(Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Sun May 04, 2014 9:05 am

The Kingdom of New Tarajan, as strong promoter of the development of International Law, and responsible actor in the World Alliance, wishes to propose to the Parliament this law, aimed to regulate interventions in foreign countries, avoiding the risks of abuses and imperialistic adventures under their mask.


INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTIONS REGULATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, leader of the World Alliance Royalist Party, Member of the Parliament, Member of the Council

Section I.

Art. 1

The World Alliance Government, seeking to ensure the freedom of all peoples from the plague of foreign occupation, and concerned about the possible, dangerous developments for the territorial integrity of a country following an uncontrolled international intervention, hereby adopt this law as regulatory framework for any international intervention.

Art. 2

Defines, for the purpose of this international law, an international intervention as the use of diplomatic, economic, or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an international organization, or any kind of political entity against another country or a group of countries, while a Council intervention is the use of any means authorized by any international law by the WA Council against or in favour of another country or a group of countries.

Art. 3

Defines, for the purposes of this law, an occupation as the effective provisional control of a certain power or political entity over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.

Art. 4

Defines, for the purposes of this law, a puppet government as a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority, external to the country.


Section II.

Art. 5

During an international or Council intervention, all units from the voluntarily participating countries to the intervention or aiding the Council intervention shall act in full accordance with the WA Constitution, existing international laws, and the objectives of the international or Council intervention itself.
It is their duty to strictly respect their mandate, accomplishing only the tasks included in it.

Art. 6

All foreign military units shall safeguard the safety of the citizens of the country they are operating in, and the integrity of their properties, whenever possible.

Art. 7

All civilian staff shall follow the highest standards of transparency, reliability and efficiency while accomplishing its task.

Art. 8

It is severely forbidden, after the conclusion of an international or Council intervention, to keep holding territories belonging, prior to the intervention, to the country where the intervention took place, or to establish a puppet government, without the official consent of the country to which the territory legitimately belongs and the authorization of the World Alliance Council, as specified below.

Art. 9

In case the country where the intervention took place voluntarily gives part of its territory to another country or political entity during or after the intervention, the Council shall authorize the procedure, upon verification of the absence of any kind of constraint or influence on the offerer.
If necessary, the Council could request an opinion to the Court of Justice on the particular case.


Section III.

Art. 10

The WA Council shall have the temporary power to administer a certain state that will be declared as a failed state, which for the purpose of this law, is a state that has been incapable of carrying out its duties as a state. And a failed state shall be officially proclaimed by the WA Council, upon nominations and recommendations from the WA Secretary General and the authorized organizations present in the country to be declared as a failed state. Whereas, during the exercise of such temporary powers to administer the concerned state, the WA Council must ensure that the said state shall have a duly instituted national constitution forming a full democratic government ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights and freedom of human beings, before being granted back its full sovereignty.

Art. 11

It is severely forbidden to the Council to devolve the administration of territories belonging to a collapsed country to third countries during the period of special administration.

Art. 12

This special administration, as described in Art. 10, shall end at the beginning of the next Map Expansion, when the administered territory shall be considered free for claims.


Last edited by New Tarajan on Tue May 06, 2014 10:29 pm; edited 3 times in total
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Debate Period Initiation

Post  Kaevi on Sun May 04, 2014 9:23 am

The official debate period has begun, with an expiration at 00:00 GMT on May 6, 2014.
Parliament members are discouraged to voice their final vote during the debate period.

Once the debate period expires, the voting period will start at 00:00 GMT on May 6, 2014. The voting period will last three days, as required by Article V of the latest World Alliance Constitution. This period will end on May 9, 2014 at 00:00 GMT.

DEBATE TERM TWO
Petitioners: Great Eurussia, New Tarajan, Dromoda
Speaker: Kaevi

Hereby orders the International Interventions Regulation Act into the second debating term ending on May 9, 2014 at the hour of 00:00 GMT.


Last edited by Kaevi on Tue May 06, 2014 6:00 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Debate time extension.)
avatar
Kaevi
Powerbroker

Posts : 220
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : Alabama, USA

Back to top Go down

Ammendment Proposal and Section Proposal

Post  Zackalantis on Sun May 04, 2014 2:11 pm

Original Article: Art. 2

Defines, for the purposes of this law, international intervention as the deployment and use of economic, diplomatic or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an alliance, organization or any kind of political entity external to the country where the intervention takes place, under authorization and mandate of the WA Council or any other WA institution or organization.

