NationStates Jolt Archive

With conflict after conflict in this little world of ours, I felt it necessary to ensure minimum standards for the treatment of POWs is maintained.

Please support my current proposal to ensure nations in conflict, or occupying forces maintain the human rights of prisoners.

Thanks.

Wolfish

========================================

Wolfish Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2
The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of occupation, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance.

The present Convention shall apply to the prisoners from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Article 3
The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which impartial humanitarian organization may undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.

Article 4
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Article 5
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 6
The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 7
Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

Article 8
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Article 9
Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

============================

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

That's fine as long as you decide to take prisoners and recognize them as prisoners.

Our troops are to fight wars and the prisoners get better treatment that the troops? That could cause resentment and they don't make it to prisoner status. They just get shot and killed instead. Then no one has to worry about it...

:cry:

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Wolfish President Todler’s UN Address:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65419&highlight=


Conflict with Tuttsville:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63928&highlight=

Of course Stephistan will support this proposal absolutely!

I really like to see proposals going to the UN that actually belong in the UN .. 8)

Peace,
Stephanie.

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Isn't that why I have a military?

Why don't we dump the prisoners in a four star hotel and let the hotel worry about it and bill the governments?

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Free Trade? How does that help POW's once a war has broken out? While I am never in favour of war, the reality is they happen. It's also not always your choice to be invaded. Rules of war and the treatment of POW's are essential to make the best out of an already bad situation. While no one likes war these are realities we must face. The very least we can try to do is ensure that POW's are treated in a human fashion.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Some people do like war...

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Wolfish has free and open borders - and this includes Tuttsville prior to this conflict, as demonstrated by the fact that three young people went there on a post-highschool hiking trip without adult supervision.

This is not an issue of trade, nor can free trade change this government, which as to date kept its people in the dark about the ongoing slave trade.

Any other suggestions?

Some people do like war...

Some people are whack jobs! :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie

i say kill all POW's, serves them right for invading you and getting captured/injured.

We have personally killed over 25,000 when we have been invaded and won.

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Free Trade? How does that help POW's once a war has broken out? While I am never in favour of war, the reality is they happen. It's also not always your choice to be invaded. Rules of war and the treatment of POW's are essential to make the best out of an already bad situation. While no one likes war these are realities we must face. The very least we can try to do is ensure that POW's are treated in a human fashion.

Peace,
Stephanie.

"This isn't our fight..." walks away....

No butseriously there's nothign wrong with teh proposal, it's just that war is only inevitable if two countries (US and Iraq) believe so.

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Wolfish has free and open borders - and this includes Tuttsville prior to this conflict, as demonstrated by the fact that three young people went there on a post-highschool hiking trip without adult supervision.

This is not an issue of trade, nor can free trade change this government, which as to date kept its people in the dark about the ongoing slave trade.

Any other suggestions?

OCC: I'm personally having trouble seeing what one has to do with the other. In other words, what does the RP going on between Wolfish & Tuttsville have to do with a proposal on the treatment of POW's? I might also add here that their RP was a planned one, that they discussed and set rules out for before it even started.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Give Free Trade a Chance



Are you talking about freely trading prisoners? How much do you get for them?

Give Free Trade a Chance



Are you talking about freely trading prisoners? How much do you get for them?

You get one of your prisoners back.

Give Free Trade a Chance



Are you talking about freely trading prisoners? How much do you get for them?

You get one of your prisoners back.

Three pints of blood then...

And back on topic. Wolfish would appreciate delegate support on this important effort.

*rises and applauds*

I have endorsed your proposal. This is one of the best proposals I have seen recently...in fact, one of the best of all time. I shall urge others to approve the same.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Delegate
DU Regional Delegate

A UN History Edit: Another thread on this topic can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279521).

What about protection for dead prisoners?

What about protection for dead prisoners?

While I believe you said this in jest, it is a good point that is included in the original geneva convention. Given the forum and the need for concise proposals, I left it out.

