NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks to all that provided support and advice. The Resolution is now up for vote.

Cheers.
W.
====================

Rights and Obligations of Neutral States

Rights and Obligations of Neutral States

RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war and defend themselves from attack;

NOTING that nations may, from time to time, declare themselves neutral, and

DEFINING a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations, thus

AFFIRMING that it is the right of nations which are not belligerents in such a conflict to make a claim of neutrality;

ALSO AWARE that such states need the support and respect of the NationStates United Nations to maintain that neutrality;

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE THAT a neutral state must abide by the following terms:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, through either force of arms or other support.

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

Violation of these terms shall render neutrality broken.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.


==================

On first glance, I very much like it. You have my tentative support pending other comments.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

These United Nations will use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of Neutrality, including:

all diplomatic efforts and sanctions; economic and trade sanctions; economic and trade embargoes; declaration of hostile state status; declaration of hostilities.

Isn't that saying that the UN itself will declare war, as a body? Is that possible/legal?

This would imply that it can't provide humanitarian aid to either side in the war?

This would imply that it can't provide humanitarian aid to either side in the war?

I was a bit troubled by that. Is there a particular rationale for not allowing medical treatment of the injured, for example?

I was a bit troubled by that. Is there a particular rationale for not allowing medical treatment of the injured, for example?

The rationale is that if you treat one side, but not the other, you are hardly displaying neutrality are you?

But what if you treat both sides with no favour to either?

The rationale is that if you treat one side, but not the other, you are hardly displaying neutrality are you?

But what if you treat both sides with no favour to either?

...at no point did I say one should treat favourably. I appreciate I should have been clearer, but still I would really hope the assumption when someone says something in this forum isn't, "Let's see, what's the most moronic, fucktarded thing we could possibly twist their words to mean," but, "Slight misunderstandings aside, the reasonable/sensible inference would be this." Quit trying to start fights with people who agree with you.

We believe this is an excellent proposal--one which we will certainly support. We would offer a few comments and suggestions.


A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and;

This is the first time we've seen a proposed resolution in the form of a treaty. We'd be interested to know why it was done in this form. Is there precedent that we've missed? It's an interesting approach, but as we see it, since resolutions are automatically binding on all member nations, the notion of nations becoming signatory doesn't quite gel.

not be used for the interment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, further;

"Interment" should be "internment". We think there may be cases in which neutral countries might agree to house POWs and provide treatment for wounded as a humanitarian act. Could "without the full and uncoerced consent of the countries involved" be added after "combatants" (or something along that line)?

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, and that;

We'd prefer to see this limited strictly to war materials. As written, it would prohibit transportation through or across neutral nations of humanitarian aid material, even if they were willing to permit it.

These United Nations will use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of Neutrality, including:

all diplomatic efforts and sanctions; economic and trade sanctions; economic and trade embargoes; declaration of hostile state status; declaration of hostilities.

Can the UN itself declare hostilities? If not, suggest adding "by member nations" at the end of this section.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and;

Since when do we have signatories to treaties here? This would be a UN resolution - signing it or not is irrelevant, we are still bound by it. This part is erroneous and superfluous.

On the points about humanitarian aid and "declaration of hostilities," we would have to agree. Aside from that, we would humbly request that in addition to aiding combatant nations, neutral states also be enjoined from aiding combatant extranational entities (i.e., terrorist organizatrions, etc.).

This would imply that it can't provide humanitarian aid to either side in the war?
I suppose the IRCO could intervene - so donate to them and let them do the work.

...at no point did I say one should treat favourably. I appreciate I should have been clearer, but still I would really hope the assumption when someone says something in this forum isn't, "Let's see, what's the most moronic, fucktarded thing we could possibly twist their words to mean," but, "Slight misunderstandings aside, the reasonable/sensible inference would be this." Quit trying to start fights with people who agree with you.

Wow. I really wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I really didn't think I was being that moronic I swear.

The only thing I can think that the original poster meant was that if you treat someone who is injured, it could be perceived by a person from the other side on the war as violating your neutrality - that they could use it as a pretext to indvade because you are giving aid and comfort to their enemy. Which would be the reason for not permitting it.

Wow. I really wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I really didn't think I was being that moronic I swear.

The only thing I can think that the original poster meant was that if you treat someone who is injured, it could be perceived by a person from the other side on the war as violating your neutrality - that they could use it as a pretext to indvade because you are giving aid and comfort to their enemy. Which would be the reason for not permitting it.

Ok. It seemed as though you were being combative. It now appears I was. I apologise.

Anyway, yes, I can understand the idea of favouritism, but I'm not clear as to why, if it were guaranteed to be fairly equitable, medical aid would be undesirable. I should point out I'm still not raising objections, per se, just questions: I'm not really qualified enough to speak authoritatively on this matter. Not that that usually stops me.

wow! a decent proposal for once. then again, it is from Wolfish, so to expect less is absurd. maybe the provision for humanitarian aid could be that humanitarian organisations (ie IRCO) should be allowed to treat combatants and civilians in the neutral country, at least. other than that, a very interesting proposal indeed

wow! a decent proposal for once. then again, it is from Wolfish, so to expect less is absurd. maybe the provision for humanitarian aid could be that humanitarian organisations (ie IRCO) should be allowed to treat combatants and civilians in the neutral country, at least. other than that, a very interesting proposal indeed

Who the fuck are you? Do you have no idea the amount of time that went into preparing Repeal of PoDA (fifth submission), the incredible amount of time Yelda devoted to his proposal at vote, the weeks Teruchev has spent on his free trade proposal, all the work Love and esterel and Forgottenlands have put into preparing their divorce proposal, not to mention the work of countless others here and on off-site forums into their proposals, including PC's proposals, Caradune's proposal at quorum, and many others? No, you probably don't, actually, do you. Because you waltz in here and tell us that we're all just fucking amateurs compared to the glory days of DLE walking round wanking till her hands were raw, that the fact that there are possibly a half a dozen substantive proposals being lined up at the moment is nothing compared to the fact that you used to give 'quality assurance'. Well here's some fucking quality assurance: your attitude is not one that we have any time for whatsoever. And I should know, because my attitude is one people have spent years refining the art of having no time for over. 'Wow! a decent proposal for once'? Thanks. See you around.

An excellent first draft, though I would like to add my support to the amendments proposed by Ambassador Olembe.

Aside from that, we would humbly request that in addition to aiding combatant nations, neutral states also be enjoined from aiding combatant extranational entities (i.e., terrorist organizatrions, etc.).
This is fine, though any clause to this effect should strictly apply only to governments or government-sanctioned/approved organisations. I'm sure that this would be the case anyway, but think it prudent to be explicit in my concerns.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: I agree with Gruen, even if I'm not so blunt. Instead of whingeing about what the UN is doing and what the UN should be doing why don't you pitch in and help?

It's all well and good to criticise what goes on in the UN, I do it all the time, but unless you are willing to help make a difference - campaign, write proposals, debate, help out new nations - you don't have a leg to stand on.

So problem, you wanna be part of the solution? Get down off your high horse and help muck out.

IC and on topic:

You have our full support although we would like to see concessions being made for humanitarian aid.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

It's all well and good to criticise what goes on in the UN, I do it all the time, but unless you are willing to help make a difference - campaign, write proposals, debate, help out new nations - you don't have a leg to stand on.

So problem, you wanna be part of the solution? Get down off your high horse and help muck out.

I could not agree more, although Lynx is not the only one who needs to muck in.

IC: I don't think such a provision needs to be made to be honest, the IRCO has a role to play in this situation.

Thank you all for the recommendations - While I won't respond to each, I will make edits in a contrasting colour so we can all see what has been modified.

As for those wanking in my thread - please don't. I don't care who has been here longer or contributed more or worked harder on a thread. Take it outside.

Cheers.
W.

Since when do we have signatories to treaties here? This would be a UN resolution - signing it or not is irrelevant, we are still bound by it. This part is erroneous and superfluous.

It really isn't needed or necessary - but the signing of a NS-UN treaty (resolution) implies that it has been debated and discussed and amended. I did this with the Wolfish Convention on POW...I just think its a nice bit of liberty that can be taken to add character.

TO ALL: Edits and additions have been made. More comments/suggestions welcome.

W.

Regarding the added OC4: firstly, shouldn't it be 'parties', not 'parities'? And then, more substantively, I'm troubled by the word 'facilitating'. There might be cases where a country wishes to remain neutral neutral, and have absolutely nothing to do with the war, even in terms of aid. Earlier, I was prodding about the right to be able to give aid...and I'm fine with that allowance. But is my reading of it correct, that potentially neutral states are obliged to help humanitarian organizations? I know it doesn't sound so terrible, but I do believe there would be some who would object to handling (in a state capacity) medical goods, for example, which would eventually be used to treat combatants.

Do you see this as a problem?

Regarding the added OC4: firstly, shouldn't it be 'parties', not 'parities'? [snip]...that potentially neutral states are obliged to help humanitarian organizations?

Fixed - I switched "shall" with "may" and left facilitate in...also - typo fixed. Thanks.

Right. Then I don't believe I have any remaining problems with this proposal. Good luck!

In which category and at what strength do you intend to submit this?

I'd actually like some input on that.

It could either go:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

or

Category: International Security
Strength : Mild


The Strength could also be "significant". I'm open to suggestions.

I'd suggest Political Stability, as this seems to be creating neutrality, which I would associate with stability ("and what have the Swiss got to show for it? The cuckoo clock"). I would also err towards Significant.

In any case, I'm sure someone as experienced as you has already thought of this, but I really would recommend asking the mods.

Ausserland fully and enthusiatically supports the proposal as set forth in the amended draft. We will ask our regional delegate to add an approval when it is submitted and will vote for it when it reaches the floor.

We would, however, ask the respected representative of Wolfish to give further consideration to our suggestion that "Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants" be amended by adding "without the full and uncoerced consent of the nations involved". We believe that there may be cases in which internment of prisoners and treatment of wounded in a neutral nation might be in the best interests of the people involved. While such cases would most likely be quite rare, we don't believe the possibility should be foreclosed.

[OOC: On the treaty business.... I actually like the idea and agree that it adds a nice touch. My concern was that it might be weasel-worded as a violation of the Optionality rule, and that interminable wrangling about this might muddy up debate on the substantive merits. Perhaps an unfounded concern, particularly with the Wolfish Convention as a precedent.]

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

[snip]

We would, however, ask the respected representative of Wolfish to give further consideration to our suggestion that "Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants" be amended by adding "without the full and uncoerced consent of the nations involved". We believe that there may be cases in which internment of prisoners and treatment of wounded in a neutral nation might be in the best interests of the people involved. While such cases would most likely be quite rare, we don't believe the possibility should be foreclosed.


Do you not think this will be covered off by the humanitarian component recently added? That was certainly my intent. My fear is, that by opening up the option of allowing the neutral party itself to offer care and comfort would, in all likelihood, draw protests of partisanship and "non-neutral" behaviour from warring parties.

The honoured delegate of New Poitiers would like to just clarify what this proposal means, by using a example within NS history.

At the time of our founding of our country, when we had a small population of 6 million, as opposed to the 118 million New Pictaviens now sprawled all over our country, there was a war in our region, and as a result, we had several iron ore mines that the Armed Republic of Spackwad wanted. However, as a peaceful nation, we didn't want to get involved in the war, and so we granted access covertly to the Spackwaddians to our iron ore mines, and our small rail network to transport the metal to ports to ship to Spackwad. however, we stayed out of the war as we did not want to get involved. None of the New Pictaviens ever found out about this plan, all they saw were the iron ore trains moving along the network down to the port of Touffenet.

My point is, would this still be classified as neutral (as we saw it at the time of the war), or would this kind of underhand tactic be struck as illegal if this resolution was to pass? May I also add for the edification of my esteemed UN colleagues that the Spackwaddians had a powerful influence on the region, and would have in the most likely scenario raided us illegaly had we refused.

Acknowledging my colleagues in advance,

As far as the category is concerned, Political Stability seems most appropriate, and I would agree with my colleague from Gruenberg as to the Significant strength.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Political Stability would appear to be the most appropriate category, I believe. I would suggest Mild strength*.

VY

*OOC: mainly because I don't want to tank Ecopoeia's political freedoms.

Do you not think this will be covered off by the humanitarian component recently added? That was certainly my intent. My fear is, that by opening up the option of allowing the neutral party itself to offer care and comfort would, in all likelihood, draw protests of partisanship and "non-neutral" behaviour from warring parties.

No, we don't think it would. Our reading is that the provision,

[A neutral nation] Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, further;

specifically prohibits treatment of wounded, etc., within the borders of a neutral nation. As to protests concerning neutrality, the language we suggested would require the consent of the neutral nation and the belligerent parties. If the belligerents agree, we can't envision anyone else protesting.

Please understand that this is not an issue we would "fall on our sword" over. The proposal has our support regardless of the outcome of this discussion. (His Royal Highness has made that perfectly clear to us.)

On another point.... In the newly added paragraph 4, should the remaining "shall" also be changed to "may"?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The honoured delegate of New Poitiers would like to just clarify what this proposal means, by using a example within NS history.

