(Rejected) International Interventions Regulation Act

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.