*rises and applauds*

I have endorsed your proposal. This is one of the best proposals I have seen recently...in fact, one of the best of all time. I shall urge others to approve the same.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Delegate
DU Regional Delegate

High praise. Thank you.

What about protection for dead prisoners?

While I believe you said this in jest, it is a good point that is included in the original geneva convention. Given the forum and the need for concise proposals, I left it out.

No, I wasn't jesting. I think in time of war, people are going to die. Some people may get hurt more than others and die nearly immediately.

Now, I'll "jest." We can't very well eat the dead...

Given the forum and the need for concise proposals, I left it out.

Just because it's not there doesn't make it right. I didn't see anything about taking prisoners in this post. What if our policy is to take no prisoners?

Given the forum and the need for concise proposals, I left it out.

Just because it's not there doesn't make it right. I didn't see anything about taking prisoners in this post. What if our policy is to take no prisoners?

That would be a different proposal regarding the rules of conflict. This is solely about the upkeep of POWs.

We have endorsed this proposal from our friends in Wolfish and have asked our Dutch collegue in Holland to do the same. Truly this is a good step in making our world a little bit safer. I have high hopes for this proposal when I note that Fantasan, the leader of the New Conservative Alliance (NCA) has endorsed it. If both he and I are endorsing the same proposal there simply must be broad support for it.
~Hans van Mierlo
Minister of foreign affairs.

I have high hopes for this proposal when I note that Fantasan, the leader of the New Conservative Alliance (NCA) has endorsed it.

I concur. As our fight over his resolution will show.

Approvals: 32 (Stephistan, The Global Market, _Myopia_, U-238, Serenity and Freedom, Easternmost Wasteland, Goobergunchia, Danu, Eridanus, The Rose Resistance, Maurath III, The True Domination, Fantasan, Kasperis, Pirratia, LWT, Knootoss, Cheskov Islands, Gil Eressea, Ballotonia, The Populations, Dionalka, Hamme, TheReigningDramaQueen, Flaming Moderates, Bonstock, Lamoni, Ariddia, Cryptos Novus, Westrogoticae, THE GREAT ONE, Elizabeth Anne)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 92 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 10 2003

32's a pretty strong showing for the first day of consideration.

I have high hopes for this proposal when I note that Fantasan, the leader of the New Conservative Alliance (NCA) has endorsed it.

I concur. As our fight over his resolution will show.

Approvals: 32 (Stephistan, The Global Market, _Myopia_, U-238, Serenity and Freedom, Easternmost Wasteland, Goobergunchia, Danu, Eridanus, The Rose Resistance, Maurath III, The True Domination, Fantasan, Kasperis, Pirratia, LWT, Knootoss, Cheskov Islands, Gil Eressea, Ballotonia, The Populations, Dionalka, Hamme, TheReigningDramaQueen, Flaming Moderates, Bonstock, Lamoni, Ariddia, Cryptos Novus, Westrogoticae, THE GREAT ONE, Elizabeth Anne)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 92 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 10 2003

32's a pretty strong showing for the first day of consideration.

Why can't all resolutions be like this.. It's truly a wonderful proposal. I'm so pleased to see a virtually flawless proposal up for vote for a change.
It will be hard for people to find flaw in this one! :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

Does this only apply to war between to nations? What about internal wars and political prisoners of war? Can we continue to abuse them?

Personally, I think the prisoners should receive treatment comparable to the treatment of the general public within a nation. Anything above that should be charged to either the UN or the other country.

Does this only apply to war between to nations? What about internal wars and political prisoners of war? Can we continue to abuse them?

The United Nations has no jurisdictions in civil strife. Any active combatant (including political) is a protectorate of this resolution.

I have high hopes for this proposal when I note that Fantasan, the leader of the New Conservative Alliance (NCA) has endorsed it.

I concur. As our fight over his resolution will show.

