NationStates Jolt Archive

War Dead Repatriation and Protection (temp title only)

Category: Human Rights (tentative)

Strength: Significant (tentative)

Understanding the inability of some nations to retrieve the bodies of some war dead from foreign soil, and take them home after an international war or conflict. This could be due to financial restraints, lingering hostilities, unsafe environments, lack of means for transport, or other reasons.

Also noting that deceased bodies of missing military personnel may be found in previously unknown and/or inaccessible areas within foreign borders any number of years after the end of the conflict.

Seeking to ensure repatriation of the remains of deceased foreign military personnel from the nation of conflict to their home nation, at the request of the home nation's government.

Defines foreign military personnel as any person working for and/or within and/or under the armed forces of a nation, and who are not within the borders of their home nation. Foreign military personnel follow a chain of command originating from the legitimate government of their home nation. Nations may include civilian groups of people, including but not limited to, contractors, journalists, medical personnel, and engineers as being military personnel at the time of their deaths, at their own discretion, if these people were contributing skills and/or labor to that nation's war effort.

Defines war dead as those foreign military personnel who lose their lives while serving within the borders of a nation other than their home nation.

1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of their war dead, after a conflict or war has ended, cannot refuse such a request. Any costs associated with the removal of the remains from foreign soil, under a repatriation request, must be covered by the nation making said request, unless the nations concerned have negotiated a costs agreement. No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

2) Nations are encouraged to preserve newly discovered sites containing the remains of deceased foreign military personnel intact, if possible, until representatives of the home nation have been informed of the find, and have had a chance to inspect the site and/or decide on a course of action.

3) Nations that contain the graves of foreign military personnel must take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration, and treat them equally under the existing laws of that nation to the graves of its own war dead. No nation may use, or allow others to use, such graves for propaganda, political, or any other negative purpose.

Strongly urges all nations to take all necessary diplomatic measures to ensure the safe return to home soil of deceased foreign military personnel after the cessation of any war. This will allow closure for all parties, including the family of the deceased and survivors of the conflict.
This is an idea I've had for a while, but have only just jotted down. It is still very rough. I'm looking for any ideas to improve the overall proposal, and things I may have missed that should be in there, or things I have included that shouldn't. Any help with it will be appreciated.

A fine humanitarian ideal, we would concur. We would suggest that you perhaps need to define the term "war dead" for the purposes of clause 1. At present there is a lack of clarity concerning the status of spies, insurrectionists (i.e. members of one nation working for another, as one might consider Resistance members should their nation's occupation not be relieved), and potentially even terrorists under the right circumstances.

I was actually going to suggest exactly the opposite. Remove the definition of foreign military personnel. Let's let common sense apply to interpretation of these terms. Realistically, military personnel are people who work for the military. Foreign: not native to the land. War Dead: Those dead from war. Yes, I know, what I offer could use some huge overhauls for precision and clarity, but the meanings of these terms are fairly clear, through context, to any but the most pedantic and those intent on being pig-headed about the whole thing.

What I'm saying is that, in my humble opinion, the definition are not necessary to the proposal, and will only serve to bog people down in trying to fine tune them instead of looking at the actual resolution that you have put forward.

By the way, I like the basic concept of it. I may have some more suggestions once I have a chance to mull it over a bit more.

I was afraid that it would exclude the possility of burying the dead in the country in which they fell (OoC: a British tradition); however, I am glad to see this is included. Therefore, Good Luck!

I was afraid that it would exclude the possility of burying the dead in the country in which they fell (OoC: a British tradition); however, I am glad to see this is included. Therefore, Good Luck!

Defining the exact scope of coverage of the resolution is something that still has to be worked out. While we admit to being among "the most pedantic and those intent on being pig-headed about the whole thing," there are issues here that are important. The discussion shows that.

"Military personnel are people who work for the military." Not so. Military personnel are enrolled members of the armed forces. Many civilians "work for" the military services, but they are not included in any common definition of "the military". And they sometimes accompany military forces in the field. How about contractor personnel providing maintenance services for military units in combat zones?

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Yes, that's true. There's the problem of paramilitary units, some of which would largely be considered military (OoC: Waffen SS) and some not (OoC: IRA). There does need to be a better definition

Why is this bill necessary. Is there a big problem with leaving your dead behind and then wanting them back in wars in the UN?

Cobdenia Yes, that's true. There's the problem of paramilitary units, some of which would largely be considered military (OoC: Waffen SS) and some not (OoC: IRA). There does need to be a better definition

How can a paramilitary group not be considered military. By defination Paramilitaries are military in style: similar to or modelled on the military but belonging to it. By what i see on the previous posts these would not be a problem. They would simply not be covered because they are not part of the military of the country, which is the armed forces.

