NationStates Jolt Archive

What category would this fall under?

Cookeslandic UN Mission

edit: first thread steal, thank you jolt...

Hello,

In light of the large numbers of conflicts in NationStates, the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mikitivity_Rote_Kreuz) has made a recommendation that the United Nations adopt a resolution calling upon nations to adopt a standard marking convention for: (1) medical transport and (2) prisoner transport vessels. Obviously the convention would have to develop conditions that these dedicated types of vessels should not be used to transport other things and it should also condemn the use of human shields.

Mikitivity Rote Kreuz has convinced my government that this is a convention worth pursuing. However, I wanted to vet this idea before the UN General Assembly as a "concept" before beginning work on an early draft.

Some relevant existing UN resolutions worth incorporating into this convention include:

Wolfish Convention on POW (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wolfish_Convention_on_POW)
Civilian Rights Post War (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Civilian_Rights_Post_War)
Maritime Safety Standards Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maritime_Safety_Standards_Act)
Rights of Neutral States (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_of_Neutral_States)
No Embargoes on Medicine (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/No_Embargoes_on_Medicine)

Howie T. Katzman

Jolt is so amazing with chronology...

What category would this fall under?

Cookeslandic UN Mission

That is what my government needs help with! :)

Early favorites:
Human Rights: A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
International Security: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

At present I'm leaning towards Human Rights. This version would focus on the inherent right of POWs and others to have safe transport.

The IS proposal would focus on requiring compliant nations to mark non-combatant transport vessels and adopt procedures that would allow others to check that there is no other contraband being transported along with the non-combatants. The incurred cost would be realized via a (regrettable) increase in "protecting" the vessels.

Thoughts would be greatly appreciated?

I think the basic idea should prove fun. I would even ask that those of you whom have had war roleplays might point me to any events in which you've accidentally sank an enemy transport carrying your own people, similar to the "Hell Ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Ship)" of the Second World War such as the Harugiku Maru (http://www.cofepow.org.uk/remembrance/Harugiku_Maru/index.htm).

CHAPTER VI
MEDICAL TRANSPORTS
Article 35
Transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment shall be respected and protected in the same way as mobile medical units. Should such transports or vehicles fall into the hands of the adverse Party, they shall be subject to the laws of war, on condition that the Party to the conflict who captures them shall in all cases ensure the care of the wounded and sick they contain.

The civilian personnel and all means of transport obtained by requisition shall be subject to the general rules of international law.

Article 36
Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.

They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours, on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.

Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.

Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.

In the event of an involuntary landing in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, the wounded and sick, as well as the crew of the aircraft shall be prisoners of war. The medical personnel shall be treated according to Article 24, and the Articles following.

Article 37
Subject to the provisions of the second paragraph, medical aircraft of Parties to the conflict may fly over the territory of neutral Powers, land on it in case of necessity, or use it as a port of call. They shall give the neutral Powers previous notice of their passage over the said territory and obey all summons to alight, on land or water. They will be immune from attack only when flying on routes, at heights and at times specifically agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral Power concerned.

The neutral Powers may, however, place conditions or restrictions on the passage or landing of medical aircraft on their territory. Such possible conditions or restrictions shall be applied equally to all Parties to the conflict.

Unless agreed otherwise between the neutral Power and the Parties to the conflict, the wounded and sick who are disembarked, with the consent of the local authorities, on neutral territory by medical aircraft, shall be detained by the neutral Power, where so required by international law, in such a manner that they cannot again take part in operations of war. The cost of their accommodation and internment shall be borne by the Power on which they depend.

RESOLUTION 18 - USE OF VISUAL SIGNALLING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF MEDICAL TRANSPORTS PROTECTED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 AND UNDER THE PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS (PROTOCOL I)

The Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 1974-1977,

Considering that :

(a) in order to avoid attacks upon them there is a need for the improved visual identification of medical transports,

...

(c) by special agreement, Parties to a conflict may reserve the use of a flashing blue light for the identification of medical vehicles and medical ships and craft, but, in the absence of such agreement, the use of such signals for other vehicles or ships is not prohibited;

(d) in addition to the distinctive emblem and the flashing blue light, other means of visual identification, such as signal flags and combinations of flares, may be used eventually to identify medical transports,

...

