The Nations Game - International Council of Nations thread

[DeletedUser14]

The Dutch Empire sues the Lau government at the World Trade Court, regarding the boycott of GOD Inc and the subsequent abandonment of the transeurasian maglev line.


We believe that the Lau Democratic Republic has broken international law when they enforced an unannounced and unmotivated boycott on GOD Inc. which is currently involved in a massive project with Lau companies building the trans-Eurasian maglev line. Due to these irrational measures GOD Inc is facing approximatly 56 billion dollars in damages, which is down to hired labor, construction and development costs, building costs and more. The Dutch state is now responsible for covering these losses. We demand that the Lau government pay for this damage immediatly.

The Dutch government is claiming a further 150 billion dollars for loss of economic growth and refunds of grants given to the project. This brings the total claim to $206 billion.

The first step in our argumentation is that the Lau government has broken a treaty which was signed for the construction of this maglev line. Under the Pacta sunt servanda principal which is outlined in, for example, the Vienna convention on the law of treaties: Noting that the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognised.

The treaty signed by the Lau government, the Dutch government, GOD Inc and Siemens (largest partners) made the governments responsible for the costs of the development of technology, the construction of the tracks etcetera. Now that the Lau D.R. has boycotted GOD Inc the Dutch government has become responsible for the costs that GOD Inc has already made. The Lau D.R. has - in our opinion - no reason to boycott the company and should therefore be held responsible for these costs.

The same applies to the loss of economic growth predicted by the construction of this line, which was estimated at $150 billion over the lifespan of the line. We claim these costs as well.

[Voyager One]

Again, regarding the Res #18, let's post our votes to "eliminate" those who don't actually play the game.

Kira voted "Nay".

[DeletedUser14]

White vote

[Pilot]

Nay

[Last_Ninja_Monk]

any reasons?

@Uk: We also stated that if you were fined, it goes on GPA, so you'd pay the same as everyone else in retrospect.

[Voyager One]

We feel that clean and cleaning technologies are still too expensive to be implemented. Not that we do not agree on problems regarding pollution but other issues like development of poor areas and extermination of poverty or starvation must be a more important priority that cannot be achieved without some sacrifices.

[DeletedUser14]

Proposal for resolution 19: formalisation of the diplomacy amongst nations

AFFIRMING that diplomacy and diplomatic relations are one of the most important parts of international relations;

CONCLUDING that no present resolution exists to formalise these international relations;

The International Council of Nations,

AGREES the following:


Article 1 definitions
For the purpose of this treaty is defined:

1. diplomatic post as any embassy, consulate-general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency and the land thereto irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the diplomatic post;
2. diplomatic district as the area assigned to a diplomatic post for the exercise of diplomatic functions;
3. head of diplomatic post as the person charged with the duty of acting in that capacity;
4. diplomatic officer as any person, including the head of a diplomatic post, entrusted in that capacity with the exercise of diplomatic functions;
5. diplomatic employee as any person employed in the administrative or technical service of a diplomatic post;
6. diplomatic archives as all the papers, documents, correspondence, books, films, tapes and registers of the diplomatic post, together with the ciphers and codes and any article of furniture intended for their protection or safe keeping.

Article 2 Establishment and severance of diplomatic relations

1. The establishment of diplomatic relations between States takes place by mutual consent.
2. The severance of diplomatic relations shall not ipso facto involve the defeasance of diplomatic posts.

Article 3 Establishment of a diplomatic post

1. A diplomatic post may be established in the territory of the receiving State only with that State’s consent.
2. The seat of the diplomatic post, its classification and the diplomatic district shall be established by the sending State and shall be subject to the approval of the receiving State.
3. Subsequent changes in the seat of the diplomatic post, its classification or the diplomatic district may be made by the sending State only with the consent of the receiving State.
4. The sending State may, after notifying the States concerned, entrust a diplomatic post established in a particular State with the exercise of diplomatic functions in another State, unless there is express objection by one of the States concerned.
5. Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a diplomatic post of the sending State may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise diplomatic functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third State.

Article 4 Appointment of diplomatic officers
Diplomatic officers are appointed by the sending State and are admitted to the exercise of their functions by the receiving State.

Article 5 Personal inviolability of diplomatic officers

1. Diplomatic officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, diplomatic officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
3. Diplomatic officers and diplomatic employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of diplomatic functions.
4. The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the diplomatic post, any of the privileges and immunities provided for in paragraphs 1-3.