Proposed Ammendment: Art. 2

Defines, for the purposes of this law, international intervention as the deployment and use of economic, diplomatic or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an alliance, organization or any kind of political entity external to the country where the intervention takes place, under authorization and mandate of the WA Government ie: Council, Parliament or Court of Justice.

i have proposed this ammendment because the previous article left room for loopholes. Any WA institution or organization could authorize 'foreign intervention'. The UKZ believes that only the above three mentioned bodies should have the athourity to authorize such a move.

Section IV

Article 13:
Foreign Intervention is only justified when a nation of the region has repeatdley violated the WA constitution or legistlation. It cannot be justified to end civil war, political unrest or bloodshed within a contry's borders unless the home governemnt specifically asks for help.

Article 14:
Foreign intervention is also not justified during a time of natural disaster, until and unless the home government asks for help.


This is what i propose, please refine it.
avatar
Zackalantis
Powerbroker

Posts : 146
Join date : 2014-03-20
Age : 20
Location : Mumbai,Maharashtra,India

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Ireland on Sun May 04, 2014 2:19 pm

I am against the proposals
avatar
Ireland
Recognized Power

Posts : 1327
Join date : 2013-12-01
Age : 17
Location : Macon, Georgia, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_empire_of_ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Sun May 04, 2014 3:29 pm

New Tarajan wrote:The Kingdom of New Tarajan, as strong promoter of the development of International Law, and responsible actor in the World Alliance, wishes to propose to the Parliament this law, aimed to regulate interventions in foreign countries, avoiding the risks of abuses and imperialistic adventures under their mask.


INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTIONS REGULATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, leader of the World Alliance Royalist Party, Member of the Parliament, Member of the Council

Section I.

Art. 1

The World Alliance Government, seeking to ensure the freedom of all peoples from the plague of foreign occupation, and concerned about the possible, dangerous developments for the territorial integrity of a country following an uncontrolled international intervention, hereby adopt this law as regulatory framework for any international intervention.

Art. 2

Defines, for the purposes of this law, international intervention as the deployment and use of economic, diplomatic or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an alliance, organization or any kind of political entity external to the country where the intervention takes place, under authorization and mandate of the WA Council or any other WA institution or organization.

Art. 3

Defines, for the purposes of this law, an occupation as the effective provisional control of a certain power or political entity over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.

Art. 4

Defines, for the purposes of this law, a puppet government as a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority, external to the country.


Section II.

Art. 5

During the intervention, all foreign military and civilian units shall act accordingly to the Law of War, the fundamental humanitarian principles, the principles of customary international law and the law of the World Alliance.
It is their duty to strictly respect their mandate, accomplishing only the tasks included in it.

Art. 6

All foreign military units shall safeguard the safety of the citizens of the country they are operating in, and the integrity of their properties, whenever possible.

Art. 7

All civilian staff shall follow the highest standards of transparency, reliability and efficiency while accomplishing its task.

Art. 8

It is severely forbidden, after the conclusion of an international intervention, to keep holding territories belonging, prior to the intervention, to the country where the intervention took place, or to establish a puppet government, without the official consent of the country to which the territory legitimately belongs and the authorization of the World Alliance Council, as specified below.

Art. 9

In case the country where the intervention took place voluntarily gives part of its territory to another country or political entity during or after the intervention, the Council shall authorize the procedure, upon verification of the absence of any kind of constraint or influence on the offerer.
If necessary, the Council could request an opinion to the Court of Justice on the particular case.


Section III.

Art. 10

In case of collapse of the government of the country where the intervention took place, the administration of its territories shall fall upon the Council, which will administer them following the highest standards of transparency and efficiency, in the full respect of the wellness and safety of the inhabitants and the integrity of their properties.

Art. 11

It is severely forbidden to the Council to devolve the administration of territories belonging to a collapsed country to third countries during the period of special administration.

Art. 12

This special administration, as described in Art. 10, shall end at the beginning of the next Map Expansion, when the administered territory shall be considered free for claims.