Having noted that, though the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 recognize the use of the distinctive emblem to be flown by hospital ships and medical craft, this use is not reflected in relevant documents of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization,

1. Requests the President of the Conference to transmit to the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization this resolution, together with the documents of this Conference, inviting that Organization to:

(a) consider introduction into the appropriate documents, such as the International Code of Signals, the flashing blue light as described in Article 6 of Chapter III of the Regulations contained in Annex I to Protocol I;

(b) provide for recognition of the distinctive emblem in the appropriate documents (see Article 3 of Chapter II of the said Regulations);

(c) consider the establishment both of unique flag signals and of a flare combination, such as white-red-white, which might be used for additional or alternative visual identification of medical transports;

...

I've highlighted some provisions of a RL ICRC resolution that I think we may want to consider to rewrite and simplify should we decide to pursue this idea.

TRANSFER OF PRISONERS OF WAR AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL IN CAMP

Article 46

The Detaining Power, when deciding upon the transfer of prisoners of war, shall take into account the interests of the prisoners themselves, more especially so as not to increase the difficulty of their repatriation.

The transfer of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions not less favourable than those under which the forces of the Detaining Power are transferred. Account shall always be taken of the climatic conditions to which the prisoners of war are accustomed and the conditions of transfer shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war during transfer with sufficient food and drinking water to keep them in good health, likewise with the necessary clothing, shelter and medical attention. The Detaining Power shall take adequate precautions especially in case of transport by sea or by air, to ensure their safety during transfer, and shall draw up a complete list of all transferred prisoners before their departure.

The idea of having a list is good.

Why should one keep POW's when it's much better to execute them all?

Why should one keep POW's when it's much better to execute them all?

A purely pragmatic point of view might understand that your *own* soldiers will fight much harder for you knowing that your government will attempt to repatriate them should they be caught. Or in simple terms, if you ever expect to actually *win* a war, you'll need the support of other nations ... no nation is going to throw in with somebody who would not protect its own citizens. POW Conventions, such as the Wolfish Convention, are about making an international agreement to protect your interests by agreeing to protect other people's as well.

UNR #51, Children In War, is probably relevant as well, in particular because it has a 'human shield' clause.

It strikes us that it is worth considering a (separate!) resolution on the conduct of warfare, to establish the principles of what is and is not considered an ethical way to wage war. To some extent this chamber does this piecemeal with every International Security resolution, but it may be that a broad brush outline would assist this process. Since we have little experience of modern warfare, we would defer to the superior judgement of the members of DEFCON in this matter.

UNR #51, Children In War, is probably relevant as well, in particular because it has a 'human shield' clause.

It strikes us that it is worth considering a (separate!) resolution on the conduct of warfare, to establish the principles of what is and is not considered an ethical way to wage war. To some extent this chamber does this piecemeal with every International Security resolution, but it may be that a broad brush outline would assist this process. Since we have little experience of modern warfare, we would defer to the superior judgement of the members of DEFCON in this matter.

Excellent! :)

My government sees two possible ways we could use when creating this idea: writing a standard resolution or making something more like a convention. Which do your governments feel is better?

OOC: I can't believe I forgot that, since I worked on it with Sydia when I first joined the game. It *is* his resolution, but I really liked it.

My government would favour the development of a convention, rather than a standard UN resolution.

Resolutions are, by definition, binding on UN members only and are enforced.

A convention could conceivably transcend the Un/non-UN gap. Because its adoption would be a matter of choice, it should be more morally binding than a resolution that forces obedience.

My government would favour the development of a convention, rather than a standard UN resolution.

Resolutions are, by definition, binding on UN members only and are enforced.

A convention could conceivably transcend the Un/non-UN gap. Because its adoption would be a matter of choice, it should be more morally binding than a resolution that forces obedience.

This feedback is appreciated. Would it be possible to do both? Basically write a focused and mild resolution, in order to generate interest in a broader based convention?

The other alternative would be to submit a "resolution", but use a form similar to the Wolfish Convention or Rights and Duties resolutions (which look more like conventions).

That said, the advantage of a convention outside of the UN is that we could track (and encourage non-UN) signatories.

