NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the original thread went through several drafts and has a few outdated versions, I've decided to start a new thread.

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

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

The UN hereby,

1) a)DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed/unarmed vessels carrying cargo or passengers,

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the 12 nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then 25 nautical miles wide, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the coastlines is to be considered as international waters,

3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government or international alliance;

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship of an adversary;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.

I agree, mostly because all neutral ships aren't the enemy of anyone, and attacks on them might cause more war... look at the U.S. and WW1 that was one of the reasons the U.S. entered. i beleive this is a good idea, and that it insures safety to neutral innocents (to some extent) in war times.

I am not sure it's that simple. What about slaving ships? Technically they're neutral, but if this resolution were to be passed, rogue nations would be free to ship slaves, and even sell weaponry to terrorists and malevolent forces while they remain "neutral" and therefore untouchable.

For this reason I beseech all UN nations to vote against this sweeping and dangerous resolution.

I have been instructed by the member nations of the National Socialist Alliance to voice our strong and determined opposition to this resolution.

Once again this body seeks to assert itself as ruler of the world and to establish a one world government. The NSA supports dialogue and communication amongst nations, but we oppose efforts to destroy the sovereignity of member nations. This body was established to serve member states and not to govern those nations.

War is indeed the most savage thing that man can engage in. War brings out in all our most basic and crude instincts. In the heat of war mistakes are made. The passing of this resolution is not needed as we already have enough international agreements and conventions that address this matter.

We also note that the flag of neutrality has been used to conceal actual support for a combatant. The pages of history are full of such examples.

The National Socialist Alliance is keen to return this body back to the intent of its founders. We seek alliances and communication with others who share our deep concerns.

We strongly urge a NO vote on this resolution.

Baron von Bismark
Ambassador to the UN
National Socialist Alliance

I am not sure it's that simple. What about slaving ships? Technically they're neutral, but if this resolution were to be passed, rogue nations would be free to ship slaves, and even sell weaponry to terrorists and malevolent forces while they remain "neutral" and therefore untouchable.

For this reason I beseech all UN nations to vote against this sweeping and dangerous resolution.

The sale and purchase of persons in already illegal. As to your second point, I refer you here:


6. MANDATES that all member states shall:
A. Criminalize and suppress the financing, solicitation of, planning, preparation for, aiding, and perpetration of international terrorism;

The Self-Serving, having reviewed this proposal, declines to support it. Below are our concerns:


6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force.

Must all of the above conditions apply before a belligerent warship may attack neutral shipping in enemy waters, or is one sufficient? Also, "reasonable" is subject to interpretation. If a neutral port was adjacent to an enemy port, neutral shipping may be in range of enemy defenses before a belligerent warship could reasonably determine for which port the ship was heading.


7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship of an adversary;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.

Who pays for the assements? The belligerent nation? the UN? Or does the neutral nation get stuck with the expense, until such time as it can convince someone to reimburse them? This proposal doesn't speak to this.

Also, requiring warships to set prisoners free when they touch a neutral port may cause some belligerent nations to direct their warship captains to abandon those prisoners at sea, perhaps with life boats, perhaps without, rather than having those prisoners returned to the fight at a time other than at the belligerent nations choosing.



The Self-Serving respectfully suggests that any shipping, be they warships, merchants, neutral or belligerent, choosing to enter enemy waters do so at their own risk and are fair targets for belligerents.

From the Desk of the Selfish One

Neutral shipping is not neutral if it is bringing supplies to the enemy. Cargo can include munitions and necessary supplies for military use. We reserve the right to seize any ship which is carrying goods or services to an enemy nation. Often this cannot be known immediately. This means we should have the right also to inspect neutral shipping to see if it is carrying goods to the enemy. We also believe in some cases in times of war it is necessary to extend the area of capture beyond the immediate waters of an enemy nation for supplies.

We are not afraid to use the seizure of ships and materials combined with embargoes to slow the progress of war.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

The National Socialist Alliance (NSA) agrees and endorses the remarks of UN Ambassador Smiley.

The NSA will protect itself by all means at its disposal. To limit a nation in its right to defend itself when under attack is an injustice and a shame!

We note that the resolution itself clearly states that its intention is "to limit the political freedom" of member nations!

We are eager to work with other nations and regions who share our deep conern at the march of the UN towards attaining the status of a world government.

We urge a resounding NO vote!

Baron von Bismark
UN Delegate - Ambassador
The National Socialist Alliance

My primary concern lies in section 4; If a warship has reason to sink a neutral vessel, but that neutral vessel refuses to be boarded, how is the warship expected to remove the passengers, crew, an ship's papers to a place of safety? This bureaucratic loophole allows neutral ships to parade about the seas doing whatever they wish, and offers no military or para-military ship to stop them.

Must all of the above conditions apply before a belligerent warship may attack neutral shipping in enemy waters, or is one sufficient? Also, "reasonable" is subject to interpretation. If a neutral port was adjacent to an enemy port, neutral shipping may be in range of enemy defenses before a belligerent warship could reasonably determine for which port the ship was heading.

Of course, chances are if you have ships in the area with which to attack, chances are you are already blockading the enemy port. I also direct you here:
2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the 12 nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then 25 nautical miles wide, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the coastlines is to be considered as international waters,

The proposal does not specify that all conditions must be met, therefore it is left to the captain to decide what course of action to take.


Who pays for the assements? The belligerent nation? the UN? Or does the neutral nation get stuck with the expense, until such time as it can convince someone to reimburse them? This proposal doesn't speak to this.

I'm not understanding where you are reading this in the text. If you mean the repairs needing to be assessed by the belligerent warships, then clearly the offending nation would have to pay the neutral port for their services.

Also, requiring warships to set prisoners free when they touch a neutral port may cause some belligerent nations to direct their warship captains to abandon those prisoners at sea, perhaps with life boats, perhaps without, rather than having those prisoners returned to the fight at a time other than at the belligerent nations choosing.

The situation you describe would be in violation of the Wolfish Convention on Genocide, specifically

Article 5

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

and

rticle 9

Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.



The Self-Serving respectfully suggests that any shipping, be they warships, merchants, neutral or belligerent, choosing to enter enemy waters do so at their own risk and are fair targets for belligerents.


I direct your attention to:

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;

Apparently I need to do this again.


The proposal allows attacks on neutral shipping if they are in enemy waters or bringing supplies to the enemy.

It is stated explicitly in the proposal.

It really, really pains me to agree with "Herr Goebbels" on anything.

I am gravely concerned that a co-belligerent nation may hire "neutral shipping" to ship arms, armour and logistical materiel to themselves through a "neutral" party. Merchies know the risk that they take in delivering cargoes to a nation at war.

