NationStates Jolt Archive

Internment Protocols
PolStabMild

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

REAFFRIMS the rights of inviolability granted such nations,

MINDFUL of the possibility of citizens and troops of belligerent nations arriving in neutral nations, and that to return such troops to their nation of origin may constitute a violation of the nations neutrality,

FURTHER MINDFUL of the possible presence of enemy citizens in a belligerent nation at the outbreak of hostilities

BELIEVING, however, that such troops and civilians should be humanely treated,

The United Nations, hereby, mandates the following:

1) A neutral nation which receives, or has already present at the outbreak of hostilities, on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies involved in a conflict which the nation has declared neutrality shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war;
a) It may keep them in camps or confine them in fortresses or in places set apart for this purpose;
b) They can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory;
c) Prohibits neutral nation from interning military and other officers of belligerent nations with diplomatic accreditation, and military and other officers whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents in neutral territory.

2) Neutral and belligerent nations holding internees shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity, as well as the same guarantees of safety that prisoners of war in belligerent nations receive.

3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty, unless such persons commit a crime in the neutral nation in question;

4) A neutral nation may, if in uncoerced agreement, authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the transport bringing them shall carry neither armed personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral nation is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose;
a)The sick or wounded brought under the these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral nation so as to ensure their not taking part again in the ongoing hostilities. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral nation with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation are to be repatriated or otherwise permitted to travel on to further nations under their own arrangements,
a) Excludes from the above with those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage or other covert operations in the neutral nation, civilians and politicians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and refugees, and others, such as journalists, medical and transport personel, at the descretion of the neutral nation in question

6) A belligerent nation may, if it so wishes, intern citizens of an enemy during hostilites. Such internees, excluding those believed to be engaged in espionage and other covert activities, are to be provided with the same protection as those internees in neutral nations,

7) At the conclusion of peace the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good by the belligerent parties.

Pretty much copied word for word from the 2nd Hague Convention, but seeing as that's out of copywrite somewhat...

Just as a start, why not use the definition of 'neutral nation' already used by the UN, as per Rights of Neutral States?

Done

I like the general idea, and in fact was actually (having been prompted by the relevant clause in the Maritime Neutrality Convention) considering trying to draft such a proposal myself.
Now _

Doesn't clause #5 need an exception for accredited diplomats & their staffs (& families)? What about any civillians of the belligerent nations who are married to natives of the neutral nations and thus normally have rights of residence there... and, indeed, what about people with [relevant] dual nationality? If somebody has dual nationality in a pair of nations that includes one nation on each side in the war then in which direction should they be repatriated? (Would this, as I'd suggest, be their choice?) What about REFUGEES from the belligerent nations, especially ones who faced serious persecution there and who might even have been formally granted asylum before hostilities began? Oh, and what about civillians from the belligerent nations who are caught spying -- or committing other crimes -- in the neutral nations?

A few exemptions added...

If you're going to use that definition, you will in turn need to specify that these protocols shall only apply to neutral nations with regard to the conflict with regard to which they've declared neutrality...which is awfully ungainly, and I apologise for raising the issue in the first place, but it's best to be clear and close off potential misunderstandings.

I suppose inevitably, the spectre of definition will be raised again with regard to 'troops': does this include people such as medics, technical specialists and priests, for example, who are in military uniform but perform no military function?
3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty, and should make efforts to repatriate them.
This may be a misunderstanding of 'receives' on my part, but are nations permitted to require such people to leave their territory, or does 'leav[ing] them at liberty' entail being requried to grant them (at least temporary) asylum?

Also, does there need to be something about the interrogation of such persons, including prohibition of torture?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

If you're going to use that definition, you will in turn need to specify that these protocols shall only apply to neutral nations with regard to the conflict with regard to which they've declared neutrality...which is awfully ungainly, and I apologise for raising the issue in the first place, but it's best to be clear and close off potential misunderstandings.

Could work out something

This may be a misunderstanding of 'receives' on my part, but are nations permitted to require such people to leave their territory, or does 'leav[ing] them at liberty' entail being requried to grant them (at least temporary) asylum?