At the time of our founding of our country, when we had a small population of 6 million, as opposed to the 118 million New Pictaviens now sprawled all over our country, there was a war in our region, and as a result, we had several iron ore mines that the Armed Republic of Spackwad wanted. However, as a peaceful nation, we didn't want to get involved in the war, and so we granted access covertly to the Spackwaddians to our iron ore mines, and our small rail network to transport the metal to ports to ship to Spackwad. however, we stayed out of the war as we did not want to get involved. None of the New Pictaviens ever found out about this plan, all they saw were the iron ore trains moving along the network down to the port of Touffenet.

My point is, would this still be classified as neutral (as we saw it at the time of the war), or would this kind of underhand tactic be struck as illegal if this resolution was to pass? May I also add for the edification of my esteemed UN colleagues that the Spackwaddians had a powerful influence on the region, and would have in the most likely scenario raided us illegaly had we refused.

Acknowledging my colleagues in advance,

This is exactly the type of situation that would be ruled illegal if this proposal makes it to the floor, and passes.

To declare ones nation a neutral party you must accept the limitations and obligations associated with that neutrality. Had you not declared either way, you could legally do whatever you like in terms of support for the regional power...but once you say you're neutral - you must abide by these terms (provided this becomes a resolution).

You should also note that if Spackwaddians was a NS-UN nation, he would be barred from raiding a neutral nation, under penalties outlined in the draft proposal.

Hope that helps.

W.

This is exactly the type of situation that would be ruled illegal if this proposal makes it to the floor, and passes.

To declare ones nation a neutral party you must accept the limitations and obligations associated with that neutrality. Had you not declared either way, you could legally do whatever you like in terms of support for the regional power...but once you say you're neutral - you must abide by these terms (provided this becomes a resolution).

You should also note that if Spackwaddians was a NS-UN nation, he would be barred from raiding a neutral nation, under penalties outlined in the draft proposal.

Hope that helps.

W.

The Republic of New Poitiers acknowledges the honoured delegate of Wolfish.

Thank you for your help. However, the same situation arising yet again may be very unlikely, as New Poitiers is now able to defend itself from anyone wanting our abundant iron ore. Having understood the proposal, with the aid of the delegate of Wolfish, we would like to support this proposal. The region of Kippertonia is still quite fragile, and war may break out quite soon again. As a peaceful nation, we would want to remain neutral, but able to defend ourselves if a rogue nation attacked us.

I'd actually like some input on that.

It could either go:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

or

Category: International Security
Strength : Mild

The Strength could also be "significant". I'm open to suggestions.

As was the case with the "Diplomatic Immunity" resolution which we co-authored, we believe there simply isn't any category into which this proposal truly fits. "Political Stability" is probably as appropriate--or should we say, inappropriate--as any other.

We recommend "Significant" for strength. The proposal places specific requirements on the conduct of nations and its protections would certainly be important for neutral nations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

No, we don't think it would. Our reading is that the provision,

[A neutral nation] Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, further;

specifically prohibits treatment of wounded, etc., within the borders of a neutral nation. As to protests concerning neutrality, the language we suggested would require the consent of the neutral nation and the belligerent parties. If the belligerents agree, we can't envision anyone else protesting.

Please understand that this is not an issue we would "fall on our sword" over. The proposal has our support regardless of the outcome of this discussion. (His Royal Highness has made that perfectly clear to us.)

On another point.... In the newly added paragraph 4, should the remaining "shall" also be changed to "may"?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We have accepted your recommendations, and amended the proposal.

DECLARE a neutral state must abide by the following terms:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents thereof of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia through either force of arms or other support.We thank the Wolfish ambassador for adding the highlighted text; may we also suggest adding it to the first clause as well?

We thank the Wolfish ambassador for adding the highlighted text; may we also suggest adding it to the first clause as well?

Done.

TO ALL:

Seems the general thought follows that this proposal should be filed under

Political Stability:Strong

Any other thoughts or concerns here? I don't believe I'm going to bother Hack with this in the mod forum...though if he dropped by, I'd certainly like his views.

Done.

TO ALL:

Seems the general thought follows that this proposal should be filed under

Political Stability:Strong

Any other thoughts or concerns here? I don't believe I'm going to bother Hack with this in the mod forum...though if he dropped by, I'd certainly like his views.
Significant, not Strong!

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and;

Doesn't this mean that I can declare my nation eternally neutral, and as long as I abide by all the terms, no UN member will ever be able to invade _Myopia_?

Doesn't this mean that I can declare my nation eternally neutral, and as long as I abide by all the terms, no UN member will ever be able to invade _Myopia_?

ooc: Shiza! You just blew my mind...I'll have to figure this one out. Damn...that's buggy.

It just seems a little odd if someone declares war on me, and I declare myself neutral, so he can't actually attack me. I guess what's needed is something laying down in what situations it is possible to declare yourself neutral.

What if you said that nations must declare themselves neutral with regards to individual conflicts? That would make it easier to then impose some kind of limitation of when you may be neutral, but I'm not sure exactly what those limitations should be.

It just seems a little odd if someone declares war on me, and I declare myself neutral, so he can't actually attack me. I guess what's needed is something laying down in what situations it is possible to declare yourself neutral.

What if you said that nations must declare themselves neutral with regards to individual conflicts? That would make it easier to then impose some kind of limitation of when you may be neutral, but I'm not sure exactly what those limitations should be.

We must admit that our jaws dropped when we read this and the previous posting by the honorable representative of Myopia. We believe his concern is valid. Perhaps the best solution would be a definition of "neutral state". We offer the following as a possibility:

DEFINES a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Or it could just be seen as a UN resolution to officialise the use of Ignore Cannons...

Or it could just be seen as a UN resolution to officialise the use of Ignore Cannons...
That's already been done.
Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: He's done it again... I'm starting to think that all 'final draft' proposals should be sent to Myo for review.

Remember it's significant not strong, W!

I'm starting to think that all 'final draft' proposals should be sent to Myo for review.

Think of the power...Hehe...Hahaha....MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA [coughing fit ensues]

*Ahem* Of course, what I mean to say is that our legal team is honoured to be held in such high regard, and we'd love to have them take a look over any proposal which was passed to us.

DEFINES a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations.

I'm not sure this works.

In fact, I'm not sure this whole principle works. Let's say Nation A feels the need to make war on both nations 1 and 2. Strategically, it feels it would be best to dramatically weaken nation 1 before attempting to attack nation 2. Nation 2, seeing the attack on nation 1, sees themselves as being next, and declares themselves neutral with regards to that conflict. As I read Ausserland's suggestion, this would mean that nation A could not attack nation 2 until the complete cessation of hostilities with nation 1, otherwise, as a belligerent in the conflict to which 2 is neutral, nation A is bound not to attack 2. As I see it, if it can be justifiable to declare war on one nation, or on 2 nations simultaneously, it cannot always be unjustifiable to declare war on two nations consecutively, and so this should not be banned unless you are also going to ban making war at all.

What I believed this resolution to be trying to do was preventing the following situation: Nation A declares war on nation 1, and nation 2 is a neighbour. A has no desire to make war specifically against 2, but decides that, in their attacks on nation 1, it would be advantageous to attack from territory within nation 2, so smuggles troops through nation 2, or occupies some of 2's land on the border with 1 from which to make attacks.

The trouble is, I'm not sure how these 2 situations can be separated in legal terms.

I'm not sure this works.

In fact, I'm not sure this whole principle works. Let's say Nation A feels the need to make war on both nations 1 and 2. Strategically, it feels it would be best to dramatically weaken nation 1 before attempting to attack nation 2. Nation 2, seeing the attack on nation 1, sees themselves as being next, and declares themselves neutral with regards to that conflict. As I read Ausserland's suggestion, this would mean that nation A could not attack nation 2 until the complete cessation of hostilities with nation 1, otherwise, as a belligerent in the conflict to which 2 is neutral, nation A is bound not to attack 2. As I see it, if it can be justifiable to declare war on one nation, or on 2 nations simultaneously, it cannot always be unjustifiable to declare war on two nations consecutively, and so this should not be banned unless you are also going to ban making war at all.

We think the honorable representative's interpretation of the proposal is entirely correct, but we don't believe there is a problem here. Our recommended definition reads:

DEFINES a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations.

Allow us to translate the narrative into a timeline, which might help...

Nation A declares war on and invades Nation 1. Nations A and 1 are parties to the belligerency.

Nation 2 declares its neutrality in that war. It is therefore protected against attack, etc., by either of the belligerents. The state of neutrality applies only while A and 1 are at war.

Nation 1 surrenders to Nation A. The specific belligerency is over. Nation 2's neutrality ceases, since the war is over.

Nation A declares war on and attacks Nation 2. Those two nations are now belligerents in that conflict.

If Nation A violates Nation 2's neutrality while its war with Nation 1 is ongoing, it violates the proposal's requirements. After that war is over, it can declare war on Nation 2 if it chooses. Nations A and 2 would be belligerents in that war. Neither could claim neutrality. (We're assuming here that a nation that is attacked and takes steps to defend itself is automatically a belligerent. That's the principle stated in the RL Hague Convention, anyway, and it seems logical.)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This may in fact be a fatal flaw…but I’d like to keep playing it out here and see what we can collectively come up with.

What if a new preamble was added that identified when a nation could declare neutrality?

“RECOGNIZING a nations right to declare and make war;
NOTING that in conflicts “third party” nations are often used, without declaration or compensation; therefore
DECLARING that it is the right of nations in such an undeclared status, to make a claim of neutrality; and,
FINDING that neutrality to be valid, holds that nation free from persecution.”

It could then with some minor edits for redundancy, flow into the proposal.

Thoughts?

I haven't read any of the replies, but one thing I found strange is that the neutral states can't harbor or assist extra-national military forces. You'd think a neutral country would assit extra-national military forces regardless of what side they're from and collect the profits.

I haven't read any of the replies, but one thing I found strange is that the neutral states can't harbor or assist extra-national military forces. You'd think a neutral country would assit extra-national military forces regardless of what side they're from and collect the profits.
I presume this would be the Moral and Just approach to take to international diplomacy?

We think the honorable representative's interpretation of the proposal is entirely correct, but we don't believe there is a problem here. Our recommended definition reads:

DEFINES a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations.

Allow us to translate the narrative into a timeline, which might help...

Nation A declares war on and invades Nation 1. Nations A and 1 are parties to the belligerency.

Nation 2 declares its neutrality in that war. It is therefore protected against attack, etc., by either of the belligerents. The state of neutrality applies only while A and 1 are at war.

Nation 1 surrenders to Nation A. The specific belligerency is over. Nation 2's neutrality ceases, since the war is over.

Nation A declares war on and attacks Nation 2. Those two nations are now belligerents in that conflict.

If Nation A violates Nation 2's neutrality while its war with Nation 1 is ongoing, it violates the proposal's requirements. After that war is over, it can declare war on Nation 2 if it chooses. Nations A and 2 would be belligerents in that war. Neither could claim neutrality. (We're assuming here that a nation that is attacked and takes steps to defend itself is automatically a belligerent. That's the principle stated in the RL Hague Convention, anyway, and it seems logical.)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

That's what I thought it meant. But I just don't see the point of requiring that nations finish one war before moving onto the next. If that's the way they want to fight, and we aren't objecting to war in principle, then why prevent them fighting 2 wars at once?

I presume this would be the Moral and Just approach to take to international diplomacy?

No, it wouldn't. It's my opinion that being a neutral state is immoral. However, it's simply logical that if you do choose to be a neutral state that you would help both sides as opposed to being restricted to helping neither side.

That's what I thought it meant. But I just don't see the point of requiring that nations finish one war before moving onto the next. If that's the way they want to fight, and we aren't objecting to war in principle, then why prevent them fighting 2 wars at once?

We don't think the proposal is trying to make nations fight one war at a time. Nation A can declare war on one nation today, five more next week, and seven others the week after. What the proposal does is protect the right of a nation to say, "Hey! Nation A and Nation B are at war. We're neutral. We won't get involved or help either one of you. And we expect to be left in peace." And it requires the parties involved in the war to respect that.

The "one war at a time" idea is really a constraint on the nation claiming neutrality rather than the belligerents. It simply requires that a nation claim neutrality in a specific conflict. That responds to the very valid concern you raised earlier that a nation could totally immunize itself against attack by claiming universal and eternal neutrality.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Let me know if I missed something, for I may have, but shouldn't there be some provision stating that if the "neutral" nation has pre-established trade and/or other interactions with one of the warring parties that happens to deal with such products and/or services that could be used in times of war, and if the "neutral" nation wishes to continue these pre-established interactions without any increase in activity (i.e. increasing shipment sizes above what was being sent prior to the conflict), then no party who has declared themselves a participant in the conflict can hold such acts against the "neutral" nation?

Let me know if I missed something, for I may have, but shouldn't there be some provision stating that if the "neutral" nation has pre-established trade and/or other interactions with one of the warring parties that happens to deal with such products and/or services that could be used in times of war, and if the "neutral" nation wishes to continue these pre-established interactions without any increase in activity (i.e. increasing shipment sizes above what was being sent prior to the conflict), then no party who has declared themselves a participant in the conflict can hold such acts against the "neutral" nation?

Ooh, that's interesting. Yes, I wonder what effect this has on international arms trade, for example.

Actually, I'm shocked Wolf hadn't already thought of that.

