NationStates Jolt Archive

This Act covers the protection of passenger vessels in times of war, one area not covered in Cobdenia's otherwise apt Maritime Neutrality Convention. The Act is currently proposed and seeking approvals. The text is as follows:

_____________________________________________

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Hospitaliers


RECOGNIZING that maritime vessels containing cargo and/or passengers are widely considered neutral during times of war,

NOTING that such vessels may carry arms or other apparatus of war in addition to passengers and other cargo,

EXPRESSING the desire for passenger vessels to remain safe during times of war,

The United Nations hereby,

1) PROHIBITS maritime vessels with passenger cargo, en route to or from a territory involved in war, from accepting as cargo any significant amount of finished apparatus of war,

2) DEFINES maritime vessels with passenger cargo as any vessel which has received compensation, monetary or otherwise, for the passage of one or more of its inhabitants,

3) DEFINES a territory involved in war as any territory which has declared an allegiance in a declared war or conflict, as determined by the UN,

4) DEFINES apparatus of war to be any product, weapon, ammunition, or device whose sole or primary purpose is for destructive action against a foe,

5) DEFINES a significant amount of finished apparatus of war to be those items, as defined above, in excess of that which would be reasonably required to defend the ship from hostile activity,

6) URGES passenger vessels to register at their point of origin and arrival prior to embarkation, to log an expected travel path with both parties, and to be in constant contact with both regarding deviations from the expected path, in order to prevent mis-identification of a passenger craft.

1) PROHIBITS maritime vessels with passenger cargo, en route to or from a territory involved in war, from accepting as cargo any significant amount of finished apparatus of war,

4) DEFINES apparatus of war to be any product, weapon, ammunition, or device whose sole or primary purpose is for destructive action against a foe,

5) DEFINES a significant amount of finished apparatus of war to be those items, as defined above, in excess of that which would be reasonably required to defend the ship from hostile activity,We see this but feel that any part of a weapons system being carried should be considered. If they carry the nuke fuel rods for nukes then it would be prohibited to stop them since the missle would not be a finished apparatus of war. As they might claim these fuel rods are to be used for power generation not weapons.

2) DEFINES maritime vessels with passenger cargo as any vessel which has received compensation, monetary or otherwise, for the passage of one or more of its inhabitants,So any ship that has somebody paying to travel on them falls under this. So we sale tickets for a family to travel on our warships to their vaction home wherever that happens to be on the enemy island of whatever. As they would only have "that which would be reasonably required to defend the ship from hostile activity" on the ship as far as weapons. We have safe passage as a passenger vessels.
3) DEFINES a territory involved in war as any territory which has declared an allegiance in a declared war or conflict, as determined by the UN,Please take a close look at this as the term WAR today has little meaning as they simply call it a POLICE ACTION and thus the term WAR doesn't apply yet they can sink ships... to keep criminals from doing what they might.


6) URGES passenger vessels to register at their point of origin and arrival prior to embarkation, to log an expected travel path with both parties, and to be in constant contact with both regarding deviations from the expected path, in order to prevent mis-identification of a passenger craft.This should already be in effect under something but if not good to add it here.. Also needs to Mandate it not urge it as this gives them a right to just ignore it. As this seems to be the only part of the proposal that has any merit.

Wouldn't clause #2, as currently written, apply to those troopships that were chartered from companies or indivduals rather than actually owned by the governments to whom the troops being carried belonged?

Wouldn't clause #2, as currently written, apply to those troopships that were chartered from companies or indivduals rather than actually owned by the governments to whom the troops being carried belonged?

Clause 1 may cover this..


1) PROHIBITS maritime vessels with passenger cargo, en route to or from a territory involved in war, from accepting as cargo any significant amount of finished apparatus of war,As a regiment of Antarctic Super Soldiers would be considered a finished war apparatus to many.

Allowing for any material "for military use" to be banned off of maritime vessels is a slippery slope. After all, what about steel to a nation that is not able to manufacture tanks due to a shortage? Is steel considered a military substance, or is it a building material, etc.? Grey areas such as this would result in the sinking of passenger craft anyway.

Regarding the subcontracting out of troop transportation, this may be a loophole, but I hardly consider that a reason to deny the Act. This legislation is meant to protect civilian lives, and while there will always be loopholes, etc., that goal itself is served in a very generalized way by this Act.

Currently, as most of the arguments against the Act are of a belligerent nature (i.e., Why can't I blow up the ships with nuke rods?), the Hospitalier nation considers the Act at least a step forward.

I think there is a good and worthwhile resolution here; personally, I'd go for the stance of preventing military material that will further endanger the loss of civilian life if the ship is torpedoed or shelled or missiled from being transported on ships - thus explosives and uranium rods would be banned, but shrapnel and tanks wouldn't be. However, there is logic in a ban in things of a direct military nature too (to prevent passenger ships from becoming targets) - however, this would need a pretty tight definition; and MNC already forbids the sinking of passenger ships with the passengers on board in most circumstances