(Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue May 06, 2014 1:00 pm

New Tarajan wrote:So, are you denying the existence of the laws I mentioned before?

Huh? Just define what is the Law of War and customary international law being mention in Article 5 of the proposal, since we believe that since you used the words, you have the perfect definition of those words.

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.

Oh! Okay! Here, for Article 2, "For the purpose of this international law, an international intervention is 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 another country or a group of countries, that publicly and openly seek the aid of the WA Council, for the sole purpose of bringing good to the country or group of countries seeking the aid of the WA Council."


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.

Even if the word "voluntary" is removed, the implications are all the same. The impact of Article 9 remains a violation of a nation's constitutionally protected right.
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 Tue May 06, 2014 9:38 pm

Definitions:

Law of War: better defined as jus ad bellum and jus in bello, it is that branch of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct, respectively.
As you can easily see here, in the World Alliance we both use the Law of War, when a country does not attack unarmed civilians or when the International Community protests in the case such an event occurs. Or when prisoners of war are not killed (or, in case they're killed, with all the protests of the case).
I could make many other examples.

Customary International Law: or jus gentium, it is the whole set of unwritten norms which the countries follow while conducting their international relations. These norms are the result of the behavior of the States in a long time, assumed under the statements "diuturnitas" and "opinion iuris ac necessitatis", which means that, when a group of countries follow a specific unwritten rule with the consciousness that it's necessary and juridically valid in their relations (for juridically valid, I mean that violation of that norm is punishable), in that case we have a norm of customary international law.
The Law of War itself is a kind of customary law. While other examples could be the already-made examples of pacta sunt servanda. I could make more of them.

Thank you for providing the definition. But the way it is defined still doesn't make it a clear reference of the very terms themselves. Also, we have note that Article 5 implies its provision to all foreign and civilian units in which on our understanding affects all nations which is already a violation of a country's sovereignty and state independence. And for the sake of resolving this impasse, we are keen to propose a better alternative provision,
"During a Council intervention, all units from the voluntarily participating countries aiding the Council intervention shall act in full accordance with the WA Constitution, existing international laws, and the objectives of the Council intervention itself."
We are also seeking your definition of the "fundamental humanitarian principles."

I've implemented the amendment proposed.

Thank you and we appreciate it.

Sorry but, the goal of this Article is to protect national sovereignty, not to harm it. We cannot allow a State to force another one to cede part of its territory, because this would be exactly what this law is against. This is the true protection of a nation's constitutionally protected right, and I cannot see how the removal of such article should help a weak country to have this right protected, since it would make it impossible.

Again, as we always say, that the purpose of Article 9 is worth commendable, however, the primary duty of the WA Council under this proposal is for the regulated and controllef action of the international community on Council interventions. 
But, it is a different story when cessession is involved as it deals with sovereignty issues. It is very clear on your Article that when a nation gives up its territory to another country, the Council should have a say on the matter, which on its own blatantly denies and impacts the very sovereignty of the nation receiving the territory.
Lastly, this Article, the way you define it, is already far from this proposed law's objectives which is to intervene for the good of the country requesting for intervention and protect from nations trying to undermine the coordinated Council intervention. That is the true protection the Council can best give to a country to protect its rights. AND NOT giving the Council an authority on territorial concerns in the very first place it can never have, such as cession which is what we are debating about.
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 10:26 pm

Thank you for providing the definition. But the way it is defined still doesn't make it a clear reference of the very terms themselves. Also, we have note that Article 5 implies its provision to all foreign and civilian units in which on our understanding affects all nations which is already a violation of a country's sovereignty and state independence. And for the sake of resolving this impasse, we are keen to propose a better alternative provision,

"During a Council intervention, all units from the voluntarily participating countries aiding the Council intervention shall act in full accordance with the WA Constitution, existing international laws, and the objectives of the Council intervention itself."

We are also seeking your definition of the "fundamental humanitarian principles."