Approvals: 32 (Stephistan, The Global Market, _Myopia_, U-238, Serenity and Freedom, Easternmost Wasteland, Goobergunchia, Danu, Eridanus, The Rose Resistance, Maurath III, The True Domination, Fantasan, Kasperis, Pirratia, LWT, Knootoss, Cheskov Islands, Gil Eressea, Ballotonia, The Populations, Dionalka, Hamme, TheReigningDramaQueen, Flaming Moderates, Bonstock, Lamoni, Ariddia, Cryptos Novus, Westrogoticae, THE GREAT ONE, Elizabeth Anne)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 92 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 10 2003

32's a pretty strong showing for the first day of consideration.

Why can't all resolutions be like this.. It's truly a wonderful proposal. I'm so pleased to see a virtually flawless proposal up for vote for a change.
It will be hard for people to find flaw in this one! :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

I had some good advice from a wise friend. :wink:

And back on topic. Wolfish would appreciate delegate support on this important effort.

This delegate will support this important issue. :D

And incidentally, I too am impressed. This is well written, well thought out and not the usual tripe I read too much of in UN resolutions. Well done!

Regards,
Sakbutt

"This isn't our fight..." walks away....

No butseriously there's nothign wrong with teh proposal, it's just that war is only inevitable if two countries (US and Iraq) believe so.

This may be off topic, but TGM, war is inevitable if even one side believes it to be--I guarantee you that Iraq, crazy as Hussein is, didn't want an open conflict with the US.

I'm waiting for some recommendations from the members of my region before I support or don't support the proposal.

Given that some nations would object to needing to provide such treatment for prisoners of war and would instead choose not to take prisoners at all, I would suggest adding an article to this proposal as follows:

An individual shall be granted Prisoner status immediately upon his or her surrender. The Detaining Power may not refuse an offer of surrender if the individual offering surrender openly and visibly disarms him or herself when doing so (e.g. throwing down all of one's weapons). If the Detaining Power fires upon or otherwise engages the individual offering surrender as though combat were still in progress, then the incident shall be regarded as being the same as if the Detaining Power had done the same to an individual whom it has already recognized as a Prisoner (in other words, shooting somebody who is trying to surrender will be treated the same as shooting somebody who has already been taken prisoner).

That's like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

If there are only the troops and the people surrendering, then how do we know?

That's like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

If there are only the troops and the people surrendering, then how do we know?

Its true - but there are rules of conflict beyond the Geneva convention (upon which this is modelled). An example is the use of a full-metal jacket bullet which produces a "cleaner" wound (and also to penetrate body amour). I'm not sure where these other rules reside, but I'll look into it and perhaps put forward another proposal.

Cheers,

Wolfish.

We have half the required number of votes to make this proposal a resolution.

If you haven't yet - please endorse this important proposal.

Wolfish.

One question: if only one of the combatants is a UN member, and the non-member fails to observe this protocol, is the member nation still bound by it?

I would deem this proposal, if enacted, akin to international law.

One question: if only one of the combatants is a UN member, and the non-member fails to observe this protocol, is the member nation still bound by it?

Yes. Basically it works the same as a treaty - once you as a nation sign it - your nation is bound to the conditions regardless of what other nations do.

Just a couple more endorsements needed.

If you haven't already - please endorse this proposal.

Thank you.

Just a couple more endorsements needed.

If you haven't already - please endorse this proposal.

Thank you.

Congrats Wolfish.. this will be our next resolution up for vote!!! Yippie!!!

At least this one is a real resolution. I'm sure it will pass with ease. I know it has my full support! Although I guess you'd kind of be ticked at me if I voted against it huh? :lol: no worries there.. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

We will support this resolution when the time comes to vote. Excellently written.

We in the Weegies believe in fair treatment for all. This is why we will definitely support this clearly written and well-thought out resolution, and encourage others to do so.

Vote Yes on Resolution 39! (Since it looks as if Common Sense Act II is going to become Resolution 38. )

Yes, I'm sad enough that I counted all the resolutions...

Just a couple more endorsements needed.

If you haven't already - please endorse this proposal.

Thank you.

Congrats Wolfish.. this will be our next resolution up for vote!!! Yippie!!!

