NationStates Jolt Archive

"The General Assembly by this resolution
INTERPRETS Article 4 of the Rights and Duties of UN States resolution to guarantee member states the option of maintaining a military, and the option of making military service compulsory;
DEFINES "military" as a duly-formed, armed, national defense organization regulated by a national Uniform Code of Military Justice;
DEFINES "military service" as membership by able adults in a military, for a specified term of months, for the performance of specified duties, with regular and reasonable compensation in national currency in addition to free food, housing, training and medical care;
PROHIBITS nations from compelling more than one specified term of military service, outside of a declared war or state of national emergency;
PERMITS compulsory service for the duration of a formally declared war or national emergency;
AFFIRMS that courts-martial conducted by duly-appointed military officers, in compliance with all clauses of the Definition of 'Fair Trial' resolution, are an acceptable form of fair trial for criminal and civil violations;
PROHIBITS confessions to be accepted in lieu of a fair trial;
EXEMPTS from criminal and civil prosecution, conscientious objectors who refuse to begin a term of military service, in deference to the Freedom of Choice resolution;
PERMITS member states to deny conscientious objectors such national privileges as are not guaranteed by UN resolutions;
PERMITS members to deny exemption from prosecution to serving members of the military who object to service as a matter of conscience."

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest offers this resolution for debate by members as a fair and moderate method to advance International Security, by permitting UN members to develop strong and capable armed forces for self-defense, without requiring any state to maintain a military at all.

The burdens placed upon members by this resolution are minimal. Members would be compelled to accept a uniform definition of 'military' and of 'military service'. They would be compelled to refrain from forcing multiple terms of military service. They would be compelled to hold fair trials even when a confession had been offered. They would be compelled to refrain from bringing charges against conscientious objectors who do not want to join the military.

Apart from these five restrictions, the measure merely confirms freedoms that members currently hold. They may maintain a military, they may impose compulsory military service, they may punish members of the military who desert, they may hold courts-martial, they may withold non-UN mandated civic privileges from those who refuse to serve.

By stressing the optional nature of these measures, the resolution also affirms the right of members to have no military at all, or to have an all-volunteer force, to disassociate civic participation from military service, to demand civilian judges in all cases, to allow military members to decline further service without any penalty.

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest invites comment on this resolution before we submit it to the delegates.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

AFFIRMS that courts-martial conducted by duly-appointed military officers, in compliance with all clauses of the Definition of 'Fair Trial' resolution, are an acceptable form of fair trial for criminal and civil violations;
PROHIBITS confessions to be accepted in lieu of a fair trial;

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest invites comment on this resolution before we submit it to the delegates.

This is not a comment on the proposed resolution, but it does bring an interesting question to mind ... is there a convention on the treatment of prisoners of war?

The reason I ask this, is it would seem to me that while your resolution scopes out the treatment of nationals in military courts, under a conflict situation, I'm not sure if a national serving in his / her military would be treated as a prisoner of war or not.

I look forward to reading what others have to say about your proposal though, because you have actually raised several interesting points about the civil rights of military personnel.

10kMichael


[OOC: I just wanted to say I find it really interesting to see what topics people bring forward ... as I am currently doing climate change and sustainable develop research with the plan to draft a few environmental proposals in the coming months. It is just neat to see everybody having different priorities / interests bringing forth all these issues.]

This is not a comment on the proposed resolution, but it does bring an interesting question to mind ... is there a convention on the treatment of prisoners of war?

The Wolfish Convention on POW is a pretty comprehensive document, although representative of our fairly patchy laws of war and highlighting the need for a more wide-ranging legislation.

We like this proposal, but the main problem seems to be in the distinction between prosecution and denial of national privilege. In a fascist-run state, one may need 'national privileges' to own property, work, or do just about anything; a nation could punish conscientious objectors just as harshly by withdrawal of privileges as they would by prosecution, thus making this freedom meaningless.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defence, Aikido and Productive Dialogue

This is not a comment on the proposed resolution, but it does bring an interesting question to mind ... is there a convention on the treatment of prisoners of war?

The Wolfish Convention on POW is a pretty comprehensive document, although representative of our fairly patchy laws of war and highlighting the need for a more wide-ranging legislation.

We like this proposal, but the main problem seems to be in the distinction between prosecution and denial of national privilege. In a fascist-run state, one may need 'national privileges' to own property, work, or do just about anything; a nation could punish conscientious objectors just as harshly by withdrawal of privileges as they would by prosecution, thus making this freedom meaningless.


I noticed that duality in the proposal as well.

But actually I liked it. I felt that those of us that are going to honor the resolution in good faith will be standardized, while those that would dig up loopholes anyways, actually for once will have some independence recognized.

So where does this leave the poor chaps who get crushed by an oppressive regieme?

Well, if word came to my government that another government was not following the spirit of the resolution, my government would at first be wary of that nation. (This means no snowboarding trips to the wonderful mountains of Mikitivity for naughty nations.)

If a nation continued to hide behind these clauses without attempting to address the rights granted to soldiers, others could follow my nation and put diplomatic pressure for that nation to reform. Basically the soldiers aren't really going to be any worse off, but maybe liberal forces within those governments will be as apt to use the positive statements to move national opinion in a liberal direction, as those conservative voices we both fear.

Bottomline, it is a compromise that the Best and Brightest snuck into their proposal. I thought it is really in line with my nation's opinion that UN resolutions should seek consensus in order to appeal to all nations.

If you are worried about the balance of statements, perhaps a final clause could be added to reiterate that the purpose of the resolution is to declare that soldiers are citizens too, and should be treated with respect and granted civil liberties whenever possible.

10kMichael

A military proposal that we are broadly in agreement with. Astonishing.

Good work, Best & Brightest.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

We are truly surprised. A proposal relating to the military that the Council is in agreement with.

>>We like this proposal, but the main problem seems to be in the distinction between prosecution and denial of national privilege. In a fascist-run state, one may need 'national privileges' to own property, work, or do just about anything; a nation could punish conscientious objectors just as harshly by withdrawal of privileges as they would by prosecution, thus making this freedom meaningless.<<

"PERMITS member states to deny conscientious objectors such national privileges as are not guaranteed by UN resolutions;"
In my country, people who do public service earn better civic privileges than people who don't. I was trying to preserve that option, by linking the options open to UN members to UN resolutions.
So for the example of work permits (which we don't require btw), as long as the UN permits states the option of requiring work permits, this resolution would allow states to use control of that option to support military service. If the UN decided to ban work permits with a resolution, states could not pretend that this resolution offered any exception to that rule.

>>If you are worried about the balance of statements, perhaps a final clause could be added to reiterate that the purpose of the resolution is to declare that soldiers are citizens too, and should be treated with respect and granted civil liberties whenever possible.<<
A good idea, I'll work on the wording

OK I will amend the preamble to read

""The General Assembly, seeking to advance international security and to guarantee the rights of citizens in military service, by this resolution:

now about this clause
"PERMITS member states to deny conscientious objectors such national privileges as are not guaranteed by UN resolutions;"

some feel it defeats the purpose of the exemption from prosecution, since members could make these national privileges mean anything from housing to the vote. In my country there are civic privileges attached to service and I wanted to preserve that distinction, but we certainly don't put people on the street who don't want to serve. Would it help clarify if it read
"PERMITS denial of unessential national privileges, not guaranteed by UN resolution, to conscientious objectors;" ?