We wish to underline that the fact itself that a supranational Council can authorize foreign interventions in a country is a violation of national sovereignty.
By the way, the amendment is accepted.

Again, as we always say, that the purpose of Article 9 is worth commendable, however, the primary duty of the WA Council under this proposal is for the regulated and controllef action of the international community on Council interventions.

But, it is a different story when cessession is involved as it deals with sovereignty issues. It is very clear on your Article that when a nation gives up its territory to another country, the Council should have a say on the matter, which on its own blatantly denies and impacts the very sovereignty of the nation receiving the territory.

Lastly, this Article, the way you define it, is already far from this proposed law's objectives which is to intervene for the good of the country requesting for intervention and protect from nations trying to undermine the coordinated Council intervention. That is the true protection the Council can best give to a country to protect its rights. AND NOT giving the Council an authority on territorial concerns in the very first place it can never have, such as cession which is what we are debating about.

And, again, on our side we would like to see the Eurussian government to propose a constructive solution to what is a real problem, which the Article 9, even with its imperfections, is aimed to resolve.
If the Eurussian government is keen to propose a good solution, a compromise, we would be very glad to accept it as an amendment to the Article 9 as it is written now. Otherwise, the entire discussion would become simply a defense of imperialistic interests in front of this Parliament, which, we are sure, is far from the real intentions of Eurussia itself.

Also, reading once again the previous amendment proposed by Eurussia on Article 5, I noticed right now a serious problem, where it says "against another country or a group of countries, that publicly and openly seek the aid of the WA Council, for the sole purpose of bringing good to the country or group of countries seeking the aid of the WA Council."
This is a non-sense, since it would imply that the Council shall authorize actions AGAINST countries which would seek the intervention. Moreover, I'll correct it deleting the last part of this statement, since many times the Council intervened against countries which do not request aid, but violated international law.
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 Wed May 07, 2014 11:21 pm

And, again, on our side we would like to see the Eurussian government to propose a constructive solution to what is a real problem, which the Article 9, even with its imperfections, is aimed to resolve.
If the Eurussian government is keen to propose a good solution, a compromise, we would be very glad to accept it as an amendment to the Article 9 as it is written now. Otherwise, the entire discussion would become simply a defense of imperialistic interests in front of this Parliament, which, we are sure, is far from the real intentions of Eurussia itself.

Also, reading once again the previous amendment proposed by Eurussia on Article 5, I noticed right now a serious problem, where it says "against another country or a group of countries, that publicly and openly seek the aid of the WA Council, for the sole purpose of bringing good to the country or group of countries seeking the aid of the WA Council."
This is a non-sense, since it would imply that the Council shall authorize actions AGAINST countries which would seek the intervention. Moreover, I'll correct it deleting the last part of this statement, since many times the Council intervened against countries which do not request aid, but violated international law.

Eurussia formally challenges the author of this proposal, New Tarajan, to defend before this Parliament, that ARTICLE 9, does in no way violates the sovereignty of the nation giving up its territories and the nation receiving the said territories. This way, all Members of Parliament can witness who is right from wrong. And finally resolve this impasse as we continue to request for the removal of ARTICLE 9 due to its sovereignty violations.

Furthermore, Eurussia condemns the covert moves of the author to revise the previously agreed amendments on the proposed law. Specifically for ARTICLE 2!
Eurussian accepted version
"For the purpose of this international law, an international intervention is 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 another country or a group of countries, that publicly and openly seek the aid of the WA Council, for the sole purpose of bringing good to the country or group of countries seeking the aid of the WA Council."

New Tarajan's adopted version
"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."

Moreover, the same goes for ARTICLE 5!

Eurussian accepted version
"During a Council intervention, all units from the voluntarily participating countries aiding the Council intervention shall act in full accordance with the WA Constitution, existing international laws, and the objectives of the Council intervention itself."

New Tarajan's adopted version
"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."

Eurussia finds these actions, as subversion and very unprofessional.
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 Thu May 08, 2014 12:49 am

We have already explained our actions toward the revisal of Article 2, although it seems Eurussia did not pay sufficient attention to it.

