NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the honored Boars, do indeed support the Current "Children in War" proposal, for the following reasons:
1) It is, for the most part, grammatically correct. The mistakes within can be ascribed to everyday typos, and not to the intelligence of the draftee.
2) It is of noble purpose, and will boost our nations in their much-needed civil rights statistic.
3) Most importantly, this sweet baby comes with its own lovely loophole. Read part 9 of the proposal. It basically states that nations do have the right to train a juvenile army. We of Boaravia will immediately open these schools, and require all residents to serve for 4 years in a legally subsidized military academy and for 2 years in post-graduate civil service (that's our military, kiddies) before the age of 18 to qualify for the right to vote. Power consolidation and UN approval, all in one beautiful package.
I urge you other UN members who are on the fence on this issue to endorse the "Children in War" proposal today!
-Respectively yours,
-The Boars, Boaravia

How is part 9 a loophole? The entire point is to protect under 16s from the horrors of war. And as for a "juvenile army" - forget it. Read part 1.....

:roll:

We interperet part 9 to protect the existance of military academic schools, and military-structured organizations, not a free license to create an active juvenile fighting force. With out part 9, programs such as the Boy Scouts could be interpereted as being illegal under the proposal. We feel that the proposal is quite clear in stating that participation in armed conflict by juveniles either as active combatants or as cover is to be made illegal under international law. The RCS administration is still debating whether to support this proposal or not, but the import of the proposal is quite clear and unambiguous.