NationStates Jolt Archive

(OOC: This is being drafted while I am trying to fix the flaws in the previous resolution on "Carbon Unit Trading" pointed out by QoD (which may very well be irreedemable, but I am going to try to fix it by changing it to apply only to corporations). I had this idea before, before Decapod Ten did his thing. This one may be a bit better than the others, but if it is irredeemable, I'll abandon it.

A grammar check will be done once we actually hash out a final draft.)


<preamble to be added in later>

1. PROHIBITS memberstates from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless:
(a)civilians were not intentionally targeted AND
(b)the government excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties

2. CONDEMNS the use of 'human shields' in order to protect military targets, and declares accordingly that the use of 'human shields' would be in violation of Clause 1.

3. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clause 1.

4. STRONGLY URGES all nations to begin dismantling all weapon programs that it feels cannot comply with Clause 1,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of Clause 1 by memberstates.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1.

7. MANDATES that if any memberstate who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the memberstate return to compliance.

IC: Unlike Decapod Ten's resolution, it allows you the freedom to decide what tactics to use, as long as civilians are not harmed in the process. The UNWCT will be able to decide what is okay and what is not. Basically, this defends the human rights of civilians, by ensuring that they do not get killed in warfare.

A note of clarifying: this is a Global Disarmament Resolution, Significant.

---Dr. Bob

Ambassador Seigfried glanced over towards Dr. Bob. "I cannot begin to describe how surprised I was to discover that no measure along this line had been passed before."

He shrugged. "Although I have only been in my position for a very short time, so that may be the case."

"Catawaba applauds the spirit and intent of this proposal and will support it if a few concerns of ours are addressed." He looked down at the proposal for a moment before returning his attention to Dr. Bob. "Subclause 'b' of clause One seems a bit loose in its wording. We worry that sublcause 'b' could be used to endlessly harrass and bring any military that finds itself embroiled in combat near civillians. Technically, engaging in urban combat could be construed as not excerising due dilligence to avoid civilian casualties.'

Hayden stopped for a moment to push his glasses back up his nose. "It has and will always be the goal of Catawaban armed forces to prevent the injury or death of noncombatants. However, we fear less scupulous countries will use the loose wording in Clause One and additionally Clauses Three and Four harrass us legally where they might not be able to militarily."

yeah. fittingly i was thinking about something like this too, monetary reparations for accidents in wartime. If you cant tell, i dont like mistakes in war and think that nations are much to apathetic about it.

first little ctirique, Condemns is the opposite of encourages. given that this UN is omnipotent (ive jokingly thought of an abolition of gravity proposal) might as well use ban, or a synonym thereof.

id suggest adding a reminder that it doesnt mean civilian targets (factories, railroads, bridges, phone relays, etc.) something akin to banning targets of 'no strategic value in prosecuting a state's sovereign war aims.'

STRONGLY URGES all nations to begin dismantling all weapon programs that it feels cannot comply with Clause 1,

so, given that this UN is omnipotent, id just say 'requires all nations to dismantle all weapon programs.....' which has the power of making it happen, immmediately. historical example, Brown v. Board of education origianally told the states to integrate 'with all diliberate speed,' and two years later nothing had changed and the court had to rule again, saying integrate within 2 years. plus, i cant see any reason against making it immediate, using weapons like that, even if they are still in existance violates clause 1.

oh, also, id suggest defining due dilligence, or giving the UNWCT the abillity to define due diligence, or states can easily say they were diliberate and change nothing.

lastly, nukes? i guess making sure the nation uses a 20kt weapon to attack instead of a 200kt weapon would "significantly reduce civilian casualties" but its indeed a sticky issue.

i like the proposal. i assure you that i will fight for its passing and adoption. still going to propose mine at 1202 GMT but if this one takes effect i dont think itll make any difference.

Thanks Catawaba and Decapod Ten for your suggestions.

It might be best to add a definition clause for 'due diligence':

DEFINING due diligence as a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard but depends on the relative facts of the special case

Er. A bit too clunky. But that's why we got the UNWCT. Altough I am considering changing it to 'good faith', I do want the military to make a real effort to save people's lives rather than firing away and not caring about mistakes.
***
"Subclause 'b' of clause One seems a bit loose in its wording. We worry that sublcause 'b' could be used to endlessly harrass and bring any military that finds itself embroiled in combat near civillians. Technically, engaging in urban combat could be construed as not excerising due dilligence to avoid civilian casualties.'

Hayden stopped for a moment to push his glasses back up his nose. "It has and will always be the goal of Catawaban armed forces to prevent the injury or death of noncombatants. However, we fear less scupulous countries will use the loose wording in Clause One and additionally Clauses Three and Four harrass us legally where they might not be able to militarily."

Well, IMHO, urban combat seems good, especially when compared to other methods, such as blowing stuff from the sky. Carpetbombing from the sky means that civilians may get exposed, but on the ground, you could 'theortically' tell who's the military and who's the civilian. If a person has a weapon, for instance, it is 'reasonable and prudent', after all, to shoot him.

I suppose it all depends on tactics and how it works. I would really like suggestions how to best trim it, especially based on the definition. I also do note that you can only get sued if a civilian casualty actually occur.

I do hope we can work together to come up with a solution that will protect civilians and keep in mind the military as well.

first little ctirique, Condemns is the opposite of encourages. given that this UN is omnipotent (ive jokingly thought of an abolition of gravity proposal) might as well use ban, or a synonym thereof.

I'll think about that.

id suggest adding a reminder that it doesnt mean civilian targets (factories, railroads, bridges, phone relays, etc.) something akin to banning targets of 'no strategic value in prosecuting a state's sovereign war aims.'

I also will consider, altough I am afraid that bombing factories and railroads could adversly affect civilians too, and might lead to casualites.

so, given that this UN is omnipotent, id just say 'requires all nations to dismantle all weapon programs.....' which has the power of making it happen, immmediately.

Also a good idea, but there are weapon programs that the NSUN does allow people to keep, such as nukes, so I really do want to phrase it carefully.

oh, also, id suggest defining due dilligence, or giving the UNWCT the abillity to define due diligence, or states can easily say they were diliberate and change nothing.

Done. See above.

lastly, nukes? i guess making sure the nation uses a 20kt weapon to attack instead of a 200kt weapon would "significantly reduce civilian casualties" but its indeed a sticky issue.

It also depends on where the nuke is dropped. Dropping it in an area where civilians are known to be located may be seen as not excerising enough 'due diligence', altough there could be precautions being taken, such as informing the population that they will be bombed so that civilians can evacuate, thereby minizing casualites.

Using nukes on military bases, or using a tactical bomb to blow up an advancing armor division would be pretty okay, in my book, as only military personell gets hurt by them.
---Dr. Bob

I'm not sure about supporting this one. I agree that civillians should not be deliberately targeted. However there are some real world examples that shows the effectiveness of the tactic. In the American Civil War, both General Sherman and General Sheridan deliberately made war on civillians. Sheridan, under Grants orders effectively destroyed the Shenandoah Valley as a source of supplies for the Confederate Army in Petersburg and Richmond.

General Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas destroyed supplies, railways, barns and houses. This was deliberate. He wanted the civillians to see that their government and army could not protect them. As an additional benefit it allowed General Grant to eventually take Petersburg and Richmond. Letters from home caused many of Lee's troops to desert from the Army of Northern Virginia, thus allowing Grant to stretch Lee's forces to the breaking point. As General Sherman told a lady in Atlanta,
"You cannot define war in harsher terms than mine, madam, War is cruelty. You cannot refine it, and the crueler it is, then the sooner it will be over."

While I applaud the motives behind the author of this proposal, I'd rather not have this option removed in times of war.

As evil as it is, Unkerlantum cannot condone any resolution that would make it illegal to wage war efficiently. Attacking the civilian population is often necessary, whether it be to damage resources and manufacturing, lower morale, or simply to get at the enemy's military to begin with (e.g., the "human shield" tactic previously mentioned).

Unkerlantum's Arms Manufacturing industry continues to research and develop more precise weapon systems that limit unnecessary civilian casualties, but the key word is "unnecessary."

The Congress realizes that such a position is dastardly and of an evil nature, but, as our motto reads, "Such is Life."

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

OOC:

Let me tell you another story, Palentine. In 1863, Union General Thomas Ewing, citing the raids of the notorious William Quantrill, issued General Order Number 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_%281863%29). This order stated that all residents of four Missouri counties on the Kansas border would have to leave their homes. Without prior evidence to any of these people's misconduct or support of Quantrill's raiders they had to prove their loyalty to the Union. If they could, they would be allowed to remain in the area but only near Union military posts. If they could not, they were be expelled from the region. It was written in the order was the seizure of all grain and hay, not written into the order was the burning of any structure that might 'provide haven to the enemy.' For many years after, the lone standing chimneys that remained were called "Missouri Monuments'.

May this have eliminated support for Quantrill's crossborder raids in the Kansas? Perhaps. What it also did was create the perfect seething bed of unrest that supported a 'dynasty of western outlaws' (http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0803297092/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending)from the James Gang and Youngers to the Doolins and Daltons.

True, a scorched earth strategy has been proven effective. The impalement of prisoners of war and friendly citizens along an invader's path has been proven effective. Flinging the severed heads of prisoners over town walls has been effective. It is also horrific collective punishment. It works because it is so terrible and horrific that rational people fear it.

It is also outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention). A scorched earth strategy is a deliberate, punitive campaign against civilians that quite often seems to have a military benefit in the short term. In the long term it seems to simply anger the populace, see the people of those four Missouri counties or people of the American South. There is a reason why the term "The War of Yankee Agression" is still colloquially used to refer to the American Civil War.

A scorched earth strategy is not clean. Take the American Civil War, by targeting the crops, animals, houses, and possessions of Southern sympathizers the Union hoped to destroy the Confederate will and ability to continue the War. It did exactly that, The destruction or seizure of their crops? The seizure or slaughter of their animals? The forced evacuation and/or destruction of their shelter? It also destroyed the citizen's economic security and their very means of subsistence.

It is it effective? It has been. Is it right? That is that matter that this proposal concerns.

IC:

Behind the Catawaban delegation's table, Mr. Gregory Placeholder had fallen asleep. He'd only been a sleep for a few minutes when he jerked awake, springing to his feet with a cry. Seigfried backed his wheel chair away from the table and turned it to face Placeholder. "My God, man. What is wrong with you?"

Placeholder looked around wildly. He lunged forward and, seizing Seigfrieg by his handfulls of his jacket, pulled the Ambassador from his wheelchair. "Is it too late? How many ages of Man have passed in my slumber, Hayden?!" The aide's eyes were wide with fright and madness.

Hayden was growing concerned to say the least. Gregory Placeholder usually couldn't be expected to gain any kind of enthusiasm even if a carnivorous wallaby were placed in his pants. "Too late? Placeholder, you've been a sleep for maybe five minutes."

With the strength benefited to madmen, Placeholder lifted the rather hefty Seigfried to the side so he could see the ambassador's table. "YES! The Proposal is still in debate! It is not too late!" He released Seigfried, who promptly fell to the floor with a startlingly loud thump.

Placeholder looked up at the ceiling and exclaimed, "Thank you! Thank you, Ghost of Genocide Yet to Come! I still have time to mend my ways and become a better man! I remember what you and the other ghosts have told me and keep Saint Guinefort's Day in my heart all the year!"

The raving aide turned his attention upon the floor. "Friends! I have had a vision! Yea! A vision of strange and frightening creatures who looked down upon this proposal and gave hesitation to its noble claims! They cited the devilry of mythical generals and despots! They saw the ruination that those ravaging generals wrought up on the land to the innocent and unharming! And what did they do?"

Placeholder gave a moment as he looked around his congregation. "They gave pause to consider the butchery as right and privilege of civilized beings! They levied disdain upon this enobled, enlightened piece of legislature! They equated the destruction of civilian owned or operated targets of logistical support with the outright genocide of a civilian population!"

He looked back at Seigfried was picking himself of the floor. "I have seen the light! I must now bear it unto the world! Hayden, sweet, noble, wise Hayden, Catawaba must support this measure!" Placeholder cackled madly and ran out of the room.

Seigfried watched out after his departing aide whose faculties had already departed him. Seigfried turned to his fellow delegates and leaned in towards his microphone. "The government of Catawaba has the fullest belief and support of religious tolerance. As such we must follow the guidance of Mister Placeholder until we can otherwise prove or disprove the validity of his statements and his sanity. Catawaba will fully support this proposal. Thank you, and I apologize for the outburst."

I also will consider, altough I am afraid that bombing factories and railroads could adversly affect civilians too, and might lead to casualites.

oh it undeniably will lead to civilian casualties. but you cant deny that a tank/airplane/gun/helicopter factory, or the trains that transport them, or the ships that transport them, are a target necessary to hit in time of war. for example, if one were conducting war against the United States, a prime objective would be to shut down the importation of oil, via any means necessary, to shut down the USmillitary. oil is all under civillian control (or another nation's) but torpedoing a supertanker might make an offensive impossible.



In WWII, the US and UK burned dresden to the ground. they bombed bremen and munich and berlin and hamburg, and Konigsberg, and Ploesti, and Frankfurt, mercilessly. They did this essentially from 1942-1944. german production went up. it peaked in late 1944(i forget the precise month). This is when the allies realized that hitting transportation was much more effective. if you could pick apart the trains and ships, it didnt matter what the enemy produced if he couldnt get it to where it needed to be. iron sat in norway, coal sat in prussia, oil sat in romania, not doing anything. which brings me to my point,
Attacking the civilian population is often necessary, whether it be to damage resources and manufacturing, lower morale
this is just wrong. Hitler Blitzed London, didnt surrender. German production went up till '45, didnt surrender. Japan was burned in '45. didnt surrender (manufacturing did go down, but that is because American subs destroyed the undersized japanese merchant marine). Rolling thunder in Vietnam leveled hanoi, no surrender, no harm to the N. Vietnamese war effort. Napoleon burned Moscow, Brittain burned DC, no surrender, no surrender. it doesnt lower morale ('this was their finest hour!') it doesnt efficiently lower industrial output, it is not necessary nor is it effective.

Brown v. Board of education origianally told the states to integrate 'with all diliberate speed,' and two years later nothing had changed and the court had to rule again, saying integrate within 2 years. plus, i cant see any reason against making it immediate, using weapons like that, even if they are still in existance violates clause 1.. Who the hell is Brown and what had killling civilians got to do with education especialy in a war? You train your military to use their weapons to kill your enemy now that is proper eduction. Also this intergration is a new issue not even related to war or military actions so what the heck is all this crap about.

1. PROHIBITS memberstates from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless: Fire a missle our way and see what happens as we will return fire on the areas around and directly from where that missle is fired. If cilivilians live in that area then so be it.

