Andrej Towpik to the ICJ

[ManBear]

Global Assembly
Advisory Committee on
the United States of America's Strategic Accountability Policy
Andrej Towpik
Polish Ambassador to the Global Assembly

First, I would like to thank Ambassador Piyabutr Saengkanokku for submitting this for an advisory decision to the Global Assembly so that the world at large can way in on this state policy.

To better explain Poland's position on this we all must first understand the language of the Strategic Accountability Policy as well as the Executive Order 44-12 'Clarification of the Strategic Accountability Policy'.

First we must look at the actual policy announced by the United States of American Department of State. In the announcement of the Policy it was declared that the United States would be hosting a multinational summit of those nations capable of producing strategic weapons and their launch vehicles in an effort to have proliferation of these weapons. Which is a commendable goal following the devastating attack on Egyptian soil by an still unnamed aggressor using such weapons and launcher. Following this announcement for the summit, the policy was explained as any nation who sells one of these strategic weapons to another foreign nation where that nation uses it on the United States, the United States will consider the builder of the weapon at fault as well. This is the simplification of the language to show Poland's way of understanding the wording. Following that, there was an Executive Order, 44-12, clarifying that Russia would not be included within this language of the Policy and which Departments of the Federal Government would be convening the summit. Very basic language.

Now to get into the nitty gritty of the details. In regards to the sell of WMDs, apart of the Strategic Accountability Policy(SAP), the Global Assembly already has a passed Resolution on Strategic Weapons Prohibition. This effectively makes a third of the SAP moot as WMDs are prohibited to be used, produced, or stockpiled by members of the Global Assembly, most of which are apart of the member nations that will be called to the Summit for SAP.

Now to address the questions listed in the primary document.

1. Is it consistent with international law for a state to impose accountability on other states for the resale, transfer, or use of weapons or related technologies, irrespective of the original seller’s knowledge or intent?

I see your question in regards to the consistency with International Law but I must pose another question in response to the Thai representative that is much in the same train of thought. Is it consistent with International Law for a state to execute a foreign diplomat and member of government on foreign soil without proper attempts at de-escalation or use of non-lethal force? There are cases that do not remain consistent with the norm of international law every day and to tie up the Global Assembly and the International Court of Justice with such matters seem trivial in comparison of things such as the attack on Egyptian Soil, active terrorism on the islands of New Caledonia, and inequality running rampant worldwide.

2. Does a policy that holds a state accountable for the actions of another state in the resale or misuse of strategic weapons violate the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention under international law?

While we do not necessarily agree with holding a third party additionally accountable for the actions of another state, this is also a domestic policy regarding the domestic foreign policy of the United States which should not be debated within the Global Assembly lest we find ourselves debating every policy decision chosen by member nations. Holding a state accountable for the sale of strategic weapons does not necessarily qualify as a violation of sovereignty or non-intervention.

3. To what extent can a state be held responsible for the indirect actions of a third party under customary international law and existing international agreements on arms trade?

We feel a state can be held responsible for indirect actions of a third party under international law and existing agreements within rational reason. Speaking from personal experience after the attempted assassination of Her Majesty the Queen Consort, it was his Majesty's view point that whomever sold the chemical weapons to the terrorists would be held liable within the Global Assembly and the Royal Armed Forces of Poland.

4. Under international law, what is the threshold for attributing responsibility to a state for weapons it produces but does not directly use?

As far as I am currently aware, as of the writing of this document, there are no current international laws that dictate the aforementioned threshold. It is our belief that this is due to the aversion of meddling in domestic policies of a sovereign nation.

In conclusion, it is Poland's belief that the Global Assembly, until a Resolution debated on and passed, has no place in determining foreign policies of sovereign nations, as well as member nations. It is also Poland's belief that calling for an advisory committee to form an opinion on a nation's domestic policies in regards to foreign affairs could be seen as an attempt to undermine the Global Assembly's position, especially by a nation that has publicly stated they do not consider Global Assembly resolutions to be binding for their nation. It is in this belief that we advise that the International Court of Justice do not enforce the termination of a domestic foreign policy nor make any attempts in the future until the Global Assembly convenes on a Resolution for the matter for all member nations to discuss at least amongst each other.

Sincerely,
Andrej Towpik
Polish Ambassador to the Global Assembly

Global Assembly Dutchy