Article 6 Persons declared “non grata”

1. The receiving State may at any time notify the sending State that a diplomatic officer is persona non grata or that any other member of the diplomatic staff is not acceptable. In that event, the sending State shall, as the case may be, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the diplomatic post.
2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may, as the case may be, either withdraw the diplomatic immunity from the person concerned or cease to consider him as a member of the diplomatic staff.
3. In the cases mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for its decision.

Article 7 Termination of the functions of a member of a diplomatic post
The functions of a member of a diplomatic post shall come to an end, inter alia:

1. on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his functions have come to an end;
2. on withdrawal of the diplomatic immunity, or declaration of a persona non grata;
3. on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the receiving State has ceased to consider him as a member of the diplomatic staff.

Article 8 Protection of diplomatic posts and archives and of the interests of the sending State in exceptional circumstances

1. In the event of the severance of diplomatic relations between two States:
   1. the receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the diplomatic posts, together with the property of the diplomatic post and the diplomatic archives;
   2. the sending State may entrust the custody of the diplomatic posts, together with the property contained therein and the diplomatic archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;
   3. the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.
2. In the event of the temporary or permanent closure of a diplomatic post, the provisions of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. In addition,
   1. if the sending State has another diplomatic post in the territory of that State, that diplomatic post may be entrusted with the custody of the premises of the diplomatic post which has been closed, together with the property contained therein and the diplomatic archives, and, with the consent of the receiving State, with the exercise of diplomatic functions in the district of that diplomatic post; or
   2. if the sending State has no other diplomatic post in the receiving State, the provisions of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply.

Article 9 Inviolability of the diplomatic posts and archives

1. Diplomatic posts shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article.
2. The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the diplomatic posts which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the diplomatic post except with the consent of the head of the diplomatic post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the diplomatic post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the diplomatic posts against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the diplomatic post or impairment of its dignity.
4. The diplomatic posts, their furnishings, the property of the diplomatic post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility.
5. The diplomatic archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be.

[Jacko]

Our nation representative (assuming a new country will cause a meeting here) is in desperate need of a chopper, as we cannot find enough fuel for our only one
unless we hold the meeting here, but your going to need some goggles, as it gets quite sandy

[DeletedUser14]

The Dutch Empire will send it's VIP Airbus A380 to the Corsh Empire to pick up the representative. He will meet a Dutch delegation on the flight to the ICN headquarters in Rotterdam. We happily invite the Corsh Empire to join the ICN.

[Jacko]

Thats great
All we need now is a runway....
'I will go send the sweepers out to clear a patch of concrete....'

[DeletedUser14]

If no suitable runway can be prepared at this moment we can pick up the representative by armoured car and drive him to the nearest major airport (either in Wildebeestia or Aternia, whichever is preferred). The car is stored in the aircraft so it's not a lot of trouble

[Jacko]

No worries its been sorted now
I do hope you have enough fuel though, we have very few sources of Petrol/Diesel ETC as it is very expensive
most of our stuff is wind powered

[Last_Ninja_Monk]

Aternian Africa only has military airbases. No commercial air bases.

[Voyager One]

Kira Airlines sues Boeing for damages in front of the World Trade Court

Kira Airlines has filed a lawsuit against Boeing for damages caused by the 737 crash near Jerusalem. The damages include a lost aircraft ($50 million), damages to victims' families ($216 million), financial damages due to grounding of the whole Boeing fleet of Kira Airlines ($183 million) and image damages ($650 million), for a total of $1,099 billion!

Evidences:
1. Service logs of the crashed 737 showing that only official Boeing part were used in services and maintenance and only authorized personell has been performing these services and maintenances, this personell trained by Boeing itself;
2. Testimonies of maintenance personell;
3. Crash investigation report showing that the cause of the crash was a faulty bearing in engine #1 turbine that has caused the turbine to explode and its blades to become shrapnels piercing vital pipelines and wirings in the left wing, eventually leading to the fire and complete loss of avionics;
4. Service logs of the crashed 737 showing the exact serial number of the bearing in question and tracing the bearing to a Boeing factory in Aternia with the bearings testing documents showing "PASSED ALL TESTS";
5. "Black box" recordings showing telemetry data regarding the engine #1 explosion;
6. Victims' families demand for compensation;
7. Estimated losses due to inoperability of grounded aircraft;
8. Estimated future losses due to image damages;

Kira Airlines reserves the right to enter further evidences if they will be required by this proceeding.

Therefore, we request from the Court to assign Kira Airlines damages as requested.

[Voyager One]

The Dutch Empire sues the Lau government at the World Trade Court, regarding the boycott of GOD Inc and the subsequent abandonment of the transeurasian maglev line.

The World Trade Court brings a ruling on the matter between the Dutch Empire and the Lau Government.

