NationStates Jolt Archive

Children in War
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Sydia
Description: The NationStates United Nations,

Noting with regret that thousands of children continue to be abducted to serve as soldiers, spies, messengers, servants and sexual slaves with armed forces and groups,

Realizing that poverty, propaganda and ideology also continue to drive the involvement of children in many conflict areas,

Deeply disturbed by the idea that children make obedient and cheap soldiers capable of instilling terror in civilians and opposing forces alike,

Observing that many of these children are generally poor, illiterate, and from rural regions,

Bearing in mind that many nations have a difficult time in protecting these children,

Convinced that the social and economic viability of the future of all nations lies in the humane treatment of children in general,

1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services;
2. Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations;
3. Emphasizes the need for nations to prevent cross-border abduction and human trafficking;
4. All parties in armed conflict must adopt special measures to protect children from rape and sexual abuse and gender based violence;
5. Expects nations to take into account the special needs of children throughout the duration of the armed conflict and its aftermath;
6. All UN nations must ensure that international measures be taken to take care of child refugees displaced by conflict;
7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities;
8. Deplores and bans the practice of using children as human shields by integrating child care facilities, such as those listed above, with military facilities, and prohibits this practise; and
9. Acknowledges the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills.

I implore all UN delegates to endorse this proposal, currently at the top of page 7, thankyou.

how do you endorse someone?

This is a good idea, except I believe that you should set an age for military service (18-21 or so) and change the word Children to minor, so that it flows better into the other resolutions.

I hate how minors can't smoke until they are 21, but can get drafted and get killed at 18

I hate how minors can't smoke until they are 21, but can get drafted and get killed at 18

Minors can smoke whenever they want in America, it's just illegal to buy until you're 18.

I hate how minors can't smoke until they are 21, but can get drafted and get killed at 18

Minors can smoke whenever they want in America, it's just illegal to buy until you're 18.

Depends on what state you're in.

But I can see the logical connection; if you can kill others, you should be allowed to kill yourself I suppose.

We will support this proposal and hope it fares better than 'Ban Child Soldiers'. Good luck, Sydia.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

My Empire are in no need of young conscripts, the Army of Zortroth is built of a strong body of well trained and daring/sacrificing soldiers, state of the art training and healthy in volunteers to help defend what they live on, we have no need for such class of soldiers.

But as for laws within Zortroth, if i see presence of such occurrence, those responsible and involved disobeying such strict law are sentenced to life inprisonment with no bail whatsoever in our most toughest prison on our land, Borloth (the name may/may not sound so frightening, but when youve been in it or sentenced to life in it, youd beg as if you never wanted to live or disobey another law ever again).


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Royal Emperor
Empire of Zortroth

My nation rejects this.

Although some would consider it morally wrong if a child is drafted to join in the Holy Fight then he is blessed the gods have chosen him.

4 million of our 6 million peoples are children and if someone invades us it is only right to use that massive power at our disposal.

No International treaty may outlaw laws in other countries, nor may they overthrow others.

My nation rejects this.

Although some would consider it morally wrong if a child is drafted to join in the Holy Fight then he is blessed the gods have chosen him.

4 million of our 6 million peoples are children and if someone invades us it is only right to use that massive power at our disposal.

No International treaty may outlaw laws in other countries, nor may they overthrow others.

My nation rejects this.

Although some would consider it morally wrong if a child is drafted to join in the Holy Fight then he is blessed the gods have chosen him.

4 million of our 6 million peoples are children and if someone invades us it is only right to use that massive power at our disposal.

No International treaty may outlaw laws in other countries, nor may they overthrow others.

So, you could conscript more than two thirds of your nations population, could you? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13017)

Well, his economy would be shot, but who cares if your nation is invaded and your children about to become slaves?

It seems any concerns about defensive actions would be addressed by point nine ("Acknowledges the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills.")Perhaps it was added to address this issue in particular?

Though I am young in many issues of the UN, I have recommended that the delegate of the East Pacific support this proposal. It seems reasonable to call UN member nations to this minimal standard of decency.

It seems any concerns about defensive actions would be addressed by point nine ("Acknowledges the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills.")Perhaps it was added to address this issue in particular?

Though I am young in many issues of the UN, I have recommended that the delegate of the East Pacific support this proposal. It seems reasonable to call UN member nations to this minimal standard of decency.

Yes, indeed it was. The main issue I was concerned with was nations sending child soldiers into combat zones, military training and such before the age of 16 is a right UN nations still have under this resolution.

Thankyou for your support.

So, you could conscript more than two thirds of your nations population, could you? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13017)

This is why in another thread I support the use of biological weapons. I know of the economic ruin that sending those children would bring but if i have no other choice I will!

I hate how minors can't smoke until they are 21, but can get drafted and get killed at 18

Minors can smoke whenever they want in America, it's just illegal to buy until you're 18.

Depends on what state you're in.

But I can see the logical connection; if you can kill others, you should be allowed to kill yourself I suppose.



OOC: America's government's law (the one you mentioned) is a clear hypocrisy. Personally I disagree with smoking ( but I also disagree with (most) wars), but I can also see your point.
Now DRINKING...that's another story, but with the same moral.

IC: I'm glad to see that people are looking out for the well-being of
children. Alas, I'm not in the UN, but I hope that your
resolution comes to pass. Is there a way of "agreeing" with
you if one is not in the UN?

This is why in another thread I support the use of biological weapons. I know of the economic ruin that sending those children would bring but if i have no other choice I will!

Good for you, however I'm sure the majority of UN would prefer that their economies not go down the crapper. Besides, if I set no age, what would be the point of the resolution?

I hate how minors can't smoke until they are 21, but can get drafted and get killed at 18

Minors can smoke whenever they want in America, it's just illegal to buy until you're 18.

Depends on what state you're in.

But I can see the logical connection; if you can kill others, you should be allowed to kill yourself I suppose.



OOC: America's government's law (the one you mentioned) is a clear hypocrisy. Personally I disagree with smoking ( but I also disagree with (most) wars), but I can also see your point.
Now DRINKING...that's another story, but with the same moral.

IC: I'm glad to see that people are looking out for the well-being of
children. Alas, I'm not in the UN, but I hope that your
resolution comes to pass. Is there a way of "agreeing" with
you if one is not in the UN?

Other than posting that you agree with it, I don't think so. You could lobby your regional delegate.

It's on the front of page 1, 98 endorsements. Any UN delegates browsing, please add your endorsement to the list, thankyou.

I understand the position that, in a desperate last act, children might be used in war. However, by this stage international convention and diplomacy would probably be thoroughly abrogated.

We wholeheartedly support this proposal and will press our delegate to endorse it.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

we too will seek endorsement from our delegate on this proposal. However, we wonder if this proposal covers old ground when you consider the line "ASSERTING that it is immoral and atrocious to force children , by manipulation, authority or raw strength, to work for corporation or state" in the CHILD LABOR resolution.

However, this is just a minor nitpick, and in no way removes anything from the credibility of this proposal.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

The Federation of Germaly endorses this resolution as it stands.

Please, all UN delegates; I implore you to endorse this proposal ASAP.

It needs only 18 more endorsements.

I'd like to express my gratitude at all the support the resolution has got so far. This is very much the refined and perfected version - it's been heavily debated what improvements can (and have) be made, so I hope it'll reach quorum.

Grunz completly rejects this after all grunz has a youth army. Its made out of voluntiers<sp> children 14-18. The children come to get help and training for there civilian career, and economic help for school which they still attened and they get paid much more than the standard for children. Maybe if you change it to the forced conscription of minors I'll considerate it

Grunz completly rejects this after all grunz has a youth army. Its made out of voluntiers<sp> children 14-18. The children come to get help and training for there civilian career, and economic help for school which they still attened and they get paid much more than the standard for children. Maybe if you change it to the forced conscription of minors I'll considerate it

Read the last line. Training under 16s (in defense and survival techniques) is still allowed under this resolution. It always annoys me when people critise without reading the thing first...

EDIT: bad bold tags

Grunz completly rejects this after all grunz has a youth army. Its made out of voluntiers<sp> children 14-18. The children come to get help and training for there civilian career, and economic help for school which they still attened and they get paid much more than the standard for children. Maybe if you change it to the forced conscription of minors I'll considerate it

Read the last line. Training under 16s (in defense and survival techniques) is still allowed under this resolution. It always annoys me when people critise without reading the thing first...


The 9th activating clause, as you point out, allows nations to train minors. It does not require it, but it also does not prevent it.
With that in mine, my nation supports this resolution (and is happy to see that it has made it into the queue to be voted upon).

10kMichael

If I am to take this "game" serious for a minute, then I should insist on dropping provision 2 of the proposal: Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations

---> there are only goverments in the game and therefor non-governmental organizations don't exist and thus insisting on giving them a role is "...." <me momma didn't raise no fool> ;)

People of the UN

Please vote in negation of this resolution. In my region, there is a way we do things. Teamwork is what we call it. There are currently three nations, one of which requires all people to be members of the military. With this system, the one nation can work to defend us whilst the others can work towards bettering society. To vote yes on this bill would be taking away what keeps us running smoothly. So I urge you, vote in negation.

Maczimize also endorses this proposal. We have long believed that the general inexperience, ignorance, and in some cases stupidity of children and youth makes them a general detriment to an effective military. It is also no secret that not having to kill children in battle would strengthen the morale of our armed forces.

Minors can smoke whenever they want in America, it's just illegal to buy until you're 18.

OOC: America's government's law (the one you mentioned) is a clear hypocrisy. Personally I disagree with smoking ( but I also disagree with (most) wars), but I can also see your point.
Now DRINKING...that's another story, but with the same moral.


Tsorfinn, it is not really a hypocrisy so much. The government really should not dictate someone's personal decisions that affect them and them only. (Every government does, but they shouldn't.) It is simply not the purpose nor responsibility of government to do so.

However, a government IS supposed to look out for the good of society. They recognize that cigarettes truely are unhealthy, so they cannot tell minors not to smoke, but they CAN make it harder for minors to get their hands on cigarettes. The reason drinking is illegal before a certain age is because people under the influence of alcohol can pose a much greater threat to others than they normally would, where people smoking are really only hurting themselves.

The people of The Most Serene Republic of Sidar Jabari is proud to proclaim its endorsement of the current resolution. Indeed, it considers as a shame the fact that children continue to be abducted to serve as soldiers, spies, messengers, servants and sexual slaves with armed forces and groups. Children are not toys or machines, who can be used to kill then "thrown away" and "replaced" when killed.
Every child has the right to live a happy childhood and a happy life.

The Most Serene Republic of Sidar Jabari also condemns hostage-taking, deplores civilian and innocent casualties, and the use of mines and such.

That's why our people has asked the nations in our region to endorse this resolution and begs all nations to do so.

Hmph. Such is the way if you are to progress in this world, you need sacrafices to achieve goals. You cannot gain anything if you cling on foolish principles and morals that is to no ones fortune. The Most Exelent King Reanicus V knows that children are too weak to carry a proper weapon, and would most likely only serve as cannon-fodder, but he knows that it is a potent a dreaded tool in the lands of war.

Hmph. Such is the way if you are to progress in this world, you need sacrafices to achieve goals.

Yes, I agree. You need sacrifices. What I don't agree with is sacrificing your nations future in the form of your children. Even adults have been scarred for life by war. Why should we subject our children to this? Teenagers (aged fourteen to eighteen) who volunteer usually don't know what the war will entail. I think that also we should provide "service" areas for children and teenagers who would like to show support for their government without forcing them to get involved in the actual killing (fundraising, morale support at home, etc.)

Of course child soldiers are good for the Upheival against terrorism and all fagats who dont drink. They have a keen eye for sniping and can give better blowjobs due to their height. 5 dollahh?? There is no point having 50 yr old sergeants who couldnt hit a donkey with a banjo and couldnt get it up without 300mg of viagra. screw ye conformists who always look on the innnocence of the child instead of its capabilities. Try tellin my kid soldiers to pick up a barbie doll when uir starin down the barrel of their ak47. Aiiii

Of course child soldiers are good for the Upheival against terrorism and all fagats who dont drink. They have a keen eye for sniping and can give better blowjobs due to their height. 5 dollahh?? There is no point having 50 yr old sergeants who couldnt hit a donkey with a banjo and couldnt get it up without 300mg of viagra. screw ye conformists who always look on the innnocence of the child instead of its capabilities. Try tellin my kid soldiers to pick up a barbie doll when uir starin down the barrel of their ak47. Aiiii

So, let me get this straight. You're sacrificing the future of your nation so they can go out and kill people? Just because they're better at war?

Also, although they may be physically more capable, they aren't mentally. Children know that those people staring down the barrel of their ak47's are human beings. They may even be unable to kill them. They have a perspective that maybe we need to learn.

People of the UN

Please vote in negation of this resolution. In my region, there is a way we do things. Teamwork is what we call it. There are currently three nations, one of which requires all people to be members of the military. With this system, the one nation can work to defend us whilst the others can work towards bettering society. To vote yes on this bill would be taking away what keeps us running smoothly. So I urge you, vote in negation.

Wait a second - a nation in your region devotes 100% of the population (this obviously wouldn't work anyway) for defense? Hope they enjoy having absolutely no economy at all!!

And Plassey, I hope that was a poor attempt at humour, or I pity your nations youth.

[quote Sidar Jabari]
Every child has the right to live a happy childhood and a happy life.
[End quote]

In the colony of Total anhilation, it is considered a great honour for a child to be accepted into our mighty armed force. There are many children in the army that are very happy to be there and have proven this fact many times over!

The colony's founder, the Empire of Berull, will most certainly be voting against this proposal.

May you all see your folly one day!

[quote Sidar Jabari]
Every child has the right to live a happy childhood and a happy life.
[End quote]

In the colony of Total anhilation, it is considered a great honour for a child to be accepted into our mighty armed force. There are many children in the army that are very happy to be there and have proven this fact many times over!

The colony's founder, the Empire of Berull, will most certainly be voting against this proposal.

May you all see your folly one day!

I'm sure your children would love to amble joyfully off into combat zones, honourable getting shot at and gloriously having limbs blown off.

[quote Sidar Jabari]
Every child has the right to live a happy childhood and a happy life.
[End quote]

In the colony of Total anhilation, it is considered a great honour for a child to be accepted into our mighty armed force. There are many children in the army that are very happy to be there and have proven this fact many times over!

The colony's founder, the Empire of Berull, will most certainly be voting against this proposal.

May you all see your folly one day!

Well, if you want to send your children into battle, then remember this. A dead child will never grow your country.

Well, we do tend to have kids younger than 16 in our armed forces (for various reasons), but we make sure thay they are a far from the battlefield as possible, as homeland defense and such. Martial arts and ninja training does wonders to the kid's health (exercise). Besides, kids are trained to disable, rather than kill, in this nation. Killing is a last resort.

I would implore the rulerof Sydia to to stay thy tounge when denouncing the practices of other nations. The nation of total anhialation prefer to practice the honor bound traditions of eons of people in the way of combat and warrior spirit, and to mock such tradition without cause does little but sap your own credibility as an intellegnet person. To mock anything merely in ignorance of it, demonstrates genuine immaturity of your nation Sydia. Please, refrain from attacks of such a personal nature when responding to a policial point made in opposition of your bill.

Sydia wrote:
"I'm sure your children would love to amble joyfully off into combat zones, honourable getting shot at and gloriously having limbs blown off."

I cannot speak for all of tohferion when I make the stance of the Shattered Realm, but our honerable nation must decline to endorse this proposal on one main point. Subtopic 2 states that it will become the governments responsibility to prevent child abduction by non government agencies. How do you propose our nations do this, when we have to balance so many concerns already? Economy, wellfare, homeland defense, and other issues of the like sort. My nation doesnt have the resources nor the manpower to create a Child Abduction Bureau, and i suspect we are not the only ones.

