[DRAFT] Action on Crimes Against Humanity

[The Ice States]

Aware that crimes against humanity are inherently heinous acts which violate the goals of this institution to promote peace and unity;

Noting, however, that member nations have greater power to collaborate with each other to act against these sorts of crimes, and prevent them where possible;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Interpretation: In this resolution, a "crime against humanity" is any act designated as such by World Assembly law, whether or not it was enacted prior to this resolution. Genocide is hereby declared a crime against humanity. "IPF" refers to the International Peacekeeping Force, a committee of the World Assembly. Should a provision of this resolution contradict a past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.
   
   
2. Interventions: The IPF may militarily intervene in a member nation with the sole and ultimate goal of halting a crime against humanity in that nation, while causing the minimal casualties and other harm to both civilians and non-civilians.
   
   
   1. No entity other than the World Assembly and its committees and body of law shall maintain control over such interventions throughout the process that they occur. Both member nations and the Compliance Commission, if requested by the IPF, are to provide the IPF with any relevant facts or intelligence which may be used to facilitate the intervention.
      
      
   2. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct such an intervention. The World Assembly disclaims the authority to require any member nation to participate in or otherwise assist an intervention, except to the extent required in Section 2a.
3. Scope of mission: Section 2 does not authorise any intervention if it would lead to greater loss of life or harm to civilians than if the relevant crime against humanity is allowed to continue. Further, intervention in a member nation is only authorised if the IPF determines that intervening is likely to halt a crime against humanity in that member nation. The IPF is strictly forbidden from using its power to conduct Section 2 interventions for the purposes of profit or, with the sole exception of the deterrence of crimes against humanity, coercion of any nation.
   
   
4. Cessation: An intervention under Section 2 must cease when the relevant crimes against humanity are halted, whether voluntarily or by virtue of the said intervention. That previous sentence notwithstanding, the IPF may maintain a purely observer role in a member nation upon cessation of a crime against humanity therein, if such presence is necessary to ensure that crimes against humanity do not resume in that member nation. Every Section 2 intervention shall comply with all restrictions by World Assembly law on military activity with regard to war crimes and crimes against humanity as they apply to member nations.

[The Ice States]

Drafts placed under direct World Assembly jurisdiction.

Aware that crimes against humanity are inherently heinous acts which violate the goals of this institution to promote peace and unity;

Noting, however, that member nations have greater power to collaborate with each other to act against these sorts of crimes, and prevent them where possible;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Authority: No member nation may commence or participate in military action against any other member nation on the grounds of preventing any crime against humanity or other heinous crime in the targeted member nation. The sole exception is where such intervention is directed by the International Peacekeping Force (IPF), as with any other Section 2 mission.
   
   
2. Interventions: The IPF may militarily intervene in a member nation with the sole and ultimate goal of halting a crime against humanity in that nation, while causing the minimal casualties and other harm to civilian and non-civilians.
   
   
   1. No entity other than the World Assembly and its committees and body of law shall maintain control over such interventions throughout the process that they occur. A member nation must, if requested by the IPF, provide the IPF with any relevant facts or intelligence which may be used to facilitate the intervention.
      
      
   2. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct such an intervention. The World Assembly disclaims the authority to require any member nation to participate in or otherwise assist an intervention, except to the extent required in Section 2a.
3. Scope of mission: Section 2 does not authorise any intervention if it would lead to greater loss of life or harm to civilians than if the relevant crime against humanity is allowed to continue. Further, intervention in a member nation is only authorised if the IPF determines that intervening is likely to halt a crime against humanity perpetrated by that member nation.
   
   
4. Cessation: An intervention under Section 2 must cease when the targeted member nation becomes compliant with its obligations under World Assembly law in not engaging in crimes against humanity. Further, any Section 2 intervention must comply with all restrictions by World Assembly law on military activity with regard to war crimes and crime against humanity as they apply to member nations. Should a provision of this resolution contradict a past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

Concerned that, while there are nearly 20000 member nations, there are over a dozen times more non-member nations, many of which are imperialist, fascist tyrannies whose very existence goes against the goals of this institution to promote peace and unity;

Noting, however, that member nations have greater power to collaborate with each other to end the existence of these sorts of delinquent non-member nations -- such as the kind of nation whose previous leader is purported to have an oddly orange-coloured skin colour -- as this body can work to facilitate unity in bringing this menace to an end;

