Advertisement
by Serrland » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:27 pm
by Stash Kroh » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:42 pm
Serrland wrote: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.
by Krioval » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:58 pm
by Celtica and Neotopia » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:24 am
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.
by Bears Armed » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:20 am
Stash Kroh wrote:Serrland wrote: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...
Serrland wrote: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 wrote: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
by Stash Kroh » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:31 am
Bears Armed wrote:Stash Kroh wrote:Serrland wrote: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...
^_^
Krioval wrote: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.
by Bears Armed » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:37 am
Stash Kroh wrote:Bears Armed wrote:Stash Kroh wrote:Serrland wrote: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.
Stash Kroh wrote:I might need to clarify this in the definition.
by Unibot » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:00 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Gobbannium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:06 am
Unibot wrote: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.
by Unibot » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:51 am
Gobbannium wrote:Unibot wrote: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.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Gobbannium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:35 am
Unibot wrote: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.
by Gc1mak » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:42 am
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..
by Celtica and Neotopia » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:10 am
by Stash Kroh » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:44 am
Gobbannium wrote:Unibot wrote: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.
by Stash Kroh » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:20 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:38 am
Stash Kroh wrote: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?
by Stash Kroh » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:31 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Stash Kroh wrote: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?
by Unibot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:30 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Grays Harbor » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:22 pm
by Bears Armed » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:23 am
Stash Kroh wrote: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.
?Suspends the application of these terms to a specific 'isolated society' if the said community is wrongfully detaining any outsider within its territories.
by Stash Kroh » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:24 pm
Grays Harbor wrote: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 wrote:Stash Kroh wrote: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.
by Bears Armed » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:06 am
Stash Kroh wrote: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.
by Unibot » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:52 am
"Oh, and if there are actually two or more such "isolated" societies within a given area, and these have contact with each other."
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: FlyLands, Republic of Mesque, Simone Republic
Advertisement