[DRAFT] WA Doctrine of First Contact

[Serrland]

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

[Stash Kroh]

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Keeping in mind, this isolated society must never leave its territory by its own means for it to be legally protected by this document.

[Krioval]

OOC: Might it be better to redraft this as a policy on colonialism? I ask only because I'm worried that this isn't going to have a huge impact otherwise. Certainly, I'd say that the strength should be reduced to "mild" given its limited authority. I don't want to discourage you from writing legislation, but this proposal seems to be a bit spread out while trying to deal with one particular issue. I'm just not sure how best to approach this issue, though.

[Serrland]

I guess the biggest question for me is whether or not the World Assembly has the legal right to deny full sovereignity over a part of a nation's territory...

[Celtica and Neotopia]

From General Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States":

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

.......

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

"International law" being the resolutions put into place by the World Assembly, we may remove nations' jurisdictions over territory, as well as persons and objects within that territory. To answer your question, esteemed ambassador: Yes, we do have the legal right.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Bears Armed]

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^

I guess the biggest question for me is whether or not the World Assembly has the legal right to deny full sovereignity over a part of a nation's territory...

From General Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States":

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

.......

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

"International law" being the resolutions put into place by the World Assembly, we may remove nations' jurisdictions over territory, as well as persons and objects within that territory. To answer your question, esteemed ambassador: Yes, we do have the legal right.

-Dante Jackson
Neotopian Ambassador to the World Assembly

Well, the legal power, anyway... but does 'power' really = 'right'?

[Stash Kroh]

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^

Hhhm... but were those awakened members a part of Bears Armed before ? I ask only because the nation they awake to may have progressed without them, but if they are affilated with the progressed nation (Bears Armed) than they would not be protected by this law.

I might need to clarify this in the definition.

OOC: Might it be better to redraft this as a policy on colonialism? I ask only because I'm worried that this isn't going to have a huge impact otherwise. Certainly, I'd say that the strength should be reduced to "mild" given its limited authority. I don't want to discourage you from writing legislation, but this proposal seems to be a bit spread out while trying to deal with one particular issue. I'm just not sure how best to approach this issue, though.

I share your fear that this proposal is becoming possibly toothless, however will attempt to keep the central idea of the resolution intact in hopes to protect natives' rights. I also think, however, a free trade resolution regarding merchantilism and the free will of colonies sounds quite intriguing for the future.

[Bears Armed]

I question as to why a sovereign state is not entitled to all of their land? If an "isolated" group occupies, say, 30 square kilometers, this proposal appears to deny a government the right to uphold law and governance in said area. Are "isolated" natives exempt from national law? Being savages doesn't give a people the right to be above national law.

And how did this isolated society come about?

Did it just magically appear in your land? or did you surround the area with land claims and now expect to get the whole thing by assimilating or killing the rest of the natives? Just curious...

Well, within Bears Armed at least, its members might only just have "awakened" (quite suddenly) to sapience... but I do realise that there's a lot less precedent for such a thing to happen elsewhere...

^_^

Hhhm... but were those awakened members a part of Bears Armed before ? I ask only because the nation they awake to may have progressed without them, but if they are affilated with the progressed nation (Bears Armed) than they would not be protected by this law.

They were pre-sapient bears living within areas of woodland that, because they still contained such pre-sapient bears, were legally protected from settlement (or other exploitation) by the sapient Ursines inhabiting the adjacent areas.

I might need to clarify this in the definition.

That depends on how likely you consider such an event occurring within a nation that's actually a WA member is, I suppose: Remember, we are only "observing" this organisation nowadays...

[Terra Albia]

I think it's good.

[Unibot]

Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.

I'm thinking of creating a self-defense clause to protect against an exploitation of IIa. But going about this, without creating a major loophole will be difficult.

Any suggestions would be welcome...

[Gobbannium]

Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.

