NationStates Jolt Archive

Humanitarian Transport
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies,

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. REQUESTS nations develop separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal protecting humanitarian cargoes,

14. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice making transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, more nations will provide humanitarian aid.

I'm going to go on the record as strongly for. This is a great piece of legislation. Congrats on quorum.

Hello,

My government would like to introduce the Humanitarian Transport proposal to the World Assembly. The background behind this proposal is that the idea and document were originally drafted in March 2007 in this organization's predecessor.

DRAFT: Non-Combatant Transport Convention
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521063

Based on input from numerous governments and following the establishment of the World Assembly an updated draft was brought back from the table in 2008.

Humanitarian Transport Convention
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553775

While the version presented here is extremely lengthy, the key goal really is best stated in the closing clause, and I'll encourage nations interested in the details to (as always) ask and scan the draft proposal discussions.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

The People's Republic of Diaada is strongly against this resolution due to articles 8 and 9, allowing the boarding and search of humanitarian vessels in international waters.

We voted against.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

"Defensive weapons" not defined, seems like it could be exploited.

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

Allowing them to carry "defensive" weapons, just to be seized?

More importantly, why are PoWs humanitarian cargo? If i were at war, i feel that i should have every right to fight to keep my enemies as prisoners, and to get my own boys back.

EITHER I ALREADY VOTED FOR, OR WILL VOTE FOR WHAN IM SOBER. whoa..... fuckkn capslock...... i was so nervous as it came to the end... 108 approvals..... then finally 109........ wow......

For many humanitarian virtues and reasons, the Archempire shall vote FOR.

Amoralman has a proud tradition of helping those in need. Amoral (our leader) firmly supports this noble cause.

This should work very well with this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555313) resolution. But they work independently due to the house of cards rule.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Hey, it's you! Well done on getting the proposal so far, as we did a week ago. I am very confident that this resolution will pass in the time the organizers take to sell all the tickets for Glastonbury 2008.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

This is the renaissance of the World Assembly like never before.

Polukinthulatestussia votes FOR. My country states there is nothing to discuss here.

Honorary delegates of WA,

It is with great displeasure to announce to you that the Kingdom of Pasier Rise will vote against this resolution. While this resolution is done with great intent, may actually caused it to be misinterpret.

Our 1st main concern is that transport in not clearly defined. I am not really sure if this resolution covers a broad range of air, land or sea transport, or just naval transport.


2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,


If our battleships raise the Red Cross flag, our bombers painted completely white, and the rockets on our Mobile Rocket Launchers as "defensive weapons", my whole millitary activities can be considered "humanitarian"? We can always place food and first aid kits in all of our tanks to say it is a humanitarian transport.

Article 2, while discouraging what I have suggested above, does not actually prevent it. This can create a lot of confusion in the battlefields, and may actually cause more civillian casualty and suffering than it actually prevent.

This resolutions need to be made more clearer and well defined. Which is why we decided to opposed this resolution, in hopes that a better one be passed. A lot of resolution has been passed in the WA recently as member states vote FOR without even reading what the resolution actually contains. They only realised it when they find their nations restricted by WA bueracratic red tapes.

On behalf of his Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise
Prime Minister Ahmad Firdaus

We voted against.



"Defensive weapons" not defined, seems like it could be exploited.



Allowing them to carry "defensive" weapons, just to be seized?

More importantly, why are PoWs humanitarian cargo? If i were at war, i feel that i should have every right to fight to keep my enemies as prisoners, and to get my own boys back.

Hello,

First thank you for your civil response. Your questions are fair. They are questions other nations and my own asked when drafting this resolution. But I feel we found good answers to those two key questions. :)

It is true that defensive weapons can not be defined. But given the large "creativity" that nations could use to apply to anything, if we were to set out and define just defensive weapons, the definition would actually be more a global disarmament resolution and less focused on clause 14's point -- an encouragement for nations to actually transport humanitarian supplies and even POWs safely.

The decision was made early on to limit the length of this resolution by leaving defensive somewhat vague.

However, and this is a key point, should two nations come into conflict, the decision of what is and is not defensive with or without this resolution will still remain a decision of individual nations. For example, let's say that your government finds my government's use of machine guns in our transport ships to be offensive. Right now you can complain. Should this resolution pass, you still can. The only difference will be *how* the use of these weapons tie into a protected "humanitarian" status for the vessel. If in this example, my transport fired first or didn't comply to a search, your government would have better legal standing for any action taken against a formerly protected "humanitarian" vessel.

This resolution establishes a trade-off, nothing more. If nations want less risk (risk is always there, it just decreases), they can label their ships as humanitarian, but the trade-off is they are subjected to international codes of conduct which effectively limit their ability to initiate combat.

Why would a ship do this? Simple, if it is neutral, combat is messy and best avoided.

As for your second question about POWs and why they should be treated like other humanitarian cargoes, imagine if you are a soldier and you have a choice between being captured and then provided certain rights (such as being promised you will not be abused) or you are still treated as a combatant. Would you surrender or fight to the death?

In the World Assembly's predecessor organization, one of the resolutions my government thought was one of the most important was the Wolfish Convention on POW. This resolution was originally written when the Wolfish Convention on POW still had legal standing. First, invite nations to revisit the Wolfish Convention, as we'd like to see a replacement. Second, my government feels the logic behind the Wolfish Convention is just as valid today and incorporated that logic into this resolution.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

The People's Republic of Diaada is strongly against this resolution due to articles 8 and 9, allowing the boarding and search of humanitarian vessels in international waters.

This was done to discourage (notice I didn't say eliminate ... no resolution or rule is perfect) smuggling and abuse of the protected "humanitarian transport" status.

By giving nations the ability to search and seize cargo, few hostile transports would be able to profit from slipping by regular patrols and the remaining ships that truly are humanitarian in nature will be safer.

Over time nations and ships that honor these rules will be recognized and those that "cheat" the system will also be easy to spot.

Howie T. Katzman

AGAINST this Resolution---Your taxes are going to go up---

You are going to have to have MORE boats--Planes-- Men--All for checking out boats--So they are not carry arms--troops etc.etc.----It will not stop anything--Waste of time--money--men--

Marayevkohara K. D.:

HForst, You may find that without weapons in humanitarian ships the probability of a subdued war resurrecting itself will be slim to none. Charlotte, maybe we could consider a resolution in support of neutral nations. It is on the theme of war control, but hey, the WA is about promoting peace, not war.

There is no need for this resolution. The Geneva Convention already has laws governing this, so why inact new ones. Just enforce the ones we have. There are rules against using aid transports to move troops and other equipment. They are marked IAW already established rules. So this is not needed and there is no way I can sell the extra taxes to my country.

I strongly support the concept, but article six is a loophole. "Defensive" is very open to interpretation and abuse. It either needs to be amended or taken out in order for The Republic of Kensee to support the bill.

I strongly support the concept, but article six is a loophole. "Defensive" is very open to interpretation and abuse. It either needs to be amended or taken out in order for The Republic of Kensee to support the bill.

*groan* It's not a loophole. Devreser came up with a very legitimate objection, but Mikitivity's rebuttal held iron clad logic.

Who is going to be moving these humanitarian supplies? POW's? Eh? I'd be willing to bet military vessels and soldiers. They will have, naturally, a handful of guns and various other PEZ-dispensers that constitute as weapons. Imagine what would happen if the humanitarian ship was passing by and during a search someone found a pistol on an officer. Needless to say, the searchers would start freaking like a pack of rabid monkeys and start to use it as an excuse to seize everything and anything and cry "war crimes!"

