Draft Treaty: Dealing with Piracy

The Portuguese Republic agrees with the prohibition of long range weapons, but would like to see more emphasis on political support being offered to those countries where piracy is a problem, rather than force through the use of weaponry. We feel this would only anger the pirates causing them to fight back, and is not a long term solution to the problem.

"Concerning Article I
Most of the countries are LEDCs, however piracy exists in South America. The incident in 2001 in which Sir Peter Blake was killed was carried out by Brasilians. Brasil, incidentally, is the 10th largest economy in the world. Even though it seems like an isolated incident, you should take it into account." - delegate of Nigeria

This is proof that citizens of nations do not only resort to Piracy due to poor economies in their home states. Therefore, the Republic of Turkey feels that a universal way of preventing Piracy would be to deter pirates from acting illegally by force. This is at least until a more effective method can be achieved and, hopefully, technology opens doors so that threats of violence would not have to be necessary.

We understand your point, but as the delegate of Nigeria also pointed out, "Most of the countries are LEDCs", and the largest problem of piracy does occur around LEDCs. Political support can also be offered to more developed countries, as there is evidently still a problem somewhere if piracy continues to be necessary for some. The Portuguese Republic would also like to point out that we do have a military vessel in the Somalian area under the UNSC resolution 1838, along with many other nations, and feel that just 'adding more' isn't going to solve the problem.

x.

OOC: If we are to propose ammendments, how do we go aboutdoing so, and do othere delegates vote on each proposed ammendment?

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is pleased that turkey has taken on the responsibility of making a treaty, however, we would like to make the following points:

ARTICLE I: KSA would originally have liked to see this article completely removed from the Treaty, however, we understand that Turkey has come to a compromise between our position and that of France. We would still prefer the last sentence to be removed.

ARTICEL II: In paragraph 1 Long range weapons clause should be removed, firstly because it is unenforcable and secondly becasue we believe that in certain situation long-range missiles will be required.
In paragraph 2, "intentions" is rather vague, and what is an acceptable "intention" and what is not is very complicated. KSA would rather this was removed.

ARTICLE III: KSA is very happy with this part of the treaty, and does not feel it needs any further ammending.

Overall, KSA would like to see a few changes before it is prepared to sign the Treaty, however we would like to thank Turkey for making an excellent first draft.

OOC: If we are to propose ammendments, how do we go about doing so, and do othere delegates vote on each proposed amendment?

The Republic of Turkey appreciates Saudi Arabia's input.
Regarding Article II: The Republic of Turkey still feels that long-range missiles should be prohibited as nations may take advantage of these weapons and attack their enemies. For the safety of the nations which the vessels will maneuver by, it is imperative that these ships do not have the ability to harm them. However, The Republic of Turkey definitely agrees with Saudi Arabia's last point about the word "intentions" and so it has been removed from the treaty.

It would depend on what stage the Treaty is at. If it's still being drafted (i.e. now), just post the proposed addition and if there's a general consensus of agreement, then it goes into the main draft. If it's already passed (i.e. after we vote and ratify), then, I suppose, just write it similarly to a Charter Reform. There's a few ways to do it in RL.

According to that Article, there's three ways to Amend a Treaty agreement. Rewriting the treaty and re-ratifying it by each nation. The organizers rewriting procedural points. Or a change in state behaviour changes its interpretation.
The third won't concern us. The second can be done by the Sec. Gen. at the request of the author (taigan in this case).
The first could be done by writing the amendment and having a new vote. I can also list all the signatories and ratifiers of the treaty when I put it in the Resolutions subforum and then have a separate list of those that agree to any amendment. Those that don't agree to the amendment will effectively have a Reservation from that part of the Treaty. We could call it something like a Protocol. You can negotiate a Reservation for your nation but only at this point of the treaty writing.


Should I pop this bit in the Charter?