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

APLAUDING the international standards adopted by the Wolfish Convention on POW dealing with the humane treatment of prisoners of war,

NOTING that Article 9 of the convention calls upon detaining nations to take measures keep prisoners out of active combat zones and if necessary remove them from combat zones while working to avoid exposing them to danger during the evacuations,

APPROVING of its resolution No Embargoes on Medicine which requires UN member states to allow the transport of basic humanitarian aid supplies, including doctors and medical supplies, into combat zones,

CONCERNED that vessels moving prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields to other on-going military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies away from active combat zones,

1. CONDEMNS the practice of transporting prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies in the same transport vessel or convoy as materials directly used in a conflict or the use of prisoner and humanitarian vessels as shields for on-going military operations,

2. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels be used to transport humanitarian focused items (i.e. those items that are not directly being used in a conflict), including prisoners of war, humanitarian supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians,

3. ESTABLISHES the clearly visible use of a flashing blue light, a red-white-red flare combination, or another international recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid, such as a flag featuring a hollow red diamond on a white background, to be standards for identifying vessels that are being used for the exclusive transport of humanitarian focused items,

IN PROGRESS

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

APLAUDING the international standards adopted by the Wolfish Convention on POW dealing with the humane treatment of prisoners of war,

NOTING that Article 9 of the convention calls upon detaining nations to take measures keep prisoners out of active combat zones and if necessary remove them from combat zones while working to avoid exposing them to danger during the evacuations,

APPROVING of its resolution No Embargoes on Medicine which requires UN member states to allow the transport of basic humanitarian aid supplies, including doctors and medical supplies, into combat zones,

CONCERNED that vessels moving prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields to other on-going military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies away from active combat zones,

1. CONSIDERS, for the purpose of this resolution, the transportation of items not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargos,

2. CONDEMNS the practice of mixing humanitarian cargos in the same transport vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly used in a combat operation thereby making the humanitarian cargo a shield for on-going military operations and endangering assets that are no longer active participants in the conflict,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels be used to transport humanitarian cargos,

4. ESTABLISHES the clearly visible use of a flashing blue light, a red-white-red flare combination, or another international recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid, such as a flag featuring a hollow red diamond on a white background, to be standards for identifying vessels that are being used for the exclusive transport of humanitarian cargos, which are hence forth referred to as humanitarian vessels,

5. AUTHORIZES humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive only weapons, which can be used as a weapon of last resort,

6. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel unless first attacked,

7. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to be prepared to present complete cargo manifests and to allow enemy forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel when traveling in enemy controlled territory,

8. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

IN PROGRESS

5. AUTHORIZES humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons,

6. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,


These two clauses really get at the same idea, but I've worked a bit on the two of them. Ultimately I'd like to find a way to wrap clause 5 into clause 6. What I have in mind is that an aircraft carrier is not a humanitarian vessel. I believe the revised clause 6 addresses this.

It might be worth taking into account the description used for hospital ships as defined by Maritime Safety Standards Act:

12. STRONGLY URGES that hospital ships during a time of war be painted a white livery, with highly visible appropriate internationally-recognised markings, large enough and of a colour to be clearly visible against the white livery, be displayed on both sides of the hull, on the funnels (if any), and on the forecastle and poop decks; details of such markings are to be produced by the UNSEAWORTHY and included in all masters and officer of the watch certification as outlined in 5..

13. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships other then hospital ships, and forbids hospital ships from carrying offensive weapons or munitions,

i.e. It would be worth emphasising that such markings are to be distinct from those on hospital ships, otherwise there is a contradiction.

If you have room, it might also be worth trying to define offensive and defensive shipboard armaments, which would not only save some of the problems that are occuring in MNC, but it would also mean that such confusion would be removed from MNC and MSS. If you wish, you can use the original definition that had to removed from MNC due to word length issues

FURTHER DEFINES "offensive armaments", as any weaponry not included in the following: close range anti-aircraft weaponry, anti-submarine devices, heavy and light machine guns, mine removing equipment such as paravanes, small arms, and naval guns under two inches in diameter

Excellent suggestions! :)

I'll modify clause 4 to utilize the standard set in MSSA clause 12, and again change clause 5 to point to MSSA clause 13.

Generally there is a great deal of overlap here, as the sponsor of both of these resolutions, is your government comfortable with the basic idea I've been outlining? Is this fairly consistent with your government's position?

Finally as to the nature of offensive weapons, my government envisions that the rules concerning this resolution would also apply to air, land, and space transport, so we are a bit hesitant to cover the technical details of what offensive weapons are.