Moreover, about Article 5, the adjustments I operated where exclusively for a matter of form and correctness: indeed, the amendments proposed by Eurussia itself talk about international and WA Council interventions, thus creating two distinct forms of interventions, which I simply recalled in the Article in order to avoid holes in the legislation. I found this extremely professional, rather than unprofessional. As the author of this law, it is my duty, and my right, to check the amendments too and eventually correct them when necessary, as it is a right of the amendment proposer to refuse the result of this process.

About Article 9, our position is so clear, and we have explained it so many times, that we are surprised to see that the Eurussia government, instead answering to our question, simply decided to pose us another one. We are forced to believe that this behavior means that there is no answer to our question and that, consequently, Article 9 is good as it is.
We kindly ask to Eurussia to avoid to use such trivial provokations in order to continue to slow the legislative process.

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  Kaevi on Thu May 08, 2014 5:59 am

I have mixed thought over said Article 9. The wording seems to conflict itself slightly.

New Tarajan wrote: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.

The article sounds fine up until that point. I would really just like to know what exactly this part means as it almost sounds to me as if a nation's government must be completely dissolved for a land transfer to take place. Note that I'm not trying to be critical, I would just appreciate an explanation of what the underlined means. The constitution simply states the council has executive power and an action such as this (minus the questionable underlined portion) definitely sounds like a matter the council could constitutionally handle based an Article VI of the constitution.

The changes to Article 5 of Section II and Article 2 of Section I seemed well thought out and positively impacted the act as a whole. While New Tarajan could have notified the parliament of the changes, it is ultimately the responsibility of each parliament member to fully examine a proposal before voting. Finally, as the proposer, New Tarajan has the right to make any changes necessary to his/her proposal and is not required to adopt an amendment in full as the proposal is under the control of New Tarajan until the act becomes law.

I am enjoying the parliament's work ethic and would like to remind everyone that the second debate term is roughly halfway elapsed.
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 Thu May 08, 2014 7:58 am

Kaevi wrote:I have mixed thought over said Article 9. The wording seems to conflict itself slightly.

New Tarajan wrote: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.

The article sounds fine up until that point. I would really just like to know what exactly this part means as it almost sounds to me as if a nation's government must be completely dissolved for a land transfer to take place. Note that I'm not trying to be critical, I would just appreciate an explanation of what the underlined means. The constitution simply states the council has executive power and an action such as this (minus the questionable underlined portion) definitely sounds like a matter the council could constitutionally handle based an Article VI of the constitution.

The changes to Article 5 of Section II and Article 2 of Section I seemed well thought out and positively impacted the act as a whole. While New Tarajan could have notified the parliament of the changes, it is ultimately the responsibility of each parliament member to fully examine a proposal before voting. Finally, as the proposer, New Tarajan has the right to make any changes necessary to his/her proposal and is not required to adopt an amendment in full as the proposal is under the control of New Tarajan until the act becomes law.

I am enjoying the parliament's work ethic and would like to remind everyone that the second debate term is roughly halfway elapsed.

First of all, we wish to thank the Speaker for the kind words on the ethic of this Parliament's work.
Then, we would be very glad to provide the required explanations to the Speaker.
This Article was designed in order to provide a solution to the following situation: during or after an international intervention, the country where the intervention took place is "pushed" by one or more countries involved in the intervention to cede part of its territory to them.
Why such a thing should happen? Simply because it's far more easy to hide imperialistic goals under the mask of the "voluntary cession" of territories. Also, thanks to the provisions of Article 9, we wish to close preemptively any "space of maneuvrer" of imperialistic States which too often take advantage of international interventions for their purposes.
So, coming to the core of the question, what does it mean the underlined statement? It means simply that the Council will check that behind the apparence of the cession there is not an abuse of influence, or a pressure (diplomatic or military). It's a sort of "checkpoint", with the specific goal to protect the integrity of the country where the intervention takes place and its national sovereignty.
We hope to have resolved the doubts of the Speaker.
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 Thu May 08, 2014 10:37 am

