The Nations Game - International Council of Nations thread

[DeletedUser14]

I was already working on it
I chose the Saheli Islamic Republic to host the ICC because it seems pretty stable

Resolution #7

The International Council of Nations,

CONSIDERING that many crimes are committed against humanity;

AWARE that these crimes may cross borders;

CONSCIOUS that this may generate conflict of jurisdiction;

ESTABLISHES the International Criminal Court, hereafter refered to as the ICC;

APPOINTS the city of Dakar in the Saheli Islamic Republic to be the residence of the ICC;

DECIDES that the ICC may pass verdict on individuals who carry responsibility for following crimes:
a) genocide
b) torture
c) systematic rape
d) systematic murder
e) the use of children who have not reached the age of 16 years as soldiers in an armed conflict
f) the use of chemical or biological weapons
g) denying the civilian population available essential supplies or life-saving care
h) the use of unreasonable force against an unarmed population in times of conflict if:
I) such force is not used by civilian law enforcement personell or
II) such force is used systemically to opress the population

DECIDES that the ICC may pass verdict on individuals on crimes which later resolutions appoint;

AFFIRMS the 'nulla poena sine lege' doctrine, meaning that such resolutions must be passed before the crime is committed;

SETS the number of judges for the ICC at one for each member state of the ICN;

SETS the number of judges presiding each case at three;

DECIDES that the ICC may prosecute at own will, if sufficient evidence exists that the subjects have committed the crimes described in this resolution and the subject is alive;

SETS the maximum penalty to be life in jail, to be served in any member state of the ICN, by default the country of origin of the subject at trial or, in case of refusal, the Saheli Islamic Republic;

NOTES that it is up to the state in which the subject resides to decide to arrest the subject and extradite the subject to the ICC;

[APDAF]

the use of children who have not reached the age of 16 years as soldiers

Does training them count?

As we have a rather "hush hush" training programme for special and gifted children akin to the Spartan training regime.

[ArthurVLD]

Bootcamp is not the same as using children in a war. But you are making a good point. It is not clearly stated.

[DeletedUser14]

I'll adapt it

[YNM]

Children under 16 may participate here under their own - and their parents - risk - mostly of them already can handle guns.

And about choosing Saheli as place of ICJ, The only unstabilized is riots and demo from the islamic liberalist... can be solved anyway.

And, are there any chart about airspace ? If no, could someonemake it ?

[APDAF]

Even then do live combat trials count?

[DeletedUser14]

no

[Voyager One]

Kiran amendment (once again )...

There's nothing about this court for settling "peace-time" disputes - i.e. our accusations against John Major, former British PM.

We feel that this court shoul have the mandate to settle these things too.

[DeletedUser14]

Modified resolution #4, up for vote now. Resolution 5 passed (5-1-0)

The International Council of Nations,

CONSCIOUS of the fact that few countries currently posess nuclear weapons;

REALISING that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could pose a threat to global stability and security;

DEFINES nuclear weapons as:
a) shells, missiles, bombs or other munitions which purpose is to initiate a nuclear chain reaction of any kind when detonated or otherwise activated on earth or in space;
b) radioactive materials or any objects containing radioactive material which do not initiate a nuclear chain reaction but which purpose is to distribute radiation to cause physical harm;

ACKNOWLEDGING that under custom law nations who currently posess nuclear weapons retain the right to maintain their arsenals;

PROHIBITS countries not currently in posession of nuclear weapons to plan development or acquisition, to develop and to acquire weapons of this nature;

STRONGLY URGES nations who posess nuclear weapons to increase the security of storage facilities and;

STRONGLY URGES nations who posess nuclear weapons to decrease the amount of nuclear warheads.

Kiran amendment (once again )...

There's nothing about this court for settling "peace-time" disputes - i.e. our accusations against John Major, former British PM.

We feel that this court shoul have the mandate to settle these things too.

An armed conflict can be present in peace time, it's not necessarily a war..

[Voyager One]

An armed conflict can be present in peace time, it's not necessarily a war..

What we mean is that this court should also be able to settle international economic and similar disputes too.

I.e.
- patent and copyright violations
- international agreements' violations
- border disputes
- water use disputes (i.e. river use)
etc.