Nonsense, respected ambassador. The good Captain has but to explain this doctrine -- albeit with irreverent haste -- and then it ceases to apply. Indeed, were he in such a situation the proposal would compel him to make the explanation forthwith, since contact has been made. We recommend keeping a well-trained bard on hand for just such emergencies.

[Unibot]

Hhhm... It just occurred to me -- of a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, Captain Emphasis, and his cronies of a WA nation's spacefleet were trapped in a native colony who were -- oh, lets say .. attempting to burn them at the stake... Captain Emphasis and his crew could not do anything in their self-defense by the terms of this proposal.

Nonsense, respected ambassador. The good Captain has but to explain this doctrine -- albeit with irreverent haste -- and then it ceases to apply. Indeed, were he in such a situation the proposal would compel him to make the explanation forthwith, since contact has been made. We recommend keeping a well-trained bard on hand for just such emergencies.

As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.

[Gobbannium]

As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.

We stand corrected, having overlooked that clause. Largely because with think it rather arbitrary and hence silly.

[Gc1mak]

DEFINES for the purposes of this document, an isolated society as a non-WA nation or a community of inhabitants that has yet to either..

a. Scientifically prove the existence of a civilization besides their own;
b. Travel to another civilization through their own means, without any support for the transportation from outsiders;

So you are going to prevent everyone from declaring war or invading Non-WA Nation?

[Celtica and Neotopia]

No, because most non-WA nations are not isolated societies. If they declare war on your nation, then they are no longer isolated. You can't invade them if they're isolated all the same, which makes sense, considering a World Assembly member can't be isolated.

[Stash Kroh]

As far as I know -- No, the document does not cease to apply once he makes contact and explains the proposal's term. By explaining to them the terms of the proposal he may even reassure them that they cannot be harmed by his crew -- as by keeping within their territory they would still be defined as an isolated society by Definition B. With that, a self-defence clause seems to be neccessary to prevent such situations.

We stand corrected, having overlooked that clause. Largely because with think it rather arbitrary and hence silly.

Hhm.. something tells me I would prefer it if you hadn't been corrected.

I'll be pondering on how to word a self-defence clause this week, I'm thinking along the lines of.. if the terms of the proposal are read out to them, they understand, and they still attack a foreigner without any means of the attacked to leave the said territory (probably because they're held there aganist their own free will) than the proposal's terms cease to be active for the isolated society in question.

If you have any advice on how to correct the silliness of the definition, and have the time to commit to giving such advice, please do so ambassador, because I'm apparently blind to it.

[Stash Kroh]

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?

[Bears Armed]

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?

But surely the WA's "members" are the actual nations, rather than the individual inhabitants of those? Wouldn't the current wording of that clause only have an effect if the "isolated" society was attempting to detain an entire member-nation?

[Stash Kroh]

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a member of the WA's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

How'll about the aforementioned, instead a self-defence clause?

But surely the WA's "members" are the actual nations, rather than the individual inhabitants of those? Wouldn't the current wording of that clause only have an effect if the "isolated" society was attempting to detain an entire member-nation?

Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

[Unibot]

Some changes have been made...

[Grays Harbor]

The intentions may well be good for this proposal, however, we must continue to object to this as written. While it appears upon superficial inspection to be written so as to protect isolated and less advanced cultures, it instead seems to guarantee that such cultures remain isolated and technologically impaired by over-protection and well meaning but misguided hand-wringing. Do we really want a "bubble-wrap" proposal?

[Bears Armed]

Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

Hr'rrm. What if the person being detained is a 'national' of a WA member nation, rather than a 'citizen' thereof, or they're detaining people from non-member nations whom a conveniently-located WA nation wants to rescue?
And on the other paw, what if the people being detained deserve it, because they had entered into that isolated culture's territory for some illegal reason such as poaching, tomb-robbing, prospecting for gold in the natives' 'sacred' lands, or even attempting a quiet act of genocide so that some outside group could then occupy that "uninhabited" territory?