(a)civilians were not intentionally targeted AND We never intentionally target civilians we target threats to us.

(b)the government excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties We do all we can not to harm civilians but kill enemy military. These include support units made up of civilians building war machines and producing weapons and ammunitions as well as providing any support items to a military we are at war with. As long as civilians support our enemy they are a threat and we target all threats to our own cilvilians and military.

General Horearse B Blowemup,
Commander Cavirrian First Regiment Royal Guard

General Buzsaw McNuttem,
Commander Cavirrrian Third Regiment Royal Guard

Admiral Sinkem Fasterman,
Commander Cavirrian Royal Naval Reserve

oh it undeniably will lead to civilian casualties. but you cant deny that a tank/airplane/gun/helicopter factory, or the trains that transport them, or the ships that transport them, are a target necessary to hit in time of war. for example, if one were conducting war against the United States, a prime objective would be to shut down the importation of oil, via any means necessary, to shut down the USmillitary. oil is all under civillian control (or another nation's) but torpedoing a supertanker might make an offensive impossible.



In WWII, the US and UK burned dresden to the ground. they bombed bremen and munich and berlin and hamburg, and Konigsberg, and Ploesti, and Frankfurt, mercilessly. They did this essentially from 1942-1944. german production went up. it peaked in late 1944(i forget the precise month). This is when the allies realized that hitting transportation was much more effective. if you could pick apart the trains and ships, it didnt matter what the enemy produced if he couldnt get it to where it needed to be. iron sat in norway, coal sat in prussia, oil sat in romania, not doing anything. which brings me to my point,

this is just wrong. Hitler Blitzed London, didnt surrender. German production went up till '45, didnt surrender. Japan was burned in '45. didnt surrender (manufacturing did go down, but that is because American subs destroyed the undersized japanese merchant marine). Rolling thunder in Vietnam leveled hanoi, no surrender, no harm to the N. Vietnamese war effort. Napoleon burned Moscow, Brittain burned DC, no surrender, no surrender. it doesnt lower morale ('this was their finest hour!') it doesnt efficiently lower industrial output, it is not necessary nor is it effective.
OoC: First and foremost, the real world does not exist here. Stop using historic examples for your argument. Seriously.

However, since you insist on using it anyway, and because I know a lot about the history of warfare:

-The Blitz was a complete failure because of: the Luftwaffe's lack of long range aircraft with a sufficient fuel supply, the failure to eliminate the RAF's fighting capacity, and, because of the two previous factors, little damage was achieved.
-Absenteeism in German factories rose to 25% in the Ruhr area in 1945.
-The bombing of oil refineries was what essentially made the Ardennes Offensive a failure before it even began; German armored columns ran out of fuel before reaching their objectives.
-German factory output increased because until late in the war, Germany never had an economy suited for mass production. Changes in organization were being made that should have taken place before the war had even started. Production levels rose because the economic potential was raised as a result of these changes. Without bombing, this potential would have been realized. Instead, it rose slightly, but nowhere near as much as that of the Allied Powers.
-The bombing of the North Vietnamese factories brought production significantly down in 1972. Their forces stayed supplied only due to supplies coming down from Russia and China with no interference by the Americans.

Source: The Oxford History of Modern War. 2005.

IC: Each circumstance is different. Bombing a city will work in some campaigns, not in others. As for morale, personally, I find the idea of bombing someone to lower their morale laughable, as it more often than not pisses off the population and only makes them want to kill you. But it remains a theoretical possibility, all depending on who exactly is being bombed.

Who the hell is Brown and what had killling civilians got to do with education especialy in a war? You train your military to use their weapons to kill your enemy now that is proper eduction. Also this intergration is a new issue not even related to war or military actions so what the heck is all this crap about.

wow. first im going to assume youre not american, because that is the only way i wont cry by you not knowing this. secondly, i will also assume you are too lazy to use wikipedia. third, i will tell you that i am parallelling the language in the resolution to RL language to illustrate a point. i am also confused why you wouldnt read the sentance immediately preceding this example

First and foremost, the real world does not exist here. Stop using historic examples for your argument. Seriously.

yeah, i find it much easier to talk with RL basis as opposed to a strictly theoretical approach. for example, in plato's republic plato uses the allegory of men in a cave to explain his theory on government. how's that RL example for ya?

-The Blitz was a complete failure because of: the Luftwaffe's lack of long range aircraft with a sufficient fuel supply, the failure to eliminate the RAF's fighting capacity, and, because of the two previous factors, little damage was achieved.
-Absenteeism in German factories rose to 25% in the Ruhr area in 1945.
-The bombing of oil refineries was what essentially made the Ardennes Offensive a failure before it even began; German armored columns ran out of fuel before reaching their objectives.
-German factory output increased because until late in the war, Germany never had an economy suited for mass production. Changes in organization were being made that should have taken place before the war had even started. Production levels rose because the economic potential was raised as a result of these changes. Without bombing, this potential would have been realized.
-The bombing of the North Vietnamese factories brought production significantly down in 1972. Their forces stayed supplied only due to supplies coming down from Russia and China with no interference by the Americans.


-the blitz failed because the RAF was shooting down Luftwaffe planes while they bombed millitarily irrelevant targets. had they continued to hit bases and communication centers they would have succeded in rendering the RAF innefective. in other words, because they were attacking civilians they lost.... which is my point.
-great.... in 1945. not any year i was refering to. a year germans knew the war was lost. if it were the bombing we would see such a shift prior to the end of the war. impending doom caused the absenteeism and not bombing.
-agreed. your point? was not the objective of the bombing offensive to lower industrial output? and my point is that it is inefficient. this is why we stopped just burning out cities.
-uhh..... at what point before 1972 were they supplied by N. Vietnam and not mainly China and the USSR? oh, and "with no interference by the Americans" i think we bombed cambodia to stop those supplies didnt we? or am i tripping balls?

and at this point, id like to say that i will no longer argue meaningless details in examples. ill argue anything relevant to the proposal, but this is just a waste of time, space, and a diversion of attention from the real issue. if necessary, i will simply stop replying altogether.

p.s. how is it any thread im involved in degrades to a discussion of bombing civilians?

OoC:

Oh, boy, looks like I'm going to put my RAF living historian hat on

The Blitz on London, and the bombing of Dresden etc., had nothing to do with killing civilians intentionally - it was based on the doctrine devised during the interwar period that a war could be won by destroying the enemies capability and willingness to wage war - that is, destroying the factories that make the bombs, and destroy civilian livelihood. Destroying morale by destroying life was, at the time, believed to be rather a foolish idea, and was never the intention of the campaign originally - although it did develope as such in the case of the RAF, and the USAAF used such a policy of more or less indescriminate bombing to quite some effect - a point I shall touch on later. The fact that the policy was unsuccessful, in that it did kill civilians and did little damage to military production is, in effect, neither here nor there. Indeed, without this doctrine there would have been no RAF - it was on this doctrine alone that the RAF managed to secure it's existance during the rocky cutbacks of the interwar period. T
he figures of German war production are on very shaky ground. One has to remember the Guns and Butter policy that Hitler was very keen on - he believed he should not fail to provide manufactured consumer goods to his civilian population merely because there was a war on. This meant that when it was neccessary, such as towards the end of the war or after a massive bombing campaign, production could be easily switched in such factories to both make up for lost productivity, and indeed replace damaged or destroyed machinary (hence war production appears to rise despite bombing); indeed, one of the reasons why the Battle of Britain ended and the blitz began was because Hitler ordered a slowdown in aircraft manufacture, especially of fighters.

The other problem with the bombing campaign was that the bombs weren't powerful enough and it was too hard to judge the damaged caused - it was very common for a factory roof to be destroyed, whilst the items themselves were in full working order (something recce flights couldn't ascertain). However, the RAF and USAAF's campaign against Germany was successful in terms of morale, especially compared to the Blitz (which wasn't on a large enough scale to have such an effect)

One thing I brought up earler was that it was successful in some spheres; when the conditions were right, and it was done on a huge and contual scale. I refer, of course, to the firebombing of Japanese cities by the USAAF. The construction of Japanese buildings meant that the bombs existant at the time did more damage, and did ruin industrial output (along with homes and food stores). The tendency of the Japanese to place military facilities in residential area's didn't help them much either (and to a certain extent, helped the Americans - it really did lower Japanese morale) - had circumstances been similar in Germany, this would certainly have been enough to bring about surrender. It was only Japanese culture that prevented the government from taking that step, and even then they still capitulated when the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and what was that in effect if it wasn't a massive bombing campaign against civilians? Such an action was necessary not just to end the war, but the numbers killed pales into oblivion when compared to the likely numbers of deaths on both sides had an invasion been lauched.

IC: Against; it's not a nice tactic to kill civilians, but sometimes it's neccessary.

and at this point, id like to say that i will no longer argue meaningless details in examples. ill argue anything relevant to the proposal, but this is just a waste of time, space, and a diversion of attention from the real issue. if necessary, i will simply stop replying altogether.

Translation: "After putting forth my arguments I am now going to slink away and ignore any future rebuttals to said arguments."

In light of that, I shan't even bother myself acknowledging their existence.

IC: Another problem I have with the proposal is the matter of irregular warfare. Partisans, terrorists, rebels, and so forth, are known to adopt the tactic of concealing themselves amongst the general populace, making it difficult to identify who is a military target. What provisions, if any, are to be made for instances where civilian and combatant intertwine?

It is also established that precision guided weapons, e.g., guided missiles, are far more expensive to manufacture and operate than more obsolete ones, such as "dumb" bombs. In states possessing neither the wealth to purchase nor the technical expertise to develop such weapons, are they to be denied the right to wage war (a humorous phrase, that one) with what arms are available to them? How would the UN keep such nations from warring?

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

Hi everybody!

Can we keep the ranting about Real Life down to a minimum? Thanks.

Anyway, I think the common consesus is that the targeting of civilian areas are sometimes effective, and sometimes not effective. Let find common ground and agree on that.

I can counter that the use of chemical weapons and genocide are sometimes effective, and sometimes not effective too. The point is, the effectiveness of a tactic should not be the only guiding post by which we decide what to do. We have to use some sort of 'ethics' as well.

We personally feel civilians shouldn't get killed because:
(1)A person in the military can defend himself against an assault by the enemy. By this, I mean, the nation provides much support, assistance, and protection to the military, so the average person can fight off the enemy and stay alive. The civilian, by contrast, has no such protection, and hence can be easily destroyed.
(2)On the same token, a person in the military can easily attack the enemy side, causing damage to their side. A civilian does not directly do so. He may create weapons, but it is the military who actually uses them (or they may actually be considered a part of the military, and therefore can be targeted...I believe the UNWCT should make the ultimate desicion after taking into account all the variables).
(3)In most countries (note, not all), military service is voluntary. A person who joins up in the military consents to dying for his country. He knows the risks and take it. A civilian, on the other hand, does not consent to being killed, he, in fact, wants to live as long as possible. Therefore, the civilian should not be murdered.

This has everything to do with ethics, after all, and nothing to do with effective military tactics. I can find many stuff that would be effective, but they are immoral, and because they are immoral, it will likely be better off not to do them.

The thing is, I thought this entire debate would be around Clause 1b, where everyone would be pivoting over the definition of 'due diligence'. I never actually thought 1a is what is going to cause the problem. It is best that we get ourselves a compromise ASAP. I don't want to rush this through to see it get defeated.
*****
Now, to respond to some critics:

oh it undeniably will lead to civilian casualties. but you cant deny that a tank/airplane/gun/helicopter factory, or the trains that transport them, or the ships that transport them, are a target necessary to hit in time of war. for example, if one were conducting war against the United States, a prime objective would be to shut down the importation of oil, via any means necessary, to shut down the USmillitary. oil is all under civillian control (or another nation's) but torpedoing a supertanker might make an offensive impossible.

Okay then. Sure. I'll change it to what you say.

Another problem I have with the proposal is the matter of irregular warfare. Partisans, terrorists, rebels, and so forth, are known to adopt the tactic of concealing themselves amongst the general populace, making it difficult to identify who is a military target. What provisions, if any, are to be made for instances where civilian and combatant intertwine?

Clause 2. If you use a Human Shield, you are endangering civilians, and therefore, are responsible for their deaths. You, therefore, are violating Clause 1.

It is also established that precision guided weapons, e.g., guided missiles, are far more expensive to manufacture and operate than more obsolete ones, such as "dumb" bombs. In states possessing neither the wealth to purchase nor the technical expertise to develop such weapons, are they to be denied the right to wage war (a humorous phrase, that one) with what arms are available to them? How would the UN keep such nations from warring?

You don't have to bomb the enemy nation. You can just attack them using conventional tanks, and you can carpet-bomb deserts that have military units. Once you get into urban combat, you can excerise judgement in ensuring that no civilian get hurt.

Or, you could go and inform the enemy populations that they are to be bombed and that they must evacuate. That would count as due diligence, and you can give them enough time to get out of the area.

Be creative. There is a reason why I didn't specifiy how to reduce casualities, I want to leave that up to each nation.
----Dr. Bob

P.S.: Hm. I understand many people here are afraid that there are no better tactics out there. What I was wondering is the possiblity of having some UN military advisors who could assist your military in compliance with this proposal. These UN Military advisors will find ways in ensuring that they wage war effectively, while at the exact same time, save civilians' lives. Would that be somewhat okay?

silent scope
having some UN military advisors[/QUUOTE]

not sure if that is in violation of the 'no UN millitary' rule.

[QUOTE]Okay then. Sure. I'll change it to what you say.

i think youre not being scarcastic here..... but im not sure.....

The thing is, I thought this entire debate would be around Clause 1b, where everyone would be pivoting over the definition of 'due diligence'.
well, due diligence to me is defined bye the UNWCT so its an omnipotent judge. whereas due diligence actually means nothing to a nation, when enforced by an agency of the UN it is laser precise and omnipotent, so it would work.

Unkerlantum
After putting forth my arguments I am now going to slink away and ignore any future rebuttals to said arguments.

sorry, i miswrote. i mean i wont respond to it in this thread. create one in general discussion and ill probably waste hours of my life on it.

The biggest problem with arguing morals is that morals are undefined. There are no ultimate "wrongs" and "rights." Morality is an opinion, and subject to debate. We still have people calling for the abolition of war, citing that it is immoral to kill, and that argument will continue for all eternity. Which is why if this proposal ever comes to vote, there are going to be dozens of dictatorships arguing that it is okay to nuke their enemies off the map. And saying "It's wrong" isn't going to convince them, anymore than them saying "It's right" will convince us. Any arguments based on logical and rational thought would help sway them over.

(Of course, the UN has a long history of passing legislation that is nothing but moral ramblings of imbeciles, so perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.)

