[PASSED] Repeal "Suppress International Piracy"

[Goobergunchia]

I am moving towards repealing this resolution, primarily because I noticed that it breaks a major convention: someone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. GAR#20 explicitly reverses this and places the burden of proof on the defendant.

GAR#20 Clause 7 actually explicitly assumes that someone is guilty of being an accomplice to pirates if they are on a pirate boat and requires those accused to prove themselves that they are innocent, and only allows an excuse when they are "forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant".

Effectively, this means someone being forced to be an accomplice to pirates on pain of being tortured/starved/raped/neutered/whatever etc do not count and is still subject to conviction as an accomplice to a pirate - only forced on pain of death does). I was quite horrified by this wording.

I am not elaborating further in the actual repeal proposal itself because the fact that this resolution assumes that "someone is a pirate unless proven otherwise" is horrific enough. There are also other issues that I mention briefly, but clause 7 is absolutely the worst and I think justify a repeal on its own.

Proposed replacement is here.

Draft 3

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges the efforts of the target resolution to combat piracy;

Concerned that Clause 1 of the target introduces the concept of ”privateers” but without specifying their relationship with the government (if any), resulting in substantial ambiguities in the application of the resolution when, for example, member states are at a stage of undeclared war, or if governments give tacit but not explicit approval to piracy activities, or other ambiguous circumstances;

Dismayed that clause 7 of the target “that anybody who is accused of having served knowingly as crew aboard any vehicle being used by international pirates, but who can not be linked to any specific offences, shall be subject to appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy" and that "proof of that service shall constitute adequate proof for conviction on those charges, unless they prove that they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant" create a travesty of judicial principles in requiring that the burden of proof of the lack of a conspiracy (or the requirement of a threat of "pain of death" but not other forms of threats) has to come from the accused, thus effectively deeming the accused guilty of an offence unless proven innocent;

Hereby repeals GAR#20 “Suppress International Piracy”.

Draft 2

Draft 2 included the following clause which has been removed:

[*]Clause 6 of the target authorising member states to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere but for offences to be “[treated] at least as seriously, as they would treat comparable crimes… against their own people”, resulting in potential jurisdictional shopping when some member states may be more lenient on piracy offences compared to other member states;

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges the efforts of GAR#20, “Suppress International Piracy” in helping to combat piracy, an international of significant concern among all member states;

Concerned, however, that the existing resolution contains a significant number of deficiencies which result in reduced effectiveness or outright harm in efforts to counter piracy, including:

1. Clause 1 of the resolution defining “pirates” in a convoluted manner as people “not formally recognised as agents of any government although some of them may have informal links to governments from whom they receive support”, but failing to properly define ”privateers” and their relationship with the government, resulting in substantial ambiguities in the application of the resolution when, for example, member states are at a stage of undeclared war, or if governments give tacit but not explicit approval to piracy activities, or other ambiguous circumstances;
   
2. Clause 6 of the resolution authorising member states to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere but for offences to be “[treated] at least as seriously, as they would treat comparable crimes… against their own people”, resulting in potential jurisdictional shopping between member states;
   
3. Most important, Clause 7 of the resolution “requiring that anyone abroad any vehicle” being used by pirates to be subject to “appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’”, and for reversing the burden of proof onto the accused, requiring those accused to prove that “they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant”, in breach of the widely held convention that the accused are deemed innocent until convicted of an offence;

Pleased that a suitable replacement to update efforts to govern cooperation between member states is pending before the Assembly;

Hereby repeals GAR#20 “Suppress International Piracy”.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This oversight is itself worthy of repeal, and piracy can be readily dealt with in a later proposal. We support this measure."

Bell makes his statement with great aplomb and returns to his desk, at which time he dons an eyepatch and perches a stuffed parrot on his shoulder.

[Kenmoria]

“This repeal seems very well-argued.” Lewitt comments. “The ‘pleased’ clause is lacking finishing punctuation, but, otherwise, I fully support this.”