Aware that the threat of humanitarian intervention by the World Assembly will coerce many nations responsible for crimes against humanity to reconsider their status and cease their acts, lest they be subject to intervention;

Emphasising, too, that nations subject to intervention will often have a large amount of goods present which can be sold on the market, providing a source of funding which will not only compensate for the cost of such interventions, but also help member nations comply with the onerous, bureaucratic net of 700+ resolutions passed by this body;

Believing that as there is already an armed force of the World Assembly, the International Enforcement Commmission, we may as well use it to help promote peace and unity by ending crimes against humanity, a process which will provide immense benefits to this body;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Targets: The WACC shall maintain a list of every nation responsible for an act designated by World Assembly law as a crime against humanity, along with that nation's military and diplomatic influence and power and the likelihood of offensive military action to halt the said act. Every week, or when the last Section 2 intervention has concluded -- whichever is sooner -- the WACC shall select the one nation on this shortlist for which a Section 2 intervention is most likely to halt its crimes against humanity. The WACC shall promptly publish what nation it has selected.
   
   
2. Interventions: Every member nation must conduct a military intervention in the nation selected by the WACC in Section 1; and do so in good faith and to the maximal extent possible without significantly burdening the finances or economy of that member nation. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct such an intervention. The goal of any such intervention shall be to halt, or coerce that nation into halting, its performance of the relevant crimes against humanity; if necessary, this shall include the placement of that nation under direct World Assembly jurisdiction.
   
   
   1. The International Peacekeeping Force (IPF) is a subcommittee of the International Enforcement Commission. The IPF shall direct the process of the intervention, and share any logistical aid, intelligence, or other relevant information which would assist member nations in conducting the intervention. Member nations shall, on the request of the IPF, provide the IPF with any relevant facts or intelligence which may be used to facilitate the intervention.
      
      
   2. Should an intervention target become fully under World Assembly jurisdiction, member nations shall seize any items in the intervention target likely to be of material value and transfer them in full to the IPF. No member nation or entity therein may obstruct the process of distributing (per Section 3) or seizing items in the intervention target.
   
   
3. Profit distribution: Items seized under Section 2b shall be sold or otherwise used by the IPF to provide the maximal economic profit possible. This profit shall be distributed to every member nation which participated in the intervention, with more funds being provided to those member nations which contributed more to the intervention. A member nation may refuse to receive such profit, in which case its share of funds would instead be added to the WA Feneral Gund, whose funds will be used solely to fund IPF missions as well as the establishment and maintenance of euthanasia clinics, brothels, and person-sourced meat restaurants in the World Assembly headquarters.
   
   
4. Cessation: An intervention shall cease when that nation becomes compliant with its obligations under World Assembly law, if it were a member nation, in not engaging in crimes against humanity. Genocide is a crime against humanity for the purposes of World Assembly law. Should a provision of this resolution contradict a past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

[Crack Cocaine in the Inner Cities]

Is utilizing intelligence agencies to create drug epidemics in domestic populations covered under this piece of legislation?

[The Ice States]

Is utilizing intelligence agencies to create drug epidemics in domestic populations covered under this piece of legislation?

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. We do not believe that this would be prohibited by the resolution, unless an existing resolution does designate it as a crime against humanity; this resolution covers only those acts World Assembly law designates as a crime against humanity. I am not aware of such a resolution, although if your mission is aware of one then the presence of such legislation would answer your question in the affirmative."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Anonymegg]

I'm pretty sure the Trump reference violates the proposal rules around the Fourth Wall

[Kenmoria]

I'm pretty sure the Trump reference violates the proposal rules around the Fourth Wall

(OOC: This is correct. If the reference is to Donald Trump, then it violates RW Reference. If the reference is to a nation in NationStates with coincidentally similar characteristics, then it violates Metagaming.)

[The Ice States]

I'm pretty sure the Trump reference violates the proposal rules around the Fourth Wall

I'm pretty sure the Trump reference violates the proposal rules around the Fourth Wall

(OOC: This is correct. If the reference is to Donald Trump, then it violates RW Reference. If the reference is to a nation in NationStates with coincidentally similar characteristics, then it violates Metagaming.)

Ooc: Would it? It is indeed a reference to Donald Trump; however the standard for the RWR rule is "proper nouns" under the new rule text, and no proper nouns are used here. _{(NB: The rule change was not related to this proposal.)} I would be open to changing this if needed.