It is neither my desire nor intent to wantonly sink vessels, but I have a clear right to interdict enemy supply lines via naval blockade, I further need to retain the right to board and inspect cargoes that cross my blockade line. The result being either allowing the vessel to continue to it's port of destination or turn it around and send it away.

There is no absolute right to free trade, especially in warfare. You do business with my enemies, then I have the right to interdict your shipments if they provide war materiel for my enemy. Period.

Until I am fully satisfied with this resolution I will not lend it my support.

Geoffrey A. Gosford; KGCB, KGCMG
Prime Mnister of the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Apparently I need to do this again.


The proposal allows attacks on neutral shipping if they are in enemy waters or bringing supplies to the enemy.

It is stated explicitly in the proposal.

What about legitimate shipping delivering humanitarian aid? How can I legally determine to my satisfaction that the cargoes are legal without my sinking said shipping? The answer is a naval blockade that stops and inspects all out and inbound naval vessels of all flags, neutral or not.

My concerns are not trivial and I am TRYING TO DETERMINE if this resolution adequately addresses those concerns. If that pisses you off, too bad.

Clarify both of my posts concerns. I haven't voted yet, although I am sorely tempted to vote against it based upon your rudeness.

Gosford

They would not then be "neutral", would they? Or is there something ambiguous about Clause 6 that I am missing?



THIS PROPOSAL WILL GIVE YOU THAT RIGHT. READ THE FUCKING THING, PEOPLE!

Rang Erman
Advisor
Herniating


Thats it, AGAINST. I was seeking clarification, not disagreeing with the principle, you jackass.

It really, really pains me to agree with "Herr Goebbels" on anything.

I am gravely concerned that a co-belligerent nation may hire "neutral shipping" to ship arms, armour and logistical materiel to themselves through a "neutral" party. Merchies know the risk that they take in delivering cargoes to a nation at war.

They would not then be "neutral", would they? Or is there something ambiguous about Clause 6 that I am missing?

There is no absolute right to free trade, especially in warfare. You do business with my enemies, then I have the right to interdict your shipments if they provide war materiel for my enemy. Period.

THIS PROPOSAL WILL GIVE YOU THAT RIGHT. READ THE FUCKING THING, PEOPLE!

Rang Erman
Advisor
Herniating

Neutral shipping is not neutral if it is bringing supplies to the enemy. Cargo can include munitions and necessary supplies for military use. We reserve the right to seize any ship which is carrying goods or services to an enemy nation. Often this cannot be known immediately. This means we should have the right also to inspect neutral shipping to see if it is carrying goods to the enemy. We also believe in some cases in times of war it is necessary to extend the area of capture beyond the immediate waters of an enemy nation for supplies.

We are not afraid to use the seizure of ships and materials combined with embargoes to slow the progress of war.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;

Your argument has been rejected due to the fact that all points have been addressed by this proposal. It does not define reasonable cause so reasonable cause could easily be defined, by your nation, as "Captain's intuition". So if his balls say it's heading to the enemy port, you can capture it.

My primary concern lies in section 4; If a warship has reason to sink a neutral vessel, but that neutral vessel refuses to be boarded, how is the warship expected to remove the passengers, crew, an ship's papers to a place of safety? This bureaucratic loophole allows neutral ships to parade about the seas doing whatever they wish, and offers no military or para-military ship to stop them.

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

Your concern has already been addressed.

--------------------

Could everyone step back and read the bloody proposal before you start yelling random claims?

I am not fully confident that my concerns have been addressed. Your pal Rang is so busy yelling at people to read the resolution that he forgets that some people have read the resolution and might need specific clarifications.

One of my concerns has been addressed.

But not all of them.

When I am spoken to reasonably, then I will ask my question.

I WANT to vote for this resolution, don't burn a possible YES vote by reacting like scalded dogs because I have the temerity to seek answers to my questions.

It really, really pains me to agree with "Herr Goebbels" on anything.

I am gravely concerned that a co-belligerent nation may hire "neutral shipping" to ship arms, armour and logistical materiel to themselves through a "neutral" party. Merchies know the risk that they take in delivering cargoes to a nation at war.
In which case they are heading for an enemy port, and you can sink 'em. Unless, somehow, a ship can deliver munitions to an enemy nation without going to an enemy port...

It is neither my desire nor intent to wantonly sink vessels, but I have a clear right to interdict enemy supply lines via naval blockade, I further need to retain the right to board and inspect cargoes that cross my blockade line. The result being either allowing the vessel to continue to it's port of destination or turn it around and send it away.
And this proposal doesn't take away this right. It only takes away the right to sink random neutral ships which have nothing to do with the war, and to ensure the safety of the crew on ships you can sink under this proposal.


There is no absolute right to free trade, especially in warfare. You do business with my enemies, then I have the right to interdict your shipments if they provide war materiel for my enemy. Period.
A right which this proposal doesn't affect

Thats it, AGAINST. I was seeking clarification, not disagreeing with the principle, you jackass.

First of all, AA is not listed as either the author or co-author of this proposal. Why you would vote against it because he was an asshole astounds me. Do you change your vote based upon the conduct of known trolls? Of newbies with 1 post? Why did you pick the conduct of AA to decide your vote?

Second, this thread has thus far seen little in the ways of correct reading of the proposal and thus far, only one person opposing the proposal (well....two now that you've commented) have made an accurate assessment to indicate their opposition and that's SS Knights who correctly realized that it does limit National Sovereignty (then proceeded to make errors in his side-assessments and other poor attacks). I'd probably add on Solyhinya who, I feel, also made an accurate assessment though AA perceived it as being incorrect (though I think her (?) argument is....concerning to say the least - not about the proposal but rather the conduct of her nation)

As you can imagine, seeing so many poor readings is stressful and tiring and while AA should've been able to control his temper, sometimes people fail at doing so and, well, explode.

I hope you reconsider your reasoning - if not, your vote. I would rather your vote not be based upon a simple loss of control that happens to the best of us and rather be based upon the quality or failings of the proposal in question.

I am not fully confident that my concerns have been addressed. Your pal Rang is so busy yelling at people to read the resolution that he forgets that some people have read the resolution and might need specific clarifications.

One of my concerns has been addressed.

But not all of them.

When I am spoken to reasonably, then I will ask my question.

I WANT to vote for this resolution, don't burn a possible YES vote by reacting like scalded dogs because I have the temerity to seek answers to my questions.

Your concerns all pertain to either ships that belong to the enemy or are heading to the enemy. If they belong to the enemy, they fail to meet the requirements of the definition of "neutral" as stated in Article 1, a. If they are heading to the enemy, they are exempt from the protections of this resolution by Article 6, b. I hope that clarifies everything.