And of course, searches and seizures have to be allowed. Searches, because to hell with whatever this resolution says, I'd be searching "neutral" vessels left and right in war time no matter what anyone says. The seizure of weapons because the last thing I need is dozens of vessels going up and down the river screaming "Neutral! Neutral! Neutral! Hahahaha!" I should have the right to strip the weapons off a humanitarian transport that would make it a legitimate challenge to my own vehicles.

If anything, the loop holes are closed, not opened.

There is no need for this resolution. The Geneva Convention already has laws governing this, so why inact new ones. Just enforce the ones we have. There are rules against using aid transports to move troops and other equipment. They are marked IAW already established rules. So this is not needed and there is no way I can sell the extra taxes to my country.

[OOC: I hope you realize that, in Nationstates, the Geneva Convention doesn't exist and, as it stands, there are no "already established rules". :rolleyes: ]

Subistratica is still divided over this issue and can be expected to reach a decision before voting ends.

"ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,"

Whom might "other non-combatants" include, in the name of some "humanitarian" gesture? Missionaries, perhaps? Teachers? Researchers? Donors of "decent" clothing, or of the latest vitamin supplement? Such individuals will continue to be denied entry to Maniway in the normal course of visa processing; this legislation will not be allowed to provide a "back door" to unauthorized invasion of Maniwayan territory by such culture-mongering riffraff.

The Nomadic Peoples of Maniway reluctantly acknowledge the utility of this legislation, with the warning that every so-called humanitarian vessel coming within hailing distance of Maniway's territory will be boarded and searched. The NPM will, at need, strenuously assert its right to deny passage through said territory, whether water, air, or space, to the extent of its ability. Should any such vessel approach the shores of Maniway without proper authorization by The NPM, it may be fired upon without warning or let.

Lurikastan votes no on the basis of it being unnessicary and that it will heighten taxes.

*groan* It's not a loophole. Devreser came up with a very legitimate objection, but Mikitivity's rebuttal held iron clad logic.

Who is going to be moving these humanitarian supplies? POW's? Eh? I'd be willing to bet military vessels and soldiers. They will have, naturally, a handful of guns and various other PEZ-dispensers that constitute as weapons. Imagine what would happen if the humanitarian ship was passing by and during a search someone found a pistol on an officer. Needless to say, the searchers would start freaking like a pack of rabid monkeys and start to use it as an excuse to seize everything and anything and cry "war crimes!"

And of course, searches and seizures have to be allowed. Searches, because to hell with whatever this resolution says, I'd be searching "neutral" vessels left and right in war time no matter what anyone says. The seizure of weapons because the last thing I need is dozens of vessels going up and down the river screaming "Neutral! Neutral! Neutral! Hahahaha!" I should have the right to strip the weapons off a humanitarian transport that would make it a legitimate challenge to my own vehicles.

If anything, the loop holes are closed, not opened.


*Groan, on the contrary. Defensive needs to be narrowly defined as small arms or whatever the case may be. This is definetly not iron clad and we all know that nations are very creative in getting around laws. This one is no different. If a nation wants to transport arms on these vessels, they will find a way to get around the inspections one way or the other. I don't think it will be effective.

The Land of Kosovo voted yes in this resolution. Apologies to Charlotte for forgetting to vote for your resolution but I hope it passed.

The Republic of The State of New York has voted for this resolution.

Thanks Howie(Mikitivity) and Shang Dang! I see your point, both articles are well thought-out and written.

I'm not familiar with the Wolfish Convention but i'm afraid i still object to the classification of POWs as humanitarian cargo. Here's an extreme example: My soldiers find a humanitarian vessel containing some of my boys who are POWs of the enemy. Now we take the weapons their guards are holding as we have the right to. With no weapons nobody is stopping the POWs from rejoining us, and they do!

Rather absurd but i think quite possible. So either nobody will transport POWs as humanitarian cargo anymore defeating the purpose, or (worse) they pretend to be humanitarian vessels, but would probably initiate hostilities when approached. Overall i think it would probably be better if this proposal had excluded POWs and stayed on humanitarian aid.

"doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies"

These are vital to any war effort.

As such,surely they should not be defined as humanitarian aid?

Apart from that, and the clause allowing an enemy nation to board my ship to examine it's contents,I find this to be quite a good piece of legislation.

I will be abstaining from this vote because of those two clauses.

(OOC) Mikivity,I'm thinking of drafting a piece of legislation on the role of doctors/humanitarian workers in combat zones. Unless one's already been done,cold you give me a hand with that?

The Oppressed Peoples of Herrig finds it amusing that given the trillions of people in the world, and thousands of member states of the World Assembly, that it even conceived as possible to enforce this kind of a law to any effective end.

[OOC: I hope you realize that, in Nationstates, the Geneva Convention doesn't exist and, as it stands, there are no "already established rules". :rolleyes: ]

Subistratica is still divided over this issue and can be expected to reach a decision before voting ends.

Are there any specific questions you'd like me to address?

*in a much quieter voice*
Or would you rather one of our fine companions address the question instead?

Howie T. Katzman

"doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies"

These are vital to any war effort.

As such,surely they should not be defined as humanitarian aid?

Apart from that, and the clause allowing an enemy nation to board my ship to examine it's contents,I find this to be quite a good piece of legislation.

I will be abstaining from this vote because of those two clauses.

(OOC) Mikivity,I'm thinking of drafting a piece of legislation on the role of doctors/humanitarian workers in combat zones. Unless one's already been done,cold you give me a hand with that?

It is true that food and water supplies are vital to any effort, included war.

Your point is valid, but I tried to actually address the difference between war food and supplies and non-combat supplies via clause 1:

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

Naturally this is very subjective. You might claim doctors going to a combat zone are there to aid POWs and civilians, and I could at the same time claim they are also treating soldiers. Without this resolution, we still have a "he said, she said" situation. With this resolution, nothing is changed, except if there is proof that somebody was claiming they were humanitarian and many nations did not believe this, then clause 8 kicks in:

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

For example, if you used doctors to also support troops in a previous war, then my ships would be more likely to stop your humanitarian ships saying there is sufficient clause. In order to keep your transports moving quickly you might decide to separate doctors roles in combat.

That said, your suggestion to have a resolution defining the roles of doctors, medics, and other medical related responders in combat zones is an EXCELLENT idea. I'd be very pleased to work with your government on that. In fact, I'd suggest you start a thread here in the World Assembly forum, so other nations can also work with us. :)

With all that said, I do understand and respect your government's abstention.

Howie T. Katzman

Thanks Howie(Mikitivity) and Shang Dang! I see your point, both articles are well thought-out and written.

I'm not familiar with the Wolfish Convention but i'm afraid i still object to the classification of POWs as humanitarian cargo. Here's an extreme example: My soldiers find a humanitarian vessel containing some of my boys who are POWs of the enemy. Now we take the weapons their guards are holding as we have the right to. With no weapons nobody is stopping the POWs from rejoining us, and they do!

Rather absurd but i think quite possible. So either nobody will transport POWs as humanitarian cargo anymore defeating the purpose, or (worse) they pretend to be humanitarian vessels, but would probably initiate hostilities when approached. Overall i think it would probably be better if this proposal had excluded POWs and stayed on humanitarian aid.

Actually your scenario is not absurd, and it is possible. I'd say it is difficult and dangerous though.

Under the resolution, the POWs would be humanitarian cargoes. If a enemy stopped a humanitarian ship by this resolution and searched it, it is ONLY entitled to taking two things: (1) the non-humanitarian cargoes, and (2) even the humanitarian cargoes that aren't on the manifest. POWs that are listed on the manifest belong to the ship ... taking them would make the search and seizure illegal, and the end result would be that nations would consider future searches by vessels from that nation to be hostile.

The dangerous part is that if you want to seize a ship by force, you run the risk of killing the POWs you are attempting to liberate.

