NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

I'm thinking of a UN resolution that allows people the right not to fight in an act of war. I believe that some countries force people to fight against their will, and I think it is a bit inhumane. I going to try and make this planned resolution simple and straight

I'm going to call this resolution Individual Right to War Neutrality.

The category is Human Rights, with a strong effect because it may result in smaller armies:

---

APPALLED that innocent civilians are forced to fight for a UN Nember country against their will or religion.

UNDERSTANDING that the right not to fight in any act of war is a personal choice.

MANDATES that all UN Member nations respect individual, personal choice of participation in any act of war.

---

Suggestions and comments welcome.

Been there, done that, man.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Rights of Neutral States

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Wolfish

Description: 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.

Votes For: 9,897
Votes Against: 3,009

Implemented: Tue Dec 6 2005

Good idea though.

Yeah, man, that's the one. I was too high to bother with hunting it down. For your efforts, here, have a flower.

http://www.chemheritage.org/educationalservices/pharm/asp/images/poppy.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. Some people have a sudden brainstorm.

Hey, look at it this way. You had an idea that was good enough to get passed in a UN Resolution by a huge majority. I say keep up the brainstorming.

Whoa! Hold the phone! "Rights of Neutral States" doesn't have anything to do with this subject. It covers neutrality of nations. This idea is more what most of us would call "conscientious objection." Apples and oranges, folks.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island
[The Ausserlanders are all in the Strangers Bar getting blitzed.]

Whoa! Hold the phone! "Rights of Neutral States" doesn't have anything to do with this subject. It covers neutrality of nations. This idea is more what most of us would call "conscientious objection." Apples and oranges, folks.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island
[The Ausserlanders are all in the Strangers Bar getting blitzed.]

Oh yeah...you're right. Sorry about that, man. I'm really high. Scored some really good shit from that Gruenberger dude.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Whoa... good call Auss.

*looks embarrassed for not reading past the title*

Anyway, once I've gotten over my n00bishness I'll see if I can offer something constructive.

Short and sweet. Can't immediately spot any loopholes. Looks good to me.

Change "Nember" to "Member", though, and add "The United Nations" at the top: you need a subject for your sentence, someone doing the mandating.

This still enables governments to conscript people into non-military service during war time, or even to make them cooks or medical aides in the armed forces (as long as the individual isn't fighting). Which is fair enough.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The category is Human Rights, with a strong effect because it may result in smaller armies:
Strong should really be reserved for broad-reaching bills like the Universal Bill of Rights (or whatever it was called). Adding the concept of conscientious objectors is a valid Human Rights issue, but should be Mild, or at a stretch, Significant. It's just not that big a human rights issue.

Ceorana supports this in principle, because we believe that blowing stuff up should be a personal choice, and not something forced on you by a government.

If you want to make this mandatory, you'll have to change the wording of the MANDATES clause: governments could interpret it as "OK, we respect your opinion, now get out there and start fighting". Then again, I'm leaning towards believing it should not be mandatory, as there could possibly be circumstances where conscription would be necessary, although Ceorana believes the practice undesirable.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm glad Ausserland caught that. I would have said something. Good eye, Auss.

I might also suggest that you specifically state as Ariddia said that individuals may still be conscripted to perform non-combative duties. That would prevent people from misunderstanding and thinking that one can dodge the draft by simply saying no.

For the record, there is no draft in Norderia.

Um... wasn't that was Freedom of Conscious was about? Or at least covered there?

Um... wasn't that was Freedom of Conscious was about? Or at least covered there?

No. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116)

Absolutely not. Some nations depend on conscription to raise enough of a force to defend themselves.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Cluichstan, please keep your language clean. Thanks.

Let's try this...

---

Individual Conscientious Objection from War

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING that the right to not to Conscientious Objection is a individual human right.

APPALLED that innocent civilians are conscripted to serve military service for a UN Member nation against their will or religion.

MANDATES that:

1 - A UN Member nation shall not conscript an civilian to serve military service against their will.

2 - A UN Member Nation shall not conscript an civilian into non-military service during war time against their will.

UNDERSTANDING that a civilians has the right to enjoy their lives without conscription, even during war-time.