I come to the UN on behalf of the nation of Death Stars.

This resolution is yet another attempt to allow the UN to become an international "hegemony" making policy which affects all nations even when it is the legitimate right of the nation to make their own descision.

This issue is a matter of national morals. As long as a country abides by the rules of warfare then this issue need not arise.

My region of Death Stars is against this resolution as it denies us the right to cripple opressive regimes to protect the law abiding citizens of other countries.

This resolution has not been thought through either i commend my fellow member above for pointing out a loop hole in the definitions of this resolution.

My government will be taking full advantages of any loop holes that are seen and will fight to repeal this resolution if it passes. I encourage delegates to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Russell of Dirkistaniden

Anyone else love the "It shouldn't be the UN's right to dictate its will to member nations that willingly joined it, it should be our right to force them to comply with our will by use of force"?

To everyone who reads this,

Please help me understand some definitions in the current resolution:

neutral ports - ?
neutral nation - ?
seaworthiness - ?

This resolution uses the word neutral in seven diffrent independently defined ways, and is very hard to understand. Why are so many of you voting for it just because the creator used big words?

People don't understand that naval battles occur during wartime, and no policy can change that. UN nations shouldn't be warring against each other, but when they do, War is War!

Free trade is no gaurntee, and neither is safty in time of war.

For all I care this resolution cannot be passed unless a resolution about Martime Mutual Understanding defines all naval actions clearly and differently with specified punishments dueing specified circumstances.

Feel free to give my your opinion personally, or on the forum.

- Pres Scottamus, Trandaga

Reaches into loincloth and takes out leather codpiece and starts banging it on the table. "We demand the sovereign right to board any enemy vessel for any reason during wartime. Trespassing in our waters is enough. Stay out of our damned waters."

Point 6, the point which says you can't board vessels, limits itself to neutral ships. An enemy ship is not neutral therefore you can board them at will

EDIT: And the entire resolution limits itself to ships that don't have guns, while we're at it.

1) a)DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed/unarmed vessels carrying cargo or passengers
3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government or international alliance;

Where would unarmed transports sailing under a neutral flag and carrying irregular (not necesarily terrorists) combatants fit in? "Offensive" and "Defensive" armaments need to be clearly defined, if only for the sake of clarity.

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force.
There should be an exception for drifting damaged ships, navigation errors, etc. Also, "reasonable cause" is quite vague.

e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.
Said POWs might include important enemy officials or persons that otherwise hold information crucial to the war effort, and there are enough resolutions concerning the proper treatment of POWs already. I see no need for any neutral nation to interfere on these affairs.

Where would unarmed transports sailing under a neutral flag and carrying irregular (not necesarily terrorists) combatants fit in? "Offensive" and "Defensive" armaments need to be clearly defined, if only for the sake of clarity.

Neutral shipping. Non-merchant, but still neutral - assuming it's a neutral ship. If it's not a neutral ship and instead a beligerant ship, it doesn't fall under any of those categories - for they are not the only ones.

There should be an exception for drifting damaged ships, navigation errors, etc.

You want us to remove protection on ships that drifted off course in International Waters thereby allowing them to be attacked because......

Also, "reasonable cause" is quite vague.

I think it was meant to be

Said POWs might include important enemy officials or persons that otherwise hold information crucial to the war effort, and there are enough resolutions concerning the proper treatment of POWs already. I see no need for any neutral nation to interfere on these affairs.

If a ship, for some reason, docks with a neutral party and possesses Prisoners of War, the neutral party would be pressured by both sides to act in their best interests, thus souring it's relationship with whichever nation who is less favored by its decisions. If you do not see the danger in that to the neutral party, I cannot help you.

I do apologize for my outburst, but I'm sure you would all sympathize with someone who has just said the same thing four times in a row. I just popped a few pills and I'll be okay for a couple hours.

Where would unarmed transports sailing under a neutral flag and carrying irregular (not necesarily terrorists) combatants fit in? "Offensive" and "Defensive" armaments need to be clearly defined, if only for the sake of clarity.

As belligerent warships. I strain to see how "offensive" and "defensive" could be any more clear; a transport armed with 16-inch guns is not a defensive ship.

Said POWs might include important enemy officials or persons that otherwise hold information crucial to the war effort, and there are enough resolutions concerning the proper treatment of POWs already. I see no need for any neutral nation to interfere on these affairs

I'm not really understanding your objection, but as you yourself stated POWs are already covered under other resolutions. Furthermore, if such important officials were present in a ship, any competent commander would make the necessary arrangements to transport them to another vessel. I highly doubt that a ship carrying important personnel would be traveling alone.

"We demand the sovereign right to board any enemy vessel for any reason during wartime. Trespassing in our waters is enough. Stay out of our damned waters."

First, please put you junk back in. Second, this proposal will allow you that right. "Enemy vessel" is a synonym for "belligerent vessel" in this case.

Beyond that, I can't see where your objection is... this only covers belligerent and neutral nations in wartime; and unless your nation is in a constant state of war you are well within your rights to search vessels entering your waters...

Rang Erman
Advisor
Back on his medicine

Excuse my newness as this is my first post on this forum but I do have some concerns.
1) a)DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed/unarmed vessels carrying cargo OR passengers,


6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force.


I am wondering about ships that are not armed and set out to see for a destination before a war started and can't port without risk of being shot down. Also if these ships do wish to be boarded as they are carrying citizens of the nation back home then they can be shot down, even if the citizens of the nation do not beleive in the war and would have stayed out of the country had they known there was a war about to start? Also, reasonable cause is vague. I understand that may have been its purpose but when creating a law about war between 2 or more countries a resoltion or law can't be vague at all or else the law will just become void under to many interpretations.

This resolution has to many loopholes for any nation to get around and therefor solves nothing other than filling in space on the resolution list in my opinion. I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise so I can change my single vote. I will not vote yet as to give you the opportunity to sway me.

This issue is a matter of national morals. As long as a country abides by the rules of warfare then this issue need not arise.
Has it occurred to you that this is a resolution determining those same rules of warfare? If we don't have debates like this, how do we decide what the rules of warfare are?

~ Sebastian Ennuk

Could everyone step back and read the bloody proposal before you start yelling random claims?

You would deprive people of the primary form of exercise in the UN building, jumping to conclusions?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A general question and then some specifics...

Please forgive any untoward ignorance, we are located in a little-used corner of NS and have managed to avoid formal war for longer than memory. Our battleships large as islands may have something to do with that....