Naturally POWs want to escape, but in doing so, they risk getting killed. Nations transporting POWs can reduce a POW's desire to escape by treating him or her kindly. They don't have to spoil them, but if the soldier feels that his best chance for survival is to not attempt to escape, things may work out best.

That said, my government would STRONGLY support a series of resolutions on POWs similar to the Wolfish Convention from the World Assembly's predecessor (OOC: Which I'm avoiding naming.) ;)

In the absence of any international agreement, nations can still make bi-lateral treaties on how they might handle these sorts of affairs. The problem with that is that my government would hate for our allies to think that potentially we might want to go to war with them some day ... that in and of itself is a HUGE reason for the World Assembly to make a very general resolution on this subject.

OOC: I'd honestly recommend looking at the Wolfish Convention in the Historical Resolutions section and contacting Wolfish and asking if he would mind if somebody tried to revive his resolution.

The Nomadic Peoples of Maniway reluctantly acknowledge the utility of this legislation, with the warning that every so-called humanitarian vessel coming within hailing distance of Maniway's territory will be boarded and searched. The NPM will, at need, strenuously assert its right to deny passage through said territory, whether water, air, or space, to the extent of its ability. Should any such vessel approach the shores of Maniway without proper authorization by The NPM, it may be fired upon without warning or let.

First, I would like to be the first to say that it is actually useful that your government has reiterated its sovereign right to protecting your territorial waters, and naturally my government will honor your shores by first seeking proper authorization.

That said, the intent of this resolution is best stated in the first preambulatory clause:

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

The question isn't how we want ships to respond in either territorial (including places with conflicting claims), but rather in clear international territory.

With that in mind, would Maniway agree that neutral ships claiming to be humanitarian in nature can pass by Mainway vessels free of worry?

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

This is my first ever 'for' vote in the WA. There is no reason to vote against this legislation, as its only result will be a limitation on the suffering of human beings.

*Groan, on the contrary. Defensive needs to be narrowly defined as small arms or whatever the case may be. This is definetly not iron clad and we all know that nations are very creative in getting around laws. This one is no different. If a nation wants to transport arms on these vessels, they will find a way to get around the inspections one way or the other. I don't think it will be effective.

The Wierd Anarchists strongly agrees with this proposal. It gives nations a norwal way to improve the way humanitarian transports works. On the same time nations can use their logic to see where their interests are harmed by other nations who claim they are neutral in a conflict or to work with their enemies to solve humanitarian problems. POW is legal in humanatarian transports because it a way to exchange POW between hostile nations.

And if a nation abuses humanitarian transport by either supplying combattants with needs for the combat, they will loose neutral and or humanitarian flags by searches and will be stopped or shot on sight next time, and claims to be humanitarian of the abussers will be in vain.

Nice work. So we strongly endorsed this propasal and voted yes.

Cocoamok,
Co-ordinator of the Wierd Anarchists
WA-delegate for the Intelligentsia Islands

AGAINST this Resolution---Your taxes are going to go upthis is not needed and there is no way I can sell the extra taxes to my country.Lurikastan votes no on the basis of it being unnessicary and that it will heighten taxes.Sigh. This won't raise your taxes, people.

In addition to articles criticized previously, Southern Chlamydia expresses its discontent with the wording of Article 2.


2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,


Transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel as materials directly supporting combat operations should be forbidden. Should that be violated, then the cargo should not be considered "humanitarian" and the vessel in question should be simply treated as any vessel directly supporting combat operations.

As for transporting humanitarian cargo in the same convoy but NOT the same vessel, then the "DISCOURAGES" label should still be applied.

With the exception of this, and issues with other articles (such as 6, 8 and 9) expressed previously by other nations, Southern Chlamydia applauds Mikitivity and its mostly well-crafted legislation, despite the dissenting vote.

I have been urged by the whole of the Council of Nevesá to abstain from voting on this proposal. This is not an official decision, technically, but it is unlikely that I will dismiss it and cast a vote.

The nation of Tyrantsbane votes against this resolution. Our main population center, the Sword of Hynther, is also our single greatest military spacecraft. This is so that the civilians within have the absolute maximum protection we can provide them. Restrictions on the ability of the Sword to mount weaponry would greatly reduce Tyrantsbane's military capabilities and put its citizens at greater risk.

We also oppose the clause allowing for search of the vessel. We of Tyrantsbane pride ourselves on our security, and will not allow for it to be comprimised.

That said, the intent of this resolution is best stated in the first preambulatory clause:

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

The question isn't how we want ships to respond in either territorial (including places with conflicting claims), but rather in clear international territory.

With that in mind, would Maniway agree that neutral ships claiming to be humanitarian in nature can pass by Mainway vessels free of worry?

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman


Certainly, and Maniway has in fact voted for adoption of the proposal because this is its intent.

The nation of Tyrantsbane votes against this resolution. Our main population center, the Sword of Hynther, is also our single greatest military spacecraft. This is so that the civilians within have the absolute maximum protection we can provide them. Restrictions on the ability of the Sword to mount weaponry would greatly reduce Tyrantsbane's military capabilities and put its citizens at greater risk.

We also oppose the clause allowing for search of the vessel. We of Tyrantsbane pride ourselves on our security, and will not allow for it to be comprimised.

Does your nation have any actual territory, or do you by definition always travel in international / neutral territory?

I would point out that this resolution would not require searches of your floating space city if it was not considered "humanitarian" or if it was in your territory.

Admiral Adama of the Twelve Tribes of Kobol is in a similar situation, and travels around the galaxy with a rag tag fleet. His only real military asset, the BS Galactica has civilians, but clearly since he is at war with a civilization that attempted to destroy his government, he isn't going to even attempt to seek out the protections of this resolution.

My point is, this really focuses on neutral ships and parties that agree to the terms. If you are facing an enemy that is bent on genocide (which interestingly is not banned by the World Assembly yet), no amount of happy thoughts will protect you as much as a strong defensive position.

No resolution is meant to address extreme situations. In those cases, negotiation is the key.

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

A mixture of devolution and unification in Charlotte Ryberg's lands have spawn numerous spacecraft and floating islands as territory. Sounds like Sci-Fi yet it has been realized, but I am confident that this resolution makes these territories just like normal territories back on the ground.

Tyrantsbane has territory on the planets Gleesun Prime, Galix XII, Tyrus, and New Hynth.

Tyrantsbane has territory on the planets Gleesun Prime, Galix XII, Tyrus, and New Hynth.

Then rest assured like the people of Maniway, who also commented on this issue, that in your territory, this resolution does not allow parties to search and seize your city-ships. :)

That is your territory, your rules.

Okay, and how exactly do they plan to enforce all of this? There is no way that it can be properly enforced, and nations could easily just board the vessel, and either take all the belongs, or kill the crew with ease. This resolution is placed with good intent, but it lacks in enforcement. Who is to say that the humanitarian vessels won't fire on others with their "defensive weapons". There is simply no way this could work, not everybody operates on the honor system!

I voted No.

While the people of the Heavenly Republic of Ti Vea are agreed that humanitarian vessels should be granted immunity and should not in any way support combat operations, we can not agree to this resolution.

International waters are considered international territories and so no government should have the right to put force on another. These searches will most likely cause many issues. The scenario we envision is thus:

Humanitarian supplies for the refugees of a nation currently in civil war are sent out by the Ti Vean government. However, the current military junta of said country opposes this aid due to its view of the refugees as rebels. Therefore, along the arduous route, the junta continues to send ships that stop the humanitarian vessel every 10 or so nauts, demand a search, and constantly delay the ship's passage.

Honorary delegates of WA,

It is with great displeasure to announce to you that the Kingdom of Pasier Rise will vote against this resolution. While this resolution is done with great intent, may actually caused it to be misinterpret.