Eurussia believes that this proposal violates the very principle of the right of every nation to exercise their own sovereignty and self defense protected by the Constitution. We also believe that the complex scenarios surrounding the necessity of a foreign intervention cannot be regulated by a single code or whatever as in every case, there are indeed different matters and concerns surrounding such crises resulting to an intervention. And under the norms of tradition in the Council, it is indeed the duty of the WA Council to call for such intervention and such tradition allows the Council to adjust in every situation. And with this unnecessary regulation, such flexibility for the Council will be lost, indefinitely.
As we oppose this bill, we would also like to raise the serious flaws of this proposal.
Article 1 talks about uncontrolled international intervention, and if such, is there any country in the world who ever experienced an internal crises which later seeks foreign help, can tell the Parliament that they were able to control the effects of an intervention? With foreign powers?With different interests? With different intentions? With different laws as a guide? With internal government against its people? With rebel groups toppling the state? With armed conflict? Is there any controlled intervention in the past or could we see some in the future?
Article 2 talks about controlled international intervention? When with tradition Council authorization, everything is planned according to the situation, yet in this very proposal, that power of authorizing military intervention will be spread out not just with the Council but with other regional organizations? Is this a controlled intervention?
Article 5 talks about the Law of War, is there any? in the Constitution? or by Parliament?
Article 7 talks about civilian administration during intervention which restricts governments to perform with flexibility under their own operational manual but still under the guidance of an authorized intervention. Doesn't this infringe on every nation's independence?
Article 9 talks about voluntary renunciation of a country's territory. Yet, it talks about the processes by which the WA Council would still have to decide on such 'voluntary renunciation.' And on this note, international politics will definitely defeat the purpose of the 'voluntary.'
Article 10 talks about handing over the administration of a country after an intervention directly to the WA Council, which is already overburdened with which it authorizes its regional organizations to do the intervention task with the aid of other nations. And as such, does this infringe the rights of every nations by which they should have the freedom to ask whoever country they wish to ask from help to? And already defeats the flexibility of the Council to intervene only when situation is already out of control.
Article 11 talks about forbidding the Council to handover territories to other nations. Which defeats as well the very purpose of voluntary renunciation under Article 9.
Article 12 talks about free claims after a special administration. And with such gives us grave disappointment by which we expect the bill to protect nations' rights yet paves way for the eventual Council brokered renunciation of a crisis torn country's territories after an intervention.

OOC: Frankly, I believe that this proposal restricts every nation's diplomatic and military, negotiating and debating skills in our RP. So, I oppose and I am AGAINST.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Sun May 04, 2014 7:09 pm

I can answer to all the objections proposed to this law.

First of all, I can begin assuring that there's no intention, with this proposal, to restrict in any way the diplomatic, political or military sovereignty of any country.
It's only intention, as specified in the first articles of the draft, is to create a regulatory framework for the interventions operated by the WAAF, WADSJ and similar organizations. Why? Because too many times the result of these interventions has been the division of the country between the participants...and THIS is against the principles of our Constitution.
The Council will not loose any power: at the contrary, it will have more control over the interventions it authorizes.

About the voluntarily renunciation: the goal of those provisions is to avoid that a government, under pressure or influence of other governments, should decide to give up its territory. The check of the Council could ensure, at least some form of control over it, avoiding abuses.

Civilian staff is referred to foreign civilian staff, not to the indigenous government, which is not affected by this law.

The only goal of this law is to ensure that WAAF operations does not become an excuse for imperialistic conquests: we have seen such events in Farshonia (two times!) and in Texania...we risk to see the same for Ceveztria. Honestly, such attitude harms the credibility of the WAAF, and this cannot be tolerated.
Yes, we didn't see until now a controlled intervention, because there wasn't any kind of regulatory framework: this law, once again, aims to achieve this goal, which I find commendable.

About the special administration: unfortunately, since it's impossible to create a new country to "substitute" the previous one, the only solution was a special administration (read: "freezing" the territories from possible conquests) until the next Map Expansion. Otherwise, the entire scope of the law would be flawed.


Zackalantis, about your amendments: this law does not concern the way to authorize an intervention and similar, and this is why I did not include in the draft laws about when and how  the authorization shall be given. Due to the very particular nature of the issue, it would be unuseful to create such a bureaucratic burden.

OOC: I can assure you that this law will not limit any RP. It's only scope is about interventions of the WA organizations, as specified.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  United States of Europe on Sun May 04, 2014 8:14 pm

As Secretary General of the regional organizations, I came in contact very often with international assistance and things like that. I have personally managed and completed many of these actions.

Regional organizations have a proud history: in recent years have put an end to the civil wars leading to peace, have prevented wars and acts of imperialism, have protected people from the reckless actions of dictatorial governments. Not to mention the humanitarian interventions, which have enabled many countries to recover and begin to grow again, they have saved entire populations from collapse.
Always at the forefront to ensure peace, development and prosperity.

But the greed of certain nations has no end. Except ​​for the first partition Farshonia, where there were exceptional circumstances, as we have seen in Texania. And we almost see it in Farshonia, more recently: the excellent action, however, international diplomacy has succeeded in uniting the country, which is now solid and strong, more than before.

These works of imperialism undermine international stability, and above all the credibility of the regional organizations, undermining all the good work.
This is why we are in favor of the law.
avatar
United States of Europe
Potential World Power

Posts : 527
Join date : 2013-02-06
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Zackalantis on Sun May 04, 2014 8:31 pm

New Tarajan wrote:I can answer to all the objections proposed to this law.