[YNM]

A proposal for Resolution #8

The International Council of Nations,

CONSIDERING that aircraft and flying objects is being common;

CONSCIOUS that flights may take this everywhere;

DEFINES airspace as :
a) a room above the terrain of certain land or sea
b) limit a nations airspace to it's border and territorial zone (12 miles)
c) limit the height to ...... (to be discussed together, defined in ft) above a nations land territory and/or territorial waters
d) occasionally, one or more nations may take control of airspace over another nations, only due to technological or geographical limitations
e) all aircraft enter or leave the airspace of a certain nations must have permissions from the nations air institution
f) in case of no nations own the airspace, the nearest controller may guide the aircraft

DEFINES special designations for airspace (basic only):
a) Prohibited area : aircraft may enter or leave with another special permissions over the basic permission with the owner of the area
b) Danger area : an area designated to increase safety of the flights, by means of an obstruction inside area that may be harmful
c) No-fly zone : an area similiar to Danger area, but no civil aircraft may enter, even with permission to enter Prohibited area

RECOGNIZE that a nations airspace is under the nations sovereignty;

DECIDES that regulations may further explained and defined by a nations air institution;

Note ; this is just a proposal, it may be modified before take into vote

[Ark Royal]

England Would like to join.

For Resolution #8, I would suggest a height of 20 KM, which is 60,000 ft, as this is the edge of the troposphere, and high enough for most civilian airliners.
I would also suggest that military aircraft must fly above 150,000 ft when in another nations territorial airspace, to prevent medium altitude surveillance.
Also, There ought to be some way in which split-up nations can fly from one half to the other without getting permission from others - E.G. English military aircraft should be allowed to fly from Libya to South Africa without permission from Penguin republic of Zambezi and Congo, GB, and the S.I.Republic

[DeletedUser14]

In my opinion it is a rather poorly written resolution (no offense), you define things then you set rules within the definition.. can you improve on that?

@Ark Royal aircraft cannot fly at such altitudes, here's a few examples on maximum altitudes military aircraft can fly at:
Rafale: 16,800 m (55,000 ft)
F/A 18: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
C-5 Galaxy: 10,600 m (35,700 ft)

[Voyager One]

Also, There ought to be some way in which split-up nations can fly from one half to the other without getting permission from others - E.G. English military aircraft should be allowed to fly from Libya to South Africa without permission from Penguin republic of Zambezi and Congo, GB, and the S.I.Republic

There is a way - ask for fly-trough permission.

[Ark Royal]

What I mean is I should be able to fly MY aircraft from MY country to MY country without anyone's permission, so I am suggesting that a clause is added to the treaty thingy saying that people have a right to fly to their own territory from other bits of their terratory. or amend Defines airspace part e
Also, @KasperVLD that was exactly my point - military aircraft should not be allowed to fly over each others terratory below a certain height (exept my point above). I was thinking more of the US high altitude spy planes (in real life), and did not realise that no-one has yet invented them.

[FLHerne]

people have a right to fly to their own territory from other bits of their terratory

If you fly around over the Atlantic, you can without any problems. If you wish to fly over the PRZC, you will need to ask the Republic Aviation Authority nicely...

[Pilot]

saying that people have a right to fly to their own territory from other bits of their terratory.

Want the Right, ask the FAA very, very Nicely.

[Ark Royal]

If you fly around over the Atlantic, you can without any problems.

How am I supposed to get to the atlantic. I cant fly over Britain. I cant fly through the straight of Gibralter because they are only 7 miles wide in places, so are terratorial land of Britain. I have to go over Britain to get to the Atlantic. I only want a right to fly my planes out of Libya without having to get full diplomatic clearence for a military flight. I am perfectly happy to use the usual ATC method for civilian flights.

Also, We need to declare channels between national airspace to be wider, because 1NM is not wide enough for 2 planes with a wingspan of approx 100m to pass at night.

[Pilot]

If you ask the FAA you may fly in a certain, dedicated corridor over our Territory. Also, 1nm is enough room for 2 planes with 100m wingspans to pass at night, we have F/A-18's passing each other at Mach 2 around 2m apart at night! Also in Air Corridors, 1nm is wide enough! Don't forget they are normally split so that certain altitudes are one way, and there are others for the opposite direction.

[DeletedUser14]

What I mean is I should be able to fly MY aircraft from MY country to MY country without anyone's permission, so I am suggesting that a clause is added to the treaty thingy saying that people have a right to fly to their own territory from other bits of their terratory. or amend Defines airspace part e
Also, @KasperVLD that was exactly my point - military aircraft should not be allowed to fly over each others terratory below a certain height (exept my point above). I was thinking more of the US high altitude spy planes (in real life), and did not realise that no-one has yet invented them.

We fly U-2s and the SR-71. Even the U-2 doesnt fly much higher than 20.000m