Clause 2. If you use a Human Shield, you are endangering civilians, and therefore, are responsible for their deaths. You, therefore, are violating Clause 1.
For starters, that is not a human shield. It is refusing to identify oneself as a military target by pretending to be a civilian. These people do not wear uniforms or other distinguishing marks that show they are military units. Under this resolution UN nations could use this tactic legally, regardless of how underhanded it is. Examples of a "human shield" would be taking civilian hostages and making demands at the expense of their lives, or by placing civilians in front of an infantry division.

Secondly, that leads us to another issue. As only UN states must follow these articles, it puts at disadvantage any UN member fighting against non-UN members. The only way for this to be made fair would be to make this proposal apply to only conflicts waged between UN states, but I am aware such a provision will never be granted. Again, it loses voters.


You don't have to bomb the enemy nation. You can just attack them using conventional tanks, and you can carpet-bomb deserts that have military units. Once you get into urban combat, you can excerise judgement in ensuring that no civilian get hurt.

Or, you could go and inform the enemy populations that they are to be bombed and that they must evacuate. That would count as due diligence, and you can give them enough time to get out of the area.

The second paragraph answers my question. I thank you.

P.S.: Hm. I understand many people here are afraid that there are no better tactics out there. What I was wondering is the possiblity of having some UN military advisors who could assist your military in compliance with this proposal. These UN Military advisors will find ways in ensuring that they wage war effectively, while at the exact same time, save civilians' lives. Would that be somewhat okay?
So long as the use of these advisers is voluntary and that their advice remains nothing more than just advice, Unkerlantum has no quibbles. If, however, they in essence become UN-led dictators who attempt to take complete control over the armed forces, Unkerlantum assures this delegation that they will be the victims of unfortunate "friendly fire."

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

silent scope
having some UN military advisors

not sure if that is in violation of the 'no UN millitary' rule.

That's not a military, that's a committee. They're not going to fight the war for you, they'll just advise you on how to fight it while complying with the resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

not sure if that is in violation of the 'no UN millitary' rule.

Mr. Flibble is right. It will just be a commitee.

i think youre not being scarcastic here..... but im not sure.....
(OOC: Not being scarcastic. The internet isn't a good medium for conveying feelings, I admit.)

The biggest problem with arguing morals is that morals are undefined. There are no ultimate "wrongs" and "rights." Morality is an opinion, and subject to debate.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, however, we do believe that thre are many nations in the NSUN, mostly democracies, who do agree with our logic.

(OOC: I want to stress this to you, I actually do agree with your viewpoints, especially about morality. However, I usually like RPing as a left-winger, so sorry for that.)

For starters, that is not a human shield. It is refusing to identify oneself as a military target by pretending to be a civilian. These people do not wear uniforms or other distinguishing marks that show they are military units. Under this resolution UN nations could use this tactic legally, regardless of how underhanded it is. Examples of a "human shield" would be taking civilian hostages and making demands at the expense of their lives, or by placing civilians in front of an infantry division.

Thanks for telling me. I was indeed in the wrong. I'll revise the proposal then to stop military forces from pretending to be civilians, that's just sounds as immoral as you say it is, after all.

Secondly, that leads us to another issue. As only UN states must follow these articles, it puts at disadvantage any UN member fighting against non-UN members. The only way for this to be made fair would be to make this proposal apply to only conflicts waged between UN states, but I am aware such a provision will never be granted. Again, it loses voters.

I have considered that. But the problem is that it really wouldn't stop the death of civilians, and it could lead to inhumane UN nations waging terrible wars on humane non-UN nations, killing much more civilians than what the non-UN nation would do.

About the only thing I can do is impose sanctions on any non-UN nation who kill civilians in UN nations. That's about the extent of UN power that I think can be done.

A new proposal will be posted shortly.
----Dr. Bob

wow. first im going to assume youre not american, because that is the only way i wont cry by you not knowing this. secondly, i will also assume you are too lazy to use wikipedia. third, i will tell you that i am parallelling the language in the resolution to RL language to illustrate a point. i am also confused why you wouldnt read the sentance immediately preceding this example? Well you have one thing right as I'm not american I'm a 14th generation clone from Cavirra. Wikipedia sounds like the brand name of toilet paper and if it scented and real soft then I have not used it.

We personally feel civilians shouldn't get killed because:
(1)A person in the military can defend himself against an assault by the enemy. By this, I mean, the nation provides much support, assistance, and protection to the military, so the average person can fight off the enemy and stay alive. The civilian, by contrast, has no such protection, and hence can be easily destroyed. Civilians breed and the results enter the military they also make war machines and equipment, provide food and clothing to the military thus support an enemy. Many nations have survived invasions due to the efforts of civilians and others once ruled by weak military leaderships are now ruled by a strong civilain leadership... So how can you say civilians can't defend themselves.. and thus are not a greater threat than the military. Many nations that don't have a large military do expect it's citizens or civilians to defend that nation.

(2)On the same token, a person in the military can easily attack the enemy side, causing damage to their side. A civilian does not directly do so. He may create weapons, but it is the military who actually uses them (or they may actually be considered a part of the military, and therefore can be targeted...I believe the UNWCT should make the ultimate desicion after taking into account all the variables).OOC: Tell that to the military troops that died in Nam killed by civillains.. Tell that to our troops in Iraq being killed by civilians as there are not suppose to be any terrorists over there.

IC:(3)In most countries (note, not all), military service is voluntary. A person who joins up in the military consents to dying for his country. He knows the risks and take it. A civilian, on the other hand, does not consent to being killed, he, in fact, wants to live as long as possible. Therefore, the civilian should not be murdered. Nobody here has ever given their consent to die for county nor do we expect them to die for it. Just do their part to defend it and kill those who would destroy the nation.

This has everything to do with ethics, after all, and nothing to do with effective military tactics. I can find many stuff that would be effective, but they are immoral, and because they are immoral, it will likely be better off not to do them. Politicians talk warriors fight and they have different tactics to reach their goal. Politicians that don't say the right things don't get elected again, warriors that fail to kill their enemy are dead.

You don't have to bomb the enemy nation. You can just attack them using conventional tanks, and you can carpet-bomb deserts that have military units. Once you get into urban combat, you can excerise judgement in ensuring that no civilian get hurt. Weapons fire from a building and two or three of your men are killed others are wounded and the entired unit can't move more are dying as fire continues... What do you do?

Or, you could go and inform the enemy populations that they are to be bombed and that they must evacuate. That would count as due diligence, and you can give them enough time to get out of the area. Yea and wake up the enemy troops and give them time to leave the area. Or your unit remains pinned down and more die and are wounded while you wait for the enemy to stop firing so civilians can leave the building you are taking fire from and then you can call in air support and level the building unless it is a church or other special building.

P.S.: Hm. I understand many people here are afraid that there are no better tactics out there. What I was wondering is the possiblity of having some UN military advisors who could assist your military in compliance with this proposal. These UN Military advisors will find ways in ensuring that they wage war effectively, while at the exact same time, save civilians' lives. Would that be somewhat okay? The UN has no military trained personel assigned to it. Nor by it's own rules can it have a police force or military even if they are advisors.. they are military or police.

Well you have one thing right as I'm not american I'm a 14th generation clone from Cavirra.

copying Khomm?

Wikipedia sounds like the brand name of toilet paper and if it scented and real soft then I have not used it.

yeah actually, youre right here, wikipedia isnt even good enough to wipe ones ass with!

That's not a military, that's a committee. They're not going to fight the war for you, they'll just advise you on how to fight it while complying with the resolution.

see, here its the confusing area of those 'mystical beings.' because on the one hand, yes, the UN can create a committee to help with tactics. On the other hand, any being with that can advise tactics well enough to make a significant difference seems to be militarily trained. it'd be creating a committee of militarily trained mystical beings that advise. while the committee may at no time function as an army (and that's the good part) a whole committee of militarily trained beings, with so many as to be able to assist all UN nations, could function as a military.

in other words, the rules say yes to committees, no to militaries, and is silent on this issue, military committees.

I have considered that. But the problem is that it really wouldn't stop the death of civilians, and it could lead to inhumane UN nations waging terrible wars on humane non-UN nations, killing much more civilians than what the non-UN nation would do.

agreed. the UN exists to advance civilization. as member states, we abide by many rules that Non UN states do, that is our choice as more civilized nations.

Tell that to the military troops that died in Nam killed by civillains..

I believe that the first time they fired a shot they changed from civilians to enemy combatants. not sure. not a geneva convention lawyer.




You don't have to bomb the enemy nation. You can just attack them using conventional tanks, and you can carpet-bomb deserts that have military units. Once you get into urban combat, you can excerise judgement in ensuring that no civilian get hurt.

Weapons fire from a building and two or three of your men are killed others are wounded and the entired unit can't move more are dying as fire continues... What do you do?


i believe silent scope mispoke. i believe the resolution leads to your abillity to
"excerise judgement in ensuring that no civilian{s} get hurt {unnecessarily}." see my arguement that attacking civilian targets is often necessary to prosecuting war, and his agreement.

Politicians talk warriors fight and they have different tactics to reach their goal. Politicians that don't say the right things don't get elected again, warriors that fail to kill their enemy are dead.

true. but then why dont we just carpet nuke every enemy? this excerpt has a little bit of McCarthur's policy on China in it.

OOC: I haven't read the entire thread yet, but happened to notice this:

Politicians talk warriors fight and they have different tactics to reach their goal. Politicians that don't say the right things don't get elected again, warriors that fail to kill their enemy are dead.

I would like to point out that unlike the warrior, the politician does get a second chance...

<preamble to be added in later>

1. PROHIBITS memberstates from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless:
(a)civilians were not intentionally targeted AND
(b)the government excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties

2. CONDEMNS the use of 'human shields' in order to protect military targets, and declares accordingly that the use of 'human shields' would be in violation of Clause 1.

3. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clause 1.

4. STRONGLY URGES all nations to begin dismantling all weapon programs that it feels cannot comply with Clause 1,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of Clause 1 by memberstates.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1.

7. MANDATES that if any memberstate who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the memberstate return to compliance.

Looking at this more closely, I'm afraid it could be illegal. You have two resolutions for the price of one. clauses 1-4 are Global disamament. I believe Clauses 5-7 would be considered Social Justice. if you want to go throuogh with this, then you will probally need two resolutions. I'm not a Mod, but I strongly urge you to submit this for modly advice before too much more effort is made. Better now than seeing it deleted for rules violations.

I believe Clauses 5-7 would be considered Social Justice. if you want to go throuogh with this, then you will probally need two resolutions. I'm not a Mod, but I strongly urge you to submit this for modly advice before too much more effort is made. Better now than seeing it deleted for rules violations.

OOC: Huh?

Clause 5-7 isn't here to protect social justice at all. Social Justice is supposed to reduce income inequality, and I don't see that happening at all. All it is supposed to do is provide an enforcement mechanism by which Clause 1 can be enforced rather than letting nations decide how to interpet Clause 1 (and thereby provide a loophole that can be abused). The goal of Clause 5-7 is to ensure that the 'global disarament' works, that is, the reduction of the military by getting rid of weapons and tactics that kill civilians.

That being said, if it is in fact ruled illegal, Clause 5-7 is coming right out. Probraly might be good to get a mod opinon regardless, but I'm going to assume that Clasue 5-7 are legal while I draft the replacement and fixes for the new proposal (after all, if they are illegal, all I have to do is delete them).

EDIT: Er. I need to make clear. Yeah, I'm going to wait for a mod opinon before submitting this resolution regardless. But I am going to continue drafting.

Eh. Doesn't strike me as Social Justice; it's just punishment meted out by the committee established in clause 5.

I'm on both sides in this one. It would be very nice to have less deaths, but if there are you deaths, then that will completely eliminate war. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise wars. But at times they are necessary. What if a nation was keep breaking laws, or is planning to attack multiple nations? Action must be taken. The nation must be punished. Maybe you should change it to "If an innocent person is killed, the punishments are used. ;)

But I do think that this is a good idea.

(OOC: This is being drafted while I am trying to fix the flaws in the previous resolution on "Carbon Unit Trading" pointed out by QoD (which may very well be irreedemable, but I am going to try to fix it by changing it to apply only to corporations). I had this idea before, before Decapod Ten did his thing. This one may be a bit better than the others, but if it is irredeemable, I'll abandon it.

A grammar check will be done once we actually hash out a final draft.)



IC: Unlike Decapod Ten's resolution, it allows you the freedom to decide what tactics to use, as long as civilians are not harmed in the process. The UNWCT will be able to decide what is okay and what is not. Basically, this defends the human rights of civilians, by ensuring that they do not get killed in warfare.

A note of clarifying: this is a Global Disarmament Resolution, Significant.

---Dr. Bob


Ambassodor Straw glanced over at Dr Bob and shrugged his head.He passed a letter to him and in it,containing the following,

Dear Bob,
Our Government is not obliged to be dictated by the UN.The UN must note,again,that it isnt a world Government and it has no rights to intefere with our millitary affairs.We spent billions of dollars every year into our soldiers and defence programmes because we view national security and defence very critical in our objective of being successful economically millitarily and socially,all this in the interests of our hardworking citizens.
Our country have experienced wars with some Islamist states and I must admit that there're some pests ,or rather,terrorists ready to bomb our civillian and business infrastructure.We're a region situated in the midst of the Islamic World and it is impt to respond to threats.To dismantle our millitary assets is to dismatle our overall security for our peoples.This is a very instable uncertain unpredictible world.You won't know when a rocket launcher strikes,do you?
I am against this proposal,strongly.Never will we bow down to terrorist sympathisers like yourself.
Jack Straw
Perm UN Ambassdor
ConservativeRepublicans aka NeoCons land

Ambassodor Straw glanced over at Dr Bob and shrugged his head.He passed a letter to him and in it,containing the following,

Dear Bob,
Our Government is not obliged to be dictated by the UN.The UN must note,again,that it isnt a world Government and it has no rights to intefere with our millitary affairs.We spent billions of dollars every year into our soldiers and defence programmes because we view national security and defence very critical in our objective of being successful economically millitarily and socially,all this in the interests of our hardworking citizens.
Our country have experienced wars with some Islamist states and I must admit that there're some pests ,or rather,terrorists ready to bomb our civillian and business infrastructure.We're a region situated in the midst of the Islamic World and it is impt to respond to threats.To dismantle our millitary assets is to dismatle our overall security for our peoples.This is a very instable uncertain unpredictible world.You won't know when a rocket launcher strikes,do you?
I am against this proposal,strongly.Never will we bow down to terrorist sympathisers like yourself.
Jack Straw
Perm UN Ambassdor
ConservativeRepublicans aka NeoCons land

Apparently you didn't read the fine print on your nation's UN application. Otherwise you would know that by joining the UN you are obligated to follow all of the resolutions the UN passes. And the UN can pass resolutions on whatever they want so long as the resolutions are within the proposal rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and don't contradict any of the previously passed resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572). If you don't like it, you have two options: one, try to repeal the resolutions you don't like, or two, leave.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Our Government is not obliged to be dictated by the UN.The UN must note,again,that it isnt a world Government and it has no rights to intefere with our millitary affairs.

yeah, i must agree with Flibbleites it most definitely does. Check out the ban on Bio-Weapons, (are chem weapons still banned?).

