SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!


You are not connected. Please login or register

TERRORISM.

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 TERRORISM. on October 11th 2009, 23:29

For my resolution, I need to punish terrorist and suppliers, I was thinking of punishing them with the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court- which punishes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. but how can i ensure that all countries/individuals would be prosecuted? any thoughts?
perhaps countries/individuals may only be prosecuted for crimes commited after GN assembly...?

View user profile

2 Re: TERRORISM. on October 12th 2009, 00:31

Delegate, I need some clarification in your topic… doesn’t the ICC already do this? –prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression… Or is your resolution about enforcing the actual punishments?

View user profile

3 Re: TERRORISM. on October 12th 2009, 13:38

yes, the problem is enforcing it. How can the UN make sure that all countries and individuals are prosecuted when some countries such as the U.S. (just an example) oppose the idea of an international court that could prosecute it's citizens?
I'm a little confused though, even though some countries may oppose the idea of international courts, are they still prosecuted by them? if that is not the case, then how can i ensure any countries can be tried? It would seem that any country that even has an army should be able to be prosecuted for war crimes to ensure no terrorist actions.
The problem is that countries may completely oppose the idea of joining the ICC and ICJ if they know they will be prosecuted for previous actions-- SO, perhaps the countries will only be prosecuted for actions commited AFTER the GN assembly (if my resolution passes)

View user profile

4 Specify! on October 14th 2009, 18:07

The delegate of NK feels that this resolution will pose a threat to international security and integrity of future multilateral accords. Lacking the proper understanding of each countries uniqueness and inconsequence to a countries principles the ICC can easily misjudge a "criminal" leading to incogitable international repercussion.
Considering the above principles the nation of NK disagrees with the methods of your resolutiona and waits for a divergent methology before being abble to apply in favor of such.

View user profile

5 Re: TERRORISM. on October 14th 2009, 18:42

NK delegate, your concern is about how the ICC will judge a criminal? in my resolution I will clearly state the "definition" of a criminal or terrorist and which actions would be judged as terrorist and therefore limiting misjudgement. is this still not enough delegate?

View user profile

6 ... on October 14th 2009, 18:55

Delegate,
My delegation will only be convinced of any effectiveness of a resolution after observing its final draft. But it is noticeable that the delegate of Israel did not understand the preocupation of NK: It is not only the faulty misdjudement that concerns North Korea but also the angled attitude such international organization might have in its judgements.

View user profile

7 Re: TERRORISM. on October 14th 2009, 19:01

So basically the delegate of North Korea is doubting both the integrity of the United Nations and of the International Criminal Court?

North Korea has not signed the Rome Statute, and while it has the right to do so, the delegate of the United States believes that it cannot question that the ICC, being a worldwide organization, has the right to intervene and to judge criminals. Furthermore, if North Korea believes that the International Criminal Court might have an "angled" or "misled" or "biased" judgement, why doesn't the nation simply become party to the Rome Statute? It would be a method of proving its integrity.

View user profile

8 Intriguing! on October 14th 2009, 19:20

The delegate of North Korea is impressed that this sermon comes from the very nation that not only disagrees with the authority and effectiveness of the ICC but is arrogant enough to consider itself able of judging in its place!

View user profile

9 Re: TERRORISM. on October 14th 2009, 20:11

If the delegate would be so kind as to check his sources, our new administration, specifically President Obama, has already said that it is willing to cope with the ICC. In 2004, then-Senator Obama said that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Besides that, approximately four weeks ago, our ambassador, Susan Rice, voiced her support for the ICC in a closed Security Council meeting and said that it "looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur."

Furthermore, President Obama announced, during his inauguration speech, that being a superpower "does not allow us to do as we please." Is that "arrogant?" It is exactly the opposite.

View user profile

10 Re: TERRORISM. on October 16th 2009, 11:27

Prosecution of individuals....
hmm....
basically are you willing to make a list of every single person
involved with the 'terrorism'? I think it would be a waste of
time that could be used for something else, But if you decide to
stick to this topic, then we will have to accept it...

This will become a debated topic, not because of the topic
itself, but because of the fact that lots of proof will be needed. Laughing

View user profile

11 Re: TERRORISM. on October 18th 2009, 20:04

The Sudanese delegation is saddened with the above posts from the American delegation. It seems somewhat ironic that the same delegation that above praises the UN as the ultimate international authority was able, after the terrorist attack of 9/11, to reject and go over an order from the same organization and invade the Iraqui soil.
Didn't the American delegation, which stated the UN as global authority, put in question such authority and effectiveness when its country shattered the sovereignty of another country, and began a war whose scars are seen until today?

View user profile

12 Re: TERRORISM. on October 19th 2009, 19:41

The war on Iraq was a response to what can only be considered a violation of international law. The regime in Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, was guilty of committing human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Intervention was required. War might have not been the best form, but it was required. Now, Hussein has been deposed and Iraq has a chance to create a stable form of government. The USA is removing its troops from Iraq and will not impose any form of government upon Iraq; however, it will be willing to aid Iraq financially to rebuild its nations and heal the "scars."

The delegate of the United States, however, would also like to point out the condition of Sudan. Its country has been wrecked by internal conflict, the Darfur crisis has taken the lives and homes of millions of people, its president, Omar Al-Bashir, has been prosecuted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, and it requires humanitarian from the United Nations. Wouldn't you believe, delegate, that in a case such as this, intervention from the United Nations is required? Or would you rather let your own country destroy itself?

View user profile

13 My position on October 19th 2009, 20:39

The state of North Korea will only support intervention in Sudan if that is agreed by the Omar Al Bashir or it will be treated as a severe intervention of national sovereighty. Furthermore, my delegation would like to reinterate that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Sudan!

Regarding "international law": This same law by which you, suposedly, based your intervention clearly states that interventions should be multilateral! Not only that, but your nation went against our Security Council resolutions which clearly "illegalized" your invasion!

View user profile

14 Re: TERRORISM. on October 19th 2009, 23:45

Fellow American delegate,
Omar al-Bashir indeed has been prosecuted by the ICC and called as a "dictator" by your very own government. Also, rumors say a genocide takes place in my country and the delegate insists on intervention.
Firstly, intervention won't happen in Sudan. The government is completely able to handle such conflict, which has already ended. Darfur now experiences small insurgences from rebel groups, which are various and scattered, which makes the task on ending such so difficult. International intervention has already proved itself to be unuseful. Ocampo, ICC prosecutor, has shown to have a personal grudge with Mr. al-Bashir, and therefore accused him with inumerous arrest warrants, with the most lame excuses. Even of genocide Mr. Omar al-Bashir was accused of, where the same ICC retrieved such accusations for the lack of proofs. Also, Sudan does not recognizes ICC jurisdiction over its territory, for such organization has shown to be faulterous with the truth and real justice. Finally, please do not distort the facts. An oficial government report has concluded that nearly 10,000 lives were, unfortunately and saddenly, lost, in counterpoint to the millions exposed by the American delegate.
For this, Sudan would kindly express its wishes for a brighter future, a future which is nearer and nearer at every moment.

View user profile

15 Re: TERRORISM. on October 19th 2009, 23:53

PS: the delegate will not answer or rebuttal any Darfur-related comments. there is a topic specifically for that, and therefore, should be used. (hope) see you there

View user profile

16 Re: TERRORISM. on October 20th 2009, 09:52

In every topic i visit, i see that people are changing the subjects, we are trying to discuss resolutions, and not blame others who have nothing to do with it... I would like to see responsed from you Amanda, and hear your answere to my question... Thanks for staying on the topic guys!

View user profile

17 Israel on October 20th 2009, 15:56

yes, delegate. it will be very difficult to write down every person involved with terrorism and prosecute them. after all, terrorism has always been around, and we've never come up with a way to stop it.
so no, it won't be easy, but the delegate of israel plans to create a special branch from the ICJ just for terrorism. and to try and prevent biased prosecutions there will be many judges (about 40) from different coutries around the world .There will be a lot of peacekeeping troops in large cities-- such as capitals-- in countries with concentrated terrorism. they will try and find the terrorist cells and track terrorist aids and the terrorists themselves.
it will take a lot of work, and a very long time, but we have to start somewhere or else we will never see an end -- or improvement -- in this ongoing issue.
i will have my resolution tomorrow for more questions, it's not perfect yet -- it's not an easy topic. if any of you have ideas to help, or any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to HELP this topic, that would be greatly appreciated.

View user profile

18 Re: TERRORISM. on October 28th 2009, 18:36

How will the Israeli delegate assure that no biased or misjudged trials are made, similiar to how Omar Al-Bahir's (Sudan's president) prosecution was lead? The ICC tried to convict the president and leave Sudan as a failed state... All of this with no actual proofs.

View user profile

19 Re: TERRORISM. on October 28th 2009, 22:21


first thing, the warrant for Omar al-bashir's arrest from the ICC was this: "Intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property" even if these are accusations, without substantial proof, can a country really let somone who may or may not have done these things roam freely around the streets?

delegate, I have a quote from an article here "Nine witnesses, including refugees and survivors of the genocide... through questioning all arrived to the same conclusion that with the systematic extermination headed by the Sudanese Government was occurring throughout the region. Familiar terms, such as the Janjaweed, air strikes, refugee camps, rape, Musa Hilal, and Al-Bashir were circulated throughout the trial. Each questioning of the witnesses offered compelling evidence that a genocide is taking place right before our eyes and that action needs to be taken to incarcerate the perpetrators." i'm just using this as an example to explain what kind of proof will be needed. Unfortunatly it IS and WILL be difficult to find any physical proof...
my point is that some cases may depend on witnesses, but the countries security is the most important thing.
as you can see, this conviction did not seem very biased, and even though some convictions may be emotional, it's all about the safety of the country.
A step that we will be taking to try and prevent biased judgements is having many judges (about 40) which i've stated before that will be from many different countries. terrorism is a very serious issues, and some difficult choices may need to be made, making SURE that the countries security is the priority.

View user profile

20 Re: TERRORISM. on November 4th 2009, 19:19

Any resolution that even goes so far as to mention negotiation with terrorists will be met with fierce opposition by myself and other like-minded countries present in the SC. Terrorist groups, individuals, dogs, etc. need to be terminated ASAP, no negotiations, no compromise, no giving in to demands. The minute they chose violence and unhindered agression as their spokesperson they condemned themselves to termination. No efforts should be spared in the termination procedure. We will negotiate with them in the only language they understand, with bullets and missiles.

Thank You,
Your Majesty's Humble Servant,
The U.K Delegate

View user profile

21 Re: TERRORISM. on November 5th 2009, 11:26

Good to know that UK is against any individual...

Delegate try to frame your responsed better, Russia's delegation will not be light this year, and Russia does not apreciate what the delegate of UK is saying, and if the delegate is in a way threatening, please remind yourself that, my bite is bigger then my bark, you not being a fan of dogs(as also incoherently stated above) maybe would understand better if I say that, Russia will be prepared for actions it needs to take, and for actions that will try to be taken against us, I say try because Russia will not allow actions against us to pass. Russia would think that UK is aware of the battle that is being made, people in conflict about if the selling of arms to corrupt governments directly helps Terrorist groups, if this was decided on, then UK would be directly going against, Russia, N. Korea, and even USA. These three delegations are not simple to go against, and if going head to head (With Bullets and missiles) the delegate of UK will walk out of battle with nothing left but a huge headache.

Cheers 'Servant'

View user profile

22 Re: TERRORISM. on November 5th 2009, 15:42

Never once did the delegate of the UK say that it wished the termination of governments, corrupt as they may be. The delegate mentioned the course of action of dealing with terrorists as proposed by the UK and the USA in the aftermath of 9/11. A course of action, mind you, supported and endorsed by your country at the time. The delegate is also perplexed at the assumption made by the russian delegate that the UK's comments were in any way agressive towards the Russian Federation. The UK's and by all rights the Security Council's agressiveness is directed exclusively at the terrorists groups, and not the Russian Federation. Unless, of course, the delegate of Russia thinks of himself and his country as terrorists, in which case, yes, the UK is threatening you. If governments are found to directly finance terrorism, then actions must be taken, but the UK is sure such an example is not applicable to the Russian Federation nor as the delegate put it, the USA and China. It is surprising that the delegate of Russia might in any case oppose the UK's agressive stance towards terrorists, after all, you country is also very supportive of negotiations with 'bullets and missiles', as clearly evidenced by your country's actions towards the hostage-taking in the school in Beslan.

View user profile

23 Re: TERRORISM. on November 5th 2009, 15:50

Delegate of the UK, I understand your concern (2 posts ago) , however my resolution does not suggest "negotiation" with terrorists, simply that they must be tried before prosecuted. creating another branch for terrorism as a part of the ICJ will help make sure that all that are guilty recieve proper punishment.
however delegate, while the death toll from terrorists is huge, immediatly killing any suspected terrorists will result in additional deaths of innocent civilians. The delegate of Sudan wanted to ensure that there would be no "wrongful" prosecutions such as of their president, so some sort of trial is necessary.
THOUGH, my resolution does permit that any country under attack of terrorist actions is allowed to defend their country and/or sovereignty in any way that does not interfere with international law.

View user profile

24 Re: TERRORISM. on November 5th 2009, 16:36

" simply that they must be tried before prosecuted. creating another branch for terrorism as a part of the ICJ will help make sure that all that are guilty recieve proper punishment. "

Yes, they will be tried, if they are apprehended alive, the UK endorses such trials. However, we, as part of the UN's Security Council, have no jurisdiction whatsoever regarding the ICJ, it is an organ outside of our control, so the creation of a sub-division within it can only be place as a suggestion in the resolution, diminishing if not nullifying the purpose of having such a clause in an official document. What we could do is use the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), to enforce the implementation of special judicial procedures within the specific countries in which terrorists are apprehended, thus enabling us to have a means of dealing with terrorists worldwide. Any further suggestions are welcome,
Thank you,
Cheers

View user profile

25 Re: TERRORISM. on November 5th 2009, 21:56

Russia believes that the delegation of UK is taking the post as a threat,
Russia never said it was against Russia, keeping in mind that Russia is the same in 'Bullets and Missiles'
But what the Russia delegate said, is that UK has to specify what it considers terrorism, for some delegations'
presidents have states that all arms selling Nations, should be considered as terrorist, and if that was to be true for UK
it would in fact be directly threatening Russia.

Cheers 'Servant'

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum