Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

I recently stumbled on the mention of that (by a Caldari, no less) on the IGS, and it's not the first time I see it either. It is my belief that it is a grossly as well as completely understandable western misconception as we all tend to do in regards to the Eve lore, but made me wonder though if such a notion actually exists in some form in New Eden, especially perhaps in the Gallente Federation ? For the other empires that makes absolutely zero sense, but I could expect to see it brandished as an ideological tool in the Federation...

What says lore on the subject, if any ?


Addendum : to clarify a bit, and trying to avoid any godwin point on the matter, I would like to remind that crime against humanity is a rather modern western concept invented right after WW2, in part to deal with the defeated enemy elites, nazi leaders and all that jazz. I would also like to remind that those people, as much as criminals we want to make of them (with reason or not, that's not the point), were actually judged for crimes that didn't even exist in the first place when they committed them.

So while I would be cautious in using such strong RL analogies bathed in our western culture and morals, I truly wonder though what kind of clues the lore gives about that, if there are any ?

[Letos]

Hm, I don't understand what is so special with human rights or top level jurisdiction dealing with genocide or something like this. Isn't it just another field of topic like, say, international corporate law? Are you asking if New Eden history gives some historic reason for explicitly valuing basic human rights?

If so, I remember that there was a terrible war right after the closing of the Eve gate. I think I read it in the Eve Source book. It seems to be a very good reason to expect every nation to have a close eye on the self destructive and barbaric tendencies within. I don't know for sure though, if the expression 'crime against humanity' is cited.

[Morwen Lagann]

Odds are there would be different interpretations of the concept in each empire.

I'd only expect the Federation to use it "offensively" to go after people. The Republic would probably only do so with the Amarr and affiliates (Kingdom, etc.). I don't see the State or the Amarr using it as a concept that often, except in a defensive manner - that is, I could see the Amarr referencing it after the Elder attacks, or the State using it after Malkalen.

The important question, as far as enforcement or ~effective working New Eden definition~ goes, is probably whether CONCORD has a definition it uses for it or not.

[Aria Jenneth]

Back in the days before Incarna, or maybe just the current bounty system, Eve players with especially high bounties appeared on the CONCORD billboards near gates with the caption, "WANTED for crimes against humanity. Bounty: [gahoozits lots] ISK."

Since such crimes (various massacres, leaving survivors to die, blasting unarmed civilian facilities in hopes of finding loot, etc.) could be effectively laid at the feet of any experienced combat pilot, it might be another incarnation of Eve's grimdark: most or all capsuleers have such a charge potentially awaiting them. Of course, that language no longer appears (or does it? Must pay attention next time I'm in transit), but then, bounties are no longer as closely linked to security status as they used to be.

Note, however, that the "criminal" brand has less to do with how awful a capsuleer's been to baseliners and more to do with courtesy to fellow "immortals." It's whether CONCORD lets them into high security space or offers any kind of protection.

Those whose security status drops below a certain level might find that "crimes against humanity" is CONCORD's public relations cover for branding them criminals and permitting attacks on them, effectively driving them out to the margins of New Eden. If their sec status goes back up, CONCORD conveniently "forgets" that they've committed crimes against humanity and lets them wander about unhindered again until given another reason to remember.

[Lyn Farel]

Well the fact is that as much as I perfectly expect all empires to have different scales of definitions of mass murder, genocide, etc, I am not so sure about human rights and especially crimes against humanity. IRL afaik it's a very specific term that appears like a moral construct more than a statement of facts (mass murder, genocide, etc). Example, as used on the IGS in that case, about slavery, being a crime against humanity.

Thus why the question...

[Aria Jenneth]

Well the fact is that as much as I perfectly expect all empires to have different scales of definitions of mass murder, genocide, etc, I am not so sure about human rights and especially crimes against humanity. IRL afaik it's a very specific term that appears like a moral construct more than a statement of facts (mass murder, genocide, etc). Example, as used on the IGS in that case, about slavery, being a crime against humanity.

Thus why the question...

When it pops up like that I just assume it's someone voicing a Gallentean-influenced moral judgment, having sipped at New Eden's fountain of egalitarian, individualistic principles.

[Gottii]

I would just chalk it up to self-serving hyperbole and propaganda. 

That is what most of the IGS basically is, after all. 

[Jukko Riis]

I think that was one of mine.

Thea Isotalo ranting against Amarr slavery?

That's the difficult thing about EVE RP. How much modern terminology can you use? 20k years in the future should be as alien to us as 20k years in the past are. So we have to pick and choose which familiar elements to allow, while taking special care not to jump the shark.

"Crimes Against Humanity" would be a familiar concept for Thea, if not the actual term...but more on her history later. For now...yeah. Self-serving hyperbole and propaganda fits the bill nicely.

[Nissui]

There are a handful of characters on the IGS who appear to have some practical experience with statecraft and diplomacy (beyond the Alliance-derived, "you're blue, you aren't" definition). It seems feasible to me that such characters could be drawing from knowledge of corporate law or CONCORD policy, but then it would probably not be a term thrown around casually by such individuals.

For everyone else, their layman's use of the term could be seen as a parallel to our own pop-culture lexicon wherein the term was co-opted from the original legal definition, for later use in humor, hyperbole, etc.

I'm unable to locate anything resembling the Yoiul Accords, which I assume CONCORD would have used to lay the legal groundwork for the term.