At least this one is a real resolution. I'm sure it will pass with ease. I know it has my full support! Although I guess you'd kind of be ticked at me if I voted against it huh? :lol: no worries there.. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

Yep...Congratulations Wolfish!

I don't think I'll have to lobby too hard for this one, as it should pass by a wide margin. If Fantasan and I agree on something, you know it has to be good.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I received this telegram, which I've received permission from the author to post.

I believe it makes the case for this resolution when it comes to a vote.

Wolfish
===========

To the leader of Wolfish,

Although by the time I, Premier Gary Farrow of the People's Republic of Hawking (PRH), had received the telegram from Wolfish and read through the proposal, the quorum of UN Delegate approvals had already been reached and the resolution is now in queue, I gave it my approval anyway. Why? For this is a matter that the people of the PRH feel very strongly about.

Recently the PRH was involved in a large, one-sided conflict with a militarist-Fascist dictatorship and its allies. The many small missile skirmishes and bombing raids that took place always seemed to swing in the favour of the PRH's enemies.

In an invasion on the PRH's capital of Farrowgrad, tens of thousands of its denizens were taken in by the enemy as prisoners of war. The POWs were then subjected to being caged in zoos throughout the militarist-Fascist dictatorship, and were open to public display.

The nation's military dictator commented that the numbers of visitors attending many of the zoos had risen to up to two hundred per cent the norm after the addition of the "communist sub-humans." (PRH POWs.) I, as well as all of the people of the PRH, was appalled by this disgusting act of barbarity, and it turned out to be one of, if not THE deciding factor that led up to the PRH's declaration of defeat.

It explicitly states in the proposal you have written up that this sort of treatment of human beings is totally not acceptable by World standards.

For that I applaud you.

As I stated earlier in this telegram, the PRH collectively feels very strongly about this issue because of what has happened to the nation. The citizens of the PRH thank you, and I thank you, for contacting me about this UN proposal and for writing it.

Premier Gary Farrow
People's Republic of Hawking (PRH)

===========================

I would like to repeat that I fully support the granting of such rights to Prisoners of War as are outlined in this proposal. However, I am still concerned that nations which do not wish to provide such treatment to prisoners would choose instead to kill opposing soliders and civilians rather than endure the inconvenience of taking them prisoner.

I understand your concern. The purpose of this particular resolution is solely to protect those in custody.

I believe a second resolution is necessary, which would outline the basic rights afforded to combatants, during conflict, but prior to capture.

Smashandgrab finds your proposal to be unacceptable. Without narrowly defining what constitutes ill treatment, torture, mental and physical abuse your proposal can be interpreted to apply to situations that are vital for national security; chiefly the interrogation of prisoners of war.

Smashandgrab looks forward to your reconsidered opinion...

Smashandgrab finds your proposal to be unacceptable. Without narrowly defining what constitutes ill treatment, torture, mental and physical abuse your proposal can be interpreted to apply to situations that are vital for national security; chiefly the interrogation of prisoners of war.

Smashandgrab looks forward to your reconsidered opinion...

Like most laws - this resolution is not designed to spell out specific scenerios - laws cannot stand the test of time with such specific definitions written into them. The United Nations, a sub committee, or an international court would hear a case and decide on the merits of that case.

As an example - assault laws do not spell out: assault with a baseball bat, assault by spitting, assault by candlestick...the law would be several books long.

The best way to ensure a law stands the test of time is to limit "loopholes" by keeping it broad, and open to just the right amount of latatute for the court or governing body.

Thanks.
Wolfish

Smashandgrab cares less for the opinion of international courts in determining the exact interpretation of your vague resolution than it does about the seeming legitamacy such a resolution lends to non-governmental organizations who hold up a United Nations approved statement of "international will" as justification for their meddling in the internal affairs of nation states.

With the international media casting their efforts in the light of a moral crusade, these groups have direct political influence on the citizenry of nations accused of having violated the vague terms used in the resolution.