Our 1st main concern is that transport in not clearly defined. I am not really sure if this resolution covers a broad range of air, land or sea transport, or just naval transport.



If our battleships raise the Red Cross flag, our bombers painted completely white, and the rockets on our Mobile Rocket Launchers as "defensive weapons", my whole millitary activities can be considered "humanitarian"? We can always place food and first aid kits in all of our tanks to say it is a humanitarian transport.

Article 2, while discouraging what I have suggested above, does not actually prevent it. This can create a lot of confusion in the battlefields, and may actually cause more civillian casualty and suffering than it actually prevent.

This resolutions need to be made more clearer and well defined. Which is why we decided to opposed this resolution, in hopes that a better one be passed. A lot of resolution has been passed in the WA recently as member states vote FOR without even reading what the resolution actually contains. They only realised it when they find their nations restricted by WA bueracratic red tapes.

On behalf of his Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise
Prime Minister Ahmad Firdaus

The People's Republic of Bessex agrees.

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid.

This can be exploited in so many ways it could unintentionally cause more civilian casualties than there are now.

This is my first ever 'for' vote in the WA. There is no reason to vote against this legislation, as its only result will be a limitation on the suffering of human beings.

Although I wish this were true, the People's Republic of Bessex disagrees. This legislation can easily be exploited and can inadvertently create more civilian casualties instead of limiting them.

Lesser Biglandia will vote AGAINST this resolution.

A vessel carrying POWs and/or injured military personnel should NOT be considered a "humanitarian" vessel. Among other things, POWs, unless they have given their parole, have a military duty to attempt escape, and injured military personnel are still combatants, as are the (presumably military) medical personnel providing them care, though they are in a support role.

It would also be difficult to definitively categorize a cargo as being non-military in nature, as many raw and finished materials are "dual-purpose." As an example, cotton could be used as either raw material for making cloth, or, when treated with nitro-glycerine, as a propellant for cannon. Nitrates can either be used as fertilizers or to manufacture explosives, and so on. This sort of ambiguity opens this resolution to a great deal of abuse by unscrupulous nations.

Again, while Lesser Biglandia applauds the sentiment behind the resolution, it will not support it for the reasons above and for some of the reasons already articulated within this forum.

Oh great. We are going to search ships in international waters! We have voted NO on this insane resolution!

Lesser Biglandia will vote AGAINST this resolution.

A vessel carrying POWs and/or injured military personnel should NOT be considered a "humanitarian" vessel. Among other things, POWs, unless they have given their parole, have a military duty to attempt escape, and injured military personnel are still combatants, as are the (presumably military) medical personnel providing them care, though they are in a support role.

It would also be difficult to definitively categorize a cargo as being non-military in nature, as many raw and finished materials are "dual-purpose." As an example, cotton could be used as either raw material for making cloth, or, when treated with nitro-glycerine, as a propellant for cannon. Nitrates can either be used as fertilizers or to manufacture explosives, and so on. This sort of ambiguity opens this resolution to a great deal of abuse by unscrupulous nations.

Again, while Lesser Biglandia applauds the sentiment behind the resolution, it will not support it for the reasons above and for some of the reasons already articulated within this forum.

agreed

Lesser Biglandia will vote AGAINST this resolution.

A vessel carrying POWs and/or injured military personnel should NOT be considered a "humanitarian" vessel. Among other things, POWs, unless they have given their parole, have a military duty to attempt escape, and injured military personnel are still combatants, as are the (presumably military) medical personnel providing them care, though they are in a support role.

Injured personnel are medical wards, and any military power that is transporting their POWs without military escorts, or in military transports, is asking for them to escape. Declaring medical personnel aiding military patients to be "combatants" is reprehensible.

I also fail to see how ensuring humanitarian protection for prisoners of war is anything other than a good thing.

It would also be difficult to definitively categorize a cargo as being non-military in nature, as many raw and finished materials are "dual-purpose." As an example, cotton could be used as either raw material for making cloth, or, when treated with nitro-glycerine, as a propellant for cannon. Nitrates can either be used as fertilizers or to manufacture explosives, and so on. This sort of ambiguity opens this resolution to a great deal of abuse by unscrupulous nations.

Your point is? Unscrupulous nations will always be unscrupulous. I would much rather have some strictures to ensure that abuse is curtailed to minimal degree than work in a system where the most grievious sort of wrongdoing goes unpunished. The primary use of cotton is to make textiles- not as cannon propellant. Furthermore, the situation determines the definition- if you are at war with a nation using nitrates to make weapons, then the clear primary use of the nitrates is for explosives, and not fertilizer!

My government is in support of ensuring the safety and sovreignty to law-abiding humanitarian ships. We rise in support.

Nêmö Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

The primary use of cotton is to make textiles- not as cannon propellant. Furthermore, the situation determines the definition- if you are at war with a nation using nitrates to make weapons, then the clear primary use of the nitrates is for explosives, and not fertilizer!

Then during times of war... cotton IS used for cannon propellant?
The People's Republic of Bessex agrees that safety for POWs and injured soldiers is a good thing however, painting ships white and allowing them to carry "defensive weapons" is not the way to do it. It would be to easy to exploit.

Unscrupulous nations will always be unscrupulous. I would much rather have some strictures to ensure that abuse is curtailed to minimal degree than work in a system where the most grievious sort of wrongdoing goes unpunished. The primary use of cotton is to make textiles- not as cannon propellant. Furthermore, the situation determines the definition- if you are at war with a nation using nitrates to make weapons, then the clear primary use of the nitrates is for explosives, and not fertilizer!

My government is in support of ensuring the safety and sovreignty to law-abiding humanitarian ships. We rise in support.


That is your nation's judgment, and that judgment may not always be correct. If the assumption is going to be made that a nation that is at war is only going to be importing war goods, is that not placing the onus of proof on the party being judged?

Also, what constitutes "war materiel"? Would medical supplies intended to support front-line troops be considered "war" or "humanitarian" materiel? A case can be made either way; while medical supplies, in and of themselves, cannot be used as weapons, they do enable a military force to function more effectively, acting as a force multiplier. Are military-marked medical supplies being shipped to a combat zone going to be subjected to seizure because they are intended for use by combat medics and MASH units? If so, what humanitarian purpose does that serve? If not, why not? The combatants who will be using those supplies will be doing so in order to keep more men on the firing line to kill or incapacitate their opponents' forces.

This is but one example of the ambiguities that this resolution puts forth.

This resolution, as worded, is too open to abuse and/or misinterpretation for Lesser Biglandia to support.

Lesser Biglandia would like to state for the record that Lesser Biglandia's vote against this resolution does not and will not represent a change in its policy to provide humanitarian aid to all nations in need.

*OOC* I don't think the WA has a mechanism for suggesting amendments to a resolution before it passes; if it did, I'd submit something. (In case they do, I'll get working on one.) */OOC*

The People's Republic of Bessex agrees.

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid.

This can be exploited in so many ways it could unintentionally cause more civilian casualties than there are now.

Since you seem to believe this can be exploited in "so many ways" that it will cause more causalities, why don't you name three ways and convince us how these way result in more causalities than the current system which offers NO protections has.

Also, what constitutes "war materiel"? Would medical supplies intended to support front-line troops be considered "war" or "humanitarian" materiel? A case can be made either way; while medical supplies, in and of themselves, cannot be used as weapons, they do enable a military force to function more effectively, acting as a force multiplier.

*OOC* I don't think the WA has a mechanism for suggesting amendments to a resolution before it passes; if it did, I'd submit something. (In case they do, I'll get working on one.) */OOC*

First, your question is answered in the text of the resolution itself.