By receives, I mean a neutral country into which an escaped PoW enters. Leaving them at liberty merely means they cannot be interned in the same way that, say, a downed airman who crashes in neutral territory would; by repatriate, I mean repatriate to the country there home country.


Also, does there need to be something about the interrogation of such persons, including prohibition of torture?

A bit unneccessary, as intenrees are guaranteed the same guarantees of saefty as PoW's, which is covered by wolfish

"Ahem!"

It's 'dual nationality', not 'duel nationality'... unless you mean that they had to fight for it... ;)

And considering that those foreigners' homelands are at war, isn't
and those for whom repatriation may mean endangerment of their person, effectively a rather wider exception than I suggested?

Bumpity bump bump bump for further evaluation and a possible submission in the not so distant future

A very interesting proposal, with much to recommend it. We believe, however, that some rewording and reorganization could simplify things a good bit and make it more palatable to voters. We also have a few questions after a first reading....

Article 1 seems to be limited to troops "received" in the neutral nation after the onset of hostilities. What about troops already present?

Why is the possibility of parole limited to "officers"?

A preambulatory clause states that repatriation may violate neutrality. Yet Article 3 suggests repatriation of escaped POWs. Isn't this a contradiction?

Article 4a seems to say that any sick or wounded passing through neutral territory become de jure non-combatants after recovery. This doesn't seem reasonable, especially given that the same condition does not apply to escaped POWs.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Why is the possibility of parole limited to "officers"?

Probably the prevalent attitude of the original source that a member of the officer class would keep his parole, while an ordinary grunt wouldn't know his sworn word from his swear words. It would be better to allow neutral nations to use their discretion on a case by case basis, surely, than to make outdated assumptions about honour like that.

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

What if a nations fights against a non-national armed group? Or a nation's army fights against it's own inhabitants?

Am I (as a nation) still neutral, if i host guerillas fighting against the gouvernment of my neighboring state, without being a nation themselves?

Not, that Damned PoPer would do so, but i think, this definition of belligerent is not sufficient.

Like Ausserland we feel that this proposal has many merits and we support the ideals behind the proposal generally. However there are a few revisions that would go a long way to making it far far far more palatable.

Our edits will be in bold. We hope that this will make it much better proposal.

1) A neutral nation which receives and/or already has troops on its territory belonging to the belligerent armies involved in a conflict which the nation has declared neutrality shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war;
a) It may keep them in camps and even confine them in fortresses or in places set apart for this purpose;
b) Officers and Enlisted personnel can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory;
c) Prohibits neutral nation from interning military and other officers of belligerent nations with diplomatic accreditation, and military and other officers whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents in neutral territory

I think that would go well to answering Ausserland's questions on the first section. We personally do not understand why it would be limited to officers only. In fact in Zyrwick we are more likely to parole enlisted personnel provided they stay in our territory and even give them full opportunity to seek non-military employment even citizenship in our Democratic Republic if they so choose.

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



And the current:

3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty, and should make efforts to repatriate them to their home nation as soon as possible;
a) Prior to repatriation, or if repatriation is impossible, escaped prisoners of war are to be interned according to the other relevant articles of this resolution


Do conflict. Sure one could argue that it doesn't but the fact is that it does. The PoW camps of Nation A might not be as secure as Nation B and the PoWs might be more easily be able to escape from the PoW camps of Nation A for example. As there are far too many variables to take into consideration, and the hard definition of Neutrality....Perhaps this change would cause the end of the conflict.

3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty, and should make efforts to repatriate them to their home nation at the end of hostilities between the belligerent nations and prior to repatriation, or if repatriation is impossible, escaped prisoners of war are to be interned according to the other relevant articles of this resolution;


Please note that I deleted the subsection. There is no need for a subsection "a" without a subsection "b". As for the last part of that section, while I don't think that other nations would or should be forced to do this, the the D.R.Z. would offer the PoWs to stay in Zyrwick and apply for Zyrwickian Citizenship.

4) A neutral nation may, if in uncoerced agreement, authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the transport bringing them shall carry neither armed personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral nation is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose;
a)The sick or wounded brought under the these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral nation so as to ensure their not taking part again in the ongoing hostilities. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral nation with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

There is a proposal that is under debate here now on this issue....I don't know how far along it is to being queued or even submitted but I would read that to make sure that this does not conflict with that if it is to be passed shortly. Over all we support it.