Such statements as

"it works the same as a treaty - once you as a nation sign it - your nation is bound to the conditions "

"I would deem this proposal, if enacted, akin to international law"

highlight the authority that such a resolution carries. To leave this authority open to interpretation so that it can be used to hamper the activities of a state as it carries out activities vital to national security
is willfully promoting the subversion of national governments.

Smashandgrab has a rather dim view of organizations that enable groups to subvert governments. We look forward to the revised draft of your proposal.

Smashandgrab cares less for the opinion of international courts in determining the exact interpretation of your vague resolution than it does about the seeming legitamacy such a resolution lends to non-governmental organizations who hold up a United Nations approved statement of "international will" as justification for their meddling in the internal affairs of nation states. With the international media casting their efforts in the light of a moral crusade these groups have direct political influence on the citizenry of nations accused of having violated the vague terms used in the resolution. This is an act of subversion - and this resolution enables organizations who are accountable to no one to meddle directly with the internal affairs of nation states.

Smashandgrab looks forward to your continued existence.

If the laws of warfare and honourable conduct are not within the mandate of the United Nations - then what in your opinion is?

And might I say, I'm pleased that an August nation looks forward to my continued existence.

Tap

Though not a member of the United Nations, Walmington on Sea is likely to look upon this resolution as a guidline for behaviour in the global conflict we currently find ourselves a part of.

There is some debate over Article 9, however, though most of the counter-arguments are somewhat pedantic and probably unimportant, Parliament wishes them at least put forward none the less.

Article 9
Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.

We have recently been made frighteningly aware that at least two of the nations aligned against us in our struggle may be capable of attacking -by air and sea- targets anywhere on our little island. We trust that Walmington would not be held responsible if, for example, German terror weapons should fall on any POW camps situated in our countryside?

Further, is it worth considering that, should Walmington's soil be directly visited by the might of the Wehrmacht or related powers, it may be simply beyond our means to evacuate POWs ahead of our possible retreat? The speed of the German push into France made it evident that, had significant POW camps existed, they may well have over night found themselves on the front-line.

The prominant belief is that the provision "Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone" would come back into effect in the event of such a catastrophic collapse?

Once again, Walmington will be glad, as an extra-UN state, to adhere as best it can to the provisions of this worthy resolution.

-Deputy PM Arthur Wilson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Constitutional Monarchy of Walmington on Sea.

I'm against it, mainly due to the presence of article two where it states that even if only one side believes they're at war, they should still treat "soldiers" of the otherside as POWs when captured. All some terrorist organisation has to do is claim that it's a war and they're all protected from suffering the penalty for their crimes.

I voted no.

The terrorist organisation would, presumably, not be a nation. And besides, imprisonment is scant immunity!

Though not a member of the United Nations, Walmington on Sea is likely to look upon this resolution as a guidline for behaviour in the global conflict we currently find ourselves a part of.

There is some debate over Article 9, however, though most of the counter-arguments are somewhat pedantic and probably unimportant, Parliament wishes them at least put forward none the less.

Article 9
Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.

We have recently been made frighteningly aware that at least two of the nations aligned against us in our struggle may be capable of attacking -by air and sea- targets anywhere on our little island. We trust that Walmington would not be held responsible if, for example, German terror weapons should fall on any POW camps situated in our countryside?

Further, is it worth considering that, should Walmington's soil be directly visited by the might of the Wehrmacht or related powers, it may be simply beyond our means to evacuate POWs ahead of our possible retreat? The speed of the German push into France made it evident that, had significant POW camps existed, they may well have over night found themselves on the front-line.

The prominant belief is that the provision "Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone" would come back into effect in the event of such a catastrophic collapse?

Once again, Walmington will be glad, as an extra-UN state, to adhere as best it can to the provisions of this worthy resolution.

-Deputy PM Arthur Wilson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Constitutional Monarchy of Walmington on Sea.

I do understand your concern. Certainly in modern warfare - in the age of ICBMs - there is no area beyond the reach of an aggressor.

The article under debate however is there to ensure that Prisoners of War are not left in an area where they may be unintentionally targetted by enemy action - rather they are taken to a designated area away from combatants.

