NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently proposed before UN delegates - Conflict Ban On Human Shields

Given the number of innocent lives lost in war-time conflict, Expressionasia has proposed this declaration.

The proposal places an immediate ban upon the intentional use of civilians in war-time conflict. It also prohibits the creation of any situation which intentionally places non-military persons at risk.

Strong condemnation is expressed against those states that go against the principles in the proposal.

Your support is required and much appreciated.

Conflict Ban On Human Shields
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Expressionasia

Description: RECOGNISES the historical use of civilian persons in periods of conflict to act as military shields

RECALLS elements stipulated in UN Resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act", UN Resolution #26 "The Universal Bill Of Rights", UN Resolution #31 "Wolfish Convention On POW", UN Resolution #44 "End Barbaric Punishments, UN Resolution #51 "Children In War", and UN Resolution #68 "Ban Trafficking In Persons".

IDENTIFIES the potential loss of innocent life war-time can cause when innocent parties are placed in the line-of-fire

DECLARES a contravention of fundamental human rights where civilian persons are placed in potential danger in order to protect, divert, or distract

ENACTS the following guidelines to place an immediate halt upon the use of civilian persons as military shields:

1. Places an immediate blanket ban upon the use of civilian life in war-time efforts, with the exception where it be;
a. consensual, or;
b. directly correlated with military service

2. Strictly prohibits the use of children (with definition as determined by international law) in military situations, not limited by claims of military service;

3. Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy;

4. Warns conflicting parties to proceed in war-time with caution as to civilians being placed in a line-of-fire;

5. Demands that state military restrict any involvement in conflict to members of armed forces;

DECLARES any use of civilian persons as human shields or military aids in conflict to be against international principles of human rights

URGES all member states to place an immediate ban, and subsequent sanctions, upon any use of civilian persons - regardless of age, race, gender, religion or sexuality - in war-time or military-related efforts

STRONGLY CONDEMNS any state that contravenes the included guidelines within this resolution

ALLOWS action against offending states, subject to approval from appropriate United Nations bodies

I find most innocent lives lost in warfare are those within the radiation or blast radius who are too stupid, or were not warned by their government, to get out of range.

Okay, interesting.
First impressions, pretty well written, a lot better than most of the junk. Anyway, onto the meat:-RECALLS elements stipulated in UN Resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act", UN Resolution #26 "The Universal Bill Of Rights", UN Resolution #31 "Wolfish Convention On POW", UN Resolution #44 "End Barbaric Punishments, UN Resolution #51 "Children In War", and UN Resolution #68 "Ban Trafficking In Persons".(My bold) What's this got to do with it? Are you implying that there is an international cabal of criminals, selling countries civilians to use as shields? (I smell a business niche there ;) )

DECLARES a contravention of fundamental human rights where civilian persons are placed in potential danger in order to protect, divert, or distractWouldn't it make more sense to say: DECLARES that placing civilian persons in potential danger in order to protect, divert, or distract is a contravention of fundamental human rights.

2. Strictly prohibits the use of children (with definition as determined by international law) in military situations, not limited by claims of military service; Isn't this outlawing child soldiers, which should be in a seperate resolution.

3. Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy; Er, you just outlawed war. Unless it is being fought by aliens.

URGES all member states to place an immediate ban, and subsequent sanctions, upon any use of civilian persons - regardless of age, race, gender, religion or sexuality - in war-time or military-related effortsThis sounds like a ban on people working in munitions factories or military hospitals to me.

ALLOWS action against offending states, subject to approval from appropriate United Nations bodies Careful; this is close to mandating action against individual nations, which the UN cannot do (it's a MaxRuleTM). In any case, if this is passed, all UN nations will be forced to abide, so this will not come into question. Non UN nations will not be affected by this.

Reviewing this, it looks kinda like I ripped it apart, however, this wasn't my intention at all. Banning Human Shields is something that I can see getting passed, it just needs a bit of work.

I'm suspicious of any proposal dealing with this subject matter.
It's just been abused too well by terrorists and jew-haters for the last 20 years.


Kill them all and let god sort it out.

What do you mean specifically? What's been abused, the use of human shields, or non-military personell as combatants/

I see no flaw with the resolution, even though the "consensual" bit might be abused.

Dictator: "They all signed up voluntarily. Didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?!" *cracks whip* ;)

If it reaches the floor, you have my vote.

I'm suspicious of any proposal dealing with this subject matter.
It's just been abused too well by terrorists and jew-haters for the last 20 years.


Kill them all and let god sort it out.