Frankly, ive often thought about the UN banning gravity. it has the power, gravity inhibits trade (hightens transportation costs) limits individual freedoms (the freedom to fly, for example) and a hundred other things that could be helped by its aboliton.

(are chem weapons still banned?)I don't believe so.

Frankly, ive often thought about the UN banning gravity.That would most likely run afoul of the prohibition on "Bloody Stupid" Proposals.

haha..... agreed. which is why it hasnt been proposed and subsequently deleted.

Apparently you didn't read the fine print on your nation's UN application. Otherwise you would know that by joining the UN you are obligated to follow all of the resolutions the UN passes. And the UN can pass resolutions on whatever they want so long as the resolutions are within the proposal rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and don't contradict any of the previously passed resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572). If you don't like it, you have two options: one, try to repeal the resolutions you don't like, or two, leave.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bob
Show my Government some respect.Our nation is far more superior than yours in terms of wealth/economy.
You better show some respect to a superpower.:upyours:


Sir Jack Straw
UN Ambassodor
ConservativeRepublicans

Bob
Show my Government some respect.Our nation is far more superior than yours in terms of wealth/economy.
You better show some respect to a superpower.:upyours:


Sir Jack Straw
UN Ambassodor
ConservativeRepublicans

Really Mr. Straw? Lets take a look at the numbers shall we?

TheElitists' GDP: $17,382,095,869,507.71
Flibbleites' GDP: $304,817,158,853,411.50

That would mean that the GDP for The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is about 17.5 times as much as your nation's GDP.

The Elitists' Budget: $1,923,095,616,000.00
Flibbleites' Budget: $110,982,203,325,000.00

Our budget is over 57 times as much as yours.

And while you may spend 23% of your budget on defense (compared to our 12%) when you look at the numbers.

The Elitists' Defense spending: $415,773,272,179.20
Flibbleites' Defense spending: $12,518,792,535,060.00

We've still got you beat. So I think it's you who needs to be showing some respect.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Figures obtained from.
http://www.nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=TheElitists
http://www.nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Flibbleites

^^^ = pwng.

Really Mr. Straw? Lets take a look at the numbers shall we?

TheElitists' GDP: $17,382,095,869,507.71
Flibbleites' GDP: $304,817,158,853,411.50

That would mean that the GDP for The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is about 17.5 times as much as your nation's GDP.

The Elitists' Budget: $1,923,095,616,000.00
Flibbleites' Budget: $110,982,203,325,000.00

Our budget is over 57 times as much as yours.

And while you may spend 23% of your budget on defense (compared to our 12%) when you look at the numbers.

The Elitists' Defense spending: $415,773,272,179.20
Flibbleites' Defense spending: $12,518,792,535,060.00

We've still got you beat. So I think it's you who needs to be showing some respect.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Figures obtained from.
http://www.nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=TheElitists
http://www.nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Flibbleites


Bob,
You're sucha fool arent you?
look at your GDP Per Capita: $33,967.48
Mine Country's GDP Per Capita:$35,840.34
Who's the boss now eh?
:upyours:
Jack Straw
UN Permanent Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

Bob,
You're sucha fool arent you?
look at your GDP Per Capita: $33,967.48
Mine Country's GDP Per Capita:$35,840.34
Who's the boss now eh?
:upyours:
Jack Straw
UN Permanent Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

:rolleyes:Well, of course, look at the populations.

Flibbleites Population: 9.007 billion
TheElitists Popluation: 492 million

We've got 18 times as many people as you do. Now get this through that thick skull of yours, we're a superpower, you're not. And if you can't handle the truth, fuck off, I don't have time to deal with pissants like you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is the first page draft still the current version? My government likes the text and would vote in favour.

Enough stat wanking. Mine's bigger than yours.

Finally got time, so let post this new revision. Mikitivity and others, I hope you can come and make good suggestions.

<preamble>

1. PROHIBITS memberstates from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless:
(a)civilians were not intentionally targeted AND
(b)the government excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties

2. FURTHER PROHIBTS memberstates from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clause 1 and Clause 2.

4. STRONGLY URGES all nations to begin dismantling all weapon programs that it feels cannot comply with Clauses 1 and Clause 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of Clauses 1 and Clause 2 by memberstates.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking the Clause 1 or Clause 2.

7. MANDATES that if any memberstate who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the memberstate return to compliance.

The only question is should the NSUN impose sanctions on non-UN nations who cause civilian casualities in UN nations? It is true that non-UN nations are not bound by UN laws, and that should be true, but the idea of the sanctions would be to allow the UN nations an even playing field with non-UN nations, attempting to have them both follow the same rules of warfare. The clasue below talks about that.

7. MANDATES that if any non-UN nation directly or indirectly caused civilian casualties without making a 'good faith' effort to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the non-UN nation refrains from doing .

Finally got time, so let post this new revision. Mikitivity and others, I hope you can come and make good suggestions.



The only question is should the NSUN impose sanctions on non-UN nations who cause civilian casualities in UN nations? It is true that non-UN nations are not bound by UN laws, and that should be true, but the idea of the sanctions would be to allow the UN nations an even playing field with non-UN nations, attempting to have them both follow the same rules of warfare. The clasue below talks about that.

You bring an interesting point to discussion here ... can UN resolutions have an impact on non-UN members? My government believes legally they indirectly can by influencing the behaviors of UN members in their relations with non-UN members.

UN resolutions certainly can encourage / discourage behaviors of UN members, and the way to make your proposed resolution influence non-members is to strongly encourage or even require UN members to impose those sanctions on non-UN states that violate the spirit of the earlier clauses.

This will undoubtedly bother some nations, but the reality is they *already* are subject to the possibility that UN members might choose to impose sanctions on their nations for hideous or barbaric conduct. My favorite example of this was when the former Kingdom of Jocia began systematically exterminating all of its domestic political opponents using UN resolutions as the "justification". In that case, it was non-UN states that actually declared war on Jocia at the urging of their UN allies. The lesson learned is that the line between UN member state and non-member state is in reality very blurred.


So my question is why do we need a UN War Crimes Tribunal to investigate claims of violations of clauses 1 and 2 for all situations? Though there may be a 1:1 correlation, why not allow nations that have been targeted by other nations simply request the investigation?

For example, let's pretend that Mikitivity were invaded by Bears Armed and the Bears were carpet bombing the mountain sides looking for the Thuvian Alpinen troops. My government could request the investigation.

A way to completely avoid creating a Tribunal would be upon my government's request to simply let nations decide if any case presented by my government warranted economic sanctions. This is obviously a *weaker* approach, but it also would really just be putting to code the system that currently exists. The benefit here is this actually would remind aggressor states that if they don't play nice, they WILL be called upon their barbaric behavior.

[OOC: I like the Tribunal idea, but many players will jerk their knees. I'd honestly like your idea to survive, even if it means watering it down. By all means, I *actually* would like to encourage you to go for a stronger resolution and *if* it meets opposition, then to consider the Katzman Kompromise. Good luck!] ;)

The only question is should the NSUN impose sanctions on non-UN nations who cause civilian casualities in UN nations? It is true that non-UN nations are not bound by UN laws, and that should be true, but the idea of the sanctions would be to allow the UN nations an even playing field with non-UN nations, attempting to have them both follow the same rules of warfare. The clasue below talks about that.
OoC: As unrealistic and impractical as it is, no resolution may have any direct effect on non-members.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465
MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

(a)civilians were not intentionally targeted AND

i think this section needs some improvement for the following reasons:
1)trargeting civillian structures (the tank factories example) could still be viewed as prohibited.
2)"i was targeting the buildings" is an excuse...

i think the clause may be entirely unnecessary, if a nation makes a 'due diligence' effort, i think by any stretch of the imagination that includes not intentionally targeting them (and certainly by the stretch of the mystical beings' imagination).

the government excerised due diligence in tryin

should specify 'attacking government', 'their government', 'the protagonist government' or something just to be grammatical. should it also reference millitary make due diligence? i dont think itd ever be a big issue, but if the government makes the effort, but the military does whatever it wants i could see conflict.... but not a big thing, just my paranoia.

3. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clause 1 and Clause 2.

4. STRONGLY URGES all nations to begin dismantling all weapon programs that it feels cannot comply with Clauses 1 and Clause 2,

how are these different? given that you require the states to modify their tactics and weaponry, and given that changes like that will happen in this universe instantaneously, arent they the same thing? i like the first clause, because it is forceful and instantaneous.

as for the last clause, it would be easier to pass if, instead of explicitly saying non-UN states, just write "7. MANDATES that if any state who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the state return to compliance." by elminating member from memberstate, you have the desired effect but fewer people will notice and object. sneaky, but effective.

i agree with Mikitivity, dont weaken it. request isnt a bad idea as well. it allows for cultural differences, if two nations have no problem with blowing up daycares because they use exclusively child soldiers (or some better example) then so be it...... except for that children in war resolution.... ok, really bad example........ but it allows one only if wanted and not force drudging up memories and elongating hostilities...

Clause 7's a little to direct against non-UN nations. It's actively doing something against them.

For example, let's pretend that Mikitivity were invaded by Bears Armed and the Bears were carpet bombing the mountain sides looking for the Thuvian Alpinen troops.

I really hope that that was meant just as a random example, rather than as an expression of genuine concern -- which we've surely done nothing to provoke -- or (Even worse!) ursinophobic prejudice on the part of your government or yourself.

Borrin O'Redwood,
Chief Observer,
Bears Armed (http://www.nationstates.net/bears_armed) UN Mission.


(Anyway, we don't even have an airforce...)

Alright. I apologize for missing some comments about the 'factory' debate. So, Revision #3:

<preamble to be added in later>

1. PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless the military forces excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBTS military forces from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and excerised due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by the targeted nation.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2.

7. MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation refrains from committing the violations. (OR

7. MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of either the spirit or the letter of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation refrains from committing the violations.)

Some comments:

Kingdom of Jocia

Do you got a link to that thread? Would be interesting to see how he justified his actions using UN resolutions.

So my question is why do we need a UN War Crimes Tribunal to investigate claims of violations of clauses 1 and 2 for all situations? Though there may be a 1:1 correlation, why not allow nations that have been targeted by other nations simply request the investigation?

I suppose it would be primarly to protect the right of all civilians, even if the government doesn't care for them. At the same time though, it could easily just lead to more conflict (OOC: I'm no big fan of the ICC's continued prosecution of genocide cases way after the crisis is resolved), so a request is likely a better outcome. Though I need to make sure I phrase it correctly.

[OOC: I like the Tribunal idea, but many players will jerk their knees. I'd honestly like your idea to survive, even if it means watering it down. By all means, I *actually* would like to encourage you to go for a stronger resolution and *if* it meets opposition, then to consider the Katzman Kompromise. Good luck!]

I doubt that Tribunal is ever going away. I like the idea too, and without the Tribunal, I'm not sure how effective the proposal would be at all. It is better to delegate such complicated questions of responsiblity over to the Gnomes, after all.

i think this section needs some improvement for the following reasons:
1)trargeting civillian structures (the tank factories example) could still be viewed as prohibited.
2)"i was targeting the buildings" is an excuse...

The new Clause 3 should handle it.

i think the clause may be entirely unnecessary, if a nation makes a 'due diligence' effort, i think by any stretch of the imagination that includes not intentionally targeting them (and certainly by the stretch of the mystical beings' imagination).

I have taken it out, but I am quite worried about it. After all, it could then be possible to engage in attack civilians while still making a 'due diligence' effort to make sure nobody dies. You can commit an ethnic cleansing of a region, trying to force all civilians out of their home, but make sure nobody dies in the process. But, I don't know. It's too pretty weak, even for me, but I'm going to wait for others to comment too before getting reassured.

as for the last clause, it would be easier to pass if, instead of explicitly saying non-UN states, just write "7. MANDATES that if any state who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1, the UNWCT may place punitive sanctions on the nation until the state return to compliance." by elminating member from memberstate, you have the desired effect but fewer people will notice and object. sneaky, but effective.

If it is sneaky, it's not exactly 'effective'. On the other hand, it is the only way to make Clause 7 legal after all, so the editing was done. All I need to know is which version of "Clause 7" should be choosen.

To all: What do you think about Clause 2? This was there to stop the use of human shields and disgusing as civilians, but the 'punishment' for disgusing as civilians ("monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians") doesn't exactly sound revelant. Any good ideas?

I have taken it out, but I am quite worried about it. After all, it could then be possible to engage in attack civilians while still making a 'due diligence' effort to make sure nobody dies. You can commit an ethnic cleansing of a region, trying to force all civilians out of their home, but make sure nobody dies in the process.

easy solution, change 'civilian casualties' to harm civilians, give the UNWCT definition rights of that, possibly include displacement/maiming/whatever as examples in the preamble or the affected clause.

The new Clause 3 should handle it.

yep.

If it is sneaky, it's not exactly 'effective'. On the other hand, it is the only way to make Clause 7 legal after all, so the editing was done. All I need to know is which version of "Clause 7" should be choosen.

To all: What do you think about Clause 2? This was there to stop the use of human shields and disgusing as civilians, but the 'punishment' for disgusing as civilians ("monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians") doesn't exactly sound revelant. Any good ideas?

first and foremost, just a typo type thing, id suggest replacing "of either the spirit or the letter" with 'the spirit and/or the letter'

goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by the targeted nation.

secondly, another grammatical thing, it should be 'of Clauses 1 and 2' rather than 'of the Clauses 1 and 2'.

third, "until the nation refrains from committing the violations." is wierd language. im just not sure this is effective or what you want. for example, when Decapod Ten was sqooshing the Squash of the Squash Planet (before my government took power.... we regret our planet's actions) it only became known that we were committing war crimes after the fact. therefore, we already had 'refrained from committing the violations.' One mechanism that might work would be something like 'MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of either the spirit or the letter of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the sanctioned nation rejects its criminal practices, apologizes for its actions, acquiesces to the punishments of the UNWCT (both in reparations and war criminal prosecution).'its not the most polished language, but bleh. i just feel that refraining from the action only stops current action, not punishes past actions, and doesnt reduce further offenses. i might even include an examination of tactics and weaponry to make sure it is in accordance with 4/ 1&2 oh, and i prefer spirit and/or letter. as long as UNWCT defines spirit, its omnipotence is a great guide.

hey silent scope, whatever happened to this proposal?

hey silent scope, whatever happened to this proposal?
I think it's more a question of what happened to SS: namely, he lost enthusiasm for the NSUN, for now at least.

well, here's an odd question for yall mods. i believed this proposal to be fairly close to completion, and have had fairly decent influence in its construction. Silentscope Embassy no longer exists. am i able to take the text of the resolution, barely edit it (mainly to apply to the WA) and submit it, giving silentscop a co-authorship (which is all i can give him correct? its not possible to say 'authored by silentscope embassy at the bottom as i read the rules).

i know this might be in conflict with the plagarism debate, which is why i am asking before i try.

and yes...... god yes it may not be entirely new mistakes..... but damned if i dont want it passed, and damned if i didnt want it passed as a UN resolution.

its not possible to say 'authored by silentscope embassy at the bottom as i read the rules).