So far, it seems an excellent resolution - I understand your concerns about offensive armaments - it'd take half a resolution to define such a thing for all possible scenarios! One slight thing:

7. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to be prepared to present complete cargo manifests and to allow enemy forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel when traveling in enemy controlled territory,


I'd change this too:

7. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to be prepared to present complete cargo manifests and to allow belligerent forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel when traveling outside of neutral waters,


It's not a huge change, but if a neutral nation is supplying humanitarian aid, which, IIRC, they have the right to do (may be wrong), then they have no "enemy" as such, and use of belligerent would allow both sides to examine and make sure it's not flying false colours, etc. Not hugely important, but you never know! The outside of neutral waters thing is just so it ties up with MNC, in that international and belligerent's national water are "fair game" for searches, etc. Again, it's not a dealbreaker

It's not a huge change, but if a neutral nation is supplying humanitarian aid, which, IIRC, they have the right to do (may be wrong), then they have no "enemy" as such, and use of belligerent would allow both sides to examine and make sure it's not flying false colours, etc. Not hugely important, but you never know! The outside of neutral waters thing is just so it ties up with MNC, in that international and belligerent's national water are "fair game" for searches, etc. Again, it's not a dealbreaker

Exactly, friendly and hostile territory, during war are fair game. I've changed clause 7 to read exactly as you suggested. That is a no brainer. Now I need to jog and think about how to work the other aspects into the existing text.

Obviously I've not been jogging yet ... but here is a revision of a few sections:


OBSERVING that while its Maritime Safety Standards Act established some standards for hospital ships, no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies away from active combat zones,


3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargos,

4. ESTABLISHES the clearly visible use of a flashing blue light, a red-white-red flare combination, white hospital ships as defined by article 12 of the Maritime Safety Standards Act, or another international recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid, such as a flag featuring a hollow red diamond on a white background, to be standards for identifying vessels that are being used for the exclusive transport of humanitarian cargos, which are hence forth referred to as humanitarian vessels,

5. AUTHORIZES humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons that are consistent with article 13 of the Maritime Safety Standards Act,

6. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

7. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to be prepared to present complete cargo manifests and to allow belligerent forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel when traveling outside of neutral waters,


I will not submit this until such a time that the MNC is finished (and it looks as if it will pass). For fear of getting the mods worked up about a house of cards, I'm resisting referencing the MNC, but I'd actually like to!

Is there still an interest in this proposal? If so, my government will pursue this.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing it passed. Is the draft in post #15 the latest version, or have you not incorporated the changes in post #21 yet?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We would certainly be interested in further discussion of this, and hope the distinguished representative of Mikitivity will bring it back to the forefront.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We would also like to see a complete draft with all alterations and clarifications if the draft in post 15 is not the current draft version.

Also I would like further clarification in regard to these vessels traveling under escort in neutral waters. Zyrwick had two neighboring nations (Non UN nations incidentally) at war with each other recently and they would try to send their warships into our waters requiring the People's Navy and People's Coast Guard to expel the warships and search the transport vessel.

Also while we would not be opposed to waring nations to be able to use our waters that are largely neutral in international wars to transport prisoners of war, evacuate civilians and other non-combatants or the sending of humanitarian aid supplies to the war afflicted area, we would like a strict prohibition of using neutral territorial waters for the transport of weapons, military personnel and other non-humanitarian war materials--Unless that has already been covered by previous legislation.

As far as the resolution Vs. convention thing goes. We would prefer to see it as a convention as non-UN nations and UN Occasionally get involved into wars with each other and we would not wish to see non-UN nations have the unfair advantage of the UN nations absolutely having to abide by a resolution drafted in a time of general peace, which may not be applicable in a wide ranging conflict.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Thank you all for the interest and feedback. You are all correct that there is a newer draft than as presented in post 15. After the passage of the Maritime Safety Standards Act, I wanted to illustrate how his resolution builds upon the idea presented in that resolution, but offers new elements to international law. :)

Here is the current draft:

Humanitarian Transport Convention

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

APLAUDING the international standards adopted by the Wolfish Convention on POW dealing with the humane treatment of prisoners of war,

NOTING that Article 9 of the convention calls upon detaining nations to take measures keep prisoners out of active combat zones and if necessary remove them from combat zones while working to avoid exposing them to danger during the evacuations,

APPROVING of its resolution No Embargoes on Medicine which requires UN member states to allow the transport of basic humanitarian aid supplies, including doctors and medical supplies, into combat zones,

CONCERNED that vessels moving prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields to other on-going military activities,

OBSERVING that while its Maritime Safety Standards Act established some standards for hospital ships, no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies away from active combat zones,

1. CONSIDERS, for the purpose of this resolution, the transportation of items not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargos,

2. CONDEMNS the practice of mixing humanitarian cargos in the same transport vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly used in a combat operation thereby making the humanitarian cargo a shield for on-going military operations and endangering assets that are no longer active participants in the conflict,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargos,

4. ESTABLISHES the clearly visible use of a flashing blue light, a red-white-red flare combination, white hospital ships as defined by article 12 of the Maritime Safety Standards Act, or another international recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid, such as a flag featuring a hollow red diamond on a white background, to be standards for identifying vessels that are being used for the exclusive transport of humanitarian cargos, which are hence forth referred to as humanitarian vessels,

5. AUTHORIZES humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons that are consistent with article 13 of the Maritime Safety Standards Act,

6. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

7. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to be prepared to present complete cargo manifests and to allow belligerent forces in a conflict to board and search the vessel when traveling outside of neutral waters,

8. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

IN PROGRESS

OOC: Looks good, however:

IC:

Aww, you guys spoil all the fun.

~Dr. Hodz
Gradually reducing signature size.

Very nice, im glad this idea didn't die.

One concern though,


2. CONDEMNS the practice of mixing humanitarian cargos in the same transport vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly used in a combat operation thereby making the humanitarian cargo a shield for on-going military operations and endangering assets that are no longer active participants in the conflict

isn't some way we could make a penalty for this or someway of preventing it?

The Blue Eyed Man
Cookeslandic UN Ambassador

isn't some way we could make a penalty for this or someway of preventing it?

We could forbid it as well as condemning it, but that poses a potential problem. It's hard to distinguish the situation of having a human shield for a military manoeuvre, and having a military escort accompany a humanitarian transport. Sometimes nations at war or close to a war zone will need the latter; I'm sure many of us here can think of non-member nations who would sometimes regard humanitarian transports as target practice.

This may be a question out of the scope of the convention but as a land locked country rich in Rail Roads would this markings also translate to rail cars containing items which qualify as humanitarian cargoes?

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador at Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Or Automobiles for that matter. Zyrwick is quite large in land area and has both railroads and roads although they are currently in a state of disrepair due to the end of our civil war, but we plan to have them up and running at pre-revolution capacity by the end of our Three-Year Plan.

If we either had a resolution making an internationally recognized marking for Non-combat transport vehicles as well as ships that would perhaps make it easier.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

This may be a question out of the scope of the convention but as a land locked country rich in Rail Roads would this markings also translate to rail cars containing items which qualify as humanitarian cargoes?

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador at Large
The United States of Philimbesi

I believe that rail cars or automobiles that are carrying items which are catergorized as humanitarian would be protected. As long as they are marked of course.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

True. That is how some would interpret it. But I would prefer the inclusion to be explicit if possible...or if that isn't possible the drafting of other resolutions to cover land and air traffic.

Otherwise I can hear the childish arguments now after this is passed.


"But But but UNR#(whatever number its given) only discusses ships." Crybaby A

"But but but it does also cover my rail cars and autos. They have the hollowed out diamond on the white background....so there." Crybaby B.

"But but but...It doesn't." Crybaby A again.

"But but but it does too" Crybaby B again.

"Oh for the love of Lenin will you two idiots shut the &*%$* up!" Zyrwickian Representative de jour.

I think we can have a few small revisions to include automobiles, railroads, aircraft, spacecraft and even horse drawn buggies if necessary....by simply changing the wording around to Vehicle instead of vessel.

If we can cover the whole thing with a simple marking...why not. It will make for less of a fight later over aircraft regulations that are necessary, as well as perhaps a standard rail gage should that prove necessary for trade.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I would have to agree with my Esteemed Colleague from Zyrwick. I would feel much safer establishing that the convention applies to any and all vehicle used to transport humanitarian cargo on land, sea, air and space.

We would fell much better about voting for such a convention.


Javar Perez Dequar
Ambassador at Large
The US of Philimbesi

I think we can have a few small revisions to include automobiles, railroads, aircraft, spacecraft and even horse drawn buggies if necessary....by simply changing the wording around to Vehicle instead of vessel.

The only problem with the highly steamed Ambassador's suggestion is that the people likely to misinterpret 'vessel' as 'ship' are also likely to misinterpret 'vehicle' as 'land transport.' There is no helping some people.

This may be a question out of the scope of the convention but as a land locked country rich in Rail Roads would this markings also translate to rail cars containing items which qualify as humanitarian cargoes?

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador at Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Yes, that was always the intent. :) Mikitivity is also a landlocked nation with an extensive rail network.

The resolution was written with both ships (sea and air) and other vessels in mind. It is purposefully never stated that these vessels can not travel over land or through space.

Howie T. Katzman

The only problem with the highly steamed Ambassador's suggestion is that the people likely to misinterpret 'vessel' as 'ship' are also likely to misinterpret 'vehicle' as 'land transport.' There is no helping some people.