Let me know if I missed something, for I may have, but shouldn't there be some provision stating that if the "neutral" nation has pre-established trade and/or other interactions with one of the warring parties that happens to deal with such products and/or services that could be used in times of war, and if the "neutral" nation wishes to continue these pre-established interactions without any increase in activity (i.e. increasing shipment sizes above what was being sent prior to the conflict), then no party who has declared themselves a participant in the conflict can hold such acts against the "neutral" nation?

I had actually thought of this, and it raises two issues:

First, policing ongoing trade to ensure compliance would be virtually impossible - which would threaten a nations standing as neutral.

Second, trade, whether pre-existing or new has the same effect - namely feeding a war machine, and thus, should be terminated upon declaration of hostilities and the decision to remain neutral.

Okay - the proposal has been amended. Hopefully you'll all agree that this fixes the "anyone can declare neutrality to get out of any war," issue.

The new section is green.

Thanks for the help and drafting suggestions.

We don't think the proposal is trying to make nations fight one war at a time. Nation A can declare war on one nation today, five more next week, and seven others the week after. What the proposal does is protect the right of a nation to say, "Hey! Nation A and Nation B are at war. We're neutral. We won't get involved or help either one of you. And we expect to be left in peace." And it requires the parties involved in the war to respect that.

The "one war at a time" idea is really a constraint on the nation claiming neutrality rather than the belligerents. It simply requires that a nation claim neutrality in a specific conflict. That responds to the very valid concern you raised earlier that a nation could totally immunize itself against attack by claiming universal and eternal neutrality.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ok, it doesn't directly mean that nations may only fight one war at once. But it gives nations which are lined up to be attacked the ability to force the aggressor to finish with their current war before starting a new attack - and I just don't see the point in this. It also brings up another problem - who decides when a war is over?

Let's say that nation A wants to invade and liberate nations 1 and 2. They storm into nation 1, and the rulers scatter. They are effectively in control of nation 1 and establish a new government, but a few loyalist guerillas, claiming to be led by the old president (who's now in hiding), are still fighting. Nation A regards this as more of a policing effort than a continuation of the war, and since they can't find anyone to accept a surrender from, they simply declare the war over and set their sights on nation 2. But nation 2 could say that they regard nation 1 as being in a state of civil war, and that the true government of nation 1 is still at war with nation A - and they declare neutrality with regards to that war.

How do we distinguish between this, and a situation where an aggressor declares a war over when it clearly isn't, so that they can move onto another target?

Let me know if I missed something, for I may have, but shouldn't there be some provision stating that if the "neutral" nation has pre-established trade and/or other interactions with one of the warring parties that happens to deal with such products and/or services that could be used in times of war, and if the "neutral" nation wishes to continue these pre-established interactions without any increase in activity (i.e. increasing shipment sizes above what was being sent prior to the conflict), then no party who has declared themselves a participant in the conflict can hold such acts against the "neutral" nation?

OOC:

When I read this post, I scratched my head a while, then decided to see what I could find about the RL international law on the issue. First, here's the relevant provision of the Second Hague Convention:

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

And, since I was still scratching my head, here's part of the "Neutrality" article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

A neutral state in its corporate capacity, we have seen, must abstain from acts which can be of assistance to either belligerent, and it is bound to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent its territory being used as a base for belligerent operations. The duties of a neutral state as a state go no further. Commercial acts of its citizens, even the export of arms and munitions of war to a belligerent country, do not, in the present state of international usage, so long as both belligerents are free to profit by such acts alike, involve liability on the part Of the neutral state. But relief from the obligation of repressing breaches of neutrality by contraband traffic of subjects has its counterpart in the right granted to belligerent warships of visit and search of neutral merchant vessels, and in the possible condemnation, according to circumstances, of the ship and confiscation of goods held to be contraband.

Myself, I prefer Wolfish's position. I have a problem with allowing neutral states to function as arsenals for belligerents. But I can also see the merits of allowing citizens and corporations of neutral states to fulfill existing contractual obligations with warring nations. I guess I'll have to think about this some more.

OOC:

When I read this post, I scratched my head a while, then decided to see what I could find about the RL international law on the issue. First, here's the relevant provision of the Second Hague Convention:

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

And, since I was still scratching my head, here's part of the "Neutrality" article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

A neutral state in its corporate capacity, we have seen, must abstain from acts which can be of assistance to either belligerent, and it is bound to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent its territory being used as a base for belligerent operations. The duties of a neutral state as a state go no further. Commercial acts of its citizens, even the export of arms and munitions of war to a belligerent country, do not, in the present state of international usage, so long as both belligerents are free to profit by such acts alike, involve liability on the part Of the neutral state. But relief from the obligation of repressing breaches of neutrality by contraband traffic of subjects has its counterpart in the right granted to belligerent warships of visit and search of neutral merchant vessels, and in the possible condemnation, according to circumstances, of the ship and confiscation of goods held to be contraband.

Myself, I prefer Wolfish's position. I have a problem with allowing neutral states to function as arsenals for belligerents. But I can also see the merits of allowing citizens and corporations of neutral states to fulfill existing contractual obligations with warring nations. I guess I'll have to think about this some more.

Part of the problem is the slippery slope of dealing with a belligerent nation - and limiting the states involvement. For example: if there is a NS-UN nation that has a state-controlled manufacturing sector, then, according to this they could not conduct trade (as it'd be state-sponsored), but a more right-wing nation's corporations could continue to trade with one of the warring nations if they decided to.

OOC:

Ok, it doesn't directly mean that nations may only fight one war at once. But it gives nations which are lined up to be attacked the ability to force the aggressor to finish with their current war before starting a new attack - and I just don't see the point in this.

Let's look at the alternative: what could happen without the "specific conflict" principle.... Nation A declares war on Nation 1. Nation 2 declares its neutrality in that conflict. In the middle of that war, Nation A declares war on and invades Nation 2. So what did declaring neutrality accomplish? Nothing. It seems to me that, if we allow nations to declare war on neutral nations, the whole concept of neutrality becomes meaningless.

It also brings up another problem - who decides when a war is over?

Let's say that nation A wants to invade and liberate nations 1 and 2. They storm into nation 1, and the rulers scatter. They are effectively in control of nation 1 and establish a new government, but a few loyalist guerillas, claiming to be led by the old president (who's now in hiding), are still fighting. Nation A regards this as more of a policing effort than a continuation of the war, and since they can't find anyone to accept a surrender from, they simply declare the war over and set their sights on nation 2. But nation 2 could say that they regard nation 1 as being in a state of civil war, and that the true government of nation 1 is still at war with nation A - and they declare neutrality with regards to that war.

How do we distinguish between this, and a situation where an aggressor declares a war over when it clearly isn't, so that they can move onto another target?

A very good point. I shuffled through the existing RL international law to see what it said about the ending of war. Couldn't find a thing. The documents talk about what happens when war ends, but not the "how" of ending it. While the issue certainly is relevant to neutrality, my suggestion would be to side-step it. It's something that should definitely be covered in a "Law of War" resolution, rather than in one on neutrality. I wish we had one of those, although it would be a tough one to write.

Incidentally, if anybody feels like digging into the RL international law on war, here's a good place to start:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

Let's look at the alternative: what could happen without the "specific conflict" principle.... Nation A declares war on Nation 1. Nation 2 declares its neutrality in that conflict. In the middle of that war, Nation A declares war on and invades Nation 2. So what did declaring neutrality accomplish? Nothing. It seems to me that, if we allow nations to declare war on neutral nations, the whole concept of neutrality becomes meaningless.

Well then, I'm not sure that this is a principle that really ought to be imposed. There might well be a very good reason why nation 2 needs to be invaded.

This also brings up the possibility that a nation which would normally intervene militarily if a 'bad' nation were to do something evil, like try to invade a defenceless nation and slaughter its population, could be tied up by involving it in another war with another nation. The 'bad' nation could declare itself neutral, and then would be free to commit whatever atrocities they liked without the threat of being kicked back in line by the benevolent power.

How is everyone with the current (new) wording in the resolution?

I don't think I am. But I'm not sure I agree with the concept at all.

Another thing I noticed - the requirement that neutral nations do not seek to influence the outcome of the conflict means that we could not have neutral nations trying to impartially aid peace negotiations. Is that something that's wanted?

How is everyone with the current (new) wording in the resolution?

We'd suggest an editorial change of the second added paragraph just to cut down the length a bit:

AFFIRMING that it is the right of nations which are not belligerents in such a conflict to make a claim of neutrality, and

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well then, I'm not sure that this is a principle that really ought to be imposed. There might well be a very good reason why nation 2 needs to be invaded.

We find we cannot agree with the respected representative of Myopia. If you're going to allow nations to invade nations at their whim, ignoring claims of neutrality, then the whole concept of neutrality is meaningless.

This also brings up the possibility that a nation which would normally intervene militarily if a 'bad' nation were to do something evil, like try to invade a defenceless nation and slaughter its population, could be tied up by involving it in another war with another nation. The 'bad' nation could declare itself neutral, and then would be free to commit whatever atrocities they liked without the threat of being kicked back in line by the benevolent power.

Possible, yes. Probable? If we read this correctly, the honorable representative from Myopia is presenting this scenario to suggest that the entire concept of neutrality be tossed out the window. With that, we must respectfully disagree.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't think I am. But I'm not sure I agree with the concept at all.

Another thing I noticed - the requirement that neutral nations do not seek to influence the outcome of the conflict means that we could not have neutral nations trying to impartially aid peace negotiations. Is that something that's wanted?

We believe that influencing "the outcome of armed combat" and aiding peace negotiations are two very different things, and that the second would not be prohibited by the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't think I am. But I'm not sure I agree with the concept at all.

Another thing I noticed - the requirement that neutral nations do not seek to influence the outcome of the conflict means that we could not have neutral nations trying to impartially aid peace negotiations. Is that something that's wanted?

I don't believe this is the outcome. Peace or cease-fire negotiations are a seperate event from combat.

Sorry, I might not have used the right term there. What I meant was neutral nations wouldn't be able to organise/mediate talks to try to bring a conflict to an end, because that would be trying to influence the outcome of the conflict.

EDIT: Surely even just publically calling for an end to the fighting is seeking to influence the outcome.

We find we cannot agree with the respected representative of Myopia. If you're going to allow nations to invade nations at their whim, ignoring claims of neutrality, then the whole concept of neutrality is meaningless.

Its just that to me, what this sounds like is saying that nations may use a formalised, IC version of an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon, but only if the potential aggressor is already engaged in a war, and the IGNORE only works if you don't help out anyone who your aggressor is fighting. It seems a little arbitrary.

Sorry, I might not have used the right term there. What I meant was neutral nations wouldn't be able to organise/mediate talks to try to bring a conflict to an end, because that would be trying to influence the outcome of the conflict.

EDIT: Surely even just publically calling for an end to the fighting is seeking to influence the outcome..

Okay - I've made an adjustment (in green) to allow for "honourable" attempts to end a conflict.


Its just that to me, what this sounds like is saying that nations may use a formalised, IC version of an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon, but only if the potential aggressor is already engaged in a war, and the IGNORE only works if you don't help out anyone who your aggressor is fighting. It seems a little arbitrary.

Not really. IGNORE would preclude any RPing related to the conflict. Neutrality would still allow engagement, but would keep the nation free from harm - or at least provide justified recourse if a nation attacks or violated neutrality. It would be fun to play out.

IGNORE is a game mechanic - Neutrality is a RP status.

OOC: ...O.o...o.O...o.o...wow...I said something that made the super-experienced peoples stop and think...I feel so de-noob-ified...^-^

IC: I would still like to see something like:

"In the event that a neutral state has active trade agreements with any state involved in the conflict that was created prior to delcaration of said conflict, and in the event that those goods and/or services exchanged in said pre-existing trade agreement are such that may be somehow used by the state in conflict to further its interests in the conflict, the neutral state must, to remain neutral:

enter an identical trade agreement with all states involved in the conflict while showing no bias in treatment to any side, or else
ammend said trade agreement with an ultimatum to the effect that the goods and/or services in question cannot, under any circumstances, be used to the furtherment of the involved state(s) interests in the conflict, or else
terminate the trade agreement(s) with the involved state(s) until such time as said state(s) are no longer involved

thus ensuring and securing the neutral state's impartial status. If, however, none of these options is taken by the neutral state, its neutrality will be considered compromised, and its protection will no longer be ensured by the provisions of this document."

Or something like that...

OOC: ...O.o...o.O...o.o...wow...I said something that made the super-experienced peoples stop and think...I feel so de-noob-ified...^-^

OOC: I guess us "super-experienced peoples" don't have all the answers, huh? Not even all the questions. Welcome to the NSUN! ^_-


IC: I would still like to see something like:

"In the event that a neutral state has active trade agreements with any state involved in the conflict that was created prior to delcaration of said conflict, and in the event that those goods and/or services exchanged in said pre-existing trade agreement are such that may be somehow used by the state in conflict to further its interests in the conflict, the neutral state must, to remain neutral:

enter an identical trade agreement with all states involved in the conflict while showing no bias in treatment to any side, or else
ammend said trade agreement with an ultimatum to the effect that the goods and/or services in question cannot, under any circumstances, be used to the furtherment of the involved state(s) interests in the conflict, or else
terminate the trade agreement(s) with the involved state(s) until such time as said state(s) are no longer involved

thus ensuring and securing the neutral state's impartial status. If, however, none of these options is taken by the neutral state, its neutrality will be considered compromised, and its protection will no longer be ensured by the provisions of this document."