How would this bill be enforced? It is going to rely completely on the nation disclosing that they have found the bodies of soldiers that have previously been fighting on their soil. I doubt countries will be very eager to hand these bodies over to their enemies. And if the nations are not enemies then they would hand them over anyway if the country requested them back and so this proposal wouldn't come into play anyway.

While we admit to being among "the most pedantic and those intent on being pig-headed about the whole thing," there are issues here that are important. The discussion shows that.

Our apologies, General Tankhurst. We have always found the delegation from Ausserland to have practical reasoning for their suggestions, and did not intend to include them in our previous statement.

"Military personnel are people who work for the military." Not so. Military personnel are enrolled members of the armed forces. Many civilians "work for" the military services, but they are not included in any common definition of "the military". And they sometimes accompany military forces in the field. How about contractor personnel providing maintenance services for military units in combat zones?

In all fairness to myself, I did acknowledge that my offered definition was incredibly lacking. That said, given that the nature of this resolution would be to guarantee nations that they could retrieve the bodies of these fallen souls, would it be out of line that these extra personnel be included in a much broader interpretation?

And now, having listened to my own words coming out of my mouth, I realize that the two of you are right, and there probably should be some definition regarding some of these things.

Why is this bill necessary. Is there a big problem with leaving your dead behind and then wanting them back in wars in the UN?

It's not a huge problem, but it can, and does, occur. When it does, there are occassionally issues with retrieving these fallen comrades, which can cause incredible grief to family and friends. This is simply an attempt to alleviate the emotional strife that can occur.

How would this bill be enforced?

Compliance is automatic.

It is going to rely completely on the nation disclosing that they have found the bodies of soldiers that have previously been fighting on their soil.

Not completely. It also runs with the assumption that nations have some idea where their troops are when some of them die.

I doubt countries will be very eager to hand these bodies over to their enemies.

Refusing to do so would simply worsen the tensions 'twixt the nations.

And if the nations are not enemies then they would hand them over anyway if the country requested them back and so this proposal wouldn't come into play anyway.

There is more to consider than simple enmity. There can be religious, political, or popular pressures upon the nation that could incite them to refuse such a request.

In either of the above cases, these tensions will be avoided as a result of this bill.

It's not a huge problem, but it can, and does, occur. When it does, there are occassionally issues with retrieving these fallen comrades, which can cause incredible grief to family and friends. This is simply an attempt to alleviate the emotional strife that can occur.

I didn't realise the role of the UN was to relieve the occasional grief felt by families.

Compliance is automatic.

Compliance may be automatic but I presume all this would have to be done through the role playing or something because NationStates doesn't facilitate wars so the automatic compliance could possibly be slightly more complicated if a country felt strongly enough to hold back the bodies.

Not completely. It also runs with the assumption that nations have some idea where their troops are when some of them die.

Yeah they would have an idea but unless the whole section of army is killed then really the responsiblility for the bodies should fall with the remaining troops if retrieving them is going to be an issue.

There is more to consider than simple enmity. There can be religious, political, or popular pressures upon the nation that could incite them to refuse such a request.

The UN respects all religions under one of their leglislations so is this one going to make an exemption for respecting religious beliefs if they come into play here. As for political pressure and pressure from the public, well if a government is weak enough to succume to these pressures then forcing them to do so under UN laws could destabilise the government.

snipped for posterity

Wow. You've so far proven to me in the various debates that you've gotten involved in that you are here for no purpose other than to grief and argue over silly redundant irrelevancies, regardless of the subject matter. If you're just aching for a fight, take it somewhere else. These chamebers are obviously above the rationality levels that you are capable of, and I'm not wasting any more breath on you.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/domhain.jpg

What a more comforting sight that will be than being further subjected to your semi-coherent whinings about absolutely everything. I bid you a good day, sir, and a not so fond farewell.

Do you define Military dead by those wearing a uniform?

Why is this bill necessary. Is there a big problem with leaving your dead behind and then wanting them back in wars in the UN?

Cobdenia

How can a paramilitary group not be considered military. By defination Paramilitaries are military in style: similar to or modelled on the military but belonging to it. By what i see on the previous posts these would not be a problem. They would simply not be covered because they are not part of the military of the country, which is the armed forces.


The Waffen SS were considered the military of a country, yet were paramilitary. Then there's mercenaries serving in the forces of another nation as regulars (e.g. Ghurkas) - where would they be buried?

The Waffen SS were considered the military of a country, yet were paramilitary.

The Waffen SS weren't actually military. They were secret police. The police dont count as military.

He blocked me. I'm so hurt and after me going to the trouble of using a capital letter and stuff.

The Waffen SS weren't actually military. They were secret police. The police dont count as military.

