation should maintain its own independent policy regarding piracy.

"listen to my generic national sovereignty argument that implies I don't understand the core of the WA"

[United States of Nikosa]

"As a socialist nation, the United States of Nikosa stands firmly against the ideology of free trade. However, understanding that economic interests do align when confronted with privateering, otherwise known as piracy, we have to mark an exception. I have received permission from President Washington and the Parliament to vote for it. We have some concerns about this proposal. Namely, our concern is the exception on behalf of acting on behalf of a nation in a state of war. Our concern here is that allowing piracy even during a state of war is not beneficial to the world. As well, our concern is that one can form privateering vigilante groups which act on behalf of a state in a state of war, but without officially being sanctioned by the state. This allows for piracy to occur if one can claim it to be on behalf of a belligerent or defensive nation. This is of crucial concern to the legislation being proposed. However, this is all. The United States of Nikosa votes YES on the resolution."

- William Hayes, Representative of the United States of Nikosa to the General Assembly of the World Assembly

[Trionalis]

Does this resolution include any explanation of how to combat pirates internally? What I mean by this is pirates pretending to be ordinary merchant men or crew members on trade ships, and thus infiltrating them. If so, please explain.

Cheers, Trionalis Defense Council for the World Assembly.

[Kenmoria]

Does this resolution include any explanation of how to combat pirates internally? What I mean by this is pirates pretending to be ordinary merchant men or crew members on trade ships, and thus infiltrating them. If so, please explain.

Cheers, Trionalis Defense Council for the World Assembly.

“Your Excellency, this proposal is concerned with combatting international piracy, through application of mandates to the governments of member-nations. It outlaws piracy, and it decides certain jurisdictional questions about those who commit piracy. Nothing in this piece of legislation involves some sort of guideline for internal practices. That is an area where the discretion of individual member-nations, or even of individual vessels, is more appropriate.”

[New Master]

"Your excellency, this resolution is quite inutile because other countries already has good armies and police and honestly, combating international piracy is bad indeed, but when a country can't do something the legal way and the only option is piracy? Also this technology called DVD is famous in the piracy then why we don't fight it?"

Hardhead,
President of New Master

[New Master]

It would behoove the good members of the World Assembly to vote no on this. Each individual nation should maintain its own independent policy regarding piracy.

"Good point."

[Juansonia]

"Your excellency, this resolution is quite inutile because other countries already has good armies and police and honestly, combating international piracy is bad indeed, but when a country can't do something the legal way and the only option is piracy? Also this technology called DVD is famous in the piracy then why we don't fight it?"

Hardhead,
President of New Master

"This proposal does not prohibit wartime privateering activities, which is essentially state-approved piracy. This proposal won't make things more difficult in terms of naval defense. Also, I'd like to clear up a misconception. DVDs are a medium of storing computerised data, often a motion picture or a computer program. Duplicating these items may violate the Intellectual Property rights of the publishers of that media, and some people use the term 'piracy' to describe those actiions in hopes of causing people to treat unauthorised disc-copying as the universal enemy that ship-hijacking is."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambasador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Simone Republic]

All questions in one go.

Does this resolution include any explanation of how to combat pirates internally? What I mean by this is pirates pretending to be ordinary merchant men or crew members on trade ships, and thus infiltrating them. If so, please explain.

Cheers, Trionalis Defense Council for the World Assembly.

“Your Excellency, this proposal is concerned with combatting international piracy, through application of mandates to the governments of member-nations. It outlaws piracy, and it decides certain jurisdictional questions about those who commit piracy. Nothing in this piece of legislation involves some sort of guideline for internal practices. That is an area where the discretion of individual member-nations, or even of individual vessels, is more appropriate.”

As Kenmoria outlined above, there is an assumption of Reasonable Nation Theory (RNT) embedded ie that your nation has a strong judiciary and a competent police force, among other things.

Obviously if you don't have a functioning government, the UN Security Council did send troops to blow the Somali pirates from the water. And that's still, to date, the only war where all five permanent members of the UNSC sent troops and fought on the same side. For once.

So the Russians were helping Americans. All the historical rivals came together as everyone got sick of the pirates.

1. Get an extradition request.
2. Decline.
3. Do not prosecute.

The scenario above specifically cannot happen. The final version specifically included the concept of aut dedere aut judicare. Step 3 would be illegal under this resolution and subject to GA#440 compliance.