Or something like that...

IC:

We think the suggestion of the honorable delegate from Intellect and the Arts is certainly worth careful consideration, which we will give it. One initial comment, though: We believe that the second option would not be practicable. How would a nation know whether the belligerent was using rifle ammunition that it produced or ammunition that came from some other source?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Okay - I've made an adjustment (in green) to allow for "honourable" attempts to end a conflict.

Great thanks.

Not really. IGNORE would preclude any RPing related to the conflict. Neutrality would still allow engagement, but would keep the nation free from harm - or at least provide justified recourse if a nation attacks or violated neutrality. It would be fun to play out.

IGNORE is a game mechanic - Neutrality is a RP status.

Hmm. I meant to use IGNORE as an analogy - in that nations may use neutrality to block an attempt to attack them.

:headbang: We are hitting a brick wall on this issue. While we are letting countries become neutral, we are abandoning basic rights. If the war includes members of the UN, there should be a referendum, if it's between two outsde members, don't bother at all. The UN should treat all citizens equally, so that despite nationality, we will kill and save any amount on any side!:mad:

OOC: I guess us "super-experienced peoples" don't have all the answers, huh? Not even all the questions. Welcome to the NSUN! ^_-




IC:

We think the suggestion of the honorable delegate from Intellect and the Arts is certainly worth careful consideration, which we will give it. One initial comment, though: We believe that the second option would not be practicable. How would a nation know whether the belligerent was using rifle ammunition that it produced or ammunition that came from some other source?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


I had initially intended the second to be a clause of good faith that could be referred to if needed to defend the neutral nation against culpability, but having read this and other comments, I see your point and tend to agree. Following is my proposed addition without the aforementioned content:

In the event that a neutral state has active trade agreements with any state involved in the conflict that was created prior to delcaration of said conflict, and in the event that those goods and/or services exchanged in said pre-existing trade agreement are such that may be somehow used by the state in conflict to further its interests in the conflict, the neutral state must, to remain neutral:

1. enter an identical trade agreement with all states involved in the conflict while showing no bias in treatment to any side, or else
2. terminate the trade agreement(s) with the involved state(s) until such time as said state(s) are no longer involved

thus ensuring and securing the neutral state's impartial status. If, however, none of these options is taken by the neutral state, its neutrality will be considered compromised, and its protection will no longer be ensured by the provisions of this document.

http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/9611/crad44wu.png


Wolfish, I hope you reply soon because I'd really like to know what you think of my idea.

http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/9611/crad44wu.png


Wolfish, I hope you reply soon because I'd really like to know what you think of my idea.

Sorry - I was away for the weekend.

My concern with trade provisions remain. I don't believe that it is workable.

Say for instance I supply my neighbour "Hawk" with 40 per cent of my oil, using 60 per cent domestically - and Hawk goes to war with my other neighbour "Dog". I'm now required to offer Dog 40 per cent of my oil, leaving 20 percent for domestic consuption, forcing me to import another 40 percent.

Now, I understand that I would have the option to terminate the agreement with Hawk, allowing me to export the oil to other nations... which leaves me as I would be under the current proposal.

I can't actually imagine a situation where option 1 would be workable. It gets even more complex if there are more than two belligerents.

I think, unless convinced otherwise, I'll leave it as is.

W.

H'mm this goes quite a way beyond the established RW rules about neutrality...


DECLARE a neutral state must abide by the following terms:
1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.
2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents thereof of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia through either force of arms or other support.

So damaged ships aren't to be allowed even a day or two in neutral ports in which to carry out essential repairs to hulls & propulsion systems (although not to weaponry) as the Graf Spee was in Buenos Aires early on during WWII?

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and;
Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties, further;

Presumably any members of belligerent nations' forces who actually request internment by a neutral nation whose borders they've reached, probably when capture by another belligerent's forces is their only other option, can still be interned there because they were never their opponents' prisoners of war beforehand? And the same is true for any members of belligerent nations' forces who arrive in neutral countries by accident, for example from sunken [or badly damaged] ships or crashed [or badly damaged] aircraft?
What about escaping PoWs who manage to reach neutral nations? Are they to be turned back, allowed through unmolested, ignored, or what?
Can one belligerent actually veto the neutral nation's medics treating any wounded or ill members of its opponents' forces who've already arrived on its territories, even when those medics are bound by the Hippocratic Oath or some similar vow? The RW rule would be that they can be treated but should then be interned within that neutral nation rather than returned home...

So damaged ships aren't to be allowed even a day or two in neutral ports in which to carry out essential repairs to hulls & propulsion systems (although not to weaponry) as the Graf Spee was in Buenos Aires early on during WWII?

Correct. The policing of this would be very difficult if not impossible. It would also encourage other parties to violate the neutrality in pursuit of enemy targets.


Presumably any members of belligerent nations' forces who actually request internment by a neutral nation whose borders they've reached, probably when capture by another belligerent's forces is their only other option, can still be interned there because they were never their opponents' prisoners of war beforehand?

Correct. They would also be deserter, therefore no longer belligerents.

And the same is true for any members of belligerent nations' forces who arrive in neutral countries by accident, for example from sunken [or badly damaged] ships or crashed [or badly damaged] aircraft?

I believe this is where the humanitarian aid would come to play.

What about escaping PoWs who manage to reach neutral nations? Are they to be turned back, allowed through unmolested, ignored, or what?

Again, no longer belligerents. The proposal says nothing about not aiding citizens of a belligerent. It is designed to target state-organized forces.

Can one belligerent actually veto the neutral nation's medics treating any wounded or ill members of its opponents' forces who've already arrived on its territories, even when those medics are bound by the Hippocratic Oath or some similar vow? The RW rule would be that they can be treated but should then be interned within that neutral nation rather than returned home...

Under this, we would allow third-party humanitarian organizations conduct such treatments. It limits the liability of the neutral party.

Alright - as soon as I can find 2 endorsements, I'm going to submit.

Cheers.
W.

Sorry to harp on - significant rather than strong, yes?

Sorry to harp on - significant rather than strong, yes?

Yes..yes...significant.

While this draft was being reviewed by our Ministry for Justice, it unfortunately fell into the hands of one of the proofreaders in the Legislative Editorial Office. He provided a number of editorial suggestions (a.k.a., nitpicks), which we belatedly pass along for what they're worth. The emended draft follows:

-----

Rights and Obligations of Neutral States

RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war and defend themselves from attack;

NOTING that nations may, from time to time, declare themselves neutral, and

DEFINING a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations, thus

AFFIRMING that it is the right of nations which are not belligerents in such a conflict to make a claim of neutrality;

ALSO AWARE that such states need the support and respect of the NationStates United Nations to maintain that neutrality;

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE THAT a neutral state must abide by the following terms:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, through either force of arms or other support.

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

Violation of these terms shall render neutrality broken.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

-----

We look forward to casting our vote for this fine proposal when it reaches the floor.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We thank the legislative proof reader for his efforts.

The final text, to be submitted shortly, (SIGNIFICANT! LOL) is posted on the first page.

Cheers.
W.

The final text, to be submitted shortly, (SIGNIFICANT! LOL) is posted on the first page.
Heh. Thanks.

This draft is now officially a proposal - thanks to my new friends in the region of CITY ANKH MORPORK, who kindly provided me with the needed endorsements.

It has been filed under the name: Rights of Neutral States. Apparently the other title was too long.

Thank you all for your input and support.

Cheers.
W.

Approved.

Our thanks good Sir.

Now at 16 approvals, including mine. ^-^ Best of luck, Wolfish!

Now at 16 approvals, including mine. ^-^ Best of luck, Wolfish!

Seems I might have to work a bit harder on the mailings.

TO ALL: If you haven't yet, please endorse my proposal.

Thanks.
W.

I need less than 40 more endorsements - with the deadline of today.

If you haven't stepped up yet, please endorse my proposed resolution.

Thanks.
W.

Well, at least you have my endorsement, and I endorse precious little, save repeals and silly proposals.

If it doesn't reach quorum this time, I have a question: is it in conflict with "No Embargoes on Medicine"? The final clause could perhaps read "...except where the UN has previously legislated against such action", or something suitably tidier. Also, can the government of the neutral state prevent its doctors from supplying aid in a combatant state under the provisions of this resolution? I appreciate this may not be a concern, as it is only the state, and not the individual, who is prohibited from engaging in action.

If it doesn't reach quorum this time, I have a question: is it in conflict with "No Embargoes on Medicine"? The final clause could perhaps read "...except where the UN has previously legislated against such action", or something suitably tidier. Also, can the government of the neutral state prevent its doctors from supplying aid in a combatant state under the provisions of this resolution? I appreciate this may not be a concern, as it is only the state, and not the individual, who is prohibited from engaging in action.

The answer to the first question is "no". This proposal allows for active third party humanitarian agencies, including those already created by the NS-UN, to offer relief and aid to belligerents.

Regarding the doctor question - provided the doctors are acting without the support or direction of the state, ideally under the "command" of one of those third parties humanitarian agencies, then they will face no restriction because of this proposal.

Hope that helps.

Thanks all for the support - almost there! 28 more to go.

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

Simple free trade would negate neutrality? Just because one combatant nation can afford to trade something they have for items that may be deemed of military nature from another nation?

Simple free trade would negate neutrality? Just because one combatant nation can afford to trade something they have for items that may be deemed of military nature from another nation?

Short answer, "yes".

If we look at a real world example - during WW2 the USA was supplying iron, vehicles, ammo, brass, food, medical supplies etc to England prior to joining the war.

Is there any way that Germany could ever have considered America to be neutral? I wouldn't think so.

(NOTE: before everyone jumps on me - yes I understand the US wasn't trying, nor declaring itself neutral - I'm using this as a trade during war example).

Well...I've done all the TGs I can...it is now up to the fates.

Thanks all.

The only part that bothers me is that it allows nations to "use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality". Isn't it possible that some countries could abuse this right, and not have to deal with any oversight from the UN. For example, imagine if a neighboring non-UN nation was in the middle of a civil war (Nation B) and its neighboring UN member nation (Nation A) had declared itself neutral in the conflict. Now suppose the violence from the civil war spreads across the borders of Nation B into Nation A (not actual fighting or anything, but some sort of terrorist attack or the life). Under this resolution, wouldn't it be possible for Nation A to claim that in order to maintain its neutrality it must invade and occupy Nation B to end the fighting and keep it from crossing borders. And based on the resolution there would be no UN oversight of this action or anything the UN could do to keep Nation A from invading Nation B. Its very likely I just misunderstood the resolution, but hopefully you can clear this up for me. Otherwise, great resolution.

OOC: can a poll be added to this?

The Dutch Democratic Republic fully supports this resolution and will respect the terms therein. We would argue that "No Embargoes on Medicine" is a lex specialis.
~Aram Koopman

Short answer, "yes".

If we look at a real world example - during WW2 the USA was supplying iron, vehicles, ammo, brass, food, medical supplies etc to England prior to joining the war.

Is there any way that Germany could ever have considered America to be neutral? I wouldn't think so.

(NOTE: before everyone jumps on me - yes I understand the US wasn't trying, nor declaring itself neutral - I'm using this as a trade during war example).

A better example would be the Irish Free State and the UK; the Irish Free State did declare itself neutral, but continued supplying the UK with agricultural produce, and even soldiers!

[snip]The only part that bothers me is that it allows nations to "use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality". Isn't it possible that some countries could abuse this right, and not have to deal with any oversight from the UN.

I would argue that there is always oversight on NS. Rarely does a conflict go unnoticed - or examined by players for moral right and other factors...certainly many UN nations play an active role in this regard.

That being said, the words, "deemed appropriate", in my opinion, allow for formal oversight of any nation seeking to enter conflict as a belligerent.

Does that answer your concern?

this statement, in affect deems this proposal invalid- "A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treat" because any states that are likely to attack wont sign up to this treaty. Also nations are soverign and should be treated as such, not bound by international law. As a member of this UN i want only to make sure suffering does not occur, not force tyranny on other soverign nations. That is why my vote is NO on this resolution.

this statement, in affect deems this proposal invalid- "A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treat" because any states that are likely to attack wont sign up to this treaty. Also nations are soverign and should be treated as such, not bound by international law. As a member of this UN i want only to make sure suffering does not occur, not force tyranny on other soverign nations. That is why my vote is NO on this resolution.

Actually any UN nation will be bound to comply. It isn't optional.

Of course, it will not bind non-UN nations, however, there are provisions for mutual support in case neutrality is violated.

This resolution, if passed, will help to end suffering of those innocent third party nations so often caught up in the to-and-fro of war.

I hope you'll reconsider your position.

A better example would be the Irish Free State and the UK; the Irish Free State did declare itself neutral, but continued supplying the UK with agricultural produce, and even soldiers!

That's because they didn't have to deal with this treaty (lol).

Seriously though, I doubt that any powerplayer believed the claim of neutrality made by the IFS...and had it been important to the war effort, their neutrality would have been violated. So I believe my point stands.

