NationStates Jolt Archive

Definition of POW
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Monitaria Prime

Description: REALIZING: In the Wolfish Convention on POWs (resolution 31), the term POW is very loosely defined and there is difficulty in maintaining uniform application of said convention.

RESOLVED:

Article I:
In order to be deemed a POW, the following must be adhered to:

1. Soldiers must be uniformed in a consistent manner that distinguishes them from the local civilian populace. The uniform must display the proper rank, and those, particularly officers, that fail to comply lose the protection of Article 8 in the Wolfish Convention.
2. Soldiers may not occupy the same building as civilians during wartime, nor will they be allowed to place a civilian in harms way for the sake of avoiding becoming targets.
3. Soldiers must carry any and all weapons openly, excepting holstered weapons, that may be mostly obscured by holsters that match the patterns on the uniform, and those must be located on the outside of any other clothing.
4. Soldiers must be recognized by their government. Black Ops style mission members shall receive no protection.
5. All Soldiers, Government Officials, Diplomats, Civilians, etc., may not engage in espionage, sabotage, or non-sanctioned government activities.
6. Citizens may not fight for a nation engaged in conflict with the nation that they hold citizenship, unless the government of their nation has received a message of rejection of citizenship.
7. Militia must comply with all aforementioned regulations.

Article II:
Those who fail to comply with Article I receive none of the protections stated in the Wolfish Convention, and are entirely at the mercy and the sense of decency of their captors (excepting the loss of Article 8 protections for failure to have proper rank displayed as described in Article 1, section 1).

I noticed this on the prosal queue and thought it was rather good, except for catagory perhaps, and thought it would be worth posting here

i can generally agree with this defination as i'm a Captain in the Kirusuban army.

Although our nations warrior culture does not permit surrender we may have to deal with POW's someday.

now what are we going to do with it?

Perhaps a quick redraft, giving Monitaria Prime a co authorship of course, to sought out one or two of the problems might be an idea?

i don't think this needs much work done to it. Maybe we should talk about this in the strangers bar and see what we can do with it?

The only portion of this proposal to which the people of Cluichstan object is the following:

5. All Soldiers, Government Officials, Diplomats, Civilians, etc., may not engage in espionage, sabotage, or non-sanctioned government activities.

This would make it illegal for a soldier to conduct reconnaissance behind enemy lines (espionage) or for a soldier to destroy, for instance, a bridge over which enemy tanks are preparing to cross (sabotage).

Personally, I dislike the wording in Article II as it is too House of Cardy, and Section 3 in Article one is a bit over complicated. And it could do with UNifying

5. All Soldiers, Government Officials, Diplomats, Civilians, etc., may not engage in espionage, sabotage, or non-sanctioned government activities.

if the word 'soldiers' is taken out of that sentence that should fix it. that way they can do their job. i'm happy enough with the rest of that line.

I did have one question, but that was taken care of when I re-read it :}

However, now I have a lot of other questions....

Mainly - When I am at war, does this apply in my nation, or in the nation I am at war with? Or both?

If it is the second - that is it only applies to soldiers I have in another nation - then I can live with it. But if these are soldiers in my nation, then there might be issues.

1) Soldiers must be uniformed in order to be classed as POW.

Dumb question, but what if they are captured when they out of uniform (for some reason). Say they are at home with their faimly, and not actually involved in the fighting at that moment. Would they still be considered POWs, or would they be left where they are?

2) Soldiers may not occupy the same house as civilians.

I get the point - you are trying to avoid human shields - but what if the soldiers are in retreat, and are using the house for cover? Are they going to be forced to stand out in the street to fight, and thus get shot? Or can they duck inside a house and fire out the window?

Further more - what about those on leave to go home to their family? I know - I am being pedantic - but the proposal does not say FIGHTING soldiers, it just says "soldiers". This would effectively mean that, while my nation is at war, no soldier would be permitted to live at home.

3) Open Weapons.

No daggers in the boot?

4) Recognized Soldiers

I can more or less live with this.

5) Espionage and Sabotage.