Second, somebody else already asked this same question and I'll paraphrase my reply:

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

Your question is what does "directly" mean. If we were to come out and spell out 1,000 situations describing "directly", not only would the focus of this resolution -- which is to promote and encourage nations to actually increase humanitarian shipments (see Clause 14) -- be undermined, but the entire category would need to be changed as the balance would actually be conducts of warfare (which is either a Global Disarmament or International Security resolution).

Furthermore, we could go through and limit a discussion of "direct support" to even two or three really common and likely scenarios / situations, but it would still be subjective and open to abuse.

Right now, if you are at war with another nation, and that nation decides to invoke the humanitarian protections offered by this resolution to their transports, you can always challenge the humanitarian nature of their cargoes by stating that they are shipping food, water, medicines, or people that do in fact directly support combat actions.

Doing so would force your nation and the other nation to once again better protect any transport ship with a military convoy.

HOWEVER, the point some nations are missing (others have figured it out and are working on better defining neutrality and what it means) is that the rest of NationStates might still want to avoid getting wrapped up in the conflict and also might want to not devote large amounts of tax dollars for constructing and operating military escort ships when clearly they are not engaged in warfare whatsoever.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume one of the parties in the war decides to start claiming that a third party is really involved and that nurses and food are also being used to support hostile combat operations. That third party can easily point to this resolution, demonstrate what they have been doing, and call upon their allies and the international community to put pressure (diplomatic, economic, or military) on the nation that has now maligned them.

In short, given the fact that there are 10,000s of nations, picking fights in attempt to abuse a good idea is very short sighted ... as at best, all you do is lower the bar and encourage your enemies to do the same, but at worst, you also make new enemies and give your previous enemies new allies.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC:
This post has nothing to do with the debate. :)

I decided to keep the poll very straight forward. Just tell us how you voted. I have been checking on which nations are World Assembly Members and Delegates. Non-members are encouraged to vote in the poll too ... I track their trends as well. :)

I also can check (in some cases) to see which nations have voted differently (via their newsfeed on NationStates) than how they've indicated. As of this morning, only one nation's feed showed them voting one way when they had voted in the poll the other way.

I am also separating the votes by the age of the nations and will in a few months separate the votes again to screen out nations that have since expired.

If your vote is different than in the poll, I'd appreciate a reply or better yet, a telegram.

If your vote is different than in the poll, I'd appreciate a reply or better yet, a telegram.

I voted yes on the proposal because I think it's a quality proposal.

I voted abstain on the poll because it was the third option and I really like the number three.

First, your question is answered in the text of the resolution itself.

Second, somebody else already asked this same question and I'll paraphrase my reply:

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

Right now, if you are at war with another nation, and that nation decides to invoke the humanitarian protections offered by this resolution to their transports, you can always challenge the humanitarian nature of their cargoes by stating that they are shipping food, water, medicines, or people that do in fact directly support combat actions.

Howie T. Katzman

Um, your response seems to contradict the statement made by Article 1 of the resolution under question. The way Article 1's worded, ALL foodstuffs and medical supplies are, by default, considered humanitarian cargo.

Let me, being Kirren da Ris, Tongue and Hand of the Beloved Heir Apparent of the Dominion of Siremon, assure you of the great honour and pleasure to have achieved the acceptance to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly and its dignified members.

His Majesty, the Beloved Heir Apparent, wishes me to inform you about his solicitudes concerning the proposed resolution on the amelioration of worldwide human and civil rights.

In principle, we share the concerns and observations given utterance to in the text of the resolution. This accordance notwithstanding, we consider the claim as not worth of our undivided acceptance.

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

A clear definition is needed on the term of 'directly support'. A war-leading nation may hold another opinion on this than a defending or a neutral nation.
We propose to abolish the word 'directly' in this coherence to gain more clearance on the fact that humanitarian transports are supposed to support neither directly nor indirectly combat operations.

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

We agree with the previously uttered request of replacing the word 'discouraging' with the word 'forbidding'. Furthermore we demand pronouncing consequences for infringing the provisions of the definition of humanitarian transports.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

We strongly recommend to forbid weapons on humanitarian vessels which exceed shields sheltering from attacks. Alternatively we demand a clear definition of allowed defensive weapons.

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

We demand the clarification that humanitarian vessels may act as neutral parties who will neither actively nor passively support offensive campaigns.


The Beloved Heir Apparent has not finally decided whether to vote for or against this resolution and asks for clearance in these matters of difference concerning the resolution to protect the innocent and noninvolved.
I, being Kirren da Ris, Tongue and Hand of our Beloved Heir Apparent of the Dominion of Siremon, may thank you for your patience and appreciation. May the World Assembly and its dignified members never decrease in their efforts to bring about peace.

i'm for it, it is great for all of our nations to show that they care (even if they are in war)

The representative from Shang Dang huffs in annoyance.

"Whats all this then? You want more clarifications? Being more specific? One day someone wants it's more regulations, and the next they start claiming it's to much red tape! Think of that? Thousands of legislators gather together just to say they don't want red tape....

Then they want established consequences, course the fact that we make it law ain't strong enough?

We agree with the previously uttered request of replacing the word 'discouraging' with the word 'forbidding'. Furthermore we demand pronouncing consequences for infringing the provisions of the definition of humanitarian transports.

May I remind you that this group is voluntary. By signing up and being accepted you have agreed to follow any resolutions that pass. You don't want to? Want a consequence? There's the door. See ya! Wanna throw a hissy fit? Fine. We got guns to deal with it. Discouraged means the same thing so the last thing we need is nit pickin' over words taken out of context. Course, the maybe the reason it says discourages instead of forbidding is because that clause includes all situations... aside from the high-tension areas. Which means, it discourages from doing so on my own territory as a matter of good will and well mannered habits but I'm not about to be booted from the WA for doing so.

I don't like the seisure of weapons. It should be the individual navy's job to decide what is needed in the way of defensive weapons. We also should propose restristions on sub warfare against civilian targets and the "search and seisure" clause. What if the delays cause men to die? That part causes more problems than it solves, to be honest.

I have an issue with a specific clause of the legislation. Humanitarian vessels should not be armed. If they are armed, they are tempted with joining a conflict. essentially what will occur is that these vessels will become nothing more than an extension of military force under a different flag and thus, this undermines the security of all other humanitarian vessels. Humanitarian vessels should be escorted, not themselves armed. Nevertheless, the Grand Duchy will support this law, but has resevations as to its eventual efficacy.

Nova Latia votes 'yea'.

*OOC* I don't think the WA has a mechanism for suggesting amendments to a resolution before it passes; if it did, I'd submit something. (In case they do, I'll get working on one.) */OOC*

OOC: Save your effort, there isn't any amendment function.

I don't like the seisure of weapons. It should be the individual navy's job to decide what is needed in the way of defensive weapons. We also should propose restristions on sub warfare against civilian targets and the "search and seisure" clause. What if the delays cause men to die? That part causes more problems than it solves, to be honest.

Greetings Godzilland,

I think your questions are fair and I'd like to clarify the first one by pointing to two clauses and talking about how they enhance the first clause:

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

If a ship has defensive weapons, say enough hand guns for the crew to guard any prisoners or fend off attacks that violate this resolution (say from pirates), then those weapons are permitted by clause 6. Essentially clause 6 wedges upon the door of clause 1 a wee bit, and hopefully addresses your first concern.

I apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Unfortunately resolutions need to be short, so sometimes we can't make everything perfect.