He blocked me. I'm so hurt and after me going to the trouble of using a capital letter and stuff.

Your statement is absurd. The Waffen-SS was the military combat arm of the Schutzstaffel. Secret police? There were almost a million men, organized into divisions, and wearing military uniforms! How many secret police do you know who walk around in uniform? You really need to study some history before you make pronouncements about it.

I think the honorable representative of Kivisto blocked you because he lost patience with your absurd statements and your refusal to pay any attention to reasonable counterarguments.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer this thread. Has been a busy last couple of days.

I've read all the posts, and the main problem seems to be the definition. Have had a try at expanding it to include civilians working for a nations armed forces, but ultimately left it up to the nations own discretion which groups of people they wish to include. Also attempted to exclude groups such as the IRA by adding the chain of command from the government line.

I'm still not really happy with it though, it seems too wordy for my tastes, but I've never been a fan of definitions.

We, who have been accused with some justification of having too great a love for words, find the modified proposal quite acceptable.

Your statement is absurd. The Waffen-SS was the military combat arm of the Schutzstaffel. Secret police? There were almost a million men, organized into divisions, and wearing military uniforms! How many secret police do you know who walk around in uniform? You really need to study some history before you make pronouncements about it.

I think the honorable representative of Kivisto blocked you because he lost patience with your absurd statements and your refusal to pay any attention to reasonable counterarguments.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Indeed; Waffen SS means "armed" SS, as opposed to the Allegemeine SS, or Regular SS. The Latter did include the Geheimestatspolizei, or Gestapo, and the SD, but the Waffen SS was literally a military unit, but as they were an armed wing of a political party as opposed to an armed wing of the government, they are technically paramilitary.

While I like the intention of the draft, I dislike those aspects of the draft that compel a nation having foreign war dead on her soil to take or allow various actions.

For example (text in bold my emphasis):
1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of their war dead, after a conflict or war has ended, cannot refuse such a request... No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

2) Nations are encouraged to preserve newly discovered sites... until representatives of the home nation have been informed of the find, and have had a chance to inspect the site and/or decide on a course of action. With point 1) in mind, this reads to me that nations with foreign war dead would be required to allow foreign inspectors on their soil.

3) Nations that contain the graves of foreign military personnel must take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration...


If, after the definitions section of your draft, you deleted everything up to the following, in otherwords, if you deleted points 1), 2), and 3), I would support your proposal. I've suggested some amendments to your draft enclosed in {}, whose acceptance would not affect my support, but may achieve your ends better:

Strongly urges all nations to take all necessary diplomatic measures to {either} ensure the safe return to home soil of deceased foreign military personnel after the cessation of any war, {or allow deceased foreign military personnel to remain on the soil on which they fell. Nations with deceased foreign military personnel buried on their soil agree take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration}. This will allow closure for all parties, including the family of the deceased and survivors of the conflict.

From the desk of The Selfish One

While I like the intention of the draft, I dislike those aspects of the draft that compel a nation having foreign war dead on her soil to take or allow various actions.

For example (text in bold my emphasis):


With point 1) in mind, this reads to me that nations with foreign war dead would be required to allow foreign inspectors on their soil.




If, after the definitions section of your draft, you deleted everything up to the following, in otherwords, if you deleted points 1), 2), and 3), I would support your proposal. I've suggested some amendments to your draft enclosed in {}, whose acceptance would not affect my support, but may achieve your ends better:



From the desk of The Selfish One

In other words, you "like the intention of the draft", but you don't want it to really do anything. Or, to be more precise, you don't want your nation to have to do anything.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

In other words, you "like the intention of the draft", but you don't want it to really do anything. Or, to be more precise, you don't want your nation to have to do anything.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister


In other words, I prefer to convince rather than compel.

From the desk of The Selfish One

In other words, I prefer to convince rather than compel.

From the desk of The Selfish One

I'm sorry, but I want this proposal to actually do what it says, not just ask pretty please. It will be of international focus, but won't be nat sov friendly.

What about some sort of active encouragement to find, identify and notify, in regards to foreign miliary personnel's corpses? Or would that be placing too great a burden on the nation? It's just that if there's been a war in recent memory (recent enough that corpses would be extant) it doesn't seem like they'd allow the foreign nation to scour their countryside for lost soldiers.

Even without that, though, we would support this proposal.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I did think of that QoD, and do want to include something along those lines. Basically stating nations containing war dead, but not wanting to allow others from enemy or former enemy nations to cross their borders. Something like they can't refuse to send the bodies home, but if they don't want foreigners involved, must send them back themselves.

It is confusing to try and think out, let alone write, which is why it isn't in there yet. Am determined to get something along those lines included though. I am a strong believer in a nation's right to control its borders.