First of all, I can begin assuring that there's no intention, with this proposal, to restrict in any way the diplomatic, political or military sovereignty of any country.
It's only intention, as specified in the first articles of the draft, is to create a regulatory framework for the interventions operated by the WAAF, WADSJ and similar organizations. Why? Because too many times the result of these interventions has been the division of the country between the participants...and THIS is against the principles of our Constitution.
The Council will not loose any power: at the contrary, it will have more control over the interventions it authorizes.

About the voluntarily renunciation: the goal of those provisions is to avoid that a government, under pressure or influence of other governments, should decide to give up its territory. The check of the Council could ensure, at least some form of control over it, avoiding abuses.

Civilian staff is referred to foreign civilian staff, not to the indigenous government, which is not affected by this law.

The only goal of this law is to ensure that WAAF operations does not become an excuse for imperialistic conquests: we have seen such events in Farshonia (two times!) and in Texania...we risk to see the same for Ceveztria. Honestly, such attitude harms the credibility of the WAAF, and this cannot be tolerated.
Yes, we didn't see until now a controlled intervention, because there wasn't any kind of regulatory framework: this law, once again, aims to achieve this goal, which I find commendable.

About the special administration: unfortunately, since it's impossible to create a new country to "substitute" the previous one, the only solution was a special administration (read: "freezing" the territories from possible conquests) until the next Map Expansion. Otherwise, the entire scope of the law would be flawed.


Zackalantis, about your amendments: this law does not concern the way to authorize an intervention and similar, and this is why I did not include in the draft laws about when and how  the authorization shall be given. Due to the very particular nature of the issue, it would be unuseful to create such a bureaucratic burden.

OOC: I can assure you that this law will not limit any RP. It's only scope is about interventions of the WA organizations, as specified.

Your intentions are commendable New Tarajan but the problem is that the bill you have proposed does put down certain restrictions on the right of a nation to excercise it's sovereignity, intentionally or un-itentionally.

regarding my ammendment proposals, I fully understand what you are trying to say and i understand your intentions behind this bill.
avatar
Zackalantis
Powerbroker

Posts : 146
Join date : 2014-03-20
Age : 20
Location : Mumbai,Maharashtra,India

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Sun May 04, 2014 8:58 pm

Zackalantis wrote:
Your intentions are commendable New Tarajan but the problem is that the bill you have proposed does put down certain restrictions on the right of a nation to excercise it's sovereignity, intentionally or un-itentionally.

regarding my ammendment proposals, I fully understand what you are trying to say and i understand your intentions behind this bill.

Indeed.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Sun May 04, 2014 9:10 pm

New Tarajan wrote:I can answer to all the objections proposed to this law.

First of all, I can begin assuring that there's no intention, with this proposal, to restrict in any way the diplomatic, political or military sovereignty of any country.
It's only intention, as specified in the first articles of the draft, is to create a regulatory framework for the interventions operated by the WAAF, WADSJ and similar organizations. Why? Because too many times the result of these interventions has been the division of the country between the participants...and THIS is against the principles of our Constitution.
The Council will not loose any power: at the contrary, it will have more control over the interventions it authorizes.

Eurussia refutes this explanation as it is clearly stated on Article 2, "authorization and mandate of the WA Council or any other WA institution or organization", hence, if the explanation of the author is indeed the spirit of the proposal, then there must be an amendment to that effect for Eurussia to be assured of such intentions.

About the voluntarily renunciation: the goal of those provisions is to avoid that a government, under pressure or influence of other governments, should decide to give up its territory. The check of the Council could ensure, at least some form of control over it, avoiding abuses.

This provision basically tramples upon the right to exercise of sovereignty and independence of the receiving nation, from which upon the voluntary territory is given. Thus, this must be scrapped and be removed from the proposal or we shall challenge this to the Court, to the very end, if this law indeed passes.

Civilian staff is referred to foreign civilian staff, not to the indigenous government, which is not affected by this law.

Technically speaking, the provision,  civilian staff shall follow the highest standards of transparency, reliability and efficiency , already violates participating country's independence most especially the word, "transparency" which could affect a foreign government's operations when treated and invoked on peacekeeping operations that have a detrimental impact in an operations' security and overall strategy of an international intervention. Hence, this must be scrapped and be removed from the proposal.

About the special administration: unfortunately, since it's impossible to create a new country to "substitute" the previous one, the only solution was a special administration (read: "freezing" the territories from possible conquests) until the next Map Expansion. Otherwise, the entire scope of the law would be flawed.