I oppose this bill on the principle that it asks too much of our government.

The Federation Of Turbomut whole heartly endorses the bill before the UN. Children should not be able to be anywhere near a battlefield. So I hope that all UN members and Delegates vote YES!

The Old artical 36 of the un charter on children made it illiagal for children under 15 to be soliders (A war crime).

We say this does not go far enough, countries like the old United Kingdom were responsible for the amendment being voluntary of opt in to make it illiagal to have soliders under 18 (the old UK had 17 year old soliders and was against raising their minimum age to 18 for soliders.

The Altan Freestates think that the minimum age should be 21, however will support the lower age of 18 for those countries that are hostile to the 21 age group.

The Atlan Freestates believes that all conscription and national service should be for people of all sexes, regardless of orientation or background and no distinction in units should be made. It also believes that those on national service should not be used in combat situations unless neccessay. Finally it believes that officer status should be earned, that everyone should work up through the ranks according to performance.

The freestates believes that by working together the perception of gender difference in society can be eliminated. For that reason all genders in our marine corps, use the same billets, showers and bunks and are trained to think themselves as Marines and not as men and women. That the marines are their family.

Well, we do tend to have kids younger than 16 in our armed forces (for various reasons), but we make sure thay they are a far from the battlefield as possible, as homeland defense and such. Martial arts and ninja training does wonders to the kid's health (exercise). Besides, kids are trained to disable, rather than kill, in this nation. Killing is a last resort.

When you are in the heat of battle, can you disable instead of kill? Can people do that? Especially kids, who are likely to be scared?

Well, we do tend to have kids younger than 16 in our armed forces (for various reasons), but we make sure thay they are a far from the battlefield as possible, as homeland defense and such. Martial arts and ninja training does wonders to the kid's health (exercise). Besides, kids are trained to disable, rather than kill, in this nation. Killing is a last resort.

When you are in the heat of battle, can you disable instead of kill? Can people do that? Especially kids, who are likely to be scared?

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy abjectly refuses to endorse, vote for, or support this proposal. We have combat-ready teens in our armies, as was the case in the Greek states from which our model of government is derived. Conscripted, trained, ready to kill youths are one of the central elements of our military. We can and will deploy our youths wheresoever we choose to defend the glory of our Republic.

We would like to tell the U.N. and this resolution's author to politely shove it, and we will leave the U.N. should this pass. We will not tolerate you destroying our culture in the name of a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to "save the children." We are. We've made many of them part of our military. They're saving the other children.

NOW LET US BE!

I would implore the rulerof Sydia to to stay thy tounge when denouncing the practices of other nations. The nation of total anhialation prefer to practice the honor bound traditions of eons of people in the way of combat and warrior spirit, and to mock such tradition without cause does little but sap your own credibility as an intellegnet person. To mock anything merely in ignorance of it, demonstrates genuine immaturity of your nation Sydia. Please, refrain from attacks of such a personal nature when responding to a policial point made in opposition of your bill.

Sydia wrote:
"I'm sure your children would love to amble joyfully off into combat zones, honourable getting shot at and gloriously having limbs blown off."

I cannot speak for all of tohferion when I make the stance of the Shattered Realm, but our honerable nation must decline to endorse this proposal on one main point. Subtopic 2 states that it will become the governments responsibility to prevent child abduction by non government agencies. How do you propose our nations do this, when we have to balance so many concerns already? Economy, wellfare, homeland defense, and other issues of the like sort. My nation doesnt have the resources nor the manpower to create a Child Abduction Bureau, and i suspect we are not the only ones.

I oppose this bill on the principle that it asks too much of our government.

Excuse me? I was merely pointing out that war is far from a romantic thing. It's all fun and games until you see your best friends head blown off. Talk to some veterans - they'll assure you that war is a hellish enough thing for adults to endure, nevermind children.

Children would be happy to enter armed conflict? Possible - as the old quote goes, "War is a boys dream, but a mans nightmare".
But once they get there - it's far from fun. I hate to throw statistics in the fray, but here's some fun with facts:

Can you give us some statistics outlining the scope of the problem ?

Over the last decade, 2 million children were killed in conflict situations, over 1 million were made orphans, over 6 million have been seriously injured or permanently disabled and over 10 million have been left with grave psychological trauma. Today, in approximately 50 countries around the world, children are suffering in the midst of armed conflict and in its aftermath. Children are being raped, sexually abused and uprooted from their homes. At the present moment, there are over 20 million children who have been displaced by war within and outside their countries. Children are being deprived of Education and health care and left with deep emotional scars or lasting trauma. Approximately 800 children are killed or maimed by Landmines every month.

How many children are being forced to serve as Child Soldiers around the world ?

Some 300,000 young persons under the age of 18 are currently being exploited as Child Soldiers in as many as 30 areas of conflict around the world. This is a world-wide phenomenon, affecting children in countries as far apart as Sri Lanka, Colombia, Myanmar, Chechnya and the African continent (for example, in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan). The OPtional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict - an international consensus which came into force on 12 February 2002 that raises the age limit for compulsory recruitment and deployment of participants in armed conflict from 15 to 18 - is a crucial stage in the Campaign. It sets us free to concentrate our energies and action on the urgent task of curbing child soldiering on the ground.

Is it true that most of the world's refugees and internally displaced are children ?

Yes. Well over half of the world's displaced people are children. Most people fleeing armed conflict today do so within the borders of their own countries. They are unable or reluctant to leave their homelands and increasingly find countries of asylum less willing to accept them. Over 25 million people are currently displaced within their own national borders, compared with under 12 million refugees registered by the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR. During my missions to war-affected countries, I have witnessed first-hand the deeply distressing and precarious conditions of internally displaced persons (IDPs), especially children and women.


This is just my personal view, but I think I'd rather be climbing a tree.

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy abjectly refuses to endorse, vote for, or support this proposal. We have combat-ready teens in our armies, as was the case in the Greek states from which our model of government is derived. Conscripted, trained, ready to kill youths are one of the central elements of our military. We can and will deploy our youths wheresoever we choose to defend the glory of our Republic.

We would like to tell the U.N. and this resolution's author to politely shove it, and we will leave the U.N. should this pass. We will not tolerate you destroying our culture in the name of a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to "save the children." We are. We've made many of them part of our military. They're saving the other children.

NOW LET US BE!

I'll put aside your insults from the time being, and ask you to provide a solid arguement why it is "misconceived", rather than a blanket statement that it "invades your culture" - which, frankly, could be applied to all UN resolutions....

EDIT: Bad quote tags.

I myself, and as the leader of the Rouge Nation of Wossamata, think this idea is unheard of! The teenage race is the most able, and most willing (at least in Wossamata) to join the military ranks. Out of a 600,000 man military, more than 100,000 of them are under the age of 21. As a matter of fact, the other day, I promoted a 20-year old in the Wossamata Air Force to the rank of Lt. Col (An O-5).

Therefore I, the people of Wossamata, and the Region of World Powers refuse to support this proposal.

I myself, and as the leader of the Rouge Nation of Wossamata, think this idea is unheard of! The teenage race is the most able, and most willing (at least in Wossamata) to join the military ranks. Out of a 600,000 man military, more than 100,000 of them are under the age of 21. As a matter of fact, the other day, I promoted a 20-year old in the Wossamata Air Force to the rank of Lt. Col (An O-5).

Therefore I, the people of Wossamata, and the Region of World Powers refuse to support this proposal.

They are the most able and willing? Maybe before they see their best friend/boyfriend/girlfriend/lab partner get blown up. Maybe before they forget all their training in the heat of the moment. As I have mentioned earlier, even mature adults have been scarred for life.

The Protectorate of Cruzana endorses this proposal, however I have some questions about point #7.

7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities
Does this mean any attack on such a place, or would accidental destruction of civillian targets, due to whatever reason (faulty intelligence, proximity to military targets, etc.) be something that this proposal would find reason to condemn and seek punishment from of the nation at fault?

Also some clairification on point #6 would be helpful.


PoC

The Old artical 36 of the un charter on children made it illiagal for children under 15 to be soliders (A war crime).

The Altan Freestates think that the minimum age should be 21, however will support the lower age of 18 for those countries that are hostile to the 21 age group.


Would the Altan Freestates consider voting yes on the current resolution now, and then in the future proposing a resolution raising the age to 18? To be honest, I'm not sure how the UN leadership (i.e. mods) would respond to a friendly amendment like that via a future proposal.

I would just hate to see a good resolution voted down because our nations get into a disagreement on what an appropriate age is. Afterall, this proposal was debated for weeks in February before this forum, and 16 seemed to be OK then. Though I did note that some nations expressed their opinion even then that children should be used as combatants. And while my nation is opposed to that idea, we recognize their right to that opinion. It is interesting though that some nations will claim children should be used in warefare and vote no, and that others like yours sound as if they'll vote no on the opposite basis. In a way it makes me think that this resolution has achieved its goal in reaching a middle ground ... or in brokering out a compromise that protects more children than before. This is always a good thing.

10kMichael

The Protectorate of Cruzana endorses this proposal, however I have some questions about point #7.

7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities
Does this mean any attack on such a place, or would accidental destruction of civillian targets, due to whatever reason (faulty intelligence, proximity to military targets, etc.) be something that this proposal would find reason to condemn and seek punishment from of the nation at fault?


PoC

My interpetation, which is subject to discussion / debate, would be that an attack is something that targets a location. While collateral damage is regretful, to such a degree that nations should take measures to limit or eliminate it, if the target of the attack was a different location, then the attack wouldn't be banned. Of course if a pattern of attacks "missed" their targets and the places mentioned above where consistently subjected to collateral damage, I would think a strong case could be made that a nation or party to combat was clearly ignoring this clause. Any UN Member doing this should be swiftly condemned, any non-UN Member doing this is unfortunately not a member of this "treaty", but the attack / act itself can still be condemned.

While some would argue that such an interpetation does nothing in reality, I would say that the success of the Joccian Trade Embargos would point to the opposite direction. Through a series of bilateral agreements many nations inside and outside of the NationStates UN placed embargos on Joccian products during the recent humanitarian crisis there, and the situtation and region did stablize.

The point of UN resolutions is not to police the world. That task is still to daunting for this group. But instead the point is to arm our nations with the tools it will take to use economic and peaceful means to end conflicts. This resolution clearly does that, and has my nations strongest support.

If your people share in enjoying civil and political freedoms as the citizens of Mikitivity, then I urge you to vote in favour of this resolution.

10kMichael

If children cant fight what will they do?
Ill tell you you what!
ANNOY ADULTS
Its plain and simple why let them stay home and annoy everyone with there silly 'playing' when they can go and defend our lives? much better some kid gets capped than me right? Either put them to work or into the armed forces.

If children cant fight what will they do?
Ill tell you you what!
ANNOY ADULTS
Its plain and simple why let them stay home and annoy everyone with there silly 'playing' when they can go and defend our lives? much better some kid gets capped than me right? Either put them to work or into the armed forces.

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy abjectly refuses to endorse, vote for, or support this proposal. We have combat-ready teens in our armies, as was the case in the Greek states from which our model of government is derived. Conscripted, trained, ready to kill youths are one of the central elements of our military. We can and will deploy our youths wheresoever we choose to defend the glory of our Republic.

We would like to tell the U.N. and this resolution's author to politely shove it, and we will leave the U.N. should this pass. We will not tolerate you destroying our culture in the name of a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to "save the children." We are. We've made many of them part of our military. They're saving the other children.

NOW LET US BE!

Now, be reasonable. The Spartans, if we are using the Greek system, TRAINED their child soldiers before going into battle! Sure, they finish training underage, but with a few tweaks (a few more years of subtle brainwashing: TV works wonders), and you could have a nice efficient, perfectly legal killing machine of your own.

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy abjectly refuses to endorse, vote for, or support this proposal. We have combat-ready teens in our armies, as was the case in the Greek states from which our model of government is derived. Conscripted, trained, ready to kill youths are one of the central elements of our military. We can and will deploy our youths wheresoever we choose to defend the glory of our Republic.

We would like to tell the U.N. and this resolution's author to politely shove it, and we will leave the U.N. should this pass. We will not tolerate you destroying our culture in the name of a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to "save the children." We are. We've made many of them part of our military. They're saving the other children.

NOW LET US BE!

I'll put aside your insults from the time being, and ask you to provide a solid arguement why it is "misconceived", rather than a blanket statement that it "invades your culture" - which, frankly, could be applied to all UN resolutions....



Until the 20th century, a boy became a man at an early age- as late as 18 and as early as 12. Many cultures- in fact, dare I say, most outside the European-American complex- consider this to be the case. When a boy becomes a man, he is ready to kill and to die. Now, you may feel that it is wrong to make a teenager a soldier, but what makes you think it is appropriate to make decisions about manhood in other cultures? We treat our soldiers as full and honored citizens- they have all of the rights, responsibilities, priviliges and duties of any member of society. One of the privileges is having their full room and board provided for. One of their duties is being ready at any time to give their life for their country, whether in police duties or in full battle. We refuse to distinguish between a youth of fourteen and a youth of eighteen, save in contests of physical strength (we must be realist in addition to idealist).

You would have us sacrifice one of the cornerstones of our culture and our defense force so that your Western- nay, modernist- sensibilities may be assuaged. You would have us sacrifice the very linchpin of our military- the willingness, readiness, and faculty to kill and die in defense of our country and the pursuit of Reason- so you can feel better about yourself. I say you have no right.

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy abjectly refuses to endorse, vote for, or support this proposal. We have combat-ready teens in our armies, as was the case in the Greek states from which our model of government is derived. Conscripted, trained, ready to kill youths are one of the central elements of our military. We can and will deploy our youths wheresoever we choose to defend the glory of our Republic.

We would like to tell the U.N. and this resolution's author to politely shove it, and we will leave the U.N. should this pass. We will not tolerate you destroying our culture in the name of a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to "save the children." We are. We've made many of them part of our military. They're saving the other children.

NOW LET US BE!

Now, be reasonable. The Spartans, if we are using the Greek system, TRAINED their child soldiers before going into battle! Sure, they finish training underage, but with a few tweaks (a few more years of subtle brainwashing: TV works wonders), and you could have a nice efficient, perfectly legal killing machine of your own.

1) We train our children in a similar fashion to that of the Spartans, from the age of 10. Pre-training begins as early as 8 if the child's body has matured enough to withstand the rigors of training. Four years of ethics, philosophy, law, and military training is more than enough to transform the naturally violently-predilected child into an intelligent, reasoning citizen who knows forty-five different methods of killing a man unarmed- and the many situations in which one should not kill- i.e. when policing the streets of the local village.
2) We see no need to "tweak" a system that has proven highly effective and logically sound. Our young men (and women) deserve better than brainwashing. Similarly, we see no reason to allow the killing instincts to dull upon matriculation from our basic military academies. It would weaken the glory of our armies.

We refuse to allow this resolution to weaken us. We will oppose this resolution with the firmest resolve, and will leave the U.N. to prevent its application within our borders.

OOC: This proposal would seriously frell with my nation concept. In real life, I would not hesitate to approve this proposal for a microt. In NationStates, however, The Logarchy would feel this to be the crudest and most base insult: how dare arrogant foreigners presume to define the manhood and womanhood of our citizens.

As the humble representative of the People of Dhena, it falls upon me to speak for the People.

No state with any self-respect could possibly claim to have any interest in upholding peace and stability if children are conscripted into military service. Even if war may be a sad reality in a harsh world, our children cannot - MUST not - become fodder for the enemies cannons!

As a natural consequence, Dhena supports this resolution.

Ivil O. Werloord,
President

Although I support this motion, I do NOT agree with issue 9; Acknowledgement of the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills. This seems to promote the use of violence by children, rather than deter it. All legislation to protect children from the hazards as well as the physical and sociological implications of war would arguable become null and void once the themselves commit acts of violence.