[Kenmoria]

I'm pretty sure the Trump reference violates the proposal rules around the Fourth Wall

(OOC: This is correct. If the reference is to Donald Trump, then it violates RW Reference. If the reference is to a nation in NationStates with coincidentally similar characteristics, then it violates Metagaming.)

Ooc: Would it? It is indeed a reference to Donald Trump; however the standard for the RWR rule is "proper nouns" under the new rule text, and no proper nouns are used here. _{(NB: The rule change was not related to this proposal.)} I would be open to changing this if needed.

(OOC: Yes, it would indeed. The standard does not mean that it any proposal excluding proper nouns is fine for RW Reference. That standard deals specifically with the case of whether the use of a certain term is automatically an RW Reference.)

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Would it? It is indeed a reference to Donald Trump; however the standard for the RWR rule is "proper nouns" under the new rule text, and no proper nouns are used here. _{(NB: The rule change was not related to this proposal.)} I would be open to changing this if needed.

(OOC: Yes, it would indeed. The standard does not mean that it any proposal excluding proper nouns is fine for RW Reference. That standard deals specifically with the case of whether the use of a certain term is automatically an RW Reference.)

The new rule text does not "criminalise" non-proper noun references; however assuming that a non-rule text interpretation would be applied here (as with eg vagueness arguments and National Sovereignty), I will amend the preamble clause to use less specific wording.

[Crack Cocaine in the Inner Cities]

Is utilizing intelligence agencies to create drug epidemics in domestic populations covered under this piece of legislation?

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. We do not believe that this would be prohibited by the resolution, unless an existing resolution does designate it as a crime against humanity; this resolution covers only those acts World Assembly law designates as a crime against humanity. I am not aware of such a resolution, although if your mission is aware of one then the presence of such legislation would answer your question in the affirmative."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

I see. Can you please include in your proposal that the proceeds from IPF operations be appropriated the intelligence agencies of member nations for the sole purpose of creating drug epidemics, preferably crack-cocaine, in their domestic populations?

[The Ice States]

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. We do not believe that this would be prohibited by the resolution, unless an existing resolution does designate it as a crime against humanity; this resolution covers only those acts World Assembly law designates as a crime against humanity. I am not aware of such a resolution, although if your mission is aware of one then the presence of such legislation would answer your question in the affirmative."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

I see. Can you please include in your proposal that the proceeds from IPF operations be appropriated the intelligence agencies of member nations for the sole purpose of creating drug epidemics, preferably crack-cocaine, in their domestic populations?

"How a member nation uses the funds it gains from IPF missions is decided by itself; therefore, if your nation intends to use it to promote drug epidemics, so long as that does not violate other World Assembly law, it would be permitted under this resolution. This is especially the case with the World Assembly's charter resolution, in the form of "The Civil Charter of the World Assembly"; Section 1 thereof codifies a right of each member nation to perform any act not prohibited by other international law."

"If what your mission is requesting is that every member nation be required to use Section 3 funds for this purpose, we believe it is better to leave that matter up to the descretion of each nation. A member nation may find greater use in another application of the funds it earns for its contributions."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Crack Cocaine in the Inner Cities]

I see. Can you please include in your proposal that the proceeds from IPF operations be appropriated the intelligence agencies of member nations for the sole purpose of creating drug epidemics, preferably crack-cocaine, in their domestic populations?

"How a member nation uses the funds it gains from IPF missions is decided by itself; therefore, if your nation intends to use it to promote drug epidemics, so long as that does not violate other World Assembly law, it would be permitted under this resolution. This is especially the case with the World Assembly's charter resolution, in the form of "The Civil Charter of the World Assembly"; Section 1 thereof codifies a right of each member nation to perform any act not prohibited by other international law."

"If what your mission is requesting is that every member nation be required to use Section 3 funds for this purpose, we believe it is better to leave that matter up to the descretion of each nation. A member nation may find greater use in another application of the funds it earns for its contributions."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

I disagree. I would prefer that member nations are mandated to appropriate Section 3 funds to their intelligence agencies for the creation of crack-cocaine epidemics. I cannot support this proposal in good conscience until this matter is rectified.

[The Ice States]

The original version of this was largely an April fools' joke, but I do intend to pursue this in earnest over the long term. I've now posted the serious draft -- commentary would be appreciated!

[Tinhampton]

This is still not funny. Opposed, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Also:
1. Would violating WA law on such an immense scale not just be a glide-path to ACA sanctions?
2. A minority group from Nation A lives in Nation B. One day, the government of B commences a genocide against the A people living in their nation. Why can A not intervene, but only the IPF?