If this is indeed the intention of the provision, the proposal must contain a specified and detailed definition of a collapsed government, and in support to that determination that the WA Secretary General and the Secretaries General of the authorized intervening organizations, shall determine if a country in crisis is indeed incapable of governing itself, which will later be submitted to the WA Council, for the final proclamation that the said country is then a "failed state," which for that the WA Council shall automatically have the "transitional authority" over that country and must issue a unanimous resolution that the said failed state must have a constitutional democratic government protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the proposal must also be clear that the country in crisis shall have all the rights to ask for any assistance from any foreign country and/or the WA Council, to ensure that the WA Council will not be overburdened with so much responsibilities and at the same time upholding the right of sovereignty and independence of the country in crisis.

Furthermore, we would like to seek further clarifications to the earlier concerns we have raised that have been left unanswered by the author of this proposal, 

Article 5 talks about the Law of War, is there any? in the Constitution? or by Parliament?


Eurussia will continue to raise our concerns unless they are all addressed accordingly.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Sun May 04, 2014 9:19 pm

Zackalantis wrote:
i have proposed this ammendment because the previous article left room for loopholes. Any WA institution or organization could authorize 'foreign intervention'. The UKZ believes that only the above three mentioned bodies should have the athourity to authorize such a move.

Eurussia has already seen and raised this concerns too. And intervention must only be left to the WA Council, being the executive arm of the WA Government.

Section IV

Article 13:
Foreign Intervention is only justified when a nation of the region has repeatdley violated the WA constitution or legistlation. It cannot be justified to end civil war, political unrest or bloodshed within a contry's borders unless the home governemnt specifically asks for help.

Article 14:
Foreign intervention is also not justified during a time of natural disaster, until and unless the home government asks for help.


This is what i propose, please refine it.

Eurussia supports this amendments as it mends well with our intentions to protect the rights of sovereignty and independence of every nation in the world. And for that, the nation seeking for an international intervention must PUBLICLY address the WA COUNCIL asking for help. We are in solidarity with Zackalantis in pursuing these amendments.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Sun May 04, 2014 10:09 pm

About the amendments proposed by Zackalantis...as he himself recognized, they do not comprise the goal of this law which DO NOT REGULATE the moment when the intervention is requested and authorized, nor the mandates of the intervention itself.
It's only aim is to regulate what happens DURING and AFTER the intervention.

So said, let me address the other objections.

1) Your objection is not clear, since the statement is, in my opinion, very clear. Please, explain your position better.

2) It's impossible to scrap that statement: indeed, it would open the possibility for countries to secretly exercise pressures to weak countries where the intervention took place in order to ensure the cession of territories, which is exactly what we wish to avoid.

3) I cannot see with risk there could be, for an administration, to be transparent since, for definition, civilians are not involved in military operations.

4) I'll introduce a definition of collapsed government, if necessary (although I find the name self-explaining).

5) About the last objection: it's not relevant for this law since, as I already have said many times, this law has the only goal to regulate the international intervention outcomes and execution.

6) Law of War: it's a fundamental part of customary international law, which is not possible to ignore, since a lot of countries in the WA already follow its principles.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Mon May 05, 2014 4:10 am

Eurussia appreciates the explanations of New Tarajan on its vague and weakly defined proposal on international intervention which allowed us to gain more understanding of it. However, we continue to raise the following loopholes, and officially moves for revisions and amendemnts.


Art. 2

Defines, for the purposes of this law, international intervention as the deployment and use of economic, diplomatic or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an alliance, organization or any kind of political entity external to the country where the intervention takes place, under authorization and mandate of the WA Council or any other WA institution or organization.

Eurussia, officially asks, to revise this Article, clearly saying that the WA Council is the sole authority on international interventions after a publicly addressed request of help from a particular country. This is to ensure that the proposal will not be misinterpreted.

Art. 5

During the intervention, all foreign military and civilian units shall act accordingly to the Law of War, the fundamental humanitarian principles, the principles of customary international law and the law of the World Alliance.
It is their duty to strictly respect their mandate, accomplishing only the tasks included in it.


Eurussia, officially asks to define what is the Law of War due to its ambiguity and generality. We also move to strike down the word "customary international law" as such is not honored by the WA Government which relies on very specific international laws passed by its organs.

Art. 9

In case the country where the intervention took place voluntarily gives part of its territory to another country or political entity during or after the intervention, the Council shall authorize the procedure, upon verification of the absence of any kind of constraint or influence on the offerer.
If necessary, the Council could request an opinion to the Court of Justice on the particular case.

Eurussia, officially asks, to strike down this clause, or revise it if necessary as giving the Council the 'premature approval powers' over voluntarily ceded territories as a blatant violation of a nation's sovereignty. As technically speaking, the moment a nation voluntarily gives up its territory to another country, the receiving country automatically possesses the sovereignty of such territories and interference from the Council, in any way, is a breach of the sovereignty and against the Constitution.