[Heidgaudr]

OOC: I had considered repealing this during April Fools' Day written in the style of a pirate, like this version. If there's a repeal where writing in a humorous vernacular is called for, this is the one (though I'd understand if you feel that's too derivative).

Pleased that a suitable replacement to update efforts to govern cooperation between member states is pending before the Assembly;

I don't really like this line. The phrase "pending before the Assembly" is really ambiguous. Do you mean it has been submitted and is in queue? If so, how is it not illegal for either contradiction or duplication of the still extant GA#20? Do you mean that it's currently being drafted? What if it never gets submitted? I think you're better off just eliminating it, or rephrasing it another way, e.g. "Awaiting a suitable replacement which can be brought forward only through the repeal of the target".

IC:

Acknowledges the efforts of GAR#20, “Suppress International Piracy” in helping to combat piracy, an international of significant concern among all member states;

Concerned, however, that the existing resolution contains a significant number of deficiencies which result in reduced effectiveness or outright harm in efforts to counter piracy, including:

"This preamble sits in a bit of a legislative uncanny valley, if you will. It doesn't adequately explain what's good about #20 and is too long for a short preamble. Either talk a bit more about the target, or just list the deficiencies."

Clause 1 of the resolution defining “pirates” in a convoluted manner as people “not formally recognised as agents of any government although some of them may have informal links to governments from whom they receive support”, but failing to properly define ”privateers” and their relationship with the government, resulting in substantial ambiguities in the application of the resolution when, for example, member states are at a stage of undeclared war, or if governments give tacit but not explicit approval to piracy activities, or other ambiguous circumstances;

"This really ought to be split into separate sentences. It's a bit difficult to parse as it is now. Also, I think there's a bit of a logical disconnect when you first bring up 'privateers'. What do they have to do with the resolution - or rather how do they pertain to the quoted definition? Explaining that piracy includes privateers and demonstrating that the definition doesn't adequately cover them seems like a better way to go about it."

OOC: Just re-read the target. Consider most of this statement retracted.

"Support."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Acknowledges the efforts of GAR#20, “Suppress International Piracy” in helping to combat piracy, an international of significant concern among all member states;

"An international what? If you're taking requests, may I suggest an international 'interest' of significant concern and then delete 'among all member states'."

Clause 6 of the resolution authorising member states to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere but for offences to be “[treated] at least as seriously, as they would treat comparable crimes… against their own people”, resulting in potential jurisdictional shopping between member states;

"Maybe I just don't understand this criticism. Is the idea that pirates would 'jurisdiction shop' by seeking to be captured only in nations where plundering isn't that big of a deal? I don't really understand that. Anyway maybe you could make the argument for repeal without picking on Clause 6 over sort of difficult to understand things?"

Most important, Clause 7 of the resolution “requiring that anyone abroad any vehicle” being used by pirates to be subject to “appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’”, and for reversing the burden of proof onto the accused, requiring those accused to prove that “they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant”, in breach of the widely held convention that the accused are deemed innocent until convicted of an offence;

"Generally check your spelling, because it's not always right. But my government strongly agrees with you on this point."

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
I have been aware of this issue in the target for quite some time, so I am glad to see someone else taking up the repeal effort. Full support, with or without replacement.

[Simone Republic]

All replies in one go.

OOC: I had considered repealing this during April Fools' Day written in the style of a pirate, like this version. If there's a repeal where writing in a humorous vernacular is called for, this is the one (though I'd understand if you feel that's too derivative).

I am a bit anxious that joke resolutions won't pass because I've tried a couple of times on the SC side and they tanked. Also my sense of humour is pretty absurdist, so probably not everyone's cup of tea.

Your text is probably funnier on the SC side I think, perhaps as a declaration for international pirate day?