I'm fairly sure that it is allowed, as there's been at least one case in the past when a proposal's author was unable to submit it for some reason (such as not actually being in the UN, perhaps, or being in a region where they just couldn't get two endorsements) and the nation that submitted it on their behalf instead gave them 'Author' credit like that.
But that doesn't answer the question of whether you're allowed to submit it for them without their explicit consent, to which I suspect the answer is probably 'No'...

yep...... that's what im waiting for. im thinking of actually rewriting it before they rule, and have the mods see if its plagarism or not...... im also not sure they will rule before i put it up for approval.

Silentscope Embassy no longer exists. am i able to take the text of the resolution, barely edit it (mainly to apply to the WA) and submit it, giving silentscop a co-authorship.

Sorry, no. Co-authorship implies that the co-author is aware of your activity. You need to make it your own (which means a complete re-write), or we'll take it down for plagiarism.

then that i shall do.

then that i shall do.

You can always create a NSWiki article describing where the original idea came from and how that nation disappeared. :)

do not know how to do that actually. instead, ill just work my ass off on the proposal to have this idea be a resolution.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553763

I am unsure as to the spirit of this proposal. Yes, it is nice to talk about protecting civilians during wartime, as they are not involved in said war. But what if they are? What of the civilians pumping out tons and tons of munitions, tanks, planes, and the like? Suppose you are losing a war because your opponent has an overwhelming amount of productive capability. Are you to sit back and just accept defeat? Does that make any sense?

The Dominion

You can always create a NSWiki article describing where the original idea came from and how that nation disappeared. :)

OOC: The wiki's editable again?

OOC: The wiki's editable again?

No, not yet. Mik's been out of the loop for a while.

I think it's more a question of what happened to SS: namely, he lost enthusiasm for the NSUN, for now at least.

OOC: Indeed I have. And I still am, sadly.

However, I will let Decapod Ten (or anyone for that matter) use the text of this UN resolution as long as they credit my name. A simple: "Co-written by SilentScope Embassy" would suffice.

Good luck, DT. I'm going to idle this account out as soon as this post is made. If there was a more effective method of giving consent rather than going through all this work...eh.

We would like to know what "due diligance" is. To me that means doing one's best to accuratly hit a target without causing too much damage to the surrounding area, unless the surrounding area is also important for military. If civilians are nearby, that's there own problem. If we miss because of an error that's their problem and ours (but in a different sense...ie we wanted to hit a target and missed).

Of course, The Popotan prefers more discrete forms of elimination when possible...from elements outside the military of course.

OOC: Indeed I have. And I still am, sadly.

However, I will let Decapod Ten (or anyone for that matter) use the text of this UN resolution as long as they credit my name. A simple: "Co-written by SilentScope Embassy" would suffice.

Good luck, DT. I'm going to idle this account out as soon as this post is made. If there was a more effective method of giving consent rather than going through all this work...eh.

thank you good sir. thank you. and to womever told him about this, if that is how it went down thank you, and tell him i thank him.

although now im at a horrible confusion as to what to do.

We would like to know what "due diligance" is. To me that means doing one's best to accuratly hit a target without causing too much damage to the surrounding area, unless the surrounding area is also important for military. If civilians are nearby, that's there own problem. If we miss because of an error that's their problem and ours (but in a different sense...ie we wanted to hit a target and missed).

yep, that is what the proposal calls for. we do not define it because the UNWCT would have had to define it to determine who is in violation of that clause. that's the beauty of committees.

next up: superpost.

ok, i know its annoying when somebody double posts, especially intentionally. but that's exactly what im going to do, because this entire discussion took a very nice, drastic turn.

so, now that silent scope has been nice and opened the text of his proposal, we need to compare.

proposal A

<preamble to be added in later>

1. PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless the military forces excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBTS military forces from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and excerised due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by the targeted nation.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2.

7. MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation refrains from committing the violations.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy


proposal B

The World Assembly

Defining a civilian as any sentient being that is not a member of any organized military force, and not attempting violently resist any military force,

Acting to reduce civilian casualties during wartime,

Hereby:

1. Requires all nationally controlled military forces, both governmental and private, to exercise all reasonable caution in order to minimize civilian casualties.

2. Requires all nationally controlled military forces, both governmental and private, to abstain from using ‘human shields’ of any sentient creature.

3. Restates the right of sovereign nations to target civilian areas of strategic value to advance their war aims so long as such actions are compliant with clauses 1 and 2.

4. Requires all nations modify their weapons and tactics to comply with this resolution.

5. Creates the World Assembly War Crimes Tribunal, which shall
-Investigate and try all credible allegations of violations of clauses 1 and 2.
--These trials shall follow WA definition of a fair trial.
-Confer upon all guilty nations a monetary penalty to be paid to the victims or their families.
-Provide a report of the Tribunal’s investigation to violator nations to prosecute the perpetrators.
-Assess monetary penalties on nationstates that are found repeatedly in violation of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy


so. please comment on a) which you prefer, proposal A or B b)what parts of which you like. c) what you think should be changed/added. d) war criminal prosecution, what's up with that. e)pretty much anything else, hopefully proposal related, possibly preamble related, as mine currently sucks.

the purpose is to merge the two into one coherent idea, better than either seperately, yet i suspect that much of A shall be left, and B shall be mainly dismantled.

I only spent a short amount of time (I have to wake up super early tomorrow), but on a first glance I like version A better for two reasons. First, when you get to the subclauses near the bottom of both, it is easier to follow (for me). :) Second, I like the third clause in version A better:

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and excerised due diligence,

Version B places too much an emphasis on allowing the targeting of civilian areas. I know they really amount to the same thing, but A seems a bit better. :)

I like the third clause in version A better:

agreed. i actually was the reason clause 3 from proposal A was written, and liked it then. only reason that clause, in its entirety isnt in proposal B is because of plagarism and such.

damn..... i want to comment so much more, but i should wait for other people..... QoD especially.........

Ambassador Windcharmer rises to speak,

The Republic of Havensky would like to add the following:

4. RECOGNIZES That all armed forces have a right to self-defense that supersedes the obligations found in this resolution. However, nations are still required to make reasonable efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

Here's my reasoning.

Let's say that my nation is in a state of war with a non-member nation. That nation is using human shields. In fact, they've set up artillery in a school parking lot (which is smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood.)

My men are being hit by the shells. I have to take the position out. The simplest way of doing so would be an air strike. However, the air strike will almost certainly result in the school being damaged too despite the fact that I'm using smart weapons. And because of all the shells, there's a good chance the houses nearby are going to get damaged as well. I have no way of knowing if those houses are occupied.

What I'm afraid of is that this resolution would forbid me from making the air strike. If that were the case, all any enemy would have to do is put all of their forces in civilians zones. Yes, this practice is cowardly and morally reprehensible and we very much support member states banning it, but there is no way to outlaw other non-member nations from doing it.

We would just like to ensure that armed forces aren't put in a position where they can't defend themselves.


[OCC: The real Geneva Convention covers self-defense as well.]

Havensky,

ill definitely reiterate the right to self defense, because without it would allow too much confusion.

however, the situation you suggest falls entirely under the "due diligence" aspect;

PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless the military forces excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

thus, so long as you excercise due diligence in avoiding casualties, you can attack any target of strategic import.

in otherwords, so long as you use a conventional airstrike against the artillery, it is excercising due diligence (particularly with smart weapons). if you were to carpet-firebomb a 6 mile radius around the artillery, it would not be.

the brilliance of "due diligence" is that it means reasonable effort. the only judge of whether or not your nation excercises due diligence, is the WAWCT.

....................................................................

alright..... im going to make myself wait about 6-7 hours before writing again.....

Ambassador Windcharmer rises to speak,

The Republic of Havensky would like to add the following:



Here's my reasoning.

What I'm afraid of is that this resolution would forbid me from making the air strike. If that were the case, all any enemy would have to do is put all of their forces in civilians zones. Yes, this practice is cowardly and morally reprehensible and we very much support member states banning it, but there is no way to outlaw other non-member nations from doing it.


[OCC: The real Geneva Convention covers self-defense as well.]

I actually wouldn't mind the proposal including Havensky's new clause, even if redundant, it does really address the above reasoning ... surely others will wonder too.

yep, will definitely rewriet the merger with a clause reiterating the right to self defense, but under no circumstances "supersedes the obligations found in this resolution" as all that is required in the proposal is a good effort. merger hopefully tommoroow, so ling as im not that hungover.

But the right to self-defense superseding the duty to avoid civilian causalities is my whole point. If this resolution passes all military Rules of Engagement would have to be checked to make sure that it complies with the new resolution. Saying 'due diligence' leaves alot of wiggle room for both good and bad interpretations.

Self-defense is a term that's clearly defined (you have to be under attack)

But the right to self-defense superseding the duty to avoid civilian causalities is my whole point.

the entire point of the proposal is to stop unnecessary civilian casualties. its not to stop them from happening, its not that they , its not that they can always be avoided; it is to keep militaries from acting recklessly.

the resolution doesnt stop you from returning fire under fire. it doesnt stop you from blowing up a sniper in a hotel with a tank shell. it does mean that, {and this is a historical example} if a partisan sniper shoots at you, it is criminal to level the entire city. if under partisan fire, you can kill or arrest the partisans, you cant rape and kill 24 people, mostly civillians in the town. the proposal only means that excessive force is illegal, because excessive force is not excercising "due diligence."

If this resolution passes all military Rules of Engagement would have to be checked to make sure that it complies with the new resolution.

yes. yes they would. that was the point of

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,


if we are going to ask militaries to exercise due diligence to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, we will require change. currently there is no legislation barring a complete leveling of a city to protect oneself {this thought is incomplete, ill complete it later, i have to leave}

Saying 'due diligence' leaves alot of wiggle room for both good and bad interpretations.

yes. yes it does. that's why we have the WAWCT in charge of defining it.

i must thank you HAVENSKY, because this conversation will have incredible dividends in the preamble, that youll see.

the right to wage war on a country by deliberately destroying its civilians is the inalienable right of all sovereign nations :mp5:

who makes the tanks and bombs and guns and planes CIVILIANS :mad:

and besides after polling my armed forces my results seem to indicate that killing defenseless civilians was why 48% of my soldiers joined in the first place :D

the right to wage war on a country by deliberately destroying its civilians is the inalienable right of all sovereign nations

watch me alienate that right. watch me alienate the hell out of it!

all right, lets rewrite the shit out of this proposal! (why am i so fired up? oh yeah, beer)

.............................................................................

The World Assembly,

CONFIRMING the inalienable right of all living creatures to defend themselves from immediate physical threats,

YET AWARE that self-defensive reactions can, and must, be scaled to the threat,

ACTING to criminalize the use of excessive, unwarranted, and imprecise force to protect the innocent,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, the government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.

7. MANDATES the WAWCT has the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

.........................................................................................

hopefully that clears up the debate about the right to self defense.

now my question, in addition to continuing concerns about self defense, is it necessary to have a definition of civilians, or military forces?

1. PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

A suggested rewrite of the first clause is:

1. CALLS UPON all nations to exercise due diligence to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties;

I've slightly broadened the scope of the original clause by removing "armed conflict", implying that activities be taken to simply reduce civilian casualties. We can add another preamble clause emphasize this again:

CONCERNED about the dangers armed conflicts pose on civilian populations;

That might be a good second sentence/preamble clause.

i like it. im concerned however, on how it might affect private millitary focres...... perhaps "PROHIBITS all nations, and military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties, unless they have exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties."

eliminated armed conflict as you so wisely suggest, but made it nation AND millitary forsec, and maintained that nations simply cannot act in a manner that would endanger civillians (US embargo on iraq killing 1million or less(yess i know it was a UN embargo..... just debate how its regional partners accepted the embargo, and the effect that only the oil parts had effect))))

and i agree that that would be a good preamble clause..... probably right after "The World Assembly" (btw, i assume that ive written that, and anybody else writign that is palgarzing.

yet again, as it is friday, drunk.

i like it. im concerned however, on how it might affect private millitary focres...... perhaps "PROHIBITS all nations, and military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties, unless they have exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties."

eliminated armed conflict as you so wisely suggest, but made it nation AND millitary forsec, and maintained that nations simply cannot act in a manner that would endanger civillians (US embargo on iraq killing 1million or less(yess i know it was a UN embargo..... just debate how its regional partners accepted the embargo, and the effect that only the oil parts had effect))))

and i agree that that would be a good preamble clause..... probably right after "The World Assembly" (btw, i assume that ive written that, and anybody else writign that is palgarzing.

yet again, as it is friday, drunk.

Never a need to apologize for recovering from a long week. ;)

I think private military forces that are actively engaged in combat are either: (1) terrorists, or (2) operating on the behalf of a government. At the very least simply calling upon nations to reduce civilian casualties gives governments the latitude to crack down on non-governmental military forces that cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately this is your government's proposal, and I'm just putting these out as ideas to consider.

The Popotan believes we should define mercenaries here as "any individuals contracted out for military operations" and apply the same standards to them. Right now they'd be outside this because you could technically hire a bunch of contractiees and have them perform the operations and not be liable since they aren't part of the military.

yeah, that was my general thoughts, im trying to eliminate **cough cough blackwater cough cough** PMFs from existing outside the realm of law. my question currently is that does the WAWCT get to define millitary forces? and/or should i include redundancy by making it something like

1. PROHIBITS all military forces funded by a national government from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

any military force funded by a government could be PMFs, obviously their own millitary, millitias, and terrorist organizations. it still leaVES RROOM (whoa accidental caps_) for the WAWCT to define millitary force, and seems good to me.....

randomly, since fair trial seems likely to pass soon, do the rights contained therein effectively protect the accused in WAWCT tribunals?

well, if nobody has any other objections, i may propose tuesdayish. if you have at any point replied to this thread, expect a telegram. if you feel like TGing for this, please do after it is proposed.