"I would respond to this, but I find I cannot without losing my composition. Please allow me to contact my foreign minister and ask her to formulate a more adequate response."

~~~ Obertin Arashal, breathing dangerously shallow and with a furious expression glinting in his eyes.

Valhallenstein, while a peaceful nation must take issue with the following provision of the proposal

3. Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy;

Although, ideally one would hope no strategy would involve the killing of civilians to further a military objective, there are times in war where circumstances dictate the objective be obtained regardless of cost in lives or substance.

That aside, Valhallenstein see's this provision as a potential backdoor for the U.N. to be able to dictate the strategies of sovereign nations conduct of war. While noble in theory, Valhallenstein does not have the where with all to dictate to any nation how it conducts its wars, or by which strategy it uses.


Eric Ragnar
Delegate Designate of Valhallenstein

3. Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy;
We believe that somewhat limits the ability of UN nations to fight wars. What strategy does not include lives being placed at risk?

We believe that somewhat limits the ability of UN nations to fight wars. What strategy does not include lives being placed at risk?

Orbital bombardment with weapons of mass destruction that is trying to target the ground beneath the enemy civilians and allows the loud scream of the attacks entering atmosphere to serve as a warning. Remember: I'm not placing those lives at risk. They're placing their own lives at risk by being in the way of my ammo.

this seems to be an interesting proposal, though point 3 needs to be clarified. also there is nothing here preventing civilians from your country volentarialy going and becoming human shields in a country you are attacking

I thank you for your comments.

Regarding point (3), it was not intended to be a blanket ban on any form of military action which COULD place innocent human lives at risk.

It was intended to prevent nations forming military strategies which DELIBERATELY place innocent lives at risk.

Hence my use of the phrasings "deliberate" and "military strategy" rather than say "any military action". However, I can see how my wording has a certain level of ambiguity to it.

Expressionasia appreciates your input.

"I would respond to this, but I find I cannot without losing my composition. Please allow me to contact my foreign minister and ask her to formulate a more adequate response."

~~~ Obertin Arashal, breathing dangerously shallow and with a furious expression glinting in his eyes.
To which part do you take exception?

The part about anti-semites opportunistically asserting that terrorists and guerrilla fighters are "civilians"?

The use of the word "god"? The fact that "god" wasn't capitalized? The use of "god" instead of "Allah"?

To which part do you take exception?

The part about anti-semites opportunistically asserting that terrorists and guerrilla fighters are "civilians"?

The use of the word "god"? The fact that "god" wasn't capitalized? The use of "god" instead of "Allah"?

The Kill-them-all part, which is blatantly counter to any definition of human rights.

I thank you for your comments.

Regarding point (3), it was not intended to be a blanket ban on any form of military action which COULD place innocent human lives at risk.

It was intended to prevent nations forming military strategies which DELIBERATELY place innocent lives at risk.

Hence my use of the phrasings "deliberate" and "military strategy" rather than say "any military action". However, I can see how my wording has a certain level of ambiguity to it.

Expressionasia appreciates your input.

Thank you for the clarification on your intent of the provision.

I must say though, that the wording remains less then ambiquios to me.

3. Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy;

The term "Prohibits" is the break point for Valhallenstein. This isnt ambiquios at all and rather specific termanology. It may lead to an ambiqouis conclusion as to whats deliberate and what isnt, but once one makes that determination it becomes rather clear that the act is prohibitated under the resolution.

How exactly does someone determine what "Deliberate jeopardy" is, and how does one prohibit it? Perhaps the appliaction of the theory is ambiquois but none the less, it is Valhallensteins position not to support any UN action that places debatable restrictions on military actions.

Specifics should be given as to what constitutes "deliberate jeapordy" and what prohibitions are to be imposed. As is the language is ambiqous but the terms are rather specifically punitive.

Eric Ragnar
Delegate Designate of Valhallenstein

This resolution is a good idea, but the way you worded it is horrible.

Prohibits human life being placed in deliberate jeopardy as a military strategy

That is war if that was it go into affect you would make the un defencless.

Warns conflicting parties to proceed in war-time with caution as to civilians being placed in a line-of-fire;

Whats the point of having something that just warns somebody have done or not.

URGES all member states to place an immediate ban, and subsequent sanctions, upon any use of civilian persons - regardless of age, race, gender, religion or sexuality - in war-time or military-related efforts

So if there was a peace keeping effort and some civilians contrators were highered to help rebuild the country the military would have to leave after making the country defencelesss and putting the civilians in even more danager.

You are stretching to far with the proposal, I thought it would only be about banning civlian related matters of hostage taking and human sheilds.

The Kill-them-all part, which is blatantly counter to any definition of human rights.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You just need to put it in context.

That context is, in fact, my opposition to artificially trying to protect "civilians" only on one side of a conflict.