---

The basic structure of a resolution is Problem, then Solution, then Remarks. I really think civilians have the right to enjoy their lives without conscription, even during war-time.

UNDERSTANDING that the right to not to Conscientious Objection is a individual human right.
Why? Because you say so?

APPALLED that innocent civilians are conscripted to serve military service for a UN Member nation against their will or religion.
Again, why?

Are you going to abolish all forms of criminal justice, taxation, and law? No, I suspect not. So then, you do acknowledge the state should be able to force people to do things?

In which case, why not conscription?

1 - A UN Member nation shall not conscript an individual civilian to serve military service against their will.
Smaller nations rely on conscription to defend themselves. Instate this law, and you're giving carte blanche for aggressive nations to start invading at will, free from fear of defence.

2 - A UN Member Nation shall not conscript an individual civilian into non-military service during war time against their will.
This is even worse. And still no justification provided.

I understand what you think. You're going to need to justify it at some stage, though.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

UNDERSTANDING that the right to not to Conscientious Objection is a individual human right.

This needs cleaning up.


APPALLED that innocent civilians are conscripted to serve military service for a UN Member nation against their will or religion.


I'd prefer if we left religion out of this. How about "ethical beliefs"?


2 - A UN Member Nation shall not conscript an civilian into non-military service during war time against their will.


I disagree. I'm fully in favour of not forcing a civilian to pick up a gun and go and shoot people, but I see no reason why a government should not conscript civilians into non-military service during an emergency.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Absolutely not. Some nations depend on conscription to raise enough of a force to defend themselves.To say nothing of the nations that employ universal, mandatory service, or nations that require service to become full citizens.

As an aside, I'd just like to, once again, point out that I'm thrilled the Supreme Commander hasn't decided to extend service requirements to those of us born and raised in the Hack. Lord knows I wouldn't survive that. The last thing I need is to spend a couple months in the stockade because I told a CO to "Sut the fuck up".

I mean, come on... I made a career from that gem!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack


- - - - -


And, as a brief aside as a Moderator, the category doesn't seem quite right. And, well, I don't think it rises to the level of "strong".

Let's try again and clean up...

---

Individual Conscientious Objection from War

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING that the right to Conscientious Objection is a individual human right.

APPALLED that innocent civilians are conscripted to serve military service for a UN Member nation against their will or ethical belief.

MANDATES that:

1 - A UN Member nation shall not conscript an civilian to serve military service against their will.

UNDERSTANDING that a civilians has the right to enjoy their lives without conscription, even during war-time.

---

Let's try again and clean up...
No, let's try to respond to questions and criticisms.

Why is conscientious objection a human right?

I think conscientious objection a human right because people put their lives at risk when fighting a war. Some people do not want to do this because it may be against their ethical beliefs, or they oppose war.

Related article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

I think conscientious objection a human right because people put their lives at risk when fighting a war. Some people do not want to do this because it may be against their ethical beliefs, or they oppose war.
Ok, so your argument is that we should never be forced to do anything that goes against our ethical beliefs?

Is it okay to start picking nits yet? 'Cos I gotta go out later.

APPALLED that innocent civilians are forced to fight for a UN Nember country against their will or religion.

I'm appalled that even civilians who are bowed down with guilt are forced. Could we please drop "innocent"?

But are they forced? In RL, yes; but communications around NS aren't good enough to know for sure. So how about "may be"?

If they have to be forced, then that makes clear that it's something they don't want to do. It doesn't matter whether it's against their will, or their religion, or their interests, or their concept of workplace safety. They're being forced to fight; they shouldn't be.

Applying these objections would convert your first par to

APPALLED that civilians may be forced to fight for a UN member country

I'll admit this doesn't sound very formal or lawyer-y. But if you put in "will or religion", you're opening the door for fun arguments about whether religion is an act of will. Maybe you want that, though. Your call.

UNDERSTANDING that the right not to fight in any act of war is a personal choice.

Without the descriptive term, this says "the right ... is a personal choice". Rights are things you have whether you choose them or not. They just are. The right I think you want them to have is the right to choose whether to ... (in this case, fight),

So it might be clearer to say,

UNDERSTANDING that an individual has the right to choose whether to fight in any act of war.

