1
Edition: 24.10.2012
Peace regulation
Composed of a
Proceedings to prevent aggression
and
political code of practise
Peace, justice and safeguarding of all creations
through law
Shift from a world power to a world law system
I.
This sounds very bombastically and therefore utopian. But this is not about a change of the
world order system as we know it but about banning all violence from international
relations between states, about the chance of a social balance between people and the
preservation of our biosphere.
This is not meant to be achieved by creating a world state or a world federation, but by way
of a simple political code of practice which would replace all wars. It is not meant to replace
diplomatic negotiations but should only then be called upon by states when negotiations
reach a deadlock or where the situation would escalate into a violent stage meaning war.
With this code of practice it is envisioned that not only the law will be enforced but also that
there are options to realise one’s interests in the same way that war was used until now.
The peace regulations-to-be will have two different proceedings. It contains
proceedings to prevent aggression
which is meant to stop the start of a violent war and the
code of political procedure
II.
1.
The proceedings to prevent aggression add to and widens the existing law of nations as far as it
is standardized within the Kellogg pact of 1928 and the UNO charta (Art.39ff and Art.51). The basis
of the proceedings is the anticipated declaration of war. It mainly works by way of an anticipated
2
declaration of war. After having accepted the peace regulations each state declares war on another
state should they attack another member state. This also implies that any state which attacks
another has accepted that all others will be declaring war on them. An attack will be clearly defined.
The proceedings to prevent aggression are set in motion via a passive declaration of war by the state
under attack. Through it the state which went ahead with the attack is charged with aggression. The
accused state is informed of this passive declaration of war by the UN general secretary with a view
to explain the charges, affirm them or contradict them. If the accused state should contradict the
general secretary starts the following proceedings, the first two simultaneously:
1. Safety-
2. Investigation-
3. Combat proceedings
Via the first proceedings the accusing state is protected in its territory from further possible
attacks, via the second a specially drafted peace police will check the accusations of the
accusing state. If the peace police confirms these the general secretary will initiate the
combat proceedings. Through the means of these proceedings the aggressor state is under
attack by the called-for troops until surrender. In their declaration of surrender they have to
accept responsibility for the damages and ensuing costs. A state rejecting calls for the
provision of troops for safety and combat purposes does commit an attack by omission
leading to combat proceedings brought on against them similar to the accused state.
The passive declaration of war may be used against a state unknown in case the declaring
state does not know the cause of attack. The general secretary initiates the first two
proceedings. If a state can be identified as aggressor the proceedings go ahead against
them, if the cause of attack remains unknown, the proceedings are discontinued.
Along with these proceedings of preventing aggression there exist proceedings to prevent
threat and terror.
A part of the proceedings for the prevention of aggression is also an international code of weapons.
Every state is obliged to reveal its extent of weaponry by registration and identification by place of
storage and owner and to have the UNO check this. The possession of biological and chemical and
scattering weapons is prohibited. Some states may apply for the possession of nuclear weapons
provided they can cover the risks and responsibilities completely and will consider their use only via
involvement of the General Secretary. In view of the proceedings for the prevention of threat any
state can stop another state from over-arming or having unlawful weapons at their disposal and
therefore posing a threat to that state.
2.
The code of political procedure is a way for states to handle conflicts. This requires that
states not only hold their full sovereignty, but in case they have lost same already that they
are reinstated to this status. The code of practice will lead to pressure on states to become
constitutional.
The procedure to realise their own rights and interests is not only a way for states but also
for minorities provided they have organised themselves as subjects of procedure according
to the code of practice. Opposing claimants would be the states these minorities inhabit.
Also included into this procedure will be the most important biospheres on Earth like the
atmosphere, the seas, big lakes, bogs, big rivers etc. They will be attributed legal capacity
and therefore capacity to procedure. A guardianship will need to be established. Should one
3
such biosphere be entirely within the borders of one state it will have the best chances of
preserving it. Apart from this these guardianships will be assigned through the UN to those
states who apply for them. The states responsible for one such biosphere fulfill a double
function in being a state area corporation as well as an international law subject for this biosphere.
This is the way in which they can pursue all interests necessary for the existence and
maintenance of the biosphere – they may also follow the code of political procedure.
All states choose one or more godfather states. These can be called upon by their
respective ward states in case of emergencies.
According to this code of practice no state or minority has any reason any more to pursue
their interests by way of violence. The biosphere on planet Earth is directly protected by the
whole union of states and by the separate states network. Success will be gained in this
procedure by whoever pursues the main interests. There will be a classification into simple,
main and vital interests. There will be three phases of decision making. The proceedings are
opened by a declaration of demanding by one state against another. The general secretary
will receive it and approve its formal requirements.
The refusing state can oppose the declaration of demanding if they have accepted the peace
regulations. The general secretary will refer the matter to the international law court.
The first phase of the proceedings
takes place before the international law court.
The courts will check the viability of the reason for the demanding and if legitimate main or
vital interests are concerned. The procedure ends with a judgment that both parties need
not accept. If there is at least one party not in agreement the proceedings will move to
phase two.
The second phase
takes place before the general assembly.
Aim of this phase is the procurement of a settlement. The general assembly will divide into
three sub-assemblies. One will consist of all supporting states of the one party, the second
of all the supporting states of the other party and the third of all neutral states. The latter
will devise a proposal of settlement which will be offered for vote in the other two subassemblies
and decides on additional clauses and changes. The whole of the general
assembly votes on the final settlement. Neither party is forced to accept this settlement. A
rejection might prove risky, though. In a case where only the rejecting state accepts the
settlement the general secretary would reject the demand. In a case of only the demanding
state accepting the settlement, the original demand would be considered legitimate and the
demanding state would receive corresponding documentation. If none of
the parties accepts the proposal of settlement then the secretary general
concludes the proceedings, with the condition, that the demanding state
cannot reply his demand during the next ten years. But the states are
allowed, to accept one of the decisions in the past proceedings, the
judgement oft he international low court und the settlement oft he neutral
states.
4
Only if the proposal of settlement violates vital interests of one of the
quarrelling states can that said state have this confirmed by the
international court of law so that the proceedings would start again at the
second phase.1
The proceeding also contains the
option of an execution
which probably will never be claimed after everybody’s experiences with the European
court of justice. The execution is ordered in a way to not humiliate the defendant.
Through the means of these proceedings alone all states and people are tied up in a dense
network so that a balance of interests is achieved without violence and the protection of
nature is guaranteed.
This international code of political procedure replaces war – the means of choice for
pursuing interests so far. But there is no guarantee at present that a state might not refer to
this antiquated institute of war again. Apart from this code of political procedure the peace
regulations would also offer
The whole of the peace regulations are presented in a major study titled “The right to kill in
war” with a subtitle “who is allowed to kill whom, how, when in war and how can this right
be abolished?”
The topic was presented in this provocative way to show clearly how humanity finds itself
still in a civilizing crisis and that it is high time to tackle this.
1 Originally there was a third phase of negotiations due at this stage. It would be composed of competition
games or contests. Which particular form these would take and the where and when would be determined by
the state which was favoured in the former phases of the proceedings or the state which solely accepted the
settlement. This phase of the proceedings mainly aims to document the results of the former phases. The
government of the inferior state will be able to show to their population that they tried everything to resolve
the crisis their way. The proceedings must be adapted to war while excluding all violence. It therefore needs to
contain all irrational factors such as chance and fate same as in a violent war. In addition to this a game or
contest would help alleviate all aggressions that build up during a political crisis.
Taking into account the previous correspondence of the author it would seem this third phase might overstrain
the competence of the politicians and experts on international law involved. It will remain an alternative
solution. The parties involved would be asked at the end of phase 2 if they wanted to go ahead with phase 3.
Like that it would become clearly obvious how much the parties consider it worthwhile proceeding with phase
3 on their particular case in question.
As an additional alternative for a phase 3 there might be earmarked a virtual war or a war in manoeuvres
(without destruction, injuries and deaths). Shows like these would be adequate to convince people and
governments of the legitimacy of the end of proceedings. The parties involved could choose this alternative in
case the two previous phases of the proceedings have not led to an acceptable result.