Section III.

Art. 10

In case of collapse of the government of the country where the intervention took place, the administration of its territories shall fall upon the Council, which will administer them following the highest standards of transparency and efficiency, in the full respect of the wellness and safety of the inhabitants and the integrity of their properties.


Eurussia, officially asks, to revise this Article with a clear definition of a 'collapsed government' whereas we would also like to add the following provision, which will define a "failed state,"
"The WA Council shall have the temporary power to administer a certain state that will be declared as a failed state, which for the purpose of this law, is a state that has been incapable of carrying out its duties as a state. And a failed state shall be officially proclaimed by the WA Council, upon nominations and recommendations from the WA Secretary General and the Secretary General of the WA authorized organizations present in the country to be declared as a failed state. Whereas, during the exercise of such temporary powers to administer the concerned state, the WA Council must ensure that the said state shall have a duly instituted national constitution forming a full democratic government ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights and freedom of human beings, before being granted back its full sovereignty."
We are hoping that our suggestions will be heard.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Mon May 05, 2014 7:40 am

I can begin to answer from your last point: I will accept your proposed definition of failed state and the amendment proposed to the Article 10. I've already integrated them in the draft.

About the other points:

1) The WA Constitution does not explicitly remove customary international law from the laws accepted by the World Alliance. And an example of how we are following them is very simple to find: every country, included Eurussia, always respected the extraterritoriality of embassies and diplomatic personnel. Well, this is a customary international law, not included in the WA Constitution nor in any other law passed by the Parliament or the Council. Consequently, I believe it's safe to say that the reference to customary international law should be kept as it is.

2) About the Article 2: the problem, once again, is that this law is not meant to regulate the way the Council authorizes international interventions. Indeed, if we start on this, we would soon fall on a very delicate and dangerous ground.

3) About the voluntary cession: even with your explanations, you didn't address the main concern behind that provision, which I've already underlined, namely the risk that a country could give, facing secret pressure or abuses of influence part or the entirety of its territory to a third country.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Kaevi on Mon May 05, 2014 9:00 pm

Just a quick reminder to everyone:
The debate period will be ending very soon so please finish getting your final questions in and consulting with your party (if any) done. I would like everyone to be as informed as possible.

Thanks!
avatar
Kaevi
Powerbroker

Posts : 220
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : Alabama, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Mon May 05, 2014 11:05 pm

Kaevi wrote:Just a quick reminder to everyone:
The debate period will be ending very soon so please finish getting your final questions in and consulting with your party (if any) done. I would like everyone to be as informed as possible.

Thanks!

I deeply appreciate the reminder of the Speaker. Thank you.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Tue May 06, 2014 4:14 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Kaevi wrote:Just a quick reminder to everyone:
The debate period will be ending very soon so please finish getting your final questions in and consulting with your party (if any) done. I would like everyone to be as informed as possible.

Thanks!

Eurussia, as a duly elected Member of Parliament, invokes our rights as a Member State of the WA Parliament to allow an open debate without a deadline as such impedes the proceedings of the debates on this bill. Besides, not everyone lives in the same time zone hence such considerations must be taken, as the Speaker can obviously see that we are actively engaging in crafting a reasonable law for the good of the World Alliance.

I agree with Eurussia, however, the Parliament always followed this procedure in order to avoid excessive prolungations of debates.
I guess we could find a reasonable compromise by asking to the Speaker, eventually, to extend for a determined amount of time the debate period in case of need.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue May 06, 2014 4:30 am

New Tarajan wrote:I can begin to answer from your last point: I will accept your proposed definition of failed state and the amendment proposed to the Article 10. I've already integrated them in the draft.

Thank you.

About the other points:

1) The WA Constitution does not explicitly remove customary international law from the laws accepted by the World Alliance. And an example of how we are following them is very simple to find: every country, included Eurussia, always respected the extraterritoriality of embassies and diplomatic personnel. Well, this is a customary international law, not included in the WA Constitution nor in any other law passed by the Parliament or the Council. Consequently, I believe it's safe to say that the reference to customary international law should be kept as it is.

Unfortunately, the 'customary law' you've cited is indeed has a counterpart in our international laws, and that is the Diplomatic Relations Act. Furthermore, we would just like to remind the author that the Court of Justice relies its judgement on the basis of our passed international laws and not on non-existing and unobserved customary laws or whatever they may be. Hence, our move to amend ARTICLE 5, stays, to define the Law of War.