But it seems to me that in some acts of war individuals can't get a choice, so any right to choose is irrelevant.

What's more, any victim of bullies can tell you that at some stage their choice has been fight and get beaten up OR not fight and get beaten up, and what they resent is having the choice forced on them.

I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure you've got there.

Would this come anywhere near?

BELIEVING that individuals should have the right to choose whether to fight.

MANDATES that all UN Member nations respect individual, personal choice of participation in any act of war.

I don't know enough about crafting resolutions to argue the MANDATES bit, so I can only say that Ceo usually makes sense, which isn't exactly a compellingly logical way for me to persuade you of anything.

In general, sentences are clearer if they have active verbs and concrete nouns.

You might be able to clarify this clause by trying to work out exactly how you want the UN nations to "respect" the individual's choice. By not imprisoning them? By not stripping them, clothing them in army uniform and hauling them out to the battlefield? By not acting against their families?

Possibly you want the individual's civil rights to be unaffected by his choice to refuse to fight?

That might lead to MANDATES (or whatever) that individuals should not be discriminated against because of their refusal to take part in an act of war. I don't know, I think this part needs a bit of a re-think.

Perhaps you could RESERVE to member nations the right to require the individual to take part in non-combatant duties ("duties unrelated to combat"?), but I think you'd be throwing yourself to the wolves if you risked a detailed definition of "non-combatant", while allowing an enormous loophole if you didn't.

But, really, I gotta go now.

Cluichstan, please keep your language clean. Thanks.


Hey, man...what the fuck brought that on? Chill out and have a flower.

http://www.drogy-info.cz/var/plain/storage/images/media/images/drogy/opiaty/opiovy_mak__1/7322-1-cze-CZ/opiovy_mak_medium.gif

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Seeing this proposal made me think about experiences my people had, early on in our national history. Altanar requires every citizen to perform one year of military service, once they reach the age of 17. This is due to the fact that we very strongly feel that each citizen has responsibility to help support and protect their nation and society. When this law was first enacted, we went through much the same debate as I expect will take place here now.

We do allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, or for those who cannot perform military service for medical reasons. However, we do expect them to perform some other form of national service. We have found this actually strengthened our society greatly, as each citizen recognizes they have a stake in the country's future. We are very much opposed to any proposal that would bar other nations from doing the same for their own people, if they so choose. And in our estimation, conscription is very similar in this regard. If a nation wishes to provide a means for its citizens to perform a non-military service in time of need, we strongly endorse them doing so, as we do. However, we do not feel the U.N. should force that desire upon them.

Moreover, we agree with the Gruenberg representative that this would greatly harm the ability of some nations to defend themselves, which is something that any nation should be able to do.

Altanar would vote against this proposal.

I hadn't seen your revised version when I posted my previous comment. I'm afraid that the revised version seems to me to get you deeper into the quagmire. Maybe it's trying to do too much at once.

As it stands, your preamble tries to establish that conscientious objection is a human right.

Your active clauses use this as support for the argument that UN nations must (should, are strongly advised to) do certain things.

Which do you want to do more: (i) establish that a conscientious objection to warfare is a human right, or (ii) get nations to do something specific related to conscientious objectors?

On (i), you're already copping flak about the "rights" angle. Whether you still go for that depends on how much fun you want to have/how deeply devoted to it you are. It's a while since we've had a boots-and-all "rights" debate.

I realise, too, you can't really talk about "conscientious" objection without a reference to what shapes the conscience in question, so I guess you're stuck with "ethics", even after dropping "religion". (Is "will" a reference to someone refusing service because of a simple objection to being killed?)

Not to discourage you, but I do hear that, in his spare time, the Gruenberg delegate gives motivational talks to pit-bull terriers about how to avoid letting go once you've got your teeth into a topic ...

As for (ii), if you get too detailed about what you want nations to do, you risk including language that will somehow violate long-held beliefs or laws in individual nations; plus people like me will complain about you "nannying" us. All the same, I think "enjoy their life" is too general.

A conscientious objector might avoid jail or being "disappeared" under Freedom of Conscience, but his civil rights don't seem to me to be protected under that, so you've identified a gap in the legislation.

I'm still going for "re-think" -- and, um, would you mind running an eye over it for typos before you post?