5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation are to be repatriated at the end of hostilities by the belligerent powers, and that such civilians may be left either at liberty or interned, provided that the internment conditions are equivalent to those protections granted the military personnel interned within the neutral nation.
a) Excludes from the above with those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage or other covert operations in the neutral nation, civilians and politicians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and those claiming political asylum,

I added that about civilian repatriation because they might have fled as refugees and immediate repatriation might cause more harm than good. Also the internment should be similar we feel.

Feel free to include those revisions we have suggested.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Article 1 seems to be limited to troops "received" in the neutral nation after the onset of hostilities. What about troops already present?

Will ammed to ensure it is clear that those already present.


Why is the possibility of parole limited to "officers"?

IC: I am supwised that one would leave other wankers at liberty, considering the inhewent cwiminal nature of the working classes and natives who make up the common foot wegiment, and that one would equally see officers and OR's as the same level of honour.

2nd Lt The Hon. Douglas Carruthers-FitzPewbik
Military Attache to the UN

OoC: Will look at the presendent set by previous resolutions; if there is no precedent of distinction between officers and OR's, then alterations will be made.

A preambulatory clause states that repatriation may violate neutrality. Yet Article 3 suggests repatriation of escaped POWs. Isn't this a contradiction?
I'll look into alterations, but I quite like the escaped PoW clause (incidently, the clause is in the 2nd Hague) - after all, if they've gone through all that trouble to escape and reach a neutral nation, it seems a tad unsporting to imprison them once again. I think the destinction between an escaped PoW and the crew from a lost 'plane that crashes over a neutral country or lost/deserting troops should be maintained.

Article 4a seems to say that any sick or wounded passing through neutral territory become de jure non-combatants after recovery. This doesn't seem reasonable, especially given that the same condition does not apply to escaped POWs.

Yes...this one's a little complicated. My feeling is that we don't really want people using neutrals for storing injured personell, thus by forcing their internment it effectively stops countries send their own wounded to neutrals. This clause is more to do with wounded PoW's being sent abroad, who would end up in a camp anyway

What if a nations fights against a non-national armed group? Or a nation's army fights against it's own inhabitants?

This proposal will only deal with neutrality in international conflicts, part because it just get's too complicated, and part due to precedent

I added that about civilian repatriation because they might have fled as refugees and immediate repatriation might cause more harm than good. Also the internment should be similar we feel.

Those claiming political asylum are already exempted; I feel civilians should be repatriated as soon as possible as otherwise it leads to complications, such as the crew of merchant ships, people who were on holiday when the war began, etc. would have to hang around until the war ended, which seems somewhat untenable

Alterations made to top draft:

1) A neutral nation which receives, or has already present at the outbreak of hostilities, on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies involved in a conflict which the nation has declared neutrality shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war;

1b altered to:
b) They can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory;
I know "they" sounds a bit wierd, but it fits in with the language of 1a)

3 altered to:
3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty;
Removed all the other stuff afterwards, which was unneccessary and contradictory. Although not explicitedly stated, I feel this still allows for an escaped PoW to return home, which I feel gives them a sporting chance

6) A belligerent nation may, if it so wishes, intern citizens of an enemy during hostilites. Such internees, excluding those believed to be engaged in espionage and other covert activities, are to be provided with the same protection as those internees in neutral nations,

Added for obvious reasons


a) Excludes from the above with those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage or other covert operations in the neutral nation, civilians and politicians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and refugees

Used a broader term, as there are more possibilities for seeking refuge then political asylum

All around a much better draft. We would support this on principle. However I will have to analise this further to see if there is anything else that needs to be revised.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

Added the following bits:
5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation are to be repatriated or otherwise permitted to travel on to further nations under their own arrangements,
a) Excludes from the above with those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage or other covert operations in the neutral nation, civilians and politicians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and refugees, and others, such as journalists, medical and transport personel, at the descretion of the neutral nation in question

First added bit largely because of merchant ship and aircraft crews (seems rather silly for them to arrive legally and then get sent back!), and the last as I felt their should be some descretion as I probably haven't thought of everything that should be exempted

We much appreciate the consideration given our questions by the distinguished representative of Cobdenia. We're quite satisfied with the changes made to Articles 1 and 3 of the draft. We would again, however, respectfully suggest some serious attention be given to simplifying both the structure and the language of the proposal. It could only help its chances of passage.

