NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
-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.

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

First, i must point you to the debate:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549708

you'll notice it is freakishly similar, almost as if i took the proposal SilentScope wrote and rewrote it......

Now, its a crappy preamble, i know, i really dont care about preambles, so if you have suggestions, please suggest them (as opposed to anything else youd do with suggestions).

Also, is the definition of civilian good? that could come up again in other things a mess it up if it isnt adequate.

and if there is anything else you have to add, please do, but try to look at the other thread, because i may very well have stated my opinion on any matter you bring up.

oh, this is a Global Disarmament Resolution, Significant.

We find the term 'human shield' a little ironic...

You haven't said who will staff the tribunal, or how their hearings will operate, or what rights the defendants have, or what authority to make extradition demands the tribunal has, or really anything about it at all save that it exists and has a name. Requiring payments be made ignores: that in civilian casualties, the entire family may well be dead; that a war crime should be treated as a criminal offence. Levying the charge against the national government doesn't seem to allow for the idea of a soldier commiting an insubordinate war crime.

Nice idea, but it needs a lot of work.

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

You haven't said who will staff the tribunal

illegal to do so

or how their hearings will operate

god that would be inane and insane.

or what rights the defendants have

good point, ill make sure to label it as a "fair trial" so that when a fair trial proposal is passed, itll handle that.

or what authority to make extradition demands the tribunal has, {...} Requiring payments be made ignores: that in civilian casualties, the entire family may well be dead; that a war crime should be treated as a criminal offence. Levying the charge against the national government doesn't seem to allow for the idea of a soldier commiting an insubordinate war crime.

from the rights and duties of WA states, which i believe will pass \/

Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

not entirely sure i could have the tribunal extradite war criminals given this national sovereignty. also not sure that its legal to have the WA arrest anyone as stated in the SS draft (arrests being made by police, WA police being illegal). but ill think about how this would go.

I fail to see how specifying whether, for example, double jeopardy applies to war crimes (a sticking point in the old UN, during the discussion of The Eon Convention in relation to Due Process) is 'inane'.
not entirely sure i could have the tribunal extradite war criminals given this national sovereignty. also not sure that its legal to have the WA arrest anyone as stated in the SS draft
Well, you're wrong, so how about fixing that now. That clause states 'subject to'; I don't know how it could have been written any more clearly. International law takes precedence, and hence it needs to be decided whether the tribunal has the right to require someone to appear before them.

-- Samantha Benson

I fail to see how specifying whether, for example, double jeopardy applies to war crimes (a sticking point in the old UN, during the discussion of The Eon Convention in relation to Due Process) is 'inane'.

ah. i guess we differ on our understanding of the term "how their hearings will operate" i thought you meant procedural details. I take double jeopardy as a part of the definition of fair trial.

Well, you're wrong, so how about fixing that now.

wowza that's forceful language. and i truly disagree that i was wrong, when all i was saying is that "not entirely sure i could have the tribunal extradite war criminals given this national sovereignty. also not sure that its legal to have the WA arrest anyone as stated in the SS draft" now, i am me. you are not. i know that i was unsure. you could not. therefore, i assert that it is you who is wrong.

That clause states 'subject to'; I don't know how it could have been written any more clearly. International law takes precedence, and hence it needs to be decided whether the tribunal has the right to require someone to appear before them.

well duh. how about making an arguement one way or another?

hopefully we can continue the discussion in a more polite way on this page, as this thread is no longer relevant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549708&page=5