Pleased that a suitable replacement to update efforts to govern cooperation between member states is pending before the Assembly;

I don't really like this line. The phrase "pending before the Assembly" is really ambiguous. Do you mean it has been submitted and is in queue? If so, how is it not illegal for either contradiction or duplication of the still extant GA#20? Do you mean that it's currently being drafted? What if it never gets submitted? I think you're better off just eliminating it, or rephrasing it another way, e.g. "Awaiting a suitable replacement which can be brought forward only through the repeal of the target".

I've adopted a version of your wording. Thanks for pointing this out.

Acknowledges the efforts of GAR#20, “Suppress International Piracy” in helping to combat piracy, an international of significant concern among all member states;

Concerned, however, that the existing resolution contains a significant number of deficiencies which result in reduced effectiveness or outright harm in efforts to counter piracy, including:

"This preamble sits in a bit of a legislative uncanny valley, if you will. It doesn't adequately explain what's good about #20 and is too long for a short preamble. Either talk a bit more about the target, or just list the deficiencies."

This has been shortened to just listing the deficiencies. Better to just get to chase, as you said.

Clause 1 of the resolution defining “pirates” in a convoluted manner as people “not formally recognised as agents of any government although some of them may have informal links to governments from whom they receive support”, but failing to properly define ”privateers” and their relationship with the government, resulting in substantial ambiguities in the application of the resolution when, for example, member states are at a stage of undeclared war, or if governments give tacit but not explicit approval to piracy activities, or other ambiguous circumstances;

"This really ought to be split into separate sentences. It's a bit difficult to parse as it is now. Also, I think there's a bit of a logical disconnect when you first bring up 'privateers'. What do they have to do with the resolution - or rather how do they pertain to the quoted definition? Explaining that piracy includes privateers and demonstrating that the definition doesn't adequately cover them seems like a better way to go about it."

OOC: Just re-read the target. Consider most of this statement retracted.

"Support."

The target somehow makes a very sharp turn to "privateers" for reasons that I don't quite understand either.

The target doesn't really define what a "privateer" is - on my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, this really should be referring to government-sponsored piracy, but if there's government sponsored piracy, the nations are likely to be at war anyway with submarines and modern navy ships with guns ablaze, so I think there's no point.

This is not the 17th century in the Caribbean (I'd allow that some may role-play in that era so this could be an issue).

I'd remind myself to allow for some leeway for ""privateers" sanctioned by a government but not operated by the government" this in the replacement to cover the folks on medieval role-play etc.

Acknowledges the efforts of GAR#20, “Suppress International Piracy” in helping to combat piracy, an international of significant concern among all member states;

"An international what? If you're taking requests, may I suggest an international 'interest' of significant concern and then delete 'among all member states'."

Fixed as per draft 2.

Clause 6 of the resolution authorising member states to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere but for offences to be “[treated] at least as seriously, as they would treat comparable crimes… against their own people”, resulting in potential jurisdictional shopping between member states;

"Maybe I just don't understand this criticism. Is the idea that pirates would 'jurisdiction shop' by seeking to be captured only in nations where plundering isn't that big of a deal? I don't really understand that. Anyway maybe you could make the argument for repeal without picking on Clause 6 over sort of difficult to understand things?"

Yes that's what I meant with regards to clause 6. Basically clause 6 allows jurisdiction shop from a member state with a harsh penalty to a member state that's more lenient. It is I suspect based on the concept of hostis humani generis.

But yes clause 7 is a much bigger offence.

Most important, Clause 7 of the resolution “requiring that anyone abroad any vehicle” being used by pirates to be subject to “appropriate charges of criminal conspiracy and ‘accessory before the fact’”, and for reversing the burden of proof onto the accused, requiring those accused to prove that “they were forced into that crew on pain of death and served only as a non-combatant”, in breach of the widely held convention that the accused are deemed innocent until convicted of an offence;

"Generally check your spelling, because it's not always right. But my government strongly agrees with you on this point."

Thank you. My spelling and grammar are both choppy at times.