The Protectorate of Cameronian fully supports this issue and would request other nations from the Northeastern Alliance to do the same. Good luck Sydia.

Quote "I'm sure your children would love to amble joyfully off into combat zones, honourable getting shot at and gloriously having limbs blown off." End quote

I would like to inform you that all children accepted into our armed forces do so with full knowledge of the implications, having seen footage of true battlefield condtions during their application, and are quite willing to lay down their lives in order to protect our country and it's honour!

If I am to take this "game" serious for a minute, then I should insist on dropping provision 2 of the proposal: Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations

---> there are only goverments in the game and therefor non-governmental organizations don't exist and thus insisting on giving them a role is "...." <me momma didn't raise no fool> ;)

My people hates spamming, but what they hate even more is being ignored (you see I play along with the pretend thing) - could the UN guy who came up with this proposal at least explain to me what the point is of provision 2 in his/her proposal?

2. Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations;

How can you outsource "stuff" to n"on-existing entities"? What's the point? Que bono? :?:

Debylistan - there are NGOs in this world, it's part of the role-playing thing. The UN deals with all its member nations, which are composed of more than just governments.

Well even if one were to pretend ... nope ... it doesn't make much sense. (then again I didn't state that it had to, so let me ask you: "does it need to"?). Since I am roleplaying as I type this and as such am roleplaying that I have great writing skills eventhough the construction of this sentence would not suggest it. And because it actually seems like fun I'll try to roleplay that I am serious for a minute. So let the serious "roleplaying" begin!

"Child abduction" is a "problem" that can be related to the "recruitment of child soldiers" which this proposed resolution wants to outlaw. Sociologically speaking the causes of it are many (how I know? I just roleplayed that I was a non-governemental organization). Now according to this proposal the UN would insist[s] nations address(ing) the causes of child abduction [by non-governmental organizations] :roll:

Now roleplay a little and imagine that you know english and then tell me what this provision "tells" you. Doesn't it strike you as being a little "way out there" :?:

If I am to take this "game" serious for a minute, then I should insist on dropping provision 2 of the proposal: Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations

---> there are only goverments in the game and therefor non-governmental organizations don't exist and thus insisting on giving them a role is "...." <me momma didn't raise no fool> ;)

My people hates spamming, but what they hate even more is being ignored (you see I play along with the pretend thing) - could the UN guy who came up with this proposal at least explain to me what the point is of provision 2 in his/her proposal?

2. Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations;

How can you outsource "stuff" to n"on-existing entities"? What's the point? Que bono? :?:

Sorry for the late response, I didn't mean to intentionally overlook your question.

The fact is, it's all RP. Hell, we can't declare war using game mechanics, nor is there a possibility to go into space, etc etc.

It's been said before; You can't expect the sun and the moon from a free game designed to promote a book. You have to use your imagination a bit.

I would like to inform you that all children accepted into our armed forces do so with full knowledge of the implications, having seen footage of true battlefield condtions during their application, and are quite willing to lay down their lives in order to protect our country and it's honour!

Footage of true battlefield conditions? How would they know? It could easily be said that it is no more than propaganda....


Although I support this motion, I do NOT agree with issue 9; Acknowledgement of the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills. This seems to promote the use of violence by children, rather than deter it. All legislation to protect children from the hazards as well as the physical and sociological implications of war would arguable become null and void once the themselves commit acts of violence.


Part 9 had to be in there. It's an issue of compromise- you've already seen the flak I've taken from merely banning under 16s from being conscripted! If I didn't allow nations to train under 16s, I imagine it would have struggled to reach quorum. Besides, the point of the resolution is to protect children (whether soldiers, refugees or displaced persons) from war. While training might be tough on them, it's nothing compared to the actual thing.

Until the 20th century, a boy became a man at an early age- as late as 18 and as early as 12. Many cultures- in fact, dare I say, most outside the European-American complex- consider this to be the case. When a boy becomes a man, he is ready to kill and to die. Now, you may feel that it is wrong to make a teenager a soldier, but what makes you think it is appropriate to make decisions about manhood in other cultures? We treat our soldiers as full and honored citizens- they have all of the rights, responsibilities, priviliges and duties of any member of society. One of the privileges is having their full room and board provided for. One of their duties is being ready at any time to give their life for their country, whether in police duties or in full battle. We refuse to distinguish between a youth of fourteen and a youth of eighteen, save in contests of physical strength (we must be realist in addition to idealist).

You would have us sacrifice one of the cornerstones of our culture and our defense force so that your Western- nay, modernist- sensibilities may be assuaged. You would have us sacrifice the very linchpin of our military- the willingness, readiness, and faculty to kill and die in defense of our country and the pursuit of Reason- so you can feel better about yourself. I say you have no right

Like I said - it's an issue of compromise. If I'd set the age too low (say, 12), then many would argue that 12 year olds should still be considered children and the resolution fails in its purpose. If I'd set the age too high (21, for example), many would oppose because it cuts out a slice of the population said nations would view as adults. The point could be argued indefinitely.

@Debylistan - I don't get what you're saying? That the resolution is too vague? If I'd ordered a nation to do something, say "all nations must immediately shut down all NGO military bodies" (extreme, but it's just hypothetical), it would impede on national sovereignty, which the UN should try to avoid doing at their own costs. It's more of a case of "I don't care how you do it - just do it!" (sounds like a slogan for a sports company, but that's the general idea).

BTW, Mikitivity was a great help in editing and improving the original proposal to what you see now, and is just as capable as answering your concerns as myself.

Sorry if this doubleposts, the servers playing silly buggers again.

EDIT: Typos.

It all read so well until proposal no. 9. Sorry, but I have voted against.

Askum has a problem with children not being allowed to participate in war. It is their country too and they should have a hand in its future. Besides, it is a good learning experience for them.

Fellow nation of Sydia

The UN proposal sounds exemplary to me, up until provision 9. You have explained the meaning you intended for this clause in an earlier post in the thread.

However, the intended meaning is not always the one that is applied by nations, especially by nations with profiles such as my own. As a RP leader of my nation, I should be extremely happy that you have allowed me to train "camiccie nere" (black shirts). Yet, have you not considered that young officers with military training could participate in war outside the conventional military forces? They could organize themselves into guerrilla squads, thus subverting the original intention of your proposal. Furthermore, having the rights of these military trianing institutions been previously acknowledged, what would prevent the government from granting official "titles" recognizing what cadets have learned? This would ultimately lead to their abduction into armed forces.

I believe we should consider these points carefully. Again, my nation's profile moves me to agree with clause 9, yet I believe most NationStates would not.

@Debylistan - I don't get what you're saying? That the resolution is too vague? If I'd ordered a nation to do something, say "all nations must immediately shut down all NGO military bodies" (extreme, but it's just hypothetical), it would impede on national sovereignty, which the UN should try to avoid doing at their own costs. It's more of a case of "I don't care how you do it - just do it!" (sounds like a slogan for a sports company, but that's the general idea).

Sure, but there is a real world out there (so I have been told while roleplaying) and in the real world sociologists use multivariate models to explain stuff like "child abductions" in connection to "recruitment of child soldiers" and then get terribly muddled when they try to include non structural elements like value systems in their models just to create a name for themselves (trust me there's a lot of roleplaying going on at sociologist seminars).

Suffice it to say that it is a complex issue and that the "abduction of children" in this and any other context has many causes. I would think that the UN could legally enforce specific interventions that could influence the prevalence of "child abductions" and of course it can outlaw the practice and get really mad at nations who brake the law. But (and this is "really" why I am roleplaying) IMHO it is foolish (and like I said before me momma ...) to decree that nations should adress the causes. You spoke about "impeding on national sovereignty" - thank your lucky stars that not more UN members are as "good" at roleplaying as I am or this resolution would never have stood a chance (reality argument).

Oh yeah one more thing: don't be to shy to "use" some of the tricks the English language offers --> "by" non-governmental organizations? - Well I never! ;)

i feel this is a constitutional right that children shouldnt be inscripted into the army and hope this resolution is pushed forward with much force. It is morally wrong to send someone to thier death before they have lived. My country has consription for 1 year and it is working fine. People then have the choice tos tay or to leave when they are of age. I feel this is the way forward

Damn this crap server - to the guy who had a problem with the kiddy guerilla armies - see point 2.

To D-something who apparently is a God of RP - if I were to include every sociological reason for child abductions and stuff the resolution would be huge, plus I ain't a sociologist. Rather than self-appriciation, how about constructive critism about point 2, perhaps including an arguement this time.

Oh yeah one more thing: don't be to shy to "use" some of the tricks the English language offers --> "by" non-governmental organizations? - Well I never!

Excuse me?

Until the 20th century, a boy became a man at an early age- as late as 18 and as early as 12. Many cultures- in fact, dare I say, most outside the European-American complex- consider this to be the case. When a boy becomes a man, he is ready to kill and to die. Now, you may feel that it is wrong to make a teenager a soldier, but what makes you think it is appropriate to make decisions about manhood in other cultures? We treat our soldiers as full and honored citizens- they have all of the rights, responsibilities, priviliges and duties of any member of society. One of the privileges is having their full room and board provided for. One of their duties is being ready at any time to give their life for their country, whether in police duties or in full battle. We refuse to distinguish between a youth of fourteen and a youth of eighteen, save in contests of physical strength (we must be realist in addition to idealist).

You would have us sacrifice one of the cornerstones of our culture and our defense force so that your Western- nay, modernist- sensibilities may be assuaged. You would have us sacrifice the very linchpin of our military- the willingness, readiness, and faculty to kill and die in defense of our country and the pursuit of Reason- so you can feel better about yourself. I say you have no right

Like I said - it's an issue of compromise. If I'd set the age too low (say, 12), then many would argue that 12 year olds should still be considered children and the resolution fails in its purpose. If I'd set the age too high (21, for example), many would oppose because it cuts out a slice of the population said nations would view as adults. The point could be argued indefinitely.

Which is why I am saying that the proposal should not be passed at all. It steamrolls over the right of a people to determine the age of manhood, and infringes on the right of thinking adults to freely associate and freely act as a full citizen. If this proposal passes (and if we do not leave the U.N. to prevent it from destroying the fabric of our society), it will not only damage our nation's right to self-determination, but also reduce the rights of our citizens to act in their own best interest and freely associate. It is intolerable.

Until the 20th century, a boy became a man at an early age- as late as 18 and as early as 12. Many cultures- in fact, dare I say, most outside the European-American complex- consider this to be the case. When a boy becomes a man, he is ready to kill and to die. Now, you may feel that it is wrong to make a teenager a soldier, but what makes you think it is appropriate to make decisions about manhood in other cultures? We treat our soldiers as full and honored citizens- they have all of the rights, responsibilities, priviliges and duties of any member of society. One of the privileges is having their full room and board provided for. One of their duties is being ready at any time to give their life for their country, whether in police duties or in full battle. We refuse to distinguish between a youth of fourteen and a youth of eighteen, save in contests of physical strength (we must be realist in addition to idealist).

You would have us sacrifice one of the cornerstones of our culture and our defense force so that your Western- nay, modernist- sensibilities may be assuaged. You would have us sacrifice the very linchpin of our military- the willingness, readiness, and faculty to kill and die in defense of our country and the pursuit of Reason- so you can feel better about yourself. I say you have no right

Like I said - it's an issue of compromise. If I'd set the age too low (say, 12), then many would argue that 12 year olds should still be considered children and the resolution fails in its purpose. If I'd set the age too high (21, for example), many would oppose because it cuts out a slice of the population said nations would view as adults. The point could be argued indefinitely.

Which is why I am saying that the proposal should not be passed at all. It steamrolls over the right of a people to determine the age of manhood, and infringes on the right of thinking adults to freely associate and freely act as a full citizen. If this proposal passes (and if we do not leave the U.N. to prevent it from destroying the fabric of our society), it will not only damage our nation's right to self-determination, but also reduce the rights of our citizens to act in their own best interest and freely associate. It is intolerable.

Rubbish. The resolution says nothing about the age of "manhood" as regards other legislature, only that under 16s in armed forces are a no-no. Nations retain the right to set the age above 16 for service in the armed forces. It doesn't "steamroll" over anything, nor infringe on rights of citizens (where the hell did you get that from?).

any nation who opposes this law should come and join "the whole" and we can all win togeather.

The Free Land of Jennea would like to announce it's full support of the bill in accordance to our motto: All Life Matters.

look there shouldnt be so many people who have a problem with this. children just shouldnt be used in war as fighting units. its just immoral.

The Republic of Tonalau has endorsed this resolution and will get everyone it can to help do the same.

The Empire of Mowers stands firmly against this resolution! It is the right to each sovereign nation to use its people at its own will. It is not the right of the international community to enforce sanctions on a single nation. Though approved for admission to the UN the great Empire of Mowers has not yet received and e-mail, however, when formally admitted into the UN the prosperous Empire of Mowers intends to vote AGAINST this resolution due to its involvement in the personal matters of individual nations.

Emperor Mowers
Empire of Mowers
Home of the Green Jader Monkey

The Empire of Mowers stands firmly against this resolution! It is the right to each sovereign nation to use its people at its own will. It is not the right of the international community to enforce sanctions on a single nation. Though approved for admission to the UN the great Empire of Mowers has not yet received and e-mail, however, when formally admitted into the UN the prosperous Empire of Mowers intends to vote AGAINST this resolution due to its involvement in the personal matters of individual nations.

Emperor Mowers
Empire of Mowers
Home of the Green Jader Monkey

If you don't like using your people at will, why'd you join the UN?! Look at the many previous resolutions imparing your ability to "use" your people as you like!

Which is why I am saying that the proposal should not be passed at all. It steamrolls over the right of a people to determine the age of manhood, and infringes on the right of thinking adults to freely associate and freely act as a full citizen. If this proposal passes (and if we do not leave the U.N. to prevent it from destroying the fabric of our society), it will not only damage our nation's right to self-determination, but also reduce the rights of our citizens to act in their own best interest and freely associate. It is intolerable.

Steamrolls? And how big was that fish you caught last summer? 3 meters or 5 meters long?

The resolution is not prohibiting your citizen's rights at all. It is prohibiting nations from using their own children to wage campaigns of violence.

Nothing in this resolution tells you when you can grant your citizens the right to vote. In fact, nothing in this resolution even advocates that citizens need to vote. A monarchy doesn't have need of elections, as the King rules. And yet you imply that this resolution touches political freedoms.

It does not. It establishes civil rights and protections for citizens from their government.

If you can't see this point, I hardly think there is anything the 7000+ of us that support this resolution will be able to say to convince you to change your mind.

10kMichael

The Council of Enn has signalled its suuport for this proposal in full.

Suffice it to say that it is a complex issue and that the "abduction of children" in this and any other context has many causes. I would think that the UN could legally enforce specific interventions that could influence the prevalence of "child abductions" and of course it can outlaw the practice and get really mad at nations who brake the law. But (and this is "really" why I am roleplaying) IMHO it is foolish (and like I said before me momma ...) to decree that nations should adress the causes. You spoke about "impeding on national sovereignty" - thank your lucky stars that not more UN members are as "good" at roleplaying as I am or this resolution would never have stood a chance (reality argument).


The first step in addressing complex issues, which you state the abduction of children is, is to indentify some of the processes / players / parties to the issue.

I don't see an activating clause instructing nations to address the issue at hand as being a directive for nations to immediately taking on problems with out planning first!

I had considered adding a clause to the ballast water protection proposal (which is current up for endorsement) to also establish continuing monitoring plans. But alas, I felt that the proposal itself was but the first of many well thoughtout UN environmental resolutions and nothing would prevent us from seeking to do this as well.

The same applies here. If you are of the opinion that this resolution is too broadsweeping, I would recommend that you proposal another resolution to improve upon this one. Clearly this resolution is needed. And clearly its goals are to improve the quality of life for children. Nobody is advocating that this resolution is the only solution nor the end of this discussion.