Maybe something along the lines of

Suspends the application of these terms to a specific 'isolated society' if the said community is wrongfully detaining any outsider within its territories.

?

Oh, and perhaps there should be an injunction to use "the minimum force practical" if & when such interventions do become "necessary", too? I realise that some WA members' governments would probably still consider massive blitzkriegs as meeting that stipulation, but at least then we'd be providing a guideline for the more 'reasonable' nations here...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Stash Kroh]

The intentions may well be good for this proposal, however, we must continue to object to this as written. While it appears upon superficial inspection to be written so as to protect isolated and less advanced cultures, it instead seems to guarantee that such cultures remain isolated and technologically impaired by over-protection and well meaning but misguided hand-wringing. Do we really want a "bubble-wrap" proposal?

I think you'll find, ambassador, the newer drafts stray away from the paternalistic bubble-wrap situation, but instead encourage a smooth transition from isolated to non-isolated society.

Oops.. thank you, ambassador.

How'l about ...

Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's terms, if the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society.

Hr'rrm. What if the person being detained is a 'national' of a WA member nation, rather than a 'citizen' thereof, or they're detaining people from non-member nations whom a conveniently-located WA nation wants to rescue?
And on the other paw, what if the people being detained deserve it, because they had entered into that isolated culture's territory for some illegal reason such as poaching, tomb-robbing, prospecting for gold in the natives' 'sacred' lands, or even attempting a quiet act of genocide so that some outside group could then occupy that "uninhabited" territory?

Maybe something along the lines of

Suspends the application of these terms to a specific 'isolated society' if the said community is wrongfully detaining any outsider within its territories.

?

Oh, and perhaps there should be an injunction to use "the minimum force practical" if & when such interventions do become "necessary", too? I realise that some WA members' governments would probably still consider massive blitzkriegs as meeting that stipulation, but at least then we'd be providing a guideline for the more 'reasonable' nations here...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

You bring up several really good points, ambassador, however I think I'd prefer not using something as arbitrary as "wrongfully detained", when talking about communities who could be so chaotic as to 'detain' and burn people on a stake for committing a cultural sin that others would see as fairly common.

At the moment, the way I'd go about solving the problem is changing the "Suspends" clause to protect all outsiders, and try an load the outlawing clause without all the reasons as to why those outsiders shouldn't be entitled to leave the isolated society.

So for sure I'll add some sort of miniature clause outlawing the disruption of the environment, the wildlife, and any culturally important sites which the isolated society could declare, by member nations.

[Bears Armed]

You bring up several really good points, ambassador, however I think I'd prefer not using something as arbitrary as "wrongfully detained", when talking about communities who could be so chaotic as to 'detain' and burn people on a stake for committing a cultural sin that others would see as fairly common.

"Hr'rmm. If this proposal is edited to include a list of the purposes for which WA nations can "legitimately" authorise people to enter those areas then we could authorise the retrieval of any detained outsiders who were there legitimately whilst leaving the others to their fate... although I suppose we might have to allow protection of any accidental trespassers too...
Presumably any "isolated society" whose members go out into the surrounding lands to abduct outsiders would be deemed to have forfeited its 'isolated' status voluntarily, under this proposal's terms, so we wouldn't need to specify such abductees as another class of people whose rescue could be carried-out?

Oh, and if there are actually two or more such "isolated" societies within a given area, and these have contact with each other, would intervention by more 'advanced' societies be justifiable in order to prevent the worst possible catgeories of atrocity (genocide, slave-raiding?) in their 'local' inter-societal relationships?

I'm going to think some more about this..."*


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


____________________________________________________________

(* ... but I've got to finish writing the Bears' entry for the latest 'Worldvision Song Contest' first...)

[Unibot]

"Oh, and if there are actually two or more such "isolated" societies within a given area, and these have contact with each other."

It depends upon how they meet each other, in the flesh (or fur), over a satellitte telephone conversation or between messages in a bottle -- I suppose.