New Tarajan wrote:First of all, we wish to thank the Speaker for the kind words on the ethic of this Parliament's work.
Then, we would be very glad to provide the required explanations to the Speaker.
This Article was designed in order to provide a solution to the following situation: during or after an international intervention, the country where the intervention took place is "pushed" by one or more countries involved in the intervention to cede part of its territory to them.
Why such a thing should happen? Simply because it's far more easy to hide imperialistic goals under the mask of the "voluntary cession" of territories. Also, thanks to the provisions of Article 9, we wish to close preemptively any "space of maneuver" of imperialistic States which too often take advantage of international interventions for their purposes.
So, coming to the core of the question, what does it mean the underlined statement? It means simply that the Council will check that behind the appearance of the cession there is not an abuse of influence, or a pressure (diplomatic or military). It's a sort of "checkpoint", with the specific goal to protect the integrity of the country where the intervention takes place and its national sovereignty.
We hope to have resolved the doubts of the Speaker.

Thank you for you the detailed explanation of Article 9 and describing the way this act helps to curb corruption during international interventions. I believe that that I now have a clear picture of what this act is capable of.
avatar
Kaevi
Powerbroker

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

Back to top Go down

Final Vote

Post  Kaevi on Fri May 09, 2014 9:06 am

The second debate term has expired without a valid petition to renew before the expiration time and the voting period will now begin. It shall end at 00:00 GMT on May 12, 2014. All parliament members are encouraged to voice their final vote of either agree, abstain, or against within the three day voting period.
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  Ireland on Fri May 09, 2014 9:12 am

We vote against
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  Kaevi on Fri May 09, 2014 9:28 am

AGREE
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  Ireland on Fri May 09, 2014 9:54 am

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?
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  Zackalantis on Fri May 09, 2014 3:00 pm

UKZ ABSTAINS
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 Fri May 09, 2014 6:43 pm

New Tarajan wrote:We have already explained our actions toward the revisal of Article 2, although it seems Eurussia did not pay sufficient attention to it.

Moreover, about Article 5, the adjustments I operated where exclusively for a matter of form and correctness: indeed, the amendments proposed by Eurussia itself talk about international and WA Council interventions, thus creating two distinct forms of interventions, which I simply recalled in the Article in order to avoid holes in the legislation. I found this extremely professional, rather than unprofessional. As the author of this law, it is my duty, and my right, to check the amendments too and eventually correct them when necessary, as it is a right of the amendment proposer to refuse the result of this process.

About Article 9, our position is so clear, and we have explained it so many times, that we are surprised to see that the Eurussia government, instead answering to our question, simply decided to pose us another one. We are forced to believe that this behavior means that there is no answer to our question and that, consequently, Article 9 is good as it is.
We kindly ask to Eurussia to avoid to use such trivial provokations in order to continue to slow the legislative process.

Thank you.

Although we had no time to rebut on this matter, we welcome the explanations.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

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

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Vote

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri May 09, 2014 6:46 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 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.

With the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of this law seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.

We are even ready to challenge this law before the Court of Justice.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 7:51 pm

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.
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  Texania on Fri May 09, 2014 8:38 pm

Against
avatar
Texania
Potential World Power

Posts : 641
Join date : 2013-07-25

Back to top Go down

Re: (Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri May 09, 2014 10:00 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Again, Eurussia never said we don't like the proposal. In fact, we even moved to extend the period of debates to allow us to work harder to craft a law that is in line with the Constitution that resulted to the massive amendments of the original version. Unfortunately, with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of ARTICLE 9 seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:10 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Again, Eurussia never said we don't like the proposal. In fact, we even moved to extend the period of debates to allow us to work harder to craft a law that is in line with the Constitution that resulted to the massive amendments of the original version. Unfortunately, with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of ARTICLE 9 seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the true significance and value of Article 9 as protector of national sovereignty and integrity, against any kind of imperialistic adventure or influence. The question is now in the hands of the Parliament.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:14 pm

Spoiler:

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Again, Eurussia never said we don't like the proposal. In fact, we even moved to extend the period of debates to allow us to work harder to craft a law that is in line with the Constitution that resulted to the massive amendments of the original version. Unfortunately, with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of ARTICLE 9 seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the true significance and value of Article 9 as protector of national sovereignty and integrity, against any kind of imperialistic adventure or influence. The question is now in the hands of the Parliament.