Are we correct in finding nothing in this document that would force us, as a neutral nation, to even allow entrance in our waters of a belligerent warship? And if not in this document, is there such a responsibility legislated by this body elsewhere?
6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:

b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force.
We must ask, reasonable cause to whom? Certainly anyone commanding a warship worth his salt will make sure there was reasonable cause and if the 'neutral' ship sinks with full complement, who's to counter his or her claim?
7) a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;Who would be paying for these experts? And if the belligerent nation, what exactly would ensure payment? Many neutral nations have neither the means to foot the bill, nor the military wherewithall to enforce an invoice.
7)d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
By whom? We don't want them. Their mere presence in our nation raises the spectre of our becoming embroiled in someone else's war.
7)e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.
Exactly who is paying to keep these POWs that we must intern? How long must we intern them? Wars are known to extend dozens, even hundreds of years; why should my nation pay for keeping these persons (or the belligerent crew from above) and in so doing contribute indirectly to the coffers of a war we have no interest in furthering. Frankly, since we're talking about member states, there's no reason said POWs shouldn't be left in the hands of the belligerents. The war has a much better chance of coming to a conclusion if both nations are equally exhausting their economies.

You would deprive people of the primary form of exercise in the UN building, jumping to conclusions?

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeDon't forget knee jerking ... it's a good alternative for those needing a low impact exercise.


Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

I am wondering about ships that are not armed and set out to see for a destination before a war started and can't port without risk of being shot down.
If the merchantman is in neutral national waters, clause 5 grants it safety. If the merchantman of a belligerent nation is not so blessed, it runs the risk of being shot at; such is war. Clause 4 at least grants safety to its crew and passengers should the captain so choose.

Also if these ships do wish to be boarded as they are carrying citizens of the nation back home then they can be shot down, even if the citizens of the nation do not beleive in the war and would have stayed out of the country had they known there was a war about to start?
Such is war. But our observations above still apply.

Also, reasonable cause is vague. I understand that may have been its purpose but when creating a law about war between 2 or more countries a resoltion or law can't be vague at all or else the law will just become void under to many interpretations.
A nation which abuses 'reasonable cause' with regard to neutral shipping is creating further enemies for itself. Such undiplomatic activity during wartime is counterproductive. Further, we would suggest that attempting to define 'reasonable cause' would be an exercise in futility, merely offering loopholes in the opposite direction. Under the circumstances, it seems more reasonable to take the approach which is self-limiting rather than the one which isn't.

This resolution has to many loopholes for any nation to get around and therefor solves nothing other than filling in space on the resolution list in my opinion. I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise so I can change my single vote. I will not vote yet as to give you the opportunity to sway me.
We would have to disagree. A great deal of time and thought has been put into this proposal on the floor of this chamber. We have not particularly been a contributor to the debate, but we can see the value of the choices which have been made and applaud the efforts that various representatives have made to the improvement of this offering.

(OOC: bear in mind also that there is a character limit to resolutions, and this is pretty close to it. There's a limit to how closely terms can be defined and still leave room for actual substance!)

I do apologize for my outburstThat's a good start, but you've been getting increasingly belligerent over the past couple debates. Screaming and yelling is uncalled for. Posting in GIANT TEXT is especially uncalled for.

Take a powder and calm down. Raving like a mad man doesn't help anything.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

A nation which abuses 'reasonable cause' with regard to neutral shipping is creating further enemies for itself. Such undiplomatic activity during wartime is counterproductive. Further, we would suggest that attempting to define 'reasonable cause' would be an exercise in futility, merely offering loopholes in the opposite direction. Under the circumstances, it seems more reasonable to take the approach which is self-limiting rather than the one which isn't.


We would have to disagree. A great deal of time and thought has been put into this proposal on the floor of this chamber. We have not particularly been a contributor to the debate, but we can see the value of the choices which have been made and applaud the efforts that various representatives have made to the improvement of this offering.



My answer to the a nation creating more enemies for itself by abusing reasonable cause would be the same nation that would shoot down a neutral ship. I also know that if I were to bring my small nation to war then I would not take any chances with "neutral" ships and would try to best bend reasonable cause to my advantage. If I am willing to bend reasonable cause in my favor I can not possibly imagine what a country that has a much larger military force than I have would do, as they would have less chance to suffer unfavorable consequences.

While I do applaud the effort put into this I must say it still falls short of what I would like. Even with the size limitations to a resolution I believe better wording could be chosen to shorten and also better define it. I would like to also add that the UN should not pass a resolution because it is the best thing at the time but should try to perfect it until there are no loose interpretations available. While I do agree with what the resolution is trying to achieve I am finding it impossible to support it because it will most likely have to be repealed and replaced later on as it is not as good as it should be.

As the representative of a nation that gains nearly all of its profit from trade, and as a nation that has not had a serious war for more than one hundred years (the Maronese Wars), I am strongly in favour. FOR.

~ Sebastian Ennuk

Anyone else love the "It shouldn't be the UN's right to dictate its will to member nations that willingly joined it, it should be our right to force them to comply with our will by use of force"?

Delicious, isn't it?

This is a good proposal. The fact that most of the objections raised so far come from misreadings of the proposal makes me even more strongly inclined to support it.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

My answer to the a nation creating more enemies for itself by abusing reasonable cause would be the same nation that would shoot down a neutral ship. I also know that if I were to bring my small nation to war then I would not take any chances with "neutral" ships and would try to best bend reasonable cause to my advantage. If I am willing to bend reasonable cause in my favor I can not possibly imagine what a country that has a much larger military force than I have would do, as they would have less chance to suffer unfavorable consequences.

While I do applaud the effort put into this I must say it still falls short of what I would like. Even with the size limitations to a resolution I believe better wording could be chosen to shorten and also better define it. I would like to also add that the UN should not pass a resolution because it is the best thing at the time but should try to perfect it until there are no loose interpretations available. While I do agree with what the resolution is trying to achieve I am finding it impossible to support it because it will most likely have to be repealed and replaced later on as it is not as good as it should be.

So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't want any rules at all? In the UN, compliance is mandatory- you have to follow the resolutions once they pass.

I will grant you this- it's nice to see a new player state their desire to repeal and replace bad resolutions, but I disagree that this is a bad one.

A general question and then some specifics...

Are we correct in finding nothing in this document that would force us, as a neutral nation, to even allow entrance in our waters of a belligerent warship? And if not in this document, is there such a responsibility legislated by this body elsewhere?
Under certain circumstances, belligenerent ships are permitted into neutral waters. Allowing entrance outside these reason would be contradictory to Rights of Neutral States, if one wishes to remain neutral.