Then perhaps "Vessles and/or Vehicles" would work?

Then perhaps "Vessles and/or Vehicles" would work?

I would just say "vessels or vehicles", and hope we can agree that the or works as an "and/or". :) The question is should I write both every time or just once and just assume that the idea is carried forth?

I would just say "vessels or vehicles",

The United States of Philimbesi would support this change.


Javar Paraz Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

I would just say "vessels or vehicles", and hope we can agree that the or works as an "and/or". :) The question is should I write both every time or just once and just assume that the idea is carried forth?

Never assume anything, Katzman.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Never assume anything, Katzman.

Ailyn Vel
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

We agree with Ambassador Vel. The change should be Vessel or Vehicle and should be throughout the resolution to prevent wanking. Also we do not like assumptions in resolutions. I hope that change doesn't put the proposal over the character limit though.

Or we could simply use Vehicle if we add a definition section something along the lines of:

For the purpose of this resolution Vehicle will mean any mechanical device either auto-powered or driven by animal or other form of external power, used for transport on water, land, air or space.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

For the purpose of this resolution Vehicle will mean any mechanical device either auto-powered or driven by animal or other form of external power, used for transport on water, land, air or space.

I'll get our military busy on painting the horses white with a red diamond. :cool:

That humor aside. I agree in total with this and believe it would assure our support for the resolution.

I'll get our military busy on painting the horses white with a red diamond. :cool:

That humor aside. I agree in total with this and believe it would assure our support for the resolution.


Actually that revision would not cover horses themselves. Rather the buggies/wagons that they would be pulling.

Our military is not yet fully automotive and we would paint the wagons rather than the horses to transport P.O.W.s, the wounded, etc.

We do plan to have that problem of not having a fully automotive military, rectified after the end of the Second Three-Year Plan.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian Ambassador to the UN.

Never assume anything, Katzman.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

:) Then I'll inform my staff to make the change consistently throughout the document. It will be a few days before we will post a revised draft, as we've been dealing with some domestic issues at the time. One of the cantons just voted in a new representative to the Council of Mayors, thus changing the balance of power within our executive branch, so my office is having to wait for this situation to democratically resolve itself. This is actually quite normal in Mikitivity.

In your proposal you say that medical vehicals will use blue lights in order to signal who they are. Here's a suggestion how about a special siren sound or perhaps an audio loop saying in whatever local language that it is a medical vehical, and in any war where one or both sides uses this sound to deceive eachother said parties would be charged for war crimes.

In your proposal you say that medical vehicals will use blue lights in order to signal who they are. Here's a suggestion how about a special siren sound or perhaps an audio loop saying in whatever local language that it is a medical vehical, and in any war where one or both sides uses this sound to deceive eachother said parties would be charged for war crimes.

IC: Your suggestion that violation of the resolution should be grounds for some sort of international sanction or condemnation is actually very good.

OC: The origin of the blue lights comes from real life conventions concerning this very subject. Written in the early 20th century, the idea of using sirens for all vessels was a bit limited -- and given that light travels faster than sound & modern tech, using a light based system is still preferred. This then raises the question of "low tech" nations, and painting the hull (or horse in some cases) of the vessel still is a low-tech solution to a light / visual ID system. :)

What I'd like to do is actually treat the resolution as a general statement of international opinion and add two more clauses ... one to reflect your suggestion (which others have also talked about) to have a penalty for violation, and the other to encourage that nations work together to form a more detailed convention that they can use to work out more specific details. The legality of the second option is something I fear will need moderator input once I pen out a first crack at it. ;)

IC: Your suggestion that violation of the resolution should be grounds for some sort of international sanction or condemnation is actually very good.

OC: The origin of the blue lights comes from real life conventions concerning this very subject. Written in the early 20th century, the idea of using sirens for all vessels was a bit limited -- and given that light travels faster than sound & modern tech, using a light based system is still preferred. This then raises the question of "low tech" nations, and painting the hull (or horse in some cases) of the vessel still is a low-tech solution to a light / visual ID system. :)

What I'd like to do is actually treat the resolution as a general statement of international opinion and add two more clauses ... one to reflect your suggestion (which others have also talked about) to have a penalty for violation, and the other to encourage that nations work together to form a more detailed convention that they can use to work out more specific details. The legality of the second option is something I fear will need moderator input once I pen out a first crack at it. ;)

Though I am flattered by your compliment. You misunderstood me I ment that the sound and light should both be used for a more affective diplay.