In this way, should a POW camp be hit by fire - it is likely they were deliberately targetted as opposed to being unintentional targets.

(ooc:Sadly in WoS's case that is not entirely true, since our conflict is one of roughly 1940s tech, but there's no point us really arguing it :) so yeah, good resolution. Carry on.)

And this is after you invaded Tuttsville without using diplomacy at all... not exactly helping your credibility.

Obviously you know little about the conflict with Tuttsville.

There were long discussions between our ambassador and the Tuttsville government - there were discussions between our President and the Tuttsville President - there was an address by our President to the United Nations, where a majority of UN members supported an embargo of Tuttsville - there was then an embargo - there was an attempt by Wolfish (and this continues) to directly address the Tuttsville populace (which was blocked by the Tuttsville government).

So - what more diplomacy would you like?

Give Free Trade a Chance

"Those who believe that war is inevitable most often find themselves fighting it."
--Prinz Klemens von Metternich, Austrian statesman

Free Trade? How does that help POW's once a war has broken out? While I am never in favour of war, the reality is they happen. It's also not always your choice to be invaded. Rules of war and the treatment of POW's are essential to make the best out of an already bad situation. While no one likes war these are realities we must face. The very least we can try to do is ensure that POW's are treated in a human fashion.

Peace,
Stephanie.

But how do we ENSURE that this is followed? I know it says that nations can't not follow a passed resolution, however an incentive or scolding/punishment would be a nice touch. Anyone disagree? No one has a reason to follow this, but the goodness of their hearts. And while that may drive most, it won't work on everyone.

~Korunida~

I'm against it, mainly due to the presence of article two where it states that even if only one side believes they're at war, they should still treat "soldiers" of the otherside as POWs when captured. All some terrorist organisation has to do is claim that it's a war and they're all protected from suffering the penalty for their crimes.

I voted no.

They (the terrorists) don't have to 'claim' its a war, to them, it always has been. and that is a huge question, whether or not we should treat them as such, with Guatamino Bay (cuba) as the center of such debates.

I still voted yes.

~Korunida~

This is a good resolution, but before I can endorse it, I must have a question answered. In Article 8, you state that "Neither...nor any other form of coercion shall be used to procure information..." How do you define coercion? Specifically, does it include offering citizenship and/or monetarry reimbursement in exchange for information that pertains to military matters? Imperial Daussmannia would very much like to give our support to your proposal.

the Great Dausmaniac
via the Chancellor of Daussmannia :P

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

hello

hi?

hello

For what purpose does the staffer from Wef rise?

hello

For what purpose does the staffer from Wef rise?

friendliness?

hello

For what purpose does the staffer from Wef rise?

friendliness?

I guess...it just seemed kind of random.

28 minutes ago: The Rogue Nation of Wef applied to join the UN.

You'll be in the UN by tomorrow, don't worry about not getting the confirmation e-mail today...it tends to take a while.

the nation of licknkitty has not as of yet been in a war. i voted against this resolution as if any nation decides to attack my country they will be exterminated to the last man woman or child. licknkitty does not take prisoners now or even if this resolution passes. we will not recognize surrender as an option, you don't attack my country then decide halfway through the attack that you don't want to fight anymore.

if this resolution passes and we are ever forced to take prisoners of war who we will have to pay to coddle then we will put them on a bomber with a parachute and deliver them with our normal bombing runs. never underestimate the cruelty that a nation is capable when attacked without provocation.

Personally I think that if you have chosen to have your citizens kill other's by declaring war, having your own citizens be treated badly at once they are captured is just a consequence you'll have to face

--Zachnia

I approved this resolution as a delegate because I believe that it is an approprite topic for the UN, and that it deserved consideration by the entire UN body. However, I am reluctantly forced to vote against it for the following reasons:

In reference to Article 5:Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Prisoners of war who attempt escape, espionage, or to harm/kill any of the soldiers who guard them give up their right to 'humane' treatment. Har Akir reserves the right to isolate, interrogate, and punish POW's who give up their preferential status by committing any such criminal acts. This does not mean that we will resort to torture or excessive means, but the people of Har Akir will not have their hands bound when dealing with troublemakers.