LAE has not yet decided anything, we think most is good, but we have a problem with:

"RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war"

for LAE it seems that:

all sovereign states have the right
- to defend themselves (as it is said after in the resolution),
- to defend another states,
- and maybe to have preventing attack (i donno about this),

but not a blanket right to declare war

i would like to apologize to the author, as he drafted his resolution on the same forum and i didn't take the time to read it, it's why LAE will probably abstain

LAE has not yet decided anything, we think most is good, but we have a problem with:

"RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war"

for LAE it seems that:

all sovereign states have the right
- to defend themselves (as it is said after in the resolution),
- to defend another states,
- and maybe to have preventing attack (i donno about this),

but not a blanket right to declare war

i would like to apologize to the author, as he drafted his resolution on the same forum and i didn't take the time to read it, it's why LAE will probably abstain


I appreciate your input now, and understand your reservation.

The statement in question is simply a broad opening generality to introduce the preamble. It is always, in my opinion, best to reaffirm a nation's rights before you attempt to limit those rights.

So, saying, "RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war", is merely stating the facts...not any sort of permission.

"It is the right of all people to breath air."...however, we shall not pollute the air...sort of thing.

I hope that explains more properly the author's intent.

so we can be neutral when invaded when attacked by UN nations, but cant when we're attacked by the more likely attackers. Still a NO vote, but, i do see your point of view, just dissagree and think it just a another piece of un-needed bureaucracy. Now a universal free trade resolution, wold be worth more than the paper its written on so if anyone will suport that propostion, please tell me and be my backer!

so we can be neutral when invaded when attacked by UN nations, but cant when we're attacked by the more likely attackers. Still a NO vote, but, i do see your point of view, just dissagree and think it just a another piece of un-needed bureaucracy. Now a universal free trade resolution, wold be worth more than the paper its written on so if anyone will suport that propostion, please tell me and be my backer!

That's not quite right.

Simply put, no resolution is binding on non-UN nations.

Compliance is compulsory for UN nations.

I haven't read this entire thread, but I have one question, and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered:

What about airspace?

Does this resolution mean that a neutral country must deny access to its airspace to any country that is at war? I can't agree with that unless it is a more narrow restriction. I see no issue with a neutral country allowing its airspace to be used for transporting materials or troops, or even for direct access for an air strike.

When the US invaded Libya in the '80's, their planes had to get there somehow. They crossed Spain in the process of getting there. Does that mean that Spain loses its neutrality?

When the US invaded Libya in the '80's, their planes had to get there somehow. They crossed Spain in the process of getting there. Does that mean that Spain loses its neutrality?

OOC: Spain was a member of NATO by treaty for one, and I do believe the U.S. had requested and been granted permission for the fly-over as well. I don't believe Spain considered itself neutral.

I haven't read this entire thread, but I have one question, and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered:

What about airspace?

Does this resolution mean that a neutral country must deny access to its airspace to any country that is at war? I can't agree with that unless it is a more narrow restriction. I see no issue with a neutral country allowing its airspace to be used for transporting materials or troops, or even for direct access for an air strike.

When the US invaded Libya in the '80's, their planes had to get there somehow. They crossed Spain in the process of getting there. Does that mean that Spain loses its neutrality?

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

As you can see, air forces are included in the provisions. So, a neutral nation could not grant access.

However, I'd submit, that if neutrality were violated in such a manner, it would be more a diplomatic matter than lead to armed intervention.

My points may have already been made, seeing as these threads grow rather quickly.

Point the first: these are not rights for Neutral states, they are rules for Neutral states. There is only one Right in the whole list, that being that Neutral states should have protection from invasion.

Point the second: if this were to come to pass in the real world, Switzerland's economy would die. Two things Switzerland is known for are its historical neutrality and its banks. With this proposal, those banks would have to close, because any time a country with a bank account went to war with a country without a bank account, the bank hits a Catch 22. If it keeps the account open, then the interest that the account earns is aiding a combatant nation. If it closes the account, then it is aiding the other nation. Catch 22 and everyone loses. And then what? Switzerland loses neutrality and is no longer protected by the one Right in this bill.


Of course, I don't know why I've bothered to write my opinion. Most people who vote on resolutions only look at the title before deciding, and most debates on this forum consist of insulting the person who opposes you and apologizing later if you decide that he might be right after all. I have little faith in a public forum which has a "smiley" giving the finger.

My points may have already been made, seeing as these threads grow rather quickly.

Point the first: these are not rights for Neutral states, they are rules for Neutral states. There is only one Right in the whole list, that being that Neutral states should have protection from invasion.

Point the second: if this were to come to pass in the real world, Switzerland's economy would die. Two things Switzerland is known for are its historical neutrality and its banks. With this proposal, those banks would have to close, because any time a country with a bank account went to war with a country without a bank account, the bank hits a Catch 22. If it keeps the account open, then the interest that the account earns is aiding a combatant nation. If it closes the account, then it is aiding the other nation. Catch 22 and everyone loses. And then what? Switzerland loses neutrality and is no longer protected by the one Right in this bill.

I'll start here.

While I didn't explicitly say, "these are the rights" - the whole second section of the resolution are "rights".


THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

So nations have the right to not be used or travesed, the right to not be used to keep prisoners or store dead...etc. Finally, they have the right to aid from other UN nations (their choice).

Of course, I don't know why I've bothered to write my opinion. Most people who vote on resolutions only look at the title before deciding, and most debates on this forum consist of insulting the person who opposes you and apologizing later if you decide that he might be right after all. I have little faith in a public forum which has a "smiley" giving the finger.

Your first post and already so jaded. Usually it takes much longer.

But in fairness, I've made every attempt to address every concern raised, including having draft text posted for quite some time prior to submission, and have worded hard to answer all posts and telegrams, including the snotty ones. And, through all that, never used a smiley.

The PRoGG fully supports this resolution. A fine, well-written and balanced piece where most of our earlier concerns seem to have been taken away in the drafting stage.

We will vote for.

OOC: Swiss banks would suffer? Good.

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.


THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and


Hello, let me introduce myself ... I'm Jean-Christophe Dunant, the current Secretary General of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, a humanitarian non-governmental organization (and I'm currently speaking under the placard of the International Red Cross Organization).

I have several organizational questions related to this resolution.

First, the language clearly approves of the principals of humanitarian assistance, a fact which a number of the Red Cross member agencies are very pleased to see. However, there seemed to be no provisions for non-governmental organizations in the language of the resolution.

While non-governmental organizations realize that it is difficult to legislate over organizations that aren't directly controlled by member governments, the reality is many non-governmental organizations, such as the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, rely heavily upon donations and coordination with government agencies. In the case of the humanitarian group I'm here representing, the Miervatian Luftwaffe often provides the transportation services for any Mikitivity Rote Kreuz relief effort, and then private and public hospitals, such as the Veterans of Foreign War's facility located in Saint Katrina, Mikitivity render advanced treatment to soldiers in conflicts to which Mikitivity may or may not be a party.

That said, I'd like to ask a question regarding the unnumbered clause which reads, "Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;". Specifically the consent of all parties is required for a third party to render humanitarian aid to combatants, but what of societies that do not appreciate or value third party humanitarian aid. It is possible that a neutral party via a non-governmental organization might offer to take wounded soldiers to their country for treatment, but that one of the parties of the conflict could object to this based on any grounds. So are non-governmental organizations themselves immune to the provisions of this clause? Could a non-governmental organization accept wounded from either or both sides, to treat in a neutral state?

Ausserland fully supports this very useful and carefully drafted proposal. We have cast our vote in favor of the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Hello, let me introduce myself ... I'm Jean-Christophe Dunant, the current Secretary General of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, a humanitarian non-governmental organization (and I'm currently speaking under the placard of the International Red Cross Organization).

I have several organizational questions related to this resolution.

First, the language clearly approves of the principals of humanitarian assistance, a fact which a number of the Red Cross member agencies are very pleased to see. However, there seemed to be no provisions for non-governmental organizations in the language of the resolution.

While non-governmental organizations realize that it is difficult to legislate over organizations that aren't directly controlled by member governments, the reality is many non-governmental organizations, such as the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, rely heavily upon donations and coordination with government agencies. In the case of the humanitarian group I'm here representing, the Miervatian Luftwaffe often provides the transportation services for any Mikitivity Rote Kreuz relief effort, and then private and public hospitals, such as the Veterans of Foreign War's facility located in Saint Katrina, Mikitivity render advanced treatment to soldiers in conflicts to which Mikitivity may or may not be a party.

That said, I'd like to ask a question regarding the unnumbered clause which reads, "Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;". Specifically the consent of all parties is required for a third party to render humanitarian aid to combatants, but what of societies that do not appreciate or value third party humanitarian aid. It is possible that a neutral party via a non-governmental organization might offer to take wounded soldiers to their country for treatment, but that one of the parties of the conflict could object to this based on any grounds. So are non-governmental organizations themselves immune to the provisions of this clause? Could a non-governmental organization accept wounded from either or both sides, to treat in a neutral state?

First, let me start my saying how please Wolfish is that the IRCO and the MRK have careful reviewed the proposal.

Allow me to address your concerns.

The provisions of this resolution are addressed to the national level, and really have little bearing on NGOs or private citizens (ie doctors) operating as such (not under government direction).

Thus, a third party humanitarian group - whether an official NGO or less formal grouping would not need the consent of all parties.

The consent clause address specifically if the neutral nation wished to direct and offer aid itself - for instance, in the case of state-employed healthcare workers.

That being said, I will concede that this resolution may make the NGOs job more difficult by limiting the assistance it can receive from a neutral government during times of war. This was a situation that I hadn't forseen.

W.

Nodding in response to the comments from the Rote Kreuz and the immediately reply from the Wolfish Ambassador, Ambassador Katzman presses the "Yea" vote button at his desk.

Fonzoland supports this resolution, and expresses the hope for an overwhelming majority on this matter.

you can't HAVE wars on this game, so wat's the point, u guys take this game beyond a joke that it's setup to be, u make these laws and run these countries to make urselves feel important.... well FCUK U!!

Your first post and already so jaded. Usually it takes much longer.

But in fairness, I've made every attempt to address every concern raised, including having draft text posted for quite some time prior to submission, and have worded hard to answer all posts and telegrams, including the snotty ones. And, through all that, never used a smiley.Sorry, that's a bit deceptive of me. This is not my first nation, nor my first to be in the UN. I've seen resolutions pass that have caused me to pull nations from the UN before, and yet I always seem to come back with new nations.

As for my jaded nature, I turn to the post above written by the alleged Saint named James Smith. Case and point. Not everyone is like that, but enough are that I tried very hard to avoid the forums this time around. Again I failed.

you can't HAVE wars on this game, so wat's the point, u guys take this game beyond a joke that it's setup to be, u make these laws and run these countries to make urselves feel important.... well FCUK U!!

There is no point. We're sad little wankers, and you're better than us. It's a Friday. Go out and enjoy yourself: I wouldn't waste your time on us poor deluded souls.

you can't HAVE wars on this game, so wat's the point, u guys take this game beyond a joke that it's setup to be, u make these laws and run these countries to make urselves feel important.... well FCUK U!!

First. Calm...breath deep.

This game can be a joke - or, some decide to play it more seriously. The NationStates UN operates under the assumption that it is passing resolutions that affect all aspects of the game, including the role-playing on the forums, which do, in fact, include warfare, amongst other things.

Hope you understand.

W.

I should probably have addressed this in my prior post:
A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.It seems to me that all of these fall under the right to not be invaded, because unless a combatant nation invades the neutral nation, such things as POW camps and storage of materials for combatants would be a choice made by the neutral nation (who of course would no longer be neutral at that point). And I'm curious as to how you would respond to the Swiss Bank scenario; if you posted a response to that, I must have missed it.

First. Calm...breath deep.

This game can be a joke - or, some decide to play it more seriously. The NationStates UN operates under the assumption that it is passing resolutions that affect all aspects of the game, including the role-playing on the forums, which do, in fact, include warfare, amongst other things.


OOC: Exactly, the beauty is NationStates can be as little or as much as you want it to be. :)

you can't HAVE wars on this game, so wat's the point, u guys take this game beyond a joke that it's setup to be, u make these laws and run these countries to make urselves feel important.... well FCUK U!!
Gorgias was confused.

Game? Joke? he thought. Dear Goodness, this man has gone mad!

"Security!" he called out, dragging the ranting representative from St James Smith by his ears to the nearest guard.

[OOC: Yes, this game is a joke to some people. To some, it's very important. Personally, it's a way for me to have fun while increasing my writing and debating skills. I like law, I like politics. If you don't, then please stay off the forums and run your country like the joke you apparently value so much.]

I should probably have addressed this in my prior post:
It seems to me that all of these fall under the right to not be invaded, because unless a combatant nation invades the neutral nation, such things as POW camps and storage of materials for combatants would be a choice made by the neutral nation (who of course would no longer be neutral at that point). And I'm curious as to how you would respond to the Swiss Bank scenario; if you posted a response to that, I must have missed it.

That's fair. What other rights would you suggest a neutral nation should have?

As for the banking issue - as the Swiss found out, consorting with belligerents can actually have significant costs, what with all the lawsuits.