As said, some way to make certain contractural members, ie not official military, but contracted/hired out/etc. should also follow under the state's responsibility. Without this, the legisilation will be completely irrelivant

As said, some way to make certain contractural members, ie not official military, but contracted/hired out/etc. should also follow under the state's responsibility. Without this, the legisilation will be completely irrelivant

agreed. check out the new clauses 1&2. this is what would be proposed tomorrow around 1:00am GMT i believe (7:00 CST).

....................................................................................

The World Assembly,

CONFIRMING the inalienable right of all living creatures to defend themselves from immediate physical threats,

YET AWARE that self-defensive reactions can, and must, be scaled to the threat,

ACTING to criminalize the use of excessive, unwarranted, and imprecise force to protect the innocent,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, the government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.

7. MANDATES the WAWCT has the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

This has just about the oddest preamble imaginable. As much as anything, at least some nations in the WA, myself being a representative, adhere to the relatively common principle that violence is a legitimate prorogative of the state. Argue against it all you want on your own time, but hyperreactionary polemic does not belong in a war crimes proposal. Also, would it not be a good idea to say that, in general, killing civilians is a Bad Thing?
1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.
Your definition is imprecise. Well, your definition of 'civilian' is non-existent; it's your reference to military forces that's imprecise. It would seem to exclude, for example, the National Guard units that the several states of Quintessence of Dust run. They are funded through state budgets, not out of the national budget. Except when federalised, they are not under direct command of the national government. And though they are unlikely to be involved in international conflict, if they were to be so they should be considered a military force.

This also seems to exclude post-conflict crimes, but that may be intentional.
2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.
This seems to preclude clandestine intelligence gathering. The Quintessential Military Intelligence Agency might send someone in disguise to intercept a terrorist cell; wearing their full dress uniform might be a bit of a giveaway. In no way does this admitted deception rise to the level of a war crime.
3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,
Yes, but it might be nice if there were an exemption that would allow a future proposal - I completely accept it should be outside the scope of this one - to reimpose the restrictions originally promulgated by NSUN Resolution #217, "Cultural Heritage in War".
4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,
This seems like a dangerous clause, without definitions. Either it has very little impact at all, or it prohibits all weapons types unable to distinguish between military and civilian targets, from biological weapons to non-command detonated landmines. I'm not suggesting you do the latter in this proposal, necessarily, but some clarification would make sense.
5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.
Independent NGOs, or other nations, should be able to lodge complaints as well. For example: on a joint mission, an Astani soldier sees a Bstani soldier commit a war crime against a Cstani civilian. Bear in mind, in many cases civilians will be afraid of reporting the crime, or unable to do so, and it may well only be monitors that are able to do so.

And nothing in this suggesting the committee is acting as a tribunal.
6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, the government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.
You say 'the government', but which one? Who is to conduct the trial? The nation of the soldier, or the civilian? And I don't see where the WAWCT gets the authority to find someone guilty, given Article 5 only gives them investigatory power.

For (b), the same questions as above apply, plus: wouldn't it make more sense to have WAWCT act as a grand jury-like agency, and require the prosecution of those for whom they have accumulated sufficient evidence? You cannot prosecute a 'criminal': that breaks presumption of innocence. You prosecute a suspect. And you might consider having the WAWCT be required to turn over to prosecutors their evidence, although I haven't yet thought through the implications of this so don't consider it a firm suggestion.
7. MANDATES the WAWCT has the power to impose appropriate sancions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.
('Mandates' is an awfully funny word to be using here. 'Declares' or 'Authorises the WAWCT to...' would read better.) It's also not clear where these reforms will come from: you don't seem to have given WAWCT power to recommend them, though doing so would be a good idea anyway.

Definitely improved on previous drafts, though.

-- Samantha Benson

Definitely improved on previous drafts, though.

indeed. getting to be able to use what had been previously written was an incredible windfall.

This has just about the oddest preamble imaginable. As much as anything, at least some nations in the WA, myself being a representative, adhere to the relatively common principle that violence is a legitimate prorogative of the state. Argue against it all you want on your own time, but hyperreactionary polemic does not belong in a war crimes proposal. Also, would it not be a good idea to say that, in general, killing civilians is a Bad Thing?

agreed. Decapod Ten is a Planet that loves the use of force, so long as it isnt too much of a schlepp. apparently my words are too imprecise, as i was intending to sanction self defensive war (i think id get a lot of flak for sanctioning offensive war) and self defensive actions for millitary units (see Havensky's comments). and ill be the first to admit that i SUCK at preambles.

would something like:

CONFIRMING the inalienable right of all living creatures, and all nationsates to defend themselves from immediate physical threats,

ACTING to criminalize only the use of excessive, unwarranted, and imprecise force to protect civillians,

be a better preamble?

Your definition is imprecise. Well, your definition of 'civilian' is non-existent; it's your reference to military forces that's imprecise. It would seem to exclude, for example, the National Guard units that the several states of Quintessence of Dust run. They are funded through state budgets, not out of the national budget. Except when federalised, they are not under direct command of the national government. And though they are unlikely to be involved in international conflict, if they were to be so they should be considered a military force.

touche. how about:

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

This also seems to exclude post-conflict crimes, but that may be intentional.

yep. intentionally outside the scope.

This seems to preclude clandestine intelligence gathering. The Quintessential Military Intelligence Agency might send someone in disguise to intercept a terrorist cell; wearing their full dress uniform might be a bit of a giveaway. In no way does this admitted deception rise to the level of a war crime.

good call.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

Yes, but it might be nice if there were an exemption that would allow a future proposal - I completely accept it should be outside the scope of this one - to reimpose the restrictions originally promulgated by NSUN Resolution #217, "Cultural Heritage in War".

odd, ive never seen somebody get their own proposal's number wrong. its 208. i see it as completely possible for someone to label areas of cultural heritage as 'not of strategic value' and thus exempt from this proposal that only allows attacks on targets of strategic value.

This seems like a dangerous clause, without definitions. Either it has very little impact at all, or it prohibits all weapons types unable to distinguish between military and civilian targets, from biological weapons to non-command detonated landmines. I'm not suggesting you do the latter in this proposal, necessarily, but some clarification would make sense.

yep. it is, and i love it. this can be interpreted in almost any way a nation wants. in fact, no matter what weapons program you have, so long as you are fine with what the WAWCT will do to you for violations of Clause 1, is cool to have. if you use a spear recklessly, the WAWCT will mess you up. if you use hypervirulent genetically modified airborne Ebola with 'due diligence' great for you. there are no weapons systems (except Futuraman Doomsday Devices that destroy the universe) that i know of that are inherently incapable of being used with 'due diligence'. similar to the old UN clause in (dammit i forget what resolution number) gave the right to have weapons 'necessary' to self defense, a world organization can declare them unnecessary, which would eliminate them.

Independent NGOs, or other nations, should be able to lodge complaints as well. For example: on a joint mission, an Astani soldier sees a Bstani soldier commit a war crime against a Cstani civilian. Bear in mind, in many cases civilians will be afraid of reporting the crime, or unable to do so, and it may well only be monitors that are able to do so.

im wholeheartedly against this idea for the following reasons. a) if Astan has a grudge with Bstan, i dont want the WA getting involved in petty squables. b) if Bstan and Cstan end their war, with a treaty of reconcilliation over war crimes, id like the confict to end. c) i dont believe NGOs should have standing with the WA d) i definitely believe that a principle of national sovereignty is allowing Cstan any method of government it wants, even if that includes one that doesnt care if its populace are hurt, then it must be so. i believe that governments must listen to their citizen's complaints, and address them as they may. if, perhaps, initiating a trial may re-initiate hostilities, it may be diametrically opposed to national interests.

And nothing in this suggesting the committee is acting as a tribunal.
You say 'the government', but which one? Who is to conduct the trial? The nation of the soldier, or the civilian? And I don't see where the WAWCT gets the authority to find someone guilty, given Article 5 only gives them investigatory power.

yep. good catch.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairtly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations. The WAWCT is also to provide its evidence to nations for intra-national jurisprudence.


You say 'the government', but which one? Who is to conduct the trial? The nation of the soldier, or the civilian? And I don't see where the WAWCT gets the authority to find someone guilty, given Article 5 only gives them investigatory power.

For (b), the same questions as above apply, plus: wouldn't it make more sense to have WAWCT act as a grand jury-like agency, and require the prosecution of those for whom they have accumulated sufficient evidence? You cannot prosecute a 'criminal': that breaks presumption of innocence. You prosecute a suspect. And you might consider having the WAWCT be required to turn over to prosecutors their evidence, although I haven't yet thought through the implications of this so don't consider it a firm suggestion.

indeed that was the intention. as article 6 declares all governments must "(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial."

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.

'Mandates' is an awfully funny word to be using here. 'Declares' or 'Authorises the WAWCT to...' would read better.) It's also not clear where these reforms will come from: you don't seem to have given WAWCT power to recommend them, though doing so would be a good idea anyway.

sure, what the hey. if authorizes works better for people then so be it.

7. AUTHORIZES the WAWCT to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

mmmmmmm........ perhaps i should just put all these fragments into another rewrite.....

The World Assembly

CONFIRMING the inalienable right of all living creatures, and all nationsates to defend themselves from immediate physical threats,

ACTING to protect civillians by criminalizing only the use of excessive, unwarranted, and imprecise force

Hereby

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not effect clandestine intelligence assets or agents.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairtly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations. The WAWCT is also to provide its evidence to nations for intra-national jurisprudence.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.

7. AUTHORIZES the WAWCT to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

.............................................................................

comments anyone? have the edits made in/since my response to QoD made sense, not sucked, illuminated another gaping hole in my & SS's proposal?

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way affiliated with a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way affiliated with a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not effect clandestine intelligence assets or agents. Change to that. It very well be they could make a force, put them on their roster and refuse to fund them. Then the troop goes out and pillage and loots to get stuff. The government then would go back and say, "But we weren't 'funding' or 'supporting' them...

will do. but does that adequately maintain the idea of governmental control?

This whole resolution is useless, when most nations go to war they are generally very angry at the enemy nation. This means they want to defeat the enemy at all costs, and there is know better way to demoralize the than to kill his wife/husband/children.This will never work.

be a better preamble?
Well, not really, given it entirely fails to address my objection. I am objecting to your endowing individuals with a right to self-defence, when war is conducted between national parties. Keeping in language that states that individuals have an inherent right to commit acts of violence is unsatisfactory.
1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.
Better, but 'therein' would in term intergovernmental agencies such as a regional security force. Can't you simply remove 'a memberstate's'? That way, it will prohibit any military force funded [or contracted?] by any government or governmental organization, which would apply to national, sub-national, and super-national levels.
2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.
I don't see how that in any way affects the force of the clause. It would still prevent military intelligence agents from pretending to be civilians in order to gather intelligence. That still doesn't seem to me to be a war crime. Perhaps you could exclude intelligence gathering operations?
odd, ive never seen somebody get their own proposal's number wrong. its 208.
Actually, it's 207 :p Yes, I got the number wrong; not sure it particularly detracts from the force of my comment, though:
i see it as completely possible for someone to label areas of cultural heritage as 'not of strategic value' and thus exempt from this proposal that only allows attacks on targets of strategic value.
Yes, that's a good workaround, thanks.
yep. it is, and i love it. this can be interpreted in almost any way a nation wants. in fact, no matter what weapons program you have, so long as you are fine with what the WAWCT will do to you for violations of Clause 1, is cool to have. if you use a spear recklessly, the WAWCT will mess you up. if you use hypervirulent genetically modified airborne Ebola with 'due diligence' great for you. there are no weapons systems (except Futuraman Doomsday Devices that destroy the universe) that i know of that are inherently incapable of being used with 'due diligence'. similar to the old UN clause in (dammit i forget what resolution number) gave the right to have weapons 'necessary' to self defense, a world organization can declare them unnecessary, which would eliminate them.
You're getting a little carried away. You cannot use a weaponised bio agent 'with due diligence': it is a non sequitur.

And the 'not necessary' clause of UNSA was loathed by everyone and her sausage, so I'm not sure there'll be too much enthusiasm at rekindling it. Its only effect was to require every weapons ban to include five magic words, which pleased no one: it used up space and prevented new players intuitively passing weapons bans on one hand, while it didn't really stop a well-drafted ban on any form of weapon on the other.
im wholeheartedly against this idea for the following reasons. a) if Astan has a grudge with Bstan, i dont want the WA getting involved in petty squables. b) if Bstan and Cstan end their war, with a treaty of reconcilliation over war crimes, id like the confict to end. c) i dont believe NGOs should have standing with the WA d) i definitely believe that a principle of national sovereignty is allowing Cstan any method of government it wants, even if that includes one that doesnt care if its populace are hurt, then it must be so. i believe that governments must listen to their citizen's complaints, and address them as they may. if, perhaps, initiating a trial may re-initiate hostilities, it may be diametrically opposed to national interests.
Ok, so Astan might have a grudge with Bstan? I think you're forgetting that Bstan is fighting a war with Cstan, and hence there might be the slightest lurking of a grudge there too. If you're going to empower a tribunal with investigatory powers, you have to trust it to quickly ascertain whether the complaint is reasonable or not. And once again, you are concentrating on national actors, when my example refers to individuals. It doesn't matter what policies their respective governments have: individual witnesses should not be restricted from supplying valid testimony.

I'll pretend you didn't say b), as I think it would pretty sick to further discuss the notion that, in the interests of avoiding further conflict, we should quietly forget unprosecuted war crimes. As for c), I'm not clear what 'standing' you are objecting to: I'm suggesting that in many cases monitors will be from NGOs, not national governments. Their testimony is automatically discounted because they're not employed by the government?

Finally, a war crime is a war crime. A national government that refuses to investigate them is not adhering to its obligations under international law. The only point in having an international war crimes law would be to deal with situations where nations don't prosecute them: otherwise, we could simply leave it to them! So, why are you actually writing this proposal?
5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairtly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations. The WAWCT is also to provide its evidence to nations for intra-national jurisprudence.
But, how do you give a fair trial to a 'memberstate'? Who is actually going to be put on trial? I'm thinking it will take some time to swear in every single member of the population.
indeed that was the intention.
It was the intention to induce total ambiguity, and not resolve a situation of multiple jurisdictions crossing? Why? You need to think about which jurisdiction takes precedence.

-- Samantha Benson

What about privateers? Although they're authorised by governments they're normally self-funding, so apparently wouldn't be covered...

well, ill have to make this one quick, as i only have half an hour to respond.