[Lyn Farel]

Yeah of course. I'm really nitpicking here. I was actually more interested to see if there were bits about similarities in New Eden. =)

[Veiki]

I don't think any of the CONCORD signatories except perhaps the Jove would push very hard for legal articles such as crimes against humanity because it would mean, retroactively, they would be seen as having conducted "criminal" acts in the past. Amarrian conquest and reclaiming; the "collateral damage" caused to civilians by the State military in Sinq Laison; the "collateral damage" caused to civilians by the Fed military on Caldari Prime; the targeting of civilians by Minmatar terrorists. The list could go on, and there's probably a host of very specific historical records that could expand that list.

The thing is to me, it doesn't really matter if it does or it does not because that won't stop the usual public RP discussions operating under something similar to Godwin's Law where eventually everyone ends up coming off as supporting Hitler or Stalin because hey, got to "win" that argument by flinging as much negative PF poo at others along with accusations of crimes against humanity, genocide, treason or whatever else comes to mind.

It's like reading some kind variant of PS4 vs. Xbox One debate ad nauseum on the IGS sometimes due to it.

[Silver Night]

I doubt there is a cluster-wide mechanism for enforcing sanctions against or even prosecuting someone for crimes against humanity. I expect there is probably some kind of mechanism within the Federation (given that my understanding is that the Fed is not a single homogeneous entity, it is made up of a large number of member states, many of whom have different forms of government. I could see a situation where a planet with some kind of mix ethnically or religiously might find itself with a 'Crime against Humanity' - if not recently then at least at some point in its past. I'm sure that some within the Federation might attempt to accuse or even prosecute Caldari and Amarr officials etc under those same laws, even if in absentia and even though they may only have force of law within the Federation.

I could see the Republic having similar laws - possibly modeled on the Fed's.

I don't think the State would have them, unless they were on the books for propaganda purposes or use in retaliation against Fed officials for prosecuting Caldari under Fed laws, or possibly for use against outsider or splinter organizations (if they caught a bunch of EOM dudes or Guristas or something and wanted something flashy to charge them with). My impression of the Caldari system is that internally things would be handled within the corporations, probably quietly. Between corporations there might be an incentive not to air too much of each other's dirty laundry because even competitive as they are the downside (having your own laundry aired) doesn't beat the upside.

The Amarr I think would have something analogous. It might vary depending on whose domain you were in (family-wise) and probably wouldn't be used in relation to offenses against slaves. It is probably also couched in semi-religious terms, but since heretical or cult movements are one of the possible drivers of these types of crimes within the Empire that probably works out.

The point that the idea of 'Crimes against humanity' is a relatively new concept is valid - but I think it is also not just a result of modernish western cultural ideas. It is also a matter of communication (radio/telephone and all that follows allows everyone to hear about terrible things happening) and technology (it used to be much harder to systematically kill millions of people). While there are certainly differences among cultures, I don't think that those differences are usually so wide that they preclude outrage etc. over really large massacres - not least because whatever your culture you then worry that it might happen to you.

[Lyn Farel]

Thanks for the answer, they are interesting.

Also Silver, I still do think IRL that the notion of crimes against humanity is a western concept that only western countries continue to try to enforce, but that other cultures feel a lot less concerned with. Like middle east and africa, for example. I may be wrong of course, but that's how I see it there. After all, it was specifically created by the Yalta powers and Nuremberg trials or something...

What I would expect though, is to see similar things than the Geneva convention. It's a lot less specific, and a lot less westernized. It's more humanitarian and civilized in its definition. It's a convention between signatories in case of war.

Crimes against humanity implies trials and international justice based upon western values.

[Aria Jenneth]

Thanks for the answer, they are interesting.

Also Silver, I still do think IRL that the notion of crimes against humanity is a western concept that only western countries continue to try to enforce, but that other cultures feel a lot less concerned with. Like middle east and africa, for example. I may be wrong of course, but that's how I see it there. After all, it was specifically created by the Yalta powers and Nuremberg trials or something...

What I would expect though, is to see similar things than the Geneva convention. It's a lot less specific, and a lot less westernized. It's more humanitarian and civilized in its definition. It's a convention between signatories in case of war.

Crimes against humanity implies trials and international justice based upon western values.

Lyn? Just for your consideration, one of the more intriguing points I picked up from my international law professor is that, for the most part, the people who cry the most about "Western cultural imperialism" are the ones with a lot of power and a lot of stake in keeping it.

People who do not have power tend to be thrilled to the very tips of their toes at the idea that they have rights as human beings that can never be taken away.

[Silver Night]

Thanks for the answer, they are interesting.

Also Silver, I still do think IRL that the notion of crimes against humanity is a western concept that only western countries continue to try to enforce, but that other cultures feel a lot less concerned with. Like middle east and africa, for example. I may be wrong of course, but that's how I see it there. After all, it was specifically created by the Yalta powers and Nuremberg trials or something...

What I would expect though, is to see similar things than the Geneva convention. It's a lot less specific, and a lot less westernized. It's more humanitarian and civilized in its definition. It's a convention between signatories in case of war.

Crimes against humanity implies trials and international justice based upon western values.

the modern, specific framework and 'justice system' surrounding 'Crimes against humanity' certianly - my point was that there is no reason to believe it is entirely unlikely that a similar concept might arrive, as it may be a function partially of technology rather than a specific cultural milieu. Not that culture wouldn't influence the specifics, of course.