We must ask, reasonable cause to whom? Certainly anyone commanding a warship worth his salt will make sure there was reasonable cause and if the 'neutral' ship sinks with full complement, who's to counter his or her claim?
The word count prohibited me from expanding this further, but reasonable cause to suspect a ship is heading for a belligerenat port would be such things as flying the flag of a neutral nation known to be supplying an enemy, in a shipping lane heading towards a neutral port, etc. You cank sink a ship without removing it's crew and passengers safely, unless it ignores you and resfuses to let you search (a search would also determine the destination and intent of the vessel)

Who would be paying for these experts?
The beligerent whose warship is docking in a neutral port - if they refuse to pay, then they you can intern the crew or just refuse to fix it, in which case their enemies navy has time to get in place and lurk 12 miles outside the port inquestion, so it is not logical not to pay. The repairs themselves have to be either paid for by the belligerent nation whose warship is docking or performed by the crew.

Exactly who is paying to keep these POWs that we must intern? How long must we intern them?
The neutral nation, and until the cessation of hostilities. If it last 100's of years, the blighter will die and you don't have to pay for them anymore. May seem unfair, but if you give the PoW's back to the nation they were captured from, then you are giving that nation an advantage by giving them more troops. Giving them back to the people who captured them similarly gives them an advantage (placement next to military targets, negotiation, etc). However, you don't have to keep them as one would keep PoW's. You don't need to guard them, they should still be getting paid by their governments - so it could well be good for your economy.

After review, we have decided to vote in favor of this resolution. We applaud this effort to protect neutral nations in event of war, as Altanar practices strict neutrality in most situations.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

My answer to the a nation creating more enemies for itself by abusing reasonable cause would be the same nation that would shoot down a neutral ship. I also know that if I were to bring my small nation to war then I would not take any chances with "neutral" ships and would try to best bend reasonable cause to my advantage. If I am willing to bend reasonable cause in my favor I can not possibly imagine what a country that has a much larger military force than I have would do, as they would have less chance to suffer unfavorable consequences.

While I do applaud the effort put into this I must say it still falls short of what I would like. Even with the size limitations to a resolution I believe better wording could be chosen to shorten and also better define it. I would like to also add that the UN should not pass a resolution because it is the best thing at the time but should try to perfect it until there are no loose interpretations available. While I do agree with what the resolution is trying to achieve I am finding it impossible to support it because it will most likely have to be repealed and replaced later on as it is not as good as it should be.

Defining the circumstances that would count as reasonable cause would take the enitre character count of a resolution alone. In a known shipping lane, on a bearing that would preclude other destination, having "I'm supplying your enemy" painted in large letters on the side, piled high with tanks, avoiding your ships, flying the flag of a neutral nation that is freindly to the oppositions cause. As one has to remove the crew, it's not just the captain's word, either. You have a lot of pissed off merchant seaman to answer to...

I know your questions were already answered, but I just want to expand on them more for the benefit of others in the body.


We must ask, reasonable cause to whom? Certainly anyone commanding a warship worth his salt will make sure there was reasonable cause and if the 'neutral' ship sinks with full complement, who's to counter his or her claim?

Unfortunately, there's really no oversight in the field. A ship's captain would have to make the decision, and then hope he made the right choice. I would think that his course of action would be later reviewed by his commanders, and either be court-martialed for misconduct, awarded a medal, or just head back to sea.

Who would be paying for these experts? And if the belligerent nation, what exactly would ensure payment? Many neutral nations have neither the means to foot the bill, nor the military wherewithall to enforce an invoice.

The ship seeking repairs. Once a ship enters port seeking repairs, regardless if it's a warship or a merchant vessel, and if it's in wartime or not, they would be seeking the services available to them, in essence they would be paying for someone to fix their ship.

As to the enforcement of such payment, it is entirely possible that unscrupulous captains might have the kind of armaments to simply sail in, get fixed, and then blast their way out, but such action would then be in violation of UN/international law and be violating both Rights of Neutral States and this resolution, should it pass.

Exactly who is paying to keep these POWs that we must intern? How long must we intern them? Wars are known to extend dozens, even hundreds of years; why should my nation pay for keeping these persons (or the belligerent crew from above) and in so doing contribute indirectly to the coffers of a war we have no interest in furthering. Frankly, since we're talking about member states, there's no reason said POWs shouldn't be left in the hands of the belligerents. The war has a much better chance of coming to a conclusion if both nations are equally exhausting their economies.

You raise an excellent point. As Cob said, they would probably be dead by the time the war had stretched on that long, and returning the POWs would constitute breaking neutrality by giving aid to an enemy. Of course, the financial burden on nations could be overly large for some, but that's the price of ensuring neutrality and peace.

There's also nothing to state that the POWs could not be given jobs in the neutral nation. They could work for their keep, and just not be allowed to leave. That's a far more humane and advantageous course of action than simply locking them up until the killing's done.

OOC: I'm reminded of the movie version of "Last of the Mohicans" when the French contracted the natives to attack the surrendered British. The French terms were such that the British commander promised to return to Britain with his troops and cease fighting. The French general knew that the British general would keep his word, but he also knew that his superiors would just rearm the redcoats and send them back to the war, so he had them all killed instead.

Granted, the analogy is a bit different, but you can see how returning troops would cause some friction between parties.

Most courteously,

Posting in GIANT TEXT is especially uncalled for.Er, better not look at that Prohibition of UN Military thread then.

1) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed/unarmed vessels carrying cargo or passengers,[...]

What does it mean: non-offensively? I.e. is a 40mm Bofors cannon an offensive armanent?

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the 12 nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; [...]

What's a coastline? Are islands near the main landmass included? The border of national waters can be measured using very different methods by intersted parties..

3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, [...]

Again: what does offensively armed mean?

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;

You got to be kidding. Let smb else country men into my warship during war? I'm so sure there won't be any spies between them. Sure...

b)No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;

Any repairs increase fighting efficiency of a warship...

What does it mean: non-offensively? I.e. is a 40mm Bofors cannon an offensive armanent?

Is the weapon primarily used for warfare? Then yes, it is an offensive armament.

If the weapon in question is used for the defense of the ship, then it is non-offensive. 16-inch guns are offensive armaments, because their primary purpose is to blast the hell out of things.

What's a coastline? Are islands near the main landmass included? The border of national waters can be measured using very different methods by intersted parties..

Random House Dictionary Unabridged 2006
coast·line [kohst-lahyn]
–noun
1. the outline or contour of a coast; shoreline.
2. the land and water lying adjacent to a shoreline.

Since any islands owned by a nation would be considered part of their lands, and since islands generally have coasts, yes, islands are included.