Well, not really, given it entirely fails to address my objection. I am objecting to your endowing individuals with a right to self-defence, when war is conducted between national parties. Keeping in language that states that individuals have an inherent right to commit acts of violence is unsatisfactory.

that was my way of dealing with Havenskys legit arguments for a stronger statement allowing self defense (while he actually argued that self-defense should supersede due diligence to reduce civillian casualties). furthermore, everything does have the right to self defense, whether its given or not, you come at me with a knife i will attack you, diseases can fight anti-biotics, a deer can gore a hunter. its a very hobbsian way of thinking, but it is true. perhaps you have a strange legal system that doesnt allow quintessentinians (?) to defend themselves when attacked?

Better, but 'therein' would in term intergovernmental agencies such as a regional security force. Can't you simply remove 'a memberstate's'? That way, it will prohibit any military force funded [or contracted?] by any government or governmental organization, which would apply to national, sub-national, and super-national levels.

makes sense, but then ill have to figure out how the hell you try supra-national forces.... (and not try to indict region-invaders)

I don't see how that in any way affects the force of the clause. It would still prevent military intelligence agents from pretending to be civilians in order to gather intelligence. That still doesn't seem to me to be a war crime. Perhaps you could exclude intelligence gathering operations?

yeah, actually i copied that wrong, the new clause is

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not effect clandestine intelligence assets or agents.

and im going to stop right now, and tell everybody that it will be changed to 'clandestine intelligence assets or agents from disguising themselves as civilians' (even intell shouldnt use human shields)

And the 'not necessary' clause of UNSA was loathed by everyone and her sausage, so I'm not sure there'll be too much enthusiasm at rekindling it. Its only effect was to require every weapons ban to include five magic words, which pleased no one: it used up space and prevented new players intuitively passing weapons bans on one hand, while it didn't really stop a well-drafted ban on any form of weapon on the other.

yep. but i dont make the necessary clause. while you argue bio-weapons cant be used with due diligence, only the WAWCT can truly assess that. its possible to use a machinegun with undue diligence, but we could never ban them, and that clause doesnt. the necessary directly outlawed all unnecessary weapons, but this proposal only outlaws bad use of them.



Ok, so Astan might have a grudge with Bstan? I think you're forgetting that Bstan is fighting a war with Cstan, and hence there might be the slightest lurking of a grudge there too. If you're going to empower a tribunal with investigatory powers, you have to trust it to quickly ascertain whether the complaint is reasonable or not. And once again, you are concentrating on national actors, when my example refers to individuals. It doesn't matter what policies their respective governments have: individual witnesses should not be restricted from supplying valid testimony.

I'll pretend you didn't say b), as I think it would pretty sick to further discuss the notion that, in the interests of avoiding further conflict, we should quietly forget unprosecuted war crimes.

ok, to explain this im going to have to use a series of Rl examples. Germany, Rwanda, Iraq. Germany, 1946, still had a crapload of soldiers and people who had committed war crimes, they were absolved because it would otherwise have led to an incredible purge for the next ten years of everyone involved (and it was a lot of people). Rwanda, 1995, had to undergo national reconciliation because it couldnt continue a civil war (and hundreds of civilians who committed war crimes walk the streets today). Iraq has in the past 2 years, gone through a civil war because at no point has it reconciled its warcrimes/crimes against humanity; in fact, one of the US' political objectives for the iraqi government is national reconciliation. reconciliation is how these things end, and without it nations cant go on. would you have the WAWCT incarcerate and/or execute 10% the population of germany?

As for c), I'm not clear what 'standing' you are objecting to: I'm suggesting that in many cases monitors will be from NGOs, not national governments. Their testimony is automatically discounted because they're not employed by the government?

perhaps ill give in on this one, but i still see NGOs as possibly having ulterior motives that can be contrary to national reconciliation.

Finally, a war crime is a war crime. A national government that refuses to investigate them is not adhering to its obligations under international law. The only point in having an international war crimes law would be to deal with situations where nations don't prosecute them: otherwise, we could simply leave it to them! So, why are you actually writing this proposal?

ok, lets say Gstan is at war with Hstan. Gstan is much more powerful and massacres a whole bunch of Hstanis. Hstan can then go to the WAWCT to have the Gstanis prosecuted. Gstan may not prosecute them(although this isnt against international law, as it was struck blank), Hstan can get the WAWCT to.

But, how do you give a fair trial to a 'memberstate'? Who is actually going to be put on trial? I'm thinking it will take some time to swear in every single member of the population.

good point...... ill think about that..... have to leave for class in 3 minutes.....

It was the intention to induce total ambiguity, and not resolve a situation of multiple jurisdictions crossing? Why? You need to think about which jurisdiction takes precedence.

i was actually refering to "plus: wouldn't it make more sense to have WAWCT act as a grand jury-like agency, and require the prosecution of those for whom they have accumulated sufficient evidence?" as the intent, but my words made absolutely no reference to that...... i did however modify article 5, and 6 to hopefully make it more like a grand jury.

What about privateers? Although they're authorised by governments they're normally self-funding, so apparently wouldn't be covered...

yeah, that's why im going to change it to affiliated instead of funded..... (also id disagree that Sir Francis Drake was funded by england, and similar privateers from the US were paid by france, and the Barbary pirates were funded by a national government and so on and so on, but all of this is irrelevant crap.)

What about privateers? Although they're authorised by governments they're normally self-funding, so apparently wouldn't be covered...Privateers would be convered by my proposed changes, if another nation could prove affiliation.

The World Assembly

CONFIRMING the inalienable right of all living creatures, and all nationsates to defend themselves from immediate physical threats,

ACTING to protect civillians by criminalizing only the use of excessive, unwarranted, and imprecise force

Hereby

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not effect clandestine intelligence assets or agents from pretending to be civillians.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairtly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations. The WAWCT is also to provide its evidence to nations for intra-national jurisprudence.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial.

7. AUTHORIZES the WAWCT to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

..............................................................................

ok, two issues still need to be addressed, how do you try the crimes committed by national/supra-national forces, and how {oh god.... i just forgot the other debate..... dammit.... this is going to kill me all day}

and i just saw this comment i hadnt responded to:

This means they want to defeat the enemy at all costs, and there is know better way to demoralize the than to kill his wife/husband/children.

how about kill the enemy? screw morale, best way to defeat an enemy is to kill him, and his family can do whatever. sorry, i see it more efficient to kill a single man than kill his more numerable family..... unless you have a military that is >50% of your population.

that was my way of dealing with Havenskys legit arguments for a stronger statement allowing self defense (while he actually argued that self-defense should supersede due diligence to reduce civillian casualties). furthermore, everything does have the right to self defense, whether its given or not, you come at me with a knife i will attack you, diseases can fight anti-biotics, a deer can gore a hunter. its a very hobbsian way of thinking, but it is true. perhaps you have a strange legal system that doesnt allow quintessentinians (?) to defend themselves when attacked?
It's 'Quintessentials' or 'Quodites'. And 'Hobbesian'.

It's not a strange legal system at all, and that's precisely my point: this is an argument there is no point having within the context of this proposal. It's meant to be about war crimes, not whether members of civil society have a right to self-defence! I would also recommend not basing your arguments on the inalienable rights of bacteria.

Drop that section, to leave only recognising the right of nations to defend themselves. Please.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

i hope people would respond to my 15-04-2008 11:31 AM post. thought there was some shit in there that would provoke discussion but it hasnt happend.
....................................................................
i can see the argument QoD. i may or may not do it, ill probably edit it. havensky's arguement that i need to include self-defense supersedes due diligence just illustrates that my proposal may run into flak because people think it forces soldiers to not return fire or something. i also think id lose more votes on the lack-of-self-defense criticism than the you-give-self-defense criticsim. hmmmmm.......

I would also recommend not basing your arguments on the inalienable rights of bacteria.

all i can say before i get to my possible revision is, you didnt like the bacteria thing, but were fine with the deer thing?

............................................................................
REITERATING the inalienable right of all NationStates to self-defense,

CONFIRMING the right of a soldier to self-defense, yet limiting it to a judicious response,
........................................................................

is that less obtrusive to wierd legal systems? i also considdered using sagacious, prudent, reasonable, instead of judicious; but judicious seems the best to me.

and lastly, id like to ask how a legal system acts without self-defense? if i come at you with a kinfe screaming 'im going to kill you' in front of a multitude of cameras, and you punch me in the head to knock me out, then YOU get charged with assault (in addition to my attempted murder)? are you supposed to allow yourself to be killed? not attacking (intentionally), just wondering how the heck that would work.

We can discuss civil self-defence in an appropriate context.

I think your revision makes a lot of sense. As I understand it, most rules of engagement contain provisions that permit actions necessary for defence of yourself and your unit. So I have no problem with your acknowledging that, though you might phrase it that soldiers have a general rather than an absolute right to defend themselves, as some delicate situations (for example peace-keeping operations) might put limits even on that.

Next issue: NGOs probably do have ulterior motives. For human rights NGOs, it's to promote human rights. For environmental ones, to promote environmentalism. For conflict resolution ones, to promote conflict resolution. I suspect that on many other occasions you'll be displaying distrust of public and faith in private institutions, so be consistent and acknowledge that NGOs can supply relevant evidence. In many cases, nations will ask NGOs to act as arbiters in conflicts, precisely because it removes the considerably more potent consideration of national ulterior motives. Third parties, such as NGOs, should be able to report crimes to the WAWCT.

-- Samantha Benson

{where's that lightbulb emoticon when you need it}

how about something like,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairtly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations. The WAWCT is also to provide its evidence to nations for intra-national jurisprudence.The WAWCT is allowed to accept or decline testimony from neutral Non-Governmental Organizations.

'neutral' resolves ulterior motives, accept or decline makes it almost like amicus briefs, resolving it like many supreme courts do. i still dont like the idea of letting NGOs request investigation, but allowing testimony seems adequate. kinda like how if (in my legal system, maybe not yours) i can report a domestic dispute, but one of them has to press charges.

{RL: id hate to allow any testimony from non-neutral Iraqi exiles on Saddam's war crimes otherwise it could lead to Ahmed Chalabi type situations..... or something. Turkey on the other hand, hating both the kurds and saddam would be sufficiently neutral. feel free not to resond to a friggin word in these brackets}

im also considdering a clause between current clauses 5 and 6 on basic things in a trial of a nation. ie the new NGO clause, providing evidence to intra-national trials, anything else that is sure to show up.

also.... this debate has gotten a lot more 2 sided, and since i hope that more than two people will vote for this, id love to hear from other nations as well. The Popotan, Havensky, St. Edmund your comments have indeed been very helpful, any thoughts?

Well, no, they have to be able to request investigations. The WAWCT can always decline to request investigations if it deems the premises frivolous. But if a third party cannot request an investigation, then they may never be instigated in the first place. In a post-conflict situation a subdued populace might refrain from making reports from fear of reprisals. So long as you say that the WAWCT can refuse to hear cases where there is likely to be insufficient evidence for a fair trial, there won't be abuses of the system.

As for 'neutral', maybe 'independent' would be better.

Next issue is that of administering a fair trial to a 'memberstate': presumably, it will be individuals that are placed on trial?

-- Samantha Benson

yep. i think NGOs is going to be a fundamental point of disagreeance for us. i see it as necessary to forget some things to actually move on, and continuing tensions as a negative, and dont see it as necessary, possible, or good to pursue every crime. if the Cstan-Bstan war ends, but war crimes trials on both sides keep tensions high and possibly reignite the conflict, in a period of high tension that would result im more, possibly worse, warcrimes. which is best for the whole.

you see it as a necessity to try every crime possible, which has the virtues of protecting an individual's right not to be victimized.

you have the liberal position, i have the republican {and i mean classical, not contemporary}

so let us turn to a productive realm, trials. id think it'd be the individual, with ties to the state. cant just try soldiers completely alone, as the state can frequently be at fault as well, yet i think it is one of the fundamental {nuremberg} principles that 'just carrying out orders' isnt a valid excuse. tough one tough one tough one..... i do think there will be a clause between 5 and 6 and probably going to modify clause 7 as well to put sanctions on nations who's policies are inherently against clauses 1 and/or 2 (along with provide a rectification plan).


5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by agents of memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. The WAWCT tribunals are to grant suspects a trial fair in every respect. The trials are to render a verdict on all defendants and suggest, but not enforce, a sentence on guilty parties. The additional conditions are to be placed on WAWCT trials:
-The governmental authority a defendant is affiliated with is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The governmental authority affiliated with the victims is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The WAWCT may accept or decline advice and/or testimony from relevant non-governmental organizations.
-The defendant, and the victim(s) have the right to bear witness in court, or remain silent.
-No defendant shall be acquitted because they were following orders from a superior.
-Those who order crimes shall be held as accountable as those who committed them.


7. DECREES that if an individual is found{parts deleted} guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial. The WAWCT is to provide its evidence and court records to the judiciary of the memberstate for the purposes of the trial.

8. AUTHORIZES The WAWCT to investigate the practices of nations that lead to individual war crimes. Grants the WAWCT the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

.................................................................

ok, now, its a start. i highly doubt it will end like it is. i actually have to go to dinner. i assume people can come up with a hundred other things to be added, and a hundred arguments against that which i have added. please state them.

Well, I don't have a hundred other arguments, because once you said you weren't intending to have a proposal on war crimes investigate every war crime, I rather lost interest. The idea of prosecuting only politically convenient crimes against humanity is so abysmally sick as to be beneath condemnation.

Nevermind, then.

-- Samantha Benson

nope, i never said that the WAWCT was going to try every war crime. i said that i feel it necessary for nations to request investigation. and you cant argue that a) NGOs would observe every crime. b) nations wont request themselves to prosecute every crime. c)the prosecution of every war crime is possible, necessary, nor good. {you also cannot come up with any example in RL that a nation has wanted to try every crime. Rwanda has had reconcilliation, not mass arrests of Tutsi mobs. 10% of germany wasnt hanged in '45. Iraq hasnt had mass executions of those responsible for the crimes against humanity, nor has the world tried Iraqis for their crimes againt Iran, or Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was NOT executed for mass crimes, he was only executed for one specific crime, not the gassing of the kurds, not the draining of the marshes, one specific instance that was not his worst crime. France never tried Germans for their crimes in World War One. No one in france was tried for their exportation of Jews to nazi death camps. No one has been tried for german crimes in Sud-West Afrika (now namibia). Leopold II lived his last years in peace and luxury after genocide in the Congo. Milosevic and the upper level leaders were tried for war crimes, not the grunt soldiers you'd have tried. Stalin and Kruschev were never tried for killing germans and poles and jews in WWII. Churchill never hanged for burning Dresden. Sharon lives without being tried for Sabra and Shatila}

now, you can discuss those RL facts, or not. fact remains, Cstan should be punished for crimes against Bstan, yet it is neither feasible, nor good to try every sentient grunt soldier that commits a crime. the cost would be insane, the damage to international peace would be insane, the nations would leave the WA rather than have massive portions of their military hanged.

let's try the haditha's of the world, lets try the "Sabra and Shatila"s lets try the Halabja's lets examine national policy that leads to war crimes. that's the job of the WA, and what the WAWCT should do. involving the WA in examination of individual actions, particularly the actions of individual soldiers in war, is infringing on national sovereignty to an extent unknown to the WA, or the RL world.

im trying to change national policies. it should not be the job of the WA to micromanage the fuck out of national judiciary. executing every criminal grunt soldier is neither feasible nor advantageous in a mass, systematic criminal enterprises. i feel this proposal does a good job of that, and if you disagree, and expect the WA to try individually mass segments of national populations i cant agree with editing the text of this proposal to do so.

did rwanda forget certain things and move on? yes. did Germany, France, Bulgaria, Romania, forget certain things and move on? yes. did the United States forget certain things about 'Nam and move on? yes. are there war criminals walking the streets of these nations? yes. tell me its beneficial to try and subsequently hang 10% the population of germany. tell me this retaliatory genocide is sound policy. tell me it is beneficial for nations to be mired in trying criminals for years afterwards, continuing the tensions that led to these crimes. tell me its not sensible to try individuals as representations of national policy.

tell me that the bad dog is not a product of his owner.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227

either your link to the general is a quip at my use of RL examples, or its a bad link.

sooooooooo.......... perhaps you'd like this better?

....................................................................

nope, i never said that the WAWCT was going to try every war crime. i said that i feel it necessary for nations to request investigation. and you cant argue that a) NGOs would observe every crime. b) nations wont request themselves to prosecute every crime. c)the prosecution of every war crime is possible, necessary, nor good. Rstan has had reconcilliation, not mass arrests of Tstanis mobs. 10% of Gstan wasnt hanged in '45. Istan hasnt had mass executions of those responsible for the crimes against humanity, nor has the world tried Istanis for their crimes againt Qstanis, or Kstan. Istani leaders was NOT executed for mass crimes, he was only executed for one specific crime, not the gassing of the kstanis, not the draining of the marshes, one specific instance that was not his worst crime. Fstan never tried Gstanis for their crimes in war. No one in fstan was tried for their exportation of Jstanis to death camps. No one has been tried for gstani crimes in their former colony (now nstan). a former Bstani leader lived his last years in peace and luxury after genocide in the Cstan. the upper level leaders of Sstan were tried for war crimes, not the grunt soldiers you'd have tried. Rustani leaders were never tried for killing gstanis and pstanis and jstanis in that war they had. UKstani leaders were never hanged for burning a Gstani city.}

now, you can discuss those RL facts, or not. fact remains, rustan should be punished for crimes against pstan, yet it is neither feasible, nor good to try every sentient grunt soldier that commits a crime. the cost would be insane, the damage to international peace would be insane, the nations would leave the WA rather than have massive portions of their military hanged.

lets examine national policy that leads to war crimes. that's the job of the WA, and what the WAWCT should do. involving the WA in examination of individual actions, particularly the actions of individual soldiers in war, is infringing on national sovereignty to an extent unknown to the WA, or the RL world.

im trying to change national policies. it should not be the job of the WA to micromanage the fuck out of national judiciary. executing every criminal grunt soldier is neither feasible nor advantageous in a mass, systematic criminal enterprises. i feel this proposal does a good job of that, and if you disagree, and expect the WA to try individually mass segments of national populations i cant agree with editing the text of this proposal to do so.

did rstan forget certain things and move on? yes. did Gstan, Fstan, Bustan, Rostan, forget certain things and move on? yes. did the United States of Astan forget certain things about Vstan and move on? yes. are there war criminals walking the streets of these nations? yes. tell me its beneficial to try and subsequently hang 10% the population of gstan. tell me this retaliatory genocide is sound policy. tell me it is beneficial for nations to be mired in trying criminals for years afterwards, continuing the tensions that led to these crimes. tell me its not sensible to try individuals as representations of national policy.

tell me that the bad dog is not a product of his owner.

..........................................................

i find it ironic that there are people on these forums that want realism, and yet refuse to use RL examples. ironic and frustrating because i can only understand RL using what i know from RL. and the harder thing is to realize the complexity of situations when using fake-life scenarios. [only using QoD as and example here, if i use a real nation id get no response] why the hell shouldnt QoD soldiers be all hanged? they dont exist. QoD can move on in an instant, and QoD's government can adjust to the loss of lives with the click of a button. yet if we base things in reality, this cant happen. yeah, we absolutely could have a WAWCT that tries every war crime. the effects on nationstates are negligible because the nations only exist in the mind, and actions that would take years to happen, happen in an instant. so, do we want realism, which isnt pretty and happy, and sometimes people do get fucked over for the good of a nation? or do we want crazy happy funland where giant committees of gnomes try every crime ever and create perfectly fair taxation policies?

Brain Ball #2 floats slowly to the lectern. Thanks be to God in the roundest that I have evloved past bouncing as my sole mode of movement. He thought, as his ever growing cadre of millitary escorts bounce along side him.

"The Republic of Spheron One believes it is time to weigh in on this debate. We were forced from our homeworld by the United States of Earth in the Ball Crisis. This is far from the first nor the last that General Brannigan has committed war crimes, simply ask the Retirees of the Assisted living Nebula, Eden 7 after it was carpet bombed, or Th3 Neutral Planet. Brannigan has committed heinous crimes.

"While soldiers acting on behalf of Earth President Nixon and General Brannigan did committ crimes, particularly the robot named Bender, we feel it would be more than sufficient to end the policy of war crimes and punish only President Nixon, Kissinger, and General Brannigan, and Bender, the elite responsible for the catastophe.

"We denounce this bitter and petty squable between the esteemed representitives from Decapod Ten and Quintissence of Dust as it is preventing good legislation from passing. Set 20th century Earth history lessons aside. Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Perhaps nations not party to the crimes can report them. If Cstan committs crimes against Bstan, and Bstan is not powerful enough to stand up to Cstan, then why not let Qstan report them? Or perhaps let NGOs report them with a party nation's consent. NGO reports do not end retribution either.

"I, on behalf of Spheron One, suggest ensuring no ex post facto trials as well.

"May you bounce in peace."

"The Republic of Spheron One believes it is time to weigh in on this debate. We were forced from our homeworld by the United States of Earth in the Ball Crisis. This is far from the first nor the last that General Brannigan has committed war crimes, simply ask the Retirees of the Assisted living Nebula, Eden 7 after it was carpet bombed, or Th3 Neutral Planet. Brannigan has committed heinous crimes.

yeah. ha. we kicked his ass though when we invaded earth a few years later. thanks to hugh mann.


"I, on behalf of Spheron One, suggest ensuring no ex post facto trials as well.

"May you bounce in peace."

good call, and probably double jeapordy as well.... will do.

"We denounce this bitter and petty squable between the esteemed representitives from Decapod Ten and Quintissence of Dust as it is preventing good legislation from passing. Set 20th century Earth history lessons aside. Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Perhaps nations not party to the crimes can report them. If Cstan committs crimes against Bstan, and Bstan is not powerful enough to stand up to Cstan, then why not let Qstan report them? Or perhaps let NGOs report them with a party nation's consent. NGO reports do not end retribution either.

NGOs with nations consent is almsost exactly like just having the Nation request it, and the NGO testify. your comprimise of having other nations request inquirys would be acceptable to decapod ten. it allows for more crimes to be tried but retains political processes for reciprocity.

most likely submitting some time this week.... i know ive said this like 8 times before though....

as submitted
.........................................
War Crimes Tribunal

Global Disarmament: Significant

The World Assembly

REITERATING the inalienable right of all NationStates to self-defense,

CONFIRMING the right of a soldier to self-defense, yet limiting it to a judicious response,

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercised due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not effect clandestine intelligence assets or agents from pretending to be civillians.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and exercise due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and trying fairly all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by agents of memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. DECLARES that the WAWCT tribunals are to grant suspects a trial fair in every respect. The trials are to render a verdict on all defendants and suggest, but not enforce, a sentence on guilty parties. The additional conditions are to be placed on WAWCT trials:
-The governmental authority a defendant is affiliated with is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The governmental authority affiliated with the victims is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The WAWCT may accept or decline advice and/or testimony from relevant non-governmental organizations.
-The defendant, and the victim(s) have the right to bear witness in court, or remain silent.
-No defendant shall be acquitted because they were following orders from a superior.
-Those who order crimes shall be held as accountable as those who committed them.
-No person shall be tried twice for the same offense.
-No crime occurring before this resolution shall be prosecuted by the WAWCT.

7. DECREES that if an individual is found{parts deleted} guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial. The WAWCT is to provide its evidence and court records to the judiciary of the memberstate for the purposes of the trial.

8. AUTHORIZES The WAWCT to investigate the practices of nations that lead to individual war crimes. Grants the WAWCT the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the continuance of violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy
..................................................................

have you approved it yet?

currently working on fixing a major typo in the text..... hopefully mods will respond favorably to my request in moderation forum.....

part in red is a bad typo

7. DECREES that if an individual is found{parts deleted} guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a)pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparatio

resubmitted...... typo eliminated...... dammit im dumb.

over half way to quorum and nobody has posted here except me in 9 days...... strange...... im guessing the fact that this is not named the same thing as the proposal, nor is it by the same nation as the proposal is throwing people off....... damn..... i like discussion.....

Well, if there is anybody out there still interested in this besides me.....

as you may have read, my proposal was declared illegal for miscategorization, and it has been suggested it be edited for readabillity.

so:

The World Assembly

REITERATES the right of all NationStates to self-defense,

CONFIRMS the right of a soldier to self-defense, yet limiting it to a judicious response,

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercise due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not affect clandestine intelligence assets or agents from pretending to be civilians.

3. DECLARES that targeting civilian areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's war aims is allowed, so long as clauses 1 & 2 are obeyed.

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crimes Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and fairly trying all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by agents of memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. DECLARES that the WAWCT tribunals will grant suspects a trial fair in every respect. The trials will render a verdict on all defendants and suggest, but not enforce, a sentence on guilty parties. The additional conditions are placed on WAWCT trials:
-The governmental authority affiliated with the defendant is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The governmental authority affiliated with the victims is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The WAWCT may accept advice and/or testimony from relevant non-governmental organizations.
-The defendant and the victim(s) have the right to bear witness in court.
-No defendant shall be acquitted because they were following orders of a superior.
-Those who order crimes shall be held as accountable as those who committed them.
-No person shall be tried twice for the same offense.
-No crime occurring before this resolution shall be prosecuted by the WAWCT.

7. DECREES that if an individual is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a) pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b) arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial. The WAWCT is to provide its evidence and court records to the judiciary of the memberstate for the purposes of the trial.

8. AUTHORIZES the WAWCT to investigate the practices of nations that lead to individual war crimes. Grants the WAWCT the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the practices that lead to violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

i request suggestions on readability and content. anybody?

You said in the previous discussion on the proposal that you only really needed the first few clauses [before you got to that tribunal]... well, someone said it (it might've been someone else, I don't remember).
It is really necessary to have it?

AND: What does this have to do with the Dourian Embassy's proposal on safety regulations in the workplace? Because I don't see how that proposal and this one are any different. After all, Chapek 9 (I MEAN SUBISTRATICA) sees little difference between putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at work as proposed by Dourian's Embassy, and putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at life during wartime.
[OOC: Sorry, but it was too hard to resist. See how annoying it is?]

Maybe you could explain what effect you think your Clause 4 has, as that seems to have provoked a lot of discussion when the proposal was quorate. Can you definitively say that it bans x, or using x to do y? If not, and it's all a matter of interpretation by each nation, then does it really serve much point?

-- Samantha Benson

SUBISTRATICA) sees little difference between putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at work as proposed by Dourian's Embassy, and putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at life during wartime.

Decapod Ten sees little difference as well. Both measures intendt to prevent civilain casualties in accidents, be it warfare or otherwise. Decapod Ten supports/supported both measures.

Maybe you could explain what effect you think your Clause 4 has,

good point, does anyone see the necessity of maintaining the existence of that point? if we make it illegal to act without due diligence, it is necessary by defalt to act with due diligence no matter the weapons system; thereby making the weapons system illegal and worthy of removal.............. anybody see the purpose to the existence of that clause, or can i remove it?

Decapod Ten sees little difference as well. Both measures intendt to prevent civilain casualties in accidents, be it warfare or otherwise. Decapod Ten supports/supported both measures.
[OOC: If you seriously can't tell the difference between going to work and going to war (if you aren't a soldier, because for them it's the same, but they're an exception)... ugh, just forget it.
Oh, and that was also sarcasm. Woosh...]

good point, does anyone see the necessity of maintaining the existence of that point? if we make it illegal to act without due diligence, it is necessary by defalt to act with due diligence no matter the weapons system; thereby making the weapons system illegal and worthy of removal.............. anybody see the purpose to the existence of that clause, or can i remove it?

Or, to restate what you just said:
Because of the prohibitions that would be in place because of clauses 1 and 2, it would logically follow that a nation would have to "modify their military tactics and weapon programs" to be in compliance.
Therefore, it's just stating the obvious, and could certainly be excised.

Oh, and:
6. DECLARES that the WAWCT tribunals will grant suspects a trial fair in every respect.
Shouldn't it be "a trial that is fair"? The way it is now, it seems more like a trial fair (like county fair, only on a trial basis). And I don't think that "suspects" would enjoy a trial fair, no matter how fun it would be.
Actually, the way it's worded sounds too... silly, even with "that is" added. I think the "in every respect" needs to be removed.
[OOC: I don't mean to be too nitpicky... but it just sounds really odd.]

i know it was scarcasim, i agree with the facts that it was extremely similar motivations, Decapod Ten believes it beneficial to reduce civilian deaths during wartime, and beneficial to reduce deaths during worktime..... actually, beneficial to reduce deaths during ANYtime......... "ugh, just forget it." {THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT THAT I DONT SEE A DIFFERENCE}

Maybe you could explain what effect you think your Clause 4 has, as that seems to have provoked a lot of discussion when the proposal was quorate. Can you definitively say that it bans x, or using x to do y? If not, and it's all a matter of interpretation by each nation, then does it really serve much point?

apparently it does not serve much point, it might very well be removed.

the delagate of the government of the emperor of urgench, is delighted with the proposal of the silentscope embassy,
we are greatly in agreement with it's provisions and feel that such a proposal is extremely timely and needfull.
we would also propose that a clause might be added to provide for the reconstruction of any defeated nation, in particular those who's civilians are very hard pressed. weather at the expense of the w.a. or the victor in question is a point we think could be debated.


nogai khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs urgench