What follows here are some thoughts and ideas I have regarding what “international law” (IL) is in Particracy. I have long thought that it’s important to consider and define international law in the game a bit more clearly for RP that seeks to engage it. The recent passage of SC Resolution 133 and the subsequent creation of the ICJ makes this all the more relevant. For instance, what are the actual “disputes” that this court is mandated to adjudicate? Who can bring a case to the ICJ? These things need to be clarified to make the ICJ an effective device for RP.
This said, as an area of interest and study for me in real life, what I write here may seem a bit pedantic and excessive. Nevertheless, I encourage folks to read and share their thoughts if they too are interested in improving our understanding and application of IL in the game.
Sources of International Law in Real Life
International law in the real world has developed in a rather disorganised and sporadic way for most of human history, reflecting the needs and priorities shared between distinct human societies in governing their relations with each other for centuries. However, unlike the criminal law of most modern states, there isn’t a single authority or legislative body which codifies explicit “laws.”
Instead, the sources of international law are a combination primarily of treaties, international customs, and generally recognised principles of law, supplemented by the decisions of national and subnational courts, and the writings of scholars. The Statute of the International Court of Justice provided what is most widely considered the authoritative definition of what constitutes the sources of international law: "international conventions, whether general or particular...; international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; [...] judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law" (Article 38(1)). Which is all to just reiterate what I've said.
Appendix A: Quick Example of Sources of International Law Applied to Case Studies
- Treaties: the Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four distinct treaties which establish and govern international norms for humanitarian treatment in times of war; grave breaches of these laws may entail prosecution at the ICC or under other mandated international bodies, such as during the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
- Custom: in The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) the U.S. was found "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State," (among other crimes) for its support of the Contras against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
- General Principles of Law: in Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co., Ltd (Belgium v. Spain) (1970), the ICJ ruled that the legal personality of corporations is a legitimate concept in international law, since it is widely accepted in national legal systems.
Sources of International Law in Particracy
The oldest and most plainly obvious source of international law in Particracy are treaties. To this end, I will propose the following:
Argument One: Treaties are the primary source of international law in the game.
The importance of treaties is derived from multiple sources: (a) they have to be ratified by national legislatures, in theory requiring a degree of consent from players of the game; (b) following from the last point, and incorporating the long-standing OOC principle that “game mechanics come first,” treaties are the only form of IL that are integrated with the game mechanics, thus giving them special authority and legitimacy. If my argument has been sound thus far, I shall propose next:
Argument Two: The degree to which a treaty is considered a core source of IL shall be determined by a combination of: (a) how widely the treaty has been adopted; (b) how old the treaty is, and; (c) whether or not the treaty references, or is referenced in, a World Congress Security Council Resolution.
This may be slightly more controversial than the first argument, as it further sets out to offer a criterion for assessing the relative value (hierarchy) of different treaties in international law. I argue that widespread adoption (a) reflects a degree of international acceptance of the legal norms included in the treaty, while the age of the treaty (b) reflects the legal principle of precedence; that is, the older a legal decision, the more enshrined it is. Further, I argue that a treaty's connection to the World Congress (c) and its active resolutions strengthens the legitimacy and application of the legal principle the treaty seeks to address, while also strengthening the role of the World Congress in setting and shaping international law.
I leave the exact “combination” of precedence and acceptance vague intentionally, as some treaties may be old but irrelevant, while other treaties may be widely adopted but not particularly informative to the central tenets of international law; similarly, a highly relevant treaty (one which reflects a World Congress Security Council resolution, such as the IANN) may not be widely ratified but may reflect an important development in IL. Weighing these different elements should be the role of the in-game ICJ, the RP Committee, and/or in-character "scholars and national judicial decisions" which engage in IL.
As examples, I would argue that treaties like the Global Emancipation Treaty (ratified by 36 nations, and created in the year 2120) represents a core component of Particracy’s international law, particularly as it refers to the crime of slavery. Another treaty, the Treaty on the Protection of Endangered Animals (ratified by 22 countries, created in 2105) represents an important source of international environmental law. Generally, I agree with all of the treaties which James has compiled here in his "Corpus of international law" as constituting the core treaties of PT's international law.
Many of the other sources of international law are harder to locate in PT, particularly as it is (in my opinion) an underdeveloped area. As it relates to other sources of international law, I would put forward the following:
Argument Three: The World Congress, and its affiliated organizations, are the primary source of customary international law, when such customary law is not found in the existing practices of states or treaties.
By this, in simpler terms, I mean to say that the WC through its resolutions, and the publications/actions of its affiliated organizations, are the primary source of the practices and customs which are part of international law in PT. For example, SC R88 (which to my knowledge, is still active) provides both a codified and normative/customary contribution to IL, in that it sets forward the legal principles of non-interference ("All states in Terra must refrain from interfering in one another's internal affairs") and territorial integrity ("All states in Terra are sovereign and their territorial integrity must be maintained") in a way which is clear, which is at the core of the WC's mandate. Though it is codified, it is not a treaty; however, it clearly includes certain rights and obligations under international law, and its legitimacy is drawn from the World Congress of which all nation states are compulsorily members. This, I would argue, makes it equal or near-equal in weight as treaties under PT's IL, though it is different for the reasons I outlined above.
I also here include the affiliated organizations of the WC, under which I include both the direct Agencies/Offices of the WC and its "partner organizations." This is because, though examples are hard to come by, I can foresee the potential of the World Congress Human Rights' Office issuing guidance on humanitarian law, or some other matter, which could be considered part of the canon of customary international law. The future rulings of the ICJ or another similar body would certainly, through case law and establishing precedence, have an important role to play here.
The second part of this argument follows from the fact that we can customs in part as the ways that players, acting on behalf of countries, have interacted with each other and with international organizations (most notably the World Congress). The ways that players are able to do so are in large part determined by the Game Rules and the general principles of collaborative RP that have been developed over the course of the game. Violations of these OOC principles may be coded, in the game, as violations of customary international law.
Argument Four: In-character contributions to international law from organizations, experts, and/or scholars may be considered supplementary sources of IL, particularly when addressing an area not dealt with through treaties or by the WC system.
Demonstrative of this argument would be my in-character exchange of open letters with James, acting as the Secretary-General of the Human Rights Foundation. In it (written around the time I originally wrote most of this) my character asked the HRF for guidance on "what currently constitutes the basis for essential human rights," among other questions concerning humanitarian IL. In his response, James (as the HRF Sec.-Gen) identifies what this organization considers to be "the most significant statement of global rights" and the sources of human rights in IL, and highlights other important sources of such law. Absent any other comparable contribution to be found in treaties or in WC resolutions, I think this exchange would serve as an authoritative supplementary source of international law in PT as it is well considered, and comes from a respected and authoritative source in-game (the HRF, which is a "partner organization" of the WC).
Argument Five: Important treaties shall be considered legally binding on all; violations of a widely adopted, long-established treaty, even by those who do not ratify the treaty, should be considered a breach of international law.
Allow me to explain this final argument a bit more, as I suspect some may have strong initial objections. Violations of international law do not represent a prima facie reason for international sanction or intervention. Many countries in real life routinely violate international law (US invasion of Iraq, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israel, etc.) but formally remain members of the international community. There are obviously many reasons for this that I cannot go into here, but I raise this only to say that a contravention of international law does not necessarily need to mean that the Security Council authorises a regime change intervention against your nation—in fact, I’d argue in most cases that any direct WCSC intervention should be extraordinarily rare and well organized. A violation of the prohibition against the slave trade is more serious, and demands more urgent action from the international community than a violation of international law with respect to diplomatic immunity, for instance. This does not change the fact that they are both violations.
Best Practices for Players
In this section, in a bit of a departure from the above arguments, I wish to share what I believe to be the best practices for players to follow when engaging with international law. Note, these are simply my recommendations, and not central parts of the proposals and arguments I’ve put forward throughout:
(1) Players should, when possible and consistent with their RP plans, adopt the core treaties in IL in whichever country they are playing in; this represents bringing a country into full alignment with international legal norms. James' "Corpus of international law" is a good resource to this end.
(2) Players should, when making declarations about international law, seek to cite either a treaty or World Congress Security Council Resolution which is relevant; in other words, if you are describing something as “against international law,” it is best to make sure that is the case.
(3) Players should, when creating new treaties or international law, seek to find and/or reference pre-existing treaties, norms, and laws. For instance, if you are creating a new international organization designed to fight piracy, it is likely relevant to consider the Law of the Sea and other IL concerning piracy, privateers, etc. Similarly, you should ensure that there is not already a widely-adopted and older treaty addressing the issue you are focusing on, and refrain from fixing what is not broken, unless your treaty represents a substantive improvement on the existing one.
(4) Players who are representing countries elected to the World Congress Security Council should make sure that they are prepared to fully carry out any resolution they put forward; this is to say, players should only put forward WCSC interventions if there is a clear plan to ensure it is completed. Investigations and interventions should have a clear mandate/objective and should be time limited (with a clear end date). Similarly, any organizations created or actions undertaken by the World Congress Security Council should include a clear OOC distribution of how it will be run, funded, and by whom.
Best Practices for Mods/RP Committee/etc.
Leaving aside some reforms and improvements to the game’s organizational structure which I think should be undertaken (but which are beyond the scope of my argument here to consider), I wish to offer some further recommendations specific to the roles of Moderation and/or the different RP committees/coordinators with respect to the game’s IL—all of whom I will collectively refer to as “Coordinators.”
(1) Coordinators should maintain an up-to-date list of active World Congress Resolutions. To my mind, this would ideally be on the wiki, and include a relevant categorisation (“humanitarian law” or “international criminal law” for instance) and a brief summary of what the Resolution entails.
(2) Coordinators should make sure that any organisation created under the WC has a clear OOC component to address who will manage/control it; further, I think changes should be made so that players may (in collaboration with the WC coordinator) apply for control of organizations and institutions of the WC, similar to how players apply for control of FBCs. Accordingly, a player could become the controller of the World Congress Food Agency, for instance.
(3) Coordinators should be aware of the most important international treaties, and work to ensure that players are aware of them when relevant.
General Recommendations or Areas to Focus on to Improve International Law
Some final general thoughts and ideas for all to consider:
(1) I would discourage players from making bilateral “diplomatic relations” treaties, as this would ostensibly require a country that wishes to have relations with all countries to have to ratify at least 52 different treaties; I recommend creating more general multilateral treaties that cover issues like this (see my drafted Elajet Convention on Diplomatic Relations which, at present, is basically just the Vienna Treaty). Bilateral trade agreements, cultural agreements, visa agreements, etc. are a different matter.
(2) Players should seek to organize “conventions” in order to create new treaties and determine international law with respect to specific issues; collaborating and creating treaties across countries is a great way to create new norms in international law, and could be done in a way which generates RP (think global climate change conventions, or the Geneva Conventions, etc.). Contrasting the views of characters and their ideologies in the game might lead to interesting and unique departures from real world international law in the development of international law in the game. I would encourage the formation of an in-game International Law Commission within the WC to guide this effort.
