Turn on thread page Beta

Draft Treaty: Dealing with Piracy watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Treaty Regarding the Issue of Piracy

    submitted by The Republic of Turkey

    Greatly concerned due to insecurities caused by acts of Piracy and the violence that follows.

    Alarmed by the fact that Piracy has cost the world more than 60 million dollars in 2008.

    Urging nations to participate in the prevention of piracy and to take measures to ensure the safety of their vessels at sea.

    Seeking to resolve this issue using a minimal amount of violence.

    Having agreed on the following:

    Article I


    The illegal act of Piracy will not completely halt until nations where these pirates reside are able to fulfill all the basic needs of their citizens. Developed nations shall continue to offer aid (financial and, if requested, military) to these developing nations to ease economic strain and therefore lessen the need to resort to illegal acts.

    Article II


    If the act of Piracy should occur, the following measures would have already been taken to deal with the issue:

    Vessels shall always be equipped with adequate protection so that they are able to defend themselves. However, no weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological etc.) will be allowed on these vessels. Long-range weapons that may reach coasts of neighboring nations are also prohibited.

    The amount of trained men and weapons will vary in areas where Piracy occurs more regularly. The number of weapons and men will be decided by an agreement between nations. These nations will be the states where the vessel is due to arrive at and the states that hold a substantial value of goods on the vessel.

    Finally, to ensure that no members abuse the allowance of weapons on board, specific routes will be drawn up in which vessels have permission to follow. If vessels use these routes for military tactics aimed against other nations, severe punishment will be enforced by the ICJ. Nations party to this treaty shall understand that the purpose of this treaty is to promote peaceful trade. The UN will have the right to search the goods being traded on the vessels.

    To carry out all planning and administrative work and to ensure the process moves smoothly, the UN, with the permission of the Secretary General, will create a specialized committee dedicated to preventing piracy. This United Nations Security for Trading Vessels (proposed name) committee will also research new technologies to deter pirates acting illegally. Although this new committee will be costly to set up, its purpose is to prevent losing tens of millions of dollars due to piracy. In this way, it is worth the effort.

    Article III


    Nations party to this treaty will always consider the sovereignty of states with pirates and will not breach this sovereignty no matter what the conditions are. This includes enforcing laws of one nation on citizens of another. If men are captured committing piracy, their state will be alerted. Once the state is aware of the event, they will have the right to punish their own citizens. If the state is currently unable to deal with these pirates, the UN will intervene. This will be standard procedure and will be carried out without discrimination of any kind. The ICJ will deal with a breach of sovereignty if one occurs.

    Article IV


    1) This treaty shall be open to all states for signature.
    2) This treaty shall be open to all signatories for ratification and will be in effect once ratification occurs.
    3) Any State party to the Treaty may propose amendments to the treaty.
    4) Any State party to the Treaty may withdraw but must give one month’s notice.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    France does not think Article I goes far enough to combat the cause of piracy, and is worried about the possible complications involved in Article II.

    Regarding Article I - continuing to do as we have been doing for years (providing economic aid) is not going to move countries like Somalia forward. We would like to see more done to stimulate economic growth and stabilise government, so that law and order can be restored and new jobs become available.
    Regarding Article II - not only will this proposal be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement, it will also endanger the lives of all crew who sail onboard commercial ships. We would be much more inclined to support investment in new technologies to deter pirates than arming every ship to effectively fight them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Republic of Turkey is taking France's valid points into account and is attempting to amend the Treaty to accommodate these points. The Republic of Turkey would also like to thank France for the input.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Republic of Turkey has made an amendment to the treaty; adding paragraph 4 to Article II. However, in response to France's points concerning Article I, the delegate for The Republic of Turkey feels that not much more can be done without interfering too much in domestic affairs. As pointed out by the delegate of Saudi Arabia, this can only lead to tensions in the region. If any other nation has any amendments to suggest, they would be welcome.
    Offline

    2
    The US is unsure of the interpretation of Article II: are those nations who enter into this treaty expected to equip vessels registered in their lands expected to equip said vessels with firepower as a deterrent to pirate attacks? Isn't it illegal for civilian boats to carry weapons in international water? (Probably making that up!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I tend to think that it is (though I can't think where I read it :o:) but this treaty could amend the international law and allow them, under said stringent guidelines.

    The Secretariat also believes that it should not be on such a compulsory basis.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nigeria feels the treaty is okay, however

    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.


    Concerning Article II
    Long range weapons may be needed against the pirates, in the case of a pirate ship attacking another ship that is far away, but not enough for a long range weapon to apprehend them.
    Also in the third paragraph of Article II, does it become invalid in the case of a war? The use of such routes maybe needed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Republic of Turkey feels that allowing long-range missiles on board would be too much of a risk and would cause a great amount of tension to nearby nations, therefore, the delegate sticks with its previous statement that long-range weapons should be prohibited. However, the delegate of The Republic of Turkey would like to ask other nations' opinions on ways of protecting vessels from long-range missile attacks by pirates without having to equip the vessels themselves with missiles. Perhaps a kind of radar technology?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc246)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taigan)
    "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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc246)
    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.
    The Republic of Turkey would like to stress that this treaty isn't simply adding more military vessels. All this treaty is suggesting is that trading vessels should be equipped to protect themselves. Therefore, Pirates will be deterred from acting unlawfully as they would realize that almost every vessel they may attempt to capture would be armed. Also, The Republic of Turkey wishes to stress the importance of not breaching a nation's sovereignty (this is a breach of the UN charter) by interfering in domestic affairs. If any delegates have any other solutions that may be put forward, the Republic of Turkey urges them to do so. In the meantime however, there is little more we can do to prevent this issue than engage with talks to specific nations (e.g. Somalia) and listen to what their governments advise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taigan)
    x.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OOC: If we are to propose ammendments, how do we go aboutdoing so, and do othere delegates vote on each proposed ammendment?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    OOC: If we are to propose ammendments, how do we go aboutdoing so, and do othere delegates vote on each proposed ammendment?
    (OOC) We should ask the Sec. General...(/OOC)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    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.
    The Republic of Turkey appreciates Saudi Arabia's input.
    Regarding Article I: The Republic of Turkey feels that Saudi Arabia's request will not conflict with other nations' opinions and is rather valid, therefore The Republic of Turkey has amended the treaty to accommodate Saudi Arabia's wants.
    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.
    Regarding Article III: Thank you Saudi Arabia
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    OOC: If we are to propose ammendments, how do we go about doing so, and do othere delegates vote on each proposed amendment?
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taigan)
    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.

    Nigeria wanted to ask, how long range would bullets/missiles be allowed under this treaty?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrgd291190)
    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?
    Yes. Its very good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Portuguese Republic shall not be signing this treaty.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 1, 2009
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.