Perhaps ask nations what their concerns are with signing the treaty, and have them come with a consensus to the treaty.
Stop implying that you're gonna violate national sovereignty without due process. While we hate strong-arming, we realize that some pressure is needed, but apply it in steps. War criminals may run but they are not masterminds nor good at their practice in most cases. They'll be average high-command, so they should be easy to find when on the run, so you do have time to apply political pressure.
If you go around sending your troops wherever and whenever you want without giving nations a chance to repent, the organization is going to look nothing short of a large bully.
Gunichatara understands your viewpoint and apologizes for the insult.
For all regards, this organization is new. The nation of Volinovia, from which it stands, is held in high regard amongst our public but us as the government are hesitant. The nation has shown some small signs of aggressiveness, and while we have not participated we have heard of such laws being signed before.
So for all due respect, we wish to wait and see how this court and its laws of war play out. Please note that we believe this organization will tone down over time as it meets face to face with reality, and we do expect to sign on in due time.
The Republic of Somers would propose that the International Court of Justice and the international community move away from the idea of enforcement of international law on unfriendly states by peacekeeping and military forces, and instead towards automatic and non-military systems of punishment that inhibit a government's ability to function.
Correct. But remember that human groups share different values and beliefs and organizational systems. Any international organization must ensure that a nation's identity and the right to rule itself is protected.
This is sensible. Similar to how humans are asked to conduct themselves within moral standards or risk being seen as non-human or evil, the same would hold with nations. However, these international norms must be careful in formation. For example, some nations advocate democracy as a solution for all nations, but democracy is not a good form of government for unstable nations who are still developing. So developing an international norm that a nation must be democratic, for an extreme example, is not prudent for the welfare of unstable nations.
As long as international norms are sensible and all nations do sign on with the ICJ, this is understandable. If nations do not agree with these terms, then the ICJ must apply political pressure before resorting to military tactics, because nations must be given the right to make a choice on all matters concerning their own nation and people.
The ICJ has asked nations their issues on the treaty. Most responses come to. "The Enemy has No Rights."
The ICJ has not made many house calls. Strong-Arming is necessary to keep the ICJ afloat. The ICJ does not go in without due process. The ICJ currently has 4 judges that will debate on each situation on a case by case basis. The court looks at it from every angle. Pardoning Socialist Shinnokawese Troops yesterday after firing upon a Green Cross convoy.
The ICJ has not had a case in which a nation at war was not a signatory of the Laws of War, each nation that is in an ongoing conflict is usually pressured by us and the international community as a whole. Which has worked to secure many signatory nations. We also know that a nation's sovereignty is crucial to a nation. Which is why it is a recognized term for defense in court. Which can be argued in a trial. We understand that each case is different, just like every situation. We do not go in to make house calls unless it is the only option for most wanted criminals, of which there haven't been in a minute. There was one War Criminal who's name was known throughout the world and that was the one time that the then Green Cross made a house call. But the Green Cross has stepped back from military roles to be a humanitarian organization and the ICJ has taken it's place as the judges, enforcers, and peacekeepers.
We pride ourselves in being unbiased, if we were biased then it wouldn't be justice, would it? The situation you cited as being the reason you would not sign is rare, probably rarer then international piracy.
Gunichatara thanks Volinovia for providing a strict and straight answer to the question we posed so long ago.
As stated, Gunichatara will refrain from signing for the time being, if nothing else to avoid looking like a hypocrite. We wish to see how this organization will operate in the long-run, but this insight into its procedures has given us good hope in its success.
I still believe that a nation itself being unstable should be careful to act on it. A good example of this is Siria .... will the child murderers be arrested ??? sorry ... for the emotion of the words, more .....
International Peacekeeping Corps
I also have a strength like that ...
This is what international norms are for - to be the check on human organization, regardless of beliefs and organizational systems.
These types of things would not be in the jus cogens. Jus Cogens go to the core of humanity. For instance, many countries expect judicial transparency, because without it, punishments like torture could be used. Jus Cogens don't compel nations to have judicial transparency, they make it inexcusable for nations to use torture, no matter the system in place.
We would like to stress that nations must not be given this absolute right. The point of Jus Cogens and holding it above national sovereignty is to draw the line around these norms - that violating these norms are impermissible and inexcusable at any time by any state.
Here are the Jus Cogens (compelling law) that we reconize:
Jus Cogens, latin for compelling law, also known as Peremptory Norms, are the norms that all sovereign states are expected to respect. A nation cannot stand as sovereign if in violation of these norms, in Somers' eyes.
Somers recognizes these Peremptory Norms.
- Prohibition of Aggressive Wars
- Prohibition of Crimes Against humanity
- Prohibition of War crimes
- Prohibition of Maritime piracy
- Prohibition of Genocide
- Prohibition of Apartheid
- Prohibition of Slavery
- Prohibition of Torture
These norms can and should be built upon by international consensus.
You will note that they are not compelling a nation to be a certain way, and they do not go into different systems. At the core, they should be the highest check on a country, and therefore, they target inexcusable actions, not particular systems that could be more susceptible to these actions.
Recognized Jus Cogens by the Republic of Somers
I may have a slightly ignorant opinion about this .... more crimes of torture are practiced even in countries considered "democratic", but the strength that this nation promotes around the world .... justifies this as "legal action"
They're also pretty chill.
That may be, and that is inexcusable.
It is better to have standards that are violated, and work towards ensuring no violations, than to not have standards.
The My Lai massacre.a good example of this ....
The Republic of Somers would would propose that the International Peacekeeping Corps only be able to be used in an area where the government with recognized authority allows it, or where there is no order or ability for authority to be enforced.
For instance, these forces should not be sent into a country that is not cooperating with ICJ in turning a wanted criminal in.
Is this already how it works, or does it work differently?