2) About the Article 2: the problem, once again, is that this law is not meant to regulate the way the Council authorizes international interventions. Indeed, if we start on this, we would soon fall on a very delicate and dangerous ground.


Again, the purpose of our move to amend this article is to clearly provide under this proposal that the sole power for international intervention lies on the hands of the Council alone and must act only upon the request of a sovereign state to avoid violations of ones sovereignty. We believe that there is no problem on this, as it is just a matter of reiteration of existing powers of the WA Council, hence our move to amend ARTICLE 2, clearly saying that the WA Council is the sole authority on international interventions after a publicly addressed request of help from a particular country, stays.

3) About the voluntary cession: even with your explanations, you didn't address the main concern behind that provision, which I've already underlined, namely the risk that a country could give, facing secret pressure or abuses of influence part or the entirety of its territory to a third country.

Lastly, it is not the concerns that matter, as in every crisis, such pressures will always persist. And the very fact that the provision on Article 9 exists, is indeed, a blatant violation of a constitutionally protected right of a sovereign country, in which we believe that wherever court this issue may be challenged, such article will always be deemed illegal under the eyes of the WA Constitution. Hence our move to amend ARTICLE 9 stays, which is to strike down this clause, or revise it if necessary as giving the Council the 'premature approval powers' over voluntarily ceded territories as a blatant violation of a nation's sovereignty. As technically speaking, the moment a nation voluntarily gives up its territory to another country, the receiving country automatically possesses the sovereignty of such territories and interference from the Council, in any way, is a breach of the sovereignty and against the Constitution
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Dromoda on Tue May 06, 2014 4:48 am

i ask parliament to delay the voting period because of this debate.

avatar
Dromoda
Potential World Power

Posts : 783
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 21
Location : Kyongdong,Chengdao, Dromoda

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Tue May 06, 2014 5:09 am

Dromoda wrote:i ask parliament to delay the voting period because of this debate.


I join this request.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Kaevi on Tue May 06, 2014 5:56 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Dromoda wrote:i ask parliament to delay the voting period because of this debate.

I join this request.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia, as a duly elected Member of Parliament, invokes our rights as a Member State of the WA Parliament to allow an open debate without a deadline as such impedes the proceedings of the debates on this bill. Besides, not everyone lives in the same time zone hence such considerations must be taken, as the Speaker can obviously see that we are actively engaging in crafting a reasonable law for the good of the World Alliance.

As the Speaker of Parliament, I agree to an extension to the official debate period. I would like to use this moment to enact a new power I have been considering before this issue arose. This ability will divide debate periods into three-day "terms" and an act will have a total of three terms before the act must go before the parliament for a vote.

Since the constitution is mute regarding any sort of debate period, I feel that as Speaker I may use this ability without going against the constitution. Going back to the debate period term system, a debate term may be renewed by one of two options: three parliament member requests along with approval from the Speaker or seven parliament member requests with approval from the President.

This act is currently on its first debate term, but I have received three parliament member requests to extend the deadline. Since I have witnessed the constructiveness of the parliament and personally believe this act should be further understood before going to a vote, I agree to extend the debate session into its second three-day term. The second term will end on May 9, 2014 at 00:00 GMT.

------------------------------

Petitioners: Great Eurussia, New Tarajan, Dromoda
Speaker: Kaevi

Hereby orders the International Interventions Regulation Act into the second debating term ending on May 9, 2014 at the hour of 00:00 GMT.
avatar
Kaevi
Powerbroker

Posts : 220
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : Alabama, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue May 06, 2014 6:09 am

Kaevi wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Dromoda wrote:i ask parliament to delay the voting period because of this debate.

I join this request.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia, as a duly elected Member of Parliament, invokes our rights as a Member State of the WA Parliament to allow an open debate without a deadline as such impedes the proceedings of the debates on this bill. Besides, not everyone lives in the same time zone hence such considerations must be taken, as the Speaker can obviously see that we are actively engaging in crafting a reasonable law for the good of the World Alliance.

As the Speaker of Parliament, I agree to an extension to the official debate period. I would like to use this moment to enact a new power I have been considering before this issue arose. This ability will divide debate periods into three-day "terms" and an act will have a total of three terms before the act must go before the parliament for a vote.

Since the constitution is mute regarding any sort of debate period, I feel that as Speaker I may use this ability without going against the constitution. Going back to the debate period term system, a debate term may be renewed by one of two options: three parliament member requests along with approval from the Speaker or seven parliament member requests with approval from the President.

This act is currently on its first debate term, but I have received three parliament member requests to extend the deadline. Since I have witnessed the constructiveness of the parliament and personally believe this act should be further understood before going to a vote, I agree to extend the debate session into its second three-day term. The second term will end on May 9, 2014 at 00:00 GMT.