I'm unsure if there is legislation defining international and national waters... only Law of the Sea comes to mind, and that was repealed...


You got to be kidding. Let smb else country men into my warship during war? I'm so sure there won't be any spies between them. Sure...

Your warships are entering into the port of a neutral nation, expecting help and repair... I hardly think being generally unpleasant and refusing repair teams on your ship will do much for the large torpedo holes you're looking to plug.

Any repairs increase fighting efficiency of a warship...

Which is why subsequent to any repairs the ship will be interned for the duration of the conflict. It won't be returning to the battle if it docks in a neutral port.

Most courteously,

Thank you to the ambassadors from Cobdenia and Allech-Atreus for your prompt and complete responses. Although we are still concerned about the possible negative effects on nations due to a happenstance beyond their control, your answers have changed a most probable "no" to a dependent "yes".

... returning the POWs would constitute breaking neutrality by giving aid to an enemy. Of course, the financial burden on nations could be overly large for some, but that's the price of ensuring neutrality and peace.We tend to see it as inserting ourselves into a conflict we purposely chose to avoid, but we do understand your point.


--L.T.

We voted FOR. We've evaluated the proposal and understand it more clearly than... others. Perhaps we can help.

b)No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;

Any repairs increase fighting efficiency of a warship...

How do you define "efficiency"? Seaworthiness could certainly speed a boat up, but if the guns are left unrepaired, the thing's a floating block of iron with people on it. If the guns are still working, then fine. I'm sure if the neutral nation was so concerned they could detain the craft after entering the conflict. That wouldn't be too hard.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;

You got to be kidding. Let smb else country men into my warship during war? I'm so sure there won't be any spies between them. Sure...

Well, If this passes, which seems likely, you wouldn't have a choice. I'm pretty sure a neutral nation would be hesitant to put spies on a boat so close to their nation. They wouldn't risk upsetting anyone unless they were secretly up to something, in which case, blast away.

Overall, we find this covention worthy of voting FOR.

Awesomely,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
"I've cooled off now."

So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't want any rules at all? In the UN, compliance is mandatory- you have to follow the resolutions once they pass.

I will grant you this- it's nice to see a new player state their desire to repeal and replace bad resolutions, but I disagree that this is a bad one.

If you must know, my personal opinion on organizations such as the UN is this. I believe the UN should only pass laws that would protect and/or defend nations and/or people that can not do so themselves. Anything else is just dictating ideologies. This particular resolution falls well within the limits of what I think the UN should be able to do. That is not what I have a problem with. I do not like the wording because I think there are to many ways around it. Although I do not like it, at the moment I am incline to vote for it. It seems to me that if it passes then there will be a chance for a newer and better version to be made where as if it doesn't pass then this entire subject will fall into the back of peoples minds and will never be solved. It seems that I have been swayed.

When it comes to naval warfare, it would be nearly impossible for this to work. How hard would it be for a ship to pretend like a merchant craft? For those of you that have seen 'Master and Commander", youll know what i mean. The chances of nations following this are slim. Usually when a nation is over whelmed or facing defeat, they resort to guerilla (sp?) tacticts (Russia, Afganistan, the many "freedom fighters").

Plus it would create a higher death toll. By allowing a nation to recieve supplies, it thusly drags the war out. The tactical advantage of interrupting supply routes is critical to victory, and to deny this would make the war longer and bloodier.

Thus, this proposal blows.

Reaches into loincloth and takes out leather codpiece and starts banging it on the table. "We demand the sovereign right to board any enemy vessel for any reason during wartime. Trespassing in our waters is enough. Stay out of our damned waters."


You got a codpiece inside a loincloth? Based on that alone, we won't be going anywhere near your hemisphere.

Interesting debate, but the wee nation of Nodin will be voting with the majority. Aye.

-- The Honorable Halvard Glibgums
Speaker pro tempore, Nodin's House of Ill Repute

I have to state edp123's intention to vote against this resolution. There was much debate in my government, and the discussion flowed back and forth for quite sometime.

The arguement that swung it in favour of against however, is that edp123 will not accept any unallied vessel in our waters, be it neutral or enemy, whatever it's needs, except in circumstances that the master-commander of our armies deems it the correct choice.

However, the majority actually agreed to the rest of the resolution, and so if an ammendment, or any more information that could swing the arguemnt back again is forthcomming, I believe edp123 will change it's vote.

The arguement that swung it in favour of against however, is that edp123 will not accept any unallied vessel in our waters, be it neutral or enemy, whatever it's needs, except in circumstances that the master-commander of our armies deems it the correct choice.

We believe we are correct in saying that this resolution does not attempt to legislate how you manage your own nation’s waters. This resolution appears to be directed at managing international waters and the waters of neutral nations. However, we would like this confirmed because we may have misread it in a similar manner to so many other nations.

Ithania casts its vote in favour of this resolution. While it may not effect us due to our technological progression we see this as a comprehensive resolution which admirably enshrines the right to neutrality.

Anravelle Kramer.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship of an adversary;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.[/indent]

The Nation of Cortalund would like some clarification on this. This portion of the resolution does not state that the Nation in which the warship is entering has to provide aid, nor does it say that the POWs have to be accepted.

Is this the case or are neutral nations required to give aid to the vessel and take in any POWs?

No and yes. There is no compulsion to accept ships for repair (you can declare them seaworthy and intern them, or tell them to bugger off), but any PoW's on the ship must be interned by the neutral nation.

Incidentally, Admiral of the Fleet His Excellency Sir Leslie Featherstonehaugh-Michelwhaite GCS GCRC GOG, the Governor-General of Cobdenia, wishes to announce that it has bestoerd an honorary Companion of The Most Fantabulous Order of Richard Cobden to Bob Flibble, for being the first to endorse. This comes with a shiny gong (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Medals_and_Orders_of_Cobdenia#Companion_of_The_Most_Fantabulous_Order_of_Richard_Cobden) and a cookie. Congratulations, Mr Flibble!

e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.

My government is still undecided about this resolution, and in particular are focusing on operative clause 7e.

While we understand that the intent here is that essentially grant the "former" prisoners of war the same rights that prisoners of war are entitled to, it is unclear what there status is ... the are still interned, but the problem here is that now the neutral nation can essentially enter into negotiations with the other party of the conflict for their release. Why aren't the prisoners, which are supposed to be protected (Wolfish Convention on POW) simply not returned to the party that brought them to the neutral port?