In reference to article 8:
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

Coercion is a standard tactic of the Har Akir military. Captured officers are given the option to cooperate, and we grant assylum to those who willingly provide strategic information. More severe forms of interrogation are used on those prisoners who commit criminal acts, as explained above.

Finally, this resolution does not seem to distinguish between lawful participants in armed conflict (national army, militia, etc) and unlawful groups, such as terrorist organizations. Unlawful groups do not abide by the rules of conflict, and therefore give up their right to humane treatment. If the interrogation of a terrorist provides information which can save civilians, it is worth sacrificing the 'human rights' of the terrorist. Don't forget, many terror groups are state sponsored. Any group which knowingly inflicts casulties on civilians is considered terrorist in nature by the Har Akir military.

the nation of licknkitty has not as of yet been in a war. i voted against this resolution as if any nation decides to attack my country they will be exterminated to the last man woman or child. licknkitty does not take prisoners now or even if this resolution passes. we will not recognize surrender as an option, you don't attack my country then decide halfway through the attack that you don't want to fight anymore.

if this resolution passes and we are ever forced to take prisoners of war who we will have to pay to coddle then we will put them on a bomber with a parachute and deliver them with our normal bombing runs. never underestimate the cruelty that a nation is capable when attacked without provocation.

It never says you HAVE TO TAKE PRISONERS. It says 'If you do, then you must do this...'. So if you don't plan on taking prisoners, pass it so when your soldiers are captured by a member nation, you can rest assured they won't be experiemtned on or humiliated, or in anyway put through avoidable pain.

I approved this resolution as a delegate because I believe that it is an approprite topic for the UN, and that it deserved consideration by the entire UN body. However, I am reluctantly forced to vote against it for the following reasons:

In reference to Article 5:Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Prisoners of war who attempt escape, espionage, or to harm/kill any of the soldiers who guard them give up their right to 'humane' treatment. Har Akir reserves the right to isolate, interrogate, and punish POW's who give up their preferential status by committing any such criminal acts. This does not mean that we will resort to torture or excessive means, but the people of Har Akir will not have their hands bound when dealing with troublemakers.

In reference to article 8:
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

Coercion is a standard tactic of the Har Akir military. Captured officers are given the option to cooperate, and we grant assylum to those who willingly provide strategic information. More severe forms of interrogation are used on those prisoners who commit criminal acts, as explained above.

Finally, this resolution does not seem to distinguish between lawful participants in armed conflict (national army, militia, etc) and unlawful groups, such as terrorist organizations. Unlawful groups do not abide by the rules of conflict, and therefore give up their right to humane treatment. If the interrogation of a terrorist provides information which can save civilians, it is worth sacrificing the 'human rights' of the terrorist. Don't forget, many terror groups are state sponsored. Any group which knowingly inflicts casulties on civilians is considered terrorist in nature by the Har Akir military.

Well, I can't help you on Article 8, but as for 5 - should a prisoner attempt to escape - spy - or otherwise NOT BE A PRISONER they would beconsidered combatants, and no longer subject to the provisions of this convention.

No one gives up their human rights while on the soil of a civilised state. Har Akir displays a disturbingly infantile nature for a nation in these modern times.

Vengeance is petty.

Someone please answer my question, though. Is bribery a form of coercion prohibited under Article 8 of the proposal, or is it not?

the Great Dausmaniac
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson

Someone please answer my question, though. Is bribery a form of coercion prohibited under Article 8 of the proposal, or is it not?

the Great Dausmaniac
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson

Should you be able to convince someone to defect - which is basically what we're now talking about with bribery - that would not for the purpose of this resolution be considered coercion. The intent is to stop physical and mental abuses.

Thank will. I am pleased to announce that I will be registering my support.

the Great Dausmaniac
:mrgreen: via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson