NationStates Jolt Archive

1}Military rape is defined as giving orders (and obeying said orders) to one's soldiers to go find enemy citizens or enemy soldiers and engaging in rape for tactical purposes of demoralization, eugenic manipulation or intimidation.
2}Military rape is further defined if leadership turns a blind eye on its soldiers conducting criminal rape.
3}The leadership and the ones engaging in the actual activity are to be charged with crime against humanity and are subject to arrest by any UN nation who happens to encounter the accused (whether or not they are UN member nations). A warning to visitors before they arrive is optional.
4}A trial is to be conducted at the earliest convenience with the evidence and trial records sent to other member nations for verification.
5}UN member nations will not engage in military rape whatsoever and will convict their own citizens and soldiers should they engage in that activity.

OOC-->Was inspired by the actual events in Kosovo in the mid 90's. It took the real UN 2 or 3 years to agree that military rape was bad. Hopefully we can do it quicker. Since this is a draft and most likely very incomplete... offer suggestions as what to add, modify or eliminate. I think this is a resolution everyone can agree with, no matter what political views or cultural views we may have.

I really like this idea, ShogunKhan, but I think there are some areas for improvement.

1}Military rape is defined as giving orders (and obeying said orders) to one's soldiers to go find enemy citizens or enemy soldiers and engaging in rape for tactical purposes of demoralization, eugenic manipulation or intimidation.

I think this wording should stop right after 'engaging in rape'. There's no need to limit the purposes to which it is unacceptable to command your soldiers to rape people. It ought to be just plain unacceptable. I think you'll agree.


2}Military rape is further defined if leadership turns a blind eye on its soldiers conducting criminal rape.

If I get what you're saying here I think it should be a little more clear. Maybe you should just rewrite the first bit to not be exclusive to making military rape a crime against humanity when ordered . Instead, make it a crime both to order it and to commit it. When either one of those elements is in place, it ought to be a crime. It doesn't require both. A commander who orders rape should be punished regardless of what his soldiers do; and a soldier who rapes should be punished regardless of what they were commanded to do. All should take personal responsibility.

3}The leadership and the ones engaging in the actual activity are to be charged with crime against humanity and are subject to arrest by any UN nation who happens to encounter the accused (whether or not they are UN member nations). A warning to visitors before they arrive is optional.

Is this legal? I'm honestly not sure. If it isn't, I think you should still push away at this idea with different wording here. There may need to be an agreed upon authority to do the arresting? Perhaps at least evidence would have to be submitted to some 3rd party panel before an arrest. Others can help you better here, I think, but it's important we don't allow arrests by just any nation under a false pretext. Lord knows some nations would use it as one.

4}A trial is to be conducted at the earliest convenience with the evidence and trial records sent to other member nations for verification.

Definitely need to be more specific here, a trial is never convenient for the defendant.

I hope this keeps getting worked on, if it isn't already protected against elsewhere I'll support an upcoming draft, certainly, and I'm confident in saying my small region would unanimously agree when I bring this up to them.

Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador

I want to make a distinction between the criminal behavior of rape and the use of rape as a military tactic. Any idiot can go rape to get their jollies, but a military rape is more calculating to erase a genetic culture or to create anger. Typical rape is already punishable by all societies and cultures (one of the few things all cultures have in common). Military rape is an activity that is condoned by a government against a group.

A worldwide ban on rape would be redundant because every government already has their own legal code to deal with domestic crime. Military rape is to be defined as a weapon that we decide to never use in war, which is a UN mandate.

As for the other issues you mentioned, I'll look into it after I've had a good night's sleep.

IC-->Emperor Ceasar's 5th and 8th wife offers to chop off any man's middle leg if he should suggest that military rape is not so terrible. (the others won't offer... they'll just do it without permission).

OOC: One can look at the Japanese in World War Two as well. Assuming you're not Japanese, as it's a controversial subject there.

This is a touchy subject, so I'm going to try to address it without ruffling any feathers.

I agree that military rape requires some sort of addressing, but I'm not sure how to go about it. The scope of this draft is a bit wide, and a bit clumsy.

One, we need to define military rape properly. I apologize for my opinion on this, but military rape need not include criminal rape of any kind.

My version would include:

DEFINES military rape as explicit commands to commit, implicit commands to commit, foreknowledge of the commission of, and/or tacit approval of the act of rape by any member of a Military Organization of UN Member nations.