Because then the country that brought them to said port would have a military advantage, which contradicts RoNS. Also, as the national waters are sovereign territory, and it is illegal to keep PoW's (as opposed to internees) in a neutral nation under RoNS, it's the only way around it. There is also nothing saying that you have to ensure the buggers don't escape ;)

We in New Manth also dislike the prisoners of war clause. The Corporate Council has directed me to vote AGAINST. No military advantage is created by simply allowing a nation to keep that which it already has.

With respect,
Halys Mattan III, acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

Because then the country that brought them to said port would have a military advantage, which contradicts RoNS. Also, as the national waters are sovereign territory, and it is illegal to keep PoW's (as opposed to internees) in a neutral nation under RoNS, it's the only way around it...

My government, as evidenced from the latest draft of our proposed resolution dealing with Humanitarian Transport, believes that POWs shouldn't ever be on warships, with the exception of when they are initially picked up.

But I do not see how in the few cases where POWs are on a ship that enters a neutral port will be a military advantage.

That said, I am also aware that now that this resolution has reached the floor for debate and vote, that we can not draft an amendment to the resolution ... but I do hope we might be able to reach an agreement that this clause would rarely be necessary.

We in New Manth also dislike the prisoners of war clause. The Corporate Council has directed me to vote AGAINST. No military advantage is created by simply allowing a nation to keep that which it already has.

With respect,
Halys Mattan III, acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

Any reason why?

*Looks around at the various delegations that all seem to be agreeing with each other for seemingly the first time ever. Stands. Walks over to the Cobdenian delegation.*

"I'm not sure what you've spiked the water with, but you should market the stuff. The representatives of Forgottenlands and Allech-Atreus are agreeing with each other. Gobbaneum is on board, as is Rubina with some luck, and I find myself agreeing with them. There are scores of other regulars who seem content to actually request clarification on any points of contention for them.

I thought that you had a good proposal with this covention. Now I am absolutely covinced. Well done, good sir.

We have already cast our vote in favour of this fine resolution."

That said, I am also aware that now that this resolution has reached the floor for debate and vote, that we can not draft an amendment to the resolution ... but I do hope we might be able to reach an agreement that this clause would rarely be necessary.

On the whole it would only be used in very rare circumstances. One such circumstance, using a ficticious analogy, the Graf Spee. It searches the Doric Star, rescues the crew, and sinks the ship, then buggers off to South America without going to it's supply ship, let's call it the Altmark. It then get's royally rogered when it comes across, let us call them, the cruisers Ajax, Achilles and Exeter and scarpers, broken, to a fictitious place called Montevideo in a neutral country called Barry. Actually, let's call it Uruguay. Sounds better. Then those PoW's would be on the Graf Spee, and would have to be handed over. ;)

The military advantage of keeping those PoW's would include use in PoW transfers, placing next to military targets, and using them as labour that may indirectly aid their enemies

We find the intent of this to be a good one but due to some areas not being clear or to intervening on already established shipping treaties with other nations it to be no supportable.

First there is no set national limit of waters around a nation so if we set our border at say twelve miles and another at sixteen then can we consider shipping at twelve as we do inside national waters of that nation or have to go with the sixteen.


Then all the mess about checking ships coming in and assisting for repairs. If any ship comes into one of our repair ports and can pay for work and the fees required and meets with out recieving policy then fine. If not then it needs to find another port. Especialy armed war ships of nations involved in a hostile war in which we would have not part in being partial in most events to neither nation.

Then in the part that POW are not POW but to be treated a POWs. Sounds like a bunch of bull to me. Disabled ships that end up in one of our ports are treated with the care they need crews in the event they are hositle in nature are required to remain on ship if possible until they are able to leave port. This means anyone held on that ship is part of that crew and fall under the same standards as the regular crew. We don't search the ship nor do we let them off it. In the event the ship is not safe and they must be removed they are taken to set places to wait the arrival of one of the ships to retieve them. They are not allowed to visit our nation as they have no visa to do so and are only allowed to remain here until they can leave on their own ship or be taken out by their own nation or fund their removal to another place. They also must pay any fees for entering out posts or we consider taking property or holding the ship until such is paid by the owning company.

Hardass Captaana,
Zeldon Chief Naval Security

On advice from our National Naval Fleet I must vote against this proposal. The above it but a brief cleaned up view of what Hardass had to say about it. His long winded vulgar comments were deleted so as to keep you sailors from blushing...

Zarta Warden,
Zeldon UN Ambassador

don't worry, they can still be strafed by airplanes and the like "surface vessels or submarines" i hate these badly structured reports. with big gaping loopholes.

i like the general idea though.

don't worry, they can still be strafed by airplanes and the like "surface vessels or submarines" i hate these badly structured reports. with big gaping loopholes.

i like the general idea though.

Qua?

Vassat ou zay?

Anglish?

We find the intent of this to be a good one but due to some areas not being clear or to intervening on already established shipping treaties with other nations it to be no supportable.

First there is no set national limit of waters around a nation so if we set our border at say twelve miles and another at sixteen then can we consider shipping at twelve as we do inside national waters of that nation or have to go with the sixteen.

I'm sorry, but did you miss this clause?

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the 12 nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then 25 nautical miles wide, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the coastlines is to be considered as international waters,


Then all the mess about checking ships coming in and assisting for repairs. If any ship comes into one of our repair ports and can pay for work and the fees required and meets with out recieving policy then fine. If not then it needs to find another port. Especialy armed war ships of nations involved in a hostile war in which we would have not part in being partial in most events to neither nation.

Would you care to point to the clause that says you have to accept their request to dock?

Then in the part that POW are not POW but to be treated a POWs. Sounds like a bunch of bull to me. Disabled ships that end up in one of our ports are treated with the care they need crews in the event they are hositle in nature are required to remain on ship if possible until they are able to leave port. This means anyone held on that ship is part of that crew and fall under the same standards as the regular crew. We don't search the ship nor do we let them off it. In the event the ship is not safe and they must be removed they are taken to set places to wait the arrival of one of the ships to retieve them. They are not allowed to visit our nation as they have no visa to do so and are only allowed to remain here until they can leave on their own ship or be taken out by their own nation or fund their removal to another place. They also must pay any fees for entering out posts or we consider taking property or holding the ship until such is paid by the owning company.

Hardass Captaana,
Zeldon Chief Naval Security

This clause actually gives them the rights of POWs as defined under the Wolfish Convention on POWs. That is the only effect of the clause.

On advice from our National Naval Fleet I must vote against this proposal. The above it but a brief cleaned up view of what Hardass had to say about it. His long winded vulgar comments were deleted so as to keep you sailors from blushing...

Zarta Warden,
Zeldon UN Ambassador

I highly suggest you ask your Naval Security Chief to start reading proposals before he screams vulgarities. He seems to be embarassing your sailors with his poor reading comprehension skills.....