Your second question confuses me. Submarine warfare on civilian ships would really be in complete violation of this resolution, as they wouldn't be directly supporting military operations. Could you expand your question a bit, as I'd like to address it. Naturally if one nation is asking, many more must be thinking the same thing. :)

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

I have an issue with a specific clause of the legislation. Humanitarian vessels should not be armed. If they are armed, they are tempted with joining a conflict. essentially what will occur is that these vessels will become nothing more than an extension of military force under a different flag and thus, this undermines the security of all other humanitarian vessels. Humanitarian vessels should be escorted, not themselves armed. Nevertheless, the Grand Duchy will support this law, but has resevations as to its eventual efficacy.

Nova Latia votes 'yea'.

Thank you for your comments. My government agrees that it would be far easier to encourage governments to build things like specialized hospital ships. However, at times flexibility may require additional ships, so other military ships (that might have armaments) could be easily reflagged provided they had only defensive weapons.

Howie T. Katzman

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,These are cleary enemy and anyone giving any support to an enemy become same... POWs who escape from camp have been known to return to fight... thus until they are returned to those camps or killed they are enemy and a threat to us in war... and at no time will be treated as other. Also medical staff that help our enemy recover so they might return to fight are as much our enemy as those they work on... Combatants are for sure our enemy as we go to war because they are there and want to kill us.. Civilians who give aide and support of any kind to any enemy become same.. especily when that civilian is working on project to build war machines and weapons or to move said to the fighting area.


6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes, Any weapon that can kill a citizens of our nation is just that a weapon and in the hands of an enemy at threat to our citizens and national security.. Vessels armed who enter our waters without proper clearences will be stopped before they enter the no enter zones around out mainland. Especialy armed vessels..

And yes we will search ships that seek to enter out waters and if we find illegal cargo on board or an enemy of our nation we will deal with all who are involved. Down to sinkng the vessel and locking what crew and others might suvive in prison for a long time or hang them depending on their crimes..

These are the main reasons we vote against this... and had we looked harder am sure we would have found more reasons to vote as we have on it..

As far as painting vessels a special color.. If they fail to follow instructions when confronted by one of our vessels they will be considered hostile and sunk before they reach a range where they might launch a missle assault on our lands.. and homes.. so let them all be aware of this.. in time of war we play no games, we fight to survive and protect out own... that means kill the enemy before they can kill you...

That seems fairly reactionary, there are peaceful and reasonable ways to deal with things, even POW's and armed Humanitarian Transports.

Fortunately this resolution will show you the positives of dealing with things in a reasonable way.

I also think this is being misconstrued, I mean you'll hardly find the foreign government carrying it's own POW's on humanitarian vessels. They'll be carrying YOURS.

The Fiefdom of Heraklean was all set to vote yes to this proposal, until our High Priest received a vision whilst sleeping from our Goddess Resaya.

It is understood that this proposal is concerned more with the transportation from neutral nations as opposed to conflciting nations, and it was for this reason that our fiefdom was prepared to vote in favour.


However in the vision received from our Goddess, the following scenario was envisaged.

Nation A and Nation B are at war. Nation A is short on medical and food supplies, as these are all being utilised by the military, they therefore request humnatarian aid for the beleagured citizens of their nation.

Nation C answer this call in good faith , sending medical personnel, medical supplies and various other items to help the innocent citiizens of Nation A.


However Nation B deems that by allowing Nation C's transports through, this allows Nation A to use its own resources to continuing funding its own war effort, and Nation B feels that by stopping Nation C's transports delivering it supplies, the war would be ended sooner.

However Nation C under this proposal, would be within their rights to claim they are providing humantarian aid, but these actions may extend the said war.

It is for this reason that the fiefdom of Heraklean feels the need to vote agaisnt this proposal

Nation C answer this call in good faith , sending medical personnel, medical supplies and various other items to help the innocent citiizens of Nation A.


However Nation B deems that by allowing Nation C's transports through, this allows Nation A to use its own resources to continuing funding its own war effort, and Nation B feels that by stopping Nation C's transports delivering it supplies, the war would be ended sooner.

However Nation C under this proposal, would be within their rights to claim they are providing humantarian aid, but these actions may extend the said war.

It is for this reason that the fiefdom of Heraklean feels the need to vote agaisnt this proposal

It's unfortunate that anyone would even choose citizen attrition as a method to subdue the enemy. If your military advisors ever decide to use such a strategy, flog and replace them. Any war that could be won or lost depending on how long the citizens can go on without proper humanitarian aid is a war that is already built to drag on for years, and likely involves little combat-related deaths. Thats my vision at least.

The representative from Shang Dang huffs in annoyance.
(...)


The representative from Siremon harrumphs and rises.

"The Dominion of Siremon is aware of the fact that the World Assembly - the venerated representative from Shang Dang calls it 'this group' - grounds on voluntariness.
The Dominion of Siremon is besides aware of the fact that being a member of the World Assembly means both honour and duty. And we deem a part of this duty to strengthen the World Assembly by not creating circumlocutions.
The Dominion of Siremon did not demand for rules, red tapes and regulations, we begged for clarification to abolish possible gray areas.

The venerated representative from Shang Dang speaks of guns, speaks of doors, and speaks of voluntariness. But what does he say? That there won't be consequences for those who cease their gratuitousness.
If one decides not to follow the terms of the resolution just to fit his own purposes because there is no deterrement, why won't he do so? What will the World Assembly and their members do? Eat cookie dough? Or outlaw this nation, impose sanctions against or declare war on it? The answer on this question is not clear.

By demanding clarification we don't call in question the aim of the resolution itself, we don't call in question the need of international standards and international law, but we call in mind that by passing a law without consequences to put on them who break it, we forge a blunt sword or even a sword without blade.

The Dominion of Siremon still votes for a strong resolution to enhance the situation of the innocent and noninvolved. We vote for international standards and binding laws which augment peace and strengthen the World Assembly.
However, the Dominion of Siremon will not vote for a papery shield unable to protect and help the helpless."

The representative from Siremon sits down.

It's unfortunate that anyone would even choose citizen attrition as a method to subdue the enemy. If your military advisors ever decide to use such a strategy, flog and replace them. Any war that could be won or lost depending on how long the citizens can go on without proper humanitarian aid is a war that is already built to drag on for years, and likely involves little combat-related deaths. Thats my vision at least.

I appreciate what you say, but my point was not so much the nation stopping the aid getting through as an aid to win a war, but more of the nation requiring the aid, misusing its own resources to meet its needs

My concern is that this would allow such a nation to divert ITS OWN resources from its citizens to its troops, to prolong a war, and rely upon 3rd parties to provide aid to citizens, to which the opposing party in the war can do nothing about.


If the citizens of my beloved country know that they will receive food, medical aid, shelter etc without affecting the civilian population too much directly, then where is the incentive for them to overthrow a government that is diverting resources due to them to aid there war effort.

If third party neutral transports were unable to provide this support during time of war, then those beleagured citizens are more likely to rise up and attempt to overthrow the despicable government that has led them into this situation, and thus the long prolonged war that you envisage, may be ended a lot shorter than would happen if a continuous supply of neutral transports a re queuing up at the supply depots to unload their wares

The citizens of Heraklean have prayed hard to their goddess, who has rewarded them with bountiful harvests and good health, but if these were in short supply, then those prayers would diminish and my goddess would cease to assist, unless these conditions could be maintained thru another means, in which case, Herakleans citizens would give prayer to our goddess for having such helpful neighbours :)

New Sequoyah applauds the efforts by the honorable delegate from Mikitivity to protect humanitarian efforts; however, I have several problems with this legislation.

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations

Humanitarian vessels, when sent without military escort, are 'sitting ducks' for pirates or rogue attacks. Also, they are necessary in support of combat operations; how else can surgeons, food and medical supplies, and other humanitarian aid be utilized with the greatest possible speed if they may not come with the combat force itself? Must our brave wounded soldiers lie on the field awaiting medical help, because it could not come with their unit? No; New Sequoyah will not allow it, even if we must defy a WA resolution.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes

[...]