I'd encourage you to use these "roleplaying" and "socialogical" skills you have and work on building another resolution. I know that when this resolution was a proposal the first time, that its author, Sydia, was open to suggestions and incorporated then in this resolutions current form. Though I can only speak for my own nation, I'm guessing (based on the strong show of support for this resolution) that if you drafted a similar proposal that many of the proponents of this resolution would support you as well. My nation would!

10kMichael

The Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti will not endorse, or vote for, this resolution.

Our primary concern is with Article 9. We believe that no child, minor, non-adult should be allowed formal military training. Period. This gives an incredible loop-hole for those nations who may want to use children as national defense while conscripted, adult soldiers are in foreign lands.

Once any invading nation lands on said Child-Soldiery Nation, both would be in violation of this NS UN resolution.

We understand the issue of compromise, and the intent placed on this resolution. However, the ambiguousness of the effect is too great for Shang-Ti to endorse, or vote for.

The Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti will not endorse, or vote for, this resolution.

Our primary concern is with Article 9. We believe that no child, minor, non-adult should be allowed formal military training. Period. This gives an incredible loop-hole for those nations who may want to use children as national defense while conscripted, adult soldiers are in foreign lands.

Once any invading nation lands on said Child-Soldiery Nation, both would be in violation of this NS UN resolution.

We understand the issue of compromise, and the intent placed on this resolution. However, the ambiguousness of the effect is too great for Shang-Ti to endorse, or vote for.

The Community of Wabbaloids shares this view. Resolution seems very good, but article 9. is such loop-hole that it basically gives UN approval for child soldiers.

how do you endorse someone?
you have to be in the un, then you go to that nations home page, go to the bottom, and click endorse

The Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti will not endorse, or vote for, this resolution.

Our primary concern is with Article 9. We believe that no child, minor, non-adult should be allowed formal military training. Period. This gives an incredible loop-hole for those nations who may want to use children as national defense while conscripted, adult soldiers are in foreign lands.

Once any invading nation lands on said Child-Soldiery Nation, both would be in violation of this NS UN resolution.

We understand the issue of compromise, and the intent placed on this resolution. However, the ambiguousness of the effect is too great for Shang-Ti to endorse, or vote for.

The Community of Wabbaloids shares this view. Resolution seems very good, but article 9. is such loop-hole that it basically gives UN approval for child soldiers.

Is not the protection of this article even with the loop-hole better than no protection?

Why not rewrite article 9 of the proposal to forbid minors from any active duty in milatary conflicts

Though by the looks of things I'm guessing that amending article 9 at later date is what probably going to happen now

I agree.

Going against past proposals isn't allowed in the UN; you could add clarifications, but a complete U-turn would be kicked out by the mods.

Is there no reasoning with you people?

I had to allow training facilities to exist - this doesn't mean the kids are in armed forces - it's prohibited by the point 1! Please READ the resolution before finding non-existant loopholes in it. Sheesh.

When you are in the heat of battle, can you disable instead of kill? Can people do that? Especially kids, who are likely to be scared?

An interesting point there. Well, if my nation is invaded and all my troops, Jedi and other units are killed, what do you think is going to happen to the kids? Slavery is the result.

When you are in the heat of battle, can you disable instead of kill? Can people do that? Especially kids, who are likely to be scared?

An interesting point there. Well, if my nation is invaded and all my troops, Jedi and other units are killed, what do you think is going to happen to the kids? Slavery is the result.

That is not an excuse for using children in your army; it is an excuse for getting your act together. Many NationStates players do not use child soldiers and yet their children are not made slaves.

If children want to defend their homelands, or even invade the homelands of others, why should we stop them?

Children should be afforded all the rights we give to all people, because they are people. Since people have the right to hold weapons for the defense and glorification of their country, children necessarily do as well.

It is only with the utmost hypocrisy that we could work to deny this basic human right - that of killing and dying for a cause you believe in - to any people on the basis of age discrimination.

Don't make me come over there.

If children want to defend their homelands, or even invade the homelands of others, why should we stop them?

Children should be afforded all the rights we give to all people, because they are people. Since people have the right to hold weapons for the defense and glorification of their country, children necessarily do as well.

It is only with the utmost hypocrisy that we could work to deny this basic human right - that of killing and dying for a cause you believe in - to any people on the basis of age discrimination.

Don't make me come over there.

Basic human right? Getting yourself killed is a basic human right? Even if it is a cause you believe in, children still have many more years of service to that cause. To terminate that now would be terminating the future of the cause.

That is not an excuse for using children in your army; it is an excuse for getting your act together. Many NationStates players do not use child soldiers and yet their children are not made slaves.

Mmm...true. We have an order in the military not to allow anyone under 16 in the armed forces. Of course, kendo is hugely popular in the nation, and the kendo and other martial art clubs routinely make the top ten lists. We teach children to learn self-defense. In that way, we technically have a massive number of trained kids to fight in case of invasion, and we do get invaded by demon hordes from time to time.

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

So I should have written "16 Earth years"? That's pathetic, it really is.

Besides, you could apply this "loophole" to any UN resolution. Say, the tree replanting scheme. Sine it does not define what a "tree" is, I could say my nations suddenly considers a "tree" to be a small peruvian frisbee.

:roll:

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

So I should have written "16 Earth years"? That's pathetic, it really is.

Besides, you could apply this "loophole" to any UN resolution. Say, the tree replanting scheme. Sine it does not define what a "tree" is, I could say my nations suddenly considers a "tree" to be a small peruvian frisbee.

:roll:

Yes, you should have specified. Given the opposition to your resolution, you should have specified; I, personally, saw this loophole coming from a mile away. Also, there is precedent for nations following nonstandard calendars. Muslim countries often follow the Muslim calendar. The Baha'i faith has its own calendar. Russia, for ages, followed the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.

Admit it- you failed to consider a very likely possibility, and now any nation that feels strongly enough about child soldiers has an out. Your nation is grammatically correct but legally weak, and while I think it was very well-written, you left too much unspecified and unhandled.

Of course, if you should choose to convene an international convention on timekeeping and dates, which I, personally, have advocated for in the past, by all means submit it to the U.N. for consideration.

Is there no reasoning with you people?

First, I find that statement highly offensive and detrimental to the diplomatic process. You do not know what my reasoning is beyond what I have typed on a screen. In addition, to indicate that, because my opinion does not concur with yours, that I am being unreasonable or at the very least obtuse, is very undiplomatic.

I had to allow training facilities to exist

Second, you did NOT have to allow training facilities to exist. From your own statements, this was a compromise - of your own choosing - to cater to those nations who would threaten to block quorum without the ability to conscript, or at least train, minors.

this doesn't mean the kids are in armed forces - it's prohibited by the point 1! Please READ the resolution before finding non-existant loopholes in it. Sheesh.

Third, Article 9 definitely allows loopholes for those nations wanting to exploit their children. It's relatively simple. A nation only has to train their children in combat and "survival" skills. By sending their entire military to fight off-shore, the only part of the populace left on the home territory with military and "survival" training would be those children. Any nation coming to shore would not find combat troops, nor a researve force, but a well trained cadre of children. Would the children fight? That's undetermined; however, the possibility IS there.

"But this is banned!" you might say. I would disagree. There are no provisions for preventing minors from taking up arms against an aggressor, no is there any responsibility noted for a military to leave unconscripted, well-trained minors on the homeland. The only provision dealing with combat are:

1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services;
4. All parties in armed conflict must adopt special measures to protect children from rape and sexual abuse and gender based violence;
5. Expects nations to take into account the special needs of children throughout the duration of the armed conflict and its aftermath;
6. All UN nations must ensure that international measures be taken to take care of child refugees displaced by conflict;
7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities;
8. Deplores and bans the practice of using children as human shields by integrating child care facilities, such as those listed above, with military facilities, and prohibits this practise; and

There are no provisions for a military to leave it's homeland, placing the well trained children at risk. Article 1 only states that children cannot be conscripted. There IS NO ARTICLE banning children from combat zones. The closest you have are Articles 7 & 8 which prevents combatants from targeting normal facilities that would be inhabited by children, and for the military to prevent housing military facilities within said civilian facilities.

As there are no provisions for banning children within combat zones, this opens up two possibilities:

1. Children may volunteer to be placed within a combat zone without being conscripted or placed within the armed forces (militia, for example).

2. Children may be used as national defense as a reservist unit not tied to normal military service.

There are only two ways to really prevent this: 1. To remove the training aspect of children, reducing their effectiveness. 2. Add a Provision banning children from combat zones both abroad and domestically.

We, the Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti, implore you to look at these loopholes with an objective eye, unclouded from the pride we imagine you would feel in crafting an important piece of legislation. The over-riding issue is the protection of children.

The basic principles are held very dear to the Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti, as we hold civil, political, and social freedoms especially dear. If a nation bent towards promoting peace, harmony, and diplomacy as the Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti is predisposed can find these faults within this resolution; we shudder to think what a nation bent towards nefarious, terrorist, and aggressive disposition would find.

Best Regards,

Secretary James Lao
Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti
Tao-State Department

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

So I should have written "16 Earth years"? That's pathetic, it really is.

Besides, you could apply this "loophole" to any UN resolution. Say, the tree replanting scheme. Sine it does not define what a "tree" is, I could say my nations suddenly considers a "tree" to be a small peruvian frisbee.

:roll:

Yes, you should have specified. Given the opposition to your resolution, you should have specified; I, personally, saw this loophole coming from a mile away. Also, there is precedent for nations following nonstandard calendars. Muslim countries often follow the Muslim calendar. The Baha'i faith has its own calendar. Russia, for ages, followed the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.

Admit it- you failed to consider a very likely possibility, and now any nation that feels strongly enough about child soldiers has an out. Your nation is grammatically correct but legally weak, and while I think it was very well-written, you left too much unspecified and unhandled.

Of course, if you should choose to convene an international convention on timekeeping and dates, which I, personally, have advocated for in the past, by all means submit it to the U.N. for consideration.

Don't give me that crap. 16 is 16 wherever you are. I'm talking chronologically, not fiscally either.

What is the point of being in the UN if you redefine the terms contained in its resolutions at will? If you saw it coming "a mile off", why didn't you say so before, eh?
:roll:

At least Shang-Ti offers some more sensible arguments than your "redefining years" nonsense.

First, I find that statement highly offensive and detrimental to the diplomatic process. You do not know what my reasoning is beyond what I have typed on a screen. In addition, to indicate that, because my opinion does not concur with yours, that I am being unreasonable or at the very least obtuse, is very undiplomatic.


Highly offensive? Welcome to the internet...
I did not mean for it to be offensive, but when the same flawed argument
is used again and again, without it seems even properly reading the resolution, it becomes tired at best, annoying at worst.


Second, you did NOT have to allow training facilities to exist. From your own statements, this was a compromise - of your own choosing - to cater to those nations who would threaten to block quorum without the ability to conscript, or at least train, minors.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer - I had to allow training facilities to exist to compromise with militaristic nations. Note the title of the resolution - Children in War. It'd be beyond the terms of the resolution to tack on the end "oh yeah, and don't train anyone before 16 either". If I recall correctly, this was brought up as an argument against the original version of the resolution, under the name "Ban Child Soldiers". You can't please everyone...

Third, Article 9 definitely allows loopholes for those nations wanting to exploit their children. It's relatively simple. A nation only has to train their children in combat and "survival" skills. By sending their entire military to fight off-shore, the only part of the populace left on the home territory with military and "survival" training would be those children. Any nation coming to shore would not find combat troops, nor a researve force, but a well trained cadre of children. Would the children fight? That's undetermined; however, the possibility IS there.

"But this is banned!" you might say. I would disagree. There are no provisions for preventing minors from taking up arms against an aggressor, no is there any responsibility noted for a military to leave unconscripted, well-trained minors on the homeland. The only provision dealing with combat are

-snipped-

There are no provisions for a military to leave it's homeland, placing the well trained children at risk. Article 1 only states that children cannot be conscripted. There IS NO ARTICLE banning children from combat zones. The closest you have are Articles 7 & 8 which prevents combatants from targeting normal facilities that would be inhabited by children, and for the military to prevent housing military facilities within said civilian facilities.


Could this happen even without the existence of part 9? It'd be way to much to prohibit anyone under 16 from fighting in defense of their homeland, I'm sure you'd agree. Besides, a nation would have to be pretty desperate to allow it to come to tht. Even Hitler only threw in the Hitler Youth as a last resort once his regular armies were on the retreat.

As there are no provisions for banning children within combat zones, this opens up two possibilities:

1. Children may volunteer to be placed within a combat zone without being conscripted or placed within the armed forces (militia, for example).

2. Children may be used as national defense as a reservist unit not tied to normal military service.

There are only two ways to really prevent this: 1. To remove the training aspect of children, reducing their effectiveness. 2. Add a Provision banning children from combat zones both abroad and domestically.

I think it would be irresponsible to allow children (who, let's face it, are naive about war at best) to volunteer to go to war. Once they get there and realise the true nature of the situation they're in, I'm sure they'd wonder why anyone would allow them to be put in that situation to begin with.


EDIT: achtung, more bad tags.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

In an exteme circumstance (e.g. Joccia protitutes massacre) other nations place embargos on the offending nation, and may impose other diplomatic (expelleing all nationals, cancelling visas) or military action.

At least Shang-Ti offers some more sensible arguments than your "redefining years" nonsense.

Well, thank you.

First, I find that statement highly offensive and detrimental to the diplomatic process. You do not know what my reasoning is beyond what I have typed on a screen. In addition, to indicate that, because my opinion does not concur with yours, that I am being unreasonable or at the very least obtuse, is very undiplomatic.


Highly offensive? Welcome to the internet...
I did not mean for it to be offensive, but when the same flawed argument
is used again and again, without it seems even properly reading the resolution, it becomes tired at best, annoying at worst.

Personally, I found the "offense" to be quite humorous; however, my President felt it lacked a certain diplomatic etiquette. We understand the frustrations involved with hammering out a well-written proposal, only to have certain parts of it attacked. However, we also believe that the purpose of this forum is to not only garner support for a resolution, but to also debate a resolution before it is submitted to the UN. Once a request is made, we feel the individual should be able to handle the possibility of thousands of delegates hammering out the same issue over and over.


Second, you did NOT have to allow training facilities to exist. From your own statements, this was a compromise - of your own choosing - to cater to those nations who would threaten to block quorum without the ability to conscript, or at least train, minors.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer - I had to allow training facilities to exist to compromise with militaristic nations. Note the title of the resolution - Children in War. It'd be beyond the terms of the resolution to tack on the end "oh yeah, and don't train anyone before 16 either". If I recall correctly, this was brought up as an argument against the original version of the resolution, under the name "Ban Child Soldiers". You can't please everyone...

Granted, one cannot please everyone. And, I agree, that it would seem reasonable to allow children to train in survival skills; however, based on principles, we, personally, do not feel it is beneficial to any nation.

Third, Article 9 definitely allows loopholes for those nations wanting to exploit their children. It's relatively simple. A nation only has to train their children in combat and "survival" skills. By sending their entire military to fight off-shore, the only part of the populace left on the home territory with military and "survival" training would be those children. Any nation coming to shore would not find combat troops, nor a researve force, but a well trained cadre of children. Would the children fight? That's undetermined; however, the possibility IS there.

"But this is banned!" you might say. I would disagree. There are no provisions for preventing minors from taking up arms against an aggressor, no is there any responsibility noted for a military to leave unconscripted, well-trained minors on the homeland. The only provision dealing with combat are

-snipped-

There are no provisions for a military to leave it's homeland, placing the well trained children at risk. Article 1 only states that children cannot be conscripted. There IS NO ARTICLE banning children from combat zones. The closest you have are Articles 7 & 8 which prevents combatants from targeting normal facilities that would be inhabited by children, and for the military to prevent housing military facilities within said civilian facilities.