What do you class as sabotage? I would say that blowing up a bride to stop the enemy coming across it would be a valid military tactic, but it is obviously sabotage. Further more blowing up an arms dump would be a valid military tactic, yet still sabotage.

Also - where do you draw the line between espionage and recon missions? (If I paratroop someone in uniform behind your lines so they can look around and then report back to me, is that espionage or recon?)

6) Citizenship.

Yeah - this is just totally unacceptable. It would mean that - in the unlikely event my nation was captured, but proclaimed to still be Hyrule, I wouldn't be permitted to fight against it because I hold citizenship there.

7) Militia

This just makes it even more impossible to enforce. Militia are, by definition, people hired from towns and cities. So they would almost certinaly not have uniforms at the start of a conflict, they are almost certainly going to be living in houses with civilians, and they are almost certainly going to have concealed weapons in some way (given they are civilians)


My biggest problem is that this is trying to establish rules of war. And rules of war are just silly. The entire purpose of war is to either liberate your own nation, or wipe out another one. And in both cases saying you can kill some people and not others, or that you will be granted basic human rights when captured only if your stripes haven't fallen off during battle is lunacy.

Further more in the now funky world of weapons of mass destruction, civilians are apparently just as legitimate a target as soldiers. So if the military of one nation can anihilate the civilians of another in the blink of an eye, I see no reason why the military of another nation should even pretend to obey some farcical rules that can be anihilated just as easily.

Anyone who is captured during a war should be treated as a POW. It's that simple. You can do the whole resolution in one line.

5. All Soldiers, Government Officials, Diplomats, Civilians, etc., may not engage in espionage, sabotage, or non-sanctioned government activities.

if the word 'soldiers' is taken out of that sentence that should fix it. that way they can do their job. i'm happy enough with the rest of that line.

How about soldiers in civilian dress, as opposed to uniformed soldiers?

That would solve the problem, and keep the idea

if you put a soldier in civilian dress you make him or her a civilian. thats why members of a nations armed forces need a uniform.

the same needs to apply to militia forces as well.

In my nation when we call up militia forces they are usually quartered in the same bases as regular soldiers so they won't be at home. they also have a uniform already supplied.

regarding espionage and sabotage its an accepted part of war. in the many exercises I took part in before taking on this job both sides in the exercise had commando units who did sabotage and intelligence gathering.

regarding the issue of citizens we have mandatory military service so some of these civilians may well be called to their local militia units or regular units.

The definition of a uniform does not say it has to be a full set of clothes. Militiamen could be issued with armbands (OoC: Like the British LDV were at the beginning of the war) or caps.

There is also one more thing....

Not to sound paranoid, and not to sound like I have no trust in any nation that declares war on me, but what is to stop the following :-

A legion of my troops are captured. They are in uniform, but when they are captured the only people who see them captured are people from the nation I am at war with.

So they take them back to base, force them to change in to civilian clothes, then claim they were captured in civilian clothes, and thus are exempt from any protection under the Wolfish Convention.


I know - it shows a total lack of faith in a nation who is hell-bent on invading and destroying me. but you have to admit - it is possible.

The definition of a uniform does not say it has to be a full set of clothes. Militiamen could be issued with armbands (OoC: Like the British LDV were at the beginning of the war) or caps.

Caps? Something that, in the heat of battle, has a damn good chance of falling off your head?

That is the piece of clothing that is going to protect someone's rights when they are captured?


(Sorry. I didn't mean to sound quite so sarcastic there. It was just unavoidable after I thought about the caps thing!)

I may be wrong, but I think that Wolfish says that a soldier is entitled to wear his uniform whilest incarcerated (OoC: The Geneva Convention says this, so I imagine Wolfish does. Can't be bothered to check!), thus doing what you suggest would be illegal

then maybe the defination of 'uniform' needs to be refined further.

a certain miniumum standard of uniform may well be needed so a combatant can be distingushed from a civilian easily.

Kirisuban militia units wear the usual uniform of their respective service; green for airforce, dark blue for army and the navy.

whatever the service its basically trousers or skirt with a tunic or jacket and cap or helmet.

i also looked over a hard copy of UNR #31 and it dosen't mention uniforms at all.