------------------------------

Petitioners: Great Eurussia, New Tarajan, Dromoda
Speaker: Kaevi

Hereby orders the International Interventions Regulation Act into the second debating term ending on May 9, 2014 at the hour of 00:00 GMT.

Thank you. And Eurussia supports this new rule of the Speaker, and its worth commendable due to its democratic principles. We also suggest that if a proposal receives no response from the Members of Parliament nor if the Speaker asks if a certain proposal is not worth debating anymore citing non interest, he may ask for a 24 hour period whereby after that period with no one objecting, a certain proposal should then be dismissed outright.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Kaevi on Tue May 06, 2014 6:15 am

Great Eurussia wrote:Thank you. And Eurussia supports this new rule of the Speaker, and its worth commendable due to its democratic principles. We also suggest that if a proposal receives no response from the Members of Parliament nor if the Speaker asks if a certain proposal is not worth debating anymore citing non interest, he may ask for a 24 hour period whereby after that period with no one objecting, a certain proposal should then be dismissed outright.

As Speaker I agree to these proposals and will follow them in all future proposals and those currently in the debate period. Thank you for your support and suggestions.
avatar
Kaevi
Powerbroker

Posts : 220
Join date : 2014-04-18
Location : Alabama, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue May 06, 2014 6:20 am

Sorry, I obviously made a mistake citing that particular example of customary law.
But let me made another example: the formation and respect of valid treaties and agreements.
Every country in the WA has its own treaties, but our procedures are always standardized: the authorities of two or more States meet, then write an agreement. This is customary international law.
Moreover, the respect of treaties, is simply the expression of the norm "pacta sunt servanda", which is a fundamental principal of customary international law. The same respect for the WA Constitution itself is based on such a principle.
So, my previous answer is still valid: the WA already follows the customary international law.
And, indeed, how it could be possible not to follow it? Customary International Law is the only true framework for international relations as a whole.

But Eurussia's point remains, that the only law the World Alliance recognizes are the laws of the Parliament which are treated as international laws. And however states conduct their business with other states are just a matter of mutual respect and understanding. That is why we are keen to simply define in ARTICLE 5 what is the Law of War and customary international law, as if they are not worthy of being defined, they should just not be mentioned since all nations will have different interpretations of such undefined words in the proposal.


Although I continue to see it as unuseful for the purposes of this law, since I understand that is a point of particular concern for Eurussia, I'm keen to accept it as an amendment. Write the amendment in a way I could implement in the draft, if you wish.


Yes, thank you. We hope to see our amendment in ARTICLE 2.

Again, can you provide me a solution to the problem this particular provision you criticize so strongly wishes to resolve?
Because I don't see here any solution to this serious problem. And I wish to remind that this is the most critical point, here, probably: because the possibility for foreign countries involved in an international intervention to use pressures and abuse their influence on a country where an intervention is taking place seriously flaws the credibility of such an intervention itself.
Moreover, I don't see here any violation of sovereignty, but its protection, from unjustified foreign pressures.

Indeed, the intentions of the Article are worth commendable. But the technically, it is still a violation of sovereignty between two nations giving its territory to the receiving nations. Since it is clearly stated that it is a VOLUNTARY CESSION, the Council should have no power of such cession much more have a 'control over it.' We hope to see ARTICLE 9 be removed.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  New Tarajan on Tue May 06, 2014 6:24 am

But Eurussia's point remains, that the only law the World Alliance recognizes are the laws of the Parliament which are treated as international laws. And however states conduct their business with other states are just a matter of mutual respect and understanding. That is why we are keen to simply define in ARTICLE 5 what is the Law of War and customary international law, as if they are not worthy of being defined, they should just not be mentioned since all nations will have different interpretations of such undefined words in the proposal.

So, are you denying the existence of the laws I mentioned before?

Yes, thank you. We hope to see our amendment in ARTICLE 2.

As I said, please, write the amendment as you've done for Article 10. This way we would be sure everything is correct, avoiding repetitions.

Indeed, the intentions of the Article are worth commendable. But the technically, it is still a violation of sovereignty between two nations giving its territory to the receiving nations. Since it is clearly stated that it is a VOLUNTARY CESSION, the Council should have no power of such cession much more have a 'control over it.' We hope to see ARTICLE 9 be removed.

Well, if this is your point, the solution is simple: scrapping out the word "voluntary". You have said you find the goal of the Article commendable, so there's no reason to scrap it in its entirety, if we can resolve the issue very simply.
avatar
New Tarajan
Recognized Power

Posts : 1340
Join date : 2013-06-23
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum