Please list the evidence (no sarcasm).
I have no objection to taking France to court; however, that should be the second step in the escalation process, not the first.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
On a related issue: as mentioned elsewhere, the RD plans to ask Parliament for a decision to deploy Eutopian navy to the fishing grounds in question. Would the MP support such a measure?
[OOC: Err - don't know if you saw the post I made at 12:30, given that you posted at 12:31. Just making sure. 
]
]
This issue has been adressed by the MP and I can safely say we are in favour of such a measure.
What personally considers to amaze me is how little regard the government has shown for the sovereignty of Eutopia and it's territorial waters. The french have tresspassed in our waters, and were only driven off when Australian ships appeared. And by not undertaking action, our government had undermined it's credibility in the international community as a representative of the independent Eutopian nation. The Australians politely consider us 'inexperienced', think of how the French would see us then. Showing the French that their behaviour is unacceptable in the first place is the first step on the road of inplementing a policy founded on the princible that Eutopia is an independent nation, and not some colony that one can bully around.
I agree with Mr. Teano completely. If we wait for hard undeniable proof, it may cost our citizens years of their lives. There is enough circumstancial evidence to lead most reasonable people to conclude the French have violated international law and are now proceeding to cover it up.
It saddens me to see this important issue and the lives of innocent Eutopians become caught up in a web of politics. The ESRP proposed action, the MP and the CC supported it, but unfortunately it was voted down in parliament. So where is the RD's proposal? They say a trade embargo is like a nuclear bomb, but so far they aren't even willing to shoot a pop gun! Taking them to international court is too extreme of a first step? So is taking criminals to court in Eutopia too extreme? That is so ridiculous on so many levels I won't go any further.
My question is what is the RD's proposed course of action, and when will we see it before parliament?
Jake Langely
It saddens me to see this important issue and the lives of innocent Eutopians become caught up in a web of politics. The ESRP proposed action, the MP and the CC supported it, but unfortunately it was voted down in parliament. So where is the RD's proposal? They say a trade embargo is like a nuclear bomb, but so far they aren't even willing to shoot a pop gun! Taking them to international court is too extreme of a first step? So is taking criminals to court in Eutopia too extreme? That is so ridiculous on so many levels I won't go any further.
My question is what is the RD's proposed course of action, and when will we see it before parliament?
Jake Langely
Originally posted by Craig Ashley
I'm glad you realized that your statement makes no sense; saves me some effort.
Seriously: I see a lot of people claiming that there are compelling reasons to assume that France is in breach of international law. In that case, it should be no problem to list those reasons. I for one will be happy to listen (again, no sarcasm).
I've outlined the RD's action programme in the ESRP CO.
Do we want to try to get the French to the negotiation table or do we want to make them laugh? Our Navy doesn't have the time nor the money to train our men well and our ships are almost absolote. I have personally strong suspiciouns towards the Naval depot. I suspect they give us second hand equipment but I''m not sure. But back to topic. This government has done absolutely nothing to help our people. IIRC someone even said that the Aussies should leave! The only ones who helped us! That's stupid and sick. The first stage of this conflict (diplomacy) has past. Action should happen. I say bring France to court. But if the government doesn't have the balls to do something about it...
The RD's proposal:
My question is what then? What happens if/when these methods fail to free our citizens? We will go through another round of useless diplomacy and legal scrutinizing? Also I must agree with Mr. Tulip. Our navy is obsolete at best.
These are fine first steps, but we've already done one, and two to a certain extent. Three doesn't require an act of parliament only for Do-Nothing-MMDS to issue an executive order.
You call for gradual escalation of our actions, but I don't see any escalation, I only see the same old “sit on our asses and hope the French play nice” tactics. I want to know what you have in mind when the French continue to ignore us. What is the next level and when would the RD in it's infinite wisdom like to see us go to the next level?
My question is what then? What happens if/when these methods fail to free our citizens? We will go through another round of useless diplomacy and legal scrutinizing? Also I must agree with Mr. Tulip. Our navy is obsolete at best.
These are fine first steps, but we've already done one, and two to a certain extent. Three doesn't require an act of parliament only for Do-Nothing-MMDS to issue an executive order.
You call for gradual escalation of our actions, but I don't see any escalation, I only see the same old “sit on our asses and hope the French play nice” tactics. I want to know what you have in mind when the French continue to ignore us. What is the next level and when would the RD in it's infinite wisdom like to see us go to the next level?
I're read the raports again, and though the French vessel did not enter waters that are de juro Eutopian territorial waters, the french are harming us in our ability to harvest these resources to which we are entitled. Eutopia and Eutopians have fishing rights in these waters just as they have exploiting an inland coal mine. By their actions, the french are hampering and harming our sovereign rights to exploit these waters.
Good day or evening or whatever people!
I have prepared a bill to pass in parliament about the abolishment of the death penalty, and I hoped you would like to give your thoughts about it.
The Borgman Punishment Bill
1) The Death Penalty can no longer be given to criminals by any court in EUtopia, for any crime;
2) Crimes which previously were punished with the death penalty will now be punished with life-long imprisonment;
3) Any criminals on "death row" (i.e. waiting to be executed) will now be punished by a life-long imprisonment, and will thus not be executed.
All suggestions are welcome, particulary about the title
Greetings,
Bram Borgman
ESRP Member of parliament
__________________
I have prepared a bill to pass in parliament about the abolishment of the death penalty, and I hoped you would like to give your thoughts about it.
The Borgman Punishment Bill
1) The Death Penalty can no longer be given to criminals by any court in EUtopia, for any crime;
2) Crimes which previously were punished with the death penalty will now be punished with life-long imprisonment;
3) Any criminals on "death row" (i.e. waiting to be executed) will now be punished by a life-long imprisonment, and will thus not be executed.
All suggestions are welcome, particulary about the title
Greetings,
Bram Borgman
ESRP Member of parliament
__________________
As could be expected, I agree wholeheartedly with this bills content, purpose and wording. You will have my personal and the RD's support in bringing it before parliament. If you need a co-sponsor, I volunteer to fill that role.
Sincerely,
Sebatian Fitzpatrick
Rally for Democracy
Sincerely,
Sebatian Fitzpatrick
Rally for Democracy
Originally posted by Bramarius
Good day or evening or whatever people!
I have prepared a bill to pass in parliament about the abolishment of the death penalty, and I hoped you would like to give your thoughts about it.
The Borgman Punishment Bill
1) The Death Penalty can no longer be given to criminals by any court in EUtopia, for any crime;
2) Crimes which previously were punished with the death penalty will now be punished with life-long imprisonment;
3) Any criminals on "death row" (i.e. waiting to be executed) will now be punished by a life-long imprisonment, and will thus not be executed.
All suggestions are welcome, particulary about the title
Greetings,
Bram Borgman
ESRP Member of parliament
__________________
I disagrees.When a man/woman that have commited a horrible crime as massmurder and there is no doubt that he is guilty, the penelty should be death. That is my oppinion.
Deploying the navy to the area in question is not intended as gesture of intimidation, so your comment doesn't apply.
Not true. The government initiated talks with France, which is the appropriate first step in cases of this nature.
One would hope that the government of Eutopia uses a more qualified organ to make policy decisions...
Preferably, France would release Eutopian nationals into our custody - but the primary goal is to get access to our citizens and get the legal proceedings going.
Another round of diplomacy is hardly useless. It should be obvious that the audience we're playing to at this point isn't France: it's the international community, and specifically France's allies. Right now, a number of important EU-countries have closed ranks with the French, due in no small part to the hasty proposal of sanctions on our part. If we offer talks to the French and they refuse, it is their position that will be compromised, not ours; at the very least, it will make it more difficult for France to retain unconditional support among her allies. If we offer talks and the French accept, all the better.
You'll get no argument from me on that count.
Gradual escalation implies that escalation only happens if and when necessary.
*If* France refuses talks, the next step will be to take them to court.
In other words, (a) France did not violate our sovereignty, but it (b) *might* be infringing on the rights of citizens to access resources in international waters. Which means there is no justification for extreme measures against France. *If* France is indeed doing (b), the proper course of action is to take them to court - once we have at least minimal proof for the allegations.
Come on, how hard do you want us to laugh.
''Deploying the navy to the area in question is not intended as gesture of intimidation, so your comment doesn't apply.''
Then why do you want to deploy the Navy? If you want the Navy to play policemen then you shouldn't use the Navy, we have the coastguard for that.
I have only heard of attempts of former minister Captain Peo. He was rejected. The RD-ESRP coalition haven't done anything.
Why doesn't the government grants Right of Passage to the Allies? They help us, they'r the only ones who helped us.
On the Borgman-Bill.
Does this also apply's on military law and law during times of war?
''Deploying the navy to the area in question is not intended as gesture of intimidation, so your comment doesn't apply.''
Then why do you want to deploy the Navy? If you want the Navy to play policemen then you shouldn't use the Navy, we have the coastguard for that.
I have only heard of attempts of former minister Captain Peo. He was rejected. The RD-ESRP coalition haven't done anything.
Why doesn't the government grants Right of Passage to the Allies? They help us, they'r the only ones who helped us.
On the Borgman-Bill.
Does this also apply's on military law and law during times of war?
Please read my action programme.
We're supposedly dealing with rampant piracy. We may suspect that this is not actually the case, but if it is: how heavily armed are our Coast Guard ships? Would they be adequate in a combat situation? Are they equipped for lengthy deployments on the high seas?
... who was sent to France by President Murmurandus.
?
There are several issues of wrongdoing that have occurred, and I think even Mel acknowledges (I hope) that they are wrong. I think his sticking point is over what is or is not a violation of international law and how much proof is required to advance this claim.
Though I have no official government sanction to lay out these arguments, and I would argue that it was our government's duty and obligation to its people to develop and lay out such a case, I will present them in the hopes that we can reach, if not consensus, then at least a majority opinion for moving forward.
VIOLATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Was the French action taken in traditional Eutopian fishing shoals a violation of international law?
(a) Territorial Waters: It appears that waters in which the incident occurred are in fact outside of the waters recognized by basic international law as Eutopian. However, Mr. Wellesford's point is still valid. There are additional binding international treaties governing world fishing rights.
(OOC: Since Eutopia does not acutally exist, I cannot cite these to you specifically. You will have to grant me some leeway here and allow me to make some rational deductions. If Blade! sees these as over statement, please let me know and I will edit appropriately)
This North Atlantic Fishing Agreement, of which Eutopia, France, Spain and other nations are parties, defines boundaries and rights to several productive fishing shoals in the Atlantic region. This agreement is set to expire, but should (OOC: Based on these shoals being "traditional" Eutopian fishing territories and there being no previous presence by France, et al) still guarantee that these are Eutopian waters. Even if the treaty allows the French access to these waters it most assuredly would not allow the French to keep Eutopians from these waters.
TheFrench have stated many times the importance of these waters, and that this is "just business". Their forceful denial of entry to Eutopian crafts, unless the NAFA is a very poorly drawn treaty, would be a sufficient violation of international law and our sovereignty.
Has this treaty expired? I have seen nothing to suggest that it has, but if so then that unfortunately must be laid at the feet of my friend President Murmurandus. Admittedly Eutopia has seen its fair share of trouble lately, but there was fair and advance warning that this treaty's expiration was approaching and that negotiations would begin soon. Yet, this issue has received zero attention from the administration. International events such as this would fall under his responsibilities and those of his ministers. If he delegated this to a minister who took no action, the President is still ultimately responsible for seeing it resolved.
Attempts should have made much earlier than this to resolve this treaty situation.
Let us hope that the treaty is still in effect and our relief can be achieved through its provisions.
(b) Failure to Render Assistance: The first incident with the French was the ramming of the traditional Eutopian fishing boat by a French trawler, which led the deaths of 12 Eutopians. Reports cite not only a failure to assist, but taunting by the French as they passed.
The French trawler was presumably a private craft and not a state owned craft. However, as a craft flying the French flag, the French carry a responsibility over the actions of such crafts. International law requires:
Every State shall require the master of a ship sailing under its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers,
(a) To render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) To proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such
action may reasonably be expected of him;
(c) After a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, her crew and her passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, her port of registry and the nearest port at which she will call.
Please note the language "Every State shall require". The French government had an obligation to ensure this course of action by ships under its registry. It not only failed in this obligation, but public statements by the French have disrespectfully denied any such responsibility.
(c)Detainment of Citizens on Charges of Piracy:
Though the loss of our fishermen's lives is the most tragic result to date in this crisis, what is perhaps the most offensive wrongdoing, due to its brazeness, is the- in my opinion, illegal - aduction and confinement of Eutopian citizenry on charges of piracy.
Yes, international law allows that military craft may intercept and detain those suspected of piracy. It also sets out explicit procedures for how such interceptions must be handled.
We have been denied the release of these citizens, we have been denied basic communication with and information about these citizens, and we have been offered nothing but a refusal from the French as to their release.
It has been argued that, since we do not absolutely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt know that these citizens may not have been engaged in piracy that we cannot argue that the French action was not justified.
In fact, the error of many of us supporting action has been to try to argue this point and show enough circumstantial evidence to move forward.
Both approaches are wrong.
It took even more research looking into how such international disputes are handled (research that I still maintain should have been initiatated by our government, and much sooner than now), but we have a clear grievance against the French based even on the little evidence we do have, not because of our citizens' actions, but due to the actions of the French government.
The French, in their abduction and detainment of our citizens must show clear and undeniable proof that these citizens were engaged in piracy or they must release them into our custody. Such proof has not been show, or even offered.
It is not our burden to provide overwhelming proof because we were not there and could not hope to have such evidence, especially with the citizens remaining in French detention.
Rather it is the burden, legal duty, and obligation of the French to provide sufficient legal justification, including hard proof, that these citizens were engaged in piracy. Failure to provide such evidence warrants immediate release.
As the French has neither shown this proof or released the citizens they are holding them illegally.
Now the sticking point here is "what is clear and undeniable and proof?", and this is where many international disputes cannot get resolved without mediation. However, I dare say everyone will agree that the French have failed to provide what any of us would say is an acceptable level of evidence. Even failure to provide proof to our satisfaction is justification for taking this grievance to the international courts.
CONCLUSION: I feel that we have three solid claims against the French for violation of international law and should proceed seeking redress, in additional to other actions which we can take.
The President should immediately use all diplomatic resources at his disposal to pursue these claims.
The President should immediately deliver a status report on the North Atlantic Fishing Agreement, including his plans for renegotiation. I would recommend D. Yuber Harding or Robert Vergocz as an advisor on issues of international trade and commerce.
Additional actions should be taken to guarantee the safety of our fishermen.
I encourage all Eutopians in agreement with me and my colleagues to please voice their support for this course of action.
Rev. Jack Teano
Moderate Party, Chairman
Though I have no official government sanction to lay out these arguments, and I would argue that it was our government's duty and obligation to its people to develop and lay out such a case, I will present them in the hopes that we can reach, if not consensus, then at least a majority opinion for moving forward.
VIOLATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Was the French action taken in traditional Eutopian fishing shoals a violation of international law?
(a) Territorial Waters: It appears that waters in which the incident occurred are in fact outside of the waters recognized by basic international law as Eutopian. However, Mr. Wellesford's point is still valid. There are additional binding international treaties governing world fishing rights.
(OOC: Since Eutopia does not acutally exist, I cannot cite these to you specifically. You will have to grant me some leeway here and allow me to make some rational deductions. If Blade! sees these as over statement, please let me know and I will edit appropriately)
This North Atlantic Fishing Agreement, of which Eutopia, France, Spain and other nations are parties, defines boundaries and rights to several productive fishing shoals in the Atlantic region. This agreement is set to expire, but should (OOC: Based on these shoals being "traditional" Eutopian fishing territories and there being no previous presence by France, et al) still guarantee that these are Eutopian waters. Even if the treaty allows the French access to these waters it most assuredly would not allow the French to keep Eutopians from these waters.
TheFrench have stated many times the importance of these waters, and that this is "just business". Their forceful denial of entry to Eutopian crafts, unless the NAFA is a very poorly drawn treaty, would be a sufficient violation of international law and our sovereignty.
Has this treaty expired? I have seen nothing to suggest that it has, but if so then that unfortunately must be laid at the feet of my friend President Murmurandus. Admittedly Eutopia has seen its fair share of trouble lately, but there was fair and advance warning that this treaty's expiration was approaching and that negotiations would begin soon. Yet, this issue has received zero attention from the administration. International events such as this would fall under his responsibilities and those of his ministers. If he delegated this to a minister who took no action, the President is still ultimately responsible for seeing it resolved.
Attempts should have made much earlier than this to resolve this treaty situation.
Let us hope that the treaty is still in effect and our relief can be achieved through its provisions.
(b) Failure to Render Assistance: The first incident with the French was the ramming of the traditional Eutopian fishing boat by a French trawler, which led the deaths of 12 Eutopians. Reports cite not only a failure to assist, but taunting by the French as they passed.
The French trawler was presumably a private craft and not a state owned craft. However, as a craft flying the French flag, the French carry a responsibility over the actions of such crafts. International law requires:
Every State shall require the master of a ship sailing under its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers,
(a) To render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) To proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such
action may reasonably be expected of him;
(c) After a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, her crew and her passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, her port of registry and the nearest port at which she will call.
Please note the language "Every State shall require". The French government had an obligation to ensure this course of action by ships under its registry. It not only failed in this obligation, but public statements by the French have disrespectfully denied any such responsibility.
(c)Detainment of Citizens on Charges of Piracy:
Though the loss of our fishermen's lives is the most tragic result to date in this crisis, what is perhaps the most offensive wrongdoing, due to its brazeness, is the- in my opinion, illegal - aduction and confinement of Eutopian citizenry on charges of piracy.
Yes, international law allows that military craft may intercept and detain those suspected of piracy. It also sets out explicit procedures for how such interceptions must be handled.
We have been denied the release of these citizens, we have been denied basic communication with and information about these citizens, and we have been offered nothing but a refusal from the French as to their release.
It has been argued that, since we do not absolutely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt know that these citizens may not have been engaged in piracy that we cannot argue that the French action was not justified.
In fact, the error of many of us supporting action has been to try to argue this point and show enough circumstantial evidence to move forward.
Both approaches are wrong.
It took even more research looking into how such international disputes are handled (research that I still maintain should have been initiatated by our government, and much sooner than now), but we have a clear grievance against the French based even on the little evidence we do have, not because of our citizens' actions, but due to the actions of the French government.
The French, in their abduction and detainment of our citizens must show clear and undeniable proof that these citizens were engaged in piracy or they must release them into our custody. Such proof has not been show, or even offered.
It is not our burden to provide overwhelming proof because we were not there and could not hope to have such evidence, especially with the citizens remaining in French detention.
Rather it is the burden, legal duty, and obligation of the French to provide sufficient legal justification, including hard proof, that these citizens were engaged in piracy. Failure to provide such evidence warrants immediate release.
As the French has neither shown this proof or released the citizens they are holding them illegally.
Now the sticking point here is "what is clear and undeniable and proof?", and this is where many international disputes cannot get resolved without mediation. However, I dare say everyone will agree that the French have failed to provide what any of us would say is an acceptable level of evidence. Even failure to provide proof to our satisfaction is justification for taking this grievance to the international courts.
CONCLUSION: I feel that we have three solid claims against the French for violation of international law and should proceed seeking redress, in additional to other actions which we can take.
The President should immediately use all diplomatic resources at his disposal to pursue these claims.
The President should immediately deliver a status report on the North Atlantic Fishing Agreement, including his plans for renegotiation. I would recommend D. Yuber Harding or Robert Vergocz as an advisor on issues of international trade and commerce.
Additional actions should be taken to guarantee the safety of our fishermen.
I encourage all Eutopians in agreement with me and my colleagues to please voice their support for this course of action.
Rev. Jack Teano
Moderate Party, Chairman
Last edited:
Here here, Rev. Teano. I support everything you said. I recently stated we should give the French a deadline to either release our citiizens or give us the evidence that they were in fact involved in piracy.