Under the terms of this resolution a private sector bank would be free to conduct trade as it wishes, provided the neutral government had no involvement in the banks activities.

Hope that helps.

And I'm curious as to how you would respond to the Swiss Bank scenario; if you posted a response to that, I must have missed it.

Miervatian (*) banks are private corporations. Based on what the Wolfish Ambassador explained to Mr. Dunant of the Rote Kreuz (Red Cross) with respect to non-governmental organizations, I'm guessing that should this resolution pass that, as long as my government doesn't take a finanical stake in a conflict, that privately owned corporations aren't subject to UN law.

-Howie Katzman

Yelda thanks The Enlightened Free Empire of Wolfish for offering this much-needed legislation and has cast our vote For.

That's fair. What other rights would you suggest a neutral nation should have?In all honesty, I'm not sure. The right to not be invaded and to defend one's self if invaded is the only relevant right that springs to mind. The right for UN protection if a belligerent nation violates those rights is implied. All in all, I'd say my only real problem with the resolution is that the name is slightly misleading; Regulations Concerning Neutral Nations may have been a better choice.

And your response to my bank question did help, actually. I have just one more (possible) point of contention: how far does the humanitarian aid clause go? For example, can a nation formally accept refugees from warring nations? You may have already addressed this, but as I said before, threads tend to grow rather quickly on this board.

In all honesty, I'm not sure. The right to not be invaded and to defend one's self if invaded is the only relevant right that springs to mind. The right for UN protection if a belligerent nation violates those rights is implied. All in all, I'd say my only real problem with the resolution is that the name is slightly misleading; Regulations Concerning Neutral Nations may have been a better choice.

And your response to my bank question did help, actually. I have just one more (possible) point of contention: how far does the humanitarian aid clause go? For example, can a nation formally accept refugees from warring nations? You may have already addressed this, but as I said before, threads tend to grow rather quickly on this board.

The length of the title is a issue with the submission form. This resolution was originally to be called the Rights and Obligations of Neutral States. The current title is a compromise dictated by the size of the slot.

Refugees are not belligerents...and are therefore exempt from the provisions of this resolution.

Additionally, NGO and other humanitarian groups can operate freely (as previously discussed).

Morning all. [sets out doughnuts and coffee]

Despite the fact that we have supported all but one of the resolutions introduced before this body in the past two months (and it really makes us ill), we must offer our support to this legislation as well. We are most gratified that the author, at our behest, modified the language in the first and second articles:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, through either force of arms or other support.That means exactly what it says: the United Nations by this act firmly declares that nations cannot support terrorist organizations and hope to be regarded as "neutral" parties. This will serve as a critical boost to our own national-security policy, which holds that the threat of international terrorist networks and their state sponsors and allies must be countered through the unrelenting use of force. And for a nation with a terror-torn capital city as ours, there is no other option but to aggressively persue the state sponsors of terror. You're either with us or against us ... erm, or you're neutral -- but not if you're harboring terrorists!

Our quest to rid the world of terrorists and their state sponsors will thus continue unabated. We just invaded one such rogue state this morning, and we may invade another one tomorrow! And this important resolution will prevent our enemies from crying to the world that they're "neutral." No, you're not neutral! You funded the people who blew up bridges in Paradise City through your national "charities." So shut up.

I personally AGREEwith the idea of Neutral States having rights. Granted that they don't vere off course and disregard the regulations.

- EltonJohnston

:sniper:

The Law Chancellor to the UN mission has read the text of the Resolution and followed the debate. The recommendation is that Palacetonia votes Aye in favour of this Resolution and hope others see fit to follow.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

you can't HAVE wars on this game, so wat's the point, u guys take this game beyond a joke that it's setup to be, u make these laws and run these countries to make urselves feel important.... well FCUK U!!

OOC: I really do have to wonder about somebody who can't spell four-letter words. :rolleyes:

I should probably have addressed this in my prior post:
It seems to me that all of these fall under the right to not be invaded, because unless a combatant nation invades the neutral nation, such things as POW camps and storage of materials for combatants would be a choice made by the neutral nation (who of course would no longer be neutral at that point).

We must respectfully disagree with the honorable representative of Qarat. We think there are many actions and threats other than invasion that could be used by a combatant to try to force a neutral nation into doing such things. Some examples would be blockades, interdiction of air and sea traffic, reprisals against neutral nationals in the combatant's territory, information warfare activities directed at extraterritorial communications, etc.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm going to vote to pass this one, but I'm not sure how much good it will do. You can set up rules of conduct, but you know there's going to be the odd nation that doesn't really care about rules- they see a neutral nation in their way, they're going to go after it and to hell with the consequences.

In theory, this is a good idea. But in the real world, it's going to be a worthless piece of paper.

While I do see it as a well thought and even necessary idea to protect
neutral nations, I do not agree with sections 1-3 of the resolution. I see it as
a violation of the rights of sovereign nations to say who they can support and
who they cannot support. This resolution will create a UN mandated emarbgoe against every nation at war. This itself will create an unfair advantage, favoring in every war the nation with the most natural resources within its borders.
Parts of section 2 to me are additionally troublesome.
"It [a neutral nation] must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation,"
This section implies that neutral nations cannot recieve any "agents" of warring nations, including diplomats and emabasadors.
It is with no doubt that this resolution be voted down.

Mojohojo

I see it as
a violation of the rights of sovereign nations to say who they can support and
who they cannot support.

It is their sovereign right; it's also their right to declare themselves neutral, and if they do so then they should abide by this resolution.

I do not agree with sections 1-3 of the resolution. I see it as a violation of the rights of sovereign nations to say who they can support and who they cannot support. This resolution will create a UN mandated emarbgoe against every nation at war. This itself will create an unfair advantage, favoring in every war the nation with the most natural resources within its borders.

There is no mandatory obligation on any nation to declare itself neutral. A nation may declare itself a belligerent, or remain silent - in either case, it may act as it decides without penalty. This resolution deals only with those nations that decide to remain in a neutral state in a specific conflict.

I'm going to vote to pass this one, but I'm not sure how much good it will do. You can set up rules of conduct, but you know there's going to be the odd nation that doesn't really care about rules- they see a neutral nation in their way, they're going to go after it and to hell with the consequences.

In theory, this is a good idea. But in the real world, it's going to be a worthless piece of paper.

Of course all UN nations are bound by resolutions.

There is no mandatory obligation on any nation to declare itself neutral. A nation may declare itself a belligerent, or remain silent - in either case, it may act as it decides without penalty. This resolution deals only with those nations that decide to remain in a neutral state in a specific conflict.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that nations can also change their minds and lose the protections afforded by this resolution too? For example, my government could declare itself neutral, but if we observed one party in the conflict behaving in a way that we felt obliged to get directly involved, could later change its position.

-Katzman

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that nations can also change their minds and lose the protections afforded by this resolution too? For example, my government could declare itself neutral, but if we observed one party in the conflict behaving in a way that we felt obliged to get directly involved, could later change its position.

-Katzman
As I understand this document, you are afforded that right, but you must officially end your neutrality before any actions are taken.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']As I understand this document, you are afforded that right, but you must officially end your neutrality before any actions are taken.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

That is correct. This resolution represents an optional status, which allows full authority to reside with the state, not this body, nor any foreign power.

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

Does this mean that it is OK for neutral nations to negotiate a truce to end conflict?

I guess I missunderstood the resolution when i read it the first time. Correct

me if I'm wrong, but that means that it only applies to nations declaring

themselves neutral. If this is true, then this is a great resolution, contrary to

my earlier remarks. It now has my full backing.

Mojohojo

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

Does this mean that it is OK for neutral nations to negotiate a truce to end conflict?

That is correct. That portion was added in during the edit process.

I guess I missunderstood the resolution when i read it the first time. Correct

me if I'm wrong, but that means that it only applies to nations declaring

themselves neutral. If this is true, then this is a great resolution, contrary to

my earlier remarks. It now has my full backing.

Mojohojo

That is entirely correct. We thank the delegate from Mojohojo for their support.

For me, this resolution is out of place. This kind of topic is to be discussed at places like the geneva convention. The UN exists to keep the peace between member states. It's here to prevent war. If we can recall, member states are not allowed to attack eachother without being attacked or in immediate danger.

However, my statements are rather petty. This resolution is, it appears, the beginnings of an attempt to consolidate the great mess of treaties and conventions throughout the known land. This is for making the UN a governing power of its own right.

But still, it's not such a big deal.

Crussia officially abstains.

I, Emperor Edge, am not fond of war and would declare myself a neutral state. However, the Empire of Edgefinity opposes this resolution for the following reason:

I do not feel that adequate provisions are made for keeping neutral territories neutral. It makes no guarantees for a neutral nation's safety if invaded, despite this resolution.

While as a nation I am allowed to use all of my powers to keep would-be invaders or violators of my neutrality at bay, there is no way to be sure that under such circumstances my forces would be enough to counter whatever nation(s) would be violating my neutrality rights.

To accept this proposal I would need some kind of guarantee of my nation's safety by the UN. If necessary, the requirement for non-warring nations to provide aid to my nation when needed.

Also, this resolution does not cover trade with warring nations. By trading food with a nation I would be aiding them, as they'd need that food. But, by not trading, I'd hamper them, as I'd risk said nation suffering from hunger. And, if I am already trading with them materials that could be used as weapons in war, I would be aiding them. Yet, by stopping that trade I must sacrifice my own economy.


In general, I find the proposal to be a decent one, but find it insufficient in its current form. Neutral nation's safeties need to be insured, both physical and econimical safeties.

For me, this resolution is out of place. This kind of topic is to be discussed at places like the geneva convention. The UN exists to keep the peace between member states. It's here to prevent war. If we can recall, member states are not allowed to attack eachother without being attacked or in immediate danger.
And that would probably be the case if this were the RL UN, but it's not. The NSUN does not have a Geneva Convention, and it's perfectly legal for UN members to attack one another with or without provocation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We believe this is an excellent proposal--one which we will certainly support. We would offer a few comments and suggestions.



This is the first time we've seen a proposed resolution in the form of a treaty. We'd be interested to know why it was done in this form. Is there precedent that we've missed? It's an interesting approach, but as we see it, since resolutions are automatically binding on all member nations, the notion of nations becoming signatory doesn't quite gel.



"Interment" should be "internment". We think there may be cases in which neutral countries might agree to house POWs and provide treatment for wounded as a humanitarian act. Could "without the full and uncoerced consent of the countries involved" be added after "combatants" (or something along that line)?



We'd prefer to see this limited strictly to war materials. As written, it would prohibit transportation through or across neutral nations of humanitarian aid material, even if they were willing to permit it.



Can the UN itself declare hostilities? If not, suggest adding "by member nations" at the end of this section.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What about general banking/finance? Say the neutral does a large amount of money exchanges (or agricultural buisiness) with both nations involved pre-war. Would that nation have to stop buisiness with both. And what of pre-exsisting buisineses of the warring nations that exsist within the neutral's boarders? If that is stopped, it would cause a finacial burden on the neutral nation if either or both warring nations are a substancial contributors to their economy. Would this cause more nations not to be neutral and take sides?

Thanks to all that provided support and advice. The Resolution is now up for vote.

Cheers.
W.
====================

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

==================
I'm sorry but I can not vote yes on this resolution as long as it has that in it. And this is only one of a few issues we have with it though. (I'll post the others later.)

I'm not going to get particularly involved in this discussion, I just have to say:

This resolution actually seems to restrict upon the rights of neutral states more then it helps them. A neutral state should be able to help extra-national combatant forces on both sides, it's a good way to make money.

As well, there would be no way to enforce this in a time of war.

Kaigan Miromuta takes the stand and starts to speak.

"honoured delegates and ambassadors i won't keep you too long since we're going to have to listen to a lot more speeches during the next few days.

theres no doubt that this neutrality act is well written and i wouldn't expect anything else from the author.

however is this really necessary? a nation can be neutral already without this proposal. The Empire has already been involved in peace brokering efforts in Zodno-Pomerskie, Kilani and SLi-Sector.

my region, our sister regions and Gatesville are already neutral and we only defend ourselves or our allies if they are invaded.

The main threat to UN nations comes from outside the UN, although recent events have shown that sometimes the threat comes from closer to home"

What right does the UN have to dictate to a non UN member as to what they do in their country.If they choose to be Neutral thats fine but who are we to decide on what terms neutrality should be decided and how they perceive it.
If they wish to be neutal , thats fine but we cant tell them ,as a non member how to run their country.
You can pass rules all you like but it will not change things

WOLFISH, I realise that it's now too late to change anything but am going to reply to your comments anyway...

Correct. The policing of this would be very difficult if not impossible. It would also encourage other parties to violate the neutrality in pursuit of enemy targets.

It seems to work in the RW, more or less, and shouldn't this resolution itself prevent any such violations?

Correct. They would also be deserter, therefore no longer belligerents.

Not necessarily deserters: Their own superiors might authorise this request for internment rather than see them fall into enemy hands, either because of worries about how the enemy might treat them (Okay, I do realise that due to a prior resolution that shouldn't be a problem where the enemy are a NSUN member...) or in the hope that the neutral nation concerned might join the war on their side - & release those troops to fight again - later on.
(RW example, from WWII: After the fall of Poland there were several complete divisions of 'Free Polish' troops organised in France... When France collapsed, and the locations of the various armies meant that [at least] one of those divisions couldn't get out to another Allied nation but could reach the Swiss border, the Polish government in exile actually told them to seek internment rather than surrender to the Germans...)