Yeah, the Article 9 illegally empowers the WA Council to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of a country, at the expense of another nation's sovereignty. Plain and simple. And still, a clear and obvious violation of the WA Constitution, in all angles.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:36 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Spoiler:

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Again, Eurussia never said we don't like the proposal. In fact, we even moved to extend the period of debates to allow us to work harder to craft a law that is in line with the Constitution that resulted to the massive amendments of the original version. Unfortunately, with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of ARTICLE 9 seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the true significance and value of Article 9 as protector of national sovereignty and integrity, against any kind of imperialistic adventure or influence. The question is now in the hands of the Parliament.

Yeah, the Article 9 illegally empowers the WA Council to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of a country, at the expense of another nation's sovereignty. Plain and simple. And still, a clear and obvious violation of the WA Constitution, in all angles.

I already proved that the only violation of national sovereignty is the possibility, for imperialistic countries, to abuse of their influence and pressure on war-thorn countries in order to obtain territories. There's no need for further discussion.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:39 pm

Spoiler:

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Spoiler:

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:We vote against
wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.


So said, New Tarajan votes IN FAVOUR.

Again, Eurussia never said we don't like the proposal. In fact, we even moved to extend the period of debates to allow us to work harder to craft a law that is in line with the Constitution that resulted to the massive amendments of the original version. Unfortunately, with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of ARTICLE 9 seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the true significance and value of Article 9 as protector of national sovereignty and integrity, against any kind of imperialistic adventure or influence. The question is now in the hands of the Parliament.

Yeah, the Article 9 illegally empowers the WA Council to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of a country, at the expense of another nation's sovereignty. Plain and simple. And still, a clear and obvious violation of the WA Constitution, in all angles.

I already proved that the only violation of national sovereignty is the possibility, for imperialistic countries, to abuse of their influence and pressure on war-thorn countries in order to obtain territories. There's no need for further discussion.

Eurussia thanks the author for admitting that there is indeed a violation of sovereignty.
This will strengthen our case when we challenge the law before the Court of Justice.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:42 pm

Eurussia thanks the author for admitting that there is indeed a violation of sovereignty.
This will strengthen our case when we challenge the law before the Court of Justice.

We ask to Eurussia not to joke and to be respectful, since our words were IN FAVOUR of the Article. Read them more carefully, please, or maybe we should be obliged to illustrate it to the Eurussian government once again, which would be a clear waste of time.
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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:43 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
Eurussia thanks the author for admitting that there is indeed a violation of sovereignty.
This will strengthen our case when we challenge the law before the Court of Justice.

We ask to Eurussia not to joke and to be respectful, since our words were IN FAVOUR of the Article. Read them more carefully, please, or maybe we should be obliged to illustrate it to the Eurussian government once again.

Thank you. Your admission strengthened our resolve to vote 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 Fri May 09, 2014 10:46 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
Eurussia thanks the author for admitting that there is indeed a violation of sovereignty.
This will strengthen our case when we challenge the law before the Court of Justice.

We ask to Eurussia not to joke and to be respectful, since our words were IN FAVOUR of the Article. Read them more carefully, please, or maybe we should be obliged to illustrate it to the Eurussian government once again.

Thank you. Your admission strengthened our resolve to vote AGAINST.

Admission that the Article 9 is in favour of the victims, yes. In this case, we are forced to believe Eurussia is trying to protect imperialist countries for their own interests. 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  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  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