OOC:
I have been aware of this issue in the target for quite some time, so I am glad to see someone else taking up the repeal effort. Full support, with or without replacement.

Thank you. I only noticed this issue when I was trying to check GAR#22 to make sure I was OK on the repeal of GAR#164, and stumbled across this target. I was quite surprised by the wording to be honest as I've not seen GA presume guilt unless proven otherwise.

I intend for there to be a replacement, since international piracy is one of the few issues where I think even from natsov perspectives, there's need for international cooperation. Somali pirates somehow managed to get all five permanent members of the Security Council to fight on the same side (for the first and, to date, only time since 1945) with Russian and Chinese warships working alongside USA/GBR/FRA. So yes this one will get a replacement.

[Simone Republic]

First bump.

[Simone Republic]

I have removed my original criticism of clause 6 of the target from draft 3:

• Clause 6 of the target authorising member states to try people for piratical crimes committed elsewhere but for offences to be “[treated] at least as seriously, as they would treat comparable crimes… against their own people”, resulting in potential jurisdictional shopping when some member states may be more lenient on piracy offences compared to other member states;

This is because I realized (after re-reading Princess Rainbow Sparkle's comments) that it's difficult to prevent jurisdiction shop from a member state with a harsh penalty to a member state that's more lenient (simply because the oceans are large, boats float, etc etc) and too much natsov issues.

The proposed replacement has been posted:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=529506

[Juansonia]

"Full support" - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Chipoli]

"We offer our support for this proposal."

[Simone Republic]

Last call, as I want to make a change from writing about business to writing about pirates instead.

There is a minor change in format as I changed it to a straight UN style format given it's a pretty brief resolution.

[Tinhampton]

Your opening words are inconsistently italicised.

"requiring th the burden of proof" is an error and there should not be a "[/list]" at the end of the clause it features in.

[Simone Republic]

Your opening words are inconsistently italicised.

"requiring th the burden of proof" is an error and there should not be a "[/list]" at the end of the clause it features in.

Fixed both points, thanks. I am quite prone to editing and spelling errors as you'd no doubt have noticed by now.

[The Ice States]

"Support."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[United States of Nikosa]

"The United States of Nikosa, since its founding days, has always believed in the principle that one is proven innocent until proven guilty. Whether it was our corrupt, capitalistic form of government some time ago, to the democratic, socialist government of today. This is a great continuum of the United States of Nikosa, as shocking as it is to admit. Thus, the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty of piracy, simply due to the unfortunate circumstance of being captured on a vehicle aiding and abetting piracy, is crucial to human rights. A rigorous investigation must be done with strict guidelines enforced to ensure that only those guilty of piracy are captured."

"I am incredibly honored to be able to vote affirmative on this resolution, as it was confirmed with our government a few hours ago."

"Piracy is quite a concern for any nation, whether socialist or capitalist. While we believe the greatest pirates in history are the capitalists and bourgeoisie, having stolen untold sums from the working class, we understand the concerns brought about by economic piracy on the world's oceans. Thus, we request that there be actions taken by the World Assembly, either it's through the General Assembly or the Security Council, to safeguard the seas from pirates through subsequent and appropriate legislation."

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

[Istastioner]

Support

[Kaphellonia]

"Kaphellonia is in favor of this repeal," Kassandra declared confidently. "GA#20 Clause 7 is particularly bothersome and clearly in conflict with the idea that all people are innocent until proven guilty. While I agree with the criticisms brought forth by Amb. Asgeir Trelstad of Heidgaudr, I support this resolution nonetheless."

[Fluxoria]

After carefully considering the arguments presented in the proposal to repeal GAR#20 "Suppress International Piracy," I have decided to vote "FOR" the repeal.

While I acknowledge the efforts of the original resolution to combat piracy, I share the concerns raised about the ambiguities created by Clause 1 and the travesty of judicial principles created by Clause 7. It is important that any World Assembly legislation upholds the principles of justice and due process, and the target resolution falls short in this regard.