And now for this comment by Second Lieutenant Carruthers-FitzPewbik. I'm going to take off my diplomatic hat and speak as a serving officer of flag rank.

I am supwised that one would leave other wankers at liberty, considering the inhewent cwiminal nature of the working classes and natives who make up the common foot wegiment, and that one would equally see officers and OR's as the same level of honour.

2nd Lt The Hon. Douglas Carruthers-FitzPewbik
Military Attache to the UN

I can assure you, Lieutenant, that, if you were serving under my command, you would either effect some drastic and immediate attitude adjustment or have your commission revoked for the good of the service. Your sweeping generalization about the military personnel of other nations obviously stems from a rather astounding ignorance, which, in an officer of our armed forces, would be deemed culpable negligence. And your gross and gratuitous insult to them is conduct clearly unbecoming an officer. An officer under my command who made such a public statement today would stand an excellent chance of being a private soldier tomorrow.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty;
..unless they otherwise break national laws? It would be a bad idea to make nations stand aside while escaped PoWs theived their way across the country, for example.

Added.

Brigadier Tankhurst, let me assure you that Lieutenant Carruthers-FitzPewbik's remarks are his own, and to add further to this, he is a pithecanthropoid. Under normal circumstances, I would order his CO to administer a good lashing, however I am afeared he may enjoy it.

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones

OoC: Maybe I'd get more interest in this topic if I said, I don't know, Abortion Prostitutes Euthanise Dolphins. Or some such...

Submitted for a trial run. Current draft (due to being over the word length) is as follows:

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

REAFFRIMS the rights granted such nations,

MINDFUL of the possibility of citizens and troops of belligerent nations arriving in neutral nations, and that to return such troops to their nation of origin may constitute a violation of the nations neutrality,

BELIEVING, however, that such troops and civilians should be humanely treated,

The United Nations, hereby, mandates the following:

1) A neutral nation which receives, or has already present at the outbreak of hostilities, on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies involved in a conflict which the nation has declared neutrality shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war;
a) It may keep them in camps or in places set apart for this purpose;
b) They can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory;
c) Prohibits neutral nation from interning military and other officers of belligerent nations with diplomatic accreditation, and military and other officers whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents in neutral territory.

2) Neutral and belligerent nations holding internees shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity, as well as the same guarantees of safety that prisoners of war in belligerent nations receive.

3) A neutral nation which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty, unless such persons commit a crime in the neutral nation in question;

4) A neutral nation may, if in uncoerced agreement, authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the transport bringing them shall carry neither armed personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral nation is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose;
a) The sick or wounded brought under the these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral nation so as to ensure their not taking part again in the ongoing hostilities. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral nation with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation may, at the neutral nation’s discretion, be repatriated or otherwise permitted to travel on to further nations under their own arrangements,
a) Excludes from the above with those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage etc. in the neutral nation, civilians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and refugees,

6) A belligerent nation may, if it so wishes, intern citizens of an enemy during hostilities. Such internees, excluding those exempted under article five, are to be provided with the same protection as those interned in neutral nations,

7) At the conclusion of peace the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good by the belligerent parties.

I Think you have a well written proposal and there is much I can agree with. However I do have one concern.

Fictional Scenario: I have troops deployed in a neighboring state for mutual defense exercises. Hostilities break out between my state and a third state. I would like to recall my deployed troops to use them in this new conflict. If my friend, the now neutral state, inters my troops, that were there peacefully by their consent, would that not be deemed an act of war?

I think a better solution would be to immediately repatriate all military forces at the outbreak of hostilities. Then, the rest of this proposal would make a great deal of sense. The danger, from a military standpoint is, I am running a military exercise in a soon to be neutral country with say, a quarter of my forces. My enemy decides to attack to effectively limit my military, by this proposal, and make his chances of winning greater. Knowing this is a possibility, it would likely weaken mutual defense treaties and limit military exercises.