[The Ice States]

This is still not funny. Opposed, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Also:
1. Would violating WA law on such an immense scale not just be a glide-path to ACA sanctions?

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that non-compliance does not exist; for example, if a member nation trades with non-members or can survive as an autarky.

2. A minority group from Nation A lives in Nation B. One day, the government of B commences a genocide against the A people living in their nation. Why can A not intervene, but only the IPF?

This is to avoid the risk of USA-style "humanitarian interventions" which are obviously to advance the intervening nation's political or economic interests. In your example, A can intervene, but it would have to be directed by the IPF to avoid this.

[Astrobolt]

Tappe: Astrobolt has a moral right to intervene to prevent genocide and other monstrous crimes. We will not be constrained by anyone, and we will not sit idly by if the IPF refuses to act.

[Kostane]

I am worried that turning over response to crimes against humanity to a bureaucratic branch of the WA could resort in more inefficient responses and overstretch WA resources. Enforcement should be done by members, rather than having to deal with the inefficiencies caused by WA enforcement.

[The Ice States]

Tappe: Astrobolt has a moral right to intervene to prevent genocide and other monstrous crimes. We will not be constrained by anyone, and we will not sit idly by if the IPF refuses to act.

I am worried that turning over response to crimes against humanity to a bureaucratic branch of the WA could resort in more inefficient responses and overstretch WA resources. Enforcement should be done by members, rather than having to deal with the inefficiencies caused by WA enforcement.

"Thank you for the comments, Ambassadors. Would it address your concerns to replace Section 1 with a mandate that member nation interventions be supervised by the IPF, or that member nations not gain economic profit from an intervention?"

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Kostane]

Tappe: Astrobolt has a moral right to intervene to prevent genocide and other monstrous crimes. We will not be constrained by anyone, and we will not sit idly by if the IPF refuses to act.

I am worried that turning over response to crimes against humanity to a bureaucratic branch of the WA could resort in more inefficient responses and overstretch WA resources. Enforcement should be done by members, rather than having to deal with the inefficiencies caused by WA enforcement.

"Thank you for the comments, Ambassadors. Would it address your concerns to replace Section 1 with a mandate that member nation interventions be supervised by the IPF, or that member nations not gain economic profit from an intervention?"

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

I do not believe that clause is necessary simply because there are many justifications for a war. If a nation were to declare war for profit, they would not need to use crimes as a justification. Supervision of the IPF would fall to the same bureaucratic problems as direct IPF intervention. All this clause does is protect those who commit crimes against humanity from military retaliation, it doesn’t seem to help the people in any way.

[The Ice States]

"Thank you for the comments, Ambassadors. Would it address your concerns to replace Section 1 with a mandate that member nation interventions be supervised by the IPF, or that member nations not gain economic profit from an intervention?"

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

I do not believe that clause is necessary simply because there are many justifications for a war. If a nation were to declare war for profit, they would not need to use crimes as a justification. Supervision of the IPF would fall to the same bureaucratic problems as direct IPF intervention. All this clause does is protect those who commit crimes against humanity from military retaliation, it doesn’t seem to help the people in any way.

"Wars waged for any other justification would be prohibited by another proposals of ours, titled 'Convention Against Military Aggression'. Your arguments as to IPF supervision are heard and absent counterargument we will not implement such a provision."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Comfed]

Yes, I'm sure that a bureaucratic committee of the WA is best suited to decide what nations are invaded for "humanitarian reasons" - if the International Olympic Committee is anything to go by, I'm sure this will result in no problems whatsoever.

But seriously - against any form of this.

[Simone Republic]

An ursine assistant holds up a sign that says "bears eating humans are not crimes, you speciest *****."

[Tigrisia]

All here OOC

That's how it is in international law, actually. You can only wage wars if,

A) You are defending a nation (collectively or on your own). (Article 51 UN Charta) OR
B) You have an authorization by the UN Security Council OR (Article 42 UN Charta)
C) You have a recommendation by the UN General Assembly (UN GA Resolution 377).

But there are sometimes reasons to not adhere to that standard as for example there is a deadlock in the real-world SC.

[WeSuckia]

Geneva Convention?
If this is submitted and gets approved, i'll vote for it.

[Tigrisia]

Geneva Convention?

OOC: What have these to do with it?