I believe this is where the humanitarian aid would come to play.
Under this, we would allow third-party humanitarian organizations conduct such treatments. It limits the liability of the neutral party.


So if no third-party humanitarian aid is currently available when any wounded members of a belliegerent's forces arrive on neutral soil the local medics are still supposed to stand back and just watch them die? I really don't like that rule, even if it only applies to state-employed medical personnel (who might include a majority of the doctors in some nations, after all...), and I doubt whether the doctors would do so either...


**********************************

The government of St Edmnud is also unhappy about the total ban on neutral nations trading in "peaceful" materials with belligerents, even where such patterns of trade were established long before hostilities broke out and might be very important to those neutrals' economies, and - although it applauds the sentiments behind this proposed resolution - feels unfortunately unable to support it as it currently stands.

How will the proposed resolution protect Neutral States from the Allies of the warring nations? Many nations in regions form Alliances, so how will the neutral nation be protected from conflict if a warring nation brings in an ally?

This treatice is invalid and a downright silly control on the governing of nations who for significant reasons would choose to remain neutral in a conflict situation.
It should remain the prerogative of said neutral countries as to what they will do when neutral and who they will let within their borders.
All guests should be expected to follow the laws of the land or face punishment.
Nations will not be hamstrung by these restrictive enforcements.

This treatice is invalid and a downright silly control on the governing of nations who for significant reasons would choose to remain neutral in a conflict situation.
It should remain the prerogative of said neutral countries as to what they will do when neutral and who they will let within their borders.
All guests should be expected to follow the laws of the land or face punishment.
Nations will not be hamstrung by these restrictive enforcements.
Are you aware that this resolution also offers protections for neutral nations?

On a side note, after checking the current vote count it appears that nations will be "hamstrung by these restrictive enforcements."

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Trade sanctions on non-UN member nations will not be good enough to stop them from occupying a UN member nation during a time of conflict. There would be no choice but for the member nation to oppose their occupation. That would cause them to officially become not neutral during the time of the conflict.

The non-beligerent nations are not necessarily given the right of neutrality, especially during a one-sided conflict. If one nation is beligerent with another, and the other is not beligerent with the first one, the second one is allowed neutrality, and therefore may not be occupied by the nation without becoming non-neutral.

The mere known occupation of a beligerent nation's citizens is not a good enough reason to neither pose trade sanctions, nor for the occupied country to be non-neutral.

Therefore, the nation of Bladawt votes AGAINST this resolution.

Abstinence withdrawn. Due to a thorough review of the debate, Crussia votes no.

I'm sorry but I can not vote yes on this resolution as long as it has that in it. And this is only one of a few issues we have with it though. (I'll post the others later.)

I, Emperor Edge, feel you may have misread that subsection. My assistant made the same mistake, so I pointed it out to him before I had him hanged.

4. It mayallow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

Unless, of course, you mean to say you are appalled by the thought of giving humanitarian aid to those who need it.

Under the term set forth in the resolution;
"1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war."

"4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid."

"Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;"

I don't understand how you are to operate within the terms of neutrality, when the above resolutions seem a little confusing. Can someone explain how these work together? The way it reads currently is that you cannot knowingly aid neither nation/s involved in conflict, but you can allow third party organisations to operate within your boundaries to perform humanitarian duties, you can't provide aid without consent from all parties, yet the first term states you cannot knowingly harbour, aid or support either nation.

Under the term set forth in the resolution;
"1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war."

"4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid."

"Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;"

I don't understand how you are to operate within the terms of neutrality, when the above resolutions seem a little confusing. Can someone explain how these work together? The way it reads currently is that you cannot knowingly aid neither nation/s involved in conflict, but you can allow third party organisations to operate within your boundaries to perform humanitarian duties, you can't provide aid without consent from all parties, yet the first term states you cannot knowingly harbour, aid or support either nation.

Perhaps we can help untangle some of this....

Clause 1 prohibits the neutral nation itself from aiding, etc., either party. Clause 4 allows the neutral nation to permit other neutral parties (for example, the International Red Cross/Crescent) to provide humanitarian aid to the people of a combatant nation and to help them do it. Note, please, that this is limited to humanitarian aid.

The last sentence the honorable representative quotes provides for exceptions to clause 1 in three specific cases if all parties to the issue (the belligerents and the neutral state) agree.

We hope that helps.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war" -

Really? My citizens don't have the right to commit murder ... why should states have the right to kill on a mass scale

"1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war." --

As much as Alta Gora objects to war, it must note that this constrains its existing rights.

"3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict."

Alta Gora does not renounce its right and obligation to prosecute war criminals found on its territory, which right is limited by this clause.

"4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid."

Since this resolution is written as setting strcit limits on the actions of neutrals, this clause would prohibit Alta Gora itself from providing humanitarian aid.

"Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;"

So, Alta Gora is in violation of the resolution when it treats wounded or buries dead sailors washed up on it shores?

The resolution is unneccessary, contrary to accepted international law and practice, and harmful to the interests of neutrals.

Alta Gora votes no.

Duchess pro tem Michela

Point one declares that any known beligerant occupation will make the neutral nation non-neutral. Yet, it allows the humanitarian aid to go through without any stopping, at the discretion of the member nation. Being that humanitarian aid would be lopsided, depending on the outcome of the war, one side would be favored on that end. The rights of the miliary personnel to recieve humanitarian aid were forfeited when entering the war, and causing the humanitarian aid to be necessary.

Point one declares that any known beligerant occupation will make the neutral nation non-neutral. Yet, it allows the humanitarian aid to go through without any stopping, at the discretion of the member nation. Being that humanitarian aid would be lopsided, depending on the outcome of the war, one side would be favored on that end. The rights of the miliary personnel to recieve humanitarian aid were forfeited when entering the war, and causing the humanitarian aid to be necessary.
Humanitarian aid doesn't always mean helping military personnel. Countless civilians lose their homes, shelters, and food sources during war. What's wrong with an independant NGO providing assistance to them? Besides, trust me, if the International Red Cross were to provide unequal humanitarian aid, the UN members would hold it accountable. By leaving humanitarian aid up to an organization such as the IRC, this resolution ensures that the aid will be distributed equally and fairly, and not proportioned to meet political or military agendas.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

"RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war" -

Really? My citizens don't have the right to commit murder ... why should states have the right to kill on a mass scale

"1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war." --

As much as Alta Gora objects to war, it must note that this constrains its existing rights.

"3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict."

Alta Gora does not renounce its right and obligation to prosecute war criminals found on its territory, which right is limited by this clause.

"4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid."

Since this resolution is written as setting strcit limits on the actions of neutrals, this clause would prohibit Alta Gora itself from providing humanitarian aid.

"Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;"

So, Alta Gora is in violation of the resolution when it treats wounded or buries dead sailors washed up on it shores?

The resolution is unneccessary, contrary to accepted international law and practice, and harmful to the interests of neutrals.

Alta Gora votes no.

Duchess pro tem Michela

The nice thing about this resolution, is that it is optional. If you don't wish to be considered a neutral nation, you have the choice to NOT declare neutrality, thus retaining all rights of a free state.

As for the right to declare war - whether you like it or not, it is a right that all states possess. This resolution isn't authorizing any and all actions - it is merely reaffirming the rights of nations to do as they always have.

I'm afriad that you've seriously misunderstood this resolution.

W.

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.
This point still stands as the main reason I can not vote for this resolution. Mainly, the "knowingly harbour" part is the problem. If a country knows that troops are inside of its borders, it must have them immediately leave, for them to be considered neutral. But, by forcing them out the member nation would be considered hampering the belligerent's progress, making them not neutral by point 2 of the resolution.

Edgefinity']I do not feel that adequate provisions are made for keeping neutral territories neutral. It makes no guarantees for a neutral nation's safety if invaded, despite this resolution.

While as a nation I am allowed to use all of my powers to keep would-be invaders or violators of my neutrality at bay, there is no way to be sure that under such circumstances my forces would be enough to counter whatever nation(s) would be violating my neutrality rights.

In general, I find the proposal to be a decent one, but find it insufficient in its current form. Neutral nation's safeties need to be insured, both physical and econimical safeties.

This is my problem, too.

This is a well-intended and carefully considered act, and, now that the details have been refined somewhat in an interesting discussion, the resolution is much clearer in what it proposes. Should the occasion occur to invoke the resolution, we would have at least some idea of how to advise neutral states and antagonists alike in their treatment of each other.

However, if a large and powerful alliance of states decides to ignore the UN and invade a neutral state, how will the UN enforce the principle of neutrality? This is not a criticism of the resolution itself, which Glutopia will in all probability vote for, but really to point out that this resolution, even if passed, is simply a precursor to an even more vital issue. How will the UN equip and organise itself as a military force to ensure the compliance of potential rogue nations both within and without its jurisdiction? Without legitimate and formidable means of enforcement, the UN's resolutions are mere moral pleas and the rights it gives to its members mere abstractions.

Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador

This point still stands as the main reason I can not vote for this resolution. Mainly, the "knowingly harbour" part is the problem. If a country knows that troops are inside of its borders, it must have them immediately leave, for them to be considered neutral. But, by forcing them out the member nation would be considered hampering the belligerent's progress, making them not neutral by point 2 of the resolution.

We disagree. It is true that, if a neutral nation finds military forces of a belligerent in its territory, it must demand that they leave. If the belligerent does not withdraw the troops, it is in violation of the nation's neutrality (which it probably was by allowing the troops to enter the neutral nation in the first place, but maybe it was accidental). The neutral nation is not hampering the belligerent's progress; it is refusing to aid it. There's a major difference. It is not renouncing its neutrality; it is asserting it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Delegate from the region pledges his support to your worthy cause. I am also petitioning the people of my land to vote for your resolution. You have our solemn support.

The Empire of Antipatris
UN Delegate (Hadera)

The Grand Duchy of Oesling has considered the resolution currently up for voting and has - after long consideration - decided to vote against it.

Our nation has been neutral in various cases - yet each and every timeour neutrality was violated by our bigger neighbours. Historically, our nation has found neutrality to be useless to protect small nations from invasion and destruction.

While a UN resolution might perhaps protect neutral nations in future, it has, in the opinion of our people, several deep flaws.

First, as our fellow nation Alta Gora already noted, a resolution about neutrality that starts by affirming each nation's right to declare war to anyone - including to neutral nations, one has to believe - can not effectively protect neutrality. Given the small size of our nation, we do not belive that the UN would come to our resque should our neutrality be violated in the future.

Secondly, the resolution is written in a way that allows any belligerent to denounce the neutrality of a nation. Indeed, what is meant by "extra-national combatant force"? Our nation has historically been open to all oppressed people in the world. Indeed, we take great pride in contributing to lessen the pain of the thousands of refugees that fled wars, civil wars, oppression, political violence, torture, famine, ... and came to our small but generous nation. The current resolution would give any nation the right to denounce these refugees as "extra-national combatant forces" and to attack us with the acceptance of the UN!

Our nation is dismayed by the wide acceptance that the resolution is finding so far. It sees the thousands of refugees on our territory - as well as in other nations - in grave danger. People involved in wars, people oppressed by their governments, minorities oppressed by nasty fascist and communist regimes - including some members of this Assembly! - will have no safe-haven any more if this resolution passes.

Our nation therefore appeals for sensible nations to vote against this flawed resolution.


By the grace of the people The Grand Duke of Oesling

Secondly, the resolution is written in a way that allows any belligerent to denounce the neutrality of a nation. Indeed, what is meant by "extra-national combatant force"? Our nation has historically been open to all oppressed people in the world. Indeed, we take great pride in contributing to lessen the pain of the thousands of refugees that fled wars, civil wars, oppression, political violence, torture, famine, ... and came to our small but generous nation. The current resolution would give any nation the right to denounce these refugees as "extra-national combatant forces" and to attack us with the acceptance of the UN!
Refugees are not combatant forces, no matter which way you look at it. Besides, NGO's are set up to handle this very problem.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']Refugees are not combatant forces, no matter which way you look at it. Besides, NGO's are set up to handle this very problem.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN


Sometimes the distinction between refugees and combatant forces can be minimal... What if they have fought against their government before fleeing? What if they come from a minority that rebelled against the central power in their country? Some refugees may have blood on their hands because they fought for democracy.

These refugees cannot feel safe if they can be declared combatant forces by anyone. Our nation may become involved in wars just because belligerents claim that we are harbouring "combatant forces".

Anyway, which NGOs will help us if we are invaded because of that?

By the grace of the people The Grand Duke of Oesling

I'm all for it. I think it is an excellent document.

That is correct. That portion was added in during the edit process.

Than I am DEFINANTLY voting for the resolution.

This is my problem, too.

This is a well-intended and carefully considered act, and, now that the details have been refined somewhat in an interesting discussion, the resolution is much clearer in what it proposes. Should the occasion occur to invoke the resolution, we would have at least some idea of how to advise neutral states and antagonists alike in their treatment of each other.