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest

So, humanitarian vessels may carry defensive armaments, yet those very defensive weapons may be confiscated at will? The high seas are full of pirates; if humanitarian vessels may not have military escort, and have no defensive weapons (due to confiscation), how then can they protect POWs, medical staff and wounded/sick soldiers against pirates?

In light of these deep concerns, the Ultra-Conservative Republic of New Sequoyah casts its vote AGAINST the resolution.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Ambassador from New Sequoyah

The representative from Siremon harrumphs and rises.

(...)

The representative from Siremon sits down.

"Pffttt..." He waves his hand in the air proceeds to place both feet crossed on the edge of his table. "Your telling me you can come up with a resolution that'll set a tell-all encompassing punishment that can please over 20,000 nations? Go ahead. Give it a shot. See if your not flooded with people coming up with extreme examples of when the 'set consequences' are too harsh or too lenient. Currently we just take it by a case-by-case basis when someone is in violation, with is flexible and nice. Besides, MOST of us are here under our own goodwill, not paranoia to regulate everyone else."

If the citizens of my beloved country know that they will receive food, medical aid, shelter etc without affecting the civilian population too much directly, then where is the incentive for them to overthrow a government that is diverting resources due to them to aid there war effort.

If third party neutral transports were unable to provide this support during time of war, then those beleagured citizens are more likely to rise up and attempt to overthrow the despicable government that has led them into this situation, and thus the long prolonged war that you envisage, may be ended a lot shorter than would happen if a continuous supply of neutral transports a re queuing up at the supply depots to unload their wares

The citizens of Heraklean have prayed hard to their goddess, who has rewarded them with bountiful harvests and good health, but if these were in short supply, then those prayers would diminish and my goddess would cease to assist, unless these conditions could be maintained thru another means, in which case, Herakleans citizens would give prayer to our goddess for having such helpful neighbours :)

"Thats actually a legitimate concern for many factions and I can see a solid point of argument. Still, I figure my citizens would have my head if we did anything to restrict their 'right to dispose of a government that does damage to their freedom and independence.' Thank the lord most of them are too stoned to really put those words to work....

ANYwho... I really should be putting the citizen's first and I really can't make 'probable rebellion' a factor lest they have my head for trying to 'keep them down.' That being said, you don't have to request those supplies or even accept it if they arrive. This resolution doesn't do that. All it does is guarantee free passage should a country request it. It doesn't allow a third party to initiate covert operations to drop down CARE packages. Your concern is more of a tactical disadvantage that should be considered once you've entered war, instead of one about allowing supplies to be transported."

"Pffttt..."


"Paranoia?" The Hand and Tongue of the Heir Apparant of the Dominion of Siremon shoots hurried glances at the places on his left and right.
"Neither does it fit our intentions ro regulate anyone. Nor did we demand a firm catalogue of case-fitting punishments ranging from lenient to harsh.

However, is it too much to ask for any statement on how the World Assembly will react if one of its members offends to the proposed law apart from expelling him from the World Assembly, because by breaking the law he turns his back to the World Assembly himself. Which scope is left then?"

The Parliamentary Republic of Wissouri supports the resolution to regulate vessals transporting Humanitarian Aid, but cannot support the decision to allow just ANY suspicious nation access to our ships. Also, while somewhat defined, what can be considered "humanitarian cargo" remains sketchy.
Wissouri would support this resolution if, instead of allowing any nation to board and search cargo, there were a specially delegated World Assembly force tasked to do it.
I strongly urge all nondecided members to sit on this legislation until something better can be plied out of it.

King Harold XVI Maharaja of Tzor
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-228566694.jpg
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tzorsland_0.jpg

We strongly support this resolution and encourage other nations to do likewise.

I do too, I just don't like some parts of it. I favor national rights over those of the WA to be honest.

We strongly support this proposal, although our vote will be determined by regional consensus, which currently tends to abstention. However, we wished to relay the comments of the Holy Empire of New Illuve's WA delegate:
The Holy Empire of New Illuve would enjoy seeing the following changes in the proposal:

1. "Discourages" in clause 2 to be replaced by "Forbids," and
2. "Recommends" in clause 3 to be replaced by "Requires."

However, as such changes are now not possible the Holy Empire of New Illuve votes FOR the proposal as stated.
We would like to ask Ambassador Katzman if he could comment on why clauses 2 and 3 were kept in relatively 'soft' language, so we could clarify to our regional comrades.

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

Star Trek's Regional Delegate has voted against this Resolution, for the following reasons:

1) Prisoners-of-war are not non-combatants, they are military personal and therefore cannot be classified under guidelines specified for basic humanitarian supply and/or aid.

2) Nothing is said about supplies, personnel, or equipment that may indirectly support military action.

3) If convoys are to be armed, even defensively, they are no longer meeting basic humanitarian status for non-military craft.

4) Stop-and-search proceedures violate the protection this Nation (and others) are afforded under previous United Nations/World Assembly Resolutions - and breach the sovereign rights of this Nation.

5) There is no compunction for Nations to follow these rules at all, but specifies that action will be unilaterally taken against them if they do not comply.

We strongly support this proposal, although our vote will be determined by regional consensus, which currently tends to abstention. However, we wished to relay the comments of the Holy Empire of New Illuve's WA delegate:

We would like to ask Ambassador Katzman if he could comment on why clauses 2 and 3 were kept in relatively 'soft' language, so we could clarify to our regional comrades.

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

First, thank you for your support and also thank you for passing along these comments.

The resolution certainly utilizes soft language, but that is because my government was keenly aware that many nations would have negative reactions to the very concept of the international community reaching an agreement (even with weak language) granting some safe guards to humanitarian transports. The number of nations commenting stern opposition in this thread would easily be doubled if terms like "FORBIDS" or other strong language was used.

The nations that are *most* in need of a resolution like this are those that are going to oppose it. Being able to appeal to moderate nations by using weaker language not only increases the number of nations willing to follow the spirit of this resolution, but also makes it easier for the rest of the international community to point to nations that violate the spirit of the resolution using a "the rest of us agreed, so why should you have your own standard" type of logic.

Frankly, it is clear that a number of nations don't really understand the resolution, as evidenced by those: (1) asserting that this will increase their taxes, or (2) claiming to have sovereign territorial rights in international territory. I honestly believe that the weak language showed the spirit of compromise that the rules presented in the resolution are based on, and actually decreased the above two types of misunderstandings. Misunderstandings happen, we all have limited time and staff.

Howie T. Katzman

So, humanitarian vessels may carry defensive armaments, yet those very defensive weapons may be confiscated at will? The high seas are full of pirates; if humanitarian vessels may not have military escort, and have no defensive weapons (due to confiscation), how then can they protect POWs, medical staff and wounded/sick soldiers against pirates?


Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Ambassador from New Sequoyah

*sigh*
Nothing in the resolution states that defensive weapons may be taken at will.

Nothing in the resolution prohibits humanitarian convoys from having an escort.

The choice of how to transport cargoes hasn't been taken away. The choice nations have today will still be here tomorrow. All the resolution does is establish basic ground rules that will allow some nations to choose to *not* rely upon escorts by essentially arming their humanitarian convoys with diplomatic protection.

That being said, you don't have to request those supplies or even accept it if they arrive. This resolution doesn't do that. All it does is guarantee free passage should a country request it. It doesn't allow a third party to initiate covert operations to drop down CARE packages. Your concern is more of a tactical disadvantage that should be considered once you've entered war, instead of one about allowing supplies to be transported."