"We, the World Trade Court, rule in favor of the plaintiff, the Dutch Empire, and sentence the defendant, the Lau Government, to pay restitutions in the ammount of $206 billion plus interests of 14% annual from the date of this ruling until the date of disbursement. The Lau Government will also pay all judicial costs in the total ammount of $163 million. The signed treaty will be considered annulled at the moment of disbursement.

This ruling has been made base on evidences presented by the plaintiff that unquestionably show that there was a signed treaty between the plaintiff and the defendant and the latter party has voluntarily chosen to dismiss this treaty without any reasonable and argumented explanation. Under the International law paragraph specifically determining the 'pacta sunt servanda' principle, this treaty is fully valid and there is no objective reason for its annulment. Also, the defendant has not responded to these claims and the 'default ruling' principle is applicable too.

This ruling is effective immediately. In case the defendant refuses to obbey to this ruling within 30 days, this Court will seize defendant's properties in the forementioned ammount and reimburse the plaintiff in which case additional Court costs will be charged to the defendant.

[Last_Ninja_Monk]

The investigation team has finalized the examination of the wreck and concluded the following (in brief):
1. A faulty rotor turbine bearing in engine #1 caused the rotor to tilt and scratch on its casing in full speed.
2. This "touching" of the rotor turbine caused it's blades to break, becoming virtually like shrapnel, punching through the engine and the wing, severing many pipelines and wirings.
3. One of the pipes severed was a fuel pipe.
4. Sparks caused the fire almost immediately.
5. Due to lost avionics on the left wing, the airplane could not be steered any more and it crashed..

Boeing dismisses the claims for the lawsuit!

(Boeing enter the court room, with large amount s of documentation)



(Mark Zimmer, head of Boeing Aternia enters)



Mr Zimmer: Now, i must be the first to say, what a terrible burden we at Boeing feel, for the loss of the lives of 117 people on board 1 of our planes. However, we feel, that we as a company are not to blame, and here is why:


1) Boeing safety experts were not allowed near the crash sight, nor any Aternian crash investigators.
2) The design of our 737 aircraft is that of paramount safety! Not only do we train staff in countrys to train pilots to deal with siutations like this, but we also design our planes to PREVENT situations like this!


1 thing that springs to mind, on the report of the air crash, if that several wires and fuel lines were destroyed by shrapnel. Now, firstly, might i say that if a plane is taking off, then it is traveling in a 45 degree angel in an upwards direction. That means, that if the rotor did explode and shrapnel did fly out, that it would travel in an apposing 45 degree angle! For it to hit the wing, it would actually need to travel upwards, at a 45 degrees change!


Now are you telling me, that these items of metal defied both gravity, and directional laws, and actually reversed what is physcially possible and traveled upwards? Remeber, the engine did not explode, which means that these peices came out the back. Now engines are designed to do this, if they aimed towards the wing, the plane single wouldnt fly. So not only is the plane traveling upwards, at speed, with the engine not facing towards the wing, yet somehow the items of shrapnel managed to hit the wing? Not 1 of 2 peices, but the majority of them?

3) If we do state that the sharpnel hit the wing, its impossible for them to sever the fuel lines or wires! Why? Because of this image of the 737 engine layout:




Now ill show you and edit, of how the fuel lines "were hit", The red shows where the shrapnel "hit" and the green shows you where it would naturally go:




Now are you saying, that once again, not only did the shrapnel go up to hit the wing, but it was exited the engine at a 45 degree angle, hitting the fuel lines? If the wing was damaged, the only wiring hit would be electrical, simply for the wings lights.


4) There are several ways to land the plane, if the engine should go, even if there is a fire:


1. Max thrust on good engine
2. Reach clean up altitude/declare the emergency
3. Run the eng failure OR severe damage checklist (how did it fail, is it on fire, etc.) This would include such items as using fire bottles if nec, monitoring cabin altitude, and fuel/electrical/hydraulic system management
4. After takeoff checklist
5. Run the single engine approach checklist
6. Landing checklist


In cases where this has occurred on other airlines, pilots have managed to safety land the plane.


5) Boeing doesn't make the engine for the 737, its actually GE jet engines. A quote from GE stated:


"Over the years, 20,000 GE engines have powered more than 5,000 Boeing 737s and various Airbus aircraft. Altogether, they have flown over 470 million hours."

3 jets engines have had exactly the same happen to them, and all 3 planes landed without fail. 1 Engines wasnt damaged, the other 2 had damaged engines, yet all 3 managed to land.

Boeing 737s are built to fly on 1 engine, this plane should have been able to land safety.