I come to the UN on behalf of the nation of Death Stars.

This resolution is yet another attempt to allow the UN to become an international "hegemony" making policy which affects all nations even when it is the legitimate right of the nation to make their own descision.

This issue is a matter of national morals. As long as a country abides by the rules of warfare then this issue need not arise.

My region of Death Stars is against this resolution as it denies us the right to cripple opressive regimes to protect the law abiding citizens of other countries.

This resolution has not been thought through either i commend my fellow member above for pointing out a loop hole in the definitions of this resolution.

My government will be taking full advantages of any loop holes that are seen and will fight to repeal this resolution if it passes. I encourage delegates to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Death Stars? Come now...we all know there's only one true Death Star (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=180)... :p

To be fair, I did not read all five pages, so excuse me if this was already said,

This resolution renders blockades, an acceptable practice in war, illegal. In Article 2, it defines neutral waters as waters 12 nautical miles away from adjoining nations coastline, and in Article 7, it states that belligerent warships are not allowed to enter neutral waters under the threat of internment.

Internment: to confine or impound especially during a war

Which you may respond that a blockade within belligerent waters is acceptable, however, 12 nautical miles is well with in conventional munitions range from both warships and land based gunnery. Thus making it impossible to effectively blockade a country.

Suffocating a countries economy is a very effective means of warfare, it cuts down on costs, both monetary and in personnel (including civilian lives), and it reduces collateral damage. Will these things still happen? Yes, however, an Economy unable to carry on a prolonged conflict will reduce these, and blockading a countries trade is a perfect way to deal a blow to their economy, thus reducing the aforementioned losses to both sides.

We will not be supporting this resolution.

It defines INTERNATIONAL Waters as 12 nautical miles, not Neutral. Neutral means it belongs to a neutral nation. International means it belongs to no nation.

Still it does not change the fact that it renders blockading extremely difficult,

What if a belligerent nation shared a maritime border with a neutral nation, Which happens all the time, and if this neutral nation is one that trades with both sides of a conflict, which is well within their rights, you can no longer effectively blockade your enemy.

Still it does not change the fact that it renders blockading extremely difficult,

What if a belligerent nation shared a maritime border with a neutral nation, Which happens all the time, and if this neutral nation is one that trades with both sides of a conflict, which is well within their rights, you can no longer effectively blockade your enemy.

If it shares a border with your opponent, then they can do land routes anyway.

If it doesn't share a border, then you're guaranteed a mile between the two nations

If you can't get the mile because the river is too small, well then you were fucked with the blockade in the first place.

If you cannot operate within these confines.....there are much greater problems and this resolution is far from the cause.

Problem:
PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety.

Anyone notice the 'belligerent' part in there? These leads to one significant problem... what if you have a merchant ship delivering sea-based mines, and they've been paid to drop some of their cargo on the way? They wouldn't be able to be boarded to remove passengers, and it would give mine-laying, a largely despicable practice, a preferred position in nautical combat and U.N. protection.

This legislation is too dangerous to be allowed to pass.

A minelayer fails to qualify for the definition "Merchant ship"

It makes me sad to once again see that the legislative minds think they can make war a nice, clean affair where everyone goes home happy. The bottom line is that war is organized chaos. War is destruction and death and it is not meant to be neat and pretty.

To think that the commander of a naval warship has to make sure that everyone on the enemy ship is safe and securing the ship's papers before destroying said ship is RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, NO military commander would wait till his enemy's merchant shipping came within 12 miles of his coast. He would be striking at the first opportunity to prevent those supplies from getting to his enemy. People die in war...it's just a question of which side is going to lose more.

The passing of this resolution will result in more military and civilain casualties.

My country will definitely not be adhering to this "resolution" which is more a waste of everyone's time than productive.

in the early to mid 1900's naval warefare was becoming the prominant fighting force in the world.

The purpose of the navy was to protect the commerce of it's country and allies and destroy the oppositions navy, well, what if you could not destroy the oppositions navy?

It was suggested by mahan that you could use the "Guerre de Course" which is essentially guerilla warfar on commerce.

Destroyers, fast lightly armored ships would attack commerce ports and ships to disrupt the enemies commerce.

This is why you have military escorts for commercial ships.

If the enemy chooses to attack ships of a neutral nation, then an escort should and can be used.

War is not a "Play by the rules affair"

and a resolution as weak as this one is not going to draw international comdemnation of the offending nation.

Therefore, this is a weak resolution that suffocates nations without large navies.

In retrospect, it would have been wise to check my spelling.

I apologize for my grammatical errors.

-The Big Eater
Ambassador to the UN
Valley of Exploding Sheep

I am starting to warm up to this resolution. I noticed, after a few more reads, that there is a clause that states a nation can attack:

"When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port"

Which effectively allows one to disrupt trade for enemy nation.

So I guess, I rescind my original opinion and declare support for this resolution.

It is weak, but here's hoping.

The intent of this legislation is valid, but necessary revisions need to be made. The Self-Serving has made many valid points, with the most important being:

"Also, "reasonable" is subject to interpretation."

Also I agree to the fact that there is anti-terrorism legislation, but what about the rogue cargo ships? Is there any provision that accounts for pirates or smugglers. In effect my nation may be at war with another in neutral waters, but what about the supplying allies to my enemy. I do not want to be internationally condemned for cutting off supply ships who are invigorating the war effort against me.

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or naval force..

Maritime Neutrality Covention
6,547 UN Member States Can't Be Wrong

Maritime Neutrality Covention
6,547 UN Member States Can't Be Wrong

Apparently 3,727 UN Member States can be.....

And somebody's already trying to repeal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=covention) it...

Meh. That always happens.

The intent of this legislation is valid, but necessary revisions need to be made. The Self-Serving has made many valid points, with the most important being:

"Also, "reasonable" is subject to interpretation."

Also I agree to the fact that there is anti-terrorism legislation, but what about the rogue cargo ships? Is there any provision that accounts for pirates or smugglers. In effect my nation may be at war with another in neutral waters, but what about the supplying allies to my enemy. I do not want to be internationally condemned for cutting off supply ships who are invigorating the war effort against me.

I convinced my government to vote in favor at the last minute, as we were convinced by the arguments of the proponents that this was indeed a well thought out resolution.

As for piracy, those ships aren't entitled to rights if they do not have a sponsoring nation. If they do have a sponsoring nation, any and all actions they take are a reflection upon that nation. There really should not be any pirates out there, but if this is something governments feel strongly about, a short and simple resolution stating the above (status quo for piracy) would probably make this more clear.