However, if a large and powerful alliance of states decides to ignore the UN and invade a neutral state, how will the UN enforce the principle of neutrality? [snip]
Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador


There is a provision written into the resolution that allows for UN intervention in case of a violation of neutrality. However, I'd suggest that any attempt to more formalize UN involvement in war, or a standing UN army would be sharply voted down - and rightly so.

That being said, there are many nations who offer support and assistance to unjustly attacked nations - large or small - and while I don't actively RP right now, certainly there are others with 5 billion plus populations who do, and to whom a "large and powerful alliance" is merely an afternoon of bloodsporting.

W.

This is idiotic, how can you declare neutrality while having the backing of another institution? True neutrality would indicate you remain completely autonomous from all outside forces, be they positive or negative. To declare neutrality but ask for support in so doing would undermine the true purpose. Take for example Hammer of God, where several nations are on the brink of war. Luminostia has declared itself to remain neutral as long as possible in the ensuing conflict sure to come, and does not want, require, or care about the United Nations position concerning its neutrality. All we, as the government of Luminostia, care to see is a spectacle of blood, violence, political unrest, and good ratings as we record and review the wonderful the most triumphant bloodsport about to arrive upon our humble region. Therefore, Luminostia votes NO! on this resolution, and continues its policy of Don't Tread on Me! diplomacy with nations, and institutions, it sees unfit to visit, reside in, or even view the blessed Holy Empire of Luminostia.

[snip the rant] Therefore, Luminostia votes NO! on this resolution, and continues its policy of Don't Tread on Me! diplomacy with nations, and institutions, it sees unfit to visit, reside in, or even view the blessed Holy Empire of Luminostia.[/rant snipping]

Wow. Amazing. You aren't even a member of the UN. Shoo!

Hmm... I like the Westphalian idea proposed in this resolution. Its what shaped the world as it is now.

Accepted.

Who the fuck are you? Do you have no idea the amount of time that went into preparing Repeal of PoDA (fifth submission), the incredible amount of time Yelda devoted to his proposal at vote, the weeks Teruchev has spent on his free trade proposal, all the work Love and esterel and Forgottenlands have put into preparing their divorce proposal, not to mention the work of countless others here and on off-site forums into their proposals, including PC's proposals, Caradune's proposal at quorum, and many others? No, you probably don't, actually, do you. Because you waltz in here and tell us that we're all just fucking amateurs compared to the glory days of DLE walking round wanking till her hands were raw, that the fact that there are possibly a half a dozen substantive proposals being lined up at the moment is nothing compared to the fact that you used to give 'quality assurance'. Well here's some fucking quality assurance: your attitude is not one that we have any time for whatsoever. And I should know, because my attitude is one people have spent years refining the art of having no time for over. 'Wow! a decent proposal for once'? Thanks. See you around.

This comment is completly uncalled for, I should expect any resolution that makes it to the floor to be sensable. Now because you were bashing a simple complement, and forgot to raise your hand, your comment shall be striken from the record.

That's an old comment, and not relevant to the resolution discussion.

Voting currently stands at:

Votes For: 7,352
Votes Against: 2,630

I voted against.
I did it 'cause it's impossible that the government of a country not involved in the war between two or more nations can mantain a complete neutral position, as it's impossible that a single person decides not to decide who is in right into a fight between two other persons.

Every person has it's moral and ethical principles in his mind and, basing onto these principles, every person chooses whether to say if A or B is in righteous position in a discussion or a fight.

My country wants to feel free to choose to remain non-belligerant (meaning: to not actively use its army/aviation/fleet to help A or B win the war) while remaining free to economically/logistically help A or B, if it's the case, without having its neutral condition revoked.

Regards.

My country wants to feel free to choose to remain non-belligerant (meaning: to not actively use its army/aviation/fleet to help A or B win the war) while remaining free to economically/logistically help A or B, if it's the case, without having its neutral condition revoked.
How fair is that? Aiding a nation at war is aiding a nation at war, whether it's militarily or financially. How neutral are you if you're providing Nation A or B with enough financial support to turn the tide of the war? You're not. At all.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

My country wants to feel free to choose to remain non-belligerant (meaning: to not actively use its army/aviation/fleet to help A or B win the war) while remaining free to economically/logistically help A or B, if it's the case, without having its neutral condition revoked.

The "neutral condition" does not exist at all if this resolution is not passed. Your right to be non-belligerant yet help/support/agree with one of the parties remains untouched. Your arguments are empty.

This proposal gives nations the ability to hide under U.N. protection by declaring themselves neutral when their intentions could be otherwise. I think there should be an ability for a country at war who suspects a "neutral" country of giving aid to it's enemy to order sanctions by a U.N. approved commitee.
I think that the U.N. should only concern itself with maintaining human rights during war time rather than rules of engagement for war, because once war has begun all bets are off and all is fair. However, this proposal also seems to make an attempt to protect peacefull countries and stop unwanted conflict to which I believe people are obligated to vote yes.

I think that the U.N. should only concern itself with maintaining human rights during war time rather than rules of engagement for war, because once war has begun all bets are off and all is fair.
Something tells me you're outnumbered in this belief. By a lot. A lot lot.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Sweet jumpin' Jesus, this resolution is a piece of shit. Please, PLEASE vote it down. It's utterly unenforceable and if you think of it in historical terms, it's ludicrous:


HITLER: Jeez, I really need to barrel through Luxombourg and Belgium to start my quest for Eurasian domination. Are there any League Of Nations resolutions on the rights of neutral states that would make it a no-no?

Von RIBENTROP: No, boss, nothing in the charter, either.

HITLER: Oh goody! I'll tell Eva, she'll be so tickled!


Are these proposals serious? C'mon, folks, let's think about these things before they become resolutions and people refuse to stop and think about implementation and practicality before they vote.

As if.

Sweet jumpin' Jesus, this resolution is a piece of shit. Please, PLEASE vote it down. It's utterly unenforceable and if you think of it in historical terms, it's ludicrous:


HITLER: Jeez, I really need to barrel through Luxombourg and Belgium to start my quest for Eurasian domination. Are there any League Of Nations resolutions on the rights of neutral states that would make it a no-no?

Von RIBENTROP: No, boss, nothing in the charter, either.

HITLER: Oh goody! I'll tell Eva, she'll be so tickled!


Are these proposals serious? C'mon, folks, let's think about these things before they become resolutions and people refuse to stop and think about implementation and practicality before they vote.

As if.

Does Torzacen know that you plagiarized his argument almost verbatim?

The-Republic']Something tells me you're outnumbered in this belief. By a lot. A lot lot.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Anyone who thinks that their opponent in war isn't going to take advantage any way they can despite whatever U.N. resolution you approve is someone who is going to lose at war. That is why the U.N. cannot set any terms for rules of engagement because a war mongrel isn't going to care about them when he's blowing up the U.N. Instead the U.N. should concern themselves with and set proposals to raise awareness on the one topic everyone, on both sides of a war, agrees on. Basic human rights must be upheld.

I voted against the resolution because although it was entitled "Rights of Neutral States" it was more concernced with restrictions on what Neutral and Warring States could not do.

[QUOTE=Da Ghetto Stoup]Anyone who thinks that their opponent in war isn't going to take advantage any way they can despite whatever U.N. resolution you approve is someone who is going to lose at war. That is why the U.N. cannot set any terms for rules of engagement because a war mongrel isn't going to care about them when he's blowing up the U.N. Instead the U.N. should concern themselves with and set proposals to raise awareness on the one topic everyone, on both sides of a war, agrees on. Basic human rights must be upheld.

:headbang: with this, a country can antagonise anyone and skwirm out by saying IM NUTRAL:confused: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I voted against the resolution because although it was entitled "Rights of Neutral States" it was more concernced with restrictions on what Neutral and Warring States could not do.

I believe that was because the submission page restricts the title size. It was originally called "Rights and Obligations of Neutral States"; only the shortened form would fit. Still, that book has a dirty cover, so it must be poorly written.

Sweet jumpin' Jesus, this resolution is a piece of shit. Please, PLEASE vote it down. It's utterly unenforceable and if you think of it in historical terms, it's ludicrous:


HITLER: Jeez, I really need to barrel through Luxombourg and Belgium to start my quest for Eurasian domination. Are there any League Of Nations resolutions on the rights of neutral states that would make it a no-no?

Von RIBENTROP: No, boss, nothing in the charter, either.

HITLER: Oh goody! I'll tell Eva, she'll be so tickled!


Are these proposals serious? C'mon, folks, let's think about these things before they become resolutions and people refuse to stop and think about implementation and practicality before they vote.

As if.

I'm afraid you seriously misunderstand the purpose of this resolution.

No resolution, however strong, will every stop a reckless nation from invading another - neutral or not.

This resolution, however, will provide a solid framework setting out the requirements of a neutral - and allowing the world community a) see that the nation is in fact blameless in a conflict, and that b) they can justifyably come to its aid.

Any nation, UN member or not, should carefully consider that before invading a neutral.

No such charter has every been legislated in the real world, but, one can speculate that if there had been such a treaty, perhaps Hitler might have paused and considered the resolve of the allies prior to charging across Europe...perhaps.

====

In other news - seems most of the feeder regions have now voted, and the yea's got all but one...which well and truly puts this beyond the realm of failure, unless something truly unprecedented takes place.

Thanks to all for your support, encouragement, advice and edits - particularly to the region of City Ankh Morpork, who provided me with the needed endorsements to file the proposal - and especially to Ausserland who arranged that, and, as mentioned, provided a great deal of fine editing and needed suggestions to make this a stronger piece of legislation.

Cheers.
Wolfish.

Truly dissatisfactory, I, Emperor Edge, do believe.

I suppose I shall be known as an unofficial neutral state when this passes. The easiest way to bypass this resolution.

Everyone who wants to be neutral can announce they're "unofficially" neutral. Hopefully other UN nations will recognize this and not abuse you.

Edgefinity']Truly dissatisfactory, I, Emperor Edge, do believe.

I suppose I shall be known as an unofficial neutral state when this passes. The easiest way to bypass this resolution.

Everyone who wants to be neutral can announce they're "unofficially" neutral. Hopefully other UN nations will recognize this and not abuse you.

Can I ask what your issue is with the resolution?

On a personal level I hate this resolution. It really screams 19th century mentality and can be shown to be both wrong and impossible to enforce.

So I voted for the resolution. Why? Because from Tzorsland's point of view this resolution does not hurt any specific nation and can be used by Tzorsland when necessary. (Which of course will never be necessary but that is a minor problem with life, the universe, and NationStates in general.)

Instead Tzorsland will attempt to follow this resolution to its logical end. We will endeavor to significantly improve our precision timepiece industry, cheese and chocolate sectors so that we can in the true spirit of those great examples that this resolution is based off of attempt to be a true neutural super power in NationStates.

The resolution Rights of Neutral States was passed 9,897 votes to 3,009, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Thanks!

Our congratulations to the distinguished representative of Wolfish on the passage of this fine resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yay! Passed-ness! *throws a party for all those involved in passing this resolution*

Congrats, Wolfish. Well done, as usual.

The-Republic']Congrats, Wolfish. Well done, as usual.
What he said... And may i add, Its nice to see a well worked resolution make the grade.

This is a great moment in history for all that voted for the Rights of Neutral States.

Here's my favourite part - from my telegram page:

Compliance Ministry
Received: 94 minutes ago

Laws have been enacted to bring the Enlightened Free Empire of Wolfish into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Rights of Neutral States".

Compliance Ministry
Received: 811 days ago

Laws have been enacted to bring the Free Republic of Wolfish into compliance with the United Nations "Wolfish Convention on POW" resolution.

Here's my favourite part - from my telegram page:

Compliance Ministry
Received: 94 minutes ago

Laws have been enacted to bring the Enlightened Free Empire of Wolfish into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Rights of Neutral States".

Compliance Ministry
Received: 811 days ago

Laws have been enacted to bring the Free Republic of Wolfish into compliance with the United Nations "Wolfish Convention on POW" resolution.

Yeah, fully deserved I might add. Congratulations.
Shame about these branding rules, I would love to have a Fonzoland convention in the future... ;)

Can I ask what your issue is with the resolution?


I made an earlier post stating my reasons.

It's a well-made resolution, but I think it needed at least one more revision to be something I'd accept. Most of it, I do, but there's small parts I disagree with.

But, as has been stated, it is optional to declare yourself an official neutral state. Which is fine by be.

See, all the parts about how other nations treat official neutral states I agree with. How I, should I declare myself neutral, would have to act according to this legislation is what I disagree with.

we congratulate Wolfish on the passage of another resolution, and another feather in their cap. on the passing of this resolution, The Mythically Futuristic Archdutchy of The Lynx Alliance has decided to declare itself a neutral state. thankyou for the inspiration, Wolfish

we congratulate Wolfish on the passage of another resolution, and another feather in their cap. on the passing of this resolution, The Mythically Futuristic Archdutchy of The Lynx Alliance has decided to declare itself a neutral state. thankyou for the inspiration, Wolfish

Did you actually read the resolution? Which specific conflict are you declaring yourself with regard to?

Congratulations to the people of Wolfish for their latest contribution to UN legislation.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Did you actually read the resolution? Which specific conflict are you declaring yourself with regard to?
we have been involved in a few, one just recently that has died out in the Archangel Haven region, but we have decided to declare our selves neutral, as well as some other changes.