Could this happen even without the existence of part 9? It'd be way to much to prohibit anyone under 16 from fighting in defense of their homeland, I'm sure you'd agree. Besides, a nation would have to be pretty desperate to allow it to come to tht. Even Hitler only threw in the Hitler Youth as a last resort once his regular armies were on the retreat.

Humans have seen children placed in war situations numerous times, many of these times by their own volition. Afghani children fought along side their parents during the Russian wars. Children are used in guerilla fighting in South America quite a bit. Children were even used in America's Revolutionary and Civil wars. These children usually aren't conscripted, they volunteer due to ideology. Is that ideology planted by government brainwashing or through a sincere desire to protect the homeland? We cannot answer that. However, the precedence is there, and should not be ignored.

As there are no provisions for banning children within combat zones, this opens up two possibilities:

1. Children may volunteer to be placed within a combat zone without being conscripted or placed within the armed forces (militia, for example).

2. Children may be used as national defense as a reservist unit not tied to normal military service.

There are only two ways to really prevent this: 1. To remove the training aspect of children, reducing their effectiveness. 2. Add a Provision banning children from combat zones both abroad and domestically.

I think it would be irresponsible to allow children (who, let's face it, are naive about war at best) to volunteer to go to war. Once they get there and realise the true nature of the situation they're in, I'm sure they'd wonder why anyone would allow them to be put in that situation to begin with.

I agree that it would be irresponsible to allow children to volunteer to go to war. However, the precedence is there, and many nations have already expressed a negativity towards this issue on a war-mongering basis. My contention is that, although we are against using Children in War, some nations will use the lack of prohibiting children in combat zones as a means of exploitation.

We will concede on Article 9 only if the following is included: an Article that prohibits children from being placed in a combat zone, either intentionally, forcibly, or voluntarily. This puts the onus of responsibility of the Nation to protect its children, and allows for less room Nations to exploit children in wartime.

EDIT: achtung, more bad tags.

It's ok, I tried to fix them...

Best Regards,

Secretary James Lao
Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti
Tao-State Department

At least Shang-Ti offers some more sensible arguments than your "redefining years" nonsense.

Well, thank you.

First, I find that statement highly offensive and detrimental to the diplomatic process. You do not know what my reasoning is beyond what I have typed on a screen. In addition, to indicate that, because my opinion does not concur with yours, that I am being unreasonable or at the very least obtuse, is very undiplomatic.


Highly offensive? Welcome to the internet...
I did not mean for it to be offensive, but when the same flawed argument
is used again and again, without it seems even properly reading the resolution, it becomes tired at best, annoying at worst.

Personally, I found the "offense" to be quite humorous; however, my President felt it lacked a certain diplomatic etiquette. We understand the frustrations involved with hammering out a well-written proposal, only to have certain parts of it attacked. However, we also believe that the purpose of this forum is to not only garner support for a resolution, but to also debate a resolution before it is submitted to the UN. Once a request is made, we feel the individual should be able to handle the possibility of thousands of delegates hammering out the same issue over and over.


Second, you did NOT have to allow training facilities to exist. From your own statements, this was a compromise - of your own choosing - to cater to those nations who would threaten to block quorum without the ability to conscript, or at least train, minors.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer - I had to allow training facilities to exist to compromise with militaristic nations. Note the title of the resolution - Children in War. It'd be beyond the terms of the resolution to tack on the end "oh yeah, and don't train anyone before 16 either". If I recall correctly, this was brought up as an argument against the original version of the resolution, under the name "Ban Child Soldiers". You can't please everyone...

Granted, one cannot please everyone. And, I agree, that it would seem reasonable to allow children to train in survival skills; however, based on principles, we, personally, do not feel it is beneficial to any nation.

Third, Article 9 definitely allows loopholes for those nations wanting to exploit their children. It's relatively simple. A nation only has to train their children in combat and "survival" skills. By sending their entire military to fight off-shore, the only part of the populace left on the home territory with military and "survival" training would be those children. Any nation coming to shore would not find combat troops, nor a researve force, but a well trained cadre of children. Would the children fight? That's undetermined; however, the possibility IS there.

"But this is banned!" you might say. I would disagree. There are no provisions for preventing minors from taking up arms against an aggressor, no is there any responsibility noted for a military to leave unconscripted, well-trained minors on the homeland. The only provision dealing with combat are

-snipped-

There are no provisions for a military to leave it's homeland, placing the well trained children at risk. Article 1 only states that children cannot be conscripted. There IS NO ARTICLE banning children from combat zones. The closest you have are Articles 7 & 8 which prevents combatants from targeting normal facilities that would be inhabited by children, and for the military to prevent housing military facilities within said civilian facilities.


Could this happen even without the existence of part 9? It'd be way to much to prohibit anyone under 16 from fighting in defense of their homeland, I'm sure you'd agree. Besides, a nation would have to be pretty desperate to allow it to come to tht. Even Hitler only threw in the Hitler Youth as a last resort once his regular armies were on the retreat.

Humans have seen children placed in war situations numerous times, many of these times by their own volition. Afghani children fought along side their parents during the Russian wars. Children are used in guerilla fighting in South America quite a bit. Children were even used in America's Revolutionary and Civil wars. These children usually aren't conscripted, they volunteer due to ideology. Is that ideology planted by government brainwashing or through a sincere desire to protect the homeland? We cannot answer that. However, the precedence is there, and should not be ignored.

As there are no provisions for banning children within combat zones, this opens up two possibilities:

1. Children may volunteer to be placed within a combat zone without being conscripted or placed within the armed forces (militia, for example).

2. Children may be used as national defense as a reservist unit not tied to normal military service.

There are only two ways to really prevent this: 1. To remove the training aspect of children, reducing their effectiveness. 2. Add a Provision banning children from combat zones both abroad and domestically.

I think it would be irresponsible to allow children (who, let's face it, are naive about war at best) to volunteer to go to war. Once they get there and realise the true nature of the situation they're in, I'm sure they'd wonder why anyone would allow them to be put in that situation to begin with.

I agree that it would be irresponsible to allow children to volunteer to go to war. However, the precedence is there, and many nations have already expressed a negativity towards this issue on a war-mongering basis. My contention is that, although we are against using Children in War, some nations will use the lack of prohibiting children in combat zones as a means of exploitation.

We will concede on Article 9 only if the following is included: an Article that prohibits children from being placed in a combat zone, either intentionally, forcibly, or voluntarily. This puts the onus of responsibility of the Nation to protect its children, and allows for less room Nations to exploit children in wartime.

EDIT: achtung, more bad tags.

It's ok, I tried to fix them...

Best Regards,

Secretary James Lao
Democratic Republic of Shang-Ti
Tao-State Department

First of all, thanks for the constructive critism.

The way part 9 came about was through discussion, very much liike in this topic. If you search back a bit you'll see the original "Ban Child Soldiers" topic, from which I tried to incorperate sensible suggestions (from both sides) into the resolution you see now.

Unfortunately, I can't change the resolution. Once it reaches quorum, it belongs to the UN. You are quite correct in saying how the very purpose of the resolution (or one of them, at least) is to keep children away from combat zones - hence part 1 and 2 . Still, I wish you were around in February to point out the loophole which can be exploited not by national governments, but by NGOs - that children my volunteer to fight for NGOs. One could argue it's one of their rights to fight for a cause they believe in. I disagree, for reasons stated. I think part 5 of the resolution (5. Expects nations to take into account the special needs of children throughout the duration of the armed conflict and its aftermath; ) goes some way in offsetting this factor, though.

Irresponsible The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

So I should have written "16 Earth years"? That's pathetic, it really is.

Besides, you could apply this "loophole" to any UN resolution. Say, the tree replanting scheme. Sine it does not define what a "tree" is, I could say my nations suddenly considers a "tree" to be a small peruvian frisbee.

:roll:

Yes, you should have specified. Given the opposition to your resolution, you should have specified; I, personally, saw this loophole coming from a mile away. Also, there is precedent for nations following nonstandard calendars. Muslim countries often follow the Muslim calendar. The Baha'i faith has its own calendar. Russia, for ages, followed the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.

Admit it- you failed to consider a very likely possibility, and now any nation that feels strongly enough about child soldiers has an out. Your nation is grammatically correct but legally weak, and while I think it was very well-written, you left too much unspecified and unhandled.

Of course, if you should choose to convene an international convention on timekeeping and dates, which I, personally, have advocated for in the past, by all means submit it to the U.N. for consideration.

Don't give me that crap. 16 is 16 wherever you are. I'm talking chronologically, not fiscally either.

I was also talking chronologically.

And in some places, I'm 19, or even 20. On Pluto, I wouldn't be yet a month old. On Mercury, I'm roughly 40. Age depends on the calendar as much as it does on the actual biological age.

What is the point of being in the UN if you redefine the terms contained in its resolutions at will? If you saw it coming "a mile off", why didn't you say so before, eh?
:roll:

Because I figured I'd wait to see if the resolution looked as if it would be overturned. Seeing as how it won't, I figured I'd play my trump card.

I would also note that accepted definitions of "year" include calendars other than the standard Gregorian. I'm playing by dictionary, accepted-definition rules. One definition of year is: "a period of time occupying a regular part of a calendar year that is used for some particular activity." That is the definition I am choosing. Our calendar year is one encompassing six periods of time of approximately 30 days.

You could have specified "16 earth years" or "16 Greenwich years" or "16 international years" and I would have had no room to maneuver.


At least Shang-Ti offers some more sensible arguments than your "redefining years" nonsense.

It's eminently reasonable and sensible. I am acting within the letter of the law. Unless you manage to pass a resolution defining years within U.N. resolutions, the loophole stands.

The assembled Aristoi of the Commonwealth of the Logarchy, having considered the problems at hand, has issued the following decision:

Pursuant to our powers as an independent state, and in an attempt to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution that will almost certainly pass, we issue the following decree:

Henceforth, the year in the nation of the Logarchy shall no longer be the period of time required for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun. It shall now be a period of time equivalent to one half of that period of time. The fiscal year shall end at the midpoint of every other year. All previously enacted legislation shall be updated and revised to reflect this fact. All legislation enacted after today shall use the new definition of year.

Pursuant to this change of definitions within the Nation of the Logarchy, we have no objection related to national interest to passage of the "Child Soldiers" resolution currently being debated in the U.N., though we continue to vote against it on ideological grounds.

Enacted this sixth day of the third month, 4008 Anno Logarchorum

There, we've found a loophole we can all be comfortable with.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

Plus that wouldn't work anyway. It says
"1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services; "
Not "16 bizarro Logarchy half years".

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.

So I should have written "16 Earth years"? That's pathetic, it really is.

Besides, you could apply this "loophole" to any UN resolution. Say, the tree replanting scheme. Sine it does not define what a "tree" is, I could say my nations suddenly considers a "tree" to be a small peruvian frisbee.

:roll:

Yes, you should have specified. Given the opposition to your resolution, you should have specified; I, personally, saw this loophole coming from a mile away. Also, there is precedent for nations following nonstandard calendars. Muslim countries often follow the Muslim calendar. The Baha'i faith has its own calendar. Russia, for ages, followed the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.

Admit it- you failed to consider a very likely possibility, and now any nation that feels strongly enough about child soldiers has an out. Your nation is grammatically correct but legally weak, and while I think it was very well-written, you left too much unspecified and unhandled.

Of course, if you should choose to convene an international convention on timekeeping and dates, which I, personally, have advocated for in the past, by all means submit it to the U.N. for consideration.

Don't give me that crap. 16 is 16 wherever you are. I'm talking chronologically, not fiscally either.

I was also talking chronologically.

And in some places, I'm 19, or even 20. On Pluto, I wouldn't be yet a month old. On Mercury, I'm roughly 40. Age depends on the calendar as much as it does on the actual biological age.

What is the point of being in the UN if you redefine the terms contained in its resolutions at will? If you saw it coming "a mile off", why didn't you say so before, eh?
:roll:

Because I figured I'd wait to see if the resolution looked as if it would be overturned. Seeing as how it won't, I figured I'd play my trump card.

I would also note that accepted definitions of "year" include calendars other than the standard Gregorian. I'm playing by dictionary, accepted-definition rules. One definition of year is: "a period of time occupying a regular part of a calendar year that is used for some particular activity." That is the definition I am choosing. Our calendar year is one encompassing six periods of time of approximately 30 days.

You could have specified "16 earth years" or "16 Greenwich years" or "16 international years" and I would have had no room to maneuver.


At least Shang-Ti offers some more sensible arguments than your "redefining years" nonsense.

It's eminently reasonable and sensible. I am acting within the letter of the law. Unless you manage to pass a resolution defining years within U.N. resolutions, the loophole stands.

And are you on Pluto? Didn't think so. What could be more simple about the phrase "16 years"? Perhaps I should have written it "16 of Earth's revolutions round the sun"? Pathetic.

The resolution is written in english. And in english, as far as I know, a 'year' is defined as the time it takes the earth to circle the sun once. So, by changing your calander, I do not think you can change the period of time the resolution stands for.

as for the resolution itself: i totally agree with Shang-Ti. Even if this loophole CAN be closed by referring to article 1 of the resolutioon. This discussion proves that it is open to debate.

What now if a nation chooses to exlpoid this loophole? It is going to be verry hard to adopt embargos in the UN, if nations say that what the offending nation is doing is OK, becouse of article 9.
Do I need to remind you of the Iraq-disarm-resolution (1884?) on real-life UN? It almost endangered the position of the whole UN!

the Bagheerian government therefore votes against.

I am voting for this resolution but am wondering if it would be possible to add something to it. I propose that Michael Jackson be banned from all nations belonging to the United Nations if this resolution passes. He may be more dangerous to children than anything else in this crazy, mad world of ours.

The resolution is written in english. And in english, as far as I know, a 'year' is defined as the time it takes the earth to circle the sun once. So, by changing your calander, I do not think you can change the period of time the resolution stands for.

as for the resolution itself: i totally agree with Shang-Ti. Even if this loophole CAN be closed by referring to article 1 of the resolutioon. This discussion proves that it is open to debate.

What now if a nation chooses to exlpoid this loophole? It is going to be verry hard to adopt embargos in the UN, if nations say that what the offending nation is doing is OK, becouse of article 9.
Do I need to remind you of the Iraq-disarm-resolution (1884?) on real-life UN? It almost endangered the position of the whole UN!

the Bagheerian government therefore votes against.

Whats article 1 got to do with it? It's about NGOs, which, by their very nature, are difficult to exploit by a national government.

I should have added the quote:

Is there no reasoning with you people?

I had to allow training facilities to exist - this doesn't mean the kids are in armed forces - it's prohibited by the point 1! Please READ the resolution before finding non-existant loopholes in it. Sheesh.


I do not agree with her, but even if she is right, I still see a problem. (mentioned above)

(by the way, what does "NGO" stand for?)

The Community of Wabbaloids shares this view. Resolution seems very good, but article 9. is such loop-hole that it basically gives UN approval for child soldiers.

Is not the protection of this article even with the loop-hole better than no protection?
Yes it is better than nothing. But if almost good rule is set then there is no need to find better one because we already have almost good one in effect and those wishing to train child soldiers can now show resolution explicitly saying it is OK.

So article 1 says that children can not be conscripted or placed into armed forces. But then article 9 says it is OK to setup military academies where you can train children defence skills. I fail to see difference between between conscripting children and calling them into military academy for training of defence skills.

Also is "national armed services" such definition that all "homeland security" forces etc. that are separate from real army are included? Also if trained military cadets are supplied with weapons (perhaps unofficially) but are not officially formed as military unit what is their status then?

Basically I see this as rule saying that you are not allowed to use firearm in city, but what I would have preferred is to prevent people from bringing those arms there at all.

But Wabbaloids will vote for this resolution because of other articles, but would like to see additional resolution more clearly defining articles 1 and 9.

I should have added the quote:

Is there no reasoning with you people?

I had to allow training facilities to exist - this doesn't mean the kids are in armed forces - it's prohibited by the point 1! Please READ the resolution before finding non-existant loopholes in it. Sheesh.


I do not agree with her, but even if she is right, I still see a problem. (mentioned above)

(by the way, what does "NGO" stand for?)

Non Government Organisation.

So article 1 says that children can not be conscripted or placed into armed forces. But then article 9 says it is OK to setup military academies where you can train children defence skills. I fail to see difference between between conscripting children and calling them into military academy for training of defence skills.


Conscription -> army -> fighting.

Granted, training might end up with similar results, but keeping under 16s away from the battlefield is the crucial thing here.

Sorry for the brief response.

I should have added the quote:

Is there no reasoning with you people?

I had to allow training facilities to exist - this doesn't mean the kids are in armed forces - it's prohibited by the point 1! Please READ the resolution before finding non-existant loopholes in it. Sheesh.


I do not agree with her, but even if she is right, I still see a problem. (mentioned above)

(by the way, what does "NGO" stand for?)

Non Government Organisation.

So article 1 says that children can not be conscripted or placed into armed forces. But then article 9 says it is OK to setup military academies where you can train children defence skills. I fail to see difference between between conscripting children and calling them into military academy for training of defence skills.


Conscription -> army -> fighting.

Granted, training might end up with similar results, but keeping under 16s away from the battlefield is the crucial thing here.

Sorry for the brief response.

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.


And there is no resolution defining the word "define".

Your arguement is lame. No really, what are you going to do next? Say something as stupid as, "What kind of word is "is" anyways?" :roll:

The NationStates UN doesn't need to pass resolutions defining what a meter is, what a year is, nor what a knucklehead is. When the resolution is in English, clearly a language they don't speak on planet Logarchy, common English words are already defined.

But seeing that the planet Logarchy clearly doesn't understand plain old English, I've asked my nation to send old 1st grade text books to your UN representatives. We simply can not stand by when ignorant nations like yours get confused over simple English words like year.

One question though, when are you going to tell us that your daddy can beat up our daddies? I mean, really, these types of arguements went out of style about the same time that children learn that just putting your hands over your eyes doesn't make you invisible either.

Like it or not, when the resolution passes (and it will) the UN (via game mechanics) will automatically interpet the resolution using English, not your native Logarchfarsy, and implement it in every UN member nation.

I can tell you this though. If the best arguement you have against something is to make up words or pretend you don't hear certain things, you're only making your own nation lose credibility in the face of the rest of us.

10kMichael

Do I need to remind you of the Iraq-disarm-resolution (1884?) on real-life UN? It almost endangered the position of the whole UN!


1884, sounds like a long time ago?

But what is this "real-life" thing you talk about? What is this "Iraq-disarm-resolution"? Next you will probably try and convince me that there is a place called "America".

[OOC: Out of Character: Many of us like to see people debate and support their cases without relying upon real world UN resolutions. As for the 1994 resolution you are talking about, I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but you've got to do more than just drop a one-line sentence saying that something endangered the UN. I certainly listen to the debates and discussions here. I would have voted yes on the previous lunar resolution, but enough people brought up good points against it (without having to invent non-existant loopholes) that I abstained.]

10kMichael

I can understand the need to stop children from being abducted and made to fight in war but I'm wondering what the "Gender base violence" part of this resolution means and what part it takes in stopping children from being thrust into war. My nation sees men and women as completly equal under the law and would not support anything giving one gender or race a privlivge over another. So could this point be clarified, sorry if it already has but I don't have the time to read this entire debate.

I can understand the need to stop children from being abducted and made to fight in war but I'm wondering what the "Gender base violence" part of this resolution means and what part it takes in stopping children from being thrust into war. My nation sees men and women as completly equal under the law and would not support anything giving one gender or race a privlivge over another. So could this point be clarified, sorry if it already has but I don't have the time to read this entire debate.

Basically relates to rape and sexual slavery which happen to children in wartime situations.

OK, I suppose better words could have been found since both rape and sexual slavery happen to children irregardless of gender. I've just always found whenever the words gender or race are used to create laws it's not usually fair to one race or one gender.

OK, I suppose better words could have been found since both rape and sexual slavery happen to children irregardless of gender. I've just always found whenever the words gender or race are used to create laws it's not usually fair to one race or one gender.

I qoute from the real UN's Special Representative for the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict:-

Women and girls are especially vulnerable to sexual violence in times of heightened armed conflict. They are being raped, abducted for sexual exploitation and forced into marriages and prostitution. Refugee and internally displaced women and children are especially vulnerable to sexual and other exploitation by armed forces and groups, peacekeepers and humanitarian workers.

Reports from Iraq and southeast Afghanistan indicate that fear of sexual violence is keeping girls out of schools. During her visit to Democratic Republic of Congo in May 2003, the Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator reported on the situation of over 250 women and girls in South Kivu who required surgical interventions to repair the ravages of rape. Similarly, in Burundi, hundreds of girls have been raped either as a means of ethnic cleansing or because violators believe that children are less likely to transmit diseases.

There is a correlation between the spread of HIV/AIDS and sexual violence and exploitation of girls and women in corridors of wars. UNAIDS estimates that rates of HIV among combatants are three to four times higher than those among local populations. And when rape is used as a weapon of war, the consequences for girls and women are often deadly. Armed conflict also exacerbates other conditions in which HIV/AIDS thrives, such as extreme poverty, displacement and separation. Programmes for HIV/AIDS awareness, care and support in both peace operations and humanitarian programmes should be continued and strengthened.

The IASC Task Force on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse has proposed six core principles to be incorporated into codes of conduct for all humanitarian workers. These principles have now been incorporated into codes of conduct in MONUC and UNAMSIL. My forthcoming Bulletin will extend the application of the six principles to all UN personnel.

The Rome Statute of the ICC defines rape and other grave sexual violence as a war crime. Everything must be done to bring to justice those responsible for this particular war crime.

Why is disallowing children to join the military so important?
Is it wrong for a child to ask the same right to fight for their country that their parents have?
I think this proposal steps on the rights that should be given to all citizens, not just those that have reached the age of majority, and while I understand that this proposal also prevents forcing children into the armed forces tell me why you can't just prevent that. A child's life is something very precious on the face of it, but sometimes the worth of a child is seen burning brightest on the field of war.
Sponsored by VaultTech

So in fact it isn't about stopping rape but about sexual violence against women/girls thank you for clarifying.

Sydia I was just saying that Article 9 needs to completely ban childeren from combat. Because as a lot of people have pointed out there are too many loop holes in article 9 of your proposal

Or another proposal to deal with the loop holes in this one by completely banning childeren from combat.

BTW no one is saying that proposal is wrong just that one part needs to be fixed apart from that it's a very good proposal and I will probably be asking for your help to right some proposals

I think this is all very well, but the part about the children reguees . That are goverment will have to pay for their food,and homes etc.
Is in are goverment a big no no we are spending money on are own children. Not some war torn regions children!!
:(

Hannah Gutaz, minster of children and hellped by Adam Zacken, UN minster.

Send them my way I always take refugees , and my country just fine .....

Of course child soldiers are good for the Upheival against terrorism and all fagats who dont drink. They have a keen eye for sniping and can give better blowjobs due to their height. 5 dollahh?? There is no point having 50 yr old sergeants who couldnt hit a donkey with a banjo and couldnt get it up without 300mg of viagra. screw ye conformists who always look on the innnocence of the child instead of its capabilities. Try tellin my kid soldiers to pick up a barbie doll when uir starin down the barrel of their ak47. Aiiii

While the Queendom of Miss Allison and all her people fully endorse the current resolution at hand, I'd just like to say that the above quoted post is extremely offensive to my nation and perhaps its another reason to vote for the childrens safety. Why would anyone want a child to endure pain such as the harassment by drunken soldiers, the trauma of being on a battlefield, the PTSD that ensues after a war, etc. A childs innocense is the defining characteristic of what makes a child- if we take that away, why bother procreating?

I urge you- don't listen to these crackpots who think that their masses of children should have the duty of protecting a nation. Save our children today- so we have a future tomorrow.

Of course I've already voted for it!!!

My own nation is still unsure as to which way to vote on this resolution, it is felt that forcing children into the armed forces is wrong. But on the other hand in times of war everyone may be needed.

The solution that we feel would be beneficial is keeping the age to join the armed forces, or conscription, at 18 and then should there ever be a war have a voluntary "last line" force of those 16 or above. These troops would not be conscripted but would volunteer for the roles to defend their towns and homes should a full scale war come to their own streets. And after that nobody under the age of 18 would be allowed onto the main battlefield.

Anyway as I said we are still discussing in what manner to vote in this resolution but at the current time it seems that we will be voting for it.

Commander In Chief Matthew Rix
Dictator of Limavady
U.N Delegate for Ulstonia
Founder of Ulstonia

I believe that children under the age of 16 shouldn't even be alowed to hold a gun let alone fight. Children are our future and by killing them we are also killing and destroying our future. We have to teach them peace and how to look out for each other. People these days are abducting children for their own puposes like their some sort of plant like they just pop out of the ground. People are abducting less fortunate children and the great state of Eurosea will not stand with such nonsense.

This is one of the MOST ridiculous proposals I have EVER come across. Why send our children into battle!? Heck, we might as well throw out all the Child Labour Laws we have worked our butts off for!

We have able bodied men and women who are ready to take up arms to fight for their country. The fact that many people fight in the first place is to help preserve a world for their young! Not send the people whose future is being fought for!

BOO to this proposition!

\m/ ROCK ON!

But on the other hand, the investment total in a child is much less than that of an adult.

If someone is going to die before they ever reproduce, then it doesn't actually make a difference in the long run whether that was at 6 or 30 years of age. The society as a whole, however, contributes resources into maintaining that person's life every day and every hour that they have it.

As long as someone is going to be wasted and slain on the battlefield or sacrificed to gods, it makes more sense to get it over with. You don't wait until your brahmin have reached the ends of their natural lives before you gut them for meat. If you intend to gut them for meat you do so as soon as they hit the appropriate size.

Once the decision has been made to expend someone, it is less costly to do it sooner rather than later. Children are just as good at flying fighters and bombers as adults, so it doesn't make any particular sense to put high investment people like adults in there instead.

Don't make me come over there.

This is one of the MOST ridiculous proposals I have EVER come across. Why send our children into battle!? Heck, we might as well throw out all the Child Labour Laws we have worked our butts off for!

We have able bodied men and women who are ready to take up arms to fight for their country. The fact that many people fight in the first place is to help preserve a world for their young! Not send the people whose future is being fought for!

BOO to this proposition!

\m/ ROCK ON!

What the heck are you talking about? Have you even read the resolution?!

This is one of the MOST ridiculous proposals I have EVER come across. Why send our children into battle!? Heck, we might as well throw out all the Child Labour Laws we have worked our butts off for!

We have able bodied men and women who are ready to take up arms to fight for their country. The fact that many people fight in the first place is to help preserve a world for their young! Not send the people whose future is being fought for!

BOO to this proposition!

\m/ ROCK ON!

What the heck are you talking about? Have you even read the resolution?!


Yes, children under 16 only? WTF! If you have to be 21 to smoke or drink legally, then raise the age to go into battle to 21!

Send them my way I always take refugees , and my country just fine .....

Exactly. Child refugees are welcomed in Mikitivity as well.

It has been our experience that when people move away or are forced away from their previous home, they often are grateful for the increased freedoms that many of our democratic nations offer them. Some of the greatest citizens of Mikitivity were born elsewhere. Besides, one of the cornerstones of my Confederation is that people should enjoy freedom, including the freedom to choose where to live. (Though sadly not too many people like living in a nation that is 50% alpine forest and 50% high desert.)

A penguin in a top hat wearing a cape and monical wadles in.
"I am Ambassador Bogeyfeather of Dancing Penguin. We love this proposal, except for one thing. As we are a nation of, well, dancing penguins we wish to make sure that these laws will protect the young of all intelligent species, not just humans."

Yes, children under 16 only? WTF! If you have to be 21 to smoke or drink legally, then raise the age to go into battle to 21!

Huh?

In my confederation children drink good Sydian wine at the dinner table, while eating Blackshearian cheese. Just because we allow parents to decide when children should drink alcohol, doesn't mean we all them to vote at 16 years old.

And just because this resolution will set the minimium age for combat at 16, does not mean my nation is prohibited by the UN from keeping our age for combat duty at 19 (which by the way is when citizens can vote).

10Michael

A penguin in a top hat wearing a cape and monical wadles in.
"I am Ambassador Bogeyfeather of Dancing Penguin. We love this proposal, except for one thing. As we are a nation of, well, dancing penguins we wish to make sure that these laws will protect the young of all intelligent species, not just humans."

Hey as long as dancing penguins understand what a year is, then you'll be afforded the same rights as human beings in my Confederation.
:wink:

Ambassador Bogeyfeather nods.
"Good! Now, LET US DANCE!" A bunch of other penguins run in and they start a rousing interpritation of Riverdance.

I like the proposal escept for the minimum age of 16 for combat, like hell! This is not a human rights issue at all, instead it is rather hypocritical! You seem to consider 16 a ripe old age for combat, honestly, when one reaches 16 they had only hit full puberty a few short years before, are they ready to dash for their lives while wielding AK 47s? I dont think so.

I like the proposal except for the minimum age of 16 for combat, like hell! This is not a human rights issue at all, instead it is rather hypocritical! You seem to consider 16 a ripe old age for combat, honestly, when one reaches 16 they had only hit full puberty a few short years before, are they ready to dash for their lives while wielding AK 47s? I dont think so.

when one reaches 16 they had only hit full puberty a few short years before, are they ready to dash for their lives while wielding AK 47s?
Ambasador Bogeyfeather chuckles slightly,
"Oh, but many of them ARE ready... or at least think they are. But you do have a point.

I like the proposal except for the minimum age of 16 for combat, like hell! This is not a human rights issue at all, instead it is rather hypocritical! You seem to consider 16 a ripe old age for combat, honestly, when one reaches 16 they had only hit full puberty a few short years before, are they ready to dash for their lives while wielding AK 47s? I dont think so.

This resolution only specifies that nations may not send children below the age of 16 into combat. In many nations, the age of combat is higher. However, this resolution respects national sovereignty for ages 16 or higher.

I find it amusing when people have problems with provisions in resolutions that actually defend national sovereignty.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

We are actually deeply disturbed by the fact that this provision does not distinguish between genetically unmodified human children and other young people.

A good war dog becomes decrepit long before it reaches their 16th year. A VatSoldierTM becomes ready for action in just 8 months, a warbot becomes an effective beligerent within hours of the assembly line.

Currently, the nation of Hooglastahn recognizs these forces as members of its armed forces, despite the fact that the vast majority of them are retired long before their sixteenth year. If this measure were to pass, Hooglastahn would be forced to reclassify these soldiers as "military assets", of no more inherent worth than the rifles and warheads we stockpile.

Such a reorganization would be detrimental to the civil liberties of warbots and VatSoldiersTM at home and around the globe.

I am curious how this sort of reorganization would not also be applicable to genetically pure human children. Certainly a human child can be an effective spy without ever being formally declared as a soldier.

Don't make me come over there.

We are actually deeply disturbed by the fact that this provision does not distinguish between genetically unmodified human children and other young people.

A good war dog becomes decrepit long before it reaches their 16th year. A VatSoldierTM becomes ready for action in just 8 months, a warbot becomes an effective beligerent within hours of the assembly line.

Currently, the nation of Hooglastahn recognizs these forces as members of its armed forces, despite the fact that the vast majority of them are retired long before their sixteenth year. If this measure were to pass, Hooglastahn would be forced to reclassify these soldiers as "military assets", of no more inherent worth than the rifles and warheads we stockpile.

Such a reorganization would be detrimental to the civil liberties of warbots and VatSoldiersTM at home and around the globe.

I am curious how this sort of reorganization would not also be applicable to genetically pure human children. Certainly a human child can be an effective spy without ever being formally declared as a soldier.

Don't make me come over there.

Well, I'm glad to see this one is sailing through... :)

we would like to see some of these nations up before a tribunal to answer for their transgressions against all sentient beings.
This could be the start, so take care

We are actually deeply disturbed by the fact that this provision does not distinguish between genetically unmodified human children and other young people.

A good war dog becomes decrepit long before it reaches their 16th year. A VatSoldierTM becomes ready for action in just 8 months, a warbot becomes an effective beligerent within hours of the assembly line.

Currently, the nation of Hooglastahn recognizs these forces as members of its armed forces, despite the fact that the vast majority of them are retired long before their sixteenth year. If this measure were to pass, Hooglastahn would be forced to reclassify these soldiers as "military assets", of no more inherent worth than the rifles and warheads we stockpile.

Such a reorganization would be detrimental to the civil liberties of warbots and VatSoldiersTM at home and around the globe.

I am curious how this sort of reorganization would not also be applicable to genetically pure human children. Certainly a human child can be an effective spy without ever being formally declared as a soldier.

Don't make me come over there.

Meh, I really don't want to get into the definition argument again, but the proposal is clear:-

child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
A person between birth and puberty. (I used until 16 for the purposes of the present resolution for reasons already explained)

An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.

An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).

So feel free to send your BushBots or whatever off to war.

Where do you get the idea that warbots and Vat grown soldiers aren't people?
In the Vaults a person is defined as a worker for the good of society, as well as anyone willing to fight and die for their land. What this bill says is that we either cannot give the rightsgiven to all our people to our vat grown citizens, or can only send those willing to sacrafice their rights as people to go to war before the age of 16. Is it not truely worse to disallow those who were born and raised to fight and kill for their people the rights and privlages of their fellow Vault Dweller, than to allow any man woman or child willing to take arms and follow the call to war?
I say yes! Perhaps your people do not wish to give weapins to their children, but when the children of my people, including my very own children, tell me that they want to fight alongside their parents in the never ending war against the declining state of our promised land than who am I to say no? Who am I to say that schools cannot defend themselves with weapon emplacements? How can I stand for the motto that any problem can be solved with the proper application of assault weaponry and not give the same problem solving tools to my nations children?
This is overseer Reginald Rivers of the Free Peoples of Vault 21.
Sponsored by VaultTech

Quite honestly I couldn't give a flying yellow monkey if you send your "killer robots of doom" or "uber-scary clones of doom, but not quite as much doom as the killer robots" off to die on some God-forsaken rock, this resolution is about protecting children - as in people.

Unless of course you redefine the word "children" to mean "turnips".

First of all, we would like to forward our endorsement of the Child Warfare ban. Children are precious; the loss of a young female on the battlefield before they can be given the proper training, breed, or even have had testing to determine their greatest aptitudes and thus whether they should even be in the army to begin with is a tragic one indeed. We endorse this ban, not as a direct measure to be enforced globally, but rather as a standard for all nations to consider.

And on the matter of a Tribunal for the leaders of Vault 21 and Hooglastahn, we have been considering such for a long time now and while we would not desire international interference in our land, we appreciate that others recognize the barbarity of many of the nations in our land.

War is a struggle to the death between two nations, and the winner can take all if they choose. In such circumstances, every member of each nation has a patriotic duty to fight for their country, regardless of color, creed or age.

Furthermore, the world is a cruel, terrible place where life is, to quote a certain famous philosopher, "nasty, brutish and short." If you expose people to this reality at an early age, you ensure that they have plenty of time to come to terms with it, provided they survive.

If you wish to reform the world, by all means do so, but start with the practice of war before you move on to telling nations who can and cannot fight for their country. If you choose not to, then do not nurture false consciousness among our children, rather, treat them like the adults they will one day become.

Remember, that which does not kill us...

-Jus

Quite honestly I couldn't give a flying yellow monkey if you send your "killer robots of doom" or "uber-scary clones of doom, but not quite as much doom as the killer robots" off to die on some God-forsaken rock, this resolution is about protecting children - as in people.

Unless of course you redefine the word "children" to mean "turnips".
I don't see your point of me attempting to redefine children as turnips. What I said was that we believe that all intelligences, be they vat grown, artificial, or natural should be allowed to have the same rights to education, social security, and medical attention that all peoples are given. More specifically, we believe that anything that can be defined as sentient should be definable as a person, by your argument, I could make hundreds of clones of you, using the genetic material you so carelessly leave lying about, grow them to the physical age of majority, and then shoot them all as a sign of just how much I don't like you, or your people. Would this be right? Do you say that clones have no rights even though they can think and feel? You seem to be stuck with the simple minded belief that if it dosn't come from a woman, then it's not a child and for this I pity you. Consider for a moment what a child is: it is the nurtured growth of a multi cellular being created by the duplication of two fully grown members of a species. The only difference between a clone and a child is that the clone has one less parent. Do you not understand that we simply hold out for the rights of many diverse groups of peoples, not just the self proclaimed dominant talking monkies?
Sponsored by VaultTech

PommygirlPlace wholeheartly supports this movement. However, the lack of resources and intervention to stop these atrocities is also all too apparent.

In poorer counties that have been ravaged by War, where many (mostly adults) have been killed, leaving only minors to live (and fight) on, there is no hope of ever stopping the cycle of violence- childeren are taught a life of war and hatred, and therefore that is what they pass on to their children.

Many child soliders have lost their parents, and find that going into an army or rebel atmsophere is the only place left to them where are taken care of and where they feel they can belong.

It's sickening, but sometimes violence is all that's left for children to inherit.

Oh comeon, the nation of Muttoniland military forces are 50% composed of children, they take part in vital parts of the nations security, like mine clearing and tests dummys, if this resolution passed, the nations of the world will be flooded with ugly... ugly children

It's sickening, but sometimes violence is all that's left for children to inherit.

So obviously we should take even that away from them.

Don't make me come over there.

There is no resolution defining years. Your resolution does not define the length of time considered to be a year. Therefore, we choose to define a year, within our borders, as a period of time equal to one-half of the amount of time it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

If you can prove that a year has been defined by the U.N., and that the Logarchy does not have the power to define a year, and that this resolution defines "year," then I will accept your definition and withdraw from the U.N. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the loophole you left in your resolution.


And there is no resolution defining the word "define".

Doesn't need to. In English, it is eminently clear what the word "define" is, and there is no wiggle room or need for clarification. There is, however, need for clarification of "year" given the wide range of "years" present in Earth and NationStates cultures.

Your arguement is lame. No really, what are you going to do next? Say something as stupid as, "What kind of word is "is" anyways?" :roll:

No need. "Is" has been grammatically defined.

The NationStates UN doesn't need to pass resolutions defining what a meter is, what a year is, nor what a knucklehead is. When the resolution is in English, clearly a language they don't speak on planet Logarchy, common English words are already defined.

Yes, it actually does. The real U.N. needed to do so in order to eliminate loopholes in resolutions and prevent precisely the form of legalistic maneuvering I am engaging in. There is uncertainty allowed within common dictionaries of the English language as to the duration of the year. Webster's, in its unabridged edition, allows for a year to be "the year adopted by any nation adopted for the computation of time." We have adopted a year of 182.625 days for the purposes of computation of time. The definition of "year" is left purposefully vague because there are sufficient descriptors for legal purposes to clarify when needed. Since this is a case in which clarification was needed, the author of the resolution failed to perform due diligence and left a legal opening that my nation is exploiting.

But seeing that the planet Logarchy clearly doesn't understand plain old English, I've asked my nation to send old 1st grade text books to your UN representatives. We simply can not stand by when ignorant nations like yours get confused over simple English words like year.

We are eminently not confused; we have spent considerable time- performing our due diligence- researching the issue and looking for exploitable loopholes. We have found one.

One question though, when are you going to tell us that your daddy can beat up our daddies? I mean, really, these types of arguements went out of style about the same time that children learn that just putting your hands over your eyes doesn't make you invisible either.

I wasn't. You and Sydia (OOC: Whom I respected as a player by default until he showed himself to be incapable of keeping this discussion from devloving into childish behavior like your own) both have chosen to drag this debate down into those realms. I would point out that you have chosen to bring the issue of force to the table, not I.

Like it or not, when the resolution passes (and it will) the UN (via game mechanics) will automatically interpet the resolution using English, not your native Logarchfarsy, and implement it in every UN member nation.

We are using English definitions for the purposes of this resolution. The English definitions offer more than sufficient flexibility for the exploitation of this loophole.

I can tell you this though. If the best arguement you have against something is to make up words or pretend you don't hear certain things, you're only making your own nation lose credibility in the face of the rest of us.

I have already advanced an eminently reasonable argument concerning the rights of nations, the age of consent, right of free association, and basic doctrine of human rights. I have also indicated a gaping hole in the resolution that I will now exploit to prevent this assault on my nation's rights.

And are you on Pluto? Didn't think so. What could be more simple about the phrase "16 years"? Perhaps I should have written it "16 of Earth's revolutions round the sun"? Pathetic.

Yes, it was pathetic of you not to consider that not only do Earth nations have wildly varying calendars, but so do extraterrestrial nations. There are nations within this U.N. that are on planets not even in Earth's solar system, much less adhering to Earth's calendar. Timekeeping is a highly complex business, for which reason it is vital that there be standards and clarification. Since you have provided neither within the body of the resolution or in a separate resolution, I have taken advantage of that complexity.

The resolution is written in english. And in english, as far as I know, a 'year' is defined as the time it takes the earth to circle the sun once. So, by changing your calander, I do not think you can change the period of time the resolution stands for.

See my previous post for the reason this is incorrect.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane stands against this resolution for religious reasons (Naucism). However, as it will certainly pass, I would like to affirm that Gethamane will conform to the Clauses set forth as they are written.

However, we would like to express our appreciation to the author of the resolution for including Clause 9, as it is a fundamental part of our culture to fully provide for all children, which includes military training among other activities. These academies could easily be interpreted as military academies, though they provide much more.

As a final note, The Holy Empire of Gethamane will endorse a satisfactory resolution (read: lucid) regarding official International/Interstellar Time Keeping and will acknowledge The Logarchy's loophole (though will not be implementing it) until such a resolution is passed.

OOC: I’m brand new to this, so be gentle :D. Secondly, in terms of IC Time Keeping resolution, should one come around, might want to pay attention to this to avoid increased problems due to definitions: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html (tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html)

As a final note, The Holy Empire of Gethamane will endorse a satisfactory resolution (read: lucid) regarding official International/Interstellar Time Keeping and will acknowledge The Logarchy's loophole (though will not be implementing it) until such a resolution is passed.

We are debating whether to endorse such a resolution. While we would endorse such a resolution on principle, this "child soldiers" resolution sets up a conflict of national interest for us. Teenaged soldiers are part of our culture and laid down in the formative principles of our land- why must the U.N. run roughshod over our rights, ineffectively though they may be?

We appreciate the Holy Empire of Gethamane's acknowledgment of our reasoning, and respect said Empire's decision not to go to the lengths we have to preserve our culture.

OOC: I’m brand new to this, so be gentle :D. Secondly, in terms of IC Time Keeping resolution, should one come around, might want to pay attention to this to avoid increased problems due to definitions: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html (tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html)

OOC: That's a really nifty idea there. A resolution to implement it would be a good idea.

Firstly, my time on the forum has led me to hold great respect for Sydia, Mikitivity and The Logarchy. It saddens me that this issue has driven such a wedge between these nations.

I believe The Logarchy's approach is wrong and smacks of desperation but I understand why they've adopted their postion (and let's not forget that their OOC comment was in agreement with the resolution, this is purely an RP contention).

Secondly, the reason gender-based crimes are included in resolutions of this type is that, though such crimes can obviously affect both genders, women in particuar are vulnerable. For as long as history has been recorded, men have used sexual assault and oppression as a means of gaining control over women. That is why such a provision is necessary. In addition, rape of women may lead to pregnancy: this is gender-specific.

With regards to the loopholes - yes, they are there and this is most unfortunate. However, I don't believe Sydia should be blamed for this as they put the proposal to the forum and these objections were not raised at the time.

OOC: witness the latest atrocities being carried out in African nations ravaged by the HIV/AIDS epidemic (is it a pandemic yet?). Rape of a virgin is held as a means of immunisation, men rape women to infect them an maintain control, women are now responding in kind for vengeance.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

Oh comeon, the nation of Muttoniland military forces are 50% composed of children, they take part in vital parts of the nations security, like mine clearing and tests dummys, if this resolution passed, the nations of the world will be flooded with ugly... ugly children

Does it matter what these children look like? Are they somehow sub-human because of their age? Or looks? Would you ever send an adult to clear mines and test weapons?

Children in War
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Sydia
Description: The NationStates United Nations,

Noting with regret that thousands of children continue to be abducted to serve as soldiers, spies, messengers, servants and sexual slaves with armed forces and groups,

Realizing that poverty, propaganda and ideology also continue to drive the involvement of children in many conflict areas,

Deeply disturbed by the idea that children make obedient and cheap soldiers capable of instilling terror in civilians and opposing forces alike,

Observing that many of these children are generally poor, illiterate, and from rural regions,

Bearing in mind that many nations have a difficult time in protecting these children,

Convinced that the social and economic viability of the future of all nations lies in the humane treatment of children in general,

1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services;
2. Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations;
3. Emphasizes the need for nations to prevent cross-border abduction and human trafficking;
4. All parties in armed conflict must adopt special measures to protect children from rape and sexual abuse and gender based violence;
5. Expects nations to take into account the special needs of children throughout the duration of the armed conflict and its aftermath;
6. All UN nations must ensure that international measures be taken to take care of child refugees displaced by conflict;
7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities;
8. Deplores and bans the practice of using children as human shields by integrating child care facilities, such as those listed above, with military facilities, and prohibits this practise; and
9. Acknowledges the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills.
Four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine I'd agree with. Change it to that and resumbit it. Then I'll be all for the proposal.

I think, if you leave out the silly arguments - 'half of my army is composed of under 16year olds etc.' It is obviously desirable that children are shielded from war as far as possible.

It's a shame to see the argument getting bogged down on definitions, when the loop-holes these exploit are of little importance. The whole clone/cyborg/AI issue is of a different nature, if you want to argue the morality of these engineered soldiers, then set up a thread to do it.

There are, however, loop-holes that should concern us all, such as the education of children of serving military personnel, the denial of the rights of such personnel to live with their families, and the banning of such organisations as Cadet forces, The Scouts and Guides, Boys Brigade, and I'm sure many other youth organisations which have a military base.

We should certainly legislate against the use of children as soldiers, but we must also accept that, unless we use resources beyond the capabilities of even the richest nations, we can, in fact, make little or no difference.

We're not going to ban youth organizations just because they could be interpretated as military camps or some such. We're a volunteer military force, so if a kid wants to join the programs or the military at age 16 they could go ahead, provided they get advice and counsel, of course. Juvenile deliquents are a different story. It's either jail or boot camp.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

The RCS concurrs with this viewpoint. The intent of the proposal is very noble, but we are concerned about its execution. Without the threat of punitive action, this proposal is nothing. As of now, the RCS is reluctant to support this resolution.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

The RCS concurrs with this viewpoint. The intent of the proposal is very noble, but we are concerned about its execution. Without the threat of punitive action, this proposal is nothing. As of now, the RCS is reluctant to support this resolution.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

The RCS concurrs with this viewpoint. The intent of the proposal is very noble, but we are concerned about its execution. Without the threat of punitive action, this proposal is nothing. As of now, the RCS is reluctant to support this resolution.

I do wonder though, if this passes, which it looks like it will what will the UN do, if anything to enforce this? An example is if a dictator during a war stores weapons and troops in schools, this resolution says not to attack schools, but these schools are being used for military reasons. I am almost positive the UN would be very mad at any nation during a war that destroys a school because it is being used for military reasons, so I wodner, WHAT will the UN do, if anything, to enforce this against nations that use schools and such places for military reasons? Because i know the UN would be mad at a nation for destorying a school even if it was being used for military reasons so in order for a nation in a war to not get in trouble by the UN for destorying a school, the UN NEEDS to have punishments set up for nations that DO use schools for military reasons.
What are the punishments? There are none listed, I can not vote for this bill if there are no punishments listed for it being violated.

The RCS concurrs with this viewpoint. The intent of the proposal is very noble, but we are concerned about its execution. Without the threat of punitive action, this proposal is nothing. As of now, the RCS is reluctant to support this resolution.

Quite honestly I couldn't give a flying yellow monkey if you send your "killer robots of doom" or "uber-scary clones of doom, but not quite as much doom as the killer robots" off to die on some God-forsaken rock, this resolution is about protecting children - as in people.

Unless of course you redefine the word "children" to mean "turnips".
I don't see your point of me attempting to redefine children as turnips. What I said was that we believe that all intelligences, be they vat grown, artificial, or natural should be allowed to have the same rights to education, social security, and medical attention that all peoples are given. More specifically, we believe that anything that can be defined as sentient should be definable as a person, by your argument, I could make hundreds of clones of you, using the genetic material you so carelessly leave lying about, grow them to the physical age of majority, and then shoot them all as a sign of just how much I don't like you, or your people. Would this be right? Do you say that clones have no rights even though they can think and feel? You seem to be stuck with the simple minded belief that if it dosn't come from a woman, then it's not a child and for this I pity you. Consider for a moment what a child is: it is the nurtured growth of a multi cellular being created by the duplication of two fully grown members of a species. The only difference between a clone and a child is that the clone has one less parent. Do you not understand that we simply hold out for the rights of many diverse groups of peoples, not just the self proclaimed dominant talking monkies?
Sponsored by VaultTech

When did I say clones didn't have equal rights? I'm saying this resolution does not apply to any sort of genetic supermen who snuff it after a few years or "WarBots" that rust up after 16 years. Child = person. Of course a clone is a human being! It's like saying Dolly the sheep isn't a sheep.

@The Logarchy - I have become tired of your dogged perseverance with the arguement (and calling me childish, you poopy-head). The resolution is written in English -

year ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yîr)
n.

The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
A period approximately equal to a year in other calendars.
A period of approximately the duration of a calendar year: We were married a year ago.
A sidereal year.
A solar year.
A period equal to the calendar year but beginning on a different date: a tax-reckoning year; a farming year.
A specific period of time, usually shorter than 12 months, devoted to a special activity: the academic year.
years Age, especially old age: I'm feeling my years.
years An indefinitely long period of time: it's been years since we saw her.

I hope this has cleared up what I meant.


Four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine I'd agree with. Change it to that and resumbit it. Then I'll be all for the proposal.

Can't - I have no control over the resolution anymore. It belongs to the UN as soon as it reached quorum.

Doesn't need to. In English, it is eminently clear what the word "define" is, and there is no wiggle room or need for clarification. There is, however, need for clarification of "year" given the wide range of "years" present in Earth and NationStates cultures.

No need. "Is" has been grammatically defined.


Is,
Define,
Year,

Are all English words. Each has a common meaning as well.

Now your arguement is how are we to know that the Sydian ambassador didn't mean the Grimtash Year? Or the Elven Year? Or the Trandoshan Year?

Simple, a year specific to a different cultural and language is a proper noun (and capitalized), a year as used as a common metric, in this case a measurement of time, is available in any English dictionary. In Websters Collegiate Dictionary all of the definitions refer to the 365 day year.

::sigh:: Yes, I realize you are so petty that you'll now argue about what is a day really?, but know this ... when this resolution passes tonight, it will be English, not whatever new language you create, that the UN will use as the measuring stick to see if your nation complies.

Bottom line, your arguements are petty. If you want to look for loopholes, at least talk to the ambassador from Joccia. As much as I depise nations ballatantly ignoring the intent of NationStates UN resolutions, I will acknowledge that they didn't have to redefine things.

Now I'm going to call your attention to the Ballast Water proposal (which will return). In it, we called for the cycling of ballast tanks only in waters greater than 1,600 m. Are you next going to say that a meter is the size of your pinky finger? There is as much a need to pass a resolution defining a meter, as there is need to pass a resolution defining what the word is means, as there is a need to pass a resolution defining what a year is.

You've now wasted enough of my time by TROLLING. There are in fact other nations that have brought up very legitimate questions without having to restort to pretending they don't understand common words. I'm going to suggest that anybody who actually wants to discuss any issues IGNORE people who redefine words they don't like. There simply is no reasoning with a TROLL.

10kMichael

The intent of the proposal is very noble, but we are concerned about its execution. Without the threat of punitive action, this proposal is nothing. As of now, the RCS is reluctant to support this resolution.

Under the Rights and Duties of NationStates Members resolution, it is important for NationStates UN resolutions to recognize that nations have some sovereign rights.

[OOC: We can't write a resolution that says, "Give Mikitivity a spanking when they claim they won't comply with the resolution." It is a gamemechanics issue. In the past, we've passed resolutions, but creative roleplaying by Joccia twisted the intent of those resolutions resulting in the deaths of the minorities the resolutions seeked to protect. Again, all NationStates resolutions really do is change everybody's game stats ... now that can be enforced. All that said, I encourage the Joccian styled roleplaying. Feb. was an interesting month!

I've asked before if two nations are willing to roleplay if the NationStates UN can do what you ask -- have punitive measures, and was told no. But you do raise a fair and good question. Much better than many of the other arguements IMHO.]

10kMichael

EDIT: I changed the country example to my own, as to not offend anyone. But I assure you that unlike other nations, mine will willingly comply with resolutions, even when we disagree.

It's a shame to see the argument getting bogged down on definitions, when the loop-holes these exploit are of little importance.

I'm actually glad you've spoken out on this issue. There really is an art to exploiting loopholes, and it does not include saying, "But in my cultural ...". Below you've pointed out one that really caught my attention:


There are, however, loop-holes that should concern us all, such as the education of children of serving military personnel, the denial of the rights of such personnel to live with their families, ...

We should certainly legislate against the use of children as soldiers, but we must also accept that, unless we use resources beyond the capabilities of even the richest nations, we can, in fact, make little or no difference.

You are right. By saying that it is deplorable for nations to use children as human shields, we are really mandating that when there is a reasonable risk that a school on a military base could be targeted at the same time that the base is attacked, that the school children should be let out and moved to a safer place.

The practice we were targeting was different though (which is why you pointed out that schools on bases are loopholes). It was our concern that some nations, especially ones that like to make up how long a year is, would take children and declare that the children are on a field trip any and every time there is a combat mission and then say that the field trip is right in front of the soldiers who just happen to be deploying in some conflict zone. Or the other practice of building daycare facilities around your weapons research labs.

So what is your suggestion? How can we prevent children from being used as shields, while allowing military personel the right to see their families?

I do have an extreme suggestion. When Klatuu go out to harvest Spice, since Spice harvesting is extremely dangerous, rarely do children and family members travel away from their home stiechs. Similarly, Miervatian Alpine troops are often deployed for months at a time with no contact between a parent and his / her child. Finally, new telepaths are actually taken to a Psi Corps facility (the location of which is unimportant) not only for their protection, but for the protection of the rest of society as well. The dangers of having young telepaths just walking amongst the normal population ... ::shivers:: Yes, it is sad, but sometimes the best way to protect people is to keep some distance.

With that in mind, I'd say that troops that are deployed into hazardous situations, should not be accompanied by their families. At least when there is a risk that their families will be killed as well.

Though science fiction, like the fantasy show Star Trek: the Next Generation, can be entertaining, I would think that putting families on a warship to be exactly the type of thing that this resolution is opposed to.

10kMichael

Overall, I support this resolution but I have to say that I'm not sure I totally agree with the last section about allowing children to go into military school. I have to say that I understand in some countries there may be need to train children for combat, I feel like we should maybe let them grow up a bit first. I think we need to teach them many things before we teach them to kill. I think that maybe in the future, we could work on making a minimum age for the military academies. However, I do support this resolution, and vote for it, but these are things to think about for the future.

With regards to the loopholes - yes, they are there and this is most unfortunate.

The Joccian ambassador pointed out several loopholes, but which ones are you talking about? Hopefully not the godmodding that is going on.

But arguing what a year is? That is godmodding. Granted it is a passive form of it, but it still is godmodding.

[OOC: Seriously, it is no different than what happens in the Intl Incidents forum when a newbie comes along and declares war and constantly changes the very definition of words. The minute we define what a year is (should we entertain the godmodder), then he / she will argue that we need to define a day. The minute we define a day, they'll say that what we call a revolution around the sun they'll call something else.

If people want to god mod, fine. But henceforth, I'm gonna to ignore them. If people actual listen to people godmod UN resolutions, we'll never hear the end of it. Mark my words, people will take each and every word of future resolutions and claim that plain English means something else.

I'm all for creative roleplaying, and the business about the clones and warbots is roleplaying. I'm also all for finding loopholes like what Joccia did last month and pointing out flaws. But I think when you start changing the English language to suit your needs that you are wasting everybody's time. Why play the NationStates game if you have to cheat by changing the language?]

10kMichael

When did I say clones didn't have equal rights? I'm saying this resolution does not apply to any sort of genetic supermen who snuff it after a few years or "WarBots" that rust up after 16 years. Child = person. Of course a clone is a human being! It's like saying Dolly the sheep isn't a sheep.

The current UN Human Rights provisions count clones and genetic soldiers as children.

That's why, for example, it is illegal to enslave genetically modified humans and why clones are entitled to educational benefits according to current UN proposals.

When you say that your measure which talks about "children" does not apply to genetically modified people, then that casts doubt upon all the other UN resolutions which have hence forth been applied to genetically modified humans do as well.

We actually prefer the idea of this provision applying to clones and genetically modified creatures. After all, it is entirely pointless for nations to create new citizens purely for the purpose of warfare. What good could possibly come of that? We have nuclear weapons with which to discourage war, cloning up armies of soldiers could only encourage it.

We strongly encourage you to rethink your exclusion of clonal soldiers in this regard.

Good night, everyone.

When did I say clones didn't have equal rights? I'm saying this resolution does not apply to any sort of genetic supermen who snuff it after a few years or "WarBots" that rust up after 16 years. Child = person. Of course a clone is a human being! It's like saying Dolly the sheep isn't a sheep.

The current UN Human Rights provisions count clones and genetic soldiers as children.

That's why, for example, it is illegal to enslave genetically modified humans and why clones are entitled to educational benefits according to current UN proposals.

When you say that your measure which talks about "children" does not apply to genetically modified people, then that casts doubt upon all the other UN resolutions which have hence forth been applied to genetically modified humans do as well.

We actually prefer the idea of this provision applying to clones and genetically modified creatures. After all, it is entirely pointless for nations to create new citizens purely for the purpose of warfare. What good could possibly come of that? We have nuclear weapons with which to discourage war, cloning up armies of soldiers could only encourage it.

We strongly encourage you to rethink your exclusion of clonal soldiers in this regard.

Good night, everyone.

But surely if such genetically modified soldiers/creatures/whatever kicked the bucket before 16 years (I'm talking EARTH years here) then including them in the current resolution is pointless.

Like I said, normal human clones are just that - human, and of course are included in this resolution as well as the Human Rights resolution.

But surely if such genetically modified soldiers/creatures/whatever kicked the bucket before 16 years (I'm talking EARTH years here) then including them in the current resolution is pointless.

We don't believe it is pointless at all. The creation of these so-called "VatSoldiers" is an entirely pointless exercise unless war is expected in the immediate future. These soldiers are expensive to produce, horribly effective, and extremely short lived. A nation does not generally have a standing army of such attocities, they are made with a specific task in mind - and that task is almost always conquest.

By including these temporary soldiers as children you would force them off of the battlefield - which would make aggression more difficult and thus less attractive. Including VatSoldiers as "children" which are forbidden by this measure is a step towards peace. Conversely, excluding such creatures from our definition is a step away from universal rights for sapient peoples - and that cannot be supported.

Good night, everyone.

[OOC: They have a point about the year thing though. Different regions function in what is often extremely different situations. Our own region is based on Fallout and takes place after a nuclear war, with most nations on the bottle cap standard. Other regions are lunar colonies - which presumably experience a year every Earth day and a day every Earth month. This is actually a real problem which is by no means limited to this proposal. Just like the real UN, we should probably get a proposal for the UN to define terms like calendars and ages and such. Otherwise, we have situations like the real world, in which "The October Revolution" happened in November because of different calendars being used by different countries]

My final spanner in the works:

As I understand it, (and I wait to be corrected) current cloning technology has not found a way to increase the rate by which cells divide and subdivide, over and above a very minimal rate, and there is currently no scientific belief that this will change.

A cloned baby grows at the same rate as a biologically conceived baby, both in stature and in mental developement. Your cloned soldiers at age ten (earth years) will be the same as any other ten year old and will therefore be protected by this legislation in the same way.

Robotic infantry are not grown or conceived and may be manufactured from basic materials, such as iron or plastic which are actually millions of years old, therefore it is inane to attempt to give them an age, whatever their intelligence.

Now, surely you can use your brain and come up with a good loop-hole to exploit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tag - somehow lost this thread

As I understand it, (and I wait to be corrected) current cloning technology has not found a way to increase the rate by which cells divide and subdivide, over and above a very minimal rate, and there is currently no scientific belief that this will change.

Of course we can! That's the whole basis for VatSoldiersTM. Sure, about one in every sixpack is no good for one reason or another, but that only underscores the necessity for a nation to have many of them!

Don't make me come over there.

[OOC: Cell replication rates can be expidited significantly. It's not terribly difficult, but the error rate goes up significantly as well. Currently, the goal of cloning is usually to make a "perfect" copy - which means we grow it at the same rate as a normal creature or even slower. However, when cells are being grown as factory cells to produce insulin or other wanted chemicals, and occassional failed copy is OK and replication rates are cranked up to the max.

In the horrible future which is the Fallout California Region, cloning has been going on for some time, and war clone technology is quite available. Such hybrid creatures can be based upon any organism you want - and can reach adulthood in the same time it takes a leopard - or even less if you are willing to accept a failure rate of more than .0001%. Iota Complex, for example, is willing to take a 16% failure rate, and sells its war clones in packages of six to ensure their low fidelity rate does not interfere with repeat sales/OOC]

In response to Mikitivity, I was referring specifically to a couple of issues that Joccia raised. I don't agree with The Logarchy's position. The fair nations of Joccia and Ecopoeia have informally discussed this resolution in the Strangers' Bar, if you wish to find out more. Be careful though, any venture into Bar territory tends to lead to a severe attack on the liver, an inexplicable fondness for processed meat from questionable sources smothered in fiendishly hot sauce, and a very sore head in the morning...

Though science fiction, like the fantasy show Star Trek: the Next Generation, can be entertaining, I would think that putting families on a warship to be exactly the type of thing that this resolution is opposed to.

10kMichael

The Enterprise was not a warship, its purpose was science and exploration and effectivly the Enterprise in itself was a colony (only one that moved).

It was a change in the political sitation that meant that it ended up in combat situations (defending itself) it was not meant to though.

Voyager or defiant on the other hand were warships (as they were built during the changed politcial situation (to be a defence against the Borg) they did not have families on board for that reason.