I may be wrong, but I think that Wolfish says that a soldier is entitled to wear his uniform whilest incarcerated (OoC: The Geneva Convention says this, so I imagine Wolfish does. Can't be bothered to check!), thus doing what you suggest would be illegal

Yeah - but in order to get protection under Wolfish you have to be wearing the uniform, and if there is no evidence that you were wearing it, you are not protected so don't have the right to wear it.

Further more these are people who want TO DESTROY MY NATION so why do you think they will bother about the laws?

if the invader is a UN nation then UNR #31 applies to them.

if they are not it dosen't but you would expect any armed forces to want to treat POW's well.

if news got out that an invaded nations prisoners were being mistreated then any prisoners from the invaders force would also be mistreated back.

if the invader is a UN nation then UNR #31 applies to them.


Yeah - but they would have to acknlowge that the people were POWs to start with, which this gives them an option not to do. Remember - it will be my word against theirs.


if they are not it dosen't but you would expect any armed forces to want to treat POW's well.


(ooc) History would hardly back you up on that.

(ic) Again - these are people who want my nation wiped off the face of the earth.


if news got out that an invaded nations prisoners were being mistreated then any prisoners from the invaders force would also be mistreated back.

That is not actually of any comfort to the partners whose loved ones are missing in action. Further more I would never do that - even if the law permitted I would never let my people do that. It would be abhorrent and horrific. But I would rather not have my people mistreated at all than to know I could get revenge.

I noticed this on the prosal queue and thought it was rather good, except for catagory perhaps, and thought it would be worth posting here

I am amazed it survived moderator approval - it feels like it should be either a contradiction or an ammendment to Resolution 30.

I've considered "Defining" proposals as addendums, clarifying a term previous law and for future legislation. One might say it is House of Cards, but it wills stand on it's own if needs be.

I mean, Diplomatic Immunity only came into being as a defining proposal due to a lack of definition of such in "Definition of Fair Trial" which only came into existance because of a lack of definition in...well, you get the picture!

I've considered "Defining" proposals as addendums, clarifying a term previous law and for future legislation. One might say it is House of Cards, but it wills stand on it's own if needs be.

I mean, Diplomatic Immunity only came into being as a defining proposal due to a lack of definition of such in "Definition of Fair Trial" which only came into existance because of a lack of definition in...well, you get the picture!

But neither of those two set about limiting the scope of another proposal. Which this does - from a certain point of view.

You would have to tread carefully with any definition of Prisoners of War. Mainly as a result of my Habeas Corpus resolution, which explicitly states that people who are taken into custody must be treated either as per Wolfish, or as per Habeas Corpus. Basically, if you make the definition too tight, then you've got a whole lot of people you either need to charge, or release. Too loose and you'll end up with armies arresting thousands on the grounds of, apparently, being PoWs.

You would have to tread carefully with any definition of Prisoners of War. Mainly as a result of my Habeas Corpus resolution, which explicitly states that people who are taken into custody must be treated either as per Wolfish, or as per Habeas Corpus. Basically, if you make the definition too tight, then you've got a whole lot of people you either need to charge, or release. Too loose and you'll end up with armies arresting thousands on the grounds of, apparently, being PoWs.

Wow. I think that you are the greatest person alive :}

Sorry. It's just that with a single resolution you have made the term "enemy combatant" impossible in the NSUN, and that is just truly fantastic.

Wow. I think that you are the greatest person alive :}

Sorry. It's just that with a single resolution you have made the term "enemy combatant" impossible in the NSUN, and that is just truly fantastic.
That was the intention. :)

I've considered "Defining" proposals as addendums, clarifying a term previous law and for future legislation. One might say it is House of Cards, but it wills stand on it's own if needs be.

No, it would be an addendum.

I mean, Diplomatic Immunity only came into being as a defining proposal due to a lack of definition of such in "Definition of Fair Trial" which only came into existance because of a lack of definition in...well, you get the picture!

I didn't read through Diplomatic Immunity so I don't know what the story is with it, but Definition of Fair Trial was rather an issue of....well.....they didn't have the same rules they have now.