My concern is not that my country would use this tactic, but more that any nation that has chosen to war agaisnt both my goddess and nation, who are likely to divert their own resources to the war effort at the disadvantage of their own citizens, is then very unlikely not to accept any third party aid to keep its citizens sweet as best as they can.

MY nations armed forces would be doing their best to put down a repressive government, but due to this proposed resolution, a war that could be over quickly may be prolonged .

I fully ackowledge the idea behind the proposal, but am concerned that unscrupulous governements can use this resolution to divert their own resources for their own warrring needs as opposed to those of their people.

As a secondary point, say that my nation is the provider of aid. Numerous medical supplies etc are sent to a war torn nation for the benefit of the civilians of that nation who are suffering. That nations government comandeers those supplies to be used for its frontline troops, so my nation has now inadvertantly supported a nations war effort. I'm sure that the other nation in the conflict wouldnt be too happy about the situation, and yet there would be very little recourse for them. In facts these details may not come to light until the conflict was eventually over, and thus my nation could continue to supply aid to the war effort unknowingly

The fiefdom of Herkalean, whilst applauding those delegates who have brought this proposal to the fore, confirms that at present it is unable to vaote in favour of the same


( OOC - now the above points may appear extreme to some, but given the numerous times in real life we have heard of charitable aid sent to countries who have suffered a natural disaster not being distributed to the intended victims, but diverted elsewhere, then I consider it even more likely that such unscrupulous actions would occur during a time of war)

Well gosh. Sure looks like we're painting a target on some pretty important cargoes, don'tcha think?

Defensive weapons...yeah. I can see that as being used to justify sinking one of these ships, in which case the resolution has done more harm than good.

I'm voting AGAINST. It's an idea that looks great on paper but will be disastrous in practice.

Especially in wartime.

I cite as my primary example how many medics were slaughtered while wearing the "red cross" armband per the geneva and hague conventions, preferentially over other soldiers, which is one of the reasons why the US government stopped marking its medics so prominently.

I fear that this legislation will have similar consequences. We won't be a part of this foolishness.

GP

The nation of Tyrantsbane votes against this resolution. Our main population center, the Sword of Hynther, is also our single greatest military spacecraft. This is so that the civilians within have the absolute maximum protection we can provide them. Restrictions on the ability of the Sword to mount weaponry would greatly reduce Tyrantsbane's military capabilities and put its citizens at greater risk.

We also oppose the clause allowing for search of the vessel. We of Tyrantsbane pride ourselves on our security, and will not allow for it to be comprimised.This why we do not like this proposal. As all Tyrantsbane need to do is hide behind the civilians in this 'main population center' and say that fuel ships, medical suppy ships, food supply ships, are there simply for civilians to unload cargo only for civilians. How to you separate military from civilain on such in such a place as this..? How do you decide the defference between 'greatest military spacecraft' and 'largest polulation center' when it is over you homes firing down on you... and is getting humanitarian help in fuel, food, medicine and other non military items by way of humanitarian vessels protected by this should it be passed because they are providing supplies to civilians.... not the military.

We believe if you sleep with our enemy then be prepared to die with them...

We are not at war with Trantsbane nor intend to go to war with them but there or more agressive nations out there much like Tyrantsbane in their 'GMS' and 'LPC' that we are on defense against.. simply because it is a military (GMS) vessel to us and a possible threat.. despite it being a civilian population center (LPC). Most would not be effected by a WA resolution as they are not members... others we have found in the past to be not worth our trust so we do all we can to avoid open contact that might lead to physical conflicts.

Hararie McDoogal,
Sixth Minister of Transportation,
Elder Garne Council of Space Science,
Admiral Garne Royal Guard North

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Wonderful news! Your resolution overcame all hurdles and is now a WA resolution.

Cobdenia is very glad to see this on the resolution books of this not so fine organisation

Perhaps a new resolution should be written up, covering up any loopholes and tightening up room for abuse.

On behalf of the people of Mikitivity I would like to thank first those nations that spent time contributing valuable comments to the draft proposal. The real measure of commitment to the World Assembly lies in voicing opinions at this often overlooked stage of work.

I am completely convinced that your nations' insight resulted in a stronger and sound resolution, which I firmly believe will result in additional protections for transporting humanitarian cargoes through international territory, which in turn will reduce the cost associated with these operations. I have seen no arguments that present a logical case otherwise. It is my government's sincere hope that with reduced costs that more governments will continue to devote resources to helping others.

With this in mind, Mikitivity will continue to attempt to aid our NationStates neighbors in their darkest hours, and I speak with confidence that the skies of NationStates may be blessed with our cargo laden airships.

Naturally there are ties with this resolution and its predecessor, Coordinating Relief Aid. Again, firmly supporting other World Assembly resolutions, any humanitarian aid delivered by my government will naturally coordinated with the new ICRC. If assistance will cause more harm than good, clearly it needs to be redirected.

I would also like to extend thanks to the hundreds of World Assembly Delegates who endorsed the proposal and helped to bring it to the floor.

Finally, a number of nations, including Charlotte Ryberg and Shang Dang contributed the strongest support that really encouraged my people. [OOC: I really appreciate your comments ... this week at work has been hell ... I went to work each morning knowing you had my back!] :)

It is my hope that my government will be able to continue to add positive and helpful contributions to future draft proposals, and I'd like to assure other resolution sponsors, that the concepts of focusing on ideals and the overall message which I advocated strongly for here will be held equally when your nation's resolutions reach the floor. The people of Mikitivity are naturally looking forward to future World Assembly resolutions and working with our neighbors to solve international problems.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

Wissouri would support this resolution if, instead of allowing any nation to board and search cargo, there were a specially delegated World Assembly force tasked to do it.
The WA, like the NSUN before it, is not allowed to have its own forces.

Star Trek's Regional Delegate has voted against this Resolution, for the following reasons:

1) Prisoners-of-war are not non-combatants, they are military personal and therefore cannot be classified under guidelines specified for basic humanitarian supply and/or aid.

*snip*

4) Stop-and-search proceedures violate the protection this Nation (and others) are afforded under previous United Nations/World Assembly Resolutions - and breach the sovereign rights of this Nation.
1) Prisoners-of-war, while in captivity, are effectively NOT 'combatants'.

4) The creation of the WA rendered all UN resolutions void, meaning that they wouldn't now give you any protection at all anyway.

Perhaps a new resolution should be written up, covering up any loopholes and tightening up room for abuse.
Any such proposal would be illegal, under at least one out of the "No amendments" rule and the "No 'House-of-Cards'" rule...

Congratulations on passage of your resolution, and thank you for your response: I have passed it on. I certainly agree it is a shame such a resolution was so staggeringly misunderstood by so many.

-- Samantha Benson

Here are graphical representations of my analysis of the WA Forum poll results.

The first figure compares the results of the WA Forum poll to the overall official WA vote. As with the World Assembly's predecessor (not to be named), the WA Forum tends to show a negative bias with respect to resolutions.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WA006a.gif

The second figure takes into consideration the fact that nations often abstain or are absent from voting. This figure suggests that WA Delegates were far more likely to support this particular resolution. This trend is also consistent with many resolutions from the World Assembly's predecessor.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WA006b.gif

This final figure shows the relative number of nations that voted either for or against the resolution in the WA Forum for four distinct "age" categories. The categories were chosen to roughly represent different durations of time that a nation or player might have been active in NationStates. This activity does not have any relationship with the time that a nation or player may have been active on the Forums nor does it reflect the number of posts.

The results of this figure actually surprised me. I had assumed that there would be a more peaked (less uniform) distribution of nations opposing the resolution. I was also surprised (and naturally pleased) to see how many younger nations supported the resolution.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WA006c.gif

I plan to revisit the list of nations again in a few months to see how many nations continue to be active in NationStates.