I'm deeply interested in your your reply. I believe if this can be successfully addressed that this proposal will be greatly supported and I will certainly help push it forward.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Maximus Libra

The scenario you present is a complex one, and really depends on which of the two possible UN definitions of Neutrality exist in that third party nation. The two are:

Formal Declared Neutrality: This is explicitly spelled out in "Rights of Neutral States" and with the proposal above: "DEFINING a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations,". by this definition, effectively, you are not allowed to help or hinder the belligerent nations at all, but as such you cannot be invaded or pressured by either side (assuming, as I believe one should in UN arguments, full compliance)

Non-belligerence neutrality: Not really explicit (although this definition is implied Maritime Neutrality Co(n)vention, and exists largely by inference), this means you haven't declared formal neutrality, but aren't actively involved in the war. A country with such a status can help or hinder either side, and do what it pleases pretty much, without violating international law (OoC: think USA prior to Pearl Harbor in WWII). The downside is these countries can be invaded or have war declared on them.

So, in the example above, if the third nations declared it's formal declared neutrality, it could not return the troops as such an act would be helping the one of the belligerents by effectively giving them usuable military power. If it just happens not to be involved (non-belligerence neutrality), it can return them. It could, of course, be a non-belligerent neutral until the troops have been repatriated, and the declared neutrality.

The draft was over the length limit? Perhaps our distinguished colleague and friend from Cobdenia should have heeded our advice to simplify the format and language of the proposal. We can only repeat that advice.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I've been trying to, but haven't quite worked out the best way of doing so without losing many of the core arguments and implimentations. I'm currently tinkering with it (for example, I may change nation to state to fit with RoNS' terminology), and any suggestion along that front welcome! So far, all that's been cut is archaic fluff, bits of the preamble, and some rejiggering of word order

The honorable representative is well aware that we're always happy to work with authors on the language and format of proposals, if asked. He also knows that we've had a reasonable measure of success in doing so. And he knows (or should know by now) that we much prefer doing that sort of thing in off-site forums rather than cluttering up this forum with back-and-forth on wording. If he would care to take his draft to one of the off-site forums to which we both have access, we'd be happy to try to help.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

IC: Of course I know old bean, it's just that he's completely forgotten!

Sir Cyril points out of the computer screen at a slightly bewildered short sighted young Englishman

OoC: Who, me?

IC: Yes, you. Have you lost the plot or something?

OoC: Urm...

IC: Let me tell you now you have.

OoC: Look, if you keep insulting me, you know what'll happen

IC: Do your worst!

From out of nowhere, Sir Major-General Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock appears

IC: Oh God, I thought you killed him!

OoC: I did. Now he's back...

IC: Why you piece of sh....

Before he finished the sentence, Sir Cyril suddenly looked down and notices he is wearing a flat cap, army boots, string vest, frock coat and a loin cloth

IC: What the blazes?

OoC: What were you going to call me?

IC: I was going to call you a piece of..urm... sheer brilliant intellect beyond reproach

OoC: That's better...

Sir Cyril's clothing suddenly changes back to the three piece suit he was wearing earlier

IC: Thank you, master.. Urm...what about Pointy Blatherstock?

OoC: Your stuck with him. Anyway, I don't like the chap I replaced him with

IC: Yes, he was a bit of a git. Are you getting rid of him?

OoC: Yes

IC: Well, that is some small comfort...

OoC: It's no problem

IC: *mutters under his breath* sounds like he's been reading too much bloody Spike Milligan if you ask me

OoC: What was that?

IC: Oh!? Nothing...

OoC: I hope so...

Sections 5 and 6 have an (a following but no (b or (c so it is not proper to subsection them unless have at least two subsections.

Also how do you get blood from something that no longer function so how does section 7 work..?


As far as this goes,..... find it something to give me cause to stay out of the UN as it is just another effort to make the UN the King of the hill and rule all.


Pickey Readerman,
Minister of Nothing Cavirra

Sections 5 and 6 have an (a following but no (b or (c so it is not proper to subsection them unless have at least two subsections.
You know this how? You've written a draft before?

Also how do you get blood from something that no longer function so how does section 7 work..?

Um, what? Are you sure your reading the proposal "Internment Protocols"? 'Cause it sounds like you're not.

As far as this goes,..... find it something to give me cause to stay out of the UN as it is just another effort to make the UN the King of the hill and rule all.

If you don't like the UN passing laws on your nations that you automatically comply with, perhaps you ought to leave, because we don't tend to like the type who are like "OMG Teh UN is teh Big Br0th3rs!!!111". Start liking it or start packing.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

You know this how? You've written a draft before?Standard format rules for outlines. "Note that each category above has at least two subcategories." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline#Sample_alphanumeric_outline)

I beg to differ, largely on account that there are no subsections, only articles and sections. Look at the example used on the page you've just shewn

I.Why do over 80% of today's companies monitor their employees?
A.To prevent fraudulent activities, theft, and other workplace related violations.
1. To more efficiently monitor employee productivity.
2. To prevent any legal liabilities due to harassing or offensive communications.
II. What are the employees privacy right’s when it comes to EM/S (Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance) in the workplace?
A. American employees have basically no legal protection from mean and snooping bosses.
1. There are no federal or State laws protecting employees
2. Employees may assert privacy protection for their own personal effects.

There is only "A" in both one and two (i.e., the section). It's not until you get to the Arabic numeral subsections that there are two. i.e.

I. A. 1.
I. A. 2.
II. A. 1.
II. A. 2.

There are no "B" sections

In the NSUN, the commonest system is arabic articles, lower case sections and lower case roman subsections (e.g. 1. a) i) )

For example I could have reworded 5) as this:

5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation may, at the neutral nation’s discretion, be repatriated or otherwise permitted to travel on to further nations under their own arrangements,
a) Excludes from the above:
i) those with diplomatic accreditation,
ii)those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question,
iii) spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question,
etc.


but not
5) Civilians of belligerent nations entering a neutral nation may, at the neutral nation’s discretion, be repatriated or otherwise permitted to travel on to further nations under their own arrangements,
a) Excludes from the above
i) those with diplomatic accreditation, those holding dual nationality of a belligerent nation and the neutral nation in question, spouses of citizens of the neutral nation in question, those believed to be engaged in espionage etc. in the neutral nation, civilians whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents, and refugees,

Anyway, there's no alternative, seeing as one can't use bullet points

This has been thoroughly reworded and simplified:

Description: DEFINING a "neutral nation", as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations,

REAFFRIMS the rights granted such nations,

MINDFUL of the possibility of citizens and troops of belligerent nations arriving in neutral nations, and that to return such troops to their nation of origin may constitute a violation of the nations neutrality,

BELIEVING, however, that such troops and civilians should be humanely treated,

The United Nations, hereby, mandates the following:

1) Neutral and belligerent nations holding internees shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity, as well as the same guarantees of safety that prisoners of war in belligerent nations receive;

2) Prohibits both neutral and belligerent nations from interning military and civilian officers of belligerent/enemy nations with diplomatic accreditation, and military and other officers whose presence in the neutral nation is part of a team with the intent of negotiating with other belligerents. Such personnel may, however, be declared perona non grata and expelled;

3) Military personnel of a belligerent nation who arrive in a neutral nation, or are already present at the outbreak of hostilities, shall be interned, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war;
a) Escaped prisoners of war that arrive in a neutral nation are to be left at liberty;
B) Military internees can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory;

4) A neutral nation may, if in uncoerced agreement, authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the transport bringing them shall not carry armed personnel or war material. In such a case, the neutral nation is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose. The sick or wounded brought under the these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents must be prevented from taking part in the ongoing hostilities, and may only be repatriated at the cessation of hostilities;

5) A neutral nation may expel civilians of a belligerent nation whose presence is believed to be aiding a belligerent power's war effort, or otherwise hampering the national security of the neutral nation;

6) A belligerent nation may, subject to international law, intern or expel civilians of an enemy during hostilities;

7) At the conclusion of peace the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good by the belligerent parties.

Submitted again;

Approve or else (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=internment), as I believe you young people of the 21st century say, me an' ma' homies 'll put a cap in yo' ass, fool.

Or something

Five more approvals needed; one day left.

You don't want me to send in Vinnie to beat up your delegate...