We feel there is something entirely different going on, which is why Boeing was not involved in the investigation at all! This crash does not add up, and we would like to investigate it ourselves.

[Voyager One]

Kira Airlines response

1) Aternian or Boeing experts have not been called onto the crash site because there was no need for them. Kiran NTSB officials are well capable of performing their duties. Also, as Boeing claims, and we quote them: "...we train staff in countrys..." meaning that Kiran NTSB and Kira Airlines have enough capable men to do their jobs.

2) A simple brick has a design that is a paramount of safety but on an earthquake 9th degree it can crumble. Also, we have not argued about a possible faulty design of the aircraft itself, we are arguing for Boeing delivering a faulty bearing that has been cleared as thoroughly tested and this bearing being the sole cause of this disaster.

3) Boeing is mentioning gravity and directional laws but in their "vast" knowledge of physics, they forget one simple detail which occurs in a turbofan engine - the rotation of the turbine and the centrifugal forces that appear.

engine cutaway.jpg (57.32 KiB) Viewed 3776 times

The rotation or "spin" is marked green on this engine cutaway. Marked in red is the turbine and its blades. We leave to Boeing to count how many blades there are in an engine of theirs but is very easy to see that breaking these blades while the turbine rotates would make them fly out in all directions because of the centrifugal force.

The bearing in question is located inside the turbine on a position marked in blue. The faulty bearing caused the turbine to spin unevenly and eventually to touch the casing with its blades. The first touch was enough for some blades to shatter, exponentially increasing further blade shattering and these all flew out in all directions as small projectiles. The effect was probably the same like having a cluster bomb exploding inside this engine.

We also enclose a dorsal view drawing of the 737 with "shrapnel" punctures marked in red. We must point out that these markings are only those which have been positively identified as damages from blade explosion. It is clearly seen that not only the left wing fuel tank has been involved and punctured but also main fuel lines, hydraulic lines to left wing avionics sections, electrical wires and even the cabin itself.

737-schematic-0403-1a.jpg (7 KiB) Viewed 3776 times

4) We will not even comment on this disgusting statement saying that pilots don't know their jobs.

5) GE is not included in this proceeding as GE guarantee goes only so far. This plane has been in sevice for a couple of years now and it is clear that GE guarantee is not valid any more. However, KA has serviced this aircraft's engines with official spare parts provided by Boeing itself and validated by Boeing tests. This means that Boeing can be held responsable for any problematic spare part like this bearing in question.

[Last_Ninja_Monk]

4) We will not even comment on this disgusting statement saying that pilots don't know their jobs.

This is a court case! We your pilots properly trained in order to deal with this situation that every other well train pilot has been able to handle?

Unless the wing itself came off, the plane could have been easily landed, but simply increasing the trust on the good engine.


also:



KA has serviced this aircraft's engines with official spare parts provided by Boeing itself and validated by Boeing tests



So what is to say, that these parts that have worked on thousands of other planes were built wrong, or that they were in fact installed wrong? You say it was a fault bearing, yet how were you so accurate to determine a fault bearing, in a crash site, yet unable to see a fault bearing in a fully functioned engine?


Also, as our bearings are tested, would you not have though that during the tests, this would have been a massive indicator?

"The faulty bearing caused the turbine to spin unevenly and eventually to touch the casing with its blades. The first touch was enough for some blades to shatter, exponentially increasing further blade shattering and these all flew out in all directions as small projectiles."


Yet for 3 months this plane was able to fly on a fault bearing that made the blades sin unevenly? And yet the pilots didn't report a difference in power from 1 engine, which if the blades were uneven, would be a massive indicator?

Our argument is, how are you so confident that it was 1 fault bearing that caused this, yet were unable to see this "faulty bearing" for 3 months during flight, several inspections and when you installed the parts?

(also this isnt anger, im actually enjoying the court case haha)

[Pilot]

Unless the wing itself came off, the plane could have been easily landed, but simply increasing the trust on the good engine.

Actually, just simply increasing thrust on the good engine wouldn't be able to save the plane in some cases. An Engine Explosion can severely damage the Aerodynamic Properties of the Aircraft, causing more Drag on one wing and effectively stalling that wing. This would put the Aircraft into Spin Stall which in some cases, are unrecoverable, especially in something as large as a 737. This could also cause a Break-up of the Aircraft before it hit the ground (V1, did this happen?).

[Last_Ninja_Monk]

*several DSS agents take Dr Winehouse and his physics degree outside and kick seven bells out of him, he then re enters the room*


@Pilot/Dr Winehouse: Can you repeat what you said please?