But all that skirts around a very important point. There is already some legislation (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84) dealing with this.

We aren't at all sure about this. Not because we don't consider military rape to be a bad thing, but because we think that distinguishing it from "ordinary" criminal rape gives it an unmerited distinction. Surely it would be better to hold that rape is never legal, and that commanders are responsible for the actions of their soldiers?

Ah I see in United Nations Resolution # 83, "The Eon Convention on Genocide", specifically article #2 and 3 does pretty much what I intended to do here. So since it has already been adressed I stop the proposal here and now.

Rape is illegal and is dealt with in domestic courts because it is done to your own citizens. Military rape would be an international crime because the act is sanctioned and encouraged by a government against some population for some long term attempt at destruction or as UN resolution 83 so aptly puts it: "genocide". That is why I offered a distinction. The severity of the crime is different. Both terrible, yes. But one affects a whole population which is worse.

OOC-->thankfully the issue has been resolved in the mid 90's by the real UN and we have seen fit to include it as a genocidal act. Hopefully we will successfully eradicate the practice or punish severely the ones who actually engage in that practice.

Why not a broader proposal against 'war crimes', including but not limited to this specific offence of "military rape"?

I think War Crimes in general would be concidered under the Legislation on Genocide.

If not then I would suggest the legislation on Genocide should be repealed and made apart of a larger document which considers all War Crimes including Genocide.

We aren't at all sure about this. Not because we don't consider military rape to be a bad thing, but because we think that distinguishing it from "ordinary" criminal rape gives it an unmerited distinction. Surely it would be better to hold that rape is never legal, and that commanders are responsible for the actions of their soldiers?

I find myself agreeing with Prince Rhodri here. You're trying to make a distinction where none is needed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

distinction-->

criminal rape} some yahoo shows up to your house and does the despicable act.

military rape} some police officer shows up to your house with a court order giving him permission to do this despicable act.

In the first case, you go to the authorities and get justice, in the second case you get no justice because the individual was engaging in his job as a bureaucrat so you can not pursue him in the legal sense.

This is an oversimplification, but its just to show that there really is a difference and it is only in 1995 that the real UN actually recognized it as a crime against humanity.

distinction-->

criminal rape} some yahoo shows up to your house and does the despicable act.

military rape} some police officer shows up to your house with a court order giving him permission to do this despicable act.

In the first case, you go to the authorities and get justice, in the second case you get no justice because the individual was engaging in his job as a bureaucrat so you can not pursue him in the legal sense.
A law against rape under all circumstances would render both illegal, whether or not the bureaucrat was "doing his job".

This is an oversimplification, but its just to show that there really is a difference and it is only in 1995 that the real UN actually recognized it as a crime against humanity.
We dislike the implication in separating the two that criminal rape is not a crime against humanity.

Nation X can not arrest a bureaucrat fulfilling his duties of Nation Y unless the crime is an international crime. Remember each nation is to be treated as an equal and if you arrest a legitimate agent of a nation then you are treating the entire nation as a criminal.

Nation X can arrest any citizen of his own country for any domestic crime.

Crime against humanity is an international designation that allows the crime to be recognized by a group of nations. How your nation designates a domestic crime is your business.

We are both in agreement with the issues but you are allowing rhetoric to overpower legal definitions.

Besides, it doesn't matter anyways because if you read the previous posts you'll see that there is already an existing law that makes rape illegal as an international crime under the definition of genocide. So this situation is mute.

So this situation is mute.

OOC: Or at least moot. :)

Nation X can not arrest a bureaucrat fulfilling his duties of Nation Y unless the crime is an international crime.
This is only correct if the bureaucrat of Nation Y has diplomatic immunity, which under the circumstances we can see Nation X removing quite rapidly.

Further, if rape under any circumstances is declared illegal by the UN, Nation Y would be obliged to arrest its own bureaucrat, and quite possibly the person who issued the order.

But as you say, the situation is moot, mercifully to the satisfaction of both of us. The UN does not accord special status to "military rape" except insomuch as it falls under the category of genocide, and to that we are glad to say that we cannot raise a reasonable objection.

The UN does not accord special status to "military rape" except insomuch as it falls under the category of genocideUm... it does?

Should the protection of rape victims be mentioned in the proposal?

there is already a law that covers this issue so this whole proposal is a moot and mute point!